The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Religion, why do you believe?

Religion, Why do you believe?

  • Family background

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • Fear

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Ignorance

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Hope

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • My DNA

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • I live in the USA and it's the done thing

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Total voters
    24
I didn't ask you to provide me with things that could convince believers. I asked you what the evidence was. You've also yet to provide a definition of faith.

I didn't give you anything "that could convince believers" -- I gave you things that have convinced people to believe.
I used to have a stack of books on intelligent design (not the perversion the Creationists have made of it, but the original thing), all by people from different scientific disciplines who concluded from knowledge in their fields that there is, indeed, a Creator. Not all went past Deism; not all who did became Christians, but all were serious scientists who began as atheists or agnostics but were convinced by what their studies told them that there was at the very least a Guiding Hand behind it all. I don't know what's become of them; perhaps I'll come across them while moving (an ongoing process at the moment).

Faith, in the Bible, is trust based on a demonstrated record.

And which documents are these? The Gospels? They are pseudepigraphs, two of which derive most of their accounts from Mark and as such cannot serve as more testimony. The Pauline Corpus also has questionable epistles as far as authorship is concerned. But even if I were to grant you that they are written by those who claim to have seen the events, to say that simply because someone said they saw or experienced X doesn't meet the level of adequate evidence. Imagine if we just took eye witness testimony at face value in a court of law without interacting with them and cross examining them. Or if we just accepted some notarized letter they submit. That you or some other believers are satisfied with "someone said so and I believe them" that's fine and good luck with that, but know that this is far from establishing a solid case.

Mark was complete in its present form by 45 A.D., and thus almost certainly written by someone with that name -- this from the science of papyrology, which doesn't deal with literary conjecture or such, but with quantifiable, objective, physical evidence.

Luke has a substantial body of material also found in Mark, but that hardly dismisses what he has; it demonstrates that Mark, written early, was considered a trustworthy source, and adds to Mark additional material. Matthew is in the same situation, both corroborating and increasing Mark's testimony.

I don't know many believers who are "satisfied with 'someone said so and I believe them'". Those who are, frequently aren't worth talking to seriously.
 
The design of living creatures (including Humans) is very far from elegant and shows no evidence whatsoever for any sort of design.

Odd, but my zoology and botany profs in college -- none of them Christians -- would disagree with you vehemently.

Not that they would conclude there is a Designer, in any personal sense.
 
It is only by deliberately tripping up and deliberately failing to distinguish between those two spectacularly different scenarios that this becomes an issue. Call the Bible and other religious texts important, meaningful works of fiction, works of art, political manifestos or what have you and we'll have a breakthrough. There is nothing to be gained by muddying these waters.

i appreciate that, but those christians would hold that god needs to literally and factually exist in order to provide the inspiration for the "bible-as-a-work-of-art&wisdom."

i wonder how they sustain that opinion!

These two items go together.

Consider the case of Christ: lots of people want to call Him a great teacher, yet how can a man be a great teacher who was insane? If there is no God, that's what we have to conclude about Jesus: he was someone who was deluded, and a lot worse, on par with someone who believes he is the Emperor Napoleon... except now he can make the sea stop! Such a person might come up with a profound idea here or there, but it would be mixed in with nonsense, to follow which would ruin one's life -- yet if you take out the parts about being, or being related to, God, essentially every last thing Jesus taught is useful and profound.

Those who take God out of the Bible end up picking and choosing what they consider to be wisdom; in the end they're little different from those who pick and choose so they end up wanting a theocratic America, where gays would be stoned (along with adulterers, and of course rebellious teenagers).
 
If faith were a gift of God, it would seem to be perverse to promise salvation to those who had been given the gift. This image turns God into both the owner and the bouncer at a questionable night club - he lets you in, but only if you have the VIP pass he gave you earlier... Faith might make sense more as an "accomplishment" than as a "gift."

That's the old "Cur Allii, Prae Aliis?" dilemma.

The answer I tend to is that God gives faith to all who don't resist. In your illustration, the only ones without the VIP pass would be those who, out on the street when the owner tried to give one, said "Fuck off".
 
Science is a "gift" from God, in that through it's application, we can understand the workings behind His miracles. As our knowledge grows, we can become better stewards of our planet. It is our God given duty to Learn as much as we can! ..|

Religion is not from God. It is a creation of Man. #-o

Faith is from God. It gives us the power to face another day! (!w!)

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)

Quoted because it's got stuff worth pondering!
 
Trees comes from God who created the Universe. He created all things out of nothing. It is only when we get to Heaven will we truly know how God can create such beauty out of nothing. I believe that it is a mystery that will never be solved by Mankind, regardless of Science. Faith is truly a Gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by Him.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #157
Faith is Certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very Word of God who cannot lie..."the certainty that the divine light givesis greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."

see also #'s 158 and 159 in the catechism.

Please understand that i say this without trying to be offensive or anything of the sort. My post was actually a joke from a funny source that was making fun of the fact that people use things like the sky the stars and trees as proof of their god's existence. Of course the obvious problem here is that they are using the watchmaker argument basically. This is not of course any sort of proof even for the existence of any sort of god. just because something is complex doesn't require that there be a creator. The reason we for example that a watch has a maker is not because it is complex, but because i can go to the factory and see and talk with the guy who made it. You can do no such thing with trees. maybe this helps to explain things.
 
Faith and/or choice

To say the obvious, just because one believes in something doesn't make that thing real or true.

But the belief itself can be real or true for the believer.

Again with the homonyms. When you say "the belief itself can be real or true" I do not debate that the believer is seized of a state of mind which is real. In that sense of the word, one can talk of a "real delusion" or a "real illusion." Criss Angell can expertly produce something which is undeniably a real and truthful illusion. But that does not mean reality has conformed to the perception of the audience; Criss Angell cannot produce the things he appears to produce - he merely effects the appearance. That is his only real skill.

These two items go together.

Consider the case of Christ: lots of people want to call Him a great teacher, yet how can a man be a great teacher who was insane? If there is no God, that's what we have to conclude about Jesus: he was someone who was deluded, and a lot worse, on par with someone who believes he is the Emperor Napoleon... except now he can make the sea stop! Such a person might come up with a profound idea here or there, but it would be mixed in with nonsense, to follow which would ruin one's life -- yet if you take out the parts about being, or being related to, God, essentially every last thing Jesus taught is useful and profound.

Those who take God out of the Bible end up picking and choosing what they consider to be wisdom; in the end they're little different from those who pick and choose so they end up wanting a theocratic America, where gays would be stoned (along with adulterers, and of course rebellious teenagers).

Well, the people could be wrong regarding his teaching ability. You could be wrong to question that we can learn from an insane person. You could be wrong to be so harsh about people who believe they are the Emperor Napoleon. And I'm not sure about any claims regarding stopping the sea. Then you state what a lot of people hold - leave out the nonsense and follow the profound useful advice - but you present a very sensible idea almost ironically as though it were obviously unwise. And don't you think Jesus would take it on the chin just a little bit for plagiarism?

That's the old "Cur Allii, Prae Aliis?" dilemma.

The answer I tend to is that God gives faith to all who don't resist. In your illustration, the only ones without the VIP pass would be those who, out on the street when the owner tried to give one, said "Fuck off".

Yes. I put my foot in it there. I was inclined to help imagine a sensible coherent version of Christianity that might have existed, I admit partly to contrast it with the sort actually on offer, but also to see where it goes. It isn't going anywhere except a spiral of apologetics. It is like "the seven levels of apologetics."
 
the seeds of that tree came form a different tree that was able to germinate and produce that tree. it happens by a known biological process, you don't need to have a god to explain why the tree is there or why the tree was able to grow. in fact if you're going to say the tree came from god you need to first prove that the god you're choosing to say put it there even exists in the first place. so far you've done nothing to show that.
 
I'm agnostic -leaning on atheist. I think Fry said it best:

The trouble with atheism is when you stop believing in God, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything. And perhaps we do live in a culture where reason and so on are not as glorified as they should be.
However, I don't think we should ever allow religion the trick of maintaining that the spiritual and the beautiful and the noble and the altruistic and the morally strong and the virtuous are in any way inventions of religion or particular or peculiar to religion. It's certainly true that you could say that it was Christ who said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". That's a wonderful thing to have said, anybody who would have said that would have won a great deal of respect and interest. But there is absolutely no monopoly on beauty and truth in religion.

And I suppose one of the reasons why I'm so fond of the Greeks and one of the reasons why the radical poet Shelley wrote his 'Prometheus Unbound' is because he understood that if you were to compare the Genesis myth, which had bedeviled our culture for a very long time indeed (2000 years).

It was essentially a myth in which we should be ashamed for ourselves.
God says "Who told you you were naked?". What possible reason do we have to believe that we are naked, or that if we are naked that we should be ashamed of it? That for what we are and what we do, we should ever apologize. We should apologize for our dreams, our impulses, our appetites, our drives, our desires, ... are not things to apologize for. Our actions we do sometimes apologize for and we excoriate ourselves for them rigthly. That's the Genesis myth.

The Greek myth is of Prometheus who stole fire from heaven and gave it to his favourite mortal, man. In other words, the Greek said: 'We have divine fire. Whatever is divine, is in us.' As humans, we are as good as the gods. The Gods are capricious and mean and foolish and stupid and jealous and rapine and all the things that greek mythology shows that they are. And that's a much better explanation it seems to me. And for that, the Gods punished Prometheus (chains, vultures, ... you know the story...).

And Shelley quite rightly understood (and interestingly enough, his wife wrote that Frankenstein was the modern Prometheus) that that mythological idea, that champion of real humanity and real humanism as we have come to call it, is that we ARE captains of our soul and masters of our destiny and that we contain any divine fire that there is. Divine fire that is fine and great. And it's perfectly obvious that if there were ever a God, he has lost every possible taste. You only have to look, forget the impression and unpleasantness of the radical right or the islamic hordes to the east, the sheer lack of intelligence and insight, the ability to express themselves and to infuse others of the priesthood here and indeed in Europe. God had once Bach, Mozart and Michelangelo on his side. And now who does he have? People with ginger whiskers and tinted spectacles who reduce the glory of theology to a kind of sharing.

That's what religion has become, an anemic nonsense. Because we understood that the fire was within us. It was not in some on an alter, whether it was a golden cross or a Buddha or anything else. But that we have it. The fault is in us and not in our stars, but also the glory is in us, and not in our stars. We take credit for what is great about man, but we also take the blame for what is dreadful about man. We neither grovel or apologize at the feet of a God or are so infantile as to ever project the idea that we once had a father as human beings and therefore we should have a divine one too. We have to grow up.
 
by the way, why can't your god lie? Is he then not all powerful, omni-present, and omni-potent? if it is true that he can not lie then he's not all powerful. Just an interesting thought that passed through my head.
 
Deliberating the Essence of FAITH, comparing it to proven Fact, is similar to attempting to taste Blue, see Putrid, feel Whispers, hear Salty, or smell Pressure!

FAITH is a realm beyond Logic. We know that it is there, but we can't quite grab it! And, yet, it is very much a part of our daily existence! Would you consider Hope a Sense? Are our Thoughts an Emotion?

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
I don't mean to be rude or anything but most often faith is what people fall back on as a crutch when they don't have a good reason for believing in all the terrible things that their religion says they must follow.
 
and where did the seeds come from? There is no end to the circle of life and that is what makes me wonder about God, and Give him High Praises that he so deserves from his creatures. My belief takes me beyound the visible world.

Seeds come from trees.
There will certainly be an end to the circle of life, be it nuclear, solar, an asteroid, etc, unless we find a way to navigate through space (to another planet), time or dimension... see how science will take us beyond the visible world !
Whether there is or not a God doesn't tells us if he cares about or even listens to what his creatures tell him.
 
Deliberating the Essence of FAITH, comparing it to proven Fact, is similar to attempting to taste Blue, see Putrid, feel Whispers, hear Salty, or smell Pressure!

FAITH is a realm beyond Logic. We know that it is there, but we can't quite grab it! And, yet, it is very much a part of our daily existence! Would you consider Hope a Sense? Are our Thoughts an Emotion?

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)

I don't think anybody's trying to dispute the fact that Faith has nothing to do with Facts ... ?
 
Deliberating the Essence of FAITH, comparing it to proven Fact, is similar to attempting to taste Blue, see Putrid, feel Whispers, hear Salty, or smell Pressure!

Interesting, I could envision each of those things.
 
Faith is believing in what we cannot see, ie; Blessed are those who believe, but cannot see. This is all very simply to the point. Faith is a beautiful Gift of God, and yes, Faith can be lost.
I cannot see the force of gravity nor UV radiation and yet all these things can be measured and its existence can therefore become manifest. I'm sure you'll agree that the difference is a bit more than what you've argued about, no?

I didn't give you anything "that could convince believers" -- I gave you things that have convinced people to believe.
Alright, but there still exists a difference between something that convinces someone and evidence. Jenny McCarthy is "convinced" that autism is caused by vaccines, but the thing that convinces her is a mere correlation, not evidence (and persists in her position even when presented with evidence that suggests otherwise!).

Faith, in the Bible, is trust based on a demonstrated record.
And what would be the demonstrated record of, say, the Biblical God existing but not Zeus or Poseidon? I'm sure Christian believers trust that the former is true, but I'm not sure if it is based so much on a "demonstrated record" as it is indoctrination or a susceptibility of superficial, convincing events (like MikeyLove who admitted to have been convinced when an earthquake came to pass and the [strike]flag was still there[/strike] picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was still on the wall when all the other nick-nacks fell). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're more "sophisticated" than he is, though I'll hold my breath till presented with evidence.

____

Also, thought I should post this video I came across on Real Time with Bill Maher regarding those militant atheists, so-called.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVES4a9Zq4M[/ame]
 
And I suppose one of the reasons why I'm so fond of the Greeks and one of the reasons why the radical poet Shelley wrote his 'Prometheus Unbound' is because he understood that if you were to compare the Genesis myth, which had bedeviled our culture for a very long time indeed (2000 years).

It was essentially a myth in which we should be ashamed for ourselves.
God says "Who told you you were naked?". What possible reason do we have to believe that we are naked, or that if we are naked that we should be ashamed of it? That for what we are and what we do, we should ever apologize. We should apologize for our dreams, our impulses, our appetites, our drives, our desires, ... are not things to apologize for. Our actions we do sometimes apologize for and we excoriate ourselves for them rigthly. That's the Genesis myth.

Odd that you criticize the Genesis accounting by reference to its own lesson!

When God asks, "Who told you that you were naked?", there's no implication in the text that there's anything at all wrong with being naked -- after all, He was the one who made them that way. Nor is there any implication that they should be ashamed of being naked.

The error is that they had any awareness of there being anything odd about being naked; that's why God asked. That they were ashamed of their nakedness made it clear that something had gone wrong in their thinking. The correct answer was, "We did, and we made ourselves ashamed".

The lesson of that account isn't that we should be ashamed of anything; it can be boiled down to "Everything in its time", and "Trying to be more than human will screw you up".

Come to think of it, the Christians who are worst for society are those who ignore both those -- the ones who want to impose the "Kingdom of God" by political force, and who act as though they've been promoted above the rest of us.
 
by the way, why can't your god lie? Is he then not all powerful, omni-present, and omni-potent? if it is true that he can not lie then he's not all powerful. Just an interesting thought that passed through my head.

That's like saying that if a mathematical function can't deviate from its actual graph, it isn't continuous.

"Omnipotent" doesn't mean "able to do anything", it means "having all power". But being able to fail at being who you are isn't power, it's weakness -- so any creature which can lie is weak.

Shakespeare got that, in this thought (for which he's heavily indebted to the Greeks): "This above all else: to thine own self be true". If God lies, He is not true to himself; if he is not true to himself, he has shown weakness.
 
Back
Top