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 15232425262735 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 590

  1. #241
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    If you're not careful, she might throw the bood at you.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #242
    Member Eska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamain View Post
    What are some of these contradictions that you mentioned. I am particularly interested in what contradictions you believe exist in the bible.
    I haven't read the Bible myself, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong to assume the Bible contains a contradiction within the confine of it's own story line (disregarding the factual contradictions in relation to science (such as the virgin birth of Jesus)).

    I assume some are contradictions between the old testament and the new testament.

    Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason

    The actual image (you can zoom in);
    https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordp...sonproject.png

    Perhaps this too,
    A List Of Biblical Contradictions


    Do you contest the claim that there are contradictory/inconsistent statements in the Bible?

  3. #243
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    In the case in question, they were explicitly *told* what was bad, what not to do.
    Just because someone says something is bad, doesn't make it bad. This is part of growing up: being able to judge for ourselves rather than having to take the word of a parent. In this story the parent figure is God, who is supposed to be all-knowing. The story was written by people, though, who put into the mouth of all-knowing God the human foible of demanding blind obedience to a lie. Not the first time that

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    And Death is the natural end of life, but God is supernatural. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

    I read "The Wisdom of the Serpent" and my bullshit detectors clogged within seconds.
    Too many errors to list; but chronological snobbery; taking scriptures out of context (cutting a phrase in half and basing his argument only on half of it);
    speculation presented as fact; presentation of Christian heresy (Gnosis) as being representative doctrine; sweeping human sacrifice under the rug in passing; and linking materialism
    (matter and nature as soulless, mechanistic) to Christianity rather than the occult / magic. Not to mention historical inaccuracy -- he actually claims that
    giving up animal and human sacrifices gave rise to violence in the arts, and violent crime. And the Hermetic movement being supposedly inspired by Hermes Trismegistus,
    but really dependent upon Taoism? Which one is it? (I can't think of anything particularly "earthy" and "feminine" about Tao...mining comes from goddess worship? Srsly?)
    The piece as a whole struck me as trying to throw everything he could think of against a wall, to see what sticks.

    Most telling, in Williams' work: "Death is not her enemy but simply an aspect of her rhythm." vs. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
    I'm surprised he didn't bring in Kali and the Thuggees as part of this...
    He might very well have included Kali. Keep in mind that many non-Christian traditions believe in some form of reincarnation, in which life and death are a cycle, the essence of the natural rhythm of the world, both literally and figuratively. What does it even mean to destroy death? Human immortality? Life after death in the form of Christian heaven? A new earthly life following reincarnation? Repose in the summerland? Viewing death as an enemy is not necessarily the healthiest and most productive attitude. This author echoes the gist of many other more extensive and documented treatments of the subject. See the Pagels book for one that is much more scholarly in nature, at the cost of much greater length.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    ...for the nonce, you do realize that part of Williams' writing is accusing the essential element of the female as being a snake. I'm sure the gender feminists would just *love* that...
    Many feminists do embrace this analogy, since in many pre-Christian and even pre-Judaic religions, the serpent was a symbol of the Goddess and a bringer of wisdom. The author of this piece makes this point, and I think even points out the one legacy of that which has persisted: the snakes on the caduceus symbol representing medicine (healing wisdom). I have long considered snakes a positive and even mystical symbol. Perhaps that is part of why I could never buy Slytherin House as all evil. If that series uses the rat to represent a traitor, a dog to represent loyalty, perhaps JKR used the snake for wisdom after all.
    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...

  4. #244
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    You are approaching theology as though it is a model designed to either be intellectually satisfying, or to have predictive capability.
    Theology (on its own terms) purports not to derive as a model by hypothesis / testing / revision, but but reason coupled with revelation;
    and to act not through intellectual knowledge, but through the heart, through trust.
    And on that basis I accept it. But I'm not persuaded that there aren't better approaches or understandings, and it is these I'm searching for. I won't conceal that I wish I believed in the validity of faith as a final (as opposed to temporary) answer; I would say I have faith, and in fact I can't envision seeing the world any other way, as it would be quite bleak, but at the same time that doesn't make me further say that "And I can logically explain why my revelation is more valid, to an objective observer, than someone else's revelation."

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    The quip is often made that "in the beginning, Man Created God" and Voltaire's line that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him":
    but theology maintains the opposite: that God, in creating man, was theomorphic.
    Yes, and it is a beautiful idea. And internally consistent; makes a lot of sense. But I can't prove that it happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    As an interesting contrast, compare the Greco-Roman deities -- being jealous of humans and competing with one another, killing their own offspring to secure their positions,
    having affairs...*those* sound like gods made in the image of man. And the worship of those gods included getting drunk or having sex with temple prostitutes.
    If you claim religion is used to justify what people want to do anyway? Hmm, sure.
    Compare to the Old Testament: ONE God, not a multitude of Gods corresponding to different geographical areas -- instead of 'sacred groves' and holiness inhering to a *spot*, *mankind* is sanctified:
    "Be holy, for I am holy," the Old Testament God says, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than yours"...and instead of commanding drunkenness and fornication
    as His worship, the command is to give to the poor, to not defraud the widows and powerless; instructions on ritual cleanliness (including burying feces outside the camp); and wonder of wonders,
    The Ten Commandments (granted, our society doesn't do so good on only worshipping God, or keeping the Sabbath Day, and the entire advertising industry kind of screws the entire "thou shalt not covet")...(1)
    And the Jewish Law contains prohibitions on loan sharking (usury), restrictions on slavery and indentured servitude, and requirements for witnesses in death penalty cases.

    So there is a "test case" as it were, between a God claimed to not have been invented by Man, and gods whom everyone pretty much agrees were man-made.
    Again, when you paint a picture of civilization inside the faith, and dark hordes outside the borders, it is clearly compelling. I find it highly compelling. But you can't prove that it wasn't simply a clever idea advanced by clever, wise, and moral individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    As far as belief vs. knowledge: there is a difference between intellectual belief in "there is *a* God" and the belief, the relationship, with the Christian God. It is the difference between savoir and connaître,
    the difference between "why" (cause and effect, mechanistic) and "why" (teleology, purpose, artistic effect).
    Yes, there is a difference. I have the belief, the relationship, but not what I would consider a sound intellectual belief. I love the teleology, but I think that a mechanistic explanation should be able to follow from that. And I don't see that happening right now, and am not satisfied with those who fabricate unsatisfactory mechanisms and then expect those of us who believe on the basis of teleology to accept sub-par intellectual work just because we want it to be correct.

    I want to be just as objective and unbiased by my desires in this area, as in any other. Not achievable, but I want that.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    (1) Stephen Prager has an interesting piece on the Jewish insistence on monogamy, and what this practice has meant for society.
    Dennis Prager -- Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
    Again, I find the cultural aspects quite compelling. I think some of his case is a bit thin; for example, I believe that advanced civilization could develop quite easily without the specific doctrines of Judaism about sexual behavior. Just because it happened the way it did doesn't mean it had to happen the way it did, so to speak. For example, the Roman Republic, although not possessing the specific doctrines of Judaism, had an ideal of home and hearth and household gods and the strong father dedicated to the family which was later transformed by the influence of Greek culture.

    As the Romans got richer and imported other cultures, they too complained about the collapse of traditional ways and so on.

    I can't prove this, but I think that the collapse of traditional family structures is inevitable under the urbanization created by great wealth and trade. I find this personally very distasteful because behavior should be productive and not unproductive, but I can't prove that this opinion of mine is not just a cultural artifact.

    Summing up, I think we both more or less agree on what should be done. I just happen to think that we're standing on a city which we can't prove isn't floating on air, and you seem to think the city can be shown to be grounded.
    Formerly Lion4!5

  5. #245
    Junior Member headlessredhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    2w1 sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    24

    Default

    I'm agnostic but I've actually been looking into Buddhism lately. I don't know enough to actually claim to be a Buddhist though.
    I personally believe in the power of humans, rather than the power of gods. I always thought that instead of being concerned about a gods judgement, I'd rather abide by my own. I want to do good things but I don't feel that I need anybody to tell me how to achieve this. However, there could always be a possibility, I just don't know.
    I'm also a big believer in individual power and spirituality. Finding inner peace within yourself and living well due to personal satisfaction, not by superficial or materialistic success. I love to try and bring harmony and happiness to others, it makes me happy. This is what brings me solace, not religion.
    I know not everyone would be happy with that kind of life philosophy but that's okay. Just do whatever makes you happy.
    "If you ever look up into the sky, doubting the existence of other worlds, just know that somewhere, a creature is looking up at it's sky, doubting you." -Night Vale
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

  6. #246
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    As I listened to the various atheists I knew that Sam Harris was the most dangerous to religion.

    As a neuro scientist Sam Harris had a rigorous logical critique of religion, and as a long term meditator Sam Harris had a deep spirituality. And it is this combination of logic and spirituality that makes him so dangerous.

    And as Sam invites us to join him in logical analysis and meditation in his new book Waking Up: Spirituality Without Religion it looks like perhaps I was right.

  7. #247
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    As I listened to the various atheists I knew that Sam Harris was the most dangerous to religion.

    As a neuro scientist Sam Harris had a rigorous logical critique of religion, and as a long term meditator Sam Harris had a deep spirituality. And it is this combination of logic and spirituality that makes him so dangerous.

    And as Sam invites us to join him in logical analysis and meditation in his new book Waking Up: Spirituality Without Religion it looks like perhaps I was right.
    I dont see how the fact that he has written a book proves your point that he is a danger to religion which logically is only your opinion.

    Logic is no threat what so ever to religion when you think of all the typical logical fallacies, which philosophically shows the weakness of pure logic as a guide to truth.

    That is before you consider ANY of the insights from psycho-analysis or cognitive psychology or neurology etc. which have demonstrably indicated that human kind if more rationalising than it is rational or reasoning, affect and emotion driving, thinking after the fact, often only to vindicate their actions already taken.

    Any athiest who is an avowed opponent of religion I tend to find confusing because they are alienated from something which is a mainstay of human experience, even if you so choose to think of it that way human nature. There are athiests who have not quite thought so and instead have recognised a dichotomy of their own between humanistic and authoritarian religion, usually thinking that questions about the existence or non existence of a deity are unresolvable and therefore diversionary for them.

  8. #248
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by headlessredhead View Post
    I'm agnostic but I've actually been looking into Buddhism lately. I don't know enough to actually claim to be a Buddhist though.
    I personally believe in the power of humans, rather than the power of gods. I always thought that instead of being concerned about a gods judgement, I'd rather abide by my own. I want to do good things but I don't feel that I need anybody to tell me how to achieve this. However, there could always be a possibility, I just don't know.
    I'm also a big believer in individual power and spirituality. Finding inner peace within yourself and living well due to personal satisfaction, not by superficial or materialistic success. I love to try and bring harmony and happiness to others, it makes me happy. This is what brings me solace, not religion.
    I know not everyone would be happy with that kind of life philosophy but that's okay. Just do whatever makes you happy.
    I dont mean to challenge your philosophy, as it seems to work for you and you are satisfied with it but I hope you would permit me to make a response given some things that I have been reading lately which your post has made me think about.

    Erich Fromm was a freudian and a marxist who investigated theories of alienation and projection from each school of thought, he wrote about religions which challenge idolatry in particular and believed that the basis for this objection of idolatry was an unconscious resistance to alienation.

    That is that individuals took qualities which were human qualities, attributed them to and projected them upon something which was their own creation, either conceptually or more often something which they had literally created, in the form of a carving or statue or idol of some kind.

    He made a citation of a zen story in which a monk puts out wooden statues for a visiting zen buddhist and then discovers that the buddhist has visited while he was asleep and because he was cold has burned the wooden statues, the awakened monk is totally horrified at his actions and protests that he has been sacrilegious but the visiting monk sorts through the ashes and says he cant find any of a theorised "soul stuff" therefore the wooden images were only wooden images and wooden images are as good as simple wood which is fuel for a fire.

    I think its a good example of beginners mind or the undistorted first position thinking. And that is the point.

    On the other hand Fromm seems to validate the idea of God as a conceptual idea to some extent because he theorises it as progressive, so long as a non-corporeal idea, which is perfection itself, is revered then no king, country, cult or creed can substitute itself in its place as a usurper.

    I think its interesting because the what you describe as your own philosophy seems to be a kind of person centred subjectivism, it seems superficially innocuous at first but if you consider it in more depth it could be quite terrible, what if whatever happens to make you happy is killing new borns for instance?

    I can understand why human beings should not alien their own awareness, attributes etc. from themselves, the certainly should not do so in a way which actually makes their lives difficult and becomes an obstacle to life itself, ie venerating a wooden statue when you may freeze to death yourself as a consequence instead of burning it to provide heat, on the other hand I dont believe that any individual can or should make themselves "the measure of all things" either, that can be equally mistaken.

  9. #249
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eska View Post
    I haven't read the Bible myself, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong to assume the Bible contains a contradiction within the confine of it's own story line (disregarding the factual contradictions in relation to science (such as the virgin birth of Jesus)).

    I assume some are contradictions between the old testament and the new testament.

    Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason

    The actual image (you can zoom in);
    https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordp...sonproject.png

    Perhaps this too,
    A List Of Biblical Contradictions


    Do you contest the claim that there are contradictory/inconsistent statements in the Bible?
    Why would the product of human experience, interpretation and understanding be anything other than a precisely that?

    A human, all too human product.

    Science doesnt possess the sort of internal consistency that you are suggesting religion should, certainly not over historical time and science does not possess anything like the time line of religion which has existed from very beginnings of human consciousness, in fact playing an important role as a driver in the development of human consciousness itself.

    Any history of science which is not going to be merely a set of simplistic or reductive observations about research methodology, ie testable, falsifiable hypothesis as theorising, is going to include things such as phrenology, mesmerism, animal magneticism etc.

    Part of this is the myopic and blinkered contrasting of good science or good atheism versus bad religion which is unfair at the very, very best but I also think it is a consequence of vogues and fashions in thinking, virtually any and all suspicions of science has disappeared from contemporary society. Mad science or mad scientists are in the popular imagination the endearing and quirky Sheldon Cooper type and not some terrible Dr Mengele or human caterpillar type.

  10. #250
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Part of this is the myopic and blinkered contrasting of good science or good atheism versus bad religion which is unfair at the very, very best but I also think it is a consequence of vogues and fashions in thinking, virtually any and all suspicions of science has disappeared from contemporary society. Mad science or mad scientists are in the popular imagination the endearing and quirky Sheldon Cooper type and not some terrible Dr Mengele or human caterpillar type.
    Is it better for scientists to be the subject of ridicule rather than suspicion?

    Science is nothing more than a methodical approach to understanding the natural world, intended to allow repeatible prediction of or influence over future events. Though modern formulations of the "scientific method" are - well - modern, humans have been doing this one way or another since we have existed. It is part of human nature.
    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...

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