The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

[bankside]

Blasphemy: a victimless crime.


Good grief people.

 

[btmbabyboi]

One of the cool things about 'free will' is you get to believe what you want and act the way you want. Some believe there are no consequences for believing and acting according to their 'free will.' Apparently not, there is quite a bit of 'since you can't prove it, you MUST be wrong. Go take your fantasy somewhere else' undercurrent here.

Some think about the Religion thing for lots of years and change their minds. I guess that is 'free will' also. Doesn't make them bad people, or mindless children either. Just 'free thinkers.'

My question is; if these 'free thinkers' were thinking about horses instead of Chryslers, or College vs Technical Vocations, or being gay vs straight, would you treat them as cynically as you did your fellow bloggers in this post or would you show them at least the smallest bit of compassion?

I always wonder why some folks have a such hard time accepting the simplist honest comments made by honest, sincere people - who happen to hold a certain belief - that may not be in lock-step with yours.

If you don't wish to read these comments, why do you? Why don't you simply pass them over?

I have a theory. People (religious and non religious alike) say there might exist in the universe an entity consisting of pure evil which is trying to expand its influence over humans. We might call this entity the devil. Here's something to contemplate: IF there is such an entity and IF this entity is truly trying to corrupt souls, how would he react to the original post above? With compassion or cynicism?
Something to ponder...

 

[bankside]

One of the cool things about 'free will' is you get to believe what you want and act the way you want. Some believe there are no consequences for believing and acting according to their 'free will.' Apparently not, there is quite a bit of 'since you can't prove it, you MUST be wrong. Go take your fantasy somewhere else' undercurrent here.

Some think about the Religion thing for lots of years and change their minds. I guess that is 'free will' also. Doesn't make them bad people, or mindless children either. Just 'free thinkers.'

My question is; if these 'free thinkers' were thinking about horses instead of Chryslers, or College vs Technical Vocations, or being gay vs straight, would you treat them as cynically as you did your fellow bloggers in this post or would you show them at least the smallest bit of compassion?

I always wonder why some folks have a such hard time accepting the simplist honest comments made by honest, sincere people - who happen to hold a certain belief - that may not be in lock-step with yours.

If you don't wish to read these comments, why do you? Why don't you simply pass them over?

I have a theory. People (religious and non religious alike) say there might exist in the universe an entity consisting of pure evil which is trying to expand its influence over humans. We might call this entity the devil. Here's something to contemplate: IF there is such an entity and IF this entity is truly trying to corrupt souls, how would he react to the original post above? With compassion or cynicism?
Something to ponder...

Free will. One of the tragic limitations of free will is that it can't change reality to suit one's own whims and preferences. You can't will the sun to rise or set at your convenience. You can't undo the Japanese tsunami by choosing to make it so. Our preferences just aren't that significant.

One thing we can do with our free will is try to discover the nature of what's going on around us. Or another thing would be to pretend that just imagining we know these things already is sufficient. I think the first approach is far better.

After years of thought, some people think that a thousands-of-years-old religion figured out a lot of things accurately. If they've put that much thought into it, then they should be able to explain those thoughts in detail, with a lot of nuance, and patience for people who might yet have had that mental breakthrough. They should be happy to explain it. And they should have already thought of a lot of possible objections, and not treat them with alarm or surprise or contempt when people raise those objections.

If they haven't really put a lot of thought into it, then they'll just bark out the same basic dogmatic slogan again and again, they'll take offence to basic questions, and they'll show indignation when anyone "dares" to question them with their own free will. Religious ideas have been part of a great and noble debate lasting several millennia about the nature of existence, a debate which has seen positive contributions from believers and non-believers alike. However if religion and faith have been losing ground in that debate, it is largely because they are so often championed by people who haven't really thought through their beliefs, and they show just the kind of offence that gives away their lack of preparation. It is no wonder that kind of simple dogma is increasingly questioned, ignored, and sidelined.

Something as simple as that - when the free will commits itself to intellectual honesty and accountability rather than just asserting the dumb right to be believed without question - is what moves the debate forward. When the individual uses their free will without that kind of integrity, it is not "pure evil" that turns others away in some kind of conspiracy, it is just the common sense that others have to use their own free will to enjoy reality.

Incidentally if there were something like a devil, I think he'd show mock compassion and defend the "right" of people to be excused from any kind of accountability for their ideas. After all it's their free will!

 

[FirmaFan]

One of the cool things about 'free will' is you get to believe what you want and act the way you want.

Absolutely. Another cool thing is that other people can respond to those actions and beliefs.

Some believe there are no consequences for believing and acting according to their 'free will.' Apparently not,

I say absolutely not. Everything carries consequence.

there is quite a bit of 'since you can't prove it, you MUST be wrong. Go take your fantasy somewhere else' undercurrent here.

The inability to prove something does not state that the "something" is wrong, and, while I can't speak for others, I would never make such a claim. But assertions of claims as fact without evidence is wrong. Religious beliefs are founded upon the principles of faith, not evidence, and that subjective feeling of faith can be so strong in people that it overrides the burden of evidence that most would require for every other fantastical claim. Having then accepted something as fact based on faith, people make real-world decisions and actions that can directly affect other people. You can get things like George Bush Snr. during his presidency saying things like atheists should not be considered as citizens of the US. A man, backed by unsubstantiated beliefs, as leader of a nation with the ability to affect the lives of millions, personally feels that people who do not believe as he does do not deserve citizenship. Luckily, the US has various implementations to prevent such nonsense from ever becoming anything more than a radical opinion of one man, but other countries are not so lucky. Questioning beliefs to which people have not yet been able to present sufficient evidence to justify those claims doesn't sound taboo to me, in fact, its an absolute necessity.

Some think about the Religion thing for lots of years and change their minds. I guess that is 'free will' also. Doesn't make them bad people, or mindless children either. Just 'free thinkers.'

My question is; if these 'free thinkers' were thinking about horses instead of Chryslers, or College vs Technical Vocations, or being gay vs straight, would you treat them as cynically as you did your fellow bloggers in this post or would you show them at least the smallest bit of compassion?

Very few subjects affect such a vast number of people as does the topic of religious belief, and, as such, warrant the criticism that various religious statements receive.

I always wonder why some folks have a such hard time accepting the simplist honest comments made by honest, sincere people - who happen to hold a certain belief - that may not be in lock-step with yours.

When someone states things like a "fall from grace" caused the death of thousands of people in Japan, it's kind of hard to ignore.

If you don't wish to read these comments, why do you? Why don't you simply pass them over?

At least for me, the reason is very very simple...I enjoy the arguments.

 

[Dolmance]

One of the cool things about 'free will' is you get to believe what you want and act the way you want. Some believe there are no consequences for believing and acting according to their 'free will.' Apparently not, there is quite a bit of 'since you can't prove it, you MUST be wrong. Go take your fantasy somewhere else' undercurrent here.

Some think about the Religion thing for lots of years and change their minds. I guess that is 'free will' also. Doesn't make them bad people, or mindless children either. Just 'free thinkers.'

My question is; if these 'free thinkers' were thinking about horses instead of Chryslers, or College vs Technical Vocations, or being gay vs straight, would you treat them as cynically as you did your fellow bloggers in this post or would you show them at least the smallest bit of compassion?

I always wonder why some folks have a such hard time accepting the simplist honest comments made by honest, sincere people - who happen to hold a certain belief - that may not be in lock-step with yours.

If you don't wish to read these comments, why do you? Why don't you simply pass them over?

I have a theory. People (religious and non religious alike) say there might exist in the universe an entity consisting of pure evil which is trying to expand its influence over humans. We might call this entity the devil. Here's something to contemplate: IF there is such an entity and IF this entity is truly trying to corrupt souls, how would he react to the original post above? With compassion or cynicism?
Something to ponder...

The statements to which you refer are not merely passive professions of personal belief. As has been evidenced, they are not even invitations to discussion or debate over the matter; the individual in question has flat out stated that he expects EVERY human being to believe as he believes, whether their experiences, considerations and processes of reasoning lead them to or not. The apparent consequences of not doing so have also been made plain. In this regard, he has made an ideological imposition on any and all who happen to read what has been written, and has actively invited those we upon whom the imposition has been made to ask: Why should we believe as you believe? If the individual in question does not wish to live up to this obligation, then perhaps he should refrain from making public statements of purportedly universally applicable "truth" in the future. A case of "If you can't stand the heat, don't pour gasoline onto the barbeque," as it were.

As for some apparent universal, absolute malevolence, I think, if it existed, it would be phenomenally subtle, creating structures of perception and belief whereby human beings might absolve themselves of the self analysis and consideration that is so essential to the development of genuine empathy. It would create tribalistic structures of division which enshrine ignorance as truth, tribalism as morality and the worship of suffering and apocalypse as holy. It would actively create a God of every base, tribal urge in humanity's collectuve breast, quashing any hope of genuine metaphysic transcendence, the appreciation of beauty, pleasure, art etc. If the Devil's work is to be found anywhere, it is in the arrogance and proscribed neurosis of those who presume to speak on behalf of God, and who infuse that notion with all of their own misanthropy, tribalism and weakness.

 

[thewiz]

I always cringe when I hear people attribute catastrophe to God. If God is love and not just any love but agape....how could he kill a people or bring harm to a creation made in His image? Wouldn't that kind of make Him like the other entity -- evil?

Instead if one looks that there is a creation and it exists. The stories of Jesus were intended to show that he was not just human but also divine. They actually follow the story of creation, demonstrating his authority over nature but also revealing him as the new Adam....but who would not give into the temptation that caused separation from God by Adam.

Lots has been made up about hell but the scriptural interpretations is that it is a place without God.

I love my husband ... so much so that when we are in our closest times I cannot hurt him, I cannot injure him, I cannot do anything except to love. When we are in bed, the last thing I think of is doing something evil to him; we are one.

Building on that, Jesus said there were only two things important in religion: loving God and loving each other. That "love" word again. Heaven? It is why we would not need to be married in heaven or need earthly things; if one is totally immersed in love; surrounded; bathed....is there a need for anything else?

On the other hand, we are free to choose the alternative but I will continue my cringe when I hear people blame things on one or the other.....

 

[Shygui]

Religion is at its best when it brings a wide variety of people together, people who wouldn't get together under normal circumstances, and tasks them with improving their world.

Unfortunately, nearly every religion is used as a weapon against people who hold different views (intolerance vs respect), as a way to push others away (exclusive instead of inclusive), as a way to condemn others irrationally, and (most tragically) as a way to dumb down some of the hardest questions posed to man ever.

Wanna make a difference in people's live "TweetingforJesus?"Go volunteer. Organize drives to donate money to charity. Work at soup kitchens. Aid the poor.

Don't preach useless words. Don't make subtle threats against those who would be different than you.
Go out and LIVE the way your prophet would want you to live!

 

[Telstra]

Religion is at its best when it brings a wide variety of people together, people who wouldn't get together under normal circumstances, and tasks them with improving their world.

Unfortunately, nearly every religion is used as a weapon against people who hold different views (intolerance vs respect), as a way to push others away (exclusive instead of inclusive), as a way to condemn others irrationally, and (most tragically) as a way to dumb down some of the hardest questions posed to man ever.

Wanna make a difference in people's live "TweetingforJesus?"Go volunteer. Organize drives to donate money to charity. Work at soup kitchens. Aid the poor.

Don't preach useless words. Don't make subtle threats against those who would be different than you.
Go out and LIVE the way your prophet would want you to live!

Great post.
I bet you understand the bible more than the religious followers.

 

[zoltanspawn]

My question is; if these 'free thinkers' were thinking about horses instead of Chryslers, or College vs Technical Vocations, or being gay vs straight, would you treat them as cynically as you did your fellow bloggers in this post or would you show them at least the smallest bit of compassion?

I always wonder why some folks have a such hard time accepting the simplist honest comments made by honest, sincere people - who happen to hold a certain belief - that may not be in lock-step with yours.

I don't mind speaking up for cynicism here. I frequently defend religious practices on this forum and have debated with atheists many times on various issues. (In fact, this may be the single post you'll find where I criticize a specific religious belief outright.) But some sentiments are so absurd or repugnant they are worth scoffing at. Many of us with different points of view are willing and able to take up questions considerately. I tend to think it's rather marvelous that some of us are interested in offering critiques of this nonsense at all.

 

[EwanSF]

There's no historical evidence that there was the first jesus, let alone his second coming. Although, if he did come back, I hope it's as a chick just to fuck withe bible thumpers.

 

[Telstra]

There's no historical evidence that there was the first jesus, let alone his second coming. Although, if he did come back, I hope it's as a chick just to fuck withe bible thumpers.

Lets say there was Jesus.
He was a religious man like any preacher today with ZERO supernatural power.

 

[btmbabyboi]

Building on that, Jesus said there were only two things important in religion: loving God and loving each other. That "love" word again. Heaven? It is why we would not need to be married in heaven or need earthly things; if one is totally immersed in love; surrounded; bathed....is there a need for anything else?

He defined "LOVE" in Corinthians (1:13?) as Patient, kind, not Jealous, etc... I think this is what He meant with the LOVE your neighbor, enemy, etc. Kind of fits, when you think about it.

The rest of your post is super, especially the tenderness between you and your mate!

 

[btmbabyboi]

There's no historical evidence that there was the first jesus, let alone his second coming.

That's why they call it "Belief" and not "Knowledge"

 

[FirmaFan]

Of the many many many second coming predictions that are made everyday, the May 21st, 2011 prediction made by Harold Camping seems to be getting a lot of press. Maybe it's all the money people are giving him in support of his prophesied apocalypse, or maybe it's the large billboards that he has purchased stating "NOAH KNEW" and a url to his website wecanknow.com.

Even the people here that are all about preaching the end times probably don't foresee the end of all things occurring within the next 2 months. Just note, however, that it doesn't make them any more credible either.

There are some stories about people giving their life savings to the likes of people like Camping. I believe this is called fraud....

....a fraud that has been perpetrated more than once by Camping. With every bit of certainty as he has now (which is an amazingly great amount...youtube has many videos of him making the May 21st prediction...the certainty with which he speaks is extreme), Camping predicted armageddon would happen in September of 1994...and we all know how that one turned out.

Camping has been asked several times about the things that are going to happen on May 22nd (provided the world doesn't actually end)...he entertains no such hypothetical...such is the conviction he holds to this belief.

Now, when May 22nd does come and his failed prediction is exposed, do you think that he will admit defeat and admit error? Probably not, or, at least, won't admit that armageddon isn't likely to happen. He'll probably find some new date and claim the bible, the infallible word of god that, on May 22nd will be shown to be twice fallible, proves the 2nd coming on that new date. My tip...the guy is old...like, really old...he should pick a date that is simply out of reach of his life expectancy, so that, when the world continues to continue, he doesn't have to suffer the indignity of holding true to a book that will be thrice fallible.