The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why would I have like such a negative person? 

He talked just like you!

[SoulMonster]

47 minutes ago, soon said:

Your presuppositions about how and why one encounters Christ remain as imagined as ever.

Have I said anything about "how and why one encounters Christ"? I was talking about theism, YOU think I talk about Christianity. And then people complain about me singling out one particular brand of nonsense 

But yeah, people are Christian for the same reasons as people are Jews or Hindu or any other tgeism: Because they are brought up that way. Theisms, including Christianity, tend to be laterally inherited. It is is mental disease that is spread from parents to children. Which is why it is relatively rare that people convert. 

And people cling to the security blanket that is theism, including Christianity, because they are afraid to stand up to tradition and family and friends, because they are afraid to realize they are living a lie, because they like the comfort it provides to feel there is a deeper meaning and that there is a life beyond, because it is all they know, because schools and society at large fail in educating people to be thinking, rational beings, etc. 

I likely forgot some good reasons, but that's just how I am, particularly on wine. 

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

In my defence I've called them all out as equally nonsensical over the years. If just so happens that the majority of debates on here are with Catholics as to the best of my knowledge we don't have a huge amount of Hindus and Buddhists and the only Muslim we have is Len who with the best will in the world ain't going to be arguing the legitimacy of Sharia anytime soon.  

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

He talked just like you!

Well, I don't particularly want to hear someone talking like me, or having the same opinions. Sounds boring 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, I don't particularly want to hear someone talking like me, or having the same opinions. Sounds boring 

Friedrich der Grosse was a military genius so I wouldn't worry about the two of you being confused, and the closest you'll ever come to designing a rococo palace is stationing your middle class American electric appliances around your house. The homosexuality however? I mean you're a Man U fan!

[soon]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

 

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Have I said anything about "how and why one encounters Christ"? I was talking about theism, YOU think I talk about Christianity. And then people complain about me singling out one particular brand of nonsense 

But yeah, people are Christian for the same reasons as people are Jews or Hindu or any other tgeism: Because they are brought up that way. Theisms, including Christianity, tend to be laterally inherited. It is is mental disease that is spread from parents to children. Which is why it is relatively rare that people convert. 

And people cling to the security blanket that is theism, including Christianity, because they are afraid to stand up to tradition and family and friends, because they are afraid to realize they are living a lie, because they like the comfort it provides to feel there is a deeper meaning and that there is a life beyond, because it is all they know, because schools and society at large fail in educating people to be thinking, rational beings, etc. 

I likely forgot some good reasons, but that's just how I am, particularly on wine. 

So here you are both talking about Christianity in top quote (then indicting that I will only assume you are, lol)

And, um yes, you talk about how and why one comes to Christ.

You posted this one hour ago and have forgotten already?!?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

 

So here you are both talking about Christianity in top quote (then indicting that I will only assume you are, lol)

And, um yes, you talk about how and why one comes to Christ.

You posted this one hour ago and have forgotten already?!?

You really didn't get that post. I was explaining why I prefer to criticize theisms and not Christianity, and talked about the problems with theism, ye you only understood it as a post about Christianity.

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

So here you are both talking about Christianity in top quote (then indicting that I will only assume you are, lol)

And, um yes, you talk about how and why one comes to Christ.

You posted this one hour ago and have forgotten already?!?

The issue here is that you're implying that Christ was ever a real person (or at least that that he had supernatural powers). That's the basic disagreement here.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Dazey said:

The issue here is that you're implying that Christ was ever a real person (or at least that that he had supernatural powers). That's the basic disagreement here.

The issue here is that he doesn't understand what I am writing 

[soon]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

The issue here is that you're implying that Christ was ever a real person (or at least that that he had supernatural powers). That's the basic disagreement here.

No serious person doubt Christ was a historical person.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The issue here is that he doesn't understand what I am writing 

Other way around there, sweet pea

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

No serious person doubt Christ was a historical person.

What about the magic side of things? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

But yeah, people are Christian for the same reasons as people are Jews or Hindu or any other tgeism: Because they are brought up that way. Theisms, including Christianity, tend to be laterally inherited. It is is mental disease that is spread from parents to children. Which is why it is relatively rare that people convert. 

I'm sorry you have such anger in your heart. I hope you are able to find some peace in your life. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

What about the magic side of things? 

If you dont want to believe the "magical" side of things, what would you say happened to his remains? 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

What about the magic side of things? 

Magic?

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If you dont want to believe the "magical" side of things, what would you say happened to his remains? 

They probably decomposed the same as everybody else's. 

1 minute ago, soon said:

Magic?

Son of god. Water into wine. etc etc Y'know? The usual nonsense.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dazey

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Son of god. Water into wine. etc etc

Oh, I see. Another case of an uniformed new atheist asking a Christian to take on the New Atheists own deeply flawed understanding of Christian thought, and defend it as if it was the Christians own perspective. What boring and unreasonable folly.

Edited November 11, 2018 by soon

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Oh, I see. Another case of an uniformed new atheist asking a Christian to take on the New Atheists own deeply flawed understanding of Christian thought, and defend it as if it was the Christians own perspective. What boring and unreasonable folly.

So Jesus wasn't the son of god then?

[OmarBradley]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

With ya until the Islam bit. How are you quantifying impediments to social and cultural progress? Admittedly, I'm not well read on the workings of any major religion (as it's all hogwash). I don't feel like educating myself on fantasy for the purpose of arguing in support of reality.

But radicalization is radicalization regardless of religion. And as far as I'm aware, there's nothing intrinsically unique about Islam that makes it promote violence, anti-intellectualism, or human progress any more than Christianity does.The issues we see in the Middle East today have roots throughout history, but some of those biggest roots stem from the Allies' poor job of managing the Middle East at the conclusion of both WWs. These are geopolitical issues that Muslim leaders have transformed into religious fervor. 

I don't know that I'd agree Islam is the biggest impediment to social and cultural progress. Christianity in the US is a pretty scary thing too right now. 

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

Buddhism has a philosophical tint and tends to be less rigid and less fantastical in its teachings and practices. And Hinduism promotes open mindedness in belief are rarely makes dogmatic proclamations. While I'm a fan of no religion, of the four major ones it seems these two are less burdensome to society. As I said above, this is my rudimentary understanding, but I believe it's accurate. 

@Iron MikeyJ

I have a question about Christianity, since you offered to answer any. Any others may chime in to answer as well. This has actually been on my mind for some time and it even relates to our Atlantis discussion, indirectly.

What makes your worship different than the Greeks who worshiped Zeus 2.500 years ago? Why is their religion deemed mythology, but yours is valid?

1 minute ago, soon said:

Oh, I see. Another case of an uniformed new atheist asking a Christian to take on the New Atheists own deeply flawed understanding of Christian thought, and defend it as if it was the Christians own perspective. What boring and unreasonable folly.

Please enlighten those of us who are misunderstanding Christian thought.

[soon]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So Jesus wasn't the son of god then?

What viewpoint of the Trinity are you informed by? That's not a uniform question the way you seem to believe it to be.

If you would bother to read just the first chapter of one of 4 brief Gospels you'd see the all the assumptions you are making. John chapter 1 (I really encourage the NRSV translation)

Edited November 11, 2018 by soon

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

What viewpoint of the Trinity are you informed by? That's not a uniform question the way you seem to believe it to be.

If you would bother to read just the first chapter of one of 4 brief Gospels you'd see the all the assumptions you are making. John chapter 1

Does John chapter 1 present peer reviewed evidence of the existence of god?

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Buddhism has a philosophical tint and tends to be less rigid and less fantastical in its teachings and practices. And Hinduism promotes open mindedness in belief are rarely makes dogmatic proclamations. While I'm a fan of no religion, of the four major ones it seems these two are less burdensome to society. As I said above, this is my rudimentary understanding, but I believe it's accurate. 

Buddhism which believes in cyclical reincarnation, and Hinduism, possessing a Shiva and a Vishnu as deities? 

Broadly however I agree. Eastern religions are less dogmatic and militant, more inquisitive, than the three monotheistic religions of the Mediterranean world. There are various historical explanations for this difference between east and west.

''Peer reviewed'' haha. 

Edited November 11, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

''Peer reviewed'' haha. 

I mean I get that this would be difficult given that most of the accounts of Jesus weren't written until decades after the alleged events.

[OmarBradley]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Buddhism which believes in cyclical reincarnation, and Hinduism, possessing a Shiva and a Vishnu as deities? 

Broadly however I agree. Eastern religions are less dogmatic and militant, more inquisitive, than the three monotheistic religions of the Mediterranean world. There are various historical explanations for this difference between east and west.

My comment on fantasticality was restricted to Buddhism. And I said less fantastical, not lacking any fantastical elements. Semantics are important because I was careful to phrase it knowing I don't have enough knowledge about these religions to make wholly definitive statements on them. But I've seen/read enough to get a feel.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@OmarBradley,

History and science has stated that they were "mythology." I dont know for certain what the church's stance on anchient Greeks religion is specifically. But what I do know is all of those religions fall under the spectrum of paganism. Which the church DOES have teaching on that. All one would have to do is spend some time reading the bible and you will come across LOTS of stories regarding Paganism. 

This next statements are my personal understanding (not neccesarily church teaching), but I always look for church teaching in order to make sure I am not falling outside of the boundaries of the church. Having said that, the book of Enoch explains all of this with extreme clarity. To summarize, the fallen Angels have been deceiving man since the beginning. They are the source of all of these pagan religions. To put it bluntly, they were demonic. Which it doesnt matter if its the Greeks, Roman's or the Egyptians, they were all following teachings of fallen Angels pretending to be "gods" in order to lead humanity away from the TRUE God. 

I know that may sound like a bit of a stretch to many of you, but if you do a quick Google search you will find the CURRENT Church of Satan worships the Egyptian god Set. Crowley, Hitler, and MANY more modern figures all worshipped these Egyptian "gods" to some form or another. Honestly, it's in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, etc. There are reasons why the term "mythology" was added to these pagan religions. The devils greatest trick my friend...

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I mean I get that this would be difficult given that most of the accounts of Jesus weren't written until decades after the alleged events.

Ironically - and I was taking the piss out of the office speak ''peer review'', and the very notion of expecting the submission of documents from antiquity to some sort of 21st century academic panel, so I cannot believe I am saying this but - there was a brand of ''peer reviewing'' occurring with the construction of the Bible.

Quote

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke 1:1-4