What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

38 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The question is which results you value and which you don't.

 

 

Collectively, "you".... yes?  Good and bad are subjective. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Collectively, "you".... yes?  Good and bad are subjective. 

No because subjectivity on a collective scale WILL and has excused nearly every atrocity in recorded history.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

No because subjectivity on a collective scale WILL and has excused nearly every atrocity in recorded history.

 

 

Not really. On a collective scale (and long term scale) we have called out most atrocities (regardless of the "some good" that came from them).  

 

If you selectively focus on the good and ignore the bad, then you are correct.  One could allow oneself to excuse atrocities. That is ultimately what makes good and bad subjective. People believe what they believe because they want to believe it.  The closest thing we got to objective morality is collective morality. But its not necessarily the same thing.

[PeterMP]

The discussion of death between a theist and atheist never works because the atheist start with death is "bad".

Edited April 6, 2019 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

 

Who do you mean "We" Kemo Sabe? 

 

THAT'S your justification of why your God allows bone cancer in children and the most horrible parasites? A woman made out of the rib bone or a dude, the dude, and a talking snake misbehaved in a garden? And that's why more than 10 million small children (many of whom have never heard of your god) die every year. And there's nothing an omnipotent god can do about it. Totally makes sense.

 

It's not a justification, its the reality on the ground.  A lot of us are assholes towards each other, that's why 10 million kids die every year.  And if you believe in evolution, parasites were inevitable.  This is not utopia, and what would heaven be if earth was already perfect? 

 

There's multiple times in Bible he's stepped in, sometimes classified as a miracle, but for the most part we are on our own and its not because there's nothing he can do about it, its to keep things in perspective and appreciate what we do have.

 

I cannot emphasize enough how much it is insinuated God is doing nothing to stop us from doing this to ourselves.  How many parasites come from lack of access to clean drinking water when two thirds of the planet is covered in water? We are the ones making this difficult, not Him.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's not a justification, its the reality on the ground.  A lot of us are assholes towards each other, that's why 10 million kids die every year.  And if you believe in evolution, parasites were inevitable.  This is not utopia, and what would heaven be if earth was already perfect? 

 

 

 

 

Interesting comments on this (eg, if god is real why does he let bad stuff happen) in this video: 8:30 mark

 

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[No Excuses]

21 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Some Bible archeologist and theologians believe the reason homosexuality was outlawed at the time it was was because the early Jews needed as many people making kids as possible to raise an army to defend themselves and conquer the holy land.  

 

 

This might be the reason, but it again highlights the subjective nature of morals.

 

It's also not a very convincing or humane argument against homosexuality, today or ever. If a tribe of people today were trampling the rights of the individual to promote forced sexuality for conquest and cultural expansion, we would rightly label them as gross violators of human right. Slapping "God said so" is entirely way too convenient and also the laziest form of developing morals that humans have ever devised.

[No Excuses]

15 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I cannot emphasize enough how much it is insinuated God is doing nothing to stop us from doing this to ourselves.  How many parasites come from lack of access to clean drinking water when two thirds of the planet is covered in water? We are the ones making this difficult, not Him.

 

The entire post is a massive stretch on trying to link biology, evolution to the theological view on human suffering.

 

Parasites are baked into the design of nature, long before humans arrived. Their existence literally has nothing to do with any action humanity could have ever taken. We inherited a world of parasites, a world of bacterial diseases and viral outbreaks.

 

Something as horrible as children dying a painful death to diseases like cancer in early childhood is a basic design of biology, which has nothing to do with our sinful nature, but with how life has come to be.

 

This is one of those arguments of religion that really has no backing in the natural world. Suffering of life because of natural causes is a basic design of the biological world, before humans ever walked this planet.

Edited April 7, 2019 by No Excuses

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

This might be the reason, but it again highlights the subjective nature of morals.

 

It's also not a very convincing or humane argument against homosexuality, today or ever. If a tribe of people today were trampling the rights of the individual to promote forced sexuality for conquest and cultural expansion, we would rightly label them as gross violators of human right. Slapping "God said so" is entirely way too convenient and also the laziest form of developing morals that humans have ever devised.

 

No one in here is saying it is. How much of this thread have you read?  Bible is old and describes an era no less then 2000 years old.  I'm trying to understand myself how much of a reset Jesus and the new testament was, because yea, early Jews conquered the holy land. 

 

Not a fan of looking at the whole Bible through the lens of todays standards, we are far from perfect.  US jus full-scale legalized gay marriage, in other countries your very existence is illegal.  But NT still comes across more understanding of peoples differences then OT, so I keep trying.

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

The entire post is a massive stretch on trying to link biology, evolution to the theological view on human suffering.

 

Parasites are baked into the design of nature, long before humans arrived. Their existence literally has nothing to do with any action humanity could have ever taken. We inherited a world of parasites, a world of bacterial diseases and viral outbreaks.

 

I never said there wouldn't be parasites if it wasn't for humans, I said less people would be dying from them from something as simple as access to clean drinking water.  We have the technology, will power and organization on the other hand...

 

7 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Something as horrible as children dying a painful death to diseases like cancer in early childhood is a basic design of biology, which has nothing to do with our sinful nature, but with how life has come to be.

 

Some times bad **** happens.  The Bible does have stories of people doing something horrible, like King David stealing his best friend wife and their first son dying.  The point there isn't some timely miracle, its don't steal your best friends wife and get her pregnant.  Hard to argue a lot of what happens to us is just random chance.  But I believe in luck, karma, and this feeling someone stepped in on my behalf.

 

7 hours ago, No Excuses said:

This is one of those arguments of religion that really has no backing in the natural world. Suffering of life because of natural causes is a basic design of the biological world, before humans ever walked this planet.

 

If you are atheist or agnostic, if understand this stance.  If you don't believe that sometimes there is a link and it's not all just random chance, I'm not here to change your mind.

[superozman]

On 4/6/2019 at 8:08 AM, London Kev said:

Regarding actual evidence, I just can't accept that the universe actually needs a creator. I think that the big bang model seems to describe the formation of the universe fairly well, and the prediction it made about the temperature of the microwave background radiation provides good supporting evidence for me.

I do have some reservations regarding the early inflationary period, but think that it's a good theory going forward.

 

None of this actually excludes a God from kick-starting the big bang, but it also doesn't exclude anything else from kick-starting it either, so why choose a God as the explanation? Also, why choose any one particular God over all of the other Gods that may be the creator?

 

On one hand, I do get the social benefits for belonging to a group of like-minded people and many religions do do good work in their own communities and throughout the world.

 

Non-religious groups can also function in the same way and often tackle more ethical problems (I'm thinking gay-rights, equal rights for women, etc).

 

The downside with religion IMO is their almost cultish nature.... ostracised from their church and family for not believing.

 

The bible seems to have some very questionable views on homosexuality, equality, slavery and punishment, so I think that blindly following the word of God would actually be very immoral indeed.

 

God would  know what kind of evidence would convince everybody of it's existence. And yet all we have are old books by unknown authors, written in old languages, translated and added to, that are ambiguous at best, but often confusing and contradictory.

 

Even if I were to decide that a God is the most likely, probable cause of the universe and everything in it, how exactly could I decide which God (or Gods) actually did the creating?  It seems like there have been thousands of different Gods throughout human history, and I believe in one less than you.

I'll have to do some research on the microwave radiation.  However, I know you might think my view is too simple but right now it still is my view.  If the big bang was how it started, I just think it would be crazy that the earth ended up the exact distance it needed to be from the sun, and then all this life on earth came to be.  So that's why I choose a God. The God i chose is simply the one I grew up knowing, and then in high schools did a lot of research, and the God I believe in is the one I think exists.  Could I be wrong?  Absolutely.  Do I think I am at this moment, no.

 

For the cultish nature, I would argue it's not cultish.  Again, from my perspective it's open doors, come as you are, etc.  I think if you take a direct view, in the one you wrote, you can scare people (Believe or go to hell!!!), but that definately isn't the view.  Churches try to get people in the right direction in life mostly, and yes, that plays a part.  Its a rewarding afterlife that we believe in. 

 

For me, I would tell anyone to focus on the New Testament of the Bible when you look at "rules", but also understand it depicts a certain time and not everyone believed at that time either.  As a gay friend of mine states "Jesus says nothing about the gays!", which is true.  A lot of rules the Old Testament tells us to live by are not rules we need to.  Slavery was a way of life when the Bible was written.  Not everyone believed, so this was recounting the time's activities.  And yes, at the time women also were treated differently.  The 10 commandments, while in the Old Testament are referenced in the New.  They are pretty darn good morals to live by.

 

I can't defend the stories recounted in the Bible.  However, I can help the little bit i can today.  I hope all people are treated equally, I hope churches are welcoming to all equally.  As far as evidence, I'm sure God could.  However, he states in the Bible (I understand you don't look equally at it as i do) that he will not "show himself" for lack of a better term, and that us believers, we just have faith.  Completely understand there are counterpoints to that.

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

On 4/6/2019 at 8:57 AM, Corcaigh said:

Stephen Fry on the subject:

 

The difficulty that we have is that the church has decided that the reason those insects exist is because of the humans that were created to live in this world who weren't afforded but a single mistake. So whenever people in the church raise these issues the best they can do is blame themselves or "Adam" for ****ing up so long ago for which everyone else must suffer the consequences. The ENTIRE system of theology is predicated on the idea that the first man sinned and now EVERYONE else has to suffer while God waits in his mysterious timing to resolve the system that he created, but only for a certain few who repent of the sin they were born with, through no fault of their own, and praise the god who created a system through which they could be damned to eternal punishment through no fault of their own.

 

It's a bit like getting pushed into a pool by god and while you're drowning having god offer to pull you out, but ONLY if you admit how awesome he is and that he's the only one who can save you.

Edited April 8, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan

[No Excuses]

Damn Asbury, weren’t you a pastor at one point? This is quite the turn around in philosophy (and I think you nail the issues with the core theology of Abrahamic religions).

[AsburySkinsFan]

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Damn Asbury, weren’t you a pastor at one point? This is quite the turn around in philosophy (and I think you nail the issues with the core theology of Abrahamic religions).

Christians love to quote how CS Lewis was an athiest who sought to prove the Bible wrong and ended up converting. I suppose I'm a bit the opposite, but I won't sell nearly as many books.

 

....oh and he built the pool that he pushed you into where you are now drowning...and placed you next to it where he could push you in.

 

That said I tend to favor Jesus' ethic and philosophy even if I have found serious fault with the spiritual aspects of the religion.

Edited April 8, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Christians love to quote how CS Lewis was an athiest who sought to prove the Bible wrong and ended up converting. I suppose I'm a bit the opposite, but I won't sell nearly as many books.

 

 

I think the market for atheism content is relatively underserved.  Would recommend doing a podcast though.  

[No Excuses]

10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think the market for atheism content is relatively underserved.  Would recommend doing a podcast though.  

 

Agreed, blog/podcast something that get your voice out there.

 

The non-religious market has been dominated by a bunch of dorky science nerds or elitists like Dawkins/Hitchens, but someone well versed in Christian theology would really resonate with a lot of younger people who are exiting the church for precisely the reasons you point out.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, No Excuses said:

 

Agreed, blog/podcast something that get your voice out there.

 

The non-religious market has been dominated by a bunch of dorky science nerds or elitists like Dawkins/Hitchens, but someone well versed in Christian theology would really resonate with a lot of younger people who are exiting the church for precisely the reasons you point out.

 

I feel like Dawkins is just an asshole about it, which has it's place but nobody needs to hear him talk more than once.  I think someone that would speak to people (mostly millenials) about why the church serves no purpose and that there are lots of viable replacements for the sense of community people get tot he church, would play very well.  Would love to have one in the mold of Love Line where one host is well-versed on the issues/theology a la Dr. Drew and the other is just a funny idiot like Adam Corolla.  

[superozman]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

why the church serves no purpose and that there are lots of viable replacements for the sense of community people get tot he church,

 

Churches serve a lot of purposes.  So if you don't believe, that's fine, I'd ask that you verse yourself with what churches do.  For example, the church I am a member to has a clothes closet where people can donate, and we sell the items for $.50-$2.  All funds go back into the church or to other charitable causes.  We are also donating 190 meals to a local (faith based) kitchen that feeds the homeless in a city near Philly for the lent season.  

 

Curious, is there a need to "Replace" the church as you state.  Why can't you have in addition to churches?

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, superozman said:

 

Churches serve a lot of purposes.  So if you don't believe, that's fine, I'd ask that you verse yourself with what churches do.  For example, the church I am a member to has a clothes closet where people can donate, and we sell the items for $.50-$2.  All funds go back into the church or to other charitable causes.  We are also donating 190 meals to a local (faith based) kitchen that feeds the homeless in a city near Philly for the lent season.  

 

Curious, is there a need to "Replace" the church as you state.  Why can't you have in addition to churches?

 

Sure, churches do a lot of things.  My point is that other non-church organizations do those same things, so nobody needs a church specifically.  Like, do you think churches are the only organizations where people can donate clothes to charity?  My law firm does the exact same thing, except we give the donations away for free.  Everything a church does can be had elsewhere and without the religion stuff if you aren't into that. 

[superozman]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sure, churches do a lot of things.  My point is that other non-church organizations do those same things, so nobody needs a church specifically.  Like, do you think churches are the only organizations where people can donate clothes to charity?  My law firm does the exact same thing, except we give the donations away for free.  Everything a church does can be had elsewhere and without the religion stuff if you aren't into that. 

 

Understood.  I'd just argue since they do a lot of things, they serve a purpose.  Also the purpose of fulfilling a person's religious beliefs is there too.  Just because you don't have that need, does not mean other people don't have that need.

 

And understand your point everything a church does can be had elsewhere without religion.  The problem is from what i've seen, the giving of time and money is less when you aren't involved in a religion.  That is not true for everyone, just overall, in fact someone posted a link a few pages ago showing giving is less.  And i would be happy that people banded together for the good of things!  thats what i think in the end, most people want to see!  I'd rather say "Hey - don't care about religion, go donate your shoes at "XYZ"".  "Don't care about worship?  Give your % of your income every 2 weeks to the Homeless shelter in "XYZ"".

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, superozman said:

 

Understood.  I'd just argue since they do a lot of things, they serve a purpose.  Also the purpose of fulfilling a person's religious beliefs is there too.  Just because you don't have that need, does not mean other people don't have that need.

 

Oh for sure they serve a purpose.  My statement was, if your aren't religious, "there are lots of viable replacements for the sense of community people get" from the church.  

 

1 minute ago, superozman said:

 

And understand your point everything a church does can be had elsewhere without religion.  The problem is from what i've seen, the giving of time and money is less when you aren't involved in a religion.  That is not true for everyone, just overall, in fact someone posted a link a few pages ago showing giving is less.  And i would be happy that people banded together for the good of things!  thats what i think in the end, most people want to see!  I'd rather say "Hey - don't care about religion, go donate your shoes at "XYZ"".  "Don't care about worship?  Give your % of your income every 2 weeks to the Homeless shelter in "XYZ"".

 

 

I missed that link.  I'm pretty skeptical (unless giving to the church itself is considered charity). 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, superozman said:

The problem is from what i've seen, the giving of time and money is less when you aren't involved in a religion.  That is not true for everyone, just overall, in fact someone posted a link a few pages ago showing giving is less.  

 

Those stats are a bit skewed in my opinion because the religious people in those studies are tithing which more often than not goes to paying a pastor's salary, and funding the church budget, which is in most cases heavily focused on paying overhead costs (facilities etc), normally less than 10% of church budgets are dedicated to charitable work and or missions. 

That is coming from 20 years worth of experience working with numerous churches in a system who's books are open within the denomination.

[Elessar78]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Those stats are a bit skewed in my opinion because the religious people in those studies are tithing which more often than not goes to paying a pastor's salary, and funding the church budget, which is in most cases heavily focused on paying overhead costs (facilities etc), normally less than 10% of church budgets are dedicated to charitable work and or missions. 

That is coming from 20 years worth of experience working with numerous churches in a system who's books are open within the denomination.

Whoa. That's eye-opening. 

[superozman]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Oh for sure they serve a purpose.  My statement was, if your aren't religious, "there are lots of viable replacements for the sense of community people get" from the church.  

 

 

I missed that link.  I'm pretty skeptical (unless giving to the church itself is considered charity). 

 

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Those stats are a bit skewed in my opinion because the religious people in those studies are tithing which more often than not goes to paying a pastor's salary, and funding the church budget, which is in most cases heavily focused on paying overhead costs (facilities etc), normally less than 10% of church budgets are dedicated to charitable work and or missions. 

That is coming from 20 years worth of experience working with numerous churches in a system who's books are open within the denomination.

 

ASF/PB - completely agree with your understanding/skepticism.  In fact, I was responding when ASF's response was coming up about funds going to pastor's salaries.  

 

I would argue, if you give to many charities, there are expenses to run the charity.  Just like a church.  However the goal of the charity, and a church would be once you have those leftover, you use them for good.   And to ASF, you would also factor in the manpower a church provides.  While our church is donating 190 meals to the food bank, we are also signing up to help.  Our pastor does home visits for shut-ins, as well as visits hospitals and such.  Our Deacons send lunches to a local hospital in a program that helps those in need.  And if you were a pastor, I'm sure there are other things you did, that a peer in the non religious life wouldn't think of doing.

 

I know we can go back and forth.  Just from my standpoint I was trying to clarify churches do serve a purpose, and that I would love if more non-religious folks were more active in communities. 

 

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973

[PleaseBlitz]

Pretty skeptical of a link to a report on a study funded by religious charitable groups saying that religious charitable groups are more charitable.  /shrugs. 

 

Also, non-religious people are often extremely active in communities, just not in churches.  That they aren't is probably just a thing churches tell their congregation to make them feel good about themselves. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by PleaseBlitz