28228
Religion @ 2013/05/02 21:53:17
Post by: Cheesecat
Moving from Dakka Polls: threads about non-wargaming topics should go in the Off-Topic sub-forum. Thanks ~ Manchu
I'm just curious what the religious makeup of DakkaDakka is, so I made a poll. For me personally I'm irreligious I don't believe in any form of religion, in fact I don't believe in the supernatural either so I guess I'm a naturalist as well that being said I don't have any problems with other people
being religious or believing in the supernatural so long as they don't use it as an excuse for abusing others.
72900
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:06:42
Post by: Ardaric_Vaanes
Agnostic, I don't see it as possible to prove that a creator exists or doesn't exist. < I tend to lean forward to a creator not existing though this is just my thought and thus doesn't prove anything really...so agnostic.
28228
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:14:45
Post by: Cheesecat
 Ardaric_Vaanes wrote:Agnostic, I don't see it as possible to prove that a creator exists or doesn't exist. < I tend to lean forward to a creator not existing though this is just my thought and thus doesn't prove anything really...so agnostic.
The reason I don't believe in any religion is because a lot of the stories sound too fantastic to really be true, too much magic involved.
54708
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:21:54
Post by: TheCustomLime
Atheist. I'm an atheist because I see our culture and race is the macro sense. As in, current religions are just another phase in the evolving beliefs of mankind. My realization of this made me also realize that soon our religions will fade and new ones will replace them. After reaching this mindset I couldn't continue worshipping god in earnest. I
19370
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:21:55
Post by: daedalus
I'd say I'm an agnostic with strong leanings toward atheism. I have no evidence that any religion is correct, and, since they all exist to a certain extent beyond the scope of observation, there's no real way to disprove them, so I can't say they're not all false. By the same token, my default position has to be that none of them are true.
I definitely find myself rallying against religions when their practitioners seem to believe that their teachings include the words "...and you can use this as an excuse to be a dick to people."
As a subject of study, Buddhism is particularly interesting to me, though it feels almost more philosophical than actually religious in nature.
23
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:27:51
Post by: djones520
I'm not sure this thread will end well...
72046
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:30:27
Post by: TheDiscoSpider
Baptized and raised Catholic (currently in a Catholic university), now very much irreligious.
I think people should believe in what they like, as long as they don't mess with other peoples' beliefs either.
If I had a religion or philosophy though, I'd lean towards Zen or Taoism.
21940
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:33:18
Post by: nels1031
Christian, via Roman Catholicism.
I was atheist for a good period of my life, but something just called me to start reading up on Catholicism a few years ago and I've since returned to the Church. Really glad I came back.
19370
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:34:56
Post by: daedalus
Nah, we're good here. We might actually make it to the second page.
72046
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:36:14
Post by: TheDiscoSpider
 daedalus wrote:
Nah, we're good here. We might actually make it to the second page.
I'd give it 3 pages.
23
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:36:16
Post by: djones520
daedalus wrote:
Nah, we're good here. We might actually make it to the second page.
That would be nice. As an Atheist, nothing annoys me more then seeing my fellow Atheists go out of their way to pick fights.
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/02 22:42:50
Post by: d-usa
Christian.
We have had a couple good religion threads that managed to stay respectful and had people asking good questions and giving good answers for quite a few pages. It's possible as long as all sides stay away from "trollolol" and a smug sense of entitlement.
241
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:06:20
Post by: Ahtman
Why does Taoism have to be other? I am offended for no particular reason! It isn't what I picked, I just want people to pay attention to me. 
16879
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:19:15
Post by: daedalus-templarius
I'm agnostic, but I'll be the first to sign up once a deity rides down on a thunderbolt to smite those who oppose him/her.
11731
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:32:49
Post by: The Bringer
Christian. My beliefs have never changed but over time I have found ways to adapt certain unknowns to match scientific thought and theory, (i.e. I believe in 7 day creation and have reasoned ways that it would fit with evolution.)
59054
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:49:19
Post by: Nevelon
I'm a Pastafarian. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
How can you not love a religion based on pasta and rum, who's holy day is International talk like a pirate day?
While I do celebrate as the FSM dictates, I am technically Jewish. I get together with some fellow bad jews a few times a year and celebrate Hanukah and Passover. Although our seders would make anyone remotely orthodox cringe.
So mostly "non religious" but I clicked "other"
68188
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:51:55
Post by: Tiberius Atellus
Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise, use your witchcraft on me to get the fire off me!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Couldnt resist =])
72046
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:54:25
Post by: TheDiscoSpider
Okay, maybe just two.
241
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:57:12
Post by: Ahtman
Oh no my friend, those posts are on the first page. 
63000
Religion @ 2013/05/02 23:59:00
Post by: Peregrine
Peregrinist, because I am the obvious One True God and you shall have no other gods before Me.
Atheist, because there isn't even the slightest bit of evidence or reason to believe that any god exists, or that any known religion is anything more than wishful thinking.
Anti-theist, because the whole mess is incredibly harmful and needs to be opposed.
(So what if there's a contradiction in my beliefs. It's one of the ineffable mysteries of Faith in Peregrinism, which makes it even more true.)
18698
Religion @ 2013/05/03 00:00:54
Post by: kronk
Militant Agnostic
72046
Religion @ 2013/05/03 00:04:06
Post by: TheDiscoSpider
 Ahtman wrote:
Oh no my friend, those posts are on the first page.
I hope we see two, but that's my faith in humanity talking.
I should be under other then, since I'm also pastafarian.
28228
Religion @ 2013/05/03 00:04:36
Post by: Cheesecat
I don't know and neither do you, lol. 
39188
Religion @ 2013/05/03 00:28:06
Post by: Bullockist
I've just discovered I'm an Ominist, I didn't even know there was a term for what i believed I just used to call myself polytheistic or polyreligious. Dakka taught me something , well feth me.
I seriously believe that anyone can believe in anything they want as long as it doesn't affect other people. This makes me dislike militant theists of any type , including atheists.
Alot of militant athiests could certainly use some religion to teach them tolerance (in my younger and dumber years i was militantly atheist).
Why do people get the urge to say "I don't believe in anything so I'm going to gak all over what someone else believes". I'm finding my tolerance level is going up as i get older (which is probably the opposite of most people) , though the bad side of this is if i hit 80 and someone tells me the world is ending I'll probably roll over and say "cool". Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this post wins the thread already , wd mr kronk. "I believe in some random creator, not your allah or your Ptah , HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID!"
28228
Religion @ 2013/05/03 00:40:20
Post by: Cheesecat
Bullockist wrote:I've just discovered I'm an Ominist, I didn't even know there was a term for what i believed I just used to call myself polytheistic or polyreligious. Dakka taught me something , well feth me.
I kind of think Omnism would be cool, as I would like to believe that if it were true the afterlife would be you sort of wait at some office type place where they set you up with an appointment with a councilor and you go though a catalog selecting which religion's after life you want so maybe you
want Valhalla, Mount Olympus, Reincarnations, Catholic heaven, Protestant heaven, removal of your consciousness, come back as a ghost or something else.
18698
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:27:33
Post by: kronk
Bazinga!
68802
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:35:21
Post by: TheAuldGrump
Raised Catholic, considered seminary, now U/U leaning towards Deism, dating an Alexandrian Wiccan, for twenty odd years dated an amorphous Christian of Mormon upbringing who is music director for a Methodist church.
One of the players in my very first D&D game, back in '76, was a Catholic priest*, but the game took place in the basement of the Unitarian Universalist church in Portsmouth New Hampshire.
The Auld Grump
* Some people have horror stories about their priests when they were children... mine introduced me to wargaming, roleplaying games, and mimeograph machines... he has much to answer for!  God bless you Father Semineau, wherever you may be.
7463
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:37:07
Post by: Crablezworth
Pastafarian
54790
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:39:58
Post by: DiabolicAl
Misanthropic Atheist.
32955
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:43:35
Post by: Coolyo294
Catholic. I'm being confirmed on the eighteenth.
39188
Religion @ 2013/05/03 01:44:51
Post by: Bullockist
Why can't the final destination be exactly like that cheesecat?
I've never understood why religions have to be exclusive, I think the most important part of religion are the parts where they try to teach you to be a better person, unfortunately this seems to be the bit that people miss the most.
The most interesting thing I have heard/read about religion recently is that "YHWH" of judaism fame is not a jewish god per se but more like the head deity of that region given a hebrew (un-)name
34644
Religion @ 2013/05/03 02:52:21
Post by: Mr Nobody
Christian. specifically Mormon.
I've learned that I have no idea what's on the other side and neither does anybody else. I just have a best guess.
44290
Religion @ 2013/05/03 03:03:31
Post by: LoneLictor
I'm agnostic. I can't prove a deity doesn't exist, but no one can prove a deity does either. I guess I don't really believe in one.
If Cthulhu does rise from the depths, I'll swallow my pride and admit I was wrong.
35785
Religion @ 2013/05/03 03:28:09
Post by: Avatar 720
Essentially I believe in what I believe, and those beliefs will probably have links to all sorts of organised religions.
I believe in some sort of higher power or powers (not necessarily benevolent, either), but I'll be fethed if I can explain it/them, and to be honest, I don't quite care. I have better things to worry about than something that, if it does exist, I have no control over, and if it doesn't, then fine.
I believe in some form of afterlife, but again, I couldn't even begin to explain what it is. Reincarnation? Perhaps. Heaven? Perhaps. Pitch black void? Perhaps. Sod all? Perhaps. Like higher powers, I have no control over it, so why bother worry about it. If there's a bridge there, then I'll cross it when I get to it.
Am I right? Feth knows. Am I wrong? Feth knows. Is it worth me worrying about it all? Not really, no. Should I just go about my life as best I can? Yes.
To me, religion is unimportant, so it takes a backseat and if it says "Are we there yet?" one more damn time then I AM TURNING THIS FRICKING CAR AROUND AND DRIVING STRAIGHT BACK HOME!
53375
Religion @ 2013/05/03 03:46:59
Post by: hotsauceman1
Well i say im christian to make sure my family doesnt kill me.
But im not sure what I am. Im not sure i want to follow the teachings of one church because it goes against my philosophy that god wants us to be open minded to all possibilities in the world. And orginized religion scares me, they often seem to not be doing good for the sake of good, but for their own soul.
39188
Religion @ 2013/05/03 03:55:30
Post by: Bullockist
Hotsauceman , read about all the religions you can. Get a koran (translated of course) it's a pretty good book, doesn't mean you have to become a muslim or anything, it's just a very eye opening read considering all the misinformation that gets thrown around about the religion. I spose your family would have a problem with that , but it's the same god after all.
Also very good for information about Mohammed / Islam is books by karen armstrong like http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8489.Muhammad Pretty balanced and actually look into the historical and sociological background to Mohammed and the Koran.
It makes a nice change from reading bs like this : http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
Why people keep banging on about mohammed being a child molester because he married a girl at 13 is beyond me. Greeks married girls as young as 9. Alot of people in the past married girls younger than our age of consent or optionally married into what we would call incestuous unions nowdays. /end rant
Quote from that site "The Qur'an is not an authentic book or revelation. Much of the Qur'an was copied from early Christian texts." AHAHAHHAHAHA, I think they have not even read the book.
I don't suggest getting the bagavad gita , 2 sentences have over 2 paragraphs of explanation :/ .
Maybe get the Nag Hammadi bible, I'm partway through it atm and it's a good read, very different from mathew, mark, luke and john.
I agree with you about organised religion, for me religion is a personal thing, the need to meet people with the exact same ideas/morals ect strikes me as weird.
53375
Religion @ 2013/05/03 04:13:26
Post by: hotsauceman1
My family would have a hissy fit about it, thinking im supporting terrorists or something.
I remember the time i told my mom i didnt want to go to church anymore because i dont support it she had a hissy fit and tried to shame me, saying my friends wouldnt like me anymore and my family would disown me.
99
Religion @ 2013/05/03 04:15:08
Post by: insaniak
Bullockist wrote:I'm finding my tolerance level is going up as i get older (which is probably the opposite of most people) ,
Depends on the person... some people get set into their narrow little mindset as they get older, while others (I suspect those who put more effort into getting out and experiencing stuff) eventually start to realise that all of that stuff that they knew with absolute certainty in their teens and early 20's, they actually don't know halfway near as much about as they thought...
68844
Religion @ 2013/05/03 04:27:52
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
I don't identify as Buddhist per se, but what I know of the fundamentals explains a lot very well. I think it's more like a philosophy than a religion, though.
12313
Religion @ 2013/05/03 04:29:46
Post by: Ouze
So how does Ominism work, in practice?
39188
Religion @ 2013/05/03 04:32:53
Post by: Bullockist
 hotsauceman1 wrote:My family would have a hissy fit about it, thinking im supporting terrorists or something.
I remember the time i told my mom i didnt want to go to church anymore because i dont support it she had a hissy fit and tried to shame me, saying my friends wouldnt like me anymore and my family would disown me.
Well that was very unchristian of her, in fact it reeks of the attitude Jesus railed against in the saducees/pharisees.I don't think Jesus promoted emotional blackmail, interestingly in john (least it hink it's johm, might be luke) Jesus family try to take him away from his preaching, probably with their own emotional blackmail. Oh well that's people isn't it.
After reading your post I am thankful my two parents are scientists and didn't have that kind of interferance in my development of my beliefs / intellect.
Good luck , kid 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For me it works like this; For me all gods are the same god/s, powers , whatever. They all seem to revolve around human belief, treating others better and having a moral code. As long as you aren't using your religion to victimise others I'm fine with it. "want me to go to the temple/ witness mansion / church ect " "sure" . I don't pray to ask for things,. I just give thanks for what I have.
I also don't blame a religion because some part of it are misusing the religion, there are bad parts to all faiths, but all faiths have something to teach us.
Maybe my type of Ominism is more a philosophy, but i still pray so I'm sure since i believe it has to be a religion.
Best part about Ominism is the ability to enjoy a lot of things and not get hung up on righteous indignation (that i do with politics ). I'll pray in any religious place (and non religious places), I'll read any religious book, I'll attend any religious ceremony, I'll enjoy my time with people of "other" faiths.
Why be narrow when you can be wide open?
I go about once a year to an aboriginal womens' sacred site, I have been going there since i was about 6 (when we first went there we didn't know what it was). I go there and sit one one of the rocks , like i have always done and feel tremendous peace. It is actually amazing to go and sit there for 15 mins to half an hour and soak up the feeling. I don't wear red and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to sit on one of the rocks ( my favourite to sit on i found out years later is called the lady) but I'm sure if i was doing the wrong thing I wouldn't get the amazing feeling of peace (I've never experienced anything like it). It's kinda amusing to see tour groups go through it with the local guides and miss the whole experience, still I hope one day those people come back and experience the peace.
Although I must admit from what I've read aboiut Wicca I am biased against it. It all seems to focus on the Goddess and fail to mention the Horned God, Paganism used to be based on retaining balance and Wicca seems badly skewed one way, but maybe I have read the wrong books.
11892
Religion @ 2013/05/03 05:47:44
Post by: Shadowbrand
I'm a very, very chill Apatheist. Right now my goals are centered in what reward this life has rather then the afterlife if such a thing is real.
53375
Religion @ 2013/05/03 05:51:24
Post by: hotsauceman1
Bullockist wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:My family would have a hissy fit about it, thinking im supporting terrorists or something.
I remember the time i told my mom i didnt want to go to church anymore because i dont support it she had a hissy fit and tried to shame me, saying my friends wouldnt like me anymore and my family would disown me.
Well that was very unchristian of her, in fact it reeks of the attitude Jesus railed against in the saducees/pharisees.I don't think Jesus promoted emotional blackmail, interestingly in john (least it hink it's johm, might be luke) Jesus family try to take him away from his preaching, probably with their own emotional blackmail. Oh well that's people isn't it.
After reading your post I am thankful my two parents are scientists and didn't have that kind of interferance in my development of my beliefs / intellect.
Good luck , kid
Funny thing, The friend she said wouldnt like me anymore because i wouldnt go to church? HE is mormon who lied in utah, his father made them leave because his father was tired of the judgemental nature in utah that he experianced. So my friend is more open minded. We have had conversations at length about god and i have told him my feelings, he understands.
My plan though is to just deal with it and when i leave the house find my own way.
19370
Religion @ 2013/05/03 05:59:13
Post by: daedalus
I would be most interested in hearing the two Ominists out there talk a bit about their belief systems. Automatically Appended Next Post:  insaniak wrote:Bullockist wrote:I'm finding my tolerance level is going up as i get older (which is probably the opposite of most people) ,
Depends on the person... some people get set into their narrow little mindset as they get older, while others (I suspect those who put more effort into getting out and experiencing stuff) eventually start to realise that all of that stuff that they knew with absolute certainty in their teens and early 20's, they actually don't know halfway near as much about as they thought...
It's kind of funny like that. My best friend (whom is probably a better friend to me than I deserve) is a genuine and rock solid Catholic. He defends creationism as a valid possibility (while admitting it's not a truth). I used to call him out on it, and go to great extents to try to show him how religion in general likely invalid.
Nowadays? I gotta respect him for being able to keep his faith. I certainly don't agree with him or believe anything his says, but part of me genuinely wishes I could have that kind of faith in something.
39188
Religion @ 2013/05/03 06:08:44
Post by: Bullockist
scroll up two posts daed
19370
Religion @ 2013/05/03 06:16:02
Post by: daedalus
Gah. I need to read all of the thread before asking questions already answered. That's 0100 posting for you. I also enjoy reading about, and sometimes experiencing, belief systems, but I don't really get any spiritual anything out of them. At least, nothing what I would consider spiritual. It's more of a matter of just trying to comprehend the people.
Thank you for the post.
53002
Religion @ 2013/05/03 08:16:28
Post by: Tibbsy
Personally I'm not religious; I'd usually describe myself as agnostic. I do have friends who find their faith an important part of their lives though; so I try to be as accepting of it as possible. To me; it doesn't matter what you believe, you be nice to others, and they'll usually be nice to you. What I'm not a fan of however is people who try to push their faith onto others, regardless of what it is.
But at the end of the day, I try to be respectful to those of different faiths; and usually they do the same, so it all works out fine.
 Avatar 720 wrote:
To me, religion is unimportant, so it takes a backseat and if it says "Are we there yet?" one more damn time then I AM TURNING THIS FRICKING CAR AROUND AND DRIVING STRAIGHT BACK HOME!
This made my morning.
59752
Religion @ 2013/05/03 08:36:26
Post by: Steve steveson
I'm Onanistic. Millitant Onanistic!
Seriously, raised Catholic, now probably agnostic/lapsed Catholic. I have no problem with the most core teachings of the church and will defend against allot of the rubbish that is said about it. Equally I think it has done alot of indefensible stuff, although hopefully it will begin to atone for it's sins. There are many less central teachings that I do not agree with and think are not for the modern world, but that is true of allot of teachings (not just religious).
The one thing that annoyes me more than anything about religion is smug people who tell others there beliefs are right and others are wrong, or laugh and belittle others beliefs, be that religious or athist. To show people there beliefs are wrong when they harm others, or can be shown to be demonstratably false, is fine, but don't attack people just because they belive something you do not (even if they have no proof of the truth, as long as you have no proof either).
To many arguments about religion happen not because of a knowledge of something but because of lack of knowledge, often on both sides. That and the judging people on the basis of what others have done.
Two important things I take from my religion:
Love thy neighbour
Judge not lest ye be judged
Or, be excellent to each other!
Everything else, in any belief system, should be secondary.
16689
Religion @ 2013/05/03 08:41:18
Post by: notprop
I'm British therefore Church of England by default as are most people in secular Britain. Do not be confused this is not a religious belief on our part. To explain;
I do not believe in any Gods (rock doesn't count right?) or attend church but by saying your Church of England you get to use the cool church's for weddings and what not. It's win win really.
Also by saying your CoE everyone knows your not the same as them but are decent enough to tip your hat to the established status quo of this land. This means no one has to mention religion again.
It's a pretty sweet system and one that adds to the general harmony of the place. It also means that extreme views on most things are shunned or more likely mocked. OTT aethiests are as likely to get laughed at as extreme Christians or Muslims.
Off on a tangent In many ways I have always though Brits have more in common with Sikhs which is why they assimilate into our society so well (that and they tend to love a drink like us too).
That's all I have on religion.
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/03 08:50:24
Post by: d-usa
And now that you mentioned Church of England I have Eddie Izzard stuck in my head...
299
Religion @ 2013/05/03 08:53:14
Post by: Kilkrazy
I am moving the thread to the Polls forum.
59752
Religion @ 2013/05/03 09:24:55
Post by: Steve steveson
 notprop wrote:
Off on a tangent In many ways I have always though Brits have more in common with Sikhs which is why they assimilate into our society so well (that and they tend to love a drink like us too).
Good beer and Cricket. The two hallmarks of civilisation (as the aussies show, it has to be GOOD beer). Automatically Appended Next Post:  d-usa wrote:And now that you mentioned Church of England I have Eddie Izzard stuck in my head...
Tempted to open a new pole, Cake or Death... Although I suspect it would be closed very fast...
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/03 09:39:15
Post by: d-usa
Steve steveson wrote:
d-usa wrote:And now that you mentioned Church of England I have Eddie Izzard stuck in my head...
Tempted to open a new pole, Cake or Death... Although I suspect it would be closed very fast...
It would be skewed anyway since only three people can choose cake...
29229
Religion @ 2013/05/03 09:41:31
Post by: little bobby oppenheimer
Why no option for orthodox Ecclesiarchy sanctioned Emperor worship?
47269
Religion @ 2013/05/03 17:09:12
Post by: deathholydeath
Bullockist wrote:Hotsauceman , read about all the religions you can. Get a koran (translated of course) it's a pretty good book, doesn't mean you have to become a muslim or anything, it's just a very eye opening read considering all the misinformation that gets thrown around about the religion. I spose your family would have a problem with that , but it's the same god after all.
Also very good for information about Mohammed / Islam is books by karen armstrong like http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8489.Muhammad Pretty balanced and actually look into the historical and sociological background to Mohammed and the Koran.
I actually wouldn't recommend either "Muhammad" or "Islam." Karen Armstrong is not a scholar; her books are very much skewed toward presenting _____ religion in the best light possible in the interest of fostering pluralism in her readers. The Qu'ran, while a somewhat interesting read, isn't actually as relevant as westerners tend to think it is. Ijtihad (individual interpretation of the Qu'ran) does exist, but only in a limited capacity for most "orthodox"* Muslims. Hadith and works of jurisprudence (shariah) play a more important role in day-to-day life for both sunni and shia. If you want a more in depth analysis of Muhammad's life, I'd recommend Watt's "Muhammad at Mecca" and "Muhammad at Medina." Though some might argue against them due to their relative age and what might be perceived as an apologist attitude on Watt's part they are still excellently written and thorough works.
Bullockist wrote:It makes a nice change from reading bs like this : http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
Why people keep banging on about mohammed being a child molester because he married a girl at 13 is beyond me. Greeks married girls as young as 9. Alot of people in the past married girls younger than our age of consent or optionally married into what we would call incestuous unions nowdays. /end rant
Keep in mind that marriage and consummation are two different things. Greeks and Romans arranged marriages at young age, but consummation occurred after puberty. Generally speaking, the bride wouldn't even be sent to the husband's home until they were both of age.
Aisha's circumstances were different; she was between 6 and 7 at their marriage. According to accounts allegedly written by Aisha herself, she was called away from playing on her swing to consummate their marriage and this happened when she was between ages 9 and 10. There's no prior mention in her writing of reaching puberty, so we're left with a question. It's not out of the question that she could have matured quickly, but an age that young would have been frowned upon even in the most bacchanalian of Greek circles. There are, however, some interesting theories that suggest her age was deliberately reduced in the tradition (to emphasize her virginity) and those are worth looking into.
Bullockist wrote: I don't suggest getting the bagavad gita , 2 sentences have over 2 paragraphs of explanation :/
Reading the Bhagavad Gita with the same methodology as the bible will be frustrating; they don't occupy parallel roles. If you want to embark on an exploration of "Hinduism" I'd suggest reading some of Shankara's work alongside commentary. It's as good a starting point as any on advaita vedanta, which many might consider the 'purest' or 'highest' form of "hinduism."** I'd recommend "The Essential Vedanta" http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Vedanta-Advaita-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526
Bullockist wrote: I agree with you about organised religion, for me religion is a personal thing, the need to meet people with the exact same ideas/morals ect strikes me as weird.
It's not so strange, really. Community brings comfort.
*An ambiguous term if there ever was one.
**I've put these words in quotes to denote their contentious nature in this context. Indian religion/culture is nowhere near as cohesive as the Abrahamic religions.
99
Religion @ 2013/05/03 19:35:21
Post by: insaniak
notprop wrote:I do not believe in any Gods (rock doesn't count right?) or attend church but by saying your Church of England you get to use the cool church's for weddings and what not. It's win win really.
This confuses me... If you're not Christian, why would you want a Christian wedding...?
64580
Religion @ 2013/05/03 19:47:39
Post by: Boggy Man
Is there such a thing as a Discordian Catholic Protestant Taoist? That's me.
11731
Religion @ 2013/05/04 04:39:14
Post by: The Bringer
insaniak wrote: notprop wrote:I do not believe in any Gods (rock doesn't count right?) or attend church but by saying your Church of England you get to use the cool church's for weddings and what not. It's win win really.
This confuses me... If you're not Christian, why would you want a Christian wedding...?
For the same reason vampire hunters don't need to be Catholic to use holy water.
61310
Religion @ 2013/05/04 04:53:25
Post by: Rainbow Dash
Wiccan
23223
Religion @ 2013/05/04 04:58:21
Post by: Monster Rain
 The Bringer wrote: insaniak wrote: notprop wrote:I do not believe in any Gods (rock doesn't count right?) or attend church but by saying your Church of England you get to use the cool church's for weddings and what not. It's win win really.
This confuses me... If you're not Christian, why would you want a Christian wedding...?
For the same reason vampire hunters don't need to be Catholic to use holy water.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
55956
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:04:56
Post by: Lt.Soundwave
Atheist, Militant.
68535
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:15:22
Post by: uk_crow
Atheist.
22150
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:19:25
Post by: blood reaper
Atheist with slight agnosticism. No evidence to support the burden of proof or claims made by any Religion. If such a creator or god exists, I have massive doubts that he is correctly described in any human writing or would be concerned for humanity at all. Also the number of known Religions is over 5000.
I also, have no idea why anyone would refer to themselves as a Militant Atheist. It's a way of degrading any form of public secularist activity by adding a word that would indicate some form of violent action on the part of the group, but it's really just my opinion.
61627
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:26:09
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Fight for your right to say maybe!
Universalist unitarian here! Though I personally happen to roll with a general form of Ásatrú
38250
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:29:09
Post by: poda_t
I swing between open minded agnostic, to full blown self destructive atheist. Lately I've been leaning toward the latter.
Born and raised as a catholic, "changed my mind" shortly after reaching the age of legal culpability. Now looking forward to inevitably becoming th black smoke shrouded bull of the family f I manag to make it that long.
50107
Religion @ 2013/05/04 10:38:45
Post by: Silentspy22
Agnostey atheist.
71320
Religion @ 2013/05/04 11:10:49
Post by: bocatt
Buddhism isn't really a religious view or spiritual belief, rather a way of living that produces better life. Enlightenment is only really important because by being attainable in one lifetime (as Guatama Buddha once did) merely shows the power and flexibility of the human mind and subsequently the body. It's a lesson, not a goal. The goal of Buddhism is the reduction of suffering in the world by following the Eightfold Path.
Just... The more you know, you don't have to take it off cause some people (read:me) like being able to answer and add a post that teaches other individuals about something amazing
As for actual spiritual beliefs, I suppose you could call me a deist. I believe there is a creator (I like that word because I believe that's pretty much all he/she/it did that affects us) and is so powerful that it can't be bothered to worry about us here on Earth. It's up to us to take care of ourselves and each other and the planet as well as any other planets we eventually move to.
55292
Religion @ 2013/05/04 11:14:42
Post by: Jonavic
Atheist, Humanist here! Human rights, science, reason.. Is a priority! yay
17349
Religion @ 2013/05/04 11:18:50
Post by: SilverMK2
Those damn filthy neutrals. You never know where you stand with them...
Personally I am Atheist.
54835
Religion @ 2013/05/04 11:46:37
Post by: Fafnir13
Protestant Christian, born and raised.
As I've gotten older, I have bothered to try to reason through what I believe and why. Best I can come up with is that the universe/existence can't explain itself. Some outside force has to be acting on it to cause it to be. Why couldn't that force be sentient in some manner? Why wouldn't that force, if sentient, enjoy interacting with its little creations? The Jewish God has been known to people for quite some time, does not surround Himself with overly fanciful tales (like killing a dragon and ripping out its heart to create the world), and has a good set of core values (when actually followed) that mostly make sense.
I am aware that my belief in something does not cause it to actually be true. I figure I'll follow what looks like the best path and find out if I was right or not when I die. Or not. If there really is nothing after death, at least I won't be around to be dissappointed 
38934
Religion @ 2013/05/04 12:00:40
Post by: aosol
Atheist, because I'm a grown up.
123
Religion @ 2013/05/04 13:31:41
Post by: Alpharius
I know it is probably impossible in this thread, but if everyone could refrain from insulting other people's beliefs, well, not only will it be appreciated by all, but it will also mean you're following the rules of this site.
Thanks!
68265
Religion @ 2013/05/04 14:13:18
Post by: dreamakuma
I'm a very informed Atheist
67725
Religion @ 2013/05/04 14:21:50
Post by: PunkNeverDie110
Christian
72007
Religion @ 2013/05/04 15:02:03
Post by: Mad Boss Morgrot
My god is the emperor!!
51344
Religion @ 2013/05/04 17:17:56
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Atheist. The type that aren't dicks like my friends.
38250
Religion @ 2013/05/04 19:39:13
Post by: poda_t
 bocatt wrote:Buddhism isn't really a religious view or spiritual belief, rather a way of living that produces better life. Enlightenment is only really important because by being attainable in one lifetime (as Guatama Buddha once did) merely shows the power and flexibility of the human mind and subsequently the body. It's a lesson, not a goal. The goal of Buddhism is the reduction of suffering in the world by following the Eightfold Path.
Just... The more you know, you don't have to take it off cause some people (read:me) like being able to answer and add a post that teaches other individuals about something amazing
As for actual spiritual beliefs, I suppose you could call me a deist. I believe there is a creator (I like that word because I believe that's pretty much all he/she/it did that affects us) and is so powerful that it can't be bothered to worry about us here on Earth. It's up to us to take care of ourselves and each other and the planet as well as any other planets we eventually move to.
I was about to say the same thing when I realized the same is true of Islam and Christianity, making the point moot. ( about the way of life thing) It's just.... People are not very good at following the path laid before them.......
I'm more surprised Wicca isn't n the list
8049
Religion @ 2013/05/04 21:26:23
Post by: ArbitorIan
Yup.
Humanist/Atheist, and pretty serious about it.
This is merely a belief in what we can observe and prove, with the caveat that we might be wrong, since we might discover something new tomorrow.
Most atheists would happily accept a god who could be proven scientifically, since then it wouldn't be a theology/belief system, but a scientific fact. I'd argue that a lot of 'agnostics' in this thread would be better represented by the word 'Atheist', based on their actual beliefs.
47467
Religion @ 2013/05/04 23:09:53
Post by: The Mad Tanker
Christian, to be specific, Roman Catholic.
54216
Religion @ 2013/05/04 23:50:31
Post by: TheRobotLol
Militant Atheist.
59092
Religion @ 2013/05/05 03:47:35
Post by: BrotherVord
I was raised in various forms of Protestantism until I got to high school. When I got to high school I began to consider myself Agnostic, though looking back I was really more of a Deist.
I converted to Christianity (non denominational) about 6 years later (when I was 20) after a great deal of Historical and Scientific research on both ends of the spectrum. Being raised in public school, I had a very narrow view of most things concerning the origin of man, evolution, and generally all things anthropological. I now very much know what I believe but enjoy reading studies and articles from both ends. I genuinely wish that logic did not dictate to me that Christianity be true and correct...life was so much easier when I could do whatever I wanted
That last bit is light hearted but with an element of truth to it. I am happy to have arrived at what I can best determine as the Truth, and the Truth is actually some very good news...it would just be nice if I didn't have to deal with the whole "fallen human" thing.
11892
Religion @ 2013/05/05 04:28:40
Post by: Shadowbrand
How exactly is one a "Militant" atheist?
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/05 04:34:47
Post by: d-usa
By spending just as much time and effort as militant [religion] when pointing out that some people are wrong and trying to get them to change their mind and make them believe the same thing about [religion|lack of] as you while also being a complete and utter jerk about it. Every faith group is capable of it, it's not just something that some atheists do.
Basically:
[religion] here is what I believe
evangelical (for lack of a better word) [religion] here is what I believe and why you should agree with me
militant [religion] here is what I believe, here is what you are wrong about, and here is why it makes you are an idiot for believing [other religion]
Don't be a dick and you won't be labeled militant anything
11892
Religion @ 2013/05/05 04:40:36
Post by: Shadowbrand
Yeah. I'll stick to my mellow "Eh. I'm just not convinced it's real" Apathiest ways rather then being an argumentative tool. We've enough of those as it is.
22150
Religion @ 2013/05/05 08:59:06
Post by: blood reaper
d-usa wrote:
By spending just as much time and effort as militant [religion] when pointing out that some people are wrong and trying to get them to change their mind and make them believe the same thing about [religion|lack of] as you while also being a complete and utter jerk about it. Every faith group is capable of it, it's not just something that some atheists do.
Basically:
[religion] here is what I believe
evangelical (for lack of a better word) [religion] here is what I believe and why you should agree with me
militant [religion] here is what I believe, here is what you are wrong about, and here is why it makes you are an idiot for believing [other religion]
Don't be a dick and you won't be labeled militant anything
My 2 cents? Or should I say bits....
Militant Atheisim is on general, a snarl word used to discredit active Atheist groups who oppose what they see as the wrongs of Religion. Again, we are intitled to our opinions, and I'd mostly agree with your statement, though I wouldn't say every campaigning Atheist is a dick.
34419
Religion @ 2013/05/05 09:26:52
Post by: 4oursword
Antitheist. I dislike religion, what it stands for, and the concept in general.
72055
Religion @ 2013/05/05 15:07:10
Post by: TheDungen
agnositic but spiritual, I believe that regardless if the universe was created or created itself it is only by observation and understanding the universe we can seek to approach the powers that created it.
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/05 17:43:49
Post by: d-usa
 blood reaper wrote: d-usa wrote:
By spending just as much time and effort as militant [religion] when pointing out that some people are wrong and trying to get them to change their mind and make them believe the same thing about [religion|lack of] as you while also being a complete and utter jerk about it. Every faith group is capable of it, it's not just something that some atheists do.
Basically:
[religion] here is what I believe
evangelical (for lack of a better word) [religion] here is what I believe and why you should agree with me
militant [religion] here is what I believe, here is what you are wrong about, and here is why it makes you are an idiot for believing [other religion]
Don't be a dick and you won't be labeled militant anything
My 2 cents? Or should I say bits....
Militant Atheisim is on general, a snarl word used to discredit active Atheist groups who oppose what they see as the wrongs of Religion. Again, we are intitled to our opinions, and I'd mostly agree with your statement, though I wouldn't say every campaigning Atheist is a dick.
I think what you are describing would be the "evangelical atheist". I know it's a stupid combination of words that doesn't make much sense, but it's just a category label. It's the "being a dick" to people that believe in a deity that pushes somebody towards the "militant atheism" label IMO.
37701
Religion @ 2013/05/05 18:10:49
Post by: Zond
After being raised in a very devout Jehovah's Witness family, I find I'm now very critical and sometimes hostile to certain religious concepts or ideals. By the same token however, I've also had experiences I feel I can describe as "spiritual". What I can never be sure of is how... real, for lack of better term, my beliefs are and how much I'm simply reacting to, or being influenced by my upbringing.
I'd guess I'd say I'm a straddling the non religious agnostic/atheist line.
19370
Religion @ 2013/05/06 00:29:31
Post by: daedalus
Zond wrote:After being raised in a very devout Jehovah's Witness family, I find I'm now very critical and sometimes hostile to certain religious concepts or ideals. By the same token however, I've also had experiences I feel I can describe as "spiritual". What I can never be sure of is how... real, for lack of better term, my beliefs are and how much I'm simply reacting to, or being influenced by my upbringing.
I'd guess I'd say I'm a straddling the non religious agnostic/atheist line.
I think that's similar to the cause behind why I was so hostile to religion for quite a while. I was raised in a Pentecostal family. Though I was only about 7 or 8 before my immediate family stopped going to church, I remember enough of it. Sola scriptura is an uncomfortable thing to deal with for a kid who asks lots of questions.
57210
Religion @ 2013/05/06 04:20:47
Post by: DemetriDominov
No Hindi's on Dakka? We must find a way to market our British Mercantile goods to them!
17349
Religion @ 2013/05/06 18:40:47
Post by: SilverMK2
 DemetriDominov wrote:No Hindi's on Dakka? We must find a way to market our British Mercantile goods to them!
I don't recall that working too well when it has been tried in the past
46424
Religion @ 2013/05/07 03:27:58
Post by: Spacewolfoddballz
Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior .
Its a way of life, and not a religion. By accepting him into your life as such you get the free gift of life and grace (covering for your sins as no one can live up to the law.) That is what i believe, and i am a "Christian." I attend a local church as my home, just to be around fellow Christians just as you go to a local game store to fellowship with gamers so to speak. Do i sin and make mistakes? yes. Hopefully i can learn from them and strive to become a better person, however i am not condemned by grace. my 2 cents and who I am.
38250
Religion @ 2013/05/07 07:01:12
Post by: poda_t
 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior .
Its a way of life, and not a religion. By accepting him into your life as such you get the free gift of life and grace (covering for your sins as no one can live up to the law.) That is what i believe, and i am a "Christian." I attend a local church as my home, just to be around fellow Christians just as you go to a local game store to fellowship with gamers so to speak. Do i sin and make mistakes? yes. Hopefully i can learn from them and strive to become a better person, however i am not condemned by grace. my 2 cents and who I am.
*twitch*
*twitch*
*twitch*
All I'm going to point out is how many bhuddists burn themselves to death when they are wronged, and how many christians go on a lawsuuit spree of suing everyone, their dog, their dogs cat, their dog's cat's aunt, their dog's cat's aunt's second cousin and said dog's cat's aunt's second cousin's adopted quagga nephew. I exaggerate, but this illustrates what started me on my path toward first thinking more like a jew, then investigating more documents, more history, and other faiths, going back father in time and inevitably ending up atheist. This isn't a directed response, but a general complaint that I've grown an allergic reaction to. I think I can manage leaving that remark where it's at without spending the next six hours detailing why and just let it be...
all of that said, the result has been interesting. There is some very queer content that exists in many of the religious texts/cultural lore, and very queer stuff in the deleted/banned and forgotten, half-remembered, or partially surviving texts that make you scratch your head, because so much of the content across all of the records seems to point at what can be described as a child misunderstanding a parent, and seeing the mystical where something wasn't understood, or that the knowledge had unsatisfactory gaps that were filled in to explain things away... and I'm not pointing at judaism, christianity and islam as my source material here. There's an awful lot of stuff that comes from places that have nothing to do with any of the three that has these same strange undercurrents which to me hint at a dark age of knowledge, dark to us because it's hidden behind an age of ignorance or disaster.
57811
Religion @ 2013/05/07 08:19:09
Post by: Jehan-reznor
I am a Dudeist and a follower of the flying spaghetti Monster but Trully Hello Kitty is the only God, Miffy must Die!
Seriously i am not really religious but i have affinity with Bhuddism
66629
Religion @ 2013/05/11 20:12:27
Post by: Tyranidcrusher
Atheist here, Whole family is atheist, and I've grown up being atheist.
71575
Religion @ 2013/05/11 23:24:47
Post by: Georgefancy
I apologize but I have to ask this. Is anyone here Satanist? JUST ASKING! I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND IM JUST WONDERING! OK? GOOD!
38250
Religion @ 2013/05/12 03:39:50
Post by: poda_t
 Georgefancy wrote:I apologize but I have to ask this. Is anyone here Satanist? JUST ASKING! I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND IM JUST WONDERING! OK? GOOD!
are you even aware of what a true satanist is, not what these prissy emo dark weirdos do to get attention? Actually, i should probably tread more lightly, because there is that crazy wignut sect that insists on asserting that a complete inversion of the bible is true, which is beyond ridiculous.... but there are also the normal ones that don't ascribe to those things...
61627
Religion @ 2013/05/12 08:53:25
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Define satanist? The actual concept of satanism in it's standard format boils down to enlightened self interest, then there's religious satanism which is actual worship of the christian devil.
71575
Religion @ 2013/05/13 19:40:24
Post by: Georgefancy
Okay... can we just forget I asked that? I was just wondering!!! okay! lets pretend I never asked that.
62139
Religion @ 2013/05/14 00:15:22
Post by: Verses
Constantly switching between Hindu and atheist...at this moment in time I'd call myself Hindu, but by next week I'll probably be derisive of myself for that belief.
73007
Religion @ 2013/05/14 00:33:26
Post by: Grimskul
I was raised in the context of a Presbyterian church though I was never indoctrinated with any particular denomination in terms of liturgy or mindset since right now I go to my local Anglican Church. More or less a Protestant Christian but I prefer to be considered a follower of Jesus, church is great and all but to me the kingdom isn't the church and doesn't necessarily represent God or his will.
One thing I've always found interesting in terms of questioning whether or not God exists is that to me there's a reason why there isn't a definitive scientific source or empirical evidence that either verifies or denies his existence; free will. Being that we were given this option (which many might argue) alongside the fall of man resulting in us by and large rejecting him he hides us from his presence unless we seek him. If God revealed himself to us (in a more literal sense) that would mean that people have no option (realistically of course) but to admit he exists which ruins the whole point of giving us the ability to choose whether or not to follow him (again theoretically many still wouldn't but again its not a fair setting in which we are allowed to choose in a situation where there isn't an enormous amount of pressure from one side or the other). This also brings up the matter of having faith regardless of "supposed facts" of his non-existence and allows many to prove themselves in changing from the inside out to live like Jesus, love Jesus and lead others to him.
Well at least that's my take on it. The only thing that disgusts and sickens me about many of today's modern churches is how it's been so changed and altered by consumerism of the Western culture as now it's a matter of religious goods and services in providing "afterlife insurance" and "good feelings" rather than what it should focus on being a life of discipleship and helping change the world through the principles of Christ.
37231
Religion @ 2013/05/14 01:00:05
Post by: d-usa
Verses wrote:Constantly switching between Hindu and atheist...at this moment in time I'd call myself Hindu, but by next week I'll probably be derisive of myself for that belief.
You Hindist 
20392
Religion @ 2013/05/17 19:36:08
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
I have trouble finding information on the Eldar God Isha, so alas I am left to wait for a proper figure to present itself.
38250
Religion @ 2013/05/17 20:27:59
Post by: poda_t
 Farseer Faenyin wrote:I have trouble finding information on the Eldar God Isha, so alas I am left to wait for a proper figure to present itself.
given that a lot of eldar lore has been raped off of wicca, you may want to look there.
6931
Religion @ 2013/05/17 21:33:37
Post by: frgsinwntr
the fact that the non-religious is the biggest group makes me happy : )
47898
Religion @ 2013/06/01 10:20:15
Post by: A Kvlt Ghost
Georgefancy wrote:I apologize but I have to ask this. Is anyone here Satanist? JUST ASKING! I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND IM JUST WONDERING! OK? GOOD!
Used to be, years ago. I never actually sacrificed any goats or burned any churches.
10347
Religion @ 2013/06/05 10:13:13
Post by: Fafnir
Atheist.
I grew up in an immediate family that was pretty lax on religion. Didn't really find out what my parents believed in until I was around 16. My mother's an atheist, I'm not completely sure about my father. Either way, it's largely irrelevant.
My grandfather (father's side) is one hell of a bible thumper, but his belligerence never pushed me in one way or the other.
I feel that the lack of emphasis of any religious elements in my life have made me a lot less sour about religious institutions than a lot of atheists who grew up in religious households, and were originally forced into a specific religion.
67553
Religion @ 2013/06/05 10:27:03
Post by: cerbrus2
All I'm gonna say is, a church with a lightning rod on its roof shows a lack of confidence.
As does a bullet proof pope mobile.
4817
Religion @ 2013/06/05 10:30:28
Post by: Spetulhu
Was baptized and entered into the Lutheran church as a matter of tradition - my parents were never very religious. Most people in Finland aren't - they go to church on their own behalf three times in their life and on two occasions they're carried in. Baptism, marriage, burial.
When I turned 18 I went to the church office and told them to sign me out. No reason to pay tax for supporting an organisation that does nothing for me. I'll help my neighbors or a stranger in need, and I don't do it because Jesus said so or for the promise of Heaven. I just think it adds up, as people also help me when I need it.
Belief? We have theories on how the universe came about - adding a creator who did it just adds another question to the things we don't know. Like where he came from, for starters.
67570
Religion @ 2013/06/05 10:36:18
Post by: Boreal
This thread is Heresy!
If I had to pick one, i'd go with the Imperial Cult. I mean... chainswords, the priests wield chainswords!!
Back in reality I'm an atheist. Kinda impossible to study history and religion (not theology) on a university level and not be one.
Atheism really does liberate me on a philosophical level. Sexuality without any judgemental add-ons. No morality and ethics influenced by stone-age "thinkers."
I prefer the open discussion between everyone, open in a sense that everyone has a right to believe what ever the hell they want. -> BUT! <- that also means that everyone has a right to criticise said belief. Nobody and nothing should be immune to criticism. =D
27727
Religion @ 2013/06/05 11:18:39
Post by: Bonde
I guess I'm Atheist, since I don't believe in anything even remotely supernatural and don't acknowledge the existence of any kind of god. I even facepalm internally every time I see people believing in day to day superstitions like luck, karma or bad fortune.
This probably has to do with that both my parents are highly educated and atheists, so the only religious influence I had for my entire childhood was my gradmother who tried her best (and failed) to make me a christian.
I do however pride myself in being very open minded and tolerant, so I am always very nice to people, not matter their background or religion. If people treat me with respect, I treat them with respect.
Some times it does get a bit depressing not having any religion to find comfort in, because the world is a cruel place, and people are mean to each other all the time.
56607
Religion @ 2013/06/05 12:23:53
Post by: CDK
Taoist philosophy but not religious. There is a difference.
40344
Religion @ 2013/06/05 13:55:50
Post by: master of ordinance
Wiccan, so i put pagan.
61769
Religion @ 2013/06/05 17:11:37
Post by: HiveFleetCollossus
Christian here.
Although I really don't like the term "religious," as it more often than not just gives it a bad name. My christianity is more of a way of life, rather than a religion I follow.
62238
Religion @ 2013/07/06 10:10:10
Post by: MarkyMark
I believe in something, from some of my past life experinces but what I do not know. Is there something more to just life? something tells me yes, everything else tells me no.
68537
Religion @ 2013/07/06 12:35:04
Post by: russthebus
All joking aside there should be an extra option stated as "this should not be on Dakka" because despite the innocense of your post I can see the religious question causing a lot of feud which is an argument usually born of peoples idiocy. If it helps though I have answered the poll.
75605
Religion @ 2013/07/06 18:30:21
Post by: Desire_Fox
YOU ARE ALL HERETICS, THE GOD-EMPEROR IS THE ONLY GOD, THE ECCLESIARCHY IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION! FOR THE EMPEROR!
...lol sorry xD
28228
Religion @ 2013/07/06 23:09:45
Post by: Cheesecat
 russthebus wrote:All joking aside there should be an extra option stated as "this should not be on Dakka" because despite the innocense of your post I can see the religious question causing a lot of feud which is an argument usually born of peoples idiocy. If it helps though I have answered the poll.
Except it should be on Dakka as this thread has lasted 4 pages with little to no drama.
37231
Religion @ 2013/07/06 23:47:43
Post by: d-usa
Often we are just a bunch of savage trolls out for blood, but we have been known to have a civilized discussion from time to time.
42040
Religion @ 2013/07/07 03:11:58
Post by: grayshadow87
I think the closest thing to what I would call myself is a vanilla Christian. I don't really align myself with any particular subset of the religion, as each seems to have bits and pieces that I simply can't agree with, but I embrace the general overall idea of a savior and of not being a jerk. There's also a strong element of theological scholasticism to my beliefs. I believe that if you can't form your own exegetical reading of your core holy text(s) and instead base your faith off of the interpretation of someone else who quite likely has no formal training or knowledge and instead just decided that he or she wanted to get in front of people to talk about what he or she believes, then you have no reason to profess belief in your religion. Furthermore, I have serious problems with people who try to use what they deem to be religion as a way to deny science or other fields of knowledge out of ignorance or fear. If a system of beliefs can't handle or assimilate new facts or ideas, then it clearly isn't worth believing. I have a few other particular leanings in my faith, but those are two of the biggies.
Now all of that isn't to say that I've somehow fully reconciled my beliefs in regard to other belief systems, or even in regard to itself. It's just that based on my own personal experiences, Christianity seems to best explain how the world works.
66633
Religion @ 2013/07/13 02:00:34
Post by: The crater good
spiritual luciferian
65623
Religion @ 2013/07/21 13:53:46
Post by: badgermeister
i used to be atheist but now buddhist.
A significant amount of the religion is based on common sense and developed from life experiences and lessons learned. I'd consider it a way of life on how to pursue a little more happiness - i just dont think people would buy the reincarnation side of things as easy as the belief in a paradise based afterlife.
Even atheists must realise that certain behaviours/emotions such as lust greed and anger are damaging to the soul/mind?
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/21 17:32:36
Post by: poda_t
One's spiritual beliefs are insufficient to determine interpersonal behavior and social conduct. Atheism does not equate to greed, lust,mans the abuse of one's lessers. Tere are just as many faithful who hve committed many crimes against humanity, expecting entry at the pearly gates because they repent and take Jesus into their hearts... Spiritual belief is only one part of a persons conduct, the rest is a way of life. A bohemian lifestyle? Nihilistic one?
21696
Religion @ 2013/07/28 11:49:30
Post by: sluggaslugga
I believe that god (Actually god is the wrong term. Creator is closer to what I'm after.) made us in his image, meaning that we should think of ourselves as gods since we can create so many things mentally and physically to our own liking.
Also, he sais in the bible that we shouldn't believe in othee images of god. For me this means that you should be in control of your own life, instead of following one of the "false" gods made up by man.
If god exists, he/she would probably hate us for worshipping him/her. Instead he/she would want to be treated equally.
44702
Religion @ 2013/07/28 12:29:03
Post by: Trondheim
The only ones whom have my undivided loyalty as a beliver and follower are the Norse gods.
51489
Religion @ 2013/07/28 14:14:27
Post by: necrovamp
um Worldism?
I don't have a name for my beliefs I just believe.
At the end of the day all religions are pretty much the same. Big God at the top, some other deity (s) underneath and all have excellent mythology.
I believe that 'God' 'Odin' 'Budda' and all the other religious characters are really just the earth, and rather than spedn out time in a building singing songs or standing in circles shouting about watchtowers, we should be 'worshipping' the earth by taking care of it, achieving a balance. if you have a car, make you garden full of plants to compensate, that kind of thing,
humans do need to put faces to things they cannot explain though, so I understand the need for gods. I'm even know to use the expression 'Loki chained' when talking about fire for example.
76099
Religion @ 2013/07/28 20:51:46
Post by: randomtoaster
Well i'm labeled a Christian, however I want no affiliation with organised religion anymore, I love, follow and walk with God but religion is not what I want or need. It took me 15 years to finally realise the difference between religion and God.
11731
Religion @ 2013/07/28 22:53:55
Post by: The Bringer
randomtoaster wrote:Well i'm labeled a Christian, however I want no affiliation with organised religion anymore, I love, follow and walk with God but religion is not what I want or need. It took me 15 years to finally realise the difference between religion and God.
And it takes me an instant to realize that one is a way of life/system of beliefs and the other is an object, a deity, a single idea. What are you really trying to say?
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/29 08:09:52
Post by: poda_t
What they are trying to identify is the difference between religion which is steeped in bigotrous doctrine and tradition, and spirituality which depends on one's own supposed faculties for divining the meaning of scripture.
55076
Religion @ 2013/07/29 10:03:53
Post by: Poppabear
Catholic here. And I love everyone
cept Protestants... that's right....
11731
Religion @ 2013/07/29 14:23:55
Post by: The Bringer
 poda_t wrote:What they are trying to identify is the difference between religion which is steeped in bigotrous doctrine and tradition, and spirituality which depends on one's own supposed faculties for divining the meaning of scripture.
I was hoping for some profound revelation... oh well.
As to the bigotry you mention, I know what you are talking about but do not use it so freely. There are many so called "Christian Churches" which are in no respect firmly rooted on Biblical Doctrine, the resulting image being loosely tied to the Christian faith but tainted greatly with the sin of mankind. I share an equal disgust of those "Churches" and the "Christians" that attend them.
And then there is my Church. My pastor was a well-off engineer. When the Church asked him to become the leader of a new Church they were planting, he complied. He dropped his job, and starting working as a pastor for half the pay. Initially the Church met in a grocery store, then a house, then a hotel, and finally a school auditorium which is where we continue to meet today. This humble, self-sacrificial man in no way leads a "bigotrous" Church.
17349
Religion @ 2013/07/29 14:50:22
Post by: SilverMK2
The no true Scotsman in a different dress is still a no true Scotsman
7596
Religion @ 2013/07/29 15:15:18
Post by: Ninjakinshu
Wheres the Norse religion on the poll? Shame
28228
Religion @ 2013/07/29 15:36:41
Post by: Cheesecat
Polytheism/Paganism option.
76099
Religion @ 2013/07/29 15:57:02
Post by: randomtoaster
The Bringer wrote:randomtoaster wrote:Well i'm labeled a Christian, however I want no affiliation with organised religion anymore, I love, follow and walk with God but religion is not what I want or need. It took me 15 years to finally realise the difference between religion and God.
And it takes me an instant to realize that one is a way of life/system of beliefs and the other is an object, a deity, a single idea. What are you really trying to say?
What i'm saying here is, that growing up as a child I couldn't distinguish between the two, I thought it was just one big system of beliefs, as I grew up I started losing faith, but what I was really doing was just losing faith in religion, but not God. People perceive things differently.
76206
Religion @ 2013/07/29 16:33:02
Post by: Rotary
Christian, needing a lot of work though.
23223
Religion @ 2013/07/29 16:42:01
Post by: Monster Rain
 SilverMK2 wrote:The no true Scotsman in a different dress is still a no true Scotsman
I'm afraid it's clear that you don't know much about the subject matter.
There actually are descriptions and commandments as to how a Christian is supposed to behave. If you don't do those things, you can accurately be described as 'doing it wrong'. Basically, if you don't follow the general idea of "Be Excellent to Each Other" Jesus probably wouldn't think much of you as a follower in the first place.
35006
Religion @ 2013/07/29 18:38:33
Post by: Medium of Death
Wait no Cthulhu?
Not even the Chaos Gods?
Are you trying to say they don't exist?!
If there is a god/are gods there is not enough smiting going on. That's all I have to say on the matter.
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/29 18:58:57
Post by: poda_t
 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm afraid it's clear that you don't know much about the subject matter.
There actually are descriptions and commandments as to how a Christian is supposed to behave. If you don't do those things, you can accurately be described as 'doing it wrong'. Basically, if you don't follow the general idea of "Be Excellent to Each Other" Jesus probably wouldn't think much of you as a follower in the first place.
see, that's the exact problem I had... following that rabbithole through into the what's obviously writ therein as virtuous behaviour is what fundamentally drove me first away from christianity to something that might as well have been judaism. Once I picked up the paper-trail though and followed through and..... well, now I'm atheist....
17349
Religion @ 2013/07/29 19:11:44
Post by: SilverMK2
"They're not a Christian because they don't believe/do/face/wear/eat/etc X, even though they do ABC and call themselves Christian"
Sounds like a NTS to me... Of course I suppose I am not filled with the divine wisdom to be right all the time.
There actually are descriptions and commandments as to how a Christian is supposed to behave. If you don't do those things, you can accurately be described as 'doing it wrong'. Basically, if you don't follow the general idea of "Be Excellent to Each Other" Jesus probably wouldn't think much of you as a follower in the first place.
The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
23223
Religion @ 2013/07/29 19:20:41
Post by: Monster Rain
SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about.
To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/29 19:43:39
Post by: poda_t
Monster Rain wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about.
To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
that same logic renders the entire proclaimed christian population as non-christians. Religion is not an exercise of logic. Religion is the exercise of the abandonment of all logic and reason, and the dis-empowerment of oneself.
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 19:54:14
Post by: Asherian Command
Christian, Lutheran.
I believe we are all but tiny insects compared to whats out there. I've seen alot, somethings I can't explain. So I am a strong believer that there is a Higher Power out there. Maybe liking the fact that we are his perfect creations because we are all so imperfect and varied. And we all have freewill which is always a plus.
Though I hate bigotry which is common in churches. (Very common, my church is filled with bigots) I choose not to do anything about it. Instead I devot my life to helping lives and saving those that need help (Even if they don't think they need it).
58613
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:00:00
Post by: -Shrike-
poda_t wrote: Monster Rain wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about.
To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
that same logic renders the entire proclaimed christian population as non-christians. Religion is not an exercise of logic. Religion is the exercise of the abandonment of all logic and reason, and the dis-empowerment of oneself.
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
As for myself, Christian (Roman Catholic), although I have no problem with anyone's belief (or lack of).
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:07:36
Post by: Asherian Command
-Shrike- wrote: poda_t wrote: Monster Rain wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about.
To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
that same logic renders the entire proclaimed christian population as non-christians. Religion is not an exercise of logic. Religion is the exercise of the abandonment of all logic and reason, and the dis-empowerment of oneself.
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
As for myself, Christian (Roman Catholic), although I have no problem with anyone's belief (or lack of).
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
Which I agree with. Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
Such a childish concept...
Heres a problem with that logic... Your saying everyone in religion is incapable of logical programming? Your logic is flawed and you need to go back and reedit your comments about which you know nothing about. Before you comment remember that it is impolite to even call us illogical.
Spiritual Health. Spiritual health means you know where you stand, either with a religious basis or a scientific basis. If you believe yourself fully logical I am sorry but Logic is not as good as a gut feeling. Knowing when something is right and wrong is the only thing that makes us as humans unique without that reasoning basis without that hardcoding to make mistakes and tell right and wrong, we would only be robots.
23400
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:15:13
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
 Asherian Command wrote:-Shrike- wrote: poda_t wrote: Monster Rain wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about.
To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
that same logic renders the entire proclaimed christian population as non-christians. Religion is not an exercise of logic. Religion is the exercise of the abandonment of all logic and reason, and the dis-empowerment of oneself.
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
As for myself, Christian (Roman Catholic), although I have no problem with anyone's belief (or lack of).
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
Which I agree with. Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
Blanket statements ftw
I disagree with your assertion that most atheists are intolerant.
23223
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:17:12
Post by: Monster Rain
Well, thanks at least for tipping your hand and letting me know we weren't going to have a reasonable discussion about this.
-Shrike- wrote:
Which I agree with. Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
I wouldn't say that. I'm very good friends with some very "devout" atheists. It's just as unfair to paint them all with the same brush as it is when the childish loudmouths among their number do it to others.
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:26:45
Post by: Asherian Command
 Ma55ter_fett wrote: Asherian Command wrote:-Shrike- wrote: poda_t wrote: Monster Rain wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:The vast range of "christians" each with their own set of definitions on the rules and regulations and appropriate behaviours and beliefs begs to disagree with your interpretation of what a Christian actually is. And in fact more or less reinforces the NTS.
Again, it's clear that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about. To simply make a broader point and be done with this: Someone can call themselves whatever they want to. If anyone identifies as a member of a specific religious community and blatantly defies the RAW in the respective Holy Book it's not inaccurate or fallacious to question the validity of their claim. For example, it's not out of line for mainstream Muslims to denounce Al Qaeda.
that same logic renders the entire proclaimed christian population as non-christians. Religion is not an exercise of logic. Religion is the exercise of the abandonment of all logic and reason, and the dis-empowerment of oneself.
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well... As for myself, Christian (Roman Catholic), although I have no problem with anyone's belief (or lack of). The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
Which I agree with. Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
Blanket statements ftw I disagree with your assertion that most atheists are intolerant.
Go to my hometown, And you will notice four major things. 1 Our atheists in our area are quite vocal. 2 they will tear down anything that resembles a religious symbol. 3 they have been known to picket church gatherings. 4 we have atheists that constantly refuse to have childern that are harmed by readings of the bible, even when it is a class called bible lit, which we study the bible not as christians but to see the readings as just stories. Only stories. And then to have the Atheists proclaim that we are brainwashing kids in boyscouts is stupid. Especially when I only consul kids on their spirituality and mental well being. I do not consul kids and get them into religions, I just tell them "believe what you want to believe, just believe in something." Both sides are intolerant of the other its just common to see both sides as an observer that both have done wrong against the other. Also I never used all, But Few Is never a definite number. In fact I know most atheist don't care about the fued between religion and atheists. Its just those vocal few that give voice and say they represent the vast majority of Atheists in that Religion is the cause of all humanities problems and that they have to protect their children from the evil of religion.
23400
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:52:22
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
I’m confused, you seem to have contradicted the statement that I first took issue with.
Which is you stance?
“A few are decent, most are intolerant.”
“Most are decent, a few are intolerant”
17349
Religion @ 2013/07/29 20:59:15
Post by: SilverMK2
-Shrike- wrote:Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
I believe he was saying that religion isn't an exercise in logic rather than religious people are all illogical. After all, you have to have faith, not evidence and reasoning.
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
"The majority" of atheists are just like the majority of theists - just getting on with their lives as best as they can. The extreme ends of both groups are the ones getting all the airtime because they shout the loudest and demand the most attention. Some of my family are religious (regularly attending church rather than just ticking the box for "religious") and they are great people - if they had an issue I could help with in any aspect of their lives I would do all I could for them and I am sure they would do the same for me. I have family who are atheists and the same applies; my wife is a nontheist (and she hates that there is a word for it ).
I had a great friend at university who was very active in his church - he still does a lot of youth leadership and so on for them. We had great fun jovially making fun of one another's beliefs because we were both strong enough in our positions and friendship to do so. I wouldn't attempt to convert him and he wouldn't try to convert me; we lived our own lives quite happily.
Now, online discussions are just that, discussions. Free for anyone to join in on, free, to some extent, for people to say things that perhaps they may not say to someone's face. You sometimes get people who are (rightly or wrongly) quite cross with one group or another because of what they believe, their experiences, etc... the trick is to filter out the noise and listen to those who are worth listening to.
I can't imagine anything other than a direct revelation from god convincing me that he/she/it exists and even then I can think of plenty of ways of giving such a revelation through trickery so even then it might not convince me of its existance. However, I am more than open to discuss religion in broader terms. You never know, one day I may change my mind; but discussion can allow one to consider the other side of the discussion. Interaction breeds familiarisation and familiarisation breeds a certain level of acceptance and understanding which just helps people get along.
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 21:01:31
Post by: Asherian Command
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I’m confused, you seem to have contradicted the statement that I first took issue with.
Which is you stance?
“A few are decent, most are intolerant.”
“Most are decent, a few are intolerant”
Few are decent, few are intolerant and most just don't care.
23400
Religion @ 2013/07/29 21:10:14
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
Asherian Command wrote: Ma55ter_fett wrote:I’m confused, you seem to have contradicted the statement that I first took issue with.
Which is you stance?
“A few are decent, most are intolerant.”
“Most are decent, a few are intolerant”
Few are decent, few are intolerant and most just don't care.
Eh, close enough.
Let us break bread.
17349
Religion @ 2013/07/29 21:14:30
Post by: SilverMK2
Asherian Command wrote:4 we have atheists that constantly refuse to have childern that are harmed by readings of the bible, even when it is a class called bible lit, which we study the bible not as christians but to see the readings as just stories. Only stories.
I personally would not be particularly happy if my child was studying the bible in any capacity other than in some kind of comparative religious lesson, especially not if the class were being led in some kind of religious group, rather than a school.
And then to have the Atheists proclaim that we are brainwashing kids in boyscouts is stupid. Especially when I only consul kids on their spirituality and mental well being. I do not consul kids and get them into religions, I just tell them "believe what you want to believe, just believe in something."
I don't know how the boy scouts work but why even raise the matter of religious beliefs at all? And why should you have to believe in something (and I assume you mean "believe in something even if it is nothing" here...)?
9407
Religion @ 2013/07/29 21:18:55
Post by: Lint
Raised Pentecostal Christian. Speaking in tongues, passing out at the altar, laying of hands, the whole 9 yards.
I was a fairly "militant" atheist for a period, now I'm a fairly calm anti-theist.
Most of my family remains very religulous.
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 21:31:05
Post by: Asherian Command
SilverMK2 wrote: Asherian Command wrote:4 we have atheists that constantly refuse to have childern that are harmed by readings of the bible, even when it is a class called bible lit, which we study the bible not as christians but to see the readings as just stories. Only stories.
I personally would not be particularly happy if my child was studying the bible in any capacity other than in some kind of comparative religious lesson, especially not if the class were being led in some kind of religious group, rather than a school. And then to have the Atheists proclaim that we are brainwashing kids in boyscouts is stupid. Especially when I only consul kids on their spirituality and mental well being. I do not consul kids and get them into religions, I just tell them "believe what you want to believe, just believe in something."
I don't know how the boy scouts work but why even raise the matter of religious beliefs at all? And why should you have to believe in something (and I assume you mean "believe in something even if it is nothing" here...)?
Heres something from the scout law.... A Scout Is Reverent. All scouts must have some spiritual or religious basis onto which they stand on. All scouts take that pledge. It could be scientific anything really. I do not have say on what they believe in, but I just want them to either believe in a god, a science, a theory. Anything that will carry them far and wide. Without a belief in something your not using your mind to its fullest. And yes to the last part.
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/29 22:47:24
Post by: poda_t
Monster Rain wrote: Well, thanks at least for tipping your hand and letting me know we weren't going to have a reasonable discussion about this.
see, i don't think it's possible for there to be a reasonable discussion of religion without it inevitably deteriorating into a hissing contest, or people shouting out their beliefs into the void only to be ignored (because nobody wants to get banned or be offensive). In the context of religious argument, one automatically must assume that they are right, and the other is wrong. There can't be compromise of your belief, because if you do offer compromise, that indicates that you don't actually hold the belief you said you held. I mean sure, there is the possibility of internal discussion, which encourages reform, but there are a great many arguments about the sanctity of X and how violating it will condemn you to the seventh layer of hell, or the immorality of certain actions or behaviours. I presume you're already familiar with the long list of humanitarian grievances that can be raised as a result of religious doctrine, so I don't bother reiterating them. Also, there's the typical assumption that because an atheist raises grievances, they are automatically attacking religion, seeking to destroy, shred, rip, rend, tear, kill, Kill, KILL, KILL!!! That's not the case.... Besides which, I haven't even dived into what you perceive as a "hackneyed, predictable "hurr religion" screed", though I'm more than willing to oblige you if you need all of that brought up here. Frankly I don't care for the arguments pertaining to the morality of religion, because concepts of morality are grounded in culture and the accident of birth. If we want to talk about how and why it is I ended up as an atheist, I can discuss all of the conclusions I found by myself, without them having to be pointed out to me by anyone. Let me make this clear. As an atheist, I don't like watching Christopher Hitchens, because I don't feel it appropriate to condescend against another person. Let me be further clear that I'm very VERY fond of the new pope so far. Asherian Command wrote:
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
You miss the point. When presented with rare natural phenomena, a religious individual will seek to ascribe it to the actions of a deity instead of going into an investigation to understand what is happening. I'd like to point to the recent case of a child's death in Wisconsin that used to be standard practice during the dark and medieval ages of europe. That kind of religious fervour does not breed advances in medicine, and it was those who questioned the HRCC that began the whole enlightenment period. We know now what to do when someone is struck down by illness, and how to treat it. So what do we agree on? Are the parents guilty of committing a crime, or are they innocent?
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
please do not place atheists into the theist category. It's akin to suggesting democrats are republicans in the way that they are arepublicans... Also, as a theist, you haven't seen the breadth and depth to which theists go to convince me of the wrongness of how wrongly wrong I am, and all of that just because it came up in passing conversation that I am an atheist. The idea of militant faith is also a superlative concept. I assure you that there were a great many religious individuals that committed a great many crimes and that those individuals could under present definitions be considered "militant", though they may never have considered themselves as such. It's often hard to see where one stands themselves. You use your measuring stick not to judge yourself, but to judge others in how they compare against you. The aggressive heckling I get every time a Jehovah's witness is around is something that's most definitely under the "militant" category, though I urge you to bring it up with them, as I assure you they will not see themselves as such. Asherian Command wrote:Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
And then Dr. Nye gets booed off of the stage because of sticking his guns to the evidence presented in the scientific method. And also because, you know, the Ottomans were so benevolent in how quickly they slaughtered their way through europe, leaving some areas so devoid of humans that entire european villages, were picked up and forcibly transplanted into the exterminated regions... and the protestants and catholics only had a wee tiff for the duration of about only 30 years resulting in about 10% of the population of europe being sent to graves... now, let's take it away from the macabre. Consider the great library of Alexandria. Many of the contributions made there--and indeed during the height of the islamic empire--involved contributions from many faiths including those called "doubters" which describes agnostics and atheists. The interesting observation is that after Al-Gazali reared his head, islamic culture and learning fell into decline. I appreciate that I may have let my irritation show through, but the very thing that I will admit kills me every single time and makes it seem like I need medication is: a.) Insisting that one is an X and then proceeding to provide explanations of their own beliefs, inadvertently enumerating every single reason why that isn't the case (the worst offenders are those that say they are X, but, then proceed to discredit everything required for belief in X, while still maintaining that they are an X) b.) ignoring the inconsistencies and gaps in their scripture and then making contradictory arguments where the speaker knows what's required to answer what is in those gaps while at the same time going on about the mystery of their deity's plan c.) resorting to ascribing morality to religion, immediately damning all atheists as immoral One of my favorite discussions with a Mormon involved the following: "What, you can't be a mormon, what are you doing here drinking then?" "I didn't say I was any good at it". In that statement she explained that she still held her convictions as true, appreciated where that put her spiritually/morally, understood the implications, and without then proceeding to preach her own moral superiority. Asherian Command wrote:I do not have say on what they believe in, but I just want them to either believe in a god, a science, a theory.
AAAAAAAAARRRRGH
17923
Religion @ 2013/07/29 23:47:42
Post by: Asherian Command
poda_t wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
Well, thanks at least for tipping your hand and letting me know we weren't going to have a reasonable discussion about this.
see, i don't think it's possible for there to be a reasonable discussion of religion without it inevitably deteriorating into a hissing contest, or people shouting out their beliefs into the void only to be ignored (because nobody wants to get banned or be offensive). In the context of religious argument, one automatically must assume that they are right, and the other is wrong. There can't be compromise of your belief, because if you do offer compromise, that indicates that you don't actually hold the belief you said you held.
I mean sure, there is the possibility of internal discussion, which encourages reform, but there are a great many arguments about the sanctity of X and how violating it will condemn you to the seventh layer of hell, or the immorality of certain actions or behaviours. I presume you're already familiar with the long list of humanitarian grievances that can be raised as a result of religious doctrine, so I don't bother reiterating them. Also, there's the typical assumption that because an atheist raises grievances, they are automatically attacking religion, seeking to destroy, shred, rip, rend, tear, kill, Kill, KILL, KILL!!! That's not the case....
Besides which, I haven't even dived into what you perceive as a "hackneyed, predictable "hurr religion" screed", though I'm more than willing to oblige you if you need all of that brought up here. Frankly I don't care for the arguments pertaining to the morality of religion, because concepts of morality are grounded in culture and the accident of birth. If we want to talk about how and why it is I ended up as an atheist, I can discuss all of the conclusions I found by myself, without them having to be pointed out to me by anyone. Let me make this clear. As an atheist, I don't like watching Christopher Hitchens, because I don't feel it appropriate to condescend against another person. Let me be further clear that I'm very VERY fond of the new pope so far.
Asherian Command wrote:
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
You miss the point. When presented with rare natural phenomena, a religious individual will seek to ascribe it to the actions of a deity instead of going into an investigation to understand what is happening. I'd like to point to the recent case of a child's death in Wisconsin that used to be standard practice during the dark and medieval ages of europe. That kind of religious fervour does not breed advances in medicine, and it was those who questioned the HRCC that began the whole enlightenment period. We know now what to do when someone is struck down by illness, and how to treat it. So what do we agree on? Are the parents guilty of committing a crime, or are they innocent?
Not me your talking to.
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
please do not place atheists into the theist category. It's akin to suggesting democrats are republicans in the way that they are arepublicans... Also, as a theist, you haven't seen the breadth and depth to which theists go to convince me of the wrongness of how wrongly wrong I am, and all of that just because it came up in passing conversation that I am an atheist. The idea of militant faith is also a superlative concept. I assure you that there were a great many religious individuals that committed a great many crimes and that those individuals could under present definitions be considered "militant", though they may never have considered themselves as such. It's often hard to see where one stands themselves. You use your measuring stick not to judge yourself, but to judge others in how they compare against you. The aggressive heckling I get every time a Jehovah's witness is around is something that's most definitely under the "militant" category, though I urge you to bring it up with them, as I assure you they will not see themselves as such.
Not me your talking to.
Asherian Command wrote:Very few Atheists have ever been welcoming to other ideas and values. Instead they force down that they are right and you are wrong.
And then Dr. Nye gets booed off of the stage because of sticking his guns to the evidence presented in the scientific method. And also because, you know, the Ottomans were so benevolent in how quickly they slaughtered their way through europe, leaving some areas so devoid of humans that entire european villages, were picked up and forcibly transplanted into the exterminated regions... and the protestants and catholics only had a wee tiff for the duration of about only 30 years resulting in about 10% of the population of europe being sent to graves...
now, let's take it away from the macabre. Consider the great library of Alexandria. Many of the contributions made there--and indeed during the height of the islamic empire--involved contributions from many faiths including those called "doubters" which describes agnostics and atheists. The interesting observation is that after Al-Gazali reared his head, islamic culture and learning fell into decline.
I appreciate that I may have let my irritation show through, but the very thing that I will admit kills me every single time and makes it seem like I need medication is:
a.) Insisting that one is an X and then proceeding to provide explanations of their own beliefs, inadvertently enumerating every single reason why that isn't the case (the worst offenders are those that say they are X, but, then proceed to discredit everything required for belief in X, while still maintaining that they are an X)
b.) ignoring the inconsistencies and gaps in their scripture and then making contradictory arguments where the speaker knows what's required to answer what is in those gaps while at the same time going on about the mystery of their deity's plan
c.) resorting to ascribing morality to religion, immediately damning all atheists as immoral
One of my favorite discussions with a Mormon involved the following:
"What, you can't be a mormon, what are you doing here drinking then?"
"I didn't say I was any good at it".
In that statement she explained that she still held her convictions as true, appreciated where that put her spiritually/morally, understood the implications, and without then proceeding to preach her own moral superiority.
We are not arguing or calling any group immoral. ON personal experience both sides have done wrong. Forget it and accept it as people. Just people. Do not blame religion for the problems themselves
Asherian Command wrote:I do not have say on what they believe in, but I just want them to either believe in a god, a science, a theory.
AAAAAAAAARRRRGH
What you wish to believe in nothing, not yourself? Nothing at all? I am saying to believe in something not what I believe. Thats their decision and I respect it. I believe it is their decision to choose what they want. Not mine. If the choose to be a Satanist then I will support that decision, even though I disagree with it. Thats their own. If they want to believe in a Pasta god SO BE IT! I don't care. They just need to have something they stand on to believe in anytype of creation scientific or deity related. You can't choose nothing. That is what determine spiritual health. Which is needed to be a fully healthy human being. You need to believe in something to resolve that eternal thirst of knowledge that we all undoubtedly have.
11731
Religion @ 2013/07/30 00:59:21
Post by: The Bringer
I'm pretty sure this whole argument started because everyone was speaking in generalities.
At college, my room-mate is an Atheist, and my other good friend is a Buddhist, and a sharp one at that. Both can hold particularly good conversations with you. %99, the main sticking point of every argument is speaking in generalities of members of either religion/system of beliefs. Christians get called bigots, atheists get called stubborn deuces... and it gets no-where. Saying a blanket statement about any religion is (in general) the stupidest thing you could ever do. Christianity is not a term used to describe one religion, it described a collection of religions based off of the Bible (Lets go with "Bible" that contains Apocryphal, selections of the Pseudepigraphal texts (the ones Protestants accepted as canonical), as well as the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Pastoral Epistles, the General Epistles, and Revelations). There we go. Now make blanket statements about Christianity... and realize that those people you are making blanket statements about are a very specific sect whose beliefs can actually greatly differ from other "Christians" beliefs.
If there are specific doctrines you wish to criticize, lets go at it and have a good discussion.
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/30 03:56:57
Post by: poda_t
Yeah! I know there was a lot of misquotes, and it got hard sorting the pyramid apart and making sure everything went in its right place.
Science however is not a belief in the same sense. The same word is used, but it means something completely different. The belief of faith is holding something metaphysical as true knowing that there may never be any evidence proving it. Belief as used in science is accepting a theory and holding faith at a given idea adequately describes a phenomenon, knowing fully well that provided a sufficient set of facts, a new paradigm will be required to comprehend and explain natural phenomena. Science does not form in any way another Or alternate form of faith. It isn't faith, it's a method of approaching the world in order to understand it better, and use that understanding to advance.
And I agree with you whole heartedly that anyone of any (non)faith can be guilty of blame. That is the specific reason for which I do not hold much hope for humanity. We have the tools and resources available at our disposal to re-fit our industry, mobilize our production, solve all of our energy and food needs, reclaim desertified areas.... And yet? We've known for long enough the damage we are causing, and the evidence is all there, yet, do we stop? Never. There is not one ideological framework that can get enough of us pulling together in the same direction to make a difference, and our solution to any given problem will almost always be management and containment. Call me a miserable heartless/stone-hearted bastard, and I will respond "iron within, iron without" :p. I have my two hands, and so long as I can carve out my space and live in harmony with my neighbors, the rest I don't much care about. What meaning I find in life is such as I carve out of it, and the more invested I am in a community dependent on others, the more disappointment I have experienced, take for instance, that a mailing list of 450 odd people, only 5 would show for volunteering? Personal favors had to be called to find enough volunteers to fill the positions, and the organizers still had to pull double-shifts to "make it happen".
Blah, now I'm just drunk-ranting about things that don't bear relevance. I've deleted 3 paragraphs for the 4th time now.
58613
Religion @ 2013/07/30 06:55:55
Post by: -Shrike-
poda_t wrote:
Let me be further clear that I'm very VERY fond of the new pope so far.
Cool!
-Shrike- wrote:
I originally said this. Just fixing the misquotations.
Did you just say that all religious people are illogical and incapable of reason? *Sigh* And we were going so well...
You miss the point. When presented with rare natural phenomena, a religious individual will seek to ascribe it to the actions of a deity instead of going into an investigation to understand what is happening. From personal experience (a lot of my family are religious scientists), I'd say that we only ascribe it to the actions of a deity if there is no scientific explanation, or there can never be conclusive evidence (i.e. What created the universe?). I'd like to point to the recent case of a child's death in Wisconsin that used to be standard practice during the dark and medieval ages of europe. That kind of religious fervour does not breed advances in medicine, and it was those who questioned the HRCC that began the whole enlightenment period. We know now what to do when someone is struck down by illness, and how to treat it. So what do we agree on? Are the parents guilty of committing a crime, or are they innocent? Can't comment; I don't know anything about this.
The only people I hate with a passion are those who try to force their ideas onto others. Sadly, the majority of these "militant" theists I have met in my life have been atheists, and any atheists who haven't tried to insult my beliefs or claim their superiority have been few and far between.
please do not place atheists into the theist category. It's akin to suggesting democrats are republicans in the way that they are arepublicans... Also, as a theist, you haven't seen the breadth and depth to which theists go to convince me of the wrongness of how wrongly wrong I am, and all of that just because it came up in passing conversation that I am an atheist. Believe me, I have. I know there are idiots on both sides of the fence; in my personal experiences, more of those idiots have been atheists rather than theists. The idea of militant faith is also a superlative concept. I assure you that there were a great many religious individuals that committed a great many crimes and that those individuals could under present definitions be considered "militant", though they may never have considered themselves as such. It's often hard to see where one stands themselves. You use your measuring stick not to judge yourself, but to judge others in how they compare against you. The aggressive heckling I get every time a Jehovah's witness is around is something that's most definitely under the "militant" category, though I urge you to bring it up with them, as I assure you they will not see themselves as such. Been there, done that.
Hopefully that cleared a few things up. We may yet be able to save this thread!
38250
Religion @ 2013/07/30 19:22:02
Post by: poda_t
@ shrike, i was wondering why we were at eachothers throats, when i noticed you are -shrike- and not shrike. Pick an avatar, and try not to pick the same one as the other guy i know here!
58613
Religion @ 2013/07/30 20:01:53
Post by: -Shrike-
poda_t wrote:@ shrike, i was wondering why we were at eachothers throats, when i noticed you are -shrike- and not shrike. Pick an avatar, and try not to pick the same one as the other guy i know here!
No problem, my profile name is the same as the one I have on blogspot (not that I really use that); I didn't realise there was someone else with a similar name! Thanks for the advice, I'll add a profile picture once I get near a computer (in about two weeks).
55076
Religion @ 2013/07/31 07:10:18
Post by: Poppabear
Ahhhh, so many prottys...
33307
Religion @ 2013/08/04 14:52:57
Post by: Gutsnagga
Just reading all Poda & Shrikes posts crack me up... It's obvious no one is gonna be affected in their religious beliefs by some random on the internet, so why argue so much?
So much generalization and so many false 'facts.'...
I'm not even gonna mention what I put into the poll, I'll probably get flamed for it whatever it was...
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/04 20:07:34
Post by: Cheesecat
I think you should mention your religious beliefs, don't let a few donkey-caves scare you out of talking about your religious beliefs they're important to your identity and you should be allowed to express them (and yes I agree some people are quite ill informed about the subject).
11892
Religion @ 2013/08/05 07:29:48
Post by: Shadowbrand
I am a devotee of the god of tits and wine.
55458
Religion @ 2013/08/07 10:10:29
Post by: Shenloanne
Went with non religious but I'm a spiritual person, brought up Catholic but see myself as agnostic/anamist etc with a bit of paganism/polytheism thrown in.
55292
Religion @ 2013/08/07 10:11:11
Post by: Jonavic
Atheism.. I'm your average humanist guy. Peace out.
50832
Religion @ 2013/08/07 10:19:20
Post by: Sigvatr
Asatru, thus Polytheist.
47974
Religion @ 2013/08/07 11:05:39
Post by: TheFatElf
I voted other, as I identify as Dudeist.
Yes, it is a religion, look it up
76896
Religion @ 2013/08/07 12:11:09
Post by: DavidKolaps
FHTAGN ?
56925
Religion @ 2013/08/07 12:44:05
Post by: baxter123
Born and raised devoutly Anglican, though I tweak it a little bit: I believe there is One God and his Son, but believe God is like what he is portrayed in the Old Testament. I also believe in a three word conduct of Courage Honour and Duty.
Though I do admit some of the stories in the Bible are outrageous, but the Bible is more symbolistic than actual reality. Jesus did exist, I also believe the Prophets, Moses and Noah etc. existed (Adam and Eve is symbolistic!).
Cheers, Bax123
61093
Religion @ 2013/08/07 13:03:05
Post by: skink007
The effects of a religion do not prove or disprove its validity. Because religions have had "followers" that did horrible things in the name of any religion just proves that humans are imperfect, and does not invalidate an entire religion. Heck, thats like saying because A-rod cheated, that all of the MLB is rubbish!
I find it more difficult to disprove the existence of a God then to prove one exists. The intricacies of life at every level of scale seems to scream to me that there is no way that this happened simply by chance. I have no trouble attributing evolution to God.
Earlier in this thread someone said that compromise is not possible with religion. That is entirely untrue. If you have true faith, it should be easy to open your mind wide enough to accept things that you at first were dead set against.
I have two philosophies about religion.
One: Being an agnostic is almost like choosing immobility as a mode of transportation. Atheism takes just as much if not more faith than any established religion.
Two: If God is real and you believe, you win big time. If God isn't real and you believe, how much did you really lose? But if God is real and you don't believe, well then you lose, and lose big time.
72490
Religion @ 2013/08/07 15:20:21
Post by: gossipmeng
Non-religious, although my family is leaning towards ancient aliens
75482
Religion @ 2013/08/07 16:44:15
Post by: Da krimson barun
Gork and Mork.Waagh-ism?
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/07 20:10:51
Post by: Evil & Chaos
 baxter123 wrote:Born and raised devoutly Anglican, though I tweak it a little bit: I believe there is One God and his Son, but believe God is like what he is portrayed in the Old Testament. I also believe in a three word conduct of Courage Honour and Duty.
Though I do admit some of the stories in the Bible are outrageous, but the Bible is more symbolistic than actual reality. Jesus did exist, I also believe the Prophets, Moses and Noah etc. existed (Adam and Eve is symbolistic!).
Cheers, Bax123
So when Moses comes down the mountain, sees the Hebrews worshiping an idol (a golden calf), something that is against the Ten Commandments (that he's just received and the Hebrews don't know about them yet), is it symbolic or historical that the next thing Moses does is slaughter 3000 of his own followers for worshiping the golden calf?
And is it symbolic, or historical, that Noah built a medium sized barge and carried 5 each of all the good animals and 2 each of all the bad animals for 40 days on a globe-spanning flood?
(what about all the fishermen who already owned boats?)
72133
Religion @ 2013/08/08 00:22:35
Post by: StarTrotter
Personally I'm non-religious.
65254
Religion @ 2013/08/08 02:51:33
Post by: wolfmerc
 grayshadow87 wrote:I think the closest thing to what I would call myself is a vanilla Christian. I don't really align myself with any particular subset of the religion, as each seems to have bits and pieces that I simply can't agree with, but I embrace the general overall idea of a savior and of not being a jerk. There's also a strong element of theological scholasticism to my beliefs. I believe that if you can't form your own exegetical reading of your core holy text(s) and instead base your faith off of the interpretation of someone else who quite likely has no formal training or knowledge and instead just decided that he or she wanted to get in front of people to talk about what he or she believes, then you have no reason to profess belief in your religion. Furthermore, I have serious problems with people who try to use what they deem to be religion as a way to deny science or other fields of knowledge out of ignorance or fear. If a system of beliefs can't handle or assimilate new facts or ideas, then it clearly isn't worth believing. I have a few other particular leanings in my faith, but those are two of the biggies.
Now all of that isn't to say that I've somehow fully reconciled my beliefs in regard to other belief systems, or even in regard to itself. It's just that based on my own personal experiences, Christianity seems to best explain how the world works.
This probably explains me best, a vanilla christian, i find it kind of ironic though since i believe in a benevolent creator i prefer to play as evil and daemonic forces on the table top. but that doesnt mean im some sort of monster hiding under your bed because i was possessed.
61093
Religion @ 2013/08/08 15:18:55
Post by: skink007
Evil & Chaos wrote: baxter123 wrote:Born and raised devoutly Anglican, though I tweak it a little bit: I believe there is One God and his Son, but believe God is like what he is portrayed in the Old Testament. I also believe in a three word conduct of Courage Honour and Duty.
Though I do admit some of the stories in the Bible are outrageous, but the Bible is more symbolistic than actual reality. Jesus did exist, I also believe the Prophets, Moses and Noah etc. existed (Adam and Eve is symbolistic!).
Cheers, Bax123
So when Moses comes down the mountain, sees the Hebrews worshiping an idol (a golden calf), something that is against the Ten Commandments (that he's just received and the Hebrews don't know about them yet), is it symbolic or historical that the next thing Moses does is slaughter 3000 of his own followers for worshiping the golden calf?
And is it symbolic, or historical, that Noah built a medium sized barge and carried 5 each of all the good animals and 2 each of all the bad animals for 40 days on a globe-spanning flood?
(what about all the fishermen who already owned boats?)
Old Testament... Which is basically just giving context to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In a way, the Old Testament is supposed to make you say, "oh i'm glad it's not like that any more," because although God still has reason to punish us, he forgives us instead. It is indeed symbolic that Moses "slaughters" 3000 of his own followers. They weren't really his followers, they worshiped a golden calf. And it would be ridiculous to see Noah's Ark and the flood as anything but symbolic. Not to say that these events did not happen historically, but their inclusion in the Bible is due to more than just a want to record history.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/08 20:51:22
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Old Testament... Which is basically just giving context to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In a way, the Old Testament is supposed to make you say, "oh i'm glad it's not like that any more," because although God still has reason to punish us, he forgives us instead.
By that logic, the Ten Commandments aren't needed anymore, because they're only found in their full form in the Old Testament (twice, slightly different each time).
Plus, according to the tenets of the New Testament, God has sent the majority of the people who have ever lived to Hell (and all the Neanderthals, presumably) for not believing in Him - at least the Old Testament didn't have Hell so I can't really say "oh I'm glad it's not like that anymore".
IMO, the God of the New Testament is even more jealous (God's own description of himself as per the 3rd commandment) than the God of the Old Testament for that reason, at least when you die a Jew, you aren't then sent to an *eternity* in a pit of fire if you transgressed one of God's rules.
It is indeed symbolic that Moses "slaughters" 3000 of his own followers. They weren't really his followers, they worshiped a golden calf.
It's arguable that the calf was an idol representing God; that the Hebrews weren't worshipping the golden calf as a concrete deity, as it was made as a tangible representation of their Hebrew God.
The worshipers of the calf included Moses' own brother (who did not get slaughtered by Moses when he came down the mountain, because nepotism).
So anyway, the very first thing that Moses does after being given the Ten Commandments (which includes "Do Not Murder") is murder 3000 of his own people, and God's okay with it (actually God wants to kill ALL the Hebrews but Moses talks him out of it).
What kind of symbology is that, murdering people for transgressing a rule they hadn't been told about yet?
And it would be ridiculous to see Noah's Ark and the flood as anything but symbolic. Not to say that these events did not happen historically...
Even giving a remote credence (as you seem to) to those events happening historically is as you begin by noting: ridiculous.
... but their inclusion in the Bible is due to more than just a want to record history.
Noah's Ark is in the bible because the early Hebrews appropriated the Babylonian myth of utnapishtim for their own folk tales.
Other than that it holds little moral message other than the same one you find in Moses murdering 3k of his own followers, or Jesus telling everyone how they're going to burn in hell for all eternity if they don't worship his dad.
Disagree?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/08 21:43:29
Post by: Manchu
Atheist convert to Catholicism here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind, thread is three months old.
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/08 22:17:51
Post by: Cheesecat
 Manchu wrote:Atheist convert to Catholicism here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind, thread is three months old.
It's been alive for awhile though, also was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?
77050
Religion @ 2013/08/08 22:28:12
Post by: TheSGC
There are other Muslims here? Wow. Who?
46128
Religion @ 2013/08/08 23:54:53
Post by: Happyjew
I'm an Atheist, thank God.
38961
Religion @ 2013/08/09 05:26:56
Post by: Dr. Temujin
Oh, the irony of that statement.
That said, I was raised Christian, but nowadays, I see myself as being "on the fence".
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/09 07:06:16
Post by: SilverMK2
skink007 wrote:I find it more difficult to disprove the existence of a God then to prove one exists. The intricacies of life at every level of scale seems to scream to me that there is no way that this happened simply by chance. I have no trouble attributing evolution to God.
The onus is not on disproving god, but on proving its existance. All of life, chemistry and physics gets on happily without one single bit of "godonium" being present. Nothing physical has ever been discovered to indicate that god exists in any way in the universe, or even that god ever existed or is required for existance in any way.
Thankfully we have moved passed the times of "established knowledge" of gods existance and the vast majority of the scientific body can now focus on how things work rather than on "where is god in all this?".
Earlier in this thread someone said that compromise is not possible with religion. That is entirely untrue. If you have true faith, it should be easy to open your mind wide enough to accept things that you at first were dead set against.
So, compromise is only possible if you believe everything you do? 
One: Being an agnostic is almost like choosing immobility as a mode of transportation.
Not really. being agnostic is simply not taking a position on the existance or otherwise of a/some/all god(s). It would be more akin to not being sure on any other issue.
Atheism takes just as much if not more faith than any established religion.
Do you not believe that there is a purple unicorn orbiting the sun which controls the actions of everyone on earth through the power of galactic space dust it sprinkles out of its butt?
Then you are an anti-pruple-unicorn-butt-dust-ist and clearly have "faith" that there is no purple unicorn!
Faith is not required to not believe in something. One thing that annoys many atheists is the insistance that they have "faith" in there being no god, or "faith" in science in the same way that religious people have faith in there being a god - nothing could be further from the truth.
Two: If God is real and you believe, you win big time. If God isn't real and you believe, how much did you really lose?
But what if you believe in the wrong god (or worship him in the wrong way!?!), and the god that "actually exists" is a right git like your god apparently is according to you and others who think that if you don't sing from the appropriate hymn sheet you are going to burn for eternity or some other suitable punishment despite anything else you may have done in your life? 
But if God is real and you don't believe, well then you lose, and lose big time.
Since god, as far as I am aware, doesn't exist, I think I can live with that very small chance.
However, isn't your god's love unending and for all things? Kind of hard to gel this with the idea of god throwing a tantrum because I don't believe in it and casting me out of heaven or whatever god does to non-believers in your particular brand of religion.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/09 09:20:01
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Faith is not required to not believe in something. One thing that annoys many atheists is the insistance that they have "faith" in there being no god, or "faith" in science in the same way that religious people have faith in there being a god - nothing could be further from the truth.
QFT.
Theists often don't seem to get that Atheism is not a positive statement of opinion (such as "there is no god") it is the absence of a statement, the null position that says "I've seen no credible evidence in favour of believing in the supernatural". It is a void which would quite happily be filled if presented with credible evidence.
Literally, A-Theism means "without gods". It does not mean "there are no gods".
As you say, if Atheism is a faith, then Aunicornism is a faith, and for that matter Asantaclausism would be a faith too.
.
.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/09 10:49:42
Post by: SilverMK2
But Santa is real - he is in all these books! And look at all these pictures of him! You have no evidence there isn't a Santa!
51489
Religion @ 2013/08/10 15:47:46
Post by: necrovamp
skink007 wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote: baxter123 wrote:Born and raised devoutly Anglican, though I tweak it a little bit: I believe there is One God and his Son, but believe God is like what he is portrayed in the Old Testament. I also believe in a three word conduct of Courage Honour and Duty.
Though I do admit some of the stories in the Bible are outrageous, but the Bible is more symbolistic than actual reality. Jesus did exist, I also believe the Prophets, Moses and Noah etc. existed (Adam and Eve is symbolistic!).
Cheers, Bax123
So when Moses comes down the mountain, sees the Hebrews worshiping an idol (a golden calf), something that is against the Ten Commandments (that he's just received and the Hebrews don't know about them yet), is it symbolic or historical that the next thing Moses does is slaughter 3000 of his own followers for worshiping the golden calf?
And is it symbolic, or historical, that Noah built a medium sized barge and carried 5 each of all the good animals and 2 each of all the bad animals for 40 days on a globe-spanning flood?
(what about all the fishermen who already owned boats?)
Old Testament... Which is basically just giving context to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In a way, the Old Testament is supposed to make you say, "oh i'm glad it's not like that any more," because although God still has reason to punish us, he forgives us instead. It is indeed symbolic that Moses "slaughters" 3000 of his own followers. They weren't really his followers, they worshiped a golden calf. And it would be ridiculous to see Noah's Ark and the flood as anything but symbolic. Not to say that these events did not happen historically, but their inclusion in the Bible is due to more than just a want to record history.
just to put this to you.
There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. This flood covered a lot of the land around that sea for about a month. A king was out riding one day when he say a man building a boat. but the King thought it was odd the man was building a boat inland, so when the King asked the man what he was doing, the man replied that a flood was coming, and being a farmer he wanted to save all his animals.
Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.
11731
Religion @ 2013/08/10 16:02:09
Post by: The Bringer
 necrovamp wrote:
just to put this to you.
There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. This flood covered a lot of the land around that sea for about a month. A king was out riding one day when he say a man building a boat. but the King thought it was odd the man was building a boat inland, so when the King asked the man what he was doing, the man replied that a flood was coming, and being a farmer he wanted to save all his animals.
Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.
Or, you know, the story of the Biblical Flood could be the origin of that tale. I feel like this thread has gotten dangerously off track.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/10 19:38:29
Post by: Evil & Chaos
necrovamp wrote:
just to put this to you.
There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. ...
Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.
Well, there was a historical flood, the Zanclean Flood, which occured 5.3 million years ago. So, only about 5.2 million years before humans evolved. :-)
The Minoan eruption that destroyed the Minoan civilisation may be a better candidate for your (100% speculative?) story. The myth of Atlantis probably came from the destruction of the Minoan civilisation through a volcanically-generated tsunami.
Or, you know, the story of the Biblical Flood could be the origin of that tale.
No it couldn't because we know there wasn't a world-wide flood 4000 years ago as the bible claims.
Rather a lot of civilisations that we know were around at the time would have been destroyed by such a thing, and they weren't.
If there ever was such a flood there would be a common silt layer at the same geologic point in time all across the planet - Since the flood supposedly happened only ~4,000 years ago according to the bible, we know that there is no world-wide silt layer at that point in time ( or at any point in geologic history, for that matter) to indicate a biblical flood.
We also know from the distribution of animals over the planet / the archeological record that all our animal populations did not all start out from Mt. Arrarat, a 5km high Turkish mountain where the Ark supposedly came to rest when the waters began to recede, from whence the Penguins would have had to have waddled to the South Pole and the Polar Bears ambled to the North Pole. Also the flightless birds of New Zealand would have had to have walked on water to get to New Zealand, one supposes. We also know from gene science that there is no "genetic bottleneck" that indicates every animal species on earth was whittled down to a breeding population of 2-5 individuals all at the same time.
It's fundamentally silly to give credence to the idea that biblical flood was a real historical event, to put it mildly.
.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/10 19:55:09
Post by: d-usa
I want to say that I have heard the "Mediterranean Flood" story as well, but I can't tell you how or when I heard it. Some History Channel thing if I remember right.
Although it might have been the Black See flood:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/12 16:43:50
Post by: Manchu
 Cheesecat wrote:was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?
Oh, I like to think of it as ongoing. But the beginnings were not what I'd call recent. It began about fourteen years ago and I was formally received into the Church seven years ago.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 08:19:57
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote: Cheesecat wrote:was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?
Oh, I like to think of it as ongoing. But the beginnings were not what I'd call recent. It began about fourteen years ago and I was formally received into the Church seven years ago.
So as a Catholic, you believe that wafer turns into literal flesh in your stomach, and wine turns into literal blood?
(the Church says that it's a literal thing that happens and is not symbolic).
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 18:00:59
Post by: Manchu
Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 18:07:56
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.
Does that make you a cannibal?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 18:10:32
Post by: Manchu
Superficially, sure. But that's not what the Eucharist is actually about.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 19:11:45
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:Superficially, sure. But that's not what the Eucharist is actually about.
I just find these kinds of things slightly strange and incomprehensible
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 19:28:53
Post by: Manchu
Same here. The word I use is "mysterious."
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 19:34:37
Post by: SilverMK2
International god of mystery... groovy baby
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 19:41:07
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.
So if you literally believe that, would you be willing to have your stomach pumped after partaking in the mystic ceremony of transubstantiation so that everybody in the world can see the chunks of flesh and human blood that are pumped back up, after you have eaten the wafer and the wine?
It is part of the Catholic faith that this transformation literally happens, it is not symbolic or metaphor - if Catholicism is the one true religion (as opposed to being a false religion, like I reckon all religions most likely are), a stomach pump should bring back up literal chunks of flesh.
Pretty easy to prove your faith is real, if you're willing to endure some minor discomfort. Just think of all the souls you'd save when lumps of flesh come back up and billions of people convert to Catholicism (heck, I would).
So what do you say, are you willing to do it?
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/13 19:48:59
Post by: d-usa
Except the faith also states that the bread and wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine, so pumping the stomach does nothing. It changes, and it doesn't.
If it were as easy as you said the pope would have puked on an altar a long time ago to make that point.
Exit: I don't believe in transubstantiation.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:03:54
Post by: Evil & Chaos
...the bread and wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine,
If they're not different in any detectable regard, then they're just bread and wine, same as they were when they went down the hatch.
If it were as easy as you said the pope would have puked on an altar a long time ago to make that point.
Unfortunately, that sounds far too convenient to me.
If a miracle is occurring that allows millions of Catholics to be magical cannibals every week, that's a claim that requires some proof in order to be regarded as something greater than any other religion's miraculous claim.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:07:42
Post by: SilverMK2
Evil & Chaos wrote:If they're not different in any detectable regard, then they're just bread and wine, same as they were when they went down the hatch.
"The sausages are fried, allowing the "true sausagidity" to ascend to Offler by means of smell, while the clergy eat the "earthly shell" of the sausages, which the clergy claim taste like ash, as Offler has eaten their essence."
Must be true - it is written in a book which has been read by millions of people all over the world
28305
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:11:41
Post by: Talizvar
Do not worry, I plan to discuss politics next! I will invite all the trolls I know
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:12:48
Post by: d-usa
And if we are using such fun descriptions as "magical canibals" then we know why we can't have rational discussions about what people believe.
I don't believe in transubstantiation either, but you don't see me mocking people who do.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:29:39
Post by: SilverMK2
 d-usa wrote:And if we are using such fun descriptions as "magical canibals" then we know why we can't have rational discussions about what people believe.
I don't believe in transubstantiation either, but you don't see me mocking people who do.
I did actually wonder about the legal ramifications of claiming that you eat parts of an actual person - I would be very interested in how that court case would go.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:36:00
Post by: Manchu
Do you think the transformation happens in the stomach after consumption??? Doesn't seem like you know much about this subject ... plus I can see the chip on your shoulder pretty clearly. But whatever, I'll try to explain. "Transubstantiation" is a philosophical theory about the True Presence of the Eucharist, namely that the bread and wine are truly body and blood. To understand the theory, you need a little background in classical thought. Aristotle taught about the difference between appearance and substance, namely that what a thing looks like is not necessarily the same thing as what a thing is. The elements of appearance are "accidental" in the sense that they do not constitute substance; if those elements were not present the thing in question would still be itself. Regarding the Eucharist, bread and wine are said to be the accidental appearances of body and blood. No one is claiming, outside of misguided superstition, that the actual chemical composition is being changed. That is not what is meant by "literal." In the context of modern thinking, the word "literal" perhaps tends to mislead. A better word is "actual" or, as in common parlance, "true." Everyone can see the host is bread if all they use is their eyes, up to an including all the instruments designed to enhance the modern experience of vision. But so too can everyone, in light of the ritual, understand that what is going on in the Eucharist is more than eating bread. The biggest difference between Catholics and many Protestants on this issue is that many Protestants are, in one sense or another, content with the language of symbols. They say the bread is the symbol of Jesus's body. The Church rejects this notion, basically because it renders Jesus -- whose truly human nature is paramount to Catholic theology -- himself into a mere symbol. Belief in the True Presence is therefore a central part of the Catholic faith. Well, in order to have that case we'd need cops and prosecutors ignorant enough to conflate the Eucharist with the actual criminal act of cannibalism.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:53:24
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Do you think the transformation happens in the stomach after consumption???
I'm an existentialist, so if you can't show me any sort of proof, then I don't think it happens at all.
If bread goes in, and bread comes back out, then it was just bread all along - Jesus didn't let you eat a bit of his sinew, and Mithras didn't either.
"Transubstantiation" is a philosophical theory...
Theological theory. BIG difference.
A better word is "actual" or, as in common parlance, "true."
So Jesus didn't change the bread into wine, he changed himself into trillions of chunks of bread across a couple thousand years, and his blood into trillions of sips of wine for the same period of time.
I can see how that makes more sense to you.
So anyway, are all the Neanderthals in Hell?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:56:18
Post by: Manchu
There's a difference between believing a thing and understanding it. It seems you think not doing the former is an excuse to skip the latter.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:57:53
Post by: Evil & Chaos
SilverMK2 wrote: d-usa wrote:And if we are using such fun descriptions as "magical canibals" then we know why we can't have rational discussions about what people believe.
I don't believe in transubstantiation either, but you don't see me mocking people who do.
I did actually wonder about the legal ramifications of claiming that you eat parts of an actual person - I would be very interested in how that court case would go.
I think you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, and that furthermore the Catholic Church holds the one true interpretation of Its nature (again beyond a reasonable doubt).
By that measure, the only people who could convict such a defendant of such a crime, would be a jury of misanthropic Catholics.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 20:58:28
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:Well, in order to have that case we'd need cops and prosecutors ignorant enough to conflate the Eucharist with the actual criminal act of cannibalism.
Person: "So, you actually eat parts of a human body and drink its blood when you take the bread and wine?"
Manchu: "Yes"
However, my point was more along the lines of what arguments would be used for and against the charge of cannibalism, rather than how the case came about. Would you go for a defence of "transformation therefore not actually eating flesh", or would you attempt to prove that the bread and wine remain bread and wine and therefore endanger the premise that they actually transform upon being consumed? Would the prosecution have to wheel out the pope and put him on the stand to confirm that the bread and wine turn into Jesus? Would it have to be specified at which point the bread and wine become Jesus? On the tongue? In the throat? Only when it reaches the stomach? Therefore proving that the person eats the bread and wine, but it then, after being eaten, becomes human flesh? Could this still be classed as cannibalism given the person consuming the bread and wine "knows" it will transform into human flesh?
It is just an interesting thought that popped into my head - I don't expect anyone to bring such a charge.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/13 21:03:27
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:There's a difference between believing a thing and understanding it.
Of course, what's your point?
It seems you think not doing the former is an excuse to skip the latter.
[
I told you I was an existentialist; The latter is more important than the former.
I understand that Catholics think some sort of supernatural thing occurs where bread turns into flesh, or body turns into bread, or whatever.
I see no vaguely rational evidence that such a thing occurs, so I don't believe it, and regard it equally to the Mithraic rites I linked to (both equally untrue myths about eating bread that is the literal body of a God, both of which arose at around the same point in history in the same parts of the world).
...and yeah, are all the Neanderthals in Hell?
Nobody's ever answered this question for me.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 21:08:06
Post by: Manchu
My point is that it is possible, for a reasonable person of good will, to understand a position she does not agree with. Why would neatherthals be in hell? If your point is that Jesus saved Homo sapiens sapiens and not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis/Homo neanderthalensis then wouldn't it be simpler to ask if ants are in hell? I mean, just in terms of logic, the questions are equally ridiculous. Anyway, even from an "existentialist" point of view, I now have enough information to rationally conclude this exchange is no longer worthwhile. SilverMK2 wrote:It is just an interesting thought that popped into my head - I don't expect anyone to bring such a charge.
I think a more profitable line of thought for you to ponder is why cannibalism is criminal in the first place. Once you have come up with a few reasons, see if any of them also apply to the Eucharist.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/13 21:21:34
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:It is just an interesting thought that popped into my head - I don't expect anyone to bring such a charge.
I think a more profitable line of thought for you to ponder is why cannibalism is criminal in the first place. Once you have come up with a few reasons, see if any of them also apply to the Eucharist.
It depends on where you live as to whether it is actually illegal, which I find quite interesting. Often it is de facto illegal as it is punished under other laws depending on how it is carried out, which also vary from place to place, making it hard to specifically answer your return question.
Anyway, I am going to bed
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/13 21:26:24
Post by: Manchu
Not at all. Consider the question in terms of your own country, where cannibalism is indeed illegal.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 08:07:17
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:My point is that it is possible, for a reasonable person of good will, to understand a position she does not agree with.
Sure, I understand what you claim happens in the mystic ceremony of Transubstantiation - Jesus' body literally teleports apart and turns into millions of chunks of bread and millions of sips of wine every week.
Why would neatherthals be in hell? If your point is that Jesus saved Homo sapiens sapiens and not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis/Homo neanderthalensis then wouldn't it be simpler to ask if ants are in hell? I mean, just in terms of logic, the questions are equally ridiculous.
It wouldn't be simpler to ask if ants are in hell, because genetic science tells us that some western human populations have 2-5% Neanderthal DNA in them, following cross-breeding that occured ~30,000 years ago. Ants can't be part-human***
So, are all the Neanderthals in hell? (by your comparison with ants, I assume you think that Neanderthals didn't have souls at all, and so were destroyed when they died)
How about the half-Neanderthal half-Human hybrids?
And the 75% Neanderthal / 25% Human hybrids?
Since your Church can tell us with specificity what happened billions of years ago, it must have an opinion on some yugging that took place 30k years ago (and the theological implications thereof), right?
Anyway, even from an "existentialist" point of view, I now have enough information to rationally conclude this exchange is no longer worthwhile.
Don't give up, it's just getting fun. :-p
***Unless you inject human DNA into them.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/14 08:49:59
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:Not at all. Consider the question in terms of your own country, where cannibalism is indeed illegal.
I will have to look up the laws in the UK as I personally am not 100% on what they actually are
75727
Religion @ 2013/08/14 09:54:46
Post by: sing your life
Complety athiest.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 10:51:21
Post by: Evil & Chaos
SilverMK2 wrote: Manchu wrote:Not at all. Consider the question in terms of your own country, where cannibalism is indeed illegal.
I will have to look up the laws in the UK as I personally am not 100% on what they actually are
Don't forget, Catholics believe all humans (but no Neanderthals?) are personally complicit in the murder of Jesus, due to the doctrine of original sin (we are personally responsible for the sins against God of our ancestors, right back to Eve and the Apple).
Therefore, it would probably be easier to to prosecute a case of murder against a Catholic...
The Catholic will be happy to say under oath that he's personally responsible for the death of Jesus, and will even helpfully point you at where you can find his corpse (in his stomach, because the Catholic ate him "a few years" after he killed him).
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 10:54:06
Post by: d-usa
If you're just going to be a troll, then why even participate in what was a serious discussion?
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 11:46:37
Post by: Evil & Chaos
I'm not trolling - as far as I understand things it is fundamental Catholic doctrine that all humans are complicit in, and are thereby responsible for, the murder of Jesus***.
Therefore a faithful Catholic charged with the murder (and consumption) of Jesus in a court of law could only plead guilty to the crime, no?
=====
Or, to put it another way, I agree with those who kicked off the whole "is the Eucharist ceremony cannibalism in the eyes of the law?" - it's fun to discuss theological claims.
And if treating them seriously looks like trolling, perhaps that's because they're just not sensible claims to make in the first place, and discussing them seriously consequently doesn't look sensible either.
Now, let's get back to discussing magic / miracles / supernatural transubstantiation?
=====
***Albeit until the 1960's the Catholic Church officially blamed "all the Jews in every era, ancient and modern" for the death of Jesus. Now they spread the blame more evenly.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 13:59:56
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:And if treating them seriously looks like trolling, perhaps that's because they're just not sensible claims to make in the first place, and discussing them seriously consequently doesn't look sensible either.
But of course you're not treating them seriously. For example, your neanderthal "question" is totally nonsensical. As I suspected and you confirmed, the question assumes that redemption by grace hinges on genetic identity. This is blatant, if rather poor, trolling and we do have a rule against that. So please reconsider your tack if you decide to continue in this thread.
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:10:23
Post by: Lint
I don't see it as trolling at all. He's asking poignant questions in a confrontational way but last I checked that wasn't trolling.
Off Topic: I'd be very disappointed if you dropped MODhammer over this as you are very much of an opposing opinion to Evil & Chaos.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:17:04
Post by: Manchu
@Lint: The questions aren't poignant at all. They aren't even questions. They're rhetorical traps. You really think challenging a Catholic to undergo a stomach pump after communion for the sake of finding literal human remains is a poignant question? That's pretty clear trolling, as is the rest of it.
65757
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:22:36
Post by: PredaKhaine
Evil & Chaos wrote:I'm not trolling - as far as I understand things it is fundamental Catholic doctrine that all humans are complicit in, and are thereby responsible for, the murder of Jesus***. Therefore a faithful Catholic charged with the murder (and consumption) of Jesus in a court of law could only plead guilty to the crime, no?
To arrange this situation to make a catholic answer yes, you'd first have to successfully charge someone with the murder (and consumption) of Jesus. When is that likely to happen?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:24:26
Post by: Manchu
Not even that. The Catholic notion of moral responsibility in a fallen world is not the same thing as criminal culpability for a particular instance of murder. He's just playing a word game.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:26:46
Post by: SilverMK2
PredaKhaine wrote:To arrange this situation to make a catholic answer yes, you'd first have to successfully charge someone with the murder(and consumption) of Jesus.
When is that likely to happen?
I'm given to understand that Jesus was lawfully put to death, therefore was not murdered. Though as, apparently, we are all guilty of some kind of sin for everything that has ever happened, I guess it could be said that we are all "guilty" of killing him.
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:28:19
Post by: Lint
If the catholic in question believes that the wafer they consume is turning into flesh during the ceremony? Yes it's a brash question, but nothing that doesn't deserve an answer.
An answer I thought you provided very well btw:
Manchu wrote:
"Transubstantiation" is a philosophical theory about the True Presence of the Eucharist, namely that the bread and wine are truly body and blood. To understand the theory, you need a little background in classical thought. Aristotle taught about the difference between appearance and substance, namely that what a thing looks like is not necessarily the same thing as what a thing is. The elements of appearance are "accidental" in the sense that they do not constitute substance; if those elements were not present the thing in question would still be itself. Regarding the Eucharist, bread and wine are said to be the accidental appearances of body and blood.
No one is claiming, outside of misguided superstition, that the actual chemical composition is being changed. That is not what is meant by "literal." In the context of modern thinking, the word "literal" perhaps tends to mislead. A better word is "actual" or, as in common parlance, "true." Everyone can see the host is bread if all they use is their eyes, up to an including all the instruments designed to enhance the modern experience of vision. But so too can everyone, in light of the ritual, understand that what is going on in the Eucharist is more than eating bread.
The biggest difference between Catholics and many Protestants on this issue is that many Protestants are, in one sense or another, content with the language of symbols. They say the bread is the symbol of Jesus's body. The Church rejects this notion, basically because it renders Jesus -- whose truly human nature is paramount to Catholic theology -- himself into a mere symbol. Belief in the True Presence is therefore a central part of the Catholic faith.
See there? An honest and educated answer. That's all information I had been curious about but never knew as my particular brand of christianity as a child was of the pentecostal/protestant variety.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:30:52
Post by: Manchu
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm given to understand that Jesus was lawfully put to death, therefore was not murdered.
That's a very good point actually. I think one of the points of the story is to make us reflect on the inferior conceits of human justice. SilverMK2 wrote:Though as, apparently, we are all guilty of some kind of sin for everything that has ever happened, I guess it could be said that we are all "guilty" of killing him.
Rather than assigning personal blame to you or me for his death, I think the point is more like -- would we have done anything different than Pilate and the Sanhedrin? Isn't human society still rife with the same kind of injustices even today?
65757
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:43:35
Post by: PredaKhaine
I have a genuine question now.
Do atheists believe they have souls?
Has the idea of a 'soul' (something that makes you more than a collection of learned responses to stimuli) transcended religion?
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:44:37
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:Rather than assigning personal blame to you or me for his death, I think the point is more like -- would we have done anything different than Pilate and the Sanhedrin? Isn't human society still rife with the same kind of injustices even today?
I honestly don't have an opinion on this particular aspect of religion; it is one of those things like people praying for my soul, or until it was brought up, the bread and wine into flesh but not into flesh - something that has absolutely no impact on my life so I have never even really considered it. I don't know enough about the background to say your assessment about what it is about is likely to be correct or not, yet on the other hand I am also not really interested enough to motivate myself to engage particularly in the subject.
However, one pitfall to avoid is taking modern morality and "knowledge" and applying it to situations in different times and cultures, especially when it is not always clear a) what exaclty was going on at the time or even b) that it actually took place.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 14:51:24
Post by: Manchu
@SilverMK2: I'm not sure what you are getting at. That you don't know enough to think about the question but you do know enough to say that I've misunderstood my religion? It's kind of like the cannibalism thing. You don't need to know the ins and outs of every culture the world over to consider why cannibalism might be illegal in the UK. I don't think anyone can speak for all atheists on any topic. When I was an atheist, I thought the concept of the soul was more or less a philosophical category. To the extent that it had any material corollary at all, I figured it must be synonymous with "mind" in the sense of firing neurons and brain chemistry. So, in the sense of a soul that survives the death of the body, no I did not think such a thing actually exists.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/14 15:10:03
Post by: SilverMK2
Manchu wrote:@SilverMK2: I'm not sure what you are getting at. That you don't know enough to think about the question but you do know enough to say that I've misunderstood my religion?
No, I am not driving at that - I'm certainly not attempting to say that you have misunderstood your religion. I am more saying that there are certain aspects of religion, as with, I am sure, many other things, that I have either never come across before or indeed never even considered might exist. I know when I have been travelling in the Far East, some people have literally no concept of people not believing in some kind of god, or supernatural events; it is utterly alien to their understanding of the world. It is therefore difficult for me personally to discuss certain things in any kind of detail, and certainly with any kind of authority. My comments on cannibalism stem only from what has been said in this thread (given that until now I do not recall being consiously aware that there are those who genuinely think the bread and wine "transform" into the body and blood of Jesus)... from your first comments and replies I understood that you meant they literally transfigured, now I see that the transformation is more metaphysical, yet still "real" in a way undetectable to science. Personally I find this kind of, well, not-quite-but-could-be-considered evasion of the provision of testable evidence of some supernatural event to be quite annoying to my more evidence based way of life My thoughts on questioning how things would go in a court of law are more to organise in my own head what kinds of supporting proof/arguments each side might put forward, especially given that those pushing for a prosecution of cannibalism would have to "prove" that the claims of catholics were literally true while the defence may have to "invalidate" their own faith to protect themselves. It's kind of like the cannibalism thing. You don't need to know the ins and outs of every culture the world over to consider why cannibalism might be illegal in the UK.
Indeed, and I hope to look up the laws in the UK when I get home to see how they would apply in this case
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 15:24:44
Post by: Lint
PredaKhaine wrote:I have a genuine question now. Do atheists believe they have souls? Has the idea of a 'soul' (something that makes you more than a collection of learned responses to stimuli) transcended religion?
Speaking for myself, no, not in the sense that I have some part of myself that is eternal, or will carry on after my body dies.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 15:39:23
Post by: Manchu
SilverMK2 wrote:Personally I find this kind of, well, not-quite-but-could-be-considered evasion of the provision of testable evidence of some supernatural event to be quite annoying to my more evidence based way of life
I can understand that. The simplest way to address it is by sorting out what in the human experience is and is not available to testing/measurement in the material sense. If the Eucharist is the sort of thing that is outside that scope, and I think it is, then it's not very reasonable to call the application of Aristotelian philosophy in Christian theology an "evasion." Reason after all is greater than a measuring stick or a microscope. SilverMK2 wrote:Indeed, and I hope to look up the laws in the UK when I get home to see how they would apply in this case
Considering that the Church of England, while rejecting the specific philiosophical formula of transubstantiation, theologically adheres to the doctrine of the True Presence, it is a given that the law of the UK regarding cannibalism does not and was never meant to address the question of the Eucharist.
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 16:03:13
Post by: Lint
Manchu wrote:I can understand that. The simplest way to address it is by sorting out what in the human experience is and is not available to testing/measurement in the material sense. If the Eucharist is the sort of thing that is outside that scope, and I think it is, then it's not very reasonable to call the application of Aristotelian philosophy in Christian theology an "evasion."
Of course you must realize that more and more we are finding ways to actually test and prove things that were once entirely based on religious dogma.
Manchu wrote:Reason after all is greater than a measuring stick or a microscope.
I feel it appropriate to say here that a neat slice of Occam's Razor and a judicious use of "reason" can, does, and has, IMHO utterly smashed religious mysticism. The more we learn and explore the universe in which we live, the less room for god. Not to say there won't be any mystery, but it need no longer be attributed to a guy-in-the-sky.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 16:31:16
Post by: Manchu
I disagree. God is not a "band aid" explanation for natural phenomenon rendered superfluous by electron microscopes and particle accelerators. It seems to me that you are relying on the whiggish assumption that "science" inevitably approaches "truth." But the scientific method is merely a viewpoint, as transient as any other and like others more or less useful according to a given goal. And moreover truth itself, unless defined very narrowly so as to make the entire matter in any case tautological, is not the monolithic phenomenon often described by advocates of unified field theory.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 16:34:52
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:@Lint: The questions aren't poignant at all. They aren't even questions. They're rhetorical traps. You really think challenging a Catholic to undergo a stomach pump after communion for the sake of finding literal human remains is a poignant question? That's pretty clear trolling, as is the rest of it.
As far as I was aware, Catholics literally believe that bread turns into chunks of flesh when they eat them
What you see as mocking, I saw as honest questions. That I was initially given "jargon" about "accidental remains" that did not seek to explain what Catholics actually believe (that being that the body of jesus turns into millions of chunks of bread each week, more or less the inverse of my initial apprehension) served to prolong my partial ignorance on the matter.
You cannot assume that a disinterested (technical term as distinct from uninterested) individual will know all the specifics of your mystical beliefs (there are a lot of different mystical traditions!). So I began with broad strokes.
Now, it is cientific fact that Neanderthals interbred with humans.
Are all the Neanderthals in Hell?
I believe it is a principle of Catholicism that atheists and adherents to other religions go to Hell - why not Neanderthals, and hybrids?
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 16:35:40
Post by: Lint
I respectfully and unequivocally disagree with everything you just said.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 16:48:22
Post by: Manchu
An honest question based on the prejudice that Catholics are stupid enough to believe that their stomachs contain chunks of human meat after the reception of communion. Your "honest question" was merely a jibe, a delivery mechanism for hateful content. The Neanderthal question is similarly a pre-loaded insult. It seems you aren't used to bullying people who understand rhetoric. Evil & Chaos wrote:That I was initially given "jargon" ... served to prolong my partial ignorance on the matter.
Ignorance becomes invincible by an act of will. And, in this case, there is nothing partial about it.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 17:23:19
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:An honest question based on the prejudice that Catholics are stupid enough to believe that their stomachs contain chunks of human meat after the reception of communion. Your "honest question" was merely a jibe, a delivery mechanism for hateful content.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that it's hateful to question the veracity of mystical claims, and ask for proof for those claims. I asked a question that, based on my partial understanding of the Catholic ceremony, would have proven Catholism to be a true or false religion instantly, and said I'd happily convert to Catholism if I saw chunks of meat pumped back up.
As to my "prejudice" toward catholic beliefs, honestly I don't see how the explanation of what "transubstantiation" that we've heard is any more or less stupid than my initial impression of what transubtiation was. The actual Catholic rite just happens to be immune to scientific analysis... That doesn't make it any more or less realistic to my mind - it is still a claim that a carpenter who has been dead for 2000 years imbues millions of pieces of bread with his physical prescence every week, an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence does not feel more or less "stupid" than hundreds of other similar mystical claims I know of.
The Qur'an claims that Allah has made it so that salt water and fresh water in the sea do not mix - is that a stupid claim?
The Neanderthal question is similarly a pre-loaded insult. It seems you aren't used to bullying people who understand rhetoric. Evil & Chaos wrote:That I was initially given "jargon" ... served to prolong my partial ignorance on the matter.
Ignorance becomes invincible by an act of will. And, in this case, there is nothing partial about it.
I'm ignorant as to what my insult is supposed to be.
I'm asking a valid question, and I'm being met with calumny.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 17:33:16
Post by: Manchu
Methinks he doth protest too much: Evil & Chaos wrote:Pretty easy to prove your faith is real, if you're willing to endure some minor discomfort [via stomach pump]. Just think of all the souls you'd save when lumps of flesh come back up and billions of people convert to Catholicism (heck, I would). So what do you say, are you willing to do it?
And let me just check the old irony meter here: Evil & Chaos wrote:As to my "prejudice" toward catholic beliefs, honestly I don't see how the explanation of what "transubstantiation" that we've heard is any more or less stupid than my initial impression of what transubtiation was.
 Evil & Chaos wrote:The actual Catholic rite just happens to be immune to scientific analysis... That doesn't make it any more or less realistic to my mind
Wait did you think it's my job to convert you or otherwise prove my beliefs to you? No, not interested. If you have a question about what Catholics believe and can manage to ask it while following Rule Number One, I'll be happy to answer. But I have no interest in trying to convince you that you should also believe what I believe.
28305
Religion @ 2013/08/14 17:52:19
Post by: Talizvar
Well, glad to see Dakka try to take on something that no-one has well.
Having a "rational" discussion on religion.
It is like trying to rationalize your feelings.
Symbolism is heavy in most beliefs and looking at "communion" in a literal way is like reading poetry at the face meaning of the words.
All groups have something to give and at least respect.
Buddhism looks at trying not to become too attached to physical items. The exorcise of making beautiful murals of colored sand and then sweeping it away is a hard lesson: it is reason enough to make something of beauty.
The Koran speaks of "A Muslim is prohibited to judge people and their intentions but can judge acts and deeds. Only God Almighty knows the intentions of every person and his/her final destination in the Hereafter. ". Yes there are some extremists (like in any group) but this is a great element.
Sikh: #1 belief: all human races are equal. Sexes are equal in status. Period.
There are many more good examples.
I prefer science as my primary religion with the backing of a more sympathetic God with a sense of humor.
I feel faith in a higher power is very comforting but it should not alleviate your responsibility for being accountable for your actions.
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/14 18:00:14
Post by: Cheesecat
But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.
38250
Religion @ 2013/08/14 19:09:07
Post by: poda_t
 Talizvar wrote:
I prefer science as my primary religion with the backing of a more sympathetic God with a sense of humor.
that doesn't work. Science is not a religion, science is an approach to exploring, interpreting, understanding, exploiting and explaining the natural universe. Science may lead to spiritual experiences, like the wonder of realizing that in the grand scheme of things you are tiny speck and meaningless, yet somehow a part of the greater cosmos since your makeup is identical to that of the universe....... but science is in and of itself not a religion. Any attempt to include science in a religious paradigm is ridiculous. The very nature of science demands you leave your faith or lack thereof at the door! Science has nothing whatsoever at all to do with religion or questions of faith.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 19:38:28
Post by: d-usa
That's the problem with a lot of these threads.
If everybody plays nice we get people who disagree asking "what do you believe" and "why do you believe that", and those are the good threads.
It's the "what do you believe" followed by "well, this is why you are wrong" and "this is why that is stupid" threads that derail.
I think this thread has somewhat recovered though.
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 19:57:02
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Wait did you think it's my job to convert you or otherwise prove my beliefs to you? No, not interested.
I don't think it's your "job". I do think that Jesus tells Christians to try as hard as they can to convert everyone who's not one of his followers into being one of his followers though.
But that's besides the point. I'm asking a valid theological question : According to Catholic theology, did Neanderthals go to Hell?
And what about the Neanderthal-Human hybrids?
Did they have souls?
What about the Neanderthal-Human hybrids that are alive today? Do they have souls?
If you have a question about what Catholics believe and can manage to ask it while following Rule Number One
Interesting, I feel I'm being more polite than you are. I'm not reciprocating your calumnies, for one thing.
I'll be happy to answer. But I have no interest in trying to convince you that you should also believe what I believe.
I'm right about that thing where Jesus commands anyone who follows him to try and convert others into following him, aren't I?
Anyways, back on transubstantiation, since you invite further polite discourse (I forgive you for your outburst of insults, by the way - I understand that you misinterpreted my ignorance as being trolling, and responded with nasty comments from a position of misunderstanding), there are essentially two versions of that "miracle" that have been discussed in this thread, one being the version I thought Catholics believed in, the other being the version they do believe in:
Version A - Each week, millions of chunks of bread turn into chunks of meat, specifically the flesh of Jesus the Nazarene, as part of a mystic ceremony performed by Catholic Priests.
Version B - Each week, the flesh of Jesus the Nazarene manifests itself in in millions of different pieces of bread. The bread remains physically and chemically identical to the way it was before the miracle, but it is nevertheless (once swallowed) the literal physical embodiment of the iron age man-god Jesus' flesh.
Originally, I thought Catholics believed in #A. Now, after some wrangling, I understand that Catholics believe in #B.
Please understand, neither of these sounds particularly more or less likely to me than the other. They both sound equally unlikely.
The only difference to my mind is that #A could be proven by the application of science, whilst #B can never be tested for.
Plenty of religions have claims that are equally "silly" to an outside observer as either #A or #B.
The Qur'an says that the sun (perhaps only sometimes) sets in the evening in a pool of mud at the bottom of a well - are Muslims who believe that "stupid"?
=====
As an aside, I have a particular interest in the Eucharist because I was raised in a Jewish household.
Most of the Eucharist comes straight out of a standard Jewish Friday night / Sabbath dinner meal - the bread, the wine, the ceremonial consumption & prayer in praise of god, it's all there.
It's interesting to see how the Jewish ceremony evolved into something else at the hands of a fulcrum figure, just as I see bits of Judaism in Islam too.
One of the main things that drove me to existentialism was looking at how religion had evolved. IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.
======
I have been officially warned via PM for making impolite posts by Manchu, in his capacity as a moderator.
.
He has ordered me to, amongst other things : "...you are required to make every effort to go above and beyond, and ensure that your posts, pictures, etc, are perhaps even a bit overly polite,"
I shall certainly make no posts containing exploding irony meters as my sole response to Manchu's considered words, calling Manchu's opinions stupid, etc.
.
.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:10:27
Post by: Manchu
I am under no religious obligation to be trolled on the internet. You are under an obligation according to the terms you agreed to by creating an account on this site to be polite, which includes not trolling other users, and to abide by moderation.
I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell. In advance of your punchline, I can tell you that my understanding is that human persons have souls. If a Neanderthal can be considered a human person then it stands to reason that a Neanderthal also has a soul.
Whether you personally find transubstantiation convincing is not relevant to the question of what Catholics believe. Also, I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply. The claims at stake, at least as far as the Eucharist goes, are not materialist. I understand that you initially thought they were; but now it seems you understand that it's not the case.
Yes, the Eucharist is straight out of Jewish tradition -- its prototypical occurrence was at least modeled on the Passover Seder.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:22:10
Post by: Evil & Chaos
I am under no religious obligation to be trolled on the internet.
Could you abide by rule #1 and stop calling me a troll, perhaps?
I think you'd find our chat much more fun if you did.
I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.
Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.
Catholic dogma is that one must believe in Jesus to enter Heaven, no?
I mean, I know the Pope announced that even Atheists can get into Heaven a few months ago, but he walked that back a few days later saying that he misspoke, and what he meant to say was that even Atheists can get into Heaven, just so long as they renounce Atheism and accept Jesus as their savior.
In advance of your punchline, I can tell you that my understanding is that human persons have souls. If a Neanderthal can be considered a human person than it stands to reason that a neanderthal also has a soul.
How about Homo Rhodesiensis? Late H.R.'s will have interbred with early H.S.'s.
Homo Heidelbergensis?
Where is the line drawn?
, I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply.
The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.
Would you like to change your opinion?
it's prototypical occurrence was at least modeled on the Passover Seder.
Definitely, Jesus is supposed to have died around that time of year so it totally makes sense.
There's even sacrificial (lamb's) meat at the passover ceremony, it's really interesting how it all got "remixed".
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:24:15
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.
On the other hand, if religion is understood to be the means by which humans access the divine, and given that humans change constantly and over the course of time by significant degrees, then religion, too, would change as a reflection of human change. Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, I am not insulting you -- I am giving you a public warning. It is your last one.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:29:04
Post by: d-usa
If you have issues with moderation then hit the triangle or PM another MOD or admin.
Considering that many OT and Jewish rituals were considered foreshadowing of the Messiah it's really not that surprising that things in the Jewish faith are represented in Jesus and his actions. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews. It's not really surprising that they did Jewish things and followed Jewish traditions and customs.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:30:48
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.
Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.
There is the idea,which I have alluded to here, of invincible ignorance. It was invented by theologians to account for the destiny of people who have no opportunity to believe. Traditionally, this refers to people who lived before the time of Jesus death, life, and resurrection or people who lived afterward but never heard the Gospel. It was taken up by rhetoricians to describe a fallacy where someone simply refuses to believe the argument. I would argue that the older concept, given the circumstances of modern culture, should be expanded to include the newer one. But in any case, the Neanderthals -- like any being -- cannot be morally condemned based on something beyond their own control. Automatically Appended Next Post: Evil & Chaos wrote:The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.
Would you like to change your opinion?
Are you now asking whether I think Aztec human sacrifice is morally equivalent to the Eucharist?
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:34:55
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.
On the other hand, if religion is understood to be the means by which humans access the divine, and given that humans change constantly and over the course of time by significant degrees, then religion, too, would change as a reflection of human change.
If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?
If you don't drag your unruly children to the edge of town and stone them when they disobey you because you recognize that's awful behavior, how can you say that some of the other "divine" commandments are still valid? Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:If you have issues with moderation then hit the triangle or PM another MOD or admin.
Oh I think we're getting along much better now.
Considering that many OT and Jewish rituals were considered foreshadowing of the Messiah it's really not that surprising that things in the Jewish faith are represented in Jesus and his actions. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews. It's not really surprising that they did Jewish things and followed Jewish traditions and customs.
Aye, not surprising at all. You see the same thing in Islam, as I noted this obvious evolutionary relationship between religions and within schismatic religions like Christianity is what killed my faith as a child.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:40:59
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?
This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law. For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:41:34
Post by: Cheesecat
d-usa wrote:As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:44:04
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.
Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.
There is the idea,which I have alluded to here, of invincible ignorance. It was invented by theologians to account for the destiny of people who have no opportunity to believe.
The key point there being "invented"?
I guess this is where we get the "angels dancing on a pin head" thing, theologians inventing theories to fill gaps, and those theories are all subject to change.
For 1900 years the Jews (and their descendants to the last generation) are all guilty of the murder of Jesus as a matter of Church dogma, and then in 1967 the Pope says "Sorry, the Jews aren't guilty of killing Jesus after all. Definitely not the ones alive today at any rate!".
Evil & Chaos wrote:The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.
Would you like to change your opinion?
Are you now asking whether I think Aztec human sacrifice is morally equivalent to the Eucharist?
Morally equivalent? No.
But you said " I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply."
Any Aspect Of Religious Belief.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:45:12
Post by: d-usa
Edit: lots of posts showed up, I need to catch up.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:46:19
Post by: Manchu
Yes, understanding is the invention of reason. Automatically Appended Next Post: Evil & Chaos wrote:But you said " I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply."
Any Aspect Of Religious Belief.
I concede the point insofar as there is no important distinction in what the Aztecs believed as a matter of religion and what they practiced as a matter of, for example, politics. I can only provisionally concede because I don't know enough about them to do otherwise. I would not, however, say that the Albigensian Crusade, for example, accurately reflects the Gospel despite being perpetrated by Christians for explicitly religious reasons.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:50:27
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?
This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law.
For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.
So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?
It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?
And they base that opinion on the Old Testament book of Leviticus, where it says gay people are abominations in the eyes of God, no?
The current Pope called gay rights "spawned by the prince of lies", after all.
It does seem like the Church is telling people they know how God wants people to behave, based on the words in the Bible.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:50:49
Post by: d-usa
Cheesecat wrote: d-usa wrote:As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.
True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:51:31
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:Edit: lots of posts showed up, I need to catch up.
yeah, I didn't even get to comment on the science vs. god thing yet!
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:53:10
Post by: d-usa
Evil & Chaos wrote: Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?
This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law.
For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.
So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?
It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?
And they base that opinion on the Old Testament book of Leviticus, where it says gay people are abominations in the eyes of God, no?
The current Pope called gay rights "spawned by the prince of lies", after all.
It does seem like the Church is telling people they know how God wants people to behave, based on the words in the Bible.
There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:55:18
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote: Cheesecat wrote: d-usa wrote:As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.
True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.
I like the Neil deGrasse Tyson view of it : Science is not the enemy of god, it is the enemy of ignorance.
As long as religions aren't preaching obviously daft, ignorant things, then there's no reason they can't coexist - and due to the ( IMO probably carefully constructed) unfalsifiable nature of most religious claims, they'll probably keep coexisting for a long long time.
But if a religion preaches something science says is wrong, like creationism for example, then the religion should be the one to bend the knee, and science the master.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:55:32
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?
Right. Simply reading the Bible does not convey any moral authority on anyone. That's actually a very Catholic point. Evil & Chaos wrote:It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?
No, opposition to homosexuality is not a plank of Catholic faith. I wouldn't even say Catholics hold that people shouldn't be gay. I think it's more that people who are gay should avoid gay sex acts because it's a kind of fornication. Although any sex act between non-married persons is considered to be fornication so ... gay Catholics should, like the rest of us, simply avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation as their conscience requires.
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:59:07
Post by: Cheesecat
d-usa wrote: Cheesecat wrote: d-usa wrote:As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.
True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.
Yeah unless it can create observable and reproducible results science has no opinion on religion, although it may have certain opinions on some aspects of religion like the scientific community rejects the idea that the earth was about 4000 years old based on many forms of evidence such
as radio-carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, fossils, geological records, etc.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 20:59:32
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.
I agree, and didn't (I don't think) imply that the Catholic Church actively tries to prevent people being gay (it has recently campaigned against gay rights issues such as equal marriage, but it has not (recently) campaigned to have being gay made illegal, as far as I know).
It does however, say to gay people: "you should not be gay".
My question is by what authority does the Church get to say that, if as Manchu says all religious laws are mutable and subject to evolution.
How can it hold up one law from Leviticus (don't be gay) as still valid, yet say another law from Leviticus (don't eat shellfish) is no longer valid?
Very relevant article I read recently: http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108
In a nutshell, the Church used to carry out gay marriages in the era of the Roman Empire.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:08:02
Post by: d-usa
Cheesecat wrote: d-usa wrote: Cheesecat wrote: d-usa wrote:As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.
I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.
True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.
Yeah unless it can create observable and reproducible results science has no opinion on religion, although it may have certain opinions on some aspects of religion like the scientific community rejects the idea that the earth was about 4000 years old based on many forms of evidence such
as radio-carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, fossils, geological records, etc.
I never understood how "age of earth" has any theological relevance. That is something that has always confused me about young earth creationists. To me, the Bible is the guidebook for our relationship with God. It's not an explanation for everything that ever happened or how it happened.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:08:35
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:In a nutshell, the Church used to carry out gay marriages in the era of the Roman Empire.
That requires some very heavy qualification. For example, according to the link you posted: Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
That last bit is why this guy's work (or at least how it has been popularly deployed) is criticized as wishful thinking; there is some pretty intense desire to sublimate onto the past the values and politcal agenda of today. To be fair, I think this is also silly when bishops do it: claiming there has never been a such thing as gay marriage as advocated today is ... true but kind of silly. It's not like the current conception of heterosexual marriage has been around for thousands of years, either.
28228
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:13:29
Post by: Cheesecat
d-usa wrote:I never understood how "age of earth" has any theological relevance. That is something that has always confused me about young earth creationists. To me, the Bible is the guidebook for our relationship with God. It's not an explanation for everything that ever happened or how it happened.
Fair enough, I don't know much about the bible but I assume that's an appropriate way to interpret the book.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:16:17
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:In a nutshell, the Church used to carry out gay marriages in the era of the Roman Empire.
That requires some very heavy qualification. For example, according to the link you posted: Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
That last bit is why this guy's work (or at least how it has been popularly deployed) is criticized as wishful thinking; there is some pretty intense desire to sublimate onto the past the values and politcal agenda of today.
I agree. But I also think it's persuasive evidence that a defence on marriage being based on tradition is an invalid one, as you note itself. That's the main power of the evidence.
To be fair, I think this is also silly when bishops do it: claiming there has never been a such thing as gay marriage as advocated today is ... true but kind of silly. It's not like the current conception of heterosexual marriage has been around for thousands of years, either.
Marriage isn't even an exclusively religious concept. It is most often an instrument of the state used to regulate property inheritance, civic responsibility, and taxation.
And if what you want is Biblical marriage, then you cannot object to polygamy, which is specifically permitted in the Bible.
There are a few Biblical examples of incest being regarded as the right thing to do, too.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:19:15
Post by: d-usa
Evil & Chaos wrote: d-usa wrote:There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.
I agree, and didn't (I don't think) imply that the Catholic Church actively tries to prevent people being gay (albeit it has campaigned against gay rights issues such as equal marriage).
It does however, say to gay people: "you should not be gay".
My question is by what authority does the Church get to say that, if as Manchu says all religious laws are mutable and subject to evolution.
It can say "it's a sin", just as it says "sex before marriage is a sin" and "murder is a sin".
Sin only affects your personal status with God, and saying something is a sin is not the same as forcing people to stop sinning.
Christianity (using the big umbrella term, although maybe Protestant Christianity would be better here since I am not familiar with Catholic nuances in that regard) should not be that focused on making you stop doing certain things. If we could just "not sin" then we wouldn't have a need for divine grace. The focus is not "stop sinning", it's "we all sin".
The other point, the whole "out understanding evolves" thing, is that we simply cannot understand our relationship with God the way God understands it. But just because our understanding evolves does not mean that the relationship ever actually changed. Trying to understand the way God thinks and acts based on our thinking and actions projects our own fallacies and shortcomings on God.
I understand that "we can never fully understand/know/comprehend" will likely seem like a convienent way out of taking any responsibility for changing theology though.
I also want to reinforce that I and Manchu speak from different theological perspectives and background here, so I don't mean to answer for him. Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: also typing on a phone, so my responses take a while and when I do post the discussion has sometimes moved on to other points...
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:22:48
Post by: Manchu
d-usa wrote:I never understood how "age of earth" has any theological relevance. That is something that has always confused me about young earth creationists. To me, the Bible is the guidebook for our relationship with God. It's not an explanation for everything that ever happened or how it happened.
Although it seems counterintuitive, what we call religious fundamentalism these days is actually a product of the Enlightenment along with modern science. They are both based on the modernist conceit that truth is available to the human mind in a literal and absolute mode. Where fundamentalism took its "wrong turn" in contrast with science is choosing a merely textual rather than strictly materialist appeal to authority. As a matter of utility, religious fundamentalism therefore cannot compete with science. Even so, their common ancestry is apparent as a matter of practice (considering that both give rise to absolutist claims) and in their ongoing and intense ideological competition.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:24:58
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:I never understood how "age of earth" has any theological relevance. That is something that has always confused me about young earth creationists. To me, the Bible is the guidebook for our relationship with God. It's not an explanation for everything that ever happened or how it happened.
Here's the thing: Creationists are simply taking what's written in their holy book, and actually taking it seriously.
The Bible does say the world is about 6000 years old (you can add it up by taking a few known historical dates, and then adding up the ages of all the people listed as being born and dying in a direct lineage back to Adam and Eve from that point).
Modernisers say it's okay to take the Bible figuratively and not literally, that the Bible is a guidebook for how to live your life.
The problem with that approach is that the Bible is essentially a distorted history of quite a number of savage wars, and vicious tribal life in bronze age palestine. Lots of genocides and slave-taking goes on in between the pages where god turns up and performs some miracles, then disappears for another twenty pages.
So modernisers say it's okay to ignore some rules (don't eat shellfish, don't wear clothing made out of two different kinds of cloth) because they're nonsense rules, but that other rules (god doesn't look kindly on gay people being gay) still count, or that some of the rules like "don't go to work on a saturday" can be changed to "don't go to work on a sunday" and god will still be happy with you.
I approve of the modernisers, because it's taken the edges off of Christianity and Judaism and it's starting to do the same for Islam in some regards, but I also think that they face a paradoxical challenge in trying to make their books & creeds fit a world increasingly at odds with the exhortations to savage conquest that their texts undeniably contain.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:27:42
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:I agree. But I also think it's persuasive evidence that a defence on marriage being based on tradition is an invalid one, as you note itself. That's the main power of the evidence.
The distinction is a matter not only of tradition, as in finding any old example from the past and claiming it supports what you want to do today, but more specifically of unbroken tradition. There is no point in the history of Western Civilization where the union of man of woman in marriage was not practiced and universally endorsed. Even texts that purport the superiority of celibate lives of religious devotion do not proscribe what has come down to us today as heterosexual marriage. This cannot be said for what we today call homosexual marriage in the political arena. This is entirely a matter of sudden invention rather than sustained development.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:28:05
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote: d-usa wrote:There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.
I agree, and didn't (I don't think) imply that the Catholic Church actively tries to prevent people being gay (albeit it has campaigned against gay rights issues such as equal marriage).
It does however, say to gay people: "you should not be gay".
My question is by what authority does the Church get to say that, if as Manchu says all religious laws are mutable and subject to evolution.
It can say "it's a sin", just as it says "sex before marriage is a sin" and "murder is a sin".
But why can the Church take one rule from the book of Leviticus (don't eat shellfish) and say it's old hat, and take another rule from the same Old Testament book (don't be gay) and say that rule is still in effect?
How is this behavior intellectually cohesive?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:29:09
Post by: Manchu
d-usa wrote:I also want to reinforce that I and Manchu speak from different theological perspectives and background here, so I don't mean to answer for him.
I don't see any major problems there, from my understanding of Catholic theology. Automatically Appended Next Post: Evil & Chaos wrote:they face a paradoxical challenge in trying to make their books & creeds fit a world increasingly at odds with the exhortations to savage conquest that their texts undeniably contain
It is certain that no age known to historians has been so savage as this one, the one that followed the Enlightenment.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:31:26
Post by: d-usa
Both rules, and their application to non-Jews, are found in the New Testament. So Leviticus, which is a set of laws given to the Jews under the old covenant, is not really a factor here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Bible also doesn't say "the Earth is 6000 years old", some people just interpret it that way.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:34:25
Post by: Manchu
And even if it did, so what. I mean it says Samson beat a huge army with nothing but the jawbone of a donkey. I don't believe that literally happened.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:34:57
Post by: d-usa
@Manchu: I just would be surprised if theological differences show up as we go deeper into discussions, so I just wanted to throw up a general disclaimer that there might be differences in interpretations both on a denominational level and based on personal understanding.
And just to be polite and to avoid looking like I am trying to answer for you.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:36:09
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:I agree. But I also think it's persuasive evidence that a defence on marriage being based on tradition is an invalid one, as you note itself. That's the main power of the evidence.
The distinction is a matter not only of tradition, as in finding any old example from the past and claiming it supports what you want to do today, but more specifically of unbroken tradition. There is no point in the history of Western Civilization where the union of man of woman in marriage was not practiced and universally endorsed. Even texts that purport the superiority of celibate lives of religious devotion do not proscribe what has come down to us today as heterosexual marriage. This cannot be said for what we today call homosexual marriage in the political arena. This is entirely a matter of sudden invention rather than sustained development.
Not to concede your point (I suspect gay people have wanted marriage for a lot longer than they've felt safe enough to vocalise their desire for it), but lots of things have been invented, or recovered from the past after many years of suppression, only to be accepted by the Church as moral after a volt-face.
For 1800 years the Church was pro-slavery, because the Bible has specific rules and regulations on how to take, keep, and treat your human slaves (you can beat them, just so long as they don't die within a couple of days of the beating, apparently)... and then the Church changed its mind, when the invention of "all men are created equal" came along.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:they face a paradoxical challenge in trying to make their books & creeds fit a world increasingly at odds with the exhortations to savage conquest that their texts undeniably contain
It is certain that no age known to historians has been so savage as this one, the one that followed the Enlightenment.
Every age thinks it has it the worst.
If you look at what percentage of the world's population is currently suffering war, poverty, disease, famine, etc. this is the most peaceful time of known history.
TV makes strife seem immediate and ever-present, but actually more people than ever before are living in peace, and living in a comparative luxury that their antecedents would have been stunned by.
Yeah, we've got nukes. And Hitler.
But we don't have the Black Death killing half of western Europe. Or the Mongols killing a 25% of Europe. Things are, depressingly, better than they used to be. These are the good times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Both rules, and their application to non-Jews, are found in the New Testament. So Leviticus, which is a set of laws given to the Jews under the old covenant, is not really a factor here.
Jesus says nothing about gay people. The anti-gay rules are in the Old Testament, and it's those rules that the Church uses to justify its "don't be gay" opinion.
Likewise the Ten Commandments, Jesus references a few of them, but skips half of them. If you want the full list, they're only found in the OT.
The Bible also doesn't say "the Earth is 6000 years old", some people just interpret it that way.
It does say it, you just add the ages of the people in it up (the Bible is pretty good on who begat whom and when).
It's just some people interpret that the Bible is telling a metaphorical story about how God hates it when people don't pay attention to his rules, when he drowns everyone on earth (including lots of unborn babies, presumably) except for Noah and his family. And some animals on Noah's boat.
People used to believe that story literally, back in the bronze age, and the iron age, but now reformists see it as a metaphor, because ... science ensured that the story had to become a metaphor, or else God's veracity would be challenged...?
Even Adam and Eve is a metaphor now. If the endless, slow retreat carries on, then one day, God himself will end up a metaphor.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:48:34
Post by: Manchu
As to the slavery example, it's a bit more complicated: scholars have demonstrated the novel cruelties of the Transatlantic slave trade in contrast to ancient slaveholding. Without arguing that slavery has ever been morally right (it doesn't really matter what I think in any case, for the sake of this conversation), I will point out that it's rather misleading to talk of slavery as an undifferentiated phenomenon. Also, the egalitarian elements of Christianity are what informed the Enlightenment; not (at least principally) the other way around. Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't think you're in a position to tell us how people thought about the concept of truth or history in the Bronze Age.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:56:02
Post by: Evil & Chaos
As to the slavery example, it's a bit more complicated
I agree it's much more complicated than can possibly be related in a few paragraphs. But the broad strokes are correct - the Church was in favour of slavery for 1800 years because the Bible said slavery was permitted (even explicitly encouraged), and then once it became socially unacceptable as a consequence of social (and dogmatic - I'll grant symbiosis even if some Atheists would claim secular morality rather than faith as the leading force here) evolution, it did a 180 on the subject, and decided that those particular rules in the Old Testament weren't applicable to Christians anymore.
I don't think you're in a position to tell us how people thought about the concept of truth or history in the Bronze Age.
As a former student of Judaism and Jewish history, I'm not in the worst position to make educated statements of informed opinion. If you like, I'll add "it's rather obvious that..." to the start of the sentence in question.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:57:19
Post by: d-usa
- Food laws and sexual sins are mentioned in the NT.
- Adding ages together does nothing to prove that the Bible days the earth is 6000 years old, since Genesis acknowledges the earth (and other people) existed before the creation account of Adam and Eve.
Why are you using your personal interpretation of a book you claim is not true to prove your points?
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 21:58:23
Post by: Manchu
Sure, you can make a lot of points if you stroke broadly enough. For example: science is responsible for the most catastrophic instances of mass murder in human history. I mean, it's totally misleading, it's a purely ideological statement, but as a matter of broad strokes ...
It's not obvious that Bronze Age people had the same concept of literal truth as you and I. If anything, it is obvious that they did not. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:- Food laws and sexual sins are mentioned in the NT.
They are mentioned as in Gentiles not needing to follow them.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:02:01
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:Why are you using your personal interpretation of a book you claim is not true to prove your points?
My point is that interpretations change.
First slavery was ok for 1800 years, and the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus for 1967 years, and then slavery was evil and the Jews aren't all responsible for killing Jesus.
What you claim today as a ridiculous, stupid, interpretation, was often considered the rational interpretation not just in the bronze age, but in (relatively) recent times by the majority of theologians.
... and one day, the Church will probably be ok with performing gay marriages. The Pope will wonder if the Popes of the 21st century were mad.
It might take a thousand years (assuming it lasts that long), but the Christian religion is quite clearly a mutable thing.
16387
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:03:43
Post by: Manchu
Evil & Chaos wrote:It might take a thousand years (assuming it lasts that long), but the Christian religion is quite clearly a mutable thing.
Yep, I am 100% in agreement with you there.
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:04:19
Post by: Evil & Chaos
Sure, you can make a lot of points if you stroke broadly enough. For example: science is responsible for the most catastrophic instances of mass murder in human history. I mean, it's totally misleading, it's a purely ideological statement, but as a matter of broad strokes ...
I think my strokes, though rough, are narrower than yours.
The Church was specifically in favour of the African slave trade, and based that support on bible passages in the Old Testament, and then later it changed its mind. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Evil & Chaos wrote:It might take a thousand years (assuming it lasts that long), but the Christian religion is quite clearly a mutable thing.
Yep, I am 100% in agreement with you there.
Oh wait, can I re-type that?
I'd like "all religions are clearly mutable things". Not a single one of them stays where you left it then year before.
Always evolving despite static eternal commandments, funny things. Even the mormons don't think black people are all innately evil anymore. Spoilsports.
38250
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:05:57
Post by: poda_t
uh, christianity might be mutable, but its subsects are not.
I'm fairly certain that catholicism may turn a blind eye to homosexual union, but more than likely will not conduct ceremonies of homosexual unions. This new pope dude has done alot, but remember, he's still a catholic. Just like how jesus went and did alot (if he even existed) he was still a jew (and a close and careful reading indicates that he was a hard-line fundamentalist, which explains why the cosmopolitan/urban jews would have wanted him disposed of....)
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:15:56
Post by: d-usa
I am also fairly certain that there were denominations/churches/Christians that opposed slavery/[insert othe social issue] during the times that you say [the church] supported these things.
9407
Religion @ 2013/08/14 22:22:04
Post by: Lint
d-usa wrote:- Food laws and sexual sins are mentioned in the NT.
Ninja'd by Manchu
since Genesis acknowledges the earth (and other people) existed before the creation account of Adam and Eve.
Care to elaborate this point? I don't recall where in Genesis it claims anything other than Adam and Eve being the first people.
Why are you using your personal interpretation of a book you claim is not true to prove your points?
I had to laugh at this. It's something I've said many times to pastors, professors, and students of the christian faith. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:I am also fairly certain that there were denominations/churches/Christians that opposed slavery/[insert othe social issue] during the times that you say [the church] supported these things.
So which one has got it right? Paul spent a lot of time going around establishing "THE Church" how are we now supposed to figure out who's doing it correctly?
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/14 23:00:08
Post by: d-usa
At a computer this time, so I can multi-quote
 Lint wrote:d-usa wrote:- Food laws and sexual sins are mentioned in the NT.
Ninja'd by Manchu
My main point is that the majority of sources that claim that homosexuality is a sin use the NT as the source for that argument. So saying [ OT source says gay = sin, but it also says x = sin, so you are wrong] is not a good counter to that since OT was not the source to begin with. Now if you want to use NT sources as a counter, such as the very open discussion between the early church leaders in the NT about how much OT law applies to Gentiles, then that is a more valid course of argument in my mind.
since Genesis acknowledges the earth (and other people) existed before the creation account of Adam and Eve.
Care to elaborate this point? I don't recall where in Genesis it claims anything other than Adam and Eve being the first people.
This is definitely going more into personal interpretations in my mind.
One part is that even if we use A&E as the start point of all humanity, it doesn't set the age of the earth unless we also take "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc" as actual days. We don't know how long everything has been around before we got to "makes Adam...".
The other part is where I probably go more into a personal interpretation (and keep in mind that I don't think it is a literal "on Day 5 of the earths existence this happened..."):
Genesis 1 talks about all creation, God made everything and it finishes with the creation of man:
Genesis 1 wrote:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day
No mention of Adam and Eve, no mention of any rules, mankind was able to do everything they wanted. Earth, beasts, men are all roaming all of the earth.
Then we go to Genesis 2:
That chapter starts with an affirmation that all of creation is in fact, done:
Genesis 2 wrote:Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
At this point the narative changes from "creation of all the world" to "creation of the Garden of Eden as well as A&E".
Genesis 2 wrote: 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Note that the creation order changes. In Genesis 1 God created everything, then man. In the garden God creates man, then shows him that he created everything. Also note that in contrast to Genesis 1 (eat whatever you want) there is now a rule in Genesis 2 (don't eat that one tree).
So, in my opinion (and I realize it is just that) God created everything over an indeterminate amount of time including humanity (Genesis 1). At some point God created the Garden of Eden and showed himself to Adam there and established an actual two-way relationship with humanity. The Garden of Eden and A&E were not the first things created. Adam and Eve were the first humans that God revealed himself to and had a relationship with.
This also explains the whole "who did their kids marry when they left the garden" question.
Again, I'm not claiming this to be 100% fact, this is just my interpretation of Genesis 1&2 and how there is no way for us to tell how much time passed between the individual "days" in the creation account or between creating humans and creating "A&E" and then starting to count generations from that point.
Why are you using your personal interpretation of a book you claim is not true to prove your points?
I had to laugh at this. It's something I've said many times to pastors, professors, and students of the christian faith.
I do think it's fair for people who believe the book is true to use it as a source.
But I think it's dumb for people to go "this book is completely wrong. And you are wrong because the book (that I believe is wrong) says you are wrong so that makes me right".
If you think the Bible is wrong, then attack the validity of the Bible. Don't use a source you think is invalid to make your points.
But that's just me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:I am also fairly certain that there were denominations/churches/Christians that opposed slavery/[insert othe social issue] during the times that you say [the church] supported these things.
So which one has got it right? Paul spent a lot of time going around establishing "THE Church" how are we now supposed to figure out who's doing it correctly?
If you realize that the Church is just a community of believers, and not an authoritative body of laws ans rules, then it doesn't matter.
Faith is what justifies us, not rules and regulations. And Faith comes from my relationship with God, not my membership card to "X Church of Y"
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/15 08:42:52
Post by: Evil & Chaos
If you think the Bible is wrong, then attack the validity of the Bible. Don't use a source you think is invalid to make your points.
I've been trying to do something a bit more intelligent than that.
Attacking the bible head-on is easy, and you just get answered with some variation of:
A - We don't pay attention to that monstrously immoral bit of the bible any more.
B - *I* don't interpret it that way.
C - You have to look at that monstrously immoral thing in context.
D - God did it / commanded it / said it, therefore it's moral.
You can excuse every kind of immoral exhortation, lesson, or historical event just by saying "God told us to do it / God says that's what people should do to be good in his eyes"... or at least you can excuse them in the mind of a believer. So I don't see why we should be discussing (absent of context) how the exhortations to genocide or slave-taking or wife-beating in the bible are evil, because the believers will just deploy one of the defences I listed above and believe they have fully refuted the charge.
That's why discussing specific actions of the Church(es) or groups of believers in the past and in the present is more useful - you get a context where those theologies as applied to real life have caused great suffering ("Mother Teresa"'s awful hospital mortuaries where suffering was regarded as a blessing and palliative care intentionally withheld from the dying, for example), or many deaths (Catholic teachings vs. AIDS, for example, or Muslim opposition to the polio vaccine which alone has prevented its eradication thereby causing much suffering and death).
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/15 08:50:09
Post by: d-usa
A - I pay attention to it
B- It is a personal relationship, and it does require personal interpretation. You don't interpret it a certain way, and base your opinions about it on how you interpret it?
C - You always have to look at everythin in context. Every action by anybody.
D - You judge God by human standards, God judges us by His.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/15 09:06:36
Post by: SilverMK2
d-usa wrote:D - You judge God by human standards, God judges us by His.
And yet the fundamental point remains - show me any proof what so ever that god exists or is required to exist.
Manchu - my wife made me do things around the house last night so I did not get a chance to look up UK law regards cannibalism - going out tonight and Friday, so not sure when I will get the chance to answer you back.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/15 09:07:58
Post by: d-usa
SilverMK2 wrote: d-usa wrote:D - You judge God by human standards, God judges us by His.
And yet the fundamental point remains - show me any proof what so ever that god exists or is required to exist.
Why? Are we done talking about "tell me what you believe" ?
20610
Religion @ 2013/08/15 09:22:29
Post by: Evil & Chaos
d-usa wrote:A - I pay attention to it
B- It is a personal relationship, and it does require personal interpretation. You don't interpret it a certain way, and base your opinions about it on how you interpret it?
C - You always have to look at everythin in context. Every action by anybody.
D - You judge God by human standards, God judges us by His.
A - You drag your children to the edge of town and stone them to death when they're unruly? You beat your wife if she annoys you? You never eat shellfish? You hate gay people? You kill witches on sight?
B - There's no moral way to interpret "gay people are evil" or "if a girl is not a virgin on her wedding night, kill her". Those are evil commandments. Hell even the Ten Commandments lumping in your male neighbour's wife with your male neighbour's property, animals, and slaves, is not a moral worldview (the Ten Commandments do not speak to women as God considers them just "baby factories" - like any other property).
C - There are some inalienable truths. Murdering babies is always bad, and if God commands you to murder babies (as he does, in Exodus), then God is evil.
D - Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God exists (and disprove all the other gods, too), then I'm going to regard your god as a human creation, and judge the effects of your human creation's influence on the world by human standards. When a woman beats her children to death because she says "God told me to do it", if she can't provide proof that God actually told her to do it, I'm going to regard her as mad, or evil, or both. I'm not going to grant her claim of being able to know God's will any more than I'm going to grant your claim of knowing God's will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: SilverMK2 wrote: d-usa wrote:D - You judge God by human standards, God judges us by His.
And yet the fundamental point remains - show me any proof what so ever that god exists or is required to exist.
Why?
Because otherwise you have no more proof of your claim of knowing (some of) what God wants than a woman who murders her own children on God's orders.
Are we done talking about "tell me what you believe" ?
You can ask questions of others, if you're intellectually curious.
37231
Religion @ 2013/08/15 09:30:25
Post by: d-usa
So we are done with "ask d-usa what he believes and why he believes it" and have entered the "demand that he prove why I should believe the same thing that he does and why his belief is the truth or make him admit that he is wrong" stage.
My interpretation of the Bible has absolutely zero effect on you, so I'm just confused as to why my belief is so important to you or why it upsets you.
17349
Religion @ 2013/08/15 09:35:17
Post by: SilverMK2
Well, if you are basing your world view on there being some being in charge of the universe who watches over us/judges us/etc, it would be nice to have some observable evidence to support this. Over the years as science has advanced our knowledge, the goalposts keep on moving to be "just outside what science can currently do", to the extent now that god exists now entirely outside the observable universe.
And I did not mean by my statement that you personally, or indeed anyone, should provide proof of gods existance, I meant more that the fundamental problem facing my, and many other people's acceptance of any religious argument rests upon the inability of anyone to provide any tangible evidence for, let alone proof of, gods existance.
I bring back my unicorn and space dust entity from earlier in this thread... it is not "your" job to disprove its existance, but "mine" to prove it.
Are we done talking about "tell me what you believe" ?
No - I am still interested in comparing and contrasting what people believe. Again, I did not mean to try and cut that line of conversation off.
|
|
