PDA

View Full Version : What do you call a person who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith


Filiprish
06-20-2004, 07:09 PM
Does anyone know?

PropellerheadCP
06-20-2004, 07:12 PM
The last time I checked: "Spiritual" is a general term for people who believe in a higher power, but doesn't want to belong to a religious institution.

I'm personally not sure about that, but it's what I've been told. I don't know what to call myself, either.

Faithless
06-20-2004, 07:14 PM
Theist?

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 07:20 PM
Spiritial, I'm not very fond of that term. Theist, now that might work. I'm a theist.

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

I believe in God and that there is truth in all religions (not all facets of every religion, though). I'm more fond of philosophy than I am of religion. But religion is attempts to take the truth of various philosophies and compile them. So I don't disregard religion all together. I know religion isn't perfect. Any other theists in the house?

nameless
06-20-2004, 07:51 PM
There's also the term agnostic, which is along the lines of neither believing nor denying the existence of God(s).

PropellerheadCP
06-20-2004, 07:58 PM
There's also the term agnostic, which is along the lines of neither believing nor denying the existence of God(s).

I never really understood how there's a term for that. It's kind of like "social smokers." Come on... you're either a smoker, or you're not.

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 08:11 PM
I never really understood how there's a term for that. It's kind of like "social smokers." Come on... you're either a smoker, or you're not.
I agree. But agnostic means you're not sure.

PropellerheadCP
06-20-2004, 08:29 PM
I agree. But agnostic means you're not sure.

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.

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 08:33 PM
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.
I hear you. They just want to sound sophisticated.

Yeahman
06-20-2004, 08:38 PM
The correct term for one who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith is "confused."

kuilong
06-20-2004, 08:40 PM
I always thought an agnostic was someone who doesn't think there's enough evidence for anyone to decide whether or not there's a God. And sometimes it means that there will never be enough evidence (i.e., we'll never know).

As such, an agnostic would be an atheist (but not all atheists are agnostics).

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 08:58 PM
I always thought an agnostic was someone who doesn't think there's enough evidence for anyone to decide whether or not there's a God. And sometimes it means that there will never be enough evidence (i.e., we'll never know).

As such, an agnostic would be an atheist (but not all atheists are agnostics).

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

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

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

kuilong
06-20-2004, 09:33 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, 10:30 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, 10:56 PM
Does anyone know?
Yes. A confused tart.

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 11:39 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, 11:49 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.

Filiprish
06-20-2004, 11:54 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, 02:18 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, 08:38 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, 10:25 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, 10:28 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, 10:36 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.

Martino
06-21-2004, 10:42 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, 10:49 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, 10:52 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, 10:59 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, 11:37 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, 12:19 PM
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, 01:53 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, 05:40 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, 05:57 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, 05:59 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, 06:02 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, 08:37 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, 09:04 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, 02:14 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, 04:38 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, 03:32 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, 05:49 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, 07:42 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, 01:02 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, 02:24 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, 03:02 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, 01:51 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, 06:08 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, 06:23 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, 06:34 AM
The one and only God.

Gimme a hint.

rasheedgonzales
06-24-2004, 06:38 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, 10:52 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, 10:53 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, 11:16 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, 12:04 PM
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, 01:50 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, 03:34 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, 05:09 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, 05:46 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, 10:33 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, 01:19 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, 02:03 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, 02:11 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, 02:26 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, 03:17 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, 09:35 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, 11:18 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, 04:01 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, 05:32 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, 09:40 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, 08:24 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, 02:10 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, 10:07 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, 11:25 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, 11:54 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, 01:27 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, 02:03 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. It's not like that anymore, I finally feel like I've found truth.

Martino
06-28-2004, 02:13 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, 02:18 PM
Christianity is the ultimate authority. All other religions are wrong.
Oh geez... :rolleyes:

Napoleon Chynamite
06-28-2004, 02:20 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, 03:35 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, 05:31 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, 05:56 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, 06:32 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, 06:36 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, 08:04 PM
Oh geez... :rolleyes:
Why the intolerance of other faiths? Do we all have to be atheists?

Filiprish
06-29-2004, 02:25 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, 07:20 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, 02:39 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, 06:12 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, 10:08 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, 10:27 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, 03:54 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, 05:10 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, 10:30 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, 11:09 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, 11:28 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, 11:36 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, 11:50 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, 12:43 PM
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, 01:53 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, 02:27 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, 10:12 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, 11:02 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?
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!

Filiprish
06-30-2004, 11:31 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)

Yeahman
07-01-2004, 12:23 AM
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 never said I deserve to go to heaven. But according to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, you will not. I don't care if you don't care or if you think it's unfair or arrogant. I'm just stating their beliefs.

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?
Looks like one class you didn't take is Christianity 101. In Catholicism, it's called "incurable ignorance" and you are inculpable.

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.
Sure you can. I've studied them all. Except for earth science and geology. I'm sure the guy on Jeopardy on this 20th win studied them all. Yet he's still a Mormon. Even Alex Trebec is a conservative Catholic. It is pure ignorance to think that an education makes you into a hippie.

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.
And all of Jesus' disciples just revised their memories accordingly?

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.
Europe's leaders are not pantheists.
Tony Blair is a devout Anglo-Catholic. Jacques Chirac is Catholic. Zapatero is Catholic and Spain wanted the new EU Constitution to include a mention of Europe's Christian roots. You can't get elected in Italy without being Catholic. The situation is the same all over Europe. The difference is that in Europe Christianity is no big deal. Only in the US do they make such a big deal about it.

DragonKnight
07-02-2004, 08:37 PM
Why the intolerance of other faiths? Do we all have to be atheists?I dub u, 'religious fanatic'. Feel free to strap yourself with holy water, crosses, and various plastic rosaries and throw yourself into a crowd of atheists. :biggrin:

Filiprish
07-02-2004, 09:06 PM
I dub u, 'religious fanatic'. Feel free to strap yourself with holy water, crosses, and various plastic rosaries and throw yourself into a crowd of atheists. :biggrin:
I second that notion.

kuilong
07-02-2004, 11:39 PM
You know, I don't really understand peoples' objections to ye110man. Most religions, especially Christianity, make specific claims about history, metaphysics, morality, whatever. Since these often conflict with other religions, this does mean that both can't be true. F'rinstance, either Christianity is true, the Baha'i faith is true, or neither is true. Both Christianity and the Baha'i faith can't be true.

This seems pretty elementary to me. The only way you can get out of it is with some weird definitions of "Christianity".

rocketbunny
08-25-2004, 07:15 PM
Hmm...a regular "monotheist" perhaps.

bluemonq
08-26-2004, 07:14 PM
whatever happened to calling someone real spiritual-like?

Yeahman
08-26-2004, 09:04 PM
whatever happened to calling someone real spiritual-like?
Because a spiritual person is just someone who is too lazy to actually practice a religion.

Filiprish
08-26-2004, 09:16 PM
Because a spiritual person is just someone who is too lazy to actually practice a religion.
Oh boy, here we go again. :rolleyes:

bluemonq
08-27-2004, 10:07 AM
Because a spiritual person is just someone who is too lazy to actually practice a religion.
it seems to me tho...hrmm. ok. we agree that religion means one of the organized religions (bhuddhism, christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism [sp?], etc), right? so what you're saying is that a spiritual person is too lazy to follow one of these constructs, which is fine. and i understand that you can't believe in two excluding faiths (a la kuilong). but what if i do develop my own thoughts into a rigid set of beliefs that revolve around a supreme being of some sort, of which i follow "religiously"? does that still make me lazy? after all, the "current" definition of religion evokes the semi-mainstream and mainstream ones, but definitions are made by humans, which can be changed. or is everything created afterwards considered a cult? monotheist just sounds a bit, i don't know, flat.

Filiprish
08-29-2004, 05:48 PM
it seems to me tho...hrmm. ok. we agree that religion means one of the organized religions (bhuddhism, christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism [sp?], etc), right? so what you're saying is that a spiritual person is too lazy to follow one of these constructs, which is fine. and i understand that you can't believe in two excluding faiths (a la kuilong). but what if i do develop my own thoughts into a rigid set of beliefs that revolve around a supreme being of some sort, of which i follow "religiously"? does that still make me lazy? after all, the "current" definition of religion evokes the semi-mainstream and mainstream ones, but definitions are made by humans, which can be changed. or is everything created afterwards considered a cult? monotheist just sounds a bit, i don't know, flat.
I agree with everything you said. Don't mind yellowman, he's just upset that his environment deprived of reality while growing up. Mine did, too, but I learned how to think for myself and, by the grace of God, that ended. Don't worry, yellowman, one day you'll understand...hopefully.

Yeahman
08-29-2004, 10:27 PM
it seems to me tho...hrmm. ok. we agree that religion means one of the organized religions (bhuddhism, christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism [sp?], etc), right? so what you're saying is that a spiritual person is too lazy to follow one of these constructs, which is fine. and i understand that you can't believe in two excluding faiths (a la kuilong). but what if i do develop my own thoughts into a rigid set of beliefs that revolve around a supreme being of some sort, of which i follow "religiously"? does that still make me lazy? after all, the "current" definition of religion evokes the semi-mainstream and mainstream ones, but definitions are made by humans, which can be changed. or is everything created afterwards considered a cult? monotheist just sounds a bit, i don't know, flat.
If you follow a set of beliefs religiously then you are religious. When most people say that they are not religious but just spiritual, they usually mean that they want all the advantages of religion with none of the inconveniences.

Filiprish
08-29-2004, 10:36 PM
...with none of the inconveniences.
What are these inconveniences you speak of? Before you reply, remember, relativity does exist.

Yeahman
08-29-2004, 10:41 PM
I agree with everything you said. Don't mind yellowman, he's just upset that his environment deprived of reality while growing up. Mine did, too, but I learned how to think for myself and, by the grace of God, that ended. Don't worry, yellowman, one day you'll understand...hopefully.
Been there. Done that. For years I mocked Christians. I genuinely felt sorry for them. That they could be so blind.

"Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace." - St. Augustine

What are these inconveniences you speak of? Before you reply, remember, relativity does exist.
Yes, I was speaking of relative inconveniences. For example, I remember one person say to me, "I'm Catholic but I don't go to church. I believe that you can pray at home." And then after a couple of seconds of silence he admits "That and I'm lazy." That isn't searching for truth. That's trying to making the truth fit your comfortable lifestyle.

Filiprish
08-29-2004, 10:50 PM
Been there. Done that. For years I mocked Christians. I genuinely felt sorry for them. That they could be so blind.

Yes, I was speaking of relative inconveniences. For example, I remember one person say to me, "I'm Catholic but I don't go to church. I believe that you can pray at home." And then after a couple of seconds of silence he admits "That and I'm lazy." That isn't searching for truth. That's trying to making the truth fit your comfortable lifestyle.
So, what if someone doesn't care to go to church or to practice a religion, but, they serve food to the homeless 3 times a week, while raising a family and holding down a 9-5. Is that comfortable? Another thing, are inconveniences for each religion equal in comparison to each other?

Yeahman
08-29-2004, 11:03 PM
So, what if someone doesn't care to go to church or to practice a religion, but, they serve food to the homeless 3 times a week, while raising a family and holding down a 9-5.
What about him? I don't understand your point.

Is that comfortable?
Maybe. Maybe not. If he is comfortable with it, he is comfortable. Comfort is relative. One nun maybe comfortable in a convent while another is not but struggles because she believes that is what she is supposed to be doing. Two people, one comfortable and one uncomfortable, arrive at the same truth. The point is that they aren't trying to make the absolute truth fit their own relative comfort levels.

Another thing, are inconveniences for each religion equal in comparison to each other?
Like I said, inconveniences are relative to each person.

Filiprish
08-29-2004, 11:10 PM
Like I said, inconveniences are relative to each person.
I'm confused. Then, why did you say this:
Because a spiritual person is just someone who is too lazy to actually practice a religion.

kuilong
08-29-2004, 11:37 PM
So, what if someone doesn't care to go to church or to practice a religion, but, they serve food to the homeless 3 times a week, while raising a family and holding down a 9-5. Is that comfortable? Another thing, are inconveniences for each religion equal in comparison to each other?

What exactly does feeding the homeless have to do with religion? Catholic religious duties like vows of chastity are obviously related to the religion, but feeding the homeless is a good deed. I think ye110man is talking about people too lazy to take on religious duties, regardless of the other good things they do.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 12:58 AM
What exactly does feeding the homeless have to do with religion? Catholic religious duties like vows of chastity are obviously related to the religion, but feeding the homeless is a good deed. I think ye110man is talking about people too lazy to take on religious duties, regardless of the other good things they do.
Like you said, it's a good deed which does have to do with religion. Christians are expected to do good deeds. That not the point, tho. I'm concerned with one's spirit, not one's religion or lack there of. I respect the spirit of a person who who gives back yet doesn't go to church over a person who goes to church yet never gives back.

kuilong
08-30-2004, 10:15 AM
Like you said, it's a good deed which does have to do with religion. Christians are expected to do good deeds. That not the point, tho. I'm concerned with one's spirit, not one's religion or lack there of. I respect the spirit of a person who who gives back yet doesn't go to church over a person who goes to church yet never gives back.

It would seems so to us, wouldn't it? But not so for Christians, who believe that violating any divine law is the same as violating it all, and therefore everyone on earth is a sinner, and needs to be saved by Jesus. "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." (Galatians 2:15-16)

Or "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent Canon I)

How would you respect a person who gives back and goes to church? If a person does a good deed simply because their religion expects them to, then it doesn't seem as impressive to me.

bluemonq
08-30-2004, 10:52 AM
How would you respect a person who gives back and goes to church? If a person does a good deed simply because their religion expects them to, then it doesn't seem as impressive to me.
when i first read it, i would have said, you're right absolutely. however... define "expects them to." especially if it's just part of their teaching. like say the (christian) parents use the bible to teach their children about helping others, etc. it's embedded in their morals. is it still not impressive? i think a good deed is good, as long as it isn't like a checklist: "let's see... bring old lady groceries... check... help someone out of a mud puddle... check... work at the soup kitchen... check..." it's more that type of mentality i think that needs to watched out for.

good deeds have to do with religion insofar as what people are taught; it's still ultimately what people choose to do...

Yeahman
08-30-2004, 11:06 AM
I'm confused. Then, why did you say this:
People who claim to be merely spiritual and not religious are almost always people who take a religion or hodgepodge of religions, keeps what he likes, and discards what he doesn't. Not surprisingly he discards those precepts which are the most inconvenient. If he doesn't want to go to church, he will shape his "spirituality" to be void of it. If he wants to eat pork, he will shape his "spirituality" to include it. The search for truth is only important to him to the point where it doesn't intervere with his comfortable lifestyle.

when i first read it, i would have said, you're right absolutely. however... define "expects them to." especially if it's just part of their teaching. like say the (christian) parents use the bible to teach their children about helping others, etc. it's embedded in their morals. is it still not impressive? i think a good deed is good, as long as it isn't like a checklist: "let's see... bring old lady groceries... check... help someone out of a mud puddle... check... work at the soup kitchen... check..." it's more that type of mentality i think that needs to watched out for.

good deeds have to do with religion insofar as what people are taught; it's still ultimately what people choose to do...
I agree up to the last point. People can choose to be charitable because they believe they will receive some sort of reward (physical, emotional, or spiritual). IMO charity is be much more noble virtue if its done out of genuine concern for welfare of the needy, whether their need is physical, emotional, or spiritual.

bluemonq
08-30-2004, 11:15 AM
umm... what if he or she doesn't feel it's important. what if, for instance, a person shares most beliefs that a muslim would, except s/he doesn't feel that s/he'll be damned to hell because s/he ate pork? or, the various flavors of judaism, some of which restrict movement on certain days, or use of certain things. i remember this was a minor issue back when joe liebermann (orthodox jew) was running for veep with al gore. he was given a dispensation in the case of emergencies by a rabbi.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 11:49 AM
People who claim to be merely spiritual and not religious are almost always people who take a religion or hodgepodge of religions, keeps what he likes, and discards what he doesn't. Not surprisingly he discards those precepts which are the most inconvenient. If he doesn't want to go to church, he will shape his "spirituality" to be void of it. If he wants to eat pork, he will shape his "spirituality" to include it. The search for truth is only important to him to the point where it doesn't intervere with his comfortable lifestyle.
And what's wrong with eating pork? You must think people don't know how to think for themselved of what's best for them. Seriously, people who need religion are weak-minded.

I agree up to the last point. People can choose to be charitable because they believe they will receive some sort of reward (physical, emotional, or spiritual). IMO charity is be much more noble virtue if its done out of genuine concern for welfare of the needy, whether their need is physical, emotional, or spiritual.
It's human nature for someone to do something there must be a reward. Even priests and nuns chose their work b/c it's rewarding (safe root to heaven, feels good the help people, makes them feel special).

Martino
08-30-2004, 12:09 PM
Seriously, people who need religion are weak-minded.

It's human nature for someone to do something there must be a reward. Even priests and nuns chose their work b/c it's rewarding (safe root to heaven, feels good the help people, makes them feel special).

What utter rubbish. The above demonstrates the prejudices of one individual rather than in any way analysing the complex reasons behind the beliefs of billions of people.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 12:12 PM
What utter rubbish. The above demonstrates the prejudices of one individual rather than in any way analysing the complex reasons behind the beliefs of billions of people.
I didn't say religion is entirely invalid. I just said if one needs religion, as in can't think for oneself, than one is weak-minded.

Martino
08-30-2004, 12:23 PM
I didn't say religion is entirely invalid. I just said if one needs religion, as in can't think for oneself, than one is weak-minded.

No, you presume to judge why every individual on the planet "needs" religion.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 12:40 PM
No, you presume to judge why every individual on the planet "needs" religion.
No, I said those who need. Besides, yes, in a civilized society every individual does need a personal set of moral and values to survive.

Martino
08-30-2004, 12:47 PM
No, I said those who need. Besides, yes, in a civilized society every individual does need a personal set of moral and values to survive.

But, you said:

Even priests and nuns chose their work b/c it's rewarding (safe root to heaven, feels good the help people, makes them feel special)...

Presumption. Speculation. "Priests and nuns need a reward" to do their work.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 12:50 PM
But, you said:

Presumption. Speculation. "Priests and nuns need a reward" to do their work.
It's human nature.

Martino
08-30-2004, 12:58 PM
It's human nature.

But is it though? Such a broad generalisation, applied across so many faiths, with so many individual deprivations involved? Working with the sick, the dying, the dead, seeing the dark side of humanity day after day?

Religion isn't the reserve for the feeble minded, or those looking for a feel good kick. If you want to tarr the whole of humanity with one sweep of the brush, then I don't think you have a clue what 'human nature' is.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 01:25 PM
But is it though? Such a broad generalisation, applied across so many faiths, with so many individual deprivations involved? Working with the sick, the dying, the dead, seeing the dark side of humanity day after day?
Yes, I really do think so. Why do people help others? Why are people moral? These are philosophical questions. When people act unselfishly, out of empathy or sympathy, they get a reward, like ye11owman said. I do it -- we all do it -- for a reward. I don't think I'm being cynical, either.

Religion isn't the reserve for the feeble minded, or those looking for a feel good kick. If you want to tarr the whole of humanity with one sweep of the brush, then I don't think you have a clue what 'human nature' is.
Just in case you don't know, here's the context of the convo at the moment. ye11owman is saying that one needs religion and I'm saying one only needs good morals and values. In other words, he's saying you to be non-secular and I'm saying you don't. Didn't you advocate me on this notion earlier in this thread?

Like I said, those who need religion are, IMO, weak-minded. I'm not saying that if you practice religion you are. Rather, I'm saying that if you can't think for yourself, then, you are. So, how is it possible that one can think for him/herself and practice religion? Well, some people like going to church for the social benefit. Also, there's no ubiquitous alternative.

Kuchana
08-30-2004, 01:31 PM
Yes, I really do think so. Why do people help others? Why are people moral? These are philosophical questions. When people act unselfishly, out of empathy or sympathy, they get a reward, like ye11owman said. I do it -- we all do it -- for a reward. I don't think I'm being cynical, either.

So then you don't think the nature of man has the ability to do it (unselflish) for sincere reasons for the most part? That men are internally selfish in nature?

Mr.Lum
08-30-2004, 01:46 PM
So then you don't think the nature of man has the ability to do it (unselflish) for sincere reasons for the most part? That men are internally selfish in nature?

I do. I think people have a few morals and can feel compassion but when it really comes down to it, its every man for himself. I think people come together only because it is beneficial to themselves. I join the group because it will be easier to get me water or food. Not because I want to help the others in the group, that's why the group started in the first place. I don't think people are sincere about being nice or helpful unless there is something in it for them. Fliprish is right.

Martino
08-30-2004, 02:21 PM
Yes, I really do think so. Why do people help others? Why are people moral? These are philosophical questions. When people act unselfishly, out of empathy or sympathy, they get a reward, like ye11owman said. I do it -- we all do it -- for a reward. I don't think I'm being cynical, either.

It sounds extremely cynical to me. Surely you're implying that if there was no 'reward', people wouldn't act unselfishly. There's more to people doing the right thing (or what they think is right) than just patting themselves on the back. Especially if that deed is unending, for example in Third World relief efforts. Canvas Christian Aid workers working 18 hous a day in refugee camps whether they go to bed with a warm contented smile on thir faces ...

Just in case you don't know, here's the context of the convo at the moment. ye11owman is saying that one needs religion and I'm saying one only needs good morals and values.

Like I said, those who need religion are, IMO, weak-minded. I'm not saying that if you practice religion you are.

I'm not joining in your conversation, just reacting to something which, IMO, sounds completely daft and slightly insulting to 'good' people everywhere.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 03:00 PM
It sounds extremely cynical to me.
Wow, coming from a Brit (stereotype, I know).

I'm not joining in your conversation, just reacting to something which, IMO, sounds completely daft and slightly insulting to 'good' people everywhere.
Well, maybe you should be respectful and consider the context of a conversation, since you're such a good person. Also, maybe it's about time you wake up. First time for everything.

Martino
08-30-2004, 03:34 PM
Well, maybe you should be respectful and consider the context of a conversation, since you're such a good person. Also, maybe it's about time you wake up. First time for everything.

Perhaps you could also be respectful, and include in your statement the proviso that human morality, empathy, emotion, what have you, doesn't come as standard and cannot be neatly dissected and tagged. There is a lot more to humanity than in your philisophy.

Mr.Lum
08-30-2004, 03:38 PM
Especially if that deed is unending, for example in Third World relief efforts

People want to be able to use those countries later on, have access to their markets and use them for the benefit of themselves and others. That's the point of aid. It's an investment.

Canvas Christian Aid workers working 18 hous a day in refugee camps whether they go to bed with a warm contented smile on thir faces ...


Cause they want to spread the word.

Martino
08-30-2004, 03:40 PM
People want to be able to use those countries later on, have access to their markets and use them for the benefit of themselves and others. That's the point of aid. It's an investment.

Not by the people who volunteer and actually go out there ...

Cause they want to spread the word.

Yes, I can just see the UN airlifting vital supplies of bibles ...

Mr.Lum
08-30-2004, 03:57 PM
Not by the people who volunteer and actually go out there ...

Aid workers tend to be one of a few things; missionaries, doctors, or overly optomistic. doctors have an obligation to help people, missionaries want to spread their word, and the overly optomistic are either brain washed or just inexperienced. The efforts of humanitarian aid really go nowhere fast, but it helps workers have something to do and feel good.



Yes, I can just see the UN airlifting vital supplies of bibles ...


I can see the UN airlifting those supplies so that the markets of the country can be opened to foreigners. UN is to preserve peace which is to make the world safe for rich people to go about their business. None of that stuff is out of the goodness of their hearts.

You also see wage slaves in Guatemala and other countries going to be with or without simles on their faces. Are they working out of the goodness of their hearts as well so I can have the option of $80 shoes or not?

Yeahman
08-30-2004, 04:58 PM
Yes, I really do think so. Why do people help others? Why are people moral? These are philosophical questions. When people act unselfishly, out of empathy or sympathy, they get a reward, like ye11owman said. I do it -- we all do it -- for a reward. I don't think I'm being cynical, either.
I don't do it for a reward. Sure it may make me feel better but that is not the reason I do it.

Just in case you don't know, here's the context of the convo at the moment. ye11owman is saying that one needs religion and I'm saying one only needs good morals and values. In other words, he's saying you to be non-secular and I'm saying you don't. Didn't you advocate me on this notion earlier in this thread?
When did I say that one needs religion? I never said that. Well one needs to be Christian to have eternal life but that's not what I'm talking about at all. I wasn't talking about necessity. I said that those who claim to be merely spiritual and not religious are usually those who try to fit the truth into their own way of life rather than the other way around. They place comfort over truth. Atheists have no such dilemna.

Like I said, those who need religion are, IMO, weak-minded. I'm not saying that if you practice religion you are. Rather, I'm saying that if you can't think for yourself, then, you are. So, how is it possible that one can think for him/herself and practice religion? Well, some people like going to church for the social benefit. Also, there's no ubiquitous alternative.
And what if one believes that you need to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish... to enjoy the afterlife?

Kuchana
08-30-2004, 05:04 PM
I can see the UN airlifting those supplies so that the markets of the country can be opened to foreigners. UN is to preserve peace which is to make the world safe for rich people to go about their business. None of that stuff is out of the goodness of their hearts.

How can you be so cynical?

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 05:05 PM
ye11owman, basically, you stereotype spiritual people and have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

Mr.Lum
08-30-2004, 07:39 PM
How can you be so cynical?

Because the world was made to be a giant conflict zone.

Well one needs to be Christian to have eternal life but that's not what I'm talking about at all

Well, one needs to be full of shit to believe that....


And what if one believes that you need to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish... to enjoy the afterlife?


They're wrong. That's crap. god wouldn't give people all these different religions for no reason. Don't forget, he's vein.

Filiprish
08-30-2004, 07:56 PM
They're wrong. That's crap. god wouldn't give people all these different religions for no reason. Don't forget, he's vein.
God is vain? Or, do you mean humans are? How can you say that when you're Christian?

Mr.Lum
08-30-2004, 08:11 PM
God is vain? Or, do you mean humans are? How can you say that when you're Christian?

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments.
He's jealous, and I'd imagine a God who would create a whole race of people to worship Him would be pretty vain. I'm not saying that as a bad thing.

kitty
08-31-2004, 07:36 AM
Okay, I was so not gonna weigh in, but please, yes, the Judeo-Christian God is vain. He created all these people to worship him and something like two or three of the Ten Commandments involve not worshipping any other god but him.

Yeah, he likes the worship.

That being said, yell0, would you do humanitarian things if you were not Christian?

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 10:34 AM
They're wrong. That's crap. god wouldn't give people all these different religions for no reason. Don't forget, he's vein.

How do you explain Allah then?

kitty
08-31-2004, 10:43 AM
what ABOUT allah?

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 10:45 AM
what ABOUT allah?

I was directing the post towards Mr. Lum. I'm wondering how he thinks God as Christians think of God is different/similar to Allah.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:24 AM
How do you explain Allah then?

What are you taking about? If you ask some Muslims He is the same God, if you ask others, he is different.

I was directing the post towards Mr. Lum. I'm wondering how he thinks God as Christians think of God is different/similar to Allah.

Allah means "God". There is little difference.

Please rephase your question.

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 11:25 AM
What are you taking about? If you ask some Muslims He is the same God, if you ask others, he is different.

My mistake. I thought you were Muslim.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:26 AM
In the eyes of many Muslims God sends nonbelievers to hell. According to many Christians God does just the same. Some Muslims believe that He will not punish those who are ignorant of Him and cuts them slack, so do many Christians.

In any case, all the Gods people worship are vain.

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 11:27 AM
He's jealous, and I'd imagine a God who would create a whole race of people to worship Him would be pretty vain. I'm not saying that as a bad thing.

By the way, how can you accuse God of being vain when he's God? Therefore more perfect than any of us human beings could ever hope to be? I don't see vain as being a positive description of God and neither is jealousy a positive quality either.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:27 AM
My mistake. I thought you were Muslim.


For the record, I am Quaker. I was technically Muslim because of my father (went to mosque, wore scull cap, prayed in Arabic etc) but, my mother force baptised me as a Lutheran when I was 10 (after divorce) and I left that Church a few years ago for the Society of Friends.

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 11:28 AM
For the record, I am Quaker. I was technically Muslim because of my father (went to mosque, wore scull cap, prayed in Arabic etc) but, my mother force baptised me as a Lutheran when I was 10 (after divorce) and I left that Church a few years ago for the Society of Friends.

Thanks for the clarification. Society of Friends? *lost*

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:33 AM
By the way, how can you accuse God of being vain when he's God? Therefore more perfect than any of us human beings could ever hope to be? I don't see vain as being a positive description of God. And besides jealousy isn't a positive quality either.


That's how He describes Himself. I do not "accuse" God of being vain, I simply describe Him that way. That's an observation.

Thanks for the clarification. Society of Friends? *lost*

The Religious Society of Friends are Quakers. Quakers is more of a nickname. It is because when George Fox was put on trial he said that all men should tremble before God and that the Society was guilty of doing so, and so nonmembers began to call the Society "Quakers".

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 11:37 AM
That's how He describes Himself. I do not "accuse" God of being vain, I simply describe Him that way. That's an observation.

Where in the scriptures does it say that? Because I'm trying to find the verse and I can't find it for some reason.

About the jealously scripture. Here it is:
Ex. 34: 14
For thou shalt worship no• other god•: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous•, is a jealous• God.

Ex. 20: 5.
Thou shalt not bow• down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous• God, visiting the iniquity• of the fathers upon the children• unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:51 AM
Where in the scriptures does it say that? Because I'm trying to find the verse and I can't find it for some reason.

It's in the second commandment. God describes Himself as "jelous". Now, from what I have gathered in church, and the Good Book we were made to worship God and glorify Him in all that we do. If I made a whole lot of people to worship me, I would be called "vain". I don't see anything wrong with acknoleging that.

1. "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain.



If I told you not to speak my name unless you needed to, for example "do not say Khalid unless you are dying or giving me a complement" I would sound pretty vain no? What is wrong with saying that? He is vain. I don't think it's a bad deal either, worship the Creator and get to live on Earth and take from what He has given you.

SunWuKong
08-31-2004, 11:55 AM
Where in the scriptures does it say that? Because I'm trying to find the verse and I can't find it for some reason.

i believe the bible says that God is a jealous God, but i don't think it says that God is vain. and i don't recall reading in the New Testament that God is jealous, only in the Old Testament.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 11:57 AM
but i don't think it says that God is vain.

It doesn't. That's the conclusion I have come to however.

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 12:06 PM
It's in the second commandment. God describes Himself as "jelous". Now, from what I have gathered in church, and the Good Book we were made to worship God and glorify Him in all that we do. If I made a whole lot of people to worship me, I would be called "vain". I don't see anything wrong with acknoleging that.



If I told you not to speak my name unless you needed to, for example "do not say Khalid unless you are dying or giving me a complement" I would sound pretty vain no? What is wrong with saying that? He is vain. I don't think it's a bad deal either, worship the Creator and get to live on Earth and take from what He has given you.

Vain and jealous are two separate words, worlds apart in meaning from each other.

Vain is entirely negative. Vain means: Adj. 1. Of no real value, 2. futile, unsuccessful, 3. conceited syn. empty, hollow, fruitless, proud, vainglorious.

How then can you describe God as describing himself as vain? I don't think He does but in reference to other things he uses the term but not unto himself.

Now the term jealous has both a negative and positive meaning ironically since I always associated the negative with it instead of the positive.

Jealous means: Adj. 1. Demanding complete devotion, 2. Suspicious of a rival or of one believed to enjoy an advantage. 3. Vigilant. 4. Distrustfully watchful.

Now God would command 1 since He demands complete devotion naturally. So I could understand that reasoning.

Here is a link to all of the verses where vain is used.

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=vain

Here are a few samples:

Ex. 5: 9
9 Let there more work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain words.

Ex. 20: 7
7 Thou shalt not take the name• of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless• that taketh• his name in vain.

Lev. 26: 16
16 I also will do• this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption•, and the• burning gue, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

Lev. 26: 20
20 And your strength shall be aspent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.

Deut. 5: 11
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deut. 32: 47
47 For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong• your days in the land, whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

bluemonq
08-31-2004, 12:11 PM
umm... noting that he felt that he had to set the "there is no god but me" into stone (pun intended), are you sure he isn't #4? especially after the entire tree of knowledge fiasco. and he was/is vigilant, so it suggests #3 also. now, as he's god, omniscient and omnipotent and all.... i don't know about #2. but yes, i see your point.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 12:20 PM
Vain and jealous are two separate words, worlds apart in meaning from each other.



I never said they are the same.

Vain is entirely negative. Vain means: Adj. 1. Of no real value, 2. futile, unsuccessful, 3. conceited syn. empty, hollow, fruitless, proud, vainglorious

3rd definition.

How then can you describe God as describing himself as vain? I don't think He does but in reference to other things he uses the term but not unto himself.


He describes Himself as a God who wants complete devotion and essentially created man and woman to worship Him. Is it not conceted/vain to create something to worship you? I think it is. I'm not using it negatively. I wouldn't call God humble. For all the good God does, He is still vain and I'm fine with that. I also think that since we were made in Him image we can tend to be vain as well, and that can be bad because there are other people to worry about so it's in our best interest to not try to be tht way. God doesn't have to worry about that because He's God. And there's one of Him.He needn't worry about that.

kitty
08-31-2004, 12:29 PM
why is it so hard to consider the word 'vain' being used to describe the judeo-christian god? unless you are to assume that god MUST be perfect -- in which case I wonder how the judeo-christian faith can both describe god as a 'him' and call him infallible/perfect, since that would either imply that males are more perfect than females, or that gender itself is a form of perfection.

more importantly, can a thing have only positive qualities, with a complete absence of negative qualities? can there be good with no bad with which to compare?

vain vs. jealous are obviously completely different things. they're both negative, because they imply a fallibility of some sort... if god is perfect, why would he be upset if we were to worship god under another name? shouldn't he be beyond such petty emotions?

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 12:32 PM
vain vs. jealous are obviously completely different things. they're both negative, because they imply a fallibility of some sort... if god is perfect, why would he be upset if we were to worship god under another name? shouldn't he be beyond such petty emotions?

Well I do think He is perfect. Our vainity is bd because it negatively effects others. God's doesn't.

kitty
08-31-2004, 12:43 PM
Our vainity is bd because it negatively effects others. God's doesn't.

Doesn't God's vanity and, subsequent jealousy, negatively affect all those people on the world who are damned because they don't believe in god?

Kuchana
08-31-2004, 12:49 PM
why is it so hard to consider the word 'vain' being used to describe the judeo-christian god? unless you are to assume that god MUST be perfect -- in which case I wonder how the judeo-christian faith can both describe god as a 'him' and call him infallible/perfect, since that would either imply that males are more perfect than females, or that gender itself is a form of perfection.

more importantly, can a thing have only positive qualities, with a complete absence of negative qualities? can there be good with no bad with which to compare?

vain vs. jealous are obviously completely different things. they're both negative, because they imply a fallibility of some sort... if god is perfect, why would he be upset if we were to worship god under another name? shouldn't he be beyond such petty emotions?

Jealously isn't entirely a negative word. However, it's only used for the positive for God because only He commands complete devotion, whereas we as human beings could not do the same for each other. For us humans, jealously is mostly a negative term that we associate with because we're human. It's impossible for us to give complete devotion to other people other than to God Himself.

I disagree with using vain to describe God. He's never described himself with the term. But He does use the term when describing how people worship other Gods in vain among others and taking His name in vain when you're commanded to do neither.

I don't think anyone's stating that males are more perfect than females. On the contrary. We also have to take into account the Heavenly Mother who isn't described as much as the Heavenly Father.

Why would people worship God under another name or worship other Gods instead of Him? He wouldn't be petty by commanding their complete devotion. If they turn to idols or other forms of worship, that's belittling God and lacking respect for him. Basically, you're taking away the glory and devotion that should be reserved for Him alone instead of substituting other things for God. For instance, many people value materialism over God. It's a weakness that some carry and a difficult task that is hard to overcome but it's part of the journey one must take to prove to Him the complete devotion that He deserves.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 12:53 PM
Doesn't God's vanity and, subsequent jealousy, negatively affect all those people on the world who are damned because they don't believe in god?

No. First of all, I don't believe that a merciful God would damn those people. I also don't believe that this God would create all those different religions for no reason. He made them so He could be worshipped in all different kinds of ways. He has the Jews do it one way, the Christians in another, the Muslims in an other, the Hindus in another and so on. That vainity is why there are so many religions. If you never hear the word because it is kept from you, or you are unreachable because of land barriers I believe that a mercyful and benevolent God would cut you some slack. I also don't think God is human, there aren't other Gods for Him to have to worry about. His vainity only effects Him. In addition, He also has many redeeming qualities and does think about His creations and does provide for them and so it's not negatively effecting anybody. He also gives His creations free will to see how loyal they are, and those are the ones I think that are "damned". I don't think that only Christians or Muslims or w/e go to Heaven.

Why would people worship God under another name or worship other Gods instead of Him? He wouldn't be petty by commanding their complete devotion. If they turn to idols or other forms of worship, that's belittling God and lacking respect for him. Basically, you're taking away the glory and devotion that should be reserved for Him alone instead of substituting other things for God. For instance, many people value materialism over God. It's a weakness that some carry and a difficult task that is hard to overcome but it's part of the journey one must take to prove to Him the complete devotion that He deserves.


I agree on the idolry. But what the idolry represents I do not.

kitty
08-31-2004, 01:39 PM
why would god create the choice to worship him in different ways but damn those who choose not to? i mean, you list all the different religions, not all of which are monotheistic, and then say that god created them to be worshipped many different ways. hasn't that vanity created lots of hate and misery throughout the world? doesn't this vanity also damn those who choose not to subscribe to any religion (assuming that god exists and the atheistic are really going to be damned to an afterlife of hell, whether they believe in it or not, in this world).

the ten commandments state that any worshipping of any other god, besides the judeo-christian god is hell-worthy. also not believing in god is hell-worthy. to me, this is an indication of a flawed, jealous, vain, and fallible creature. (i don't think that's a bad thing, i don't think god is perfect, nor infallible. i think it only makes sense that god can be flawed. i just think that if you're going to worship a god, worship him/her/it for all their qualities.)

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 01:45 PM
why would god create the choice to worship him in different ways but damn those who choose not to? i mean, you list all the different religions, not all of which are monotheistic, and then say that god created them to be worshipped many different ways.


Because He likes to be worshipped.

the ten commandments state that any worshipping of any other god, besides the judeo-christian god is hell-worthy. also not believing in god is hell-worthy. to me, this is an indication of a flawed creature. (i don't think that's a bad thing, i don't think god is perfect, nor infallible. i think it only makes sense that god can be flawed).


I believe He just represents Himself differently to them. I don't think all the Gods in the polytheistic faiths are separate. I think God made them so that they would be worshipping Him in many different ways. The ten commandments are for Jews and Christians. Those are only a couple of the ways God wants to be worshipped.

He would give free will to worship or not because He wants to know that His creations are loyal to Him and worship Him on their own. That way when someone is worshipping, He knows it's real and their choice.

kitty
08-31-2004, 01:48 PM
is it real choice if you're 'damned' if you don't?

that's like saying "you have the choice to open that door, but if you do, i'm gonna blow your wife's brains out".

and i'd think the polytheistic worshippers of grecian gods would argue with the idea that they are really worshipping a monotheistic god in disguise. the whole reason why they had a pantheon of gods was to not be worshipping one god.

the point is, though, that if god were infallible, his vanity would not hurt anyone, as you stated a page or two back. i think that's a serious leap of faith you're making, since the very diversity of religion has been responsible for so much death and suffering in our species' past.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 01:56 PM
and i'd think the polytheistic worshippers of grecian gods would argue with the idea that they are really worshipping a monotheistic god in disguise. the whole reason why they had a pantheon of gods was to not be worshipping one god.



I don't think they would either. However, where do those Gods come from? I think there is one God giving them that motivation.

the point is, though, that if god were infallible, his vanity would not hurt anyone, as you stated a page or two back. i think that's a serious leap of faith you're making, since the very diversity of religion has been responsible for so much death and suffering in our species' past.


Yes and that's just the world. If we didn't have religion we'd be fighting over more direct things, like water, land and trade (which we do but religion is often masked over it to gain support similar to nationalisms). Humans aren't perfect. Diversity of skin, language, ethnicty/nation and more has been the cause of much suffering as well. Humans battle. Everything does, the world is chaotic and violent. Look at the animal kingdoms. Humans who move about thinking that their religion/nationality/language/ w/e is better are illustrating that we are not perfect and do have free will. That violence is wrong. Plain and simple. You shouldn't kill people in the name of God unless you need to. People use their faith to make themselves feel ok while they are killing. They do the same with their culture and other things. But that doesn't mean that diversity of cultures is wrong or that God didn't want them.

kitty
08-31-2004, 01:58 PM
okay, but then one must agree that god's vanity has certainly hurt others, then. otherwise he either wouldn't have created diversity of religion or wouldn't have created the capacity in people to kill others in his name.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 02:01 PM
okay, but then one must agree that god's vanity has certainly hurt others, then. otherwise he either wouldn't have created diversity of religion or wouldn't have created the capacity in people to kill others in his name.

That's part of free will. I think that is an example of man's vainity hurting others. If man were smart, he wouldn't be killing people left and right. That would also be true if he were listening to God. That's man's fault. If it were God's fault he would be telling people to do it. He's not.

kitty
08-31-2004, 02:10 PM
uhm.

not that i'm a religious scholar. but i'm *pretty* sure that the judeo-christian god gets pretty "death unto you" if you worship another god, thus fueling all those holy crusades (as well as if you do other things like lie to your parents and stuff). i think calling a whole era of people who killed in the name of god 'stupid' is highly simplistic given what's written in the scriptures.

i think, if the bible is the word of the judeo-christian god, he's pretty much telling his judeo-christian followers to kill in his name:

Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.

maybe this is highly simplistic of me, but if god is infallible, it only makes sense to me that he wouldn't create such a flawed world. the very flaw that i see in the judeo-christian god is his placement of worship and vanity over all else, including the health and happiness of his lesser creatures.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 02:26 PM
i think, if the bible is the word of the judeo-christian god, he's pretty much telling his judeo-christian followers to kill in his name:

No He is not. It does not say to go out and kill them. Further more, if Christians are to be like Christ, they would not kill in the name of God. That is the price people pay for taking the word completely literal.

not that i'm a religious scholar. but i'm *pretty* sure that the judeo-christian god gets pretty "death unto you" if you worship another god, thus fueling all those holy crusades

The Crusaders were foolish. Would Jesus do that? No. Those "holy" crusades were fueled by religious facsim and by an unBiblical religion and practices that led them off of the proper track. I fell safe saying that the Crusaders are more likely than not in Hell now.

maybe this is highly simplistic of me, but if god is infallible, it only makes sense to me that he wouldn't create such a flawed world.

I think it works. It provides for itself and keeps it's numbers in check through conflict. How ever, I think humans tend to take things to the extreme and mess things up.

think calling a whole era of people who killed in the name of god 'stupid' is highly simplistic given what's written in the scriptures.



I'm not calling a whole era stupid, I;m calling the species stupid.

BigLew
08-31-2004, 05:26 PM
Those "holy" crusades were fueled by religious facsim and by an unBiblical religion and practices that led them off of the proper track.
unBiblical? Aside from "WWJD?" you should try reading the old testament.

Mr.Lum
08-31-2004, 05:36 PM
unBiblical? Aside from "WWJD?" you should try reading the old testament.

I've read it. The Catholic religion until recently was just a replacement for the old Roman religion. They practice many unBiblical rituals and so on.

Here are some examples of how Catholics are not (I do not agree with all but many of them).
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm
http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

Yeahman
08-31-2004, 08:23 PM
I've read it. The Catholic religion until recently was just a replacement for the old Roman religion. They practice many unBiblical rituals and so on.

Here are some examples of how Catholics are not (I do not agree with all but many of them).
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm
http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm
Post the ones you disagree with and I'd be more than happy to answer them.

maybe this is highly simplistic of me, but if god is infallible, it only makes sense to me that he wouldn't create such a flawed world. the very flaw that i see in the judeo-christian god is his placement of worship and vanity over all else, including the health and happiness of his lesser creatures.
Or maybe you're flawed for thinking that about a perfect god. Why do you assume you deserve to be healthy and happy? Jesus was not healthy and happy while here on earth.

Napoleon Chynamite
09-01-2004, 04:52 PM
I really don't want to get into this again. All I see once again are misconceptions of at least what I understand to be Christianity (e.g. assumptions that God purposely created this fallen world, that God doesn't value us or his creation, that Christianity is SUPPOSED to be a lifestyle of suffering or SUPPOSED to be a lifestyle of happiness, that God willingly and readily damns people, that being a good Christian means doing a lot of good deeds). The fact that people are nonChristian doesn't really matter because you're basing your arguments upon false assumptions about the religion you are countering. Regarding God's infallibility, you can say that God created beings with free will, and to allow for full free will one must be capable to do both good and evil, and in essence God created fallible beings. Just because God created fallible beings (even his angels are fallible hence Satan) doesn't negate his own infalliability and righteousness.

Or maybe you're flawed for thinking that about a perfect god. Why do you assume you deserve to be healthy and happy? Jesus was not healthy and happy while here on earth.

Well supposedly we as Christians/Catholics are supposed to believe that we don't deserve anything, and everything we receive is due to God's grace and love.

Sorry I don't mean to sound disrespectful or condescending on these issues, I just do get sick of being misunderstood or misrepresented when it comes to my faith, although I'm sure I've done that at one time or another when talking about other religions or faiths I have no part in.

SunWuKong
09-01-2004, 05:27 PM
Sorry I don't mean to sound disrespectful or condescending on these issues, I just do get sick of being misunderstood or misrepresented when it comes to my faith, although I'm sure I've done that at one time or another when talking about other religions or faiths I have no part in.

read enough of these threads on the web and you'll realise that these types of religious arguments essentially only go around in circles, and you stop caring.

stunninglyAsian
09-01-2004, 05:29 PM
Q: What do you call a person who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a single faith?
A: Me!

I used to go to a Presbyterian church, went to a Catholic school and then a Jesuit school- both of which required me to attent mass. And spent some time in another type of church- I forget the type. Really, the differences in church are minor- some kneel, some love Mary, some love Jesus, some have sing-song type processions, others are more speech like. Even the sermons are the same to me. In the end, it's still about God.

I don't go to church or bible study- but if I were to go to church, as long as they believe in God, I'll be comfortable and won't feel like a fish out of water.

sageb1
09-03-2004, 06:58 AM
I'm a deist with Buddhist leanings and a bit of Tao.

Buddha-nature is the spirit, the spark of the soul given to each person who is born, to return to the Creator, be it Brahma or Allah or God.

Indeed, that which is divine cannot be sullied by human desire and passion. Yet the mind can 'forget' about spiritual matters.

Hence, my believe in God (Deus) is compatible with being a Buddhist and a Taoist, because of my deeper panentheistic conviction.

Filiprish
11-05-2004, 02:28 PM
I've decided that I'm going to pick four places of worship in my area -- Jewish, Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist -- and attend each one at least once. I have no plan to return to regular church attendence, just trying to broaden my horizons.

ChinaLama
11-06-2004, 04:29 AM
Fence straddler? j/p

Filiprish
11-07-2004, 04:40 PM
Fence straddler? j/p
What fence would that be? I just want to attend these churches so I could take something away and apply it to my own form of worship. Here's my situation, I stopped going to church b/c I think religion is evil. I worship God but it's evil to tell others how to worship. I have my own form of worship...Filiprishism. But, I miss the social aspect of church. It's good to be around other people who strive for righteousnessness and worship God, like myself. I miss that, tho, I'm not willing to compromise my beliefs.

On a slightly different note, I don't think secularism is sustainable. God is important, we can't go through life without God or and little as much God as possible. On the otherhand, I try to live my life with as little religion and the most integrity as possible. I think we can learn a lot from religion, tho, in forming our own faiths. It's not entirely worthless, tho, the concept is more so evil than good. I'm not alone on this, what many people are asking themselves is..."Where do people go to worship God but do it in their own way?".

Mr.Lum
11-07-2004, 04:43 PM
Unitarian Universalist.

Filiprish
11-08-2004, 04:50 PM
Unitarian Universalist.
Hey, thanks, Lum! I had no idea that UU existed. Have you ever attended a UU service?

Mr.Lum
11-08-2004, 04:54 PM
One. There is a UU church near my house (next to the Lutheran church). Petty odd. Their pastors wear like, rainbow colored cloaks and stuff. They'er weird. Not my thing, you have to visit to really getit tho. They marry gay folks in Vermont and MA and CT and Rhode ISland I know.

Filiprish
11-08-2004, 05:37 PM
One. There is a UU church near my house (next to the Lutheran church). Petty odd. Their pastors wear like, rainbow colored cloaks and stuff. They'er weird. Not my thing, you have to visit to really getit tho. They marry gay folks in Vermont and MA and CT and Rhode ISland I know.
From the their site, http://www.uua.org/, they seem very liberal. I was hoping you wouldn't say they were eccentric. Maybe the one(s) in my area aren't like that. I'll have to check 'em out. On a positive note, UU's can't be odder than the Pentecostals.

I need to do more research on UU.

I'm skeptical b/c I don't support gay marriage, rather, civil unions.

Mr.Lum
11-08-2004, 06:56 PM
Well, I'm not sure of their exact position but I'm sure they'd respect you for yours, LOL. I know that they will marry them and there are some Quaker meetings who will too (I don't think mine will) but I think it may be like FRiends, every congregation has their own position.

sageb1
11-08-2004, 08:00 PM
just remember though: gods are actually a mind game. Read Dorje Dradul's spin on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. They are all psychological manifestations of the mind, mental states of mind.

Do your research before rebutting me.

kuilong
11-08-2004, 09:43 PM
From the their site, http://www.uua.org/, they seem very liberal. I was hoping you wouldn't say they were eccentric. Maybe the one(s) in my area aren't like that. I'll have to check 'em out. On a positive note, UU's can't be odder than the Pentecostals.

I need to do more research on UU.

I'm skeptical b/c I don't support gay marriage, rather, civil unions.

The ones in my city are more sober. I went once because I wanted to see their flower communion thing.

Filiprish
11-08-2004, 09:58 PM
just remember though: gods are actually a mind game. Read Dorje Dradul's spin on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. They are all psychological manifestations of the mind, mental states of mind.

Do your research before rebutting me.
Research? Rebut? What does a book about dying have to do with the existence of a creator?

The ones in my city are more sober. I went once because I wanted to see their flower communion thing.
Flower communion thing? Lol. So, how was it? Do you think it's a progressive alternative to traditional worship?