@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: kubokuk on March 28, 2009, 03:05:22 PM

Title: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kubokuk on March 28, 2009, 03:05:22 PM
i know, it may sound controversial or even stupid, but here's my explanation:

- for me, U2 music was always, in some way, about God (of course not every song).
- Not only their music/lyrics, but what they do and the way they do it.
- It's not a secret, that 3 U2 members are declared believers.

So mixing things that I mentioned and adding the fact, that I'm a believer too, U2 can always reach me and their music very often has an effect on my soul. I don't know if I am speaking clearly..

I just wanted to know, if some of you has a feeling like that also. Does believing (or not) in God has an any effect on the way you think about U2.





Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: shockdocta22 on March 28, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
i know, it may sound controversial or even stupid, but here's my explanation:

- for me, U2 music was always, in some way, about God (of course not every song).
- Not only their music/lyrics, but what they do and the way they do it.
- It's not a secret, that 3 U2 members are declared believers.

So mixing things that I mentioned and adding the fact, that I'm a believer too, U2 can always reach me and their music very often has an effect on my soul. I don't know if I am speaking clearly..

I just wanted to know, if some of you has a feeling like that also. Does believing (or not) in God has an any effect on the way you think about U2.







I believe in God for so many reasons.  If i had to prove anything it would be that the Big Bang theory doesnt make sense because all of the that beginning matter had to come from somewhere and there is not a very strong explanation of Life so I believe in God

Im Catholic by the way
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mysterious Ways on March 28, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
I believe in God, but U2 has nothing to do with my faith.
Title: .
Post by: Anthony02 on March 28, 2009, 03:18:47 PM
 A quote about when U2 play Where The Streets Have No Name live "Bono says that when they play that song, its like God walks through the room. Theres something spiritually uplifting about it. Its like a hymn"- Fran Healy of Travis. Id agree with that.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2matters on March 28, 2009, 03:19:39 PM
 

I am a believer, yet against any form of organized religion. What attracts me to U2 ( amongst other reasons ) is their doubt, as much as their faith.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Zimmy on March 28, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
I'm not really a believer in a god (I describe myself as agnostic when it comes to a god concept), and U2's religious songs don't bother me. In fact, I usually mistake their religious songs as being love songs. Like, their new album. When I first heard it I thought, "Wow, what a good collection of romantic songs." then I come on this forum and see it's mostly spiritual. However, I can relate to their songs about having faith (just general faithness). My spirituality is more of an agnostic Buddhist, and that still requires some faith or belief in the teachings of the religion.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: macphisto on March 28, 2009, 04:48:49 PM
FYI, this poll has been done before.
When I first came to this forum, I asked a similar question albeit with more options...

Kubokok, I think perhaps the answers to U2 and the spirituality of fans are in that post.
http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,485.msg7476.html#msg7476

As it is, this is just pretty much a belief/disbelief poll.
Not to shoot up my own rockets, but I believe this is somewhat surface and not visceral.
U2 aren't straightforward spiritualists by any stretch of the imagination.
And neither, I would assume, is anyone who's had or entertained moments of doubt.

I'm waiting here boss,
macphisto
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Thunder Peel on March 28, 2009, 06:27:42 PM
As a Christian I find U2's music incredibly uplifting; in fact, albums October and NLOTH could almost be considered worship albums. I also like the fact that Bono is honest about his faith and deals with doubts and struggles, something that all Christians face from time to time. I love the fact that there's a U2 song for any mood or spiritual condition and they've really helped me in my faith and given me a new perspective that I might not have had otherwise.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 28, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
see avatar

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: StrongGirl on March 28, 2009, 06:31:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As a Christian I find U2's music incredibly uplifting; in fact, albums October and NLOTH could almost be considered worship albums. I also like the fact that Bono is honest about his faith and deals with doubts and struggles, something that all Christians face from time to time. I love the fact that there's a U2 song for any mood or spiritual condition and they've really helped me in my faith and given me a new perspective that I might not have had otherwise.

That was so beautifully written Vertigo40. I agree especially about October and No Line which happen to be favorites of mine!!!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: aarond on March 28, 2009, 07:49:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As a Christian I find U2's music incredibly uplifting; in fact, albums October and NLOTH could almost be considered worship albums. I also like the fact that Bono is honest about his faith and deals with doubts and struggles, something that all Christians face from time to time. I love the fact that there's a U2 song for any mood or spiritual condition and they've really helped me in my faith and given me a new perspective that I might not have had otherwise.

That was so beautifully written Vertigo40. I agree especially about October and No Line which happen to be favorites of mine!!!

Did I mention I agree with my 2 favorite people on the forum? I didn't? Ok. I agree with these 2...who also happen to be my favorite 2 people on the forum.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: StrongGirl on March 28, 2009, 07:58:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As a Christian I find U2's music incredibly uplifting; in fact, albums October and NLOTH could almost be considered worship albums. I also like the fact that Bono is honest about his faith and deals with doubts and struggles, something that all Christians face from time to time. I love the fact that there's a U2 song for any mood or spiritual condition and they've really helped me in my faith and given me a new perspective that I might not have had otherwise.

That was so beautifully written Vertigo40. I agree especially about October and No Line which happen to be favorites of mine!!!

Did I mention I agree with my 2 favorite people on the forum? I didn't? Ok. I agree with these 2...who also happen to be my favorite 2 people on the forum.

Thank you aarond! That was so nice of you to say that. You are a wonderful new member of our little OLC club. Stop by anytime!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on March 28, 2009, 08:08:43 PM
whenever i doubt...music reconnects me with God. it is a force that cannot be physically seen but felt and heard. the power of music helps me understand there is something much bigger than us. music aligns me spiritually.


besides...it's boring and depressing to think otherwise.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Lemon-Twist on March 29, 2009, 06:55:27 AM
I have a strong belief in god, and can relate alot to many of u2 songs,
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2matters on March 29, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
see avatar




"love is evolution's finest hour"
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on March 29, 2009, 10:27:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe in God for so many reasons.  If i had to prove anything it would be that the Big Bang theory doesnt make sense because all of the that beginning matter had to come from somewhere and there is not a very strong explanation of Life so I believe in God

Im Catholic by the way

Argument from incredulity. And personally I find that a lot of religion is - it's often the presumption that the universe can't possibly be a meaningless, unjust series of interactions, so there must be some arbiters of justice (a god, an afterlife etc.) that balances all the instances of rich, comfortable thieves and poor, suffering innocents.

If you are a theist, however, it's probably more justifiable if you can honestly reason the 'right' answer to these questions: does the universe have to have meaning and justice? And do the concepts of meaning and justice have any real weight outside of human existence, or are they merely human concepts?

...and I'll stop there before I end up writing a thesis.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: imafan on March 29, 2009, 10:40:35 AM
I don't believe in God - but I wonder if U2 would have self-destructed like many 80's bands if they (or at least 3 out of 4 them, anyway) didn't have a strong belief.  At any rate, I still appreciate a religiously-inspired song (other than Yahweh - too much!).  Would Bono be such a giving and nice person (at least that's how he seems, anyway) without his belief.  Hm...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 29, 2009, 10:41:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't believe in God - but I wonder if U2 would have self-destructed like many 80's bands if they (or at least 3 out of 4 them, anyway) didn't have a strong belief.  At any rate, I still appreciate a religiously-inspired song (other than Yahweh - too much!).  Would Bono be such a giving and nice person (at least that's how he seems, anyway) without his belief.  Hm...

There are millions of giving and nice people out there, it's not a trait that's exclusive to people with religious beliefs you know.....

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on March 29, 2009, 12:29:24 PM
I believe in God but I think he-she-it is far more complex than what we can imagine. it is probably an energy. In the Bible when it says that we are made in his image...I think that is misinterpreted. I think it could refer to the energy or spirit 'soul' within us...not the physical form.

i also think we are far more complex than we realize. we don't use most of our brain and yet the capacity is there. we are not finished evolving. who knows when or what will trigger that growth to using more of our brain capacity. but it will happen because it is part of our design. the extra capacity would not be there otherwise.

i also think we were more 'animal' at one time. we have senses that are now under-utilized, but you can see animals use these senses to a greater capacity. It would be interesting to see if we either lose those senses or become more re-connected to them. also if mankind survives and lives say 1,000 years from now i wonder if we will have new abilities. will we be able to talk/communicate w/one another through our brains in a more organic evolution...or will we be a hybrid of human-computer where we hook into a collective conscious and perhaps live that way within hi-rise bee-hive like communities.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 12:50:36 PM
I find most religions offensive - I was interested recently to hear the popes feelings about condoms. The pope apparently thinks they 'help the spread of HIV'.

And this from a man who pardoned one of his flock for denying the holocaust recently. And lets' not forget the catholic churches stance on homosexuality and women.

Doesn't mr bono wear a rosary given to him by the pope? Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

Religion makes me angry - sorry.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 29, 2009, 01:21:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I find most religions offensive - I was interested recently to hear the popes feelings about condoms. The pope apparently thinks they 'help the spread of HIV'.

And this from a man who pardoned one of his flock for denying the holocaust recently. And lets' not forget the catholic churches stance on homosexuality and women.

Doesn't mr bono wear a rosary given to him by the pope? Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

Religion makes me angry - sorry.


And let's not forget their protection of child molesters.

And for every religion out there, there is some kind of atrocity, abuse of minorities, etc. Protestantism, mormonism, islam, all of 'em

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 01:24:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I find most religions offensive - I was interested recently to hear the popes feelings about condoms. The pope apparently thinks they 'help the spread of HIV'.

And this from a man who pardoned one of his flock for denying the holocaust recently. And lets' not forget the catholic churches stance on homosexuality and women.

Doesn't mr bono wear a rosary given to him by the pope? Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

Religion makes me angry - sorry.



Bono's rosary is not from this pope.  And I am almost 100% positive he doesnt share that view about HIV. But either way, I share your feelings about religion.  I think it gets in the way of finding God. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. T on March 29, 2009, 01:30:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 01:55:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?

I'm making a general point about the catholic church.

Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:01:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?

I'm making a general point about the catholic church.

Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.




I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. T on March 29, 2009, 02:05:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 29, 2009, 02:07:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?

I'm making a general point about the catholic church.

Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.




I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Maybe Andyt's point is more related to Bono's apparent attachment to a gift from the head of a hate group, a man whose very job description is god's representative on earth. Calling them 'ignorant' certainly may have been appropriate in the 5th century, not the 21st.







Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:07:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.




LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:09:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?

I'm making a general point about the catholic church.

Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.




I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Maybe Andyt's point is more related to Bono's apparent attachment to a gift from the head of a hate group, a man whose very job description is god's representative on earth. Calling them 'ignorant' certainly may have been appropriate in the 5th century, not the 21st.










So if its true that the Catholic Church's representative on earth believes that condoms actually spread HIV, that's not ignorant?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 29, 2009, 02:11:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.




LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D

LOL!!! pi*s poor analogy.

Now, I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not Bono wears the rosary given to him by the pope, but I certainly wouldn't equate it to where your shirt is made. Now, if it was a personal gift to you from the head of the Chinese Government, you may have a parallel of sorts.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on March 29, 2009, 02:11:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I find most religions offensive - I was interested recently to hear the popes feelings about condoms. The pope apparently thinks they 'help the spread of HIV'.

And this from a man who pardoned one of his flock for denying the holocaust recently. And lets' not forget the catholic churches stance on homosexuality and women.

Doesn't mr bono wear a rosary given to him by the pope? Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

Religion makes me angry - sorry.



Bono's rosary is not from this pope.  And I am almost 100% positive he doesnt share that view about HIV. But either way, I share your feelings about religion.  I think it gets in the way of finding God. 

i am also fairly certain that Bono doesn't share this view on condoms. Matter of fact don't you remember during the zoo TV tour they were selling Achtung Baby Condoms. surely it's important to discuss the responsibilities in engaging in sex and in supporting abstinence but one needs to be realistic...but therein is the problem. How can the Pope be realistic in knowing how it feels to live in those conditions in many places in Africa or anywhere there is extreme poverty for that matter? Visiting a geographic location is not knowledge. You have to spend time with people and try to put yourself in their shoes...or lack of. The Pope lives essentially in a palace. he isn't married and has no contact with women in an intimate manner. He cannot possibly relate to the challenges of people who are struggling to pay a mortgage on a home let alone people who essentially haven't a home, or lack food and healthy drinking water, or lost an entire generation to HIV. all of the grandeur he is surrounded by was stolen from other lands. Why don't they start by giving all that back? Time gone by doesn't resolve crimes towards mankind. And, there should be no such thing as killing in the name of God.

whoah...sorry heavy topic.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:12:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.




LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D

LOL!!! pi*s poor analogy.

Now, I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not Bono wears the rosary given to him by the pope, but I certainly wouldn't equate it to where your shirt is made. Now, if it was a personal gift to you from the head of the Chinese Government, you may have a parallel of sorts.





So if the head of the Chinese government gives me a t-shirt, that means I accept his views?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 29, 2009, 02:20:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.




LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D

LOL!!! pi*s poor analogy.

Now, I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not Bono wears the rosary given to him by the pope, but I certainly wouldn't equate it to where your shirt is made. Now, if it was a personal gift to you from the head of the Chinese Government, you may have a parallel of sorts.





So if the head of the Chinese government gives me a t-shirt, that means I accept his views?

You'd cherish your gift from someone whose policies are causing death or suffering to tens of thousands ? Your call.....

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:28:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.




LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D

LOL!!! pi*s poor analogy.

Now, I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not Bono wears the rosary given to him by the pope, but I certainly wouldn't equate it to where your shirt is made. Now, if it was a personal gift to you from the head of the Chinese Government, you may have a parallel of sorts.





So if the head of the Chinese government gives me a t-shirt, that means I accept his views?

You'd cherish your gift from someone whose policies are causing death or suffering to tens of thousands ? Your call.....



The government of the U.S. has given me citizenship, and has also caused suffering to hundreds of millions. Are you in complete allegiance to your country of citizenship?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 02:42:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to believe that mr bono shares the popes thoughts and feelings about the spread of HIV?

seriously?

I'm making a general point about the catholic church.

Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.




I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Maybe Andyt's point is more related to Bono's apparent attachment to a gift from the head of a hate group, a man whose very job description is god's representative on earth. Calling them 'ignorant' certainly may have been appropriate in the 5th century, not the 21st.









Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm not saying the catholic church is a hate group.

But, if any other belief system's representatives denied the holocaust, said homosexuality was wrong, had a rich history of child abuse, claimed the use of condoms spread HIV and denied women's rights, it would be called a hate group. At the very least it would be against human rights.

Mr bono really should watch who he gets photographed with. Bush? Blair? The Pope? I believe his heart is in the right place but he really is WAY off the mark sometimes.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 02:46:30 PM
I think its a lot easier to pass judgment on those who actually try to get something done, than to do something yourself.  Something tells me Bono, as much as he likes attention, could care less about who he is photographed with as much as how much he thinks can get done with associating with and having a dialogue with these people. Moammar Qaddafi swore eternal hate to the US when they bombed his compound in 1986 and killed one of his children, yet he recently met and allowed hiimself to be photographed with Condolezza Rice in the spirit of open dialogue and compromise. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kubokuk on March 29, 2009, 02:51:13 PM
Thanks for all the answers, I am waiting for more.

I don't know if the discussion is going in the right direction. We started out with a question about faith, now we are talking about US citizenship;)

Everyone has a right to speak out loud what he/she thinks about religion, but some people go to far. Let's not offend each other.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2matters on March 29, 2009, 02:57:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for all the answers, I am waiting for more.

I don't know if the discussion is going in the right direction. We started out with a question about faith, now we are talking about US citizenship;)

Everyone has a right to speak out loud what he/she thinks about religion, but some people go to far. Let's not offend each other.





Actually, its religion itself that offends me
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kubokuk on March 29, 2009, 02:59:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for all the answers, I am waiting for more.

I don't know if the discussion is going in the right direction. We started out with a question about faith, now we are talking about US citizenship;)

Everyone has a right to speak out loud what he/she thinks about religion, but some people go to far. Let's not offend each other.




Actually, its religion itself that offends me

and why?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 03:06:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think its a lot easier to pass judgment on those who actually try to get something done, than to do something yourself.  Something tells me Bono, as much as he likes attention, could care less about who he is photographed with as much as how much he thinks can get done with associating with and having a dialogue with these people. Moammar Qaddafi swore eternal hate to the US when they bombed his compound in 1986 and killed one of his children, yet he recently met and allowed hiimself to be photographed with Condolezza Rice in the spirit of open dialogue and compromise. 

You're right - and yours is one of the more intelligent things written on this forum.

My personal take on it in terms of mr bono, is that he's part genuine good, and part raging megalomania.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on March 29, 2009, 03:09:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think its a lot easier to pass judgment on those who actually try to get something done, than to do something yourself.  Something tells me Bono, as much as he likes attention, could care less about who he is photographed with as much as how much he thinks can get done with associating with and having a dialogue with these people. Moammar Qaddafi swore eternal hate to the US when they bombed his compound in 1986 and killed one of his children, yet he recently met and allowed hiimself to be photographed with Condolezza Rice in the spirit of open dialogue and compromise. 

You're right - and yours is one of the more intelligent things written on this forum.

My personal take on it in terms of mr bono, is that he's part genuine good, and part raging megalomania.




Thanks andy.  I agree with you on your take on Bono.  I think he recognizes it too.  I keep coming back to a quote of his.  "I'm sick of Bono, and I AM him."
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. T on March 29, 2009, 03:10:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm making a general point about the catholic church.
Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.

Gotcha, the Catholic Church is a hate group.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm not saying the catholic church is a hate group.

Gotcha. The Catholic Church isn't a hate group.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But, if any other belief system's representatives denied the holocaust, said homosexuality was wrong, had a rich history of child abuse, claimed the use of condoms spread HIV and denied women's rights, it would be called a hate group.

wait, what?

my head just exploded.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2matters on March 29, 2009, 03:11:06 PM
U2's music woke me - spiritually, and continues to.
If I've learned anything along the way from their music, it is that my uncertainty is my guiding light - and that's what gets me up in the morning. The mystery. Certainty would bore me and reeks of over confidence IMO. And by that, I mean certainty about anything.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 03:24:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm making a general point about the catholic church.
Any other organised group that held these beliefs would be called a hate group. But because it's religion, people accept it.

Gotcha, the Catholic Church is a hate group.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm not saying the catholic church is a hate group.

Gotcha. The Catholic Church isn't a hate group.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But, if any other belief system's representatives denied the holocaust, said homosexuality was wrong, had a rich history of child abuse, claimed the use of condoms spread HIV and denied women's rights, it would be called a hate group.

wait, what?

my head just exploded.



I see what you're trying to do. Read what I said.

I didn't say it was a hate group - I said any other group that openly held those beliefs would be called a hate group. Read any of the left wing press in the UK.

Religious belief systems are complex things.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on March 29, 2009, 03:33:33 PM
I am a member of the Church Of Strange and Norrell.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 29, 2009, 03:57:18 PM

Jazz
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on March 29, 2009, 05:07:25 PM
In regards to Bono and whom he associates with...He's getting results and it's hard to argue with that. Sometimes what you believe in is more valuable than your popularity...or even yourself. I think history will be very kind to Bono.

Even though U2 are already considered legendary...I think history will hold them in even higher regard. I was just watching the Zoo TV tour in HD on comcast on-demand (While I was doing the dishes, lol) and it is still the most incredible experience. I'm thankful to be around at the same time as U2.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: MirrorballMoon on March 29, 2009, 09:29:20 PM
I don't believe in God at this point in my life.  I was raised fundamental protestant evangelical and have struggled with doubt for most of my life.  I called myself agnostic for a long time, and have only recently started considering myself an atheist/secular humanist.  But my religious background (5 days a week of Bible classes plus church on Sunday morning and Sunday night until I was 18, then another 4 years of more progressive Bible classes in college) definitely gives me a framework for understanding U2's lyrics. 

I admire Bono's belief.  I've often wished I could believe, but for me it isn't as simple as just making a choice ("I would believe if I was able . . .").  I believe in equality, freedom, justice, and the power of the human spirit.  "Magnificent" is my favorite song on NLOTH.  I believe in the things I think he means by the word "God" -- just not in the actual person, "God." 

I read somewhere that Bono's father, Bob, once told him the only thing he envied was Bono's ability to believe, to have a relationship with God, to "hear something back from the silence."  I understand that statement.  Maybe that's part of why I'm still drawn to the music of U2, even as my faith in religion falls away.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: domino on March 30, 2009, 01:02:13 AM
No, i do not. To me: god is love. love is music, holding hands, a raindrop, laughter etc. it's everything..and can be found everywhere.

Reminds me of a quote like "we're not built to understand a concept as big as God". At one point, i had a lot of faith in this universal love, but that's fading slowly. In terms of religion and God in the judeo-christian tradition...I don't see the need for a forgiver, redeemer, saviour etc. I feel that it creates a lot of excuses and removes a lot of accountability. I'd like ppl to take more responsibility for their actions, and their lives. The notion of an omniscient and omnipresent entity/elderly, white male (WHY is it always a man?!) who has a plan for you, renders free will irrelevant and useless--if not non-existent, making life...what? I rehearsal for a play that will never be stage [to paraphrase].

To borrow from a philosopher, "I'm afraid were losing the real virtues of living life passionately in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are the ability to make something of yourself and feel good about life." Religion, God can do that to some, money, wealth, power etc. can do it to others...

“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." ~ brilliant!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 30, 2009, 03:08:00 AM

Or:

'there's just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another, but not enough to make them love'

Spot on.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on March 30, 2009, 03:10:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Or:

'there's just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another, but not enough to make them love'

Spot on.

That's my thoughts exactly. Religion is built on good principles, but all the bs baggage that comes with it goes against its purpose. Spirituality is a good thing; religion often is not.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CharityDance on March 30, 2009, 05:35:00 AM
I think three answers Bono has given to this question at different U2 eras are all brilliant, and get closer to the actual experience the poll is asking about, so I would borrow his replies:

1. Who cares what I believe?  Surely the question is whether Jesus Christ is credible.
2. It's not interesting whether I believe in God; what matters is that God believes in me.
3. No. I never believed. I knew.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Malachi on March 30, 2009, 05:54:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think three answers Bono has given to this question at different U2 eras are all brilliant, and get closer to the actual experience the poll is asking about, so I would borrow his replies:

1. Who cares what I believe?  Surely the question is whether Jesus Christ is credible.
2. It's not interesting whether I believe in God; what matters is that God believes in me.
3. No. I never believed. I knew.



That is one of the best quotes I think I have ever read from Bono.


Mal
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 30, 2009, 06:11:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think three answers Bono has given to this question at different U2 eras are all brilliant, and get closer to the actual experience the poll is asking about, so I would borrow his replies:

1. Who cares what I believe?  Surely the question is whether Jesus Christ is credible.
2. It's not interesting whether I believe in God; what matters is that God believes in me.
3. No. I never believed. I knew.



That is one of the best quotes I think I have ever read from Bono.


Mal

For me, that quote is typical of the bigoted thinking behind a lot of religion and why I don't like it.

I'm sure it's taken out of context here - these threads often spiral off into different directions which is what makes them interesting.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CharityDance on March 30, 2009, 07:27:47 AM
This doesn't mean anyone need like the fact that Bono said it, of course, since part of the whole U2 thing is that people are invited to disagree and find their own way .... but that third quote is from John Waters' 1994 book, "Race of Angels: Ireland and the Genesis of U2," p 154 and is very much in context. Bono has just been talking with Waters about how intense his early group experiences of God were, which he compares to "a rave for the God-squad" and attributes to "a movement of the spirit" that happened in 1977 and, he claims, recurs at various points throughout history. 
Here's the full following section verbatim:

===
Did you always, I asked him, believe?

No. I knew. [italics in the original] In a very powerful way, I knew that there was something to this. And I didn't believe then, instinctively, the line that I was being sold in school and the intelligentsia - which is the God is Dead line. I always remember in school, written on the wall, 'God is dead - Nietzsche' and written underneath it 'Nietzsche's dead - God.' A classic graffiti line. I just knew that there was something there.
===
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 30, 2009, 07:28:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This doesn't mean anyone need like the fact that Bono said it, of course, since part of the whole U2 thing is that people are invited to disagree and find their own way .... but that third quote is from John Waters' 1994 book, "Race of Angels: Ireland and the Genesis of U2," p 154 and is very much in context. Bono has just been talking with Waters about how intense his early group experiences of God were, which he compares to "a rave for the God-squad" and attributes to "a movement of the spirit" that happened in 1977 and, he claims, recurs at various points throughout history. 
Here's the full following section verbatim:

===
Did you always, I asked him, believe?

No. I knew. [italics in the original] In a very powerful way, I knew that there was something to this. And I didn't believe then, instinctively, the line that I was being sold in school and the intelligentsia - which is the God is Dead line. I always remember in school, written on the wall, 'God is dead - Nietzsche' and written underneath it 'Nietzsche's dead - God.' A classic graffiti line. I just knew that there was something there.
===

Very good - you're right, everything in context...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on March 30, 2009, 07:38:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I just wanted to know, if some of you has a feeling like that also. Does believing (or not) in God has an any effect on the way you think about U2.



No. I don't believe in God. But I believe in U2.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: vertigo5000 on March 30, 2009, 07:45:40 AM
I'm Agnostic

I cant prove Gods existance nor non-existance.
I hate all religions they're evil  >:(
I love U2's music but I cant say that I respect blind faith
but then again, believe what you want as long as it doesnt affect me or my way of life

my 2 pennies :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mystways on March 30, 2009, 07:57:45 AM
Some interesting discussion going on, here. I won't try to join the whole "does God exist or not?" debate. IMO that can't be "proven" by humans any more than evolution can be "proven"—they call it a faith or a theory for a reason. But I am very much a follower of Christ-as-God, though, like Bono, I often have a problem with the religion of Christianity.

As for my belief having an affect on my appreciation of U2...

The first, and very basic reason I like U2, would be I like their sound. Regardless of the message of a group, or the hotness of an artist, I have to like their sound, or I don’t listen to it. I’m picky like that. :P While there are a few songs, I’d honestly have to admit I don’t like, the vast majority of U2’s music is something I can listen to over and over and never get sick of. It has staying power.

Another reason would be their lyrics. The more I listen to U2’s music, the more I realize how many layers of meaning can be found in a simple line. And then there’s the originality in the way Bono phrases things. Lyrics like “the rich stay healthy/the sick stay poor” aren’t what I’d expect to hear, but they fit perfectly. It’s inspired me in my own writing.

Finally, though I don’t always agree with everything they do or say, I connect with U2 at a world-view/spiritual level. Their beliefs are present in more than their music. I highly respect their activism (I joined the ONE Campaign last fall) and what they're doing to help the disadvantaged in the world. U2 could just sit around in their mansions and live it up. Instead, they’re out making a difference, and I love them for that.

Also, I’ve always appreciated Christians who shine in a tolerant way. U2 mostly aren’t hitting people over the head with the way they think things should be, but they’re not apologizing for their beliefs, either. It’s something I try to emulate.

Some people have said that U2 has screwed up often, bragged a bit too much, etc.—and of course they have. But so have I. That's why I'm, "a believer in grace over karma." ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 30, 2009, 10:02:31 AM
Having been an atheist since age 8 (I'm now 27 and lots of change), I'd have to say that no, I don't believe in any god. It just seemed absurdly far fetched even at that young age. Religion is something separate from belief, in my experience: belief is about the individual, religion about the individual's place in the world. Sometimes the two coexist.

I really like this Edge quote: "I don't have a problem with Christ, I have a problem with christians."


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some interesting discussion going on, here. I won't try to join the whole "does God exist or not?" debate. IMO that can't be "proven" by humans any more than evolution can be "proven"—they call it a faith or a theory for a reason. But I am very much a follower of Christ-as-God, though, like Bono, I often have a problem with the religion of Christianity.

Let's not confuse evolution with faith, please. Evolution is the name given the process of biological change over time. It has several sizable mountain ranges of support and has been observed in action in repeatable experiments.

A scientific theory is not a guess.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mystways on March 30, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Having been an atheist since age 8 (I'm now 27 and lots of change), I'd have to say that no, I don't believe in any god. It just seemed absurdly far fetched even at that young age. Religion is something separate from belief, in my experience: belief is about the individual, religion about the individual's place in the world. Sometimes the two coexist.

I really like this Edge quote: "I don't have a problem with Christ, I have a problem with christians."


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some interesting discussion going on, here. I won't try to join the whole "does God exist or not?" debate. IMO that can't be "proven" by humans any more than evolution can be "proven"—they call it a faith or a theory for a reason. But I am very much a follower of Christ-as-God, though, like Bono, I often have a problem with the religion of Christianity.

Let's not confuse evolution with faith, please. Evolution is the name given the process of biological change over time. It has several sizable mountain ranges of support and has been observed in action in repeatable experiments.

A scientific theory is not a guess.
Sorry if my wording was confusing. I didn't mean to call evolution a faith—that was in reference to the "God exists" side. What I meant to say, is that I think seeing either a higher power or evolution as 100% "provable" is an error.

No-one (unless you trust the Bible) recorded how the universe began (or what went on for a good while after that) and even if they had, many would still doubt the accuracy of their record. So we have to depend on a lot things that are second-hand information, no matter how reliable we think they may be. Because of that, I think it takes just as much trust to believe that everything happened by chance, as it does to believe it was designed by a higher power.

As for a theory not being a guess—I'll have to disagree with you there, unless you mean it's an educated guess.

From Oxford American Dictionaries...

theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a mental scheme of something to be done): via late Latin from Greek theōria ‘contemplation, speculation,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’

supposition |ˌsəpəˈzi sh ən|
noun
an uncertain belief : they were working on the supposition that his death was murder | their outrage was based on supposition and hearsay.
DERIVATIVES
suppositional |- sh ənl| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English (as a term in scholastic logic): from Old French, or from late Latin suppositio(n-) (translating Greek hupothesis ‘hypothesis’ ), from the verb supponere (see suppose ).
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: vertigo5000 on March 30, 2009, 11:11:17 AM
Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Athiest: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

Agnostic: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

I'm an Agnostic, in this situation I feel its best to be sitting on the fence :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 30, 2009, 11:14:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Athiest: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

Agnostic: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

I'm an Agnostic, in this situation I feel its best to be sitting on the fence :)

Sitting on the fence just hurts your ass, man up and make a decision !

 ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 30, 2009, 11:21:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's not confuse evolution with faith, please. Evolution is the name given the process of biological change over time. It has several sizable mountain ranges of support and has been observed in action in repeatable experiments.

A scientific theory is not a guess.
Sorry if my wording was confusing. I didn't mean to call evolution a faith—that was in reference to the "God exists" side. What I meant to say, is that I think seeing either a higher power or evolution as 100% "provable" is an error.

Gotcha on the first part :)

Regarding the second part, the semantics make things seem different from what they are. Evolution is like gravity - it's there, whatever we feel about it. The "theory of evolution" is the scientific explanation of how and why it works as observed, just as the "theory of gravity" is. This is not something I personally find meaningful to invest faith in, it is what it is and only our explanation - the theory - changes as new research adds to/subtracts from it.


Quote
No-one (unless you trust the Bible) recorded how the universe began (or what went on for a good while after that) and even if they had, many would still doubt the accuracy of their record. So we have to depend on a lot things that are second-hand information, no matter how reliable we think they may be. Because of that, I think it takes just as much trust to believe that everything happened by chance, as it does to believe it was designed by a higher power.

Another interesting discussion! And any sane scientist looking into this would cheerfully agree that no, we don't know how things got started. For me, this is a very attractive and comforting thought - partly because it's up to us to find out, not to be dictated to.
But the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. :)


Quote
As for a theory not being a guess—I'll have to disagree with you there, unless you mean it's an educated guess.

I did say "scientific theory", and that's about as educated as it gets :)
The scientific method is one of the distinctly great achievements of humanity in my opinion.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on March 30, 2009, 12:32:29 PM
Bono has been greatly influenced by Christian authors such as Phillip Yancey and CS Lewis.

U2 have always mentioned God in their songs and albums, and even hidden scriptural passages.

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a gospel song.

40 was taken straight of the Book Of Psalms, and Wake Up Dead Man.

Yahweh is virtually God.

Grace is about the Christian concept that makes it a unique religion.

All I Want Is You could be about the sacrament of matrimony and its permanence "what God has put together, let no man put asunder" - that is why in some countries divorce is illegal and Bono has still stuck to the same wife.

It seems U2 always tip off their hat to God in their final songs in their albums.   It is their way of saying amen.

God was most present and most mentioned in POP and October.

I think those people who understand Christian beliefs are in a position to have a deeper interpretation of U2's most Christian themed songs.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Boom Cha! on March 30, 2009, 12:36:26 PM
I voted no.

Although, I'm open to the possibilty of their being a God. I just need more proof.  :-\
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: MEMORY_MAN on March 30, 2009, 12:50:10 PM
I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  Religion not included...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Malachi on March 30, 2009, 01:12:54 PM
Im the same as Memory Man. Christianity is (at the end of the day) all about your relationship with Jesus and God.

My problem is when it becomes all institutional, everything as to be done a certain way and we (humanity) put God in a box, this is when religion gets in the way and it then starts to detract from the original point and in some cases people get hurt. Ive seen it happen before, and thats what I don't like about Religion.

Well that my 2 cents worth lol. Although I do generaly state my views (when I write them out) in an odd and badly written way. ;D

Mal
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 30, 2009, 01:27:25 PM
I don't believe in God, but I can still recognize and identify with passion, which Bono used to have a lot of when it came to religion. I love most of the older, religious-themed songs.

Nowadays, most of his religious-themed lyrics seem totally banal, and it makes it hard for me to accept that he is still a believer. He had more religious passion in 2 seconds of any Pop song, where he seemed at his least religious, or more-precisely his most doubtful, than the entirety of the song Yahweh.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Malachi on March 30, 2009, 01:40:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Nowadays, most of his religious-themed lyrics seem totally banal, and it makes it hard for me to accept that he is still a believer. He had more religious passion in 2 seconds of any Pop song, where he seemed at his least religious, or more-precisely his most doubtful, than the entirety of the song Yahweh.

I agree. I was listening to Pop today and the passion and doubt in his voice and lyrics was incredible. Compare that to the newer stuff and although the lyrics are from more of a believers view point, there not as convincing (to me anyway) as the older stuff. I was thinking this the other day, wondering if his beliefs are as strong as they were in the pop day's but hey, Bono is Bono. Who know what's going on in his head. :D

Mal
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on March 30, 2009, 01:48:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Nowadays, most of his religious-themed lyrics seem totally banal, and it makes it hard for me to accept that he is still a believer. He had more religious passion in 2 seconds of any Pop song, where he seemed at his least religious, or more-precisely his most doubtful, than the entirety of the song Yahweh.

I agree. I was listening to Pop today and the passion and doubt in his voice and lyrics was incredible. Compare that to the newer stuff and although the lyrics are from more of a believers view point, there not as convincing (to me anyway) as the older stuff. I was thinking this the other day, wondering if his beliefs are as strong as they were in the pop day's but hey, Bono is Bono. Who know what's going on in his head. :D

Mal

Stuff like "All Because of You", "Magnificent", "Yahweh" is just a step above "I love Jesus yes I do"

You don't need a belief in God to understand Christian beliefs, or to understand that Pop was Bono's last great lyrical effort

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 30, 2009, 01:50:06 PM
Quote
I agree. I was listening to Pop today and the passion and doubt in his voice and lyrics was incredible. Compare that to the newer stuff and although the lyrics are from more of a believers view point, there not as convincing (to me anyway) as the older stuff.

Exactly, and I would add that his lyrics from the the 80's and early 90's seem to be from a believer's standpoint, but they're much more powerful than his current lyrics. It really seems to me that he was a big believer all throughout the 80's and a bit of the 90's. In the late 90's, he had a crisis of faith, which he ultimately resolved, but not completely sincerely. On the surface, he believes, but deep down, there is something about the whole thing that bothers him. Maybe it's a sort of Problem of Evil sort of thing. His real passion right now is for Africa, and he can't help but feel that, as bad as Americans/Europeans are for standing by with buckets of water in hand while Africa burns, God is even worse. That's my speculative opinion.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: vertigo5000 on March 30, 2009, 03:46:15 PM

Gods so lucky,
he has soo much power, he is the beginning and the end
has unlimited strength and can create a whole universe
but it comes at a price...

Gods everywhere watching everything

and that includes HOLLYOAKS   :o

I do NOT envy that guy   ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 30, 2009, 04:15:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for a theory not being a guess—I'll have to disagree with you there, unless you mean it's an educated guess.

From Oxford American Dictionaries...

theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a mental scheme of something to be done): via late Latin from Greek theōria ‘contemplation, speculation,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’

supposition |ˌsəpəˈzi sh ən|
noun
an uncertain belief : they were working on the supposition that his death was murder | their outrage was based on supposition and hearsay.
DERIVATIVES
suppositional |- sh ənl| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English (as a term in scholastic logic): from Old French, or from late Latin suppositio(n-) (translating Greek hupothesis ‘hypothesis’ ), from the verb supponere (see suppose ).

Far be it from me to challenge the dictionary, but this is the first dictionary entry I've ever read that has used a word like 'supposition' as a synonym for 'theory' in the scientific context, which is the context that matters when discussing Evolution and The Big Bang.

I agree with everything in that definition after the word 'or'. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework. It is no more speculative than a scientific fact or law.

None of the other dictionaries I've used have described scientific theories as suppository or speculative. Notice how all of the following definitions describe scientific theories as explanatory frameworks of some kind:

Random House:

Quote
A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

American Heritage:

Quote
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Webster's:

Quote
An exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science; as, the theory of music.

WordNet:

Quote
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

American Heritage (again)

Quote
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

Of course, in daily speech, outside the context of Science, you hear the word "theory" used in place of "hypothesis" or "speculation" all the time. So, you will find those definitions in there too. But it's important, when choosing a definition, to choose the one that matters in context.

For example, if you were to call me a jerk, I wouldn't think that you were calling me a sudden movement. :p
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on March 30, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its the traits of a hate group as much as an ignorant group. I hear where you are coming from, though.  But Bono getting a gift of a rosary doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Of course it does. Bono met the Pope, ergo Bono agrees with everything the Catholic Church (an accepted hate group) declares.

And the final result is Bono supports a hate group.

Hey Joe, what do you have against Tibet?



LOL!!!! Yeah! Now that I think about it, my t-shirt is made in China, so I agree wholeheartedly with their repression of Tibet!!!! That makes perfect sense!!! ;D :D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: m2 on March 31, 2009, 12:44:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nowadays, most of his religious-themed lyrics seem totally banal, and it makes it hard for me to accept that he is still a believer. He had more religious passion in 2 seconds of any Pop song, where he seemed at his least religious, or more-precisely his most doubtful, than the entirety of the song Yahweh.

So, are you suggesting that doubting/questioning God = passion, and that praising God = no passion? That's how it seems, like you're saying the only way to be a passionate Christian is to question/doubt God. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 31, 2009, 05:48:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nowadays, most of his religious-themed lyrics seem totally banal, and it makes it hard for me to accept that he is still a believer. He had more religious passion in 2 seconds of any Pop song, where he seemed at his least religious, or more-precisely his most doubtful, than the entirety of the song Yahweh.

So, are you suggesting that doubting/questioning God = passion, and that praising God = no passion? That's how it seems, like you're saying the only way to be a passionate Christian is to question/doubt God. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

To this outsider, doubt would be the mark of an honest christian.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: donvalley360 on March 31, 2009, 06:11:37 AM
I am an aetheist,there has been more war and atrocities committed in the name of one god or another,as a result i am very strongly anti-religion,but i love u2 for the music they make and how it makes me feel,i dont try and analyse lyrics and delve into the meanings,i leave that for more intelligent and thoughtful people than me,i know what i get from u2 music,and thats all that matters to me.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mystways on March 31, 2009, 07:01:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's not confuse evolution with faith, please. Evolution is the name given the process of biological change over time. It has several sizable mountain ranges of support and has been observed in action in repeatable experiments.

A scientific theory is not a guess.
Sorry if my wording was confusing. I didn't mean to call evolution a faith—that was in reference to the "God exists" side. What I meant to say, is that I think seeing either a higher power or evolution as 100% "provable" is an error.

Gotcha on the first part :)

Regarding the second part, the semantics make things seem different from what they are. Evolution is like gravity - it's there, whatever we feel about it. The "theory of evolution" is the scientific explanation of how and why it works as observed, just as the "theory of gravity" is. This is not something I personally find meaningful to invest faith in, it is what it is and only our explanation - the theory - changes as new research adds to/subtracts from it.

Belief in God also exists, whatever we feel about it. The existence of a theory doesn't necessarily make it true. (And that goes for religious as well as scientific theory).

Gravity is something we can personally measure and experience. If I drop the lid to the washing machine over my fingers, it will fall, and I'll go "ouch!". ;) Evolution, on the other hand, asks us to accept that research and evidence gathered through second-hand means support the idea that something began thousands of years ago, is still occurring, and will continue to occur until the world ends. 

For the record, I'm not ruling out the possibility that evolution (especially micro evolution) exists. But until we have thousands of years of humans-actually-there-and-recording-it research to back up the gradual change concept, I'll have a hard time buying into the idea that I am the descendant of an ape-like creature.


Quote
No-one (unless you trust the Bible) recorded how the universe began (or what went on for a good while after that) and even if they had, many would still doubt the accuracy of their record. So we have to depend on a lot things that are second-hand information, no matter how reliable we think they may be. Because of that, I think it takes just as much trust to believe that everything happened by chance, as it does to believe it was designed by a higher power.

Another interesting discussion! And any sane scientist looking into this would cheerfully agree that no, we don't know how things got started. For me, this is a very attractive and comforting thought - partly because it's up to us to find out, not to be dictated to.
But the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. :)

By beginning of the universe, I meant how things were in our early history (not the Big Bang). If way back then our ancestors were little things swimming around in pools, or even the fore-runners of apes, and we could somehow watch them change into us, then that would be more than enough proof for evolution. In that case, it wouldn't even be a theory, but a proven fact, witnessed by us.

Quote
As for a theory not being a guess—I'll have to disagree with you there, unless you mean it's an educated guess.

I did say "scientific theory", and that's about as educated as it gets :)
The scientific method is one of the distinctly great achievements of humanity in my opinion.

Okay. So we're on the same page, there. :)

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mystways on March 31, 2009, 07:08:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for a theory not being a guess—I'll have to disagree with you there, unless you mean it's an educated guess.

From Oxford American Dictionaries...

theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a mental scheme of something to be done): via late Latin from Greek theōria ‘contemplation, speculation,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’

supposition |ˌsəpəˈzi sh ən|
noun
an uncertain belief : they were working on the supposition that his death was murder | their outrage was based on supposition and hearsay.
DERIVATIVES
suppositional |- sh ənl| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English (as a term in scholastic logic): from Old French, or from late Latin suppositio(n-) (translating Greek hupothesis ‘hypothesis’ ), from the verb supponere (see suppose ).

Far be it from me to challenge the dictionary, but this is the first dictionary entry I've ever read that has used a word like 'supposition' as a synonym for 'theory' in the scientific context, which is the context that matters when discussing Evolution and The Big Bang.

I agree with everything in that definition after the word 'or'. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework. It is no more speculative than a scientific fact or law.

None of the other dictionaries I've used have described scientific theories as suppository or speculative. Notice how all of the following definitions describe scientific theories as explanatory frameworks of some kind:

Random House:

Quote
A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

American Heritage:

Quote
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Webster's:

Quote
An exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science; as, the theory of music.

WordNet:

Quote
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

American Heritage (again)

Quote
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

Of course, in daily speech, outside the context of Science, you hear the word "theory" used in place of "hypothesis" or "speculation" all the time. So, you will find those definitions in there too. But it's important, when choosing a definition, to choose the one that matters in context.

For example, if you were to call me a jerk, I wouldn't think that you were calling me a sudden movement. :p
I stand corrected, and as a lover of words, I appreciate your word accuracy. The point I was making is that even a very well-supported scientific theory may be mistaken, or even proven completely erroneous by later findings.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 31, 2009, 09:18:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I stand corrected, and as a lover of words, I appreciate your word accuracy. The point I was making is that even a very well-supported scientific theory may be mistaken, or even proven completely erroneous by later findings.

Surely this is a good and healthy thing? To hang on to an idea regardless of proof to back it up or conclusive proof against it is insanity. To expand one's knowledge, to learn, to be curious, to question, to reject what does not work - this is to move forward.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: theocean on March 31, 2009, 10:01:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
whenever i doubt...music reconnects me with God. it is a force that cannot be physically seen but felt and heard. the power of music helps me understand there is something much bigger than us. music aligns me spiritually.


besides...it's boring and depressing to think otherwise.

Very well put!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 31, 2009, 10:15:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Belief in God also exists, whatever we feel about it. The existence of a theory doesn't necessarily make it true. (And that goes for religious as well as scientific theory).

Gravity is something we can personally measure and experience. If I drop the lid to the washing machine over my fingers, it will fall, and I'll go "ouch!". ;) Evolution, on the other hand, asks us to accept that research and evidence gathered through second-hand means support the idea that something began thousands of years ago, is still occurring, and will continue to occur until the world ends. 

Also evolution can be and has been observed "in action" in repeatable experiments, including speciation. It's there! The "theory of evolution" is our explanation of the process, not the process itself.

Belief in god/s certainly exists, but it is something intensely personally experienced, not repeatably measured.

Quote
For the record, I'm not ruling out the possibility that evolution (especially micro evolution) exists. But until we have thousands of years of humans-actually-there-and-recording-it research to back up the gradual change concept, I'll have a hard time buying into the idea that I am the descendant of an ape-like creature.

I could never accept a static universe, and all evidence up to and including my own existence tells me that the universe and everything in it is dynamic, in flux. Everything affects everything else - it's just a question of degree. In the specific case of biology, this change happens to be called evolution. There is no need beyond the personal for first hand observation over thousands of years to validate our explanations of how it works - there already exists an enormous amount of research, evidence and experimentation to support it. As an analogy, no one has actually seen the earth revolve around the sun, but we still accept it as fact.

I personally find the idea that life as we know it somehow plopped into existence "finished", and that it has not changed since, to be utterly absurd. This has been my stance since childhood I have found nothing to change it. It makes rational sense, can be observed, and it is immensely emotionally satisfying because it means that in the end, everything is the same and everything is connected and to me there is no more beautiful thought.

But that's me! I'm happy to discuss this with someone who is clearly a thinking human being :)

Quote
By beginning of the universe, I meant how things were in our early history (not the Big Bang). If way back then our ancestors were little things swimming around in pools, or even the fore-runners of apes, and we could somehow watch them change into us, then that would be more than enough proof for evolution. In that case, it wouldn't even be a theory, but a proven fact, witnessed by us.

Yes. But that is not possible (and if it were, it would profoundly change the outcome of the process*), so we must make do with what we have.


Quote
I did say "scientific theory", and that's about as educated as it gets :)
The scientific method is one of the distinctly great achievements of humanity in my opinion.
Okay. So we're on the same page, there. :)

:)


* To my chagrin, I can't remember who stated this. Popper seems likely but there is no mention of it on Wikipedia.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 31, 2009, 10:37:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, are you suggesting that doubting/questioning God = passion, and that praising God = no passion? That's how it seems, like you're saying the only way to be a passionate Christian is to question/doubt God. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

No sir, I did not mean to give that impression. While Pop is a passionate album full of doubts about God, I think Bono has, previous to Pop, written many a passionate and worshipful lyric about God. It's just that since Pop -- since those doubts -- his lyrics about God, which all seem very worshipful again, have not been very passionate, in my opinion. This leads me to speculate that he managed to bury his doubts somehow, but they're not really gone. Just camouflaged.

Edit: It's like I said in this reply:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, and I would add that his lyrics from the the 80's and early 90's seem to be from a believer's standpoint, but they're much more powerful than his current lyrics. It really seems to me that he was a big believer all throughout the 80's and a bit of the 90's. In the late 90's, he had a crisis of faith, which he ultimately resolved, but not completely sincerely. On the surface, he believes, but deep down, there is something about the whole thing that bothers him. Maybe it's a sort of Problem of Evil sort of thing. His real passion right now is for Africa, and he can't help but feel that, as bad as Americans/Europeans are for standing by with buckets of water in hand while Africa burns, God is even worse. That's my speculative opinion.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 31, 2009, 10:48:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I stand corrected, and as a lover of words, I appreciate your word accuracy. The point I was making is that even a very well-supported scientific theory may be mistaken, or even proven completely erroneous by later findings.

One thing I will say about scientific theories is that they're very broad, and therefore very fluid. A scientific law, by comparison, if very brief and can sometimes be expressed a single equation:

F = G( m1 * m2 / r^2 );

...which is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. And even these scientific laws can be proven wrong. It turns out that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation works very well enough for our purposes in 99% of all cases, but it doesn't correctly predict the orbit of Mercury! That's where Einstein's Theory of General Relativity comes in, which is a sort of rewrite of Netwon's law, but unlike Newton's law, it correctly predicts the orbit of Mercury.

And one thing that's really interesting about this is you have a situation where, not only was a law proven to be incorrect, but the law in question was supplanted by a theory!

Sorry, I love talking about this stuff. It's like metascience, or something.

Anyway, since theories are often so broad, one or two things about them can be disproved, but the theory as a whole remains relatively unchanged. This is in contrast to a law, where there usually is only one statement in the whole thing, and if you change that, you've changed everything. Take the Big Bang for instance. They looked at the cosmic background radiation, and it looked more homogeneous than they expected. So, this unexpected result requires some sort of explanation, and Inflation was devised as one possible explanation. However, the general idea that the Universe was once very small and very hot, and has since expanded and cooled considerably, remains unchanged.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on March 31, 2009, 11:43:27 AM

Enough of the God thing!

It's all superstition and storytelling - and the complete inhability of humans to realise they're really not important as a race.

Is there any evidence of a God? If so, does this God make the world a better place? Where is God when completely innocent people are raped and murdered. Am I to believe God prefers me beacuse I live in a relatively afluent and safe environment rather than being born as a starving chid in Africa? Does God support the presecution and war the Christian Church has meted out over the years? Or the Catholic Church? Does God hate homosexuals? Perhaps he thinks it's a good idea to fly planes into tall buildings?

God and religion are mostly a destructive force in humans.

We're all just cells and go back into the earth when we die in the great cycle of life. Like the dinosaurs, we'll die - either by our own hands or nature will take care of us.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: vertigo5000 on March 31, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
I agree with andyt I had enuff so I'm starting a petition;

Who says we should Kick kubokuk off the forum for starting this...?   :P

o.j     ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on March 31, 2009, 12:31:05 PM
I go back and forth on the god(s) thing, but it is indisputable that the Catholic Church, historically, is one of if not the most evil institutions that has ever been created by man.  They put nazi/stalinist/khemer rouge atrocities to shame. Their sole desire has been to control and manipulate people for their own benefit.  Then the are the other monotheistic religions that aren't exactly constructive influences on the world. 

What I find to be interesting is that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic when God refers to "himself" in the plural in many occasions.  Some times it's "I", others it's "our". 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on March 31, 2009, 12:40:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I find to be interesting is that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic when God refers to "himself" in the plural in many occasions.  Some times it's "I", others it's "our". 

The interesting thing about this is that it is almost universally accepted amongst scholars that the ancient Hebrews were henotheistic, not monotheistic.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Codywan24 on March 31, 2009, 12:56:04 PM
What I have always loved about U2, perhaps more than anything, is the completely universal nature of their music and songwriting. The songs are for the listener to discern as much as they are a direct product of the writer/s. I mean, songs like "One," "WOWY," even "...Still Haven't Found" and "Yahweh" CAN be about god if you the listener is feeling that aspect. I may know, or at least sense, that Bono's own intentions in a song have direct spiritual connotations, but he writes it in such a way that often encompasses all aspects of life and human thoughts and feelings, that it always works for me. In fact, there a certain songs that are able to take on multiple meanings and feelings. It just depends on what I need from it at a certain moment in time. I find that remarkable, and that has helped fuel my love for this band for these many years.

I'm not a religious person btw, not that it should matter much. I think the last thing that U2 would want is to inspire anything but respectful, understanding and interesting debates about life, god or what have you. Just my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on March 31, 2009, 01:52:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I find to be interesting is that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic when God refers to "himself" in the plural in many occasions.  Some times it's "I", others it's "our". 

The interesting thing about this is that it is almost universally accepted amongst scholars that the ancient Hebrews were henotheistic, not monotheistic.

yeah, and many early christians believed in dualism. Things get really twisted. supposing that modern jews and christians are right and there is only one god, what happened (aside from human tirckery or the game of broken telephone) to make it this way? 

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on March 31, 2009, 05:01:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
* To my chagrin, I can't remember who stated this. Popper seems likely but there is no mention of it on Wikipedia.

Well I found it, sort of. It's called the observer effect. From Wikipedia: "In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics."
Apparently there is no one specific who stated this first. Annoying, I was sure there was.

And what's with the religion bashing going on? Completely pointless, whatever your justification.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: donvalley360 on March 31, 2009, 05:16:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Enough of the God thing!

It's all superstition and storytelling - and the complete inhability of humans to realise they're really not important as a race.

Is there any evidence of a God? If so, does this God make the world a better place? Where is God when completely innocent people are raped and murdered. Am I to believe God prefers me beacuse I live in a relatively afluent and safe environment rather than being born as a starving chid in Africa? Does God support the presecution and war the Christian Church has meted out over the years? Or the Catholic Church? Does God hate homosexuals? Perhaps he thinks it's a good idea to fly planes into tall buildings?

God and religion are mostly a destructive force in humans.

We're all just cells and go back into the earth when we die in the great cycle of life. Like the dinosaurs, we'll die - either by our own hands or nature will take care of us.


You'll do for me mate,right with you!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: bluetooth on March 31, 2009, 06:07:40 PM
Exactly, you believe because you don't know if God exists.  If you were 100% sure God existed you wouldn't believe but you would know. 

Who knows maybe Bono is a saint!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on March 31, 2009, 07:30:03 PM
U2 have admitted their Christian roots.

Bono wears the rosary given to him by the Pope.

Most recently, they played Fordham which is a Jesuit school.

There have been a couple of books detailing the Christianity present in U2's music and U2 has admitted being influenced by Christian books in their lyrics.

It is up to you to believe in God or not, but I feel the believers have a better grasp of U2's music because they come from the same wavelength of U2 and the songs can be comprehended better.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Roscoe on April 01, 2009, 12:19:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 have admitted their Christian roots.

Bono wears the rosary given to him by the Pope.

Most recently, they played Fordham which is a Jesuit school.

There have been a couple of books detailing the Christianity present in U2's music and U2 has admitted being influenced by Christian books in their lyrics.

It is up to you to believe in God or not, but I feel the believers have a better grasp of U2's music because they come from the same wavelength of U2 and the songs can be comprehended better.

Cheers,

J


To say the believers have a better grasp of their music is way off the mark. You only have to understand that U2 have a faith to know what they are talking about...doesn't mean you have to believe the same thing.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on April 01, 2009, 02:11:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
* To my chagrin, I can't remember who stated this. Popper seems likely but there is no mention of it on Wikipedia.

Well I found it, sort of. It's called the observer effect. From Wikipedia: "In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics."
Apparently there is no one specific who stated this first. Annoying, I was sure there was.

And what's with the religion bashing going on? Completely pointless, whatever your justification.

I bash religion beacuse it's mostly a force for bad in the world - over history it's been the root of war, violence, persecution, political corruption, greed... and let's not forget child abuse, terrorism, mass hyseria, brain washing, abuse of the poor etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

It's still the root of all the above.  I'm a humanist - I don't have make believe friends who will 'save me' from whatever it is I'm meant to be saved from.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 01, 2009, 06:20:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And what's with the religion bashing going on? Completely pointless, whatever your justification.

Well this seems to be an argument of "shut up, that's why (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html)", which I can't agree with. That said, it does seem that said bashing is a bit simplistic. Religious wars and conflicts do not prove that religion inherently causes war - the Israelis and Palestinians would no doubt find another way to hate one another. What it does prove is that, despite claims to the contrary, religious people are frequently no better than the nonreligious.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 01, 2009, 08:46:27 AM
I don't think religion causes war, but it is used as a justification for certain people/groups to increase their standing in the physical world.
And why is it that any opinion/belief/fact/idea can be discussed, challenged or debated but religion is out of bounds? 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JustinU2K8 on April 01, 2009, 09:49:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
i know, it may sound controversial or even stupid, but here's my explanation:

- for me, U2 music was always, in some way, about God (of course not every song).
- Not only their music/lyrics, but what they do and the way they do it.
- It's not a secret, that 3 U2 members are declared believers.


Definitely agree. It's maybe the thing I love most about the band. They aren't calling themselves a Christian rock band and writing average to below average songs with lyrics that any third grader could write. They're challenging themselves and the listener to look beyond yourself and your comfort zone.
I read an interview with Bono one time where he said that the references to God are there for the ones who want it but it isn't forced upon people...
They aren't religious. They're interested in God.
BTW, Adam has come around, I believe. So all 4 do have a faith.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: macphisto on April 02, 2009, 08:35:53 AM
TO andyt,

I will be the first to admit that my own spirituality is not static and that I can, depending on the mood or situation I'm facing, identify with experiences all along the transcendent spectrum. However, I find your argument that religion is directly or even largely to blame for many of the world's ills to be both naive and overly reductionistic. To claim that terrorism is a derivative of direct fundamentalist religious principles is to focus only on Islamic terrorism in the modern world; this arrogance says nothing about the many socioeconomic and cultural histories that engender and predispose certain locales to conflict - is there not anything to the fact that Palestine, Afghanistan, and other such hotspots are in the lowest bracket of gross domestic product? Is there not anything to the fact that countries wherein violent fundamentalist movements begin occur where government systemically breeds corruption; if the cases of Egypt and Pakistan are to be examined, it's little wonder that an ardent militant movement based upon a popular unifying thread (religion) arises so that empowered citizens can wrest control of their lives and liberties according their penchant.

Man is an imperfect animal - this is a fact true both before and after the dawn of religious association. To simply use religion, a la Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, as an easy copout for the world's ills is to ignore the importance of other factors such as economics, cultural demographics, relative history, and societal movements. Religion is but a part of the collective human experience. You don't fix society by attacking only one aspect of injustice; you attack the underlying wrongs. If you really wish to change the world, please come to the buffet table and stop picking your poison a la carte.

By your logic, if my arm is believed to be the source of my migraine, I ought to just forgoe the limb irregardless of the fact that a multiplicity of physiological factors contribute to my situation.

Peace and love,
macphisto
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JustinU2K8 on April 02, 2009, 10:26:08 AM
MacPhisto, I thought you left your video cameras behind at the end of ZOO TV...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Lemon-Twist on April 02, 2009, 10:31:32 AM
I am Catholic..I am not going to say proud for a few reasons , I have a problem about the way the church is run e.g all that vatican Gold(wealth), the pope having some sort of army (Vatican City)
but the reason I don't change religion is because I don't have a problem with the Catholic beliefs
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Beckie7 on April 02, 2009, 10:33:03 AM
I feel the exact same way!!  I have a deep faith in God and I see evidence of their beliefs in almost every song!  That's actually why I'm so drawn to their music and they do live out their faith too by their actions of giving back to the world.  It's nice to know that others feel the same way. 

Their songs minister more to me than most Christain music and the concerts are like a big worship service for me personally.  NLOTH is such a spiritual album too...the whole way through. 
I literally sat and wept and worshipped God when I first heard Magnificent.  What an awesome song!!! 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: andyt on April 02, 2009, 11:28:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
TO andyt,

I will be the first to admit that my own spirituality is not static and that I can, depending on the mood or situation I'm facing, identify with experiences all along the transcendent spectrum. However, I find your argument that religion is directly or even largely to blame for many of the world's ills to be both naive and overly reductionistic. To claim that terrorism is a derivative of direct fundamentalist religious principles is to focus only on Islamic terrorism in the modern world; this arrogance says nothing about the many socioeconomic and cultural histories that engender and predispose certain locales to conflict - is there not anything to the fact that Palestine, Afghanistan, and other such hotspots are in the lowest bracket of gross domestic product? Is there not anything to the fact that countries wherein violent fundamentalist movements begin occur where government systemically breeds corruption; if the cases of Egypt and Pakistan are to be examined, it's little wonder that an ardent militant movement based upon a popular unifying thread (religion) arises so that empowered citizens can wrest control of their lives and liberties according their penchant.

Man is an imperfect animal - this is a fact true both before and after the dawn of religious association. To simply use religion, a la Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, as an easy copout for the world's ills is to ignore the importance of other factors such as economics, cultural demographics, relative history, and societal movements. Religion is but a part of the collective human experience. You don't fix society by attacking only one aspect of injustice; you attack the underlying wrongs. If you really wish to change the world, please come to the buffet table and stop picking your poison a la carte.

By your logic, if my arm is believed to be the source of my migraine, I ought to just forgoe the limb irregardless of the fact that a multiplicity of physiological factors contribute to my situation.

Peace and love,
macphisto

I would say your response is 'reductionistic' in itself.

My attack isn't specifically aimed at islamic terrorism at all - as you will have read. In fact the substance of it is about the whole idea of a God - any God. And the destructive influence of religion on the well being of human existence.

I feel entirely justified in attacking the history of most religious groups - religion segregates people by definition. Clearly religion is only a part of 'human experience' as you rightly point out. On an individual level it's harmless in itself and probably beneficial to individual people. The history of mankind however looks at a homogenous whole.

With that in mind, as a tool for persecution, destruction, war, racism etc etc, religion is as powerful a force as money - or oil. And so it is with other parts of the 'collective human experience'. Once the history of mankind is written, humans will be mostly seen as a destructive race. This history will be written in the blood of war and greed. Our environment is beyond saving because of human activity - to paraphrase Jim Morrisson 'we've made a rubbish tip out of paradise'.

Doesn't stop me liking people on an individual level. I have lots of friends and enjoy my life but the above is an objective view.

I'm not singling out religion for any other reason that it was the subject of this thread - at least in part.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 02, 2009, 02:25:47 PM
I'm sorry, but no view is "an objective view".   I think this is what most irritates me about many of the humanistic atheist views that I have read on this and other forums.  No views are purely objective or based on pure logic. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: EdgeLike on April 02, 2009, 03:31:03 PM
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 02, 2009, 03:59:12 PM
Oh okay, then. I'll stop listening. You can have your band back.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: EdgeLike on April 02, 2009, 04:14:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh okay, then. I'll stop listening. You can have your band back.
Thanks you're doing me a favor.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 02, 2009, 04:32:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2.

Don't be absurd.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 02, 2009, 05:15:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.

I disagree with this statement.  The atheists need to listen to U2 more because the highly religious themes in U2's music will convert these atheists into believers.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 02, 2009, 05:16:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.

I disagree with this statement.  The atheists need to listen to U2 more because the highly religious themes in U2's music will convert these atheists into believers.

Cheers,

J



Sign of the apocalypse? I uttered these words.

"Jick, you took the words right out of my mouth."
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 02, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.

I disagree with this statement.  The atheists need to listen to U2 more because the highly religious themes in U2's music will convert these atheists into believers.

Cheers,

J


Been listening for 30 years. I'm probably MORE convinced now that there is no god than I was back then.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Zimmy on April 02, 2009, 06:07:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.

Poppycock!

That's like saying only Christians can listen to U2, because they mention Jesus in some songs or make references to the Bible.  
 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 02, 2009, 06:55:36 PM
One thing is for sure: knowing that Jick is religious makes the whole idea of religion much less palatable than it already was.  :D

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks you're doing me a favor.

ROFL! Hahahahaha.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Nagrom99 on April 02, 2009, 07:26:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.


funny.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Pop Rules on April 02, 2009, 08:50:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're atheist, you shouldn't be listening to U2. They're one of the most religious bands, ever.

I disagree with this statement.  The atheists need to listen to U2 more because the highly religious themes in U2's music will convert these atheists into believers.

Cheers,

J


If anybody is going to convert me to Christianity, it's Bono.  The first time I heard him utter the words "Sexy Boots" I knew there was a greater force at work in this world.

Cheers,

P
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 04, 2009, 09:19:00 AM
U2's lyrics presuppose the existence of God.  The atheists will have to conjure up and invent their own interpretations of the songs if they refuse to accept this reality about U2's music.  But that is the beauty of art, you can interpret it any way you want.  As the saying goes - and this applies to fans of U2's more substandard work - one man's garbage can be another man's gold.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 04, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The atheists will have to conjure up and invent their own interpretations of the songs

Why ?

The religious interpretations are just fine.

I don't have to agree with the philosophy to appreciate the art.

I don't have to be an ex-junkie to appreciate Bad or Running to Stand Still.

I don't have to have lived in Northern Ireland to appreciate Sunday Bloody Sunday.




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 04, 2009, 09:29:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The atheists will have to conjure up and invent their own interpretations of the songs

Why ?

The religious interpretations are just fine.

I don't have to agree with the philosophy to appreciate the art.

I don't have to be an ex-junkie to appreciate Bad or Running to Stand Still.

I don't have to have lived in Northern Ireland to appreciate Sunday Bloody Sunday.

I agree with this person! Though I would point out that it's more likely that everyone always invents their own interpretation of a song. Unless one is a sheep, unthinkingly following the herd.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Van the Man Fan on April 04, 2009, 10:27:21 AM
Some of you have a very narrow understanding of religion.  You claim religion is offensive and immoral and hurtful.  Religion like most things in the hands of human beings is a a tool, let's say a hammer.  This hammer can be used for bad, it can be used to strike people and destroy, or it can be used for good, it can be used to construct houses and to build up.  There are numerous religious charities that help the poor and homeless and needy.  I know so many religious people that are selfless and helpful and not judgmental.  However, there are some who are hurtful.  The same can be said of the nonreligious.  Some are helpful and kind, others not so much.  Religion can be a force for good or bad just like anything else we humans touch.  But to be so narrowminded and judgmental as to say that all religion is bad is part of the problem, imho of course. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mystways on April 04, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some of you have a very narrow understanding of religion.  You claim religion is offensive and immoral and hurtful.  Religion like most things in the hands of human beings is a a tool, let's say a hammer.  This hammer can be used for bad, it can be used to strike people and destroy, or it can be used for good, it can be used to construct houses and to build up.  There are numerous religious charities that help the poor and homeless and needy.  I know so many religious people that are selfless and helpful and not judgmental.  However, there are some who are hurtful.  The same can be said of the nonreligious.  Some are helpful and kind, others not so much.  Religion can be a force for good or bad just like anything else we humans touch.  But to be so narrowminded and judgmental as to say that all religion is bad is part of the problem, imho of course. 
Amen and amen.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Got U2 on April 04, 2009, 12:43:46 PM
I Believe in God

I Believe in Drugs

I Believe in Laws

J u s t   n o t    t h e    S a m e   God, Drugs & Laws   A s   Y o u . . . . . .


I Believe I can Believe
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 04, 2009, 01:12:11 PM

I believe religion is a kind of insanity. It's something we haven't out grown as a race since our primitive beginnings. Some people worship the sun. Some a God form. Some people (actually, most on here) appear to worship bono.

There is NO evidence of God. No one knows what happens to us when we die.

There is however, a massive amount of evidence supporting scientific theories of why we came into being.

Religion can stick with having an imaginary friend. I'll stick with real friends.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 04, 2009, 01:30:19 PM
Jazz.  Your disdain for all things spiritual and religious confuses me.  I know that you don't have to be religious to like U2, but U2 songs have explored the "reality" of the spiritual experience ever since "I Will Follow" hit the airwaves.  How could a band, who so consistently invokes religious and spiritual matters appeal to you?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 04, 2009, 01:46:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jazz.  Your disdain for all things spiritual and religious confuses me.  I know that you don't have to be religious to like U2, but U2 songs have explored the "reality" of the spiritual experience ever since "I Will Follow" hit the airwaves.  How could a band, who so consistently invokes religious and spiritual matters appeal to you?

As an avowed atheist, I totally understand Jazz.

There is no logical explanation for determining what people "like".

If there was, you could be sure record company execs would bottle it, use it, and find a tour sponsor so they could charge outrageous amounts of money for it.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: j2736 (i'm not a boy ! ) on April 05, 2009, 12:15:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jazz.  Your disdain for all things spiritual and religious confuses me.  I know that you don't have to be religious to like U2, but U2 songs have explored the "reality" of the spiritual experience ever since "I Will Follow" hit the airwaves.  How could a band, who so consistently invokes religious and spiritual matters appeal to you?

As an avowed atheist, I totally understand Jazz.

There is no logical explanation for determining what people "like".

If there was, you could be sure record company execs would bottle it, use it, and find a tour sponsor so they could charge outrageous amounts of money for it.



i'm confused. you say you're an atheist. but your avatar seems to represent the image of Jesus Christ?


i voted yes, i believe in God. i believe in religion and my religion is Roman Catholic. i agree with every teaching/dogma my faith teaches. the problem is me. being human, i just can't comply with the strict rules. i think this is the reason why many say Catholic is a hated religion. it's simply because the rules are drastically strict. pre-marital sex is a big no no, as well as extra-marital sex. with the condom thing, i believe that the reason why my Pope said that it actually spreads the HIV virus, is because, since a person knows he has something to use for protection, the issues of moral revolution and true sense of responsibility are getting kind of forgotten and misunderstood. my church believes in order to eradicate all these STDs including AIDS is to practice natural methods which include - the most difficult thing to do - ABSTINENCE - , One-partner-relationship ---> which is connected to a Man and a Woman brought together as One under the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.  these two issues alone, i'm sure, will raise a bunch of debates ( and have been debated for as long as i can remember.).

in relation with U2, i think the group believes in a God. the doubts of Bono that appear in his songs, well, for me, are actually his way of putting all his heartaches, headaches about the ills of the world to God's hands. we catholics believe that everything that is happening in our world happens for a reason, and all the negativities that hunt our everyday lives are all but trials God sends our way to prepare us for the everlasting life God promises to give us when the right time comes. and that time only God knows when.

also, i think Bono is a Catholic. he made a sign of the cross in their Fordham University gig. i believe among Christians, only Catholics do that.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 05, 2009, 01:47:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jazz.  Your disdain for all things spiritual and religious confuses me.  I know that you don't have to be religious to like U2, but U2 songs have explored the "reality" of the spiritual experience ever since "I Will Follow" hit the airwaves.  How could a band, who so consistently invokes religious and spiritual matters appeal to you?

Well, I think it would be fair to say that not every U2 song is about God? By some margin.

Most of October is, but there are many other themes running through their music. Equally, just because I have a disdain for something, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. I don't like politics or politicians but their behaviour is a source of endless fascination.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 05, 2009, 01:52:02 AM
I guess to the non-believers, they don't view U2's music as a religious experience but they consider the Jesus influences just the same as the Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Kyi, Michael Hutchence, or Bob Hewson influences in U2 songs.  To the atheists, Jesus must just be a figure who U2 holds at a high pedestal similar to those other figures/topics they have discussed in their songs.  So in the end, even atheists can "get" U2's music.

But when U2's clearly derives influence from the Bible's Book of Psalms in a song like "Wake Up Dead Man", the atheists must see it as U2 being influenced from a piece of literature as opposed to that emanating from a "divine" book.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 05, 2009, 05:15:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess to the non-believers, they don't view U2's music as a religious experience but they consider the Jesus influences just the same as the Martin Luther King, Aung Sa Su Kyi, Michael Hutchence, or Bob Hewson influences in U2 songs.  To the atheists, Jesus must just be a figure who U2 holds at a high pedestal similar to those other figures/topics they have discussed in their songs.  So in the end, even atheists can "get" U2's music.

But when U2's clearly derives influence from the Bible's Book of Psalms in a song like "Wake Up Dead Man", the atheists must see it as U2 being influence from a piece of literature as opposed to that emanating from a "divine" book.

Cheers,

J

No we're getting somewhere. I have no interest in god or religion other than the purely academic, so in a song like "Wake Up Dead Man" it's the personal drama of the narrator that grabs me. The desperation, bitterness, anger and world weariness expressed as well as the, for a rock lyric, high literary level makes me respond to the lyrics of the song. Bonos best lyrics are often his most human lyrics.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 05, 2009, 05:43:48 AM
True, not every u2 song is about God, but many (well over half) include God and a religious view as a given.  My question is why, out of all the bands you could have gotten into, did you choose a band that put out so many songs that do come from a spiritual view of the world.  Is it partially because religion and spirituality, though you hold a dim view of it, in some way fascinates you?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 08:00:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jazz.  Your disdain for all things spiritual and religious confuses me.  I know that you don't have to be religious to like U2, but U2 songs have explored the "reality" of the spiritual experience ever since "I Will Follow" hit the airwaves.  How could a band, who so consistently invokes religious and spiritual matters appeal to you?

As an avowed atheist, I totally understand Jazz.

There is no logical explanation for determining what people "like".

If there was, you could be sure record company execs would bottle it, use it, and find a tour sponsor so they could charge outrageous amounts of money for it.



i'm confused. you say you're an atheist. but your avatar seems to represent the image of Jesus Christ?




look VERY closely at the avatar........

 ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 08:04:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
True, not every u2 song is about God, but many (well over half) include God and a religious view as a given.  My question is why, out of all the bands you could have gotten into, did you choose a band that put out so many songs that do come from a spiritual view of the world.  Is it partially because religion and spirituality, though you hold a dim view of it, in some way fascinates you?

No. Religion repulses me.

But as a previous poster said, it's the humanity and passion of the lyrics and music.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Van the Man Fan on April 05, 2009, 08:50:52 AM
I have no problem with non-religious people liking U2.  They have put forth some really good reasons for why they like the band.  I have no problems with non-religiouis people in general.  I have several really good and close friends who are atheists.  However, one thing I can't understand is how someone can group all religious people together and say, "All religious people are insane, nuts, self-righteous, judgmental, etc."  The same as I can't understand when religious people attack all atheists as being fetus-eating satan worshippers (I think only 20% are).  So please don't make judgments about an entire group based on whatever experiences you may have had with certain individuals.   
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 08:55:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no problem with non-religious people liking U2.  They have put forth some really good reasons for why they like the band.  I have no problems with non-religiouis people in general.  I have several really good and close friends who are atheists.  However, one thing I can't understand is how someone can group all religious people together and say, "All religious people are insane, nuts, self-righteous, judgmental, etc."  The same as I can't understand when religious people attack all atheists as being fetus-eating satan worshippers (I think only 20% are).  So please don't make judgments about an entire group based on whatever experiences you may have had with certain individuals.   

It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 05, 2009, 09:09:26 AM
Perhaps all the disdain for POP amongst the U2 fanbase are from the atheists who struggle with the strong religious themes present in POP.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Van the Man Fan on April 05, 2009, 09:10:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no problem with non-religious people liking U2.  They have put forth some really good reasons for why they like the band.  I have no problems with non-religiouis people in general.  I have several really good and close friends who are atheists.  However, one thing I can't understand is how someone can group all religious people together and say, "All religious people are insane, nuts, self-righteous, judgmental, etc."  The same as I can't understand when religious people attack all atheists as being fetus-eating satan worshippers (I think only 20% are).  So please don't make judgments about an entire group based on whatever experiences you may have had with certain individuals.   

It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.


Fair point.  But there are also plenty who are fighting for equality and support gay marriage.  There were plenty who led the anti-slavery movement in the US during the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century until the slaves were finally freed.  The are countless examples of religious people fighting for liberty, freedom, and justice and yes unfortunately there are countless examples of religous people perpetuating bigotry like you say, but not all of them do. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 09:17:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps all the disdain for POP amongst the U2 fanbase are from the atheists who struggle with the strong religious themes present in POP.

Cheers,

J


But the U2 fanbase LIKES Pop........

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 05, 2009, 01:49:10 PM
Jick, I think you're missing something. Atheists - at least this atheist - don't have to "struggle" at all with the religious themes of Pop. For many people, religion/belief is a part of the human experience. A big part of art and music is to describe, discuss and explore the human experience. Religion is but one of many themes to explore - it's great for allegory, as shown in U2's lyrics when they are good.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The same as I can't understand when religious people attack all atheists as being fetus-eating satan worshippers (I think only 20% are).

This made me actually laugh out loud :-D
I think your estimate is ballpark correct, judging from what I've seen at the Non-theistic Not-A-Church-Honest-Guv Clubhouse that we all go to every Sunday (purely by coincidence!).
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 05, 2009, 02:37:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 05, 2009, 02:49:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Van the Man Fan on April 05, 2009, 03:01:08 PM
Wow can't believe I missed that. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 03:04:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.


Unfortunately there are a great deal of people who perpetuate hateful myths like that.  They end up reelecting presidents.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 04:39:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 04:44:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 04:50:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.






Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 04:58:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.




Here's an example of what I mean for the Joes unable to comprehend - THIS is what US Servicemen and women are dying to establish/protect ???

PRAGUE -- President Obama expressed opposition to a new Afghan law sanctioning the oppression of women in society Saturday, but suggested the U.S. would continue its mission in that country regardless.

The law, signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week, codifies sharia, or Islamic law, creating restrictions on when women can leave their homes – saying they can only do so “for a legitimate purpose.” It would forbid wives from either being educated or employed without the express permission of their husbands.

The provision receiving the most attention requires wives to meet the sexual needs of their husbands. “Unless the wife is ill, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband,” the law states, which critics say would legalize marital rape.

The law applies to Shiites, which represent approximately 15% of the population in Afghanistan.

“I think this law is abhorrent,” President Obama said at a news conference in Strasbourg, France, at the conclusion of a NATO Summit. “Certainly the views of the administration have been, and will be, communicated to the Karzai government. And we think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture, but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle.”
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.









I have not, and will not, brand you a racist, but you can interpret fundamentalist Christianity as you can fundamentalist Islam.  It's all in how the book and the laws are applied.  If you take the Bible literally, you can go in chains for having your snotrag exposed on the Sabbath. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: birdlover on April 05, 2009, 05:05:31 PM
You are obviously getting your Islamic 'education' from the media. Try reading some books on Islam and you will find that there are as many types as there are Christian churches. The Sharia you speak of are the most conservative.

I read an eye opening book by a Islamic woman born in the UK, trained as a doctor in the US who worked for a time in Saudi Arabia. Bono is even mentioned in it, so it's worth your while to find it. :D If I can find it again I'll post its title here. I just cannot recall the author or title. My library had it in their new books about a month ago.

It is very sad when ignorance leads us to hate.

And for the record: I believe in a deity, but not the Christian god. I was raised in the Catholic church and am now a Unitarian. Lots of believers of all stripes, as well as a good mix of agnostics and atheists.

U2 can speak to all of us.

Birdlover
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 05, 2009, 05:35:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 05:52:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.









I have not, and will not, brand you a racist, but you can interpret fundamentalist Christianity as you can fundamentalist Islam.  It's all in how the book and the laws are applied.  If you take the Bible literally, you can go in chains for having your snotrag exposed on the Sabbath. 

Get back to me when there's a federal law for exposed snotrag

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 05:55:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.









I have not, and will not, brand you a racist, but you can interpret fundamentalist Christianity as you can fundamentalist Islam.  It's all in how the book and the laws are applied.  If you take the Bible literally, you can go in chains for having your snotrag exposed on the Sabbath. 

Get back to me when there's a federal law for exposed snotrag



No, thats OK, you have already been gotten back to about sweeping generalizations of entire groups of people.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 05:57:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)

If you want to bury your head in the sand and insist religion has no blame for the troubles in the middle east, yes.

I took no detour, the fact that you can't read a roadsign isn't my problem

You remind me of Michael Scott insisting on turning left into a river because his GPS told him to make a left.

If you don't watch the Office, here is what I am referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yyKrS8jwSY

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 06:00:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It's not only individuals, but organizations who perpetuate bigotry and hatred like the recent California Prop 8, the "moral majority" (which is neither), the entire muslim world, the middle east, etc.



This is an unbelievabley broad, ignorant and racist statement and you should be ashamed of yourself.   


Hopefully we'll see an apology and a retraction of that statement. Wow.

i was referring to the hatred and violence being perpetrated in those parts of the world as a result of religion, sheesh.......you guys are quick to bring out the racist card..........YOU should be ashamed of yourselves................




When you say "the entire Muslim world", that's akin to saying all Christians or all Jews practice hate and bigotry.


Wrong.

Sharia Law is, by Western standards, hateful and bigoted.

Women can be stoned to death for what we'd consider minor offences, Proselytizing or converison to other religions can be punishable by death.

By 'local' standards it may be ok, but by western standards it practices and condones all kinds of violence and hate toward non-believers. It's basically institutionalized racism and bigotry.

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.

Look, if you want to brand me a racist I don't give a flying f*ck, knock yourself out. just get your facts straight first before you throw the term around lightly.









I have not, and will not, brand you a racist, but you can interpret fundamentalist Christianity as you can fundamentalist Islam.  It's all in how the book and the laws are applied.  If you take the Bible literally, you can go in chains for having your snotrag exposed on the Sabbath. 

Get back to me when there's a federal law for exposed snotrag



No, thats OK, you have already been gotten back to about sweeping generalizations of entire groups of people.

The only sweeping generalization I'd make would be about your reading comprehension










Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)

If you want to bury your head in the sand and insist religion has no blame for the troubles in the middle east, yes.

I took no detour, the fact that you can't read a roadsign isn't my problem



Nope.  My reading comprehension remains pretty darn good, thanks for your concern, though.

Maybe not a detour, but a very nice backpedal from "the entire Muslim world"         :)    

I think the convergence and conflict of 3 main religions in a relatively small but sacred area certainly has a fair amount to do with troubles in the Middle East, yes.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 05, 2009, 06:12:04 PM
Not all people who live in the "muslim world" are muslim - there are many Christians (and jews!).  And not all people who are Muslims (who are all part of the institution of Islam) believe in Sharia law.  I know several Muslims who think it's deplorable.  

Your statement is no different than those who say that all Americans (or Brits, all westerners) are evil.  It is a bigoted and racist statement, branding all people who believe in an idea with the same iron as the extremists who give it a bad name.  I am no fan of organized religion, by the way, and I know that it has been responsible for a mind melting amount of deplorable, evil acts.  But you have taken it way too far. Bono would be very ashamed of you!  Coexist!  
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 05, 2009, 06:18:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)

If you want to bury your head in the sand and insist religion has no blame for the troubles in the middle east, yes.

I took no detour, the fact that you can't read a roadsign isn't my problem



Nope.  My reading comprehension remains pretty darn good, thanks for your concern, though.

Maybe not a detour, but a very nice backpedal from "the entire Muslim world"         :)    


I stand by that unequivocally.

The muslim "world" as in the muslim society and environment.

Not the "muslim people", many of which are in my neighborhood !

BIG difference.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 05, 2009, 06:21:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)

If you want to bury your head in the sand and insist religion has no blame for the troubles in the middle east, yes.

I took no detour, the fact that you can't read a roadsign isn't my problem



Nope.  My reading comprehension remains pretty darn good, thanks for your concern, though.

Maybe not a detour, but a very nice backpedal from "the entire Muslim world"         :)    


I stand by that unequivocally.

The muslim "world" as in the muslim society and environment.

Not the "muslim people", many of which are in my neighborhood !

BIG difference.

OK. 

As long as you convince yourself, thats all that matters.   :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 05, 2009, 06:35:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By 'Muslim World' I was referring to the insitution of Islam, not each and every single muslim person.


Seriously? That's a valid definition for you? I'd say you chose the completely wrong term and are supplying your own definition to defend it. The institution of Islam has many interpretations. They no more agree on things than "the institution of Christianity" agrees on things across its many splintered groups.

Here's an interesting quote from Wiki on how divergent Islam is across the world and why your broad-brush statement doesn't prove true:

"There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform."

Nobody here called you a racist, so please save the straw man arguments for another thread. You mentioned a sweeping generality that was not true and you were called on it. Not a big deal at the end of the day as it has been straightened out. I do get where you were going with your statement, but unfortunately you took a detour on the way.

Do we need to go through this exercise for "the Middle East" as well? I hope not.  8)

If you want to bury your head in the sand and insist religion has no blame for the troubles in the middle east, yes.

I took no detour, the fact that you can't read a roadsign isn't my problem

You remind me of Michael Scott insisting on turning left into a river because his GPS told him to make a left.

If you don't watch the Office, here is what I am referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yyKrS8jwSY



There was really no point quoting me here as you didn't address any point I made and instead brought up another point (religion causing strife in the Middle East) as if we had been talking about that when we had not been. I agree that religion and its interpretation has been a central player in problems not only in the Middle East, but across the globe for centuries. I'm on board with that. Again, until now, that topic was not involved in this part of the conversation.

Earlier, you identified "organizations that perpetuate bigotry and hatred" and included in your list of offenders "the Muslim world" and "the middle east". I assume you are now backing away from "the middle east" and instead will go with "religion in the middle east" as one of those groups though I say that is still to broad of a group. Like "the Muslim world", the backpedaling has begun. Again, I'm cool with that as we are getting closer to a statement that is true than the original broad statement you made which was false.

Here are some Scrubs outtakes for those interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPGWRS9B5_0
 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 05, 2009, 07:12:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The muslim "world" as in the muslim society and environment.

Not the "muslim people", many of which are in my neighborhood !

BIG difference.

No, there is not a big difference.    Muslim people make up the muslim "world".  How would you react if I said - I am assuming that you are an American or Brit - that Americans (or Brits) "perpetuate bigotry and hatred" because of the way they have treated minorities and are imperialist hypocritical murders driven by greed and a desire to control others for they can benefit socially and economically?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: BeneathTheNoise on April 06, 2009, 01:18:56 AM
 :-\ ..erm..

come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another.. right now..

((passes around daisies & big hugs))
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 06, 2009, 02:28:21 AM
Well, this thread proves one thing - religion polarises people. It doesn't bring them togther.

As the saying goes 'there's just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another, but not enough to make them love'

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 06, 2009, 03:51:49 AM
Wow looks like everyone needs to take a breather.  :o
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: donvalley360 on April 06, 2009, 07:44:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, this thread proves one thing - religion polarises people. I doesn't bring them togther.

As the saying goes 'there's just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another, but not enough to make them love'


Jazz,you said it all,short and to the point,and so true! Nice comment
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 06, 2009, 04:44:58 PM

Yes, religion polarizes, but it also sharpens and impassions.  Personally, I don't go in for the philosophy behind "Imagine".  I like difference and healthy conflict.  I wouldn't want to live in the happy but monochrome world that the song puts in my mind.  Give me the passion and content of philosophical or religious beliefs over hold hands smile pretty dreams anyday...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: coolbluereason on April 06, 2009, 04:55:56 PM
i'm an atheist. I don't really get the point of religon. when people say "if you don't believe in something there's no purpose in life" it gets me mad because I know I have a purpose in life, I just don't happen to believe in god. no biggie.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 06, 2009, 06:28:22 PM
Ah, The True Essence of U2.
The band has a strong belief in God, The Holy Spirit and The Blessed Mother. 
Not only do they worship but they also exalt the Holiness of God The Almighty.
Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 06, 2009, 07:27:17 PM
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:19:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, The True Essence of U2.
The band has a strong belief in God, The Holy Spirit and The Blessed Mother. 
Not only do they worship but they also exalt the Holiness of God The Almighty.

And this you know how...? Don't put words in people's mouths, it rude.

Quote
Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.

And please refrain from this condescending attitude, you give religion a very bad reputation. I'm patient with your belief in the easter bunny - how does that make you feel?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:20:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.


"Believe in God" (paraphrase) would be a biggie.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 07, 2009, 05:48:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.




Didn't Jesus supposedly say that we should turn the other cheek? I could never agree with that.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 07, 2009, 06:56:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, The True Essence of U2.
The band has a strong belief in God, The Holy Spirit and The Blessed Mother. 
Not only do they worship but they also exalt the Holiness of God The Almighty.

And this you know how...? Don't put words in people's mouths, it rude.

Quote
Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.

And please refrain from this condescending attitude, you give religion a very bad reputation. I'm patient with your belief in the easter bunny - how does that make you feel?

'Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.'

You can be patient for as long as you like but you'll have a long wait...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 07, 2009, 07:13:52 AM
I'm a Christian myself and U2's music has touched me and inspired me a lot with regards to spirituality. However, I appreciate and understand that there is a sizeable portion of U2's fanbase who are atheist as well. I think that's just a testament to U2's appeal that they can reach out across so many borders.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2yooper on April 07, 2009, 07:20:32 AM
nicely said, yukona.  I have refrained from posting on this thread, because there doesn't seem to be any common ground here.  I believe, but I don't feel any need for others to share my beliefs.  I assume that the atheists here hold their beliefs as strongly as I hold mine.  i am very wary of broad generalizations either way.  Because i say that I believe, does not mean that you can infer anything about me or my motivations.  it's a big world and a big forum, people.  Surely there is enough room for all of us and our many and varied beliefs. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 07, 2009, 07:45:55 AM
Since U2 are in the believer side and their music is from that point of view, I guess the believers are from the inside looking in - so they don't get a detached view of the music.

It would be more interesting to ask the non-believers or atheists here, what are your top 5 worst U2 songs?  Perhaps this can give us an insight on you point of view in appreciating U2's music.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 08:42:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since U2 are in the believer side and their music is from that point of view, I guess the believers are from the inside looking in - so they don't get a detached view of the music.

Well, if a piece of music requires me to hold certain beliefs in order to "get it", it's pretty much a failure to begin with.

Quote
It would be more interesting to ask the non-believers or atheists here, what are your top 5 worst U2 songs?  Perhaps this can give us an insight on you point of view in appreciating U2's music.

Two of their bottom tracks - "Unknown Caller" and "Still Haven't Found" - are in the religious vein actually, but it's not the theme itself that turns me off but rather the poor execution. Too blunt, basically, and the music doesn't excite me. The same with most of the ATYCLB and Bomb albums, they seriously lack lyrical subtlety and musical inspiration.
Some other terrible U2 songs: "So Cruel" (insta-skip), "Red Hill Mining Town", "Trip Through Your Wires", "Van Diemen's Land" and "Love Rescue Me".
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 07, 2009, 09:27:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since U2 are in the believer side and their music is from that point of view, I guess the believers are from the inside looking in - so they don't get a detached view of the music.

Well, if a piece of music requires me to hold certain beliefs in order to "get it", it's pretty much a failure to begin with.

Quote
It would be more interesting to ask the non-believers or atheists here, what are your top 5 worst U2 songs?  Perhaps this can give us an insight on you point of view in appreciating U2's music.

Two of their bottom tracks - "Unknown Caller" and "Still Haven't Found" - are in the religious vein actually, but it's not the theme itself that turns me off but rather the poor execution. Too blunt, basically, and the music doesn't excite me. The same with most of the ATYCLB and Bomb albums, they seriously lack lyrical subtlety and musical inspiration.
Some other terrible U2 songs: "So Cruel" (insta-skip), "Red Hill Mining Town", "Trip Through Your Wires", "Van Diemen's Land" and "Love Rescue Me".

Those are some of U2's worst songs!? You're weird.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 09:34:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



Any time he mentions that he's the son of god

The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

Why limit it to new testament ?

How about ridiculous stuff in the old ? Like maybe the 3 kids walking around unharmed in King Nebuchadnezzar's Pizza oven ? protected by an angel no less ?

I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 07, 2009, 11:40:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



Any time he mentions that he's the son of god

The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

Why limit it to new testament ?

How about ridiculous stuff in the old ? Like maybe the 3 kids walking around unharmed in King Nebuchadnezzar's Pizza oven ? protected by an angel no less ?

I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube





'I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube'

I love that - and so true...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 01:42:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



Any time he mentions that he's the son of god

The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

Why limit it to new testament ?

How about ridiculous stuff in the old ? Like maybe the 3 kids walking around unharmed in King Nebuchadnezzar's Pizza oven ? protected by an angel no less ?

I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube



 What makes His assertion ludicrous?

 In terms of the written word as something evidential of truth, you do realize the dilemma you pose in this forum and in this medium, right?

 And I would go a step further given your YouTube analogy and submit that for people predisposed to unscientific, irrational skepticism, no amount of video recorded evidence would be enough to engender faith and knowledge in the face of immovable disbelief.

 As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?

 And I have to ask, provided that U2 are at least one of your favourite bands, and assuming you derive enjoyment from them and perhaps some direction from their music, how do you reconcile those positive and enhanced experiences as a direct result from their much advertised source of inspiration and yet mock that same source - if only as taken authentically from U2's perception?

 Mostly I'm interested in your answer to my first question though, JuniorEmblem.

 And as a point of record - albeit written - I believe in God.
 
 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 02:04:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



Any time he mentions that he's the son of god

The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

Why limit it to new testament ?

How about ridiculous stuff in the old ? Like maybe the 3 kids walking around unharmed in King Nebuchadnezzar's Pizza oven ? protected by an angel no less ?

I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube



 What makes His assertion ludicrous?

Because there is no god as far as I'm concerned, so to me anyone claiming to be his offspring has a screw or two loose


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In terms of the written word as something evidential of truth, you do realize the dilemma you pose in this forum and in this medium, right?


No. I don't accept the bible as being truthful. you do. that's the decision we each must make. there is no dilemma or amibiguity here.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I would go a step further given your YouTube analogy and submit that for people predisposed to unscientific, irrational skepticism, no amount of video recorded evidence would be enough to engender faith and knowledge in the face of immovable disbelief.

You can submit it, it won't make it true. Certainly I'd be more predisposed to believe it than I would a 2000 year old book written hundreds of years after the fact in  atime when record keeping was, let's say' sketchy and the majority of the populus was illiterate.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?

More about the standards people hold today.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I have to ask, provided that U2 are at least one of your favourite bands, and assuming you derive enjoyment from them and perhaps some direction from their music, how do you reconcile those positive and enhanced experiences as a direct result from their much advertised source of inspiration and yet mock that same source - if only as taken authentically from U2's perception?


Why do you feel it needs reconciling ? It really doesn't. The fact that I don't hold the same belief system as some of the band really isn't relevant to my enjoyment of the music they make. It's the fact that they're passionate and honest about it that I've always found admirable. And if it drives them to make even better music, then it's a win-win situation, right ? For some people it's their faith, for someone like Jimmy Page it was his own internal drive. I don't have to have been a drug user to appreciate Bad or Running to Stand Still, and I don't need to have beliefs in god or faith to appreciate Wake up dead man, Gloria or Magnificent. I don't have to live the songs to get them.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 And as a point of record - albeit written - I believe in God.
 
 

And I don't. And yet despite our differences we can still enjoy the same music. Unless you tell me you like HTDAAB of course......

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?

You do realise that this was a sardonic comment on the sad state of the "information society" of today, right? The old "if it's not on tv it's not happening" of the 80s/90s is being replaced by Youtube, Facebook and Myspace.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?

You do realise that this was a sardonic comment on the sad state of the "information society" of today, right? The old "if it's not on tv it's not happening" of the 80s/90s is being replaced by Youtube, Facebook and Myspace.

thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 02:43:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also.

No problem :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 03:41:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also.

No problem :)

 Perhaps before the two of you begin to high-five one another for a job well done, you might want to let me respond before you conclude that I didn't get the tone of the comment. "thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also" sounds ipso facto, that I didn't get the element of contempt when I assure you I most certainly did.

 I acknowledged said contempt specifically by continuing the analogy even further as it pertains to the question of evidence, skepticism and the substandard qualification by which so many people today appoint themselves as authoritative on one subject or another. 
 
"And I would go a step further given your YouTube analogy and submit that for people predisposed to unscientific, irrational skepticism, no amount of video recorded evidence would be enough to engender faith and knowledge in the face of immovable disbelief."

 So asking me if I realized the tone of a sentence in an entire reply soaked in cynicism, on the heels of questions asking for clarification on an opinion that seems oddly conclusive on matters of faith that appear uninformed, if not emotive in nature, is just slightly myopic if not needlessly opportunistic isn't it, kboman?

 Or did I also misinterpret the fact that you "got" that I "got" it?

 And if I did, why the need for your considerate clarification in the first place?

 
 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 07, 2009, 03:58:37 PM
I understand that people from all kinds of views can love u2.  However, it annoys me when listeners ignore obvious religious and biblical cues and say that their understanding of the song is just as valid as a religious view.  This isn't the case when one interprets poetry.  For example, when a song writer sticks in theological terms like "justified" and obvious biblical references like "lamb as white as snow", an interpretation that ignores them because of their religious bases is not as valid as one that includes it.  U2's "Magnificent" includes the phrase "justified until we die."  The inclusion of this phrase narrows its interpretative possibilities....  In the same way, an interpretation of
"Even Better than The Real Thing" that ignored the Icarus allusion, "the sun won't melt our wings tonight," wouldn't be as valid as an interpretation that took that allusion into account.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 04:12:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps before the two of you begin to high-five one another for a job well done, you might want to let me respond before you conclude that I didn't get the tone of the comment. "thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also" sounds ipso facto, that I didn't get the element of contempt when I assure you I most certainly did.

Your post, and the tone it was written in, gave little clue to this.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I understand that people from all kinds of views can love u2.  However, it annoys me when listeners ignore obvious religious and biblical cues and say that their understanding of the song is just as valid as a religious view.  This isn't the case when one interprets poetry.  For example, when a song writer sticks in theological terms like "justified" and obvious biblical references like "lamb as white as snow", an interpretation that ignores them because of their religious bases is not as valid as one that includes it.  U2's "Magnificent" includes the phrase "justified until we die."  The inclusion of this phrase narrows its interpretative possibilities....  In the same way, an interpretation of
"Even Better than The Real Thing" that ignored the Icarus allusion, "the sun won't melt our wings tonight," wouldn't be as valid as an interpretation that took that allusion into account.

I can't speak for anyone else on this - I'll leave that to other posters - but I don't ignore religious/biblical cues in lyrics. I just treat them like any other reference to another work of fiction.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: birdlover on April 07, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I understand that people from all kinds of views can love u2.  However, it annoys me when listeners ignore obvious religious and biblical cues and say that their understanding of the song is just as valid as a religious view.  This isn't the case when one interprets poetry.  For example, when a song writer sticks in theological terms like "justified" and obvious biblical references like "lamb as white as snow", an interpretation that ignores them because of their religious bases is not as valid as one that includes it.  U2's "Magnificent" includes the phrase "justified until we die."  The inclusion of this phrase narrows its interpretative possibilities....  In the same way, an interpretation of
"Even Better than The Real Thing" that ignored the Icarus allusion, "the sun won't melt our wings tonight," wouldn't be as valid as an interpretation that took that allusion into account.

I think a lot of agnostics and atheists have a firm grounding in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools from 2nd grade through 2 years of college. Yet I am not a Christian. So I do understand the references in the songs, quite well. I even relate well to the emotion expressed, even though my interpretation is to a deity unlike theirs.

Their music is flexible enough to relate to anyone, whether they are a Christian believer, of some other religious persuasion, or atheist. Emotion is emotion. Bono can make me cry during 'Magnificent' regardless of what church I attend, or don't.
 
One of the reasons I will not identify myself as Christian is the actions of so many who hurt others in the name of God. Proposition 8 in California. The harrassment I recieved walking in the Aids march in my city. The fight so many put up pushing their values on everyone else. That makes me want to be as far from them as possible.
If U2 did that I would never be a fan.

Birdlover
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 07, 2009, 04:23:33 PM
I do not deny that many agnostics and atheists are able to recognize religious/biblical allusions.  What I am referring to is those that, because of their anti-religious sentiment, purposefully ignore such allusions and then attempt to claim that "a song can mean anything." 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: birdlover on April 07, 2009, 04:34:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not deny that many agnostics and atheists are able to recognize religious/biblical allusions.  What I am referring to is those that, because of their anti-religious sentiment, purposefully ignore such allusions and then attempt to claim that "a song can mean anything." 

While there might be some anti-religious people here, I would expect that many are like me, non-Christian. Not following in the rules of the Christian churches, but accepting that there is some good in the teachings. There is also good in Buddhist teachings, Islamic teachings, Jainist teachings etc. My non-Christian (Unitarian) church uses all those and more at each service and they complement each other wonderfully.

As for the interpretations, I'd say that even two Christians raised in the same home, in the same church would have different ideas of what Christ means to them, what God is, etc. We are thinking creatures, we humans. So whenever we encounter something new we think about it and then interpret it. We don't just pull out the 'Christian filter' and ignore everything else. At least I don't!

For me, the purpose of religion is to serve as a guide for living a good life. Whatever belief system you have, it has to do that or it's non-functional. Christianity became non-functional for me and so I sought through other traditions until I found what I was looking for. I do think that is the job we all have. The final answer is as personal as can be.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 04:37:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not deny that many agnostics and atheists are able to recognize religious/biblical allusions.  What I am referring to is those that, because of their anti-religious sentiment, purposefully ignore such allusions and then attempt to claim that "a song can mean anything." 

Now to me it sounds like you're one of "those that, because of their pro-religious sentiment, purposefully focus on only one set of allusions and then attempt to claim that "a song has to mean something specific"".

Are you confusing two different things here? Agnostics and atheists are not anti-religious by default, in my experience it's actually very rare. Depending on how a song is written (and the skill of the writer), pretty much anything can be taken allegorically. When I hear/read a song with religious themes, I don't see it as a song about religion but rather a song about someone who is religious, using that imagery to describe something which is real to her/him in some way. And since religion is and has long been a big part of human culture, there is plenty of such imagery availiable.

Edit: birdlover says it much much better...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



Any time he mentions that he's the son of god

The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

Why limit it to new testament ?

How about ridiculous stuff in the old ? Like maybe the 3 kids walking around unharmed in King Nebuchadnezzar's Pizza oven ? protected by an angel no less ?

I mean, really, if this stuff was written today no one would believe a word unless it was on youtube



 What makes His assertion ludicrous?

Because there is no god as far as I'm concerned, so to me anyone claiming to be his offspring has a screw or two loose


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In terms of the written word as something evidential of truth, you do realize the dilemma you pose in this forum and in this medium, right?


No. I don't accept the bible as being truthful. you do. that's the decision we each must make. there is no dilemma or amibiguity here.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I would go a step further given your YouTube analogy and submit that for people predisposed to unscientific, irrational skepticism, no amount of video recorded evidence would be enough to engender faith and knowledge in the face of immovable disbelief.

You can submit it, it won't make it true. Certainly I'd be more predisposed to believe it than I would a 2000 year old book written hundreds of years after the fact in  atime when record keeping was, let's say' sketchy and the majority of the populus was illiterate.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?

More about the standards people hold today.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I have to ask, provided that U2 are at least one of your favourite bands, and assuming you derive enjoyment from them and perhaps some direction from their music, how do you reconcile those positive and enhanced experiences as a direct result from their much advertised source of inspiration and yet mock that same source - if only as taken authentically from U2's perception?


Why do you feel it needs reconciling ? It really doesn't. The fact that I don't hold the same belief system as some of the band really isn't relevant to my enjoyment of the music they make. It's the fact that they're passionate and honest about it that I've always found admirable. And if it drives them to make even better music, then it's a win-win situation, right ? For some people it's their faith, for someone like Jimmy Page it was his own internal drive. I don't have to have been a drug user to appreciate Bad or Running to Stand Still, and I don't need to have beliefs in god or faith to appreciate Wake up dead man, Gloria or Magnificent. I don't have to live the songs to get them.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 And as a point of record - albeit written - I believe in God.
 
 

And I don't. And yet despite our differences we can still enjoy the same music. Unless you tell me you like HTDAAB of course......



 My question asks clarification concerning your point that the assertion Christ makes of having raised Himself from the dead.

 I realize you don't belief in God and by extension, in the claims of Christ.

 What I am interested in knowing, is your thought process in your understanding of that specific claim in that time, in those conditions that give you such clear conviction that those things which Christ claimed are untrue.

 It's not enough, and it never has been in conversations of equal consideration to simply state, "Because." fold one's arms and say that that is the reason. And the reason that that is the case is that there is far too much evidence concerning the historicity of Christ and of those charged with having maintained an oral and written history as attested to by witnesses.

 The point of the quote, "In terms of the written word as something evidential of truth, you do realize the dilemma you pose in this forum and in this medium, right? " wasn't to enhance my position or any believer or disbeliver's position as it pertains to faith solely, but to point out the paradoxical nature of using a medium dependent (In this forum) on writing as a viable means of communication, while making the generalization that were the events recorded in The Bible written today, they would be disbelieved because of today's predisposition to modes of accepted and preferred information couched in a visible, entertaining, theme-specific fashion.

 So there is an inherent ambiguous element given that you're using the internet to prove the point that writing can't be trusted when conveying truth.

 
Quote
You can submit it, it won't make it true. Certainly I'd be more predisposed to believe it than I would a 2000 year old book written hundreds of years after the fact in  atime when record keeping was, let's say' sketchy and the majority of the populus was illiterate.

 Actually, JuniorEmblem, the opposite is true here, but I don't need to point to authenticity from The Bible to prove the point...Take Homer's The Illiad and The Odyssey, or the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...Do you believe in the historical accuracy of these works?

Quote
Why do you feel it needs reconciling ? It really doesn't. The fact that I don't hold the same belief system as some of the band really isn't relevant to my enjoyment of the music they make. It's the fact that they're passionate and honest about it that I've always found admirable. And if it drives them to make even better music, then it's a win-win situation, right ? For some people it's their faith, for someone like Jimmy Page it was his own internal drive. I don't have to have been a drug user to appreciate Bad or Running to Stand Still, and I don't need to have beliefs in god or faith to appreciate Wake up dead man, Gloria or Magnificent. I don't have to live the songs to get them.

 Why do I feel two opposite perspectives enjoying the same experience needs reconciling when the source of that enjoyment is necessarily linked to spirit? Well...given that you are so opposed to things of spirit and U2 are reflexively about spirit, I think it's entirely logical for a person to attempt to understand how completely polar methods of thinking can arrive at a place of harmony - pardon the pun.

 That's sort of self-evident isn't it, JuniorEmblem? At bare minimum, it's deeply interesting.

 As for not needing to be a drug-user to relate to "Bad" or "Running To Stand Still," I would agree from personal experience that that's true, and to go a step further by pointing out that such a point is - with all due respect - rather insufficient given the fact that the songwriters are not and never have been drug addicts.

 I know that you and many others believe that a person doesn't need to believe in God in order to believe in the themes or feel feelings that may be articulated by parties that do believe in God. But as it speaks to the exclusivity of one belief system versus another, I am still, deeply intrigued.



 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 07, 2009, 04:47:56 PM
When multiple or major religious allusions exist in a work, it points to the meaning of the work.  So, while With or Without You can legitimately be viewed as either a song to a lover or God, a song like Magnificent, with the lyric "justified until we die..you and I will magnify the Magnificent" can Not be validly interpreted as a love song to anyone but a deity.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 04:49:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps before the two of you begin to high-five one another for a job well done, you might want to let me respond before you conclude that I didn't get the tone of the comment. "thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also" sounds ipso facto, that I didn't get the element of contempt when I assure you I most certainly did.

Your post, and the tone it was written in, gave little clue to this.

Really?

Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When multiple or major religious allusions exist in a work, it points to the meaning of the work.  So, while With or Without You can legitimately be viewed as either a song to a lover or God, a song like Magnificent, with the lyric "justified until we die..you and I will magnify the Magnificent" can Not be validly interpreted as a love song to anyone but a deity.

"Well, that's like... your opinion, man."

The word "justified" has zero religious significance to me, so yes, Magnificent may have other interpretations to people who are not you. I should add that I haven't really studied the lyrics as the song is the same boring, auto pilot by-the-numbers U2 as the last two records to me.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 07, 2009, 05:10:41 PM
Yes, the song might mean something else to a person who did not understand the significance of justified, but their ignorance of the term harms their understanding of the song.  Likewise, if I was listening to a song written by an Islam believing writer that referenced a major theological tenant of Islam and I didn't understand the reference, my understanding wouldn't be as accurate as a listener that did understand that term and how that term contributed to the meaning of the song.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:13:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps before the two of you begin to high-five one another for a job well done, you might want to let me respond before you conclude that I didn't get the tone of the comment. "thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also" sounds ipso facto, that I didn't get the element of contempt when I assure you I most certainly did.

Your post, and the tone it was written in, gave little clue to this.

Really?

Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?

I'd say this:
"As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?"

It would be much easier to talk to you if you used more humour and less words. I have no contempt for you or your views, but your way of expressing yourself here carries a certain whiff of snobbery and makes it difficult to understand what you're actually saying.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 07, 2009, 05:22:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?

omg...lol, I can't find "pseudo-intellectual" on Babelfish, but my best guess is that this sentence is equivalent to, "How so?"
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 05:23:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also.

No problem :)


 And if I did, why the need for your considerate clarification in the first place?

 
 

Because you asked ?

 ::)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:24:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, the song might mean something else to a person who did not understand the significance of justified, but their ignorance of the term harms their understanding of the song.  Likewise, if I was listening to a song written by an Islam believing writer that referenced a major theological tenant of Islam and I didn't understand the reference, my understanding wouldn't be as accurate as a listener that did understand that term and how that term contributed to the meaning of the song.

But "justified" is a word I use - not often, but still - and when I use I have a clear understanding of its meaning. Regardless of its religious undertone, it is an established part of secular language and it's freely used as such. It is not reserved for christians. Out of interest, what is the christian meaning of "justified"?


And songs are works of art, to some degree. "Meaning" is not an absolute in relation to art: I do not accept that one's understanding of a song can be "accurate" because I don't consider the term to be applicable here.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 05:25:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I understand that people from all kinds of views can love u2.  However, it annoys me when listeners ignore obvious religious and biblical cues and say that their understanding of the song is just as valid as a religious view.  This isn't the case when one interprets poetry.  For example, when a song writer sticks in theological terms like "justified" and obvious biblical references like "lamb as white as snow", an interpretation that ignores them because of their religious bases is not as valid as one that includes it.  U2's "Magnificent" includes the phrase "justified until we die."  The inclusion of this phrase narrows its interpretative possibilities....  In the same way, an interpretation of
"Even Better than The Real Thing" that ignored the Icarus allusion, "the sun won't melt our wings tonight," wouldn't be as valid as an interpretation that took that allusion into account.

I can't speak for anyone else on this - I'll leave that to other posters - but I don't ignore religious/biblical cues in lyrics. I just treat them like any other reference to another work of fiction.

Ditto

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 05:27:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, the song might mean something else to a person who did not understand the significance of justified, but their ignorance of the term harms their understanding of the song.  Likewise, if I was listening to a song written by an Islam believing writer that referenced a major theological tenant of Islam and I didn't understand the reference, my understanding wouldn't be as accurate as a listener that did understand that term and how that term contributed to the meaning of the song.

But "justified" is a word I use - not often, but still - and when I use I have a clear understanding of its meaning. Regardless of its religious undertone, it is an established part of secular language and it's freely used as such. It is not reserved for christians. Out of interest, what is the christian meaning of "justified"?

It means, all aligned to the left or all aligned to the right......

 :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 07, 2009, 05:29:44 PM
Going back to Jesus rising from the dead...

Why is it problematic to be skeptical of that? ITM, can you put it in laymans terms for my dumb brain?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 05:35:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
But "justified" is a word I use - not often, but still - and when I use I have a clear understanding of its meaning. Regardless of its religious undertone, it is an established part of secular language and it's freely used as such. It is not reserved for christians. Out of interest, what is the christian meaning of "justified"?

It means, all aligned to the left or all aligned to the right......

 :)

I thought so too! Apparently the bible has another definition...?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: popsadie on April 07, 2009, 05:37:05 PM
Justification is a tenant of Christian theology that means that by believing in Christ, one receives Christ's righteousness and is declared righteous in the eyes of God.  
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 06:27:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What I am interested in knowing, is your thought process in your understanding of that specific claim in that time, in those conditions that give you such clear conviction that those things which Christ claimed are untrue.


Simple - I don't believe the so-called evidence.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I feel two opposite perspectives enjoying the same experience needs reconciling when the source of that enjoyment is necessarily linked to spirit? Well...given that you are so opposed to things of spirit and U2 are reflexively about spirit, I think it's entirely logical for a person to attempt to understand how completely polar methods of thinking can arrive at a place of harmony - pardon the pun.


Simple again - I enjoy the art.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 I know that you and many others believe that a person doesn't need to believe in God in order to believe in the themes or feel feelings that may be articulated by parties that do believe in God. But as it speaks to the exclusivity of one belief system versus another, I am still, deeply intrigued.

It's only rock'n'roll but I like it like it yes I do.................


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 07, 2009, 06:28:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Justification is a tenant of Christian theology that means that by believing in Christ, one receives Christ's righteousness and is declared righteous in the eyes of God.  

All right, so what specifically is "righteous" then? To me it sounds like "better than others" - which is elitist - and then I promptly lose interest in and sympathy with the whole idea.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 08:20:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps before the two of you begin to high-five one another for a job well done, you might want to let me respond before you conclude that I didn't get the tone of the comment. "thanks KB - I did try and clarify that for ITM also" sounds ipso facto, that I didn't get the element of contempt when I assure you I most certainly did.

Your post, and the tone it was written in, gave little clue to this.

Really?

Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?

I'd say this:
"As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?"

It would be much easier to talk to you if you used more humour and less words. I have no contempt for you or your views, but your way of expressing yourself here carries a certain whiff of snobbery and makes it difficult to understand what you're actually saying.

 So it's nothing factual in terms of content, it's the presentation, it's the "whiff of snobbery" that prevented you from understanding the obvious?

 Sorry. Not good enough, and I think you're patching as best you can without having to admit that you jumped the gun for the sake of momentary advantage.

 And it comes across as something hypocritical, especially when you're responding with a question that states the sardonic as something obvious and overlooked, when it clearly wasn't, and moreover developed further as my qualifying response explains.

 I'm trying to find a joke to tell ya to make the read particularly more palatable for you.

 It's just..."Godtalk" tends not to be fodder for comedic monologues in my experience.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?

omg...lol, I can't find "pseudo-intellectual" on Babelfish, but my best guess is that this sentence is equivalent to, "How so?"

 Well, if you go to Urban Dictionary, you'll find 9 potentially applicable definitions, CDProp.

 Pick one, and we can go from there.

 Sometimes several words are necessary where a few would have been preferred.

 And I want to thank you as well, CDProp, for insulting me, without knowing me.

 The invitation to Thanksgiving is in the mail.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 07, 2009, 08:39:08 PM
Babelfish is a translator, not a dictionary. And I do believe "How so?" would have sufficed.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 08:54:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Going back to Jesus rising from the dead...

Why is it problematic to be skeptical of that? ITM, can you put it in laymans terms for my dumb brain?

  As to the reason(s) why there is something inherently problematic with being skeptical concerning the Resurrection of Christ, I never said there was. I understand why a person and why people, have difficulties with this event. One of, if not several of the apostles, found the reality as something beyond belief, even when confronted with direct proximity to Christ.

 Where did I say it's problematic to be skeptical of that event, CDProp?

 I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another.

 Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?

 As for your dumb brain, CDProp, exactly how dumb are we talking here?

 G.W. Bush dumb? Brittney Spears dumb? A brain fart above a Rodeo monkey?

 Spill...

 

 

   

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 09:06:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Babelfish is a translator, not a dictionary. And I do believe "How so?" would have sufficed.

 "sufficed."

 You mean, like "...been fine?"

 So eloquence suffices when it suits your emotional disposition, does it, CDProp?

 You know the eighth definition of "pseudo-intellectual" from Urban Dictionary seems applicable to your statement here, CDProp:

 8.Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 07, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Babelfish is a translator, not a dictionary. And I do believe "How so?" would have sufficed.

 "sufficed."

 You mean, like "...been fine?"

 So eloquence suffices when it suits your emotional disposition, does it, CDProp?

 You know the eighth definition of "pseudo-intellectual" from Urban Dictionary seems applicable to your statement here, CDProp:

 8.Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.

How does using 1 word instead of 2 make him a hypocrite ?

Frankly, vocabulary means nothing if you don't know how to use it.

By "use it" I don't mean use the words appropriately, I mean use them to communicate effectively. Sometimes less is more, esp. on internet forums.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 07, 2009, 10:00:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Babelfish is a translator, not a dictionary. And I do believe "How so?" would have sufficed.

 "sufficed."

 You mean, like "...been fine?"

 So eloquence suffices when it suits your emotional disposition, does it, CDProp?

 You know the eighth definition of "pseudo-intellectual" from Urban Dictionary seems applicable to your statement here, CDProp:

 8.Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.

How does using 1 word instead of 2 make him a hypocrite ?

Frankly, vocabulary means nothing if you don't know how to use it.

By "use it" I don't mean use the words appropriately, I mean use them to communicate effectively. Sometimes less is more, esp. on internet forums.


Specifically, by insulting me with a term based on a critique - I assume - that in one way or another fulfills the definition of "pseudo-intellectual."

A definition (8. UD) under which his participation more accurately reflects. That's how.

Or do you need an explanation on exchanges where one person is insulted and another responds?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 01:43:30 AM
No, the issue is that your sentences are so verbose that they're actually difficult to parse. There is nothing wrong with having a sophisticated vocabulary, as long as you're using it to make communication easier rather than more difficult. You enter the pseudo-intellectual realm as soon as you sacrifice clarity for the sake of grandiloquence.

Some people in this thread are having a difficult time understanding you. Hint: it's not because they're dumb.

I mean, seriously:

Quote
I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another.

Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?

Do you really think you're being clear, here? I have to strain myself just to read it. Even after reading it several times, I'm still not completely sure I understand what it means.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 08, 2009, 01:56:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, the issue is that your sentences are so verbose that they're actually difficult to parse. There is nothing wrong with having a sophisticated vocabulary, as long as you're using it to make communication easier rather than more difficult. You enter the pseudo-intellectual realm as soon as you sacrifice clarity for the sake of grandiloquence.

Some people in this thread are having a difficult time understanding you. Hint: it's not because they're dumb.

I mean, seriously:

Quote
I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another.

Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?

Do you really think you're being clear, here? I have to strain myself just to read it. Even after reading it several times, I'm still not completely sure I understand what it means.

Like I said previously 'This thread proves one thing - religion polarises people. It doesn't bring them togther.

Why don't you start a war over it or invade a country...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 08, 2009, 02:29:24 AM
Um, how did a thread about religion turn into a war about words? ???
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 08, 2009, 02:44:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Um, how did a thread about religion turn into a war about words? ???

 I think by asking a person who doesn't believe in religion to explain why.

 EDIT: Actually to explain why he thinks one aspect of one religion is ludicrous.

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 08, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Um, how did a thread about religion turn into a war about words? ???

Threads about religion always turn into war. Words are just an alibi.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 08, 2009, 03:34:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd say this:
"As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?"

It would be much easier to talk to you if you used more humour and less words. I have no contempt for you or your views, but your way of expressing yourself here carries a certain whiff of snobbery and makes it difficult to understand what you're actually saying.

 So it's nothing factual in terms of content, it's the presentation, it's the "whiff of snobbery" that prevented you from understanding the obvious?

 Sorry. Not good enough, and I think you're patching as best you can without having to admit that you jumped the gun for the sake of momentary advantage.

Advantage?! Who cares about advantages, has this become a competition suddenly?

And no it was not obvious, not to me and evidently not several others here. You clearly have a big vocabulary - good for you. But you need to adjust it to an appropriate level here because right now it is difficult to understand what you actually mean.


Quote
And it comes across as something hypocritical, especially when you're responding with a question that states the sardonic as something obvious and overlooked, when it clearly wasn't, and moreover developed further as my qualifying response explains.

Clear to you, not to me. The "qualifying response" (I suggest "next post" as being perfectly adequate) failed to explain anything since I still don't know what you mean. Though you are correct that I am myopic: I wear glasses for that.

Quote
I'm trying to find a joke to tell ya to make the read particularly more palatable for you.

 It's just..."Godtalk" tends not to be fodder for comedic monologues in my experience.

Jokes are not necessary, only a sense of humour. It does wonders in helping you keep your distance from the ego. The more serious the subject of discussion, the more important it is not to lose the distance (this is my experience).
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 08, 2009, 03:35:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Um, how did a thread about religion turn into a war about words? ???

It's just a distraction, hopefully we'll be back on track soon :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 08, 2009, 03:36:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, the issue is that your sentences are so verbose that they're actually difficult to parse. There is nothing wrong with having a sophisticated vocabulary, as long as you're using it to make communication easier rather than more difficult. You enter the pseudo-intellectual realm as soon as you sacrifice clarity for the sake of grandiloquence.

Some people in this thread are having a difficult time understanding you. Hint: it's not because they're dumb.

I mean, seriously:

Quote
I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another.

Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?

Do you really think you're being clear, here? I have to strain myself just to read it. Even after reading it several times, I'm still not completely sure I understand what it means.

 Well, I went over my first response to my last, and I noticed, that JuniorEmblem had no problem responding to my questions. Answering them specifically, well that's another case, but he responded to them.

 The same statement was actually acknowledged by, kboman after I provided clarification.

 The problem or "issue" seems to arise with you and this statement of mine:

Quote
Which part of my reply you responded to gave little clue that my expounded position was different from my initial response?

 So in terms of incivility, CDProp, the degradation of the conversation occurs after your participation.

 Do you really not understand, "...that my expounded position was different from my initial response" ?

 Really?
 
 And sophisticated? As compared to what? "Grandiloquence?"

 Again, in terms sufficiently fulfilling definitions for "pseudo-intellectual" , CDProp your going to have to contrive something other than, "sacrific[ing] clarity for the sake of grandiloquence." Because your definition assumes that because you (might) have problems understanding it's intent, it is therefore confusing.

 But I don't buy that you're confused anymore than I buy, JuniorEmblem will actually answer the question asked, with anything more than a "because" level qualification. You seemed to filter the intended meaning of my question to kboman, and you've used words arranged in such a fashion that make your latest example as equally unbelievable given their relatively simply definitions and applications.

 I think you took an opportunity to have a laugh at my expense. I think you being called on your inconsistency is embarrassing and I think you're shifting context to deflect the fact that you acted unnecessarily antagonistic towards a poster that meant you no harm.

 As to whether one person is dumb or not, I don't know one person's supposed @U2 intellectual reputation from another. But what I can know, are those ideas that are conveyed by the lack of, or plethora, of words communicated on the topic at hand.

 And on the topic at hand, my initial question - to JuniorEmblem - remains unsatisfactorily answered.

 But if "Simple - I don't believe the so-called evidence." is what constitutes a sufficient response in a discussion that skims cosmological and ontological waters, so be it.

 I can see how asking the question, "What makes His assertion ludicrous?" would be considered gasoline to fire.

 As for translation, CDProp, concerning the statement:
 
 "I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another."

 It means: "I can be skeptical too, *insert participant's name*, and because I'm skeptical about your position, I'm asking you a question. Why would I be against anyone asking questions?"

 Concerning this question: "Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?"

 You could personally take it as: "Are you prejudiced against believers asking non-believers to explain why they don't believe in God?"

 Anything to actually engage the discussion at hand, truly.
   
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 08, 2009, 03:58:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd say this:
"As for holding YouTube to be the paragon of authentication, does that say more about the standards people hold today in general or just your personal criteria for sources of truth and evidence?"

It would be much easier to talk to you if you used more humour and less words. I have no contempt for you or your views, but your way of expressing yourself here carries a certain whiff of snobbery and makes it difficult to understand what you're actually saying.

 So it's nothing factual in terms of content, it's the presentation, it's the "whiff of snobbery" that prevented you from understanding the obvious?

 Sorry. Not good enough, and I think you're patching as best you can without having to admit that you jumped the gun for the sake of momentary advantage.

Advantage?! Who cares about advantages, has this become a competition suddenly?

And no it was not obvious, not to me and evidently not several others here. You clearly have a big vocabulary - good for you. But you need to adjust it to an appropriate level here because right now it is difficult to understand what you actually mean.


Quote
And it comes across as something hypocritical, especially when you're responding with a question that states the sardonic as something obvious and overlooked, when it clearly wasn't, and moreover developed further as my qualifying response explains.

Clear to you, not to me. The "qualifying response" (I suggest "next post" as being perfectly adequate) failed to explain anything since I still don't know what you mean. Though you are correct that I am myopic: I wear glasses for that.

Quote
I'm trying to find a joke to tell ya to make the read particularly more palatable for you.

 It's just..."Godtalk" tends not to be fodder for comedic monologues in my experience.

Jokes are not necessary, only a sense of humour. It does wonders in helping you keep your distance from the ego. The more serious the subject of discussion, the more important it is not to lose the distance (this is my experience).

 Really...perhaps prompting the next post with a question or a statement germane to the topic would be best for all concerned.

 Nice meeting you.

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 08, 2009, 04:38:15 AM
No, I meant a war about words. Seriously. The two of you need some cold water poured on each other.  ::) Can we spare the English arguments for another thread? 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 08, 2009, 04:53:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I meant a war about words. Seriously. The two of you need some cold water poured on each other.  ::) Can we spare the English arguments for another thread? 

Yes please. What were we talking about again? ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 08, 2009, 05:05:25 AM
Looked back on the thread - it derailed pages before we started arguing about words. I'm off to have a lovely time with my love, so have a good easter everyone however you do or don't celebrate it. Ta ta!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 08, 2009, 07:04:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To the athiests on this forum,
I come in Peace and do not intend to conjure a malicious argument that, from seeing this thread, develops into one of generalisations and insulting remarks from both believers and non-believers.

Let me ask you a simple question:
Please find something in the bible that Jesus Christ did or said that you disagree with.



The ludicrous (imho) assertion that he rose from the dead

why is this a ludicrous assertion? because it is scientifically impossible?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 But I don't buy that you're confused anymore than I buy, JuniorEmblem will actually answer the question asked, with anything more than a "because" level qualification. You seemed to filter the intended meaning of my question to kboman, and you've used words arranged in such a fashion that make your latest example as equally unbelievable given their relatively simply definitions and applications.

 I think you took an opportunity to have a laugh at my expense. I think you being called on your inconsistency is embarrassing and I think you're shifting context to deflect the fact that you acted unnecessarily antagonistic towards a poster that meant you no harm.

 As to whether one person is dumb or not, I don't know one person's supposed @U2 intellectual reputation from another. But what I can know, are those ideas that are conveyed by the lack of, or plethora, of words communicated on the topic at hand.

 And on the topic at hand, my initial question - to JuniorEmblem - remains unsatisfactorily answered.

 But if "Simple - I don't believe the so-called evidence." is what constitutes a sufficient response in a discussion that skims cosmological and ontological waters, so be it.

 I can see how asking the question, "What makes His assertion ludicrous?" would be considered gasoline to fire.

 As for translation, CDProp, concerning the statement:
 
 "I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another."

 It means: "I can be skeptical too, *insert participant's name*, and because I'm skeptical about your position, I'm asking you a question. Why would I be against anyone asking questions?"

 Concerning this question: "Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?"

 You could personally take it as: "Are you prejudiced against believers asking non-believers to explain why they don't believe in God?"

 Anything to actually engage the discussion at hand, truly.
   


I have spent fruitless hours debating the topics you bring up, in my vast, yes, vast experience in doing so, I've learned one thing - Nothing can get past "faith" for the true believer, and likewise the true believer NEVER gives adequate actual proof for the resurrection, existence of God, etc.

So, I just saved you and the rest of the forum hours of time by boiling it down.

Trust me, I've done this a lot, nothing will get resolved and neither side will be one iota closer to understanding the others' point of view. One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced, mexican standoff. Hundreds of wasted words, or maybe in your case tens of thousands.

So, if you want "better" answers, I suggest you take it up privately or go to a different forum.

I'll sum up my position for you.

I don't believe in a god
I don't believe the bible is the word of god
I believe jesus christ existed.
I believe his messages have a lot of value
I believe he was also a bit of a barking loon
I don't believe he worked miracles
I don't believe he rose from the dead
I believe all religions are cults of sorts
I believe religion has done more harm than good

If you want to address any of those specifically, take it up in the real world section as a different thread

I believe you have your answers as to how non-believers can rationalize their love and understanding pf U2 just as much as any believer can. Maybe even more so given that we don't share the same faith




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 08, 2009, 07:46:27 AM
My thanks to everyone trying to diffuse the situation rather than fan the flames.

As someone who writes for a living I know that the first rule of communication is to consider your audience when delivering your message. Clearly that has not been happening in this thread. Some need to include more details in your rebuttals and put some meat on the bone as it were. Others should consider their choice of language, eschew obfuscation and leave the academic style of writing for a more appropriate format than an internet forum.

Thanks again and best of luck to all.  ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 10:16:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I meant a war about words. Seriously. The two of you need some cold water poured on each other.  ::) Can we spare the English arguments for another thread? 

It's sort of difficult to get past the English arguments when I literally can't understand what is being said.

With that said, it looks like ITM, amongst a sea of further jibberish, was able to provide me with a few plain-English translations of what he/she said earlier, and I'll be happy to respond to those statements when I'm not at work.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 08, 2009, 10:22:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's sort of difficult to get past the English arguments when I literally can't understand what is being said.

Sorry to rain on your parade mate but I can't understand you either. What the heck is grandiloquence? (Asides from being a really cool-sounding potential song title for a follow up to Magnificent).
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 10:32:19 AM
I was making a point about vocabulary. That one word aside, do honestly have difficulty understanding my posts?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 08, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 But I don't buy that you're confused anymore than I buy, JuniorEmblem will actually answer the question asked, with anything more than a "because" level qualification. You seemed to filter the intended meaning of my question to kboman, and you've used words arranged in such a fashion that make your latest example as equally unbelievable given their relatively simply definitions and applications.

 I think you took an opportunity to have a laugh at my expense. I think you being called on your inconsistency is embarrassing and I think you're shifting context to deflect the fact that you acted unnecessarily antagonistic towards a poster that meant you no harm.

 As to whether one person is dumb or not, I don't know one person's supposed @U2 intellectual reputation from another. But what I can know, are those ideas that are conveyed by the lack of, or plethora, of words communicated on the topic at hand.

 And on the topic at hand, my initial question - to JuniorEmblem - remains unsatisfactorily answered.

 But if "Simple - I don't believe the so-called evidence." is what constitutes a sufficient response in a discussion that skims cosmological and ontological waters, so be it.

 I can see how asking the question, "What makes His assertion ludicrous?" would be considered gasoline to fire.

 As for translation, CDProp, concerning the statement:
 
 "I mean...It's precisely my opposition, my skepticism, to any number of statements that leads me to ask questions of qualification for one statement or another."

 It means: "I can be skeptical too, *insert participant's name*, and because I'm skeptical about your position, I'm asking you a question. Why would I be against anyone asking questions?"

 Concerning this question: "Do you have a particular sensitivity to people of certain belief systems asking others to qualify statements from a person of a different belief system, CDProp?"

 You could personally take it as: "Are you prejudiced against believers asking non-believers to explain why they don't believe in God?"

 Anything to actually engage the discussion at hand, truly.
   


I have spent fruitless hours debating the topics you bring up, in my vast, yes, vast experience in doing so, I've learned one thing - Nothing can get past "faith" for the true believer, and likewise the true believer NEVER gives adequate actual proof for the resurrection, existence of God, etc.

So, I just saved you and the rest of the forum hours of time by boiling it down.

Trust me, I've done this a lot, nothing will get resolved and neither side will be one iota closer to understanding the others' point of view. One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced, mexican standoff. Hundreds of wasted words, or maybe in your case tens of thousands.

So, if you want "better" answers, I suggest you take it up privately or go to a different forum.

I'll sum up my position for you.

I don't believe in a god
I don't believe the bible is the word of god
I believe jesus christ existed.
I believe his messages have a lot of value
I believe he was also a bit of a barking loon
I don't believe he worked miracles
I don't believe he rose from the dead
I believe all religions are cults of sorts
I believe religion has done more harm than good

If you want to address any of those specifically, take it up in the real world section as a different thread

I believe you have your answers as to how non-believers can rationalize their love and understanding pf U2 just as much as any believer can. Maybe even more so given that we don't share the same faith


 So your suggestion is to go to another forum, or take it up privately, despite the fact that the initial and public statement in question is yours?

 The question I asked concerning your assertion about the resurrection is perfectly valid in this thread where you made the statement calling it ludicrous. There's no need for you to sum up a position that's obviously garden variety humanist,materialist and atheist. I wasn't interested in your little creed.

 What I was interested in, is your specific understanding about the social and political circumstances of that time that give you reason to conclude that what Christ said and did was ludicrous. That would entail an answer that considers a number of factors entailed with Roman law and Jewish custom.

 For example, when enforcing Roman justice, if a soldier failed to administer a complete crucifixion, the soldier would be subject to death. The same holds true for standards in guarding one post or another. If Roman soldiers fell asleep on guard, again, there's a death sentence waiting for them. It was a society defined as much by achievement in law and architecture and culture as it was by brutality.

 We're talking about a society that would crucify disobedient dogs never mind perceived threats to it's national security.
 
 My initial question presupposed a moderate understanding of those elements given your confident statement. Obviously, I was wrong. My apologies for not having assumed the worst

Quote
I believe you have your answers as to how non-believers can rationalize their love and understanding pf U2 just as much as any believer can. Maybe even more so given that we don't share the same faith

 I wasn't interested in the global answer, JuniorEmblem, it's an obvious and small point you're bringing up. Again, my concern was you personally, which is why I asked you the question given the heat of your statements.

 You no more represent non-believers in totality than I do believers, so for you to believe,"... (I) have my answers as to how non-believers can rationalize their love and understanding of U2..." is humorous isn't it? You like the art - end of story. Gee, my curiosity is satisfied. I mean...come on...

As for the, "One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced," well you see that's a generalization isn't it?It presumes, the standards of evidence are lacking on the side of faith, and that doubt is absent where faith exists, and that is simply not the case either, JuniorEmblem.

If you didn't feel like answering a question like I posed, or as it appears, or are simply unable to, you should have said so, I'd have understood and left it at that.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 08, 2009, 12:07:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I meant a war about words. Seriously. The two of you need some cold water poured on each other.  ::) Can we spare the English arguments for another thread? 

It's sort of difficult to get past the English arguments when I literally can't understand what is being said.

With that said, it looks like ITM, amongst a sea of further jibberish, was able to provide me with a few plain-English translations of what he/she said earlier, and I'll be happy to respond to those statements when I'm not at work.


 So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 08, 2009, 12:25:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I meant a war about words. Seriously. The two of you need some cold water poured on each other.  ::) Can we spare the English arguments for another thread? 

It's sort of difficult to get past the English arguments when I literally can't understand what is being said.

With that said, it looks like ITM, amongst a sea of further jibberish, was able to provide me with a few plain-English translations of what he/she said earlier, and I'll be happy to respond to those statements when I'm not at work.


 So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Are you lot still at it!?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 08, 2009, 12:57:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the, "One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced," well you see that's a generalization isn't it?It presumes, the standards of evidence are lacking on the side of faith, and that doubt is absent where faith exists, and that is simply not the case either, JuniorEmblem.

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion and to hopefully get us off the topic of vocabulary.

What is the evidence that would sway any reasonable person that God exists?

I'm not aware of any mainstream religion that doesn't have faith at it's core to be the answer when factual evidence runs short. Logic dictates that the negative can not be proven so the burden of proof falls on the other side of the argument.

I contend that if that evidence existed, the number of agnostics and atheists in the world would fall to almost none upon presentation of said evidence. I'll ask for comment on this statement from those on that side of the fence. If undeniable evidence was presented that God existed, would you then believe in God? I'm not asking for buy-in to any particular religion, just acceptance of that fact if this happened.

As a side note, everyone please lose the tone of superiority about the position you (generic) side with that has recently been taken up in this thread.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 02:11:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 So your suggestion is to go to another forum, or take it up privately, despite the fact that the initial and public statement in question is yours?



Umm, no, the springboard to this tangent was "what did Jesus say you disagree with", or words to that effect.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 The question I asked concerning your assertion about the resurrection is perfectly valid in this thread where you made the statement calling it ludicrous. There's no need for you to sum up a position that's obviously garden variety humanist,materialist and atheist. I wasn't interested in your little creed.


You asked a question, I answered it, the fact that it wasn't quite what you were looking for is frankly no concern of mine.

Here's a clue - If you think you may not like an answer to a question, think twice about asking it.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 What I was interested in, is your specific understanding about the social and political circumstances of that time that give you reason to conclude that what Christ said and did was ludicrous. That would entail an answer that considers a number of factors entailed with Roman law and Jewish custom.



Look, if you really want to get into that level of debate, this clearly isn't the forum.

There was a one line question, I gave a one-line answer. I told you, I'd be happy to engage with you privately on this.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 
 My initial question presupposed a moderate understanding of those elements given your confident statement. Obviously, I was wrong. My apologies for not having assumed the worst


If your assumption assuages your interest in the matter, then so be it. Internet insults, veiled or otherwise, are significantly less meaningful than the dog turd I just avoided on the sidewalk at lunch time.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


As for the, "One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced," well you see that's a generalization isn't it?


It's a generalization based upon my personal experiences, it applies to immediate family members, extended family members, colleagues and friends.

So, based upon the populaiton sample I have encountered it is both a general description and a specific one.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It presumes, the standards of evidence are lacking on the side of faith

If I felt that wasn't the case I'd be a believer.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

or are simply unable to, you should have said so, I'd have understood and left it at that.

Must remember to avoid dog turd tonight when walking to car.................



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 08, 2009, 04:11:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, The True Essence of U2.
The band has a strong belief in God, The Holy Spirit and The Blessed Mother. 
Not only do they worship but they also exalt the Holiness of God The Almighty.

And this you know how...? Don't put words in people's mouths, it rude.

Quote
Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.

And please refrain from this condescending attitude, you give religion a very bad reputation. I'm patient with your belief in the easter bunny - how does that make you feel?

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself...

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

leader of the column of progress.



 ??? ??? ???

By 'progress' you are obviously not including stem cell research, equal rights for all, the separation of church and state, etc.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.


Kudos for saying "powerfully" instead of "positively"

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 08, 2009, 04:33:55 PM
I think this thread should be retitled "na na na nya nyah!!! My beliefs are better than yours!"
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 04:40:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think this thread should be retitled "na na na nya nyah!!! My beliefs are better than yours!"

Instead of 'better', why don't we say 'different' and not demand to know what one side thinks is wrong with the things purportedly said by others' savior ?

 ;)





Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 08, 2009, 04:44:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

leader of the column of progress.



 ??? ??? ???

By 'progress' you are obviously not including stem cell research, equal rights for all, the separation of church and state, etc.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.


Kudos for saying "powerfully" instead of "positively"



Thanks for the kudos, but I should have stated that I didn't write this.
I remembered it then used cut and paste.

You are observant and I appreciate that you read it so closely.
Now step back and look again, you'll see that the facts used
by the author are all stated objectively.
The conclusion - now that is up to each reader.

Praise Jesus!




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 04:51:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering the question, "Why don't I believe that Jesus performed miracles."

Here's my basic thought on this; I'll start at the beginning.

I am of the belief that there are a lot of false claims out there, and that in order to pick out which claims are true and which are false, we must choose a good standard of evidence to measure each claim by.

I don't necessarily think that it needs to be a consistent standard from claim to claim. This might surprise some people, but think of it this way: if I tell you that there is an empty can of Coke on my desk, would my written word be enough? In the strictest sense, no. I might be lying. But, practically-speaking, why would I lie about such a thing? What would I gain from it? It seems like a silly thing to lie about. And anyway, what would be the consequence if you were to believe me, and it turns out that I was lying? Nothing, really. And what would be the consequence if you doubted me, and it turns out that I was telling the truth? Again, nothing.

So when deciding on the proper standard of evidence for a claim, you have to ask these sorts of questions. Then you weigh the pros and cons and you make the rational choice.

So, the claim in question now is: Jesus performed miracles (healing the sick, the blind, raising people from the dead, etc.).

What do we know about this claim? What evidence is available?

Well, almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. The earliest gospel, Mark, was almost certainly written sometime after 70 A.D., after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke borrowed many verses from Mark, so we know that they were written even later. John was written sometime in the 90's, most probably.

Of all of the gospel authors, Matthew is the only one who could have been an eyewitness (it is almost universally accepted by scholars that the authors of the other gospels, even John, were not eyewitnesses). Even then, there are many reasons to doubt that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness, including the fact that it borrows so heavily from a gospel written by a non-eyewitness (The Gospel According to Mark).

Josephus also wrote a great deal about Jesus, but we know he wasn't an eyewitness because he was born after Jesus died.

So we have all of these writings, none of which are primary sources. They're all likely compilations of stories that have been passed around, orally in some cases, for decades before being compiled into these narratives we call the Gospels.

We also know that Jesus lived in a time when there were many, many people who claimed to be healers and miracle-workers.

So, with this evidence summed up, we have to ask ourselves: is it enough? Does this evidence suffice to justify the belief that Jesus performed miracles?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is enough. What that would basically mean is that we also have to accept all other ancient, second-hand, written accounts of people performing miracles. Same situation; same standard of evidence. And obviously, the logical conclusion of this is that we'll end up believing a whole bunch of things that a) aren't true, and b) aren't even consistent with one another.

Let's say instead, for the sake of argument, that the evidence isn't enough. The result of that is that we reject this claim and all similar claims. We may end up rejecting some claims that are actually true, but this seems, practically, much less problematic than the alternative.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: joegtheog on April 08, 2009, 04:56:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think this thread should be retitled "na na na nya nyah!!! My beliefs are better than yours!"

Instead of 'better', why don't we say 'different' and not demand to know what one side thinks is wrong with the things purportedly said by others' savior ?

 ;)







Haha, I hear ya.  That's why I jumped off this trainwreck a few pages back.  LOL
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 08, 2009, 05:05:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering the question, "Why don't I believe that Jesus performed miracles."

Here's my basic thought on this; I'll start at the beginning.



"........Well, almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels."

"......Josephus also wrote a great deal about Jesus, but we know he wasn't an eyewitness because he was born after Jesus died."




".....We also know that Jesus lived in a time when there were many, many people who claimed to be healers and miracle-workers."



Josephus did not write any of the Gospels, was not a deciple, yet confirmed many of the facts included in the Gospels

The many "healers" that existed then are not known, or worshipped, today and I see that as proof of Jesus being the Son of Man.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 05:09:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering the question, "Why don't I believe that Jesus performed miracles."

Here's my basic thought on this; I'll start at the beginning.



"........Well, almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels."

"......Josephus also wrote a great deal about Jesus, but we know he wasn't an eyewitness because he was born after Jesus died."




".....We also know that Jesus lived in a time when there were many, many people who claimed to be healers and miracle-workers."



Josephus did not write any of the Gospels, was not a deciple, yet confirmed many of the facts included in the Gospels

The many "healers" that existed then are not known, or worshipped, today and I see that as proof of Jesus being the Son of Man.


Common ground - We can all agree Jesus was indeed the son of man

If not A then B must be right is a dangerous logic to follow by the way.........

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 08, 2009, 05:16:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, The True Essence of U2.
The band has a strong belief in God, The Holy Spirit and The Blessed Mother. 
Not only do they worship but they also exalt the Holiness of God The Almighty.

And this you know how...? Don't put words in people's mouths, it rude.

Quote
Those who know, do not have to be told.
Those who don't, we'll be patient for you.
God Bless you.

And please refrain from this condescending attitude, you give religion a very bad reputation. I'm patient with your belief in the easter bunny - how does that make you feel?

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself...

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.


Hungrytickets... amen brother.  (or sister)
You just summed up what so many of us know, and you did it so well... kudos to you...
Blessings.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 08, 2009, 05:26:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering the question, "Why don't I believe that Jesus performed miracles."

Here's my basic thought on this; I'll start at the beginning.

I am of the belief that there are a lot of false claims out there, and that in order to pick out which claims are true and which are false, we must choose a good standard of evidence to measure each claim by.

I don't necessarily think that it needs to be a consistent standard from claim to claim. This might surprise some people, but think of it this way: if I tell you that there is an empty can of Coke on my desk, would my written word be enough? In the strictest sense, no. I might be lying. But, practically-speaking, why would I lie about such a thing? What would I gain from it? It seems like a silly thing to lie about. And anyway, what would be the consequence if you were to believe me, and it turns out that I was lying? Nothing, really. And what would be the consequence if you doubted me, and it turns out that I was telling the truth? Again, nothing.

So when deciding on the proper standard of evidence for a claim, you have to ask these sorts of questions. Then you weigh the pros and cons and you make the rational choice.

So, the claim in question now is: Jesus performed miracles (healing the sick, the blind, raising people from the dead, etc.).

What do we know about this claim? What evidence is available?

Well, almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. The earliest gospel, Mark, was almost certainly written sometime after 70 A.D., after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke borrowed many verses from Mark, so we know that they were written even later. John was written sometime in the 90's, most probably.

Of all of the gospel authors, Matthew is the only one who could have been an eyewitness (it is almost universally accepted by scholars that the authors of the other gospels, even John, were not eyewitnesses). Even then, there are many reasons to doubt that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness, including the fact that it borrows so heavily from a gospel written by a non-eyewitness (The Gospel According to Mark).

Josephus also wrote a great deal about Jesus, but we know he wasn't an eyewitness because he was born after Jesus died.

So we have all of these writings, none of which are primary sources. They're all likely compilations of stories that have been passed around, orally in some cases, for decades before being compiled into these narratives we call the Gospels.

We also know that Jesus lived in a time when there were many, many people who claimed to be healers and miracle-workers.

So, with this evidence summed up, we have to ask ourselves: is it enough? Does this evidence suffice to justify the belief that Jesus performed miracles?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is enough. What that would basically mean is that we also have to accept all other ancient, second-hand, written accounts of people performing miracles. Same situation; same standard of evidence. And obviously, the logical conclusion of this is that we'll end up believing a whole bunch of things that a) aren't true, and b) aren't even consistent with one another.

Let's say instead, for the sake of argument, that the evidence isn't enough. The result of that is that we reject this claim and all similar claims. We may end up rejecting some claims that are actually true, but this seems, practically, much less problematic than the alternative.

However, it is Christ that rises up through history and stands as the cornerstone of the faith of over 1 and a half billion christians. not any of these other people you write about.

I understand your natural requirement to have hard solid evidence of christ performing miracles. In today's society, we crave 'proof'. However, laying out the necessity to be able to 'prove' god with hard solid evidence is contradictory and an oxymoron. If god was able to be defined and proved through scientific study etc... then God would not be the God that Christians, Jews, Muslims etc worship. For us, God is beyond scientific, logical and human reason - that is intrinsic to the GOD concept for us.

And here is where we come to the stalemate and where we will always come to the stalemate. It has been said here before. We have faith. While others, in order to believe, need evidence.

It just seems that we will never reach a place where we can agree because your number one requirement for believing in God would completely contradict the God we believe in.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 05:42:02 PM
Yes, but the basis for the belief of those 1.5 billion Christians is the Bible itself. So, all that argument really amounts to is an appeal to popularity, i.e. that which is popularly believed must also be correct, which is a logical fallacy.

As for Josephus: he was born after Jesus died. Therefore, his knowledge of Jesus is based on the same second-hand stories and accounts that the authors of the gospels relied on.

As for faith vs. evidence, an important thing to note is that people, like me and Junior, who require evidence don't do so arbitrarily, i.e. 'for no reason'. In fact, we have very good reasons for requiring evidence. On the other hand, the typical Christian, who decides that evidence isn't necessary, does so arbitrarily. It's not that evidence is unnecessary per se; for everything except Christianity itself, a Christian will demand evidence. If I told you that humans evolved from primates, you (as a Christian) would demand evidence, and rightly so. If I told you that i invented a perpetual motion machine, you would demand evidence (and rightly so). Even if I made a spiritual claim, you would demand evidence if it didn't mesh right with Christianity. For example, if I told you that Muhammad was visited by an angel, and even though he was illiterate, the angel taught him the Koran and he was able to memorize it; that Jesus is not the son of God, but rather just a prophet, would you change your belief about Jesus? No, you would argue against me; demanding evidence, albeit confident that I would never be able to produce it.

What has happened is that someone in your life, perhaps a parent, or a missionary, or a preacher, or someone else, convinced you to believe in Christianity, and rather than doing so with evidence, told you that evidence isn't necessarily; that faith is enough -- and even that it's preferred. This is true for Christianity only -- it is special -- and the acceptance of faith as a valid justification for belief is, itself, accepted on faith.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 05:47:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, but the basis for the belief of those 1.5 billion Christians is the Bible itself. So, all that argument really amounts to is an appeal to popularity, i.e. that which is popularly believed must also be correct, which is a logical fallacy.

As for Josephus: he was born after Jesus died. Therefore, his knowledge of Jesus is based on the same second-hand stories and accounts that the authors of the gospels relied on.

As for faith vs. evidence, an important thing to note is that people, like me and Junior, who require evidence don't do so arbitrarily, i.e. 'for no reason'. In fact, we have very good reasons for requiring evidence. On the other hand, the typical Christian, who decides that evidence isn't necessary, does so arbitrarily. It's not that evidence is unnecessary per se; for everything except Christianity itself, a Christian will demand evidence. If I told you that humans evolved from primates, you (as a Christian) would demand evidence, and rightly so. If I told you that i invented a perpetual motion machine, you would demand evidence (and rightly so). Even if I made a spiritual claim, you would demand evidence if it didn't mesh right with Christianity. For example, if I told you that Muhammad was visited by an angel, and even though he was illiterate, the angel taught him the Koran and he was able to memorize it; that Jesus is not the son of God, but rather just a prophet, would you change your belief about Jesus? No, you would argue against me; demanding evidence, albeit confident that I would never be able to produce it.

What has happened is that someone in your life, perhaps a parent, or a missionary, or a preacher, or someone else, convinced you to believe in Christianity, and rather than doing so with evidence, told you that evidence isn't necessarily; that faith is enough -- and even that it's preferred. This is true for Christianity only -- it is special -- and the acceptance of faith as a valid justification for belief is, itself, accepted on faith.

What you describe is the EXACT SAME REASON many Christians don't accept Mormons as being "true" Christians.

Yet, there is as much evidence for the golden plates as there is any other claim in the Bible (the example I used was the inflammability of the 3 kids cast into King Nebuchadnezzer's furnace)



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 08, 2009, 05:57:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What has happened is that someone in your life, perhaps a parent, or a missionary, or a preacher, or someone else, convinced you to believe in Christianity, and rather than doing so with evidence, told you that evidence isn't necessarily; that faith is enough -- and even that it's preferred. This is true for Christianity only -- it is special -- and the acceptance of faith as a valid justification for belief is, itself, accepted on faith.

Wrong. Sorry.

It was no parent, missionary, preacher or 'someone else' that convinced me saying that evidence isn't necessary. It was God. But I don't expect you to believe that or understand. And that's completely cool.

I do have my evidence, i have my own experiences. Obviously i do not share yours. Your previous posts lead me to assume that you wouldn't believe my evidence.... so why bother posting... perhaps I would be referred to as just some 'cuckoo', just like how junioremblem refers to Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 05:58:22 PM
Exactly, Junior!

So, people who hold faith-based beliefs are not only at an impasse with people like us, who don't hold faith-based beliefs. They are also at an impasse with people who hold other faith-based beliefs.

A Protestant and a Mormon cannot really debate with one another, because each were told that faith alone is enough to justify their respective beliefs. They don't need evidence, and so nothing that one person says to the other can possibly have any effect.

That's very similar to how someone like Junior or me, as people who can be persuaded by evidence, are at an impasse when discussing religion with a person who bases their beliefs on faith.

What's the common denominator here? When faith is involved, there is simply no point in discussion.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 06:00:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What has happened is that someone in your life, perhaps a parent, or a missionary, or a preacher, or someone else, convinced you to believe in Christianity, and rather than doing so with evidence, told you that evidence isn't necessarily; that faith is enough -- and even that it's preferred. This is true for Christianity only -- it is special -- and the acceptance of faith as a valid justification for belief is, itself, accepted on faith.

Wrong. Sorry.

It was no parent, missionary, preacher or 'someone else' that convinced me saying that evidence isn't necessary. It was God. But I don't expect you to believe that or understand. And that's completely cool.

I do have my evidence, i have my own experiences. Obviously i do not share yours. Your previous posts lead me to assume that you wouldn't believe my evidence.... so why bother posting... perhaps I would be referred to as just some 'cuckoo', just like how junioremblem refers to Jesus Christ.

Ummm, first off, I DID say Jesus had a lot of good messages.
Secondly, it was a "bit of a barking loon", not "cuckoo" - I'd also say the same for anyone else claiming they were the illegitimate offspring of the union between a virgin and an omnipotent deity.....

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 08, 2009, 06:30:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


A Protestant and a Mormon cannot really debate with one another, because each were told that faith alone is enough to justify their respective beliefs. They don't need evidence, and so nothing that one person says to the other can possibly have any effect.



Society never attacks or questions Mormons, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists,etc - But try to put up a Christmas Tree and, well you know the rest.......More proof of The Son of Man.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 06:35:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


A Protestant and a Mormon cannot really debate with one another, because each were told that faith alone is enough to justify their respective beliefs. They don't need evidence, and so nothing that one person says to the other can possibly have any effect.



Society never attacks or questions Mormons, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists,etc - But try to put up a Christmas Tree and, well you know the rest.......More proof of The Son of Man.

Sure they do.

Mormons have been pilloried (correctly) recently for their funding of Prop 8.

Muslims in the US have been victims of hate crimes following 9/11

Is someone wanting to take down your xmas tree ? What is that proving ? Last I checked there are always huge ceremonies for trees going up in New York , San Francisco, etc.

I've seen xmas trees in Hindu households !

We always put up a huge one.






Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 08, 2009, 06:47:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


A Protestant and a Mormon cannot really debate with one another, because each were told that faith alone is enough to justify their respective beliefs. They don't need evidence, and so nothing that one person says to the other can possibly have any effect.



Society never attacks or questions Mormons, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists,etc - But try to put up a Christmas Tree and, well you know the rest.......More proof of The Son of Man.

"Sure they do.

Mormons have been pilloried (correctly) recently for their funding of Prop 8.

Muslims in the US have been victims of hate crimes following 9/11

Is someone wanting to take down your xmas tree ? What is that proving ? Last I checked there are always huge ceremonies for trees going up in New York , San Francisco, etc.

I've seen xmas trees in Hindu households !

We always put up a huge one."





For the record the "Christmas Trees" at these ceremonies have been renamed "Holiday Trees"

I do respect you though, for getting a Big Christmas Tree!

Peace.




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 08, 2009, 06:49:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


A Protestant and a Mormon cannot really debate with one another, because each were told that faith alone is enough to justify their respective beliefs. They don't need evidence, and so nothing that one person says to the other can possibly have any effect.



Society never attacks or questions Mormons, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists,etc - But try to put up a Christmas Tree and, well you know the rest.......More proof of The Son of Man.

"Sure they do.

Mormons have been pilloried (correctly) recently for their funding of Prop 8.

Muslims in the US have been victims of hate crimes following 9/11

Is someone wanting to take down your xmas tree ? What is that proving ? Last I checked there are always huge ceremonies for trees going up in New York , San Francisco, etc.

I've seen xmas trees in Hindu households !

We always put up a huge one."





For the record the "Christmas Trees" at these ceremonies have been renamed "Holiday Trees"

I do respect you though, for getting a Big Christmas Tree!

Peace.





And somehow re-naming a tree is proof of discriminaiton and/or the existence of the son of a deity ?

I'm really confused.........
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 08:22:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Society never attacks or questions Mormons, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists,etc - But try to put up a Christmas Tree and, well you know the rest.......More proof of The Son of Man.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with my point.

???
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 08, 2009, 08:23:17 PM
By the way, this really ought to confuse some people: some of my favorite songs are Christmas hymns.  :D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 08, 2009, 09:08:36 PM
Some of my favorite songs are Christmas songs too! Ooh you guys know the one that goes "If God Would Send His Angels?"  ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 09, 2009, 02:10:29 AM

I'm more of a one for natural law, the indulgance of primitive instincts, personal responsibility - everything else (ie religion) is repression and control.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Discotheque Girl on April 09, 2009, 03:11:19 AM
I am a catholic!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: macphisto on April 09, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
I'm a bonotheist.
And thus, it's no secret at all that if God would send his angels, it'd be magnificent.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: drummer120 on April 09, 2009, 07:18:46 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: whitewave on April 09, 2009, 09:10:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a bonotheist.
And thus, it's no secret at all that if God would send his angels, it'd be magnificent.
What would you say if I said?  "But he has already!  Everyone around you is an 'angel' and isn't magnificent?!
I do beleive in God, or a higher being, etc.  Faith waivers, as it should, because it only makes us stronger.
Someone else was talking about science vs religion---IMO Science should not be seperate from religion because it helps us to understand many things. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 09, 2009, 10:29:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a bonotheist.
And thus, it's no secret at all that if God would send his angels, it'd be magnificent.
What would you say if I said?  "But he has already!  Everyone around you is an 'angel' and isn't magnificent?!
I do beleive in God, or a higher being, etc.  Faith waivers, as it should, because it only makes us stronger.
Someone else was talking about science vs religion---IMO Science should not be seperate from religion because it helps us to understand many things. 

Wow whitewave you missed that one by light years.  ::)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 12, 2009, 11:42:09 PM
Happy (Belated) Easter, everyone.

So...Where were we?

EDIT: A number of questions and comments were put forth, so I'll do my best to reply to them in order.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 13, 2009, 12:05:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the, "One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced," well you see that's a generalization isn't it?It presumes, the standards of evidence are lacking on the side of faith, and that doubt is absent where faith exists, and that is simply not the case either, JuniorEmblem.

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion and to hopefully get us off the topic of vocabulary.

What is the evidence that would sway any reasonable person that God exists?

I'm not aware of any mainstream religion that doesn't have faith at it's core to be the answer when factual evidence runs short. Logic dictates that the negative can not be proven so the burden of proof falls on the other side of the argument.

I contend that if that evidence existed, the number of agnostics and atheists in the world would fall to almost none upon presentation of said evidence. I'll ask for comment on this statement from those on that side of the fence. If undeniable evidence was presented that God existed, would you then believe in God? I'm not asking for buy-in to any particular religion, just acceptance of that fact if this happened.

As a side note, everyone please lose the tone of superiority about the position you (generic) side with that has recently been taken up in this thread.

Re: Reply#237

 I have no problem addressing the questions above, but I'm going to preface that in doing so, there is probably going to be some need of specific technical language at times.
 I say this by way of answering your request in Reply #230 to consider this audience, and to leave academic language out of the exchange.
 My hand to my heart, I honestly thought that my writing was clear and lax in terms of technicalities.

 If these conditions are agreeable, I'd be happy to begin.

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 13, 2009, 01:16:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 So your suggestion is to go to another forum, or take it up privately, despite the fact that the initial and public statement in question is yours?


1 - Umm, no, the springboard to this tangent was "what did Jesus say you disagree with", or words to that effect.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 The question I asked concerning your assertion about the resurrection is perfectly valid in this thread where you made the statement calling it ludicrous. There's no need for you to sum up a position that's obviously garden variety humanist,materialist and atheist. I wasn't interested in your little creed.


2 - You asked a question, I answered it, the fact that it wasn't quite what you were looking for is frankly no concern of mine.

Here's a clue - If you think you may not like an answer to a question, think twice about asking it.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 What I was interested in, is your specific understanding about the social and political circumstances of that time that give you reason to conclude that what Christ said and did was ludicrous. That would entail an answer that considers a number of factors entailed with Roman law and Jewish custom.

Re: Reply #238

 JE, If you go back to my post (Reply #234) you'll see I highlighted a few of your comments (Reply #229) to me. I've done the same thing in this reply and I've numbered a few so that anyone jumping on the thread would know what the back and forth actually is. And I've done that to fill in the jumps in context from thread to thread which seems to have happened a few times here.

1)If you go back, and take a few seconds to read my reply  -- and yours -- you'll see that your response is actually an answer to another question/comment other than the one I asked. In your Reply #229, you actually advise me, to find another forum or take it up privately with you. Precisely the comment I wrote back with the added question.

 So unless you're in the habit of answering questions you wish were asked, your answer, in no way, addresses the question asked.

 +++

2) You actually didn't answer the question asked and as far as being dissatisfied with the answer, can you really blame me? I mean...It's just a little ironic (and disappointing) that a participant who actually uses a personal photo that could be interpreted as a poster child for atheism, on a site about a band whose entire ethos and inspiration is contrary, is squeamish about being held accountable for a comment that Dawkins would say and has said...Isn't it?


 

And as for a private exchange...Why didn't you privately convey your personal opinion on the resurrection during Lent in the first place?


 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 13, 2009, 03:13:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So other than posing as the resident @U2 grammarian what exactly is your interest in the discussion?

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering the question, "Why don't I believe that Jesus performed miracles."

Here's my basic thought on this; I'll start at the beginning.

I am of the belief that there are a lot of false claims out there, and that in order to pick out which claims are true and which are false, we must choose a good standard of evidence to measure each claim by.

I don't necessarily think that it needs to be a consistent standard from claim to claim. This might surprise some people, but think of it this way: if I tell you that there is an empty can of Coke on my desk, would my written word be enough? In the strictest sense, no. I might be lying. But, practically-speaking, why would I lie about such a thing? What would I gain from it? It seems like a silly thing to lie about. And anyway, what would be the consequence if you were to believe me, and it turns out that I was lying? Nothing, really. And what would be the consequence if you doubted me, and it turns out that I was telling the truth? Again, nothing.

So when deciding on the proper standard of evidence for a claim, you have to ask these sorts of questions. Then you weigh the pros and cons and you make the rational choice.

So, the claim in question now is: Jesus performed miracles (healing the sick, the blind, raising people from the dead, etc.).

What do we know about this claim? What evidence is available?

Well, almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. The earliest gospel, Mark, was almost certainly written sometime after 70 A.D., after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke borrowed many verses from Mark, so we know that they were written even later. John was written sometime in the 90's, most probably.


Of all of the gospel authors, Matthew is the only one who could have been an eyewitness (it is almost universally accepted by scholars that the authors of the other gospels, even John, were not eyewitnesses). Even then, there are many reasons to doubt that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness, including the fact that it borrows so heavily from a gospel written by a non-eyewitness (The Gospel According to Mark).

Josephus also wrote a great deal about Jesus, but we know he wasn't an eyewitness because he was born after Jesus died.

So we have all of these writings, none of which are primary sources. They're all likely compilations of stories that have been passed around, orally in some cases, for decades before being compiled into these narratives we call the Gospels.

We also know that Jesus lived in a time when there were many, many people who claimed to be healers and miracle-workers.

So, with this evidence summed up, we have to ask ourselves: is it enough? Does this evidence suffice to justify the belief that Jesus performed miracles?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is enough. What that would basically mean is that we also have to accept all other ancient, second-hand, written accounts of people performing miracles. Same situation; same standard of evidence. And obviously, the logical conclusion of this is that we'll end up believing a whole bunch of things that a) aren't true, and b) aren't even consistent with one another.

Let's say instead, for the sake of argument, that the evidence isn't enough. The result of that is that we reject this claim and all similar claims. We may end up rejecting some claims that are actually true, but this seems, practically, much less problematic than the alternative.

 Thanks for particpating, CDProp.

 I've highlighted a portion of your response to answer in short the question of available evidence, but will reply to the rest of your post later today.

 6 Degrees From U2...

 Stored in the Chester Beatty Library on the grounds of Dublin Castle are some of the oldest manuscript(s) of the earliest known example(s) of Christian oral tradition written by St.Paul to the Corinthinians as a reminder of the exclusive faith that was handed to him after his own conversion a few years earlier.

 The summary itself is dated by mainstream scholars to within months of Christ's death.

 Within the summary, a number of concepts were held in common Christian usage:
 
 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried, raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and appeared to St. Peter first and then to "The Twelve."

This Christian summary was being transferred by methods of Jewish oral tradition -- perfected for thousands of years -- as accepted authoritative teaching, before 35 AD.

   

 
 
 

 

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 13, 2009, 07:39:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 So your suggestion is to go to another forum, or take it up privately, despite the fact that the initial and public statement in question is yours?


1 - Umm, no, the springboard to this tangent was "what did Jesus say you disagree with", or words to that effect.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 The question I asked concerning your assertion about the resurrection is perfectly valid in this thread where you made the statement calling it ludicrous. There's no need for you to sum up a position that's obviously garden variety humanist,materialist and atheist. I wasn't interested in your little creed.


2 - You asked a question, I answered it, the fact that it wasn't quite what you were looking for is frankly no concern of mine.

Here's a clue - If you think you may not like an answer to a question, think twice about asking it.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 What I was interested in, is your specific understanding about the social and political circumstances of that time that give you reason to conclude that what Christ said and did was ludicrous. That would entail an answer that considers a number of factors entailed with Roman law and Jewish custom.

Re: Reply #238

 JE, If you go back to my post (Reply #234)




Learn to use the quote function. Jumping pages back and forth to see who said what is too annoying for what it appears I'll get out of this exchange.

Ctrl-C and Ctrl-v are your friends.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And as for a private exchange...Why didn't you privately convey your personal opinion on the resurrection during Lent in the first place?


Because you didn't ask me to ?





Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 13, 2009, 08:05:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I mean...It's just a little ironic (and disappointing) that a participant who actually uses a personal photo that could be interpreted as a poster child for atheism, on a site about a band whose entire ethos and inspiration is contrary, is squeamish about being held accountable for a comment that Dawkins would say and has said...Isn't it?


It would be if I was........

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 13, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I mean...It's just a little ironic (and disappointing) that a participant who actually uses a personal photo that could be interpreted as a poster child for atheism, on a site about a band whose entire ethos and inspiration is contrary, is squeamish about being held accountable for a comment that Dawkins would say and has said...Isn't it?


It would be if I was........



 So you're not really a zealous atheist, then? You just play one on @U2?

  +++

 On private exchange from your post above...To spell it out for you, the question asked is to point out how obviously ridiculous it is for you to demand anyone take an exchange into private, when you've done so much to fuel the conversation publicly, yourself.

 

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 13, 2009, 01:20:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the, "One side has unwavering faith, the other has high standards for being convinced," well you see that's a generalization isn't it?It presumes, the standards of evidence are lacking on the side of faith, and that doubt is absent where faith exists, and that is simply not the case either, JuniorEmblem.

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion and to hopefully get us off the topic of vocabulary.

What is the evidence that would sway any reasonable person that God exists?

I'm not aware of any mainstream religion that doesn't have faith at it's core to be the answer when factual evidence runs short. Logic dictates that the negative can not be proven so the burden of proof falls on the other side of the argument.

I contend that if that evidence existed, the number of agnostics and atheists in the world would fall to almost none upon presentation of said evidence. I'll ask for comment on this statement from those on that side of the fence. If undeniable evidence was presented that God existed, would you then believe in God? I'm not asking for buy-in to any particular religion, just acceptance of that fact if this happened.

As a side note, everyone please lose the tone of superiority about the position you (generic) side with that has recently been taken up in this thread.

Re: Reply#237

 I have no problem addressing the questions above, but I'm going to preface that in doing so, there is probably going to be some need of specific technical language at times.
 I say this by way of answering your request in Reply #230 to consider this audience, and to leave academic language out of the exchange.
 My hand to my heart, I honestly thought that my writing was clear and lax in terms of technicalities.

 If these conditions are agreeable, I'd be happy to begin.

 


<bump>
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 13, 2009, 01:53:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I mean...It's just a little ironic (and disappointing) that a participant who actually uses a personal photo that could be interpreted as a poster child for atheism, on a site about a band whose entire ethos and inspiration is contrary, is squeamish about being held accountable for a comment that Dawkins would say and has said...Isn't it?


It would be if I was........



 So you're not really a zealous atheist, then? You just play one on @U2?



"Zealous" ? No.

Confident, secure, yes. I don't proselytize if that's what you mean.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: countrygirl on April 14, 2009, 05:40:02 AM
I am a Believer

I do think that being a believer affects how I listen to U2.  When I first heard Magnificant, I thought "this is all about God" I know that other people would not feel that way, but it's how I feel, I can hear them singing about God in a lot of their songs. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 07:17:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When I first heard Magnificant, I thought "this is all about God" I know that other people would not feel that way

I'm not a believer, but had the same thought. See, it's really not a prerequisite......

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 14, 2009, 07:31:14 AM
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christianity and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 09:22:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't see him point to the heavens when he fumbles the ball and the other guy runs it back for a TD

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 14, 2009, 03:27:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD

Good point - I do get the impression sometimes, from some arguments, that a god is really just a big, invisible four-leaf clover in the sky.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 14, 2009, 04:17:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD

Good point - I do get the impression sometimes, from some arguments, that a god is really just a big, invisible four-leaf clover in the sky.

Quite - everyone, take responsibility for your own actions. Make things happen for yourself and stop using 'God' to justify why you do things. Or why you don't...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 14, 2009, 04:59:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 05:03:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao

Looks to me like you just said;

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 14, 2009, 05:55:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao

Looks to me like you just said;

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god



Looks to me like I just didn't say that.


Looks to me like I discredited the idea that if God loves us bad things would not happen in the world.

2 seperate arguments, one I was not attempting to explain.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao

Looks to me like you just said;

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god



Looks to me like I just didn't say that.


Looks to me like I discredited the idea that if God loves us bad things would not happen in the world.

2 seperate arguments, one I was not attempting to explain.

Seems to me like you're saying everything that happens in the world is due to the actions of man, but yet if you're a believer like all the others I know you pray to god and thank him when good things happen in your life when you feel your prayers are answered, or no  ?

Like it's man's fault cancer exists..........



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 14, 2009, 06:17:06 PM
the old testament god is evil, satan's alter ego
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 06:20:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
the old testament god is evil, satan's alter ego

Wasn't it god commanding abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty ?

how many nut jobs have been locked away because they committed a crime 'god' told them to do ?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 14, 2009, 06:31:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
the old testament god is evil, satan's alter ego

Wasn't it god commanding abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty ?

how many nut jobs have been locked away because they committed a crime 'god' told them to do ?



the "loving god" wouldn't f*** with people and destroy their lives...we are a battle ground
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 14, 2009, 06:39:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
the old testament god is evil, satan's alter ego

Wasn't it god commanding abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty ?

how many nut jobs have been locked away because they committed a crime 'god' told them to do ?



the "loving god" wouldn't f*** with people and destroy their lives...we are a battle ground

so are you saying asking abraham to give up his only son IS the work of a 'loving god' ?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Lemon-Twist on April 14, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
I'm beginning to believe ;)

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 14, 2009, 07:18:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stuff

So let's say that this is totally true. How does it change my central point? If we believe these early manuscripts, then we must believe any and all manuscripts from supposed eyewitnesses of miracle workers. Doesn't that sound like a huge problem?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 15, 2009, 12:19:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao

Looks to me like you just said;

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god



Looks to me like I just didn't say that.


Looks to me like I discredited the idea that if God loves us bad things would not happen in the world.

2 seperate arguments, one I was not attempting to explain.

Seems to me like you're saying everything that happens in the world is due to the actions of man, but yet if you're a believer like all the others I know you pray to god and thank him when good things happen in your life when you feel your prayers are answered, or no  ?

Like it's man's fault cancer exists..........


Lol when my football team wins - I don't thank God.
When I get an A+ in a biology assignment, I don't thank God.
When I get tickets to seven U2 concerts on their upcoming world tour I thank God. (Joking) - I don't thank God for this either.
All great things that happen in my life.

Junioremblem, I will tell you when I thank God.

When I meet a woman who was paralysed her entire life, suffered seizures and had a speech impediment, then during communion miraculously got up and walked and has decided to join a religious order, that is when I thank God.

When I meet a woman whose brother died in a car accident because of a drunk driver, and in her suffering rather than turn from God, found him. That is when I thank God.

When I see a woman like mother theresa, at the age of 86 still going out and helping the ones in this world with a quality of life we can barely imagine, all in the name of Christ, that is when I thank God.

When I meet missionaries from Zimbabwe who tell me of the atrocities there, and then explain that their faith is so much deeper, profound and intense as a community than what we experience here in Australia, a first world country. Where children are dying of starvation, aids etc... that these people pull together, become closer in Christ and represent a hope and liveliness that we cannot comprehend - that is when I thank God.

But of course Junior emblem, in all of these true stories (I could give you many more), the people are obviously just 'barking loons' like you so fittingly labelled Jesus Christ - who is undoubtebly the most influential man in history, the pety carpenter who has created a following of billions even after he was dead.

You talk like you know all believers, you assume you can speak on behalf for the believers in this world, because what you have experienced, and the Christians, Muslims, Jews you have come into contact with tell the entire story.

You say a God that loves us could not let the above attrocities occur.
I say I see God in the way these experiences transform lives and bring people closer to him.
I say that your idea of God is conjured in your own mind to suit your own conclusions. Nowhere has God said 'I will stop all suffering in this world, I will make everyone's pain go away, I will click my fingers and make everything better' - far from this.

What he does say, is, Turn your lives to Christ, and watch your lives be transformed. Watch your world be turned upside down, and you will witness my glory and mercy, you will be truly saved and understand your purpose.

So far, God has a 100% track record. When people do that ^, their lives ar changed for the better.


Alas, I don't think mere words could ever convince an athiest. But I know I needed to write this, more for my own sake than yours.
I pray you find peace and prosperity.
God Bless.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: j2736 (i'm not a boy ! ) on April 15, 2009, 02:02:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's suppose there is indeed an all-knowing and all-powerfull God as Christiniaty and other religions believe.

How can you expect to find mercy in a God that allows the most horrible atrocities, including the molesting, torture and murder of children?

I've heard the counter-arguments a million times, see, here's how it works:

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god

It's the NFL player who points to the heavens when he scores a TD, you don't se ehim poin tot the heavens when he fumbles the ball an dth eother guy runs it back for a TD



Thanks for answering on behalf of all believers there junioremblem, really appreciate it.

Now to answer the original question...
From the best I can perceive, the poster is asking - if God loves us, why does horrible stuff happen to people. They have used children in this instance, but can be applied to anyone.

I completely understand that people find it extremely hard to believe that God lets this stuff happen, if he apparently loves all of us. And this is completely cool, it seems quite a natural thought process.

However, the God we believe in is not the one you believe in order to be 'God', has to exist.

I challenge you to find a place in the bible where God says 'Oh humans, I will NOT let bad things happen to anyone...'
What I believe you will find is God, represented most of the time by Christ, saying 'don't leave it up to God to fix this stuff - it is your role and call in life to fix these atrocities yourself'. You will find that he commands US to fix the problems of the world, not to leave it up to him. Whether you like this answer or not is completely up to you, of course you will find some rebuttal against it... But whether you like it or not, it is true... although God could make the world perfect, like it once was, he does not promise he will, he commands us to try and get it as close as possible. If this does not sit well with you and only gives you more apparent leverage to discredit the existence of God then you can think what you want. But believe me, being of the mindset: "God Loves us --> People who love others dont let bad things happen to them --> Bad things do happen in this world --> therefore God doesn't exist" very may well help you to not believe in God. But a God that completely prevents all evil and suffering in the world is not one of our pre-requisites - because nowhere in the bible does God say he is this kind of a God. It is always - you go out, feed the hungry, heal the sick, be there for the broken hearted, you go out and speak out against the injustices of the world, not me, this is why I created you, this is the purpose i give you, it is your call in life to do this.

Ciao

Looks to me like you just said;

Bad things happen - Man's free will
Good things happen - Thank god



Looks to me like I just didn't say that.


Looks to me like I discredited the idea that if God loves us bad things would not happen in the world.

2 seperate arguments, one I was not attempting to explain.

Seems to me like you're saying everything that happens in the world is due to the actions of man, but yet if you're a believer like all the others I know you pray to god and thank him when good things happen in your life when you feel your prayers are answered, or no  ?

Like it's man's fault cancer exists..........


Lol when my football team wins - I don't thank God.
When I get an A+ in a biology assignment, I don't thank God.
When I get tickets to seven U2 concerts on their upcoming world tour I thank God. (Joking) - I don't thank God for this either.
All great things that happen in my life.

Junioremblem, I will tell you when I thank God.

When I meet a woman who was paralysed her entire life, suffered seizures and had a speech impediment, then during communion miraculously got up and walked and has decided to join a religious order, that is when I thank God.

When I meet a woman whose brother died in a car accident because of a drunk driver, and in her suffering rather than turn from God, found him. That is when I thank God.

When I see a woman like mother theresa, at the age of 86 still going out and helping the ones in this world with a quality of life we can barely imagine, all in the name of Christ, that is when I thank God.

When I meet missionaries from Zimbabwe who tell me of the atrocities there, and then explain that their faith is so much deeper, profound and intense as a community than what we experience here in Australia, a first world country. Where children are dying of starvation, aids etc... that these people pull together, become closer in Christ and represent a hope and liveliness that we cannot comprehend - that is when I thank God.

But of course Junior emblem, in all of these true stories (I could give you many more), the people are obviously just 'barking loons' like you so fittingly labelled Jesus Christ - who is undoubtebly the most influential man in history, the pety carpenter who has created a following of billions even after he was dead.

You talk like you know all believers, you assume you can speak on behalf for the believers in this world, because what you have experienced, and the Christians, Muslims, Jews you have come into contact with tell the entire story.

You say a God that loves us could not let the above attrocities occur.
I say I see God in the way these experiences transform lives and bring people closer to him.
I say that your idea of God is conjured in your own mind to suit your own conclusions. Nowhere has God said 'I will stop all suffering in this world, I will make everyone's pain go away, I will click my fingers and make everything better' - far from this.

What he does say, is, Turn your lives to Christ, and watch your lives be transformed. Watch your world be turned upside down, and you will witness my glory and mercy, you will be truly saved and understand your purpose.

So far, God has a 100% track record. When people do that ^, their lives ar changed for the better.


Alas, I don't think mere words could ever convince an athiest. But I know I needed to write this, more for my own sake than yours.
I pray you find peace and prosperity.
God Bless.

AMEN!

i wish i could explain as good as you do, but, i can't.  i leave it all up to you.

Jesus Christ is not the one who causes all the atrocities, sufferings, hunger in this world. it is man's hardness of heart that causes all of these.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: liam02 on April 15, 2009, 02:45:49 AM
God believes in me ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 15, 2009, 03:03:33 AM
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does God let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 15, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does got let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

All religions are inventions of humans in an effort to externalise an ego man can't accept or come to terms with. Human life is limited and meaningless.

Obviously religions have also been hijacked in an effort to repress, oppress and control people. As the guy above rightly pointed out, where is God when a child is brutally raped and murdered? Or when someone decided to fly large planes into tall buildings? Oh sorry, God was on the side of the pilots - silly me.

Before anyone says this is a depressing view, I find it quite liberating.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 15, 2009, 04:38:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does God let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

you say my answers aren't satisfying, yet it does not seem you are understanding what I am saying.

again... in regards to bad stuff happening in the world, I ask you - where does it say in the bible (which is what forms (or partly forms) the Christian view of God) that God will not let this bad stuff happen. If it was written somewhere in the bible, or a core belief of my faith, that 'God will not ALLOW people to be murdered, children be raped, junkies to OD' - then obviously our faith would be wrong - because these things are happening. But I am not made uneasy in my faith by these things happening, because the God i believe in has made no promises to me, my family or anyone else in the world to stop this kind of stuff from happening.

If this doesnt sit well with you, then that is fine, and if this then logically proves to you that God does not exist, then again fine. But are you able to understand that the God I believe in, and the billions of others in this world believe in, does not have a prerequisite stapled to him that he will fix everyone's problems.

The whole 'bad things happen in the world - therefore God doesn't exist' argument is pointless. You are trying to discredit a God we don't believe in which is just trivial. If we were claiming that our God does not let bad things happen, or that our God promised us bad things would not happen, THEN you would have an argument. But it is you, the ones who don't believe in God that paint a picture of who you 'expect' him to be, based on your own ideas. WHICH IS FINE. But when you use this argument against Christians who don't believe in the God you are trying to discredit... then how are we going to get anywhere?

God is all powerful, all knowing. He could make the world to be a tropical paradise with rainbows and lollipops in an INSTANT.

Does he? No.
Do I know why? Well there are alot of theological arguments as to why, however arguing them with someone who doesn't believe in God would be even more pointless than this entire argument.

And for the record.

Yes God Loves us. The greatest expression of his love is a jew, by the name of Jeshua, who did his thing 2000 years ago and has since caused the largest following of people in the history of the human race.

Yet at the same time...
God does not directly/physically interfere with babies getting raped, children getting murdered, people dying of cancer and a million other things (most of the time). I don't think you will find any christian who disagrees with this statement, nor finds it uneasy. If God does exist (which we do believe) then it is pretty darn obvious he doesn't interfere. But again, this goes back to my main point, and does not cause me to waiver - God never promised he would make things all rosy. If he did and then didn't follow through, then there is a problem. But as i have said countless times, he never made this promise.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 15, 2009, 04:45:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does got let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

All religions are inventions of humans in an effort to externalise an ego man can't accept or come to terms with. Human life is limited and meaningless.

Obviously religions have also been hijacked in an effort to repress, oppress and control people. As the guy above rightly pointed out, where is God when a child is brutally raped and murdered? Or when someone decided to fly large planes into tall buildings? Oh sorry, God was on the side of the pilots - silly me.

Before anyone says this is a depressing view, I find it quite liberating.


I'm not exactly a believer in God, I'd say I'm agnostic. But it's a bit out of order to be so disparaging on religion, since some people's lives evolve around their faith. Believers would argue that God lets us make our own choices, and that those who commit evil do so because they don't allow God into their hearts. Believing in God doesn't make you a stupid person, and you shouldn't look down on those who do. Some people have been through extradordinary personal experiences, miracles that convince them in the existance of God. I haven't really, which is probably why I'm agnostic.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 15, 2009, 05:11:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does got let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

All religions are inventions of humans in an effort to externalise an ego man can't accept or come to terms with. Human life is limited and meaningless.

Obviously religions have also been hijacked in an effort to repress, oppress and control people. As the guy above rightly pointed out, where is God when a child is brutally raped and murdered? Or when someone decided to fly large planes into tall buildings? Oh sorry, God was on the side of the pilots - silly me.

Before anyone says this is a depressing view, I find it quite liberating.


I'm not exactly a believer in God, I'd say I'm agnostic. But it's a bit out of order to be so disparaging on religion, since some people's lives evolve around their faith. Believers would argue that God lets us make our own choices, and that those who commit evil do so because they don't allow God into their hearts. Believing in God doesn't make you a stupid person, and you shouldn't look down on those who do. Some people have been through extradordinary personal experiences, miracles that convince them in the existance of God. I haven't really, which is probably why I'm agnostic.

Well, given that religion has been such a destructive force over the course of human history, I think it should come in for its fair share of battering.

I'm not ridiculing people's beliefs, or judging them (any more than most religions judge others).

Equally, I'm not saying people who have religious beliefs are stupid - obviously.

But, the above is how I feel about the roots of religious belief, and the state of our species on this planet.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Lemon-Twist on April 15, 2009, 05:31:21 AM
What I say is ,they changed the whole Calendar for one man coming to earth and changing the world,so they must be some element of truth in it all
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 15, 2009, 05:36:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does God let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

you say my answers aren't satisfying, yet it does not seem you are understanding what I am saying.

again... in regards to bad stuff happening in the world, I ask you - where does it say in the bible (which is what forms (or partly forms) the Christian view of God) that God will not let this bad stuff happen. If it was written somewhere in the bible, or a core belief of my faith, that 'God will not ALLOW people to be murdered, children be raped, junkies to OD' - then obviously our faith would be wrong - because these things are happening. But I am not made uneasy in my faith by these things happening, because the God i believe in has made no promises to me, my family or anyone else in the world to stop this kind of stuff from happening.

If this doesnt sit well with you, then that is fine, and if this then logically proves to you that God does not exist, then again fine. But are you able to understand that the God I believe in, and the billions of others in this world believe in, does not have a prerequisite stapled to him that he will fix everyone's problems.

The whole 'bad things happen in the world - therefore God doesn't exist' argument is pointless. You are trying to discredit a God we don't believe in which is just trivial. If we were claiming that our God does not let bad things happen, or that our God promised us bad things would not happen, THEN you would have an argument. But it is you, the ones who don't believe in God that paint a picture of who you 'expect' him to be, based on your own ideas. WHICH IS FINE. But when you use this argument against Christians who don't believe in the God you are trying to discredit... then how are we going to get anywhere?

God is all powerful, all knowing. He could make the world to be a tropical paradise with rainbows and lollipops in an INSTANT.

Does he? No.
Do I know why? Well there are alot of theological arguments as to why, however arguing them with someone who doesn't believe in God would be even more pointless than this entire argument.

And for the record.

Yes God Loves us. The greatest expression of his love is a jew, by the name of Jeshua, who did his thing 2000 years ago and has since caused the largest following of people in the history of the human race.

Yet at the same time...
God does not directly/physically interfere with babies getting raped, children getting murdered, people dying of cancer and a million other things (most of the time). I don't think you will find any christian who disagrees with this statement, nor finds it uneasy. If God does exist (which we do believe) then it is pretty darn obvious he doesn't interfere. But again, this goes back to my main point, and does not cause me to waiver - God never promised he would make things all rosy. If he did and then didn't follow through, then there is a problem. But as i have said countless times, he never made this promise.




Nothing can really  prove that God does not exist. Just as nothing can really prove that he exists. I'm not trying here to descredit God or believers - I'm just interested in understanding how believers concile their faith with the world as it is.

To answer your question: "where does it say in the bible (which is what forms (or partly forms) the Christian view of God) that God will not let this bad stuff happen". Nowhere, as far as I know, even though I haven't read most of the bible. Please realise that I'm not saying your faith is wrong. And even if it were all just an illusion, it could still be defended on the basis that apparently it has a positive impact on the lives of many people. But these are not the issues I was trying to debate here...

Let me try to clarify things, then. Given that God allows the most atrocious things to happen on earth, what makes you believe that in the afterlife he will be completely fair and merciful?

There are also other questions I would like to ask, but perhaps it's better not to deal with everything at once.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 15, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for your answers, everybody.

But they're not totally satisfying, as you probably will admit yourselves if you re-read them.

Many horrible things that happen in this world are in no way man's fault. What about natural catastrophies, for example?

What chance had little children who were murdered to get closer to God, be transformed and witness his glory and mercy?

Does God let atrocities happen so that he can make a point?

Cancer. Leukemia. insert-horrible-fatal-debilitating-disease-here.

Why ?

Not man made. Not a choice.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 15, 2009, 09:07:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I say is ,they changed the whole Calendar for one man coming to earth and changing the world,so they must be some element of truth in it all

Why ?

The Calendar is Lunar movement based you know.

Dec 25th was the Winter Solstice, a pagan festival, taken over by the most powerful political force at the time (the church) to make it a christian festival instead. This is not wack-job Dan Brown rhetoric, this is acknowledged even by mnainline Christians (I know 'cos I heard him say it with my own ears) like this guy (http://tinyurl.com/5wgs45).

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 15, 2009, 10:50:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I say is ,they changed the whole Calendar for one man coming to earth and changing the world,so they must be some element of truth in it all

Why ?

The Calendar is Lunar movement based you know.

Dec 25th was the Winter Solstice, a pagan festival, taken over by the most powerful political force at the time (the church) to make it a christian festival instead. This is not wack-job Dan Brown rhetoric, this is acknowledged even by mnainline Christians (I know 'cos I heard him say it with my own ears) like this guy (http://tinyurl.com/5wgs45).



christians need to learn about the basis of their holy days.  Christmas and easter are ancient sun (Son) worship holidays that were celebrated by sumerians, babylonians, greeks, romans, pagans...those dates were adopted by the Church (the Roman Empire) to make lure in people who were part of religions/cults that celebrated those days.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 15, 2009, 10:58:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I say is ,they changed the whole Calendar for one man coming to earth and changing the world,so they must be some element of truth in it all

Why ?

The Calendar is Lunar movement based you know.

Dec 25th was the Winter Solstice, a pagan festival, taken over by the most powerful political force at the time (the church) to make it a christian festival instead. This is not wack-job Dan Brown rhetoric, this is acknowledged even by mnainline Christians (I know 'cos I heard him say it with my own ears) like this guy (http://tinyurl.com/5wgs45).



christians need to learn about the basis of their holy days.  Christmas and easter are ancient sun (Son) worship holidays that were celebrated by sumerians, babylonians, greeks, romans, pagans...those dates were adopted by the Church (the Roman Empire) to make lure in people who were part of religions/cults that celebrated those days.

Superb - someone coming from an educated viewpoint... (I'm not being sarcastic)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Lemon-Twist on April 15, 2009, 10:58:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I say is ,they changed the whole Calendar for one man coming to earth and changing the world,so they must be some element of truth in it all

Why ?

The Calendar is Lunar movement based you know.

Dec 25th was the Winter Solstice, a pagan festival, taken over by the most powerful political force at the time (the church) to make it a christian festival instead. This is not wack-job Dan Brown rhetoric, this is acknowledged even by mnainline Christians (I know 'cos I heard him say it with my own ears) like this guy (http://tinyurl.com/5wgs45).



christians need to learn about the basis of their holy days.  Christmas and easter are ancient sun (Son) worship holidays that were celebrated by sumerians, babylonians, greeks, romans, pagans...those dates were adopted by the Church (the Roman Empire) to make lure in people who were part of religions/cults that celebrated those days.

I mean A/d(Anno Domini) and b/c(Before christ) etc, like it is 2009 years ago jesus was supposed to have been born
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 15, 2009, 01:54:35 PM
the calendar was changed by a monk because he didn't want the commemoration an emperor who persecuted Christians.  Jesus is considered by those who believe in his existence to have been born before 1 AD...make that 1 CE (common era).  Since the BC and AD calendar distinctions (which you take as a sign there is truth in the story) are no longer used and have been replaced with the more accurate BCE and CE, does that mean that the story is no longer true?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 16, 2009, 03:23:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let me try to clarify things, then. Given that God allows the most atrocious things to happen on earth, what makes you believe that in the afterlife he will be completely fair and merciful?


So, are there any believers on this site that would like to answer my question? I realise that this is not an easy question in its implications and I understand that many of you may not feel confortable in discussing this. So, if you don't want to continue, there's no problem.

But I really would like to understand your side. What makes believers able to believe? I can perfectly understand the need to believe, but the jump of faith that seems to be involved in going from this need to the actual belief is what puzzles me...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 16, 2009, 03:41:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let me try to clarify things, then. Given that God allows the most atrocious things to happen on earth, what makes you believe that in the afterlife he will be completely fair and merciful?


So, are there any believers on this site that would like to answer my question? I realise that this is not an easy question in its implications and I understand that many of you may not feel confortable in discussing this. So, if you don't want to continue, there's no problem.

But I really would like to understand your side. What makes believers able to believe? I can perfectly understand the need to believe, but the jump of faith that seems to be involved in going from this need to the actual belief is what puzzles me...

I'd be glad to -- and will -- I just have to address some earlier exchanges before I do though.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 16, 2009, 05:37:11 AM
What makes me believe?

Firstly, when I look at the sophistication of the human body or all that is natural in this world and I ask myself 'so this all happened by accident right?' or 'did we really all just crawl out of a swamp?', I struggle to accept that concept. Secondly, I have the same disbelieving response to the Big Bang Theory as atheists have to Creation. They may ask "who made God", but I want to know where did all of the "ingredients" for this universe come from? How could they just exist and how can such a chaotic event produce order and life?

Most importantly though, my faith comes from accepting that Jesus is the Son of God. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a set of wonderful fairy tales. The Roman Empire existed, Jerusalem still exists and there are enough eye-witness accounts to confirm that Jesus existed. There are many historical references to him outside of the Bible. As our minister so succinctly put it, that means there are only 3 possible explanations for who He was: Jesus was either (1) a liar, (2) a lunatic, or (3) Lord. If He was lying about being the Son of God or deluded into thinking that he was the Son of God, He would not have been able to heal the sick, resurrect the dead, walk on water or perform other miracles. Had He not come back to life, He would have been a liar or lunatic. That means he can only be Lord.

If you are sceptical about the reliablity of the New Testament accounts, remember that just about every apostle was persecuted and put to death for his faith, but none recanted their belief or their account of His life. Ask yourself, if you were facing an agonising and painful death would you keep spreading the lie? In all seriousness, would you be prepared to argue that U2 is the greatest band ever, even if it would cost you your own life and the lives of those near and dear to you? 

Hopefully, that gives you and others an insight into why I believe what I believe.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 16, 2009, 05:45:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stuff

So let's say that this is totally true. How does it change my central point? If we believe these early manuscripts, then we must believe any and all manuscripts from supposed eyewitnesses of miracle workers. Doesn't that sound like a huge problem?

 It's not a problem at all given the complexity and diligence with which The Early Church and beyond has maintained it's deposit of faith through erroneous assertions in it's history.

 Taking the type of prudent approach you imply is precisely the type of caution that has been prescribed in the Judeo-Christian traditions. As for personal belief - which is inherently individualistic given that we are speaking about different worldviews-- I make no pretense as to know how your level of confidence would change, if at all, when confronted with sufficient evidence.

You may believe and feel what you choose to concerning qualifications of evidence, but I assure you, in history and in literature and in archaeology there are consistent, fixed, institutional standards that must be met in order that a thing may receive authentication as to it's historicity.

 What I can speak to is what stands as your advertised standards of evidence, namely a standard of qualifications based on a number of questions that demand answers based on direct personal experience. So if for you, the standard of question is your own personal experience, then nothing in this exchange will help. But that will also be the same for anything and everything else not directly related to your personal experience, including numerous simultaneous events, and any history you haven't directly experienced.

 Necessarily, the means of investigation in historical science, do not adhere to the science of repeatable experimentation because the events of the past, such as the Big Bang are non-repeatable.  But the same criteria holds true in that we can gain inferences from the available evidence at hand and conclude with certitude various claims.

 But, if you ascend to institutional standards of historical evidence, your questions will begin to take on a very different perspective, because the evidence demands different questions being asked. Similarly to your first assumption concerning the Gospels as earilest evidence, and their dates, or your incorrect apprehension that Christians number only 1.5 billion of the global population (Reply # 250), or your incorrect understanding of qualification of evidence demanded by Christians vs the standards demanded by atheists.

 Case in point, CDProp is this reply. If your standards for everything else requiring evidence are as accurate as your assumptions about Christianity and Christians, what does that say, firstly about your standards and secondly, mine -- which begs a third correction, in that it isn't the atheist in this case that is requiring a strict standard of proof but the "believer."

 When you ask the question in your reply (# 244) , "is it enough? Does this evidence suffice to justify the belief that Jesus performed miracles?" what you are asking entails a number of questions beyond the two you have assumed are enough, but the answer to the kind of questions you are asking would be, "no", because the "facts" you've mined are insufficient and incorrect.

 What you -- or anyone requires -- are starting points, definition of terms, not to mention a familiarity with the actual material, and as it pertains to the historicity of the authenticated documentation concerning Christ, there is no other person, or event or "book" as wildly scrutinized. And taking an a la carte, "all religions are myth" perspective is precisely the kind of overt prejudice, a person claiming to be objective does not want to take when the evidence from a purely historical context proves otherwise.

 It's unscientific isn't it?

 The Scriptural prescription has always been to use reason and test beyond mere words. The best example of which was evidence based, the impetus for faith, namely the historical event of The Resurrection.

 
 

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 16, 2009, 05:54:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
the calendar was changed by a monk because he didn't want the commemoration an emperor who persecuted Christians.  Jesus is considered by those who believe in his existence to have been born before 1 AD...make that 1 CE (common era).  Since the BC and AD calendar distinctions (which you take as a sign there is truth in the story) are no longer used and have been replaced with the more accurate BCE and CE, does that mean that the story is no longer true?

 Can you provide the context of the first use of  "Common Era" ? And curiously, aside from a change in the use by some, can you comment on the significance as to why the number hasn't been changed as well?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on April 16, 2009, 11:08:35 AM
Even if you don't believe in Santa Claus, somebody was putting presents under the tree. Or, someone was not. There is always a force at hand.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 16, 2009, 11:20:06 AM
ITM, I still think your posts are nigh unintelligible, but I'll do my best to reply anyway in the interest of moving the discussion forward.

For instance, I can't tell for sure, but it seems that you are accusing me of applying the standards of repeatable science to historical events, which I assure you I am not. It also seems that you are ascribing to me an atheistic "all religions are inherently myths" attitude, which I assure you I do not have (at least, not as an a priori assumption).

My main point is this. From an epistemic perspective, there are two realms of knowledge: the a priori and the a posteriori. Or, to put it another way, the Rational and the Empirical. Or, to put it another way, the Deductive and the Inductive/Abductive.

Now, without getting into too much detail about these two realms, it suffices to say that, in the second realm (the empirical, inductive, a posteriori realm), there is no such thing as proof. And this is the realm of science, history, religion, and pretty much everything else except for mathematics, formal logic, and semantics.

So, long-story-short, there is no such thing as absolute proof with the things we're talking about. Instead, we have to make practical short-cuts in our reasoning if we are to draw any conclusions at all about whether Jesus actually did perform miracles.

It's all about building a proper 'epistemic filter', i.e. a standard of evidence, to filter out the bologna, and to let the good facts pass through. Any filter is bound to be imperfect, because we have imperfect data and because we're imperfect beings. So, there will be some false positives (i.e., false things which we evaluate to be true) and false negatives (i.e., true things which we evaluate to be false).

And my basic point is, when deciding on a proper filter for any sort of claim, you have to be prudent, and understand the consequences of your filter (e.g., are you going to get too many false positives? too many false negatives? Will this filter, if accepted as 'good enough', compel you to accept things that can't be true, or multiple things that contradict one another?). In other words, you have to weigh the pros and cons of your filter.

You seem to understand that concept when you say, "Taking the type of prudent approach you imply is precisely the type of caution that has been prescribed in the Judeo-Christian traditions."

But didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."? That sounds to me like an endorsement of blind faith, rather than prudent caution.

You say, "You may believe and feel what you choose to concerning qualifications of evidence, but I assure you, in history and in literature and in archaeology there are consistent, fixed, institutional standards that must be met in order that a thing may receive authentication as to it's historicity."

But can you demonstrate that a significant amount of Biblical scholars actually vouch for the historicity of Christ's miracles? In other words, can you point to a significant segment (i.e., not 'fringe') of Biblical scholars who accept that Jesus performed miracles not on faith, but because they found the historical evidence to be sufficient? I seriously doubt it, but I'm all ears.

"It's not a problem at all given the complexity and diligence with which The Early Church and beyond has maintained it's deposit of faith through erroneous assertions in it's history."

What does this mean? What is a 'deposit of faith'? That's precisely the sort of lack of clarity that I'm talking about. The best I can glean from this sentence is that you believe there is something special about the way the early church was conducted (e.g., the records they kept, the way they were organized) that provides strong historical evidence that Jesus actually did perform these miracles. If so, what is that 'special something', specifically?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on April 16, 2009, 11:27:07 AM
You wrote that on your lunch break, huh?

There are a few misspellings. just kidding. i didn't check.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 16, 2009, 03:01:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ITM, I still think your posts are nigh unintelligible, but I'll do my best to reply anyway in the interest of moving the discussion forward.

For instance, I can't tell for sure, but it seems that you are accusing me of applying the standards of repeatable science to historical events, which I assure you I am not. It also seems that you are ascribing to me an atheistic "all religions are inherently myths" attitude, which I assure you I do not have (at least, not as an a priori assumption).

My main point is this. From an epistemic perspective, there are two realms of knowledge: the a priori and the a posteriori. Or, to put it another way, the Rational and the Empirical. Or, to put it another way, the Deductive and the Inductive/Abductive.

Now, without getting into too much detail about these two realms, it suffices to say that, in the second realm (the empirical, inductive, a posteriori realm), there is no such thing as proof. And this is the realm of science, history, religion, and pretty much everything else except for mathematics, formal logic, and semantics.

So, long-story-short, there is no such thing as absolute proof with the things we're talking about. Instead, we have to make practical short-cuts in our reasoning if we are to draw any conclusions at all about whether Jesus actually did perform miracles.

  In another post I elude to Ontology. I am referring and attempting to make plain, complex philosophical propositions without being technical. So when I use "direct experience" or "personal experience" in the informal critique of your substandard qualification for evidence -- as you've advertised -- I am inferring (Obviously -- for someone philosophically predisposed) those distinctions of knowledge.

 So the fact that you're sprinkling in a few basic philosophical definitions strikes me as rather odd, given your complaints and the opportunities you would have had to leap into a technical exchange.

+++

Quote
My main point is this. From an epistemic perspective, there are two realms of knowledge: the a priori and the a posteriori. Or, to put it another way, the Rational and the Empirical. Or, to put it another way, the Deductive and the Inductive/Abductive.

No, that's not your point -- and wasn't your stated position -- these are epistemological definitions thrown in to provide the appearance of an informed opinion. And oddly placed given your repeated call for clarity. How many people do you assume will be familiar with these definitions?

Quote
Now, without getting into too much detail about these two realms, it suffices to say that, in the second realm (the empirical, inductive, a posteriori realm), there is no such thing as proof. And this is the realm of science, history, religion, and pretty much everything else except for mathematics, formal logic, and semantics.

Again, you have an introduction that sets the stage as though you're imparting some unknown wisdom followed by an elementary explanation. I'm not certain what need there is here for this other than to provide the appearance of more intimate familiarity than the rest of your replies convey.

If you want to have a formal Ontological exchange, I'm more than prepared to do so. But you will be playing the nigh unintelligible card, repeatedly, so it may be in your interest and the thread's to remain as plain as possible and assume that philosophically speaking, that I don't need the quick Wikipedia philosophical once over.

Quote
So, long-story-short, there is no such thing as absolute proof with the things we're talking about. Instead, we have to make practical short-cuts in our reasoning if we are to draw any conclusions at all about whether Jesus actually did perform miracles.

 Personally, I don't need to make "practical short cuts" in reasoning propositions for the existence of God when the amount of cogent arguments advanced provide a comprehensive, logical rationale. Which speaks to points I was advancing, namely that your standards of evidence appear to be lax because you start with incomplete and insufficient starting points which seem to sprint to conclusions that will necessarily be uninformed.

 From my prior post: "Case in point, CDProp is this reply. If your standards for everything else requiring evidence are as accurate as your assumptions about Christianity and Christians, what does that say, firstly about your standards and secondly, mine -- which begs a third correction, in that it isn't the atheist in this case that is requiring a strict standard of proof but the 'believer.'"

 +++

 As an atheist, do you have an explanation for this:

Quote
It also seems that you are ascribing to me an atheistic "all religions are inherently myths" attitude, which I assure you I do not have (at least, not as an a priori assumption).

 Yes, I am. Because your participation has been conjoined with JuniorEmblem's and your last post's question assumes that believing the claims of Christ through historically authenticated testimony necessarily lead to believing in all other miracle workers as something wrong from the initial belief of Christ via historical evidence.

 So if I haven't understood your apparent prejudice correctly, the converse must be true and you don't believe that all religions are myths, correct?

 Which begs the question, which religion do you believe isn't a myth?

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 16, 2009, 03:59:21 PM
Quote

What does this mean? What is a 'deposit of faith'? That's precisely the sort of lack of clarity that I'm talking about. The best I can glean from this sentence is that you believe there is something special about the way the early church was conducted (e.g., the records they kept, the way they were organized) that provides strong historical evidence that Jesus actually did perform these miracles. If so, what is that 'special something', specifically?

 The Deposit of Faith is a term used by The Catholic Church to describe the sum of information and revealed truths (Beliefs, direction, etc...) maintained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

+++

 You may be confused and flabbergasted by terms and turns of phrase, CDProp, but your ignorance of those terms is not something deficient in me, it's evidence that you know less than your misplaced confidence tells you you do.

 And see that's what's so shocking...You use certain terms, and cite various methods of thinking that would provoke assumption in anyone actually familiar with the subject that the rest of the information provided (by me) would be second hand to you, and yet it's not.
 
 Because really, "deposit of faith" amongst other things is very very basic.
 
 And can I kindly ask you to stop using condescending introductions and including basic definitions in your responses?

 Like the term above in question or when you use incorrect facts concerning authenticated manuscript evidence, a situation is going to arise where, I'll take your patronizing tone as inherently antagonistic, and respond with specific language that you'll attempt to paint as psuedo-intellectual when the truth of it -- like the term in question or the evidence presented -- is simply demonstrated as another piece of information you think you know, that you really don't.

 So the sort of lack of clarity you keep referring to isn't unclear. Precisely, CDProp it's specific information that you're no aware of which should incite curiosity and humility rather than baseless indignation and a reflex to ridicule.
 

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: CDProp on April 16, 2009, 05:57:31 PM
LOL, this is getting more and more ridiculous by the post.

First of all, why would someone who knows about a few epistemology concepts (like myself) necessarily know anything about The Deposit of Faith, presumably a Catholic concept?

Second, I just think you're way off-base with your whole clarity thing. You're misunderstanding my initial criticism and you're trying to turn it back on me in ways that don't apply. I should probably defend myself publicly (I had a whole response typed up, in fact), but I think the "public" is getting tired of the whole grammatical argument and so I'll probably just send it to you in a PM or something.

Now, if I had started off my post by saying, "There is no such thing as absolute proof", people clearly would have objected, and perhaps they'd be right to object, because they clearly remember doing mathematical proofs in school and there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with them. So, they would have thought I was nuts, right?

So, I had to take a step back and explain that there are actually two different realms of knowledge, ok? One contains things like mathematics, logic, and semantics, and the other is empirical. It is the latter realm that our discussion resides, and it is in that realm that absolute proof doesn't exist. That's my understanding of it. Now, if you disagree, that's fine. I'm not an expert in philosophy. I never took a class, and I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. But don't blame me for trying to explain myself (lol jeeze).

Look, my only point is that you have to adopt some heuristic or filter or standard (take your pick) in order to make the best guess as to what is true and what is not. Now, at this point, I can't tell if you're:

a) Disagreeing with my standard.
b) Agreeing with my standard, but disagreeing about whether Christianity passes.
c) Disagreeing that a standard is necessary in the first place.

So maybe, if you want to keep arguing this, you could do me a favor and answer these questions:

1) Do you agree that any standard of evidence we adopt is going to be imperfect? That we run the risk of false positives and false negatives?
2) Do you agree that we should do out best to adopt a perfect standard anyway?
3) What do you think that standard should be, vis-a-vis Christ and his miracles?
4) Does the evidence available suffice to pass that standard?

I really think this is our only hope of moving forward.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 17, 2009, 03:25:12 AM
I'm sorry but a lot of this is going way over my head.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 17, 2009, 04:11:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes me believe?

Firstly, when I look at the sophistication of the human body or all that is natural in this world and I ask myself 'so this all happened by accident right?' or 'did we really all just crawl out of a swamp?', I struggle to accept that concept. Secondly, I have the same disbelieving response to the Big Bang Theory as atheists have to Creation. They may ask "who made God", but I want to know where did all of the "ingredients" for this universe come from? How could they just exist and how can such a chaotic event produce order and life?

Most importantly though, my faith comes from accepting that Jesus is the Son of God. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a set of wonderful fairy tales. The Roman Empire existed, Jerusalem still exists and there are enough eye-witness accounts to confirm that Jesus existed. There are many historical references to him outside of the Bible. As our minister so succinctly put it, that means there are only 3 possible explanations for who He was: Jesus was either (1) a liar, (2) a lunatic, or (3) Lord. If He was lying about being the Son of God or deluded into thinking that he was the Son of God, He would not have been able to heal the sick, resurrect the dead, walk on water or perform other miracles. Had He not come back to life, He would have been a liar or lunatic. That means he can only be Lord.

If you are sceptical about the reliablity of the New Testament accounts, remember that just about every apostle was persecuted and put to death for his faith, but none recanted their belief or their account of His life. Ask yourself, if you were facing an agonising and painful death would you keep spreading the lie? In all seriousness, would you be prepared to argue that U2 is the greatest band ever, even if it would cost you your own life and the lives of those near and dear to you? 

Hopefully, that gives you and others an insight into why I believe what I believe.


Thank you for your reply. Even though your post isn't very long, you touch on many different issues, some of which I didn't expect, and to go all over them will surely be some task. I'll try and be as succint and clear as possible, and I confess I'll still have to think more thoroughly about some of these. So I’ll just reply first to the problem of God in general, and hopefully on later messages I’ll be able to consider the specific issue of God as the Christians view him (this just means that overall I’m going to ask a lot of questions, you’ll have to be patient with me).




Well, apparently the Big Bang theory seems to be supported by many scientific data. And apparently the man who first proposed this theory was a Roman catholic priest. Accepting it as the best explanation does not imply denying God, though. And we could even consider other possible explanations, such as an eternal universe (which was the most accepted view before the Big Bang theory).

The issue of the origin of the universe is indeed mind-boggling, whichever explanation we choose to accept. As you very well say yourself, if we suppose God created everything we are still left with the problem of who created God. And if we conclude that something created God, then who created that something? The problem never seems to end. We must eventually stop somewhere… So, if we assume God is this first principle where we must stop, we seem to face 2 possibilities: either he has always existed, which seems a bit hard for us to understand; or he has created himself from nothing. But how could this be? To be able to create something, one has to exist a priori, no? So God would have to exist before creating himself. Does this make any sense? (By the way, this sort of problem also arises when we consider the origin of the universe without God - either it has always existed or it was created from nothing - or at least if it was created from a "single particle", then that particle either has always existed or was created from nothing ).

Now, if we go past this issue and assume God-the-intelligent-designer created everything we'll have to face the fact that many things in the universe and on this earth are highly imperfect. And that chaos and waste exist in the universe and in nature. Would an all-knowing and all-powerful God create something imperfect, something that fails?

On the other hand, if we assume there is no God and that hazard and chance are at the origin of everything, the fact that highly organized and structured systems exist in the universe and on this earth might pose a problem. It certainly doesn’t seem easy to buy, at least at first glance. However, let’s think about it again. Maybe it helps if I use a banal image like throwing dice. If I throw a 6 face dice once, I’ll have a 1/6 chance of getting any particular face. Let’s say a 1, for instance. Now, if I want to get a particular combination of numbers through consecutive throws of the dice – let’s say a sequence of six 1’s - my probability of obtaining it becomes quite low (1/465656, exactly). However, if I persist and have enough time to throw the dice thousands of times I know that eventually I will get the combination I want. If we think of the combinations of elements necessary to form anything in the universe as throws of dice, it’s true we face a big problem: the combinations that we need are so complex that the possibility of getting them by chance must seem like zero or close to zero. But let’s imagine the universe as an eternal or otherwise very very old reality. And let’s imagine it as infinite too, or at least as something so vast that we hardly can grasp it with our minds. We’ll have billions and billions of dice throws happening simultaneously for almost an eternity and across the most gigantic of spaces. So maybe there’s a reasonable chance that eventually some “desired” combinations happen or no? And once these combinations happen we’ll have a tiny glimpse of order amidst the chaos. And if we are to suppose that order tends to produce order (not necessarily, I know, but at least it seems to be a reasonable possibility), then that tiny glimpse of order will in turn increase our possibility of getting further combinations and further glimpses of order. And so on. Am I making any sense here? (Please note that I’m not an expert in probabilities, or in astronomy or in science in general, for that matter. My knowledge is really very limited).


Ok, sorry for the long rant. And this is just the beginning. Talking about U2 seems certainly easier...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 17, 2009, 05:10:21 AM
Talking about U2 seems certainly easier... You're not kidding!

The challenge we all face, regardless of our stance, is accepting or comprehending the concept that something (be it matter or God) has always existed. Everything we deal with in life has a begining and an end: we are born, we die. plants grow and die, animals are born and die, minerals and oils are formed and consumed. Getting our head around the idea of infinity is difficult, something to be left to the likes of Einstein and Stephen Hawking. I don't have an interest in philosophy or science, so it's hard to say much more.

I suspect that a part of atheism stems from our desire to want to know the answers. All through time, we've never settled for not knowing. We demand to understand how things work, or know what causes events or disease. You see that in the first book of the Bible, in Genesis, when Adam & Eve eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. They wanted to know as much as God did.

Our thirst for answers has driven so much development in civilisation and found cures for so many afflictions, which is all positive. But it has also led us to refuse to accept that perhaps there are things that we are not meant to understand. We want answers about God and when we can't find them, we start doubting or we start offering alternative explanations.

For me, that's where faith comes in. It is hard at times to understand why things happen but I submit to God and accept that He knows why, because...well.. He's God. He did create a perfect world and He allowed us to shatter that perfection with our actions. But he has outlined a plan for order to be restored. It's all in his book.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 17, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Talking about U2 seems certainly easier... You're not kidding!

The challenge we all face, regardless of our stance, is accepting or comprehending the concept that something (be it matter or God) has always existed. Everything we deal with in life has a begining and an end: we are born, we die. plants grow and die, animals are born and die, minerals and oils are formed and consumed. Getting our head around the idea of infinity is difficult,


Well put. This corresponds 100% to my thoughts on the subject. So, you see, believers and non believers can agree on some ideas even when these ideas revolve around the subjects that are suppose to separate them.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Talking about U2 seems certainly easier... You're not kidding!


Our thirst for answers has driven so much development in civilisation and found cures for so many afflictions, which is all positive. But it has also led us to refuse to accept that perhaps there are things that we are not meant to understand. We want answers about God and when we can't find them, we start doubting or we start offering alternative explanations.

Again, I can hardly disagree. Progress of human knowledge has been astounding but we probably should accept that there's always going to be things that escape us for the simple fact that we are limited beings.

My only trouble is with the 2nd and 4th paragraph of your message, which shouldn't come as a surprise. You say that you suspect that "part of atheism stems from our desire to want to know the answers". But doesn't part of religion stem from that desire too? Isn't religion one big answer that is supposed among other things to calm that desire?

And you say that God created a perfect world. But is this world really perfect? Do you think so?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 17, 2009, 06:02:49 AM
I'll be damned, lads. You guys finally managed to come up with a way of talking that's even harder to understand than Bonolese.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 17, 2009, 07:49:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

On the other hand, if we assume there is no God and that hazard and chance are at the origin of everything, the fact that highly organized and structured systems exist in the universe and on this earth might pose a problem. It certainly doesn’t seem easy to buy, at least at first glance. However, let’s think about it again. Maybe it helps if I use a banal image like throwing dice. If I throw a 6 face dice once, I’ll have a 1/6 chance of getting any particular face. Let’s say a 1, for instance. Now, if I want to get a particular combination of numbers through consecutive throws of the dice – let’s say a sequence of six 1’s - my probability of obtaining it becomes quite low (1/465656, exactly). However, if I persist and have enough time to throw the dice thousands of times I know that eventually I will get the combination I want. If we think of the combinations of elements necessary to form anything in the universe as throws of dice, it’s true we face a big problem: the combinations that we need are so complex that the possibility of getting them by chance must seem like zero or close to zero. But let’s imagine the universe as an eternal or otherwise very very old reality. And let’s imagine it as infinite too, or at least as something so vast that we hardly can grasp it with our minds. We’ll have billions and billions of dice throws happening simultaneously for almost an eternity and across the most gigantic of spaces. So maybe there’s a reasonable chance that eventually some “desired” combinations happen or no? And once these combinations happen we’ll have a tiny glimpse of order amidst the chaos. And if we are to suppose that order tends to produce order (not necessarily, I know, but at least it seems to be a reasonable possibility), then that tiny glimpse of order will in turn increase our possibility of getting further combinations and further glimpses of order. And so on. Am I making any sense here? (Please note that I’m not an expert in probabilities, or in astronomy or in science in general, for that matter. My knowledge is really very limited).


Ok, sorry for the long rant. And this is just the beginning. Talking about U2 seems certainly easier...


I'm sorry, but your post is way off and has so many scientific flaws.

Firstly,
The universe has not been around for ever. There is scientific proof that it had a beginning. Its between ten to fifteen billion years old (from memory).

Secondly,
Scientific law say you cannot create something out of nothing. So, current scientic theory says the chance of there being nothing... There continuing to be nothing, and then suddenly, for no reason at all, everything appeared - is 0.

And lastly,
The complexity of the universe is not something you can put into numbers - the dice analogy is not relateable at all unfortunatley. The chance of getting 6 sixes in a row is, as you pointed out, incredibly small. But the complexity of the universe cannot even begin to be tried to be tried to be tried to be compared with it. If getting six sixes chance is 1/465656. The universe getting to it's current state would be 1/10^billions upon billions upon billions upon billions... Not 1/4.7^5. The chance would be too low to even describe with numbers.

One of my passions is science, I topped chemistry and biology at my school. I tell you this not to brag, but to emphasize that my experiences in science have lead me to believe there has to be something more out there. From what I have seen, the athiestic view of the beginning of the universe goes like this:

There was nothing
There continued to be nothing
And nothing kept being nothing.
One day, nothing decided to become everything for no reason at all.
Then again for no reason, everything decided to be placed into perfect working order to create life as we know it today.
Then again for no reason at all, the pinnacle of life created, the human being, was made to believe in a God that doesn't exist.

Now it's cool for those who don't believe to say this is not what you believe, but there is the simple fact of you dont know how the universe began - you are not stating that the above theory is correct. Fine.

But come on, surely the logical thing would be that there is some kind of design behind it all.+

A website i found really great was www.doesgodexist.com

It proposes a well thought out scientific argument that I am yet to find a flaw in for find people that find a flaw in, to the idea that the universe had to be created by SOMETHING.

It then goes on using theological and logical principles to say this SOMETHING is God. However, because it is impossible to define or prove God with science (because a) god himself made science, and b) he is beyond understanding or scientific reason), it is going to be hard for athiests to accept.


Love and Peace to all.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 17, 2009, 08:07:11 AM
And in relation to the...

If God loved us, why would he let tragedies happen?

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html

it's what I have been saying all along, but put in a much better way.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 17, 2009, 08:58:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I'm sorry, but your post is way off and has so many scientific flaws.

Firstly,
The universe has not been around for ever. There is scientific proof that it had a beginning. Its between ten to fifteen billion years old (from memory).

Secondly,
Scientific law say you cannot create something out of nothing. So, current scientic theory says the chance of there being nothing... There continuing to be nothing, and then suddenly, for no reason at all, everything appeared - is 0.

And lastly,
The complexity of the universe is not something you can put into numbers - the dice analogy is not relateable at all unfortunatley. The chance of getting 6 sixes in a row is, as you pointed out, incredibly small. But the complexity of the universe cannot even begin to be tried to be tried to be tried to be compared with it. If getting six sixes chance is 1/465656. The universe getting to it's current state would be 1/10^billions upon billions upon billions upon billions... Not 1/4.7^5. The chance would be too low to even describe with numbers.

One of my passions is science, I topped chemistry and biology at my school. I tell you this not to brag, but to emphasize that my experiences in science have lead me to believe there has to be something more out there. From what I have seen, the athiestic view of the beginning of the universe goes like this:

There was nothing
There continued to be nothing
And nothing kept being nothing.
One day, nothing decided to become everything for no reason at all.
Then again for no reason, everything decided to be placed into perfect working order to create life as we know it today.
Then again for no reason at all, the pinnacle of life created, the human being, was made to believe in a God that doesn't exist.

Now it's cool for those who don't believe to say this is not what you believe, but there is the simple fact of you dont know how the universe began - you are not stating that the above theory is correct. Fine.

But come on, surely the logical thing would be that there is some kind of design behind it all.+

A website i found really great was www.doesgodexist.com

It proposes a well thought out scientific argument that I am yet to find a flaw in for find people that find a flaw in, to the idea that the universe had to be created by SOMETHING.

It then goes on using theological and logical principles to say this SOMETHING is God. However, because it is impossible to define or prove God with science (because a) god himself made science, and b) he is beyond understanding or scientific reason), it is going to be hard for athiests to accept.


Love and Peace to all.

Sorry, but in my post I did not propose any specific view as being the truth, scientific or not. I did not say that the universe was eternal, for instance, I just proposed that as one possibility. Like I specifically said, the Big Bang theory - which implies that the universe has not been around for ever - seems to be supported by many scientific data.

Now, you say that "Scientific law say you cannot create something out of nothing". Fine enough. Well, this seems to me to imply that either the universe or the "single particle" that originated it (or whatever is that created the universe) have always existed. No? Again, these are all possibilities that I mentioned in my post. I did not choose any of them as being the truth.

So far, there is no scientific flaw in anything that I said, as far as I can see.

Now, you contest my analogy of dice throwing. Again, fair enough. I was aware that this was a problematic thing, and that's why I specifically said that "If we think of the combinations of elements necessary to form anything in the universe as throws of dice, it’s true we face a big problem: the combinations that we need are so complex that the possibility of getting them by chance must seem like zero or close to zero." Again, no flaw here, I think. Please note that I did not say that the universe would have got to its present state merely by pure chance. I just said that pure chance might have been at origin of a few combinations... Is this impossible?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 17, 2009, 09:30:40 AM
To the Christians:

Simple Question - Was the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands the day after xmas a few years an example of the "perfect world" or was it somehow man's fault ?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 17, 2009, 09:36:39 AM
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 17, 2009, 09:40:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.

I'm not invalidating it, I seriously want to know things like cancer and natural disasters are reconciled with the idea of a "loving" god creating a "perfect" world.

We're not talking about man's inhumanity to man here.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 17, 2009, 09:51:07 AM
I know, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying or anything. It's just that it looked a bit like you were talking down to Christians, but if you're generally interested I apologize; it's hard to gauge tone online.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 17, 2009, 09:54:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying or anything. It's just that it looked a bit like you were talking down to Christians, but if you're generally interested I apologize; it's hard to gauge tone online.

No biggie, it seems every time this issue is brought up that any response uses 20 words when one will suffice and we get paragraph upon paragraph of circuitous reasoning and rationalizing without ever really getting an answer.

So, I made it as blunt and unambiguous as possible, which may have come across the wrong way.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: 1985 on April 17, 2009, 03:22:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.

I'm not invalidating it, I seriously want to know things like cancer and natural disasters are reconciled with the idea of a "loving" god creating a "perfect" world.

We're not talking about man's inhumanity to man here.



I know absolutely nothing about this. But a number of (mere) potential answers that don't preclude the existence of a God:

1. The destructive process might not seem so terrible to a creator who has used destruction as a primary means of creation. Perhaps we impose our lens on what we think perfection and love may be.

2. If the Christian promise is true -- that God became man, suffered, was humiliated, died in wrenching pain, then opened the doors to eternal life -- then suffering is merely a path toward glory, part of what shapes us, tears us down, to allow us to stand before God. Christianity appeals to many because the story of Christ's life is based in the reality of disease, injustice, and brutality. Those of us who are Christians contend with nothing that God did not encounter directly.

But we shouldn't rule out other possibilities:

3. Maybe God is rule-based -- less a "what" than a "how" -- not as all powerful or powerful in a way that we may imagine. Maybe even God, if there is one, lacks free will. Uh oh.

4. Maybe our understanding of love is ours alone and not the same as God's. Can't say that I would have listened to a voice giving me the same messages that Abraham was getting from "God" -- at least I hope not. I'd hope I'd get professional help before setting up an altar to sacrifice my son. Even on a bad day!

5. Maybe God isn't perfect. Or maybe what we call perfect is rather skewed toward our self-interest, rather than God's. Perhaps in our all knowledge (and we've got an awful lot of that, right  ;)) we're just kind of disappointed that when we look at the enormity, diversity, beauty, intricacy, complexity, consistency of all creation -- that that's all there is.  ???

6. Maybe God isn't good. Or maybe what we'd call good is based again on our self-interest. Maybe God is much more interested in the collective good than the individual good. God, after all, has at the bare minimum 13 billion light years of universe at God's disposal. We have no idea how many other dimensions of space and time, not to mention spacelessness and timelessness. Busy, busy.

7. Maybe our consciousness is a reality TV show viewed from eternity -- whereby disease and disaster spike the ratings during sweeps eon. Wait, I think there have been movies about this...

I'll stop now while I'm behind. I keep finding myself coming back to this thread.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 17, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands the day after xmas a few years an example of the "perfect world" or was it somehow man's fault ?

The world stopped being perfect the moment Adam defied God and decided he knew what was best.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 17, 2009, 09:42:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands the day after xmas a few years an example of the "perfect world" or was it somehow man's fault ?

The world stopped being perfect the moment Adam defied God and decided he knew what was best.

And so Tsunamis, Earthquakes and incurable diseases are what ? god's punishment for adam defying him ? wasn't he just exercising his free will given to him by god ? so god punishes millions upon millions of adam's ancestors because of this ?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 18, 2009, 01:33:06 AM
It's obvious JuniorEmblem that you've made your own mind up and just want to argue, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it any further.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 18, 2009, 01:54:09 AM

Ultimately,  Believers will continue to believe - the rest of us will get on with life and be happy doing so.

I don't think debating it on here is going to change anyone's fundamental ideas about the existence or otherwise of a God.

So, why don't you all agree to disagree?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 18, 2009, 02:19:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands the day after xmas a few years an example of the "perfect world" or was it somehow man's fault ?

The world stopped being perfect the moment Adam defied God and decided he knew what was best.

And so Tsunamis, Earthquakes and incurable diseases are what ? god's punishment for adam defying him ? wasn't he just exercising his free will given to him by god ? so god punishes millions upon millions of adam's ancestors because of this ?

The concept you are referring to is called 'Original Sin'.

From a theological perspective, the answer to your question is no. Christians do not believe that we are punished for Adam's sins. Original sin is contracted generation to generation. All this is, is a fallen state of being. God does not punish us for Original Sin.

Do I believe God punishes people? I think he may. It certainly says in the bible that he did - all this for their own sins, not for Adam's sins. I don't see why he wouldn't be doing it today.

Does the bible say that every bad thing that happens to people is God punishing them? No... it doesn't. In fact, the bible says that these arguments you are using, JE, the people who have horrible things that happen to them... are the victims of time and chance. Unlucky people born in to unlucky circumstances, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.... not God choosing that I, in a first world country am some how more blessed than those in Africa.

Now I know that this does not sit well with you, and I can certainly see why. Like I have said in previous posts, this is because the idea you have of 'God', is different to the God that we worship and pray to. We have based our image of God on what is said in scripture, not what we conjure up in our minds (which is what you are doing). Me being born in australia and a suffering sick child being born in Africa may not seem 'fair' ... Unfortunately, the God we believe in has not told us in any way that life will be 'fair'. If he had... then you would certainly have a point. So yes, it is horrible what is happening to these people, I could not imagine life in their situation, and I would never wish it upon anyone. I can certainly see how it causes doubt among people especially in the richer nations, who have a good heart, Like I am sure you do, wanting to help these people.

What is interesting though is that the people who are brought up in these environments nearly always seem to have such a deeper and more vibrant level of faith than anyone I have met. Such peace in Christ and a zest for life that is truely inspiring and humbling. Funny how in the most despairing of situations, it is those who are marginalised and suffering that rise up and show true faith as opposed to us, in our houses with food and heating, us who judge, condemn and complain our takeaway meals are cold, that actually doubt God.

God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are), but God has created a complex universe and planet that needs to go through its stages to survive. The bible says that unfortunately people suffer just because of chance. Again, this may not seem 'fair' to you. You think because it is not 'fair' in your eyes, that this somehow indicates the non-existence of God. This is where more theological aspects come into it, a few being... a) it is not what we believe should be happening, it is what God believes should be happening that actually matters. b) this life is only preparation for an eternal life God has prepared for us through his Son, Jesus Christ. Again, this won't sit well with you because that is not how you believe God should be doing things... which is absolutely fine, seriously it is.

But can you understand that the concept of God you have created in your mind is not the God that we believe in? So using these points as rebuttal is just trivial because the God you are trying to discredit was never a God we claimed to worship.

Peace and blessings.

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: whitewave on April 18, 2009, 07:04:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands the day after xmas a few years an example of the "perfect world" or was it somehow man's fault ?

The world stopped being perfect the moment Adam defied God and decided he knew what was best.

And so Tsunamis, Earthquakes and incurable diseases are what ? god's punishment for adam defying him ? wasn't he just exercising his free will given to him by god ? so god punishes millions upon millions of adam's ancestors because of this ?

The concept you are referring to is called 'Original Sin'.

From a theological perspective, the answer to your question is no. Christians do not believe that we are punished for Adam's sins. Original sin is contracted generation to generation. All this is, is a fallen state of being. God does not punish us for Original Sin.

Do I believe God punishes people? I think he may. It certainly says in the bible that he did - all this for their own sins, not for Adam's sins. I don't see why he wouldn't be doing it today.

Does the bible say that every bad thing that happens to people is God punishing them? No... it doesn't. In fact, the bible says that these arguments you are using, JE, the people who have horrible things that happen to them... are the victims of time and chance. Unlucky people born in to unlucky circumstances, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.... not God choosing that I, in a first world country am some how more blessed than those in Africa.

Now I know that this does not sit well with you, and I can certainly see why. Like I have said in previous posts, this is because the idea you have of 'God', is different to the God that we worship and pray to. We have based our image of God on what is said in scripture, not what we conjure up in our minds (which is what you are doing). Me being born in australia and a suffering sick child being born in Africa may not seem 'fair' ... Unfortunately, the God we believe in has not told us in any way that life will be 'fair'. If he had... then you would certainly have a point. So yes, it is horrible what is happening to these people, I could not imagine life in their situation, and I would never wish it upon anyone. I can certainly see how it causes doubt among people especially in the richer nations, who have a good heart, Like I am sure you do, wanting to help these people.

What is interesting though is that the people who are brought up in these environments nearly always seem to have such a deeper and more vibrant level of faith than anyone I have met. Such peace in Christ and a zest for life that is truely inspiring and humbling. Funny how in the most despairing of situations, it is those who are marginalised and suffering that rise up and show true faith as opposed to us, in our houses with food and heating, us who judge, condemn and complain our takeaway meals are cold, that actually doubt God.

God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are), but God has created a complex universe and planet that needs to go through its stages to survive. The bible says that unfortunately people suffer just because of chance. Again, this may not seem 'fair' to you. You think because it is not 'fair' in your eyes, that this somehow indicates the non-existence of God. This is where more theological aspects come into it, a few being... a) it is not what we believe should be happening, it is what God believes should be happening that actually matters. b) this life is only preparation for an eternal life God has prepared for us through his Son, Jesus Christ. Again, this won't sit well with you because that is not how you believe God should be doing things... which is absolutely fine, seriously it is.

But can you understand that the concept of God you have created in your mind is not the God that we believe in? So using these points as rebuttal is just trivial because the God you are trying to discredit was never a God we claimed to worship.

Peace and blessings.

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html



Very Well said Edgefan.   God also tells us in the Bible and the Commandments that we are our brother's keepers. Fact- Bad things do happen.  The human race is not perfect. We should not just complain about what is wrong outside of our own homes but it is our responsibility to help each other. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 18, 2009, 08:20:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Now I know that this does not sit well with you, and I can certainly see why. Like I have said in previous posts, this is because the idea you have of 'God', is different to the God that we worship and pray to. We have based our image of God on what is said in scripture, not what we conjure up in our minds (which is what you are doing). Me being born in australia and a suffering sick child being born in Africa may not seem 'fair' ... Unfortunately, the God we believe in has not told us in any way that life will be 'fair'. If he had... then you would certainly have a point. So yes, it is horrible what is happening to these people, I could not imagine life in their situation, and I would never wish it upon anyone. I can certainly see how it causes doubt among people especially in the richer nations, who have a good heart, Like I am sure you do, wanting to help these people.


I don't have a problem with what you're saying, but I hear, even in these threads, that god supposedly created a perfect world. The world you are describing, the one we ACTUALLY live in, is FAR from perfect. So, if we are all agreed we live in an imperfect world, why do we continue to hear god created a perfect world ? Either god screwed up, or he chose to create an imperfect world for whatever machiavellian reason he may have had.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are),

They are called "natural" disasters because they are NOT man made ! Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Volcanos, Monsoons, etc are not man made or man caused. They have been happening for centuries, before carbon emissions and global warming were even a twinkle in someone's eye.

You can say the same for the Flu, Black Plague, Influenza, Cancer, diseases which have killed billions of men, women, children, infants over the centuries ?  All these so what ? So people will be in despair and turn to god when medicine fails them ? How does the 3-month old baby dying of flu turn to god ?  Seriously what's the thinking here ? "You're not close to me so i'm going to bring down a disease on you?"

I had a person on this forum PM me to chastise me for my 'glib certainty' that god does not exist. Well, that's not quite as offensive (imho) than the marginalizing of the pain and suffering of billions through no fault of their own as "it's just god's plan".

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 18, 2009, 08:25:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is interesting though is that the people who are brought up in these environments nearly always seem to have such a deeper and more vibrant level of faith than anyone I have met. Such peace in Christ and a zest for life that is truely inspiring and humbling. Funny how in the most despairing of situations, it is those who are marginalised and suffering that rise up and show true faith as opposed to us, in our houses with food and heating, us who judge, condemn and complain our takeaway meals are cold, that actually doubt God.

God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are)
.

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html

Faith is clung to by those in desperate situations because it is a escape and promises an end to suffering, that suffering HERE and NOW will be rewarded...so put up with inequality, with no water, because god loves you!  B.S.. Religion is used to numb people into accepting undignified conditions while others (ie THE CHURCH) (ie the Republican Party that goes on about God while fighting any attempt to improve the lives of the marginalized) live disgustingly lavish lifestyles. Never mind that the biblical god is not exactly loving and caring...he`s an egomaniacal, authoritative, petulant, violent being.  He is basically a dictator who will kill you for disobedience. 

As for your claim that natural disasters are mainly caused by man, that is wrong.  We are definitely influencing enviornmental behaviour now, but what about earthquakes, volcanoes, etc throughout history?  Look at the history of the planet...christ.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 18, 2009, 09:15:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is interesting though is that the people who are brought up in these environments nearly always seem to have such a deeper and more vibrant level of faith than anyone I have met. Such peace in Christ and a zest for life that is truely inspiring and humbling. Funny how in the most despairing of situations, it is those who are marginalised and suffering that rise up and show true faith as opposed to us, in our houses with food and heating, us who judge, condemn and complain our takeaway meals are cold, that actually doubt God.

God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are)
.

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html

Faith is clung to by those in desperate situations because it is a escape and promises an end to suffering, that suffering HERE and NOW will be rewarded...so put up with inequality, with no water, because god loves you!  B.S.. Religion is used to numb people into accepting undignified conditions while others (ie THE CHURCH) (ie the Republican Party that goes on about God while fighting any attempt to improve the lives of the marginalized) live disgustingly lavish lifestyles. Never mind that the biblical god is not exactly loving and caring...he`s an egomaniacal, authoritative, petulant, violent being.  He is basically a dictator who will kill you for disobedience. 

As for your claim that natural disasters are mainly caused by man, that is wrong.  We are definitely influencing enviornmental behaviour now, but what about earthquakes, volcanoes, etc throughout history?  Look at the history of the planet...christ.


Wow..you have anger issue's. I'm sorry you have nothing to help you in troubled times, but why are you so hateful of those who do?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 18, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is interesting though is that the people who are brought up in these environments nearly always seem to have such a deeper and more vibrant level of faith than anyone I have met. Such peace in Christ and a zest for life that is truely inspiring and humbling. Funny how in the most despairing of situations, it is those who are marginalised and suffering that rise up and show true faith as opposed to us, in our houses with food and heating, us who judge, condemn and complain our takeaway meals are cold, that actually doubt God.

God created a world that was perfect. Through human imperfection we are slowly destroying it. Tell me how many natural disasters would have occured if we had actually taken care of the earth like God commanded us. Of course, not all natural disasters are caused by man (though I would argue most are)
.

http://www.doesgodexist.com/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html

Faith is clung to by those in desperate situations because it is a escape and promises an end to suffering, that suffering HERE and NOW will be rewarded...so put up with inequality, with no water, because god loves you!  B.S.. Religion is used to numb people into accepting undignified conditions while others (ie THE CHURCH) (ie the Republican Party that goes on about God while fighting any attempt to improve the lives of the marginalized) live disgustingly lavish lifestyles. Never mind that the biblical god is not exactly loving and caring...he`s an egomaniacal, authoritative, petulant, violent being.  He is basically a dictator who will kill you for disobedience. 

As for your claim that natural disasters are mainly caused by man, that is wrong.  We are definitely influencing enviornmental behaviour now, but what about earthquakes, volcanoes, etc throughout history?  Look at the history of the planet...christ.


"As for your claim that natural disasters are mainly caused by man, that is wrong.  We are definitely influencing enviornmental behaviour now, but what about earthquakes, volcanoes, etc throughout history?  Look at the history of the planet...christ."

Dude, don't say that. That is so offensive to the believers on this forum. Cool for not believing, but it's extremely offensive to us believers when you use Christ's name in vain. Seriously, show some respect. I thought you'd at least be capable of that. Thats more offensive than you calling me an a** h***, my mum a dirty so and so. Tone it down.

And as for the rest of your post, the whole faith thing is clung to by people in desperate situations to make them believe something good is going to happen. So they have to put up with bad conditions while the republicans and the church lead lavish lives.... You say B.S., well i say B.S. to you jimmyjazz.

I find it ridiculous you actually like to think you know these people. You have no idea how these people feel. Christ is more present in their hearts than the communities over in Australia. But there is no hope for me trying to convince you so I will stop here. But don't act as if you know why these suffering sick people turn to Christ more blatantly then others. Because you don't. Your post made that obvious...

Ever heard of mother theresa, one of the most outstanding women in the Church's historr who DIED in the SLUMS of India with these people.
Ever heard of Father Damien de Veuster, who resided on the island of Molokai looking after people with leprosy... he caught it himself and died because he cared so much for these people. Yes, Jimmyjazz, this is EXACTLY what I call... 'living a disgustingly lavish lifestyle'.

You have no idea how we operate, and you have no right to talk on behalf of the thousands of poor and suffering people that have found Christ in their life, and the MILLIONS that see these people and find God through them.

Alas, I don't know why I argue... you're not going to budge. It just sh**s me when people think they talk on behalf of other people's opinions when their view is so distorted and biased - it's not very good debating skills. Kind of discredits your argument straight away.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 18, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.
I'm not invalidating it, I seriously want to know things like cancer and natural disasters are reconciled with the idea of a "loving" god creating a "perfect" world.

We're not talking about man's inhumanity to man here.
I know absolutely nothing about this. But a number of (mere) potential answers that don't preclude the existence of a God:

1. The destructive process might not seem so terrible to a creator who has used destruction as a primary means of creation. Perhaps we impose our lens on what we think perfection and love may be...[etc.]

The thing is, bringing up all these "maybe"s (and this isn't particularly a criticism of you, by the way; these concepts have cropped up elsewhere plenty of times) just smacks of endless conceptual dodging to awkward questions. Why does a good God allow suffering? Enter non-interventionism. Or maltheism. Why does God allow the Fall to happen? Enter the idea of an Imperfect Being. Why doesn't God, supposedly more powerful than Satan, not simply destroy Satan now? Because He's unknowable, or exists outside of mortal logic (which is the perfect excuse, by the way, to completely B.S. through any truly difficult questions).

And this, to me, is what doesn't make the idea of a god credible: there's always a dodge. Always a way to stretch the concept to make the theory consistent. It's all just terribly convenient, and it only seems to happen in theology; if anyone in any other serious, credible academic subject tried this, they'd rightly be laughed at. For example, if we were arguing politics, and I tried to defend George W. Bush by saying that, if only he'd been allowed to privatise Social Security, America would've been far better off in the long run (and by "long run", I mean we should give a potential eternity for the benefits to finally emerge), I'd rightly be mocked - but in religion, you can seemingly do this.

And apologies, that was a long, long sentence just there.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 18, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

the whole faith thing is clung to by people in desperate situations to make them believe something good is going to happen.

'opiate for the masses' has never rung truer.....

(no, I'm NOT a Marxist !)

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 18, 2009, 04:12:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They are called "natural" disasters because they are NOT man made ! Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Volcanos, Monsoons, etc are not man made or man caused. They have been happening for centuries, before carbon emissions and global warming were even a twinkle in someone's eye.

You can say the same for the Flu, Black Plague, Influenza, Cancer, diseases which have killed billions of men, women, children, infants over the centuries ?  All these so what ? So people will be in despair and turn to god when medicine fails them ? How does the 3-month old baby dying of flu turn to god ?  Seriously what's the thinking here ? "You're not close to me so i'm going to bring down a disease on you?"


Okay...

In the bible did God punish those who sinned against him? Yes.
The current earthquakes, tsunamis and floods that kill people today... is this God punishing them? I don't know.
Does it say in the bible that natural disasters are always because God is punishing people? No. In fact, it says that people's sins have nothing to do with the some situations: Luke 13:4-5.
Does it say in the bible that the people living in first world countries are somehow more blessed than those who are suffering? Absolutely not. See Ecclesiastes 9:11-12.


So when people on this forum say that God is not loving and not caring. He says he loves us but doesn't really because he lets bad things happen... oh therefore he doesn't exist... they don't understand what we believe. Not to any of their own fault, its just they lack the basic theology that makes them understand, which is completely cool because they don't immerse themselves in it so how are they expected to know?

So junioremblem, you are in America (I think), while millions of people starve in Africa. Is God the reason for these people starving? Absolutely not. It is a wealth of man-made problems... selfish politicians, bad economic decisions, war etc.
But why was their soul chosen to be in Africa, while you live in a first world country? Chance. How god makes immense good come of these kinds of situations, I have explained in my previous posts.

I have noticed how you like to over simplify things so I will beat you to it.
Problems of starvation, disease, poverty - man made: either through bad economic policy, not doing enough to get medicine, politicians hording away money in swiss bank accounts while their people starve.

In relation to "How does the 3-month old baby dying of flu turn to god" - well I would argue that no baby can turn to God as they don't really have the neural functions to be able to understand the concept of faith whether it have the flu or not. And tell me, in our day and age, what baby in a first world country would die of the flu? In a third world, of course, however as I have said, it is man's fault for this kind of poverty, we as a world society have the resources to fix this problem. WHICH IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US! We can fix it! We are the ones who are supposed to fix it according to Christ... But, we choose to blame God for these problems.

In relation to your argument that natural disasters were happening before carbon emissions etc... this is of course true.
I'll point you to this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html
I think you will find that these 'natural disasters' you speak of are coincidentally happening more and more as time goes on and humans become more and more advanced. But don't worry, we can all blame God for what is happening in our world so it's okay!!!!

I am curious to know how you would expect the world to be if your version of God existed. Would it be a world of no disease? Disease is a major reason why humans have gotten to the evolutionary state they are in. Or would it be a world of just no major disease (cancer/hiv). Well i find it funny you blame God for cancer, or for not stopping cancer, when you yourself admitted to smoking a packet a day for how many years, or how you blame god for disease when gangs with hiv in south africa go around and rape poor defenseless women because they feel like it. As for the few those that were not around when we had a cure to diseases, yes, it is terrible for these people. However, man i'm getting tired of this, how God makes good of these situations I have shown. Death is not the be all and end all. I have shown you, with relatively small examples in my life, how the death of one life has brought so many more closer to God. We believe death is not the end, it really is a joyous occasion, though hard to accept. Yes you don't believe this or you think it is stupid, but again, you believe what you want, we'll believe what we want.

It's not our job to question the mystery of it all.

I'm out...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: edgefan89 on April 18, 2009, 04:19:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.
I'm not invalidating it, I seriously want to know things like cancer and natural disasters are reconciled with the idea of a "loving" god creating a "perfect" world.

We're not talking about man's inhumanity to man here.
I know absolutely nothing about this. But a number of (mere) potential answers that don't preclude the existence of a God:

1. The destructive process might not seem so terrible to a creator who has used destruction as a primary means of creation. Perhaps we impose our lens on what we think perfection and love may be...[etc.]

The thing is, bringing up all these "maybe"s (and this isn't particularly a criticism of you, by the way; these concepts have cropped up elsewhere plenty of times) just smacks of endless conceptual dodging to awkward questions. Why does a good God allow suffering? Enter non-interventionism. Or maltheism. Why does God allow the Fall to happen? Enter the idea of an Imperfect Being. Why doesn't God, supposedly more powerful than Satan, not simply destroy Satan now? Because He's unknowable, or exists outside of mortal logic (which is the perfect excuse, by the way, to completely B.S. through any truly difficult questions).


My response... if you want to know 'why' these things happen. Read the bible. There is not always a 'dodge'. It explains in the bible why there is suffering, it explains in the bible why God does things agggghr... just because you think it is not the way you would be running things, doesn't mean that it isn't the way God thinks. But it's not good enough to look at the bible is it? So therefore, we are undeducated bla bla bla heard it all before...

I don't agree with creationists trying to discredit evolution, because they don't go to the research. They don't go to the evidence in journals, reports to understand that evolution DID happen.
But i don't agree with athiests who question and discredit faith because they make up their own idea of God. Find out WHAT it is exactly we believe before you challenge it... then find out WHY before you challenge it.

Athiests think the bible is a load of crock,
I find it more truthful than any other material out there...
That is where the difference lies. It's where it will always lie and we will not make progress....
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 18, 2009, 07:00:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ever heard of mother theresa, one of the most outstanding women in the Church's historr who DIED in the SLUMS of India with these people.

Mother Theresa was a very interesting person. Her work touched many and because of that, people contributed millions and millions of dollars to help her with that work. Yet every film documentary or journalist who went to see where she helped the poor and sick in India saw those people laying in pretty much the same surroundings they had always lived in (utter destitution) and suffering greatly. Knowing that the organization had a money available, somebody decided to ask why this was.

It turns out that Mother Theresa grew extremely close to one particular belief about how to be close to God. She believed that there was no better way to come to God than through pain and suffering. And so, despite the fact that her organization was sitting on millions of dollars and therefore had the ability to help ease the suffering of people to a greater degree than just taking them in, feeding them and spending time with them until they died, they chose not to dispense medications that could have helped those who were ill. It's not that they didn't have the means to do more...they absolutely did. Mother Theresa would not allow them to take those steps because she believed to do so would be to interfere with the relationship between God and that person.

Wow. She believed suffering was good and she did everything she could to insure that others suffered for their own good.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 18, 2009, 09:49:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They are called "natural" disasters because they are NOT man made ! Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Volcanos, Monsoons, etc are not man made or man caused. They have been happening for centuries, before carbon emissions and global warming were even a twinkle in someone's eye.

You can say the same for the Flu, Black Plague, Influenza, Cancer, diseases which have killed billions of men, women, children, infants over the centuries ?  All these so what ? So people will be in despair and turn to god when medicine fails them ? How does the 3-month old baby dying of flu turn to god ?  Seriously what's the thinking here ? "You're not close to me so i'm going to bring down a disease on you?"


Problems of disease - man made



OK - How's that cure for cancer coming along ? Is that "man made" ?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In relation to "How does the 3-month old baby dying of flu turn to god" - well I would argue that no baby can turn to God as they don't really have the neural functions to be able to understand the concept of faith whether it have the flu or not. And tell me, in our day and age, what baby in a first world country would die of the flu?



OK, substitute leukemia.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In relation to your argument that natural disasters were happening before carbon emissions etc... this is of course true.
I'll point you to this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html
I think you will find that these 'natural disasters' you speak of are coincidentally happening more and more as time goes on and humans become more and more advanced. But don't worry, we can all blame God for what is happening in our world so it's okay!!!!


Well, we haven't been keeping records very long, I'd argue there are fewer these days. It's bene a while since we had an ice-age for example.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am curious to know how you would expect the world to be if your version of God existed. Would it be a world of no disease? Disease is a major reason why humans have gotten to the evolutionary state they are in. Or would it be a world of just no major disease (cancer/hiv). Well i find it funny you blame God for cancer, or for not stopping cancer, when you yourself admitted to smoking a packet a day for how many years,

You're OD'ing on the straw men. Take the 2 year old dying of leukemia, and then get back to me.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Revolver7 on April 18, 2009, 10:10:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ever heard of mother theresa, one of the most outstanding women in the Church's historr who DIED in the SLUMS of India with these people.

Mother Theresa was a very interesting person. Her work touched many and because of that, people contributed millions and millions of dollars to help her with that work. Yet every film documentary or journalist who went to see where she helped the poor and sick in India saw those people laying in pretty much the same surroundings they had always lived in (utter destitution) and suffering greatly. Knowing that the organization had a money available, somebody decided to ask why this was.

It turns out that Mother Theresa grew extremely close to one particular belief about how to be close to God. She believed that there was no better way to come to God than through pain and suffering. And so, despite the fact that her organization was sitting on millions of dollars and therefore had the ability to help ease the suffering of people to a greater degree than just taking them in, feeding them and spending time with them until they died, they chose not to dispense medications that could have helped those who were ill. It's not that they didn't have the means to do more...they absolutely did. Mother Theresa would not allow them to take those steps because she believed to do so would be to interfere with the relationship between God and that person.

Wow. She believed suffering was good and she did everything she could to insure that others suffered for their own good.

Shouldn't the people themselves be able choose what is "best" for them? Who gave Mother Theresa that power? What makes her think that she knows another person's relationship with God?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: HUNGRYTICKETS on April 18, 2009, 10:36:52 PM
"It turns out that Mother Theresa.......  was sitting on millions of dollars and therefore had the ability to help ease the suffering of people to a greater degree than just taking them in, feeding them and spending time with them until they died, they chose not to dispense medications that could have helped those who were ill. It's not that they didn't have the means to do more...they absolutely did. Mother Theresa would not allow them to take those steps because she believed to do so would be to interfere with the relationship between God and that person."

It turns out? What?
Where did you find this doctrine?
Mother Teresa didn't just work in poverty, she also LIVED in poverty.

Is nothing Sacred?

So we're tired of Bashing U2, Bono, Unknown Caller, No Line on The Horizon, etc.

Let's now bash the Religion and Sacred Beliefs of U2.

This site is turning into Craig's List Rants and Raves.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Revolver7 on April 18, 2009, 11:03:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"It turns out that Mother Theresa.......  was sitting on millions of dollars and therefore had the ability to help ease the suffering of people to a greater degree than just taking them in, feeding them and spending time with them until they died, they chose not to dispense medications that could have helped those who were ill. It's not that they didn't have the means to do more...they absolutely did. Mother Theresa would not allow them to take those steps because she believed to do so would be to interfere with the relationship between God and that person."

It turns out? What?
Where did you find this doctrine?
Mother Teresa didn't just work in poverty, she also LIVED in poverty.

Is nothing Sacred?

So we're tired of Bashing U2, Bono, Unknown Caller, No Line on The Horizon, etc.

Let's now bash the Religion and Sacred Beliefs of U2.

This site is turning into Craig's List Rants and Raves.



We are all just having a civilized debate and discussion...I don't think there's anything wrong with that
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jick on April 18, 2009, 11:55:00 PM
Here are excerpts for Bono's NY Times column:

I come to lowly church halls and lofty cathedrals for what purpose? I search the Scriptures to what end? To check my head? My heart? No, my soul. For me these meditations are like a plumb line dropped by a master builder — to see if the walls are straight or crooked. I check my emotional life with music, my intellectual life with writing, but religion is where I soul-search.

The preacher said, “What good does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?” Hearing this, every one of the pilgrims gathered in the room asked, “Is it me, Lord?” In America, in Europe, people are asking, “Is it us?”

Well, yes. It is us.


Bono is clearly a religious man with firm beliefs. 

The three members (not sure about Clayton) are Christians and not atheists.  U2 have quoted Scripture in their concerts, incorporated it to two of their album closers (40, Wake Up Dead Man) and have tackled the unique Christian concept of grace in the closer of ATYCLB.  The closer of R&H is All I Want Is You which is a tribute to the sacrament of marriage and its permanence ("what God has put together, let no man put asunder.").  They even have a song whose title means God - Yahweh.  The closing Cedars of Lebanon talks of enemies perhaps in the same vein that Jesus preached to love your enemies.

Based on the poll, one out of every three here disagree with U2 on a very fundamental belief which is that of God.  It is not just a simple belief because for U2, this belief greatly influences their music.

If you all disagree with U2's beliefs, if many here disagree with U2's opinion in their U2 By U2 book that HTDAAB is their best album (many here actually rate it the "worst"!), what is there left of U2 that you still like?

If you are crossing your fingers hoping for another POP to be released, it will never happen because that album was a mistake in U2's eyes.  They will never tread the path of dance music, club culture all in an unfinished package ever again. Yet, in spite of all its imperfections, POP was U2's most religious album at that point after October.  God was referred to there many times.

Perhaps if you guys disagree with U2's viewpoints so often, it might be time to find another band. 

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 19, 2009, 01:19:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there really any point in trying to ridicule other peoples' beliefs. I don't really believe in God but you shouldn't try to invalidate what others believe.

I'm not invalidating it, I seriously want to know things like cancer and natural disasters are reconciled with the idea of a "loving" god creating a "perfect" world.

We're not talking about man's inhumanity to man here.



 Well, calling Christ a "bit of a barking loon" might not be considered "ridicule" in some circles but most would typically define that type of attribution as invalidating of another person's individual belief.

 +++

 As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 I'll give you an answer after I'm more clear on your comment concerning "man's inhumanity to man."

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 19, 2009, 01:26:30 AM
 <Bump>

 As an atheist, do you have an explanation for this (From your Reply# 315):

Quote
It also seems that you are ascribing to me an atheistic "all religions are inherently myths" attitude, which I assure you I do not have (at least, not as an a priori assumption).

 Yes, I am. Because your participation has been conjoined with JuniorEmblem's and your last post's question assumes that believing the claims of Christ through historically authenticated testimony necessarily leads to believing in all other miracle workers as something wrong citing Christ via historical evidence.

 So if I haven't misunderstood your apparent prejudice correctly, the converse must be true and you don't believe that all religions are myths, correct?

 Which begs the question, which religion do you believe isn't a myth?

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 08:01:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Perhaps if you guys disagree with U2's viewpoints so often, it might be time to find another band. 



It is obviously time for you to learn to separate the artist from the art.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 08:04:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 

My position is as a person, not as an atheist.

Man's inhumanity to man is a moral issue, god only enters into it when religion is the basis for that inhumanity, which is a lot.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 19, 2009, 08:29:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 

My position is as a person, not as an atheist.



Now that is funny, JR you have become the Jick of the "anti-God" movement. (Sorry Jick)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 08:37:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 

My position is as a person, not as an atheist.



Now that is funny, JR you have become the Jick of the "anti-God" movement. (Sorry Jick)

My lack of religious beliefs isn't what defines me as a person

I'm a human being first, a father, a husband, these types of things are higher up on what defines me as a person before my atheism, political beliefs, music likes, etc.

I'm not so much 'anti-god', god plays no part in my life other than the occasional internet discussion or debate with some family members. Being 'anti-something' suggests something of a militant proactive nature, I've never even started a 'why do you idiots believe in such drivel' thread, only responded when others have brought the issue up.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 19, 2009, 09:16:41 AM
Oh, I'm sorry Bro, I misunderstood your post.

Well, I'm off for my opium fix.........singing/praising my Lord ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 09:18:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, I'm sorry Bro, I misunderstood your post.

Well, I'm off for my opium fix.........singing/praising my Lord ;D

kool-aid.....mmmmmmm.......

 ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 19, 2009, 02:30:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 

My position is as a person, not as an atheist.

Man's inhumanity to man is a moral issue, god only enters into it when religion is the basis for that inhumanity, which is a lot.


That's fine and I'm sure anyone can appreciate the nuance. However, your participation is defined by your antagonism towards Christianity and towards theism as an atheist , or if you like, as a person who believes in atheism and who is advancing that position.

So you believe in morality and God enters the equation in your criticism when religion is the basis for that inhumanity.

What about irreligion and it's contribution to the same end? Atheism is a peerless mechanism for man's inhumanity to man. It may be much more useful to define these worldviews by what they assert and the justification that can be presented rather than by their abuses, wouldn't you agree?

And as it pertains to worldview and morality, as a person you believe in good and evil, correct?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 03:03:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As an atheist, do you believe that man's inhumanity to man is as much of a moral problem as reconciling God with the existence of evil in the world?

 

My position is as a person, not as an atheist.

Man's inhumanity to man is a moral issue, god only enters into it when religion is the basis for that inhumanity, which is a lot.


That's fine and I'm sure anyone can appreciate the nuance. However, your participation is defined by your antagonism towards Christianity and towards theism as an atheist , or if you like, as a person who believes in atheism and who is advancing that position.

So you believe in morality and God enters the equation in your criticism when religion is the basis for that inhumanity.

What about irreligion and it's contribution to the same end?



Man to man inhumanity is equally bad regardless of the cause, whether it's due to Religion or not. Religion HAS been one of the major offenders in this regard. Note, not the ONLY one.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Atheism is a peerless mechanism for man's inhumanity to man.

Respectfully disagree.

Religion, Nationalism and Politics are the unholy trinity of the majority of man-inflicted suffering.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And as it pertains to worldview and morality, as a person you believe in good and evil, correct?


I believe all of us are fundamentally flawed, some more so than others for whatever reason.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 19, 2009, 10:01:01 PM
Quote
Respectfully disagree.

Religion, Nationalism and Politics are the unholy trinity of the majority of man-inflicted suffering.

I would substitute Religion with Irreligion if statistics are about to be presented,  but you've included "man-inflicted" which speaks to your next statement. 


Quote
I believe all of us are fundamentally flawed, some more so than others for whatever reason.

+++

 Man to man inhumanity is equally bad regardless of the cause, whether it's due to Religion or not. Religion HAS been one of the major offenders in this regard. Note, not the ONLY one.

 So you're stating that religion is not a necessary cause for man's inhumanity to man then?

 Would you characterize this inhumanity as evil or immoral?

 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 19, 2009, 10:16:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 So you're stating that religion is not a necessary cause for man's inhumanity to man then?

I think I clearly stated I don't feel it's not the ONLY cause, but one of the major ones.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Would you characterize this inhumanity as evil or immoral?

 

Only those 2 choices huh ? Hmmm....wondering if you're building up to something, nah........that would be disingenious of you and we wouldn't want that !

I'd characterize it as being wrong, being a bad thing, you can label it any way you want.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 19, 2009, 11:12:53 PM
Quote
Only those 2 choices huh ? Hmmm....wondering if you're building up to something, nah........that would be disingenious of you and we wouldn't want that !

How exactly is asking a direct question, specific to a discussion on worldviews where morality plays an intrinsic part, disingenuous?

If you've heard all the arguments before as you state: http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg179250.html#msg179250 (http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg179250.html#msg179250)
then nothing that may follow could be anything less legitimate than you asking how the existence of pain and suffering is reconciled with the existence of an all - loving God, correct?

Incidentally, if you have a more accurate word to describe the moral characterization of man's inhumanity to man, by all means, offer it.


Quote
I think I clearly stated I don't feel it's not the ONLY cause, but one of the major ones.

 Right. I wanted to be sure that's what you said and that I understood your position clearly. So when I say, "So you're stating that religion is not a necessary cause for man's inhumanity to man then?" it's to establish that man doesn't need religion in order to be inhumane to another, other causes, according to you are sufficient, but that ultimately, man's imperfect nature is a sufficient cause for "being wrong," or "bad things."

 "Bad" I'm sure you know is a synonym of "Evil" in terms of a lack of moral quality so the word you've chosen is fine.

 Objectively by positing the existence of "Evil" you are positing the existence of "Good" and vice versa, right? So you acknowledge that there exists a moral framework by which you can determine objectively the difference between "Good" and "Evil", right? You acknowledge a moral law then, right?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 20, 2009, 07:16:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




I think I clearly stated I don't feel it's not the ONLY cause, but one of the major ones.[/quote]



 Right. I wanted to be sure that's what you said and that I understood your position clearly.

[/quote]

Do you have an issue with Plain English ? Am I using too few words ?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So when I say, "So you're stating that religion is not a necessary cause for man's inhumanity to man then?" it's to establish that man doesn't need religion in order to be inhumane to another, other causes, according to you are sufficient, but that ultimately, man's imperfect nature is a sufficient cause for "being wrong," or "bad things."


Dude.....again....why are you rehashing the EXACT SAME THING only with more words ?

Religion has been the cause of much fighting, hatred, torture, destruction and death.

So have other things.

go ahead and re-re-re-iterate if you want.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Bad" I'm sure you know is a synonym of "Evil" in terms of a lack of moral quality so the word you've chosen is fine.


thank you professor


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Objectively by positing the existence of "Evil" you are positing the existence of "Good" and vice versa, right? So you acknowledge that there exists a moral framework by which you can determine objectively the difference between "Good" and "Evil", right? You acknowledge a moral law then, right?



Oh, just get to your blatantly obvious not very subtle oncoming mack truck of a point will ya ?

 ;D

People can be moral without having religion or "god" in their lives, but go ahead, bring it on anyway



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 20, 2009, 08:42:24 AM
Quote
Do you have an issue with Plain English ? Am I using too few words ?

 Not at all. Use as many or as few as you want.

 You may feel like what I'm doing is unnecessarily repeating myself, but I'm not, and if you need the explanation, feel free to ask. Because getting you to actually be clear -- rigidly clear on a point -- never mind attempting to bring you into account for your starting points is a little difficult isn't it?

 I mean you basically like to weave your worldview thoughts in between insults, so having you actually specifically respond to a question instead of ignoring, reframing, or answering a question you wished was asked, is kind of a luxury isn't it?

Quote
Dude.....again....why are you rehashing the EXACT SAME THING only with more words ? Religion has been the cause of much fighting, hatred, torture, destruction and death. So have other things.

go ahead and re-re-re-iterate if you want.

thank you professor

Here's an example, junior...There's a difference in saying religion is one cause of man's inhumanity to man and saying man's inhumanity to man doesn't need religion to cause it.

OK?
Quote
Oh, just get to your blatantly obvious not very subtle oncoming mack truck of a point will ya ?

 ;D

People can be moral without having religion or "god" in their lives, but go ahead, bring it on anyway

 I'm not talking about converting anyone, JuniorEmblem. This is strictly on terms. What you do with the information is your choice.


 Well this is certainly a condensed, simplistic assertion, but when you ask the question concerning God and the existence of pain,suffering and Evil, as an atheist purporting the non-existence of God your question gains a curious posture.

 You've posited three entailments, right? The existence of evil, good and a moral law and the framework by which you may differentiate the objective difference between the two.

 The problem lies in the next logical step. In order that there may be a moral law, you must posit a moral law-giver, but that is precisely Whom you are trying to disprove. It stands to reason then, that if there is no moral law-giver, there is no moral law, if there is no moral law there is no such thing as good and if there is no such thing as good there is no such thing as evil.

 How exactly do you arrive at the reality of good and evil without God, then?

 
Do you know Richard Dawkins's answer to that question?



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 20, 2009, 09:27:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 How exactly do you arrive at the reality of good and evil without God, then?

 
Do you know Richard Dawkins's answer to that question?





I live my life the best I can, I know the difference between right and wrong, I may not always follow it but then neither do you. I don't need "god" to know the difference between good and evil. If you do, that's your prerogative.

I don't know Richard Dawkins' answer - nor do I care what it is.


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 20, 2009, 09:30:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Do you have an issue with Plain English ? Am I using too few words ?

 Not at all. Use as many or as few as you want.

 You may feel like what I'm doing is unnecessarily repeating myself, but I'm not, and if you need the explanation, feel free to ask. Because getting you to actually be clear -- rigidly clear on a point -- never mind attempting to bring you into account for your starting points is a little difficult isn't it?

 I mean you basically like to weave your worldview thoughts in between insults, so having you actually specifically respond to a question instead of ignoring, reframing, or answering a question you wished was asked, is kind of a luxury isn't it?

Quote
Dude.....again....why are you rehashing the EXACT SAME THING only with more words ? Religion has been the cause of much fighting, hatred, torture, destruction and death. So have other things.

go ahead and re-re-re-iterate if you want.

thank you professor

Here's an example, junior...There's a difference in saying religion is one cause of man's inhumanity to man and saying man's inhumanity to man doesn't need religion to cause it.

OK?
Quote
Oh, just get to your blatantly obvious not very subtle oncoming mack truck of a point will ya ?

 ;D

People can be moral without having religion or "god" in their lives, but go ahead, bring it on anyway

 I'm not talking about converting anyone, JuniorEmblem. This is strictly on terms. What you do with the information is your choice.


 Well this is certainly a condensed, simplistic assertion, but when you ask the question concerning God and the existence of pain,suffering and Evil, as an atheist purporting the non-existence of God your question gains a curious posture.

 You've posited three entailments, right? The existence of evil, good and a moral law and the framework by which you may differentiate the objective difference between the two.

 The problem lies in the next logical step. In order that there may be a moral law, you must posit a moral law-giver, but that is precisely Whom you are trying to disprove. It stands to reason then, that if there is no moral law-giver, there is no moral law, if there is no moral law there is no such thing as good and if there is no such thing as good there is no such thing as evil.

 How exactly do you arrive at the reality of good and evil without God, then?

 
Do you know Richard Dawkins's answer to that question?





Hes looking it up....stay tuned!
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 20, 2009, 09:33:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hes looking it up....stay tuned!

Ummm, no......



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 20, 2009, 05:07:45 PM
visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 20, 2009, 05:10:33 PM
Quote
I live my life the best I can, I know the difference between right and wrong, I may not always follow it but then neither do you. I don't need "god" to know the difference between good and evil. If you do, that's your prerogative.

I don't know Richard Dawkins' answer - nor do I care what it is.

Let me clarify -- again -- I'm not interested, nor am I trying to convert you. I'm appealing to your atheistic sensitivity towards rationality and our common need for a moral framework within two competing worldviews. I'm not judging your life and I'm not holding mine as an example superior to yours because I believe in one thing and you don't.

You mentioned you knew/heard all of the arguments before. And sometimes if someone is shouting loud enough, bragging enough, the chances are, it's a smokescreen, a move of aggression to appear stronger than they really are. And with most of your insults, I assumed that was probably the case here as well. 

+++

Richard Dawkins actually goes so far as to say that in order to arrive at the reality of good and evil when there is no God, for the atheist's worldview/argument to remain, one must deny the reality of evil.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 20, 2009, 05:14:47 PM
Just to flip back to the previous page:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My response...

...completely missed the point. Well done.

OK, proceed.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 20, 2009, 05:16:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
I live my life the best I can, I know the difference between right and wrong, I may not always follow it but then neither do you. I don't need "god" to know the difference between good and evil. If you do, that's your prerogative.

I don't know Richard Dawkins' answer - nor do I care what it is.

Let me clarify -- again -- I'm not interested, nor am I trying to convert you.


I didn't say or think you were


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Richard Dawkins actually goes so far as to say that in order to arrive at the reality of good and evil when there is no God, for the atheist's worldview/argument to remain, one must deny the reality of evil.


you: do you know what dawkins thinks about this ?
me: no, I don't care
you: here's what dawkins has to say

 ::)



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 20, 2009, 06:31:09 PM
Quote
you: do you know what dawkins thinks about this ?
me: no, I don't care
you: here's what dawkins has to say

 You're not actually going to take a posture of indignation on the basis of -- of all things -- an assumption of mutual respect are you?

 Besides,you asked me to get to my obvious as an oncoming mack truck point, right?

 See it's the same thing as holding conflicting worldviews, JE, only here you're equating the sense of feeling (Not wanting the answer provided) with an actual statement that first states a want to arrive at the answer followed by a statement of not knowing the answer and yet another citing a disinterest to the answer.

 But disinterest, ignorance and want aren't the same as not wanting, right?

 
 You're like The Tasmanian Devil aren't you? Whirling through arguments, with insult and wanton destruction without any other reason than...that's what you do.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 20, 2009, 07:07:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
you: do you know what dawkins thinks about this ?
me: no, I don't care
you: here's what dawkins has to say


 Besides,you asked me to get to my obvious as an oncoming mack truck point, right?

Wow, it took you so long and went such a circuitous route that by the time you got there I failed to see it. My bad.

So basically it was exactly where I thought you were going, not an attempt at converting (I didn't think that for a nanosecond) but somehow equating the use of the word evil within the context of an omnipotent deity.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 
 You're like The Tasmanian Devil aren't you?

No

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 20, 2009, 09:39:56 PM
Quote
Wow, it took you so long and went such a circuitous route that by the time you got there I failed to see it. My bad.

 If there was a circuitous route, Junior, I think it's pretty obvious that getting you to account for your flippant comments, and ill-considered assertions, is like trying to give a rattlesnake a bath.

 The trail is obvious and the logic simplistic, but obviously poignant.

 As for "long", not everything fits onto a gum wrapper.

Quote
So basically it was exactly where I thought you were going, not an attempt at converting (I didn't think that for a nanosecond) but somehow equating the use of the word evil within the context of an omnipotent deity.

 Riiiiight...Here's the problem with that , Junior...

 A person doesn't knowingly and willingly expose the weakness of their position unless your aim is to fail. And I think most here would be hard pressed to find a more glaring example of aggressive participation than yours. So the claim that you know all the arguments, or that "basically"  you knew it's direction isn't exactly an accurate account of the exchange is it? It's like you focusing on me clarifying the obvious synonym, while choosing to omit the thrust of the example which essentially dismantles your advertised worldview. It's not a "basic" difference it's a fundamental difference.

 And your ignorance of Dawkins' comment isn't the tipping point here. His is simply the latest assertion in a long line of assertions that says the same thing as Russell or Nietzsche is quoted as saying. And like Dawkins, Nietzsche calls for the same removal of necessary terms, or as in Russell's case, off into a corner to mutter a thousand "Hows?" without reply.

 "It" is about the same problem that those mentioned have wrestled with and come up gasping for air a century or more over. So categorically, you don't know, and you didn't know and attempting to shrug off or manage the impression after the fact is useless at this point.

 What's left now, short of redirection is for your to consider the weight of the theoretical nuance Dawkins and Co. poses. Because there is a great difference between the emotive indulgence of atheism and it's intellectual fruits made active.

 As a human being and a father that acknowledges the existence of evil, Dawkins and his reptilian musings should give you great pause before whirling into their pit. He and others don't simply want to emote about removing the perception about the reality of evil, they want to animate it. That's the aim of atheism.

 Eugenics for example, a natural outgrowth of the materialist, humanist camp would have some interesting answers on your question concerning a 2 year old and leukemia.

 But for another thread...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 21, 2009, 04:06:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Richard Dawkins actually goes so far as to say that in order to arrive at the reality of good and evil when there is no God, for the atheist's worldview/argument to remain, one must deny the reality of evil.


Well, if we are to regard Good and Evil as absolutes, as immutable categories, then Hawkins is right, I think. Without God there are no absolutes, because God is really the only possible reasonable source for absolutes. Without God, there is no Evil and there is no Good.

However, from there it doesn't necessarily follow that "anything goes". The simple fact that men and women live in a society will eventually lead them to accept some standards for "good" and "bad". Those attitudes that promote the well being and survival of society will generally be considered "good" and those that promote its dissolution will be considered "bad".

It remains a matter of debate, I think, whether human beings are born with a sense of good and bad or if those categories only appear through education and living in society. I suppose believers defend that people are born with this sense, as it must come from God. Am I right or wrong here? But at least for non believers the answer may not seem so linear...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 21, 2009, 07:10:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


That's the aim of atheism.

 Eugenics for example, a natural outgrowth of the materialist, humanist camp would have some interesting answers on your question concerning a 2 year old and leukemia.

 But for another thread...

Of course your camp never did answer on the leukemia quesiton, so props to eugenics if they attempt one !

Atheism has an "aim" ??? It's a movement ?? My bad, I thought it was always just a term stating one's position as to whether or not they believe in santa claus god

I guess I must consult with the elders so they can tell me what to think !


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 21, 2009, 08:25:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Now this is good!

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: u2bonoman on April 21, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
Everyone will believe in God one day.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 21, 2009, 09:00:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Quote
So basically it was exactly where I thought you were going, not an attempt at converting (I didn't think that for a nanosecond) but somehow equating the use of the word evil within the context of an omnipotent deity.

 Riiiiight...Here's the problem with that , Junior...

 A person doesn't knowingly and willingly expose the weakness of their position unless your aim is to fail.


And yet.......you went exactly where I thought you would, don't kid yourself, you're not exactly treading "where no man has gone before" territory !


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


So the claim that you know all the arguments, or that "basically"  you knew it's direction isn't exactly an accurate account of the exchange is it?




Actually it is.

The only difference is that you took waaayyyyyyy longer than most to get there. You invoked an author I hadn't read but basically ended up with the same arguments I've heard time and again in discussions with family members and others.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


(bunch of irrelevant musings snipped for brevity)

 As a human being and a father that acknowledges the existence of evil, Dawkins and his reptilian musings should give you great pause before whirling into their pit. He and others don't simply want to emote about removing the perception about the reality of evil, they want to animate it. .


What part of "I don't care what Dawkins says" did you not understand ?

As for "reptilian musings"......... :o



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 21, 2009, 09:02:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everyone will believe in God one day.

Really? - I was thinking everyone will renounce God one day.

A little presumptuous of you, don't you think?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 21, 2009, 09:52:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Now this is good!



From xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com), one of the very finest webcomics active today. This "discussion" has pretty much gone down the same drain as a "Mario vs Sonic" debate in the 90's... Or your basic televised election debate. Useless.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 21, 2009, 09:56:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Now this is good!



From xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com), one of the very finest webcomics active today. This "discussion" has pretty much gone down the same drain as a "Mario vs Sonic" debate in the 90's... Or your basic televised election debate. Useless.

Quite.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: LOGAN B on April 21, 2009, 10:03:16 AM
This topic seems to be quite popular right now. With a band like U2 I think it's completly legitimate to discuss it. Despite our differences and our sometimes passionate arguments I hope we can all remember that, "We are One but not the same, We get to carry each other."
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 21, 2009, 10:40:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This topic seems to be quite popular right now. With a band like U2 I think it's completly legitimate to discuss it. Despite our differences and our sometimes passionate arguments I hope we can all remember that, "We are One but not the same, We get to carry each other."

It certainly is a legitimate topic, and a very interesting one, but it's not exactly been a high quality exchange of thoughts and ideas has it?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: aarond on April 21, 2009, 10:43:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This topic seems to be quite popular right now. With a band like U2 I think it's completly legitimate to discuss it. Despite our differences and our sometimes passionate arguments I hope we can all remember that, "We are One but not the same, We get to carry each other."

It certainly is a legitimate topic, and a very interesting one, but it's not exactly been a high quality exchange of thoughts and ideas has it?

Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 21, 2009, 10:50:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

 ;D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 21, 2009, 11:11:59 AM
Any one who takes a novel to be true is a moron, anyone who assumes that someone would think a novel is non-fiction is an ass.  

Jesus is not unique to Christianity, he is an ancient figure used under many names to worship the sun.  He is born when the days begin to get longer (Dec 25) and he resurrection is celebrated when the spring arrives.  He is an ancient sun god.

There once was a saviour of mankind named Attis who was born of a virgin. He was the son of God, his body was bread, was crucified on a Friday, and resurrected on the sunday after the vernal equinox.

There once was a man named Horus who was born of a virgin in a manger at the winter equinox. His birth was announced by the presence of a star, and he was baptized at 30 after a long, undocumented absence.  He had 12 apostles, and perfomed miracles. He was crucified, called the lamb of god, the good shepherd, the anointed one (christ)...

There once was a man named Krishna was born on the 25th of december as well...pops was a carpenter, he perfomed miracles, after death the sun darkened and he rose to heaven...performed miracles... there are too many similarities to go into.

There once was a man named Mithra who was born at the winter equinox. He was created by Mazda to be the representative of truth to earth, and he was made to die.  He is the redeemer and the judge of souls.  He had 12 followers, performed miracles, promised his followers immortality, is identified with the lamb, called the messiah, holy day is sunday, bread was his body and wine his blood, he is celebrated at the spring equinox...

There once was man named Zoroaster who was born of a virgin.  He was a great preacher who began his practice at 30. He was baptized in a river, his religion had a eucharist, he taught about heaven and hell...there will be a second coming. He taught that life was a battle between truth and lies, simpified into good and evil by the church.

There once was a man named Dyonisus, who was born at the winter equinox and rose from the dead at the spring equinox.  He created wine, and was called the King of Kings. He was also identified with the lamb.  His presence was felt inside of people.


Onto the point of God granting U2 great wealth...wasn't Jesus against wealth? He promoted equality.  He was not a materialist, philosophically or practically.  So, as the ambassador of God, why would he preach against the beliefs of his boss?  Never mind all of the EVIL people who have been rewarded with wealth and all of the non-believing rock stars who are rich (jews! athiests!). Logically, there is no way that one can answer yes.  Now, if the question was "Did Satan Make U2 successful", the answer, supposing Satan is real, could be Yes as he could be seen as the corrupter of men, the one who blinds men to their true nature AND TO THE GREAT TRUTH by material temptation.  God clearly does not give a f*** if anyone is rich, or poor...the Church on the other hand...they like the coin.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 22, 2009, 03:48:56 AM
  jimmyjazz,

 I'm going to assume, that you took my challenge but decided not to make a new thread with which to begin the exchange. I'm guessing you also didn't place your response on the correct unrelated thread.

 And from what you've offered below as your "knowledge" on Christianity and on myth for that matter, given the command you gave me to know my religion, I think it's only fair to answer your claims.

Quote
Any one who takes a novel to be true is a moron, anyone who assumes that someone would think a novel is non-fiction is an ass.
 

 Something tells me your definition of "Novel" is isolated to popular fiction. I encourage you to read a little more about the genre which is pretty flexible and often incorporates fact within narrative.

  A person isn't a moron under your description and as for a person being "an ass" for -- horror of horrors -- thinking that a novel is non-fiction, I suggest you read, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, widely considered one of the finest examples of a non-fiction novel.

 So your assumption has certainly lived up to it's warning when using the word "ass-u-me" without care.

 Oh and just to clarify, jimmyjazz...If you go back and actually read the exchange in the thread you'll note I said nothing about the novel in question, but your little introduction did make me smile, so thank you.
 
Quote
Jesus is not unique to Christianity, he is an ancient figure used under many names to worship the sun.  He is born when the days begin to get longer (Dec 25) and he resurrection is celebrated when the spring arrives.  He is an ancient sun god.

 Well, given that Jesus Christ is the foundation of Christianity, the Christian definition of Christ is necessarily unique to Christianity as an extension of it's Judaic origins.  In terms of "being" an ancient figure, what you mean -- or what some of the less vigilant "historians" and writers like to contend -- is that the figure of Jesus Christ is merely an assemblage of myths created into one ultimate mythical representation commonly called Syncretism which characterizes other practices and religions much more reasonably of antiquity than Christianity which is demonstrably exclusive in composition and practice.

 The problem with "your" assertion lies in the inherent and basic difference between what a myth is and what a fact is. Further to this is the well documented historical authentication (By atheist, non-religious and religious scholars alike) for the identity of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ben  Yosef) as fact. To say nothing of the Church's rich archaeological historical deposit.

 One skeptic and non-christian, historian, W.E.H Leckey in his book History of European Morals: From Augustus to Charlemagne Vol 1 on the influence of the historical figure of Jesus Christ said:

"...that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."

 But one example of an unbiased analysis that concludes whatever Christ is, He is most certainly not a myth.

---

 December 25th was once celebrated as the solar feast Natalis Invicti, and amongst other dates now assumed into the liturgical calendar of The Catholic Church, the actual path to any one claimant as to the reason for the selection of the that date has not been determined.

 A much more interesting investigation of liturgical comparisons would be contemporary theories that deduce Christ's birth along Jewish feast days from the Gospels. One contention places Christ's birth sometime near the The Feast of Tabernacles and possibly on or near Yom Kippur celebrated in the autumn.

 You can investigate the importance on your own should you desire.

 Concerning the comparison to mythological spring resurrection, again, the evidence points to the Jewish Passover as signpost concerning timelines, and again -- on your own -- I encourage you to enhance your knowledge as to the importance of that date in Judeo-Christian context.

As for being "an ancient sun god," what you need to do is familiarize yourself with accurate historical account, and what actually qualifies as evidence in academic circles. Manuscript evidence from personal testimony which ascribe a claim of Godhood. Important to your reasoning, that scholars have concluded on are the origins which stem from a strict, monotheistic landscape...Notions of a man who lived in this landscape, and fulfilling it's prophecies as though one "god" of many, is ludicrous.

The titulus (The sign affixed to the vertical crossbeam which displays the convict's crime) in Christ's case, read: "Jesus of Nazareth, King Of The Jews".  Any cursory review of the evidence sees the accusers (Sanhedrin) positioning Christ's claims as Messiah/God as being a threat to Ceasar. The crime necessarily identifies Christ's claims as blasphemous, and it could hardly be considered blasphemous if the crime was as one god among many when the belief is monotheistic and strictly observed unto pains of death.

And scholars agree that the crucifixion is also a matter of historical record and that the man crucified was in fact, not a myth but a real person.

Hardly a myth.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 22, 2009, 03:53:35 AM
jimmyjazz,

 I'm just a little curious as to why you wouldn't provide dates as evidence of influence, jimmyjazz?

 As for historical accuracy, apart from the varied evolution of these myths, they remain factually, mythical which is the defining starting point in this consideration.

 Jesus Christ is a person.

Quote
There once was a saviour of mankind named Attis who was born of a virgin. He was the son of God, his body was bread, was crucified on a Friday, and resurrected on the sunday after the vernal equinox.


In terms of soteriological influence, jimmyjazz, Firmicus Maternus writes in 350 AD, that Attis comes back to life in the spring to comfort Cybele with return of vegetation on the festival of Hilaria where Attis returns from the underworld. This is cyclical unlike the singular historic event of The Resurrection. It's also important for you to know that the only implication of Attis's "death" is from 3rd or 4th century pictures of this fictitious character, is him "dancing" as somehow celebrating his release from death.

Attis isn't resurrected in so far as he is maintained in an incorruptable form in a cycle of presence and absence.

The inference of resurrection happens around 150 AD according to sources.

But all of this myth, AFTER Christianity.


Quote
There once was a man named Horus who was born of a virgin in a manger at the winter equinox. His birth was announced by the presence of a star, and he was baptized at 30 after a long, undocumented absence.  He had 12 apostles, and perfomed miracles. He was crucified, called the lamb of god, the good shepherd, the anointed one (christ)...

 What citations predating The New Testament are you using?

 Which version of Horus?


Quote
There once was a man named Krishna was born on the 25th of december as well...pops was a carpenter, he perfomed miracles, after death the sun darkened and he rose to heaven...performed miracles... there are too many similarities to go into.

 Was Krishna crucified? Was his death and resurrection used as an atonement under the concept of grace?

 Would be odd given that in one version his death happens as a case of being mistaken as an animal -- Or by an arrow in the heel as he watches his brother die... To say nothing of karma as THE theological tenant of Hinduism which couldn't be a more different influence if you invented it to be.

 Hardly an influence, where the centrality of one worldview is the complete opposite of the other.

 Speaking of which, why haven't you included Davaki in your claim?
 
Quote
There once was a man named Mithra who was born at the winter equinox. He was created by Mazda to be the representative of truth to earth, and he was made to die.  He is the redeemer and the judge of souls.  He had 12 followers, performed miracles, promised his followers immortality, is identified with the lamb, called the messiah, holy day is sunday, bread was his body and wine his blood, he is celebrated at the spring equinox...

 Celebration in the early Church was daily. As Jews, Christians celebrated on the Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day, not Sunday in comparison.
 
 Constantine incorporated Sunday in the fourth century.
 
 Mithra was born out of a cave and not of a virgin and born fully formed, does not die, does not predict his resurrection, does not resurrect and as far as an "influence" given that Mithra is in fact , a myth, the earliest presence according to The Encyclopedia Britannica which places Mithraism in the Roman world AT EARLIEST as 136 AD.

 Extrapolate at your leisure.

Quote
There once was man named Zoroaster...There once was a man named Dyonisus

 I can provide similar deconstructions if you like?

 

Quote
Onto the point of God granting U2 great wealth...wasn't Jesus against wealth? He promoted equality.  He was not a materialist, philosophically or practically.  So, as the ambassador of God, why would he preach against the beliefs of his boss?  Never mind all of the EVIL people who have been rewarded with wealth and all of the non-believing rock stars who are rich (jews! athiests!). Logically, there is no way that one can answer yes.  Now, if the question was "Did Satan Make U2 successful", the answer, supposing Satan is real, could be Yes as he could be seen as the corrupter of men, the one who blinds men to their true nature AND TO THE GREAT TRUTH by material temptation.  God clearly does not give a f*** if anyone is rich, or poor...the Church on the other hand...they like the coin.

 Which thread do want this answered in?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Sydney_Mike on April 23, 2009, 05:31:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

Can't say I have heard this one.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 23, 2009, 08:57:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

Can't say I have heard this one.

Basically it says if you give an infinite number of chimps an infinite number of typewriters (shows how long this has been around) that the laws of probability states that given enough time eventually by sheer accident one of the chimps will type out a bible/work-of-shakespeare/jick post which will lead to making a comment about Pop regardless of what the topic is

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 23, 2009, 03:08:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

Can't say I have heard this one.

Basically it says if you give an infinite number of chimps an infinite number of typewriters (shows how long this has been around) that the laws of probability states that given enough time eventually by sheer accident one of the chimps will type out a bible/work-of-shakespeare/jick post which will lead to making a comment about Pop regardless of what the topic is

 The analogy has been continuously taken out of context and enhanced for various purposes or others.

 "Enough time" should be infinite time, which under reasonable comprehension is incomprehensible.

 The actual quote is from a British astronomer named Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who wrote in his book, The Nature Of The Physical World:

 "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum."

 In context it reads: "The reason why we ignore this chance may be seen by a rather classical illustration. If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chances of their doing so is decidedly more favorable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel."

 The example actually illustrates the opposite meaning widely assumed today.

 Hawking extrapolated the example to site the abstract possibility of reproducing a sonnet of Shakespeare, but again, even  as an example of possibility the model falls time and time again.

 Absurdity.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 23, 2009, 03:09:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

Can't say I have heard this one.

Basically it says if you give an infinite number of chimps an infinite number of typewriters (shows how long this has been around) that the laws of probability states that given enough time eventually by sheer accident one of the chimps will type out a bible/work-of-shakespeare/jick post which will lead to making a comment about Pop regardless of what the topic is

 The analogy has been continuously taken out of context and enhanced for various purposes or others.

 "Enough time" should be infinite time, which under reasonable comprehension is incomprehensible.

 The actual quote is from a British astronomer named Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who wrote in his book, The Nature Of The Physical World:

 "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum."

 In context it reads: "The reason why we ignore this chance may be seen by a rather classical illustration. If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chances of their doing so is decidedly more favorable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel."

 The example actually illustrates the opposite meaning widely assumed today.

 Hawking extrapolated the example to site the abstract possibility of reproducing a sonnet of Shakespeare, but again, even  as an example of possibility the model falls time and time again.

 Absurdity.

Oh look, it worked !

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 23, 2009, 05:58:41 PM
Quote
Oh look, it worked !

You're in control over my participation about as much as you are accurate in your presentation of facts.

Hyperion to a satyr, buddy.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 23, 2009, 06:56:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Oh look, it worked !

You're in control over my participation about as much as you are accurate in your presentation of facts.

Hyperion to a satyr, buddy.


I know i've used this before but

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 23, 2009, 07:14:57 PM
The tone of this discussion has to change or I am shutting it down.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: liam02 on April 23, 2009, 07:53:35 PM
Group hug  ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 24, 2009, 02:03:13 AM

ITM, you have WAY too much time on your hands.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 03:08:21 AM
Quote
I know i've used this before but

 Correcting Junior's factual errors are equivalent to a straw-man argument? Hmmm. Nope. Not the definition I've come across. But if that's a straw-man argument to you...Good luck.

 And my position concerning the use of science is much more like that of  Dr.Francis Collins.

 So you can remove that convenient little generalization from your prejudicial quiver as well.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 03:41:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

ITM, you have WAY too much time on your hands.

Maybe so, but I don't use it to insult people of different beliefs with baseless attacks that depend upon insult and ridicule, Jazz.


Given the obvious source of disruption -- Non-believers -- why don't one of you simply start as I suggested, a Non-Believers Rant Thread or call it The Non-Believers Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants or The Primates Appreciation Society, whatever?

Take jimmyjazz for example...Criticizes a sentence of mine,  I ask him to start a separate thread where I'll join, he provides yet another post on an unrelated thread, and instead of getting called out on it -- or Junior Emblem's nigh Believers based Tourettes Syndrome getting highlighted on every other thread as being obviously disruptive -- you and others point out general participation as the problem when it's not.

It's the ideological prejudice of non-believers here that goes unchecked. And if removing threads about God serve anyone's purposes positively, it's non-believers. And again, given the band's obvious disposition towards God as inspiration for their music...



Here's a thread topic: Can Non-Believers Participate In A God Thread Without Ridiculing Believers or Their Belief System?

 Modified to say:...On A U2 Appreciation Forum.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 24, 2009, 04:50:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

ITM, you have WAY too much time on your hands.

Maybe so, but I don't use it to insult people of different beliefs with baseless attacks that depend upon insult and ridicule, Jazz.


Given the obvious source of disruption -- Non-believers -- why don't one of you simply start as I suggested, a Non-Believers Rant Thread or call it The Non-Believers Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants or The Primates Appreciation Society, whatever?

Take jimmyjazz for example...Criticizes a sentence of mine,  I ask him to start a separate thread where I'll join, he provides yet another post on an unrelated thread, and instead of getting called out on it -- or Junior Emblem's nigh Believers based Tourettes Syndrome getting highlighted on every other thread as being obviously disruptive -- you and others point out general participation as the problem when it's not.

It's the ideological prejudice of non-believers here that goes unchecked. And if removing threads about God serve anyone's purposes positively, it's non-believers. And again, given the band's obvious disposition towards God as inspiration for their music...



Here's a thread topic: Can Non-Believers Participate In A God Thread Without Ridiculing Believers or Their Belief System?

 Modified to say:...On A U2 Appreciation Forum.





Perfectly said....Our faith is not up for debate. Lets play nice and follow the OP: U2...God...Believe
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: sceptic prophet on April 24, 2009, 05:44:20 AM
The Junior Reactor vs. the ITM Machine.

Interesting show. But it gets a bit repetitive. Audiences are not getting higher. What to do next?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 24, 2009, 06:06:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

ITM, you have WAY too much time on your hands.

Maybe so, but I don't use it to insult people of different beliefs with baseless attacks that depend upon insult and ridicule, Jazz.


Given the obvious source of disruption -- Non-believers -- why don't one of you simply start as I suggested, a Non-Believers Rant Thread or call it The Non-Believers Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants or The Primates Appreciation Society, whatever?

Take jimmyjazz for example...Criticizes a sentence of mine,  I ask him to start a separate thread where I'll join, he provides yet another post on an unrelated thread, and instead of getting called out on it -- or Junior Emblem's nigh Believers based Tourettes Syndrome getting highlighted on every other thread as being obviously disruptive -- you and others point out general participation as the problem when it's not.

It's the ideological prejudice of non-believers here that goes unchecked. And if removing threads about God serve anyone's purposes positively, it's non-believers. And again, given the band's obvious disposition towards God as inspiration for their music...



Here's a thread topic: Can Non-Believers Participate In A God Thread Without Ridiculing Believers or Their Belief System?

 Modified to say:...On A U2 Appreciation Forum.





Perfectly said....Our faith is not up for debate. Lets play nice and follow the OP: U2...God...Believe

It's official title is the 'U2 forum'.

A forum is a public meeting place for open discussion - It isn't called the 'U2 appreciation forum'.

Or the 'God appreciation forum' - everyone is entitled to pass an opinion.

Therefore it's fair game to critisise. Or disagree
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 06:42:23 AM
Quote

It's official title is the 'U2 forum'.

A forum is a public meeting place for open discussion - It isn't called the 'U2 appreciation forum'.

Or the 'God appreciation forum' - everyone is entitled to pass an opinion.

Therefore it's fair game to critisise. Or disagree

Disagree all you like, who said not to? I've actually called for new threads to the effect. Either people aren't interested in reading or they're predisposed to constant errors in comprehension, or they're choosing to ignore the information at hand.

And where did I say it's a dedicated God appreciation forum? Again see above. Further, did you read my suggested thread? Seriously. Read.

The site's official title is "@U2 Forum" and in order to get here you have to go to atu2.com..See...This micro example speaks to the larger problem to these God debates.  The fact that the identity of the site is indivisible from U2 necessarily contains the reasonable assumption, Jazz, that we're here to appreciate the band in all it's complexities (Which is going to obviously include how their faith influences their music and how other believers who appreciate their music relate.) or is this like pointing out that derailing threads is inconsiderate, something you need further example as to why some things are just plainly obvious?

And how exactly, does expecting respect for the specific intent of a thread become unreasonable? After all, wasn't it you that started "Can We all Stop Debating God Please?" thread as a means of quelling the apparent animosity?

Well...The solution would be given your open definition of a forum, Jazz is to respect the topic of a thread, and in the event a thread reasonably and naturally alters course, perhaps civil discussion and reasonable disagreement could be increased where the topic demands it.

So either your thread is a spur of the moment emotional response to some discomfort prompting your plea, OR, you're backtracking and providing a definition of "forum" that suits your immediate purposes in this thread. Either way, Jazz, it's not taking away the fact that a number of people on this site don't mind starting disputes, except when they're actually called to account for it.
 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 07:11:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
I know i've used this before but

 Correcting Junior's factual errors are equivalent to a straw-man argument? Hmmm. Nope. Not the definition I've come across. But if that's a straw-man argument to you...Good luck.


"You're in control over my participation about as much as you are accurate in your presentation of facts" = Straw man

No one was asserting "control" or even trying to

Maybe a better one would be

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 24, 2009, 07:23:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

It's official title is the 'U2 forum'.

A forum is a public meeting place for open discussion - It isn't called the 'U2 appreciation forum'.

Or the 'God appreciation forum' - everyone is entitled to pass an opinion.

Therefore it's fair game to critisise. Or disagree

Disagree all you like, who said not to? I've actually called for new threads to the effect. Either people aren't interested in reading or they're predisposed to constant errors in comprehension, or they're choosing to ignore the information at hand.

And where did I say it's a dedicated God appreciation forum? Again see above. Further, did you read my suggested thread? Seriously. Read.

The site's official title is "@U2 Forum" and in order to get here you have to go to atu2.com..See...This micro example speaks to the larger problem to these God debates.  The fact that the identity of the site is indivisible from U2 necessarily contains the reasonable assumption, Jazz, that we're here to appreciate the band in all it's complexities (Which is going to obviously include how their faith influences their music and how other believers who appreciate their music relate.) or is this like pointing out that derailing threads is inconsiderate, something you need further example as to why some things are just plainly obvious?

And how exactly, does expecting respect for the specific intent of a thread become unreasonable? After all, wasn't it you that started "Can We all Stop Debating God Please?" thread as a means of quelling the apparent animosity?

Well...The solution would be given your open definition of a forum, Jazz is to respect the topic of a thread, and in the event a thread reasonably and naturally alters course, perhaps civil discussion and reasonable disagreement could be increased where the topic demands it.

So either your thread is a spur of the moment emotional response to some discomfort prompting your plea, OR, you're backtracking and providing a definition of "forum" that suits your immediate purposes in this thread. Either way, Jazz, it's not taking away the fact that a number of people on this site don't mind starting disputes, except when they're actually called to account for it.
 

You're too aggressive - and if you don't mean to be, that's how you come accross.

'Either people aren't interested in reading or they're predisposed to constant errors in comprehension, or they're choosing to ignore the information at hand.'

You're blantantly saying if people don't agree with you, it means they have 'errors of comprehension' or 'choosing to ignore the information', rather than simply having a different opinion to you.

I think it's fine to start a dispute here. What a tedious place this would be if it were one massive love-in. I don't know if that statement was aimed at me but I'm more than happy to be 'called to account' for any of my posts. I didn't start the 'stop debating God thread' to unsult anyone. If you read what I wrote, I said the 2 'God' threads had become ridiculous, and, as a moderator has pointed out, sometimes unpleasant.

Most threads on here go off topic. It can either make the thread thunderously boring or highly entertaining.

Forums are nothing if not fascinating human experiments.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 07:28:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
I know i've used this before but

 Correcting Junior's factual errors are equivalent to a straw-man argument? Hmmm. Nope. Not the definition I've come across. But if that's a straw-man argument to you...Good luck.


"You're in control over my participation about as much as you are accurate in your presentation of facts" = Straw man

No one was asserting "control" or even trying to

Maybe a better one would be

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



"Oh look, it worked!" doesn't imply that your post wasn't claiming to have designed a "trap" ?

Look at your correction, one man leading another. Even your clarification betrays you.

Do you know what a straw-man fallacy is or are you just pretending with that as well?


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 07:47:13 AM

Quote
You're blantantly saying if people don't agree with you, it means they have 'errors of comprehension' or 'choosing to ignore the information', rather than simply having a different opinion to you.

No, I'm really not Jazz. I've actually taken some very basic arguments and demonstrated why such is the case.

Take my latest response in the other thread to you, or our little exchange about the title of the forum. Go back. Read it. Then show me, demonstrate, where I'm saying that if you believe differently than I do, that you as a person remain in error.

Expect to have your opinion challenged. I do. And the truth about opinions is this, they occasionally contain errors. 

Is the forum's name "U2 Forum" or "@U2 Forum" ? Is that my opinion or is it fact?

It's the same with any number of arguments, and the reality is sometimes people are misinformed, willingly or not.

What else are disputes based on if not a mutual perspective supporting that notion?

Quote
I didn't start the 'stop debating God thread' to unsult anyone. If you read what I wrote, I said the 2 'God' threads had become ridiculous, and, as a moderator has pointed out, sometimes unpleasant.

I didn't say you did, I said your reasons for starting the thread and your definition of forum appear to contradictory. Moreover that YOU are providing rationale as to how a thread of one topic can be reasonably expected to be taken off topic.

I have no dispute with that, so long as the course wasn't altered abruptly -- like the two mentioned. And so long as the disagreements are actual disagreements and not insults and ridicule.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 24, 2009, 07:59:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
You're blantantly saying if people don't agree with you, it means they have 'errors of comprehension' or 'choosing to ignore the information', rather than simply having a different opinion to you.

No, I'm really not Jazz. I've actually taken some very basic arguments and demonstrated why such is the case.

Take my latest response in the other thread to you, or our little exchange about the title of the forum. Go back. Read it. Then show me, demonstrate, where I'm saying that if you believe differently than I do, that you as a person remain in error.

Expect to have your opinion challenged. I do. And the truth about opinions is this, they occasionally contain errors. 

Is the forum's name "U2 Forum" or "@U2 Forum" ? Is that my opinion or is it fact?

It's the same with any number of arguments, and the reality is sometimes people are misinformed, willingly or not.

What else are disputes based on if not a mutual perspective supporting that notion?

Quote
I didn't start the 'stop debating God thread' to unsult anyone. If you read what I wrote, I said the 2 'God' threads had become ridiculous, and, as a moderator has pointed out, sometimes unpleasant.

I didn't say you did, I said your reasons for starting the thread and your definition of forum appear to contradictory. Moreover that YOU are providing rationale as to how a thread of one topic can be reasonably expected to be taken off topic.

I have no dispute with that, so long as the course wasn't altered abruptly -- like the two mentioned. And so long as the disagreements are actual disagreements and not insults and ridicule.



I never disagree with people for the sake of it - and I don't ridicule people for their opinions.

I'll throw in the towl on this one, not because I think you've got the better of me, but because I struggle with your tone.

Enjoy...
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 09:17:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
I know i've used this before but

 Correcting Junior's factual errors are equivalent to a straw-man argument? Hmmm. Nope. Not the definition I've come across. But if that's a straw-man argument to you...Good luck.


"You're in control over my participation about as much as you are accurate in your presentation of facts" = Straw man

No one was asserting "control" or even trying to

Maybe a better one would be

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



"Oh look, it worked!" doesn't imply that your post wasn't claiming to have designed a "trap" ?

Look at your correction, one man leading another. Even your clarification betrays you.

Do you know what a straw-man fallacy is or are you just pretending with that as well?




Still tilting at windmills eh ? (that was a hint)

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 09:43:14 AM
"Here's a thread topic: Can Non-Believers Participate In A God Thread Without Ridiculing Believers or Their Belief System?

 Modified to say:...On A U2 Appreciation Forum"

Here's another:

Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:24:01 AM
Quote

Still tilting at windmills eh ? (that was a hint)


Yeah... I wondered when I saw the picture, Junior, and I really was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but, hey live and learn.

Your example is a non-sequitur. You and jimmyjazz and CDProp, etc, are very real, very directed participants, and I've answered you specifically. The example has no connection to your "Oh look..." conclusion, your clarification even less given your rebuttal, and absolutely no relation when specified.

If anything, the idiom applies to you because it seems inconceivable to you that believers would ask you the "why" and "how" to your appreciation of U2's faith inspired music. Your disproportionate response in terms of ridicule is proof of the distortion that exists in your mind on the basis of being asked reasonable questions.

I mean, if I went to a Marilyn Manson Forum, was open -- never mind as openly antagonistic as you are -- about my worldview and was asked why and how to my appreciation of said music, I would be a fool not to expect a volley of questions.

So perhaps instead of equating believers with giants, Junior, you should simply provide civil responses and believe that believers aren't coming after you nearly as vigorously as you would characterize.

But if you continue to swing...Well then what do you expect?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 10:27:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

Still tilting at windmills eh ? (that was a hint)


Yeah... I wondered when I saw the picture, Junior, and I really was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but, hey live and learn.

Your example is a non-sequitur. You and jimmyjazz and CDProp, etc, are very real, very directed participants, and I've answered you specifically. The example has no connection to your "Oh look..." conclusion, your clarification even less given your rebuttal, and absolutely no relation when specified.

If anything, the idiom applies to you because it seems inconceivable to you that believers would ask you the "why" and "how" to your appreciation of U2's faith inspired music. Your disproportionate response in terms of ridicule is proof of the distortion that exists in your mind on the basis of being asked reasonable questions.


Oh, please, DO show the "disproportionate response in terms of ridicule" to someone questioning why I'm a fan (particularly ironic since I've been a fan longer than most here if the 'how long have you been a fan' polls conducted here occasionally are anything to go by)



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:28:06 AM
Quote
Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

So the the responsibility is placed on everyone else like some kind of threat for you to behave?

You're a big boy, Junior. How about you simply cease the ridiculous jibes, and take a serious interest, and if that interest has to be humourous, you're smart enough to be witty without being offensive aren't you?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 10:31:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

So the the responsibility is placed on everyone else like some kind of threat for you to behave?

So basically you're not willing to accept that an atheist can be JUST AS MUCH A U2 FAN AS YOU without them having to rationalize it to you ?

Got it.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:34:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

Still tilting at windmills eh ? (that was a hint)


Yeah... I wondered when I saw the picture, Junior, and I really was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but, hey live and learn.

Your example is a non-sequitur. You and jimmyjazz and CDProp, etc, are very real, very directed participants, and I've answered you specifically. The example has no connection to your "Oh look..." conclusion, your clarification even less given your rebuttal, and absolutely no relation when specified.

If anything, the idiom applies to you because it seems inconceivable to you that believers would ask you the "why" and "how" to your appreciation of U2's faith inspired music. Your disproportionate response in terms of ridicule is proof of the distortion that exists in your mind on the basis of being asked reasonable questions.


Oh, please, DO show the "disproportionate response in terms of ridicule" to someone questioning why I'm a fan (particularly ironic since I've been a fan longer than most here if the 'how long have you been a fan' polls conducted here occasionally are anything to go by)


You don't think a person with your openly aggressive and antagonistic approach to the Christian worldview merits speculation?

The dispute, and my personal curiosity doesn't question that you're a fan, it questions how you can be given your worldview and open hostility.

It's a paradox. Live with it.

I have a number of friends that have similar dispositions and I love them dearly. And they have absolutely no problem seeing the logic behind the curiosity, and answering questions as materialist, rationalists, humanists - it kind of comes with the atheist dinner.

You on the other hand, Junior, have a real conflict, don't you?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:37:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

So the the responsibility is placed on everyone else like some kind of threat for you to behave?

So basically you're not willing to accept that an atheist can be JUST AS MUCH A U2 FAN AS YOU without them having to rationalize it to you ?

Got it.


How on earth do you extrapolate that conclusion from my comment?

I think my last post actually answers your straw-man ahead of time.

Here it is plainly -- YET AGAIN -- the question doesn't dispute that you are a fan or have the right to be a fan, it addresses your open hostility against like worldviews.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 10:38:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

Still tilting at windmills eh ? (that was a hint)


Yeah... I wondered when I saw the picture, Junior, and I really was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but, hey live and learn.

Your example is a non-sequitur. You and jimmyjazz and CDProp, etc, are very real, very directed participants, and I've answered you specifically. The example has no connection to your "Oh look..." conclusion, your clarification even less given your rebuttal, and absolutely no relation when specified.

If anything, the idiom applies to you because it seems inconceivable to you that believers would ask you the "why" and "how" to your appreciation of U2's faith inspired music. Your disproportionate response in terms of ridicule is proof of the distortion that exists in your mind on the basis of being asked reasonable questions.


Oh, please, DO show the "disproportionate response in terms of ridicule" to someone questioning why I'm a fan (particularly ironic since I've been a fan longer than most here if the 'how long have you been a fan' polls conducted here occasionally are anything to go by)


You don't think a person with your openly aggressive and antagonistic approach to the Christian worldview merits speculation?


You know, you complain about others derailing threads, but you're just as guilty as anyone else of doing so.

I asked you to show me an example of what you were accusing me of, you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't, so this particular derail of the dreail of the derail stops here.

You may now have the last word.




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: StrongGirl on April 24, 2009, 10:40:48 AM
A U2  fan can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish person ( and countless others I've left out ).
No one should have to rationalize it to the other ever. U2 is all about respect, dignity and kindness for all people on this planet. They just happen to be Christians (except Adam ;)). That is why I love them beyond their great music.

I think that about sums it all up.   

We are ONE but not the same. We get to carry each other.

Shake hands! ;)  SG
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 24, 2009, 10:43:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

So the the responsibility is placed on everyone else like some kind of threat for you to behave?

So basically you're not willing to accept that an atheist can be JUST AS MUCH A U2 FAN AS YOU without them having to rationalize it to you ?

Got it.


How on earth do you extrapolate that conclusion from my comment?


Try this: When someone participates in a thread about U2 and God, and they say they don't believe in God, try NOT questioning their U2-fan-ness, and see if maybe, just maybe, the thread stays on topic longer.

I have a nice new crisp $100 bill says it will.




Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:44:37 AM
Quote
You know, you complain about others derailing threads, but you're just as guilty as anyone else of doing so.

I asked you to show me an example of what you were accusing me of, you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't, so this particular derail of the dreail of the derail stops here.

Actually, on the other God thread, my efforts to place the thread back on track is fairly self-evident. As is your participation to the contrary so, if that not so subtle mystery needs to be demonstrated for you, Junior, you won't mind if I do that later tonight when I have time right?

And derailing for all intents and purposes is like someone in a crowd saying "I have one question, " when he/she attempts to provide follow up questions...

You only get to do that one time, Junior.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 24, 2009, 10:48:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
Can Non-Believers participate In A God Thread Without Believers questioning their reasons for being a U2 fan or their U2-fan worthiness as if it's some kind of exclusive club because that just causes irritation and usually provokes reactions which believers don't like and provokes paranoia in certain thread contributors ?

So the the responsibility is placed on everyone else like some kind of threat for you to behave?

So basically you're not willing to accept that an atheist can be JUST AS MUCH A U2 FAN AS YOU without them having to rationalize it to you ?

Got it.


How on earth do you extrapolate that conclusion from my comment?

Try this: When someone participates in a thread about U2 and God, and they say they don't believe in God, try NOT questioning their U2-fan-ness, and see if maybe, just maybe, the thread stays on topic longer.

I have a nice new crisp $100 bill says it will.


Is this forum not first and foremost a U2 fan appreciation forum?

It's an unreasonable expectation for that topic not to pop up, and it's even less likely when a person decides that ridiculing a very common worldview amongst U2 fans is a little, funny thing of no consequence.

As for holding out a bet...Think of the rattlesnake in a bath analogy.

(I'll be on later - Peace.)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 24, 2009, 10:52:30 AM
Why don't we just rename this thread "shootout at the windbag corral" and be done with it?  ::)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 24, 2009, 11:41:57 AM
Why does everyone take the bait time and time again? You are going to come to no resolutions arguing about issues of faith, so you should channel your energy to something more productive, or less frustrating anyway.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: aarond on April 24, 2009, 12:08:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the wrong time to bring up the 1 million monkeys with 1 million typewriters theory?

Can't say I have heard this one.

Basically it says if you give an infinite number of chimps an infinite number of typewriters (shows how long this has been around) that the laws of probability states that given enough time eventually by sheer accident one of the chimps will type out a bible/work-of-shakespeare/jick post which will lead to making a comment about Pop regardless of what the topic is

 The analogy has been continuously taken out of context and enhanced for various purposes or others.

 "Enough time" should be infinite time, which under reasonable comprehension is incomprehensible.

 The actual quote is from a British astronomer named Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who wrote in his book, The Nature Of The Physical World:

 "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum."

 In context it reads: "The reason why we ignore this chance may be seen by a rather classical illustration. If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chances of their doing so is decidedly more favorable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel."

 The example actually illustrates the opposite meaning widely assumed today.

 Hawking extrapolated the example to site the abstract possibility of reproducing a sonnet of Shakespeare, but again, even  as an example of possibility the model falls time and time again.

 Absurdity.

Oh look, it worked !



I think insulting responses like this are why the threads derail...not really sure how you justify typing it, since the previous post was quoting the work in question.
Everyone's beliefs are important to them, or you wouldn't believe them because they have no value. But nobody's beliefs make them a lesser person worthy of insult. You say that the Christians are talking down to you because you don't believe (and maybe some are) and aren't "in the club". But how does a comment like this do anything but take away validity of your point of view? You're clearly a logical, well spoken person, but comments like this work against you.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: bonovox66 on April 24, 2009, 12:09:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
i know, it may sound controversial or even stupid, but here's my explanation:

- for me, U2 music was always, in some way, about God (of course not every song).
- Not only their music/lyrics, but what they do and the way they do it.
- It's not a secret, that 3 U2 members are declared believers.

So mixing things that I mentioned and adding the fact, that I'm a believer too, U2 can always reach me and their music very often has an effect on my soul. I don't know if I am speaking clearly..

I just wanted to know, if some of you has a feeling like that also. Does believing (or not) in God has an any effect on the way you think about U2.







I believe in God for so many reasons.  If i had to prove anything it would be that the Big Bang theory doesnt make sense because all of the that beginning matter had to come from somewhere and there is not a very strong explanation of Life so I believe in God

Im Catholic by the way

Allow me to play devils advocate...

If that matter had to come from somewhere, then with that logic so would God.

Any takers?

And just to let you know I think U2 has had a definite effect on my spirituality but not my faith.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 24, 2009, 12:28:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think insulting responses like this are why the threads derail...not really sure how you justify typing it, since the previous post was quoting the work in question.
Everyone's beliefs are important to them, or you wouldn't believe them because they have no value. But nobody's beliefs make them a lesser person worthy of insult. You say that the Christians are talking down to you because you don't believe (and maybe some are) and aren't "in the club". But how does a comment like this do anything but take away validity of your point of view? You're clearly a logical, well spoken person, but comments like this work against you.

I'll +1 this.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: halljoh2 on April 24, 2009, 06:57:33 PM
im not a religious person, id call myself agnostic, but i think i understand enough about religion to get the references in the U2 catalogue...

I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Jazz on April 25, 2009, 01:33:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
im not a religious person, id call myself agnostic, but i think i understand enough about religion to get the references in the U2 catalogue...

I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   

Yes - that's why I started the 'can we stop debating God thread' - then I got told off. By believers - obviously.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 25, 2009, 04:28:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   

Best post of the thread. This is exactly how I feel, pretty much to the letter.

One thing though, on faith: I think believers do have the evidence they need, it's just not very quantifiable. Someone having a life altering spiritual experience would most likely call that evidence, it's just not evidence in a scientific sense.
Which is fine! I'm an atheist and I have no trouble at all with this. But without making proper distinctions discussions like this are nothing but a waste of time, as we have now seen once again.

To me "faith" is like belief without evidence - or intuition, to use another term. And intuition is one of those things that define us as human beings.

More on this later, possibly, now to eat.

Edit: missed a "the"
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on April 25, 2009, 09:27:14 AM
Quote
Someone having a life altering spiritual experience would most likely call that evidence, it's just not evidence in a scientific sense.
Which is fine! I'm an atheist and I have no trouble at all with this.

Now that's the kind of attitude we need to see more. Props to you brother.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: AmericanAngel on April 25, 2009, 02:57:15 PM
Every day I die again, and again I’m reborn
Every day I have to find the courage
To walk out into the street
With arms out
Got a love you can’t defeat
Neither down nor out
There’s nothing you have that I need
I can breathe
Breathe now
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: tufisbest on April 25, 2009, 08:04:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   

Best post of the thread. This is exactly how I feel, pretty much to the letter.

One thing though, on faith: I think believers do have the evidence they need, it's just not very quantifiable. Someone having a life altering spiritual experience would most likely call that evidence, it's just not evidence in a scientific sense.
Which is fine! I'm an atheist and I have no trouble at all with this. But without making proper distinctions discussions like this are nothing but a waste of time, as we have now seen once again.

To me "faith" is like belief without evidence - or intuition, to use another term. And intuition is one of those things that define us as human beings.

More on this later, possibly, now to eat.

Edit: missed a "the"

Believe me, I don't want to engage in any additional arguing.  But I am curious about something.  To the non-believers that need evidence, how do you feel about some "modern day" miracles.  I am speaking of apparitions of Our Lady (not when people see something on a grilled cheese sandwich), Padre Pio, and other Eucharistic miracles.

If you think its all nonsense, that's fine.  I'm just wondering what you think.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: kboman on April 26, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Believe me, I don't want to engage in any additional arguing.  But I am curious about something.  To the non-believers that need evidence, how do you feel about some "modern day" miracles.  I am speaking of apparitions of Our Lady (not when people see something on a grilled cheese sandwich), Padre Pio, and other Eucharistic miracles.

If you think its all nonsense, that's fine.  I'm just wondering what you think.

Basically, I do think it's nonsense. I was not there so clearly I can't say with certainty what happened, but there seem to be much simpler explanations than the "miraculous" to many of these things.
But again, I don't doubt the importance these experiences had for these people. I just don't agree with their explanations.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 26, 2009, 08:13:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   

Best post of the thread. This is exactly how I feel, pretty much to the letter.

One thing though, on faith: I think believers do have the evidence they need, it's just not very quantifiable. Someone having a life altering spiritual experience would most likely call that evidence, it's just not evidence in a scientific sense.
Which is fine! I'm an atheist and I have no trouble at all with this. But without making proper distinctions discussions like this are nothing but a waste of time, as we have now seen once again.

To me "faith" is like belief without evidence - or intuition, to use another term. And intuition is one of those things that define us as human beings.

More on this later, possibly, now to eat.

Edit: missed a "the"

Believe me, I don't want to engage in any additional arguing.  But I am curious about something.  To the non-believers that need evidence, how do you feel about some "modern day" miracles.  I am speaking of apparitions of Our Lady (not when people see something on a grilled cheese sandwich), Padre Pio, and other Eucharistic miracles.

If you think its all nonsense, that's fine.  I'm just wondering what you think.

Undocumented, unfilmed one-person accounts of supernatural phenomena  ?

Hmmmm......

UFOs, Bigfoot, Yeti, Alien abductions, apparitions of your lady........all pretty much fall into the same bucket for me. Hoaxes or delusions.



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JoshuaTree94 on April 26, 2009, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a very strong Catholic believer. I pray for those who don't see God, but I accept that they have their own ideas and they can still have God shape their lives in any small or large way. I definitely find God in U2 lyrics and the way they do their thing.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 26, 2009, 02:18:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think arguing about religion is useless.  religious people clearly do not need evidence to believe so they will believe.  Non-religious people want evidence they have no chance of getting so they won't believe.  I personally believe that if i'm a good person and if there is a god, he will reward me, if a god would punish a good person for non-belief, than thats not a god i would be interested in serving anyway.   

Best post of the thread. This is exactly how I feel, pretty much to the letter.

One thing though, on faith: I think believers do have the evidence they need, it's just not very quantifiable. Someone having a life altering spiritual experience would most likely call that evidence, it's just not evidence in a scientific sense.
Which is fine! I'm an atheist and I have no trouble at all with this. But without making proper distinctions discussions like this are nothing but a waste of time, as we have now seen once again.

To me "faith" is like belief without evidence - or intuition, to use another term. And intuition is one of those things that define us as human beings.

More on this later, possibly, now to eat.

Edit: missed a "the"

Believe me, I don't want to engage in any additional arguing.  But I am curious about something.  To the non-believers that need evidence, how do you feel about some "modern day" miracles.  I am speaking of apparitions of Our Lady (not when people see something on a grilled cheese sandwich), Padre Pio, and other Eucharistic miracles.

If you think its all nonsense, that's fine.  I'm just wondering what you think.

Undocumented, unfilmed one-person accounts of supernatural phenomena  ?

Hmmmm......

UFOs, Bigfoot, Yeti, Alien abductions, apparitions of your lady........all pretty much fall into the same bucket for me. Hoaxes or delusions.


For every grilled cheese hope there is a Zeitun, Egypt which is neither undocumented, nor unfilmed and counted thousands of non-believers and believers of various kinds as witnesses in agreement to the same series of viewable events.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 26, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 26, 2009, 04:56:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

The bar gets lower for certain things.....

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: tufisbest on April 26, 2009, 08:13:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

The bar gets lower for certain things.....



I don't understand you post.  Please explain?  And jimyjazz, let's continue to respect each other by not taking the Lord's name in vein during this discussion. 
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Joe90usa on April 26, 2009, 10:15:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

If you troll in this thread again with a comment like that, you will be banned.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 05:17:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

 
 "Made?" Like the assembly of thousands of people with recorded diverse beliefs bearing like testimony to a series of viewable events?

 And as for "it looks like it was made by a child"!? Jimmyjazz, do you have any clue, any clue at all as to what it means to actually verify your claims before you post them? Do you actually think the application of dishonesty and Photoshop is a reasonable one with respect to Zeitun, Egypt from 1968 to 1970!?

 You can't even come to grasp with the actual difference between what a myth is and what fact is. You didn't even know a novel could be non-fiction and called others an "ass" should they happen to have the opinion that it could be.

 You actually acknowledge in one sentence the existence of "enlightened experiences" and present incomprehensible realities, but call a documented event that exemplifies both as ridiculous!?

 As for "do[ing] better than the Egypt thing," a response (Reply #392/#393) to your previous paraphrase of "mythical evidence" remains without your reply:  http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg193295.html#msg193295  (http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg193295.html#msg193295)   

 You should be the last person to accuse anyone of being ridiculous, jimmyjazz.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 05:18:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

The bar gets lower for certain things.....


Specifically, you mean?


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 07:04:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

The bar gets lower for certain things.....


Specifically, you mean?




The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 07:27:04 AM
Quote

The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........


What kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

I chose Zeitun, Egypt for a few reasons. Among the eye-witnesses were atheists, Muslims, Christians and everything in between. The apparition repeated over two years.

The apparition began as a ball of light. Witnesses saw this ball of light, turn into a light shaped as a young woman, until the shape was indistinguishable from the image commonly identified with Holy Mary. The image was reported by thousands as blessing those in attendance, demonstrably so. Among the witnesses were governmental officials. The number has been estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people. Five hundred thousand to a million people of diverse background unanimously agreed on a number of points of congruency over two years of repeated sightings.

I suspect the atheists on record didn't necessarily want to see this phenomena but choosing to ignore their senses would have been an even greater affront I guess.


On UFOs and evidence...Do you have an event similar to Zeitun that you had in mind that you wanted to offer as more compelling evidence?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........


What kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

I chose Zeitun, Egypt for a few reasons. Among the eye-witnesses were atheists, Muslims, Christians and everything in between. The apparition repeated over two years.

The apparition began as a ball of light. Witnesses saw this ball of light, turn into a light shaped as a young woman, until the shape was indistinguishable from the image commonly identified with Holy Mary. The image was reported by thousands as blessing those in attendance, demonstrably so. Among the witnesses were governmental officials. The number has been estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people. Five hundred thousand to a million people of diverse background unanimously agreed on a number of points of congruency over two years of repeated sightings.

I suspect the atheists on record didn't necessarily want to see this phenomena but choosing to ignore their senses would have been an even greater affront I guess.


On UFOs and evidence...Do you have an event similar to Zeitun that you had in mind that you wanted to offer as more compelling evidence?

Not at my fingertips. Note, I didn't say I believed in UFOs either so I'm not apt to record shows or bookmark sites either.

Do you have anything more compelling than Zeitun ?

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 08:57:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

The bar gets lower for certain things.....



I don't understand you post.  Please explain?  And jimyjazz, let's continue to respect each other by not taking the my Lord's name in vein during this discussion. 

Had to make a minor change

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 27, 2009, 09:19:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

If you troll in this thread again with a comment like that, you will be banned.

Thank you, I wanted to reply to this but didn't.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 09:26:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........


What kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

I chose Zeitun, Egypt for a few reasons. Among the eye-witnesses were atheists, Muslims, Christians and everything in between. The apparition repeated over two years.

The apparition began as a ball of light. Witnesses saw this ball of light, turn into a light shaped as a young woman, until the shape was indistinguishable from the image commonly identified with Holy Mary. The image was reported by thousands as blessing those in attendance, demonstrably so. Among the witnesses were governmental officials. The number has been estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people. Five hundred thousand to a million people of diverse background unanimously agreed on a number of points of congruency over two years of repeated sightings.

I suspect the atheists on record didn't necessarily want to see this phenomena but choosing to ignore their senses would have been an even greater affront I guess.


On UFOs and evidence...Do you have an event similar to Zeitun that you had in mind that you wanted to offer as more compelling evidence?

Not at my fingertips. Note, I didn't say I believed in UFOs either so I'm not apt to record shows or bookmark sites either.

Do you have anything more compelling than Zeitun ?


More compelling than Zeitun, as it pertains to what? Apparitions? An assembly of unified testimony? Evidence of...?

As for bookmarking sites and recording shows...What do you mean by this?

+++

I asked what kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

You said one was "more compelling" than the other, so the inference of belief is there.

So the question remains.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 27, 2009, 09:29:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........


What kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

I chose Zeitun, Egypt for a few reasons. Among the eye-witnesses were atheists, Muslims, Christians and everything in between. The apparition repeated over two years.

The apparition began as a ball of light. Witnesses saw this ball of light, turn into a light shaped as a young woman, until the shape was indistinguishable from the image commonly identified with Holy Mary. The image was reported by thousands as blessing those in attendance, demonstrably so. Among the witnesses were governmental officials. The number has been estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people. Five hundred thousand to a million people of diverse background unanimously agreed on a number of points of congruency over two years of repeated sightings.

I suspect the atheists on record didn't necessarily want to see this phenomena but choosing to ignore their senses would have been an even greater affront I guess.


On UFOs and evidence...Do you have an event similar to Zeitun that you had in mind that you wanted to offer as more compelling evidence?

Not at my fingertips. Note, I didn't say I believed in UFOs either so I'm not apt to record shows or bookmark sites either.

Do you have anything more compelling than Zeitun ?



More compelling ? wow is all I can say.

About UFO's - Check out a guy named Chuck Missler (The return of the nephilim) you'll like it Jr.  ;)



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 09:34:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

The believability bar

I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs........


What kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

I chose Zeitun, Egypt for a few reasons. Among the eye-witnesses were atheists, Muslims, Christians and everything in between. The apparition repeated over two years.

The apparition began as a ball of light. Witnesses saw this ball of light, turn into a light shaped as a young woman, until the shape was indistinguishable from the image commonly identified with Holy Mary. The image was reported by thousands as blessing those in attendance, demonstrably so. Among the witnesses were governmental officials. The number has been estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people. Five hundred thousand to a million people of diverse background unanimously agreed on a number of points of congruency over two years of repeated sightings.

I suspect the atheists on record didn't necessarily want to see this phenomena but choosing to ignore their senses would have been an even greater affront I guess.


On UFOs and evidence...Do you have an event similar to Zeitun that you had in mind that you wanted to offer as more compelling evidence?

Not at my fingertips. Note, I didn't say I believed in UFOs either so I'm not apt to record shows or bookmark sites either.

Do you have anything more compelling than Zeitun ?


More compelling than Zeitun, as it pertains to what? Apparitions? An assembly of unified testimony? Evidence of...?

As for bookmarking sites and recording shows...What do you mean by this?

+++

I asked what kind of evidence differentiates the two for you?

You said one was "more compelling" than the other, so the inference of belief is there.

So the question remains.

And if you're going to be THAT pedantic then the question shall remain........sorry





Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 10:11:20 AM
Quote
And if you're going to be THAT pedantic then the question shall remain........sorry

 Do you know what "pedantic" means?

 Unprompted you said: "I've seen more compelling evidence for UFOs, but than I'm not emotionally tied to WANTING to believe in UFOs..."

 So how is it "pedantic" to ask you to provide this "more compelling" evidence that you say you've seen?  And, to ask what differentiates the evidence between the two that makes this evidence for UFOs "more compelling" than the instance of apparition in Zeitun, Egypt?

 That's not pedantic, Junior.

 No apologies needed. I understand.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 10:19:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
And if you're going to be THAT pedantic then the question shall remain........sorry

 Do you know what "pedantic" means?


yes



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



I understand.

I don't think so

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: DGordon1 on April 27, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
You two are both VERY persistant.  :P
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: aarond on April 27, 2009, 10:24:10 AM
This thread has become a "who can get the last word" contest. And for a few brief seconds...I'll be winning.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 10:24:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This thread has become a "who can get the last word" contest. And for a few brief seconds...I'll be winning.

loser !

Actually, ITM can have it, it's not worth it.

Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: tufisbest on April 27, 2009, 10:48:12 AM

[/quote]



Do you have anything more compelling than Zeitun ?


[/quote]

Since I brought up the topic, I'd like to keep it on topic.  I'd like to offer this nugget as documented evidence. 

http://weeklywire.com/ww/12-29-97/boston_feature_1.html


Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 27, 2009, 12:16:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.
The bar gets lower for certain things.....
I don't understand you post.  Please explain?  And jimyjazz, let's continue to respect each other by not taking the my Lord's name in vein during this discussion. 
Had to make a minor change

Point.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: jimyjazz on April 27, 2009, 01:02:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'll have to do better than the Egypt thing...come on, it looks like it was made by a child. Don't be ridiculous.  I don't deny that there is much, much more to reality than we can comprehend right now, and that people have enlightened experiences but believing in these apparitions...jesus christ.

 
 "Made?" Like the assembly of thousands of people with recorded diverse beliefs bearing like testimony to a series of viewable events?

 And as for "it looks like it was made by a child"!? Jimmyjazz, do you have any clue, any clue at all as to what it means to actually verify your claims before you post them? Do you actually think the application of dishonesty and Photoshop is a reasonable one with respect to Zeitun, Egypt from 1968 to 1970!?

 You can't even come to grasp with the actual difference between what a myth is and what fact is. You didn't even know a novel could be non-fiction and called others an "ass" should they happen to have the opinion that it could be.

 You actually acknowledge in one sentence the existence of "enlightened experiences" and present incomprehensible realities, but call a documented event that exemplifies both as ridiculous!?

 As for "do[ing] better than the Egypt thing," a response (Reply #392/#393) to your previous paraphrase of "mythical evidence" remains without your reply:  http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg193295.html#msg193295  (http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,4374.msg193295.html#msg193295)   

 You should be the last person to accuse anyone of being ridiculous, jimmyjazz.

It's not real! OMG (oh my gourd!)! I'm open to the possibility of the whold Bible thing being real but this video is not convincing in any way! I can't believe that you, who seems to be intelligent though in possession of a little too much Frasier Crane, would fall for such a thing.  And eye witness testimony for these things, like with many UFO incidents, is often unreliable and unaware of the real reasons for the phenomena.   

Re. the "non-fiction novel", "In Cold Blood" is not the first or best novel of that type - and if it is not "popular fiction" (which you infer is my frame of reference becuase another member of this board mentioned someone using the Da Vinci Code - an awful book - as a reference book) then I don't know what is.  However, it would be a mistake for anyone to use a non-fiction novel as a solid refernce for factual events because things get changed during the creative process. 

You do not believe, or don't want to believe that Jesus is A) a composite of mythological figures from around the world, who all represent and teach essentially the same thing (the coincidences are too many for it to definitively be accidental, and those same coincidences may be trying to teach us something very important) or B) that Jesus was real and attempted to teach us something very valuable about our selves and the nature of reality.  Fine, believe what you want, but there is no need to pretend like it is definitely true because there is no way of knowing.  Nothing has been proven in either way, and anything is possible so there is no point in anyone believing absolutely in something that has been created by other people (the Bible, the Church).  Not to say that god(s) doesn't exist, but the story that has been passed down...

If the God thing was demonstratably true, why are there so many non believers in the Christian god?  Any thing is possible, but that doesn't make it likely, and I have not been swayed by the arguments - and I spent 10 years in catholic school.  And how do you feel about Jews, Muslims, Raelians, Hindus and so on?  Do they need to be saved?  Were there dinosaurs or are they plaster constructions made by bored museum employees (some only have two real bones, wtf)? And this: Why does the creator say, in genesis, "let us make man in our image" is there is only one?

Off to burn some witches and scientists. Later.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 27, 2009, 05:48:55 PM
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 06:42:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......

Not really

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: shockdocta22 on April 27, 2009, 06:44:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......

Not really

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


*mind explodes from the on an on circle*

it reminds me of this

The below statement is false
The above statement is true
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 27, 2009, 07:43:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......

Not really

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


*mind explodes from the on an on circle*

it reminds me of this

The below statement is false
The above statement is true

11k posts? is that correct?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 07:48:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......

Not really

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


*mind explodes from the on an on circle*

it reminds me of this

The below statement is false
The above statement is true

11k posts? is that correct?

now there's a miracle I can believe in......maybe.....11K ???????.......jeez......



Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: shockdocta22 on April 27, 2009, 07:50:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let Us make man in Our image = Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Read John 1, it backs that up. Kewl huh......

Not really

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


*mind explodes from the on an on circle*

it reminds me of this

The below statement is false
The above statement is true

11k posts? is that correct?

now there's a miracle I can believe in......maybe.....11K ???????.......jeez......





at least im not online for 22+ days ;)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: JuniorEmblem on April 27, 2009, 07:54:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


at least im not online for 22+ days ;)


yeah, but I'll leave my computers on all night sometimes, I'll be logged in for hours at a time

80 posts a day, don't they give homework anymore ?

 :)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Revolver7 on April 27, 2009, 07:54:35 PM
That Circular Logic is very prevalent here in the South East United States... :D

What I wonder is, if Jesus had wanted to write something down, wouldn't he have done it himself?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: shockdocta22 on April 27, 2009, 07:58:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


11k posts? is that correct?

now there's a miracle I can believe in......maybe.....11K ???????.......jeez......




[/quote]

at least im not online for 22+ days ;)
[/quote]


yeah, but I'll leave my computers on all night sometimes, I'll be logged in for hours at a time

80 posts a day, don't they give homework anymore ?

 :)
[/quote]

I do the same thing :D
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Bobo on April 27, 2009, 08:01:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That Circular Logic is very prevalent here in the South East United States... :D

What I wonder is, if Jesus had wanted to write something down, wouldn't he have done it himself?

He did...read John 1.  :D Please read it, it will explain a lot.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Revolver7 on April 27, 2009, 08:09:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That Circular Logic is very prevalent here in the South East United States... :D

What I wonder is, if Jesus had wanted to write something down, wouldn't he have done it himself?

He did...read John 1.  :D Please read it, it will explain a lot.

I hope you're joking  ;)

I had to go to Catholic School for 6 years. It was certainly interesting! Mass 3 times a week...I've heard a lot of stuff  :D

I consider myself a christian with zen and buddhist influences. I know Atheists, and I understand their perspective perfectly. I don't believe in organized religion myself, and I believe that the Bible is just what man wrote. I don't believe it to be the word of God, and I don't believe that God told people what to put in it.

That's just what I believe though...I could be wrong
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: aarond on April 27, 2009, 08:16:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That Circular Logic is very prevalent here in the South East United States... :D

What I wonder is, if Jesus had wanted to write something down, wouldn't he have done it himself?

I'm a Christian, but don't believe the bible infallible. I think most Christians ascribe to that view but as with any group, the most outspoken people gain recognition for the group, not those who make up the majority. I know a lot of atheists that are great people, but then I find the (not accusing anybody in the forum of this) occasional overpassionate one who has decided it is his mission to disprove something that is neither provable nor unprovable and destroy the world view of as many "religious idiots" as possible.

Very few people wrote anything down in first century middle eastern culture...oral teaching was much more valued. But if he had written anything, would people debate his being the son of God any less? Doubtful.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: ITM on April 27, 2009, 09:36:36 PM
Quote
It's not real! OMG (oh my gourd!)! I'm open to the possibility of the whold Bible thing being real but this video is not convincing in any way! I can't believe that you, who seems to be intelligent though in possession of a little too much Frasier Crane, would fall for such a thing.  And eye witness testimony for these things, like with many UFO incidents, is often unreliable and unaware of the real reasons for the phenomena.   

Absent 1990's, twenty-first century level a/v technology, more than the video is considered in weighing the evidence as credible. Namely, those eye witness testimonies. As unreliable as some incidents may track, like those in potential UFO sightings, it is difficult to consider a two-year phenomena, viewed by five hundred thousand to one million witnesses that included scientists, atheists, lawyers and physicians as being reasonably characterized as "unreliable".

You're certainty is misplaced. The event meets credible standards of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless of course that is you have something more than confidence and a vegetable to offer.

It's good to hear you're open to the possibility of those claims held in The Holy Bible.

Quote
Re. the "non-fiction novel", "In Cold Blood" is not the first or best novel of that type - and if it is not "popular fiction" (which you infer is my frame of reference becuase another member of this board mentioned someone using the Da Vinci Code - an awful book - as a reference book) then I don't know what is.  However, it would be a mistake for anyone to use a non-fiction novel as a solid refernce for factual events because things get changed during the creative process.

 I didn't mention that it was the first nor the best, simply that it is an example of something you claimed didn't exist. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with genre. It wouldn't necessarily be a mistake for someone to use a non-fiction novel as a solid reference for factual events given that non-fiction novel uses factual events and references to fuel it's narrative, albeit within a creative process.

 At any rate...

 
Quote
You do not believe, or don't want to believe that Jesus is A) a composite of mythological figures from around the world, who all represent and teach essentially the same thing (the coincidences are too many for it to definitively be accidental, and those same coincidences may be trying to teach us something very important) or B) that Jesus was real and attempted to teach us something very valuable about our selves and the nature of reality.  Fine, believe what you want, but there is no need to pretend like it is definitely true because there is no way of knowing.  Nothing has been proven in either way, and anything is possible so there is no point in anyone believing absolutely in something that has been created by other people (the Bible, the Church).  Not to say that god(s) doesn't exist, but the story that has been passed down...

 I don't believe the scenarios you or a number of others have put forth because the evidence doesn't support the claim. If you read my response, the obvious deficiencies begin with post-Christian start dates, rendering their inclusion as influencing Christianity impossible. They end with render influencing Christianity impossible by virtue of their ideological contrast.

 There is something else to consider. C.S.Lewis touches on this in his essay, "Myth Became Fact," where myths of one time or another of one people or another are taken at face value to be integral, but only when the claims of Christianity as fact arise, does incredulity become apparent and certain. Part of this consideration arises from Lewis's experience as an expert on myths, to which he says Christ is most certainly not a myth.

 I'm paraphrasing, and I'd love if someone started a thread on the subject, but should you desire further information, you have a starting point. Lewis was after all one the great atheists of the 20th century before he became one of it's greatest Christians.

 Concerning your point B), the answer to Christ's existence as fact is yes, there is "a way of knowing" and it's readily and easily accessible to anyone. Again, there are some fundamentals concerning standards of evidence, historicity, myth, etc...that you need to become familiar with in order to actually differentiate what's patently obvious to many that seems inconceivable to you. It's not exactly esoteric stuff.

Quote
If the God thing was demonstratably true, why are there so many non believers in the Christian god?  Any thing is possible, but that doesn't make it likely, and I have not been swayed by the arguments - and I spent 10 years in catholic school.  And how do you feel about Jews, Muslims, Raelians, Hindus and so on?  Do they need to be saved?  Were there dinosaurs or are they plaster constructions made by bored museum employees (some only have two real bones, wtf)? And this: Why does the creator say, in genesis, "let us make man in our image" is there is only one?

 A number of topics, jimmyjazz. Again, please start another thread and in so doing, resign your questions along a continuous topic rather than leapfrogging from one to another. I'd be happy to address each one in turn.

 As to how I feel about people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Atheist...I believe in precisely the quote you've referenced. That humanity as part of God's creation, bears a stamp of the Divine. That the dignity accorded to creation is something I should maintain in accordance to Biblical prescriptions. As it pertains to one person or another and their salvific end, I believe only God can convert a person's heart in so far as they are willing to receive God's grace towards that singular desire that seeks to know God fully and completely and know Him eternally.

 So do people need to be saved? According to Christ, yes. And because the claims and evidence concerning Christ, coupled with the provision of God's grace to endure despite my shortcomings, I defer to Christ's assertions. But in so far as Christ's message is indivisible from Christ Himself, so is His methodology. And this method seeks entrance into a person's life, not through dogma, but through love.

 As to the "why" God includes "us" and "our" within the identification of the singular. The obvious answer is because that is what He says Himself to be. It should also be taken as instrumental in identifying the Judaic origins of the concept of The Holy Trinity. There's other Scriptural justifications but perhaps I can answer in part the possibility of "how" by pointing to Quantum Mechanics as an appeal to the perspective you value above others...Bose-Einstein condensates.

Quote
Off to burn some witches and scientists. Later.

Like Dr. Francis Collins perhaps?
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Revolver7 on April 27, 2009, 09:39:18 PM
Blind Faith is a fundamental part of the Christian religion...if you try to explain everything with the bible, then the faith is no longer blind (in my opinion)
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on April 27, 2009, 11:05:04 PM
"I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky" - R. Kelly

*before he did inappropriate things with a 16 yr. old.
Title: Re: U2.... God... Believe...
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on April 28, 2009, 09:45:24 AM
Ah crap, I've been going through SMBC (http://www.smbc-comics.com/) again, and now I've pulled up a load of relevant ones.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080924.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080924.gif)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070131.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070131.gif)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20061021.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20061021.gif)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20060717.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20060717.gif)

Anyway, carry on...