Religion - Page 40 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: I did not have sexual relations with that woman
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

View Poll Results: What do you identify yourself as?
Atheist/Skeptic/Agnostic 151 70.89%
Catholic 21 9.86%
Protestant 24 11.27%
Jewish 5 2.35%
Muslim 2 0.94%
Philisophy (Such as Buddhism) 10 4.69%
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-05-02, 12:03 PM   [Ignore Me] #586
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Its like the time I finally, after much hemming and hawing, got a rather devoutly christian buddy of mine to admit that his religion required I go to hell. Frankly getting it out of him was like pulling a tooth. Its like saying it was forcing him to acknowledge it in a way he'd never had to before, to realize how fucked up of an idea that really is. Sure its all fine and good to say a murderer is going to hell, but a decent fellow, and a friend at that?

I took pity on him and changed the conversation to movie trivia after that, but the conversation always makes me wonder how many really believe it all, deep down, and how many truly understand and accept the ramifications of those beliefs. I think many have a personal interpretation that they make work for them and their world views, and just sort of gloss over and ignore the rest.
It has been my feeling, for some time now, that every single religious person on the planet is a Protestant in their own way; that every religion is a Cult of One. You may find lots of similarities, but I imagine it would be very nearly impossible to find someone who believes the exact same dogma as another.

Your friend (and millions like him) probably don't really, really believe that stuff. Next time you get in a car with him, check to see if he's wearing a seat belt. Ask him, if he thinks people really go to heaven when they die, why are funerals sad?

Think about it. Heaven is a place where everyone is happy, forever. It's paradise. It's 100x better than any vacation could ever be. No suffering, no stress, no worries, for all eternity. Sounds good, doesn't it? So why are we SAD when people die and get to go there? Why isn't everyone just... jealous?

It's because we know they're dead. We know deep down that when you die, you go to the same place you were before you were born. Nothing. That's not necessarily bad; I wasn't around during the civil war or the Jurassic period and I can tell you that I didn't find it all that inconveniencing. But heaven is a nice story we can tell ourselves because otherwise, contemplating the enormity of mortality can really ruin an afternoon.

So long story short, I find that most people really don't believe. The ones who do tend to be the sort of people who wear glassy, vacant smiles and say the word 'jesus like this: "Jeeeeesus. <3 <3 " They tend to be really creepy, mostly because our brains are very good at spotting poeple who are 'off'; they are delusional and it makes our reproductive bits go "No. No no no. This person is defective. Do not spread genes."
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 12:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #587
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Its like the time I finally, after much hemming and hawing, got a rather devoutly christian buddy of mine to admit that his religion required I go to hell. Frankly getting it out of him was like pulling a tooth. Its like saying it was forcing him to acknowledge it in a way he'd never had to before, to realize how fucked up of an idea that really is. Sure its all fine and good to say a murderer is going to hell, but a decent fellow, and a friend at that?
My local pastor was very religious with an Atheist son. I used bible study as a place to hang out with my friends so I used to talk to his son a lot. I see him every few months at a party when we run into one another, but I never have time to ask him if his dad ever figured it out. I can only imagine what goes through a religious person's head when they decide their children are going to hell.

I think, as you said, pity is really all you can feel for them as they get trapped in their own mind games.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 12:20 PM   [Ignore Me] #588
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


I actually find most religious people have a hard time thinking there are very many people in hell at all. It's a very short logical road to get there.

If they have kids, you ask them a simple question: "Is there anything your kids could do, anything at all, that would make you think that the only reasonable response would be to chain them up in a basement and torture them?" Almost nobody will ever be able to name any crime, no matter how heinous, that would make them do that.

Then you ask if God sees us all as his children.

Then you ask why it is they have a stronger moral sense than god.

Watch their brains implode.
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 12:39 PM   [Ignore Me] #589
Red Beard
Second Lieutenant
 
Red Beard's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
See the link on the previous page.
Well first of all, I just want to say that I'm here to give the biblical perspective, because I find a lot of Christians don't know the bible and have just been taught churchianity so to speak. Not that I've arrived, but that's my focus, and judging by this thread, don't expect me to hang around for any merry-go-round arguments. Having said that I will take a shot.

Could you please enlighten me why Christian theology and in fact ANY theology for that matter had to spread by sword and mouth if any god is universal, rather than for instance... a local, Jewish concept based partially in Sumerian and other local myths? Note the use of the word local, as in influenced and concepted through local and contemporary, cultural issues.
The breakdown is the presumption that you know God's intent and nature. He describes the Word as a small seed, which grows and expands many times over, eventually bearing fruit. The hearts of men are also figuratively desribed at the 'earth' of the 'field (world). It stands to reason then that an organic expansion would be expected.

There's only one Biblcal God...so perceived differences in his identity/character are purely FROM local and contemporary cultural issues; which are distortions. I partially disagree on Sumerian influence. The sumerian influence manifests itself in Samritans, but **** did not historically associate themselves with them for this reason. Corruptions did start to occur; though the bible called it (and still does) baalim (many husbands...the Mosaic covenant is considered a metaphorical marriage covenant for example), thus maintaining a definable difference.
it would be logical to not have just a single, isolated original preacher considering the chance of spreading is then not only small, it would not be effective or efficient (for an omnipotent deity, a strange choice of medium)
This is an expression of one of the facets of his character; "God's power is perfected in weakness"

"And he said unto me, 'My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

To what end?

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Essentially a mode for weeding out the proud and those who boast in their own power, rather than humbling themselves and learning from God (religious and secular alike); the means being crumbling their world views based upon the presuppositions that they began with.

Kinda like zombies come to think of it. But I digress.
Or a Branch growing.

Either way, one can already conclude that there cannot be multiple truths and if there's an answer, there is only one.
True (lol), but there are many facets to the truth that all agree with each other. For example; I have a blue car; it has a red dashboard. Hopelessly dogmatic people who might try and say that this doesn't make the car blue any more...

However, up to today we still don't have a single religion that has been global and created the same independently.
Due to his confounding the wisdom of the wise, you should then realize that there will never be a universal religion until there are no more gentiles, which won't be happening for another thousand years or so. Having said that; the religion of man does serve a purpose in that you can't really conceptualize what Truth and light are very well until you know what lies and darkness are.

I therefore request you to, if not prove the existence of a god directly to at least prove the claim that a religion can be universal.
I don't know what the original context of universal was, but God is Spirit; so proving his existence through physical things just doesn't work. The best way I have come up with for conveying this is; If you saw a brand new primary colour, and then went and told someone about it; how could you describe it to them?

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Shalom

Last edited by Red Beard; 2012-05-02 at 01:36 PM.
Red Beard is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 01:25 PM   [Ignore Me] #590
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Thank you for your thoughtful response, Red Beard. I know you said you weren't going to stick around but I implore you to do just that. I feel you would be most interesting to talk to.

Having read your reply, again and again your offer justifications for the unusual nature of the One True Faith. However, does it not strike you that the other religions of the world also share nearly identical patterns? They all start small and grow, over time, through writings, preachers, and other purely terrestrial and mortal conduits. They are, in practice and execution of their spreading, nearly identical.

What, then, convinces you of the Truth of yours, and the Untruth of competing religions? By what measure do you decide that your team has it right, and everyone else, whose various belief systems share all those same characteristics with yours, are not?
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 03:43 PM   [Ignore Me] #591
WildGunsTomcat
Master Sergeant
 
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy View Post
While I agree with you that Duke and Tomcat have apparently misunderstood the purpose of the "debate" forum in that they seem patently uninterested (in the case of Tomcat, in almost every thread) in debate, I don't think it's entirely without value for us to continue responding to them.

After all, I never thought for a moment that either of them would read one of my posts and smack their foreheads and go "oh my god, I've been wrong all this time". Hardly. I expect they barely read my posts as it is.

It's like exercise for the brain. I read their posts and construct rebuttal arguments (or, occasionally, as it was in the monument thread, actually agree with folks of a differing opinion). It's a worthwhile endeavor because debate is how we get towards the truth. Everyone walks away from a debate thinking they were the winner, moral or otherwise. But the debate is important to have, as it gives up perspective on the opinions of our fellow man, and gives us an opportunity to try out our own opinions; to see which ones hold up under scrutiny, and which ones do not.

It's "opinion practice". A fun diversion that helps strengthen the headmuscles. I will keep posting as long as they do. If they've realized that they simply lack the ability to defend their position, I'll happily let them go, but I won't give up so long as they stay in the conversation, because boy howdy I'm having the time of my life.
I never said I was uninterested in debate.

I'm just uninterested in talking to people that have no interest in hearing my opinion.

That's all.
WildGunsTomcat is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 03:45 PM   [Ignore Me] #592
WildGunsTomcat
Master Sergeant
 
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by elfailo View Post
From the other thread:



Only Christian when it suits you? Poor victim.

Your challenge isn't to accept ridicule, it's to finally finish high school.
lol see you seem to think that I have to be Christian to be spiritual.

That's your mistake.

Also, I like the little attacks and jabs you guys put in...and then ridicule me for not wanting to debate with you.

Hilarious. ;0)
WildGunsTomcat is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 06:05 PM   [Ignore Me] #593
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


Thanks for the reply Red Beard, unfortunately too late in the day to respond in kind, but I'll get back to you first thing tomorrow morning.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 06:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #594
Red Beard
Second Lieutenant
 
Red Beard's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Thanks for the reply Red Beard, unfortunately too late in the day to respond in kind, but I'll get back to you first thing tomorrow morning.
*Tip of the hat*
Red Beard is offline  
Old 2012-05-02, 10:55 PM   [Ignore Me] #595
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat View Post
I never said I was uninterested in debate.

I'm just uninterested in talking to people that have no interest in hearing my opinion.

That's all.
Opinion has no place in debate.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Old 2012-05-03, 02:49 AM   [Ignore Me] #596
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Red Beard View Post
Having said that I will take a shot.
Much appreciated. As you focused on the Abrahamic god, I'll do so as well, although my argument is more a macro-argument where yours is more of a micro-argument as it is focused on a single perspective, rather than the wider worldview.

I would argue that from a wider worldview, it is much harder to make it "have sense" than if you derive the logic from the excuses made within a particular frame of reference.

Anyway.

The breakdown is the presumption that you know God's intent and nature. He describes the Word as a small seed, which grows and expands many times over, eventually bearing fruit. The hearts of men are also figuratively desribed at the 'earth' of the 'field (world). It stands to reason then that an organic expansion would be expected.
The presumption here is derived from the claims of the faithful that wish to expand the religion so that all can revel in the glory of the god. in some faiths, competition between gods for the devotion of the humans is significant (for instance the Pantheon gods). So for both monotheists and polytheists, the same claim goes: the god(s) want(s) as many devotees as possible. Whether for personal ego-centrism of the god or for the supposed sake of the souls, that does not matter.

The god in question here is claimed to want all to know off said god and then make a choice. With the OT being a few thousand years old and well before the appearance of Jesus and even longer till an actual NT is composed, it can easily be argued and shown that the timing and placement is very poor. Although Christianity is one of the larger faiths today and argueably past its prime, it has not succeeded in reaching all corners of the earth (in time).

In the 6.000 years that Judeism and 2000 years that Christianity exists, it left millions of generations of people in the dark.

The methodology applied by a claimed omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent god is flawed at best. To reach his goal and minimize suffering, it is eay to see in retrospect (which a timeless god can) would have been far better to use multiple independent "seeds", meaning that by the time the Spanish arrived in Peru or any other colonists in Africa or the far east, they'd have found mostly **** or Christians. Either way, a people that would not be considered third rate and thus not treated as such. Also hundreds of generations of people that could have been saved left "wasted" under the "yoke" of other religions.

This does not conform with other religious claims and even Christians realised quite soon that to branch out they either needed to conquer and commit genocide or use (forced) indoctrination, where missionaries of course are (flawed) seeds that any omnipotent god could have created/inspired anywhere on earth seperately, if they were present at all. It is however clear they were not present there prior to a missionary or other religious fellow being there and spreading a faith manually.

So again, the question is how come that other gods are free to establish themselves until someone comes in and manually overrides the self-coding of a person or people? If there is only one faith that's true, self-coding should at the very least be possible, even if unlikely. It is not however. Choosing "one chosen people" with an inconsistent, myth riddled, unevidenced faith is not just lazy, it's ineffective and self-centered.

Incidentally, so are humans.

Considering every faith is ineffective and self-centered, that suggests humans are at the core of the creation of faiths, rather than the other way around.

There's only one Biblcal God...so perceived differences in his identity/character are purely FROM local and contemporary cultural issues; which are distortions.
There are at least three Abrahamic gods though. Even within Christianity it varied: interpretations varied to the extend that the Cathars in southern France believed there to essentially be two biblical gods: the OT and NT god. "Their" god characters do differ significantly and all they do is quote the OT and NT. The inconsistencies are indeed pretty huge, one would expect a god that is literally cited in the Bible to "always be right" and "to be without change" to... well, not change and not make mistakes. Especially if they already know the outcome due to being timeless (yet the god does not as evidenced by linear time progression, this makes the god flawed and not live up to the claim at the very least).

I partially disagree on Sumerian influence. The sumerian influence manifests itself in Samritans, but **** did not historically associate themselves with them for this reason. Corruptions did start to occur; though the bible called it (and still does) baalim (many husbands...the Mosaic covenant is considered a metaphorical marriage covenant for example), thus maintaining a definable difference.
Actually I would say the influence occured well before they settled in the "holy land", as the Neolithical influences that are in the bible are also in other local, but not world wide religions. Sumerian influence may not be the best phrasing, overlap may be a better word. For instance the neolithical flood stories, including the Ark of Noah myth largely coincide (though interpretation varies) with Sumerian/Mesopotamian culture as the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also with Greek myth where Deucalion and Pyrrha are the two humans chosen to repopulate the earth by Zeus, rather than Noah by the Abrahamic god. Considering the biblical claim does not go that far back with an earth created only 6000 years ago, the Neolithical influence should hardly be there and if it was, it's impossible that it already was changed so much by the time the first scripture that completely different interpretations exist of such things as the great flood: at the very least Noah should be at the heart of every civilization since if the Bible is correct. It is not.

Furthermore, since the event itself, but not the outcome or interpretation, was shared so strong in the collective memories of these particular regional cultures and all others would have come from them, then it should have been equally strong or at least mentioned in other cultures said to have spawned from them. However, world floods are not even mentioned in many other religions or myths from other cultures, at all. They also do not agree on who did it, nor why.

This is an expression of one of the facets of his character; "God's power is perfected in weakness"

"And he said unto me, 'My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

To what end?

Essentially a mode for weeding out the proud and those who boast in their own power, rather than humbling themselves and learning from God (religious and secular alike); the means being crumbling their world views based upon the presuppositions that they began with.
That however, assumes you get the chance for your worldviews to even crumble by being exposed to an alternative. Many generations missed out on this chance due to the method of single source branching.

Or a Branch growing.
Let me say that the zombie comparison was a bit crude. Branching may be the most positive image you can evoke. Other variants are epidemic (contagion), oil spill, etc. But yes, the idea is the same: spreading from a specific source. The question is, why one source, why so late in history and how come that other religions thrived equally well if not far more succesful in the periods before?

The answer is spreading, like with any other religion, happened primarily through military power and political control, a purely human methodology.

True (lol), but there are many facets to the truth that all agree with each other. For example; I have a blue car; it has a red dashboard. Hopelessly dogmatic people who might try and say that this doesn't make the car blue any more...
In the strictest sense maybe not for the dogmatic. But that's a matter of definition, the car could not be denied to at least have blue in its colourscheme. That's different for the vast variety of religions: they don't share much in common, if anything and their cultural norms and values differ as greatly if not more.

Your example definitely goes for variety within a religion, but not for variety between religions, you see, those other cars have no blue in it at all.

Due to his confounding the wisdom of the wise, you should then realize that there will never be a universal religion until there are no more gentiles, which won't be happening for another thousand years or so. Having said that; the religion of man does serve a purpose in that you can't really conceptualize what Truth and light are very well until you know what lies and darkness are.
I have issues with a couple things here. First, the confounding of the wise. How come some wise are not confounded but told how "it is", while others have to make due? This seems to be inconsistent with its own intention and also very unfair. I'd even say it's insulting to other people, but that's beyond the scope of the point you try to make.

The existence of gentiles in the first place disagrees with the entire concept. Again, the exposure of gentiles is always human on human. Some humans are selected for random exposure to a god, but always within the same culture and preferably long before trustworthy accounting methods were established. Again, not a very good methodology.

I don't know what the original context of universal was, but God is Spirit; so proving his existence through physical things just doesn't work. The best way I have come up with for conveying this is; If you saw a brand new primary colour, and then went and told someone about it; how could you describe it to them?

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
First, the definition of universal is omnipresence. If a god is everywhere at the same time, it is as much a constant force of nature as gravity. It is, unchangeable, present and verifiable. If a random populace would cry out for signs of a god and they get a sign from Mars, Wodan, Shiva or Tammuz then this is not a sign from a christian god.

I'm disproving gods through the lack of spiritual consistency in the world (spirtuality being a local and not universal thing), an argument further strengthened by the physical evidence. Which, like with all those other spiritual interpretations, does not agree with one another. Therefore none of the faiths suggested, regardless of excuse theory, can be "the truth".

"Universal constants", given some variation, are things that are omnipresent on earth. The most omnipresent thing would be gods and their creation stories. These should not be able to pop up independent from one another and spawn wildly varying theories depending on location.


If you have a god that's a universal constant, your location should not matter if you are in search of a divine answer. In fact, the intend of the god (whether he choses you or not) should not matter, since any religion is able to interpret real world events as acts of god. That they can be interpreted differently at the very least means the god is not timeless, omnipotent and not omniscience:

He'd know how humans witnessing the event will end up interpreting it from a personal perspective. Hence there's no reason to do events in a way that's imperfect (leaves random survivors who are not intended to survive and mess up the whole intend of the event) if you know in advance this will be so.

The whole Noah flood example in that respect is just... Insane and pointless from both a mortal and divine point of view.


Shalom
Back to you.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-05-03 at 02:53 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-05-03, 08:54 AM   [Ignore Me] #597
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat View Post
I never said I was uninterested in debate.

I'm just uninterested in talking to people that have no interest in hearing my opinion.

That's all.
Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat
And in the end, I don't know why anyone wants to argue this shit? Who cares if you don't believe in God? I certainly don't.

And why should anyone care if I do? How is it affecting you in any way shape or form?

What I see here from a lot of people is "Stop liking what I don't like."

And a shitload of grand posturing.

Life is too short to argue the small stuff, because the FACT of the matter is...no one really knows yet. You have ideas and theories and faiths and beliefs...but no one knows.

This argument and debate is stupid. Always has been, always will be.
Ring any bells?
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-05-03, 03:06 PM   [Ignore Me] #598
Red Beard
Second Lieutenant
 
Red Beard's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


I dunno Figment; I think this is where the conversation bends into a circle, as it seems we are approaching the territory upon which we will not have any common reference with which to reconcile world views...I appreciate the thought; even if I disagree with portions.

This is the stage where I find if someone won't accept the other's point of view and try to use 'proofs' which the other party doesn't recognize as such, it invariably degrades from sharing ideas into an ego centred battle of wits that promotes an entropic spiritual vacume, if you know what I's saying...So I'll probably just leave it there.

Sorry to be a downer
Red Beard is offline  
Old 2012-05-03, 06:53 PM   [Ignore Me] #599
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


No worries, agreeing to disagree is fine.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-05-03, 07:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #600
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


The problem with debating religion is you can't actually have a proper debate.

What would be interesting is a reverse debate. Make the atheist play God's Advocate and the Religiosity All Star play... Not God's Advocate.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.