This is simply an example, not to be taken literally:

Say you woke up the next morning and saw on the news that world political leaders were stating that in fact, thier was no such thing as God and it was instead a tool in the past to control people. The question lies in this: Do you believe in God because of a secret fear deep down inside of you that longs for a life after death or do actually have instinctive faith? Many people probably do have this fear which they will never emit in thier lives but rather, will cloud their concerns with thier faith.

I wouldn't believe it because world political leaders were the ones saying it. Never trust a politician. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I'm a joker.

I believe in God cose he/...It(not 2 be sexist) has showen him(oh screw it)self to me and i believe that if u ask him to he will show himselve 2 u to. Nevermind what other people say

quote:Originally posted by dargor:

has showen him(oh screw it)self to me

Was this during an acid trip? Or perhaps PCP?

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

This is the worst and most poorly written example used to disprove god that I have ever seen.

This thread sucks.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

truly terrible. at least in the case of christianity the early church had to prevent the congregation from reading the bible to control them.

the reason being that Jesus' teachings were extremely subversive to the powers that be.

If the politicians were going to use christianty to control people, they could've found a somewhat less revolutionary messiah.

theBishop

True Bishop, but look at the state of christianity today, and tell me that it's revolutionary.

http://www.google.com

Search Key: Liberation Theology

aTribeCalledSean, i have no answer for that.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

http://www.google.com

Search Key: Liberation Theology

Just for good measure, it might be worth presenting a rather different edge of the coin.

[B] http://www.google.com

Search Key: Dominion Theology

Now THOSE people are scary.

Imagine a country run by dudes like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or *ech* Fred Phelps.

Although it must be mentions that he claims the religious right are all hypocritical fag-enablers too. Seriously, you must read his site, hes a funny guy.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

truly terrible. at least in the case of christianity the early church had to prevent the congregation from reading the bible to control them.

the reason being that Jesus' teachings were extremely subversive to the powers that be.

If the politicians were going to use christianty to control people, they could've found a somewhat less revolutionary messiah.

theBishop

I disagree. If you were talking about other religions, that is, that Jesus spoke against them, then you'd have a point.

But no where in the Bible does Jesus challenge Rome.

"Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give onto God that which is God's"

That statement says the opposite. It's a message of compliance, certainly not of defiance.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I disagree. If you were talking about other religions, that is, that Jesus spoke against them, then you'd have a point.

But no where in the Bible does Jesus challenge Rome.

"Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give onto God that which is God's"

That statement says the opposite. It's a message of compliance, certainly not of defiance.



But the Jewish leaders felt He was a threat. I think that was what Bishop meant by revolutionary.

I mean both i guess. I said "the powers that be". He basically said the rich would not be saved.

I'll find some more specific verses later.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



But the Jewish leaders felt He was a threat. I think that was what Bishop meant by revolutionary.

Which is why I said he would have a point if he meant religious leaders. and religious leaders alone.



the Bishop:

quote: He basically said the rich would not be saved.

I'll find some more specific verses later.

All of which, if taken in context, show a much different face.

I'll give you an example:

"23 Then Jesus said to his followers, 'I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Yes, I tell you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

but then he goes on to say,

"25 When Jesus’ followers heard this, they were very surprised and asked, 'Then who can be saved?'

26 Jesus looked at them and said, 'This is something people cannot do, but God can do all things.'"

Which is interpreted as meaning, that mortals alone do not decide salvation, but god does. Taken into context it means that money doesn't matter when it comes to salvation.

While that may not be a praise to those in political/economic power, that is hardly an attack.

Concerning the revolutionary nature of Jesus:

Think not that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

-Matthew 10:34-37

In Luke 22, Jesus also tells his disciples, should they not have a sword, to sell their cloak to procure one.

One of Jesus's disciples, Simon, was actually a Zealot, a guerilla army attempting to break Jerusalem out of Roman control.

At Gethsemane, Jesus is confronted by Judas and a cohort. Roman military terminology identifies a Cohort as 1/10 a Legion (roughly 600 men).

Concerning the initial question:

No, because no matter what anyone told me, my experience of God is too real and obvious to discredit because anyone argued with me over it, LEAST of all politicians.

And no, my belief in God is not linked to an afterlife. A religion can truly benefit anyone only if it is in principle an affirmation of this life.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Concerning the revolutionary nature of Jesus:

Think not that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

-Matthew 10:34-37



And right before that?



"32“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

Taken into context, Jesus is saying that they should hold him and god before anything else. Those who don't, will not be saved. Nothing revolutionary.

How about after the passage you quoted?

"38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.



39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

This further supports my argument.

quote:

In Luke 22, Jesus also tells his disciples, should they not have a sword, to sell their cloak to procure one.

Once again, we must look at the context.

Look at what follows that,

"38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That is enough,” he replied."

2 swords enough for what? 11? 12 men? That's hardly "revolutionary".

quote:One of Jesus's disciples, Simon, was actually a Zealot, a guerilla army attempting to break Jerusalem out of Roman control.



... who while under Jesus' teachings, ceased his revolutionary activities.

quote:

At Gethsemane, Jesus is confronted by Judas and a cohort. Roman military terminology identifies a Cohort as 1/10 a Legion (roughly 600 men).

Which was common Roman protocol; one that served primarily to give the arrest a "official" tone.

quote:Originally posted by dargor:

I believe in God cose he/...It(not 2 be sexist) has showen him(oh screw it)self to me and i believe that if u ask him to he will show himselve 2 u to. Nevermind what other people say



your insane

quote:Originally posted by Testament:

This is simply an example, not to be taken literally:

Say you woke up the next morning and saw on the news that world political leaders were stating that in fact, thier was no such thing as God and it was instead a tool in the past to control people. The question lies in this: Do you believe in God because of a secret fear deep down inside of you that longs for a life after death or do actually have instinctive faith? Many people probably do have this fear which they will never emit in thier lives but rather, will cloud their concerns with thier faith.



Cant speak for anyone else, but for me, if God doesnt exist, there is nothing for anyone to fear... here today, gone tomorrow.

Are you implying that you believe in a god because of fear? Or that people should believe in a god because of it?

quote:Originally posted by dargor:

I believe in God cose he/...It(not 2 be sexist) has showen him(oh screw it)self to me and i believe that if u ask him to he will show himselve 2 u to. Nevermind what other people say

How did you see him... if it was anything but symbolistic then you were probaly trippin out on shrooms.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Are you implying that you believe in a god because of fear? Or that people should believe in a god because of it?

neither.

basically saying that (from a human perspective) if God exists, there is no need for fear (if you believe) of an after life , if He does not exist, there is no need for anyone to fear.

I was just answering the TS question.

Although i did leave part of the answer out.. Faith is not instinctive either, it is a gift of God. As with any gift, you can use it or not use it.

quote:Originally posted by Testament:

This is simply an example, not to be taken literally:

Say you woke up the next morning and saw on the news that world political leaders were stating that in fact, thier was no such thing as God and it was instead a tool in the past to control people. The question lies in this: Do you believe in God because of a secret fear deep down inside of you that longs for a life after death or do actually have instinctive faith? Many people probably do have this fear which they will never emit in thier lives but rather, will cloud their concerns with thier faith.

here is a better question: What if God himself told you that there is no god?

quote:Originally posted by Testament:

This is simply an example, not to be taken literally:

Say you woke up the next morning and saw on the news that world political leaders were stating that in fact, thier was no such thing as God and it was instead a tool in the past to control people. The question lies in this: Do you believe in God because of a secret fear deep down inside of you that longs for a life after death or do actually have instinctive faith? Many people probably do have this fear which they will never emit in thier lives but rather, will cloud their concerns with thier faith.



If i remember correctly, the New York Times ran a front page article saying "GOD WAS DEAD, it was back in the early 1900's but...whatever. Yea, they've said that.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:



If the politicians were going to use christianty to control people, they could've found a somewhat less revolutionary messiah.



He's dead right. A lot of the stuff Jesus said was against organised religion and the corruption that it causes. What kind of religious organisation would choose him as their role model if their plan was control? There are easier ways to control a society, e.g. if you control their food supply.

But the early church didn't actively try and stop people, it's just that people couldn't read and Priests refused to translate the Bible.