DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 13, 2005 12:19:48 GMT -5
Why is it you agnostics and atheists always see Christianity (or any other doctrine of faith) as an all-or-nothing venture? Because that is what the Bible says it is, as per Revelation 3:15-3:17
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 13, 2005 18:46:41 GMT -5
Not quite what I was going for. My question is, why does any inconsistency render all aspects and teachings of that faith incorrect?
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 13, 2005 22:26:41 GMT -5
I think every religion has inconsistencies because they are old, and history always has inconsistencies. Nobody kept perfect records of things, they recorded what they saw as important. Like the fact that Jesus goes from age thirteen to thirty, why, because the persons doing the recording didn't see it as important.
I don't think that one inconsistency makes the religion wrong, my personal religious beliefs make it wrong for me. The same could be asked of you about any other religion. Religion is whatever works for that particular individual, the reason even within religions there are such differing views, everyone takes what works for them and leaves what doesn't. So in the end we all believe something at least slightly different.
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 15, 2005 22:54:23 GMT -5
From whence the Catholic Church draws its moral authority. It simply seems a tad arbitrary to deny any belief in a greater power because several details are offensive to your sensibilities. To illustrate what I'm talking about, Ben, you seem to have as your primary obstacle to accepting God or any other power the tendency of established religions to declare themselves correct, and that to follow others is sheerest folly (in most cases, you burn in hell). Why does that deny the existence of a God? Besides, Christians are defined rather by belief in a particular representation of God on Earth (Christ). Does this in turn deny the existence of a God? Or many gods? wellllll, yes and no, it says to me that, for one, the major religions of the world are, for the most part, full of shit('cept maybe some of the eastern ones, confusianism, for example.) pardon the expresion, but i believe it expresses my feelings. anyway, so basically, to me that rules out the major ones. as for other monotheistic or pantheonic religions? i don't have much to say about polytheism, haven't really(honestly) given it much thought, though my preference for thinking is pretty clearly based ont eh here and now, and what i can feel, or see, experience in some way. and other monotheistic religions? generally, i've found the belief in a perfect, all good, all knowing all powerful god, quite...not cool. the problem of evil presents its ugly head quite often, plus free will(how can someone know everything, and still claim that there's free will? makes no sense to me...even though i'm a big fan of determinism.). so yah, basically, that's my belief in a nutshell... as for why a inconsistency renders the faith wrong? because they claim to be correct! they claim that they are the absolute truth! that's part of a religion! "we're right, believe it, because that's how things work around here." i see inconsistencies, i ask why, they say "oh bah, it's right, you don't have faith enough, you need to be taught int he ways of jesus/buddah/allah/whoever we're talking about. i can't trust someone saying they're the truth, and yet they're...wrong. what? no. sorry. accepting portions of a faith and not others does not make one faithful by any means, i, for example, have a pretty strong leaning towards the christian ideals, more specifically the ten commandments i hold as pretty much the right way to go(although there are other approaches...anyway), however, i don't see jesus as any kind of savior or anything of the sort, and so, would not be considered a christian by any definition of the word, and as such, would not be going to heaven. *shrugs* why would not believing a portion of a faith make you still part of that faith? that's what makes no sense to me...
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Jul 22, 2006 21:05:03 GMT -5
Having returned recently to thoughts on a related topic...continuing the same vein of argument, I think we're having a fundamental disagreement about subjects here.
When discussing whether or not there is a God, or anything beyond Man, what matters here is faith. The principal argument for asserting faith in the idea that there is no God seems to be that religion is always flawed. The two are separate things.
The assertion that because the Catholic Club has some squirly membership policies, and also believes in God, means that there is in fact no God because you don't like said policies isn't a good way to go about it.
And so I return to an already mentioned argument: why is faith an all or nothing venture? As you yourself said Ben, you think the Ten Commandments are pretty much the way to go (quite obviously throwing out the first). Therefore, some elements of the teachings of the Jews, Muslims, and Christians are, you feel, meritorious. And since the Muslims in particular advocate the position that virtue is what renders Man harmonious and in his "natural state" (that being the grace of God), why not try the logic you currently use backwards when examining religion?
The logic chain I criticize: 1) Christians want to send everyone who isn't one to hell. 2) Christians are dedicated to the veneration of God, and His Son who died for their sins. 1a) I believe sending people to hell just because they aren't Christians is wrong. Therefore I cannot believe in a God or his Son.
The reverse: 1) Muslims believe that God created Man intending him to live in a specific manner, so to achieve harmony and prosper. 2) Muslims are dedicated to virtuous behavior as this intended state of living. 2a) I believe their idea of virtuous behavior is mostly correct. What does that mean about the existence of God?
Now, I have not hardly invalidated criticism of religion by switching the approach from responding to practice instead of to doctrine; but it does bear thinking on. The reason I advocate the second chain when considering the possibility of God, is because belief in such a thing is your faith. It is not the teachings or writings or lectures. That's religion, and is directed from outside inward in order to encourage faith. Faith is from the inside outward - it's what you feel. And what you feel governs what you do. So if we're talking about believing in God, don't you think it might be better to look at what other people are doing or attempting and wonder what motivates them, than what they say or read and wonder why they think that way?
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Jul 24, 2006 19:03:44 GMT -5
well, seeing as most of your post worked up to that last point, I will concentrate on analyzing that last sentence.
I do agree with your statement to a point, the fact that faith is indeed an inward -> outward feeling. I fear when I was making my earlier argument I was being rather narrow sighted. however simply claiming your faith to be thus does not stand in my eyes, one must act upon that faith in order to actually have faith. in danger of totally derailing the discussion and making myself look like a fool(as I have not re-read what I posted in the past...ergh, laziness), I think the best way to sum up my thoughts on the matter is that faith, in and of itself, is pointless and means nothing, unless one lives according to that faith. and I guess that's the point I was trying to make by bringing the christians specifically into it.
anyway. I guess in effect, this whole thing was a complicated way of saying, yes, I agree with you, as a matter of fact, not only is it something that bears thinking, but I think that faith without action is nothing. saying is all well and good, but how someone really ACTS shows who they really are.
|
|