Because the idea that there is some extremely ancient, omnipotent being that is in control of the universe is kind of dumb. Especially hate the whole "God's Plan" concept, the last thing i need is for God to have planned the deaths of my friends, family, pets, and random assortments of good people for no apparent reason. Also there is an issue with infallibility thing, if God makes no mistakes then why did He/She/It create Satan?
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
is porn against God?
- Thread starter Jason z
- Start date
Because the idea that there is some extremely ancient, omnipotent being that is in control of the universe is kind of dumb. Especially hate the whole "God's Plan" concept, the last thing i need is for God to have planned the deaths of my friends, family, pets, and random assortments of good people for no apparent reason. Also there is an issue with infallibility thing, if God makes no mistakes then why did He/She/It create Satan?
Correct! Take the first sin and the garden of eden. Where did the tempting serpent come from? God mus have created him. Also, wasn't this a set up to eat the apple? Didn't god know Eve would eat the apple beforehand? (Later on she sucked Adam's fuckin cock).
The whole religion concept based on this fuckin fairytale is suspect to reason.
God did create the devil/serpent/Lucifer, BUT He did not create him as he is known now!
Lucifer was one of the most beatiful angels in God's service, he was also the chief worshiper (Problem is: people lose interest and do not read futher than the first few books of the bible.)
Lucifer became self absorbed with himself, because of his beauty. He disobeyed God and wanted to be god - That is why he was cast out of heaven.
Thus Lucifer/devil is a disobedient fallen angel.
But God did not create him as a evil angel!
COMING BACK TO THE TOPIC:
Is porn agains God?
Answer: Porn is not against God, but against the purpose to which we were created!
Reason: Sex and nudity's only place to be practiced or seen is in a marriage.
Why is porn wrong?
Answer: You are feeding your imagination, this consumes your time, your resources, your thoughts and it is difficult to look at people without lusting, or imagine them without close or having sex with them. It is something that keeps you busy & prevents you from doing things that realy matters.
Why do I watch porn?
Well, I have unfotunatelly been exposed when I was 11 years old. I have become addicted to it and it has been a struggle to stop for more than 20 years.
I know it is wrong and want to stop, but cant stop...!
Same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Ah ha! Now you're asking! But maybe the question is, "what is Satan?" Or "what does Satan represent?"
Remember, all the books were authored by man. Many people question if it was inspired by God or not, divine or just wit. The question for spiritual understanding begins with understanding what it all means. It's not useless, actually. That's the problem, people look at it all as useless.
Man's quest for perfection, as well as his endless appetite for power, is as old as his own, written history. Reading about it is not a bad idea, it can teach you a lot. Frankly, I think the problem is when people don't reflect the words on their own lives, they are always trying to reflect the words in judgment on others. That's why a lot is "lost in the translation."
Why don't you guys do something with all these questions that you have towards religion? Go read a theologian. Go read a religious philosopher (they do exist). I can't tell you how many of the questions/concerns brought up in this thread have answers (at least answers provided by religious teachers). You shouldn't be comfortable in using your own logic to justify your actions, yet so many here are.
Another thing that I find disturbing here is the amount of people who aren't atheist yet think they make up the rules. God makes up the rules. He decides what is right/wrong, not you. You don't get to create loopholes for yourself like "well I'm pretty good overall" or "at least I don't steal or murder." God makes up the rules for the atheist as well only "God" is the atheist him/herself. The atheist takes on the role of what is right/moral in the absense of a higher being thereby replacing the "dead" god (Nietzsche) for a "living" god. So "God" makes up the rules either way. So for those who believe in the Traditional God, why are you taking on the role of "God" in deciding if you're okay or not? Only God decides that. You're putting way to much authority into your own judgment (unless you're atheist at which point this only makes sense to do so). If you make up the rules, then you make up the God. You make God into who you want him to be so that it satisfies your conscience. But, I'm sure "he understands."
Another thing that I find disturbing here is the amount of people who aren't atheist yet think they make up the rules. God makes up the rules. He decides what is right/wrong, not you. You don't get to create loopholes for yourself like "well I'm pretty good overall" or "at least I don't steal or murder." God makes up the rules for the atheist as well only "God" is the atheist him/herself. The atheist takes on the role of what is right/moral in the absense of a higher being thereby replacing the "dead" god (Nietzsche) for a "living" god. So "God" makes up the rules either way. So for those who believe in the Traditional God, why are you taking on the role of "God" in deciding if you're okay or not? Only God decides that. You're putting way to much authority into your own judgment (unless you're atheist at which point this only makes sense to do so). If you make up the rules, then you make up the God. You make God into who you want him to be so that it satisfies your conscience. But, I'm sure "he understands."
PBS had a great show on that Dover case which I started a thread on.
"Judgement day,intelligent design on trial"
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=171348
It's no better than when teachers feel they must prove that the thought of Intelligent Design is wrong.
I.e., I tire of Religious Zealots and Overbearing Teachers causing the political storm for kids.
Kids can only be taught Darwin in science classes, but kids are also free to believe what they want outside of science classes.
My point wasn't that "God exists go look it up." My point was there are answers /solutions to a lot of the questions brought up. That is, these same questions have been raised by many in history and addressed by those in the religious field/Tradition. I have no problem with any atheists. They have made an informed decision because no one becomes an atheist lightely. My problem is with those who claim to believe in God, yet create their own God. That is how a god is a god--by deciding what is right. The word "Lord" in Greek is "kurios" which means "master." God is the master over us and decides what is right/wrong. Who is God in the situation when one of the two parties gets to decide things while the other just sits up in the clouds?
There is absolutely no way to prove God, so I would not be one of those "ignorant Christians" you speak of. The only empirical evidence for God is miracels but as David Hume showed us, even those have their issues. Christianity isn't proven; it's lived. It's lived by ordinary, sinful people. It's lived through people that have the same desires as everyone else only they see the spiritual reality of their decisions. This issue with the Dover court case is another example of judging a religion by its followers rather than its founder.
Okay Feuerbach.
Christianity, though Judeo-Christian, didn't create Jesus. Either Mary and Joseph did or Mary and the Holy Spirit did. The person "Jesus" lived. That is a fact. The question is was he just a regular person or more? So, the only creation possible would be to create more out of him than he was.
Considering the apostles were martyred, it makes no sense to die for a lie. When the Romans say worship Caesar too or face death, it would only make sense to recant your lie. Many of the early followers and apostles (the ones around Jesus) were martyred. I've written some good stories but never any I thought were worth my life.
A fact, you say? How exactly did you come to this conclusion?
Regardless, the same could be said about King Arthur. There is evidence that such a person existed. A gravestone among other things, apparently. That he was anything even close to what he is in the stories is highly unlikely though, far more likely he was of Celtic origin (the holy grail, for example, seems suspiciously similar to the classic Celtic cauldron). The stories were written down by, get this, Christians. As was most of western history, or at least, the church has had unrestricted access to most of western history for a very long time.
Which means what exactly? That it's the truth or that it's a good lie? People die for their religion all the time despite not being Christian, I'm sure I don't have to give you any of the numerous examples you can find by reading a somewhat recent newspaper. Now why would they do that if their religion is false?
Just to expand a bit on the fact or not that there actually was the historical Jesus.There is debate about it and it is not an undisputed accepted fact that the actual person ever existed.You need to keep in mind that all the writings speaking of his life were not contemporary and it is possible he was a composite character.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis
Oh no!--Offended an athiest.Lock the thread immediately.
---Seriously,why are You offended by the beliefs of other people.Most people on this board are on Your side anyway.However,in the real world,the majority of people do believe in God in one form or another.It seems a shame that many athiests are just as militant as the fundamentalist religious people that they despise so much.Response to your second paragraph:
How are so many people in here so good at misunderstanding what I write? The issue is over the founders of the religion, not future adherents. The original missionaries. The people around Jesus himself. Those are the ones that matter whether or not they followed their beliefs unto death. That is what makes their decision relevant. If they made it up, they wouldn't die for it. That's the point, not that some time later someone believed what they were told and died for it. The ones in direct contact/relation to Jesus were the ones who knew the truth about him.
Response to your first paragraph: So was Josephus work "Jewish Antiquities" as a source not credible enough? Josephus also mentioned his half brother James, as does the biblical text. So the biblical text corroborated what the historian Josephus said. How about a doctor (Luke)? Who did Pontius Pilate allow to be crucified? We know Pontius Pilate really lived. We know King Herod lived. We know Tiberius and Augustus lived. So we have all these real historical characters in the biblical text, but of course, Jesus was just a myth woven into the historical context right? All the areas that this "phantom" traveled were real places in Palestine. The areas were described using geographical truths, but a "phantom" person went there right? He was killed using one of the famous Roman methods of capital punishment. So yet another historical truth just "used" to make him "seem" to have really existed.
Here is a quote from Josephus:
At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. (Jewish Antiquities 18:63)
Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian of the Caesars) discussed Nero who ruled Rome appox. 60ish AD. He told of how Nero blamed the fire of Rome on a sect of "Christians" living in Rome. So we know Christianity existed and had spread by this time. Why wouldn't Tacitus mention the fact that this Jesus didn't really live?
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus mentions him (Lives of the Twelve Caesars).
The non-Christian Jews mentioned him in the Talmud.
Why would a person like Pilate be unquestionably real yet a person like Jesus likely never existed. Again, it's not that because he existed he was God. He existed, and then one can decide if he was more. It's historical malpractice to claim he never lived.
