Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

2 nerds enter, one nerd leaves

man, more arguments should be solved with the thunder dome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LauaI21uFgY

Better.

Regardless of the death deal that most religions have special offers on, most have special life offers, namely to be good and do good yet, in most cases this is not the case as we can plainly see in our modern lives.

For me the point of religion is:

A: Give reassurance that there is something for you in death.

B:Give you a moral guidline to live by.

The funny thing is that regardless of the second point people insist on putting different perspectives on ther religion, like 'ya its ok to beat them up, they is bad' yet this just undermines the whole point of the religion.

I don't what I am trying to say, I guess we will never have 'heaven' on earth.

What would be good is an organised atheist 'religion' with the same goals to make the world a better place but with none of the bitter grudges that these moral high ground religions have yet act like none of it, none of it at all, is there doing.

A little more niceness in the world seems to be an unatainable thing.

@ AUR:

Sorry i havnt read through the 13 pages of replies, but i'll answer your original post
with my personal experience.

I spent my childhood around religion heavy environment before i immigrated to canada.
Death of grandparents , and other various reasons. Having seen lots of greedy people abusing
religious activities for personal benefits , i sort of stopped actively participating .

Do i believe in god? yes i do.
Do i work to do good deed so i can go to heaven? no

What i cant stand is looking at people fearing death praying to which ever religion they came across
in hope to gain salvation.

To me, religion is just a guidance. For lost to be guided , for the hopeless to gain hope .
I will be the best i can be for a human being , without wronging others. For my own sake.

If not being a christian / catholic / buddhist means i cannot go into their heaven despite me been the best
i can be, so be it. Thats not a heaven i would want to be in.

Wow I go away for a bit and look what happens, sphagetti monsters and now this. And I'm not sure if you are serious or just using sarcasm.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Why do Christians believe the devil is a god? And in the Same respects why are Satanists Christians? Now hear me out... before shutting me out. Christians believe in more then one God, father, son, Holy spirit, jesus... yea and they pray to saints and angels.... polytheistic under the guise of monotheism. ?
In the same regard if the devil is there to fight against god and we must struggle in order to resist his otherworldly control... doesn't this challenge the all powerfuls abilities in a way only a God/Godlike being can?

I'll post again some of what I posted many many pages ago concerning the basis of Christian doctrine, which the above quote shows a fundamental misunderstanding of orthodox Christian doctrine.

The trinity is a basic "fundamental" doctrine of orthodox Christianity, and in fact the denial of the trinity is one of the key indicators of a cult. I will paste a confession of faith from my particular denomination concerning the trinity.

"We Believe that there is one God eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. "

That doesn't mean that there are 3 seperate gods, it means exactly what the above quote says "one God". The modalism heresy you describe has been recirculating since the early Church. This is also why many muslims are resistant to the teachings of the Bible, because they have been falsley indoctrinated into believing that Christians worship 3 gods not the single Allmighty God. There are many references in the Bible that point to a "triune God". I'm not going to go into all the references here, but this is a handy link that appears to go over the highlights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity


As far as praying to saints and angels, I believe that Roman Catholics have a form of this, but as I'm not Catholic, I know very little about this practice. You should be a little more careful when you make a generic statement about Christians when not all Christians practice what, from your statement, could easily be interpreted as "all" Christians.
I for one know that the Bible states that their is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. I agree to disagree with Roman Catholics on this issue (as well as many others), but still consider them to be orthodox Christians.

Now satanists as Christians is where I wonder where your going. I don't know a lot about satanism, but from what little I have read they basically just practice rebellion. I don't know if they even really believe satan exists or even if God exists. I.E. they just practice satanism because to them it's a way to be controversial/rebellious.

So no.... they are not Christians, since they don't acknowedge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And just because you acknowedge the existance of Jesus Christ doesn't make you a Christian. I.E. it takes much more than just intellectual assent.


GG

You know what seems somewhat annoying about Christianity? all of those little sub-divisions (i.e. Protestants, Mormons, Lutherans etc.)

NO, they're NOT bad. They're perfectly fine. But do we have to start a whole new religion for a few differences in beliefs (I.E. belief in saints)

Ahtman wrote:The trick here is separating a peoples general religious make-up with cassus belli. Just being one or the other and being at war isn't enough to attribute to the religion. The United States didn't go to war with Japan in WWII because it was a Christian crusade anymore than Japan built the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere and bombed Pearl Harbor to make a point about Buddhism. It isn't any more fair to blame Christians then it is Buddhists for government machinations and responses.

Sort of. While religion has never been the sole reason for a war, there are certainly plenty of cases where religion fed into the culture that led to war. The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism. It would be crazy to say the post independence rioting that saw Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus in India at each other’s throats. The crusades were a mixed, and while motives of land grabs and opportunism were common, it’s very hard to say religion didn’t directly feed into the violence as well.

So while I think it isn’t fair to say religion leads to violence, nor is it really correct to say it never does. I think religion is a human thing, and it produces very human results. One of those results is violence, religion produces no more or less than our other endeavours.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Ehm...wow!
I mean, it's not like all atheists are saints (pun intended), but these quotes are really hardcore. I can understand that people like this actually scare people away from christianity.
But it's not like everyone who's not religious automatically is that much smarter. The quotes above are just some worst-case-scenarios.

Except they're not just extremists on the outskirts. They're politically powerful individuals, almost entirely tied in to the heart of the Republican party. I've been saying for a bit now how the Republican party had gone more than a little crazy and needed to spend some time in the outer to get itself back to reality. Well, yeah, it's folk like that that had tremendous power in the Republican party for the last 25 years. They need to be expunged.

It's also worth noting how terrible the religious argument were in those quotes, not just the politics. Just goes to show there are two benefits to the seperation of church and state. It not only protects politics from religion, it also protects religion from politics.

dogma wrote:I used to be an Atheist. But then a college buddy (knowing of our mutual Atheism) gave me a copy of the God Delusion with his emphatic endorsement. Since then I have never identified as an Atheist in any discussion of religion. When someone can write an entire book about how Atheism is superior to Theism, and simultaneously advocate the formation of specifically Atheistic organizations, you know that part of the puzzle got lost in the move.

Dawkins is a jerk. He is also quite poorly informed on religious studies. Yet more proof that someone can be very learned and inciteful in their chosen field (Dawkins is a terrific evolutionary biologist) but really terrible and obnoxious on something else.

And now, a tangential point. I find the phrase 'secular humanist' to be a contradiction. A humanist is a person who believes in humanity as a force for good. A secularist is a person who is without religion. If the secular humanist is to actually be secular he must accept all human activity as positive. If he doesn't, then he has created a set of beliefs about the supernatural (an ideal humanity) which contradicts his nature as a secularist.

That's not what humanism means. Humanism seeks for the basic dignity and rights of man, and attempts to argue for such based on reason alone. It isn't about believing in humanity as a force for good, doesn't require anyone to accept all human activity as positive.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, despite being an nominal atheist, I do like to believe in a very short afterlife.

Just five minutes after death, for all those self aggrandising, arrogant, swaggering, doom swearing extreme religious arseholes to figure out there is no God. There never was. There never will be. Ideally, I'd like a theory defying crowd of atheist souls to be there, just for five minutes, to point, laugh and say 'I told you so'.

Just five short minutes. That would make me laugh. To see the look of sheer and utter horror, just before oblivion hits, when they realise it was all a lie.

Dude... bitter much?

No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

And at the very least, it's an amusing foil for that gamble thingy!

The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

And at the very least, it's an amusing foil for that gamble thingy!

Maybe at one time I would have. I don't know, as much as I think the Westboro people are hateful jerks, I really don't care what happens to them when they're dead.

The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

sebster wrote:The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism.

Uhm, no. Most Japanese are not Zen Buddhists, but Pure Land Buddhist, and it played a far smaller role then them trying to emulate western colonial powers.

sebster wrote:So while I think it isn’t fair to say religion leads to violence, nor is it really correct to say it never does.

I agree. If you can show me where I say religion never leads to violence I would appreciate it. I said it shouldn't always be blamed as the cause for war (cassus belli). Now once war is started it can certainly be used as a tool.

sebster wrote:Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

sebster wrote:The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism.

You mean Shintoism right?

sebster wrote:Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

Except it isnt don't eat seafood it's don't eat anything from the sea without fins or scales. Old fish is just as bad as any other old 'meat'.

On a related note, how do Christians decide which bits of the Old Testament to follow? What makes 'gays are bad' more valid than 'don't eat pork'?

I understand there was much debate amongst early Christians over how Christ could be divine if there was only one god.

I like the Smiting parts of the Old Testament.

God Before Coffee: cranky-Old Testament

God after a nice refreshing French Roast and maybe some biscuits and gravy: we can all get along, Man!-New Testament.

sebster wrote:
That's not what humanism means. Humanism seeks for the basic dignity and rights of man, and attempts to argue for such based on reason alone. It isn't about believing in humanity as a force for good, doesn't require anyone to accept all human activity as positive.

You're right, that is a better definition. However, it still requires a discreet set if beliefs that are necessarily metaphysical. Dignity and rights are not 'natural kinds' that can be discovered or proven scientifically.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

Personally, I'd rather watch him promulgate his nonsense in this one. But then I get a kick out of being an argumentative ass, so ymmv.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

The answer of the faithful (some of them) would be that ambiguity exists as a test of faith. My answer would be that ambiguity exists in the majority of human existence. When clarity comes its generally because you decided to stop looking.

Deadshane1 wrote:

halonachos wrote:Pascal said just go to church, even if you don't believe you'll start to eventually. I think that's hilarious.

Like being brainwashed into a cult?

Yes, which is why I think that whole concept is funny.

But as it was said, new testament god is a nicer god. Thank god I believe in that god or I would be screwed.

But seriously, when it comes to religion, it is almost impossible to believe after not believing unless some sort of miracle happens. When something goes bad, most people ask god why it happened. Most never ever say "okay, this isn't gods work.". They always assume that god controls all life and death, but as I believe, it isn't always god. Humans were made, and have life spans dependent on genes and parts of genes called telomeres. The telomere slowly disintigrates and once its gone, you die.

I've had my share of bumps, middleschool saw; two grandmas die, 9/11, death of favorite aunt, 1 grandfather die, 2 homicides down the street. high school saw; a pregnant woman lose her child due to a low speed crash(was working at hospital for a bit), a crash involving a motorcyclist leaving his face on the asphalt, the death of a god-mother, and a general loss of my belief in humanity. I didn't lose my faith, but gained a great belief in dark humor.

Relgion helped a bit, but dark humor helped the most.

What ambiguity MDG? Sorry lots of posts to find that.

It also depends on the religion/sect. For example, Islam teaches that the Quran is the literal word of God. No ambiguity. So don't screw up!

Some sects say the the Bible is as well, word for word. Others that it is, but written by fallible Man, and includes such things as metaphor.

some word for word vs. metaphor conflicts in Bible
Six days creation
Fall of Jericho

We say that its written by a man, so chances are there are some typos or misquoting.

Some differences in religions include use of saints, iconography, and the translation of the bible.

Most people, in america at least, can tell a person is catholic if they have a cross in his/her car. Protestants and others almost never have crosses in their cars.

For example: Many believe that the commandments say thou shall not kill, when it says thou shall not murder. So you can kill in self defense if the other is trying to murder. Its basic survival instinct, I take the whole "turn the other cheek" thing for non lethal actions as do some other christians.

Frazzled wrote:Fall of Jericho

Your saying he isn't going to win at this years Wrestlemania?

que?

John Cena will be victorious.

Cryonicleech wrote:You know what seems somewhat annoying about Christianity? all of those little sub-divisions (i.e. Protestants, Mormons, Lutherans etc.)

NO, they're NOT bad. They're perfectly fine. But do we have to start a whole new religion for a few differences in beliefs (I.E. belief in saints)

Here we go again.....

Just to keep things short. Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity.

Denominationalism does not a "new" religion make. Any denomination that is not Roman Catholic (except eastern orthodox) is by definition protestant. So Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Most Penticostals, etc are protestant denominations, but are not a different religion.

But I do agree with you it is kind of annoying.

GG

halonachos wrote:We say that its written by a man, so chances are there are some typos or misquoting.

There is a common misconception that the Bible we have today is somehow drastically different than what they had during the Bible days. The dead sea scrolls, written around the time of Jesus, that were found in the 1940's matched almost exactly to the letter what we had that had been handed down for 1,000's of years.

C&P'd
"Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in)."

Again a good read I recomend is "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell.

These same statements keep popping up, so I have to keep jumping back in to counter them.

GG

Frazzled wrote:
It also depends on the religion/sect. For example, Islam teaches that the Quran is the literal word of God. No ambiguity. So don't screw up!

They also teach that it is fundamentally incomprehensible to mankind. You can feel God's word, but you cannot understand it. Its also worth mentioning that a lot of the more precise claims that are commonly attributed to the Qu'ran via Sharia actually originate in the Hadith, which is not considered to be God's word. The Hadith is the story of the prophet, and is still revered, but its a step down in Holiness.

What's the difference between a person raised as a Christian and one who was converted/awakened/whatever? As I've said, I was raised a Christian, but participated in 'church going' and so on for many years. I know that I have a pretty normal white, Christian-based mannerism, which would pass for a Christian concept of values or morals, but that's just acquired behavior. I have believed in atheism since I was 6 or so, but I guess just didn't know it as 'atheism'. It was like how you knew Santa was fake but played along.

Perhaps I just never bought the 'big reward' bit. It seems stunningly implausible. Is the afterlife a big deal for religious folks? I worry about that, because I fear it leads to destructive attitudes toward the real world. I do find apocalyptic types a bit offensive that way.

Ahtman wrote:Uhm, no. Most Japanese are not Zen Buddhists, but Pure Land Buddhist, and it played a far smaller role then them trying to emulate western colonial powers.

It played a part, as did Shinto, which I had meant to also include. Both were important in forming Japanese ideas of manifest destiny. They were not alone, nor were they singly important but religion is part of culture, and culture shapes a nation's values and its foreign policy objectives.

I agree. If you can show me where I say religion never leads to violence I would appreciate it. I said it shouldn't always be blamed as the cause for war (cassus belli). Now once war is started it can certainly be used as a tool.

Yeah, it isn't always the cause. But it frequently plays its part as all elements of culture play their part.

The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

Good pick up. God as the original post-modernist.

George Spiggott wrote:You mean Shintoism right?

I meant to include both, as they were both significant in forming militant Japanese ideas.

Except it isnt don't eat seafood it's don't eat anything from the sea without fins or scales. Old fish is just as bad as any other old 'meat'.

On a related note, how do Christians decide which bits of the Old Testament to follow? What makes 'gays are bad' more valid than 'don't eat pork'?

I understand there was much debate amongst early Christians over how Christ could be divine if there was only one god.

It's the beauty of the buffet style of approach to religion.

For instance, the New Testament spends so much time talking about the need for charity and helping the poor, and yet there's folk out there preaching about how faith in God will make you rich. The bible spends little time talking about Hell but it's a major part of most people's understanding today.

Frazzled wrote:I like the Smiting parts of the Old Testament.

God Before Coffee: cranky-Old Testament

God after a nice refreshing French Roast and maybe some biscuits and gravy: we can all get along, Man!-New Testament.

Tom Waits said it best; 'Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk.'

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

Good pick up. God as the original post-modernist.

That is not post-modernism, that is history. You don't have to ascribe to post modernism to notice that different time periods treated the words differently.