posted June 23, 2014 01:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Same thing that makes me study everything else: curiosity, the desire to know.

Though Christianity being a major force in Western Civilization does add further reasons.

---

Ditto

posted June 23, 2014 02:00 AM            

But I never felt inclined to spend all my time studying it.

I'd rather study WitchCraft.

posted June 23, 2014 02:06 AM            

(ETA: worth pointing out that many tangential topics included the history, religion, and practices of Christianity and I absorbed quite a bit that way, too.)

It's very easy for me to pick up on things, recall trivia, something inspires me to find out more which I do before moving on to the next thing, and retain a lot of it in long term memory. I don't have to study to learn, and learning is a process that's fun to me, not tedious.

posted June 23, 2014 02:30 AM            

Mostly I study the Words and the Usages, these days.

posted June 23, 2014 02:34 AM            

quote:

---

I'd rather study WitchCraft.

Or Lovecraft, ha.

---

Oh I do that too, I probably no more about Lovecraft than most other things

posted June 23, 2014 02:38 AM            

Have you read any Joshi?

posted June 23, 2014 03:20 AM            

The man was a professor, but without tenure

I mean at 16 he was able to determine the probably location of Pluto

quote:

---

Trans-Neptunian Planets

To the Editor of the Scientific American:

In these days of large telescopes and modern astronomical methods, it seems strange that no vigorous efforts are being made to discover planets beyond the orbit of Neptune, which is now considered the outermost limit of the solar system. It has been noticed that seven comets have their aphelia at a point that would correspond to the orbit of a planet revolving around the sun at a distance of about 100 astronomical units (9,300,000,000 miles).

Now several have suggested that such a planet exists, and has captured the comets by attraction. This is probable, as Jupiter and others also mark the aphelia of many celestial wanderers. The writer has noticed that a great many comets cluster around a point 50 units out, where a large body might revolve. If the great mathematicians of the day should try compute orbits from these aphelia, it is doubtful if they could succeed; but if all the observatories that possess celestial cameras should band together and minutely photograph the ecliptic, as is done in asteroid hunting, the bodies might be revealed on their plates. Even if no discoveries were made, the accurate star photographs would almost be worth the time and trouble.

H. P. LOVECRAFT http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Lovecraft/Lovecraft-as-Astronomer.html

---

While Lovecraft is a character study unto himself. Its his Mythos and Philosophy that really perks my interest

posted June 23, 2014 08:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
[QUOTE]If you are a christian and believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, like myself, the tomb does not matter because he is not there. A tomb/grave is a place of death,not life.

---

[b]PixieJ@: Thanks for the links, you know I often wonder just how much traffic that site has gotten from links posted by both you and Lexx over the past few years haha

Yea I dunno if I buy into the whole India thing, but it is likely that if there was some kind of ancient travelling teacher like “a” Jesus, the silk roads would have brought him into India for sure, perhaps even as far as Han-China too.

posted June 23, 2014 01:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Great song. But did you know that song has nothing to do with religion? Losing my religion is a figure of speech here in the south. It basically means going crazy or losing your temper. ✨🌟💫the more you know ✨🌟💫

---

But there is that Mustard Seed Thomas Scene in the video, now that you mention it.

Consider This.

posted June 23, 2014 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ellynlvx:
Just seemed funny, I thought you guys had other interests.

---

And what do you think I would be interested in?

posted June 23, 2014 10:48 PM            

quote:

---

Oh come on now.. You and I both know that it wouldn't be enough for christians to have "a tomb" that could be dated back to that period of time,it wouldn't satisfy you.

---

I could easily accuse you of the same thing, but the difference is that in this instance I'm operating from a [Rational] paradigm. I cross examine the available facts and try to draw rational conclusions.

A person who defines their worldly understanding via faith is operating from an [Irrational] point of view. The “facts”, when presented to a person who defines their reality through faith & belief information filters are rendered completely meaningless.

Faith by its very definition is a will to believe the impossible no matter what the actual reality is. This isn't something only akin to Christianity, this irrational mode of thought is inherent in ALL religion and superstitious-cults.

Do you not understand that if you claim to be a Christian, one of its teachings (according to the Gospels) is to go out and convert any and all non-Christians until the entirety of the World is flying only one banner?

quote:

---

◄ Matthew 28:19 ►
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

---

How has this been achieved thus far on this planet? By the controlled and institutionalized assimilation on non Christian cultures by either the use of force, or completely Irrational promises in supernatural rewards upon death.

Do you know what history calls the time when Europe was under such a banner... “The Dark Ages”, that's right... It has been rated as one of the worst, most chaotic, superstitious, and Irrational time periods in known human existence.

This is the ONLY destination possible for a world that “blindly” believes in the Irrational. My concern about the dangers of religion is not a “personal vendetta” against Christianity as you so aptly put.

My concern is that when reason is abandoned, “Hell” will reign, Hell is the impossibility of reason... And that is the world Religion demands of itself.

I don't post these types of threads in an effort to de-convert “true believers”. If you are already in that camp, as I have said above, you can NEVER be reasoned with.

Instead I pose questions to those on the “fringe”, people who are not decided either way. But have maybe just never thought about certain aspects of religion, or the gaping holes in it its history and creeds.

My Irrational thought if you will... My hope/belief Is that maybe a “fringe believer” will take a deeper look at the details of Religion, and make for themselves a choice based upon the evidence at hand, and not a superstitious belief.

I see much comparison in the discussion here and that of the: Parable of the Invisible Gardener http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener

quote:

---

"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."[1]

In the later additions of Flew, there is the addition of infra-red, and cameras and the garden/clearing is surrounded by an electrified fence. The gardener therefore must not only be undetectable, but intangible.

---

posted June 24, 2014 04:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
How has this been achieved thus far on this planet? By the controlled and institutionalized assimilation on non Christian cultures by either the use of force, or completely Irrational promises in supernatural rewards upon death.

Do you know what history calls the time when Europe was under such a banner... “The Dark Ages”, that's right... It has been rated as one of the worst, most chaotic, superstitious, and Irrational time periods in known human existence.

This is the ONLY destination possible for a world that “blindly” believes in the Irrational. My concern about the dangers of religion is not a “personal vendetta” against Christianity as you so aptly put.

My concern is that when reason is abandoned, “Hell” will reign, Hell is the impossibility of reason... And that is the world Religion demands of itself.

I don't post these types of threads in an effort to de-convert “true believers”. If you are already in that camp, as I have said above, you can NEVER be reasoned with.

Instead I pose questions to those on the “fringe”, people who are not decided either way. But have maybe just never thought about certain aspects of religion, or the gaping holes in it its history and creeds.

My Irrational thought if you will... My hope/belief Is that maybe a “fringe believer” will take a deeper look at the details of Religion, and make for themselves a choice based upon the evidence at hand, and not a superstitious belief.

I see much comparison in the discussion here and that of the: Parable of the Invisible Gardener http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener

[QUOTE]"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."[1]

In the later additions of Flew, there is the addition of infra-red, and cameras and the garden/clearing is surrounded by an electrified fence. The gardener therefore must not only be undetectable, but intangible.

---

posted June 24, 2014 10:09 PM            

quote:

---

You deny that you have a personal vendetta against Christianity and yet you kind of just proved my point

---

Incorrect. The only reason I reference Christianity in this instance is because I am aware that the demographic of users who frequent this board are from the western world. Which mostly consists of Christian denominations and it's offspring. One must be able to relate to to the crowd as it were...

If I have a “vendetta”, it is against ignorance and irrational modes of thought. My arguments are not just applicable to Christianity as you seem to think, but to ALL religions. If you fail to see that aspect of my posts, its because you are the one who is afflicted with a tunnel vision mentality.

(You should really re-read this thread, because I get the feeling you are merely scanning any part that just has the word Christianity in it)

quote:

---

You want to bring up the dark ages yet you fail to bring up a religion that is still living in the dark ages, islam. They are the ones blowing up **** and killing people on a regular basis..

---

I don't understand, You berate Islam, yet Islam is built upon the same principles as Christianity. Faith...

It doesn't matter what religion or superstitious cult is the dominant force on the planet, they are all suffering from the same virus. Its just a matter of who is in the front running to bring about the next “Dark Age” should they succeed.

quote:

---

It was the fact that it was controlled and used by a corrupt empire to control people, christianity had existed for quiet along time before the roman empire adopted it for themselves..

---

You know at the beginning of this thread I was the one who was alluding to the fact that the “Roman Empire” had used Christianity for its own ends.

I argued that they canonized certain aspects of the doctrine. In particular the idea of resurrection, as they knew that this would help propel it to the most dominant force of its time. Ontop of that they then tried to link these doctrine to real world artifacts to help cement them as a reality for their Christian believers.

Now it appears that you actually agree with me on this possibility?

In which case shouldn't you feel just a slight bit uneasy accepting the doctrine of their Gospels, and things such as the location of “Jesus's Tomb”, or that it even existed...

If you are willing to go that far, why not examine the possibility that even the biblical Jesus didn't exist?

@PixeJ: (which is potentially dangerous that could return us to the dark ages, especially if a major disaster hit, and what I believe LK is thinking of).

Yes, this is a major concern, thanks for binging that up!

posted June 25, 2014 10:30 AM            

Your notion that religion as a whole, completely defies all rational and moral thought is illogical in itself.
It kind of shows your Religious Intolerance towards the majority of people who frequent this site, embracing christianity, not out of illogical ignorance or blind faith.
I don't believe that anyone doubts, that the cruelty and suffering which we bring upon ourselves have been a part of human history.The point with regard to atheist regimes is that they have shown to do no better at bringing peace and harmony to humanity than anything else. Genocide is an atrocity no matter the reason behind it; however, history proves that even the allegedly superior intellect of the atheist mind still resorts to it.
The sole reason being to advance itself.

posted June 25, 2014 10:08 PM            

quote:

---

Your notion that religion as a whole, completely defies all rational and moral thought is illogical in itself.

---

[1] Explain what is rational about “Faith” (The Basis of Religion)!? Or do you think that belief in the improbable is rational?

Bare this in mind:

Faith: Belief that is not based on proof.
Illogical: Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Logical: Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

[2] I never said anything about morality. Or is it that you see, that morality and religion are somehow linked? That religion/faith proceeds morality?

quote:

---

It kind of shows your Religious Intolerance towards the majority of people who frequent this site, embracing christianity.

---

Religious intolerance: Is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice).

[3] Tell me then, when is it that questioning a belief system has now become classed as “Religious Intolerance”. Are you actually saying that it is wrong for anyone to question another persons belief system, to challenge the validity of their reasoning?

You do not seem to realize that religion by its design is inherently “Intolerant” of anyone else who is not in its ranks! Religion does not move to encourage individuality, but rather through its total intolerance of the individual, religion actively seeks to assimilate them into its collective belief system.

If a major religion became a dominant force on this planet, how tolerant do you think religion would be of someone like me?

Now you can turn that around and go:

How tolerant would an atheist majority be of a religious minority (Btw, I'm not an Atheist in case you were wondering).

This is a question of morality, if the Atheist group denies individuals the right to choose what it is they want to believe and practice for “themselves”, then yes ofc that's an intolerant attitude. But that is not a reflection of actual “Atheism”!

Atheism is NOT an "institution" of belief: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

If Atheism becomes classed as an “institution” of non-belief! Guess what is has just become!? A “Religion” of non-belief... and as I have just stated above:

quote:

---

Religion by its design is inherently “Intolerant” of anyone else who is not in its ranks! Religion does not move to encourage individuality, but rather through its total intolerance of the individual, religion actively seeks to assimilate them into its collective belief system.

---

What you are not getting about me, is that if Atheism became classed as an institution of non-belief and rose to be the dominant force on this planet, you would find that I would be the FIRST person to stand up and go hey!

Dafaq you think you are doing infringing on another persons right to believe that the “Cookie Monster” is the prime mover of the universe.

Yes its illogical as swiss-cheese, and you can point out ever single fallacy in their entire Cookie Monster belief system but what you CANT do, is actively stop them from practicing this belief.

Where pray tell, have I been actively STOPPING someone from believing and practicing their system of religion.

I made this thread, and everyone of a Christian inclination could have completely ignored it for all Id care. I cannot force anyone to make a single post here, but you ACTIVELY made a choice to come in here and tell me that I am Religiously Intolerant.

posted June 25, 2014 10:54 PM            

One thing a lot of Christians forget is how bloody Christians were to each other when they were the domineering force. It's why separation of church and state was instituted in America, they didn't want the US to became the same hell that Christian Europe had become with its hideous wars, inquisitions, and torturous executions as Christians hated other Christians above all, even more than the heathens, because the "false Christians" were also blasphemers.

I read the Malleus Malifecarum, and it mentioned the dangers of divided loyalties that local parish priests would have between their community and the Papacy. The worst punishments were reserved for priests who dared stymie the Inquisition or helped those in their community escape it. And they were even of the same religion.

Protestants and Catholics going at each other were even worse, the sheer creativity of sadism they inflicted on each other exceeds the theatrical "satanism" of any death metal trying to be icky and evil sounding today (though fun fact, some of those musicians claim to be Christian themselves, their demonic themes are just fun & profitable theater to them no different from producing movies like The Omen). Heck, the reason Hitler gained power was by appealing to the Lutheran sensibilities still prevalent in Germany at the time which were viciously anti-Catholic as it was anti-Jewish (as Martin Luther himself was, whom many would call a "true Christian").

If the Christian Right were to gain its wish, especially those members (of which there are plenty) who believe the Bible should be the law of the land, plenty of Christians would suffer under them, including all that they caught dabbling in astrology. And yes, they are Christians, if they sincerely believe and/or mix with others who do in shared belief. I expect anyone at LL would find far more Christians saying that one who accepts astrology is not a real Christian than the other way around (doesn't matter if you can justify it Biblically, they'll justify their beliefs their own way and nearly all will have Bible scholars and other respected authorities that will back their views), and it's also a No true Scotsman. (To be false they'd have to not believe, merely exploit others believing it, like "finding Jesus" to get out of prison as a simple example, or going to church merely boost your business and make contacts is another, and of course the scammers selling all sorts of "prayer" junk and false testimonials for easy Christian dollars.)

Since they'd always need someone to blame why the tornadoes and hurricanes were hitting (plus the horrible results of their likely social policies) they'd quickly turn on each other without any enemies outside of Christendom anymore. Heck, I suspect some would simply because they simply can't help but be intolerant. The antipathy (and even occasional violence) between the various churches in the East Texas Bible Belt I witnessed growing up was pretty intense, and giving them even more power to fight over between themselves (denominations doubling as political factions) would probably precede an implosion as they turned on each other.

posted June 26, 2014 11:58 PM            

I understand where you are coming from, now that you made it quite clear that you are indeed questioning the Belief System of Religion which stands on the grounds of faith.
As per your definition :
Faith: belief not based on Proof

But Faith for me is
a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence.

For another it could be this:
Belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.

While another position holds this:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Common factor being, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above.

Now a rather meaningful way of posing your question would be, Is faith rational or irrational?

Actually, it would be someone who demanded absolute proof of everything who would be the irrational one (at least in the sense of 'not sensible'). There are very few things in life which can be proved absolutely, and society would fal apart if no-one was ever prepared to trust anything in the absence of certainty. Faith is a cruicial part of life. Somone who demanded proof regardless would never risk doing anything at all, and would be considered irrationally paranoid by any disinterested observer. It is also irrational to strictly say that there is no god, considering that there is no evidence that there is or isn't a god.

So to say, Depending on what "YOU" have faith in, has an important bearing. I am CHRSTIAN, so my Faith is in GOD, For the Purpose of a defintion - Heb. 11:1 says - 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
In other words to simplify this, Faith is in fact "TRUST".
That is the relationship between the devoted and the dedicated.A kind of cement. ..
GOD does not conform to mankinds ideal, for HE created Mankind, not the other way around. The Existence of GOD is not in question, because HIS Existence does not require "Your" belief. Now on the Contrary, your Future will depend on whether or not "You" believe in HIM.
That is why it takes more faith to disbelieve in god than to believe.In that context, atheists do have faith because they believe in'REASON' and then what?it is like what pi says,"like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them-Then They Leap."

Infact This article states that -Atheism requires numerous leaps of faith, to keep the whole system together.
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2011/12/the-atheistic-leap-of-faith/

As to the answer to your question-
If a major religion became a dominant force on this planet, how tolerant do you think religion would be of someone like me?
In such a case, Christians made it quite clear “we would be the first ones to step out of the queu” if it should be shown that God is, in fact, NOT there.

By that logic, atheism is a religion since it has a thought about God: it doesn't exist. Again, it depends on how you see religion. There is a way one would view religion that the question you ask up there would be very irrelevant basically because the death of religion would necessarily imply a lack of belief in God. One cannot believe in God and not believe in him at the same time.

posted June 28, 2014 01:42 AM            

I'm in the middle of a pile of work, will reply when I can

posted June 28, 2014 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Ive read alot of his letters and essays sure [Nods]

The man was a professor, but without tenure

I mean at 16 he was able to determine the probably location of Pluto

While Lovecraft is a character study unto himself. Its his Mythos and Philosophy that really perks my interest

---

Sorry, I tried to post Lovecraft's Astrology for you that night.

Mercury Thought Not.

And he disappeared.

posted June 28, 2014 04:18 PM            

Because he wasn't treated right, we lost out.

posted June 29, 2014 03:32 AM            

LK, you will LOVE this, brilliant as it is funny!