Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

I'll simply have to say it again.

You said that:



When in actual fact, it does. You said something that is incorrect, untrue, false, whatever you want to call it. It was the opposite of a correct statement.

A black man robs a liquor store.

So using your logic, black men rob liquor stores, except you're using it in absolute terms.

Black men also don't rob liquor stores. Some religion is responsible for stifling the growth of science, and some religion is responsible for encouraging and promoting science, other have had no influence at all.

It's very clear that your issues with religion prevent you from having an objective discussion when it comes to religion, it'd probably be a good idea to not pretend or suggest (as you do) that you are indeed objective because it's very clear that you aren't

The issues you have with religion are your own and you should sort it out instead of getting all bent out of shape and ascribing as much blame to religion as you see fit.
 
I think I am right in saying that religion is man made and is a way to control people and get them to kill people of different faiths, groups, sexes,and generally oppress people.

Can you believe in God but not be affiliated to a religious cult like the Jewish, Christian or Islamic cults?

I don't understand the logic behind this...

You're agreeing that Religion is man made - but you believe in a God that would have been created by Religion in the first place :confused:

Spook187 said:
You either believe in god or you don't which is it, you can't sit on the fence with religion.

I thought that's what being Agnostic is all about? :p
 
I don't understand the logic behind this...

You're agreeing that Religion is man made - but you believe in a God that would have been created by Religion in the first place :confused:

Organised religion didn't create God. The belief in gods long pre-dates Hunduism and Judaism which are generally considered the oldest successful organised religions.

So to answer the question in the post you quoted. Yes you can believe in a God or gods without labeling yourself as being part of a major religion.
 
Organised religion didn't create God. The belief is gods long pre-date Hunduism and Judaism which are generally considered the oldest succesful organised religions.

So to answer the question in the post you quoted. Yes you can believe in a God or gods without labeling yourself as being part of a major religion.

Ahhh well you learn something new every day :p
 
Basically before organised religion, gods were more like football teams and you simply believed in whatever one the rest of your town did (moon gods, sun gods, river gods, thunder gods like Thor etc etc). The general consensus was there were many gods that controlled natural phenomena. But this was a cultural belief more than a an organised religious one.

That was until Judaism came along...

Judaism

Multitudes of gods might have seemed to be the obvious way to explain the mysteries of nature, but it is not easy for priests to convince people to cooperate when their beliefs are based upon myths about gods behaving badly towards each other. And when different cities honor different gods, people just have one more excuse to kill each other.

With the onset of the Iron Age, while the moral development of every other nation in the Mediterranean region was being held back by myths about incestuous families of cruel and ambitious gods, the priests of Israel dared to take advantage of the newly discovered power of alphabetic writing to persuade their population to adopt a more refined level of superstition.

Using sober language, they crafted a detailed mythology, with a single god, a convincing creation myth, and a declaration of ten sacred commandments: Do not murder; Do not steal; Do not lie; and so on. Using a collection of myths about miraculous events, the priests had succeeded in uniting their people under a common belief and giving them a practical set of laws and values.

The people of Israel no longer needed such a strong central authority to enforce the laws. Whoever believed in the mythology would themselves become the law keepers. And rather than ruining the nation to satisfy their own ambitions, kings would be held accountable to the same standards of behavior as commoners.

The Jewish strategy proved to be so effective that the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs eventually followed their lead, convincing their own people to adopt a single moral god of creation by building upon the successful foundations of the Jewish mythology.

To the credit of the early Jewish prophets, they continued to focus on punishment for the wicked in this life, and were never desperate enough to allow their scriptures to descend to the level of threatening punishment in the next life. The early Jewish scriptures only ever said that when we die, “our dust returns to the earth as it was, and our spirit returns to God who gave it.”

As the centuries passed, additions were made to the scriptures to reinforce the better aspects of the religion. But whenever priests start making up rules, they often become tempted to regulate every detail of people's lives. When less enlightened laws and values become entrenched in religious scripture, they become very difficult to change without abandoning the whole tradition.

In other words they discovered the belief in one, all powerful God was a great way of controlling the people. Hence Christianity and Islam were born.
 
Basically before organised religion, gods were more like football teams and you simply believed in whatever one the rest of your town did (moon gods, sun gods, river gods, thunder gods like Thor etc etc). The general consensus was there were many gods that controlled natural phenomena. But this was a cultural belief more than a an organised religious one.

Which consensus are you referring to?

Monism and Monotheism are inferred in many outwardly polytheistic and animistic belief systems....including many that essentially pre-date the Abrahamic Faiths and/or developed independently of them, both in (proto) Indo-European and Asian religions. In some ancient African Religions we also see the related concepts of Monotheism, Henotheism and Monolatrism (which accepts the existence of both a single God and the existence of other Gods usually as a superior god and inferior or lesser companion Gods)..Classical Greco-Roman and Norse religions inferred this latter Supreme God associated with many lesser Gods. There are substantial theories that suggest that Judaism as a strictly monotheistic faith was developed from an earlier Monolatrist Faith with the Angels etc being essentially demoted from minor divinity in the process rather than the proposal you quoted from an unknown source (I would like to read the original if you have a link)
 
Basically before organised religion, gods were more like football teams and you simply believed in whatever one the rest of your town did (moon gods, sun gods, river gods, thunder gods like Thor etc etc). The general consensus was there were many gods that controlled natural phenomena. But this was a cultural belief more than a an organised religious one.

That was until Judaism came along...



In other words they discovered the belief in one, all powerful God was a great way of controlling the people. Hence Christianity and Islam were born.

No, it goes way much further than that. Jesus Christ was prophesied to come way before he came onto the scene.

And I find it funny how you atheists talk about control when the only person controlling us is the government. If anyone wants to see corruption just look at the government. Lie after lie. They are filth. Even Jesus detested the leaders.

God has left everyone two options: It's him, or it's destruction. There is no other alternative. You cannot live without God anymore than a branch can thrive on its own.
 
Which consensus are you referring to?

The general one. As you know it means popular agreement without organisation.

I was summing up, not giving an absolute and detailed history of human belief. Of course there were religions (with one, multiple or no gods) before Hinduism and Judaism, which is why I was careful to use the term "organised successful religion" to refer to those I named (I don't believe you could call the religions befpre that organised and successful, they were more like tribal systems that different widely from city to city).

I stand by my statement that before Hinduism/Judaism people's beliefs are better described as cultural rather than religious though.

P.S. The link you asked for - http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/analysis_of_ancient_beliefs.html
 
Last edited:
God has left everyone two options: It's him, or it's destruction. There is no other alternative. You cannot live without God anymore than a branch can thrive on its own.

Clearly people can live without God (or at least a belief in one) and for what it is worth, if there is a God of some description that stands in judgement I very much doubt that such an entity would consider simply belief to be more important than the actions of the individual in life. Christianity doesn't teach that belief in God is enough to justify salvation, it is a persons Works that justify that salvation.
 
Clearly people can live without God (or at least a belief in one) and for what it is worth, if there is a God of some description that stands in judgement I very much doubt that such an entity would consider simply belief to be more important than the actions of the individual in life. Christianity doesn't teach that belief in God is enough to justify salvation, it is a persons Works that justify that salvation.

By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. It is the gift of God you are saved, through grace not works, so that no one may boast. He who believes in the son is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the one and only begotten son of God.

Remember Jesus said no one comes to God but by him. People who teach that you can go to heaven through works alone are preaching in opposition to the words of Jesus.
 
The general one. As you know it means popular agreement without organisation.

I understand the concept, I was just trying to ascertain where this general consensus originated from as it seems not so common to me. The piece you quoted doesn't concur with accepted evolution of Judaism, it is (as you link illustrates) an opinion based on a materialist philosophical viewpoint which while it has some valid observations it also makes more than a few suppositions that do not withstand further scrutiny, such as the idea that a few Priests sat around and created a complex mythology solely to control...the consensus doesn't support that....Judaism, like many other complex religions evolved over significant time and several schisms. It is not thought that Judaism was the reason for the rise of Monotheism in Classical Greco-Roman beliefs, as they pre-dated any significant contact with Judaism as I explained.

I was summing up, not giving an absolute and detailed history of human belief. Of course there were religions (with one, multiple or no gods) before Hinduism and Judaism, which is why I was careful to use the term "organised successful religion" to refer to those I named (I don't believe you could call the religions befpre that organised and successful, they were more like tribal systems that different widely from city to city).

Summing up? It seemed you were making a specific claim on the evolution of Monotheism and as for organised successful religion, there are a myriad of very successful religions that pre-date Judaism, in fact Animism, which is potentially the most primitive of the Human belief systems (as in oldest, not least complex) is often based on a Monolatrist system (The Great Spirit etc) and this alone illustrates the flaws in the source that you used to support your opinion.

I stand by my statement that before Hinduism/Judaism people's beliefs are better described as cultural rather than religious though.

It is more about Human Spirituality than some defined ideas of culture or religion.


Thankyou. It is interesting if a little flawed. It is also the work of a single person, Robert Charles Stewart in order to promote his book of the same name. His views are strongly related and supported by the Conflict Thesis that I discussed earlier.
 
By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. It is the gift of God you are saved, through grace not works, so that no one may boast. He who believes in the son is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the one and only begotten son of God.

Remember Jesus said no one comes to God but by him. People who teach that you can go to heaven through works alone are preaching in opposition to the words of Jesus.

He sounds like a swell guy, I bet he's a laugh at parties! :)
 
By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. It is the gift of God you are saved, through grace not works, so that no one may boast. He who believes in the son is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the one and only begotten son of God.

Remember Jesus said no one comes to God but by him. People who teach that you can go to heaven through works alone are preaching in opposition to the words of Jesus.

No they are preaching in opposition to Conservative Evangelist Interpretations which are largely literal in theme. There is no scriptural basis that Faith alone is enough to justify salvation.

And I am not a Christian so am not bound by ideas of salvation through anyone other than myself, I reject the notion that a God as defined in Christianity would require such arbitrary narrowly defined criteria on whether a soul is condemned or not....in fact many Christian themes support the opposite, such as universal forgiveness and The epistle of James illustrates that through Good Works comes Faith, whether you believe or not is immaterial to this, as God judges the actions of a person as a testament to their faith (whether they are cogent of God or not). It is a matter of interpretation and this is simply one that can be illustrated.
 
No they are preaching in opposition to Conservative Evangelist Interpretations which are largely literal in theme. There is no scriptural basis that Faith alone is enough to justify salvation.

And I am not a Christian so am not bound by ideas of salvation through anyone other than myself, I reject the notion that a God as defined in Christianity would require such arbitrary narrowly defined criteria on whether a soul is condemned or not....in fact many Christian themes support the opposite, such as universal forgiveness and The epistle of James illustrates that through Good Works comes Faith, whether you believe or not is immaterial to this, as God judges the actions of a person as a testament to their faith (whether they are cogent of God or not). It is a matter of interpretation and this is simply one that can be illustrated.


John 8:24: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

How do you explain that then?
 
John 8:24: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

How do you explain that then?

John 3:21 "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Do you need belief in God to Sin?, in fact does simply holding a belief in God guarantee Salvation?..if it does then that means even Satan is guaranteed Salvation. When exegeted without bias the New Testament only has one absolute requirement for Salvation...and that is the Forgiveness of God. Salvation through Christ is but one way to accomplish this, but not the only one.

It also needs to be pointed out the context in which John 8:24 is made, it is Christ speaking to the Jews in the Temple on the Mount of Olives and their desire to stone a woman for adultery. This was something that Jesus opposed and he is not saying that through him is salvation, only that the message he brings shows the new way, that of forgiveness rather than punishment and if the Pharisees do not see him as the Messiah then they will be condemned to continue in the sins as before (as illustrated by the stoning).
 
Last edited:
A black man robs a liquor store.

So using your logic, black men rob liquor stores, except you're using it in absolute terms.

Black men also don't rob liquor stores. Some religion is responsible for stifling the growth of science, and some religion is responsible for encouraging and promoting science, other have had no influence at all.

It's very clear that your issues with religion prevent you from having an objective discussion when it comes to religion, it'd probably be a good idea to not pretend or suggest (as you do) that you are indeed objective because it's very clear that you aren't

The issues you have with religion are your own and you should sort it out instead of getting all bent out of shape and ascribing as much blame to religion as you see fit.
Saying that 'religion does not suppress science' is a blanket statement, whereas saying 'religion does suppress science' is not. Saying the former is an absolute, whereas the latter does not imply that all religion suppresses all science, all of the time. This appears to be remarkably difficult to grasp.

As for everything else you have said, yes. I am a human being, I do have opinions on things like religion, and yes, they will probably rear their head in a discussion about it. If you're looking for a purely objective discussion on something like religion, then you should continue on your merry way, as you'll be out of luck if you plan on ever having a conversation.
 
John 8:24: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

How do you explain that then?

You are getting schooled very very hard on the book that you use to justify your pathetic delusions by Castiel, how embaressing it should be for you, alas I am guessing your mental illness renders things like embarrassment obsolete.

Never mind how glaringly foolish a book it is to use to live your life by considering how awfully flawed it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom