Mighty God - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-13-2006, 11:43 PM   #136
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy


I'd like to state that this is your BELIEF, it is not fact and does not ring true to everyone, including me. I do not have a wish to know "God" (quotations as I don't believe there even is one) and I don't feel "it" calling me.

What I post are my beliefs about God.

I want to remind everyone to read the first post of this thread. It says:

"I want to start by saying that I understand there already exist numerous threads about God, individual beliefs, and truth. However, I feel that this thread will be much more longer than those, and much more detailed than those.

I just want to discuss God ... not so much politics, religion, or anything else.

Also, I hope that whoever chooses to take part in this discussion, will do so in a mature and caring manner. I understand how this topic can be very controversial, and how nearly everyone will in some way disagree in some form or another. Please be kind and considerate at all times."--posted by netminder0

Question>>>Why would persons who profess a disbelief in God be so engaged in a conversation about "Mighty God"?
No one here is knocking you. There is no argument. You are free to not believe, but have some consideration for those who do believe and wish to have a discussion.
__________________

__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:44 PM   #137
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
My point was, and I just found the stats, Jesus is mentioned 97 times. Muhammad 25.
In my understanding, few sources agree on precisely how many times Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, as that depends on how one interprets various titles. And 25 is by far the highest figure I've seen for explicit references to Muhammad (i.e., by name). However, if one accepts the standard Muslim understanding that the Quran was dictated to Muhammad, it would be strange if he were mentioned by name--"I, Muhammad"--very often. On the other hand, various titles which crop up constantly in the Quran--"the prophet," "the messenger," "the bearer of news," "the warner," etc. are generally understood by Muslims to be references to Muhammad, whether spoken by the narrator (Muhammad), God (speaking through Gabriel), or other humans who appear in the text at various points.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:05 AM   #138
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JCR

religion has been trying to put a stake in the heart of truth since and even before Galileo. What do you think the Dark Ages were about? You, and bordergirl are assuming that the Bible is the word of one supreme being, when in fact it is the writings of men (and later revised and edited by monks) who claimed inspiration from "God"....
Now, I 'm not bashing you or bordergirl on your right to your own faiths, but stop speaking as if you have the cornerstone on capital 't' truth.
I think most of us here are speaking about our truths, not saying anyone has to agree though.

I see a lot of your questions have been addressed.

The one about Galileo hasn't:

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, etc.

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:23 AM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76

I also believe it's presumptuous to assume you know who's going to be saved and who isn't. None of us know this stuff, only God does.
I'm not presuming anyone is not going to be saved. I know that if the Gospel is truth (and I believe with all my heart and mind that it is), then I am saved, because I put my faith in Christ. I also know Jesus said "No one comes to the Father but by me". How he works that out for people who have never heard of him, I don't know. But he'll work it out.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:41 AM   #140
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:07 PM
I think maybe I should recap here a few things I said in the ill-fated (i.e., locked) atheism thread a few weeks back.

There is no such thing as a thread with a "-------s Keep Out" sign, whether concerning religion or anything else. Theists are free to post in an atheism thread, atheists are free to post in a thread about God, etc. Yes, this ups the potential for bickering, there's no two ways about that, but it could hardly be free discussion otherwise. However--a little humility from both sides is not too much to ask, and neither is refraining from dominating a discussion not primarily intended for people of your persuasion (whatever that may be). It can be difficult to spell out what this looks like though--one person's "Your beliefs are arrogant and self-centered" might be another person's "Those who don't believe what I do are going to hell." I guess all I can ask is that everyone try not to take disagreements about matters of (non)faith too personally, and take care to phrase both their statements of opinion and their replies to others in that spirit. And of course, avoid persistently hounding other posters if you know you're coming from outside the thread's generally intended target audience.

I think part of the problem with this thread (above and beyond the usual) is that the original post simply invited a discussion "about God"--it did not specifically seek "a discussion with my fellow Christians about God," though based on subsequent posts, that does in fact seem to have been the general intent. (Compare this to amy's atheism thread, which was explicitly titled "What about us atheists" and specifically invited other atheists to weigh in with their views in its initial post.) In general, I think it makes threads concerning religion/atheism both more productive, and certainly easier to moderate consistently, if a reasonably clear scope of discussion is defined from the outset.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 04:09 AM   #141
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:07 AM
I think that it's great if believers want to rain on unbelievers parade - dissent and criticism are fine things but I expect the same right in return. Tolerance is not about respect for views, it is about respect for rights.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:40 AM   #142
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Going with Yolland's point, I also am interested in people's thoughts on their own personal beliefs, but even in a thread about God, I do think it is best if you don't assume that everyone shares your religious views, and therefore when making sweeping statments like 'we all sin' and 'we all desire to know God' will be picked up on because they are simply not belived by everyone.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:13 AM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Interesting thread. . .

A few random thoughts and a question:

I also believe that there is no seperate "soul" that lives on consciously after death. I can't remember who it was, but early in the thread another Christian summed up my beliefs on that pretty well.

I don't believe God has as much of an "issue" with atheists as He does with Christians who misrepresent Him. After all, most of the atheists I've met (including those I know well, such as my brother, and also those I don't know personally, such as my fellow posters here) are honestly unconvinced that there is sufficient evidence for the existance of God. If they don't see it, they don't see it, and I don't think you can fault that. Furthermore, the kind of God that most people who abandon faith once believed in is one horrific diety and certainly unworthy of any kind of worship or respect.

I'd be really interested in hearing the "conversion story" of someone who was once a believer who gave up their faith but who, up until the moment they lost their faith, thought of God as wonderful, loving, and close, and yet somehow lost faith anyway. So far it would seem that the God most people stop believing in isn't worth believing in anyway.

I can understand the humbrage taken by those who do not believe in God when Christians talk about what all those who do not "know God" are missing, but doesn't this "derision" cut both ways. Doesn't the atheist shake his/her head at the benighted, irrational belief systems of faith? Wouldn't the atheist argue that the believer is "missing" so much by holding on to primitive beliefs that don't stand up to the rigors of science, and being held to all kinds of "outmoded" beliefs because "God says so."

Which brings me to my question:

For those of you that are so offended by how the Christians on this thread defend their faith, would you care to describe what would be an appropriate way for us to talk about what we believe?

I'm not saying that there hasn't been the occasional arrogance, and self-righteousness among the Christian apologists on this thread, but then we all tend to cop that attitude from time to time (with a few notable exceptions). Hell, we all think we're right most of the time. But on the whole, I think that they've done a good job of keeping it civil and respectful.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:19 AM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
Going with Yolland's point, I also am interested in people's thoughts on their own personal beliefs, but even in a thread about God, I do think it is best if you don't assume that everyone shares your religious views, and therefore when making sweeping statments like 'we all sin' and 'we all desire to know God' will be picked up on because they are simply not belived by everyone.
But see, that's just it. A_Wanderer makes sweeping statements all the time about our basic materialist nature which I strongly disagree with yet, yet he's not faulted. (And I'm not saying he should be). Should he also "not assume that everyone shares his materialist views" or does the fact that he has science on his side exclude him from having to qualify his every statement with "this is what I believe to be true, but I know not everyone feels this way."

I think it's kind of self-evident that when a Christian makes a statement like "we all sin", that this is just what they believe and not everyone shares that belief, just as when A_W says "we're all animals", it's obvious that not everyone agrees with that assumption.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 08:28 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
and therefore when making sweeping statments like 'we all sin'
For the life of me, I can't figure out why this is a big deal. Is there anyone in this forum who honestly believes that they don't sometimes do the wrong thing? I would think that only people who don't believe that there is no right or wrong would believe this, but I would assume that isn't the view of most people on the forum.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 08:29 AM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I think that it's great if believers want to rain on unbelievers parade - dissent and criticism are fine things but I expect the same right in return. Tolerance is not about respect for views, it is about respect for rights.
And where do you not see that on Free Your Mind? Honestly, where are your rights as a nonChristian being taken away?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 08:30 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


But see, that's just it. A_Wanderer makes sweeping statements all the time about our basic materialist nature which I strongly disagree with yet, yet he's not faulted. (And I'm not saying he should be). Should he also "not assume that everyone shares his materialist views" or does the fact that he has science on his side exclude him from having to qualify his every statement with "this is what I believe to be true, but I know not everyone feels this way."

I think it's kind of self-evident that when a Christian makes a statement like "we all sin", that this is just what they believe and not everyone shares that belief, just as when A_W says "we're all animals", it's obvious that not everyone agrees with that assumption.
You are 100% correct.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 08:54 AM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


And where do you not see that on Free Your Mind? Honestly, where are your rights as a nonChristian being taken away?
They are not, perhaps you miscontrue intent since I am not making claim to victimhood - I am more than capable of defending my position and I revel in doing so.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 09:21 AM   #149
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 06:07 AM
The reason I wasn't addressing A_W aterialist views, is because I haven't read them in this thread. And I don't think its up to me to accern whether someone who says 'we all want to know God' is only speaking as their BELIEF or whether it is a sweeping statement. Maybe putting 'my beliefs dictate' or 'i feel' makes it clearer perhaps?

I do the wrong things all the time, but i dont think they are "sins" or that I'm doing them beause some divine being made me not perfect so i can be humble or something. So when you call it 'sins' i feel like you are taking MY mistakes out of my hands and putting them into the 'this is how you're made, jesus died for your sins yada yada' and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 09:37 AM   #150
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


I think it's kind of self-evident that when a Christian makes a statement like "we all sin", that this is just what they believe and not everyone shares that belief, just as when A_W says "we're all animals", it's obvious that not everyone agrees with that assumption.
You have captured my frustration---thanks.
Also,
Conversation/observations/ about a "Mighty God" (unless this was supposed to be taken sarcastically) was what the original post asked.
Believers of all faiths will be inclined to post/share/teach/inspire, etc.
But if this post becomes about defending aetheism (a belief in no God), then carry on.
Believers, Aetheists or Agnostics respectfully exploring questions regarding Faith or lack of it, God, Jesus, etc. and others respectfully responding?
ok then!
Questions are opportunities for all of us to learn.
__________________

__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com