What do you call a person who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith [Archive]

kuilong

06-20-2004, 08:33 PM

All three, theist, atheist and agnostic, are distinct, you can only be one.

No, your definitions are incorrect, IMHO. One can be a theist and an agnostic, or an atheist and an agnostic.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknowing, unknown, unknowable") One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

BBC Religion & Ethics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml):

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief in God. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or other spiritual beings.

I understand that in a lot of American dialects atheism means "the belief that there is no God", but I think "a lack of belief in God" is the most common one in Anglophonia.

Wikipedia has a helpful chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism).

Tao

06-20-2004, 09:30 PM

so what do you call a person that believes in the existence of god, but doesn't believe in organized religion?

Colorblind

06-20-2004, 09:56 PM

Does anyone know?
Yes. A confused tart.

Filiprish

06-20-2004, 10:39 PM

Yes. A confused tart.
How so? Please explain, that's if you're capable.

so what do you call a person that believes in the existence of god, but doesn't believe in organized religion?
A theist, as well. See, I'm kind along these lines, but I do gets some of my beliefs from religion. It's hard not to.

No, your definitions are incorrect, IMHO. One can be a theist and an agnostic, or an atheist and an agnostic.
My defs and and your defs are the same, if you ask me.

Below are exactly the reasons why I miss going to church. Btw, I was raised Catholic, but I do not identify as such anymore.

Religion has good bits to it.
Most atheists willingly concede there are some good things about religion, such as:

* Religious art and music.

* Religious charities and good works.

* Much religious wisdom and scripture.

* Human fellowship and togetherness (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml)

You can experience these things if you joined a club or volunteered, though. You don't have to join a church to experience these things, minus the religious part.

SunWuKong

06-20-2004, 10:49 PM

Filiprish

06-20-2004, 10:54 PM

i don't know what they're called, but this kind of belief system is not uncommon. i feel it's a sort of very secularised version of a monotheist belief ala the Judeo-Christian faith. what i don't like about it is that it bends to popular trends.
You're probably thinking of Ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism) or New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age).

kuilong

06-21-2004, 01:18 AM

My defs and and your defs are the same, if you ask me.

In that case, it should be obvious how someone can be an atheist and an agnostic (or a theist and an agnostic) at the same time. In fact, an agnostic must be either theist or atheist.

so what do you call a person that believes in the existence of god, but doesn't believe in organized religion?

Don't think there's a word for it, but Deism might be similar to what you're thinking of.

Faithless

06-21-2004, 07:38 AM

BBC Religion & Ethics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml):

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief in God. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or other spiritual beings.

I understand that in a lot of American dialects atheism means "the belief that there is no God", but I think "a lack of belief in God" is the most common one in Anglophonia.

Wikipedia has a helpful chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism).
I was gonna say something, but I reread and that made sense. :rolleyes:

.
so what do you call a person that believes in the existence of god, but doesn't believe in organized religion?
Dude, that's what filipirish is asking.

Oh, and by the way --

http://www.religionisbullshit.com/index.php

Martino

06-21-2004, 09:25 AM

Then how come there's a term for it, rather than simply "not sure"?

It's all about categorizing, when there isn't a need for it, in my opinion.

Isn't that how words come about, when there isn't a word for something?

mwahaha ...

From my Do You Believe thread, you might have gathered I beleive in an unknowable god rather than a god with specific traits, abilities, purpose. I have a distrust of organised (especially wealth accumulating or conflict-inspiring) religions. That would be my definition of an agnostic, someone who believes in g(G)od(s) but doesn't adhere to a single faith.

Faithless

06-21-2004, 09:28 AM

^ This thread should probably just be merged into that thread.

Is there anyone who doesn't hope there is something out-there after this physical life is through?

kitty

06-21-2004, 09:36 AM

Martino

06-21-2004, 09:42 AM

^ This thread should probably just be merged into that thread.

Is there anyone who doesn't hope there is something out-there after this physical life is through?

raises hand

Faithless

06-21-2004, 09:49 AM

i identify with agnostic, and the part where i disagree with organized religion is that i think organized religion thinks they understand the way of god, and i don't think that's possible. but i do believe that we are also connected to god and that we can "communicate" with it through meditation and prayer.
Seems through your comment, and I'm not being critical, that everyone has their own view of god that they'd like to share.

Is it possible to have many different views of god and all of them being right?

.
raises hand
Yeah, I raise my hand, too. Then I draw it back. Then I raise it again. Then I draw it back.

kitty

06-21-2004, 09:52 AM

Seems through your comment, and I'm not being critical, that everyone has their own view of god that they'd like to share.

why would that be critical? fundamentally, if you consider the role of faith to be to help some people with fear of mortality and the unknown, than everyone develops their own interpretation of their faiths. i think people like to swap faiths because everyone's idea of god (or lack thereof) will be different, and is an indication of your own personality and sense of self.

Is it possible to have many different views of god and all of them being right?

sure. esp. if you believe that god is something so profoundly vast that our own stupid minds can't grasp it all in one idea, but that it takes several different ideas to understand different facets of it.

Faithless

06-21-2004, 09:59 AM

sure. esp. if you believe that god is something so profoundly vast that our own stupid minds can't grasp it all in one idea, but that it takes several different ideas to understand different facets of it.
Okay, one level I can see that.

But as we know, there are fundemental elements of certain religions that seem to be at odds with each other. Maybe, it's the way the religions are fundementally practiced, but they make it seem like "my god is better than your god" -- rather than, "my god is really your god and vice versa".

And then on the surface, it just seems like some of the religions are just so different than each other that it makes it hard to believe there is just one god -- especially if each religion believes in a heaven. Some make it harder to get there, than others.

kuilong

06-21-2004, 10:37 AM

I heard it was a common theme of Hinduism that there's truth in all religions. And I think it's important to note that Filiprish said "truth in all religions", not "all religions are true".

kitty

06-21-2004, 11:19 AM

Okay, one level I can see that.

But as we know, there are fundemental elements of certain religions that seem to be at odds with each other. Maybe, it's the way the religions are fundementally practiced, but they make it seem like "my god is better than your god" -- rather than, "my god is really your god and vice versa".

And then on the surface, it just seems like some of the religions are just so different than each other that it makes it hard to believe there is just one god -- especially if each religion believes in a heaven. Some make it harder to get there, than others.

oh, i'm sorry, i thought you were saying 'is it possible for a person to have several conflicting ideas of god?' not whether all religions could all be 'right' about god...

no, i think most of the contemporary major organized religions at least in the wester hemisphere have some conflicting views on god that can't really coexist.

i do know that there is a form of buddhism that is basically 'believe what you want to believe', which allows for a practicing buddhist to work his/her beliefs around another belief system if they want to be a part of another religion as well.

onnihs

06-21-2004, 12:53 PM

The correct term for one who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith is "confused."

Or, could it be that those who adhere to a single faith are "confused?" :tongue:

Martino

06-22-2004, 04:40 AM

Is it possible to have many different views of god and all of them being right?

Well, some think god is a He, some think god is a She, some think there is a pantheon of gods rather than just one. Interesting that the 'newer' gods on the block aren't actually **seen** but people make assumptions of what he or she or it looks like.

Napoleon Chynamite

06-22-2004, 04:57 AM

Oh, and by the way --

http://www.religionisbullshit.com/index.php

With all due respect to your perhaps atheist beliefs, because other beliefs sure aren't getting any respect around here...maybe I missed the significance of this link, unless your purpose was again to ridicule, trivialize, and once again insult all followers of any religion (in this specific case Christianity....again)? Forgive me if there was some other purpose for you to link this page to us.

Colorblind

06-22-2004, 04:59 AM

I'm surprised you religious fanatics don't buy the Kool-aid trip to God since you're so anxious to meet him. If you're so sure, why wait?

Napoleon Chynamite

06-22-2004, 05:02 AM

I'm surprised you religious fanatics don't buy the Kool-aid trip to God since you're so anxious to meet him. If you're so sure, why wait?

Oh look it's my favorite well-traveled superior-because-i-have-the-best-of-both-worlds homophobe. Let's not get another thread shut down shall we? Please don't call me 'gay' again cause you know much that insults me. Religious fanatic? hahahaha I'm flattered that my posts give off that impression.

Colorblind

06-22-2004, 07:37 AM

Oh look it's my favorite well-traveled superior-because-i-have-the-best-of-both-worlds homophobe. Let's not get another thread shut down shall we? Please don't call me 'gay' again cause you know much that insults me. Religious fanatic? hahahaha I'm flattered that my posts give off that impression.
You're not going to make sexual advances toward me again are you? It's quite disturbing.

Faithless

06-22-2004, 08:04 AM

Well, some think god is a He, some think god is a She, some think there is a pantheon of gods rather than just one. Interesting that the 'newer' gods on the block aren't actually **seen** but people make assumptions of what he or she or it looks like.
Maybe, what we're talking about is a form of Shintoism.

http://allaboutsikhs.com/religion/shinto1.htm
.
...
Shinto almost died out as a viable religion but in the seventeenth century it was revitalized by tough-minded military leaders. A combination of Shinto and Confucianism was used to develop the warrior code of Bushido. The samurai (knights) who followed this code emphasized loyalty, gratitude, courage, justice, truthfulness, politeness, reserve, and honor. In Japan suicide has often been encouraged to avoid dishonor, escape from a bad life situation, or as a means of protest. When dishonored the Bushido warrior was expected to kill himself by hara-kiri (disembowelment).

Shinto teaches the importance of personal cleanliness and the sense of communal guilt. Apart from subservience to the Emperor, Shintoism has no definite set of theological beliefs or code of morality. Morality and theology are naturalistic. Motoori (1730-1801), one of the most important scholars in the history of Shintoism, explains the lack of ethics in Shintoism: "It is because the Japanese were truly moral in their practice that they require no theory of morals."
...

.
With all due respect to your perhaps atheist beliefs, because other beliefs sure aren't getting any respect around here...maybe I missed the significance of this link, unless your purpose was again to ridicule, trivialize, and once again insult all followers of any religion (in this specific case Christianity....again)? Forgive me if there was some other purpose for you to link this page to us.
Sorry if I offended you Gumby.

I respect your religious convictions.

I am atheistic or something else depending on the time of the day.

I can certainly see both sides of the do-we-need-religion debate. I can see the good, and I can see the folly.

The link that I posted was just an FYI, but certainly works on sense of the folly.

I don't know if is there today, but there was a banner (or whatever you call it) on the homepage of that link that talked about the god beyond the clouds or something like that.

That has always cracked me up, when thinking about it, ala Zeus and what have you, that we as humans would ever believe that. Of course, as our knowledge of what really lies just beyond the clouds, we have changed our thinking.

I think we still hold that heaven is somewhere beyond the stars. But if you believe in the physically improbability that Jesus ever ascended there, yet, you see that this might not be the case.

mr. x

06-22-2004, 01:14 PM

You're not going to make sexual advances toward me again are you? It's quite disturbing.
good riddance

go cry a river at stormfront or something

DragonKnight

06-22-2004, 03:38 PM

Is it possible to have many different views of god and all of them being right?I think so. Just cause my way of viewing god/the great spirit/or the rock next to the oak tree on 11th/broadway is right for me doesn't mean its right for everyone else. I try to keep an open mind to such things since I have a wide diversity of friends with different religious beliefs. It doesn't exactly agree with the doctrine of my church, but hey, they can always try and excommunicate me. So far no one's sent me a letter. :wink:

As for my own beliefs upon others, I always go the general route of 'if they love life, try their best to care for others pending on their own views, and don't try to kill me with their own religion' then we're all practically on the same path. In the end, its all perception and how we view things. I rather not have a narrow vision on how I view things.

Filiprish

06-23-2004, 02:32 AM

Oh, and by the way --

http://www.religionisbullshit.com/index.php
So, what was you're point in posting this link. I think I know why, but I'd like for you to explain for yourself. Is you're spirituality/belief system similar to mine? Do you believe in God?

I agree that religion has major issues. I don't understand how someone could rely solely on a religion to tell you what to believe, when you have a brain. On the other hand, I don't think I would be the person I am today, a person I'm proud to be, without having been raised with a religious foundation and having studied/researched various religions. Now that I am grown and understand the world better, I have formulated my own faith, which is something we all do to a certain extent, at least, those that believe in God. I think many practicing Christians do realize that religion is not perfect, for it was created by man, but they stick with it b/c it brings like-minded people together and a lot of comfort into their lives. As for me, I stopped going to church when I was 16, mostly b/c I wanted to make some dough on the weekend and I was beginning to question my faith. Now that I'm older, I miss that social outlet and connection to God that I feel I'm lacking. Church kind of kept things in perspective. So, when people practice an organized religion, they should not automatically be labeled as a dumbfuck, which is not what I think you were doing by posting that link. But, this what many bigotted left-wingers do. I just want to make it clear that some people are willing to tolerate religion's imperfections b/c like the things I've quoted below.

Religion has good bits to it.
Most atheists willingly concede there are some good things about religion, such as:

* Religious art and music.

* Religious charities and good works.

* Much religious wisdom and scripture.

* Human fellowship and togetherness (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml)

As for me, I wish there was a place of worship where I could go once a week to hear comparative teachings on religion and experience the above things. Does anyone know of a place like this? (I'm starting to wish I majored or at least minored in comparative religion.)

Btw, does anyone here believe in reincarnation?

Liberal Roman-Catholic (LRC, the ultimate oxymoron)
How is you're sig an oxymoron when Jesus was the most liberal person to walk the face of the Earth?

Martino

06-23-2004, 04:49 AM

So, what was you're point in posting this link. I think I know why, but I'd like for you to explain for yourself. Is you're spirituality/belief system similar to mine? Do you believe in God?

I agree that religion has major issues. I don't understand how someone could rely solely on a religion to tell you what to believe, when you have a brain.

Perhaps, in this day and age, with the many distractions the (Western?) world has to offer, people rely more than ever on their born-to-it off-the-peg religion, in order to find a philosophy or morality with which to guide themselves through life.

On the other hand, I don't think I would be the person I am today, a person I'm proud to be, without having been raised with a religious foundation and having studied/researched various religions.

Does ones religion affect whether a person turns out good or bad? Or is there something deeper inside you, a moral fibre accumulated through other experiences, that merely enhanced what you you learnt through religious study?

Now that I am grown and understand the world better, I have formulated my own faith, which is something we all do to a certain extent, at least, those that believe in God.

Not that long ago you could have got ito a ot of trouble for such free thinking ...

So, when people practice an organized religion, they should not automatically be labeled as a dumbfuck,

I'm always mindful of the fact that a great many people I admire, living and dead, be it writers, scientists, political commentators, thinkers immeasurably more intelligent than me, believe in God.

Filiprish

06-23-2004, 06:42 AM

Perhaps, in this day and age, with the many distractions the (Western?) world has to offer, people rely more than ever on their born-to-it off-the-peg religion, in order to find a philosophy or morality with which to guide themselves through life.
Exactly, which is the very reason why the West's future is in jeapordy.

Does ones religion affect whether a person turns out good or bad? Or is there something deeper inside you, a moral fibre accumulated through other experiences, that merely enhanced what you you learnt through religious study?
IMO, it's both. Which one was more influential? I don't know. Parenting definitely comes into play, which, of course, influences experiences. I'd say religion was a source of morals growing up. Now that I'm older I attribute my to my experiences that contribute to maturity, so I rely on those as a source of morals instead. But religion plays a big role in my quality of and outlook on life -- not just a source or reinforcer of morals -- which is an aspect of myself that I'm more proud of than my morals.
I'm always mindful of the fact that a great many people I admire, living and dead, be it writers, scientists, political commentators, thinkers immeasurably more intelligent than me, believe in God.
So, do you believe in God? I take it you don't. So, how does the opinions of these great people effect your belief in the existence of God. Are you in denial of the existence of God?

kuilong

06-23-2004, 12:02 PM

So, do you believe in God? I take it you don't. So, how does the opinions of these great people effect your belief in the existence of God. Are you in denial of the existence of God?

Not to speak for him, but I think he believes in an unknowable God. But of course, a great many people I admire, living and dead, be it writers, scientists, political commentators, thinkers immeasurably more intelligent than me do not believe in God, and probably a great number of the same people disagree with almost every controversial view I hold.

Which is why the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Yeahman

06-23-2004, 01:24 PM

Or, could it be that those who adhere to a single faith are "confused?" :tongue:
If they adhere to a single faith, there is no confusion for them, by virtue of the fact that they adhere to a single faith.

theist - one who believes in a god or gods
monotheist - one who believes in God
polytheist - one who believe in multiple gods
atheist - one who does not believe in a god or gods
agnostic - one who is unsure of the existence of a god or gods
deist - one who believes in an impersonal god and therefore does not believe in any one particular religion
pantheist - one who believes that the universe is God
theistic spiritualist? - one who believes in a personal god but does not believe in any one particular religion

DragonKnight

06-23-2004, 02:02 PM

How is you're sig an oxymoron when Jesus was the most liberal person to walk the face of the Earth?Jesus was one of the most liberal persons to walk the face of the earth. The Roman-Catholic church and a majority of Christian churches...aren't.

Filiprish

06-24-2004, 12:51 AM

The Roman-Catholic church and a majority of Christian churches...aren't.
...which doesn't make you an oxymoron. Most Christians today aren't real Christians, in the way Jesus had originally taught. IMO, if Jesus were alive today he'd be more proud of liberals than conservatives.

Martino

06-24-2004, 05:08 AM

So, do you believe in God? I take it you don't. So, how does the opinions of these great people effect your belief in the existence of God. Are you in denial of the existence of God?

Why do you take it I don't? I don't recall making such a definate statement.

Have you read all my posts on the subject? I think I have expressed my concern over interpretations of godhood - my belief is expressed subtlely, but it's there.

It would also help if you specified in which god or gods you are refering to ... there are a lot represented on this board.

Not to speak for him, but I think he believes in an unknowable God. But of course, a great many people I admire, living and dead, be it writers, scientists, political commentators, thinkers immeasurably more intelligent than me do not believe in God, and probably a great number of the same people disagree with almost every controversial view I hold.

Which is why the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Well, yes ... except I'm not talking about an appeal to authority - simply put, there are individuasl I admire, such as the late great Dennis Potter, who believe when I do not - in specific gods or faiths or in something broader yet. And I pause to wonder what the bed rock of their faith was (I should also add that I'm not talking about people who all adhere to the same faith).

And yes, there are philosphers who I admire who don't believe too - but I think, like Candide, the trick is to weigh what everyone says and make your own decisions.

Filiprish

06-24-2004, 05:23 AM

Why do you take it I don't? I don't recall making such a definate statement.
B/c the impression gave off is one of an atheist.

Have you read all my posts on the subject? I think I have expressed my concern over interpretations of godhood - my belief is expressed subtlely, but it's there.
No. I'll take a look at the them.

It would also help if you specified in which god or gods you are refering to ... there are a lot represented on this board.
The one and only God.

Martino

06-24-2004, 05:34 AM

The one and only God.

Gimme a hint.

rasheedgonzales

06-24-2004, 05:38 AM

religion in essense is a just collection of principles and beliefs, a system of tenets held onto by whoever holds them. so everyone’s got one... whether it be organised/institutional or their own personal religion.

Any other theists in the house?
i used to be one... well, more like agnostic. that was for about 6 or 7 years, after i left christianity and before i accepted islam.

The correct term for one who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith is "confused."
Yes. A confused tart.
not necessarily. it could just be that the person is searching for that one religion he believes to be the truth and just hasn’t found it yet.

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief in God. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or other spiritual beings.

I understand that in a lot of American dialects atheism means "the belief that there is no God", but I think "a lack of belief in God" is the most common one in Anglophonia.
this absence of belief in God is a belief in and of itself though...

Oh, and by the way --

http://www.religionisbullshit.com/index.php
he should rename his site to christianityis... that’s practically the only religion on there he’s shooting down. no mention of any of the other world religions.

Is it possible to have many different views of god and all of them being right?
impossible, because by definition there is only one truth. also, all the different conflicting views about God kind of render this “possibility” null and void.

I'm surprised you religious fanatics don't buy the Kool-aid trip to God since you're so anxious to meet him. If you're so sure, why wait?
because everything must take it’s course.

Btw, does anyone here believe in reincarnation?
not me.

The one and only God.
even for those who claim to be montheistic believers, this statement is untrue by virtue of the fact that many people believe in other gods. i only comment because a lot of muslims also make this statement not realising that its incorrect. a more correct statement would be “the one and only true God.” this wouldn’t negate the existence of the other gods people worship or believe in, it would just render them as being false gods.

DragonKnight

06-24-2004, 09:52 AM

...which doesn't make you an oxymoron. Most Christians today aren't real Christians, in the way Jesus had originally taught. IMO, if Jesus were alive today he'd be more proud of liberals than conservatives.That's your opinion on what real Christians are and aren't. Just wanted to let you know that your statement is a matter of opinion. Let's just leave things up to the Almighty on what real Christians are all about. For all we know, my Buddhist friend is probably more Christian than anyone just due to her daily practices in life...and she's never read the bible.

I consider it an oxymoron making light of the irony of how the various churches have progressed into political powerhouses with tremendous pull on money, power, and real estate. I also am making light on how certain people (not all, just certain) get on Christians in general for bible-thumping and shoving Christianity into everyone's faces. Not every Christian...oh wait, not every real Christian shoves Jesus into everyone's faces. I'm also making light of my one friend who says I'm not Roman Catholic. He wanted to classify me as Neo-Catholic and questions me staying with the Roman Catholic church considering how he percieves it as a very oppressive institution. I personally think its oppressive as hell, but I stay with it because I think it can be made more liberal and open-minded. I have met clergy who believe the same way.

My own Roman Catholic church is not very liberal. I personally think that many Christian churches (not all, but many) are not very liberal...in fact, maybe more conservative than the Roman Catholic church. And I've been to many churches in which their fundamental dogma does more than just disagree with the sexual orientation of homosexuals and the practices of other religions and atheists...they condemn them to hell. Now THAT I just can't agree with. :mad:

So me being a part of the Roman Catholic Church with my liberal ideas is oxymoronic. At least to me, at least to my friend who thinks I really should be labeled Neo-Catholic, maybe to the bum on Westwood...and maybe to the grocery dood making $6.80/hr...who knows? If you don't agree, I'll just have to live with that fact and go on with life. :wink:

kuilong

06-24-2004, 09:53 AM

i used to be one... well, more like agnostic. that was for about 6 or 7 years, after i left christianity and before i accepted islam.

He said "theist" -- that's someone who does believe in the monotheistic God. So you're a theist.

this absence of belief in God is a belief in and of itself though...

No it's not, just as not playing tennis isn't a sport.

Any other theists in the house?

There was a poll some time ago (Do you believe?? (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=12182)) and it seems like most of the voters are theists.

So does this "one and only God" have any other distinguishing characteristics?

rasheedgonzales

06-24-2004, 10:16 AM

He said "theist" -- that's someone who does believe in the monotheistic God. So you're a theist.
yes, he did say thiest, but i was assuming he meant someone like him, who didn’t follow a specific organisational/institutional religion. and for the last portion of that 6 or 7 year period, that’s what i was. someone who believed in a higher power, but didn’t follow any religion. for a good portion of the beginning of that period i was agnostic as i really wasn’t sure if there was a God or not.

No it's not, just as not playing tennis isn't a sport.
that’s a weak comparison. having beliefs isn’t even close to being the same as playing sports.

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

- meriam-webster

every single living human being on the earth has these (especially with regards to definition 3)... belief is something that’s a constant with us human beings – there is always something we’ll believe in as the truth, whether it’s pertaining to the issue of God, or any other thing.

kuilong

06-24-2004, 11:04 AM

that’s a weak comparison. having beliefs isn’t even close to being the same as playing sports.

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

- meriam-webster

every single living human being on the earth has these (especially with regards to definition 3)... belief is something that’s a constant with us human beings – there is always something we’ll believe in as the truth, whether it’s pertaining to the issue of God, or any other thing.

Ah, but see, the weak atheist (someone who lacks belief in God) is not convinced of the truth of the reality of some being. They see no reason to believe either of the statements "God exists." and "God does not exist." This is all very straightforward, and accepted by every philosopher of religion ever.

They may certainly hold other beliefs (in fact, they almost certainly will). But as long as they do not believe in the existence of God, they're atheists. The important thing is that they lack theistic beliefs.

rasheedgonzales

06-24-2004, 12:50 PM

Ah, but see, the weak atheist (someone who lacks belief in God) is not convinced of the truth of the reality of some being. They see no reason to believe either of the statements "God exists." and "God does not exist." This is all very straightforward, and accepted by every philosopher of religion ever.
i don’t pay too much attention to philosophy or philosophers. much of what they say is kinda wack and requires some twisted sense of logic to understand.

as for what you mention, i wouldn’t call that weak atheist an atheist, i’d call him an agnostic – someone who hasn’t committed to believing in existence or non-existence of a god.

Filiprish

06-24-2004, 02:34 PM

That's your opinion on what real Christians are and aren't. Just wanted to let you know that your statement is a matter of opinion.
If Jesus were alive today he would be really pissed at the people who claim to be real Christians, plain and simple. Wouldn't you agree? You said so yourself that the church needs to change. But why should it change? Maybe society should that law is the highest order of the land, which is actually a secular form of religion. We don't need the church to be our body when we have the nation. When we disagree on things that when mass communication steps and plays it's role. It's a waste of time trying to change the church when we should be changing the nation's public opinion. Once we've change public opinion, then there really is no need to change the church b/c everyone will sooner or later realize there is no need for the church. I think the US, and ultimately the world, is moving towards Europe's stance towards religion. It's funny how in the past Europe bolstered Christianity and now it's rejecting it now -- ironic.

TIMEeurope - O Father Where Art Thou? - June 16, 2003 (http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/030616/story.html)

Let's just leave things up to the Almighty on what real Christians are all about.For all we know, my Buddhist friend is probably more Christian than anyone just due to her daily practices in life...and she's never read the bible.
You act like Christianity is the absolute truth and God favors Christianity. Sorry, hate to break it to you -- it's not. You don't need to be a Christian to worship God and be enlightened, which is, basically, the point you made about you're Buddhist friend. But, we need to be careful with our terms here.

I understand why you call yourself an oxymoron, it's pretty intuitive. What I'm trying to say is that the real oxymorons/hypocrites are the people who claim to be real Christians, which is something you agree with. We seem to agree on all the things that've been discussed. I really have no idea why were debating.

i don’t pay too much attention to philosophy or philosophers. much of what they say is kinda wack and requires some twisted sense of logic to understand.
Religion is nothing more than various philsophies that are thought to be true combined.

He said "theist" -- that's someone who does believe in the monotheistic God. So you're a theist.
Let it be known that a theist can be either monotheistic or polytheistic. A theist is a believer in a higher being or beings.

No it's not, just as not playing tennis isn't a sport.
I'm with rasheed. An absence of the belief in God is a belief. Unless, the person has no opinion at all, which is hard to believe someone could when the curiousity of the nature of the universe is OVERWHELMINGLY pervasive. You have to be mentally incapable of having an opinion to not have an opinion. I wonder if people with Down's syndrome have opinions on God.

kuilong

06-24-2004, 04:09 PM

I'm with rasheed. An absence of the belief in God is a belief. Unless, the person has no opinion at all, which is hard to believe someone could when the curiousity of the nature of the universe is OVERWHELMINGLY pervasive. You have to be mentally incapable of having an opinion to not have an opinion. I wonder if people with Down's syndrome have opinions on God.

What on earth? It's obvious from the simple meaning of the words that an "absence of belief" cannot be a belief. Indeed, it's quite possible to have no opinion at all on God. I have no opinion on whether, for instance, Amaterasu exists. I see no evidence to support it, but I see no evidence against it either.

So, what's your opinion on whether a large, sentient, furry animal lives on a planet orbiting Upsilon Andromedae?

as for what you mention, i wouldn’t call that weak atheist an atheist, i’d call him an agnostic – someone who hasn’t committed to believing in existence or non-existence of a god.

Like I said earlier, in some American dialects a "weak atheist" is an agnostic. But in most of the English speaking world, an agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, whereas a weak atheist is someone who neither believes in God's existence or his nonexistence.

Let it be known that a theist can be either monotheistic or polytheistic. A theist is a believer in a higher being or beings.

My bad, though the term isn't often used to describe polytheists. But that definition is wrong as well. A theist must believe in an immanent, yet transcendent God. Someone who believes in a non-immanent God would be a deist. And the transcendent part is important as well -- people who believe in superior aliens are not theists.

Yeahman

06-24-2004, 04:46 PM

Jesus was one of the most liberal persons to walk the face of the earth. The Roman-Catholic church and a majority of Christian churches...aren't.
Yet when a Catholic makes a movie about Jesus, the liberals cry foul.
Jesus was probably a liberal in his time which made him about as liberal as Mother Teresa was. Not very liberal.

The correct term for one who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith is "confused."not necessarily. it could just be that the person is searching for that one religion he believes to be the truth and just hasn’t found it yet.
And therefore he is confused.

...which doesn't make you an oxymoron. Most Christians today aren't real Christians, in the way Jesus had originally taught. IMO, if Jesus were alive today he'd be more proud of liberals than conservatives.
Yes he'd be so proud of the liberals mocking him at every turn.
Liberals are anti-Christian.

That's your opinion on what real Christians are and aren't. Just wanted to let you know that your statement is a matter of opinion. Let's just leave things up to the Almighty on what real Christians are all about. For all we know, my Buddhist friend is probably more Christian than anyone just due to her daily practices in life...and she's never read the bible.

I consider it an oxymoron making light of the irony of how the various churches have progressed into political powerhouses with tremendous pull on money, power, and real estate. I also am making light on how certain people (not all, just certain) get on Christians in general for bible-thumping and shoving Christianity into everyone's faces. Not every Christian...oh wait, not every real Christian shoves Jesus into everyone's faces. I'm also making light of my one friend who says I'm not Roman Catholic. He wanted to classify me as Neo-Catholic and questions me staying with the Roman Catholic church considering how he percieves it as a very oppressive institution. I personally think its oppressive as hell, but I stay with it because I think it can be made more liberal and open-minded. I have met clergy who believe the same way.

My own Roman Catholic church is not very liberal. I personally think that many Christian churches (not all, but many) are not very liberal...in fact, maybe more conservative than the Roman Catholic church. And I've been to many churches in which their fundamental dogma does more than just disagree with the sexual orientation of homosexuals and the practices of other religions and atheists...they condemn them to hell. Now THAT I just can't agree with. :mad:

So me being a part of the Roman Catholic Church with my liberal ideas is oxymoronic. At least to me, at least to my friend who thinks I really should be labeled Neo-Catholic, maybe to the bum on Westwood...and maybe to the grocery dood making $6.80/hr...who knows? If you don't agree, I'll just have to live with that fact and go on with life. :wink:
Personally, I consider 95% of Catholics, "Neo-Catholics." At least in the US.
Depends on what you believe. I want to see women deacons, married clergy, and more protestantesque homilies. That makes me liberal. But I also want the Mass to be said in Latin and heretics such as John Kerry should be denied Communion.

Filiprish

06-24-2004, 09:33 PM

What on earth? It's obvious from the simple meaning of the words that an "absence of belief" cannot be a belief. Indeed, it's quite possible to have no opinion at all on God. I have no opinion on whether, for instance, Amaterasu exists. I see no evidence to support it, but I see no evidence against it either.

So, what's your opinion on whether a large, sentient, furry animal lives on a planet orbiting Upsilon Andromedae?
I'm talking about God as a/the creator, God can be a single higher being or a group of higher beings. Btw, the term God is very broad.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
We are talking the about the existence of God, a/the being that is responsible for creation, not the existence of extraterrestrial . You're asking that question about furry animals in outer space waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of context. i have to say, it was pretty funny, though.

Like I said earlier, in some American dialects a "weak atheist" is an agnostic. But in most of the English speaking world, an agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, whereas a weak atheist is someone who neither believes in God's existence or his nonexistence.
This "weak" or "strong" agnostic business is foolish. Why not just have a new term? Why can't theists be "weak" or "strong". That chart is garbage and lacks merit. I'll only value a chart from a reputable source such as a respected divinity school, not one from Wikipedia. And, what about neutral atheists and agnostics? LOL.

Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)* (1) Weak atheism aka negative atheism is the standpoint that there is no reason to believe that God exists/there are any gods. (One may hold that there is not enough evidence to support a decision, or one may simply not have a position). This is related but not equivalent to agnosticism, which affirms that a person cannot have firm knowledge of the existence or the inexistence of any deity. Nonetheless, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

* (2) Strong atheism aka positive atheism is the standpoint that there is reason to believe that God doesn't exist/there are no gods. This may include the view that the existence of God or gods is even logically impossible. Such a position usually commits one to having, or at least allowing for, positive assertions about and explanations of the natural world which do not require a deity.
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)* strong agnosticism (aka hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence
* weak agnosticism (aka soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)-the view that the question of the existence of deities is knowable but the individual has not seen enough evidence or there is evenly-weighted evidence on both sides of the question of the existence of deities.
* ignosticism (aka apathetic agnosticism, apatheism)-the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences
* model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable, but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.

Some of the positions on this table may seem contradictory, or at least unfounded, but where theism is concerned a great many people rely on faith and thus can believe strongly in things which they do not believe have been or can be rigorously proven. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)
Some of the positions don't seem contradictory, they are.

My bad, though the term isn't often used to describe polytheists. But that definition is wrong as well. A theist must believe in an immanent, yet transcendent God. Someone who believes in a non-immanent God would be a deist. And the transcendent part is important as well -- people who believe in superior aliens are not theists.
Interesting. Why MUST theists believe in a immanent God? I'm theist, but I'm sure if God is immanent. That would make me a "weak" theist, huh?

----------------------

Yet when a Catholic makes a movie about Jesus, the liberals cry foul.
Jesus was probably a liberal in his time which made him about as liberal as Mother Teresa was. Not very liberal.
By definition, Mother Teresa and Jesus were very democratic/liberal.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Main Entry: dem·o·crat·ic
Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish

And therefore he is confused.
Having your own belief does NOT mean you're confused, it means you're intelligent enough to formulate your own beliefs, plain and simple.

Yes he'd be so proud of the liberals mocking him at every turn.
Liberals are anti-Christian.
Liberals tends to be anti-Christian, but they do not tend to be anti-moral, at least, according to thei morals. Remember, morals are subjective/relative. Of course, die-hard conservatives would like to believe otherwise.

kuilong

06-25-2004, 12:19 AM

I'm talking about God as a/the creator, God can be a single higher being or a group of higher beings. Btw, the term God is very broad.

Okay, well, as I said, I hold no opinion on several conceptions of God. That's not a belief. Of course, you could argue that I really do have an opinion, but I like to think I understand what I believe in. This seems to be an argument from incredulity.

And indeed, some people believe aliens created the Earth, whereas others believe in what they call "God", and yet don't believe he/she/it created the universe.

This "weak" or "strong" agnostic business is foolish. Why not just have a new term? Why can't theists be "weak" or "strong". That chart is garbage and lacks merit. I'll only value a chart from a reputable source such as a respected divinity school, not one from Wikipedia. And, what about neutral atheists and agnostics? LOL.

Uh, what exactly what a "neutral atheist" or agnostic be? The reason we have the "strong" and "weak" dichotomy is because strong atheism is a sizeable subset of "weak atheism" which requires its own name. As for divinity schools, atheist self-designations aren't often studied in depth. But these terms are quite widespread, especially in philosophy of religion, and you can see examples of their being used here (http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459s2004/vuu/report1.htm), here (http://www.unm.edu/~erbaugh/Wmst200spr03/bios/deBeauvoir.htm), etc. I believe William Rowe's well-known Philosophy of Religion also uses the terms. Unfortunately, I had to return most of my phil. of rel. books I checked out over the summer, so I can't direct you to some good resources, but I can ask a friend if you want some.

If you have any better ideas to differentiate people with an absence of belief in God and people who believe God does not exist, you can use them.

And while some of those positions might be contradictory, "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" certainly aren't.

Interesting. Why MUST theists believe in a immanent God? I'm theist, but I'm [not?] sure if God is immanent. That would make me a "weak" theist, huh?

That's the meaning of the word "theism". I don't think the term "weak theist" is used.

DragonKnight

06-25-2004, 01:03 AM

and heretics such as John Kerry should be denied Communion.Going a bit off-topic...what makes John Kerry a heretic?

Filiprish

06-25-2004, 01:11 AM

Unfortunately, I had to return most of my phil. of rel. books I checked out over the summer, so I can't direct you to some good resources, but I can ask a friend if you want some.
If you could suggest some really good books would be nice. I'm always up for a good read. I've taken a philosophy course, but I think I'm a little weak in this area. So, I'd appreciate that.

If you have any better ideas to differentiate people with an absence of belief in God and people who believe God does not exist, you can use them.
I could develop a better set of terms, but I'd rather not waste my time. :wink:

And while some of those positions might be contradictory, "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" certainly aren't.
You know what, I actually agree with you here. When strong/weak agnostic comes into play, it really messes things up.

That's the meaning of the word "theism". I don't think the term "weak theist" is used.
The definition of theism doesn't mention immanence and it's illogical to think it must be. Please enlighten me.

kuilong

06-25-2004, 01:26 AM

You know what, I actually agree with you here. When strong/weak agnostic comes into play, it really messes things up.

I thought it was "strict agnostic"? Anyway, the whole confusion came about with agnosticism because Huxley's definition differs from the modern definition. Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" to describe the philosophy that the question of the existence of God is inherently unknowable. I'm not sure how some people, like logical positivists, fit into this dichotomy. Thank goodness they're nearly extinct.

The definition of theism doesn't mention immanence and it's illogical to think it must be. Please enlighten me.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

The belief in a non-immanent God is called "deism".

If you could suggest some really good books would be nice. I'm always up for a good read. I've taken a philosophy course, but I think I'm a little weak in this area. So, I'd appreciate that.

William Rowe's Philosophy of Religion is a good one, and it also contains his famous evidential argument from evil. :P Um, let's see... there's also Dale Jacquette's Ontology, Anthony Thiselton's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion. There's also the classics, like Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Tell you what, I'll get back to you on this. Some of my friends would be able to recommend some interesting books.

Going a bit off-topic...what makes John Kerry a heretic?

Well, for one thing, he's pro-choice.

Yet when a Catholic makes a movie about Jesus, the liberals cry foul.

Well, yeah, but that Catholic thinks Vatican II didn't produce any infallible dogmas. Do you know whether he leans towards sedevaticanism or towards reconciliation?

Filiprish

06-25-2004, 02:17 AM

The belief in a non-immanent God is called "deism".
Great, now I don't know what I am b/c I believe that God does intervene/isn't immanent. :mad:

I do not believe in pre-destiny. On the other hand, if pre-destiny did exist, I'd be at peace with the suffering in the world. I'm not sure if there could be freewill, pre-destiny and an immanent God in the same universe. Freewill does exist, that's a given. As for pre-destiny, it's possible God could be manipulating events, though. I have this theory that God loves the fact that we've discovered computers b/c he can easily manipulate events with them. For example, what if God know that something that I planned to do would result my deathl, but God needed me to carry out something. Let's say I'm on my computer thumbing through YW and I realize that I need to put some gas in my car before if got too late, but I didn't want to leave until I finished posting in a interesting thread on religion. But God knew something was going to happen at the gas station, it was going to blow up b/c some idiot was smoking a cigarette and a leak in stations gas reservior that has gone undetected for months. To prevent me from dying in that explosion, God make computer do something screwy like freeze or restart for no apparent reason. This prevents my death b/c God knew that I'd want to retype the post and just decide to get gas the next day b/c it had gotten late. Maybe the thing God needed me to carry out was so save another person life the next day. It's possible God is manipulating events/us all the time. I question this, though, b/c it undermines the relevance of freewill.

What's your opinion on this? Do you think God is immanent?

Yeahman

06-25-2004, 08:35 AM

By definition, Mother Teresa and Jesus were very democratic/liberal.
Jesus did not favor democracy. Jesus expressed no view on the matter.
And obviously we're using 2 different definitions of "liberal."
Mother Teresa was pro-life. That would put her at odds with the Democratic Party in the US and the liberals.

Having your own belief does NOT mean you're confused, it means you're intelligent enough to formulate your own beliefs, plain and simple.
We were talking about people who aren't sure of their belief (agnostics). By definition they are confused.

Liberals tends to be anti-Christian, but they do not tend to be anti-moral, at least, according to thei morals. Remember, morals are subjective/relative. Of course, die-hard conservatives would like to believe otherwise.
That is utter crap. If morals are entirely relative then nobody can be anti-moral.
If your daughter thought that there was nothing immoral about being a prostitute at age 12, would you be saying the same thing?
This is the problem with you die-hard liberals. Nothing is wrong. Everything is permissible. Bin Laden was a moral man.

Going a bit off-topic...what makes John Kerry a heretic?
He openly supports abortion which the Church is unapologetically against.

Well, yeah, but that Catholic thinks Vatican II didn't produce any infallible dogmas. Do you know whether he leans towards sedevaticanism or towards reconciliation?
His father is a sedevatican. He certainly is not.
Vatican II's reforms were almost entirely on Church practices, not doctrine. Many devout Catholics do not like the changes Vatican II made.

DragonKnight

06-25-2004, 10:18 AM

He openly supports abortion which the Church is unapologetically against.Oh yay, I do too. Guess I'm a heretic. Who here wants first dibs at burning me at the stake? :cool:

kuilong

06-25-2004, 03:01 PM

Great, now I don't know what I am b/c I believe that God does intervene/isn't immanent. :mad:

Hey, just because God is immanent doesn't mean he doesn't intervene in the world. Catholics believe in an immanent God (see Catholic Encyclopedia: Immanence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm)), but they certainly don't think God is an absentee landlord. :P

What's your opinion on this? Do you think God is immanent?

Hahah, no I don't, seeing as I believe the "omnimax" God doesn't exist. (As for non-"omnimax" conceptions of God, like Anselmian beings, I hold no opinion).

Oh yay, I do too. Guess I'm a heretic. Who here wants first dibs at burning me at the stake?

Lucky for you, the Church is also anti-death penalty these days. :P All they want you to do nowadays is stop taking communion.

DragonKnight

06-25-2004, 04:32 PM

Lucky for you, the Church is also anti-death penalty these days. :P All they want you to do nowadays is stop taking communion.*whew*

Now all I have to do is worry about religious fanatics and all things should be kosher. :biggrin:

Napoleon Chynamite

06-25-2004, 08:40 PM

Off topic but just wondering since there seems to be debate surrounding the very definition of liberalism itself. Nowadays people see being 'liberal' as more accepting of change. According to the Bible, Jesus had absolutely no problem with change and alteration of enrooted tradition, yet only if it was change in order to make things how he (the Son of God or God himself) felt they needed to be. I guess whether or not Jesus was a 'liberal' man is up to the individual to decide. It is my understanding, however, that the original definition of being a 'liberal' simply means more emphasis, focus, and value placed on individual liberties (hence the term 'liberal') in nation states rather than in the favor of an overbearing or overempowered government or overall structure of control. This contrasts slightly different from today regarding how anyone who embraces 'change' or equates 'change' with 'progress' is often labeled a liberal. Judging from the term 'conservative', however, it would be likely to assume that people under such a label are opposed to change (or at least rapid nongradual change) due to having the desire or support for 'conservation' of tradition.

That is utter crap. If morals are entirely relative then nobody can be anti-moral.
If your daughter thought that there was nothing immoral about being a prostitute at age 12, would you be saying the same thing?
This is the problem with you die-hard liberals. Nothing is wrong. Everything is permissible. Bin Laden was a moral man.

How in the heck is this utter crap? When people say that morals are entirely relative, it means that what is 'moral' vs. 'immoral' is completely dependent upon, once again, the individual or perhaps the holy book from which religious people derive or construct their moral framework. Bin Laden is certainly a moral man in the eyes of some, and an immoral man in the eyes of others (I'd say many). Kinda like how people say 'beauty is relative'. What is beautiful to you may not be beautiful to me, and vice versa.

If Jesus were alive today he would be really pissed at the people who claim to be real Christians, plain and simple.

I agree with this, but only because Jesus did not approve of individuals insinuating or feeling that they were more holy or 'better' or 'more moral' than others. To claim oneself as a 'real Christian' and others as 'fake' or 'bad Christians' does just that. But I don't really agree with how Jesus felt the church HAD to change for the sake of change. As mentioned above, I believe he embraced change whenever he felt it was necessary.

You act like Christianity is the absolute truth and God favors Christianity. Sorry, hate to break it to you -- it's not. You don't need to be a Christian to worship God and be enlightened, which is, basically, the point you made about you're Buddhist friend. But, we need to be careful with our terms here.

To say that God 'does' or 'does not' favor Christianity while saying 'sorry i hate to break it to you but you're wrong etc. etc.' is to make the exact same mistake that you are criticizing. There are some who do believe that Christianity or the Christian God is the absolute truth and authority, as there are those who place entire faith in the Koran or the Torah, and then there are buddhists and polytheists etc. etc. And then there are those who believe that we all are worshiping the same God regardless of religious differences. I don't mean to be rude at all here, but I don't see how your statement about Christianity not holding ultimate authority to hold any more water than the statements you are countering. Sorry if I'm not being very clear on this.

I'm with rasheed. An absence of the belief in God is a belief. Unless, the person has no opinion at all, which is hard to believe someone could when the curiousity of the nature of the universe is OVERWHELMINGLY pervasive. You have to be mentally incapable of having an opinion to not have an opinion. I wonder if people with Down's syndrome have opinions on God.

I'd hafta side with Kuilong on this. What the heck? Obviously since I've never even considered or pondered about the controversial issue of rabid mice infesting the houses of Leichstenstein, there is an absence of belief or perspective regarding the topic. Does this in fact constitute a belief on the issue?

Yeahman

06-26-2004, 07:24 AM

How in the heck is this utter crap? When people say that morals are entirely relative, it means that what is 'moral' vs. 'immoral' is completely dependent upon, once again, the individual or perhaps the holy book from which religious people derive or construct their moral framework. Bin Laden is certainly a moral man in the eyes of some, and an immoral man in the eyes of others (I'd say many). Kinda like how people say 'beauty is relative'. What is beautiful to you may not be beautiful to me, and vice versa.
Beauty is NOT entirely relative! Who here thinks that Nicole Kidman is ugly?
Nothing is entirely relative. There are absolutes. For example, some people may think that Bin Laden is a moral man. But Bin Laden is not a single issue man. Is the fight to free the Palestinians, moral? Yes. Is killing innocent people, moral? No. Some people may try to justify it by saying that it serves a "greater good." But there again, they are merely excusing the evil for the sake of the good. Their morals are not different.

To say that God 'does' or 'does not' favor Christianity while saying 'sorry i hate to break it to you but you're wrong etc. etc.' is to make the exact same mistake that you are criticizing. There are some who do believe that Christianity or the Christian God is the absolute truth and authority, as there are those who place entire faith in the Koran or the Torah, and then there are buddhists and polytheists etc. etc. And then there are those who believe that we all are worshiping the same God regardless of religious differences. I don't mean to be rude at all here, but I don't see how your statement about Christianity not holding ultimate authority to hold any more water than the statements you are countering. Sorry if I'm not being very clear on this.
Now you see the problem of moral relativism. Nothing is right except for the fact that nothing is right. Everything is equal and it doesn't matter what you belief.
I have this debate with this guy at church every week. I'll say something and he'll say "But the Hindus believe that..." But I'm not a Hindu! That's not what I believe! He wants me to aknowledge the validity of other faiths. Like I said it's utter crap. The belief that one must accept all beliefs as long as you don't believe in any of them. This is why liberals tend to be anti-religion while at the same time calling it an all-encompassing love for all religions.

Filiprish

06-28-2004, 01:10 AM

Hey, just because God is immanent doesn't mean he doesn't intervene in the world. Catholics believe in an immanent God (see Catholic Encyclopedia: Immanence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm)), but they certainly don't think God is an absentee landlord. :P
Thanks for that.

Hahah, no I don't, seeing as I believe the "omnimax" God doesn't exist. (As for non-"omnimax" conceptions of God, like Anselmian beings, I hold no opinion).
What is exactly is "omnimax"? Sounds like an interesting term.

But I don't really agree with how Jesus felt the church HAD to change for the sake of change. As mentioned above, I believe he embraced change whenever he felt it was necessary.
Don't you think we all do that?

I don't mean to be rude at all here, but I don't see how your statement about Christianity not holding ultimate authority to hold any more water than the statements you are countering. Sorry if I'm not being very clear on this.
Christianity is simply not the ultimate authority. How can it be when there are numerous other religions that it. While Christianity has tried to simply itself to absolute truth, world domination of Christianity is not the goal.

I'd hafta side with Kuilong on this. What the heck? Obviously since I've never even considered or pondered about the controversial issue of rabid mice infesting the houses of Leichstenstein, there is an absence of belief or perspective regarding the topic. Does this in fact constitute a belief on the issue?
How can one not ponder about the higher being (God)? We all have opinions? If you're not sure than you're not sure, but to not have an opinion at all -- be it not sure or sure -- is ridiculous.

Off topic but just wondering since there seems to be debate surrounding the very definition of liberalism itself. Nowadays people see being 'liberal' as more accepting of change.
Just so you know, I'm Independent/centrist, not liberal.

Yeahman

06-28-2004, 09:07 AM

Christianity is simply not the ultimate authority. How can it be when there are numerous other religions that it. While Christianity has tried to simply itself to absolute truth, world domination of Christianity is not the goal.
I cringed when I read that part of your post. Of all the things I hate about liberalism, that is probably the worst; that differences in belief mean that you shouldn't hold to any of them or that you have to come up with some ecumenical formula to reconcil all of them together for the sake of fairness.
Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Now prove me wrong. "There are numerous other religions." is not a valid arguement since I said that they are all wrong.

Martino

06-28-2004, 10:25 AM

Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Now prove me wrong. "There are numerous other religions." is not a valid arguement since I said that they are all wrong.

Christ was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, but he wasn't recognised as such because he didn't match the prophecy - so those who thought he was the son of god went of and started their own sect, which flourished.

What sets Christianity apart from all other religions? Not a lot. It's relatively new, 2000-odd years, and was a sect which sprung from the Jewish faith. The Jews don't recognise Jesus Christ, but Islam does. Islam is more recent, only 1400-odd years old. Islam is the product of revelation, just as Judaism was.

Which of these three is the most authentic? Christ didn't disprove Judaism - he was a Jew. So the Jewish god is 'real' insofar that Christ didn't say it it wasn't. The Jews didn't think Christ was the true messiah, and presumably they would know as the messiah is supposed to deliver them, which Christ didn't - the opposite in fact.

So where does this 'ultimate authority' come from? Christianity is the middleman between two big faiths. I would say either Judaism is the true faith, as it is based on the original God, or Islam, as it's based on the idea that God continues to reveal himself through avatars.

The two religions who bookmark Christianity are also markedly more devout than their Christian counterparts; not just in terms of falling congregations, but in their treatment of God Himself. Christianity today bears NO resemblance at all with the original faith, something you just cannt say about the other two.

Christianity is simply not the ultimate authority. How can it be when there are numerous other religions that it. While Christianity has tried to simply itself to absolute truth, world domination of Christianity is not the goal.

Agreed. Someone can easily make that claim with the same conviction that a L Ron Hubbard devotee can claim that scientology is the ultimate authority. That sort of mentality is meaningless, and the cause of much bloodshed.

Filiprish

06-28-2004, 10:54 AM

I cringed when I read that part of your post. Of all the things I hate about liberalism, that is probably the worst; that differences in belief mean that you shouldn't hold to any of them or that you have to come up with some ecumenical formula to reconcil all of them together for the sake of fairness.
Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Now prove me wrong. "There are numerous other religions." is not a valid arguement since I said that they are all wrong.
Why do you have to label the truth Christianity? Why can't it just simply be the truth?

FYI, I used to be hardcore Catholic and then hardcore liberal and now I'm hardcore moderate. Basically, I've been there, done that. I'm glad I've found the truth.

Martino

06-28-2004, 12:27 PM

Why do you have to label the truth Christianity? Why can't it just simply be the truth?

FYI, I used to be hardcore Catholic and then hardcore liberal and now I'm hardcore moderate. Basically, I've been there, done that. I'm glad I've found the truth.

So you were a hardcore Catholic. At that point you thought what you beleived was the truth. Ditto when you lapsed. And lapsed again. So your truth is completely ephemeral and may change again and again in future. sound of bear trap snapping shut

I'm rooting for you on this one, but 'been there, done that' is a pretty poor position when it comes to religion.

Filiprish

06-28-2004, 01:03 PM

Martino

06-28-2004, 01:13 PM

^I suppose you were born with the truth? Truth-seeking is a journey.

No, I never felt comfortable with the ideas that were forced down my throat. That is why my beliefs were so transient. They are not like that anymore. I finally feel like I've found truth.

Ah, well, you used the word hardcore ...

Life can be a journey, if you want to look at it like that. Question is, how far have you got down the road?

DragonKnight

06-28-2004, 01:18 PM

Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Oh geez... :rolleyes:

Napoleon Chynamite

06-28-2004, 01:20 PM

What sets Christianity apart from all other religions? Not a lot. It's relatively new, 2000-odd years, and was a sect which sprung from the Jewish faith. The Jews don't recognise Jesus Christ, but Islam does.

I'm not well versed in Judaism or Islam so somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a gifted individual/prophet able to perform wonders by God but deny the deification or equating of him with God. What do you mean by "recognize", you mean as in...realize the greatness of who he was, or accept that he was God come in the flesh?

The two religions who bookmark Christianity are also markedly more devout than their Christian counterparts; not just in terms of falling congregations, but in their treatment of God Himself. Christianity today bears NO resemblance at all with the original faith, something you just cannt say about the other two.

What do you mean by 'the original faith'? You mean, many Christians today do not go through the same prescribed and enrooted traditions and daily, monthly, or annual rituals as the Christians of yesteryear? I am not against religious tradition by any means, but I would definitely hesitate from my standpoint to say that to abandon tradition is automatically wrong or undesirable, even if you're talking about 'staying true to a religion'. As far as I'm concerned, not keeping to tradition and embracing change does not in any way make the religion any less credible nor does it make the followers any less devout, unless once again, you are equating 'devout' with someone who keeps to tradition and performs more 'ritual' activity. Btw I am not excusing those Christians who expect to develop a healthy relationship with God via going to church one day per week and then proceeding to commit every sin in the book for the next 6 and a half days.

Don't you think we all do that?

I've come across quite a few people (they claim themselves as liberals but I'm not sure) who seem to always equate change with progress and often give the very option of 'change' a benefit of the doubt. They carry with themselves an insinuation that change is always for the better and a sense that tradition is meant to be fixed, altered, amended, abandoned, etc.

I think I'm getting a bit tired of these religion threads, simply because it goes nowhere. Those adhering to certain faiths will proceed to stick to their faiths, and no amount of scientific or philosophical argument will change their minds, because when it all comes down to it, we follow what we follow perhaps based on some scientific or philosophical evidence or reasoning yes, but ultimately because of a combination of emotions, convictions, and some type of inner pull we feel inside whether we be hardcore Atheist, Buddhist, or Christian etc. Those looking to disprove faiths (or prove them) will not be successful, because quite frankly, if certain religions could be disproved or proved, people much smarter and informed than us would have done so by now.

Filiprish

06-28-2004, 02:35 PM

Ah, well, you used the word hardcore ...

Life can be a journey, if you want to look at it like that. Question is, how far have you got down the road?
I embraced them in a hardcore way. Did I ever feel like I was being myself? No. I always felt like I was conforming to what outside forces were telling me to do/believe. That's why I was so transient. I decided to cut them off and look within myself for answers b/c, like you said, we don't know how long we have.

When does my road end? A good while from now, I hope. In the mean time, I'll do what I can to prolong it as much as I can.

Martino

06-28-2004, 04:31 PM

I'm not well versed in Judaism or Islam so somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a gifted individual/prophet able to perform wonders by God but deny the deification or equating of him with God. What do you mean by "recognize", you mean as in...realize the greatness of who he was, or accept that he was God come in the flesh?

They see Christ as an avatar, a prophet, an instrument, but only one of a succession of avatars.

What do you mean by 'the original faith'? You mean, many Christians today do not go through the same prescribed and enrooted traditions and daily, monthly, or annual rituals as the Christians of yesteryear?

Well, what was the message of Christ? How did the first true Christians conduct themselves? The turning cheeks, the not killing ... how does that translate to the later millenia and a half of Christian history? I don't know of a faith less true to its roots.

Those early believers died for their faith, would not fight, would not kill. The Romans made sport of them. Now its OK to kill because the nation comes first? I don't think Christ would see it that way - do you?

I am not against religious tradition by any means, but I would definitely hesitate from my standpoint to say that to abandon tradition is automatically wrong or undesirable, even if you're talking about 'staying true to a religion'. As far as I'm concerned, not keeping to tradition and embracing change does not in any way make the religion any less credible nor does it make the followers any less devout, unless once again, you are equating 'devout' with someone who keeps to tradition and performs more 'ritual' activity. Btw I am not excusing those Christians who expect to develop a healthy relationship with God via going to church one day per week and then proceeding to commit every sin in the book for the next 6 and a half days.

But look at how artificial, and, lately, commercial Christian ritual is. Christ's birthday is celebrated the world over on the wrong day, because when the Europeans were being converted it was the only way to stop them observing a Pagan festival. Other 'traditions' were introduced much later, and their meaning to Christ ... ?

And the relatively new obsession with the singing of hymns... who knows what musical taste, if any, God has.

I think I'm getting a bit tired of these religion threads, simply because it goes nowhere. Those adhering to certain faiths will proceed to stick to their faiths, and no amount of scientific or philosophical argument will change their minds, because when it all comes down to it, we follow what we follow perhaps based on some scientific or philosophical evidence or reasoning yes, but ultimately because of a combination of emotions, convictions, and some type of inner pull we feel inside whether we be hardcore Atheist, Buddhist, or Christian etc. Those looking to disprove faiths (or prove them) will not be successful, because quite frankly, if certain religions could be disproved or proved, people much smarter and informed than us would have done so by now.

Amen. (sorry, couldn't resist that).

Yeahman

06-28-2004, 04:56 PM

Christ was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, but he wasn't recognised as such because he didn't match the prophecy - so those who thought he was the son of god went of and started their own sect, which flourished.

What sets Christianity apart from all other religions? Not a lot. It's relatively new, 2000-odd years, and was a sect which sprung from the Jewish faith. The Jews don't recognise Jesus Christ, but Islam does. Islam is more recent, only 1400-odd years old. Islam is the product of revelation, just as Judaism was.

Which of these three is the most authentic? Christ didn't disprove Judaism - he was a Jew. So the Jewish god is 'real' insofar that Christ didn't say it it wasn't. The Jews didn't think Christ was the true messiah, and presumably they would know as the messiah is supposed to deliver them, which Christ didn't - the opposite in fact.

So where does this 'ultimate authority' come from? Christianity is the middleman between two big faiths. I would say either Judaism is the true faith, as it is based on the original God, or Islam, as it's based on the idea that God continues to reveal himself through avatars.

The two religions who bookmark Christianity are also markedly more devout than their Christian counterparts; not just in terms of falling congregations, but in their treatment of God Himself. Christianity today bears NO resemblance at all with the original faith, something you just cannt say about the other two.
huh?
A religion is true because it is the first or last? What about the Mormons?
How does Christianity today bear no resemblance with the original faith? Granted Christianity is very diverse today.

Why do you have to label the truth Christianity? Why can't it just simply be the truth?

FYI, I used to be hardcore Catholic and then hardcore liberal and now I'm hardcore moderate. Basically, I've been there, done that. I'm glad I've found the truth.
A hardcore moderate? An oxymoron, no?
You sure you dn't have any more transitions in store?
If Christianity is the truth then that's what it is.

^I suppose you were born with the truth? Truth-seeking is a journey.

No, I never felt comfortable with the ideas that were forced down my throat. That is why my beliefs were so transient. It's not like that anymore, I finally feel like I've found truth.
I've felt that when I was a hardcore Catholic and then a hardcore liberal and now a "hardcore" moderate though "moderate" to me is probably "conservative" to you.

Well, what was the message of Christ? How did the first true Christians conduct themselves? The turning cheeks, the not killing ... how does that translate to the later millenia and a half of Christian history? I don't know of a faith less true to its roots.

Those early believers died for their faith, would not fight, would not kill. The Romans made sport of them. Now its OK to kill because the nation comes first? I don't think Christ would see it that way - do you?
Jesus never condemned war for the sake of self-preservation.

But look at how artificial, and, lately, commercial Christian ritual is. Christ's birthday is celebrated the world over on the wrong day, because when the Europeans were being converted it was the only way to stop them observing a Pagan festival. Other 'traditions' were introduced much later, and their meaning to Christ ... ?
The early Christians didn't have movies either. Do you think they would have disapproved of the Passion?
"Tradition" does not mean "wrong" as the new-age Christians insist.

And the relatively new obsession with the singing of hymns... who knows what musical taste, if any, God has.
Hymns are damn old.

DragonKnight

06-28-2004, 05:32 PM

I think I'm getting a bit tired of these religion threads, simply because it goes nowhere. Those adhering to certain faiths will proceed to stick to their faiths, and no amount of scientific or philosophical argument will change their minds, because when it all comes down to it, we follow what we follow perhaps based on some scientific or philosophical evidence or reasoning yes, but ultimately because of a combination of emotions, convictions, and some type of inner pull we feel inside whether we be hardcore Atheist, Buddhist, or Christian etc. Those looking to disprove faiths (or prove them) will not be successful, because quite frankly, if certain religions could be disproved or proved, people much smarter and informed than us would have done so by now.
Tru dat. I wholeheartedly agree.

Martino

06-28-2004, 05:36 PM

huh?
A religion is true because it is the first or last?

Since I belong to none of the three, and the topic seems to have crystalised around someone saying Christianity is the one truth, I'm using these three as a yardstick. Playing ... Devil's Advocate.

Yeahman

06-28-2004, 07:04 PM

Oh geez... :rolleyes:
Why the intolerance of other faiths? Do we all have to be atheists?

Filiprish

06-29-2004, 01:25 AM

A hardcore moderate? An oxymoron, no?
You sure you dn't have any more transitions in store?
If Christianity is the truth then that's what it is.
Nope, no oxymoron. I'm moderate in it's quintessential form. I know it's hard for someone like you to imagine this. "I know what you're thinking, he has one foot with the devil and one foot with lord. Please Jesus, guide him back to the light." Sorry, dude, I love God and I'm full of light. Conservatives are hyper-anal and end up only loving themselves and a select group of hyper-anal retentives like themselves. Think about it.

Things are changing and the political spectrum is imploding.

I've felt that when I was a hardcore Catholic and then a hardcore liberal and now a "hardcore" moderate though "moderate" to me is probably "conservative" to you.
No, I get accused of being conservative all the time. One of the times was when I was at a freakin' casino, in Biloxi, MS, playing the slot machines. This guy was playing beside me and I kept winning. He says to me, "That must be the Republican way to win." Wtf? That shit pissed my off, man. People are too damn narrow-minded. They see a facade and don't look beneath. People need to open their eyes.

kuilong

06-29-2004, 06:20 AM

Why the intolerance of other faiths? Do we all have to be atheists?

No, we all have to be Christians. Or else:

http://www.chick.com/tractimages21704/0041/0041_22.gif

Christ was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, but he wasn't recognised as such because he didn't match the prophecy - so those who thought he was the son of god went of and started their own sect, which flourished.

This ignores the fact that there was a large Jewish contigent amongst early Christians. They were mostly all killed during the Jewish wars, along with a whole bunch of other (more or less mainstream) Jewish sects. Christianity is in pretty good company here.

And Christians believe he does match the prophecies. Not to mention all those messianic Jews. (I agree with you though, but I digress)

What sets Christianity apart from all other religions? Not a lot. It's relatively new, 2000-odd years, and was a sect which sprung from the Jewish faith. The Jews don't recognise Jesus Christ, but Islam does. Islam is more recent, only 1400-odd years old. Islam is the product of revelation, just as Judaism was.

What does this have to do with anything? If there was a true religion, why would it necessarily be the oldest, or the newest?

Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Now prove me wrong.

Define "Christianity". What beliefs are included? Biblical infallibility? Arminianism? Apostolic succession? Chalcedonianism? Sola fide?

What is exactly is "omnimax"? Sounds like an interesting term.

Omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, omnibenevolent, etc.

Yeahman

06-29-2004, 01:39 PM

Nope, no oxymoron. I'm moderate in it's quintessential form. I know it's hard for someone like you to imagine this. "I know what you're thinking, he has one foot with the devil and one foot with lord. Please Jesus, guide him back to the light." Sorry, dude, I love God and I'm full of light. Conservatives are hyper-anal and end up only loving themselves and a select group of hyper-anal retentives like themselves. Think about it.
But that's what "hardcore" is.

Define "Christianity". What beliefs are included? Biblical infallibility? Arminianism? Apostolic succession? Chalcedonianism? Sola fide?
Just trying to make the point that the existence of other beliefs does not make them valid in any way.
But if you really wanna know, I define Christianity by the Nicene Creed. One step further than Chesterton takes it with his definition of Orthodoxy as belief in the Apostle's Creed.

Martino

06-29-2004, 05:12 PM

Just trying to make the point that the existence of other beliefs does not make them valid in any way.

You'll feel pretty dumb when you die, only to find the Hindu's were right all along ...

mr. x

06-29-2004, 09:08 PM

You'll feel pretty dumb when you die, only to find the Hindu's were right all along ...
lol, like when flanders got his kidney or whatever ripped out and he was dying

"confucious?!? looks like ive been barking up the wrong tree"

Yeahman

06-29-2004, 09:27 PM

You'll feel pretty dumb when you die, only to find the Hindu's were right all along ...
And you'd be in the same camp.
So should we all hedge our bets and practice every religion?

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 02:54 AM

You'll feel pretty dumb when you die, only to find the Hindu's were right all along ...
That would suck.

And you'd be in the same camp.
So should we all hedge our bets and practice every religion?
YES. That's exactly what I'm doing, but not every aspect of every religion, just the ones I agree with.

kuilong

06-30-2004, 04:10 AM

You'll feel pretty dumb when you die, only to find the Hindu's were right all along ...

The similarities to Pascal's Wager are frightening.

You'll all be in a pretty pass when you die and find out that God loves atheists and hates people who worship false gods. We'll see who's laughing then!

Yeahman

06-30-2004, 09:30 AM

YES. That's exactly what I'm doing, but not every aspect of every religion, just the ones I agree with.
So basically you reject every religion.
You're screwed too then.

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 10:09 AM

So basically you reject every religion.
You're screwed too then.
I have profound faith, probably more than you. I do NOT reject religion in its entirety. Faith and love/good works is the key to salvation, not a blasphemous, self-righteous concept such as religion. How am I screwed? You sure you're not the screwed one?

Yeahman

06-30-2004, 10:28 AM

How so? I don't reject religion or faith in its entirety. :confused:
No, you just reject their most central tenets.
Do you believe in the Trinity? If not, you reject Christianity.
Do you follow the law of the Torah? If not, you reject Judaism.
Do you believe Muhammad to be a prophet of Allah and the Qur'an to be the actual Word of Allah? If not, you reject Islam.
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, you reject Buddhism.

I have profound faith, probably more than you.
Obviously you reject the humility taught by all religions. Unless you believe that we're all gods and can see in the hearts of others.

I do NOT reject religion in its entirety. Faith and love/good works is the key to salvation, not a blasphemous, self-righteous concept such as religion. How am I screwed? You sure you're not the screwed one?
Faith in what?
Religion is organized faith.

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 10:36 AM

No, you just reject their most central tenets.
Do you believe in the Trinity? If not, you reject Christianity.
YES.
Do you follow the law of the Torah? If not, you reject Judaism.
Judaism is basically Christianity. So, YES.
Do you believe Muhammad to be a prophet of Allah and the Qur'an to be the actual Word of Allah? If not, you reject Islam.
YES/NO, he is A prophet of Allah (God).
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, you reject Buddhism.
The jury is still out on this one. I'm leaning towards NO, but there's more to Buddhism than reincarnation.

Again, how am I screwed? :confused:

Obviously you reject the humility taught by all religions. Unless you believe that we're all gods and can see in the hearts of others.
There's this thing called psychoanalysis. God created us in his image.

Faith in what?
Religion is organized faith.
Faith in God. Faith that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world. Faith in the life to come. Faith in love, beauty and all that is good.

Yeahman

06-30-2004, 10:50 AM

If you believe in the Trinity, you reject Judaism and Islam. You are a blasphemer who is worshiping a mere mortal.
Do you believe that eternal happiness is possible by the grace of God alone or through the successful practice of the 8-fold path? One is right, the other is wrong. Which is it?

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 11:43 AM

If you believe in the Trinity, you reject Judaism and Islam. You are a blasphemer who is worshiping a mere mortal.
I believe in my version of the Trinity. I don't know if it's the "real" Trinity and I could care less if it isn't. I believe there the father, God, the son, individual human souls, and the holy spirit, the collective human soul. Btw, I do not believe that Jesus was "the" son of God. I just believe he was a very enlightened person who took action that needed to be taken.

Do you believe that eternal happiness is possible by the grace of God alone or through the successful practice of the 8-fold path? One is right, the other is wrong. Which is it?I'm not sure what you mean by the grace of God. God doesn't grant happiness, if he did we'd all be happy all the time. Of course, he makes it possible, though. The 8-fold path is only part of the way. The problem I have with it that it's very self-centered, not much on how to help humanity. IMO, the eight-fold path just helps you keep your head on straight.

I'm still not sure why I'm screwed.

Yeahman

06-30-2004, 12:53 PM

You are screwed according to Christanity since you do not believe Jesus was the son of God.
You are screwed according to Judaism and Islam since you believe in a trinity.
You are screwed according to Buddhism since you you rely on things which do not conform to the 8-fold path.
You are not going to heaven, nirvana, paradise, whatever you want to call it. You are not hedging your bets. You're not placing any bets. At least the atheist/agnostic knows that his view of the world is incompatible with the various religions. You seem to be in denial.

You are no moderate. You are the quintessential hardcore liberal. The new-age "I'm spiritual but not religious" "doesn't matter what religion you follow" syncretist.

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 01:27 PM

You are no moderate. You are the quintessential hardcore liberal. The new-age "I'm spiritual but not religious" "doesn't matter what religion you follow" syncretist.
I don't think so, but so what if I am. If that's what I am, then that's what I am. The cosmos tells me that I'm right and definitely not evil -- I do not need approval from any single faith but my own. You have a lot of balls for saying that I'm not going to heaven and God is going to punish you for that. I truly feel sorry for you. I've dedicated my life to the service of others b/c I don't like what I see in this perfect world that humans have turned cold. I'm going to change the world in ways that you can't even begin to fathom. B/c my ideas on the nature of the universe are not it alliance with an organized religion, I am going to hell? Seriously, if we were having this discussion in person I don't know if I could hold back the devil from doing/saying some hurtful things to you. You just don't say things like that to people. (Forgive me lord, but look what I'm dealing with -- a cantankorous, weak-minded bigot.) On what grounds and I not going to heaven? Are you going to heaven? On what grounds?

kuilong

06-30-2004, 09:12 PM

I don't think so, but so what if I am. If that's what I am, then that's what I am. The cosmos tells me that I'm right and definitely not evil -- I do not need approval from any single faith but my own. You have a lot of balls for saying that I'm not going to heaven and God is going to punish you for that. I truly feel sorry for you. I've dedicated my life to the service of others b/c I don't like what I see in this perfect world that humans have turned cold. I'm going to change the world in ways that you can't even begin to fathom. B/c my ideas on the nature of the universe are not it alliance with an organized religion, I am going to hell? Seriously, if we were having this discussion in person I don't know if I could hold back the devil from doing/saying some hurtful things to you. You just don't say things like that to people. (Forgive me lord, but look what I'm dealing with -- a cantankorous, weak-minded bigot.) On what grounds and I not going to heaven? Are you going to heaven? On what grounds?

I think what he's saying is that Christian belief is that you will go to hell (this belief isn't totally universal amongst Christians today -- after all, nothing really is -- but IMHO it does seem to be one of the better supported doctrines biblically). I don't know how someone can sleep at night with that sort of philosophy, but apparently people can and do.

So his "grounds" may be based on history (he thinks there's enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was resurrected, and this proves the God of Christianity), philosophy (ontological, teleological, transcedental, cosmological, religious experience arguments, etc.). In order to disprove his "grounds", you might have to get into a lot of detailed arguments.

Incidentally, why do you believe what you do? Like... more specifically than "the cosmos tells you".

Yeahman

06-30-2004, 10:02 PM

Filiprish

06-30-2004, 10:31 PM

You are a truely bizzare fellow. Really. I don't know if that was your intention; to come across as a weirdo. But it worked. I don't even know what else to say. Go do what the cosmos tells you and save the world from the devil, man!
You have slyly avoided answering my questions. Would please have the courtesy to tell me why I am and deserve to go to hell? I think I deserve to know. Then, tell me why you are and deserve to go to heaven, especially after telling that I'm going to hell!?! Btw, Christians are way too bizarre, that is why I had to leave that church.

I think what he's saying is that Christian belief is that you will go to hell (this belief isn't totally universal amongst Christians today -- after all, nothing really is -- but IMHO it does seem to be one of the better supported doctrines biblically). I don't know how someone can sleep at night with that sort of philosophy, but apparently people can and do.
I don't understand, either.

So his "grounds" may be based on history (he thinks there's enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was resurrected, and this proves the God of Christianity), philosophy (ontological, teleological, transcedental, cosmological, religious experience arguments, etc.). In order to disprove his "grounds", you might have to get into a lot of detailed arguments.
You do not need Jesus are any other religion in this world. They may help you, but you do not need them. What about the people in the secluded parts of the world that have never heard of Jesus, or Muhammad or Budda or even God? I believe you have to emit a certain degree of light from your soul to enter higher plains of existence in the after life, much life Hindu believes. On the other hand, we all go to the after life, which is better than this world, yet there is a hierarchy. There's countless ways of getting to the higher plains of existence. Christianity could get you to one of the higher ones, but not necassarily. It really depends on how one treats other people and wisdom one has gone and what one chooses to do with that wisdom. Trust me, I was raised is an extremely conservative Catholic home. I wanted Christianity to be the ultimate faith, but I received a huge slap in the face when I began studying the various liberal arts -- history, biology, literature, sociology, psychology, astronomy/physics, economics, earth science, geology, philosophy/religion, language, etc. (I received a very liberal education by wise choice). You cannot study all these things in depth and not question your faith and realize that one does not need religion in this life only love.

If you study the history of Christianity you see that Judaism gave birth to the faith. Jesus was a Jew, so basically all Christians are Jews. Paul created Christianity. He took a carpenter's son's suicide and turned it into a religion.

Paul vs Jesus Christ (http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/paulvsall.html)

It's funny how Europe has a longer history with Christianity and is credited with spreading it around the world, yet most of its political leaders and citizens are Atheist/Agnostic, but they're probably a lot like me -- we just haven't found the right term for people like us.

TIMEeurope - O Father Where Art Thou? - June 16, 2003 (http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/030616/story.html)