Religion Discussion Thread

[Avyran]

I think, at the time, with the church being as large as it was then, there wasn't much room for thoughts that defied God to come out. Did they exist? Absolutely. Were they announced? Probably not, out of fear of repercussions. I think original science still had that old religious blend with it, in the sense that you kind of took everything you discovered as being part of God's design. As time wore on, and we come to today, I think science kind of has gotten to the point where you can explain a lot more of God away with numbers and scientific theory. CAN you be a devout Christian AND a great scientist? Absolutely. BUT, I think that requires denying a lot of hard evidence on the science front to maintain that belief.

I 100% disagree with you. This is, by far, the thing I disagree with most in this thread thus far. I think your understanding of Christianity is kinda wonky, to be honest.

You definitely have a much more flexible and realistic approach to Christianity, Avyran, and I can totally see and respect where you're coming from. Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it isn't applicable in a TON of instances I've come across. You're even open to going "Oh, the ark didn't actually happen? Meh, whatever, still could be a God." THAT is huge, in and of itself, because it shows you're able to accept something outside of what faith tells you to. If you can look at something and go "Sure, that's true, you showed it here, but I still believe ___" then that is more than most can say. But what is open to debate for you, makes another person of similar faith froth at the mouth in anger. Perspective is talked about a lot in here, this definitely proves how different things can look to people.

Appreciate that first part.

I'd agree that in general, people don't really care to critically think. Paul says to test the spirits & reflect upon yourself (just as Euripides, and Aristotle, etc). Most people prefer to live day-by-day and just enjoy themselves. If it works for them, then hey, I'm not going to try & forcefully wake people up, force them to come to grips with it. *Shrug* (Edit: I'd say that's probably most Christians as well. But it's their life [it's now or never... I ain't gonna live forever... etc ]). I do what I do, they do what they do.)

[grunthy]

nobody is the reason i waited till now to enter this thread. Not nobody specifically, but the presence of that guy in every religion discussion. Cant even tell what they believe because all they do is double back and circle around everything being discussed.

I've stated pretty clearly what I believe. Maybe you missed it...

[Clams Herbert]

Something else I wouldn't mind delving into a little; it seems most here of a faith are of the Christian denomination. How much of the fact that you are a Christian do you attribute to being born/living where you are? Majority of Indian people are Hindu. Majority of middle-eastern people are of Muslim faith. Plus Buddhist (I think I saw one in here), Judaism, and a bunch of others. I'm not saying that because you're an American you're a Christian, but the biggest faith in America is obviously Christianity. Does that play at all a part in your thinking? Do you feel it's the best faith for you and is more or less the "correct" religion for those who haven't observed the rest of them? It's so easy to look at a Muslim and go "Well his holy book is wrong, and mine is right." But why is that? I definitely used to think that way as a youngster. But would the loving God from the New Testament really damn half of the world to Hell just for not believing in the Bible's specific logistics to faith (aka Accepting Christ, etc)? Does that seem fair at all? I know it's a lot of questions, I just like to hear people's opinions on it.

[Clams Herbert]

I'd say that's probably most Christians as well. But it's their life [it's now or never... I ain't gonna live forever... etc ]). I do what I do, they do what they do.

We're on the same page here. Live and let live. So riddle me this (and I don't want this to turn into a politics thread), but when law is placed to govern ALL people (of faith and no faith) and it is based on a religious belief (such as gays cannot marry, etc) is that not dangerous? Justifying oppression and not "living and letting live" by using faith to keep people from doing that? When your platform is "this is what the omnipotent one wants", I'd say that's pretty scary stuff.

[Avyran]

Something else I wouldn't mind delving into a little; it seems most here of a faith are of the Christian denomination. How much of the fact that you are a Christian do you attribute to being born/living where you are? Majority of Indian people are Hindu. Majority of middle-eastern people are of Muslim faith. Plus Buddhist (I think I saw one in here), Judaism, and a bunch of others. I'm not saying that because you're an American you're a Christian, but the biggest faith in America is obviously Christianity. Does that play at all a part in your thinking? Do you feel it's the best faith for you and is more or less the "correct" religion for those who haven't observed the rest of them? It's so easy to look at a Muslim and go "Well his holy book is wrong, and mine is right." But why is that? I definitely used to think that way as a youngster. But would the loving God from the New Testament really damn half of the world to Hell just for not believing in the Bible's specific logistics to faith (aka Accepting Christ, etc)? Does that seem fair at all? I know it's a lot of questions, I just like to hear people's opinions on it.

Glad I caught this. Theologically in Christianity, there are actually other ideas besides the standard "Specifically believe in Christ or go to hell." PBP is going to hate me for talking about them, haha (joking). That's called Exclusivism. Inclusivism (C.S. Lewis is a good example; see the last book of the Narnia series) says that God takes all genuine acts of what is good/faith & accepts that as belief too. It's more muddy, but that's a horrible one-sentence definition. More liberal Christians believe in universalism - all are eventually saved by Christ's work no matter what, because it's that powerful. I personally think that goes too far, but not because I doubt the power of Christ's work. There's a lot of variety. I'm personally of the inclusivism mindset, particularly since my studies go into places where they never even heard of Christ until the 17th century. I can go more into that via PM unless a lot want to read it. It's another complicated subject of theology.

As for why I reject Islam... well, after studying the Quran for a bit, I really grew frustrated. I can explain that as well, but I'd prefer PMs (again, unless I'd be repeating it 5-6 times).

I'd say that's probably most Christians as well. But it's their life [it's now or never... I ain't gonna live forever... etc ]). I do what I do, they do what they do.

We're on the same page here. Live and let live. So riddle me this (and I don't want this to turn into a politics thread), but when law is placed to govern ALL people (of faith and no faith) and it is based on a religious belief (such as gays cannot marry, etc) is that not dangerous? Justifying oppression and not "living and letting live" by using faith to keep people from doing that? When your platform is "this is what the omnipotent one wants", I'd say that's pretty scary stuff.

Clams Herbert is the riddler?

This is part of why I don't like Islam; there's a reason why Shaf is always ranting against Sharia. It's incredibly scary. But again, I won't delve into that here (I need to work ).

That's always been a major struggle in Christianity historically, though - the idea of the religion in power, or Christendom. Do I personally think it's dangerous? Yeah. Power corrupts humanity. It's like the one ring in Lord of the Rings, haha. As for specifics, well... it's pretty complicated. I'm more "keep the government as minimal as it needs to be," though. Let the Christians govern Christians, and don't force Christian morality onto those outside of the church. There'd be many who disagree with me, I imagine. The question of government & morality's an interesting one.

[count2infinity]

What are people's feelings on evangelism? I know when there's a knock at the door and someone wants to talk about God, it's usually Mormons, but I think a large portion of Christians (and it very well may be true in other religions as well) feel the urge to "spread the good word" so to speak.

Matthew 28:19,20:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Has anyone here that is not of faith had people try to convert you to the religion? If so, how did you handle it and/or what did you think about them attempting to convert you?

[Avyran]

(I've had a lot of people try to convert me, but I seriously need to work. I'll answer it later.)

[grunthy]

I'll only talk if they want me to. I'm not going to go up to a stranger and talk to them about faith. To me that is counter productive.

[CBear3]

i'd argue that the re-animation of a corpse being scientifically impossible isn't really an opinion.

LOL, I'm a member of the RC church, and even I liked that one.

Do you feel it's the best faith for you and is more or less the "correct" religion for those who haven't observed the rest of them? It's so easy to look at a Muslim and go "Well his holy book is wrong, and mine is right."

I'm sure my particular denomination is a direct influence from my parents and genealogy. It's hard to say that if my family wasn't Christian, whether I'd be a believer or not. I can say that there are things about Christianity that I favor over other religions from a, I don't want to say logically perspective, but maybe a philosophical perspective. One I recently discussed was that Islam sets rules/behaviors that try to make you the best human you can be, with all the limitations and hindrances that includes. Meanwhile, Christianity give you this perfection, JC the son of God, to emulate. It'd be like being aspiring to be the best version of the NE Patriots you could possibly be versus being the 1972 Dolphins.

[CBear3]

Oh and the cow thing would've definitely made sure I wasn't Hindu.

[Clams Herbert]

Something else I wouldn't mind delving into a little; it seems most here of a faith are of the Christian denomination. How much of the fact that you are a Christian do you attribute to being born/living where you are? Majority of Indian people are Hindu. Majority of middle-eastern people are of Muslim faith. Plus Buddhist (I think I saw one in here), Judaism, and a bunch of others. I'm not saying that because you're an American you're a Christian, but the biggest faith in America is obviously Christianity. Does that play at all a part in your thinking? Do you feel it's the best faith for you and is more or less the "correct" religion for those who haven't observed the rest of them? It's so easy to look at a Muslim and go "Well his holy book is wrong, and mine is right." But why is that? I definitely used to think that way as a youngster. But would the loving God from the New Testament really damn half of the world to Hell just for not believing in the Bible's specific logistics to faith (aka Accepting Christ, etc)? Does that seem fair at all? I know it's a lot of questions, I just like to hear people's opinions on it.

Glad I caught this. Theologically in Christianity, there are actually other ideas besides the standard "Specifically believe in Christ or go to hell." PBP is going to hate me for talking about them, haha (joking). That's called Exclusivism. Inclusivism (C.S. Lewis is a good example; see the last book of the Narnia series) says that God takes all genuine acts of what is good/faith & accepts that as belief too. It's more muddy, but that's a horrible one-sentence definition. More liberal Christians believe in universalism - all are eventually saved by Christ's work no matter what, because it's that powerful. I personally think that goes too far, but not because I doubt the power of Christ's work. There's a lot of variety. I'm personally of the inclusivism mindset, particularly since my studies go into places where they never even heard of Christ until the 17th century. I can go more into that via PM unless a lot want to read it. It's another complicated subject of theology.

As for why I reject Islam... well, after studying the Quran for a bit, I really grew frustrated. I can explain that as well, but I'd prefer PMs (again, unless I'd be repeating it 5-6 times).

I'd say that's probably most Christians as well. But it's their life [it's now or never... I ain't gonna live forever... etc ]). I do what I do, they do what they do.

We're on the same page here. Live and let live. So riddle me this (and I don't want this to turn into a politics thread), but when law is placed to govern ALL people (of faith and no faith) and it is based on a religious belief (such as gays cannot marry, etc) is that not dangerous? Justifying oppression and not "living and letting live" by using faith to keep people from doing that? When your platform is "this is what the omnipotent one wants", I'd say that's pretty scary stuff.

Clams Herbert is the riddler?

This is part of why I don't like Islam; there's a reason why Shaf is always ranting against Sharia. It's incredibly scary. But again, I won't delve into that here (I need to work ).

That's always been a major struggle in Christianity historically, though - the idea of the religion in power, or Christendom. Do I personally think it's dangerous? Yeah. Power corrupts humanity. It's like the one ring in Lord of the Rings, haha. As for specifics, well... it's pretty complicated. I'm more "keep the government as minimal as it needs to be," though. Let the Christians govern Christians, and don't force Christian morality onto those outside of the church. There'd be many who disagree with me, I imagine. The question of government & morality's an interesting one.

Interesting stuff I love it.

Never heard very much of Inclusivism vs Exclusivism before. I guess my entire thinking is if it's in the book, it's the law. The Bible shouldn't be a buffet where you pick and choose what you want to believe, it's supposed to be the word of freaking God (provided it was as transcribed to his followers.) "The Old Testament is just metaphors...except here and here of course." It's frustrating to hear anti-gay speech being propped up in the Bible when the same part says to not wear mixed fabrics. I completely agree that religious law and government should be as far away as possible. If you want to be in a church, and that church punishes and has it's own rules, do as you want, as long as I don't feel any effect from it.

There's also some (not you) that believe people without religion CANNOT be moral. As though the only thing keeping them hinged to a functioning society and not killing that dude is thinking they'd go to Hell for it. I don't think anyone here thinks that way, but that type of thinking exists. I subscribe to the "This is the one life we all agree we for sure are getting. How bout we just help each other through it by not making it more difficult and just enjoying it together?" mindset. Some people hurt by helping. The best of intentions can have the worst of results. Keep faith personal.

[columbia]

i'd argue that the re-animation of a corpse being scientifically impossible isn't really an opinion.

Is this one of those baseless opinions?

[grunthy]

i'd argue that the re-animation of a corpse being scientifically impossible isn't really an opinion.

Is this one of those baseless opinions?

Bringing a person back with CPR is re-animating a dead person...

[tifosi77]

Richard Dawkins made a scale from 1-7. Essentially it breaks down like this:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins identifies himself as 6 (Bill Maher says a 6.9 for Dawkins if far more accurate ). I consider myself to be a 4.5. Dawkins claimed that due to the strictness involved in religion, there are many people that are 1's, but the typical skeptic nature of many atheists keep them from being a 7.

I would rank myself as a 6 on that scale, for the reason you lay out in the last sentence. Even tho I don't believe in the concept of a god or divinity, I'm naturally a skeptic, and so cannot fully bring myself to exalted land of the 7s. Besides, doing so would be expressing a belief in the unknowable, which is really no different in operation than belief in god.

[shmenguin]

i'm a 6. 1's and 7's think they're 1's and 7's, but they're really just 2's and 6's.

[tifosi77]

i'd argue that the re-animation of a corpse being scientifically impossible isn't really an opinion.

Is this one of those baseless opinions?

Bringing a person back with CPR is re-animating a dead person...

Three days.

[CBear3]

Or you might say that science has found 1,000,001 ways how not to reanimated a corpse

[CBear3]

Or if you put Jesus in a tomb with a radioactive particle he could be both alive and dead.

[Robot B9]

Richard Dawkins made a scale from 1-7. Essentially it breaks down like this:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins identifies himself as 6 (Bill Maher says a 6.9 for Dawkins if far more accurate ). I consider myself to be a 4.5. Dawkins claimed that due to the strictness involved in religion, there are many people that are 1's, but the typical skeptic nature of many atheists keep them from being a 7.

I would rank myself as a 6 on that scale, for the reason you lay out in the last sentence. Even tho I don't believe in the concept of a god or divinity, I'm naturally a skeptic, and so cannot fully bring myself to exalted land of the 7s. Besides, doing so would be expressing a belief in the unknowable, which is really no different in operation than belief in god.

I think I'm a 1.5 and would stop myself from being a 1 for the same basic reason why you stopped at a 6.

[Freddy Rumsen]

What are people's feelings on evangelism? I know when there's a knock at the door and someone wants to talk about God, it's usually Mormons, but I think a large portion of Christians (and it very well may be true in other religions as well) feel the urge to "spread the good word" so to speak.

Matthew 28:19,20:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Has anyone here that is not of faith had people try to convert you to the religion? If so, how did you handle it and/or what did you think about them attempting to convert you?

The denominational background (I'm a different flavor Presbyterian than Avryan) I come from denies the "every Christian is an evangelist" mantra that is common to most of evangelicalism (and the cults like LDS and JW's). Whereas it is the responsibility for every believer to "give a defense for the hope that is within them" (1 Peter 3:15) we believe that Matthew 28:18-20 is specifically given to the Apostles and by extension to Ministers in the days after the end of the Apostolic order.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Of course the Bible breaks the world down into 1's and 7's. You are either a covenant-keeper or a covenant-breaker.

[grunthy]

i'd argue that the re-animation of a corpse being scientifically impossible isn't really an opinion.

Is this one of those baseless opinions?

Bringing a person back with CPR is re-animating a dead person...

Three days.

I thought it was fairly obvious I made that as a non serious comment.

[tifosi77]

Or if you put Jesus in a tomb with a radioactive particle he could be both alive and dead.

Schrödinger's messiah.

[redwill]

Just to start at the basics, why do you believe? By that I mean "believe in a supernatural being."

Is it because you accept the coherency of the doctrine? Is it because that's the way you were raised? Is it because you desire to have a structure to life? Is it something else?

Why?

For me, there is no reason to believe in a supernatural being. Science answers all the questions. Those that are not yet answered (God of the gaps) will likely be answered eventually. Maybe we don't like the answers science gives and so we have push-back.

But think of it. There was a time when people didn't know what lightning was. In comes Zeus. People didn't know how babbies are formed. In comes whatever Sumerian fertility goddess. People didn't understand why people die and what happens to them afterwards. In comes whatever Egyptian death god. People didn't understand why we exist and how the world was formed. In comes Yahweh.

But we now understand lightning. And human reproduction. And death. And the origins of the world and the universe. So what's left? Why do people still believe in a supernatural being?

I suppose that people want the comfort that comes from believing in a divine being who takes care of us. I have no problem with that. But that should be labelled as "hope," not "belief."

If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.

[shmenguin]

Science answers all the questions

it doesn't account for the true beginning of all things. but neither does religion.