20 Feb 05
sick of all that rehashed bible bashing, the circulatory quoting & requoting, the bible says this...the bible says that crap
heres a chance to create a totally new religion,ideas please......and lets have a main text and take the micky out of the wholey bible.
we need to scare the hell out of people so they'll join our club, we need to suppress non-believers, we need to have our "words" adhered to strenuously, and we need a "catcher" - like Smith did to attract mormonism, we need to propogate a new bible with propoganda
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by silver fernI think a system which found wonder and inspiration from nature, or the universe, without having the need to equate it with god would be an acceptable system. A system which openly embraced new scientific discoveries and change instead of striving to keep mankind ossified in the dark ages with an inflexible dogma would be most welcome. A system which took the positive outlook that mankind is inherently good, instead of one which declares man to be inherently sinful, would also be welcome.
sick of all that rehashed bible bashing, the circulatory quoting & requoting, the bible says this...the bible says that crap
heres a chance to create a totally new religion,ideas please......and lets have a main text and take the micky out of the wholey bible.
we need to scare the hell out of people so they'll join our club, we need to suppress n ...[text shortened]... atcher" - like Smith did to attract mormonism, we need to propogate a new bible with propoganda
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by silver fernThere's always spiritual humanism - it's like secular humanism, but based on the idea that making a set of beliefs 'spritual' is necessary for their efficient propagation among humans, as most humans have an innate tendency towards praying, adopting imaginary friends, etc. which can't be shaken out of them. Spiritual humanism is a bit lacking in arbitrary beliefs though - I think it's meant to be (in part) a kind of 'religious vaccine' that stops people catching the more virulent forms of religious belief.
sick of all that rehashed bible bashing, the circulatory quoting & requoting, the bible says this...the bible says that crap
heres a chance to create a totally new religion,ideas please......and lets have a main text and take the micky out of the wholey bible.
we need to scare the hell out of people so they'll join our club, we need to suppress n ...[text shortened]... atcher" - like Smith did to attract mormonism, we need to propogate a new bible with propoganda
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by silver fernLets use sport to get people involved, and also to make us enough money to supercede all the other religions, but we'll need a new sport because none of the established ones will let themselves be hi-jacked. So I propose Squaccer. For those of you who haven't experienced the wonder of the sport that is squaccer I suggest you follow this link http://hometown.aol.co.uk/nickwadlow/myhomepage/sport.html
sick of all that rehashed bible bashing, the circulatory quoting & requoting, the bible says this...the bible says that crap
heres a chance to create a totally new religion,ideas please......and lets have a main text and take the micky out of the wholey bible.
we need to scare the hell out of people so they'll join our club, we need to suppress n ...[text shortened]... atcher" - like Smith did to attract mormonism, we need to propogate a new bible with propoganda
We also need a big festival day. How about St. Patricks day? It's already very popular and has no specific religious link (yet), we can adopt it as our own. Now we need a name, any ideas?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by rwingettYou're kind of all over the place here. Would you find acceptable a religion that respects science and finds wonder and ispiration in the world around but still believes in God? And man without sin? Are you the prototype of this model? Are you even now bouncing a stone in your hand?
I think a system which found wonder and inspiration from nature, or the universe, without having the need to equate it with god would be an acceptable system. A system which openly embraced new scientific discoveries and change instead of striving to keep mankind ossified in the dark ages with an inflexible dogma would be most welcome. A system which took t ...[text shortened]... erently good, instead of one which declares man to be inherently sinful, would also be welcome.
I would be perfectly happy with a religion that held to most of the basic precepts of Xianity but did not deify the Bible or use it as a specific historical source. It is a book. Nothing else.
... --- ...
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI cannot accept a belief in any god. Some forms of god worship may be worse than others, but none of them are desirable, in my opinion.
You're kind of all over the place here. Would you find acceptable a religion that respects science and finds wonder and ispiration in the world around but still believes in God? And man without sin? Are you the prototype of this model? Are you even now bouncing a stone in your hand?
I would be perfectly happy with a religion that held to most of ...[text shortened]... ible or use it as a specific historical source. It is a book. Nothing else.
... --- ...
If you accept the concept of "sin", I postulated that man should be viewed as being inherently without sin. He may subsequently sin in his life, but he is without sin at birth. I think this is a much healthier attitude than believing we are all inherently sinful.
I have no use for any part of christianity, or its bible. Whatever good there may be in christianity is not exclusive to it. You don't need to have christianity to know that "thou shalt not kill", for example. That is part of every moral code, relativist or absolute.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by rwingettI know a nominal Christian (he probably attends church about twice a year) who points to that scripture as proof that the King James Bible is not inerrant. He says, "Every time you scratch yourself, you violate it. Every time you take a step outdoors, you violate it. How could God ask you to do something impossible?"
... You don't need to have christianity to know that "thou shalt not kill", for example. That is part of every moral code, relativist or absolute.
He says "Thou shalt not murder" would be an improvement. But even that would require considerable elaboration. Does it exclude sport hunting? Euthanasia? Abortion in general? Abortion in certain circumstances? Serving in combat for one's nation?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by rwingettYes, but whould you know not to covet your neighbor's wife? hehe
I cannot accept a belief in any god. Some forms of god worship may be worse than others, but none of them are desirable, in my opinion.
If you accept the concept of "sin", I postulated that man should be viewed as being inherently without sin. He may subsequently sin in his life, but he is without sin at birth. I think this is a much healthier attitud ...[text shortened]... "thou shalt not kill", for example. That is part of every moral code, relativist or absolute.
Actually, just because it would be nicer that humans are inherently without sin, doesn't make it so. I would like a big screen plasma TV to watch Lord of the Rings on, but it just isn't so.
But you are right if you are saying that humans are born innocent. With children there is no sin; it is when we start thinking that we know the difference between right and wrong that there is sin.
... --- ...