Religion = Delusion?

which means God knew, and chose, believers before time began (i.e. the beginning).

A living history museum perhaps? So we've all lived wasted lives except for his chosen few and I bet you think your one of them. He set up the show, Choose the characters and has written the end. Frankly sounds cruel to me. Not very loving. What's the point?

Sorry, but you will need to do some of your own thinking and study. It is far too easy to jump to conclusions and oversimplify.

Indeed. Why are we here? What is your answer? That might be a good beginning.

You are the one who needs to be doing the study and thought.

I suspect you simply don't want to deal with the issues you raised. That is certainly your choice to make.

And simplicity is exactly what is needed here. Jesus the Son of God died for your sins. You are forgiven. Don't you believe it? Oh you of little faith. But there is a price. Each and every day you will do whatever is within your power to help your fellow man. There is no more Armageddon, no more devil.

Sounds like a philosophy of anarchy to me. Or, so now I get to do whatever I want. Kill. Steal. Rape. I'm forgiven. I hope that idea doesn't catch on.

.... based on what answers he has found for himself.

His advice to begin with yourself is wise, as it is up to each individual to find the answer to "why we are here."

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

Ecc 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man."

So the answer is simple and clear enough, but of course not acceptable to most. The result is what you see on the evening news: Man's work, not God's.

about Cnet- there's just no pleasing you!

In 1 Cor 3:7 there's an account of about 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' return to heaven, after his reported resurrection. The writer of it was not there and had been a strong opposer of the Christian religion. He believed the eyewitnesses even though they were all 'insiders' because he knew them personally after becoming a Christian and knew they were reliable in all other matters. Just as with a witness in a court case, after his testimony his believeability may be attacked and either destroyed or upheld.

The "parlor tricks" no doubt were entertaining in their way, but each had a purpose- to demonstrate that Jesus was capable of doing all the things that we humans want done. We want favorable weather, he controlled it. We want adequate food, he provided it. We hate death for ourselves and our loved ones, he negated it.
All of this serves to make believeable the bible's promises of a permanent, paradisaical home for man on the earth: Gen 1:28, Ps 37:29, Rev 21:3,4, and many others.
It's also worth noting his attitude in these matters. He was tactful and considerate in treating those with handicaps (Mark 7:31-37), his motives were personal and human (Mt 15:32-39), and he gave the credit to his Father. (John 11:38-44)

It would be a good idea for you to learn more about the Jesus of the bible before you reject him completely.
Oh, yes, and be sure to tell us how you were able to duplicate the "parlor tricks".

Is that at the end of day's there will be a great war. And that God will lead an army against the devil. And that He will win and all souls will be drawn to heaven to live through eternity with him. This implies that there are two Gods of this world and that the out come is not so certain. Perhaps a third army should appear and throw them both out. The army of Man. Unless you blieve Jesus how said your sins are forgive. Which of your books is right, Witch.

you could cite some scriptures.
For instance: "God will lead an army against the devil."
"All souls will be drawn to heaven..."
"...to live through eternity with him"
"third army"

I'm not sure what a locked thread means but one last point. People of most religions do good works, for those that do, they have my respect. I have been tough here but some of my points have merit but are not my personal convictions. I was only making a point. I will move on.

as Myforum. Everybody else go home.

In spite of the poor reasoning, the Pope's statement is actually a return to past belief, with the wimpy "community" stuff added. Used to be, 'We're the Church; you other guys aren't'. Clearer, and better if the underlying statement is true.

My own opinion is that there can't be more than one true God, and my bible identifies him. Therefore I don't hesitate to say there's only one true faith and I've found it. And, logically, if I thought someone else had it I would preach that. There is only "one faith", said Paul. (Eph 4:6). Jesus' own belief about God is stated at John 17:3.

The Popes have the bible and their even lengthier written traditions, so I don't know why they haven't been so forthright all along, nor why they aren't more so now.

good afternoon dr,

I was raised a catholic. bailed at puberty.

was taught to believe ours was the only true religion (common tactic of most religions, keeps the coffers full). once my basic training ended I no longer desired the strength of numbers. I shall continue to ramble my own path, that I have faith in.

but started late (too long a story) and drifted away. Hormone timing had nothing to do with it. I was never taught Catholics were the only true Christians and the only ones with a chance at heaven. The first time (and oft at later times) these suggestion came from non-Catholics that I encountered...especially when being proselytized during my "searching" years. I encountered some true hatred and plenty of false teaching about what Catholics believed. Maybe I've been lucky and never encountered one of my faith with such a smug sense of righteousness and security. I'm sure these folks are out there, however. "Smugness" is or should be a sin. I'm sure there's plenty in scripture to confirm that. Let the landslide begin.

taught that catholicism was the 'only true' religion, others false. from the phrase: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church appears in the Nicene Creed and, in part, in the Apostles' Creed ("the holy catholic church"). years later I learned that catholic was synonymous for universal. much depended on the order the priests belonged to. jesuits were known to have a more intellectual questioning philosophy towards christianity.

more at: http://www.answers.com/topic/nicene-creed


landslides provide plenty of stones for the discussion

We pronounced "catholic" with a lower case c, of course. The secular meaning shows up in the phrase, "a person of catholic tastes".

As I suggested to Steven, an approved Catechism book is what would determine what Roman Catholics "have to" believe. That's where your priests got what they taught you.

sailed the ocean blue
In fourteen hundred ninety-two,"

smugly recited the schoolboy.

Sinful or not, the smugness was not misplaced. The Pope thinks his is not, either.
Read your catechism, then 1 Pe 3:15.

"In your face" when trying to win people over. You, instead, will drive them away. That the Catholic Church considers itself the first and best equipped to deliver the message of Christ as well as interpret/teach the Bible is nothing new. It should do that. No organization claiming Christian belief should claim to be second, third, etc. All should claim to be true to the teaching or get out of the business. But going around and flaunting that notion instead of expressing your faith, doing good works, etc., damages your evangelical mission.

I'm not going to take the media's selected portions of a pope's or anyones speech and react to anything but my feeling towards the media. If I want to develop an opinion of what was said, I would want to hear the full text of it....not even read the text, but hear it.

BTW, I have heard plenty professed Catholics and those of many other's of Christian belief spend too much time thumping their chests in a show of superiority... Smugness in futile action.

Christian centered faith and pick it apart or use negative references of any kind. It's the same to me as negative political campaigning. I prefer, and am more accepting of hearing what's good about another persons thinking than what they think is wrong with mine. Is that so hard to understand? I'll bet most people share this same feeling. I remember in my "searching" days, as I referenced, meeting many who were sincerely trying to win me into their fold. Can you guess what a common tactic was? I will tell you. It was to get me into a study group and bring in a disenchanted former Catholic church member who would proceed to rail the organization "up one side 'n down the other". You name it and I heard it. Picture yourself falling away from a truly loving relationship and having someone try to console you by saying your wife, girlfriend, whatever, was a_________ (insert word of choice in the blank space). Yep, that's really tactful. It was my conclusion that these folks probably never truly learned or practice the faith anyway. But, they were learning to quote scripture and could launch a barrage with the best of them....impressive but not useful, IMO. My thinking became to be that too many of these folks used the Bible as a weapon, or a shield to hide behind. I've always thought to use it differently....as a flashlight in the darkness comes to mind. Departing now to my church to do some grunt labor. Catcha' later.

As a high schooler, I often visited other denominational houses of worship with friends, and they mine.

Until once when I went with a friend to one I will not identify. As the service was ending, the congregation had their seats and was kneeling around me, praying for my soul and deliverance from my Belief. It was a terrible experience.

Though I encountered a few minor incidents through the years after that episode, I think it was the understanding of what others held in their hearts gained in my teen years that eased them.

I realize there are still many who think I worship idols, and I see above the reference to Mary as a goddess. IMO, the best way to educate others re: Beliefs, religious rites, etc., is through positive rather than negative discussion. I think that mutual understanding benefits everyone.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

kidnapping. Not the style of Jesus or his disciples, so it's not mine.
Myself, I prefer to read the bible and draw conclusions from what I see there.

Speaking of using idols, the Orthodox churches are sure that Catholics do, because they have 3-dimensional statuary. The Orthodox are sure they don't because their images of "saints" are 2-dimensional pictures. This was one of the major differences that led to widespread violence between them in 1054 CE. As an outsider to both, I wonder why either group needs images. When I read appropriate material in the bible I find that Jesus didn't need them.
Historical side note: One charge laid against early Christians by the Roman authorities was atheism. The Romans thought this because, alone of the religions they knew of, Christians had no temples, altars, or images of their god(s). In a state as closely tied to its gods as the Roman one (we, of course, call it superstition), this was a serious charge, akin to treason. 'These people alone could get all our gods mad at us', was the reasoning. There are records extant expressing puzzlement by raiders of the meeting establishments of the banned religion. 'We looked for images and ritual items in order to destroy them, as commanded, but found nothing but a few scrolls. They seemed to value these, but we kept looking for images.' So reports Edw. Gibbon in his Decline and Fall.

The business about Mary wasn't a slur, but observation of belief. If she is a goddess, then she ought to be worshipped, right? Gods/goddesses typically have prayers and rituals directed to them directly. There's also the traditional offering of a sacrifice of some sort to an image of the god; incense is used in some of the more formal religions. I observe Catholics doing all these things to Mary, and I think of it as a logical outcome of their belief system. I've asked ardent, non-Catholic trinitarians whey they don't worship Mary as the Mother of God, and I get snide remarks.

The ardently non-religious on this thread, including the originator of it, are asking these and other questions of the religions they see around them, and they are not happy with the answers. That's another thing I find in the bible- answers to the tough questions.

You and Steve might consider the time when information was passed around on SE, to general approval, on a topic which is likely not be of any practical use in daily life. Compare that to your view of specific knowledge of the bible, which your church leaders insist is God's word.

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=231539&messageID=2391862#2391862

We were told to honor our mothers and fathers. We often ask them for help and guidance, and revere them. Yet, we don't worship them in the sense of how worship applies to God.

So, those who believe that Mary is the mother of God, honor and revere her. They ask for her help and guidance. Yet, they don't worship her.

The statues are icons that provide a focus and reminder. The same for the Cross. Some congregations do not use a Cross as they do not feel it is necessary, or even proper. I know of one group that will not have any musical instruments like an organ or piano in their services. IMO, I have no compulsion, or even a right, to criticize them.

In the old churches and cathedrals in Europe it is difficult to tell if they are Catholic or not. Sure, many were built for Catholics. But over time became Protestant. For instance, the Church of Ireland still retains the icons, as does the Church of England (Anglican).

The Catholic (and Anglican) Mass can be held without a building or icons, as on battlefields in times of war. So can the services of the other congregations.

Yes, there are "set" Catholic prayers. But that does not mean that one does not, cannot or should not pray in their own words. During those prayers one is often reminded of special needs. Other churches also use "pre-written" material, as in Responsive Readings, recitation of the Creed, the Doxology, and hymns, for instance.

In summary, I think it is good to discuss various beliefs in a positive manner as to promotes understanding and respect. Conversely, to do so in a negative way leads to misunderstanding and suspicion and division in the Christian community which , after all, has the Gospel at its center.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

in the Christian community"
These existed long before my time among people who were so sure (smug?) of their separate beliefs they were willing to torture and kill their opponents. That goes on down to this day in central Europe in a three-way: Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Serbian and other Orthodox. Some of those involved who claim "true Christianity" are now facing war crimes trials. As to their nominal leader, this was said of him: "No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; and when we shall see him, there is not the appearance so that we should desire him ... He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness ... He was despised, and we held him as of no account ... Jehovah himself has caused the error of us all to meet up with that one ... a ewe that before her shearers has become mute, he also would not open his mouth." (Isa 53)

Rather than judging another his enemy and killing him, he died for people he didn't even know. (John 13:34,35)

Peter, "the first Pope", said, "In fact, to this [course] you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely." (1 Pet 2:21)

Jesus left specific instructions about prayer, which Paul later understood this way: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5) What do you find when you compare this with your catechism book? Agreement with the bible, or division from it? Confirmation of Jesus, or division from him?
When you are about to pump diesel fuel into your car, and a bystander points out the mistake, is he guilty of 'negative and disrespectful' conversation?

Even in small things there is appalling ignorance of the very book that people claim as the word of their God, whomever he or she or it are (sic). Example: One of the sponsored links above says, 'there are two people named Jesus in the bible. Do you know the right one?' In fact, there are four, and three in the "New Testament". Is it 'negative and disrespectful' of me to point that out? If you were about to click on that link for "accurate knowledge" of God, have I rained on your parade? (The unforgivable sin, according to many.)

"the Christian community which , after all, has the Gospel at its center"
Where do you see such a community? And it's out of "the" Gospel that about a billion people are sure of the "Mother of God" while another billion find no such thing.

"The Catholic (and Anglican) Mass can be held without a building or icons, as on battlefields in times of war. So can the services of the other congregations."
But not ours; none of the soldiers are Jehovah's. According to many, this also is a bad thing. Is it to you?

First, you say it is not your style to speak of people in the negative. That it is better to see the positive in things and approach from this angle.

Then, You give an example of how church people do unacceptable things. The result being that you bad mouth them. Your no better then the people your criticizing but you think you are. This is dilution.

..... the sub-thread is full.

There have been and are Conscientious Objectors other than than JWs. Some from from religious, moral or ethical stances. However, there are options for them to serve in times of war. Like serving as a Red Cross volunteer on the home front, and other community services. I know that there are families at a nearby Army post that could use some help, as well. If JWs believe that helping those involved in combat is wrong, there are many other ways to Love Thy Neighbor.

I am 75 years old, so have forgotten exact references. But there are His teachings that remain in my heart. His disciples spread his message and were teachers, but He is the headmaster. Thus, yes, I do believe the Gospel to be the core of my Belief. After all, Christ is the first syllable of Christian. I also think that my years of experience and contacts and relationships with a diverse multitude of people has shown me that His message is one of Love, and we were commanded to spread that love.

I don't forget that he chastised the Pharisees, and why. Nor that he said, "?Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother?s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

That's why I won't react to comments that I need to refer to my catechism (we don't call it that any more) because time has made it clear to me that the questioners already have preconceived answers, and are looking for affirmation of them.

IMO, your posts I have read over time on a wide variety of subjects indicate to me that you are an intelligent, perceptive and caring person. This speaks well of your religious beliefs and their impact on your character. IMO, what people say and how they say it is a good reflection of their beliefs, and influences the perception of them by others as to how meaningful those beliefs are.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

I quote the bible, and you reply with 'IMO - community services - I feel - have forgotten'. I had the same exchange not long ago with an atheist. Curious.

You, at least, have this excuse, from one of your church-approved publications: "What our questions really amount to is this: To know what is true faith, which is more important, the Bible or the Church? Is it more important to follow the Bible or the Church? Our answer is: the Church."
That's your 'preconceived answer'. So you have something; the atheist has nothing.

My preconceived answer is: "All Scripture is inspired of God and useful for teaching - for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16, NAB

BTW, if you read the parallel accounts at Mt 5 - 7 and Lu 6 you'll be clear of the common misconception that the "plank" quote was addressed to the Pharisees. You're welcome.