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

[Strongpoint]

I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.

Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.

I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion.  They are insane.

If it is literal voices in the head then yes, this person is insane.

But there are different types of "Gold told me to". It includes certain interpretations of holy texts or following orders of prophets\leaders.

Please don't tell me that everyone who preach that LGBT people are abominations who should be killed are merely insane. Also, don't tell me the same about Muslims who call for murder for (real or imaginary) insulting of Muhammad.

[jipehog]

Religion typically espouse to a set of beliefs that promote good actions and behaviors[1], but that begs the question is 'good' itself good. Through out history often the origin of some the most horrible things were done on behalf of what some people sincerely took to be good. There also easy  "trolley problem loopholes" i.e. though shall not kill except when that when you believe that modest killing we prevent far greater killing.

[Strongpoint]

Religion typically espouse to a set of beliefs that promote good actions and behaviors

Not really. At its core, religion is a belief in mighty supernatural being(s) who must be obeyed and appeased for rewards. Good actions and behaviors are not required. Or rather good = following orders of God(s) (read clergy)

[jipehog]

In my view the supernatural is just the window dressing for a stories which aims to guide us on our journey through life, which is to find ourselves, your place in the world, and our happiness. These stories comes in different forms and mediums but I hope you'd agree that whether you read about gods or superheroes the most important things isn't if they can shoot fireballs from their eyes but their ability to help us see and think about the world, others and ourselves and shape our morals.

Obviously no single religion, nor religions as whole hold monopoly on wisdom[1]. I think there are medium that either better at exploring different philosophies about life or had more impact in doing (even games). However, I would argue in favor of traditions, because some things in life are like learning to ride a bicycle, it can't be explain only experienced. For example, spending holidays with your family is something that universally young people love to hate but generally they would understand its value until much later in life.

[1] which can be outdated/flawed, it is best to recall the conditions in which these views were shaped, just as you would when reading any other story from a different time/culture.

edited.

[Strongpoint]

And I see it in a very different way. Religions are influenced by common wisdom, absorb some of it, and grow with it but they are never the source of knowledge of morals.

[McTraveller]

At its core, religion is a belief in mighty supernatural being(s) who must be obeyed and appeased for rewards. Good actions and behaviors are not required. Or rather good = following orders of God(s) (read clergy)

I'm going to disagree on several fronts.

First, Religion doesn't have to be supernatural at all - many people are more religious about their sports team or social cause than about any kind of supernatural.  That is, the more broad definition "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."  So supernatural religion is a subset of all religion.

Second, there are many supernatural religions that don't have a concept of appeasement or reward. A large subset of Christian denominations, for instance, are revolutionary in that "the good news" is that your standing with God is not dependent on your behavior.  It also contested the old views of "something bad happened to you, you must have displeased God."  There are other religions, of the more mysticism flavor, that are all about harmony, not about appeasement or "reward."

Short story: over-general statements are over-general. Including this one 

[Strongpoint]

First, Religion doesn't have to be supernatural at all - many people are more religious about their sports team or social cause than about any kind of supernatural.  That is, the more broad definition "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."  So supernatural religion is a subset of all religion.

It is not a common definition of the word religion. What you describe is being devoted to something, not a religion. Few will say that freedom of religion refers to the right to cheer for a particular sports team.

A large subset of Christian denominations, for instance, are revolutionary in that "the good news" is that your standing with God is not dependent on your behavior. 

Is this why Christ is the Lord and the only way to be saved is through him? Yes, those certain denominations say clearly it is irrelevant how much you sin as long as you belong to their church. (aka do as they say). If anything, they are more direct that the morality of your actions is unimportant, licking the Lord's ass is.

There are other religions, of the more mysticism flavor, that are all about harmony, not about appeasement or "reward."

Buddism and similar practices are indeed somewhat different but the concept of karma is all about reward and there are still supernatural beings.

[McTraveller]

Is this why Christ is the Lord and the only way to be saved is through him? Yes, those certain denominations say clearly it is irrelevant how much you sin as long as you belong to their church. (aka do as they say). If anything, they are more direct that the morality of your actions is unimportant, licking the Lord's ass is.

I'm sorry this has been your experience with Christianity.  Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've been in circles that don't claim that this exact church is the only way, that it really is Christ that's the only way, and we do our best to understand what that way is.

I'd argue that "licking the Lord's ass" is totally against some of the gospels anyway - "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve."  Yeah there's some personal purity stuff in there - but it's about "don't put yourself first, you're not God" rather than "you will be damned if you listen to guitar music!", but so much of the New Testament is about "don't fall into legalism, please!" I honestly don't know how so many people fall into that trap, other than it's "easier"?

[Telgin]

I'd say you probably have been fortunate, but as always I can only speak from anecdotes about how Christianity usually works in the Bible Belt.  From the point of view of the Pentecostal Holiness crowd, anyway.  I think they're close to the most extreme on this view and look at most other denominations as a bunch of misguided wannabes at best and a bunch of dangerous people who are going to get a lot of people sent to Hell at worst.

People definitely get very bent out of shape over the legalism here, and being "holier than thou" is a real problem.  I can't even say I blame some people for thinking like that when they believe the slightest unforgiven transgression will lead to eternal torment in fire.  That's the kind of stuff that leads to people saying that drinking is a sin despite Jesus literally turning water into wine in the Bible, since drunkenness is a sin so you might as well not even take the risk.  Or wearing jewelry, since that's vanity.  Or men having long hair, because "god made man and woman separate" or whatever the justification is.  Or going to Walmart on Sunday and buying a bottle of Mountain Dew, since that's desecrating the sabbath day.

So, you know, you do exactly what the Bible says, and take zero chances, because literally nothing is worth eternal torment in fire.

Except, of course, even then nobody can really agree on what's correct.  Thankfully most people do still ignore large parts of the old testament, even the Pentecostals, but to be honest I don't know what their theological justification for that is.  Obviously modern people are squeamish about a lot of it, and doing something like murdering a person because they're gay or worked on Sunday is also illegal, but I actually haven't met anyone saying that we should still do it because the Bible says so.

Anyway, I think one reason people fall into the legalism camp and trying to be "holier than thou" is because they want to be part of an exclusive club.  It's part of human nature.  They want to be better than their neighbors or competitors.  They know the true way.

[Maximum Spin]

The Holiness movement is deeply, deeply heretical.
Their fundamental conceit that underlies the movement (started in Methodism but adopted by other Holiness denominations) is that it's possible for a human being to be so faithful that that human being no longer has any sin at all, not even temptations.
This is fundamentally opposed to the actual Biblical text, and to essentially all other denominations. Also, the fact that it's obviously impossible seems to make them extremely insecure about whether they're Holy Enough.

[Strongpoint]

I'd argue that "licking the Lord's ass" is totally against some of the gospels anyway - "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve."

I sometimes wonder what kind of religion could be formed if using only the Gospels, discarding old Jewish laws and stories,  Paul's ideas of how to run Church\worship God, and Book of Revelations (oh that thing...)

But we have no such religion. You can't quote Jesus and say that it is what Christianity teaches as a religion. It doesn't. Not only there are more different quotes of Jesus, there is also the rest of the Bible, Sacred Tradition (yes I know that it is irrelevant for "Sola Scriptura" Protestants but those are a minority of Christians), customs and superstitions (often incorporated from Pagan Religions), etc.

[jipehog]

People definitely get very bent out of shape over the legalism here, and being "holier than thou" is a real problem.  I can't even say I blame some people for thinking like that when they believe the slightest unforgiven transgression will lead to eternal torment in fire.

Silence commie bastard!  /s

There are always people like that e.g. many green activist have replaced biblical ideas of purity with body purity with natural diets, or have extreme ideas about global warming and make life hell on earth for anyone who commit slightest transgression in their eyes.

[Schmaven]

There are always people like that e.g. many green activist have replaced biblical ideas of purity with body purity with natural diets, or have extreme ideas about global warming and make life hell on earth for anyone who commit slightest transgression in their eyes.

The new green religion is a funny one.  They claim to be following the science, and yet ignore observations, logic and reason.  Many of their goals, if actually enacted, would result in much more environmental destruction than otherwise.  It's a very logically inconsistent bunch of views.  That wouldn't be so bad if they would keep to themselves, but they also seem to have a hard bent toward activism (ie. vandalism), that only seems to be getting more violent.

Based on them, I can see how religion is viewed in the minds of the non-religious.  Not only do I fail to see any logic in their views, but I see much better ways to accomplish their stated goals than anything they propose be done.  Much in the same way I suppose people see so much logical inconsistency in the Abrahamic religions, and also, very effective ways to be a good person based on modern psychology and so forth.  Additionally, there have been so many wars fought in the name of religion, the inquisition, etc.

Very interesting parallel there.

[Frumple]

I sometimes wonder what kind of religion could be formed if using only the Gospels, discarding old Jewish laws and stories,  Paul's ideas of how to run Church\worship God, and Book of Revelations (oh that thing...)

You're basically talking about something built off the Jefferson Bible, or something of similar intent. There's definitely not much of anything of significant note organized like that, but there's been the occasional effort at it over the centuries.

I think a lot of the problem with efforts like that is that once you've done that project you're basically just left with "Don't be an asshole", which... doesn't need a special religious figure to anchor it, y'know? It's just some dude saying be good to one another. From there it either regresses back into ritualized junk or discards the spiritual aspect more or less entirely.

[Telgin]

Not to mention that didn't Jesus say he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it?  That would imply that the old testament contents weren't intended to be ignored.

One could argue that some or maybe even much of it was intended to only apply to Jews, but I'm not sure how much theological traction that really has.