Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[redwallzyl]

i don't think you necessarily need to believe that Jesus is literately god actually historically speaking. i their was a vary pervasive heresy's that contested the point gaining huge followings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

[Orange Wizard]

Jesus never declared himself to be God, AFAIK. And it took a while for him to admit to being the Messiah, as well.

He did say that in order to be saved, one must repent of their sins and trust that they will be forgiven through Jesus' sacrifice. Believing Christ to be God (the son thereof notwithstanding) doesn't really come in to it.

[TD1]

Christian Methodist. Willing to answer questions, debate, quote the Bible as my entire statement on a point, be flamed, etc.

Question: Is Methodism strong in Africa? It's strong in my mum's hometown, and she herself was a Methodist until she married my dad.

Also, speaking of my mum in a religious context, I just there now recalled this. Funny what your mind drags up, eh? I was in the car talking to her about Harry Potter (My favourite at the time- I was may 11/12) and asked her if magic was possible. She said no. To which, after a moment, I replied something along the lines of "But...if God made the world, isn't that magic? And all Jesus' miracles?" another no, because apparently to God it's not magic, and therefore it's not magic.

Anyway, to tie it into discussion, why can't miracles and such be counted as magic?

[Helgoland]

Because magic is something you do yourself; the miracles etc are divine, done by God, not you. IIRC there's a bit in the bible where Moses acts as if he was doing a certain miracle and is later denied entry into the Holy Land for this.

[TD1]

Magic isn't limited by it being something you can do. Were there only one magician in the universe (For lack of a better term, let's call the One "God.") his acts would still be as a result of magic.

[Arx]

I don't know about Central Africa and up, but it's a fairly major part of the general church down here.

As far as magic: God doing something is sort-of distinct. It depends on how you define magic, really; so in the OT, it would be mostly calling on spirits and such, so the distinction is that God is more powerful and more...directly affiliated than a spirit. You'd have to do something to persuade the spirit to help you, like cut yourself or sacrifice a child. God, on the other hand, would help you out provided you did as instructed.

If you take magic as being like in most recent fantasy, then the distinction is that magic is a blind force channeled by the caster, whereas God is thinking and may or may not help you depending.

The distinction is much blurrier if you think about in terms of the OT. Incidentally, I don't rule magic out as existing; the Bible doesn't contradict it and implies it a few times.

[TD1]

What if magic exists, and all the miracles were all done by individuals harnessing this power that the naive worshipped. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. The religion grows from the odd parlour act, distorted retellings, and the occasional actual "miracle" or magical event.

To be quite frank, an impersonal force that can be channelled by one person out of a billion seems much more likely to me than the Abrhamic God.

[4maskwolf]

To be quite frank, an impersonal force that can be channelled by one person out of a billion seems much more likely to me than the Abrhamic God.

I'm kind of curious what is leading you to draw this conclusion, they seem equally likely to me when looking at it that way.

[Orange Wizard]

One's specific, one's general. If I roll a dice, it's more likely to come up with an odd number than exactly five.

[TD1]

Because an impersonal force avoids many problems as seen with the Abrahamic God. All good? Evil. All powerful? Contradictory. Transcendent? Convenient. Ineffable? Ridiculous.

It's more likely simply because it gets rid of much of the dogma and, in the case of the older religions, mis translations/tellings of the tale. Also the fact that many Biblical assumptions based off the faith have been diproven by science over the years, whereas an impersonal force is at least conceivable scientifically speaking.

And yea, what Orange said as well. Call it a "blanket belief."

Not that I believe it in the least, though
Just think that, were we to compare, it stands the better chance of being correct.

[Helgoland]

One's specific, one's general. If I roll a dice, it's more likely to come up with an odd number than exactly five.

Eh, probability doesn't really work like that in the cases at hand - Hume's arguments about induction apply to probabilities as well. Just ask youself: How would that probablility even be defined? 'Probability' here is just a shorthand for a false kind of argument.

@Dwarfy: Why would there be no more miracles today, then? And once you fix this hole, your construct becomes just as 'unlikely' as the Abrahamitic God...

[penguinofhonor]

.

[4maskwolf]

These arguments are like saying the normal color of the sky is equally likely to be green as it is to be plaid, because plaid is more complex. The reality is there's a 0% chance that it's either.

But in the case of the sky you have something that you can see with your own eyes.  We don't actually have a way of proving or disproving the existance of a God or gods as far as I know, it's a matter of personal belief

[TD1]

Though, arguably, that it's a case for personal belief does make it more than exceedingly unlikely. As for no miracles today, Helgo, why there are many magicians out there! Who's to say it's all a show? 

[Orange Wizard]

Spoiler: missing_the_point.jpg (click to show/hide)