Religion

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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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...)?

**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.

**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.

**poda_t**

Monster Rain wrote:
poda_t wrote:
hackneyed, predictable "hurr religion" screed.

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

**Asherian Command**

poda_t wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
poda_t wrote:
hackneyed, predictable "hurr religion" screed.

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.

**The Bringer**

I'm pretty sure this whole argument started because everyone was speaking in generalities.

Spoiler:

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.

**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.

**-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!

**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!

**-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).

**Poppabear**

Ahhhh, so many prottys...

**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...

**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).

**Shadowbrand**

I am a devotee of the god of tits and wine.

**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.

**Jonavic**

Atheism.. I'm your average humanist guy. Peace out.

**Sigvatr**

Asatru, thus Polytheist.

**TheFatElf**

I voted other, as I identify as Dudeist.

Yes, it is a religion, look it up

**DavidKolaps**

FHTAGN ?

**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

**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.

**gossipmeng**

Non-religious, although my family is leaning towards ancient aliens

**Da krimson barun**

Gork and Mork.Waagh-ism?

**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?)

**StarTrotter**

Personally I'm non-religious.

**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.

**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.