Believing in God feels good?

[Pixelholic]

yeah... pascal's wager is a horrible defense of the faith.

I agree.

 

[Coriolis]

Reasonably so, yes, but I wish I was better. A comma before "are" is needed above, by the way.

And you need the subjunctive here: "I wish I were better".

 

[Helios]

And you need the subjunctive here: "I wish I were better".

I've always thought that that sounds a tad too royal or poetic, so I prefer to avoid it. It's much like whether I should place a comma before "and" in many sentences: strictly speaking, I should not, yet it produces what seems to me to be a much more organic sentence.

Good try, though.

 

[Helios]

Helios thank you so much for taking your time to correct our mistakes. Sweet of you it is.

I have not corrected a mistake you have made, as far as I can recall. I said, in response to your first post:

Of all the crap I've read on this forum, this must be the most incomprehensible. Is it too tedious for you to at least express your nonsense clearly and appealingly?

 

[Bushranger]

Faith is like nicotine, hideously addictive, it takes hold and makes you feel relaxed and functional so long as you partake in regular doses.

Those who live without nicotine can also feel relaxed and functional, but they don't need to dose themselves to achieve it.

Smoking and religion are both social peer group activities, one has a higher cost to society than the other.

 

[Mole]

Faith is like nicotine, hideously addictive, it takes hold and makes you feel relaxed and functional so long as you partake in regular doses.

Those who live without nicotine can also feel relaxed and functional, but they don't need to dose themselves to achieve it.

Smoking and religion are both social peer group activities, one has a higher cost to society than the other.

Yes, faith is very nice in small doses.

But the toxicity lies in the dose - the higher the dose, the more toxic.

And small regular doses act as a prophylactic alerting our immune system to protect us.

 

[KDude]

I'm honestly surprised that so many can take comfort in faith like that. God's too awesome an idea to be relaxing, as far as I'm concerned ("awesome" as in provoking awe..not as in "cool"..although that could apply somewhat too). When I see people so in peace with the concept, I don't understand where they're coming from. I remember a conversation with a friend awhile back where he mentioned if he talked to God, he'd enjoy it and want to do this and that.. I'm kind of stunned by that..even a little upset. I think it's arrogant and shortsighted. I would be completely crippled. It would be terrifying enough to witness a quasar or a black hole...let alone some being that's responsible for all of it, and that is apparently pure "holiness" to boot. Yeah, I'm going to view God as my comforting "play buddy". Give me a break.

 

[Totenkindly]

yeah... pascal's wager is a horrible defense of the faith.

I've always liked Pascal, but I agree with you here: "It's better to believe in God than not, just in case I'd go to hell otherwise" is a lousy way to justify a life commitment and live out of a positive source of motivation.

Following a religion just to save one's own skin reflects poor character and doesn't lead to the sort of positive transformation said religion is trying to encourage.

I just get riled up when someone says something about the bible when the bible says otherwise.

Carrying that philosophy out into life in general, we'd all be riled all the time. In any pastiche and especially being viewed from multiple perspectives, one can always find apparent contradictions... and not even agree with others on what they are.

It's a pet peeve. I actually commend you if your sense of faith does not require the bible. It is a horrid book and there are much better spiritual writings out there.

It definitely seems personal to you.

I'm not an "all or nothing" person, and it helped me a great deal when I reevaluated what the Bible actually is and how it was constructed. My expectations changed to something I see as more realistic and then my judgments and perspectives of it changed. I think a literalist or fundamentalist reading creates a lot of the dichotomies that create frustration.

 

[Pixelholic]

I'm honestly surprised that so many can take comfort in faith like that. God's too awesome an idea to be relaxing, as far as I'm concerned ("awesome" as in provoking awe..not as in "cool"..although that could apply somewhat too). When I see people so in peace with the concept, I don't understand where they're coming from. I remember a conversation with a friend awhile back where he mentioned if he talked to God, he'd enjoy it and want to do this and that.. I'm kind of stunned by that..even a little upset. I think it's arrogant and shortsighted. I would be completely crippled. It would be terrifying enough to witness a quasar or a black hole...let alone some being that's responsible for all of it, and that is apparently pure "holiness" to boot. Yeah, I'm going to view God as my comforting "play buddy". Give me a break.

I agree with this. Things like thanking God or Jesus for trivial things or the "Jesus is my Homey" shirts always seemed like Christians would rather just have a cosmic buddy than an awe inspiring omnipotent being.

It definitely seems personal to you.

I grew up in a very fundamentalist environment. It wasn't pretty. I think that Christians who want to push a nicer message should re-evaluate their holy book and that it's not blasphemous to do so since the religion itself has changed in strong ways. It actually makes sense to change the bible to reflect that. Fundamentalists will freak out but they were going to freak out about moderates anyway.

 

[Totenkindly]

I agree with this. Things like thanking God or Jesus for trivial things or the "Jesus is my Homey" shirts always seemed like Christians would rather just have a cosmic buddy than an awe inspiring omnipotent being.

I grew up in a very fundamentalist environment. It wasn't pretty. I think that Christians who want to push a nicer message should re-evaluate their holy book and that it's not blasphemous to do so since the religion itself has changed in strong ways. It actually makes sense to change the bible to reflect that. Fundamentalists will freak out but they were going to freak out about moderates anyway.

I'm still rather surprised at how many aren't aware of the cultural influence upon their readings on a book written 2000 years ago over a period of 1500 years. There's stuff in the modern readings there that wasn't even part of Christian thought 100 years ago (a broad one -- some of the Rapture theologies) and treated as if it came from the time of Christ.

Yeah, it's been kind of hard being a moderate in a conservative setting. You might as well eat babies for breakfast in some circles. But being able to delineate everything in life clearly helps some people feel happier and/or less anxious about life.

 

[KDude]

Yeah, the rapture stuff annoys me. Most "end time" theories were a form of preterism before. It's kind of strange that dispensationalism has picked up like it has, and that many think as if it's the de facto view, when 2000 yrs of church history say otherwise. Even stranger is that preterism is now seen as too academic.. liberal nonsense.. and dispensationalism the conversative view.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm still rather surprised at how many aren't aware of the cultural influence upon their readings on a book written 2000 years ago over a period of 1500 years. There's stuff in the modern readings there that wasn't even part of Christian thought 100 years ago (a broad one -- some of the Rapture theologies) and treated as if it came from the time of Christ.

I am surprised when people who claim to follow Jesus limit themselves to what is written about him in the Bible, ignoring other early texts like the Gnostic writings. If my spiritual path were centered on Jesus, I would want to learn everything I could about him.

 

[Riva]

^ Whatever was written about jesus was written by his followers is it not? And whatever they are, they can't be different from what is in the Bible?

 

[Coriolis]

^ Whatever was written about jesus was written by his followers is it not? And whatever they are, they can't be different from what is in the Bible?

Yes, actually, they can. There were a number of groups of "Jesus followers" in the first century BCE, with somewhat different perspectives on his life and significance. Not all of their writings were included in the canonical Bible as we know it. The Gnostic Gospels are just one example of excluded material. They, too, were written by followers of Jesus. These excluded writings do not outright contradict what is in the Bible, but they provide added dimensions, some of which the coalescing early church wanted to de-emphasize or even suppress.

Some good references on this are: Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton Mack, Putting Away Childish Things by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, and The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.