Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.Page 5 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

How can you reject something you haven't studied?


What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for the supernatural...or you don't. The details of religions are for the "believers" to squabble over.


I dont think Atheist are ignorant as long as they can offer a intellectual justification for their choice.


The fact that there is no basis on which to believe someone's story about the supernatural is as intellectual as it needs to get. Turning the tables, the only justification for suspending logic and reason that "believers" can manage to give...is "faith". That may represent some kind of articulation of their thoughts, but it would be a stretch to call it intellectual.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 2:23:56 PM

but the more moderate christians that are more in tune with the times aren't all bent out of shape about creationism being taught in schools.


That isn't the problem. The problem is...they aren't all bent out of shape about PREVENTING it from happening either. After all...it IS what they believe...and teach their children...and think you'd be better off believing too.

Appeal to the evangelicals, and get 100% of their support, and by default, the majority of the moderates will follow. And last I checked, about 3/4 of Americans are christians.
 SpecificTruths
Joined: 9/19/2009
Msg: 125
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 2:30:16 PM

Appeal to the evangelicals, and get 100% of their support, and by default, the majority of the moderates will follow. And last I checked, about 3/4 of Americans are christians

Maybe I'm not in tune with this because I live in such a "blue" state (MN) that has never taught creationism, and called it a "story" in the Catholic school I attended, which spent a good deal of time on evolution in our science classes.
Most of the christians I know up here mostly keep their religion to themselves and I've never heard anyone around here say that evolutionary theory is "wrong" or that creationism is "right." Sadly, though, 3/4 of Americans really do believe jesus rose from the dead.

As for the intellectual argument...
Many atheists, including this one, have read the bible cover to cover. I've read about the "feel good" parts of the NT christians keep quoting and going back to, I've read in countless places how much of a petty jerk jesus could be, and I've read the "good" and "bad" parts of the OT as well. Why did I read it even though I'm atheist? It helps me understand the sheep better, why they're sheep, and what their "good book" really is all about. Up next, the Quran, though I'm expecting non-stop nonsense in that book, too.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 3:16:08 PM

Maybe I'm not in tune with this because I live in such a "blue" state (MN) that has never taught creationism, and called it a "story" in the Catholic school I attended, which spent a good deal of time on evolution in our science classes.


That's what I love about the catholic church...they just morph with the times. Centuries ago, when they had more political power, they could just imprison or kill whoever disagreed with church dogma. Now, the pope seems to think evolution is not in conflict with the bible. Even the Big Bang is ok. he he


Many atheists, including this one, have read the bible cover to cover.


The problem isn't in "reading" it (or deciding which version to read)...it's interpreting what it means. The common practice is to simply believe whatever christian sect you happen to belong to has told you to believe.

Look at how many "christians" believe their deceased loved ones are in "heaven". Now, I'm not a scholar of scripture, but I do know it's pretty unanimously held by any sect of the "church" that nobody is going to heaven until the second coming happens and the dead are resurrected to face judgment (or "raptured" if they are still alive at the time of this event).

Far as I can tell, this event has not happened yet. The dead...are dead (or "sleeping", as the church likes call it).
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 3:25:53 PM

If atheism were a faith-based system, then it would be no different from theism, and getting up in arms about someone's ignorance to believe in something unproven would be absolutely hypocritical.No,?

Atheists don't "believe" there is no God: they try to logically prove, based on existing evidence, that there is no God. Look at it like this: I don't "believe" that the Earth is round. I don't need to "believe" that because the scientific proof makes the leap of faith a completely moot point. The Earth is round. Period. So if atheism is a "belief," then it is a standing contradiction, as it tries to oppose belief with belief and that would neutralize any attempt at opposition..yes?


Except...atheism is NOT a faith-based system...nor is it a belief system at all. It's just a label made up to differentiate between "believers" and "non-believers". So I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 129
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 5:20:58 PM

The issue I have with it is the absolute lack of any kind of humility. It would be quite rare to find a humble atheist. I would only imagine that they see no reason to even attempt to cultivate some.


I understand what you're getting at. But I'm not sure humble atheists are as rare as you imagine. Belief in God may not be the only thing that humbles a person. For example, I'd think it would be pretty hard for anyone not to feel humbled just to realize what a small part we and this Earth are in the scheme of things.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 5:23:57 PM

What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for the supernatural...or you don't.
When you say "super-natural", super = more than, natural = what is in nature. By your use of the word, you clearly believe the concept exists, or you could not imagine any understanding of the word to even use it. So quite clearly, you DO believe that there CAN be something MORE than "nature". What could that be?

Planes? They're not natural.
Cars? They're not natural.
IVF? That's not natural.
But they ALL EXIST!

Are they "artificial"? Is that your reason for claiming that the "super-natural" cannot be logical or reasonable?

What do they all have in common? That they were designed and made by HUMANS?

Don't you think that's a tad ANTHROPOMORPHIC?
 Maleman999
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 131
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 5:39:54 PM

This had intrigued me and i thought to myself "why aren't people backing this and staying with religion instead?"


I thought the same thing a long time ago and I came to realize that what religion sells is the belief that there's life after death, and death is what people fear the most. People don't want to believe that when they die, they just rot in a grave, just like all other life forms-plants and animals-that rot when they die.

So then comes along religious institutions that says if you attend their church, contribute financially, and obey their rules, you receive a ticket to heaven and everyone else is condemned to hell. The numerous different religions that are both Christian based and non-Christian all have variations of the same theme: You get a pass to go to heaven and be happy and everyone who doesn't follow the plan "lives" in hell and is miserable-whatever their version of heaven and hell is. Nobody asks the question, "If God is so great and wonderful, why would he ever send anyone to Hell?" Isn't that something a very malicious and mean spirited person/being would do?
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 8:32:19 PM

When you say "super-natural", super = more than, natural = what is in nature. By your use of the word, you clearly believe the concept exists, or you could not imagine any understanding of the word to even use it. So quite clearly, you DO believe that there CAN be something MORE than "nature". What could that be?

Planes? They're not natural.
Cars? They're not natural.
IVF? That's not natural.
But they ALL EXIST!

Are they "artificial"? Is that your reason for claiming that the "super-natural" cannot be logical or reasonable?

What do they all have in common? That they were designed and made by HUMANS?

Don't you think that's a tad ANTHROPOMORPHIC?



While you are clearly having this whole debate with yourself, you did quote me, so I can only assume you expect me to address it?

No...that is not my definition of "supernatural".

Yes...the "concept" of god exists. And like all concepts, they reside in the imaginations of those that conceived it....not in REALITY (where planes and cars exist).
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 8:43:40 PM

However without really reading about Atheism I have heard peoples remarks on it in the past and it's not so hard to understand. They just don't believe in god period but in my life I notice everything and the things I notice other people would probably call coincidence. My little brother was murdered and a few days prior he had written a letter to all of his family members as if somehow he knew he wouldn't be around. My older brother and I had a discussion about god and our mother and he had made the statement that she was probably out there floating around being a mother to someone else. I said no, you only have one mother in this life. Two or three days later he died and guess what, it was on mothers day. I was having a hard time with my own personal sickness and I couldn't put the kind of hours in that the average cab driver puts in just to make enough to make a living so one day I just said I don't care I'm going to stay home and not go to work till about noon and only make one cab trip today. The average trip pays about 60 bucks, mine paid about 150. The next day I did the same thing and I ended up with the same result. It's like I suddenly quit working and become the luckiest man alive.I could go on and on but it's not going to matter to an Atheist because they say that there is no supernatural.


You know...I think John Lennon said it best.....

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain".
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 9:43:05 PM

And John also said that the beatles were more popular than Jesus too, so im not sure he's the best source to use man


If you were to read the context of the entire Maureen Cleave interview where the quote is taken, I don't see how it damages the credibility of what I have quoted. To attack the man, instead of the words is a logical fallacy.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/27/2010 10:54:54 PM

Isn't that something a very malicious and mean spirited person/being would do?


Have you read the Bible? The whole Bible?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 6:23:16 AM
RE Msg: 230 by albinosquirlz:
While you are clearly having this whole debate with yourself, you did quote me, so I can only assume you expect me to address it?
It's perfectly reasonable to you to have the right to respond to comments made on your own words.

No...that is not my definition of "supernatural".
However, without any definition of what you meant by a particular word, the whole sentence becomes unintelligible, and thus meaningless. So please, define what you meant. Then I will be in a position to evaluate if what you wrote made sense or not.

Yes...the "concept" of god exists. And like all concepts, they reside in the imaginations of those that conceived it....not in REALITY (where planes and cars exist).
Hume, the great atheist philosopher, pointed out that planes and cars don't exist either. We can SEE planes and cars. We can also hear, smell and touch them. We can even taste them, if you are willing to lick them. Nevertheless, though, that doesn't prove they exist. All of those experiences are merely "sense data", that our minds use to construct the CONCEPT of planes and cars, based on our sense's data of them. Thus, as Hume pointed out, all of these "physical" things are only constructions of the imaginations of those that conceived of them, but cannot truly be said to exist in REALITY.
 DudeistPriest
Joined: 3/30/2009
Msg: 139
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 12:14:09 PM
["What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for the supernatural...or you don't."]
["When you say "super-natural", super = more than, natural = what is in nature. By your use of the word, you clearly believe the concept exists, or you could not imagine any understanding of the word to even use it. So quite clearly, you DO believe that there CAN be something MORE than "nature". What could that be?"]
["without any definition of what you meant by a particular word, the whole sentence becomes unintelligible, and thus meaningless. "]

Thus giving you the right to tell him what he meant, or make up your own meaning?

From the dictionary- supernatural- above or beyond what is explainable by natural laws or phenomena.

So, yes, his use of the term is correct without denoting any belief on his behalf. If natural law can explain why something can not exist and/or be true, one would have to suspend there believe in natural law to accept that thing as real/true.

and just to be clear on a couple of other meanings:
An atheist believes there is no god, while an agnostic believes the existence/non-existence of god is unknowable.
 SpecificTruths
Joined: 9/19/2009
Msg: 140
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 12:27:57 PM

It would be quite rare to find a humble atheist.

Gawsh, you're right on! It's difficult for atheists to be right all the time about god being imaginary!

All kidding aside...

I'm not sure I've found many humble christians, either. When I hear "we/I have the answer!" the last thing I'm thinking is "gee, those cross-wearing people over there shouting about their faith sure are humble."
 SpecificTruths
Joined: 9/19/2009
Msg: 141
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 12:31:12 PM

The problem isn't in "reading" it (or deciding which version to read)...it's interpreting what it means. The common practice is to simply believe whatever christian sect you happen to belong to has told you to believe.

That's why I stick to the literal meanings I gather from the words. Not belonging to any sect/church gives me clear eyes with which to read. I've read King James and The Good News so far, but I'm taking a break from any bilical studies to read other books.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 12:40:41 PM

From the dictionary- supernatural- above or beyond what is explainable by natural laws or phenomena.

So, yes, his use of the term is correct without denoting any belief on his behalf.


Oh....I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY knows exactly what I was talking about. I think somebody just feels like playing devil's advocate.



Hume, the great atheist philosopher, pointed out that planes and cars don't exist either.


He didn't say that at all...he only said that we can never be absolutely certain that planes and cars exist, because logic dictates that any statement about the physical world "could" be false (due to deception, fallibility of our senses, incorrect assumptions of cause and effect, etc).
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 1:04:08 PM

I don't know what John Lennon meant by saying "God is a concept by which we measure our pain but I have never thought of it being just a measure of pain. It's also a measure of joy to think that a higher power exist.


I think you just answered the question. Why do we believe in delusions? Because it brings us comfort. Comfort from what? Some kind of pain (fear). Religion is really like an addiction...it hijacks the reward system in the brain, which feeds us feel-good neurochemicals. That's why we can suspend our logic and reason for our addiction.

And that's using logic and reason to convince someone that god is not "real"...is more or less futile.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 9:35:28 PM
RE Msg: 239 by beershark:
["What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for the supernatural...or you don't."]
["When you say "super-natural", super = more than, natural = what is in nature. By your use of the word, you clearly believe the concept exists, or you could not imagine any understanding of the word to even use it. So quite clearly, you DO believe that there CAN be something MORE than "nature". What could that be?"]
["without any definition of what you meant by a particular word, the whole sentence becomes unintelligible, and thus meaningless. "]

Thus giving you the right to tell him what he meant, or make up your own meaning?
Not at all. It's up to him to tell us what he means, and I've given him the opportunity to do just that. But if you throw in a word, and it just doesn't make sense in the given context, then you could pick any word that would be equally meaningless in the context, and you'd get the same result, a statement that doesn't really make coherent and consistent sense. You might as well say "What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for beer...or you don't."

So until he actually defines what he means, all that we have is something that doesn't really add up to anything. But it does sound nice, and I'm sure that it would go down well at a political rally. After all, politicians seem to get away with clever-sounding nonsense all the time.

From the dictionary- supernatural- above or beyond what is explainable by natural laws or phenomena.

So, yes, his use of the term is correct without denoting any belief on his behalf. If natural law can explain why something can not exist and/or be true, one would have to suspend there believe in natural law to accept that thing as real/true.
That's even more problematic. Was gravity considered explainable 1000 years ago? But didn't gravity exist 1000 years ago, and isn't it explainable today? How do you know if gremlins, ghosts, and G-d might all be explained 1000 years in the future? You can't, not unless you've been there. So how can you possibly say any of those aren't explainable in the future by "natural law", and hence aren't thus not super-natural 1000 years in the future, and hence not super-natural today?

Another way to see it, is that if something can be explained in the future, but is not explained by science today, that today, it's not super-natural. But then you're continually moving the goalposts, as your knowledge in science increases. The things remain the same, and the only things that change are what you choose to label super-natural or "explainable by natural laws of phenomena". So then, you can only say that your choice of what you believe is valid or not, is based on an arbitrary choice of a word, which is determined by the random phenomena that determine what has and has not been brought to your attention in a way that made you figure those things out and not others. It makes your choice of considering what is logical and reasonable largely random.

and just to be clear on a couple of other meanings:
An atheist believes there is no god, while an agnostic believes the existence/non-existence of god is unknowable.
I used to think that. But these days, I see people who say there "probably" is no G-d, who call themselves atheists, and people who call themselves agnostics, who just say "I don't know". I think the definition changes with each person's beliefs. The only thing that does seem to be a constant, is that atheists seem mostly on the side of "doesn't exist", and agnostics seem mostly on the side of "Don't or can't know one way or the other".

RE Msg: 243 by albinosquirlz:

From the dictionary- supernatural- above or beyond what is explainable by natural laws or phenomena.

So, yes, his use of the term is correct without denoting any belief on his behalf.
Oh....I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY knows exactly what I was talking about. I think somebody just feels like playing devil's advocate.
No, I genuinely don't know what you mean, because it really doesn't make sense. Even a regular atheist poster, who, if I recall, is a scientist, pointed out more than once in the Science/Philosophy forum, that the word really doesn't make sense, as it is generally used, because science changes, and that means the super-natural changes as well. You cannot say something doesn't exist, if it keeps changing its definition, from day to day.


Hume, the great atheist philosopher, pointed out that planes and cars don't exist either.
He didn't say that at all...he only said that we can never be absolutely certain that planes and cars exist, because logic dictates that any statement about the physical world "could" be false (due to deception, fallibility of our senses, incorrect assumptions of cause and effect, etc).
Yes. But the only way that we know anything exists, is because we are certain of its existence. If we aren't sure that something exists, then we're still in doubt of its existence, and hence, we don't know if it exists or not. If you don't have any personal evidence of leprechauns, then you can't say they do or don't exist either. You have no clear evidence either way. Thus, cars and planes have the same doubt of their existence as leprechauns do. The only question is of degree of doubt and certainty, and since it's just a question of degree, it's just a question of which has the better odds. You're at best a gambler with reality, and let's face it, most people who gamble, lose far more often than they win.


I think you just answered the question. Why do we believe in delusions? Because it brings us comfort. Comfort from what? Some kind of pain (fear).
That is very true. However, by your own point, it's independent of the type of delusion, or even if we think of that person as delusional or not. It's dependent on whether or not you are in pain (fear), and you react to pain (fear) defensively or not, which is most people, including non-religious people.

As I've heard often, the only difference between the sane and the insane, is usually that one has been diagnosed, and the other is not.

Almost everyone who has ever looked at the DSM, which is the Bible for diagnosing mental illness, has found they have the symptoms of one or more disorders. Even in blind trials, mental health professionals have misdiagnosed more often than not.

So it's not wise to start picking on delusions, or you may find everyone in the dock.

Religion is really like an addiction...it hijacks the reward system in the brain, which feeds us feel-good neurochemicals. That's why we can suspend our logic and reason for our addiction.
Actually, there was an article on this in the New Scientist a while back. Scientists found that ALL addictions use exactly the same reward system for addiction, drugs, alcohol, shopping, workaholics, soap addicts, sports fanatics, just about everyone with anything they stick to, uses the same reward system. We're all addicts of one kind or another, and that means we ALL suspend our logic and reason for anything we stick to, and that includes any views we hold onto, such as that religions are addictions, or delusional.

And that's using logic and reason to convince someone that god is not "real"...is more or less futile.
Not quite. That's why you cannot use logic and reason to convince someone that something is or isn't real, if they are adamant of the reverse, but refuse to question their own views. If they do question their own views, and are willing to take their own pot-shots to try and disprove their own beliefs, then they can be persuaded, or no-one could be persuaded of anything using logic and reason. However, it they are adamant that religions are not good things, but never actually try to prove to themselves that religions can be good things, then they too cannot really be convinced by logic and reason that they are wrong, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, until you dig down and find out WHY they are so adamant to refuse to even question their beliefs, and then examine if that refusal is reasonable or not.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/28/2010 11:29:17 PM
So until he actually defines what he means, all that we have is something that doesn't really add up to anything.


YOU are the only one who claims to not have a clue of what I'm pertaining to. You know what I'm talking about as well...you just feel like turning it into a philosophical debate. I'm all into that...I just can't stand dishonest discussion.

To play along with your little game (and that's what it is), I believe I used the term "omnipotence" earlier. Now let's hear your problem with that.


Was gravity considered explainable 1000 years ago? But didn't gravity exist 1000 years ago, and isn't it explainable today?


Actually, we did have an explanation for it 1000 years ago. We have an explanation for it now...and we will have an explanation for it 1000 years from now. The explanation might change. What do "explanations" have to do with anything? Gravity is not an "explanation"...it's a physical force.

"God" is an explanation of the physical world...it's an idea. And since you are so fond of bringing up Hume, it falls under the category of "relation of ideas"...not a "matter of fact". And as Hume points out, relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. Because of this, matters of fact have no certainty and therefore cannot be used to prove anything. You cannot use relation of ideas to prove matters of fact...and visa versa.

So, we cannot use "matters of fact" to prove any statements about god. We can only use "relation of ideas" to prove a statement of god true or false. Omnipotence is a relation of ideas. God is claimed to be omnipotent. Since omnipotence is self-contradictory and therefore a paradox, it is a fairly good arguement that statements about god are false.


Another way to see it, is that if something can be explained in the future, but is not explained by science today, that today, it's not super-natural. But then you're continually moving the goalposts, as your knowledge in science increases. The things remain the same, and the only things that change are what you choose to label super-natural or "explainable by natural laws of phenomena". So then, you can only say that your choice of what you believe is valid or not, is based on an arbitrary choice of a word, which is determined by the random phenomena that determine what has and has not been brought to your attention in a way that made you figure those things out and not others. It makes your choice of considering what is logical and reasonable largely random.

But the only way that we know anything exists, is because we are certain of its existence. If we aren't sure that something exists, then we're still in doubt of its existence, and hence, we don't know if it exists or not. If you don't have any personal evidence of leprechauns, then you can't say they do or don't exist either. You have no clear evidence either way. Thus, cars and planes have the same doubt of their existence as leprechauns do. The only question is of degree of doubt and certainty, and since it's just a question of degree, it's just a question of which has the better odds. You're at best a gambler with reality, and let's face it, most people who gamble, lose far more often than they win.


Yes...we all know this, but we cannot function a world where nothing "now" matters, because it's possible that our perception of things "may" change at some point the future. Absolute certainty does not exist, but comfort zones of reliability are what we work with, so we need to make distinctions between what is "more" certain and what is "less" certain.

Anytime you want to return to planet earth...let us know.


Almost everyone who has ever looked at the DSM, which is the Bible for diagnosing mental illness, has found they have the symptoms of one or more disorders.


Of course they do...because "symptoms" of disorders are just common human behaviour. You don't get dx'd with a "disorder" for having a symptom of that disorder, you get dx'd based on the number of symptoms you have of that disorder and the severity of discomfort it causes you.

I wouldn't say we are all "insane", but I'd say we are all the walking wounded to one degree or another.



So it's not wise to start picking on delusions, or you may find everyone in the dock


I don't recall saying we don't all suffer from delusions of some sort or another. In case you've forgotten, there is a thread topic....religion.


Actually, there was an article on this in the New Scientist a while back. Scientists found that ALL addictions use exactly the same reward system for addiction, drugs, alcohol, shopping, workaholics, soap addicts, sports fanatics, just about everyone with anything they stick to, uses the same reward system. We're all addicts of one kind or another, and that means we ALL suspend our logic and reason for anything we stick to, and that includes any views we hold onto, such as that religions are addictions, or delusional


No...physical dependancies, habits or emotional coping mechanisms are not delusions. They actually DO make you feel better, which is perfectly logical...but only temporarily....then you need another hit. It may be self-destructive in the long run, but it isn't delusional.

Delusions hide the pain of reality. Grandma died....the loss is very painful....but grandma is with jesus now in a much better place....one day I will see her again in paradise. Ah...the pain of the loss has lessened.



I'm taking a break from any bilical studies to read other books


Are you sticking with fiction....or?
 SpecificTruths
Joined: 9/19/2009
Msg: 146
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/29/2010 7:39:28 AM

Are you sticking with fiction....or?

Pretty much. I need to catch up on the classics. I just finished Slaughterhouse Five and up next are The Catcher in the Rye and The Grapes of Wrath.

I mostly read non-fiction, but I read the bibles in an attempt to better understand the delusion. Living in the United States means being surrounded by Christians who really do believe with all their heart that Jesus rose from the dead (depsite being stabbed in the abdomen, nearly bled out, and having serious wounds on both hands and feet, and being dead for three days) and ascended into heaven. They shape their thoughts and actions around these beliefs. I needed to better understand them, so I read the bibles, cover to cover, and paused to highlight sections I needed to revisit.
 DudeistPriest
Joined: 3/30/2009
Msg: 147
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/29/2010 12:16:19 PM
["Not at all. It's up to him to tell us what he means, and I've given him the opportunity to do just that. But if you throw in a word, and it just doesn't make sense in the given context, then you could pick any word that would be equally meaningless in the context, and you'd get the same result, a statement that doesn't really make coherent and consistent sense.

That's why they have dictionaries. The word he used did make sense in the context it was used. You chose to ignore that and throw in an alternate and inaccurate meaning for the purpose of making your argument.

["You might as well say "What's there to study? You either suspend your belief in logic and reason to account for beer...or you don't."}]

You make no sense. You are the one that has removed the context in your example.

I have been visited by aliens from the future. I can not prove this logically or reasonably so you will just have to forget about logic and reason if you are going to believe me.

But then none of this as anything to do with the OP does it? No matter who believes what, the fact is the woman in question is living a lie. She won't marry this guy because of her faith. Her faith also teaches that the relationship she will have with him makes her an adulterous whore, but she seems to be okay with that. So does she really believe or doesn't she?
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/30/2010 9:09:44 PM

Obviously, you haven't been to church lately and, whatever Bible you read, you didn't understand it.

Otherwise you would recall the story of the man burning in hell and seeing Abraham in heaven, wanting a drop of water from his fingers...


You are of course speaking of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31).

IT'S A PARABLE!!! (allegory)

The whole point is not to take it literally...or historically.

And it doesn't mention "heaven" anywhere in it. It says the beggar (named Lazarus) died and was taken into "Abraham's bosom". Abraham's bosom is not heaven. Abraham is not in heaven and nowhere does it say in scripture that he is. Nobody is in heaven (yet). Everybody is dead awaiting resurrection and judgment...which hasn't happened yet.

If this in any way were to imply that anyone was, or is in heaven (besides jesus) to this day, it would contradict plainly stated scripture that says otherwise.


The nun said that she was teaching us evolution because it was imposed by the ministry of education from the Government.


That's odd... Pius XII had already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith in 1950. I'm guessing this nun didn't get the memo?


As for the Beatles, they lost my respect, admiration and will to listen to their music when I learned that Aleister Crowley, founder of the satanic church, was one of their idols and admired people.


Anybody who thinks Aleister Crowley worshiped "satan" is obviously getting their information from unreliable sources.
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 149
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/31/2010 9:12:17 AM
Obviously, you haven't been to church lately and, whatever Bible you read, you didn't understand it.

I think what you may actually mean (or I would hope you actually mean) is that that person doesn't understand YOUR version/belief in the Bible. Unless you're a theologian and not listing it as your profession here, I'd assume your Christian preference is just like all others in that your beliefs are subjective to that which you've learned from family/friends/clergy and/or your own reading and interpretation of said book. You can go to a different Christian church every day, two or three times a day, and you'd likely NEVER get the same take on the aspects of that book from any clergy person, yet alone those who simply attend that particular church. There are MANY takes on every verse in the Bible, who's to say one is more right than the other???

~OT~ Sex creates a hell of a lot of problems between those who sin, sin, sin, and repent, repent, repent and those who have sex without the thought they're going to burn in hell for doing so. JMO
 DudeistPriest
Joined: 3/30/2009
Msg: 150
Christian girl refuses to marry her Athiest b/f unless he converts to Christianity.
Posted: 12/31/2010 10:25:28 AM
["Anybody who thinks Aleister Crowley worshiped "satan" is obviously getting their information from unreliable sources."]


["Yeah, he founded the satanic church because he felt bored and had nothing better to do..."]

Actually, while Aleister Crowley may be considered the father of modern satanism, it was Anton Levay(sp?) who founded the satanic church and wrote the satanic bible. He was building on the beliefs, practices and teachings of Aleister Crowley.

["As for the Beatles, they lost my respect, admiration and will to listen to their music when I learned that Aleister Crowley, founder of the satanic church, was one of their idols and admired people."]

Aleister Crowley also study eastern philosophies and mysticism. This is what drew the Beatles attention. They did not idolize him or necessarily admire him. They merely viewed him as an influential person.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >