[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Mary was his mother, not his wife.

Forgive him, Marsh, for he knows not what he sayeth.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well been a while since we've had a thread like this, what's spurred the sudden need to belittle Christianity?

I never understand the point of mocking people's religion

[Twosugars]

II have no problems with religion as such because humans seem to need it. They seem to need to believe in something to help them make sense of this world and their existence. Not all humans, but significant numbers.
Besides, nobody really knows if such a thing as god exists. Dogmatic atheists are no different to religious dogmatics when they insist they know the truth. Some scientists, for example, have been suggesting a so-called simulation theory where we and our world are a sophisticated simulation run by a superior civilisation. Such civilisation would be de facto our gods - creators and masters. We cannot argue that science and god are mutually exclusive as science has no evidence either way. So since nobody really knows, isn't the best way to live and let live, as AnnieK or Cherie suggest?
If people want to believe in a particular interpretation or a story that's fine. It's true that the more detailed such stories (religions) are the less probable they seem, but hey, who am I to say they're definitely not true? Not to mention that most religions are surprisingly adaptable and open to interpretation.
As long as they respect others and their beliefs, let them be. All I'd expect is for the state to remain neutral, i.e secular and tolerant so that the public sphere is not dominated by one set of beliefs.
Hope it makes sense, I had a bit to drink.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

II have no problems with religion as such because humans seem to need it. They seem to need to believe in something to help them make sense of this world and their existence. Not all humans, but significant numbers.
Besides, nobody really knows if such a thing as god exists. Dogmatic atheists are no different to religious dogmatics when they insist they know the truth. Some scientists, for example, have been suggesting a so-called simulation theory where we and our world are a sophisticated simulation run by a superior civilisation. Such civilisation would be de facto our gods - creators and masters. We cannot argue that science and god are mutually exclusive as science has no evidence either way. So since nobody really knows, isn't the best way to live and let live, as AnnieK or Cherie suggest?
If people want to believe in a particular interpretation or a story that's fine. It's true that the more detailed such stories (religions) are the less probable they seem, but hey, who am I to say they're definitely not true? Not to mention that most religions are surprisingly adaptable and open to interpretation.
As long as they respect others and their beliefs, let them be. All I'd expect is for the state to remain neutral, i.e secular and tolerant so that the public sphere is not dominated by one set of beliefs.
Sorry if this is poorly written, it's late and I'm drunk.

Drunk or not, you make excellent sense and your post is as well written and valid as the rest of your posts in this thread, Twosugars.

I also applaud your moderation and qualities of not mocking or insulting.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Drunk or not, you make excellent sense and your post is as well written and valid as the rest of your posts in this thread, Twosugars.

I also applaud your moderation and qualities of not mocking or insulting.

You're too kind, sir

I simply sit on the fence on this one. Enjoy the sensation iykwim

[thesheriff443]

I can walk on water if it's frozen.

If Jesus could turn water into wine he would have a chain of off licenses.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

II have no problems with religion as such because humans seem to need it. They seem to need to believe in something to help them make sense of this world and their existence. Not all humans, but significant numbers.
Besides, nobody really knows if such a thing as god exists. Dogmatic atheists are no different to religious dogmatics when they insist they know the truth. Some scientists, for example, have been suggesting a so-called simulation theory where we and our world are a sophisticated simulation run by a superior civilisation. Such civilisation would be de facto our gods - creators and masters. We cannot argue that science and god are mutually exclusive as science has no evidence either way. So since nobody really knows, isn't the best way to live and let live, as AnnieK or Cherie suggest?
If people want to believe in a particular interpretation or a story that's fine. It's true that the more detailed such stories (religions) are the less probable they seem, but hey, who am I to say they're definitely not true? Not to mention that most religions are surprisingly adaptable and open to interpretation.
As long as they respect others and their beliefs,for the state to remain neutral, i.e secular and tolerant so that the public sphere is not dominated by one set of beliefs.
Sorry if this is poorly written, it's late and I'm drunk.

Well we all believe different things it's human nature , exactly it's about respecting people's beliefs. And obviously we're not all going to have the same views .

We all have different interpretations, we see things differently to others but it's the way we conduct ourselves.

Faith & religion gives some people hope & comfort and as long as they're not forcing it on anyone or hurting others, i don't see the problem .

I also made a similar point about aggressive atheists (not all of them but some) , are very arrogant and argumentative and they think they're right no matter what , it's honestly like talking to a brick wall with people be like that . They proceed to belittle religion all the while behaving obnoxiously .

[Maru]

Remember that time it was about "Living our truth?"... in the 90's I think is when this started?...

and yet...

Unless we're living in a third world country or in some place in the middle of no where with no communications with the outside world, kind of hard to avoid clashes with faith... so I don't think religion can operate like a cult normally would even if it wanted to... it would have to essentially ensnare people by sheltering them or acting as a pyramid scheme in order to keep people "buying" in... a la Scientology and the FLDS...

I think the church does provide a real service to the community. It is not just a "mindless" scheme to study or get involved in the action of religion. I've walked into several churches as a guest, and I've never felt like it was "forced". It seemed like everyone was there for a similar purpose. It's also easier to walk into one than it would be to start the search on your own, so easier to start there I guess... but I think that it's understandable that individuals start the search in some way, whether looking for purpose or attempting answering the bigger questions. I don't even think anything has to even be "going wrong"... we all kind of participate in those exercises everyday, whether it's joining a corporate brand or maintaining a rigorous self-image in line with either our "role" in our family's lives or a task we may carry in our field, our line of work... all these things do in different ways draw us inward. That's what spirituality does in the long-run.

The church is just one way of that need to find and meet other folk who are in that life stage. Obviously, it's an example of a more traditional stop in that search... I think in 2018, spirituality has changed and we have more information to sift through than ever before (in some ways, far more distractions too...). We have more access to diverse views, are less reliant on those who serve in our community for information and support... and so people can kind of start the journey however they want. Sometimes it leads back to the church, other times it may lead somewhere else. Worst case scenario, it leads to drugs and gangs... I knew one guy who experimented with acid to trigger vision quests and he ended up permanently borked...

I think if we attempt to restrict that search, we will find that society doesn't hold together the way we hoped it might without... and some people would say we are already on the verge of ill effects as the "glue" of traditional religion slowly shrinks... obviously we'll need to adapt, and I think one of those "adaptations" is through politics... sad, but true... humans have a need to meet and gather, to connect and maybe even worship... I'd like to think of God/Jesus as the guide.. a teacher... the religion being the doctrine, but also a set rules that keeps it consistent, doesn't allow the group to behave outside certain bounds and revert to primal tendencies (i.e. too tribal)...

The double-edged sword of groups, is it tends to "embolden" the individual to act and behave ways they normally would not... even without the group actually present. We see this in politics too though... so I don't know that religion is the problem... I think that most conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, see human as ultimately fallible... and spirituality/religion is sort of the "moral guide" that we can use to keep the group relatively accountable... it doesn't mean that it works 100% of the time, but it's better than no guide at all... or unrestricted tribalism (i.e. primate-like behavior).

Obviously religion is flawed... the other question is then, what do we replace Him (Jesus)/religion with? Can we as people in society exist without a group narrative? America was at the peak of individualism in the years I grew up in... and now collectivism is rearing it's ugly head again... attempting to "smother" that sovereignty with it's own desires... some would say what else but religion can combat this? Anyway, my point is, these are a lot of things that I think are going on in the 'background' that people ignore... because they feel that "religion" is not longer an "authority"... it doesn't mean it can't still be powerful. I think be careful what you wish for when you dismiss it so easily... now I'm not saying we should all convert to Christianity, I'm just saying I could think of a worse guide...

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Mary was his mother, not his wife.

Anyway some changed Joseph to Jesus

[Maru]

Aren't there technically two Marys? One is Virgin Mary... and then Mary Magdelene...

[Northern Monkey]

It took over 3000 years for the Egyptian religion and its various incarnations to die out.Some of the contemporary religions are still fairly young in comparison.They’ll all have had their day in another few hundred years.
I’m not against religion though.I find it fascinating as it tends to coincide with the history of the civilisations that created it.
When the religion dies out the civilisation tends to die out too.
I’m not one of these who just thinks ‘religion is bad because it’s only a tool to control the masses’.
Yes it obviously has been used for that specially later on but imo religion came about because there was no other way to explain the world around us than the use of gods and magic.
Imagine living in a world with no scientific understanding.What would your mind use to explain it.Religion is the obvious go too position for the human mind to take.
Trying to reconcile death and grief lead to ritual burial.
It’s a very interesting intrinsic part of humanity.

[Kazanne]

It's better to believe and find there is no God,than to not believe and find there is !!

Spoiler:

said tongue and cheek

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

II have no problems with religion as such because humans seem to need it. They seem to need to believe in something to help them make sense of this world and their existence. Not all humans, but significant numbers.
Besides, nobody really knows if such a thing as god exists. Dogmatic atheists are no different to religious dogmatics when they insist they know the truth. Some scientists, for example, have been suggesting a so-called simulation theory where we and our world are a sophisticated simulation run by a superior civilisation. Such civilisation would be de facto our gods - creators and masters. We cannot argue that science and god are mutually exclusive as science has no evidence either way. So since nobody really knows, isn't the best way to live and let live, as AnnieK or Cherie suggest?
If people want to believe in a particular interpretation or a story that's fine. It's true that the more detailed such stories (religions) are the less probable they seem, but hey, who am I to say they're definitely not true? Not to mention that most religions are surprisingly adaptable and open to interpretation.
As long as they respect others and their beliefs, let them be. All I'd expect is for the state to remain neutral, i.e secular and tolerant so that the public sphere is not dominated by one set of beliefs.
Hope it makes sense, I had a bit to drink.

Fantastic stance.....

[user104658]

On the question of the possibility of intelligent design / a "creator" the only sensible stance is to be agnostic. The mysteries of the universe are so vast and deep that it's very possible (probable) that no single human mind COULD even begin to comprehend it, even if it was laid out in the simplest possible terms... And it isn't, so we're very unlikely to ever figure it out on our own. Maybe some sort of advanced artificial intelligence could in a few hundred years? Who knows.

However

Being open to the possibility of *A* god or god-like entity of some description is completely different to being open to the possibility that any one human religion is accurate. Some seem to believe that the thinking of "no one knows the truth for definite... So it MIGHT be Evanglism / Islam / Buddhism!" is a sensible or logical stance. It isn't. The existence of multiple religions, and the fact that NO two separate groups of humans / civilisations have developed exactly the same religion without it spreading human-to-human, makes it almost infinitely unlikely that any of those religions came from on high or contain any sort of universal truth. The only logical conclusion is that they are simple human attempts to understand the mysteries of existence and nature, and to ground and humanise the terrifying vastness of the universe. A comfort blanket, or maybe you could say a "dome of explanations", to shelter from the infinite vacuum of the unknown that lies beyond.

Those unknown aspects of space and time might contain intelligent design. That's very possible. You could call that "designer" God. But it's not Abrahamic God, or any other human god.

Human religions and their rules are collections of fables, myths and legends... Stories we've used to get our heads around it all. No different to Greek gods or (pre-Christian) Roman gods or Norse gods. There is zero logic in believing any differently. Especially given that all of those ancient peoples believed in their gods just as strongly as modern believers do today .

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It's better to believe and find there is no God,than to not believe and find there is !!

Spoiler:

said tongue and cheek

If you don't believe it's fine, because your earthly sins will be forgiven.

It's a very clever line that Jesus was supposed to say.

Forgive them father they know not what they do.

[bots]

i have no problem imagining that across space and time there could be beings that are vastly more intelligent than us. If those beings come to a point where they have the power of life and death over us then they are by definition gods. Even at that point it is up to individuals whether they choose to worship those gods or not, it's not an automatic given and it never will be.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If you don't believe it's fine, because your earthly sins will be forgiven.

It's a very clever line that Jesus was supposed to say.

Forgive them father they know not what they do.

Not always sheriff,if that was the case there would be no hell,but some people believe hell is here on earth,who really knows.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i have no problem imagining that across space and time there could be beings that are vastly more intelligent than us. If those beings come to a point where they have the power of life and death over us then they are by definition gods. Even at that point it is up to individuals whether they choose to worship those gods or not, it's not an automatic given and it never will be.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Not always sheriff,if that was the case there would be no hell,but some people believe hell is here on earth,who really knows.

If you believe in heaven than you have believe in hell,

Hell is a way of saying you will be punished for your sins which is rubbish, if you kill a person on earth intentionally than you should be put to death.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

On the question of the possibility of intelligent design / a "creator" the only sensible stance is to be agnostic. The mysteries of the universe are so vast and deep that it's very possible (probable) that no single human mind COULD even begin to comprehend it, even if it was laid out in the simplest possible terms... And it isn't, so we're very unlikely to ever figure it out on our own. Maybe some sort of advanced artificial intelligence could in a few hundred years? Who knows.

However

Being open to the possibility of *A* god or god-like entity of some description is completely different to being open to the possibility that any one human religion is accurate. Some seem to believe that the thinking of "no one knows the truth for definite... So it MIGHT be Evanglism / Islam / Buddhism!" is a sensible or logical stance. It isn't. The existence of multiple religions, and the fact that NO two separate groups of humans / civilisations have developed exactly the same religion without it spreading human-to-human, makes it almost infinitely unlikely that any of those religions came from on high or contain any sort of universal truth. The only logical conclusion is that they are simple human attempts to understand the mysteries of existence and nature, and to ground and humanise the terrifying vastness of the universe. A comfort blanket, or maybe you could say a "dome of explanations", to shelter from the infinite vacuum of the unknown that lies beyond.

Those unknown aspects of space and time might contain intelligent design. That's very possible. You could call that "designer" God. But it's not Abrahamic God, or any other human god.

Human religions and their rules are collections of fables, myths and legends... Stories we've used to get our heads around it all. No different to Greek gods or (pre-Christian) Roman gods or Norse gods. There is zero logic in believing any differently. Especially given that all of those ancient peoples believed in their gods just as strongly as modern believers do today .

Yeah this is how i see it too

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Humans are gods in a way, humans decide if a person lives or dies, thru a country's legal system/medical treatment, war/lack of food.

Then nature it self can kill, hurricanes/floods/ volcanoes.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

On the question of the possibility of intelligent design / a "creator" the only sensible stance is to be agnostic. The mysteries of the universe are so vast and deep that it's very possible (probable) that no single human mind COULD even begin to comprehend it, even if it was laid out in the simplest possible terms... And it isn't, so we're very unlikely to ever figure it out on our own. Maybe some sort of advanced artificial intelligence could in a few hundred years? Who knows.

However

Being open to the possibility of *A* god or god-like entity of some description is completely different to being open to the possibility that any one human religion is accurate. Some seem to believe that the thinking of "no one knows the truth for definite... So it MIGHT be Evanglism / Islam / Buddhism!" is a sensible or logical stance. It isn't. The existence of multiple religions, and the fact that NO two separate groups of humans / civilisations have developed exactly the same religion without it spreading human-to-human, makes it almost infinitely unlikely that any of those religions came from on high or contain any sort of universal truth. The only logical conclusion is that they are simple human attempts to understand the mysteries of existence and nature, and to ground and humanise the terrifying vastness of the universe. A comfort blanket, or maybe you could say a "dome of explanations", to shelter from the infinite vacuum of the unknown that lies beyond.

Those unknown aspects of space and time might contain intelligent design. That's very possible. You could call that "designer" God. But it's not Abrahamic God, or any other human god.

Human religions and their rules are collections of fables, myths and legends... Stories we've used to get our heads around it all. No different to Greek gods or (pre-Christian) Roman gods or Norse gods. There is zero logic in believing any differently. Especially given that all of those ancient peoples believed in their gods just as strongly as modern believers do today .

I'm also with ts mind set.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Anyway some changed Joseph to Jesus

Some? What are you on about?

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't actually disagree with LT to be fair. Abuse is probably too strong a word but I am in total agreement that the indoctrination of children into any religion as "truth" is 100% wrong.

Children can lose faith later on for a variety of reasons, as I eventually did.

The only problem I have is with those who use their religion to commit awful crimes - which happens. Otherwise I have no issue, and certainly wouldn't waste my time belittling something that doesn't concern me.

Edit: That last bit wasn't directed at you, TS

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

On the question of the possibility of intelligent design / a "creator" the only sensible stance is to be agnostic. The mysteries of the universe are so vast and deep that it's very possible (probable) that no single human mind COULD even begin to comprehend it, even if it was laid out in the simplest possible terms... And it isn't, so we're very unlikely to ever figure it out on our own. Maybe some sort of advanced artificial intelligence could in a few hundred years? Who knows.

However

Being open to the possibility of *A* god or god-like entity of some description is completely different to being open to the possibility that any one human religion is accurate. Some seem to believe that the thinking of "no one knows the truth for definite... So it MIGHT be Evanglism / Islam / Buddhism!" is a sensible or logical stance. It isn't. The existence of multiple religions, and the fact that NO two separate groups of humans / civilisations have developed exactly the same religion without it spreading human-to-human, makes it almost infinitely unlikely that any of those religions came from on high or contain any sort of universal truth. The only logical conclusion is that they are simple human attempts to understand the mysteries of existence and nature, and to ground and humanise the terrifying vastness of the universe. A comfort blanket, or maybe you could say a "dome of explanations", to shelter from the infinite vacuum of the unknown that lies beyond.

Those unknown aspects of space and time might contain intelligent design. That's very possible. You could call that "designer" God. But it's not Abrahamic God, or any other human god.

Human religions and their rules are collections of fables, myths and legends... Stories we've used to get our heads around it all. No different to Greek gods or (pre-Christian) Roman gods or Norse gods. There is zero logic in believing any differently. Especially given that all of those ancient peoples believed in their gods just as strongly as modern believers do today .

I'd like to respond to the part in bold. I said earlier that the more detailed the doctrine the less likely it is. But don't see the point in rubbishing such doctrines. It doesn't help in maintaining dialogue and understanding between people. Besides, as I said before, those doctrines can be flexible and open to interpretation. Most Christian denominations don't insist that the world was actually created in a week, they see a lot of the original scriptures in more metaphorical way. Is it impossible to adopt the Jesus story into a history of a visitation by one of our alien masters, if it come to that? Not really. And Bible may contain more historical stuff that we think. The flood of Noah could have been the refilling of the Mediterranean after the last Ice Age.
I don't know about others but most main Christian denominations have come to accept scientific discoveries like Copernicus's heliocentric system or Darwin's evolution. And now they're open to the possibility of life on other planets. Vatican's Observatory is at the cutting edge of astronomical research.
It's far better to seek common ground and persuade than call the believers stupid or, as you implied, illogical and not sensible.