Is ELP against christianity

Arteum:

There is a very simple reason why God did not create humankind to automatically believe in and love Him: it's called "free will."  God gave us all free will.  And the ultimate "application" of that free will is the free will to believe or disbelieve in God Himself.  As others point out, if you are "forced" to love someone or something, what kind of love is that?  God wants us to love Him because we want to love Him - not because He makes us do so, or demands it.  God does not want "automatons" who love Him because He made them do so.

Do you love your girlfriend (or boyfriend, or mother, or father, or whoever) because they expect you to or demand it of you?  Of course not.  Your love is freely given.  God's love is freely given, and he is looking for our love freely given.

It can't be any simpler than that.

Peace.

Edited by maani

Arteum:

Yet again, you proceed from false assumption.  What makes you think I "needed" religion?  I didn't "need" religion any more than I "needed" a knowledge of theoretical physics.  Although it is not true of all believers, there are some believers (myself included) for whom the cliche "You don't find God; God finds you" is apropos.  But once He did "find me," it was a "revelation" of sorts, and I was happy to follow where it led, and learn.

And yes, I was a student of Michio's for two years, taking both physics and other classes that he taught at City College.  I also attended a number of anti-nuclear rallies and other political events with him.  I never claimed to be a scientist, so your sarcastic comment about "published works" will be ignored.

You accept that I obviously have some grounding in science, logic and the scientific method, and have read numerous books, and you then ask "Maybe you found all these books wrong?"

As noted, I never abandoned the rational, intellectual aspects of my life and being.  Indeed, far from "negating" them or "limiting" them or "repressing" them, I actually added to them.  This is something that you, as a rabid atheist, find far too fearful to do: add to your knowledge, rather than allowing it to stagnate with what you know - or think you know.

Indeed, as someone else suggested earlier, my ability to look at things from both perspectives - the "rational, intellectual, scientific" and the spiritual - allows me to see possible connections, relationships and "overlaps" between ideas and theories that many others - both believers and non-believers - see as mutually exclusive: creation and evolution; the Big Bang and the world being created in "six days"; pro-life and pro-choice; and a host of others.  And the connections, relationships and overlaps I see are not a result of "diluting" one side or the other (though "compromise" may sometimes be suggested), but of being able to "step back" and see these issues from both sides - i.e., understanding why each side sees the issue as one of mutual exclusivities.  Yes, my brain is "quite logical."  But I have the added benefit of seeing things from a perspective that, rather than being even marginally interested in, you choose to insult and denigrate constantly.

In this regard, your continued denigrations notwithstanding ("Most religious people I met had a flaw in their brain"), having faith is not a "flaw."  As an aside, there is a difference between "religion" and "faith": "religion" is about laws, regulations and behavior; faith is about a relationship with God and Christ.  Most mainstream "organized" Christianity focuses on the former, often at the expense of the latter.  In this regard I, too, find many "religious" people to be "flawed" - but not for the same reason you do.

As for not being afraid to die, I find it interesting that you would say that this is a result of having "poisoned your mind so that it is no longer afraid."  Do you equate calm and inner peace - even to the point of lack of fear of dying - to be a result of "poisoning?"  That is, wouldn't most people like to get over the "fear" of dying?  Indeed, over all fears?  Let me ask you: if someone were to be able to get over a particular fear through counseling and analysis, would you call that "poisoning" one's mind?  If not, what would you say is the difference?  If one is able to conquer one's fears, isn't that a good thing?  No matter how they accomplish, as long as it is a "true" conquering and not a form of suppression, repression or denial?

In using metaphors like "poisoning" and "flaw," you resort to condescension, insult and denigration.  As a counseling minister, my initial response to this (without knowing anything about you or your upbringing or background) is that you use these terms, and denigrate people of faith, out of fear - particularly xenophobia (fear of the unknown) - and as strong an "indoctrination" in atheism - to the exclusion of anything else, or even the possibility of anything else - as you accuse faith-based people of having in faith and religion.

Peace.

DallasBryan wrote: No but you should be aware of the mix of music by musicians under the influence or surrendered to a higher power and the use of narcotics and/or hallucenigenics and practicing occultic ritual. There really is a power there and it is stronger that you are, and if you give invitation you may experience things that are not pleasant.

Who said I was against narcotics? It's the government, not me!

No but you should be aware of the mix of music by musicians under the influence or surrendered to a higher power and the use of narcotics and/or hallucenigenics and practicing occultic ritual. There really is a power there and it is stronger that you are, and if you give invitation you may experience things that are not pleasant.

Arteum wrote: AtomHeartMother wrote: Arteum wrote: AtomHeartMother wrote: I highly suggest you try religion somehow or another and atleast try to open you mind atleast once in your life enough to accept somekind of religion if your going to critizise it. Like in prog, don't evaluate and critizise an album without listening to it, and not just once but many times, this is the same with religion. It is very immature and ignorant to dismiss or ridicule religion if you have not even tried it. See what it is like to believe in God for a little while and study it before you say that it is all bad and wrong. Like what? Let's suppose that miracles happen. Let's suppose that 2 + 2 is not 4. Let's suppose that there is a clear demarcation line between good and evil. Let's suppose that world is ruled by some supernatural deity with fantastic superpowers who is never going to reveal or manifest itself. Now, where do we go from here? You know, I might as well believe in trolls and elves ... So typical. You avoided the very clear point I made, that you cannot just citizise religion and all others if you don't know about them. You cannot simply just read about religion and know about it either, you have to EXPERIENCE it. Religion is not somehting that can be felt or explained simply in a book, it must be practiced. I assume you know a good deal about many religions and know that they all revolve around a God that you refuse to believe in. Mabey so, but don't argue with others that have experieced it just because you read about it and decided it was crap. If you tried it and got nothing out of it that is one thing, but to look at it and not try it and still say it is fake and wrong, that is immature and ignorant. So when people are doped up and convinced there are pink elephants flying in the sky, I must believe that what they're saying is true and respect their opinion?

Good job agian at taking my point, that is really only relevant to this topic, totally out of contexted. Beleiving somehting because of drugs, or anything that can altar your state of mind, is not the same as using your unaltared mind plus your "heart" or emotions or whatever you want to call it to believe in something like God. Yes, it does take "logic" to believe in such a thing as God and we all know a "doped up" mind uses no real logic.

Arteum wrote: maani wrote: Atom Heart Mother: Your intentions are good, but to suggest that someone "try religion somehow" or "see what it is like to believe in God for a little while" is ultimately moot.  One cannot simply "try religion" or pretend to believe in God.  Either one does, or one doesn't.  Either one's inner spirit "connects" with God, or it does not.  Either the "light switch" is turned on or it is not.  It is fruitless to hope that non-believers will simply "try" to be believers.  They cannot. This does not mean they never will.  As noted, I had the light switch turned on for me at 19.  And although it is true that I was already a spiritual "seeker" of sorts, I could no more have believed in God simply because I "wanted" to than I could have jumped off a cliff and defied the laws of gravity simply because I wanted to.  It had to happen.  However, I firmly believe that even the most adamant atheist could have the light switch turned on at some point. Maani, so why does God, who for some reason is dying to get adoration and love from people, who needs people so badly to believe in himself (as if he wasnted to reassure himself that he really exists), why does God, I say, rely on such a complex and an imprefect mechanism of recruiting his army of converts? [I think adoration for him is like gasoline for a car. the moment it stops completely, God dies (Devil wins)]. First, God only recruits a small part of the world -- Christians. Other people he automatically does not need. Why take pains to create Arabs at all then? Then, somebody must tell people about God, otherwise they will never find out about him. And further yet, it takes such a long time for many people to "switch", and many still don't do it! Why is he so obscure if he really wants people to believe in him? Why doesn't he create people so that they don't and can't have doubt in his existence? Why doesn't he manifest his existence unequivocally (he's apparently starving for adoration)? Is he so stupid?

Because having faith in God, somehting that science can't explain, really shows love for him.

maani wrote: Atom Heart Mother: Your intentions are good, but to suggest that someone "try religion somehow" or "see what it is like to believe in God for a little while" is ultimately moot.  One cannot simply "try religion" or pretend to believe in God.  Either one does, or one doesn't.  Either one's inner spirit "connects" with God, or it does not.  Either the "light switch" is turned on or it is not.  It is fruitless to hope that non-believers will simply "try" to be believers.  They cannot. This does not mean they never will.  As noted, I had the light switch turned on for me at 19.  And although it is true that I was already a spiritual "seeker" of sorts, I could no more have believed in God simply because I "wanted" to than I could have jumped off a cliff and defied the laws of gravity simply because I wanted to.  It had to happen.  However, I firmly believe that even the most adamant atheist could have the light switch turned on at some point.

Maani, so why does God, who for some reason is dying to get adoration and love from people, who needs people so badly to believe in himself (as if he wasnted to reassure himself that he really exists), why does God, I say, rely on such a complex and an imprefect mechanism of recruiting his army of converts? [I think adoration for him is like gasoline for a car. the moment it stops completely, God dies (Devil wins)]. First, God only recruits a small part of the world -- Christians. Other people he automatically does not need. Why take pains to create Arabs at all then? Then, somebody must tell people about God, otherwise they will never find out about him. And further yet, it takes such a long time for many people to "switch", and many still don't do it!

Why is he so obscure if he really wants people to believe in him? Why doesn't he create people so that they don't and can't have doubt in his existence? Why doesn't he manifest his existence unequivocally (he's apparently starving for adoration)? Is he so stupid?

HaroldTheBarrel wrote: I refuse to talk to anyonne who is human. damnit...

* "Why did you do it?" Arteum begged to know- as if the religion was an assassination or a homocide. *

Arteum: You are a phD student in a science (Chemistry was it? Can't remember as I can't look back at your profile in my current state- anyway- that's not the point) and you should be about 27 years old- same age as my older siblings (one's a Doctor, one's a psychologist, one's a phD student with the same Degree as you and my father's a phD student in history. All of these people are Catholics like me. Considering the fact this is a MUSIC website I can add that my mum's a piano teacher...but that's going off topic.) and you believe Religion is the worst thing anyone can take part in. Obviously your've been subject to some hard-out fundamentalist bashing, my friend.

So...Science and Religion can't go together eh? You remind me of my ex-bf. Utterly SHALLOW.

Were you ever a christian/ buddist/ any religion at all Atreum? If not- why on earth do you put your opinion forward, thinking you know what you're talking about? You havn't seen the world at all hun- you live in a hole. And it shows. It shows really badly.

I can't judge you in full, as I don't know you at all, but from the theories your've suggested; I can sum your life up in 3 words:

Boring, Un-enlightened, Depressed.

In other words: Sad, sad, sad.

Face it hun- if you *really* live by the rules your've stated for yourself, your've pretty much hit rock-bottom in this life. Time to pull yourself OUT.

Back to the question: "Are ELP anti-christian?"

My answer: yes, no, maybe....who gives a  and who started this thread anyway????

Edited by Starette

Wizard:

Same here!  Hyperspace is one of the 10 best "hard science" books I've ever read.

Prog1611:

Although you did not directly tie the two (which would have made it much clearer), I am glad that you pointed out that when Jesus talked about bringing "a sword," He was not talking about a physical sword, which represents violence and war, but rather a "sword of contention": i.e., that He knew that belief in Him and His message would "divide" families, friends, etc.  It is worth quoting the full passage in this regard:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.  I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.  And a man's enemies will be those of his own household." (Matt 10-34-36).

Golden Spiral:

While it is true that simply quoting Scripture (even in context) can be "off-putting" for non-believers - and that there are perhaps better ways to go about spreading the Gospel and message of Christ (the best way, of course, being the example of our own lives...) - the Scriptures are our "playbook," and should not be shied away from.

Christianity is "exclusivist."  Indeed, all faiths and beliefs are.  They all have some form of tenets or texts or basic belief systems that one is expected to adhere to in practicing them.  What is different about Christianity is that it is the most "inclusive" exclusivist faith.  It does not require one to wear certain clothes, go to particular buildings to worship or pray, pray a certain number of times a day facing in a particular direction, abstain from certain foods, learn and repeat mantras or other intonements, or any number of other things associated with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, or any of the other "great" religions.  It has three precepts only.

One, your body is the "temple" of the spirit given to you by God, so take care of it.  Two, Jesus was "God made flesh," and sacrificed Himself for all sin for all time, so honor that sacrifice by believing in it and thanking Him for it.  Three, Jesus was resurrected so that, in believing in His sacrifice and resurrection, your own spirit will find "salvation" (freedom from sin) and eternal life (i.e., the spirit remaining in God's presence after the physical body has died).

The rest of the New Testament is helpful guidelines for living a Christ-like life to the best of one's ability.  However, even if one does not do so, if one has honestly and humbly agreed to the three critical precepts above, one has earned salvation, which can never be taken away.

There is no other faith on earth that is so "inclusively exclusivist."  The changes required to convert to Judaism, Islam, "formal" Buddhism, etc. are far more intensive.

Atom Heart Mother:

Your intentions are good, but to suggest that someone "try religion somehow" or "see what it is like to believe in God for a little while" is ultimately moot.  One cannot simply "try religion" or pretend to believe in God.  Either one does, or one doesn't.  Either one's inner spirit "connects" with God, or it does not.  Either the "light switch" is turned on or it is not.  It is fruitless to hope that non-believers will simply "try" to be believers.  They cannot.

This does not mean they never will.  As noted, I had the light switch turned on for me at 19.  And although it is true that I was already a spiritual "seeker" of sorts, I could no more have believed in God simply because I "wanted" to than I could have jumped off a cliff and defied the laws of gravity simply because I wanted to.  It had to happen.  However, I firmly believe that even the most adamant atheist could have the light switch turned on at some point.

In the meantime, all we can do is try to show, by example - by our words, our actions, our lives, etc. - what it means to be "Christian": not what it has become through its politicization via the mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" Church.  But rather what Jesus actually taught, and how He actually lived.  We will not win hearts and minds (and souls...) by "hoping" that non-believers will "try" religion.  The only way we will win hearts and minds (and souls) is by showing non-believers that Christianity - true, essential, "primitive" Christianity - is not what they believe it to be as a result of its co-opting by religio-political forces and the apostasy they have brought to it.  But rather that, although it is indeed "exclusivist" in some ways, it is not only extremely inclusive, but is based on moral and other precepts that everyone - believers and hard-core atheists alike - would agree are excellent fundamentals for living in a human community.

Peace.

Is there a way to delete this post?


Edited by Arteum