IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> A New Religion Thread, What does it mean to you?
Guest_wolfram_*
post May 8 2009, 02:25 AM
Post #41





Guests






Well, if I were to answer for him.

I'd say yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheWerg_*
post May 8 2009, 02:27 AM
Post #42





Guests






You know, I guess I think there is a god. But I really don't believe he ever enters into my life, or cares about me, or about humans in general. So I don't particularly care whether he exists or not. Morality is a more interesting question, in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_smarterthanuthink_*
post May 8 2009, 03:01 AM
Post #43





Guests






1. I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

2. My family has been Roman Catholic ever since the 1900's. My great-great grandfather fought in the Cristero War in Mexico, as a Cristero in the 1920's. Before that, my ancestors followed their own polytheistic and indigenous religions. So to answer your question, I profess this faith for two reasons; one being that I was raised a devout Catholic. One point that I stress to people is that my parents never forced this religion upon me or my siblings. If we didn't want to go to mass, we didn't have to. If we didn't want to participate in religious discussions, then that was our choice. But we still had to attend Catholic school and respect other peoples thoughts and beliefs regarding religion. So let me make this clear; I had a choice. And my choice, as you know, was to become a Catholic. I am a firm believer in the Word Of God. That is another reason I practice Catholicism. As a young kid I wasn't taught how to read the bible. I could quote any scripture passage, I could name all the books of the bible and I could tell you what every book contains. But I didnt know how to read the bible. I read the bible as a literalist, not as a contextualist. And many many people make that mistake. What specific ideas or occurrences fascinate me? The book of Revelation. That book is often seen as a book of sorrow and despair and fear. But it is actually a book of love and joy. I guess you really have to read it as a contextualist to understand what I mean.

3. I just try to live as best I can. Or as Jesus would have. I don't do things that would disappoint my parents, God, or myself. When I do, do things that are not morally correct I go to confession, repent and vow to never do it again. I firmly believe that in order for one to obtain eternal salvation one must have three things. Faith, works and scripture. In James 2:14-26, James says that Faith without works is dead and that work without faith is meaningless. Solo Scripturum and Solo Fide are two religious concepts I do not, and will not ever agree with. That being said I not only try to live out my faith but I try to study it through scripture and prayer. Does God hear my prayers? Of course. Does he always answer them? Yes. In the way that I expect him to? No.

4. I would change the close mindedness of my fellow Catholics. It is one thing to have your beliefs and stick to them, but it is another matter entirely, to condemn or over-generalize people just because they are from another religion. All in all, I love my religion. I love being a Catholic but I also love learning new things, and I love learning about other peoples beliefs. And I think it all boils down to what I believe in and what I, as a Catholic am summoned to do, which is to love my neighbor.

wow..i didnt mean for it to be this long..

This post has been edited by smarterthanuthink: May 8 2009, 03:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Subversive Asset 2.0_*
post May 8 2009, 03:18 AM
Post #44





Guests






QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 09:16 PM) *
So when you talk about believing in a god, you mean that despite your lack of knowledge in the area, you have faith that there is some higher power, while if you don't believe, although you acknowledge it's possible, your faith goes the other way, toward the idea that there is no god?


This is close, but this still only acknowledge two possibilities -- theist and strong atheist.

I propose that the weak atheist merely does not believe in a god. He doesn't believe there is no god (so there is no swinging of faith the other way). To say there is faith in lacking belief doesn't make sense (while to say there is faith in a belief there is no god -- and I'm sure I'll become very controversial with any strong atheists on this board with this comment -- is defensible), This is a critical distinction that I think a lot of people do not understand about atheism and atheists. You don't have to say, "I believe there are no gods" to simply lack a belief in gods (or, if you will, to not believe in gods, or to disbelieve in gods).

I would say however that by definition of the word, there is no such thing as a weak theist however. While you are intuitively and etymologically atheist (a weak variety) by not believing in gods, you aren't intuitively or etymologically theist by not believing there are no gods. Theism is a positive belief in god, not merely a negation of the belief there are no gods. (Keep in mind though that this positive belief in gods is not knowledge or certainty)

QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 09:27 PM) *
You know, I guess I think there is a god. But I really don't believe he ever enters into my life, or cares about me, or about humans in general. So I don't particularly care whether he exists or not. Morality is a more interesting question, in my opinion.


Deism alert'd. Also, apatheism. Nothing wrong with this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Subversive Asset 2.0_*
post May 8 2009, 03:23 AM
Post #45





Guests






QUOTE (wolfram @ May 7 2009, 09:11 PM) *
If you really tried hard to pin me down I'd probably sway between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism... but that's because generally I'm an apathist


*coughs*

again, I would say that now, we get into a new dimension. If our x dimension is our belief, the y dimension could reasonably be our certainty/claim about knowledge...and then the z dimension, the third dimension is the centrality or commitment power of our belief.

Apatheism, I think, is not a *what* of belief (x dimension), but a *how* of belief. Whereas one could believe devoutly, I think apatheism represents the opposite end of that dimension...of belief (or lack of belief) that isn't very centrally held. Once again though, just as the y axis is not a suitable 'replacement' for the x axis, the z isn't either.

I can say that I'm apatheist, but that doesn't preclude me from being atheist. And I know the distinction between those who are apatheist, but are theist (these are the kinds of people who believe...but their belief doesn't seem to engage them and radically propel them in the direction of repentance and transformation). So, not to challenge your belief, but saying you sway between seems like a dodge on the question...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post May 8 2009, 03:33 AM
Post #46





Guests






Debator, if I post in this tread, give me a huge warn. Keep me out of this.

This post has been edited by BadgerCam: May 8 2009, 03:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_tryingtothinkagain_*
post May 8 2009, 03:37 AM
Post #47





Guests






QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 06:24 PM) *
To the people who adhere to a strict reading of the Bible: How do you justify that action, considering the editing and censorship that occurred, what was lost in translation, questionable authorship and accuracy, and the contradictions inherent in the text?

We learn Hebrew and Latin, we research the cultures at the time of writing, we research the historical documents attesting to the authorship of books of the Bible, and either ignore the contradictions or take them head-on until you figure out that they don't really contradict each other (I take the latter course of action, and has worked every time).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheWerg_*
post May 8 2009, 03:39 AM
Post #48





Guests






So do you believe that being gay is a sin, and that we should ban gay marriage, etc.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Justin Nichols_*
post May 8 2009, 03:45 AM
Post #49





Guests






smarterthanuthink, you are a very decent Roman Catholic. It is always a pleasure to meet someone like you =)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Justin Nichols_*
post May 8 2009, 03:47 AM
Post #50





Guests






Subversive Asset 2.0, I agree with you that strong atheism may require faith. I may be wrong.

I am a weak atheist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_tryingtothinkagain_*
post May 8 2009, 03:51 AM
Post #51





Guests






QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 10:39 PM) *
So do you believe that being gay is a sin, and that we should ban gay marriage, etc.?

I believe living a life of active homosexuality is sinful. I also believe that living a life of heterosexual intercourse with many different people is sinful. I believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, a life-long binding of two people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheWerg_*
post May 8 2009, 03:51 AM
Post #52





Guests






Okay. Have you ever eaten lobster? Shrimp?

Edit: This comes across with more hostility online than it would in person. I want to be completely civil here, and promote a sharing of ideas and a debate over them.

This post has been edited by TheWerg: May 8 2009, 03:53 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Subversive Asset 2.0_*
post May 8 2009, 03:53 AM
Post #53





Guests






QUOTE (Justin Nichols @ May 7 2009, 10:47 PM) *
Subversive Asset 2.0, I agree with you that strong atheism may require faith. I may be wrong.

I am a weak atheist.


Hi five.

also, JOIN US BADGER CAAAAAAAAAAM.

if things get crazy, you can be sure that all the mods, admins, and nazgul have this topic in their laser sights set to kill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_monica_*
post May 8 2009, 03:53 AM
Post #54





Guests






QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 10:39 PM) *
So do you believe that being gay is a sin, and that we should ban gay marriage, etc.?

Homosexuality as we understand it today is a biblical anachronism. The Bible makes NO commentary about being gay, gay marriage, or gay love.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_wolfram_*
post May 8 2009, 03:55 AM
Post #55





Guests






what about sodomy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_monica_*
post May 8 2009, 03:56 AM
Post #56





Guests






QUOTE (wolfram @ May 7 2009, 10:55 PM) *
what about sodomy?

Sodomy is a sexual act, not an orientation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is actually a story about hospitality, not homosexuality. When the story is referred to in other places of the Bible, it is never in reference to sexual activity-- always hospitality. Sodomy in Leviticus is referred to as an abomination, which spoke to idolatry. The mentions of sodomy in the epistles is very odd, being that the words translate to things like "man bed," which is unclear, given that there were many other words a learned Greek writer could have used to mean something more precise. Those passages seem to address male prostitution.

Orientation did not exist in the consciousness of those authoring Scripture. There was no gay or straight-- people just were who they were. Homosexual as a term did not come into usage until the 20th century, and even then it was originally known as the "homophile movement."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_tryingtothinkagain_*
post May 8 2009, 04:03 AM
Post #57





Guests






QUOTE (TheWerg @ May 7 2009, 10:51 PM) *
Okay. Have you ever eaten lobster? Shrimp?

Edit: This comes across with more hostility online than it would in person. I want to be completely civil here, and promote a sharing of ideas and a debate over them.

Yep. And if you read the New Testament (book of Acts, if I remember correctly), we were given the right to consume all of God's creatures, and convert all of His people. Or possibly just the latter. Sadly, it's been a while.

Yeah, no problem. Just so long as you avoid the ad hominem attacks, or just flat out say religion is stupid, or believers are stupid, etc., I always assume a completely civil tone.

This post has been edited by tryingtothinkagain: May 8 2009, 04:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Jonesy_*
post May 8 2009, 04:10 AM
Post #58





Guests






QUOTE (monica @ May 7 2009, 10:56 PM) *
QUOTE (wolfram @ May 7 2009, 10:55 PM) *
what about sodomy?

Sodomy is a sexual act, not an orientation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is actually a story about hospitality, not homosexuality. When the story is referred to in other places of the Bible, it is never in reference to sexual activity-- always hospitality. Sodomy in Leviticus is referred to as an abomination, which spoke to idolatry. The mentions of sodomy in the epistles is very odd, being that the words translate to things like "man bed," which is unclear, given that there were many other words a learned Greek writer could have used to mean something more precise. Those passages seem to address male prostitution.

Orientation did not exist in the consciousness of those authoring Scripture. There was no gay or straight-- people just were who they were. Homosexual as a term did not come into usage until the 20th century, and even then it was originally known as the "homophile movement."

Thank you for posting here and bringing the light of reason. (I'm being dead serious)
This is my main beef with some Christians, people reading the bible and misconstruing it to fit their beliefs, instead of reading it and setting their beliefs based on what it says (which I still think is slightly silly, but I can respect that)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheWerg_*
post May 8 2009, 04:12 AM
Post #59





Guests






But the point is that many of the original tenets of the Bible weren't true instructions of morality, like the "shellfish are an abomination" clause. They were there as just good, common sense rules to maintaining health, or so the pieces of Bible scholarship that I've seen would have me believe. Because shellfish often went bad and could make you sick, it was best to instruct you not to consume them. The same is true for other parts of Leviticus, it's simply encouraging healthy living. But in today's modern world it's unnecessary.

Furthermore, isn't sin a deliberate act? I know that many Christians posit that homosexuality is a choice, but most findings seem to point that animals engage in homosexual behavior too. Would you claim that they make a deliberate choice to do so, or is it simply part of their nature? If it is part of their nature, isn't it more in keeping with the spirit of Christianity to be accepting?

And don't worry about anything ad hominem; many of my best friends are extremely religious Christians, and we get along fine, even when I argue religion with them.

Edit: directed at tryingtothinkagain. Also, thank you, monica. Interesting post.

This post has been edited by TheWerg: May 8 2009, 04:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_tryingtothinkagain_*
post May 8 2009, 04:13 AM
Post #60





Guests






QUOTE (Jonesy @ May 7 2009, 11:10 PM) *
QUOTE (monica @ May 7 2009, 10:56 PM) *
QUOTE (wolfram @ May 7 2009, 10:55 PM) *
what about sodomy?

Sodomy is a sexual act, not an orientation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is actually a story about hospitality, not homosexuality. When the story is referred to in other places of the Bible, it is never in reference to sexual activity-- always hospitality. Sodomy in Leviticus is referred to as an abomination, which spoke to idolatry. The mentions of sodomy in the epistles is very odd, being that the words translate to things like "man bed," which is unclear, given that there were many other words a learned Greek writer could have used to mean something more precise. Those passages seem to address male prostitution.

Orientation did not exist in the consciousness of those authoring Scripture. There was no gay or straight-- people just were who they were. Homosexual as a term did not come into usage until the 20th century, and even then it was originally known as the "homophile movement."

Thank you for posting here and bringing the light of reason. (I'm being dead serious)
This is my main beef with some Christians, people reading the bible and misconstruing it to fit their beliefs, instead of reading it and setting their beliefs based on what it says (which I still think is slightly silly, but I can respect that)

One of the first things my dad was taught in marketing is that people make decisions based on emotions, then find facts to back them up. 'Tis human nature.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd May 2018 - 02:11 AM