The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Althane

But is it so wrong to? If it provides a good and strong world view, one that will bring good to yourself, and prevent you from harming others, is that a bad thing?

Some people aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and say that they are alone. If it helps them live a strong and right life, then is it a bad thing to base their worldview on a piece of art/literature?

Just a quesiton.

A number of things.
1. "Bad" is subjective. The answer to the question is probably "no."
2. I'm not sure what a "good and strong worldview" is, but it doesn't seem to be one quite aligned with the evidence...
3. Is it "wrong?" Yes. In all likelihood.

I don't know, I just think it's a good policy to live in the world around you...

Originally Posted by Althane

Buddhism is not appealing to me, because it makes a man a god. A man is not god, and sometimes we are driven to become the devil himself (Hey, Trigun, but it's a good quote all the same).

Let us take a moment to brush up on the etymology of the word, "Christianity?"

Originally Posted by Althane

Plus, their Koran depends upon Mohammed's word. I find the authorship of the Bible to be more consistent (thus trustworthy) than that.

The word of a prophet is better than the word about the word about the word of a prophet? I don't really get this.

Originally Posted by Althane

Judiasm. Do I really have to say it? >>

Please do.

Originally Posted by Althane

Yeah, that about covers the local world religions. And I'm not an Athiest because I believe that there's more to me than the sum of my parts, which is all that athiests can really believe.

What I meant was that there's a pretty big leap from that to most of the religions you listed. Least of all Buddhism, depending on who you hear it from.

[Fifthfiend]

Incidentally:

I disagree with several things that sections of the church are doing, such as allowing gay ministers/women ministers/gay marriage, because they go against the teachings, and to go against that, is to deny the base of your religion.

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.

Thats pretty much why I try not to waste a whole lot of breath on it either. Its their lives, and as long as they don't try to change my life its between them and God. To be honest, the Bible speaks against pre-marital sex and adultery much more often than it does against homosexuality, so I find it amusing that many churches are full of cheaters and players yet they all look down on gays.

Personally, I think God isn't that thrilled with any of it, but like I said, thats between them and God.

[Althane]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

A number of things.
1. "Bad" is subjective. The answer to the question is probably "no."
2. I'm not sure what a "good and strong worldview" is, but it doesn't seem to be one quite aligned with the evidence...
3. Is it "wrong?" Yes. In all likelihood.

I don't know, I just think it's a good policy to live in the world around you...

I'd define a good and strong worldview as one that A: Isn't going to end up with anyone but you dead, and B: One that you can sustain. Crisis of faith aren't useful.

I live in the world around me, it doesn't interest me much, that's why I get on the internet and play games. OR were you speaking in a less literal term?

Let us take a moment to brush up on the etymology of the word, "Christianity?"

"O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863."

Christianity: One who follows the teachings of Christ. Mostly they were around being good people, not killing anyone, and generally not really being in anyone's way.

The word of a prophet is better than the word about the word about the word of a prophet? I don't really get this.

Muhammed went into the desert, got these tablets, supposedly, and recited them. Alone.

Christ traveled around Israel, preformed miracles in front of crowds, and got written down by numerous followers.

Please do.

Judiasm is the "before" of the Christian religion. If Christianity is true, then there's no point in being a Jew (not that you, y'know, can really become a Jew, unless you're born one). If it's not, then, well, we're all going to hell anyways. (assuming that the Christ hasn't come yet) If that's not right then, well, the afterlife of oblivion is an easy way for me to get out of hearing you guys laugh at me, right?

What I meant was that there's a pretty big leap from that to most of the religions you listed. Least of all Buddhism, depending on who you hear it from.

Can't a guy be a little bit irrational? We all have our quirks, right? =P

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.

So you have a problem if I want to say no to them marrying ONLY IN A CHAPEL? There is no issue about them being married, as a purely economic standpoint, but if people who go to a church that believes that homosexuality is wrong, then don't they have the right to say "Hey, yo, we don't agree with your lifestyle. We're not going to condemn you or anything, but please, just don't do it in our private property?" (Really, only the pastors/minsters could say that, but hey, you get the idea, right?)

Thats pretty much why I try not to waste a whole lot of breath on it either. Its their lives, and as long as they don't try to change my life its between them and God. To be honest, the Bible speaks against pre-marital sex and adultery much more often than it does against homosexuality, so I find it amusing that many churches are full of cheaters and players yet they all look down on gays.

I don't really have a problem with gays, it's just that if my religion condemns homosexuality (a man shall not lie with a man, I mean, how much simpler can you get?), then I can't agree with them getting married in a church that I go to. If my pastor disagrees, then I can see we've got very different standards, and so I'd leave.

Personally, I think God isn't that thrilled with any of it, but like I said, thats between them and God.

Meh, I don't think God's particually thrilled with anything that's come with this world.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Althane

"O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863."

Christianity: One who follows the teachings of Christ. Mostly they were around being good people, not killing anyone, and generally not really being in anyone's way.

Yes, tell me of this Christ fellow. And see how it contrasts to your complaint about Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Althane

Muhammed went into the desert, got these tablets, supposedly, and recited them. Alone.

I take it you're not a big fan of the commandments, then?

Originally Posted by Althane

Judiasm is the "before" of the Christian religion. If Christianity is true, then there's no point in being a Jew (not that you, y'know, can really become a Jew, unless you're born one). If it's not, then, well, we're all going to hell anyways. (assuming that the Christ hasn't come yet) If that's not right then, well, the afterlife of oblivion is an easy way for me to get out of hearing you guys laugh at me, right?

You know, there's a Judaism 3.0 now. Been for a while, actually. It's called Mormonism. Now, I haven't looked very deeply into it, but it seems that you haven't either. Maybe you should.

Originally Posted by Althane

Can't a guy be a little bit irrational? We all have our quirks, right? =P

I only point these things out because you started so very rationally.

Originally Posted by Althane

I live in the world around me, it doesn't interest me much, that's why I get on the internet and play games. OR were you speaking in a less literal term?

Interesting comparison. How much would you respect the decisions and opinions of people that base much of their lives around things they've seen in video games? That's how religious people are, in my view.

Edit: Forgot to say. Since I've thought about it a bit more, yes, it is bad to believe things even if they make you feel better. There are healthier ways of dealing with your problems than to delude yourself into a world where they don't exist. I think we're back to comparing religion and alcohol like we did some 500 posts back.

[Nique]

I think we're back to comparing religion and alcohol like we did some 500 posts back.

This comparison is, as Mr. Ford might say, 'Completely bunk'.

The exsistance of God aside, if someone is taught something as fact, or has learned it to be fact through study, however inncorrect/correct the conclusion may, then this is, or is part of, their worldview. This is not a shot of whiskey to ease the jitters, it is what, in part, defines their perception of exsistance.

Yes there are aspects to religion that make a lot of people feel better - it provides a level of hope, of purpose. But unlike the temporary 'easing' of uncomfortableness that alchohol provides, the proper application of religion provides fullfillment and satisfaction in life (other things do this as well, but few things portend to be of as much importance as religion does, so there's a potential for more motivation there). Is there a danger here? Yes. But the way this danger manifests itself typically goes beyond the express intent of any given religion, and is instead a by-product of social flaws (power hungry, greed, fear of change, etc).

I guess if we were going to run with that analogy despite this, then we should be fair to alchohol - I mean, you have your dumbass alcoholic college kids downing a whole keg night after night, follwed by the deadly freshman hazing... And you have your cultured (but not extremely pretentious) wine-taster whose affinity and drive for fine wines does not get in the way of his better judgement - indeed, his balenced behavior allows him to enjoy drinking all the more.

Hey. Maybe it is like religion.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Consider the original context, though.

Originally Posted by Althane

But is it so wrong to? If it provides a good and strong world view, one that will bring good to yourself, and prevent you from harming others, is that a bad thing?

Some people aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and say that they are alone. If it helps them live a strong and right life, then is it a bad thing to base their worldview on a piece of art/literature?

We're basically only talking about the merits of religion as something to make you feel better. Motivation, purpose? I don't care. Simply: Is it a bad thing to believe something just because it makes your life better? Yes.

Nor was my comparison meant to be taken so literally. The wine taster doesn't have any problems he's trying to get away from; he just likes being a little buzzed. What I was referring to were people that completely drink their problems away.

[Nique]

What I was referring to were people that completely drink their problems away.

I got that, hence I furthered the analogy to be more encompassing in it's comparison to religion. Yes some people use it as a 'crutch', but if these belifes are percived as truth in an almost academic sense... I mean, those who act on their faith, typically, can see logical benefits and reasons for adhereing to a paticular moral code, for instance.

I guess there's kind of two different types of religious people we're talking about here. One needs to belived they've 'been saved' or soemthing, but not nessicerily to any real benefit in 'salvation's' affect on their life, whereas the other chooses and acts on that path becuase they've reasoned it out, and they've determined that it is better for them.

Which isn't to say that the latter doesn't feel like they need God, but neither are they prone to blind faith, and require some convincing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

First of all, to be crystal clear: You're not actively disagreeing with me when I say it's improper to solve one's problems by ignoring them, even through religion?

Onward to your new-ish point(s).

Originally Posted by Nique

I got that, hence I furthered the analogy to be more encompassing in it's comparison to religion. Yes some people use it as a 'crutch', but if these belifes are percived as truth in an almost academic sense... I mean, those who act on their faith, typically, can see logical benefits and reasons for adhereing to a paticular moral code, for instance.

I guess there's kind of two different types of religious people we're talking about here. One needs to belived they've 'been saved' or soemthing, but not nessicerily to any real benefit in 'salvation's' affect on their life, whereas the other chooses and acts on that path becuase they've reasoned it out, and they've determined that it is better for them.

But the faith is there to give incentive to the moral code a religion dictates. If the code's apparent benefits are convincing in themselves, then the faith is extraneous. Therefore:

Originally Posted by Nique

Which isn't to say that the latter doesn't feel like they need God, but neither are they prone to blind faith, and require some convincing.

Maybe not blind faith but certainly a great leap here: "This religion's moral code makes sense to me, so I guess that means they're also right about all these great unknowable mysteries." Simply put, the efficacy of the morals has very little connection to the validity of the overall claims. Even given that one finds the morals right, that alone shouldn't move them very far from the default atheism. So, "The religion's claims are correct because their moral code is" is still about as rational as "The religion's claims are right because they make life easier to cope with."

[Nique]

First of all, to be crystal clear: You're not actively disagreeing with me when I say it's improper to solve one's problems by ignoring them, even through religion?

Basically.

"This religion's moral code makes sense to me, so I guess that means they're also right about all these great unknowable mysteries."

I meant for this argument to be a little more encompassing than just morals. I guess I got sidetracked with that as my example. It would be more like "this religion's overall teachings about life, morality, exsistance, makes sense to me and appear to be pretty coherent".

But the faith is there to give incentive to the moral code a religion dictates. If the code's apparent benefits are convincing in themselves, then the faith is extraneous.

You know, in a way, I agree with this. You would no doubt agree that faith in any claim should come after proof of some kind.