I'm Catholic and I look at religion as a philosophy. I believe that more than likely very little of what is in the bible happened literally. However, I don't find literal interpretation to be the point of my religion. Much the same way I have read Nietzsche or Descartes or St. Augustine, there are parts I agree with in the bible and parts I do not. However, the ultimate message of my religion and the bible, to "love thy neighbor," is one in which I do my best to prescribe to, as I believe it is how an individual should live regardless of relgious orientation. I realize it is possible to live this way without religion, but I do enjoy the tradition, pomp and circumstance, history and idea that one billion others are celebrating this philosophy the same way, that I find in the Catholic church.

I consider myself a science man, and I have spent the better part of the last 6 years studying biology, physics, math, etc. This has only strenghted my belief in an ultimate creator. I do not believe "He" has a hand in my daily life, but the more I learn of the complexity, beauty and mystery that surrounds life, the universe and everything, the more I see the place for a "master scientist" able to set forth the fundamental laws of nature we are discovering today.

I have never seen religion to be a problem when practiced correctly and sanely. If religion can be used to make an individual more caring to those around them, while not abandoning reality for fantasy I believe it can be a very good thing. However, once a person steps over the line, prescribing to religious "ideals" such as literal interpretation of scripture, abandonment of science, prejudice towards non-believers and forceful conversions, the underlying good philosophy of "Jesus" the bible and Christianity has been lost.

All of this IMHO, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Tranc3 Not meant to offend, I'm just curious. As an unsaved heathen, I find it hard to believe what I see on some bumperstickers, signs, license plate holders, inspirational posters, etc....

I too am an unsaved heathen - and I like it!

Thankfully, we don't have the 'bumper sticker' Christians down here, the only religious-oriented bumper sticker/poster/licence plate I've ever seen was someone sporting what appeared to be a large picture of Ganesh in their back window (Hindus - gah! ), and another buy with a Darwin fish on his car - which probably means that he's atheist or agnostic.

quote:

I'm talking about those things that say something along the lines of "Through Jesus, anything can be accomplished." I understand quite well the concept of inspiration through the form of something that you find uplifting, however, I can't see myself ever believing that line of reasoning.

In my experience, the fundamentalists/baptist types take it literally, but the more liberal denominations tend to be less enthusiastic about it. Somewhat disturbingly - a lot of the fundamentalists that I've encountered refuse to believe that a secular humanist like me isn't a shivering whimpering wreck by now, and marvel at the fact that I haven't had a nervous breakdown recently, because, after all - I need Jesus! I did once ask a fundie why all the Hindus and Buddhists aren't clinically insane, but sadly they didn't bother answering.

quote:

I can see using the idea of Jesus (or maybe Jesus himself helping me, it's always possible) to achieve something I might not have otherwise been able to do without a source of good inspiration or whatnot

That line of reasoning I can understand, but it's negated by the fact that i find comparable inspiration from other sources - primarily humanity and nature.

quote:

I just can't see Jesus helping me, say, overcome the electron repulsion field so I could walk through walls. Or helping me overcome my flight problems (that is, not being able to).

Same here, heh.

quote:

So I was wondering, do followers of Jesus take it literally? I assume there must be shades of grey, as there usually are with most anything, I just couldn't see myself ever having anything to do with this phrase if I were belonging to a Christian-type faith.

As I mentioned above, the fundamentalist, Southern Baptist, Young Earth Creationist group are the sort who usually run with this type of thing - but the more liberal groups tend not to by into it. On top of that you've got the Catholics and some moderate protestants as well - in my experience they're a mixed bag, some believe it, some don't.

Okay firstly - don't take the following post the wrong way - I have a habit of dissecting posts when it comes to religion, as it's something that greatly interests me. Overall I think that your view of your religion is a hell of a lot saner than people who actually follow it - I'm just surprised that you're still a 'believer', albeit in an abstract manner.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm Catholic and I look at religion as a philosophy. I believe that more than likely very little of what is in the bible happened literally. However, I don't find literal interpretation to be the point of my religion. Much the same way I have read Nietzsche or Descartes or St. Augustine, there are parts I agree with in the bible and parts I do not. However, the ultimate message of my religion and the bible, to "love thy neighbor," is one in which I do my best to prescribe to, as I believe it is how an individual should live regardless of relgious orientation. I realize it is possible to live this way without religion, but I do enjoy the tradition, pomp and circumstance, history and idea that one billion others are celebrating this philosophy the same way, that I find in the Catholic church.

That's very, well, interesting.

If you're in the market for a philosophy, then why not secular humanism, existentialism, Taoism or even Buddhism - rather than Christianity and Catholicism, which are just about the furthest things from philosophies around.

Reciprocal ethics (aka the golden rule) is a major part of most religions, the love thy neighbour concept isn't exactly a Christian creation. I guess I'm curious as to why you would choose to adopt Catholicism to follow the golden rule - especially when you look at the stuff the Catholic Church and Christianity in general has done in the past (and continues to do) - such as telling what could only be described as ignorant Africans that condoms offer no protection against AIDS, the crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of science (Galileo comes to mind), the apparent endorsement of Hitler, the list goes on and on. I suppose I'm looking at it from an atheistic & secular humanistic perspective, but if you were just interested in the history and tradition, then why not Buddhism or something like that?

Once someone concedes biblical errancy (as you have done), when one looks at the actual historical evidence behind Christianity, it seems to me that their entire religion is on astonishingly shaky ground. I think that you've recognised this however, and as such I'll wait for a real fundie to arrive before I launch into demolition mode. I personally couldn't bring myself to go to church and participate in the 'rituals' - as after looking into Christianity I essentially believe that it's a pack of lies and distortions. I just couldn't stomach it. Partly due to the fact that i think it's based on a bunch of lies - but also due to the way in which Christianity (read: Christians) behave in general.

quote:

I consider myself a science man, and I have spent the better part of the last 6 years studying biology, physics, math, etc. This has only strenghted my belief in an ultimate creator. I do not believe "He" has a hand in my daily life, but the more I learn of the complexity, beauty and mystery that surrounds life, the universe and everything, the more I see the place for a "master scientist" able to set forth the fundamental laws of nature we are discovering today.

You're sounding more and more like a deist. Hell, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by definition, you are a deist. So what on earth is a deist doing in the Catholic Church?

I'm sure that Renegade, Diginut and possibly Arbiter will disagree with you here & take up the point, but I'm somewhat apathetic when it comes to this kind of religious belief - as there's generally no chance of people like you becoming reverent supporters of the religious right and trying to set up a theocracies.

Come to think of it, I will hash this out with you if you're willing to. What particular scientific laws or theories point to the existence of a higher being, in your opinion?

quote:

I have never seen religion to be a problem when practiced correctly and sanely.

I do disagree with this however. Define 'correctly'. Many Christians define correctly by what the bible says. Now, as we are all aware, the bible advocates murdering non-believers, killing rape victims, homosexuals and so forth.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ has a good summary of some of the stuff - and quite frankly it's pretty vile. A hell of a lot of it is in direct contradiction with the properties that Christian apologists assign to god. If the bible is the literal word of god - then following what it says is sane. I hate to say it, but if the bible is true, then the fundamentalists are the sane ones.

That being said - religion can indeed be a great thing when practised 'sanely. I would point to Buddhism & Taoism as prime examples of this, Buddhism in particular. Some of the more liberal Christian denominations are great as well, the Australian Anglican church and the Unitarian Universialists are specific examples of Christian denominations who are still partially rational and/or sane. I have yet to see a positive form of Islam however. Humanistic Judaism should probably also be mentioned, even though it's verging on being a philosophy rather than a religion (not unlike Secular Humanism), but it's still closely related to Judaism - and as such deserves to be included.

quote:

If religion can be used to make an individual more caring to those around them, while not abandoning reality for fantasy I believe it can be a very good thing.

I completely agree, however, in reality this often does not eventuate. First there's the concept of hell - which makes many Christians believe that their Children, Husbands & Wives, friends and so on are all going to burn in a terrible fire for all eternity. I've had a friend of mine completely lose it because they thought that their mother (along with me) was going to hell. If anything, Christianity often sends people insane and causes them to lose touch with reality rather than assisting. On the other hand though - there are a lot of religious Charities about, who all do soma amazing work. Unfortunately, a lot of them feel the need to refuse to employ non-religious people, and also feel the need to evangelise to the very people they set out to help - with I find to be utterly reprehensible. Islam probably rates a mention here, from what I've seen it has a completely negative and destructive effect, I rarely see anything good or sane come out of it.

The problem for me is that I believe the major monotheistic religions to be by definition fantasy, but I understand where you're coming from here - and as I mentioned above, I don't necessarily disagree with it, it's just that in reality it often doesn't happen.

quote:

However, once a person steps over the line, prescribing to religious "ideals" such as literal interpretation of scripture, abandonment of science, prejudice towards non-believers and forceful conversions, the underlying good philosophy of "Jesus" the bible and Christianity has been lost.

I both agree and disagree here. Accepting biblical errancy is fraught with danger, as it's rather hard to decide what's fact and what's fiction without it. Biblical errancy, whilst looking insane from my viewpoint, is an understandable position to take if you think that the bible is the word from god, or if your parents have indoctrinated you into Christianity as a child. The problem is that (if I'm wrong on this one - feel free to correct me) the bible tells people that it is inerrant. Fundamentalist Christians tend to dislike science because it conflicts with scripture, which they believe to be inerrant. If you're a Christian and don't believe the bible to be inerrant, then it raises the question, why hasn't god intervened to correct the errors? After all, scripture is actually the word of god, delivered via prophets, right?

Prejudice against unbelievers is another interesting issue - as I think that the vast majority of (American) Christians are prejudiced against people like me. There was a gallop poll done recently which showed that less than 50% of Americans would vote for an atheist running for a political post. I've seen a lot of polls like this, and the results are usually somewhere in the 20s or 30s (i.e. - around 20% or 30% of people would vote for a well qualified and competent atheist candidate). As I understand it - if someone announces that they're an atheist in the US, they simply can't get elected to a significant political post. Christians just wont vote for them, regardless of their policies.

I agree that in general this goes against most of the stuff Jesus supposedly taught (I'm actually a Jesus mythologist at the moment, I find Earl Doherty's & G.A Wells' positions to be rational and well thought out, although I'm still looking to the issue). That being said, Jesus also said some pretty bizarre (and in my view nonsensical) stuff, in my view he's Christianity's saving grace. If you cut out Jesus, you're left with a barbaric and twisted book full of vengeance, hate and genocide.

quote:

All of this IMHO, of course.

As is my post. In conclusion, if all Christians were like you - the world would be a much better place.

Now - where are the fundamentalists hiding?

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Last edited by arctic on Apr-22-2004 at 10:52

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Okay firstly - don't take the following post the wrong way - I have a habit of dissecting posts when it comes to religion, as it's something that greatly interests me. Overall I think that your view of your religion is a hell of a lot saner than people who actually follow it - I'm just surprised that you're still a 'believer', albeit in an abstract manner.

You don't have to worry about offending me when it comes to religion. I also am very interested in people's belief systems and I love to talk about it.

I guess your suprise has a lot to do with your definition of "believer." I consider myself a believer in the message behind the bible and my religion, not necessarily a believer in the human "Jesus" or a literal belief in the bible. My belief stems from the ideals and philosphies protrayed through "Jesus," and it is these that have the greatest importance to me. My views and beliefs would not be altered if I found out today Jesus did not exist, much the same way someone into Nietzsche is not detered by the fact that Zarathustra was not a "real" person.

quote:

If you're in the market for a philosophy, then why not secular humanism, existentialism, Taoism or even Buddhism - rather than Christianity and Catholicism, which are just about the furthest things from philosophies around.

I would first of all disagree that religion could not be see as a philosophy. Religion is merely a philosophy with a set of common "rules" and tradition. Maybe your definition of philosophy is different from mine, but to me a philosophy is merely a search for a greater understanding of life and values.

quote:

Reciprocal ethics (aka the golden rule) is a major part of most religions, the love thy neighbour concept isn't exactly a Christian creation. I guess I'm curious as to why you would choose to adopt Catholicism to follow the golden rule - especially when you look at the stuff the Catholic Church and Christianity in general has done in the past (and continues to do) - such as telling what could only be described as ignorant Africans that condoms offer no protection against AIDS, the crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of science (Galileo comes to mind), the apparent endorsement of Hitler, the list goes on and on. I suppose I'm looking at it from an atheistic & secular humanistic perspective, but if you were just interested in the history and tradition, then why not Buddhism or something like that?

The reason I chose Catholocism has two parts. First, it was the way I was raised. I was brought up Catholic, with all the rights and initiations it contains. However, I did go through a period of about five years where I did not practice regularly and questioned all religion, including my own. Not to get too heavy into the events of my life, but I did go through a rough time and I rediscovered my religion as a coping mechanism (yes, I'll admit that), that later became an appreciation.

It was during this time I began to re-evaluate the teachings of the Catholic church, and found several key issues to be progressive and refreshing, which became my second reason for choosing Catholicism. First, the acceptance of science including evolution. Secondly it's stance on gays, and third its emphasis on making yourself a better person and living through example rather than going forth to "convert the non-believer and spread the word of God." I believe religion, or any philosophy for that matter, is a personal issue and should be talked about either when asked, or merely shown through your own actions. The idea of forcefully "sharing" your ideas with others in hopes of conversion is a message thankfully missing in modern American Catholicism (there are of course exceptions). For the most part you won't see Catholics going on missions of conversion or handing out tracts or being overtly critical of other religions or belief systems and this I agree with.

quote:

Once someone concedes biblical errancy (as you have done), when one looks at the actual historical evidence behind Christianity, it seems to me that their entire religion is on astonishingly shaky ground. I think that you've recognised this however, and as such I'll wait for a real fundie to arrive before I launch into demolition mode. I personally couldn't bring myself to go to church and participate in the 'rituals' - as after looking into Christianity I essentially believe that it's a pack of lies and distortions. I just couldn't stomach it. Partly due to the fact that i think it's based on a bunch of lies - but also due to the way in which Christianity (read: Christians) behave in general.

I do realize that if looking at religion and the bible in a fundamentalist stance, what I'm saying would pretty much destroy the idea of Christianity. However, as I'm sure you've noticed, it's not the historical validity of the bible and my religion but the overall message behind it. I also agree that, at least to me, being labeled a "Christian" is becoming increasingly negative. The hypocracy and brashness of many "Christians" is something I desperately try to seperate myself from.

quote:

You're sounding more and more like a deist. Hell, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by definition, you are a deist. So what on earth is a deist doing in the Catholic Church?

You could probably consider me a deist, and I have no problem with that label. I find the teachings of the Catholic church, on a philosophical level to be equal to my own beliefs. And as I said before I do enjoy the history and tradition associated with the Catholic church. There are many Catholics that believe the same basic principles I do, which you could consider deism, yet still practice modern Catholicism happily.

quote:

Come to think of it, I will hash this out with you if you're willing to. What particular scientific laws or theories point to the existence of a higher being, in your opinion?

This will sound very non-scientific and most definenatly un-empirical, but it is the complexity, magnitude and depth of nature that leaves room for a "God" in my opinion. I realize that what I am saying could be percieved as trying to explain the realm of the unknown by mysticism. However, what I am trying to say is that the way in which we find our universe to work in such a complex yet ordered fashion leaves a place for higher being to set forth such "rules." Unfortunatly, my belief on this level is very hard for me to articulate, as it has been a discovery over the years that has led me to this, not any one particular moment of epiphany.

quote:

I do disagree with this however. Define 'correctly'. Many Christians define correctly by what the bible says. Now, as we are all aware, the bible advocates murdering non-believers, killing rape victims, homosexuals and so forth.

Not to sound arrogant, but "correctly" means in the manner I have described I practice religion. And I obviously do not condone many of the practices set forth in the bible, espeically the barbaric ones in the old testament. (Leviticus, anyone?)

quote:

I completely agree, however, in reality this often does not eventuate. First there's the concept of hell - which makes many Christians believe that their Children, Husbands & Wives, friends and so on are all going to burn in a terrible fire for all eternity. I've had a friend of mine completely lose it because they thought that their mother (along with me) was going to hell. If anything, Christianity often sends people insane and causes them to lose touch with reality rather than assisting. On the other hand though - there are a lot of religious Charities about, who all do soma amazing work. Unfortunately, a lot of them feel the need to refuse to employ non-religious people, and also feel the need to evangelise to the very people they set out to help - with I find to be utterly reprehensible. Islam probably rates a mention here, from what I've seen it has a completely negative and destructive effect, I rarely see anything good or sane come out of it.

I do not believe in "hell." My belief tells me that "God" (at least God of the new testament) taught us to be all-loving and that should make him all-loving as well. Does a heaven exist? I have no idea. It would be nice though. I do believe that an all-loving God would never send someone to hell to spend eternity in agony. That wouldn't be very loving, in fact it would be quite the opposite. I am not here to judge anyone, and I think part of "loving thy neighbor" is to be tolerant of their differences. I have been told I was going to hell many times, and I would never try to judge someone or tell them that was to be their fate. I think it is merely a scare tactic to get someone to believe what you do. There is no "love" in telling someone they're damned, as many Christians would have you believe.

quote:

I both agree and disagree here. Accepting biblical errancy is fraught with danger, as it's rather hard to decide what's fact and what's fiction without it. Biblical errancy, whilst looking insane from my viewpoint, is an understandable position to take if you think that the bible is the word from god, or if your parents have indoctrinated you into Christianity as a child. The problem is that (if I'm wrong on this one - feel free to correct me) the bible tells people that it is inerrant. Fundamentalist Christians tend to dislike science because it conflicts with scripture, which they believe to be inerrant. If you're a Christian and don't believe the bible to be inerrant, then it raises the question, why hasn't god intervened to correct the errors? After all, scripture is actually the word of god, delivered via prophets, right?

Ultimately the bible was written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by God. It was written in a time of different culture and science, and by these two facts alone I believe it is impossible for the bible to be totally accurate. Catholicism teaches that the bible is the "Word of God," however it does not tell us to overlook the cultural and scientific changes over the past 2000 years that make many parts of the bible out dated or to take it literally. Catholicism teaches that an individual should look past the innacuracies that in reality have no bering on the overall message of the bible and the life of "Jesus." I hope that answers your question..

quote:

I agree that in general this goes against most of the stuff Jesus supposedly taught (I'm actually a Jesus mythologist at the moment, I find Earl Doherty's & G.A Wells' positions to be rational and well thought out, although I'm still looking to the issue). That being said, Jesus also said some pretty bizarre (and in my view nonsensical) stuff, in my view he's Christianity's saving grace. If you cut out Jesus, you're left with a barbaric and twisted book full of vengeance, hate and genocide.

I agree, if you cut out Jesus, you'd basically be left with the Old Testament and Revelation and I do not find much of my beliefs contained in those. Even if Jesus did or didn't exist, it is his example I am trying to emulate.

quote:

In conclusion, if all Christians were like you - the world would be a much better place.

Thanks...I actually love having my beliefs questioned It makes me re-examine them and hopefully makes them as well as myself more refined.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Apr-22-2004 at 13:29

Jesus is just an old school Anthony Robbins w/o the greediness of getting rich. People need someone too look up to or get them motivated when they can't do it themselves. Well that's what I have observed in my short life, am I missing something

I believe in Brian.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Jesus is just an old school Anthony Robbins w/o the greediness of getting rich. People need someone too look up to or get them motivated when they can't do it themselves. Well that's what I have observed in my short life, am I missing something

HAHAHAHAHA....Anthony Robbins.....

quote:

Originally posted by Tranc3 Not meant to offend, I'm just curious. As an unsaved heathen, I find it hard to believe what I see on some bumperstickers, signs, license plate holders, inspirational posters, etc.... I'm talking about those things that say something along the lines of "Through Jesus, anything can be accomplished." I understand quite well the concept of inspiration through the form of something that you find uplifting, however, I can't see myself ever believing that line of reasoning. I can see using the idea of Jesus (or maybe Jesus himself helping me, it's always possible) to achieve something I might not have otherwise been able to do without a source of good inspiration or whatnot, I just can't see Jesus helping me, say, overcome the electron repulsion field so I could walk through walls. Or helping me overcome my flight problems (that is, not being able to). So I was wondering, do followers of Jesus take it literally? I assume there must be shades of grey, as there usually are with most anything, I just couldn't see myself ever having anything to do with this phrase if I were belonging to a Christian-type faith.

because through jesus, you no longer are a prisoner to the world.

i dont agree with that "u can do anything through jesus phrase" because thats not true. i want to be in the olympics. do i have a chance? NO. its gods will that matters. he has a plan for you, and he'll carry it out if your believe and surrender your life to him.

everything always works out, if you follow gods will and purpose for you.

i expect 99% skepticism on not this knowledge, but the existance of god. so, im just going to say this(whats above). 20 page debate on existance of god is not needed. i think 99% of the peoples minds here are already made up.

___________________

quote:

Artic Somewhat disturbingly - a lot of the fundamentalists that I've encountered refuse to believe that a secular humanist like me isn't a shivering whimpering wreck by now, and marvel at the fact that I haven't had a nervous breakdown recently, because, after all - I need Jesus! I did once ask a fundie why all the Hindus and Buddhists aren't clinically insane, but sadly they didn't bother answering.

Interesting point. I was once in a debate with a fundamentalist and I pulled up that tried but true link of Bible Contradictions; to which the fundie replied, "there are no contradictions", and interestingly "the author of that site (like all atheists) was depressed and committed suicide". And you can guess the crux of his argument hence forth, 'all atheists (and non christians?) are inherently depressed, suicidal and have low self-image and self-esteem'. If anyone has ever talked to a fundie, you would realise that this statement is a complete paradox.

Why is it a paradox? Fundamentalists (and to a lesser extent religious people in general) believe that their god is always holding their hand, their fate is predetermined and they are at the mercy of their gods whim and fancy. Something good happens? "praise god." Something bad happens? "god works in mysterious ways." or "NO. its gods will that matters. he has a plan for you, and he'll carry it out if your believe and surrender your life to him."

Self-esteem progressively increases with responsibility, and to believe that a god is responsible for your fate, is very harmful to the superego.

I am a firm believer of "the only power your god has over you is what you give her." As an atheist, I keep all my power, (does that make me a god? ) I take complete responsibility of my life, and I decide my destiny.

Fundamentalists have very little power as individuals, but as a collective they are unstoppable. (DaveS articles being a great example) Is this the entire point of the major monotheistic religions? A tool created to herd the sheep? Was this why Emperor Constantine presided over the amalgamation of Christianity and other Pagan religions at the Council of Nicea?

Although i do beleive that the three monetheistic religions should burn in their own hells... i also would like to ask the extreme atheists a question. Being agnostic (leaning towards atheism though) dont you think its hypocritical to completely denounce a god?

fundies are so sure a god exists, wjile major atheists are so sure a god doesnt exist. Both sides are so sure in what they believe in, even though there is no valid evidence to denounce both sides 100%

To state that there is %100 no "god" out there and believe it is as poposterous as claiming that there is a 100% chance God does exist.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

I'm sure that most of the atheists in this thread would question their beliefs if empirical, falsifiable evidence of a gods existence was discovered. Sadly this will not happen the other way around, proof that the three major monotheistic religions were created by man is in abudance

"god" as an entity is extremely improbable

what is the empirical and falsifiable evidence that he doesnt exist?

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V