Excuse me...

Title of this thread: 'Religion 101'

And then...surprise, everyone posting up about their faith happens to be a Christian. This is becoming offensive, I am sorry to say.

In the separation of church and state, the Bradbury forum is the state. You all seem to forget this fact. You are too busy using this venue to preach. You should be doing this on another forum, either your own, or one set up for this type of discussion.

I have no problem with Christians. I DO have a problem with people foisting off their beliefs on a forum dedicated to a great writer. This is NOT the place. If you want to spread the Word, then either go door-to-door, or sign up with a Christian forum.

The Bradbury Forum is not the place to recruit new believers or post up testimonials to your religion. It's insulting to Ray, and a waste of bandwidth that was dedicated to other purposes...such as RAY.

Religion is a very personal thing. Your posts infringe on this, and are a back-slapping effort to show others the 'Only Truth'.

I have a surprise for you. Not everybody thinks that the Bible word-for-word is the voice of God. It was written by men, and has been modified much over the centuries. Many of the Bible stories may be based on fact, but only a fool would accept something entirely as truth when the writers often wrote the stories centuries after they happened.

The Bible is likely a mix of legend and fact, and was written by human beings. HUMAN BEINGS. You should remember that.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but life has existed on this planet for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million years or more. That is proven fact, beyond reproach. Yet...man only appeared in the last two million years, at most. This does not coincide with the Creation theory, which was very likely a legend anyway, written by ancient peoples who had no other way to explain their existence.

In any event, this forum, IMHO, is not the place for these discussions.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert M Blevins,

Excuse me? Well, well, let's go down the list:
a: true
b: too bad. Your offended feelings are not necessary. No one said Muslims or transcendalists are not allowed in here.
c: nonsense. You seem to be busy getting upset.
d: nonsense
e: nonsense
f: true
g: nonsense
h: nonsense
i: I have trouble with the creation idea as it is generally presented. But it's a lot different. I don't get bent out of shape over it. It's just time is a flexible commodity.
j: nonsense

"And they built themselves towers to reach the stars, and so God confused their language."
Old testament(Genesis)text concerning the desgtruction of the Tower of Babel because a united humanity relying on themselves sought to build towards the heavens instead of relying on God.

What list?
You didn't actually MAKE one.

And what is this?
'It's just time is a flexible commodity.'

Stephen Hawking might disagree with your theory about quantum physics there.

In the end, religion is a matter of faith. Many different peoples around the globe have their own concept of creation or their own beliefs. Most espouse the better sides of humanity.

For one to stand up and continually announce they are 'The One' (which sometimes reminds of Neo in 'The Matrix) is arrogant, indeed. Believe what you will, but accept the fact that others may believe differently.

You see, saying the things you did in the last post, such as 'nonsense' etc. simply justifies my position.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert M Blevins,

I'm using your 'list'.

I mention time as a flexible commodity because I know absolutely nothing about physics. All I know is Hawking says something along the lines that in a black hole all time past present and future happens at once. Scripture says God invented (created) time. And that someday it'll end as we know it. Since God invented (created) physics, I tend to listen to Hawking a little less than God.

Religion is a faith. Yep!
Christianity basically says (especially in the Epistles) you cannot have faith in something that doesn't exist. In fact, it writes that the ability to have faith in something is proof it exists. But now we're talking about faith, not make-believe!

About the last posting. Justifies your position? Nonsense!

"Tower of Babel" was a reaching for the stars. God struck down this Tower of Babel, and this unified humanity reaching towards the heavens, because they were building under their own ability, and not relying on God.

quote:

In fact, it writes that the ability to have faith in something is proof it exists.

No. The ability to have faith in something is NOT proof it exists. It means you have faith that it DOES exist. There is a difference.

There are many religions. The basic tenets of these faiths are often varied and different in their view of the world. Your statement proposes that as long as a person has faith in something...that it is fact. If you say that Christianity is the absolute model, and that everyone should accept it all as fact, this automatically discounts all other faiths.

You see...I have a problem with this concept. There is nothing wrong with having faith in something. There is nothing wrong with believing in something. There IS something wrong with saying 'it's MY way...or you are going to hell.'

I try to look at the big picture of the cosmos sometimes. There are just so many possibilities out there. Here we sit on Earth, destroying the planet and fighting our petty wars...many of them based on religious beliefs...and I think we're still in the Stone Age of real discovery.

The possibility that there are millions of other intelligent societies, even in the local galactic area, is a good possibility. Carl Sagan said once: 'For man to believe he is the only intelligent life in the universe is selfish, indeed.'

There is no harm at all in believing in Christianity, or any other faith that does NOT espouse the 'evil that men do'. However, preaching on this forum is bad manners. Think about it...

We have an article at Newsvine about this subject. HERE

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert M Blevins,

Robert M Blevins said:
No. The ability to have faith in something is NOT proof it exists. It means you have faith that it DOES exist. There is a difference.
Sorry!

Phil Knox says,
Nope! Scripture says differently. The kind of faith scripture is talking about is God-given. You are talking a secular definition for
faith. Worlds apart!


Robert Blevins said,
There are many religions. The basic tenets of these faiths are often varied and different in their view of the world. Your statement proposes that as long as a person has faith in something...that it is fact. If you say that Christianity is the absolute model, and that everyone should accept it all as fact, this automatically discounts all other faiths.
You see...I have a problem with this concept. There is nothing wrong with having faith in something. There is nothing wrong with believing in something. There IS something wrong with saying 'it's MY way...or you are going to hell.'

Phil Knox says,
Christianity is based on one fact! Take it or leave it! A man came back from the dead after crucifixion and lived among hundreds of people for over a month. THAT is the basis of Christianity. Now would you believe what that guy has to say about death, or not? That's really the bottom line! Take it or leave it! All of Christianity hangs on that one event!

The rest of your posts I agree about 90%.

quote:

All of Christianity hangs on that one event!

I'm truely sorry that you see it that way. It seems so fragile, so shallow. But to each his own.

Nico:
It will surprise you!
It'll surprise anyone that does not know.
But that explanation about the crucial basis of Christianity is in scripture. Paul the apostle laments the fact that he is a fool if Christ did not come back from the dead. He writes, even further, that we (the believer) are all the worst fools of the foolish that ever lived. Paul is thus expressing how important the resurrection is.

So, sorry! It's not how I see it. It's how it is written in scripture.

It is no surprise, on the other hand, that many people try to debunk the resurrection. Take James Cameron, the director of the movie "Titantic", for instance. His movie (The Lost Tomb of Jesus) tried to disclaim Christ's life after death. By unearthing the burial box of Christ (as his film would express) would destroy the fundamental fabric of Christianity. Wouldn't that be the greatest story in modern times, he must think!

quote:

Christianity is based on one fact! Take it or leave it! A man came back from the dead after crucifixion and lived among hundreds of people for over a month. THAT is the basis of Christianity. Now would you believe what that guy has to say about death, or not?

This is NOT established fact. This is a matter of faith, and what you believe. You confuse the two. There are a lot of faiths. It is strictly a choice of what you believe, and I have no problem with that. Espousing that YOURS is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH is a difficult sell, and eliminates a lot of folks from the possibility of an afterlife. Personally, I don't think God holds it against people for their different faiths...as long as their hearts are good. But, that's just an opinion.

Our article at Newsvine has already received a lot of comments. It speaks of what is going on here right now. Personally, I hope Ray doesn't read this stuff. He'd probably rather read about people discussing his books. If you want to know what I mean, see the Newsvine link.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert M Blevins,

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Nico:
It will surprise you!
It'll surprise anyone that does not know.
But that explanation about the crucial basis of Christianity is in scripture. Paul the apostle laments the fact that he is a fool if Christ did not come back from the dead. He writes, even further, that we (the believer) are all the worst fools of the foolish that ever lived. Paul is thus expressing how important the resurrection is.

So, sorry! It's not how I see it. It's how it is written in scripture.

It is no surprise, on the other hand, that many people try to debunk the resurrection. Take James Cameron, the director of the movie "Titantic", for instance. His movie (The Lost Tomb of Jesus) tried to disclaim Christ's life after death. By unearthing the burial box of Christ (as his film would express) would destroy the fundamental fabric of Christianity. Wouldn't that be the greatest story in modern times, he must think!

Take a step back, and let's examine a hypothetical. If Christ did not rise from the dead, and was just a mortal man, would you still follow him? I would.

I don't care what the scripture says is important. I see beyond abstraction. The truth and the teaching, they rise above all of the mutilated text that has survived the millenia.

This substance is what I grasp, it is my continuity. I defy those that worship a magician who can do tricks rather than the wonderful being that is Christ, in all his wisdom.

I invite you to throw aside dogma, examine the principals, and then if you feel it is truely yours and wonderful, return. But if you do not, seek elsewere, for to each his own. Whatever shows you the truth, is holy to me.

Who WAS that sensible guy? (In the last post)

I'm with you.

I've had my taste of wickedness. Years spent in the poorest areas with people that have nothing seem to have everything except ego and a me-self attitude. Humble, honest, passionate about being kind. And they grasp the simpliest teachings of Christ and the most complicated. They don't analyze into oblivion the meaning against their own thoughts on the matter. When Christ said you need to be like a child to enter the kingdom of God, he was talking about trusting like a child, and talking about these peoples.

The most ruined war victims overseas have limbs gone, eyes gone. Hacked and beaten thru genocide.Yet they see Christ in scripture as wise and caring. They understand eternal life. In the US there is this rolling sense, especially amongst the proud, of a proudness that stinks.

Reading a portion of the Ray Bradbury interview recently posted, Bradbury is asked what ails him, what about himself does he not like. And he says he's perfect. Well, who needs Saviour, then? Who needs Christ? The notion that a God suffers for a sinner seems to insult the intelligence of a sinner.
I was surprised by Bradbury's response, unless it was a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
I've had my taste of wickedness. Years spent in the poorest areas with people that have nothing seem to have everything except ego and a me-self attitude. Humble, honest, passionate about being kind. And they grasp the simpliest teachings of Christ and the most complicated. They don't analyze into oblivion the meaning against their own thoughts on the matter. When Christ said you need to be like a child to enter the kingdom of God, he was talking about trusting like a child, and talking about these peoples.

The most ruined war victims overseas have limbs gone, eyes gone. Hacked and beaten thru genocide.Yet they see Christ in scripture as wise and caring. They understand eternal life. In the US there is this rolling sense, especially amongst the proud, of a proudness that stinks.

Reading a portion of the Ray Bradbury interview recently posted, Bradbury is asked what ails him, what about himself does he not like. And he says he's perfect. Well, who needs Saviour, then? Who needs Christ? The notion that a God suffers for a sinner seems to insult the intelligence of a sinner.
I was surprised by Bradbury's response, unless it was a joke.

I would need to see the source of that article, though it is possible that bradbury meant it as a joke, or was using it in some sarcastic manner.

Who wants to talk about oranges!?

Nico:
click on:
www.raybradburyboard.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3791083901/m/1591017703

Doug Spaulding: Navel oranges?