Children that God neglected

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, it's a tactic as old as time. You simply looking for an opening and I won't give it to you. If you need definitions of the words I use, find a dictionary and use it!! !!


You mis-quoted me 4 times in 3 posts. That's not "misunderstanding", its a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR


I never called you a fundamentalist. You're now on your 5TH MIS-QUOTE

The only true thing you've said so far.

You failed to correct your mis-quotes. Your right we don't have anything to talk about.

Hello Bland,

That makes a great deal of sense. Frankly, the first thing you say makes even more sense and is great to hear (read) - you're not bound by other peoples' categories and stereotypes, which is a liberating thing. Using your definition, I might fall into that category as well, in some aspects of my faith - I have no issues with the Nicene Creed, although I identify more strongly with the Apostles' Creed. There are others areas of faith where I probably fall well outside of fundamentalism though.

I also like your comments on God's actions as relating to a parent / child model. I also use a parent / child model, but I tend to see God as a parent who interjects from time to time - like my parents have and continue to do. I'm responsible for my actions, but every now and then I need a little help and they are there for me. The primary area that I tend to see direction, guidance and even healing tends to be when people gather together for prayer. I have seen many things happen in people's lives when they are prayed for. I have also known people who were unable to overcome illnesses and died. I don't know why some people recover and others do not (kind of close to the original thread again...), but I have seen it happen. These different ways God responds don't shake my faith. There are things I have prayed for that haven't come to pass. Many times in retrospect, I realize that my prayers for myself and others that didn't happen were selfish - I don't think God is into selfishness. Other times it causes me to question God, but that - in my estimation - is a healthy thing.

Thank you helping me understand where you're coming from.

Jonathan 79: Who exactly are these "many" people who have claimed to be unemotional? If this is a generalization, then no one said it. Also, please do not make generalizations about me for your amusment, even if you do not intend it as an attack. Thnx.


Sorry I offended you. Didn't mean to because I like you. You're welcome.

Scrapheap wrote: I put "intellectual snobbery" in quotations for good reason.


Sorry about that. I did not notice the quotations but I was judging by the tone. Forgive me if you dare!




I still don't understand the reasoning. It seems that some are assuming that God must be in direct command and intervention of His creation in order to be the originator of it. But why? I still don't get it.

Thnx, same here

Well, here's where things can get a bit confusing. If you are talking about a god that created the universe and left it to unfold without intervening in it, then I doubt your taking about the god of the bible. If you are refering to Jehova, then there are a lot of verses which indicate god is omnipotent and in control. But then the bible contradics itself on evey other chapter so who knows?

The idea you are proposing is plausable, but, as far as I'm aware of there is no religious text here on earth that describes that type of god.

Okay. This should clarify some things up here, maybe not all, but some things.

When a human is born, he / she has no thoughts in his head. His thoughts come as he learns, taking in things from his senses and so forth. So, he / she at some points becomes accustomed to religious indoctrination. He is told, over and over, that this brings lots of positive emotional connections and better self-esteem. So, he becomes attracted to what he reads in the Bible. He then tends to get involved in more Christian experiences as he grows older, attends church quite often, and maybe later on grows up to be this hater of gay people. If you're around Christians quite often, then you could be inspired into supporting their moral ethics.

The Bible was written by man. So was the Necronomicon. And the works of Applewhite. And the Karan. And whatever. People will believe what they want to believe, based on life experiences they have encountered upon growing up. If you are brought up inside a Christian household, chances are that you will adopt those Christian views. If you are brought up inside a Christain household with a lot of corporal punishment, or were sent to a Christian school where those badass nuns slapped their students' hands with rulers, then you might rebel against it. I'll tell you, though, if I was at some Christian school, and some badass nun came over and smacked my hand with a ruler, I'd have jumped up, grabbed the ruler and slapped her back on the ass! They used to do this with people who were left-handed, because left hand is said to be the evil path. I'm not left handed, so I don't have to worry about that. But this is considered by many to be the Christain ideal. Smack people around and discipline their hides to adopt a moral ethic. I keep envisioning this one father who was a devout Christian and smacked his son around, even putting minor marks on him. His son told school authorities and a court case ensued. This happened a few years ago. I couldn't believe the Christians who began bickering about how that father got a raw deal, even though he publicly stated he slapped his son across the face quite often. He even was said to have given him beatings for getting bad grades in school on a couple of occasions.

Christianity is a technique of social control. Jesse Ventura even stated it truthfully once, but I won't repeat his comments. People who cling to religious views with such tenacity have security issues. They're too afraid to think for themselves. I'm not talking about aspies who may have it as an obsession, because then it may be different.

Christianity is a cult, not much different from John Applewhite. It's the same with the Jewish religions, the Karan, etc.. If there was anything I'd support on a spiritual level, it would probably be pagan in origin, those that apply spirits to natural resources and what not, because then there's something to support and offer. Even the concept of anime (not the comic book animation type) is not a bad concept.

- Ray M -

I'll agree that many evil things are done in the name of religion, and religion (not just Christianity) is used by people to control others and abuse them.

I disagree that people subscribe to Christianity simply because that is what they were taught while they were growing up. That only works when one is very, very young.

Why?
I don't beleive in God but I do beleive in the possibillity of an afterlife or re-incarnation. I agree with klassobanieras. Maybe there is something to learn from dying from cancer and maybe this is why they have it. It's a sensitive issue but that doesn't mean its taboo. This is what budhists generally beleive in, that you are here to learn and you have actually decided what life you will lead before you get re-incarnated, so they have in-fact decided to lead a life where they die from cancer.
Offcourse, there is no 'God' in budhism, so it's not like someone up there decides, you decide yourself. This also means that 'judgement day' is not a God judging you and punishing you for all your sins, it is yourself judging the life you have led and if you have learned what there was to learn from that life and deciding what your next life should be about (and, no, there is no such thing as a 'sin').
Budhism and the Astral Planes makes alot more rational sense than religions like christianity and islam that, with their dogmas, just causes people to be sexually confused war-mongers (amongst other things). I'm not trying to insult either, but this (last sentence) is a generally accepted fact IMHO.

i'm not so sure, i reckon you will find that the majority who subscribe to christianity, or any "mainstream" religion, for that matter, will be those who were born into it, and indoctrinated as children. of course, there are those that convert later in life, but i would have thought they would be in the minority. much of our personality and beliefs are defined in early childhood.

Right ... And those that convert later in life are said to be born again. Even many mainstream religious people despise the idea of born-again christians, because they just seem like they're doing it for obvious selfish reasons. It tends to be quite common among people in prison, but it can also be common amongst people who have suffered serious setbacks and need something to believe in.

People who believe in God to only a minor degree, say that they're not religious but tend to believe that something had to have created the universe, I believe are called agnostics. These aren't exactly religious people, but people who are in need of answers that current scientific phenomena can't readily explain.

True christians, the true believers, usually are either born-again or they were brought up with it while growing up.

- Ray M -

That may be a personal observation, and I am sure that it is true in many cases; but I have read statistics that conversion to Christianity in other countries is beginning to outnumber the growth of Christianity in the U.S. That indicates that many people are becoming Christians who decided at some point in their life without having been brought up in it. I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that people are programmed into the belief system and do not rationally choose to believe. This scenario is much more common in other countries where it is virtually a criminal offense if you do not adhere to the state religion. The United States is one of the most free and muliticultural nations in the world and people have more choices and access to world religions. The fact that some are brought up in the faith would not adequately explain why so many Americans choose Christianity.

Actually from a psychological standpoint, that is now considered false. The personality of an individual as well as beliefs has been shown to evolve from childhood on.

to a certain degree i believe this may be correct. however i believe that the consensus is still that chilhood experiences do help to shape the subsequent adult personality. in other words, the belief is no longer generally held that the personality is completely developed and immutable by the end of adolescence, however it does not follow from this that factors during childhood do not influence the personality of the adult.

there have also been studies that seem to suggest a genetic factor in religious belief. ie, that the tendency toward religious belief is a heritable characteristic.

this, combined with childhood experiences in a religious household, would generally support my assertion. i don't doubt that there are some who drift away from religious thought in adulthood and also those who adopt it, but i would surmise these individuals might be a minority.

Now, that is really interesting. Can you be more specific about these studies? I'd like to check them out.

It might explain why, despite past efforts to be a 'religious' person, I keep going back to my agnostic/atheist roots. Maybe I'm missing the 'religion gene'?

certainly ariel. i originally came across the idea a few weeks ago, i can't even remeber what site the article was on, but a quick google search brought up this:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html

at a quick glance, it seems to be refering to the same study, which looked at the religious beliefs of identical twins.