Can someone convert me, please?

[Jodi]

JMULLANY –

I . . . didn’t realize Joachim had some sort of history of what you deem trolling . . .

I don’t know that he does; he appears to be new. I said his post was trollish, not that he was a troll. I said you were a troll.

[quote]
He seems like an affable enough gentleman to me.
[/quote

See, affable to me does not include a plea “convert me to your religion!” when such plea is admittedly made solely for the sake of “amusement.” But I reserve judgment on him; like I said, he’s new.

I asked on ATMB as to what a troll is anyway, so perhaps you would care to explain there what exactly you mean by this word.

I’ll drop by and see if a bunch of people haven’t already defined it, but one definition (IMO) would be posting stuff only to start fights or to poke people with a metaphorical sharp stick, as opposed to posting to share opinions or to learn. But that’s just me.

JOACHIM says:

I have a history of Trolling? How do you know I’m not willing to talk about it?

Since I never said either of these things, I don’t know why you’re addressing me.

Now, to me, what’s going on is debate of a fairly healthy standard.

You’re kidding, right?

[betenoir]

*Originally posted by barker *
**betenoir
Your view on Christians on the board is totally without merit. There are very few that work on actively converting anyone. I find them as annoying as anyone else does.

**

This is not my view of Christians on the board. My thought was about the very few who ARE actively trying to convert…and why they wouldn’t show up when they have a (even if it’s a possibly baited) invitation.

[Joachim_Pieper]

Jodi, everyone has been polite, and has had something worthwile to add. Except you. Feel free to add your opinion, we’re here, or at least I am, to pick up as many different views as possible.
I you can’t resist the temptation to have a go, then let’s toddle off to the pit, where we can do it properly.
Cheers.

[Jodi]

Jodi, everyone has been polite, and has had something worthwile to add. Except you.

If you imagine I have been impolite to you, I suggest you read my posts again. Aside from commenting that I find the OP trollish, which I continue to do, I have had little to say on the subject. If you imagine that I care whether you find my “contributions” worthwhile or not . . . well, I guess I don’t care if you imagine that or not.

Feel free to add your opinion, we’re here, or at least I am, to pick up as many different views as possible.

Sure you are. I’m just postive that’s what motivated you to start this particular thread – or I would be, if you hadn’t expressly stated to the contrary. My opinion on what? Your motivation in starting this thread? I already gave you that. My opinion on religion, or Christianity? No, I’m not offering that, because you haven’t ask for it, and because I continue to consider your OP insincere – a conclusion I cannot escape since you posted to ask someone to try to convert you solely for your “amusement.”

I you can’t resist the temptation to have a go, then let’s toddle off to the pit, where we can do it properly.
Cheers.

Have a go at what? I post what I want, when I want, and where I want, including the opinion that a thread might have been started with trollish intent. If you object to that enough to march off to the Pit, have at it. I might follow, or I might not. But since I have little interest in you (whom I do not know, even in the context of a message board), this subject, or this thread, chances are good I would not.

Cheers.

[Joachim_Pieper]

What I’m after, Jodi, is a chat about the merits of organised religion. I figured the best way to get someone with really strong views in here was to push a button or two. I had an education that was very heavy on organised religion. Shit, I had to stand up every moring, face the altar, and say the creed. That really put me off. What I want to know is if I’m missing something. Religion, particularly Christianity, brings so much joy to so many people, but makes me run for cover. I just want to know why.
If I’ve gone about it the wrong way, then I apologise, but then, as you so rightly point out, I’m new. I do want your opinion - and if you look, I have tried to answer everyone’s two-penneth. Rest assured your posts will be taken seriously.

Maybe I should have used ‘distraction’, for ‘amusement’. Oh, well, bit late now

[gloria]

I´m really surprised that after three times I´ve quoted you there was no response, if you are looking for amusement just try me, You are talking about lookin for someone with strong beliefs on an specific organized religion, well I am if you ask me as a person not as the church I´m at, I will go for you challenge and let´s have some amusement.
Yes I think you asked in the wrong way at least we people that are serious about our religion. As it´s been quoted several times on this thread it seems that you don´t even know what you want to know, as Socrates said I only know that I know nothing, you don´t even know if you want amusement or if you want distraction, but you have been avoiding the only person on this thread that took you seriously, and I´m still waiting for reply. Were you sick of religion because you had to wake up early in the morning or because you had to face the altar or because you didn´t understand the creed.

[foolsguinea]

*Originally posted by Zenster *
As to man’s capacity for evil. That is a learned response. How many vicious babies do you see being born?
**

:rolleyes:Babies aren’t strong enough to be vicious. But they are selfish and ignorant. Selfishness, ignorance, and stupidity are not imposed conditions, but the lack of enlightenment (or “education,” if you prefer). Thus man does bad things out of a lack of understanding. The inherent goodness of man is a demonstrably false premise.

[Joachim_Pieper]

I understood the creed. It’s not exactly mincing its words. What got me is that I was forced to say it, in spite of any objection I might have had. And I was in deep trouble for not turning and saying it, I can tell you.
But, thank you for your reply. I wasn’t avoiding you, I promise. But you haven’t said which church you belong to. Can you?

Does God exist? How do you know?

[foolsguinea]

Ok, the way I see there are two main possibilities:

1: The materialists are right. Morality, goodness, justice, are unreal terms belonging to a layer of pseudo-reality imposed over one’s perception of the world, and that’s it.

2: The materialists are wrong. There is such a thing as GOOD.

Like Pascal, I believe in the second option, because if the first is true, it doesn’t matter which I believe.
But my sense of reason married to a fealty to truth–born of a belief in the second option–leads me to say that if the first option is true, I ought to believe it, have to believe it–even though those terms belong only to the world of the second option. So if convinced of the truth of materialism, I think I must believe it, despite the facile logic of Pascal’s Wager.

Which is to say, I make a lousy nihilist.

Here I find myself leaning toward an–{gasp!}–ontological argument. The fact that “good” is meaningful in the human mind implies that it is meaningful in reality. Thus, materialism isn’t the whole story, and those logical positivists are–ahem–full of, I don’t know, helium or something.

Which I “knew” intuitively, in the first place.

[Joachim_Pieper]

Can’t man be both good and evil, with the capacity to go to extremes of either? For each act of callous cruelty, can’t there be an act of love? It’d be nice if that were the case, wouldn’t it?

[gloria]

My church is based on Christianity, I belong the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints. I know that God exists because it is in my own nature, I´m alive and I thank God every day for this miracle, for my family and all the blessings that I receive from him every day. I haven´t always belonged to the Church I was converted, and that is why I answeared your mssg. I know that God exists because I prayed to know if what I was asking was true, some people will rather believe that they are ape descendents, they might not know that they are our Heavenly Father children. Anything you will like to know I will explain you, we don´t have to learn creeds, we only talk to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. There are now thousands of people that have been converted, not borned under this religion. And all of them will be willing to testify on it. Our young people go out on the streets for two years, no family or friends that we call a mission and they testify and witness on our Heavenly Father. We believe in the same Heavenly Father that is on the Bible we don´t call him by his name in vain. We reclaim the right to worship God almighty according to the dictates of our own counciousness and we conceed all men the same privilege to worship and adore how, where or whom they whish. We know that you will go back to Him that is why you are here for, to progress on this earth as a Spirit on a Flesh cover so you can have the opportunity of free will.

[gloria]

Of course man can go both ways, that is his right remember, free will. Will both give him the same results?, I wonder, I do believe that man serches for good, you can see primitive cultures, it is on their nature too, they worship God, we are still talking of an ancient civilization, like Hebraic, we still believe in the same thing they did, if you only take the Bible as an Epic Book, you might find some interesting stories, but if you study it trying to find the truth you will, not that there is one specifically because we are humans, remember we are unique not even two equal finger prints all over the world, there was a quote on this on another thread, “This will only give us an idea of the Universality of God”. Some times instead of understanding that we were made under his image, we try to create God under our, the same limitations, we will never understand the begining of life, we don´t have enough time on this earth. If you re-read Genesis, you will discover the creation of live in the right order according to any scientific, explanation, if you research, you will find that there was really a flood all over the earth, etc. but all this won´t prove anything, this is in your own nature, look into your heart.

[Palm_Cove]

As people are suggesting reading matter
I would commend to you (all) Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.
In it he invents a religion Bokononism.

Bokononism’s first words are “all that follows is lies”.
As we know Vonnegut wrote the novel as fiction, then all that follows IS lies, proving the validity of the most fundamental principal of Bokonism.
Few, if any, other religions can do this.

So Mr Pieper if you seek a religion with some proveable truths, try Bokononism

[betenoir]

[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:Babies aren’t strong enough to be vicious. But they are selfish and ignorant. Selfishness, ignorance, and stupidity are not imposed conditions, but the lack of enlightenment (or “education,” if you prefer). Thus man does bad things out of a lack of understanding. The inherent goodness of man is a demonstrably false premise. **
[/QUOTE]

But…but …but vicious and selfish and ignorant are all pejorative terms if we assume some possible alternative. Ingorant as a negative assumes one has some idea of wisdom one is rejecting. Selfish is negative if one has a clear understanding of the existance of other people. Vicious is negative if one know ones is causing pain.What I’m saying is, babies do what they do because of a lack of “enlightenment” but that does not mean you can call it “bad” in any sense.
And futhermore…i don’t know where to start. The more i think about it the more i think the inherent good or evil of man is the dumbest question i’ve ever heard.

[dylan_73]

Apologies for the delay in replying.

*Originally posted by Zenster *

(I make no claims about knowing reality, but it sure seems as though you’re ready to tell us all about your “religious” reality. I just study the world around me and arrive at my own conclusions. One of which is that most religion involves adding an extra layer of psychobabble to your perception of reality.)

If you don’t know reality how can you tell what is an “extra layer of psychobabble” and what is a more revealing explanation? No, I’m not about to tell you all about my “religious reality”; why should I and what made you think I was? You didn’t ask me to. Did you assume you already knew what it was? I will say that I dislike your readiness to dismiss other people’s perceptions.

(Feel free to be an irresponsible and meaningless part of nothingness dylan_73. I know that I live a purposeful and meaningful life in a wonderfully organized system of astounding beauty. After being abused by many of the Christians that I know and seeing the likes of Bakker and Swaggert, I also know that I am a very responsible person. You might be amused to find that we agree about one thing very strongly. I firmly believe that there is only, “One Way”. That, in many situations, you have almost no choice but to do the right thing. I just do not happen to need some one else’s archaic interpretation of reality to instruct me about what to do.)

I do feel free to be meaningless and irresponsible, I just choose not to be. But I don’t believe that there’s only “One Way”. I think many different interpretations can be valid. Secondly, being abused by so-called Christians isn’t an excuse for dismissing anyone/everyone who chooses to follow those teachings.

(To paraphrase Voltaire, “If God did not exist, man would have to make him up.” Since no one that I have ever met has been able to show me or persuade me of the existence or nonexistence of God, I can only believe that everyone is manufacturing their own image of God. Maybe this is why there is so much religious conflict in this world about how God manifests and to whom. Otherwise, if everyone was seeing God, wouldn’t they all be seeing the same God?)

Not really. People watching the same event rarely come away with exactly the same impressions (sometimes not even close!) Watch the two sets of opposing fans during a football match to see this in action

(Not to fear dylan_73, I follow the writings of others. I just happen to select works that do not require blind faith or dogmatism. Funny how a lot of scientific literature makes no such demand upon the reader. By the way dylan_73, have you read, “Zen Flesh, Zen Bones”?)

No, I haven’t read it…the Zen books I have read just seem to recommend bypassing the self-memeplex (if you believe in such things) but if this one is any different, or has much new to offer, let me know and I might try and fit it in.

Faith needn’t be blind; anything you do carries a certain amount of faith (or acceptance, or trust, whatever word you prefer). “Dogmatism” seems to have become one of those words like “rhetoric” that automatically means “bad thing”. I don’t know what it means to people anymore. Scientific literature makes no such demands because they obviously have a different aim.

(At least my Christian business partner has the wisdom to realize that he does not want to convert me. He himself said that if he could convert me, then anyone else could come along and convert me to something else. As to your comparison, that’s funny, I like rhubarb. People can be introduced to properly prepared foods and suddenly find that they like them. My friend Eric is now firmly addicted to salmon skin hand rolls at the sushi bar (something he would never have touched two years ago). Your closing line of intolerant “humor” speaks volumes about you.)

“Intolerant”? Well, if I must be, best to choose something harmless to be intolerant about. It was actually just an attempt to end the post on a light note since it seemed a bit heavy. Your willingness to find suspicious meaning in remarks about rhubarb of all things, speaks volumes about you.

*Originally posted by hardcore *
**

*Originally posted by dylan_73 *
Religion is about discovering that you have free will, but also that you have responsibilities, rather than being a meaningless part of nothingness and therefore never taking responsibility for yourself.

This is a prime example of poor logic. Those without religion do not necessarily feel like a meaningless part of nothingness, nor are they likely to forego responsibility for their actions. Many are convinced they have free will, all the while keeping their religious convictions completely separate. You mistakenly draw a false dichotomy, thereby reaching an erroneous conclusion. **

I realise that…and many people with religion do not feel like they’ve lost all capacity for rational thought and are required to accept everything unquestioningly. I felt free to be as erroneous as Zenster on that point.

[Joachim_Pieper]

So, God exists because you know he does? Sorry, but you’ve yet to sell me that one…

But, I really like the idea that we’re here to exercise free will. Not sure how laws and such fit into that, but I’m sure you can explain…

Actually, there’s no need to believe in God to live your life according to your free will. If you go for the extreme view on fate, it’s your obligation to fulfil your free will, in fact, it’s your destiny.
And I have a question. Why isn’t the Bible refuted as an unreliable source? Other literature from about the same time is carefully scrutinised, and assumed to contain various slants and shovel-loads of bias. The Bible, however, is the ‘Truth’. How so? And what’s with the inconsistency of God and his forgiveness? He’s all fire and brimstone in the Old Testament, not brimming with love. At least, the innocent Egyptians who suffered the plagues must have thought so…
Having said that, the Catholic Church isn’t brimming with forgiveness, now is it? “We’re the only religion, you’re all going to hell” isn’t your traditional ‘no hard feelings, let’s be friends’ rejoiner, IMHO.

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by Joachim Pieper *
I was of the mind that faith defies proof. But there you go…

Faith does not defy proof. There are examples of faith all around us on a daily basis.

*Originally posted by Joachim Pieper *
I’m afraid I’m not about to do all the work for you on the epistemology. If you want to prove your point, do so. Until then, it’s safe to say I’m not convinced…

I think I already have and you’ve not yet done any work that I can see. And you still have not given me an example I asked for.

*Originally posted by Joachim Pieper *
And, this is what I’ve been waiting for all these years. Explain exactly which definitive proof of God’s existence I’ve missed.

I think the idea is to find God through faith, not definitive proof.

*Originally posted by Joachim Pieper *
Oh, and if you say that God is in the flowers and the birds, I can’t guarentee I’ll hang on to my dinner

Would it help you if I told you that God was in you?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Joachim Pieper *
So, God exists because you know he does? Sorry, but you’ve yet to sell me that one…

The belief in the existence of a God is a requirement of humility.

Actually, there’s no need to believe in God to live your life according to your free will.

No, there isn’t. I don’t know who made that argument, but it is usually the other way around – I have free will, but if I acted according to God’s will I would not have free will anymore. Which is true to a point. Of course, sin hurts you more than doing what is right.

Why isn’t the Bible refuted as an unreliable source? … The Bible, however, is the ‘Truth’. How so?

Minor historical details are unimportant. What is important is the truth of what Jesus taught (a.k.a. Truth).

And what’s with the inconsistency of God and his forgiveness? He’s all fire and brimstone in the Old Testament, not brimming with love.

That, were there a God (Go(o)d) he would smite his enemies is a requirement of Justice.
That He forgives those who repent is a requirement of Mercy.

Some would have you believe that the “fire and brimstone” God went away but a careful reading of the NT shows that was never the case.

Having said that, the Catholic Church isn’t brimming with forgiveness, now is it? “We’re the only religion, you’re all going to hell” isn’t your traditional ‘no hard feelings, let’s be friends’ rejoiner, IMHO.

The RCC didn’t say that, and has always maintained that those who seek to know and obey the will of God may be saved.

As far as them being the repository of the Truth, it occurs to me I’ve answered my own catch-22, though I still dislike the answer. Basically, the transmission of the Holy Spirit requires apostolic succession. Thus, only the Catholic (and Orthodox?) Churches can possibly know how to interpret scripture.

Wow. You’ve managed to bring up the existence of God, free will, the veracity of the Bible, the disparity of God between the Testements, and perceived flaws in the RCC all in the same post!

[gloria]

Joaquim: Now you have a real thread. Why don´t you say who are you quoting, or at least direct this to my name.

Actually I do belive that God exists, not only believe I know that he lives, and loves all of us, faith is to believe in what you cannot see. Do you believe I´m here, on the other side just one click away across the ocean in a whole different country, how can you prove that, you might be answearing to a computer, or who knows can you believe that your thoughts can go through a wire thousand of miles away from you? Can you believe in the children starving in Africa, or the people dying in Bosnia, what can you believe in?

Ask this same people if free will is only doing what is right, ask someone that kills in a war if he really exercised it´s free will, for us is very easy to think about free will as something that we do on regular basis that is why sometimes we even have the free will of discussing the existance of God. We all take decissions every single second, that is something different, you decide wether you brush your teeth or you don´t, if you walk your dog or you don´t if you answear this thread or you don´t, but you excercise your free will, when you kill, or let live when you lie or tell the truth, when you steal or you keep yourselve honest, as you can see free will is involved not only with things that concern you, but with harming other people, that is what free will is, the opportunity of staying honest and do what is right for you and for the rest of the humanity. Every time you excersise your free will your either become a better or a worse person according to moral standards regardless of the religion that you believe in, even if you want to be a free thinker, and even if you don´t believe in the existance of God, you still can stay a honest man, of course, everybody can have it´s own believes that is the excercise of free will. About the Bible, I never made that estatement I only said “If you read and ask to you heart you will find the truth” and ask God will humilty he will let you know, remember that those poor Egypcians slavered the Hebrews for centuries, and they had their own free will. Do what was right or wrong, unless you think that slavery is good.

Let me remind you I´m not a Catholic, or Episcopal or Easter but I have a big respect for these churches and what they represent, and anyone that follows it´s own believes for the good of Humanity. Sister Teresa was a Catholic, do you consider her someone that you could judge for being so?

Our Heavenly Father loves us, we are the ones that punish ourselves, I do agree that wrong hurts more than doing what is right. Please don´t ask me between the difference between right and wrong because then It means that you don´t even have a clue on what we are discussing here.

[Joachim_Pieper]

Quicksilver, you lost me in that last post. You said “Faith does not defy proof, there are examples of faith all around us”, but oddly enough not too much proof. We’ve got one, not the other, is it unreasonable to suggest that if the existence of God were to be proven, then lots of Christians would be at a loss.

I don’t want to do any work to prove that epistemology is tautological. You brought it up, you prove it. Ask everyone else to disprove it is not my idea of making a point. And anyway, why does it matter, why do you bring it up?

jmullaney, so, before there was a God, and by this I take it you mean the Christian God, there was no humility? There is no humility in a heathen society? I think not.

“Minor historical details are irrelevant…” What about major ones? And if they can’t get the dates right, how do you know they’re not making it all up. Just think about that. Christianity could be based on a popular novel. So, in three thousand years, will we have Jilly Copperism, do you think?

Do you think I could have added any more issues to my last post?

Gloria. Mother Teresa was an exception. That’s why she’s a by-word for Christian love. The rest of the Church is not like her, most of the time…
Might not be able to check back for a while, so sorry in advance. Please continue in my abscence.