I am an atheist thread 5

[Jacafamala]

QUOTE, phooney;Perhaps some people who have less self control are better off with religion.

Perhaps.

But then, who watches the watchers? I personally find the statement that you’ve put a potentially ficticious character ahead of your own loved ones quite horrific, but oh well.

Well, don’t give yourself gray hairs about it, phooney, lol. God is real.

 

[ehtheist]

Well, don’t give yourself gray hairs about it, phooney, lol. God is real.

Shouldn’t the “lol” be after “real”? Maybe a wink or something?

Before I say “god” doesn’t exist, Jaca, can you please define that which you are so afraid and only do good for out of such fear? It seems like a really useful thing - I bet nobody has ever abused that power.

I guess I’m not selfish enough to believe that there is a teapot out there that is concerned with what I do, have done, may do or think about doing.

 

[Ronald_E]

Shouldn’t the “lol” be after “real”? Maybe a wink or something?

Before I say “god” doesn’t exist, Jaca, can you please define that which you are so afraid and only do good for out of such fear? It seems like a really useful thing - I bet nobody has ever abused that power.

I guess I’m not selfish enough to believe that there is a teapot out there that is concerned with what I do, have done, may do or think about doing.

Phooney, this is not directed at you.

Ehtheist, When you use sarcasm like above you make no intelligent point and cause harm to Jaca who obviously has love for God and not fear.
Why try to make your belief her belief, when her belief is obviously different from your belief about God.

 

[Minnie31]

Minnie31, I hope you had a good mother’s day. Also, I hope you read my apology in the previous thread. I did not read your previous threads and was wrong in my assessment.
By the way what influences you to love?

Hi Ronald. Your apology has been accepted.

I had a very nice mother’s day, thanks for asking. Actually, I’m not a mother–although my user name many imply it–but I spent mother’s day with my mother, grandmother, and some other members of the family. We had a nice dinner and got to spend some quality time together.

To answer your question about love, well there are so many definitions of love, but I think it all comes down to love being a survival mechanism for our species. I think it’s part of our genetic makeup for survival.

 

[notself]

Perhaps God is absolutely real for those who believe in God and God does not exist for those who do not believe in God.

Just some thoughts; don’t take them too seriously.

 

[Ronald_E]

Hi Ronald. Your apology has been accepted.

I had a very nice mother’s day, thanks for asking. Actually, I’m not a mother–although my user name many imply it–but I spent mother’s day with my mother, grandmother, and some other members of the family. We had a nice dinner and got to spend some quality time together.

To answer your question about love, well there are so many definitions of love, but I think it all comes down to love being a survival mechanism for our species. I think it’s part of our genetic makeup for survival.

Hi Minnie, I am glad you spent time with your family. Time seems to go by quicker the older I get and now I am 2 years older than my dad when he died. My mother, who is still alive (82), would say to me as a child that she hoped she would die before my dad did so she would not have to be without him. Well, dad died in1980.
There are seven neuropathways that have been identified as basic to survival on an interpersonal level. Anger, fear, separation distress, nurturing, lust, fun and drive. Somehow this must turn into love. The Greeks identified 4 different types of love. Agape is sacrificial love. Eros is passionate love that occurs when hormones and genetic preferences line up right or wrong in some cases. The other two I have forgotten. I am too tired to look it up. One has to do with family love and cultural love is the idea of this last one.
They identify the highest form as sacrificial when we give up our life for someone else. This seems to go against natural instinct but is present throughout history.
I think all women should be honored on mother’s day because of their tendency to want to create a community based on nurturing others. Gottman who has studied couples at the Univ. of WA for over 30 years identified one area in particular that was very influential in a successful relationship. He observed that the more influence that the woman had over the man especially in the area of teaching him empathy the relationship was perceived as mutually beneficial and successful regardless of perpetual unresolved problems.
That kind of love is something that seems to develop over time. I love my wife more now than I did 32 years ago. Never thought that would happen.
Take care.

 

[ehtheist]

Ehtheist, When you use sarcasm like above you make no intelligent point and cause harm to Jaca who obviously has love for God and not fear.
Why try to make your belief her belief, when her belief is obviously different from your belief about God.

Aside from the “I bet nobody has abused that power”, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I wasn’t trying to make my (dis)belief her belief any more than her saying “god is real”, is trying to make others hold her belief.

You could be correct in stating that Jaca loves her god but when someone mentions that it keeps them away from something, the association would likely be to fear, not love. If that assumption is incorrect, I do apologize. I must say, however, that I didn’t come to that assumption simply based on that comment but my many years of indoctrination that taught me to “Fear god”.

Phooney’s question of “who watches the watchers” is a valid question. And having family second (to anything) is somewhat sad. The Catholic church preaches about the value and need for a traditional family yet expects it to be secondary to believeing in god. Wouldn’t a single (mother/father) believer be better than two non-believers or two gay believers better than a single straight non-believer?

 

[whiteknite]

Watchers:-
The Watchers story in Enoch is derived from Genesis chapter 6. Verses 1-4 describe the “Origin of the Nephilim” and mention the “Sons of God” who beget them:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. Then the Lord said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.” At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of God had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)
Here, the “sons of God” are given no specific name or function; they could represent fallen angels, or simply heavenly beings that mate with women.

The Book of Jubilees adds further details about the Watchers.

In the Book of Daniel an Aramaic term used to denote angels is “watchers” (îrîn).[1] Each of these heavenly beings is called by the double name "watcher and holy one" (îr weqadîsh), which denotes one type of heavenly being not two. The term “watcher” probably derives from the verb “to be awake” or “to be vigilant,” so that the implication of calling the angels “watchers” is that they are constantly on watch as sentinels for Yahweh.[2]

Angels were fairly popular in Jewish folklore, which often describes them as looking like large human beings that never sleep and remain forever silent. While there are good and bad Watchers, most stories revolve around the evil ones that fell from grace when they took “the daughters of man” as their mates.

The Hebrew of nephilim is נפלים, which may mean “those causing others to fall”. Abraham ibn Ezra proposes that they were called this because men’s hearts would fail at the sight of them. Some (e.g. Jean Leclerc and Peter of Aquila) suggest that it is derived from the warlike nature of the Nephilim, comparing the usage of Naphal in Job 1:15 “And the Sabeans fell upon them” where Naphal means “to take in battle”. Alternatively, Shadal understands nephilim as deriving from the Hebrew word פלא Pela which means wonderous[6].

The nephilim come from a union between “sons of God” (בני האלהים “b’nei ha-'elohim” Lit. “Sons of the powers” [7]) and “daughters of man”. In Aramaic culture, the term Nephila specifically referred to the constellation of Orion, and thus Nephilim to Orion’s semi-divine descendants (cf. Anakim from Anak);[8] the implication being that this also is the origin of the Biblical Nephilim. Some commentators[citation needed] have suggested that the Nephilim were believed to have been fathered by members of a proto-Hebrew pantheon (which is controversial among Jewish peoples[9]) and are a brief glimpse of early Hebrew religion, most of the details of which were later edited out from the Torah (or at least would have been edited out when, as some claim, it was redacted together), and that this passage may have offered monotheistic Hebrews a way to fit semi-divine pagan heroes into their cosmogony.

The idea that the Torah was somehow changed is not in keeping with traditional Hebrew practice, in which if even a single character is out of place in a parchment translation of the original Hebrew Torah, the entire parchment must be destroyed and replaced anew. However, there are several variations, some of great significance, between ancient manuscripts of the Torah, between Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, masoretic text, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the versions in the Hexapla, as well as between various manuscripts within each of these groups.

In the Hebrew Bible, there are a number of other words that, like “Nephilim”, are sometimes translated as “giants”:

Just a little info in Watchers.

 

[whiteknite]

The story above to me gives reason to think that God was a race and not a Spirit as man often thinks…
To give a SO called spirit a name of its type is to also give it a race attachment…

Just food for thought…

 

[Ronald_E]

Aside from the “I bet nobody has abused that power”, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I wasn’t trying to make my (dis)belief her belief any more than her saying “god is real”, is trying to make others hold her belief.

Thanks for your acknowledgement. You were kind in your response.

You could be correct in stating that Jaca loves her god but when someone mentions that it keeps them away from something, the association would likely be to fear, not love. If that assumption is incorrect, I do apologize.

Once again your response is kind and most of all what impresses me in your response is humility.

I must say, however, that I didn’t come to that assumption simply based on that comment but my many years of indoctrination that taught me to “Fear god”.

I also was indoctrinated that way and that is why I had left the Catholic and Christian faith for 40 years. The message was God loves you but you will go to hell if you do not do what He says. Going through adolescents was a particularly hell raising series of events. When I went into the military at age 19 that was when I was done with organized religion. My rejection of religion was based on my perception of a lack of love in those who taught me about God. Any fear I had associated with God was actually fear associated with those who taught me.

Phooney’s question of “who watches the watchers” is a valid question. And having family second (to anything) is somewhat sad. The Catholic church preaches about the value and need for a traditional family yet expects it to be secondary to believeing in god. Wouldn’t a single (mother/father) believer be better than two non-believers or two gay believers better than a single straight non-believer?

Actually, I think I am a better father believing in God than I was when I did not believe in God and instead was trying to be a good person. Buddhist philosophy and psychology was a very helpful way of relating to life and it gave me a structure to begin to understand myself in relationship to others and myself.
THOUGHTS WITHOUT A THINKER by Epstein is the best book I have ever read about Buddhist psychology. Krishnamurti’s work began my inquiry into a different way of understanding human relationships and how fear creates suffering in these relationships.
A traditional family in the Catholic sense is different now than it was when I was growing up.
If you want to understand what the teaching is about this Christopher West wrote a book entitled THEOLOGY OF THE BODY FOR BEGINNERS.
As for two parents of different genders being the ideal, I agree with that concept. However, in my estimation the cause of most problems with self and others begins at home with the quality of the relationship between the mother and father. Does the father provide a safe environment which then creates a safe attachment between first mother and child and extends from that to self. If not, then the process of defining self begins in fear or what the analysts describe as “the basic fault”.
Take care I am going for a run to maintain a sense of sanity.
Once again thanks for your kind and humble reply.

 

[ehtheist]

My rejection of religion was based on my perception of a lack of love in those who taught me about God. Any fear I had associated with God was actually fear associated with those who taught me.

Ronald, I came to question my Catholic faith substantially when I was asking questions of my priest who then turned to me and said “You just choose not to believe. If you weren’t so interested in being a sinner, you would just know.”

I left the Catholic faith in search of answers - to Vineyard churches, to other evangelicals - I even participated and hosted Alpha courses, read a great number of books from Nicky, Lee Strobel - I’ve also read Reasons to Believe, Reason for God and many more. Maybe my faith is a victim of reason - my strong math background and my interest in sciences but I think more so a victim of elitism of Priests and believers.

Actually, I think I am a better father believing in God than I was when I did not believe in God and instead was trying to be a good person.

I don’t try to be good - that would be way too much work. I think being good is natural. I think I’ve done better things for people under the banner of selfishness than under the banner of god. I say selfish because I think that is an amazing way to justify doing good - doing good reduces my fear of repercussions, increases my level of happiness and, ultimately, makes me want to do more good. And my “good deeds” don’t stop because I have to judge someone else - I skip the judging and do it because it makes me feel good. If you’re gay and you don’t try to push it on to me, I will treat you no differently than if you were not gay. If you are a believer (of any religion) and don’t try to push it on me, I will treat you no differently than a non-believer (or a believer of another religion).

My natural body and conciousness, however, has no room for justifying doing bad things or even enabling me to take the belief that on Sunday I can make things better. If I do something wrong, I do my best to correct what I have done wrong and don’t simply “ask for forgiveness”.

I don’t feel that religion made me any better of a person - in so many ways, it made me worse as a person.

I will digress, for a moment, though. My oldest brother took a similar interest (or I took a similar interest as he ) in sciences and mathematics but was brought up in a different church (dad worked construction and they moved a lot - my brother is 8 years my senior). He is still a strong believer. He is, to the people he associates with and is related to, the nicest and most genuine person I’ve ever known. On the other hand, he tries to spread faith and has a strong belief that homosexuality is a choice and is wrong.

His beliefs may never have been hampered by elitist priests/believers.

Buddhist philosophy and psychology was a very helpful way of relating to life and it gave me a structure to begin to understand myself in relationship to others and myself.
<–snip–>
As for two parents of different genders being the ideal, I agree with that concept. However, in my estimation the cause of most problems with self and others begins at home with the quality of the relationship between the mother and father. Does the father provide a safe environment which then creates a safe attachment between first mother and child and extends from that to self. If not, then the process of defining self begins in fear or what the analysts describe as “the basic fault”.

I completely agree that two loving parents - one of each gender - could be the best thing for a family. I don’t however, believe, it is the only healthy family. In the name of the church (or with its blessing) many families are male dominated with the wife expected to perform certain tasks and duties in that family.

The world has changed and that need not be the case. Women need not be submissive. Women need not be second class. Women need not be told they can’t hold office or the highest titles/positions in the world.

I spent a number of years in a Lutheran church, too, and, as was the case in the catholic church I attended, women were not treated as equal and, I think, were part of unhappy marriages but stuck to them simply because of the teachings of the church and the damnation associated with not remaining faithful and submissive.

I met up with a “humanist” group about 3 years ago and not a single one of them lives an oppressed or oppressive lifestyle in their families.

Once again thanks for your kind and humble reply.

Thanks Ronald. I have ordered Theology of the Body for Beginners.

 

[Jacafamala]

ehtheist; Shouldn’t the “lol” be after “real”? Maybe a wink or something?

Hey, that was my post. Thanks anyway. I don’t need your “help”.

Before I say “god” doesn’t exist, Jaca, can you please define that which you are so afraid and only do good for out of such fear? It seems like a really useful thing - I bet nobody has ever abused that power.

You have an attitude problem. And you want me to share my fears and weaknesses with you? I’ll pass.

I guess I’m not selfish enough to believe that there is a teapot out there that is concerned with what I do, have done, may do or think about doing.

That is your choice to believe or not to believe. And you can color it anyway you like.

 

[ehtheist]

Hey, that was my post. Thanks anyway. I don’t need your “help”.

I apologize if my sense of humour isn’t one that you can appreciate. Since joining the forums, I have come to understand that laughter and humour is far from acceptable. If I had made the joke about your favourite political candidate or a movie that you enjoy, it would have been funny to everyone. Religion (though not entitled to it) demands a level of respect that nothing else is entitled to.

You have an attitude problem. And you want me to share my fears and weaknesses with you? I’ll pass.

I wasn’t looking for weaknesses but a definition of your god - to some, I guess, that could be considered a weakness but I don’t feel that I’m a better person because I have a better/different/non belief in god. I’m not sure that feeling is reciprocated here. However, I would hope that you don’t see your belief in god as “weakness”.

That is your choice to believe or not to believe. And you can color it anyway you like.

The same applies in return.

 

[Jacafamala]

ehtheist;I apologize if my sense of humour isn’t one that you can appreciate. Since joining the forums, I have come to understand that laughter and humour is far from acceptable. If I had made the joke about your favourite political candidate or a movie that you enjoy, it would have been funny to everyone. Religion (though not entitled to it) demands a level of respect that nothing else is entitled to.

Religion–or lack of religion–goes to the very core of who we are as persons.

I wasn’t looking for weaknesses but a definition of your god - to some, I guess, that could be considered a weakness but I don’t feel that I’m a better person because I have a better/different/non belief in god. I’m not sure that feeling is reciprocated here. However, I would hope that you don’t see your belief in god as “weakness”.

I believe in the Triune God who is Father, Son and Spirit. I’m a Roman Catholic. I’ve been told that belief in God a “crutch” for the weak. I believe that’s true. I’m good with that.

The same applies in return.

 

[ehtheist]

Religion–or lack of religion–goes to the very core of who we are as persons.

I can’t say that I’ve ever been offended by someone making a joke about my non-belief. “You’re going to hell” or “We’ll miss you in heaven” (the latter being a joke because I’m sure anyone saying that will hardly “miss” me) are all fine and dandy with me. I think it isn’t the case when you believe in a religion that, using the same reasoning you use to discount the other religions, would be discounted itself.

I believe in the Triune God who is Father, Son and Spirit. I’m a Roman Catholic. I’ve been told that belief in God a “crutch” for the weak. I believe that’s true. I’m good with that.

I doubt the weak reference as it applies to you. I suspect you don’t “need” the church to stay or be moral. I think that it is in the church’s despite that you stay moral - it is definitely contrary to the very book in which they claim is the word of god.

 

[Pier]

I think that it is in the church’s despite that you stay moral - it is definitely contrary to the very book in which they claim is the word of god.

Hi again

I’m glad that you said that you have a sense of humor. But I do have a serious question…

What does your statement above mean?

Also, I’d like to say that I am sorry that the response from the priest you knew drove you away. I’ve known priests who’ve been easier to talk to than others, but I’m not a Catholic because priests are likable or not, but because Christ’s Church on earth has the very core of our existence within it.

And since you know what the Catholic Church teaches, the grace from the sacraments is to be utilized at all times, not just on Sundays - and it is indeed an endless font of blessed strength!

 

[eagertolearn]

Perhaps some people who have less self control are better off with religion. But then, who watches the watchers? I personally find the statement that you’ve put a potentially ficticious character ahead of your own loved ones quite horrific, but oh well.

As far as self- control, I think it is the other way around. There are lots of us believers reading the thread but don’t feel the need to butt in. It is like this clip, please watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

Have a great day.

ETL.

 

[ehtheist]

Hi again

I’m glad that you said that you have a sense of humor. But I do have a serious question…

Sorry, I don’t have a serious side.

What does your statement above mean?

If you follow everything the bible teaches, it is not possible to stay moral - it may be possible to stay true to the teachings but the bible is far from a good way to live your life. Unless, of course, you can pick and choose passages that suit your needs. In that case, it is something other than the bible that is giving you the morals - the same morals that you use to determine which verses/passes of the bible to adhere to.

Also, I’d like to say that I am sorry that the response from the priest you knew drove you away. I’ve known priests who’ve been easier to talk to than others, but I’m not a Catholic because priests are likable or not, but because Christ’s Church on earth has the very core of our existence within it.

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a priest’s words (or the way he touched me - and I don’t mean that in the pedophilia sense - he just had sweaty palms and would always hold your arm just below the elbow) - most people in the Catholic religion respond in a similar fashion (in words, anyway, most don’t grab my arm with sweaty hands). The only justification I could see would be that I was wrong for asking questions - and that is one that I’m long past. How does it go? If you can’t handle the heat, don’t invent an eternal fire? Something like that. I’m not all that good at quotes.

And since you know what the Catholic Church teaches, the grace from the sacraments is to be utilized at all times, not just on Sundays - and it is indeed an endless font of blessed strength!

If that were the case, I’d be in full support of the catholic religion. Just as in fairy tales, wanting them to be true doesn’t make them so. Many people go through the motions of being a catholic (attend the church, put some money or an envelope in a plate, do the sign of the cross, eat some bread, etc.) and use it to justify their negative actions.

I think people should just take responsibility for their actions - do good for the sake of doing good and don’t blame someone else for their own ill-intentioned acts. And take credit when you do something good - it’ll make you want to something good again!

 

[ehtheist]

As far as self- control, I think it is the other way around. There are lots of us believers reading the thread but don’t feel the need to butt in.

I speak for myself… but…

The idea is that it is possible that there are people (nobody is suggesting that all followers of religion are this way) who, without religion, would do bad things.

It stands to reason that, given that nobody assumes all people NEED religion, that it can go the other way and that religion isn’t necessary for people to be good.

In following that logic, it is possible (and does appear) that without religion, some people will be or are bad.

Conversely, having religion does not make a person do good or be good.

 

[whiteknite]

I speak for myself… but…

The idea is that it is possible that there are people (nobody is suggesting that all followers of religion are this way) who, without religion, would do bad things.

It stands to reason that, given that nobody assumes all people NEED religion, that it can go the other way and that religion isn’t necessary for people to be good.

In following that logic, it is possible (and does appear) that without religion, some people will be or are bad.

Conversely, having religion does not make a person do good or be good.

Well wrote ehtheist,