How Real Is Christianity?

Arya Stark · 06-19-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Yes, I read it occasionally. I also try to read the Quran, but I have no clue how to understand it. I have to ask a Muslim friend to help me read it.

I'm sure they have it in English somewhere online.

Inuzuka Skysword · 06-19-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AwwSugar

Yes, I read it occasionally. I also try to read the Quran, but I have no clue how to understand it. I have to ask a Muslim friend to help me read it.

I'm sure they have it in English somewhere online.[/QUOTE]
I have it in English. What I mean is that I don't understand the symbolism and such.

Arya Stark · 06-19-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I have it in English. What I mean is that I don't understand the symbolism and such.

Ah, that makes sense.

SATCHMO · 06-19-2009, 04:45 PM

Dealing with the bible as simply being fiction or non-fiction is in reality not an option. There are many different components that make up the books of the old and new testament: creation myths, genealogies, history, poetry, epistles, and prophecy, just to name a few. Each of these should be judged on the basis of their own merit. One has to take into consideration the reliability, as a narrator, of the many authors that were collectively responsible for composing the books that make up the bible. Where is their credibility? How were the books of the bible chosen? There are at least 20 new testament era synoptic scriptures that didn't make it into the current biblical canon. Why? The inclusion of the books that comprise what we know to be the holy bible were voted on by committee in that they most closely align themselves with a politically established definition of what a "Christian" is (The Nicene Creed). The most relevant question that can be asked in substitute is Does the Bible represent an accurate and inerrant spiritual authority, and as far as I'm concerned the answer is no. But that is not meant to detract from its inherent value.

cavanherk · 06-19-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

Let me put it this way. My goal in life is to be as happy as possible. There will be things I have to do in order to get there. One thing would be to find out what my destination is, happiness. What is happiness? I figure it out. So now I have to find how I am going to get there. This is a morality. So I get my morality. Now I must go to my destination, or live by my morality. I do so.

Where does a god fit in this picture? Where he would fit in would be in the area of the destination. Basically, believing in a god and such becomes part of the goal. All religions create that goal for you to follow. However, is it really your goal? Nope. It is the goal of the religion. Basically, your existence would then be wasted on living for a goal that has nothing to do with who you really are. You will never enjoy it.

I agree completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

Your argument is that one could believe in God because it is part of our nature.

No. My retort was that one could have reason (or a basic survivalist feeling of necessity) to pursue religion because it is part of our nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

We have no clue of what life after death is. How can you possibly enjoy something which you have no true conception of? You might believe it is better, but is there anything you have to do to get it? If yes, then I would question how this specific morality makes you happier.

If the religion has general guidelines or "things you have to do to get it," and those guidelines make someone feel good while resulting is less harm (in the form of waste, injury, aggression etc) to others, then why question it?

Inuzuka Skysword · 06-19-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavanherk

No. My retort was that one could have reason (or a basic survivalist feeling of necessity) to pursue religion because it is part of our nature.

And mine is the fact that no "basic survivalist feeling" is really your own reason. That stuff does not determine who you are. Sartre's whole being-in-yourself idea is what I am saying. We have no true essence from birth. We have to create one based on our actions because are actions are how we exist. "Basic survivalist feeling" can't be a reason to choose religion. You don't know whether anyone survives after life. Pascal's Wager doesn't make sense anyways because it views this life as completely worthless, which it isn't.

Quote:

If the religion has general guidelines or "things you have to do to get it," and those guidelines make someone feel good while resulting is less harm (in the form of waste, injury, aggression etc) to others, then why question it?

I don't question that aspect of it. I question the fact that you want to do something because "God told you so."

cavanherk · 06-19-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I don't question that aspect of it. I question the fact that you want to do something because "God told you so."

Absolutely. I'm with you there.

JKSmith · 06-20-2009, 09:25 PM

Why is it so bad to want to believe in a being that loves you unconditionally, and enough that he would do anything for you? Why do you believe us to be stupid because we hope for a better place than this wretched planet? If you ask me, it is better to believe in a god/God and be wrong, then not to believe in a Deity and be wrong.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 06-20-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKSmith

Why is it so bad to want to believe in a being that loves you unconditionally, and enough that he would do anything for you? Why do you believe us to be stupid because we hope for a better place than this wretched planet? If you ask me, it is better to believe in a god/God and be wrong, then not to believe in a Deity and be wrong.

I agree with you, because scientifically, faith usually makes a person healthier, happier. Whether they're experiencing the 'placebo effect' is irrelevant from a utilitarian standpoint.

However, some very Orthodox Christians take a very imperialistic religious approach, which is to tell people if they don't believe Jesus died for our sins, they are going to hell. Many evangelists and their followers operate on fear and control and that is just the fact of it.

The orthodox aspect of religion is what makes the zealots seem insane. It's like this, 'I'm not really sure if I believe all this is true, but the more people I can convince, the more I convince myself' attitude. I just think people should let people be who they want to be, but for god's sake, if you want to share your religion with other people, and show them how great it is, don't use threats at the very least.

Arya Stark · 06-20-2009, 11:18 PM

The thing that bothers me most about Christianity, and by Christianity, I mean the Catholic church I'd been exposed to from 3 years old to 15, is that they DO use threats.

If you're homosexual, "God" won't love you.

If you have sex before marriage, "God" won't love you.

If you don't donate to the church, "God" won't love you.

And then recently, I was accepted in to a college that made it clear that it was necessary to have recieved all of your sacraments.

I was blind in looking for colleges, and for some reason, didn't notice how strict the school was religiously.

But that's what I've been exposed to throughout my life.

That's how "God" introduced himself to me.

06-20-2009, 09:25 PM	#688 (permalink)
JKSmith rocknroll forever Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My little corner of the universe. Posts: 74	Why is it so bad to want to believe in a being that loves you unconditionally, and enough that he would do anything for you? Why do you believe us to be stupid because we hope for a better place than this wretched planet? If you ask me, it is better to believe in a god/God and be wrong, then not to believe in a Deity and be wrong. __________________ "HATE, although an overrated concept, is just one of the basic building blocks of society, and although it does not cause PROGRESS, it does cause society to change, be it for the better or for the worse. LOVE, on the other hand, does cause PROGRESS. Or, at least some type of MORAL MOTIVATION does. Without one of these, there would be no WARS, no REVOLUTIONS, no RISE or FALL of societies, groups or belief systems." --JK Smith

06-19-2009, 04:45 PM	#684 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,708	Dealing with the bible as simply being fiction or non-fiction is in reality not an option. There are many different components that make up the books of the old and new testament: creation myths, genealogies, history, poetry, epistles, and prophecy, just to name a few. Each of these should be judged on the basis of their own merit. One has to take into consideration the reliability, as a narrator, of the many authors that were collectively responsible for composing the books that make up the bible. Where is their credibility? How were the books of the bible chosen? There are at least 20 new testament era synoptic scriptures that didn't make it into the current biblical canon. Why? The inclusion of the books that comprise what we know to be the holy bible were voted on by committee in that they most closely align themselves with a politically established definition of what a "Christian" is (The Nicene Creed). The most relevant question that can be asked in substitute is Does the Bible represent an accurate and inerrant spiritual authority, and as far as I'm concerned the answer is no. But that is not meant to detract from its inherent value.