Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]butler244 wrote:
Some belief systems are accommodating of other views, while others claim to have exclusivity…Christianity for example (if the bible is the rulebook) is an exclusive religion (John 14:6 "No man comes to the father except through me). What other systems are exclusive like this? On what basis do they claim that exclusivity? At the end of the day it has to come down to something more complex than the golden rule.[/quote]

All religions claim at least to a degree, exclusivity. That’s not the problem, the problem is when some people take this as a means to slam the door in other people’s faces with regards to God’s grace. “Be like me or your damned.”

Nobody really knows. But being a person of faith also requires that you trust God knows what he’s doing and his plan of salvation is for all people who want it. That even if people are practicing a different faith, that God hears them too. I cannot be so arrogant as to believe, as adamant as I am about my faith, that my counter parts who are just as adamant about theirs are wrong about what they believe. It’s irrelevant what I think, the fact is I cannot prove it.
What people don’t realize most of the time is that the core tenets of faith across religions are more the same, not different. Most people just look at the outside, but at their core there is similarity.
If you spend anytime with a person of faith who is of a different faith and you listen to them speak about it, outside the practices and traditions, the beliefs are very similar.

What I do know is that evil is forbidden and doing evil in the name of God is, well a very, very bad thing to do.

I don’t know if Christianity is the best, but I believe it to be based on my personal experience with it. What I mean is I cannot go to another person of faith and tell them they are wrong and they need to do what I do.

What I do know is there is no such thing as a person without faith, just people who deny God. [/quote]

But if you believe that in your experience christianity is the “best” I think there are definite differences from any other religion in terms of its view of man’s natural state of sin, and how we earn favor with God. The God of the bible is very detail oriented and says that “those that worship him must worship him in spirit and TRUTH”…so how does that leave room for other religions, if the Christian God is the true God.[/quote]

Well I will start from the bottom and work my way up. First, there is no such thing as a Christian God, or a Jewish God or a Muslim or Hindu God, there is just God. Christianity is a faith, unique among others, but a faith none the less.

How do I know there is room for other religions? Well simply by the fact that they exist. God has either caused them or allowed them to be. It’s way arrogant to believe that God does not love these people and has a plan for them too, as much as he has a plan for us. God is the God of all, he has a plan of salvation, and Jesus came into the world that the world might be saved through Him. I don’t pretend to know how he plans on doing that, just trusting that I will.

What I mean when I say I cannot make my case above another, is because the foundation for my faith is not recognized by others, in as much the foundation for theirs is not recognized by them. What basis, or right do I have to tell them they are wrong? The Bible don’t mean spit to people who don’t believe in it.

I don’t know if I am being clear, so I’ll try analogy. Let’s say you are standing on a pillar, and you see another man on his pillar. You tell the man, “Come to my pillar, it’s strong made of steel and concrete and it’s pretty too.” The man says back, “Well my pillar too is made of concrete and steel and I think my is pretty too.”
Guess what, you are at an impasse. Same with religions. You can tell a Hindu until you are blue, how great Christianity is and they will just tell you how great Hinduism is.

Basically, it boils down to this. I recognize the fact that when it comes to religion, I don’t have much of a leg to stand on if I try to tell somebody they are wrong, or mine is better. Both parties have to be able to agree on a basic set of points.
If you ever do want to attempt such a thing, your better off using history than your Holy Book. They have their own Holy Book.
This actually has nothing to do with being right or wrong, or better or worse. It’s more to do with knowing what your faith is based on and recognizing what other base their faith on.

I know Christianity is right. I don’t know everybody else is defacto wrong, but I know Christianity is right. I know this through personal experience. I have seen things that should not be, experienced things that should not happen that came through the Christian faith. So I know it’s right. I just can’t tell someone else they are wrong.
It’s easier to make a case in between Christian sects than it is with other religions. We share a common foundation for our faith.

22

[quote]Jakk1234 wrote:
People like to stretch the truth, the bible was not ( at least i believe ) written as a means of control, but as a means of interpretation. Christ, a healer worked wonders. Many have vouched to witness his “miracles” however we have no proof physical proof like we do with gravity, i.e ( I drop a pencil and it falls.) With science today we know a lot more, yet we still interpret. We may be wrong or we may be right; the question is who is to deem it correct? Are the Muslims correct? Maybe, maybe the Jews are or the Buddhists or maybe atheism is right and we are a scientific miracle to be existing. Todays religion is however ( I believe ) interpreted as a means of control in political interest and propaganda seriously hindering the capacity of man kind. We have limits on stem cell researched and wars over a man in a goddam robe. It needs to stop but it comes back to what I mentioned earlier right or wrong is relative. So to answer your question, my religion ( the flying spaggethi monster ) is correct and yours is wrong because your god isn’t the god of pasta; deeming you to serve a eternity in marinara sauce because you dont have faith in angle hair pasta. Duh. [/quote]

What physical proof do you demand?

There aren’t limits on stem cell research, there are limits on embryonic stem cell research because there is the ethical concern, and rightly so, of creating human life in order to do research on it like a rat.
Since you like science so much, then you have no choice than to acknowledge the scientific fact that an embryo is a human life. It may not look like much, but it’s an autonomous life, that is living and has all the DNA a grown human has. Aside from the fact that embryonic stem cell research hasn’t yielded jack shit in decades. While other forms are yielding results.
It’s not a religious battle, it’s an ethical one.

23

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Jakk1234 wrote:
People like to stretch the truth, the bible was not ( at least i believe ) written as a means of control, but as a means of interpretation. Christ, a healer worked wonders. Many have vouched to witness his “miracles” however we have no proof physical proof like we do with gravity, i.e ( I drop a pencil and it falls.) With science today we know a lot more, yet we still interpret. We may be wrong or we may be right; the question is who is to deem it correct? Are the Muslims correct? Maybe, maybe the Jews are or the Buddhists or maybe atheism is right and we are a scientific miracle to be existing. Todays religion is however ( I believe ) interpreted as a means of control in political interest and propaganda seriously hindering the capacity of man kind. We have limits on stem cell researched and wars over a man in a goddam robe. It needs to stop but it comes back to what I mentioned earlier right or wrong is relative. So to answer your question, my religion ( the flying spaggethi monster ) is correct and yours is wrong because your god isn’t the god of pasta; deeming you to serve a eternity in marinara sauce because you dont have faith in angle hair pasta. Duh. [/quote]

How refreshingly original.

[/quote]

Sarcasm?

24

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Butler, who has argued for a religion other than Christianity? I believe that among the Christians on the board, there have been theological discussions arguing for the merits of Catholicism or Protestantism, respectively. While I understand what you are asking, the word religion may be a misnomer to some readers, perhaps personal philosophy concerning the existence and nature of a deity is better? Great thread idea regardless.

[/quote]

Jewbacca is obviously not a Christian. So I would definitely like to hear his take. [/quote]

To answer the question asked: “why is [my] religion better?”

Well, Judaism is “better” because Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people.

Now, of course, that answer begs the quetion: “how do I know that Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people?” Well, that’s a horse of a different color, and you didn’t ask that.

I would also note that Judaism is for Jewish people. It’s not for non-Jewish people.

The rest of you are subject to the Laws of Noah (as I am I, but the law of Noah is part of the overall Law).

Christianity, by most accounts, certainly comports with the laws of Noah, so it’s mostly fine for non-Jewish people, although the Chabad folks would argue that a Noahdic religion, untinged by Jewish heresey, would be better. Solid Judeo-ethics for the masses.

In short, have a merry Christmas.[/quote]

What if I wanted to convert?

25

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Jakk1234 wrote:
( the flying spaggethi monster ) [/quote]

flying spaghetti monster… YUM! Nom nom nom nom! You just had to bring up spaghetti while I’m trying to lose some fat didn’t you!? Why!? WHY??? I bet the spaghetti monster even has a delicious meat sauce HUH!?
[/quote]

I’d prefer linguine, with roasted garlic and onions, mixed in with long thin strips of prosciutto and smoothed in balsamic vinegar and olive oil…It’s to die for.

26

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Butler, who has argued for a religion other than Christianity? I believe that among the Christians on the board, there have been theological discussions arguing for the merits of Catholicism or Protestantism, respectively. While I understand what you are asking, the word religion may be a misnomer to some readers, perhaps personal philosophy concerning the existence and nature of a deity is better? Great thread idea regardless.

[/quote]

Jewbacca is obviously not a Christian. So I would definitely like to hear his take. [/quote]

To answer the question asked: “why is [my] religion better?”

Well, Judaism is “better” because Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people.

Now, of course, that answer begs the quetion: “how do I know that Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people?” Well, that’s a horse of a different color, and you didn’t ask that.

I would also note that Judaism is for Jewish people. It’s not for non-Jewish people.

The rest of you are subject to the Laws of Noah (as I am I, but the law of Noah is part of the overall Law).

Christianity, by most accounts, certainly comports with the laws of Noah, so it’s mostly fine for non-Jewish people, although the Chabad folks would argue that a Noahdic religion, untinged by Jewish heresey, would be better. Solid Judeo-ethics for the masses.

In short, have a merry Christmas.[/quote]

What if I wanted to convert?[/quote]

Why would you want to? There is no theological reason for non-Jews to become Jewish.

Plus, it’s a hard road and the entire world has a fasination with killing you, which, I can advise sucks.

You can love and serve HaShem as you were created.

If you truely desire to convert, despite that, well, sure, I’ll go get my flint knife and warm up the mikvah.

27

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question.

28

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Butler, who has argued for a religion other than Christianity? I believe that among the Christians on the board, there have been theological discussions arguing for the merits of Catholicism or Protestantism, respectively. While I understand what you are asking, the word religion may be a misnomer to some readers, perhaps personal philosophy concerning the existence and nature of a deity is better? Great thread idea regardless.

[/quote]

Jewbacca is obviously not a Christian. So I would definitely like to hear his take. [/quote]

To answer the question asked: “why is [my] religion better?”

Well, Judaism is “better” because Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people.

Now, of course, that answer begs the quetion: “how do I know that Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people?” Well, that’s a horse of a different color, and you didn’t ask that.

I would also note that Judaism is for Jewish people. It’s not for non-Jewish people.

The rest of you are subject to the Laws of Noah (as I am I, but the law of Noah is part of the overall Law).

Christianity, by most accounts, certainly comports with the laws of Noah, so it’s mostly fine for non-Jewish people, although the Chabad folks would argue that a Noahdic religion, untinged by Jewish heresey, would be better. Solid Judeo-ethics for the masses.

In short, have a merry Christmas.[/quote]

What if I wanted to convert?[/quote]

Why would you want to? There is no theological reason for non-Jews to become Jewish.

Plus, it’s a hard road and the entire world has a fasination with killing you, which, I can advise sucks.

You can love and serve HaShem as you were created.

If you truely desire to convert, despite that, well, sure, I’ll go get my flint knife and warm up the mikvah.[/quote]

Well, I can tell you the world hating your guts would be motivating factor for me, if nothing else, as a “fuck you” to the world. Therefore, with my great respect of Judaism and Jewish tradition, and the fact that there is no Christ without you, I would like an honorary Jewish membership at least.
No I won’t convert, but the factors you mentioned aren’t why, it’s mainly that I believe in the Divinity of the Christ and therefore could not honestly be a Jew. But I proudly stand by you and defend you at least with my words.

29

[quote]butler244 wrote:
Lots of discussion in other threads about how big of a jump it is to go from acknowledging a deity, to acknowledging a specific deity.

Everybody is jumping on the fact that there is not an sound argument that supports any specific religion, but obviously the people within those religions believe that their religion has more internal credibility than the others.

So what is it that makes your religion different (and why is that difference better?)

I’ll start (Christian)

  1. The fact that the bible was written over a period of 1500 years by many different authors. What some people call contradictions (they are not contradictions at all) I believe actually adds to the credibility of the bible, because it highlights the different perspectives of the different authors. One person making up a religious book would not be able to fake that in a million years.

  2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.

[/quote]

My religion is better because…well, because…well, because I say so!!

30

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question. [/quote]

Fair enough.
The question is answerable, it just a matter of being genuine and honest enough to truly trust the process and the result.

I honestly think the main reason people are scared of religion or faith is that they think they will have to change who they are, and how they behave. And maybe they are right. Maybe a change is in order.

World’s scariest prayer:
“Dear God, please help my unbelief.”

Try that a few times. Requires no faith. And if there’s no God, nothing will happen. I wouldn’t expect lightening bolts or thunder though. It’s always very subtle. A simple twist of fate.

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.

31

[quote]pat wrote:

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.
[/quote]

THIS is the most true statement I have seen in regards to belief and religion on these boards in a long time. I think the last time I saw a statement like this it was from you Pat.

32

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question. [/quote]

Fair enough.
The question is answerable, it just a matter of being genuine and honest enough to truly trust the process and the result.

I honestly think the main reason people are scared of religion or faith is that they think they will have to change who they are, and how they behave. And maybe they are right. Maybe a change is in order.

World’s scariest prayer:
“Dear God, please help my unbelief.”

Try that a few times. Requires no faith. And if there’s no God, nothing will happen. I wouldn’t expect lightening bolts or thunder though. It’s always very subtle. A simple twist of fate.

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.
[/quote]

I’m not scared of it in terms of having to change who I am. Overall I think I’m a pretty great person (lol don’t we all). I have plenty of friends, good family, nice, etc.

I DO have an issue with what a lot of people do in the name of that God they worship (lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc) but that is another topic. Personally I think a lot of this comes from their belief, but obviously others will say it doesn’t.

I will still disagree that the question is answerable though. I don’t think anything will happen when I say that prayer. I don’t really think someone is listening and if someone is listening then I don’t think they are going to put it out in the open for me to see. I’ve prayed before. In fact I prayed a ton growing up. I don’t believe I can prove or disprove God. I haven’t seen anyone else do it either way in a way that completely satisfies my rational side.

I know some would say I’d see the answer if I’d open my eyes or mind or heart or something vague like that, but I don’t really buy that. My mind is pretty open on most issues. I’ll debate anything with someone and I’ll change my mind if I think they force me to do so through reason. I just can’t take a stand on this one way or the other (though admitting I’d lean again more towards atheism than faith). I won’t say you’re wrong because I can’t prove you are, but I won’t say you’re right either for the same reason.

If that’s taking the easy way out of the equation then I wouldn’t even really disagree. I just don’t feel any pressure to decide I definitely don’t believe or I definitely do.

33

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jakk1234 wrote:
People like to stretch the truth, the bible was not ( at least i believe ) written as a means of control, but as a means of interpretation. Christ, a healer worked wonders. Many have vouched to witness his “miracles” however we have no proof physical proof like we do with gravity, i.e ( I drop a pencil and it falls.) With science today we know a lot more, yet we still interpret. We may be wrong or we may be right; the question is who is to deem it correct? Are the Muslims correct? Maybe, maybe the Jews are or the Buddhists or maybe atheism is right and we are a scientific miracle to be existing. Todays religion is however ( I believe ) interpreted as a means of control in political interest and propaganda seriously hindering the capacity of man kind. We have limits on stem cell researched and wars over a man in a goddam robe. It needs to stop but it comes back to what I mentioned earlier right or wrong is relative. So to answer your question, my religion ( the flying spaggethi monster ) is correct and yours is wrong because your god isn’t the god of pasta; deeming you to serve a eternity in marinara sauce because you dont have faith in angle hair pasta. Duh. [/quote]

What physical proof do you demand?

There aren’t limits on stem cell research, there are limits on embryonic stem cell research because there is the ethical concern, and rightly so, of creating human life in order to do research on it like a rat.
Since you like science so much, then you have no choice than to acknowledge the scientific fact that an embryo is a human life. It may not look like much, but it’s an autonomous life, that is living and has all the DNA a grown human has. Aside from the fact that embryonic stem cell research hasn’t yielded jack shit in decades. While other forms are yielding results.
It’s not a religious battle, it’s an ethical one. [/quote]

I agree it is an ethics battle. but one’s ethics come from one’s religion, so in a broader sense it is a religious battle. Regardless if it is human life we should be able to use it. What makes you any better than a rat? What makes me any better than a rat? A rat provides more to the ecosystem than we do, humans need to recognize just because they are smarter than other life dosent make them better. Physical proof of god I demand… hmm maybe to see him or her? " Man was not created in the image of god, god was created in the image of man."

34

Not a religion, but I’ll defend my position.

Broadly, I am agnostic; if I’m forced to choose, I tend toward theism in its most general manifestation. This is, in my view, the most rational conclusion that can be reached on the basis of the evidence available to me:

I do not believe that anything accurate has ever been said or inferred about God, if He/She/It exists, through revelation. Personal experience and history overwhelmingly suggest to me that men are and have always been inclined to concoct myths which explain their existence and the circumstances of their lives (and, oftentimes, why they, their tribe, their race, or their country is entitled to hegemony). It is through this prism that I understand all religion and, as a consequence, I afford no more credibility to Christianity and Islam than I do to Native American folklore and Scientology.

Simply put–and this is not intended to offend anyone–I do not believe that a snake has talked to a human being at any time in the history of all that exists, and it would take substantially more evidence than the fact that it’s written in an old book for me to even begin to consider such a claim to be worth investigating, let alone believing. The same can be said of Noah and his ark, and the sun frozen in the sky at Joshua’s request–any miracle that can be found in Scripture. And if I find that a book purported to be non-fiction is full of what I’ve deemed to be primitive nonsense, I discount it entirely as a reliable source of information (though I continue to admire many of Jesus’ teachings, in much the same way that I admire Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations).

I furthermore believe that if people were not exposed to religion in the credulous pre-dawn of their youth, the vast majority of the (educated) world would not allow such fantastical superstitions to enjoy immunity from the skepticism they deserve.

That takes care of what I don’t believe. I do believe in general terms that the theoretical reductionists are correct and that physics sits atop a hierarchy of the natural sciences. Its explanatory power is unfathomably far-reaching and its progeny–the tangible power to control our environment–is a testament to its merit if not its infallibility. However, it fails to explain the single most fundamental question that can be asked: how does anything exist? The Big Bang? An explosion is a culmination of a series of events, a meeting of extant fuel and extant fire. An explosion does not explain existence, so far as this layman who hasn’t taken a science course since high school can tell.

So: how does anything exist? This question has not been answered to my satisfaction, and I suspect that it won’t be, at least not before the sun explodes and our little experiment on this rock comes to its fiery conclusion.

That said, the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” are compelling. I’m not qualified to proclaim teleology impossible. I don’t pretend to know with absolute certainty that my flawed capacity to reason can grasp these things in their entirety, but if I had to choose between an infinite regress and a “divine” first cause, I’d choose the latter.

But do I know anything about this first cause? Do I know what it looks like, what it wants, what it does in its spare time? Do I know its opinion of homosexuality or sex outside of marriage? Do I know that it has opinions about the comings and goings of infinitely-small man at all? Do I suspect that the quivering ball of goo between my ears–smaller in dimension and less durable than a soccer ball–is capable of evaluating the character of an architect whose designs are measured in lightyears?

No.

35

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question. [/quote]

Fair enough.
The question is answerable, it just a matter of being genuine and honest enough to truly trust the process and the result.

I honestly think the main reason people are scared of religion or faith is that they think they will have to change who they are, and how they behave. And maybe they are right. Maybe a change is in order.

World’s scariest prayer:
“Dear God, please help my unbelief.”

Try that a few times. Requires no faith. And if there’s no God, nothing will happen. I wouldn’t expect lightening bolts or thunder though. It’s always very subtle. A simple twist of fate.

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.
[/quote]

I’m not scared of it in terms of having to change who I am. Overall I think I’m a pretty great person (lol don’t we all). I have plenty of friends, good family, nice, etc.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt that.

So do I.

The answer lies in cosmology. It’s a rational, deductive proof. Not religious.

[quote]
I know some would say I’d see the answer if I’d open my eyes or mind or heart or something vague like that, but I don’t really buy that. My mind is pretty open on most issues. I’ll debate anything with someone and I’ll change my mind if I think they force me to do so through reason. I just can’t take a stand on this one way or the other (though admitting I’d lean again more towards atheism than faith). I won’t say you’re wrong because I can’t prove you are, but I won’t say you’re right either for the same reason.

If that’s taking the easy way out of the equation then I wouldn’t even really disagree. I just don’t feel any pressure to decide I definitely don’t believe or I definitely do. [/quote]

You never know what can happen. I know that you should always seek wisdom and look for answers. Sometimes the journey is more profound than the result. If it’s real, you will see it, but you won’t if you rest on your laurels. That’s making the choice not to know of find out.

36

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question. [/quote]

Fair enough.
The question is answerable, it just a matter of being genuine and honest enough to truly trust the process and the result.

I honestly think the main reason people are scared of religion or faith is that they think they will have to change who they are, and how they behave. And maybe they are right. Maybe a change is in order.

World’s scariest prayer:
“Dear God, please help my unbelief.”

Try that a few times. Requires no faith. And if there’s no God, nothing will happen. I wouldn’t expect lightening bolts or thunder though. It’s always very subtle. A simple twist of fate.

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.
[/quote]

I’m not scared of it in terms of having to change who I am. Overall I think I’m a pretty great person (lol don’t we all). I have plenty of friends, good family, nice, etc.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt that.

So do I.

The answer lies in cosmology. It’s a rational, deductive proof. Not religious.

[quote]
I know some would say I’d see the answer if I’d open my eyes or mind or heart or something vague like that, but I don’t really buy that. My mind is pretty open on most issues. I’ll debate anything with someone and I’ll change my mind if I think they force me to do so through reason. I just can’t take a stand on this one way or the other (though admitting I’d lean again more towards atheism than faith). I won’t say you’re wrong because I can’t prove you are, but I won’t say you’re right either for the same reason.

If that’s taking the easy way out of the equation then I wouldn’t even really disagree. I just don’t feel any pressure to decide I definitely don’t believe or I definitely do. [/quote]

You never know what can happen. I know that you should always seek wisdom and look for answers. Sometimes the journey is more profound than the result. If it’s real, you will see it, but you won’t if you rest on your laurels. That’s making the choice not to know of find out. [/quote]

While I prefer a cosmological argument to a purely religious it’s in the Bible argument, I don’t know that I’m buying the rational part. Or maybe I’ll buy the rational part, but reject the answer. I don’t want to really take this away from the general purpose of the thread because we can do that elsewhere and I’m not 100% sure what your position is. That said if the argument is something must cause something to begin, why is God the logical conclusion for that? Who created God? If no one then why say it’s necessary for something to create the first piece? And why is it the Christian God that’s correct if we do indeed decide on a creator?

All that said, I know what you mean about resting on your laurels…so I’ll pose the question back to you as well. Are you sure you’re not resting on them in being assured of your answer? Just food for thought.

Finally, if it is a God and that God wants me to reject those who don’t believe, despise people like my cousin who are homosexual, and all the other atrocities that come at least in part from believing in him then I’m out. If Gandhi is going to hell, I’m going as well because I WON’T bow down to that.

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

I wasn’t waiting to level criticism, I’m generally interested. And I have no idea why my way is better, I have no idea that it is. Like anyone else in regards to beliefs (or for me lack of) it’s what makes the most sense to me.

I have no way of proving God exists nor anyway of proving he doesn’t. I believe this to be impossible. As a rational thinker an unanswered question is something I will continue to question. [/quote]

Fair enough.
The question is answerable, it just a matter of being genuine and honest enough to truly trust the process and the result.

I honestly think the main reason people are scared of religion or faith is that they think they will have to change who they are, and how they behave. And maybe they are right. Maybe a change is in order.

World’s scariest prayer:
“Dear God, please help my unbelief.”

Try that a few times. Requires no faith. And if there’s no God, nothing will happen. I wouldn’t expect lightening bolts or thunder though. It’s always very subtle. A simple twist of fate.

If you really, honestly want to know, go to the source. It’s far more effective than any amount of Bible thumping on the part of a person.
[/quote]

I’m not scared of it in terms of having to change who I am. Overall I think I’m a pretty great person (lol don’t we all). I have plenty of friends, good family, nice, etc.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt that.

So do I.

The answer lies in cosmology. It’s a rational, deductive proof. Not religious.

Uncaused-cause, or Necessary Being is the definitionly correct answer. That’s what the premises must conclude. That being happens to share the same properties that God would have as creator. And by definition there can only be one being like this. So it doesn’t matter what you call it, what it must be is what is important.

God cannot be created or He would not be God. By defition, the Uncaused-cause, cannot be caused or it’s not what it is.

It’s not necessary that it does, the fact is that it did. And nothing can be a factor of it’s own existence, that’s circular and hence logically impossible.

That’s not answered by that argument. There is no such thing as a “Christian God”, only God. Christianity’s focus is on this ‘Creator’, this non contingent being on which all is ultimately contingent. So in that respect, it’s looking in the right direction. As to whether it’s right about this creator’s nature or affect is another question.
I can get you to God with logic, but I cannot get you to religion. God’s existence is the majority of the battle. Once that is discerned, it’s a matter of whether you want to relate to it in someway. That path is religion, chosen on your own or with that which currently exists.

I am positive. I have put in the work on that side and questioned everything I believed. I understand why you ask, but I have done my homework. Not all have, not all want to. As long as they understand where they stand on it, I am fine.

[quote]
Finally, if it is a God and that God wants me to reject those who don’t believe, despise people like my cousin who are homosexual, and all the other atrocities that come at least in part from believing in him then I’m out. If Gandhi is going to hell, I’m going as well because I WON’T bow down to that. [/quote]

You were taught some strange stuff. As a Christian you are to love your cousin and treat him with all the love and respect you could muster as a cousin, a brother. Further you are not to judge or condemn him.
People who commit atrocities in the name of God are blaspheming Him in the most profound way. You are not being a Christian, but violating the word and the heart of the word by doing so.

Why in the world would Gandhi be in hell? As a pious man who sacrificed everything to God in full humility, I don’t see how that’s possible, we certainly have no right to judge. There are fundamentalist nut-jobs who put forth such judgments. They also tend to be the kooks who incorrectly predict the end of the world every year. Don’t judge the religion by the lunatic fringe.

38

and Queue Tirib…

39

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Not a religion, but I’ll defend my position.

Broadly, I am agnostic; if I’m forced to choose, I tend toward theism in its most general manifestation. This is, in my view, the most rational conclusion that can be reached on the basis of the evidence available to me:

I do not believe that anything accurate has ever been said or inferred about God, if He/She/It exists, through revelation. Personal experience and history overwhelmingly suggest to me that men are and have always been inclined to concoct myths which explain their existence and the circumstances of their lives (and, oftentimes, why they, their tribe, their race, or their country is entitled to hegemony). It is through this prism that I understand all religion and, as a consequence, I afford no more credibility to Christianity and Islam than I do to Native American folklore and Scientology.

Simply put–and this is not intended to offend anyone–I do not believe that a snake has talked to a human being at any time in the history of all that exists, and it would take substantially more evidence than the fact that it’s written in an old book for me to even begin to consider such a claim to be worth investigating, let alone believing. The same can be said of Noah and his ark, and the sun frozen in the sky at Joshua’s request–any miracle that can be found in Scripture. And if I find that a book purported to be non-fiction is full of what I’ve deemed to be primitive nonsense, I discount it entirely as a reliable source of information (though I continue to admire many of Jesus’ teachings, in much the same way that I admire Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations).

I furthermore believe that if people were not exposed to religion in the credulous pre-dawn of their youth, the vast majority of the (educated) world would not allow such fantastical superstitions to enjoy immunity from the skepticism they deserve.

That takes care of what I don’t believe. I do believe in general terms that the theoretical reductionists are correct and that physics sits atop a hierarchy of the natural sciences. Its explanatory power is unfathomably far-reaching and its progeny–the tangible power to control our environment–is a testament to its merit if not its infallibility. However, it fails to explain the single most fundamental question that can be asked: how does anything exist? The Big Bang? An explosion is a culmination of a series of events, a meeting of extant fuel and extant fire. An explosion does not explain existence, so far as this layman who hasn’t taken a science course since high school can tell.

So: how does anything exist? This question has not been answered to my satisfaction, and I suspect that it won’t be, at least not before the sun explodes and our little experiment on this rock comes to its fiery conclusion.

That said, the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” are compelling. I’m not qualified to proclaim teleology impossible. I don’t pretend to know with absolute certainty that my flawed capacity to reason can grasp these things in their entirety, but if I had to choose between an infinite regress and a “divine” first cause, I’d choose the latter.

But do I know anything about this first cause? Do I know what it looks like, what it wants, what it does in its spare time? Do I know its opinion of homosexuality or sex outside of marriage? Do I know that it has opinions about the comings and goings of infinitely-small man at all? Do I suspect that the quivering ball of goo between my ears–smaller in dimension and less durable than a soccer ball–is capable of evaluating the character of an architect whose designs are measured in lightyears?

No.[/quote]

This describes my beliefs almost perfectly.

40

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Not a religion, but I’ll defend my position.

Broadly, I am agnostic; if I’m forced to choose, I tend toward theism in its most general manifestation. This is, in my view, the most rational conclusion that can be reached on the basis of the evidence available to me:

I do not believe that anything accurate has ever been said or inferred about God, if He/She/It exists, through revelation. Personal experience and history overwhelmingly suggest to me that men are and have always been inclined to concoct myths which explain their existence and the circumstances of their lives (and, oftentimes, why they, their tribe, their race, or their country is entitled to hegemony). It is through this prism that I understand all religion and, as a consequence, I afford no more credibility to Christianity and Islam than I do to Native American folklore and Scientology.
[/quote]
I think a deeper look would reveal things aren’t as crazy as they seem on the surface. A lot of times it’s more about what the account is saying rather than what the words on the page literally say. That’s not to say that all of scripture is metaphorical or symbolic or it’s all literal. There are variations based on audience, context, purpose.
I am not saying you should do one thing or another, I am mere saying that things aren’t always what they appear on the surface.
After all trying to explain divine reality to a species that has limited capacity to understand it is difficult. It’s like trying to become a dog and explain what football is. It makes sense to us, it’s foreign to a dog.

I think it would create a vacuum and would be replaced. As in the olden days where these revelations did not exist, people knew something was greater than themselves and sought to connect with it at some level. Religious belief is part of our DNA. We are created to worship, and we will do it whether we understand it or not. Of course, I think this is no accident, but I digress.

[quote]
That takes care of what I don’t believe. I do believe in general terms that the theoretical reductionists are correct and that physics sits atop a hierarchy of the natural sciences. Its explanatory power is unfathomably far-reaching and its progeny–the tangible power to control our environment–is a testament to its merit if not its infallibility. However, it fails to explain the single most fundamental question that can be asked: how does anything exist? The Big Bang? An explosion is a culmination of a series of events, a meeting of extant fuel and extant fire. An explosion does not explain existence, so far as this layman who hasn’t taken a science course since high school can tell.

So: how does anything exist? This question has not been answered to my satisfaction, and I suspect that it won’t be, at least not before the sun explodes and our little experiment on this rock comes to its fiery conclusion.

That said, the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” are compelling. I’m not qualified to proclaim teleology impossible. I don’t pretend to know with absolute certainty that my flawed capacity to reason can grasp these things in their entirety, but if I had to choose between an infinite regress and a “divine” first cause, I’d choose the latter.

But do I know anything about this first cause? Do I know what it looks like, what it wants, what it does in its spare time? Do I know its opinion of homosexuality or sex outside of marriage? Do I know that it has opinions about the comings and goings of infinitely-small man at all? Do I suspect that the quivering ball of goo between my ears–smaller in dimension and less durable than a soccer ball–is capable of evaluating the character of an architect whose designs are measured in lightyears?

No.[/quote]

Like I said, take in to account what a ‘First-cause’ must be, to be what it is. You can know some things based on that alone. It makes loads of sense when you spend sometime with it.