User Tag List

View Poll Results: What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm an atheist

    36 27.48%
  • I'm agnostic

    25 19.08%
  • Buddhism

    6 4.58%
  • Hinduism

    1 0.76%
  • Islam

    2 1.53%
  • Christianity

    39 29.77%
  • Other

    22 16.79%
First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 590

  1. #181
    Junior Member jamain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    So then the human race was originally propagated through an incestuous case of polyandry?

    There are already several posts on the forum delineating the many contradictions in the Bible. When I have more time, I will try to find and link some for you to review. Of course, people who view the Bible with blinders on will play all sorts of mental and causal gymnastics to try to make them go away, but I will leave you to judge for yourself.
    I just find it interesting that people throw around the claim of contradictions all the time, but when asked to produce examples they sidestep or spit out other questions to avoid answering the question. Someone makes a claim, and then others jump on it and in their mind it becomes a fact. Some who make these claims, have never even truly studied the bible with an open mind, or a desire to understand it. They find some link somewhere on the internet, and since it is on the internet it must be true. Because we know everything on the internet is always right.

  2. #182
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamain View Post
    I just find it interesting that people throw around the claim of contradictions all the time, but when asked to produce examples they sidestep or spit out other questions to avoid answering the question. Someone makes a claim, and then others jump on it and in their mind it becomes a fact. Some who make these claims, have never even truly studied the bible with an open mind, or a desire to understand it. They find some link somewhere on the internet, and since it is on the internet it must be true. Because we know everything on the internet is always right.
    If you lack the patience to wait until others have time to track down or recreate references to biblical contradictions, you can try the forum search function. It is much better than it used to be. Just type "bible" and "contradiction" or "discrepancy" as the search terms, and it should pull up some of the previous discussions.

    Understand, however, that being open-minded to the study of the bible is not the same as willingly suspending one's disbelief in its contradictions and inconsistencies. True open-minded study does not indulge in wishful thinking, or hold the subject of one's study to any lesser standard than other source material. There was a point in my life when I was very uncertain about my Christian faith. I did exactly as you suggest and made an intensive study of the bible with a study group at church. I realized at the end that I simply could not belive it any longer. I could not have rejected my old faith without having done this, however. It was just due diligence.

    Edit: I see you have no comment on incent in the garden of Eden. That is typical of what happens when people do make a good-faith effort to document the contradictions in the Bible. I have read a good reference about the "other people", a better source for wives for the first sons. Will try to track it down when I have time.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #183
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamain View Post
    I just find it interesting that people throw around the claim of contradictions all the time, but when asked to produce examples they sidestep or spit out other questions to avoid answering the question. Someone makes a claim, and then others jump on it and in their mind it becomes a fact. Some who make these claims, have never even truly studied the bible with an open mind, or a desire to understand it. They find some link somewhere on the internet, and since it is on the internet it must be true. Because we know everything on the internet is always right.
    From Natural Selection we know there was no literal Adam and Eve. And there being no Adam and Eve there was no Original Sin and so no need for Redemption.

    @jamain

  4. #184
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamain View Post
    I just find it interesting that people throw around the claim of contradictions all the time, but when asked to produce examples they sidestep or spit out other questions to avoid answering the question. Someone makes a claim, and then others jump on it and in their mind it becomes a fact. Some who make these claims, have never even truly studied the bible with an open mind, or a desire to understand it. They find some link somewhere on the internet, and since it is on the internet it must be true. Because we know everything on the internet is always right.
    Here is a list. Maybe you can clear up its errors with open-mindedness and understanding.

  5. #185
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If you lack the patience to wait until others have time to track down or recreate references to biblical contradictions, you can try the forum search function. It is much better than it used to be. Just type "bible" and "contradiction" or "discrepancy" as the search terms, and it should pull up some of the previous discussions.

    Understand, however, that being open-minded to the study of the bible is not the same as willingly suspending one's disbelief in its contradictions and inconsistencies. True open-minded study does not indulge in wishful thinking, or hold the subject of one's study to any lesser standard than other source material. There was a point in my life when I was very uncertain about my Christian faith. I did exactly as you suggest and made an intensive study of the bible with a study group at church. I realized at the end that I simply could not belive it any longer. I could not have rejected my old faith without having done this, however. It was just due diligence.

    Edit: I see you have no comment on incent in the garden of Eden. That is typical of what happens when people do make a good-faith effort to document the contradictions in the Bible. I have read a good reference about the "other people", a better source for wives for the first sons. Will try to track it down when I have time.
    Guys, I cant help but think if solo scripture, which I rightly think is a heresy, had not coloured a couple of hundred years of christianity that the contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible would not have been the faith faultering moment you are making it out to be.

    There's a scholarly study of the bible and other sources of authority with my own tradition, RRC, which is called exegesis which seeks to remove all the mythology and signs and wonderment writing to discern the message that remains and there IS a message that remains after that.

    The bible isnt the same as the arabian nights or things like that and I think Jefferson and others, like Kahil Gibran, have all erred as much as profited others by attempts to re-present the core of the stories again but it was a good idea so far as it goes.

    A lot of the central messages from the bible have been emerged over and over and over periodically, usually in poorer formats I'll be frank and say so in that respect, as each generation seeks to reinvent the wheel and record often its own experience as though no other experience pre-dates or will post-date it, the movie Memento is a perfect metaphor for our society over an intergenerational life span.

  6. #186
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    From Natural Selection we know there was no literal Adam and Eve. And there being no Adam and Eve there was no Original Sin and so no need for Redemption.

    @jamain
    There is an interpretation of original sin which conceives of it as disbelief, it arrived with the advent of consciousness, symbolically represented in the genesis tale as the day after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit and choose to hide from God (I mean hide from God? Are you serious?), and in this reckoning disbelief is born in each generation, it is experienced every single individual, no matter how well schooled and taught and only dispelled in key individuals, prophets, even Mary the mother of God, by divine intervention and repeated working of wonders and signs.

    The fact that belief has been superseded by direct knowledge in Jesus and Mary is the only way in which I think they can be spoken of as lacking in all sin what so ever because they did do things, Jesus at least, which were human, all too human and from the sin as a coda of ethical or moral personal conduct would have been considered sinful. Jesus WAS quick to anger, impose curses, fight, he was racist at one point in the Gospel of Mark etc. etc.

    The only alternative would seem to be to suppose that there was/is a maturational or developmental version of Jesus, the human divinity, or God, the cosmic divinity, I think there may be a version of this in Jung but its not part of anything other than gnosticism or esoteria and apothecaria so far as I know.

  7. #187
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDog View Post
    What would you say to a religious person who found all spirituality and the group bonding of religion to be incredibly distasteful?
    I think those things are temporal and materialist, in the philosophical sense, I am absolutely sure that expert or master Yogis and meditators can perform feats of superhuman self-control or physiology but none of that would be any more spiritual than a good session in the gym, peak physical and mental performances are brilliant, for the individual, for the society or community around them or to which they belong, sometimes, although they are what they are.

    I dont think they compare to knowledge of the divine or search for God but that's just me. Everyone has to live their life their own way, deal with the consequences and breath after their own fashion.

  8. #188
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think those things are temporal and materialist, in the philosophical sense, I am absolutely sure that expert or master Yogis and meditators can perform feats of superhuman self-control or physiology but none of that would be any more spiritual than a good session in the gym, peak physical and mental performances are brilliant, for the individual, for the society or community around them or to which they belong, sometimes, although they are what they are.
    I would agree. Anything in religion which is only temporal can be dismissed as tangential. Stuff that you do in order to better reach whatever the 'divine core' is, but not essential.

    Unless somehow the accumulated total of temporal things somehow adds up to make a network with 'divine' essence.

    I tend to think that this is the closest to the truth, that the truth of a religion cannot be grasped without fully embracing the practice of it in all aspects of life, including the community. I think that the 'way of life' is the core of the religion, making the overall trajectory the 'divine essence'.

    But see, I have no problem admitting that the 'way of life' thus taught might be incredibly rewarding and lead to a better quality of life, but at the same time that makes me wonder if there is after all any 'divine essence' and not just a lifestyle choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think they compare to knowledge of the divine or search for God but that's just me. Everyone has to live their life their own way, deal with the consequences and breath after their own fashion.
    But what makes you think that you are more likely to reach knowledge of the divine by searching, rather than just accepting whatever you were taught (if anything) in childhood?

    In order to search you must have some objective criteria that would let you evaluate one set of beliefs as better or more true than another, and I don't think those exist.

    For myself, I concluded that there is no good evidence to suggest there is a personal God, and thus that faith is the only reason to believe it. And since faith cannot discriminate between one belief or another, I could solve the question of 'which religion' by having further faith that the religion I was born into was taught to me for a reason, and should be accepted.
    Formerly Lion4!5

  9. #189
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDog View Post
    But what makes you think that you are more likely to reach knowledge of the divine by searching, rather than just accepting whatever you were taught (if anything) in childhood?
    By "whatever you were taught (if anything) in childhood" I understand a particular tradition, the role of tradition and traditionalism as I understand it is about transmitting the learning of one generation, or many generations, to the next generation, its similar to memory in the individual and I can understand someone wishing to live without tradition as much as I could someone wishing to live each day without any recollection of the days leading up to that day, like Memento or Fifty First Dates.

    However, the same as memory matters it is not the whole of it, you still have to live the day, with the assistance of memory, but you still have to live it.

    So the tradition which I have been born into, and accept as valid, for good and sound reasons, provides a map, compass and tools to navigate but the search is still mine to make.

    In order to search you must have some objective criteria that would let you evaluate one set of beliefs as better or more true than another, and I don't think those exist.
    I think that is mistaken. If it were the case then all science would be impossible, there could be no physics for instance, there could be no observable natural laws such as cause and effect which is patently the case, ignore that for a second and you will fall foul of gravity or something. A lot can appear subjective or intersubjective, although its usually the soft sciences that this higher superstition reigns in, the hard sciences would laugh it off or consider it too absurd to even challenge properly.

    That's not to say that objective criteria are easy to come by, its difficult, although difficulty doesnt not mean its impossible or not worth the effort. Ultimately its demonstrable, if in no other way than the abstract reasoning which suggests there is no objective criteria is impossible to practically ascribe to and live by.

    For myself, I concluded that there is no good evidence to suggest there is a personal God, and thus that faith is the only reason to believe it. And since faith cannot discriminate between one belief or another, I could solve the question of 'which religion' by having further faith that the religion I was born into was taught to me for a reason, and should be accepted.
    I dont understand faith that way at all, in many ways this sounds like an existentialist, particularly Camus' position, or post modern thought experiment. All things beinq equal, ie the same, and possessing moral and practical equivalence, it does not matter what you choose of those things.

    Faith in my view requires evidence but it is not wholly about evidence or evidence is insufficient in the explanation of faith. I dont restrict the word faith to religion alone BTW you have faith in partners, parents, significant others, doctors, experts, others, lovers because you never have complete and perfect knowledge in any of those situations.

    I have myself what I would consider evidence of a personal God but you may dispute what I would consider evidence, that'd be fine BTW, I dont expect there to be agreement on things like that. In part because people are satisfied by different things, you obviously are satisfied with the conclusion that God does not exist, I am not. One thing I'd come back to though is that while there could be indirect evidence of the existence of a God its always going to be incomplete, otherwise it would not be God.
    Likes Rambling liked this post

  10. #190
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that is mistaken. If it were the case then all science would be impossible, there could be no physics for instance, there could be no observable natural laws such as cause and effect which is patently the case, ignore that for a second and you will fall foul of gravity or something. A lot can appear subjective or intersubjective, although its usually the soft sciences that this higher superstition reigns in, the hard sciences would laugh it off or consider it too absurd to even challenge properly.
    I may not be understanding your point here properly, if that's the case then please clarify. However . . .

    It is possible to test a lot of things in the physical world. Admittedly there is an element of 'the truth will become apparent' in science, like religion, because experiments can be interpreted differently; I think this is more true of physics than biology, say, although even in biology something correlational can easily be wrong. But the point is that our conclusions have implications in the physical world that are at least theoretically testable. And if they don't bear out in practice, then we know to revise.

    Science does have a fair bit of philosophy and unspoken assumptions. But it seems to work. So that suggests to me that there is something real going on.

    Religion, so far as I can tell, is inherently not testable. We can't really know if something real is going on or not, not in the same sense as we can with a physical experiment.

    That doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of knowing whether or not a religion has something to it, but it does make it difficult to know how we should approach it. I am highly concerned about deluding myself; if something is true I want to to be true for certain.

    So far I've not found a satisfactory methodology for approaching religious questions; I've just succeeded in ruling out all the methodologies I've come across, except accepting its truth as an axiom, rather like Euclid's axioms.

    The results I get when I construct my worldview with a religious axiom are . . . interesting. I prefer the worldview that includes the religious axiom because it is more symmetrical and intellectually complete, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to assert that it is true. So I just have faith that it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's not to say that objective criteria are easy to come by, its difficult, although difficulty doesnt not mean its impossible or not worth the effort. Ultimately its demonstrable, if in no other way than the abstract reasoning which suggests there is no objective criteria is impossible to practically ascribe to and live by.
    Oh, I agree that objective positions can't be used. Or at least none that I've come across. They're all variations of extreme agnosticism. Even when they integrate 'evolutionary advantage' as a justification for behavioral choices, since an is doesn't get you an ought, at most they get a 'placeholder' default behavior to be followed until they get evidence for a better set of behaviors. Since they know their behavior is just a default, that should objectively strip anything like 'moral outrage' at the behavior of others; however, since 'moral outrage' is just another evolutionary behavior shouldn't it continue? But not if they are intellectually honest . . . There are a bunch of problems.

    In practice humans must pick an option, or at minimum a set of axioms, and then make decisions based on those assumptions. But I continue to be aware that other systems could be constructed, and that I don't have a good objective reason to invalidate those other systems. That bothers me, because I don't want 'a system', I want The System.

    What would you consider an objective criteria?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont understand faith that way at all, in many ways this sounds like an existentialist, particularly Camus' position, or post modern thought experiment. All things beinq equal, ie the same, and possessing moral and practical equivalence, it does not matter what you choose of those things.
    I don't think all systems bring equal results, but positing that good results are the criteria is a problem because our definition of good results is subjective unless you go with a naturalistic pseudo evolutionary definition, but that in turn leads you back around to the extreme agnosticism which has the problems I outlined above.

    If good results are not the criteria, what are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Faith in my view requires evidence but it is not wholly about evidence or evidence is insufficient in the explanation of faith. I dont restrict the word faith to religion alone BTW you have faith in partners, parents, significant others, doctors, experts, others, lovers because you never have complete and perfect knowledge in any of those situations.
    See, I don't think that faith in the context of religion is at all similar to faith in the context of other things. My faith in regards other people just means I have no reason to believe they are fakes, and I might have some evidence that they are not. But that would change if new evidence came up. So I wouldn't call that faith, just my best estimate of the situation.

    On the other hand, religious faith should be unshakeable; at least in Christianity, repeatedly this is emphasized. The disciples who believed without seeing Jesus resurrected are praised above 'doubting Thomas' who needed the evidence. To take one example.

    So if religious faith should be unshakeable, the logical conclusion to me is that it should be totally divorced from any evidence. But if that's the case, what caused you to believe in the first place?

    I am not certain on whether my idea of faith is a sound concept; I have the sense something is missing . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I have myself what I would consider evidence of a personal God but you may dispute what I would consider evidence, that'd be fine BTW, I dont expect there to be agreement on things like that. In part because people are satisfied by different things, you obviously are satisfied with the conclusion that God does not exist, I am not. One thing I'd come back to though is that while there could be indirect evidence of the existence of a God its always going to be incomplete, otherwise it would not be God.
    I haven't concluded that God doesn't exist, on the contrary I firmly believe that He does on the basis of faith. I just don't have a good system to justify that belief because I think my current conception leaves much to be desired.

    My basic trajectory is inspired by this thought experiment: "What if in a thousand years science found this or that. Would it affect my belief?" And if the answer is yes, then I conclude that I can't have found an unshakeable basis for religious belief. If my basis is not unshakeable, then how can it be intellectually satisfying? How can I be willing to put my life on the line for something that the jury is still out on?

    Does that make sense?
    Formerly Lion4!5
    Likes The Wailing Specter liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2016, 05:39 AM
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 08:17 AM
  3. What magazines do you subscribe to and why?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  4. [ENTP] ENTPs, how often do you cry, [if ever] and why?
    By Spry in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. What direction do you see the USA going in, and where would you like it to go?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 01:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO