Organized Religion

Billions of people around the world are following some kind of organized religion. Most people in the world probably believe that organized religion is a good thing for humanity. I would have to disagree. I think organized religion is the source of most of the misery on this planet that human beings have to live with. Religious people would argue that without religion the world would be much worse than it is right now. They would probably say that people would not think twice about committing violent acts and the world would be full of anarchy. There is nothing that anyone can say to convince me that the world is not full of anarchy and people not thinking twice about committing violent acts right now.

The top two religions of choice for people to follow in the world today are Christianity and Islam. These two religions are different but they a few things in common. For example rules that were given to them by their monkeys in the sky. They have logical rules to follow like, do not kill and do not steal. Unfortunately most of the rules that their monkeys in the sky gave them to follow are illogical. (If you are wondering why I keep using the words monkey in the sky instead god it is because both Muslims and Christians believe that god made man in his own image. Human beings are nothing more than monkeys with large brains relative to the size of their bodies. I also do not like using the word god because it implies that there is a human being in the sky that is better than me. I believe that all life forms are different but equal regardless of whether they are single celled organisms or beings of pure energy.) Millions of Muslims and Christians around the world are following illogical rules because they believe that their god will punish them if they don’t. I don’t blame Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus for all of this stupidity. All of the holy books in the world were written by humans, not some omnipotent being for another dimension. When ever I think about rules like the Ten Commandments or Moses seeing a burning bush, I imagine a group of intelligent men with the desire to control people smoking or drinking something that would probably be illegal in most countries today. Think about the commandments like thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife and the Koran saying that a man can marry up to four wives. Think about the way women are treated in African and Asian countries with Islamic laws. Men have all of the power and women are treated like shit, because according to Muslim men it is what Allah wants. It is all about men controlling women. Some of you may be surprised to know that there was a time when women had more power than men in some parts of Africa and Asia. I am not sure but I think it was approximately 10000 years ago. That is one of the reasons why women have little or no rights in that part of the world today. Can you imagine if the men were wearing the vales instead of the women?

I don’t have a problem with all organized religions. If the majority of religious people in the world were Buddhist or Taoist the world would probably be a much more peaceful place to live. I wish I was raised as a Buddhist but unfortunately I was raised as a Christian. I spent most of life believing that the Lord Jesus Christ was my savior. I also believed that I was probably going to go to hell when I died because I always had doubts about the philosophy of Christianity. As I got older I became more interested in science and Buddhism. I realized that many of the beliefs that Christians had were illogical and unhealthy. I can give you two examples of illogical unhealthy beliefs.

1. The concept of good and evil. There is no such thing as good and evil. Good an evil are just products of evolution. Like I said before we are nothing more than monkeys with large brains relative to the size of our bodies. If you observed a group of monkeys in the wild you would see that their behavior is very similar to ours. They have rules to follow except for the dominant males or females. They can get away with almost anything. The same way a king or president can give someone orders to take a life. Does that make George Bush and Saddam Hussein evil? Everything is perception. It all depends on what side you are on and what kind of rank you have in society.

2. Anyone that has a television or a radio should have heard about the sexual abuse by priest in Catholic churches all over the world. I think we will continue to hear more stories about sexual abuse involving Catholic priest and alter boys for many years because Catholics are not willing to do what has to be done to solve the problem. Human beings are capable of suppressing their sexual desires but it can't be done the way Catholic priest are trying to do it. You will probably never hear stories about Buddhist monks raping young boys in their temples in Tibet and India. The reason this will probably never happen is because some monks chose to live without sex but they don’t live without the chemical pleasures that people feel by engaging in sexual activities. Some monks can get all of the dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin that they need just by meditating. If meditation is not enough for any of the monks they still have the option of pursuing a sexual relationship without feeling like they have done something wrong. The monks that have reached a state Zen probably get more pleasure from meditating than the average human being gets from sex. Catholic priest have to realize that the Judea Christian philosophy of resisting temptations in this world so they can get into heaven is stupid. They spend most of their time praying to a god that doesn’t answer them. How much pleasure can they possibly get from that. Muslim clerics spend a lot of time praying to, but at least they can go home to their wives at night. It is not healthy for humans to live without sexual pleasure. If Catholic priest are not willing to change their beliefs there is one other solution to the problem. The Vatican could pay to have priest all around the world chemically castrated.

I have one other thing that I would like say about organized religion. Unfortunately most politicians around the world are religious. They tend to follow Christian based religions or Muslim based religions. That is the reason why the world is full of illogical laws that make life very miserable for people. Religion is the reason why a nine year old girl living in South America can be forced to have a child after she has been raped. We have the Catholic church to thank for that. They believe that all life is precious. Life is not precious. Life sucks. Some people are just lucky enough to be born in the right country at the right time with a good genetic code so they can at least have a chance to find happiness.
Imagine if 2000 years ago a group of intelligent people living in Europe, Asia, and Africa decided to start a religion based on logic. A religion with no god to worship and no illogical rules to follow. Imagine if they had one rule. Do onto other life forms as you would have them do onto you unless they have little or no chance of harming you. ( The only exception to this rule would be harmful bacteria and viruses.) Imagine if this religion replaced Christianity and Islam. I think the world would be a much better place to live in the year 2003. We would have probably already solved most of the problem that we have to live with on this planet because we would have spent less time killing each other and more time trying to find ways to make our lives better. I think we would already have people out in space exploring the universe. I don’t think we would be living with diseases like AIDS and cancer because we would have eliminated the genetic flaws that we have and our immune systems would be much stronger. I would love to live in a world like that but it is just a fantasy.

edit: caps removed from thread title

Edited by DonSpanton, 01 May 2006 - 04:30 PM.

If by organised you mean state-incorporated religion that I agree 100%.

Unfortunately even in Australia we have religion still being taught in schools plus various other little things like swearing on the bible when making a statement before the court.

I say let religion be subjected to the forces of the free market.

1) The western dating system is represents a christian bias. Why must every event in history have the birth of jesus as a point of reference? We need to develope a scientific/secular dating system.

2) Secular individuals who try to reconcile christianity and humanism are missing the boat. Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Either you take him at his word or you view him as a wacko with delusions of grandeur. There is no in between.

Kissinger

In Utah, we have a religiously oriented dating system too. I get religiously twitterpated with a girl, and I ask her on a date.

2)  Secular individuals who try to reconcile christianity and humanism are missing the boat.  Jesus claimed to be the son of God.  Either you take him at his word or you view him as a wacko with delusions of grandeur.  There is no in between.

I agree with this dichotomy but I am not sure Jesus even claimed to be divine. So much of the Gospels is simply fiction.

I agree John,

My reading of the new testament was that Jesus was implying that we are all sons of god, he wasn't an exclusive, and further that we could all be just like him. As I have mentioned somewhere else on the boards, the personification of god was probably necessary to help people 2000 years ago grasp the deep concepts that the mystics were dealing with. These same concepts are now being explored by scientists and philosophers. I have to say Kissinger that I think that Jesus was a genius for the time he lived in, he was on the cutting edge of cultural philosophy for his century, but like so many other great thinkers, his words were completely twisted not even a hundred years after he was gone and used for political purposes.

Best,
Peter

My reading of all scriptures in Biblical works and more suggest that yes, we are all children, literally, but spiritually, of God. Anything to the contrary was introduced between 100 to 200 A.D., and was completely adopted with the Nicaean Creed. Indeed, the commentary from Ignatius and Clemente around 100 A.D. show that the Christians of this period were starting to go astray from the teachings of Christ and his apostles, and very expressly stated that Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, and that Christ and the Father both have bodies. Interestingly, it wasn't the Catholic Church responsible, as it didn't exist until after this rather blank period of historical documentation regarding Christian ideology for those 100 years or so. It's almost like somebody turned out the lights, there was a scuffle, and something new had taken the place of the old doctrinal teachings when the lights came back on, and the Catholics had to work with what was left over, and, consequently, the Protestants as well.

Hi Peter,

First, the only primary source on Jesus is the bible. The bible is Jesus, Jesus is the bible.

You are picking and choosing. "Well, I think this is true, but this is false. This works for me, but this does not. Some parts of the bible were distorted, but not all of it." If you discount the validity of parts of the bible, then you must throw the whole thing out because it has proven to be a factually inaccurate document. Would you trust parts of a scientific study when other parts of it had been proven fraudulent? This is my whole point - it is an all or nothing deal.

I think that Jesus was a genius for the time he lived in, he was on the cutting edge of cultural philosophy for his century, but like so many other great thinkers, his words were completely twisted not even a hundred years after he was gone and used for political purposes.

Do you have proof of this, or are you giving an hypothesis with no supportive evidence. What is the point? Why are you willing to play ball on their field? You can be a proponent of humanistic principles without partially endorsing christianity.

You may wish to be conciliatory, but the christians do not.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him:  "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God."  That is one thing we must not say.  A man who was merely a man and said the things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic...or the devil of hell.  You must make your choice.            C.S. Lewis

The Case For Christ (written by a former Atheist)

I have made my choice. I flush it down the toilet. I can get my humanist roots elsewhere. [angry]

You may wish to be conciliatory, but the christians do not.

Heh, Kissinger, there you go with "the Christians" again. That's all right. Eventually, I'll finish writing this full-feature essay starring Adam, Moses, Daniel, Jesus Christ (coming to a forum near you), and all mankind with a cohesive argument about the tenability of the Christian position. Heh. w00t. Did you know I'm a comedian too?

    Gewis: How's it going?
  BJKlein: ahh good.. just doing a little forum maintenance.. sup with ya?
    Gewis: I'm in one of those great feeling "life is good and what other people think is irrelevant" moods.
    Gewis: I think S8 according to Jace's introduction.
  BJKlein: ahh that's cool.. Jace is pretty interesting
    Gewis: Is she available?
    Gewis: jk
    Gewis: sorry...
    Gewis: I crack myself up sometimes.

Hi Kissinger,

For myself, I don't have much doubt that there was a historical Christ, because the bible isn't the only primary source that mentions him. (For example see the work of the historian Jocephus) Christ was not the only 1st century AD philosopher who had the same general message, so I believe that the line of thought he was espousing represented a paradigm shift in social structure. The original Christian message of love thy neighbor and equality for all people was being touted by many people, Christ just happened to be charismatic enough that he is the human face put on the message.

My estimation of what Jesus said is based on what was going on around him during that time period. His statements to be a son of god, and calling all people children of god, represents a power shift away from only the royalty of a culture being thought of as directly related to god. So I'm not seeing this only in terms of what is in the bible, but in terms of the historical setting in which he is found. Also, note for me "god" is simply a metaphor for whatever the organizing force is behind all self-assembling systems, in this case human culture as a self aseembling system.

Yes, there are many instances in which parts of a scientific document (or theory for that matter) are proven to be false, but there is still valuable information in the work. For me, that is what the bible and other religious texts are useful for. They document the evolution of the human group mind and the paradigm shifts in our understanding of ourselves and our universe. Also it is very hard for me to think of the bible as a monolithic document, it was obviously compiled by many authors over a period of 3-5000 years, so there is great variation in the amount of historical accuracy found in it.

As I've pointed out above and elsewhere, religious texts are seldom meant to be taken literally, so calling them fradulent is like calling a fairy tale or an epic poem fradulent. There is deep value in human mythology and rejecting it outright because it isn't literal, rejects our cultural heritage and much useful information about the evolution of cultural systems.

A for playing ball on their field, this is purely based on my reading of the new testament and other historical evidence, but I don't think the historical Christ would have particularly liked Christianity. He didn't seem to like rigid thought structures either. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be conciliatory. The modern versions of Christianity are deeply damaging to our society and are acting as a roadblock to our future cultural advancement, but the very early Christian message was quite valuable to cultural evolution.

Best,
Peter

For myself, I don't have much doubt that there was a historical Christ, because the bible isn't the only primary source that mentions him. (For example see the work of the historian Josephus)

I also do not doubt that jesus was an historic figure. I guess you could consider Josephus a primary source, but he wasn't born until after the death of jesus. There is also Tacitus.

So I'm not seeing this only in terms of what is in the bible, but in terms of the historical setting in which he is found. Also, note for me "god" is simply a metaphor for whatever the organizing force is behind all self-assembling systems, in this case human culture as a self assembling system.

You view the possibility of God (the concept of an underlying organizational force) in much the same way I do.

As for playing ball on their field, this is purely based on my reading of the new testament and other historical evidence, but I don't think the historical Christ would have particularly liked Christianity.  He didn't seem to like rigid thought structures either.  Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be conciliatory.  The modern versions of Christianity are deeply damaging to our society and are acting as a roadblock to our future cultural advancement, but the very early Christian message was quite valuable to cultural evolution.

Peter, your reply was quite awesome and it may change how I look at christian doctrine in the future. I must admit that I have "baggage" when it comes to evaluating christian doctrine and sometimes I find it hard to impartially assess the bible on its merits. I have to work on that. I feel a lot of resentment toward this theology because I feel it tried to enslave me and I only escaped with my freedom because I was strong willed.

Your jesus is not the jesus of the bible, which is fine. I find it to be a rather clever play on things. You are using your naturalist perspective to flip things on christian orthodoxy. You are, in effect, creating a new jesus. This may be better, tactically, than my "total war" attitude (as John Doe puts it) toward christianity. (Note Gewis: I don't dislike individual christians, I dislike christianity and its effect on society. It is not a personal thing, but a philosophical one. For me there is also a big difference between regular christians, like yourself, and the crazy christians--aka evangelical Pat Robertson, Jerry Faldwell types.) I have to give this more thought. I am always fearful of giving the "opposition" credit or acclaim, but I guess by placing christianity in an entirely historical frame work you are putting it in its proper perspective.

Great stuff
Kissinger

Edited by Kissinger, 31 July 2003 - 06:23 PM.

Interesting exchange. First off I’d like to say that I too agree with both Peter and Kissinger in that my own ‘spirituality’ for want of a better term is rooted in my awe of the self-organising nature of complex systems, from ecosystems to societies to stock markets. In fact I am currently writing an article about this very subject.

But back to the Messiah
I have yet another perspective on Jesus. I view him as a literary figure.

I get frustrated with a false dilemma that seems to be accepted by many people onboth sides of the christian and atheist divide.

“Either the bible stories are ‘true’ or they are worthless”

There is a third option.

I believe the bible is a work of art and I believe that art enhances life.

Do I believe that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels actually existed? No. Does it matter very much?. Again no.

The Bible and specifically the gospels are part of our cultural inheritance.
Indeed, without a knowledge of the bible, a proper understanding of western history, art and literature is impossible. The gospels form the foundation for much of the cultural output of the past 2000 years.

They are outstandingly important, both for their aesthetic value as works of art and for their tremendous impact in shaping the western mind. In addition they acted as a fertilizing influence in the creation of Islam.

I find that many atheists rejection of christianity blinds them to a secular appreciation of Christian mythology.

The standard line seems to be ‘if it is not true it is nonsense and should be discarded’

The scientific method is a valuable tool for the discovery of objective truths.
It is worthless in evaluating works of literature.

If we extend this line of thinking to some prechristian religious systems we can see how absurd it is.

Does the nonexistence of Olympian deities devalue the artistic accomplishments of classical greece?

Is Homer worthless because theTro jan war it depicts is historically false?

Should we prevent the teaching of classical mythology in schools on the grounds that ‘the Olympian theory’ is incorrect?

I view Jesus to be massively important figure when he is viewed in the correct context.

I feel the same way about Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

No one asserts that Hamlet is a real historical figure, yet his impact on the western imagination is a profound one, making him vastly more important than many real figures of history.

The Jesus story has enduring aesthetic value as do the Labors of Heracles, the Wanderings of Odysseus, and the treacherous acts of Macbeth

We should not prevent narrowminded religious zealots to prevent us from celebrating the rich creative legacy which past minds have left us with.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 01 August 2003 - 11:06 AM.

For those who do not like "organized religion."
May I ask? Do you like "DISORGANIZED" religion?

I have to agree with you that the organized religions you mention are a very serious problem. They are, however, the false religions Jesus Christ prophesied would come to deceive the people. See http://www.gnmagazin...counterfeit.htm for more information.

God clearly exists as many scientists over the years have surprisingly discovered. Checkout the video and literature at [URL=http://www.beyondtoday.tv/programs/archive/?ProgramID=bt015] and tell me if you're not forced to rethink the existence of God?

The belief in God and the Scriptures can provde the necessary motivation for people seeking immortality. The Scriptures prophecy a longer lifespan and the conquering of death. See Isaiah 65:20; Revelation 21:3,4. God is an absolute necessity in obtaining these promises. You won't succeed in anyother way.

In his book "The Revolution of Hope: Toward A Humanized Technology" (1968), Erich Fromm, a well known psychoanalyst and social philosopher, recognized the need for “the emergence of new forms of psychospiritual orientation and devotion, which are equivalents of the religious systems of the past” as necessary to overcome the weaknesses in man's character and the dehumanizing aspects of our modern industrial society. He also recognized the need for a "reverence for life" concept to be embedded in the new religious system.

I'm convinced only a new and better understanding of the Bible can produce the new religious system with the "reverence for life" needed for obtaining a longer lifespan and immortality. No other road is possible.

Edited by william, 01 June 2006 - 02:14 PM.

I'm convinced only a new and better understanding of the Bible can produce the new religious system with the "reverence for life" needed for obtaining a longer lifespan and immortality. No other road is possible.

Sorry William. There is another road and it is very possible. It's called reverse engineering and we are well on our way to fully understanding the the mechanisms that make biological life function. If there is a higher power, it instilled in us a passion to explore our universe and we will continue to do so. Eventually we will have the ability to fix and repair all of the damage that causes aging. When we do so William we will all be left with the decision to let our earthly form deteriorate or take steps to extend our existence in the material universe. Religious memes will always be there to study and debate. Whether we do it now or 653 years from now, does it matter?

Checkout the video and literature at [URL=http://www.beyondtoday.tv/programs/archive/?ProgramID=bt015] and tell me if you're not forced to rethink the existence of God?

I have rethought the existence of god so many times it would boggle your mind. That is why I say that even if there was a god, the odds that you happen to be born into the right religion (following Jesus Christ) instead of the thousands of other gods and religions out there throughout history (Muslims, Judaism, ancient Aztec gods, Greek gods, or literally thousands more) is exceedingly small.

If that website is the only "research" you have done (and by the way you keep promoting it, it seems to be) into whether a god actually exists, then you are seriously deceiving yourself into thinking you have checked out all of the facts.

Do you like "DISORGANIZED" religion?

Yes! It makes it harder for them to kill me!

Hey William. Welcome to imminst. Good to have you!

You wrote:

I'm convinced only a new and better understanding of the Bible can produce the new religious system with the "reverence for life" needed for obtaining a longer lifespan and immortality. No other road is possible.

Some friendly questions:

1. Do you believe that God will miraculously cure aging, i.e., that anti-aging researchers are wasting their time?

2. If Jesus hadn't been crucified, would he have grown old and frail and dead? And would this have redeemed mankind? In other words, as a theologian, what is your take on the kenosis vis-a-vis senescence?

3. Have you ever read N. Kazantzakis' The Saviors of God?

4. Gandhi called himself a Christian. Do you accept him as one?

5. Do you personally hope to propagate this "new and better understanding of the Bible"?

I have rethought the existence of god so many times it would boggle your mind. That is why I say that even if there was a god, the odds that you happen to be born into the right religion (following Jesus Christ) instead of the thousands of other gods and religions out there throughout history (Muslims, Judaism, ancient Aztec gods, Greek gods, or literally thousands more) is exceedingly small.

Speaking of which:

Greek gods prepare for a comeback



(At least the Olympian gods had some excellent poets working for them!)

Kent23, thanks for the welcome! I'm going to try to answer your questions the best I can. The answers are as follows:

1. To obtain a long, healthy, happy life with perfection, you'll have to keep the commandments, give up your material wealth, and follow Christ's teachings within a communal setting while practicing strict vegetarianism and CR. See Matthew 19:16-30; Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35; Genesis 1:29-31; Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:20-25; Hosea 2:18. God's Holy Spirit will guide and assist in the process.

2. Jesus Christ's mission was to give the people His teachings, to die on the cross, and to be ressurrected from the dead in order to fulfill prophecy. Christ is also prophesied to return and set up the Kingdom of God on earth. I'm unable to answer further on this. I don't have any degree in theology or religious philosophy. Is this "kenosis vis-a-vis senescence" a church of scientology idea?

3. I've never read the book. From the sounding of the title, I might be guilty of this crime. Am I correct?

4. The question shouldn't be whether I would accept Gandhi as a fellow Christian, it should be instead whether God or Jesus would accept him as a practioner of the religion they taught. Wasn't Gandhi a practioner of the Hindu religion? Unless Gandhi had fully given up the Hindu religion with its beliefs and practices and became a full practioner of what God taught in the Old Testament and Jesus taught in the New Testament, it's unlikely he would be accepted by them as a true follower. This is what the Bible teaches. In Matthew 23:23, for instance, Jesus said: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." In other words, they were obligated to keep the lesser matters of the law too. Was Gandhi circumcised as required by God in Genesis 17:10-14? Did he keep the Sabbath and the Old Testament Holy Days as required by God in Leviticus 23:1-44?

5. Yes, that's why I joined this forum. I'm going to try my best to deliver to you what I've learned over the years. May be you can give me a hand in the process. My computer skills are very poor and I haven't been able to figure out how to use the features of this site correctly even though Live Forever tried to explain them to me.

Strict vegitarianism...but didn't Jesus feed fish to the masses? A 'strict' vegitarian would consider that a problem.

William Most people here have examined every possible angle of God. I know in my younger years I looked so hard, I even became a youth minister.

Ive been in holiness churches , Baptist churches , Methodist and Catholic. Ive read The Bible and Im a student of history. The two cannot be reconciled. Ive even spoken in tongues in a pentacostal church. (Jump up and down saying the same few words over and over in an adrenaline rush and it comes out as tongues).


Do not jump to the conclusion that we have not looked for a God we are mostly scientific people and the only way to eliminate a possible Theory is to test it.


My Religion is a belief in the success of the Human race, that we can overcome all our shortcommings and be the ultimate that we can be and far less petty than a god that murders women and children. (Great Flood, Sodom and Gomora)

What many individuals seem to misinterpret, is that the story of Jesus might well be just a story. A story put into life and maintained by organised religion. Just look at the way commercial enterprices and governments are communicating with "the masses" right now. "We" need some kind of figure we can relate to in adopting views that are not our own. The bible, and therefor Jesus, is just a clever communication initiative to try to influence the masses to become more civilised. The goal behind it was good, the practical implementation however, had some laws .... euhhm ....flaws.

First flaw of organised religion: The ultimate state of organised religion has never been reached. That is, the whole world joining one religious branch of the original initiative. As a result, several branches of the original initiative are still competing with each other to become that one required world religion. Well, maybe there has been one place on earth that succeeded in becoming a mono-relegion society, the USSR. Or none-religion society, which to me is just about the same looking at the net effect. A central guided and enforced rule-based society that diminishes free will.
If it were for free will alone, one organised religion could never develop due to the differences in individual approach and lifestyle.

Second flaw of organised religion: Organised religion has and always will be abused by political and business leaders to limit free will and enterprise of individuals. Just an easy mechanism to “put the masses into virtual cages” in which they can be as productive as possible without demanding to much of their existence. Food for your soul… yeah, right. Division between state and religion, just another story.

Maybe we could define 10 of them...

The fact is that the intention of the original aim was positive and that a great part of the aim seems to have succeeded. We live in a better organised place, which provided the stability to develop humankind into what we are now. So any atheist (me to) should be aware of the fact that the freedom we possess now has been partly established by organised religion.

It’s all about shifting paradigms and changing global situations and perspective. I’m an atheist mainly because of my “early adulthood always wanting something else and presumably better”. It has changed to a state of mind that is similar, but that focuses on the flaws of our existence to try to deal with it. Not by crawling into the cage, but by facing the other earthly and worldly possibilities that need to be explored. Within ethical limits that have been partly established by organised religion.

Just another dilemma for individuals who like to be chalanged.

Edited some nasty errors.... English can be difficult sometimes [mellow]

Edited by brainbox, 05 June 2006 - 02:32 AM.

Oops, I forgot the fish part qrail. Yes, fish eating will be a part of the strict vegetarian diet practiced in the Kingdom of God if you need it to overcome your meat or flesh habit. In Hosea 2:18, the Lord intentionally left out "fish of the sea" as a part of His covenant with man and the animals and the birds. Cf with 4:3. And, your absolutely correct about Jesus feeding the masses fish as a part of two of His miracles. He also caught and served fish to His Disciples after His ressurrection. John 21:1-14. I believe this is very significant.

The strict vegetarian diet God prescribed for mankind in the beginning is, in my opinion, superior to a fish based diet. I believe the fish eating will be permitted, in Christ's mercy, because of the need for those people entering the Kingdom of God with serious meat habits to have a "healthier" fish substitute for a period of time.

I tried to convince PETA of this but they weren't buying it. Fish have feelings and experience pain they say. I told them fish don't have social consciences and practice mass infanticide on a very large scale when they eat their own and other fishes small fry.

Aah, william. You bring me back to the good old days of arguing with Christians about vegetarianism. I was always trying (and in a few cases succeeding) to convice others that there was bibilical support for vegetarianism. Quite satisfying really, some of my first forays into trying to buck the establishment (or at least what I saw it as being at the time).

Although I don't still believe the book, I am willing to bet I could still put up a semi-convincing argument given the chance.


brainbox, I agree with most of the stuff you said about the ills of organized religion.

rjws, you're absolutely wrong there young man. You, for example, have only studied or experienced the catholic and protestant churches by your own admission. Have you ever studied any of the free literature put out by the United Church of God an International Association at http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/ ? They have a message that's directly opposite of the catholic and protestant churches. I suggest you put down your science textbooks for awhile and absorb yourself in studying this literature so your education will be complete. Even though their understanding of the Scriptures isn't perfect yet, they're an excellent spot for scientific types, such as yourself, to start a serious Bible study.

I agree with brainbox, too, Live Forever. I challenge him and you to take a serious look at the literature I recommended to rjws. May be you could start out with the Bible study lesson #2 entitled "The Word of God - The Foundation of Knowledge."

Have you ever thought that may be Adam and Eve might've ate meat from an animal instead of fruit from a tree when they disobeyed God? There's circumstantial evidence that that's what happened. The implications for mankind are astounding. Meat eating has always been such a curse for us, never a blessing at all. See http://www.christian...om/honoring.htm.

william, I keep saying it, but perhaps I am not being clear enough in how I state it. I have studied the Bible more than you can ever imagine. I have been through tons of "lessons" like the one you are recommending, and the last thing I need is another one. (I will, however, as a courtesy glance through it to see if there is anything new, but the chances are, I assure you, exceedingly small) As you can probably see from my posts here and other threads that I am quite familiar with the Bible and what it has to say. I know you find it hard to believe that some people have studied the Bible so much and yet do not believe that it is divinely inspired, but that is how some of us (at least I) feel. I know you are just doing your good Christian duty of trying to convert us (living in our evil ways as we are), but believe me, I have been right about where you are now (albeit several years ago), and have come to what I feel is a place of intellectual enlightenment when it comes to these issues.

Holding on to archaic belief structures, myths and mysticism is not a sound way to achieve academic, intellectual, or any other kind of progress in oneself. (imo)

Live Forever, you're not displaying any of that Bible knowledge you say you have in order to convince me. Do you know Bible knowledge was prophecied to increase in the end time by the prophet Daniel? See Daniel 12:4. You staying on top of all the latest developments? Your success in obtaining long life will depend upon it.

William I think it is somewhat inappropriate to say that we are approaching the "End times". (If I understood you correctly)

I will have to disagree with you, if that is your assertion.