If you believe in God:

analogbear · 02-04-2007, 4:10 PM

Do you believe that your religion, path, personal spiritual belief, or dogma is the right one?

hurricane249 · 02-04-2007, 6:23 PM

I think that if you honestly believe in God that you don't think there is a right or wrong way to worship Him. I believe in God but respect an individuals method of worshipping. I'm more a spiritual private worshipping type. I do belong to a church but rarely go. I do go to different churches with friends. In the last year I have been to Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, and a First Christian services. A couple of years ago I went to a Jewish service. I think that if people would take their personal "religous blinders" off they might discover something they didn't know.

analogbear · 02-04-2007, 8:29 PM

I agree. I originally posted this to draw out some bias, on the way to pointing out fundamentalism exists whenever a person believes their path is the "right" path for anyone but themselves. I will now abandon it.

However, even when faced with this, most fundamentalists will still not admit that they might not be right. That makes for a very uninteresting exchange.

hurricane249 · 02-04-2007, 8:44 PM

LOL, sorry. Didn't mean to mess up your thread.

analogbear · 02-04-2007, 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurricane249

LOL, sorry. Didn't mean to mess up your thread.

No worries. You hit the best conclusion, without having to endure the "Oh, you non-believer, you blasphemer" so it's all good.

hurricane249 · 02-04-2007, 9:11 PM

Oh you non-believer. You blasphemer. How dare you question my beliefs.

Is that better?

analogbear · 02-04-2007, 9:21 PM

I beg forgiveness! I believe, I believe!

hurricane249 · 02-04-2007, 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

I beg forgiveness! I believe, I believe!

You better or I will taunt you a second time.

analogbear · 02-04-2007, 9:31 PM

Stop! Or I'll say stop again!

hurricane249 · 02-04-2007, 9:42 PM

HELP! I'm being repressed!

leelover · 02-04-2007, 11:11 PM

OK, OK, here I am!
If you don't believe it is right one, then why do you believe it?

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

OK, OK, here I am!
If you don't believe it is right one, then why do you believe it?

That is a great question, and one that ought to be directed inward to anyone who believes he is right AND believes that other people are wrong, about supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual issues. I guess my fundamental problem is one of broadness and conflict. If you believe X, and I believe Y, and these do not conflict but are in fact complimentary, I see no problem with the potential -potential- truth of both simultaneously. I say potential because of the justification issue, yadda yadda yadda...No need to digress here.

But, If you believe X and I believe Y, and there are significant areas of conflict (and I think this second scenario more accurately represents the modern world of disparate religions), then, if someone is right, the other person MUST be wrong.

From your own perspective, it is easy: The other guy is obviously wrong. But, to the other guy, YOU ARE THE OTHER GUY...So who is really right?

Is it the oldest?
Is it the easiest to follow?
Is it the one with the most followers?
Is it the x? And you must solve for x?

I am not sure.

It is this ability to believe with all of your heart, but still recognize that you might be wrong, that displays BOTH the greatest faith and the greatest humility in the face of god's greatness. The inability to do this is the curse of the religious zealot. The word hubris is tossed around a lot, but its most appropriate use might be here: it is hubris to believe you and only you are right, when attempting to understand the infinite.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 9:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

From your own perspective, it is easy: The other guy is obviously wrong. But, to the other guy, YOU ARE THE OTHER GUY...So who is really right?

Is it the oldest?
Is it the easiest to follow?
Is it the one with the most followers?
Is it the x? And you must solve for x?

I have to be honest and say that I don't understand the last line.
But why are you asking the other three? Do you believe that that validates a Belief system?

leelover · 02-05-2007, 9:48 AM

[quote=leelover;568556]who lived a sinless life and allowed Himself to be sacrificed to pay for our sins. quote]

Where was he for puberty? He seems to have been represented as having facial hair, so it seems he went through puberty...Masturbation?

Still don't get the sin thing...I am not guilty of any sin I didn't commit.

The only way I could be born with sin is if If there exist such things as karma and reincarnation. Both arguably refuted (though, I tend to see the supposed resurection as an object lesson for reincarnation) by traditional interpretations of the bible.

Otherwise, the concept of original sin just seems the priesthood trying to scare the populace..."

Yes, I pulled this from another thread...

I really wanted to respond to it and I think this is a better place to do so.

You make several assumptions regarding Jesus here that I don't think are necessarily accurate.
#1: The Bible tells us that He was tempted, yet with out sin. That would mean without. Not "well everybody does that...", that is an assumption.
#2: Masturbation is a sin. Are YOU saying it is a sin?

If you want to address "Sin" as the Bible speaks of it you have to go to the Bible to define it and see how and why it applies to humans. Not a set of rules a man made orginization applies.

Exactly what is "the priesthood" trying to scare the populace into?

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

I have to be honest and say that I don't understand the last line.
But why are you asking the other three? Do you believe that that validates a Belief system?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I meant the lower-case x as merely a search for truth...You must solve for truth, using none of the organized religions' dogma. This is an unnecessarily subtle and complicated exercise, so please ignore it. Whenever I attempt to participate in a formal or informal argument or a non-competitive debate, I always have the ghost of one of my Philosophy profs, who taught me rhetoric and logic (formal-symbolic logic and informal reasoning) reading over my shoulder, so I tend to include those things he looked for in my position subconsciously...Sorry, my error.

Back to the issue:

What makes your X belief-system right and my Y belief-system wrong?

I was merely presenting some possible criteria. If you can accept the premise that two different conflictiong belief systems cannot both be right, then a system must be developed -at least internally- for determining which one is right. If the answer is yours is right because you believe it, then you can go nowhere with that; as I might then merely retort that no, mine is right because I believe in it.

So, what makes yours right and mine wrong?

leelover · 02-05-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

So, what makes yours right and mine wrong?

Isn't it obvious?
I was on the .org later than you last night, AND I have more posts! Respect Mah Autoriti-ah!

Sorry, I just had to do that...

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 10:25 AM

[quote=leelover;568836]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

who lived a sinless life and allowed Himself to be sacrificed to pay for our sins. quote]

Where was he for puberty? He seems to have been represented as having facial hair, so it seems he went through puberty...Masturbation?

Still don't get the sin thing...I am not guilty of any sin I didn't commit.

The only way I could be born with sin is if If there exist such things as karma and reincarnation. Both arguably refuted (though, I tend to see the supposed resurection as an object lesson for reincarnation) by traditional interpretations of the bible.

Otherwise, the concept of original sin just seems the priesthood trying to scare the populace..."

Yes, I pulled this from another thread...

I really wanted to respond to it and I think this is a better place to do so.

You make several assumptions regarding Jesus here that I don't think are necessarily accurate.
#1: The Bible tells us that He was tempted, yet with out sin. That would mean without. Not "well everybody does that...", that is an assumption.
#2: Masturbation is a sin. Are YOU saying it is a sin?

If you want to address "Sin" as the Bible speaks of it you have to go to the Bible to define it and see how and why it applies to humans. Not a set of rules a man made orginization applies.

Exactly what is "the priesthood" trying to scare the populace into?

I think the priesthood of the all but the last 500 years or so was working at population control in the literal sense. No spilling seed, fruitful and multiply, honor thy mother and father...

I remember George Carlin boiling the 10 commandments down to this:

1 Obey authority
2 Don't touch other people's stuff

It was funny as a stand-up routine, but really smacks of social control.

Look, before this goes any farther, you take the bible a certain way, and I do not see it that way, so we will never fundamentally reach a consensus. There is not a single person who OBJECTIVELY studies the bible and thinks it is completely factual, accurate or true. There is also not a single believer who doubts its truth. That means, to me anyway, that although there may be some history (that is a great book, by the way -the bible as history ) and some great lessons to be had, because there is no possible way to really know for sure how accurate anything is in the bible this far removed from its editing, culling from other sources, and authoring, why do some people keep returning to it as some AUTHORITY?

The first spiritual leaders of christianity were women.
The Christian holidays all have an analogue in the (earlier) pagan holidays.

These are 2 of the literally hundreds of issues that make up the contrived nature of any dogmatic adherence to a traditional form of christianity.

Nearly 2/3 of the material that could have gone into the bible didn't, and most of that stuff advocated not having a clergy and not needing even a book like the bible or churches, because those books and churches would become icons. And worship of icons was discouraged. The distinguishing features if christianity -beyond jesus, of course- were that one was supposed to come to god on his own, and one was unable to read any of the holy scriptures (they were not around for cristians, yet...Remember, it wasn't until later that the bible was assembled). Hmmm.

Again, I studied the bible and the texts of several other religions not as a member of the faithful (although my religious status is not what many might think), but as a student of history, philosophy and theology...I had to really suspend belief, and examine not just one text, but many, with an eye to historical fact, practice, and and constancy. The bible is not the end of the path, but is merely poorly edited michelin guide-book.

To answer you 2-points:

1-You cannot be "tempted" as matter of course, without having the thoughts...If those thoughts are impure (as they must be if sin is on the table) then he commited the sin of having impure thoughts, however brief they may have been.

2-Masturbation is certainly not a sin to me, but I remember saying a certain number of hail marys to atone for a rub and tug (at the voyeuristic expense of the little hottie across the airshaft and that first copy of hustler I saw...On a side note, I still get flashes of those early sexual-awakening catalysts in my mind's eye...Neat) so there is certainly the element of sin to the behavior. To grade, classify or order sin in any way smacks of human influence, not divine.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

Isn't it obvious?
I was on the .org later than you last night, AND I have more posts! Respect Mah Autoriti-ah!

Sorry, I just had to do that...

Indeed.

I was, and am, fairly sick

. So, if I ain't sleepin' today, I'll be stirring up bs on the 'org.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I meant the lower-case x as merely a search for truth...You must solve for truth, using none of the organized religions' dogma. This is an unnecessarily subtle and complicated exercise, so please ignore it. Whenever I attempt to participate in a formal or informal argument or a non-competitive debate, I always have the ghost of one of my Philosophy profs, who taught me rhetoric and logic (formal-symbolic logic and informal reasoning) reading over my shoulder, so I tend to include those things he looked for in my position subconsciously...Sorry, my error.

Thanks for the explanation

I agree that you cannot build a case for anything using specific beliefs from that belief system.
To wit: Suppose I say that "God's word" is true because it says it is true. If you don't accept that it is "God's Word" in the first place then my whole argument is built on a questionable foundation, undermining everything that I might say thereafter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Back to the issue:

What makes your X belief-system right and my Y belief-system wrong?

I was merely presenting some possible criteria. If you can accept the premise that two different conflictiong belief systems cannot both be right, then a system must be developed -at least internally- for determining which one is right. If the answer is yours is right because you believe it, then you can go nowhere with that; as I might then merely retort that no, mine is right because I believe in it.

So, what makes yours right and mine wrong?

I am accepting that you believe that the path put forth in the Bible (English translation, KJV for sake of discussion) is not the only way to know God (the Supreme Being, "Higher Power", Creator) and His plan for us. I disagree, and this is why.
I have studied the teachings of the Bible as a whole and as how they relate to my observations of my own self and the world (people and acts) I have been exposed to. While I am not perfect, or complete in this, I have seen plenty of evidence to "prove" to me that the concepts put forth in the Bible regarding sin, redemption, motive, etc, are valid. I have seen how the principles of living according to God's design, or rejecting it, work out in my life and the lives of those I observe. This has caused me to continue to look into the teachings of the Bible, and I don't see any negatives. The more I dig into it the more I see God's design for us, and the reason it is what it is.
Obviously a quick beginning...

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

Thanks for the explanation

I agree that you cannot build a case for anything using specific beliefs from that belief system.
To wit: Suppose I say that "God's word" is true because it says it is true. If you don't accept that it is "God's Word" in the first place then my whole argument is built on a questionable foundation, undermining everything that I might say thereafter.

I am accepting that you believe that the path put forth in the Bible (English translation, KJV for sake of discussion) is not the only way to know God (the Supreme Being, "Higher Power", Creator) and His plan for us. I disagree, and this is why.
I have studied the teachings of the Bible as a whole and as how they relate to my observations of my own self and the world (people and acts) I have been exposed to. While I am not perfect, or complete in this, I have seen plenty of evidence to "prove" to me that the concepts put forth in the Bible regarding sin, redemption, motive, etc, are valid. I have seen how the principles of living according to God's design, or rejecting it, work out in my life and the lives of those I observe. This has caused me to continue to look into the teachings of the Bible, and I don't see any negatives. The more I dig into it the more I see God's design for us, and the reason it is what it is.
Obviously a quick beginning...

I appreciate your candor. Let me call your attention to:

You said that it would be basing your beliefs on questionable foundations to say that you think god's word is true because it says god's word is true, if you don't believe it is god's word in the first place. But if you only believe in the bible, are you not using a belief in its truth to justify its truth?

Alright.

1-You must realize that, by only looking deeper into the bible to ascertain its truth you are pulling an ostrich, and ignoring potential truth in other religions.
2-You are basing your full belief on the assumption that it is actually god's word; and for that assumption there will never be "proof"(let us not digress into the proof is for facts, justification is for truth, now prove it to someone else, etc. issues here), only faith at best and opinion at the most probable.

Now, The fundamentalist Muslim or Jew has the same level of commitment (perhaps more for the muslim, as I don't see you blowing yourself and others up in the name of your faith) and faith as you say you do, and believe they are also just as right, after having done exactly the same kind of in-the-faith-study that you did.

Why did they come to the same conclusion, that their religion was right, that you did with yours?

Why is it that people are so personally and emotionally invested to believe in their path as the right one, even if it is contradicted by another path?

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 10:57 AM

So, Lee, in short, anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is wrong?

Hubris...Plain an simple hubris to believe that any one path, written by and interpreted by man up to and including fallable old you is the only path. Perhaps you need to be on the no-fly list

leelover · 02-05-2007, 11:04 AM

A-bear, you are missing my point!
I am not sticking my head in the sand, I am saying that I am paying attention to WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, and it proves out to be true in the real world. As far I am concerned that is the acid test.
If that is so, then it bears further study.
Do other works of faith do the same thing?
I don't believe so, but my knowledge is limited. If you have specific instances to address, I would like to see them.