Plus, I Got Religion

[Thurnez Isa]

i noticed this topic has really come up in regular conversation with more frequency lately.
I remember back in the 80's and most of the 90's it was almost considered rude to bring up religion when in conversation with someone.

[LMNO]

I suppose that for me, it's like getting the question wrong twice.

"Dude, not only is the Bible not the literal word of God, you don't even know what it says!"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't change anything for him. Nawmean?

If you have any actual religion at all you should at least look at other religions (not all, but one or two) to see if they are more "real" to you. Hardly any of the really religious people I know have ever considered another religion. And they have barely even looked into their own religion. I mean I'm not saying you need to know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION EVER, but you should at least know enough to defend your religion against someone of a different religion.

I don't understand your logic here at all. You think people should shop around for the best religion... why? If they found it so easy to just swap out their old one for a new one, they probably wouldn't have religion at all because that shows a lack of faith, and without faith, what's the point?

I don't understand why people would need to "defend their religion against someone of another religion". Religion is illogical and indefensible. What's to defend? What, do you think that if a Hindu and a Jew got in an argument about their respective religions and the Hindu won, it would somehow magically take away the Jew's faith? How could such an argument be "won", anyway?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It isn't like I talk about religion a lot or even very often. Its just a subject that comes up on occasion. And saying "I just believe" is stupid in my opinion(which isn't worth much). Because for all they know everything the preacher told them could be a lie. The (for this example, they are Christian) bible could have a chapter that says it is all a load of crock and that you should go kill babies.

Saying "I just believe" is like saying "Mommy said so so it much be real =D". You don't even know what you believe in.

Skieth, did you read the OP at all?

[Cainad (dec.)]

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

What?

I understand and agree with your inability to accept either reason(s) for believing, but believing because it helps one get through life and believing because it was ingrained in you during your childhood are two very different things. They might be related, but ultimately they're different.

Also, something like 50% of all Americans convert to a different religion at some point in their lives. Accusing those people of believing in something because mom and dad told them so would be pretty counterproductive.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I suppose that for me, it's like getting the question wrong twice.

"Dude, not only is the Bible not the literal word of God, you don't even know what it says!"

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

What?

I understand and agree with your inability to accept either reason(s) for believing, but believing because it helps one get through life and believing because it was ingrained in you during your childhood are two very different things. They might be related, but ultimately they're different.

Also, something like 50% of all Americans convert to a different religion at some point in their lives. Accusing those people of believing in something because mom and dad told them so would be pretty counterproductive.

Keep in mind that most of those "converting" are just "converting" from one brand of Christian to another brand, like Baptist to Lutheran.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Religious Faith + accepting what the guys in the hats tell you as gospel = the equivalent of running your pc without a firewall and antivirus

There are a lot of "hackers" out there, if you point blank refuse to apply critical analysis to your belief-system, especially when dealing with outrageous far-fetched shit, you will be exploited, it's just a matter of time.

[LMNO]

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Religious Faith + accepting what the guys in the hats tell you as gospel = the equivalent of running your pc without a firewall and antivirus

There are a lot of "hackers" out there, if you point blank refuse to apply critical analysis to your belief-system, especially when dealing with outrageous far-fetched shit, you will be exploited, it's just a matter of time.

Well, sure, I'm not disputing that it's a bad idea... simply because Thinking For Yourself, Schmuck is ALWAYS a good idea. It's just that when people start laying down the rules THEY think faith "ought" to be lived by, I feel compelled to point out that their opinions make absolutely no difference to other people's faith, and are typically irrelevant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

[LMNO]

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

...and?

[LMNO]

So how can a person claim that "the" bible "is" the literal word of God, if they can't even identify which translation to use?


...Lemme guess.  "All translations are correct, even the ones that contradict each other," right?