First I want to say up front that I am a Christian, but in my opinion Christians can be some of the meanest and most hateful people. Why is that? Why is it that the same people that talk about the loving God and forgiveness, are so quick to judge and fight? The one thing I have learned in my own walk is that discussion is healthy and helpful, and if you are a true Christian you should be willing to share in love and respect. Yes I believe that God is a god with a jealous heart, who is vengeful, and who is able to bring wrath and destruction, however he is the same God that loved sinners so much that he came to die for everyone of them. If Christians would quit playing and embrace this true passion then maybe they wouldn't be judged so harshly. So what are your thoughts on this topic?
Christians do seem quite mean. However, It could be worse.
If christians told the truth about what they thought about some posts and posters there would be no christian forum occupants except the atheists.
Read up on my blog if it ever gets posted. I am writing all about this topic.
DouglasTull: I will not try to defend any other Christian. I will defend myself though.
I am a Christian and I defend my Faith.
Sometimes ordinary discussion becomes heated and in the moment one might say or do something that does not seem Christian.
Even Jesus had a temper. Look how he handled the merchants at the temple in Jerusalem at the time of Passover.
And yet another example of modern self-help culture that a person would think that Christianity was some sort of magic formula that could turn you into a nice, happy person or you money back.
Short of a full-frontal lobotomy, nothing is going to take away your capacity for sin.
The day we stop TRYING to be good, is the day we STOP being good: St. Augustine.
This never happened; it is a wrong notion invented by the deviant Paul; it has got nothing to do with Jesus.
I believe the reason why Christians (some)
are rude gossipy and a**es is because you will find those people in every category of life.
Not all Christians are practicing even if they think they are.
There are nonbelievers who are better than Christians in actions...so it's more about the individual.
I notice you would like all Christians to share in love and respect.
The problem I see with many is that they want to share their belief, yes, but there it ends. Too many are unwilling to share what others have to offer and will only turn up their nose and declare that such things are impossible and wrong. Couple that with an insistence that I share what they have and it seems mean and rude.
Part of the problem with the evangelical christians is never once in the gospels did the Christ advocate pushing beliefs, or changing society. His was a message to look inside and change your heart. But, that's the hard part so it appears to be largely ignored.
All christ did was push his beliefs as a matter of fact he had large set of beliefs. I could quote endless red letter text about how jesus came to preach the gospel and how he told others to go out and do the same.
Man your statement was so far out in left field we need a hubble telescope to find it.
I didn't see this previously. Left field? I don't think so. You aren't an apostle, you know. You have to understand the message, which I've gotten the impression you don't; before you can determine if it is your calling to preach it, which I'm pretty sure it isn't.
You guys are yakking about what you want to believe, and I'm not saying miracles didn't happen at the time. I wasn't there, but I am here and everything you guys preach is easily proven false.
I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but your scriptures are pretty clear about what we should think of people that make false statements and claim they are from God. And, if there is one thing I'm willing to follow from the Bible; it is the advice on what to think about people who falsely claim they are speaking for God.
put another lense on the hubble boys, shes a distant one.
In case you hadn't noticed you did not reply to my post, which i thought that since you were replying to it you might have attempted to reply to it. Minor oversight i quess.
When i said i could quote endless red letter statements, i meant just that, and since you claim to know your bible so well, you had to agree, but here is where i am confused, your original statement indicates that you do not know any red letter statements or black letter for that matter, so i am supposing that rather than commit to answering the post you decided to be clever and just vent a little stomach upset.
This is what i mean when i say left field.
If you are hung up on whether someone is an apostle or not, don't be. The command to save souls goes out to all his followers - is that not the purpose of God? Did not his son die so that anybody could believe on him and be saved? and how shall they hear except someone tell them?
We could scoot on down to the unprofitable servant who hid the talent until his lord came back, but i won't.
A lot of christians were broken people, for any dark reason you can think of, this may be the type of christian you are talking too. Some christians do not know love, they can only mimic it or try to copy it, but love is foreign to them. It is something that they have to be taught and in time, it will be taught, but that kind of teaching does not come overnight, it may well be, a whole lifetimes work to undo that kind of damage and repair a stony heart.
So, when the atheists "have at 'er" with the christians by responding out of any other emotion other than love or even kindness, but are in fact rude beyond normal social expectancy or when they encounter a christian who is wounded in the area of love, Can the atheist really expect to be shown love? and should they expect it, considering how little love they have shown the christian?
Yes the word of God says to love thy neighbor and thy enemy, but now we have entered into an area of legalism, whereby the Word says 'do this', and the unbeliever thinks that the christian should just jump right into that mold and wear it unconditionally 24/7. But this is not as God would have it. God does not present each christian with his list of prerequisites and rules and then threatens to throw a lightning bolt at them when they err. God gently, lovingly works on the christian as a father to a child and he teaches them things over a period of time and with the co-operation of the christian. Love is not something that God magically imbues into the life of his children, but love needs to be built on trust, reliance and respect - these are relationship qualities.
So for any non-christian to condemn a christian who doesn't act in love is actually judging the christian without respect or awareness of how God works and acts toward His children.
So we (non-christians) are actually very fortunate to have you to explain to us what the most powerful being in existence really wants, BO? I suppose I never realized the magnitude of power you possess. I am impressed!
"So, let God judge and you, meaning christians, keep your mouth shut unless you can rebuke with love. big_smile There that was easier than I thought."
Followed by the pearl comment.
Are you speaking of the swine on here again? Just a tad hypocritical don't ya think?
Not really, the swine metaphor in scripture refers to someone who doesnt appreciate wisdom just like a pig doesnt appreciate the food it's given. It eats out of it's own feces! Besides how can you say, "We know nothing of the Christian God or his personality" And then when someone who has studied the book of that God tries to explain it you shun him as an idiot. So how is it hypocritical?
It is hypocritical because Christians who just love to throw the pearls before swine statement out have obviously chosen to ignore the verses directly preceding that one. In case you don't remember them, I've googled them and I'm pasting them below for your benefit.
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “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? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
How is that any different that what I said? Don't judge, we're no longer equipt to do so. That verse just proved my point. LOL Look I can understand how it can sound offensive but it really isnt, and how did I pass judgement on anyone? All I said was he opinion or explanation was cold shouldered. Perfectly fitting the verse. I said nothing about Randy or who he is as a person. Look sorry if ya'lls feelings got hurt but I think your blowing it out of proportion.
Not blowing it out of proportion, just pointing out the hypocrisy of christianity.
You said the pearls to swine references a cold shoulder to your 'wisdom'. Christians are wise and opposing views are swine. Sure, I get exactly what you mean.
Yes emile but you forget or selectively do not remember, Although christians are not called to judge, WE are called to assess, which means we are able to draw conclusions (and here comes the judging part) but we are not allowed to pronounce sentence.
By their fruits ye shall know them, is a call to assess not judge.
People think that any little conclusion is a judgment but it is not.
If i look at some peoples posts and i see that they just trample everything that a christian says, It is my assessment not to throw them pearls, my judgment would be because they are an dolt. If a christian brother parleys with whores, it is my assessment to rebuke the sinful activity but not to judge him to be a sl*t. When we assess, then rebuke and do not pronounce a judgment we then act in love.
Careful, you seem to be taking the atheists' bait.
First you judge Christians by telling us to shut up if we can't do it how you think it should be done. Then you try to show unconditional Love to an atheist and guess what---he doesn't care either way.
The Truth is that God's word is not just a little ball of tolerance and unconditional love no matter what a person does. The Truth is that God's word is words of conviction, and condemnation of blatant rebellious sin, sweetened with the fact of His love and forgiveness (upon repentance). The Truth is, that while God's Love is unconditional, His forgiveness is conditional!
Dontcha know that the rebellious mind/heart will turn on you either way? So no need to water down the message. Those who are willing to accept it will accept it, and those who aren't willing will not accept it. A Christian's calling is to put that message out there no matter what, and then yes let God sort out the results.
Just once I'd love to see an evangelical post that had an ounce of Christ in it. Not the whole thing, mind you. I'm not asking for a miracle. Just some inkling that one evangelical understood one tiny tiny piece of the one they claim to follow.
Completely unfounded in truth. I have no problem speaking my mind. I don't think you do either. I honestly attempt to find the good, but when there is none to be found and it claims to speak for a god; well, I do voice an opinion. Is it wrong to speak against evil?
one has to know good to find it or even one has to be open to biblical understanding to understand and then having understood, one can then find good, until then, its all a big hazy blurr of carnal thought process mucking up the situation.
Brenda is correct.
john 3:16 shows Gods unconditional love, in that Jesus christ died for us, and john 3:16 shows his condition.. that whosoever believes.
and also when she stated: "A Christian's calling is to put that message out there no matter what, and then yes let God sort out the results."
1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
I don't think I told anyone to shut up, if I did i am unaware and apologize. My only thing is that this topic was posed for people who believe in the Bible or at least will use it as a reference point so I don't understand why people who refute it and refuse to have a topic of conversation pertaning to it join in.
Anyway Emile, exactly what kind of inkling are you looking for here? I kind of would like an example if you would be so kind as to pose one.
The point is, evangelicals adore the belief that the world is on the way to hell and it is only 'the soldiers of christ' (and I use that term with derision when it is defined by evangelicals) standing in the way of that steady decline.
This brand of Christianity uses the term love and then spits venom. It sees evil in the world, but claims it was made by their god and yet their god is good. It goes on about how their prayers are answered, and yet none of them use that power to help another soul. It claims innocent people are killed by its god through natural disasters, yet claims their god is different from the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center.
The evangelical idea of god is diametrically opposed to the one that was known to the Christ. You see it in every post of every person who claims they are here to spread the gospel. The evangelical gospel is one of ego, bigotry and self serving interests. If evangelicals believe in satan, they might do well to take a hard look into the mirror. Many of the evangelical philosophies are in direct line with that concept.
You want an example, but it would serve no purpose. An evangelical wouldn't recognize goodness if it was standing beside them. They only want to see the bad in everything because it makes them feel bigger to do it.
Wow, that sounds like you have met some horrible people. That sucks. Look I don't know who you have met that have treaded you with venom and I'm sorry but what you just discribed is not me and is non of the people I know that are trying to better themselves and the world around them.
I have a feeling though as I read this and the post under the other comment I posted that this is going no where so I think Im done. I have already apologized if I hurt anyone's feelings and I have no interest in argueing so lots of love and hope your recieve all you desire in life!
Emile: The Evangelicals of which I am one, has no idea when the world will end up in hell, but we as Evangelists have been instructed to try and prepare others for such an event sometime in the future.
As for the evil in this world no christian evangelist or otherwise would ever claim that it was created by God. Satan is the creator of evil.
Yes we claim that God hears our prayer and answers them, and we do pray for others. It is not we though who have and control the power over prayer it is God.
No Christian would ever claim that God destroyed or killed others through natural disaster. God is Love, but satan will destroy and kill at will.
You attack Christians and their beliefs by twisting and distorting their beliefs to suit yourself. Satan would love you as a brother, but you do not even believe in him and his powers.
How dare you attack Christians and their beliefs, when you believe in nothing and cannot prove even one piece of your screwed up twisted distorted statement.
But, it's okay for you to attack others because you were instructed to do so.
I attack nobody, but I vehemently defend my faith and my rights to it against any and all who would attack it.
Jesus instructs to offer both cheeks and I would, but he never said that one should not defend oneself ever.
Sure - he never said attack and defend either innit?
Not seeing you offer the other cheek. Just defending your ridiculous beliefs that you do not follow. Odd. Go on. Offer the other cheek and refuse to defend yourself.
Take your best shot but remember the street runs in two directions. After your second slap, it's my turn. Think you can handle a slap from me? I doubt it old man.
Odd - I don't remember that bit where Jesus said to slap back after the second one. Perhaps you could add the biblical quote to back that one up Dave?
Don't you just hate all that passivity and love thy neighbor nonsense Jesus was supposed to have spouted? Liberal wimp. Bet you can "interpret," that stuff to mean, "slap back only harder."
Looking forward to the "interpreting." lol
Liars For Jesus (TM)
You just said you were instructed to prepare others, which is not defending, it is attacking. Don't you know the difference?
Troubled Man: You do like to twist words to suit your own purpose don't you. If I put a shield in someone's hand to defend themselves, it is for protection. If I put a sword in their hand, it is for defence. This Christian will not attack another, but I have a right as do all other Christians to protect their faith.
You are doing no such thing. You are only selling and promoting war mongering by placing swords and shields in peoples hands.
We only want peace, which is something you don't offer.
Wrong!! War mongering is if I armed them with a highpowered rifle or a submachine gun or a bag of hand grenades and ordered them to Kill. I'm saying here is a shield, defend yourself.
LOL! Funny how you defend your war mongering by differentiating in the weaponry.
I'm saying, stop threatening everyone and promoting your war mongering.
Obviously you do not know the difference between defence and offence. What war do you think I am defending. I am at war with NOBODY! You try to provoke me but you are not smart enough to outwit me with words. In a battle of words, I am a giant and you are an insignificant but pesky gnat.
Yes, I do, and what you're doing as an Evangelist is offensive. Why not just do nothing at all and stop the conflict?
Your imaginary war of imaginary friends and imaginary enemies.
Yes, I know, they are imaginary.
I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm merely telling you that what you're doing as an Evangelist is causing conflict, just like it has over the last two thousand years.
See? You do little more than attack people. Thanks for making my point.
If you are offended with my evangelizing in a "RELIGIOUS" Forum then maybe you should leave here and go to some Forum where your idiotic atheistic comments will be welcomed since Atheists are not religious.
And which version of the faith should you be defending?
What I see is a bunch of religionists who can't agree about who is and who is not a "true believer" in whichever sky fairy they learned about from their own family and community.
That's how you become a believer ya know, same system for muslims, and they can't agree on what the fairy said either.
You can't have it both ways Dave. Either God was there, alone, in the beginning or he wasn't. To say otherwise is talking out of both sides of your mouth. If God made Satan, he made evil.
But, if God was the creator of Satan and God is omniscient and omnipresent; then God knew what would happen and created Satan anyway; ergo, God created evil.
So, you are telling me that you pray for the hungry, but God chooses not to answer that prayer; but he'll help a Christian find their car keys. I'm not buying that Dave. I'm sorry.
And yet, I've read their posts to the effect that God controls natural disasters. If he controls the weather, then he does kill people Dave. Again, it can't go both ways.
No Dave, I don't distort anything intentionally. I do try to understand. But, I can only understand what is posted. And my comments are the result of reading the Christian posts.
That was mean Dave. But, I forgive you. I am not an evil person. If this character you believe exists actually did, he would not be my brother. And, no, I don't believe that 'Satan' is a real entity.
Now you've gone and hurt my feelings Dave. You don't know what I believe. You have attacked me personally with no knowledge of who I am, other than the fact that I am not a Christian. And, you have proven quite a bit of my statement by your post.
I think there is a cultural problem with today's Christianity. Although Messiah said that no one comes to the Father but by Him, the Church interprets this to mean that their version of the Christian religion is infallible.
Now everyone is human and occasionally behaves in a base manner without thinking. So when a Christian has been brought up to believe that all the doctrines from their Church are the correct ones, it can come as a major affront to them when someone challenges those beliefs. If the challenger is particularly rude for no reason other than 'Christian baiting', we should not be surprised if the Christian occasionally acts in a negative emotional knee jerk manner before thinking logically about their response..
Over the million religions had come and gone, that will continue except over all will shrink in time. Today a deist, atheist or non Christian will not get elected American president most likely in our life time -
Most followers do not actually believe much of what their religions say. The younger people stay in religion is largely by family pressure, yet most of them have no intention of supporting it when that pressure is gone. Most people will tell you they spiritual rather than religious.
Religions are largely a product of ancient times and beliefs of those times. The average person got little or no education and the religious claim their fairy tales have natural explanations which undermined natural law. Religion today no longer has the political control it once had - and its control over the mind of youth is decimated every time another church is closed due to lack of students. Religion is growing old and dying and there is a shortage of clergymen in virtually every religion on the earth. And the clergy no longer automatically garners the respect it once did. The money religion needs to survive for the ones who do have the money are educated enough to know that religion is mainly a Myth.
Although there are the over capitalist type ones that have rigged the system to control the masses and these greedy rich tool religion to protect themselves by the state police and by military war.
I kind of think that it is the "God Mind" that drives that kind of judgement you are talking about. I know it all to well, I have dished out my share of judgement and taking a beating too.
In the Garden of Eden God created man to rule and reign in the Garden so we were created with that kind of mindset, a just mind set. In revelation we read that during the thousand year reign it is the believers who will be judging the angels and other believers with God so I think it's fair to say that we were given a certain amount of authority to throw around however in the fall that judgement became corrupt with our thinking. So condesending tones and attidutes, discust for others sin and poverty began to creep into our minds and taint the "just" mind set that was given to us to use and is to be restored. So that's my theory on the "God Mind", I call it that because of what I have come to adopt as my interpretation of the bible. *clears throat* Love everyone and let God sort them out. There it is. So, let God judge and you, meaning christians, keep your mouth shut unless you can rebuke with love. There that was easier than I thought.
I wish I had said all of that. Well stated and clear as a bell.
Not really ernest. It's ranting for no gain. Not one evangelical will look at that and see anything other than criticism of their god. I've come to accept that it's a pointless endeavor.
I fear you are right. It's like a part of their brain doesn't function at all.
Oh. It functions as well as any other. It is blocked by ego, imo.
Sorry this is a reply to Earnest
Unfortunately it is the other way round, the part of their brain(temporal region) over works, to the point that the "most religious" have some micro-seizures going on in their brains. That always override their rational part.
No wonder they says if one person is having a delusion we call him psychotic, but if a group got it, we call it religion.
Personally, I've always considered that type of BS counterproductive in a conversation on religion. It is as pointless a the pearls before swine comment. No one is having seizures. It's a difference of opinion.
I am not making it up, the deeply religious got it. Hallucinations and delusion are byproducts.
Kindly look it up, instead of branding it as BS.
The brain is a wonderful organ than you think and there is explanations for all the phenomenon that is experienced as religious(like oneness with universe, out of body experience, delusions, hallucinations) in the workings of brain. If you care to know more Adam and Victors Neurology will be a start.(It is medical book, I have to warn you)
I'm not saying there aren't those who may suffer. Just as their are those who suffer other psychological problems. Branding all religious people is counterproductive and no different from their behavior.
I said the "most religious".
I didn't say all religious persons.
You will not find an ordinary religious person claiming, they talked with god, or they have out of body experience, or they see angels.....
All psychological problems start with brain... there are so many interesting(for a medical student) brain disorders and psychiatric diseases resembles closely with the devout.
You prefaced your statement with a comment about the most devout; then you went on to say;
No wonder they says if one person is having a delusion we call him psychotic, but if a group got it, we call it religion.
This final statement ties all of religion into your opening remark. As I said. BS.
That is not my sentence..was paraphrasing. I don't know who said it, either it is Dawkins or Sam Harris. I wanted to put that most religious in inverted comas, but forgot to do.
By the way, it is true.
ICD -10 classification of diseases define delusion: A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.
Can you tell me about a religious belief that is not held without absolute conviction or with evidence?
It might have been helpful if you had stated that your comment was a quote. As to religious convictions, you will have to check with the religious. Everyone's standard of evidence is different. But, there is no law that says we must all agree. And there is also no law that says we have to question the mental function of those we are at odds with; simply because we are at odds. I realize this concept is difficult for Dawkins to understand, but that doesn't hold true for everyone. At least, those of us that don't take Dawkins as gospel.
That is why I wrote, "they say"
But still "evidence" is "evidence". Whenever you ask the religious any evidence or reason, all they have is some verse from their beloved bible. And when ever you contradict with reason or correct explanation, yo will find that the belief is strongly held, in spite of reasons against the contrary.
The ICD classification is not by Dawkins, it is the international classification of diseases, all doctors follow.
I don't take Dawkins's as gospel. In fact I disagree with most things he say. But that will not change the definition of delusion, nor the quote. And just because some people do not like it, will not change it. Religious belief will always remain a belief without evidence and will always come in the purview of the definition of delusion. Neither you, nor me nor a religious fellow, nor Dawkins will be able to change that.
Evidence is evidence? That depends. If you don't accept personal experience as evidence, then you chose to ignore one avenue of evidence. I am with you. There is a lot said that I don't beleive; but personal experience is a heady motivator.
Your 'correct' explanation is your personal opinion brought about by experience. If you do not allow the possibility that the personal experience of another is grounds for evidence, why would you expect to be given the benefit of the doubt with your 'reason and explanation'? It works both ways, if you expect to conduct a productive dialogue. If you simply want to have cause to consider the other person delusional; again, it works both ways.
No one said it wasn't
And yet, you quoted a comment as if it were an unarguable fact. Sounds vaguely religious.
No one said it would.
Again, your opinion being stated as fact. Are you sure you aren't religious? As far as I can see, there are no facts or evidence to sway my opinion; but, again, that is just an opinion and not grounds for considering you, or anyone else delusional. It's simply the conclusions I have come to as the result of personal experience.
My personal experience is not a universal truth, so I don't consider myself in a position to berate you, or others, for yours; as long as following those beliefs and opinions don't negatively effect others.
Personal experience doesn't count. I'm a surgeon and the first thing taught to me was that it don't count. You cannot argue in a court either, based on personal experience(the very simple reason is "bias"). But I agree it is a great motivator.
Certainly not. I don't say in my experience...in objective matters. I also don't say all rational things are possible, I only say irrational or illogical is not possible. One does not need be a genius to know married bachelors or square circles do not occur.
That was a nice quote and it carry some truth, and meaning. You can easily bust it, if you can show a clear reason why it is wrong. I stated my reasons(none of it was personal) why it is right. Personal experiences don't count.
As long as the definition of delusion remain so and and religions remain irrational convictions we cannot change it. You either have to change the definition of delusion or make religion rational, which is not possible. All personal religious experiences has a basis and explanation in neurology, again I'm not the one who went after to find it, it was researched by eminent scholars and taught in all medical schools across the world. I came across it and saw first hand a good number of it during my medical training. They were objective, not subjective(personal experience)
Neither do I, till they say I meekly accept what they say. I, most of the time, just tell them the contradiction in their arguments or just tell them the history books, never hook up anything to support what I say. In between I use quotes from other people, if I think, that can convey better, the meaning I seek.
I deliberately never try to be offensive, unless someone really piss me off.
My hardcore religious friends told me that, the good thing they find about me is, I never get angry when discussing religious matters. May be they are right, may be not.
You must be joking. Are you saying that eye witness accounts do not condemn, or free, people on trial? I missed the change in our legal system if you are correct.
Nor is it rocket science to understand that not everyone agrees on all things spiritual. It doesn't make anyone right, wrong, or anywhere in between. It is all speculation and opinion. Until people start attempting to insist that their opinion equates to fact.
I will say to you the same thing that I say to the other religious. You can't make a statement and claim it to be fact without proving it. The burden of proof is in your court, not mine. Your statments do not back it up as fact, they back up that your opinion is in line with the opinion of the person who stated it. Kind of a circular argument toward proof. About the same as if someone were quoting scripture.
If, and that is a big if, people make irrational claims and insist that they are fact; they are delusional. This encompasses a tiny portion of the religious. Not all of them. To claim otherwise is delusional, by the definition. I choose not to delude myself into believing that a large percentage of the population is delusional.
You are pushing an agenda. If this was incontrovertible fact we would certainly have every person that has a belief in anything supernatural on some type of medication. This may be taught by some, but it is not a universally held conviction across the scientific community that all religioius people are delusional.
I have no idea whether you are offensive, or not. I do think it would be best to stay in line with truth and honesty. Stating opinion as fact always muddies the waters.
I said experience, not witness. Personal experiences are subjective.By the way no court will take as witness a person with hallucinations and delusions!! And the witness should be trustworthy and should be able to corroborate and his testimony should accord with other findings. And the case should be established beyond REASONABLE doubt. The court will not take into account something you say you witnessed, just because you said it.
Spiritual as from spirit...? You are right, it does not take a rocket scientist to know spirit is a concept and all concepts are opinions. People differ in their opinions.
Proof is again an opinion. The statement is valid, till somebody point out the contradiction. You obviously couldn't. There was a debate regarding the definition of delusion, as the term will include religious beliefs too, so wanted to make it exclusive, but then it will miss people with disease that need be treated, so they maintained the same definition. What you stated is just an opinion that all religious people are not delusional. I will gladly agree based on personal experience(my parents are devotees), but the definition of delusion will not exclude anybody because we don't like it. You are free to bring a new definition that include only the patients who need treatment, till then, the present definition stands(I already told, it is not my definition.)
And the definition is to treat people who really need treatment, not to identify all people with disease. There are a lot many schizophrenics that go unrecognized.
You can "prove" your sentence by stating the main tenets of religion, regarding their god, which is rational. I mean the main religions like christian and muslim. I think the Hindus and some other religions have another definition of god that equate with the universe, so may be rational.(by god I mean an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient super-being who created the world)
I am not sprouting any beliefs. I'm not asking anybody to believe me, I'm not asking anybody to follow me. I never tell anybody there is a super being to met out punishment and justice or sing lullabies. I don't say my version is correct as I have no version, so what is the agenda? As I already stated, I only point out the contradictions, and state some obvious facts that anybody can verify, never asked anybody to follow anything, as far as I can remember.
Already mentioned there are some schizophrenics out there who lead almost normal lives without being recognized and that is considered one of the incurable disease of psychiatry, not to mention the less troublesome diseases. And all the scientific community is not after psychiatry, and most psychiatrists are not scientists, they are just like any other ordinary people who tend to separate their religion and profession.
Jomine, you argue for argument's sake. You are unwilling to see anything but what you choose to, so of course no one can point out the contradictions. I'm not going to continue to bandy back and forth with someone who chooses to ignore the obvious.
You are right, I'm unwilling to see anything because somebody said so.
I never argue back where somebody have a clear reason.
Your case is no different, you choose to apply the definition of delusion to your elect, and I pointed out you cannot arbitrarily chose who is deluded and who is not. When you do that, you will be like a religious person who takes what suit him and discard the rest.
When you told me religious beliefs are not delusion and delusion is having an irrational belief, I asked you to tell me the rational belief.
I also asked you to tell me the contradiction in my previous quote.
You can avoid answering by saying I argue for arguement sake, but that won't be answering the question, but side stepping it. That is religious , if I may say so. So far I have not written any contradictory statement and I can explain if you think i did, but can you do the same? Can you say why religious belief does not come in the purview of delusion other than that it is shared by masses?
If not, why you accuse me of skewed vision when it is you who actually have it?
Well most hold their beliefs very dear and you may not be an exception, to be without some sort of belief may be difficult!
Yes, only the ones you want to view as deluded are deluded. You ignore your own delusions. You cannot arbitrarily decide which will be included in the conversation.
Which is why I asked you if you are religious.
Claiming all religious people are deluded is also irrational. I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer from you as to why you chose to say it, other than that to quote something you read somewhere.
I haven't side stepped anything jomine. I just don't feel the need to argue back and forth with no resolution in sight. You are set in your mind and make patently false statements and then demand I prove them wrong. If you don't see the problem, I don't feel the need to argue the point.
And I consider your behavior religious. Go figure.
I believe you have made false statements, but as I said, I have no intention of beating a dead horse.
It is not delusion, because I cannot prove it to be delusion. Can you? If not, then you are simply making unsupportable accusations. You can't prove, or disprove the existence of God jomine. I realize you don't understand the word, but most people do. Calling the religious delusional serves no purpose.
My beliefs are simply that. I don't hold them firmly, because I realize they are simply that. Unprovable and quite possibly wrong. Anyone could be right or wrong. We have no proof of anything.
Once again a delusion is an IRRATIONAL BELIEF. Tell me my belief!!
I tell you once more
DELUSION: AN IRRATIONAL BELIEF
RELIGION: AN IRRATIONAL BELIEF
So by definition all religious believers are deluded. (Whether they need treatment for it is another matter.)
You say all religious believers are not deluded, you can prove your statement only two ways( I know off, or you tell me).
1. Change the definition of delusion. (The ICD people should agree,but)
2. Point out a rational religious belief.
If you can do either of it, I will happily say religious people have no delusion, my mistake. Clear? It is not me, but the definition of delusion that say religious beliefs are delusion.
You repeatedly says so, but fail to point out the statement. You say all religious believes(regarding god) are irrational, yet you say somehow those who keep that beliefs are not delusional. I told you I can happily agree with you, if you can put that statement without the obvious contradiction.
I didn't actually ask you to prove. I ask you to explain. I chose the word because you used it.
I really agree with you here. You can or cannot prove existence. To try to prove existence is irrational. Suppose there is a chair in your room, how can you prove it? You can only show that to me or explain the attributes/properties.
Proof/ evidence/right/wrong are all subjective. Belief is the confidence, you have in the occurrence of a past event or the statements of a person., but you won't like me to explain that.
Yes, but it is more megalomania than simple ego inflation in many of the religiously infirm.
They are able to tell me that I am going to hell, so I assume they have even taken over from the fairy they worship.
God believes in capital punishment and so i don't think he will be inclined to put anyone into a defined area of space for their eternal torment but i will play devils advocate.
directly to the point with no clever metaphors.
If i see a person walking toward a cliffs edge, what do i do?
a) ignore the situation and continue drinking my coffee
b) wave and smile
c) warn them to turn around a come back (ooops that was sort of a metaphor)
So if we see someone ranting against God and posting psychotic posts about their obsession with biblical violence and calling God, oh lets say, a sky fairy and then a bunch of other things like that, we, as christians can somewhat safely say where that individual MAY end up. We do not know the future of that person so to pass a judgment like "they are going to hell" would be a wrong thing to say, even though, all the indicators that caused the christian to assess the situation in the first place, speak out volumes, and, given that people who repeat a thing so very often, after a while it gets ingrained in their psyche and they become immune to other thoughts and opinions, having a seared conscience, a sort of self brainwashing, are obviously traveling toward a cliffs edge.
So its not a case of taking over for God, its more like zeal but zealy wrong.
More "warnings" from the psychotic biblical god fairy thingy.
"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)
It's all just love really, no threats here, just warnings!
What a riot!
Poor little psychopath....... What's this gods logic? I'll kill em all, now they'll follow me!"
I know you can read, but can you understand the words? "
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 3 days ago
Many get angry and hostile and the Christian premise that there is only one God.. Why? Christianity shares the promise of enternal life in heaven to all who choose Jesus. Why is that not appealing?Why are some so angry about Christianity?
by JimLow 6 years ago
This list of beliefs I wrote about 5 years ago, came from an approximate 20-year study of the Statements of Beliefs by many different Christian denominations. These were the beliefs I found that were of most common agreement between them. That doesn't mean they represent ALL denominations but...
by Stump Parrish 2 years ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas approaches there seems to be a proliferation of comments from people who tend to...
by lucieanne 6 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates over who believes in what religion, but it seems strange to me that there are so...
by Yoleen Lucas 5 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that doesn't work, but people cling to it because they fear "eternal hell"...
by Christin Sander 4 years ago
Why do religious people often insist that religion is what creates moral behavior?As an agnostic/atheist who works hard to do the right thing every day I find this insulting and ridiculous. After all, if prayer and religious beliefs equaled morals there would be no controversy with priests...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|