Jesus had seders at least

Woody wrote:

TheDude24 wrote:That's the same thing as asking- What religion is God?

Well?

Yes.

jerseyhoya wrote:

kruker wrote:Pascal doesn't account for the "price" of being religious. Maybe it's still an "oh well" and perhaps (as has been empirically studied) there is a tangible benefit to being a spiritual person, but being religious isn't free. A devout person gives up a hell of a lot, even if they aren't an ascetic.

Well, it depends on what you think is necessary for salvation. If believing that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins is all that is needed, and you can go around sleeping with many women and drinking and whatnot, I don't think you're giving up much of anything.

You're right, but I don't think that's how it works. I can't imagine any organized religion that completely ignores the result of your actions. In fact it would go against the "Santa theory" formulated by Woody. What's the point of rules if you aren't expected to follow them?

But on a personal level, I can see where this comes in to play. I know quite a few people who profess to be devout who openly defy the rules of the game without much care.

kruker wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

kruker wrote:Pascal doesn't account for the "price" of being religious. Maybe it's still an "oh well" and perhaps (as has been empirically studied) there is a tangible benefit to being a spiritual person, but being religious isn't free. A devout person gives up a hell of a lot, even if they aren't an ascetic.

Well, it depends on what you think is necessary for salvation. If believing that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins is all that is needed, and you can go around sleeping with many women and drinking and whatnot, I don't think you're giving up much of anything.

You're right, but I don't think that's how it works. I can't imagine any organized religion that completely ignores the result of your actions. In fact it would go against the "Santa theory" formulated by Woody. What's the point of rules if you aren't expected to follow them?

But on a personal level, I can see where this comes in to play. I know quite a few people who profess to be devout who openly defy the rules of the game without much care.

Isn't the core idea from Luther that we are saved by God's grace alone or something like that? Now, I think you're expected to live life in a certain manner, but I don't think that's required for salvation.

Mind you, I'm not religious at all. Atheist leaning agnostic. Definitely on board with phatj's assertion that any God or omnipotent being that requires MY belief in HIM for salvation should get over himself.

It's impossible to really believe in Jesus and his ideals and still be a total asshat.

I work for a faith based non-profit organization. Jesus signs my paychecks.

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't the core idea from Luther that we are saved by God's grace alone or something like that? Now, I think you're expected to live life in a certain manner, but I don't think that's required for salvation.

Mind you, I'm not religious at all. Atheist leaning agnostic. Definitely on board with phatj's assertion that any God or omnipotent being that requires MY belief in HIM for salvation should get over himself.

I think you got that right, if I remember my theology class correctly. Calvinism also has the ridiculous assertion of predestination, so I guess a person could be a genocidal maniac and still get in if it was predetermined. So that would be a case in which there is no cost of being devout.

So I should qualify my statement about being religious having an opportunity cost, so to speak. On the whole though, for the majority of Judeo-Christians, actions do matter when it comes to salvation, so there is some cost to conforming to those beliefs.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:It's impossible to really believe in Jesus and his ideals and still be a total asshat.

Any excuse to post this:

Woody wrote:I have some questions for the religious folk among us. What are their thoughts on the following

Which religion is correct?

MINE!!! Actually, any religion that begets civility is "correct", in terms of what the grand purpose of religion is supposed to be.

Woody wrote: Do you think what you believe is more accurate than what others believe? If so, why?

Or are you all possibly on the same train and just don't realize it?

For me, the individual, yes... because it's how God was initially "presented" to me. Doesn't mean others are wrong or less accurate, nor do I view others disparagingly. Most monotheistic religions can be said to be on the same train... the diferences mainly the result of how God had to present Himself to the various cultures and civilizations. I'll 'splain a bit more below.

Woody wrote:Are newer religions more correct or less correct than old religions?

Define "newer" Most of the newer ones are the result of some sort of schism with a pre-existing religion/sect, while some others are the result of someone's (conscious or subconscious) quest for power and influence. In these two cases, the "cause" is more human than devine.

Woody wrote:What about paganism/earth worship?

Ancient beliefs that were in line with the comprehension of the ancient mind.

Woody wrote:Do you think in, say, 750 years Scientology will have gained mainstream acceptance? If not, why?

We have to remember what L. Ron Hubbard was... a science fiction writer! Srsly, he wrote sci-fi novels.



Well, I'm not uber-religious. We have to realize there is a difference between religion and God, where religion is how God is "presented" to people. My thoughts/belief/feelings/whatever... because the world was so "large" way back when, the various civilizations and cultures were very much isolated and initially developed independent of other cultures and civilizations, God presented Himself to the various different civilizations/cultures in ways that would be more receptive to each of those various cultures. Hence the differences between Judeo/Hindu/Buddha/etc., with Christianity being a latter offshoot of ancient Judaism (because that dude just wouldn't stay dead). Another factor is the ancient mind, God had to present Himself in a means and manner the ancient mind could grasp. Thus there was a progression from polytheism to monotheism.

Strife between religions isn't the fault of religion or God, but the fault of people (generally, people are afraid/threatened by things different), it's a human failing, and often originates from human desires. Cultural differences are often a more prevalent root to the strife. "Sins" of religion are also not the fault of religion itself or God, but the fault of people as the motives are/have been corporal (power, influence), religion/God is/was just used for their means.

Some think religion is just a means to control people, but perhaps a better definition is a means to guide humanity to civility. Sans religion, none of us would be here today... as surely most of our respective anscestors would have been killed for one stupid reason or another.

Some think that our more modern minds have evolved past religion/God. Many Athiests, in making a "great minds" arguement, erroneously claim Albert Einstein was an Athiest. While not a subscriber to a particular religion, Einstein did believe in God (his beliefs leaned more towards "Spinoza's God"... a supreme being or entity that is the basis of all that is, but isn't concerned with things like Chase Utley saying "WFC").


Geez, Woodrow, I sure hope your happy. As a result of this reply, I now have to make a bunch of fart jokes, facetious retorts, entendres, and LOLcat posts just to bring my BSG-ness back into balance.

Woody wrote:I have some questions for the religious folk among us. What are their thoughts on the following

Which religion is correct?

Do you think what you believe is more accurate than what others believe? If so, why?

Or are you all possibly on the same train and just don't realize it?

Are newer religions more correct or less correct than old religions?

What about paganism/earth worship?

Do you think in, say, 750 years Scientology will have gained mainstream acceptance? If not, why?

For me, accuracy or correctness isn't the issue behind my religious worship. Religion isn't like a math test. I do think my religion makes me a better person. It provides a kind of foundation for my day to day life.

And I think that gets at the pluralism issue--people worship in different ways because they are different. There's no way I'd attend a church that used power point to deliver the sermons. And the needs of modern people are different than the needs of people 500 years ago, so it's no wonder religion has changed.

TheDude24 wrote:Logically speaking, whether there is or is not a god, you are better off believing in god. A philosopher, I think it was Jung, came up with A 4-celled matrix to explain this. It went something like this:

Scenerio 1 - You believe in God. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- Oh Well.
Scenerio 2 - You believe in God. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Yay, eternal life.
Scenerio 3 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Oh crap.
Scenerio 4 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- You (and everyone) are dirt.

So if you are a believer, you at least have the possibility of something good happening.

Or as Homer Simpson once said. "What if we picked the wrong religion? Each week we're just making God madder and madder."

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Woody wrote:Do you think in, say, 750 years Scientology will have gained mainstream acceptance? If not, why?

We have to remember what L. Ron Hubbard was... a science fiction writer! Srsly, he wrote sci-fi novels.

How do you know sci-fi writers aren't considered Godlike 750 years from now?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Sans religion, none of us would be here today... as surely most of our respective anscestors would have been killed for one stupid reason or another.

Wha? As opposed to the ones that were killed because of religion? People will be killed for one stupid reason or another with or without religion.

I almost certainly wouldn't be here. If my grandparents weren't such good Irish Catholics, the sperm that spawned my dad (child number 7 of 11) and mom (5 of 5), probably would have ended up in a condom somewhere.

philliesphhan wrote:

TheDude24 wrote:Logically speaking, whether there is or is not a god, you are better off believing in god. A philosopher, I think it was Jung, came up with A 4-celled matrix to explain this. It went something like this:

Scenerio 1 - You believe in God. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- Oh Well.
Scenerio 2 - You believe in God. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Yay, eternal life.
Scenerio 3 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Oh crap.
Scenerio 4 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- You (and everyone) are dirt.

So if you are a believer, you at least have the possibility of something good happening.

Or as Homer Simpson once said. "What if we picked the wrong religion? Each week we're just making God madder and madder."

If The Simpsons is correct, then I'll be in the "party" heaven with the Irish and Latinos And you know Jesus is cool (with the long hair heavy metal look), so he'll be hanging out with us in "party" heaven more often than not

jerseyhoya wrote:I almost certainly wouldn't be here. If my grandparents weren't such good Irish Catholics, the sperm that spawned my dad (child number 7 of 11) and mom (5 of 5), probably would have ended up in a condom somewhere.

This reminds me of Jim Gaffigan
"Six kids, catholic. Six kids, catholic"

philliesphhan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Sans religion, none of us would be here today... as surely most of our respective anscestors would have been killed for one stupid reason or another.

Wha? As opposed to the ones that were killed because of religion? People will be killed for one stupid reason or another with or without religion.

Religion/God is not to blame for those killed because of religion... that guilt lies with the human failings of the people behind them.

If not for the basic civil guidelines laid by religion, I doubt humanity would have advanced beyond cave dwelling (and possibily would have extincted itself long ago... just ask a Neanderthal), as basic human traits such as greed, self-importance, preservation, anger, etc. are very prevailing.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Religion/God is not to blame for those killed because of religion... that guilt lies with the human failings of the people behind them.

Religion always gets a free pass. Yeah, it's not the Bible's fault for condoning slavery and misogyny, and for illustrating in glowing detail the murder of millions of infants. I guess it's not the fault of religion, either, for starving its hierarchy of sex, thus making them so desperate as to resort to pedophilia to satiate a natural human desire.

Right?

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, it depends on what you think is necessary for salvation. If believing that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins is all that is needed, and you can go around sleeping with many women and drinking and whatnot, I don't think you're giving up much of anything.

Depends on your point of view. I would feel that I was giving up reason. A pretty high price.

Jesus is sexy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSVR94c0bqM&feature=channel[/youtube]

This is a really long thread that I blazed through so I don't think this was addressed but does anyone here who is religious believe they have ever received a sign of God's existence? I am asking this in complete seriousness.