CrashburnAlley wrote:

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?

The former being "historical" accounts. "Historical" in quotes as some may question whether the actual events occurred, but they were primarily oral and/or written accounts of events, passed down through generations, and included as "examples" (such and such leads to this, et al). And those events were predominately due to the human condition. King Herod slaughtered all those infants out of concern for his power/hiarchy (greed and self-preservation). Even if you go back to the Pharaoh plague... it's theorized that the first borns died of suffocation/poisoning from a cloud of CO2 (result of a natural occurance), and it was limited to the first borns due to sleeping arrangements (Egyptian first born sons slept in the prestigious cots close to the ground while the others slept in the rafters, the Hebrews were up celebrating Passover). The Pharaoh-spooking aspect being Moses "called it".

As for the latter (clerical celebacy), that didn't become "doctrine" until around 1000 AD... a human interpretation/decision (I foreget which Pope or whatever, and I'm too lazy to look it up ).


Edit: Regarding the pedophilia... those guys would have been pedophiles even if they weren't celibate clergy. Most of them likely joined the clergy because they had such "urges" and were hoping a clerical life would abate those "urges". Regarding the coverup, that fault lies with the people who covered it up, their erroneous response guided by human emotions (embarassment).

traderdave wrote: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.

Kelly Hu... Salma Hayek... Phillies WFC!!! What more do you need?

Seriously, not a personal "sign". But it's hard to conceive that everything (the majesty of the universe, life on this planet, etc.) could exist without at least "something" setting it all in motion.

I am always constantly battling with myself as to what it is I truly believe. I believe I am a Christian and I feel truly saved. I don't necessarily live my life by the Good Book though. I keep expecting something to click in my brain.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite that wants to have it both ways and that is why I don't really pray anymore. Makes me feel kind of like a sleazeball.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

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.

The argument of no religion = no human advancement doesn't hold water to me. It's kind of like the atheist argument about religion and wars. Their logic is: no religion = no wars. There would and will always be wars regardless of the existence of religion.

I've long felt that religion, the activity/social construct--as opposed to "faith," which is probably a more interesting concept--was basically a support for whatever set of actions and beliefs would float your boat anyway. Churches do a lot of good in their communities; they also espouse views I find repellent. Is Rick Warren a great guy because of his antipoverty/AIDS relief work, or an SOB because he's a homophobe? Yes. Christian faith led some Germans to resist the Nazis; Pius XII used the institutional power of the Catholic Church to accommodate and tacitly support Hitler.

It's a form of social organization and, to a varying extent, behavioral control. But it also informs identity, along with a million other things. At bottom I'm more of a Phillies fan than, say, a Jew. But the Jewish identification is in there somewhere.

Probably religions endure and thrive based on how much value they offer to their adherents, like pretty much any other institution. The Golden Rule doesn't require Christianity; it makes sense on its own. The Ten Commandments stand up pretty well as behavioral guidelines whatever else you think of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

"Faith" is more interesting to me because it can be individually defined and refined. My sense is that the world would be a better place were more people to grapple with what they believe as individuals--both in terms of morality and what they think is the true nature of the universe and meaning of life.

Then again, I'm 35 and I still have essentially no friggin' clue on either of those questions. So adherence to an off-the-shelf belief system might offer efficiency, among its other virtues.

A totally unrelated aside: I do think that Scientology = Mormonism + 130 years.

philliesphhan wrote:The argument of no religion = no human advancement doesn't hold water to me.

You should read more.

dajafi wrote:A totally unrelated aside: I do think that Scientology = Mormonism + 130 years.

Nah, the Mormons started with a thousands of years old Judeo Christian 'foundation' - Scientology is totally made up - I mean, it involves actual science fiction concepts that didn't even exist a hundred years ago.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:A totally unrelated aside: I do think that Scientology = Mormonism + 130 years.

Nah, the Mormons started with a thousands of years old Judeo Christian 'foundation' - Scientology is totally made up - I mean, it involves actual science fiction concepts that didn't even exist a hundred years ago.

That's a fair point. But some of Joseph Smith's ideas are IMO at least in the area code of wacky at the level of Xenu et al.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:A totally unrelated aside: I do think that Scientology = Mormonism + 130 years.

Nah, the Mormons started with a thousands of years old Judeo Christian 'foundation' - Scientology is totally made up - I mean, it involves actual science fiction concepts that didn't even exist a hundred years ago.

What of Christianity isn't totally made up? I posted that semi-offensive "zombie Jesus" demotivational poster, but there's nothing factually incorrect with it. The claims of Christianity are equally as far-fetched as the claims of Scientology, the only difference is that you can trace the origin of Scientology while it's more murky with Christianity.

And I don't mean to target Christianity specifically, it's just the religion I was brought up in and the one I'm most familiar with. You can insert any religion -- except Buddhism which I don't really think is a religion anyway -- and the statement remains the same.

I think CrashburnAlley is totally made up, and there is no way anyone can prove otherwise. There. I said it.

TheDude24 wrote:I think CrashburnAlley is totally made up, and there is no way anyone can prove otherwise. There. I said it.

You sound like my parents, except they didn't call me Crashburn Alley. Because I hadn't started my blog yet.

kruker wrote: 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.

And it makes for great literature.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:A totally unrelated aside: I do think that Scientology = Mormonism + 130 years.

Nah, the Mormons started with a thousands of years old Judeo Christian 'foundation' - Scientology is totally made up - I mean, it involves actual science fiction concepts that didn't even exist a hundred years ago.

That's a fair point. But some of Joseph Smith's ideas are IMO at least in the area code of wacky at the level of Xenu et al.

From a social standpoint, I also think the Momon's have that solid family unit hard working they're-just-damned-nice-people thing going for them. I've read more than a few commentators theorize that the LDS's surge in popularity over the past decade has a lot to do with that - people seeking those nuclear relationships and socially conservative "family values".

They might be nice people, but there are no poor Scientologists. Once you can't pay to have your thetans read or whatever, they're done with you, and I'm not aware of any charity they're involved with in any major way. Folks can carry on all they want with this anecdote or that, but no serious person can deny the massive charitable efforts Christians (and Mormons), Jews, and Muslims undertake each year. I think the next best comparison to Scientology are probably the Christian Scientists.

kruker wrote:

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.

The idea that you can do whatever you want if you've received salvation is called antinomianism. It pops up every now and then--Notably in the 17th c. and apparently among many of my students. But Calvinists certainly did believe this. For Puritans, the grace of salvation would be manifested in this life by a desire for sober and righteous living. That's how you get to Weber's Protestant ethic.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Kelly Hu... Salma Hayek... Phillies WFC!!!

I have to admit that those are all fairly compelling signs.

I asked the initial question because I believe that I have received signs in the past, the two most recent revolving around the passing of my father-in-law around eight years ago.

Now before you all start referring to me as Tom Cruise I am not saying that I have heard the voice of God or that angels have appeared before me. Frankly, one of the signs (maybe even both) may simply have been a coincidence. My faith and beliefs, however, led me to conclude that the events were not just coincidence yet God's intervention in my everyday life for a purpose.

VoxOrion wrote:From a social standpoint, I also think the Momon's have that solid family unit hard working they're-just-damned-nice-people thing going for them. I've read more than a few commentators theorize that the LDS's surge in popularity over the past decade has a lot to do with that - people seeking those nuclear relationships and socially conservative "family values".

They might be nice people, but there are no poor Scientologists. Once you can't pay to have your thetans read or whatever, they're done with you, and I'm not aware of any charity they're involved with in any major way.

Beyond the theological, there are similarities in terms of the degree of control exerted over members and really harsh consequences for deviationists--how some Mormon families treat gay members is particularly horrible (granting that Jews, Muslims, and other Christian branches are all susceptible to that sort of bigotry too)--as well as the secrecy about the rituals.

I do, b/c god is lefthanded w/mean breaking/offspeed stuff y'know

i could never figure out why people argue over religion. you're never going to turn a believer into a non-believer, or a non-believer into a believer, just by talking to them. i think either you believe, you don't, or you don't know, and it takes some kind of personal experience to make any kind of change to that. but i don't think it really even matters, to be honest.

FTN wrote:i could never figure out why people argue over religion. you're never going to turn a believer into a non-believer, or a non-believer into a believer, just by talking to them. i think either you believe, you don't, or you don't know, and it takes some kind of personal experience to make any kind of change to that. but i don't think it really even matters, to be honest.

I think religion debates can be pretty facinating and interesting if you start from common ground. Catholics and Protestants can have good debates, Christians and Jews to an extent, etc. But that requires that there is that common "we'll agree that the Bible is an authoratative source, there is a God" etc. I'm probably confusing an argument about religion with arguments about theology here anyway.

I've read some fantastic athiest vs. God believer debates as well, but they were governed by old-school non internet rules like trying to avoid logical fallacies and really being philosophical about the discussion. In other words, not likely from any of us, at least not on BSG.

That was a fine conclusion. Lock thread?