I'm sure they have it in English somewhere online.

I'm sure they have it in English somewhere online.[/QUOTE]
I have it in English. What I mean is that I don't understand the symbolism and such.

Ah, that makes sense.

Dealing with the bible as simply being fiction or non-fiction is in reality not an option. There are many different components that make up the books of the old and new testament: creation myths, genealogies, history, poetry, epistles, and prophecy, just to name a few. Each of these should be judged on the basis of their own merit. One has to take into consideration the reliability, as a narrator, of the many authors that were collectively responsible for composing the books that make up the bible. Where is their credibility? How were the books of the bible chosen? There are at least 20 new testament era synoptic scriptures that didn't make it into the current biblical canon. Why? The inclusion of the books that comprise what we know to be the holy bible were voted on by committee in that they most closely align themselves with a politically established definition of what a "Christian" is (The Nicene Creed). The most relevant question that can be asked in substitute is Does the Bible represent an accurate and inerrant spiritual authority, and as far as I'm concerned the answer is no. But that is not meant to detract from its inherent value.

I agree completely.

No. My retort was that one could have reason (or a basic survivalist feeling of necessity) to pursue religion because it is part of our nature.

If the religion has general guidelines or "things you have to do to get it," and those guidelines make someone feel good while resulting is less harm (in the form of waste, injury, aggression etc) to others, then why question it?

And mine is the fact that no "basic survivalist feeling" is really your own reason. That stuff does not determine who you are. Sartre's whole being-in-yourself idea is what I am saying. We have no true essence from birth. We have to create one based on our actions because are actions are how we exist. "Basic survivalist feeling" can't be a reason to choose religion. You don't know whether anyone survives after life. Pascal's Wager doesn't make sense anyways because it views this life as completely worthless, which it isn't.

I don't question that aspect of it. I question the fact that you want to do something because "God told you so."

Absolutely. I'm with you there.

Why is it so bad to want to believe in a being that loves you unconditionally, and enough that he would do anything for you? Why do you believe us to be stupid because we hope for a better place than this wretched planet? If you ask me, it is better to believe in a god/God and be wrong, then not to believe in a Deity and be wrong.

I agree with you, because scientifically, faith usually makes a person healthier, happier. Whether they're experiencing the 'placebo effect' is irrelevant from a utilitarian standpoint.

However, some very Orthodox Christians take a very imperialistic religious approach, which is to tell people if they don't believe Jesus died for our sins, they are going to hell. Many evangelists and their followers operate on fear and control and that is just the fact of it.

The orthodox aspect of religion is what makes the zealots seem insane. It's like this, 'I'm not really sure if I believe all this is true, but the more people I can convince, the more I convince myself' attitude. I just think people should let people be who they want to be, but for god's sake, if you want to share your religion with other people, and show them how great it is, don't use threats at the very least.

The thing that bothers me most about Christianity, and by Christianity, I mean the Catholic church I'd been exposed to from 3 years old to 15, is that they DO use threats.

If you're homosexual, "God" won't love you.

If you have sex before marriage, "God" won't love you.

If you don't donate to the church, "God" won't love you.

And then recently, I was accepted in to a college that made it clear that it was necessary to have recieved all of your sacraments.

I was blind in looking for colleges, and for some reason, didn't notice how strict the school was religiously.

But that's what I've been exposed to throughout my life.

That's how "God" introduced himself to me.

Where in the bible does it say any of those things?

I didn't even bring up the bible. What are you talking about?

Really, that's how people introduced "God" to you. It not that "God" won't love you, when you do something wrong, it is that when you do something wrong, you won't love God. God is Love, and God can not "not love" a person. And because God loves the person no matter what, people should love the sinner and hate the sin - there shouldn't be any threats. It is up to the person to know right from wrong, good from evil, so they can love and respect God, other people, and themselves.

It's not what I was taught.

I was told that my birth was a sin and that God forgives me for it.

I was told a lot of shitty things about religion.

And I was young.

Just sayin' that religious authorities like to make us think that god is quite selective with how he dispenses love.

Oh, are you agreeing with me?

Lol, Absolutely! I didn't quite make that clear with my initial post though.

Ohhh! Haha.

I thought you were disagreeing, and I was like, "B-but..." xD

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality ‘an abomination.'"

Jacobs: "I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does."

Bartlet: "Yes it does. Leviticus-"

Jacobs: "18:22."

Bartlet: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? [silence in the room] While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief-of-staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you."

-The West Wing

First of all, unconditional love is not love. Love is conditional which is what makes it love in the first place. If you like someone for no reason, that is not love. What do you appreciate in the person? Nothing. It is an insult to have someone to say they like you for no reason. That undermines everything you are.

I don't think you are stupid for believing in God. I just think that you are choosing to waste your existence. I guess you could say that is a stupid thing to do. In reality, there is no reason why you will be happier off with religion. Also, your last sentence sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager. The problem with that is that you are viewing this life as worth nothing when there is the possibility that it is worth everything.

Also, why do you call this place a wretched planet? The place is great. I have the ability to work hard and get what I want. I have the ability to love and be loved. I have the ability to exist for the sake of myself. This is all I know and to call it a "wretched planet" is basically like saying that my life here is worth nothing aka nihilism.

How do you measure happiness scientifically?

It is amusing that Christians claim that the bible or parts of it are metaphorical when it suits them. The bible wasn't written as a metaphor. It was written as the law of Moses. The new testament is supposed to be an account of the teachings of Jesus. there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. All documents that claimed Jesus' existence have been proven to be fraudulent. One carbon dated to somewhere around year 1000. Claiming something as a law and then changing your mind and calling it a metaphor when society starts coming around and sees it as barbaric is just a way to keep the religion alive. A lot of money is tide up in Judaism and Christianity. If you truly are a believer who are you to dispute the words of your god? Some would call it a blasphemy.

This is something I think everyone should know, or at least be open to its possibility. You're right; there was no historical record of Jesus until at least 100 years after his birth, and well known writers of the area during the days of 'Jesus' have never mentioned him in their writings. With that said, people can take Jesus metaphorically, and try to mimic his characters' actions, because he was a pretty cool guy. Oh yeah, also, I wouldn't go around telling Christians this, because it will only lead to arguing. It's best to let people find this stuff on their own.

I agree with you Inuzuka that 'unconditional love' doesn't really exist between humans. Even a mother loves her kids under the condition that 'they are her kids.' Before they were reincarnated as her kids, they might have been some old man living 500 miles away that she never met, and never cared about. She didn't love them then. However, the universe unconditionally loves every living and nonliving thing. If you do terrible things, at the end of this life, you'll die, and many years later be reincarnated and have a chance to relearn your lessons that you failed to grasp in your previous life. The universe loves unconditionally, people-not so much

The first New testament text was dated @ A.D. 60, about 27 years after Jesus' death, and that was the book of Acts, not a gospel, but an account of the pentacost and the formation of the early church. It is largely attributed to the same author who penned the synoptic gospel of Luke. the first of the four synoptic gospels to be written was the book of Mark (largely regarded to be the most historically accurate) was written @ A.D. 70, about 37 years after Jesus' death.
To say that "there was no historical record of Jesus until at least 100 years after his birth [which is false], and well known writers of the area during the days of 'Jesus' have never mentioned him in their writings." is a moot point. The illiteracy rate in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus' ministry is estimated at about 97% with the remaining 3% being composed of the political/religious elite and the scribes who's jobs were largely to record their doctrine. It was this same ruling class, namely the pharisees, the Saduccees, and various representatives of the Roman Empire who perceived the message and the movement Jesus was responsible for as a threat. It was only until the early christian church had moved far enough away from the epicenter of the sphere of the Roman Empire's influence and the influence of the Judaic ruling class that had mandated the death of any of Jesus' known followers that it was safe to have any historical (or otherwise) accounts of jesus' life, death, and ministry put in writing for the sake of posterity. So no, you really couldn't walk into a Barnes & Noble and pick up a book on Jesus in those days.

Ironically, this is the very same lesson that Jesus came to teach humanity (a strong argument could be made for or against reincarnation, but by omission only. In terms of meta/quantum physics and cognitive theory the concept of reincarnation is a very slippery slope)

On a personal note it makes me angry that I cannot call myself a Christian, because the term Christian has been franchised by a political/religious organization that has clothed his spirit in the bleached white sterile doctrine and dogma of their own creation.

Jesus did not come this world to create Christianity, (He was born Jewish, lived as a Jew, and died a Jew). Contemporary Christianity is more closely aligned with the staunch legalism that defined the religious power of his day. One that sought to put an end to a message that threatened its power. As a matter of fact, the majority of Christian teaching and all of its doctrine is vehemently antithetical to the message that he boldly stood for and courageously died for, not as a means of atoning for our sins, but as a means of showing us how to live without fear in the full grace and love of our own divinity.

Jesus met his death because to run cowardly away from it would contradict everything that he believed in and was trying to teach his disciples and humanity. He was a subversive who didn't cower in the shadow of the power structure that intimidatingly loomed over him. We could learn a lot from someone like that.

If you want to see the true essence of Jesus' teachings read his Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5-7 (preferably a version a little more contemporary than the King James version) It contains the essence of what he was trying to get through to people, and it was THIS message, not the one expounded by the doctrine of conventional Christianity, that the early church was trying to spread. It was only until the message fell into the hands of the Roman Empire and its use as a away of promoting fear and compliance against the peasant class was wholeheartedly taken advantage of that we saw the beginnings of what we now know as Christianity.

It's a fucking shame and a sham.

So Satch, do you consider yourself a Unitarian?

Yes, very much so.

I usually refer to myself as an agnostic.

But I'd like to believe there's some spiritual force of some kind out there, It's not uncommon for me to reference god or thank god for good fortune.

I don't believe in divine intervention or fate or anything like that and I think creationism is just idiotic. But I have a hard time believing that existance is just a big fluke, I think there had to be an intelligent force behind it, so I'm probably more of a deist than anything.

This is exactly what I believe, too.

A much underused classifiction of belief is ignostic. If to be agnostic is to say "I don't know if god exists", and to be Atheistic is to say "I don't believe god doesn't exists", then ignosticism is equivalent to saying "what do you mean when you say god?". This is where I fall under. All my arguments for or against the existent of God are variant upon the definition of God that one is arguing for or against. SOme I deas of what God is I believe in and some I don't, and to a greater degree I know that's subjective on my part.

Well I don't believe god is some old guy with a beard who spends most of his free time smiting innocent people because the gays did something to piss him off.

You don't believe in divine intervention but you thank god for things? Makes perfect sense...

I like that.

Actually, if the belief of atheists is "I don't believe god doesn't exist" that's a double negative, and if you cancelled them out would literally translate to "I believe god exists" I don't think that's what they believe, although I have heard some of them say that Atheist means Non-Theist, and so they're basically agnostic.
I rarely get to correct you, so I couldn't resist the temptation.

I thought Atheists didn't believe that god exists, and Agnostics believed that there was no proof that he does or doesn't exist. But I'm probably wrong.

You were right about Atheists, he was just grammatically incorrect, he knew what he was trying to say.

And Agnostics are usually... waiting for proof of existence. ^_^

Yeah, typo on my part.

I have to sort of clarify my response to this question.

There are two conflicting definitions of the Unitarianism. One is often and erroneously used ro describe the United Church of Christ which is an extremely liberal adjunct sect of Christianity that differentiates itself from all mainstream denominations of Christianity in its rejection of the Christian doctrine of the holy trinity.
There's also the Unitarian Church which embraces and teaches the core principles of all religions, but subscribes exclusively to none, and doesn't seek to promote any religions dogma or doctrine. this is a good summation of my beliefs.

Also, the Baha'i faith preaches that all religions worship the same god, which is contrary to what Hindus believe, but the theme is world peace, and that all religions are right.
It also says that Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed were all essentially equal in that they were all messengers of the one god. Pretty great religion.

Yeah, Baha'i is a very awesome and interesting religion that I've been meaning to learn a lot more about.

baha'i is a nice idea, but kind of self-defeating. it basically ends up being a diluted version of islam with the slogan "world peace!", which is probably still better than most religions.

So they believe that god told many messengers to create different religions that would then start fighting and killing each other for many centuries?

Who wants to worship a god like that?