Religion: What it means to you

I was raised Catholic. Fell asleep in church and never touched a Bible until I was 15. Read the Bible, met other Christians and decided to go nondenominational. What I believe, I wouldn't call a religion, but a Faith. Rituals and traditions mean nothing to me - it's all about what I believe.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

but as long a people like my mother exist within it, I kind of feel turned off by it

I've always wondered about this point of view. Why would you turn your back on a religion because some people are practicing it incorrectly? Isn't it likely that there are some who call themselves Pagans that behave in ways that would be embarrassing to you? The religion is not about those people, though.

Christianity is not the behavioral patterns of people who call themsevles Christian. The only valid example of what a Christian should be like is Jesus himself, and you said yourself that you approve of him. Anyone can call themselves anything and yet behave anyway they choose. Judge an institution by what it is and not what it's supposed followers do.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I like how there is a picture of Einstein on the "atheist's resource" webpage. Smart = atheist, right?

Einstein was actually quite theistic. He wasn't very religious, but there is plenty of evidence that he believed in God.

I don't know who that guy on the left is either. Looks like Newton - a strong believer of Christianity.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Heh, sorry. I edited. It could be Descartes, though. Even so, he may not have been Christian, but he was strongly theistic.

It's only modern scientists that are mostly secular, having been galvanized by Evolutionism.

How ya doing, buddy?

The crusades weren't even about Pagans. Technically, since Islam is an Abrahamic religion, they are not strictly Pagan.

Quote:

And don't you think it's possible that many of them were just into Christianity because they were brought up that way?

And don't you think it's possible that many of today's scientists are not into Christianity because they've been indoctrinated into thinking science has made it obsolete and as such, it's embarrassing for them to be spiritual in the scientific community?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Does anyone think that faith should simply be what you consider to be the truth, regardless of how it affects your life positively or negatively? Because that's basically how I feel. A lot of people see religion as something helpful. I mostly see it as something that gets in the way of what I naturally want to do. But I regard it because I believe what I'm following is the truth.

There's a part of me that would like to eat sweets and processed foods all day and nothing but. However, I know that this is a bad idea and I'm not going to do it. To me, that's what faith is. It's the truth that at times I may not want to accept, but I do simply because I know its the truth.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Of course, it's why I think pointing to it for either reason doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Religion doesn't have anything to say about science and science doesn't have anything to say about religion (well, I guess "shouldn't" would be better word choice there since people try to make it seem like they do anyway).

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Scientific is not synonymous with secular. Pop culture and pop science today seem to think otherwise, though.

FELIPE NO

Well, the Bible says "seek and you will find." So, as long as you have some sort of genuine interest in God, no pride and an open mind, you can't really go wrong.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

I also realised that the only way Christianity had survived throughout the centuries, was with the use of force, persecution, etc.

Uh, except the very beginning, right? Where it's surivival was almost, what would you call it? A miracle?

Most amazing jew boots

Anyone can do a cut and paste job. If we both go to websites and copy our arguments, that's not much of a debate is it?

Why don't you paraphrase that. There is such a thing as spam in the form of excess, you know?

Besides, you still failed to mention anything about Christianity's early beginning. Explain how the religion (which was presecuted by nearly everyone) managed to spread violently. If you can explain how it spread at all, despite harsh opposition, that would be cool too.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

It is no different than defending and making excuses for the Nazis.

Sure, but the way most nonbelievers view religious folk is akin to blaming all of Germany for the Nazis. Just because a group of people go nuts, that doesn't give them license to taint the name of the religion they are supposedly following. I don't see how anyone who has read the Bible could explain, with scripture, how Jesus would have condoned the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.. That is why we have the Othrodox and Protestant Churches. That's why we have nondenominational Christians (like me) who don't affiliate themselves with any chruch.

Another thing is that to understand history, you have to understand the cultural context of what you're reading. At the time of the Crusades, people were brutual. With or without Christianity, that sort of thing would be going on regradless. There are examples of empirialism well into the 20th century.

You wouldn't blame a modern American for slavery, would you? Even though at one time, all Americans, a group who strongly believed that "all men were created equal" had slaves and accepted the practice. People can claim to follow an ideal and be way off. Is that the ideal's fault? Is "all men are created equal" really that hard to grasp?

I'm not, and I don't think any Christian should ever try to justify the Crusades or anything like it. That doesn't mean that we're responsible though. Nor does it mean that the man who preached "love thy neighbor" is responsible.



You're still not explaining how it was possible for Christianity to spread in the beginning. That's okay, though. It was quite a mystery, and if indeed you've come not to debate but to simply share your views, then I won't trifle you with an argument.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

See, this is another example of not understanding context.

Slavery as it's mentioned there is not the slavery we know as 21st century Americans. Slavery is really a bad word to use as a translation. Bad translations are common, especially in the KJV and other really old bibles.

Anyway, the "slavery" that Paul et. al. talk about is really more like indentured servitiude. The "slaves" were people who had a debt to work off, mostly. Some of them were prisoners of war. None of them were innocent natives kidnapped for slavery. They also had rights, unlike the slaves we knew. Some slaves were promiment members of the community, holding positions that are the equivalent of a college professor today. The only difference between a slave and a regular citizen was that the slaved owed some kind of debt. Were some slaves treated badly? Sure. But that's not unlike people today having their thumbs cut off by a loan shark or something like that.

The point is, you need to understand the context. If you don't, then sure, you can read anything you want into any ancient writing. And you're right, it is a literal interpretation of badly trasnlated literature that lead to many misunderstandings and tragedies. There was a time when people weren't even allowed to read the Bible - the clergy had to tell them what it said. This is certainly not the kind of exclusivity Jesus had in mind.

And don't judge a religion by it's followers. That should be common sense. Just as the typical American is not a great representative of American ideals, so too is the typcial Christian not a great representative of Christ.

How ya doing, buddy?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I've done plenty of reseach about this and the slavery thats condoned in the Bible is just not the slavery you're thinking of. I don't have a concordance with me (I'm at work right now) so I can't look up the words, but I will when I get a chance.

Todays Bible hasn't been "watered down" or edited, in the sense that you are making it out to be. When the Bible is translated, it is translated using the oldest manscripts we have. Some of them date back no so long after the time of Christ. I don't know where people get this from. Of course there were a lot of mistakes in translation. The Bible was being used to control people for a long time. They couldn't even read it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

But seriously, though. Check your sources. I think you might have a tainted concept of what the Bible means by slavery. The Old Testament is even harder for us to figure out because the society and circumstances were so much different from ours. War to them was like taking out the garbage. It's something you just had to do. Nomadic people had to be brutal to survive, especialy if they were not the strongest people.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation. Never door to door pamphlets, & holier than though utterings.

Honestly though, that's what people will claim no matter how you go about it. If anyone has paid attention to my religious arguments on these boards, you would notice that I never bring it up. I only reply to topics other people bring up. I have never forced my beliefs on anyone. Being blunt and honest is not the same thing as being forceful, but some people would have you believe otherwise.

FELIPE NO

Look, I could tell you that drinking a quart of whiskey everyday is going to kill you. That doesn't mean I'm forcing you not to do it. People have no problem doing whatever they want regardless of any real or implied consequences. If telling someone something was bad for them was enough to coerce them, we wouldn't have any cigarette companies anymore.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

More Trivia! Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus/the Lord in the OT. Let the speculation commence!

Whoa. Where do you get this from?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

When, it is made very clear that his love is quite conditional.

Where?

Quote:

The bible likens God's love for us to that of a parent, it specifically uses the example Father. Yet, I know my own father would never send me to a place like hell, no matter what I had done.

What would you say Hell is? And why do you believe that?

Quote:

What I found veen more amusing is that God sets up a double-standard, that only he has the right to vengance, wrath, et cetera.

If a parent tells a child that he has to go to bed at a certain time and the parent decides to stay up, is that a double standard? If a parent tells a child not a play outside without an adult present, does that mean the parent has to follow suit in order to avoid a double standard?

God has the right to anger, indignation, vengeance, etc. because he actually understands the situation. What makes these emotions evil for us is that when we express them, we are putting ourselves on God's level, unjustly. It's the same thing as pride. God has every right and every reason to be proud of himself, but when we're proud, we're only forgetting how small we really are.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Are you kidding me? This is Christianity's main draw. Accept Jesus or your soul burns forever in Hell.

No, it's not. Quit getting your theology from paintings and puritanical literature.

Quote:

That's an interesting theory. That evil human emotions become good emotions when God uses them.

No, that's not what I'm saying. They're not inherently evil. Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil. The idea of hypocrisy is completely moot when discussing God. Someone who is not on the same level as you with respect to authority can make rules for you that they are exempt from. Parents do this all the time. It's all part of the Father metaphor, which works well anyway you use it to describe God.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.