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

[Frumple]

I think this is a vital point that many here are missing: There is supposed to be a direct connection between God and each believer, so everyone has a sort of innate understanding of God's will.

I don't think many here are missing it, exactly. They just regularly interact with people for whom

The law as it is written is just a sort of guideline, to help people understand more clearly.

is believed to be untrue, and the law as written is considered absolute.

Honestly, most folks I've encountered (religious or otherwise) that have thought more than two seconds on the subject are well aware that there's a fair amount of folks out there that do consider the biblical laws to be guidelines and whatnot. It's just they're either broadly unconcerned about those sorts (some of the religious, most of the otherwise) or think they're going to burn in hell for not following the bible explicitly (many of the religious).

S'one of the things I think you lot that deal with a lot of the more moderate christians have trouble really wrapping your head around -- there are some very strident believers out there that would probably drag you into an alley and beat the shit out of you for saying the bible isn't strictly literal, if they thought they could get away with it. Even if you claimed to be christian yourself. And they're not in exactly small numbers in a lot of places in the world.

[origamiscienceguy]

The Law is what is required to get into heaven. Obviously, nobody can possibly keep all of it because of our sinful nature. That is why we need a savior.

[TD1]

Seems rather hedonistic. Well, not quite, but the basis of a law based around purely your own advancement seems self indulgent. You could even literally kill ten thousand people, so long as you keep your faith to the end. Parts of the Old Testament even would support it

[Helgoland]

-snip-

So basically what you're saying is that the areligious folks here argue against a type of Christianity that is almost completely absent here*? Then I'd really, really like them to stop doing that, since it's pointless and drowns out any relevant discussion relevant to the type of Christianity more common around here - the prophet stuff, for example.

*And really not that common around the world either. Hell, even the Vatican accepts historical criticism as a valid theological tool!

[TD1]

Most of the irreligious here argue against whatever point is put in front of them. "Hell is not a physical place." "Actually, it says... *quote* *quote* *quote*

The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.

[origamiscienceguy]

Seems rather hedonistic. Well, not quite, but the basis of a law based around purely your own advancement seems self indulgent. You could even literally kill ten thousand people, so long as you keep your faith to the end. Parts of the Old Testament even would support it

Are you asking if you accepted Christ, then killed 1000 people? Or the other way around?

[TD1]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

[origamiscienceguy]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.

[Frumple]

So basically what you're saying is that the areligious folks here argue against a type of Christianity that is almost completely absent here?

No? Just trying to help you understand why folks bring up the subjects like they do (regular exposure, to a fair degree), and why they don't talk terribly much about the more moderate stuff (not really all that much to talk about, heh). Then there's TD1's point.

You'll also note it's not exactly absent, here, and the position is being (and has been) brought up pretty regularly in conversation by believers of varying degrees, not just other folks. S'also not like there's no conversation to be had talking to believers that aren't literalists re: how they reconcile their beliefs with the other sets of interpretation.

*And really not that common around the world either. Hell, even the Vatican accepts historical criticism as a valid theological tool!

Vatican's a long way from the states (where a good chunk of the catholic population outright rejects the vatican's authority), and pretty distant from africa and south america, too, where most of the christian populations are, heh. It's really damn common, just less so in (parts of) europe.

Like I said, from what I understand it's worse in SA and Africa than it is in the US, and in the US there's a lot of places you keep your mouth shut if you're not at least willing to act like a biblical literalist. Fair number of areas in this world where claiming the bible's a guideline in any sense or criticizing it in any way is a good way to get yourself socially ostracized (in the "good luck finding a job" sense), at best.

[Helgoland]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all. We're not talking about a judicial system, remember.

(By the way: It's funny how the way you attack Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Protestant mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Catholic context.)

Most of the irreligious here argue against whatever point is put in front of them. "Hell is not a physical place." "Actually, it says... *quote* *quote* *quote*

The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.

I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc. Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.

Like I said, from what I understand it's worse in SA and Africa than it is in the US, and in the US there's a lot of places you keep your mouth shut if you're not at least willing to act like a biblical literalist. Fair number of areas in this world where claiming the bible's a guideline in any sense or criticizing it in any way is a good way to get yourself socially ostracized (in the "good luck finding a job" sense), at best.

Well sure, there's Catholic crazies too - but they're a different flavor of crazy. Also we don't really have that many South Americans here, and AFAIK Arx is the only African dude around...
Anyway: Maybe we should split this thread into one thread for inner-religious discussion and one for arguing against certain modes of bible interpretation. I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...

[TD1]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.

Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.

[TD1]

Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.

So...basically any argument ever, and every arguer ever. Including yourself.

I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc.

All well and dandy. I do the same. Given that all of that stems from the original source, that's what I go by. If someone has a differing belief, then I work with that. It tends to be, however, that Christians go with what is in the Bible because it's a source of authority, and respond best to arguments that come from it.

It's rather obvious that I don't think the Bible is an absolute authority, but it is HIGHLY influential for every Christian. Whether they think it's absolutely correct is irrelevant.

I will add that sola scriptura is the only approach that makes sense to me in a religious sense, but again, irrelevant.

[Rolan7]

Most of the irreligious here argue against whatever point is put in front of them. "Hell is not a physical place." "Actually, it says... *quote* *quote* *quote*

The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.

I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc. Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.

I don't understand what you mean.  I try to listen to what someone says their position is, then argue against that (if I have an argument to make).  What's the alternative, to read into their position?  IE, make assumptions?

And citing the Bible in an argument doesn't require the other side to be a biblical literalist.  Most Christians believe that the bible is important, even if it isn't perfect (heck, that's why it keeps getting re-"translated" and "corrected").

It's only pointless if the other person is rejecting all the problematic passages.  Which many Christians do, either actively or in a passive "Oh, there must be an explanation but I'm not a priest" way.  But arguing religion with such a person is fruitless.  Their faith is basically personal and nebulous.  At best it's a function of their community, making it folklore (like my own faith).  At worst it's defined by one of those millionaire television preachers.

kinda ninja'd

[Sheb]

Anyway: Maybe we should split this thread into one thread for inner-religious discussion and one for arguing against certain modes of bible interpretation. I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...

Is that the 24h, or another time?

[Frumple]

I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...

Folks would probably comment on it if it were brought up for comment, and from what I recall all of the similar recollections that have come up previously weren't buried. Be the change you want to see in the thread