Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the Persian god Mithras, also born on the 25th -- don't know about any tree or gifts associated with him, though.

Who could forget the discussion about Mirthras the last time you brought it up, which was maybe a week ago?

Since you clearly want to forget that discussion ever happened, let me summarize for other readers:

You: Mithras!
Another poster: Mirthras existed in parts of Persia but wasn't known in the Roman world until the 2nd century AD. That is, after the gospels were written.
You: Read this Guardian article!
Another poster: That article talks about worshipping the Southern Cross--which can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere, not from Jerusalem or Rome. (An aside: I read the Guardian every morning myself, but I have to say, that was one of their lamer articles.)

For those who actually want to look into this Zeitgeist junk about Horus and Mithras and all that, instead of just parroting something Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins like to spout off about, you'll see that what's really going on is that elements of the Christian faith are being inserted retroactively into these myths. It's a Satanic deception, meant to keep you from your Savior.

when anything doesn't make sense about religion, you can bet it's the devil trying to deceive you. It couldn't possibly be common sense and reasoning power. Even people with PhDs from Ivy League schools dump common sense when it comes to protecting their religious beliefs. And they are proud of it too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

You are an exceptionally childish and petulant person, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

Way to go again! Nobody said anything about proof. Just why the theology of Christ supports a liturgical calendar that puts his death in early spring. The PP said nothing about why any of this proves Christian theology. It doesn't and PP didn't say it did. So why, once again, the snarky comment? Can't you have an academic discussion of any kind on religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

Way to go again! Nobody said anything about proof. Just why the theology of Christ supports a liturgical calendar that puts his death in early spring. The PP said nothing about why any of this proves Christian theology. It doesn't and PP didn't say it did. So why, once again, the snarky comment? Can't you have an academic discussion of any kind on religion?

3rd poster here. I liked your "petulant and childish" comment.

The answer to your question is, no, she doesn't want to have a "discussion" and especially not an "academic discussion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For those who actually want to look into this Zeitgeist junk about Horus and Mithras and all that, instead of just parroting something Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins like to spout off about, you'll see that what's really going on is that elements of the Christian faith are being inserted retroactively into these myths. It's a Satanic deception, meant to keep you from your Savior.

when anything doesn't make sense about religion, you can bet it's the devil trying to deceive you. It couldn't possibly be common sense and reasoning power. Even people with PhDs from Ivy League schools dump common sense when it comes to protecting their religious beliefs. And they are proud of it too

Not the first PP, but I guess you're missing the irony antennae.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because God is Truth, and I choose to live my life following truth. It's really that simple.

No, it isn't. If you need faith to believe in it then how do you know it is the truth? With faith you could believe in absolutely anything at all.

Here we go again... the old cycling argument...

If you would open your eyes and open your mind, you would know that God is Truth. But you've already decided that you are right and the hundreds of millions of people throughout human history who have had a personal relationship with God -- many through Jesus Christ -- are wrong.

Truth isn't decided by majority voting. Hundreds of millions of people throughout human history also saw women as chattel and believed that slavery is a natural order of things. That they had a personal relationship with God (assuming it was genuine) speaks of nothing but their need to have one. Just as people who believed slavery is a natural order of things needed it to be so to fit their needs.

That is Man's interpretation of Hell. I am a Christian that does not believe in that. I have a more metaphysical understanding. I think Hell is what we have created on earth now. I dont believe God out of fear, i do it becaues He loved me first and His love is perfect. As for why horrible things happen, because we allow it. God breathed into us His Spirit. He is Creation, therefore we have the ability to create. He gave us dominion on Earth. We have have used both our Creative ability and that dominion to create evil and wreak havoc on this earth. We allow poverty, we allow our egos to run rampant therefore allowing ourselves to do harm emotionally, physically,etc to others.
We say there is no God, don't seek Him for guidance and direction, take Him out of ECERYTHING, then blame Him cause its all gone to s***.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because God is Truth, and I choose to live my life following truth. It's really that simple.

No, it isn't. If you need faith to believe in it then how do you know it is the truth? With faith you could believe in absolutely anything at all.

Here we go again... the old cycling argument...

If you would open your eyes and open your mind, you would know that God is Truth. But you've already decided that you are right and the hundreds of millions of people throughout human history who have had a personal relationship with God -- many through Jesus Christ -- are wrong.

Truth isn't decided by majority voting. Hundreds of millions of people throughout human history also saw women as chattel and believed that slavery is a natural order of things. That they had a personal relationship with God (assuming it was genuine) speaks of nothing but their need to have one. Just as people who believed slavery is a natural order of things needed it to be so to fit their needs.

That is Man's interpretation of Hell. I am a Christian that does not believe in that. I have a more metaphysical understanding. I think Hell is what we have created on earth now. I dont believe God out of fear, i do it becaues He loved me first and His love is perfect. As for why horrible things happen, because we allow it. God breathed into us His Spirit. He is Creation, therefore we have the ability to create. He gave us dominion on Earth. We have have used both our Creative ability and that dominion to create evil and wreak havoc on this earth. We allow poverty, we allow our egos to run rampant therefore allowing ourselves to do harm emotionally, physically,etc to others.
We say there is no God, don't seek Him for guidance and direction, take Him out of ECERYTHING, then blame Him cause its all gone to s***.

Incredible how people just make things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For those who actually want to look into this Zeitgeist junk about Horus and Mithras and all that, instead of just parroting something Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins like to spout off about, you'll see that what's really going on is that elements of the Christian faith are being inserted retroactively into these myths. It's a Satanic deception, meant to keep you from your Savior.

when anything doesn't make sense about religion, you can bet it's the devil trying to deceive you. It couldn't possibly be common sense and reasoning power. Even people with PhDs from Ivy League schools dump common sense when it comes to protecting their religious beliefs. And they are proud of it too

Not the first PP, but I guess you're missing the irony antennae.

Maybe you are too

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP at 17:47. No irony is intended or should be inferred. I meant what I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

Way to go again! Nobody said anything about proof. Just why the theology of Christ supports a liturgical calendar that puts his death in early spring. The PP said nothing about why any of this proves Christian theology. It doesn't and PP didn't say it did. So why, once again, the snarky comment? Can't you have an academic discussion of any kind on religion?

3rd poster here. I liked your "petulant and childish" comment.

The answer to your question is, no, she doesn't want to have a "discussion" and especially not an "academic discussion."

Actually somebody did say something about proof, but somebody else doesn't want that to come up in the discussion. Academic discussions often involve the concept of proof. It's theological discussions that tend to avoid that concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP at 17:47. No irony is intended or should be inferred. I meant what I wrote.

and proud of it, too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

Way to go again! Nobody said anything about proof. Just why the theology of Christ supports a liturgical calendar that puts his death in early spring. The PP said nothing about why any of this proves Christian theology. It doesn't and PP didn't say it did. So why, once again, the snarky comment? Can't you have an academic discussion of any kind on religion?

3rd poster here. I liked your "petulant and childish" comment.

The answer to your question is, no, she doesn't want to have a "discussion" and especially not an "academic discussion."

Actually somebody did say something about proof, but somebody else doesn't want that to come up in the discussion. Academic discussions often involve the concept of proof. It's theological discussions that tend to avoid that concept.

OP: Christians deceitfully stole the winter solistice celebrations for the birth of Christ. This proves Christians are devious and making everything up.

PP: Who cares if they co-opted it to make new followers comfortable?

OP: It was deceitful and you know it.

PP: Actually, the solistice was chosen as the day for Jesus's birth for symbolic reasons. Early spring for his death is also symbolic--re-enforces the message the Christ died so that we may live.

OP: That doesn't prove anything about Christ or Christianity is true.

PP: No it doesn't--just providing the reason why Christian liturgy puts Christmas is in December and Easter in Spring. This is part of an academic discussion of how the liturgical calendar reflects symbolism of Christ drawing upon the natural world.

OP: Can't be an academic discussion because it doesn't involve proof of God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because God is Truth, and I choose to live my life following truth. It's really that simple.

No, it isn't. If you need faith to believe in it then how do you know it is the truth? With faith you could believe in absolutely anything at all.

Here we go again... the old cycling argument...

If you would open your eyes and open your mind, you would know that God is Truth. But you've already decided that you are right and the hundreds of millions of people throughout human history who have had a personal relationship with God -- many through Jesus Christ -- are wrong.

Truth isn't decided by majority voting. Hundreds of millions of people throughout human history also saw women as chattel and believed that slavery is a natural order of things. That they had a personal relationship with God (assuming it was genuine) speaks of nothing but their need to have one. Just as people who believed slavery is a natural order of things needed it to be so to fit their needs.

That is Man's interpretation of Hell. I am a Christian that does not believe in that. I have a more metaphysical understanding. I think Hell is what we have created on earth now. I dont believe God out of fear, i do it becaues He loved me first and His love is perfect. As for why horrible things happen, because we allow it. God breathed into us His Spirit. He is Creation, therefore we have the ability to create. He gave us dominion on Earth. We have have used both our Creative ability and that dominion to create evil and wreak havoc on this earth. We allow poverty, we allow our egos to run rampant therefore allowing ourselves to do harm emotionally, physically,etc to others.
We say there is no God, don't seek Him for guidance and direction, take Him out of ECERYTHING, then blame Him cause its all gone to s***.

The question should be: why believe in this ^^ god. A punitive god would be the worst! He could save us all but he's miffed and turns his back. It really takes an odd duck to enjoy the idea of such an authoritarian god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.

Way to go again! Nobody said anything about proof. Just why the theology of Christ supports a liturgical calendar that puts his death in early spring. The PP said nothing about why any of this proves Christian theology. It doesn't and PP didn't say it did. So why, once again, the snarky comment? Can't you have an academic discussion of any kind on religion?

3rd poster here. I liked your "petulant and childish" comment.

The answer to your question is, no, she doesn't want to have a "discussion" and especially not an "academic discussion."

Actually somebody did say something about proof, but somebody else doesn't want that to come up in the discussion. Academic discussions often involve the concept of proof. It's theological discussions that tend to avoid that concept.

OP: Christians deceitfully stole the winter solistice celebrations for the birth of Christ. This proves Christians are devious and making everything up.

PP: Who cares if they co-opted it to make new followers comfortable?

OP: It was deceitful and you know it.

PP: Actually, the solistice was chosen as the day for Jesus's birth for symbolic reasons. Early spring for his death is also symbolic--re-enforces the message the Christ died so that we may live.

OP: That doesn't prove anything about Christ or Christianity is true.

PP: No it doesn't--just providing the reason why Christian liturgy puts Christmas is in December and Easter in Spring. This is part of an academic discussion of how the liturgical calendar reflects symbolism of Christ drawing upon the natural world.

OP: Can't be an academic discussion because it doesn't involve proof of God.

Understand that, in your little mind, it was easy to draw these conclusions but--as you were informed before-- you are arguing with more than one person, so this is kinda bs.

Making crazy grand conclusions comes quite easily to you, doesn't it. You know the conclusory impulse activates reward centers in your brain. It is very similar to what leads easily-influenced people to accept some dogma or "truth" and allows you to bypass the burden of critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP: Christians deceitfully stole the winter solistice celebrations for the birth of Christ. This proves Christians are devious and making everything up.

PP: Who cares if they co-opted it to make new followers comfortable?

OP: It was deceitful and you know it.

PP: Actually, the solistice was chosen as the day for Jesus's birth for symbolic reasons. Early spring for his death is also symbolic--re-enforces the message the Christ died so that we may live.

OP: That doesn't prove anything about Christ or Christianity is true.

PP: No it doesn't--just providing the reason why Christian liturgy puts Christmas is in December and Easter in Spring. This is part of an academic discussion of how the liturgical calendar reflects symbolism of Christ drawing upon the natural world.

OP: Can't be an academic discussion because it doesn't involve proof of God.

Understand that, in your little mind, it was easy to draw these conclusions but--as you were informed before-- you are arguing with more than one person, so this is kinda bs.

Making crazy grand conclusions comes quite easily to you, doesn't it. You know the conclusory impulse activates reward centers in your brain. It is very similar to what leads easily-influenced people to accept some dogma or "truth" and allows you to bypass the burden of critical thinking.

PP, you're the one who's making it up as you go along.
- 1st PP provided an outline of that: how your claim about "deceit" being involved in the holiday timing was debunked, so you switched up the subject and demanded proof of God.
- your 1st sentence above is a non sequitur that makes zero sense. How does the number of atheists here affect whether or not 1st PP's argument is bs? It doesn't, the number of atheists here is irrelevant. 1st PP is still correct that your claim of deceit has been debunked.
- calling people names doesn't support your argument, it just makes you look nasty.