The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)

[xela]

^ No locks, one of the primary focuses of this forum is to allow people to express themselves, no matter what side of a debate they are on.

Things have indeed been classy up till now, mostly because the members of this forum are above flaming each other. :]

[Gunshy1]

that's what im worried about. hopefully it can stay respectful. so far everyone has been respectful throughout this entire forum which is awesome. 

[PoundFFFFFF]

-_- One shouldn't read the bible for fact and knowledge... they shouldn't read the bible for morals and justice... and I certainly wouldn't read it for fun. The one good reason to read the bible is so you don't sound like you live under a rock your whole life in a conversation.

[Gunshy1]

-_- One shouldn't read the bible for fact and knowledge... they shouldn't read the bible for morals and justice... and I certainly wouldn't read it for fun. The one good reason to read the bible is so you don't sound like you live under a rock your whole life in a conversation.

and we should all state opinions as facts...

[Kanped]

there are too many people that "think" they know a lot about religion

I was made to go to church every week for a good 14 years or so and at one stage I would have considered myself a born again Christian (that's when I actually started talking about Christianity and studying the Bible and everything fell apart).

As for Jesus, he doesn't really cover the 10 commandments so much as overwrite them (presumably, god got it wrong the first time round).  He boiled it down to unquestionably loving god (most important) and unquestionably loving your neighbour (many biblical scholars would argue that 'your neighbour' means 'other Jews').

I believe that unquestioning and unjustified love is as dangerous and immoral as unjustified and unquestioning hate.  It forces you to become a servant, to have no recourse to malice and no ability to defend yourself or your loved ones.

[Gunshy1]

in the new testament jesus does call his followers to be servants to others. he shows this by washing his disciples feet. He also doesnt overwrite the ten commandments at all, He more so expands on them i john saying that if you even think of killing someone you are committing murder in your mind. He makes more of a priority on thought and purity of the mind.

[Kanped]

Well, it would be a contraction rather than an expansion but anyway...

I know what you are saying, and I'm saying that I think it is immoral.  It is wrong to convict people for what they think and teach people to be servants for something intangible.  Surely, everyone has a right to freedom of thought?

[Don Boyer]

I believe that its entirely possible to have unconditional love for someone or some deity without following that person or deity in blind ignorance, obeying every order without question.  I have an utterly unconditional love for my girlfriend and for a few other people in my life.  Doesn't mean I'll obey any order they give me, but it does mean I'll try to help them when I can, take their counsel, give them counsel as needed, accept their help when offered, etc.


Blind obedience of anything is harmful.  Even soldiers/sailors/marines in the the US military are taught that while they're expected to obey orders, there are some orders that are illegal, immoral, etc. that should not be obeyed under any circumstances.  If any organization of people is expected on a regular basis to follow orders given by a higher authority, that would be the best example - and yet, there are still exceptions.  Totally LEGAL exceptions.  Because we recognize blind obedience to anything is dangerous.


As far as the Bible - yes, there are contradictions.  While the faithful may believe it to be the word of God, the reality is that it was written, added to, edited and translated by an uncountable number of mortal, imperfect people.  It's like the world's longest game of "Telephone".  Imagine a novel written by many talented and not-so-talented authors, one line for each individual, with no pre-fixed plot or story outline.  It's nearly as bad as that.  I'm not saying the Bible is bad or a lousy read - but it's certainly not the original document, word for word, clearly understood.  Which by deduction means it can't possibly be the unexpurgated, unadulterated word of God, even if God was the original author.  We know this because if this wasn't true, there would be only one Bible, not countless interpretations.

[Gunshy1]

that's the whole point of Christianity really. we do not own our bodies nor are we of this world. if your thought life is not pure then how can your actions be pure?

i am talking from the perspective of a christian that is why i use the we and our.

[Kanped]

if your thought life is not pure then how can your actions be pure?

Pretty easily, really.  I might see a really nice car and its owner has left the keys in the ignition, the door's open, nobody's around and the thought of just taking it might run through my mind but I wouldn't actually do it.

With regard to what Sabacc was saying; I agree completely that blind love and blind obedience are very different things but I think that Christianity preaches both and that both are wrong.  Unconditionally loving someone who wishes to destroy you is not a good course of action, I think.

[John B.]

this will go no where. i say i know what i believe and unless i couild truely talk to you about it i feel this will go no where, as of now im leaving the thread for i feel its pointless.

[xela]

Thoughts are thoughts and are insignificant. Your actions are what matter. "If you think of murdering, you may as well have committed the murder." By that logic, simply thinking of ending world hunger means you've done it. Where is my free ride to Heaven? I just had a thought of curing every disease and adopting every orphan on the planet while teaching them the way of God. I'm not going to do it, but I thought of it.

Does that make me better than everyone else on the planet?

Because if someone that considers murdering is as bad as someone who murders, this is the only assumption you can end up with.

And didn't God give us free-will? Yet we are punished not only for using it, but for considering to use it?

Also, if you equate actions with thoughts, you get a horrible paradox: If murdering is bad, and thinking of murdering is just as bad as murdering, then is thinking about thinking of murdering just as bad as thinking of murdering? If that is a yes, then is thinking about thinking about thinking of murdering also bad? If no, then that makes the equation murder = thinking of murder untrue which negates the entire ideology.

On top of that, how does one even come up with the concept of not thinking about doing bad deeds, without thinking about doing those bad deeds?

Furthermore, what's up with all the timelines in religion? Why do 100% of miracles occur during a period in history when science was 100% nonexistent? "Jesus came back from the dead." That goes against everything that is possible in this universe by any natural means. So why is the supernatural occurring in only one segment of time?

Also, what makes any religion more correct than another? To argue your religion is correct, you have to argue that your events really happened, and that's impossible to do without proof. If Jesus really came back from the dead, then that makes Christianity right. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - doesn't even matter what those guys think because they're dead wrong. You can then argue that religion isn't about who is right or wrong, and that it is all about personal belief, but then what's with all the religious killings? Christianity single-handedly set our society back hundreds and hundreds of years of progress after killing millions upon millions of people. It may not have been YOU or your family that did these things, but it was the Church (the same people who actually decide what your beliefs are) that did these things.

Would you be proud to be an American if you found out our government was euthanizing millions of babies each year? Probably not, so how could you be proud to be religion X when given the details of the horrible atrocities religion X has committed and still, to this day, commits.

This is why religion can only survive as a personal belief system. It's up to you to decide which morals to use and which to ignore, because if you believe in the Bible, you end up reading things along the lines of daughters having sex with their dad for babies being ace-work. Also, slavery is legal.

[Kanped]

this will go no where. i say i know what i believe and unless i couild truely talk to you about it i feel this will go no where

What's stopping you from doing so?  I'm not here to judge anyone; it's a free exchange of ideas,  Why don't you feel that you are able to truly talk here?

[PoundFFFFFF]

Conversations between Atheists and Theists are often difficult because the basis of thought are different. I've heard from a Theist argument that "We do have evidence for god, you atheists might not accept that evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence." Thats when I was struck that the religious define their words differently,such as truth - something is true if it is spoken by god or is part of god's will, rather than something is true because there is good proof of it occurring.

[eggman]

I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.


First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.



The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.

real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.

How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.

[Don Boyer]

I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.


First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.



The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.

real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.

How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.

Eggman, relax, please.  I think he's referring to "Christianity" as the large number of Christian faiths/sects that don't consider the Pope as their earthly religious authority figure, while Catholics do.  Yes, it is indeed true that Catholics are Christians in that they believe in Jesus Christ, but I think he's just pointing out the whole Pope issue.  Some Christians think this makes them somehow better than Catholics, some don't, some have no opinion on the subject at all.  And (shock and awe) some are tolerant of whatever faith you call your own.

I get the feeling that this whole "evil thoughts" issue is a little extreme.  It was probably meant along the lines of intentional thoughts, like actually plotting the murder of someone with the intent of carrying it out.  It would be like the religious equivalent of a "conspiracy to commit" charge or something along those lines.  Simply put, we don't have control over every random stray thought that pops into our heads, and we probably only act on maybe 1% or less of them anyway.  Intent makes a difference; lack of intent is just mental canoodling and amounts to nothing.  If we were all guilty of whatever we think of, I'd probably be in solitary lockdown in a supermax prison somewhere in the Midwest, despite being a generally mild-mannered and easygoing guy.  (Either that, or I'd be working for the CIA...)

So much of any religion's fundamental texts gets interpreted in such divergent ways, it's like asking four people what color a traffic light is at any given moment and getting four different answers: red, green, yellow and chartreuse.  Ask a fifth guy and he'll say something like black.  There are Christians to this day who believe in and practice things like slavery and sexual assault/rape of minors, and they have the same Bible (though perhaps a different translation) as the people who sit in St. Patrick's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey praying for an end to the suffering in this world.  Name any religion, I practically guarantee they have similar issues.  The American military wouldn't be fighting jihadis in Aghanistan is this wasn't true about Islam, and nor would the Russian military have had to before them.  More Muslims talk of the Qu'ran as being a text instructing people in peaceful, harmonious ways to live than in calling every outsider with modern ideas an infidel worth little more than a bullet to the head or the edge of a sword to the throat.

It's little wonder why someone like me finds it difficult to follow and have faith in any religion or theology.  I don't rule out the existence of any god, because I don't have proof of the non-existence of such, but nor do I automatically rule in the existence of such higher powers because I lack proof there as well and refuse to simply take it as a matter of faith.

[Kanped]

I think the intention is utterly clear; you can be punished for your thoughts.  I have no idea why you would try to justify it with your own addendum.
I think the divergent interpretations are an offshoot effect of people actively disagreeing with what has been said but been so manipulated by a religious upbringing that they bend the text's intentions to fit their own good morals.  I know lots of Christians who do that (and I'm very glad they do but to me it shows that they do have some doubts).

You can't prove the non-existence of something; proof doesn't work like that.  It doesn't mean you have to give validity to something that may exist; by that reasoning, I could create any story about the creation and maintenance of the universe and you would have to say that it is just as valid as any of the major religions because there is no evidence for anything other than that this all could have happened without divine intervention.

[John B.]

Quote from: Curt on November 23, 2011, 01:44:09 PM

I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.


First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.



The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.

real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.


How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.

sorry for coming back but you miss understand what im saying, what im saying is catholics follow the pope, but not all christians do, if the pope says something catholics will follow, but the rest of us don't.

[Kanped]

Catholic and Christian technically are interchangeable terms, it's ROMAN Catholicism that has the Pope, Vatican, limbo... oops, no, they messed up on that one, they don't have that any more.  Surely, that must be a great comfort to the parents who lost their children before they could be baptised who believed all this time that their souls were stranded in the first circle of hell.

[John B.]

roman catholicism is a branch of Catholics, something like the Jesuits which I believe are still around would be another form. They are not interchangable. Yes Catholicism was basicly the start of christianity but other religions which are christians split because they didn't believe some of the same things as Catholics or agreed that the Pope was the greatest religious athuority over them.

[Kanped]

Catholic [ˈkæθəlɪk ˈkæθlɪk]
adj Christianity
1. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) denoting or relating to the entire body of Christians

I'll admit that it's not the most common usage and the definition has changed quite a bit.  My RE teacher in grammar school told me that Catholic and Christian were interchangeable and I've never really looked into it.  By one definition, he's right.

[eggman]

I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.


First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.



The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.

real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.

How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.

Eggman, relax, please.  I think he's referring to "Christianity" as the large number of Christian faiths/sects that don't consider the Pope as their earthly religious authority figure, while Catholics do.  Yes, it is indeed true that Catholics are Christians in that they believe in Jesus Christ, but I think he's just pointing out the whole Pope issue.  Some Christians think this makes them somehow better than Catholics, some don't, some have no opinion on the subject at all.  And (shock and awe) some are tolerant of whatever faith you call your own.

I get the feeling that this whole "evil thoughts" issue is a little extreme.  It was probably meant along the lines of intentional thoughts, like actually plotting the murder of someone with the intent of carrying it out.  It would be like the religious equivalent of a "conspiracy to commit" charge or something along those lines.  Simply put, we don't have control over every random stray thought that pops into our heads, and we probably only act on maybe 1% or less of them anyway.  Intent makes a difference; lack of intent is just mental canoodling and amounts to nothing.  If we were all guilty of whatever we think of, I'd probably be in solitary lockdown in a supermax prison somewhere in the Midwest, despite being a generally mild-mannered and easygoing guy.  (Either that, or I'd be working for the CIA...)

So much of any religion's fundamental texts gets interpreted in such divergent ways, it's like asking four people what color a traffic light is at any given moment and getting four different answers: red, green, yellow and chartreuse.  Ask a fifth guy and he'll say something like black.  There are Christians to this day who believe in and practice things like slavery and sexual assault/rape of minors, and they have the same Bible (though perhaps a different translation) as the people who sit in St. Patrick's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey praying for an end to the suffering in this world.  Name any religion, I practically guarantee they have similar issues.  The American military wouldn't be fighting jihadis in Aghanistan is this wasn't true about Islam, and nor would the Russian military have had to before them.  More Muslims talk of the Qu'ran as being a text instructing people in peaceful, harmonious ways to live than in calling every outsider with modern ideas an infidel worth little more than a bullet to the head or the edge of a sword to the throat.

It's little wonder why someone like me finds it difficult to follow and have faith in any religion or theology.  I don't rule out the existence of any god, because I don't have proof of the non-existence of such, but nor do I automatically rule in the existence of such higher powers because I lack proof there as well and refuse to simply take it as a matter of faith.

No need to tell me to calm down. Just expressing as are others. He says quite cleary "Catholics are not Chistians." No mention of the Pope. Your struggle with faith is not, as you know, unusual for a human being. St. Paul stated "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the beleif in things unseen." Two things that are not of our concrete preferences. I do not put down anybodies beleif. I love to have talks with Muslims, Jews, Zorastrians and anyone who practices faith. I do however, need to jump in when someone says something incorrect about the Faith I practice and study.

[eggman]

roman catholicism is a branch of Catholics, something like the Jesuits which I believe are still around would be another form. They are not interchangable. Yes Catholicism was basicly the start of christianity but other religions which are christians split because they didn't believe some of the same things as Catholics or agreed that the Pope was the greatest religious athuority over them.

Some validity in what you said. Martin Luther disagreed with the Pope but Martin Luther also had ulterior motives. Many splits from Catholicism did not come from theological differences but power grabs. Think Henry the 8th. No doubt, the Catholic Church had become, in parts, corrupted at the time of Martin Luther. There was a call at the time by people who today are considered Saints of the Church to reform the Church from within as they, as Catholics, saw the need for reform. The Catholic Church has had many problems throughout its history, they were not created by the Church, but by man. If one would care to do the research rather than focus on the unfortunate and terrible scandals that have taken place in the Church most specifically what has happened recently, one would see that throughout its 2,000 years of history, the Catholic Church has been the greatest provider of humatarian service in the world, bar none. Some say, and I beleive it to be true, one of the main reason the Catholic Church is bashed so frequently, the acceptable prejudice if you will, is because for 2,000 years the Church has remained a thorn in the side of humanity with a consistent viewpoint on morality that clashes between "the flesh and the spirit."

[Kanped]

The Catholic Church has been the greatest provider of humanitarian aid?! RECENT scandals?  You really want us to bring up the past scandals?  The inquisitions?  The crusades?  I mean, I'm not in favour of raping children by any means but I'd certainly prefer to be associated with that than the activities of the RC church in any other period in history.  No, they are not the greatest provider bar none because I could simply call 'other' a category.  Plus, I would strongly question just how 'humanitarian' much of that aid actually was.  Mother Theresa's hospices were nothing but a cult worshipping suffering whose only goal was to keep people ill, in pain and faithful, for one popular example.

[eggman]

The Catholic Church has been the greatest provider of humanitarian aid?! RECENT scandals?  You really want us to bring up the past scandals?  The inquisitions?  The crusades?  I mean, I'm not in favour of raping children by any means but I'd certainly prefer to be associated with that than the activities of the RC church in any other period in history.  No, they are not the greatest provider bar none because I could simply call 'other' a category.  Plus, I would strongly question just how 'humanitarian' much of that aid actually was.  Mother Theresa's hospices were nothing but a cult worshipping suffering whose only goal was to keep people ill, in pain and faithful, for one popular example.

That shows pure ignorance. God bless. I always expect that response as it is a very standard one from the ignorant. No Catholic denies the problems and the scandals. On the other hand, you apparently have not studied the Inquisition one bit. Do you know how the Spanish Government took it over to root out dissendents. I bet you do not even know where Spain is so how could I ask you such a question. Anyway, I do not want to go back and fourth, I guess we both have better things to you. Although your post was quite malicous and directed at me, I do of course forgive you, bare you no ill will and wish you a Merry Christmas.