"I'm not a christian, but it feels good to be in The Chapel", Ed Kowalczyk Options

[Pokey]

Do people stop believing in Christianity? Definitely. The next question is, did they really believe to begin with? That one I don't know the answer to.

I was raised as a christian. for years i whole heartedly did believe. Now I don't anymore. Hope that answers your question.

[FishOutaWater]

Gosh, I need to chime in here, but i don't know how I can keep this short.

I'll just say that I think Ed was closer to the "truth" in 1992, when he couldn't find the truth, when he wasn't "certain" of it and realized that you can't search for it as if it lives somewhere, than he is now when he is certain that he has found it. I think that Ed was closer to the truth when he experienced it and realized that conditioning and believe and teachings from leaders corrupt the truth that lies within us and moves us farther from the unadulterated truth. He was closer then than he is now that he has followed a belief system.

At its core principle, I cannot follow a system where prayers for supplication work sometimes but not others. Where is the justice in a system that accepts the premise that God grants some prayers, like praying that your favorite lead singer of a rock band attains salvation or Matt on Survivor praying that he wins his immunity challenges, but not other prayers like "please God save my child from radiation poisoning", on some seemingly arbitrary basis.

I also refuse to believe that the infinite creator of all things has set up a byzantine system for the salvation of every living being to ever walk this earth whereby God decided to reduce itself from the infinite to become a poor Jewish man in the first century Roman empire, allow himself to be subjected to a cruel and merciless crucifiction by Roman soldiers, pop out of the grave 3 days later, and then set up a rule that for thousands of years thereafter, anyone who believes the fact that he did those things will be saved from eternal damnation and everyone who does not will suffer in hell for all of eternity. Why would God do all of that? Why would a God set up such a bizaar set of rules that he would carry out and that everyone must believe happened in order for people to avoid eternal damnation. "Believing in Jesus" as most Christians think of it, means believing that this set of facts about what Jesus did and why he did it are true. In that sense, "believing" is just a neuro-cognative process, a conviction, like believing the world is flat or believing in Santa Clause. It makes no sense on its face for that to be the lynchpin of everyone's salvation or damnation.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Mar 29 2011, 1:07 pm

[PurdueSteve]

i believe that his beliefs were genuine, but i don't believe that what his beliefs were in were genuine. like, i believe that a muslim genuinely believes in the word of the quran, but i don't believe that the quran is qenuine.

Nuff said.

The Quran ins't genuine. Neither is the Torah. I bet you think the rain gods and sun gods that Native Americans believed in were sort of silly to.

I always find it interesting when someone, who believes in an imaginary being, dismisses the possible existence of other imaginary beings. You're an atheist. You don't believe that Zues, or Athena, or Allah or many of the thousands of other Gods that other people believe are real. The difference is that I believe in one less God than you, the Christian God. Tell me why your particular God, or Bible is genuine, but none of the others? You won't and can't.

[deepenoughtodive]

Very well stated Fish. I don't agree with a lot of it but I think you stated your opinion intelligently and clearly.

One point about prayer, if God granted every prayer......wouldn't people just believe in Him to get stuff. Good and bad things happen to everyone. That is part of life. I have two children that I love dearly and if something like your example should happen to them, it would rock me to the core. But I understand that this life is temporary and I believe in eternal life.

Good discussion y'all.

Gosh, I need to chime in here, but i don't know how I can keep this short.

I'll just say that I think Ed was closer to the "truth" in 1992, when he couldn't find the truth, when he wasn't "certain" of it and realized that you can't search for it as if it lives somewhere, than he is now when he is certain that he has found it. I think that Ed was closer to the truth when he experienced it and realized that conditioning and believe and teachings from leaders corrupt the truth that lies within us and moves us farther from the unadulterated truth. He was closer then than he is now that he has followed a belief system.

At its core principle, I cannot follow a system where prayers for supplication work sometimes but not others. Where is the justice in a system that accepts the premise that God grants some prayers, like praying that your favorite lead singer of a rock band attains salvation or Matt on Survivor praying that he wins his immunity challenges, but not other prayers like "please God save my child from radiation poisoning", on some seemingly arbitrary basis.

I also refuse to believe that the infinite creator of all things has set up a byzantine system for the salvation of every living being to ever walk this earth whereby God decided to reduce itself from the infinite to become a poor Jewish man in the first century Roman empire, allow himself to be subjected to a cruel and merciless crucifiction by Roman soldiers, pop out of the grave 3 days later, and then set up a rule that for thousands of years thereafter, anyone who believes the fact that he did those things will be saved from eternal damnation and everyone who does not will suffer in hell for all of eternity. Why would God do all of that? Why would a God set up such a bizaar set of rules that he would carry out and that everyone must believe happened in order for people to avoid eternal damnation. "Believing in Jesus" as most Christians think of it, means believing that this set of facts about what Jesus did and why he did it are true. In that sense, "believing" is just a neuro-cognative process, a conviction, like believing the world is flat or believing in Santa Clause. It makes no sense on its face for that to be the lynchpin of everyone's salvation or damnation.

[deepenoughtodive]

You seem pretty angry Steve.

Christians can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't. What's your point?

Nuff said.

The Quran ins't genuine. Neither is the Torah. I bet you think the rain gods and sun gods that Native Americans believed in were sort of silly to.

I always find it interesting when someone, who believes in an imaginary being, dismisses the possible existence of other imaginary beings. You're an atheist. You don't believe that Zues, or Athena, or Allah or many of the thousands of other Gods that other people believe are real. The difference is that I believe in one less God than you, the Christian God. Tell me why your particular God, or Bible is genuine, but none of the others? You won't and can't.

[Merica]

Yeah... Christianity sure ruined the fuck out of Ed and, subsequently, Live's music.

I tell ya, that shit ain't good for nothing. They don't even have cool people to worship - just a couple of scruffy old bastards with mangy beards. Not like Hinduism. Now *that's* some cool shit, with elephant people and all sorts.

[PurdueSteve]

You seem pretty angry Steve.

Christians can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't. What's your point?

You mean like admittance into the gates of a blissful eternal afterlife (or perhaps that's better phrased as, the avoidance of burning in hell forever).

The whole premise of Christianity seems to base around "Do this and you won't burn forever" and "Do this and you get to swim in sunshine forever and never feel pain"

[PurdueSteve]

You seem pretty angry Steve.

Christians can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't. What's your point?

I'm really not angry. I just love illustrating the whack logic of Christians. Like your latest post.

I also can't prove that there isn't a giant 3 legged frog with a unicorn horn sticking out of it's back spewing tiger blood that lives on a yet to be discovered planet. Does that mean people should believe in the creatures existence? Do you believe in everything that's yet to be shown not to exist? Sheesh.

Call me a skeptic but damn, I have a tendency to not just believe in things because they haven't proven not to exist. That, and it's really damn hard to prove a negative in the first place.

[Pokey]

Nuff said.

The Quran ins't genuine. Neither is the Torah. I bet you think the rain gods and sun gods that Native Americans believed in were sort of silly to.

I always find it interesting when someone, who believes in an imaginary being, dismisses the possible existence of other imaginary beings. You're an atheist. You don't believe that Zues, or Athena, or Allah or many of the thousands of other Gods that other people believe are real. The difference is that I believe in one less God than you, the Christian God. Tell me why your particular God, or Bible is genuine, but none of the others? You won't and can't.

I always found this fascinating. How one religion can say "an indian God with multiple arms is totally ridiculous. but a dude rising from the dead, now THAT is real". When the Indian that believes in the multi arm God can have just as much conviction in their belief as the Christian. How can 2 people who believe so strongly in 2 completely different things both be so sure they're right? What religion has more "proof" than another. If gotigrz was born in a country where there was no Christianity, no missionaries, and was brought up as a strict Hindu for example, then can he honestly say he'd still end up following the path his is right now? And if not, then how does that make his chosen path right now the right one?

[deepenoughtodive]

Fair enough Steve. Faith is believing in the unseen. The unproven. I believe and you don't.

Its funny to me that you think you illustrated anything about my logic.

[Pokey]

Fair enough Steve. Faith is believing in the unseen. The unproven. I believe and you don't.

This is what fascinates me. Every religion then is "believing in the unseen". How does one person decide which unseen makes more sense than another? What makes one set of billions of people different from another set? Some people insist they have spoken with God. Other people insist they have spoken to Allah. How can they both be so right? Why is in the eyes of some is one person right and another wrong.

To me, no God speaks to any person because I believe there is no God, no Allah, no Buddha, no Krishnu, no Jahovah, no Zenu or whoever. I believe they're all equally wrong. But they all believe just as much as each other in such completely different things.

[PurdueSteve]

Fair enough Steve. Faith is believing in the unseen. The unproven. I believe and you don't.

Yes that is what the word means somewhat. I'd say it goes beyond the unseen. I can't see radio waves but I know they exist. I don't have faith in radio waves. Their existence can be proven and measured. However I digress, I know your point.

Its funny to me that you think you illustrated anything about my logic.

I did illustrate something about your logic. You consider the debate on the existence of God to be at an equivalent null or standstill. You characterize your belief against my disbelief and then are trying to make them logically equal positions. They aren't. Your belief in the existence of a God isn't logically valid because I have failed to prove he doesn't exist. You've failed to disprove the existence of the 3-legged frog I described, would it be logical for everyone reading this post to believe in that creature? No, of course not. I could sit here all day making up creatures, stories and Gods and you'd dismiss them all without hesitation and you'd be logically right to do so. It just so happens that there is one particular God that you don't dismiss. That illustrates your logic perfectly well.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: Mar 29 2011, 1:44 pm

[deepenoughtodive]

And yet again, your position is that you are enlightened and have a firm grasp on things but I don't. That's fine by me, your opinion.

Yes that is what the word means somewhat. I'd say it goes beyond the unseen. I can't see radio waves but I know they exist. I don't have faith in radio waves. Their existence can be proven and measured. However I digress, I know your point.
I did illustrate something about your logic. You consider the debate on the existence of God to be at an equivalent null or standstill. You characterize your belief against my disbelief and then are trying to make them logically equal positions. They aren't. Your belief in the existence of a God isn't logically valid because I have failed to prove he doesn't exist. You've failed to disprove the existence of the 3-legged frog I described, would it be logical for everyone reading this post to believe in that creature? No, of course not. I could sit here all day making up creatures, stories and Gods and you'd dismiss them all without hesitation and you'd be logically right to do so. It just so happens that there is one particular God that you don't dismiss. That illustrates your logic perfectly well.

[deepenoughtodive]

I honestly don't know enough about other religions to debate what they believe.

This is what fascinates me. Every religion then is "believing in the unseen". How does one person decide which unseen makes more sense than another? What makes one set of billions of people different from another set? Some people insist they have spoken with God. Other people insist they have spoken to Allah. How can they both be so right? Why is in the eyes of some is one person right and another wrong.

To me, no God speaks to any person because I believe there is no God, no Allah, no Buddha, no Krishnu, no Jahovah, no Zenu or whoever. I believe they're all equally wrong. But they all believe just as much as each other in such completely different things.

[PurdueSteve]

And yet again, your position is that you are enlightened and have a firm grasp on things but I don't. That's fine by me, your opinion.

You don't get to hide by the "it's your opinion" argument. You said that your belief IS spiritual truth or something to that effect. You don't declare that your irrational, void of any and all logic beliefs are "truth" while claiming that someone like me just has an opinion.