What religion/non-religion are you a member of and Why?

[Arrian]

Agnostic/Soft Atheist. I don't buy what religion (any religion) is selling. To the extent that there may be a supernatural force out there, I very much doubt it has anything to do with any of the organized religions we humans have created. Religion is often used as a crutch - sometimes spiritual, other times mental (no need to actually THINK, just quote some scripture, yay!). Furthermore, religious people have a bad habit of trying to ram their beliefs down other people's throats - and I'm talking over the span of human history, not just right here and now (it's clearly much better now). Thus, any inclination towards spirituality that I might have would not lead me to a church/synagoge/mosque/etc. Not that I've had any to this point.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

I believe in a god. I don't live my life on that belief, more as a curiosity as to what might be.

The thing about the Christian God (specifically Catholic, the faith in which I was brought up and understand pretty well) that strikes me is that the feeling I would have towards Him if He exists is not fear, or love, or hate, but pity and sorrow. Imagine you had no friends, no equals, no-one to grow up with, no-one to console you, no one to love you, no-one to do anything with, to, for or from. Then you make yourself some friends/children and most won't even give you the time of day. I would feel sorrow for such a God.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Religion just proves that some people will believe anything.

Unfortunately, most people will believe anything that conforts them or benefits them in some way regardless of the reasonability.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Unfortunately, most people will believe anything that conforts them or benefits them in some way regardless of the reasonability.

And you are livin' proof!

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

I believe in myself, because that's the only truth I know. Technically, it makes me a solipsist, which is a philisophical viewpoint, not a religious one.

When asked about religion I sometimes answer, "I am my own god.", because it is the best description I have. If people don't try or wish to understand that I will resort to a label of athiest.

[GePap]

I am with Arrian- soft aetheist/agnostic.

I don't see why one needs to have a structured explination of the supernatural to work with- also, the large number of religions plus the inability of one to ever disprove another to me makes it clear none can really be accepted as fact.

The day a Christian is able to prove to me Jesus was the son of God, and not a prophet like the Muslims say, I might be willing to take a look- (ditto for the opposite)

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Arrian
Furthermore, religious people have a bad habit of trying to ram their beliefs down other people's throats - and I'm talking over the span of human history, not just right here and now

That's not a religious thing, that's a human thing. At one time or another every group has tried to "ram their beliefs down other's throats" Communism, Fascism, even Liberalism in the French Revolution has been violenty forced on others. Religious people bore the brunt of the abuse in these cases. I'm not religious, I'm just trying to be fair. People have the tendency to see their cause as right and as the only right answer regardless of if that cause is religious/ political/ economic etc. Zealotry isn't something that can be solely pinned on religious people.

[Ari Rahikkala]

I'm not a discordianist just because I am one. I'm a discordianist because I like being one.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Wycoff


That's not a religious thing, that's a human thing. At one time or another every group has tried to "ram their beliefs down other's throats" Communism, Fascism, even Liberalism in the French Revolution has been violenty forced on others. Religious people bore the brunt of the abuse in these cases. I'm not religious, I'm just trying to be fair. People have the tendency to see their cause as right and as the only right answer regardless of if that cause is religious/ political/ economic etc. Zealotry isn't something that can be solely pinned on religious people.

Actually, I do understand that. The real enemy is fanaticism, whether to religion or any other ideology, really. We are all to a certain extent products of our environment, however. In MY environment, it's the religionistas who are trying to force their beliefs on others. If I had grown up in Europe in the 1930s, my perspective on the matter might be different.

Putting that aside, there is a certain truth to "it either makes sense to you, or it doesn't." It has never made sense to me. As Gepap said, a quick look around at all the different religions which all think THEY are right should be enough to tell you they're all probably deluded (by Satan, of course ).

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I read the bible, and see, it's true.

Really? Including the bits about 800 years old humans and a talking burning bush?

Originally posted by CyberShy
But mankind isn't capable on seperating good from evil, eventhough it has the power to do so.

That's just bollocks.

Originally posted by CyberShy
We're not made to be gods, we're made to be human. If humans try to be god, they break.

Most people I met didn't want to be a god.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Millenia have passed, civilization has entered, but still people rape other people, murder other people, wars are fought, millions are being killed by genocide.

The funny thing is much of the Old Testament is about how the Israelis raped, killed, and burned. Even dashed babies against rocks and stuff. Real nice. Oh, and it's YHWH ordered them to do these things. Go figure.

Originally posted by CyberShy
People blame God for the hell here on earth.

Clearly, if there's an omnipotent god who created this earth, he had done a very lousy job. No wonder people blame him for bad things happen here.

Originally posted by CyberShy
That's bs. No-man is good.

That's bollocks.

That's how Christianity makes people believe -- by blaming the victims. Hey, if humans can go into heaven by works, who would believe in the Church and be led around like sheep?

Originally posted by CyberShy
And most men would have done like hitler, in hitler circumstances.

That's more nonsense.

Originally posted by CyberShy
He wants us to admit that we are broken, and beyond repair by ourselves

So this god made us in his image, and we are broken? That's nifty, I say.

Originally posted by CyberShy
That's why people who are not christians can't enter.

Of course. If everybody can enter, who needs to become a Christian?

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Most people I met didn't want to be a god.

[Urban Ranger]

I said, "most."

[Robert]

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I read the bible, and see, it's true.


Really? Including the bits about 800 years old humans and a talking burning bush?

800 years old humans: yes
that's explainable by better dna/genetics shortly after the downfall from a perfect creation, and a different atmosphere.

talking burning bush?
Well, I do believe in burning bushes, you don't?
And I don't know any story of a talking bush from the bible. I do know from Moses, who was in the precense of God. God's presense made the bush flame, but it was God who talked. Not the bush.

Originally posted by CyberShy
But mankind isn't capable on seperating good from evil, eventhough it has the power to do so.


That's just bollocks.

Ok, you claim that mankind is capable on seperating good from evil.
Tell me, what is good and what is evil?
Why do people believe dope is good while others think it's not?
Why can't we agree on how the good way to stop the people from starving?
Pherhaps we do a good job on seperating some good from some evil. But how can anybody who reads the newspaper claim that we are capable of seperating good from evil?

If we are able to seperate good from evil, then tell me, why is there that much evil?

Most people I met didn't want to be a god.

Most people I mee do.
Not bc they want to be all-powerfull or omniscient. But they want to be in charge of their own life. They want to be authonome, they want to decide for themselves on what they can do and what they can't do. What is good and what is evil.
If someone else intervenes with their actions, they respond: "That's none of your business"

Read this thread, how many people said that they believed in themselves? That they don't want anybody to tell them wat to do?

most people I know want to be a god.
Do you want to decide on good and evil yourself, or would you allow any god to do so for you?

The funny thing is much of the Old Testament is about how the Israelis raped, killed, and burned. Even dashed babies against rocks and stuff. Real nice. Oh, and it's YHWH ordered them to do these things. Go figure.

You may be right, but tell me about the babies dashed against rocks.... as an order from God! Where can I read about that?

But, do you really want to compare the world's society 5000 years ago with our current society?
Can you judge on things that happen that long ago?
By sinfull nations who committed many wrongs.

Of course your view on that is from the modern individual view, in which every person is a person who's responsible for it's own actions.
5000 years ago there were groups of people who were responsible for the acts of groups of people. The individual was rare.

You cannot compare that situation, the situation of kill or be killed, with our current sence for justice.
God started with one group of people in the dark times of the beginning. In a period in which genocide was happening all the time.
God's plan fortunately didn't get stucked in those dark times, he went further, and ultimately ended with Jesus, someone who's mentioned as one of the best man who ever lieved by most people on this earth. Muslims, Bhudists, humanists, etc.

People blame God for the hell here on earth.


Clearly, if there's an omnipotent god who created this earth, he had done a very lousy job. No wonder people blame him for bad things happen here.

Like I said, we could start a discussion over this, but there's no need to discuss wether God is to blame or not. He took the blame and died for it.
God has been crusified and casted away into hell for it.

What else is there to say about?

That's bs. No-man is good.


That's bollocks.

That's how Christianity makes people believe -- by blaming the victims. Hey, if humans can go into heaven by works, who would believe in the Church and be led around like sheep?

earning "heaven" (christians don't believe in 'going to heaven' they believe in the re-creation of this world) through works is a very very good way to bind people to you. Muslims, hinduhs, roman catholics, and protestants have all tried to tell their followers that we can earn heaven through works.

But tell me, who is good?
Mother Theresa? Pherhaps, but she is someone who believed she was a sinner herself.
If one of the best people we can think of says from herself that she's a sinner, how can I speak about myself?

I am a sinner, I know my actions and I know my thoughts. I know that I have harmed people, and that I still do harm people Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. Would you deny that for yourself? Are you a good man? Have you never harmed someone?

And most men would have done like hitler, in hitler circumstances.


That's more nonsense.

In our civilized society we know that most people are what their circumstances made from them.
Education, environment, money, influences, character, etc. etc.
Do you deny that?
Overhere in The Netherlands the judge does not only investigates if someone did the criminal act. It investigates as well how it came to it, and if the suspect can be held accountable for his or her actions.

We know that someone who has been raped as a child by his fater runs a very heigh risk to become a raper himself as well.
In most times the criminal is a victim himself.
I'm sure you will agree with me on that.

That means that I am not sure if I would have been different if I would've had hitlers characters in the circumstances he lived, with the education he got, etc. etc. I'm not sure if I am a better man.
Are you?

He wants us to admit that we are broken, and beyond repair by ourselves


So this god made us in his image, and we are broken? That's nifty, I say.

God made us in his image,
he was God and we were men.
But we broke this image by wanting to be god ourselves.

The servant wanted to serve no-one but himself.
The perfect situation in which God was god and took care of us has been broken, not by God but by us.

That's why people who are not christians can't enter.


Of course. If everybody can enter, who needs to become a Christian?

You merely ignore my argument and comes with some standard reply. I would've expected better from you.
I'll repeat my argument.

If the new earth will be perfect no-one who's broken can enter it, for the new earth won't be perfect anymore.
You don't need to be a christian, to visit a church, to pay money to the church, to be repaired.
You can either repair yourself, or ask God to repair you.
But you cannot be repaired if you claim you're not broken.

1. accept that you are broken
2. try to repair yourself (the day you will stop harming people or God will show you you are perfect again! )
3. if you can't repair yourself (don't dispair, no-one ever did so far) ask God to repair you.

This message doensn't hold any "Join my club" content.
I don't ask you to chose my side, to name me your brother. I just hope you will not waste your life by thinking you're perfect, while you are broken in fact.

I very hope you will be perfect, I very hope you'll live a happy life! I wish you all the best. But I'm afraid the best won't be good enough if it doesn't involve God. Not because I want to, but because I believe so.

I must say that I'm glad to be in such a discussion with you once again, it's been a long time

[Arrian]

"I may have been overly harsh when I said you were broken. I think you may be mildly sprained... nothing that can't be mended." [/Grosse Point Blank]

[johncmcleod]

Most historians date their composition to the latter half of the first century AA anywhere from 55-65 AD for the Synoptics to 75-90 for John.

Still, the people who wrote the Gospels probably didn't know Jesus. Even if they did, all great thinkers have been greatly misunderstood, so I wouldn't be surprised if they got a lot of stuff wrong.

Why do you believe Markan priority? Just because one is first, does not mean the others are less valid. This is just one of many parts of the Gospels that refer to Hell, and the one that I chose to cite here.

Mark was written first. The others were written later, and the beliefs were changing. My guess is that hell wasn't too big of a deal when Mark was written, but as time passed it became a central part of the religion and the later 3 included it in there.

Fair enough. Is it more probable to believe that the Gospels are what Christ said, or more probable that what you believe is what Christ said?

It is more probable that the Gospels are similar to what Christ said, but they probably got a lot wrong.

Secondly, you seem to accept the Gospels as authoritative on some things, and not on others. What is your justification for this discrimination between each Gospel? Why favour one over the other, or earlier parts of one over later in the same?

Because that is what one does when looking at historical sources. I have been prioritizing Mark because it was the first. When a central part of the religion didn't even make it into the first gospel, it makes me think that that belief came later, after Mark was written.

Christ did not claim to be a prophet either, he claimed to be God. Therefore, he is either more of a lunatic than any of these other, more rational religions, or he is right, and superior to all the others.

No. I believe Christ found enlightenment but couldn't understand it and therefore claimed to be God. Or he was such a brilliant thinker that he believed himself to be divine. Or he didn't claim to be God, but his contemporaries misunderstood him and deified him, just as Buddha's contemporaries did to Buddha. The reason I am skeptical is because people claim a lot of stuff when it deals with God, and I don't see why Christ is right and everyone else is wrong. If Joseph Smith can believe God spoke to him, it is just as likely for Jesus to believe God spoke to him and told him he was the messiah.

Why not? The man claims to be God! He is obviously insane and unstable. Why accept one of his teachings, only to reject the others? It makes no sense.

First off, he might not have claimed to be God. Second off, even if he did, it doesn't mean he is insane. Mohhamed claimed God spoke to him. Joseph Smith said the same. Buddha claimed to be enlightened. Were any of those people insane? And the reason I accept some of his teachings is because I like them. When he says the greatest commandment is to treat others as you would like to be treated, I think to myself, "He is right."

Again, you agree with Christ, when he agrees with you, and disagree with Christ, when he disagrees with you. Why do you need him for anything, if all the teachings you agree with are already yours?

Because Christ had some great, new revolutionary ideas that I have studied since I was young and shape the way I think. And these ideas are so great that everyone should take a look at them. That's what I have been doing. I don't agree with everything he says though. But a lot of his teachings were great and I agree with them. I don't need him, but I am glad his ideas are still around because some of them are great and if the whole world followed them (such as treat others as you would like to be treated) we'd be better off.

How can you connect with an impersonal force? One cannot 'connect' in any meaningful sense with the force of gravity, or with win, or with the electrostatic force. The forces act on you, regardless of your desires.

Yes, but if you can channel it and allow it to flow through you in a positive way, then it works. Or maybe it is just realizing this force is there. I haven't reached enlightenment, so I don't know. I did feel connected with this force at one time. Think of it as an electric current that one can plug into. Emerson describes connecting with my view of God best, especially in his essay "Nature." http://www.emersoncentral.com/nature1.htm

But they made them into persons, did they not, gods of each element?

So how do you know all this? Which book have you taken this from?

From everything I've read about the animism of hunter gatherers, most of the time gods weren't in the form of humans. But we stray from the point. Even if HGs did see gods in the form of humans, it was for the same reason other religions of the west do. Because man created this idea of God, so they saw God as themselves. The great thing about eastern religions is they don't always see God as a person.

Buddha did not claim to be God. Christ did. There is a difference between the two claims.

First off, we can't be sure that Chirst did. Second off, so what if Christ did? Buddha claimed to be enlightened. He thought he had reached a state different from all of mankind. Same with Jesus. So I believe that there is no reason to believe one is more right than the other. And I believe they both reached the same state, they were on a higher spiritual plane and they interpreted it in different ways.

That's not quite right. Do Christians say that God is only man? They believe him to be transcendent, eternal and omnipotent. How could such being bear the same substance as man?

When Christians think of God, they see him as human because they believe that God created man in God's image. They also see it as someone you can talk to. God seems to be an omnipotent force that looks like a human according to their belief.

Okay.

Hold on. Too many questions.

1. Why would he be a man?

This is a really good question. Why of all things, would he choose to become a man? To suffer as we do? To endure the fragility of flesh? Because God loves us. He loves us so much that in order to save us, he chose to bear the cost for our sin. It also affirms the value of the life we have been given from God, in that we are made in his image.

2. Why would he be one particular organism?

Why would he choose to come to earth as Jesus of Nazareth? Why would he choose to be born of Mary?

It was foretold long ago, that the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. By the prophets of God, the laid out their prophecy as to the coming of Christ. To fulfill their words, Christ came down in the mission already assigned to him by God.

3. What separates man from the rest of the world?

God has given men a special task of stewardship over the earth.

When I was talking about God appearing as man, I wasn't talking about God coming down to earth as Jesus. I was talking about him looking like a man. And God didn't give man the task of stewardship. We had been living with nature, then like ten thousand years ago some tribe in Sumeria figured out how to farm very well and they became a sedentary civilization. The problem with your idea of stewardship is that man cannot be the steward with his lifestyle. He is in control of nature, but they can't coexist. He either limits himself from growing (which is difficult) or he grows and destroys nature and uses it for farmland.

So who's fault is that? Maybe that's because 'his overall message' is what you believe he should be saying.

No. The most important teaching of Jesus is to treat others as you would like to be treated. And sometimes other teachings seem to contradict this. Such as divorce and the marginilization of homosexuals.

It fits. It gives the Jews their justification for wanting to stone him, even as he strides triumphantly into Jerusalem.

He taught some radical ideas that undermined the authority of the Jewish religion, so the elders had him killed.

Good. Does Buddha say this?

Every religions says this. Even Confucius had a quote exactly like the golden rule.

What are the other two?

The levels of happiness are this: pleasure is the first, then success (fame, wealth, power, social status, etc.) and service to others, and the top level of happiness is joy, being, and knowledge. Infinite joy, infinite being, infinite knowledge are all achieved by connecting with Brahmin or achieving Nirvana.

Hell isn't metaphorical. You are begging the question. You have already made up your mind that of course, Hell must be metaphorical, so when Christ talks of Gehenna as a real place, he cannot be talking about Hell.

I left the Greek version of that passage at school. When I get it back on monday, I'll show you the passage and why it can be interpreted as not being hell.

Much of Christianity only makes sense, if our reward is in eternity with God. To suffer as we do, only to lose ourselves in the end, seems to me far more bleaker.

I'm not sure about the metaphysics. maybe we have a soul, and depending on how mature the soul gets in our lifetime, that determines in what organism it reincarnates. Or maybe that isn't the case. What do you mean by suffer as we do? If you can connect with God, than you won't be suffering and life won't be great.

Isn't that the purpose of Heaven? To make things better?

Why must Hell serve the same purpose for the damned?

Again, damning people hurts them. It doesn't help them at all. It is punishment without rehabilitation, and because it is eternal, people can't learn from their mistakes. You just take a bad person and then you make them suffer forever. It causes no good, only bad.

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Hence the pentecost. According to Christian belief, the holy spirit came and inspired the apostles to do great works. And according to their belief, when Jesus says he is coming back, he is telling them that he will have a second coming. Neither of these things say God divinely intervenes in our world.

In Hell, you could not kill yourself. Here you can.

Maybe if you kill yourself, you soul just merely is reincarnated into another human body and still suffers. Maybe the greatest punishment of this hell that we live in is that we don't know it is hell. If we knew it is hell, we'd accept it. But we don't, and we think this life isn't hell, so it makes it more painful. I'm not claiming this is the truth, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Lame pun intended.