Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

Some things can be explained by science and logic but some simply cannot.

Odjin and Sithdarth have pointed out the limits of that statement, but I have to say also: so what?

Dealing with the unknown seems more compatible with science than with religion, the latter being for a good part filling the gaps of the unknown with mere variations of the known.

The appeals to 'we don't know!' and 'you just can't understand' are, in the context of religion, only lousy defensive rethoric.

We're not dealing with the unknown, unknowable or incomprehensible if arguments are made or things are described.

[Frostatine]

Ive always wondered about this, but never really been able to make a strong argument with it: If I kill every living thing on the planet, what would happen? Would the almighty creator make everything over again? Would i be punished? Supposing we are the only intelligent life in the universe (which I know is very unlikely) and all of us die, what would the purpose of the universe be?

I just cant really grasp with my feeble mind what would happen if all life in the universe ended. A creationist would say it might be re-made, or that we would spend eternity in heaven and the universe doesnt really matter. An atheist would say that nothing would happen, the bacteria on Io or some other planet would eventually evolve to the point we have and the cycle repeats.

It just seems a little hopeless, the whole existing thing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It's entirely possible that there are things we can't understand, but how would we know? Using what we don't yet understand seems silly, for the reasons people have already stated; basically, we're always learning more.

Even under the assumption that logic can't explain anything, that still doesn't anybody free reign to just start labeling things "trans-reasonable" and acting like they're true without any sort of proof or logic, as some might be tempted to do. Even if there was some thing that human minds have thrown themselves against for millions of years and still failed to explain, the explanation we would offer would be a lot closer to "I don't know" than "Jesus did it." If it's beyond logic, then, perhaps by definition, we can't possibly understand it, and therefore should not pretend to have an answer of any sort.

It just seems a little hopeless, the whole existing thing.

Welcome to the objective viewpoint! Can I get you a glass of vacuum?

[Frostatine]

I just think it's interesting how when you look at things as a whole it is bleak and every action is insignificant. But when you look at the world you and i actually live in, our impact is very real and noticeable, perspective can change this in tremendous ways, that being the reason i dont like to talk about it.

[TheSpacePope]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/12/...in-the-senate/

Normally I just lurk here, but this I found incredibly interesting.

Fundamentalist. Anything. Are. Evil.

[Sithdarth]

Here's a question. Why even have a morning prayer? I mean have to know that its not going to accomplish anything aside from stirring up religious ideologies and making it appear that our government is biased towards a religion. In the end it could out right discourage the open practice of the religions of other members of the Senate and is probably mildly uncomfortable for any atheists there. All in all, it seems a pretty shabby way of maintaining the separation of church and state and the tolerance for any religion.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

Fundamentalist. Anything. Are. Evil.

I'd call "Operation Save America's" actions there less "evil" and more "stupid" and "pathetic" and "immature." I mean when I think of the word "evil" I tend to think of, I dunno, Hitler or Stalin or rapists or genocide. All the "Operation save America" folks did there was just act like two-year old children.

It bothers me nearly as much to see the fundamentalist generalizations made by many posters on that website who've come to the conclusion that "Operation Save America" somehow represents all of Christianity. That'd be like saying some crazy left-wing anarchist group represented every Democrat. Negative stereotyping just isn't a good thing here, period, and both the right-wing Christian fundamentalists and the atheistic internet fundamentalists seem equally capable of generalizing to extremes. I'd only charge the "Operation Save America" fools with the greater offense because their immature ravings was a more public display of bigotry.

[Frostatine]

You cant really say that because every type of government has to have an elite class or minority making the decisions.

If all of christianity made the decisions for all of christianity, nothing would ever get done because nobody would ever agree.

Im a liberal Democrat who will vote for Obama if i have to knarfle a rancor to do it. Why? because he talks pretty and makes joke that are actually funny

I dont know about you but thats a hell of a politician in my eyes.

[Gorefiend]

In the Jewish perspective of Jesus, I don't really know. You gotta remember, Jews have no dogmas much of anything. Even Maimonides' thirteen laws are considered recommendations, and communities often have differing opinions within them, let alone the entire religion. That said, I'd say, personally, he was a good Jew, but leave it at that.

As far as Jesus' miracles... Well, to the Jews, the prophetic age was over, and the Messiah was going to come in all His blazing glory. You also have to remember that, frankly, Life of Brian accurately depicts one thing about ancient Jerusalem--many "messiahs" and apocalyptic Jewish sects (which Chrsitianity originally was one of) ran around preaching charismatically back then. Other than that, there really are no dogmas I can easily turn to either. I'm not an expert on the subject, and frankly I'd be hardpressed to find one; Jews (and Muslims) tend to frown upon theology. (I'm the crazy one, but that's cause theology is also a big chunk of both history and sociology). My guess is most would be indifferent, or would at least find the question odd.

On the papyrus: apparently the dating of the papyrus is considered sketchy... For this reason, I'd go with 160 AD, and lean to it being that or younger, not that or older (source: wiki) Though this does not mean it is inauthentic or anything like that, it does provide reason to believe things may have been added on. I'll have to do some research...

Also, I noted this earlier, but it may be needed again; the phrases "son of God" or "Word of God" are, in modern times, put out of context. As a good Jew, Jesus would never have suggested God Himself would have progeny, in the sense that you or I would. That's anthropomorphizing God, and that's one of the few dogmas most Jews have. Now, I can tell you that, in Jesus' day the idea of being the Son of God had a slightly different meaning. It meant the person being called that was very close to God, which Jesus' disciples felt he was. I really to recommend A History of God (with an Amazon link this time). Armstrong does a much better job than I would ever be able to to explain the evolution of religion and, and discusses the way Christianity evolved very well.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Frostatine

You cant really say that because every type of government has to have an elite class or minority making the decisions.

If all of christianity made the decisions for all of christianity, nothing would ever get done because nobody would ever agree.

Thing is, no one makes the decisions for all of Christianity. A big misconception is that the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, represents almost all Christians, and that the rest are led by smaller-yet-still-capitalized Churches. Really, most Protestant churches are entirely independent, and decide what specific doctrine to adhere to, what to teach, & what politics to support or not-support on their own. A large portion of Christians don't follow the edicts of any Church & couldn't care less about the Pope.

So when we say we have no affiliation with wacked groups that bomb abortion clinics or protest Hindu prayers in Congress, it's true.

Fundamentalist. Anything. Are. Evil.

The term Fundamentalist is really misused these days. Those the media(or culture, whatever) describes as "Fundamentalist Christians" really aren't, because their beliefs, which lead directly to the actions they take that tick off the rest of the country, are not the Fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity would lead one love your neighbor, be kind to strangers, treat others as you'd want to be treated, all that stuff.