Your opinion please

[Boogiebop]

Posted secondarily since it's not directly related to the topic, but related to something else said in the thread.

I too find it disconcerting when people say "All religions are basically the same."

At a distance, both people and religions look the same. People all have a head, two arms, two legs, a torso... religions all have a power they worship, generally have a personification of that power, have holidays (many closely shared), rituals, some kind of structure.

But when you get closer to both people and religions, they differentiate out. People have different genders, skin color, eye color, hair length, hair color, adornments, style of dress, languages, accents, tolerances for heat and cold, and so on. Religions have different closely held beliefs, different absurdities, different takes on life and on death, different rules they ask their followers to abide by, and so on.

While it is true that you can expect a specific set of things from any religion, that does not actually imply that all religions are the same.

Well, as I said, I believe that religion is metaphore, materialisation, systematisation or whatever have you, of moral. I reason that by the fact that in all main religions, major sins are similar: killing, stealing, adultery, etc, things that are generally considered amoral. That, of course, differs from religion to religion so Budhists cannot drink alcohol while Moslems cannot eat pork, etc, commandments that usually have some sort of basis in culture, geographical, economical, etc, situation from which the religion grew. But basically, being good in any major religion comes down to that set of rules that even atheists will find right.
Also, with globalisation and all, there is an urge to make peace among religions and make them all respect each other. Thinking that everyone but members of your religion (whichever it is, it's minority of global population) will go to hell for disbeleaving isn't acceptable in modern society, so from that need grew conclusion that God is one, and that various religions believe in him in different shapes. It's partly logical, partly ilogical, but it is practical and works. Just like deism works with modern science which allows scientists to be religious.

Those things are basically how I understand that "All religions are the same" assesment.

I think perhaps (and I'm certainly no expert in these things) that problem may be that you define yourself by your faith. Your personal life, your job, your hobbies, even your username. It all draws from the fact you're a Christian. My advice to you. One question you may have to ask is "without my faith, who am I?" which is certainly not a great point to start considering a question of this size.

Great observation. Any time you try to define it one category, be it religion, philosophical theory or a rock group you're fan of, you start missing on a lot of things. Life's much, much more complicated than that. I don't like to think of God as someone who created us mainly to praise him. I like to think that he created us to live our lives and enjoy them. And then, if we accept that God created everything, isn't talking about anything of this world actually talking about God, through talking about his creations? By that logic, my comic is as much about God than 4thalord's.

By that reasoning god made Moonie the Moon man. First floods and pillars of salt now this *shakes fist*

Seriously though, an astute observation, well said.

[4thalord]

..you won't get any saving from me right now.

this begs the question, there'll be saving later?

I doubt it.

[4thalord]

Haven't seen many atheistic points of view. I'll add my two cents, take it or leave it. I personally can not ascribe to any set of religious beliefs. I've tried religion - chose it on my own, in fact, as my parents are both non-religious - but ultimately found that religion in general, being a matter of faith, could never adequately answer any of my questions. I was raised to question anything and everything, human beings are inquisitive by nature, and it bothered me greatly that the church would tell me not to question, and just take things on faith. Even when there were answers, they seemed convenient, or contradictory. I didn't think it was unreasonable of me to think that if the church was the true path to salvation, it should be able to stand up to questioning. I've been told I've gone about it in the wrong way, and I even saw a few people in this thread suggest that it doesn't matter if the stories are true or not, all that matters is that you keep faith in your heart. But how can you keep faith when the foundation that faith is built on is flawed and unreliable? How can you say that the bible is a sacred text, then pick and choose the parts you're going to believe? And if it is only a bunch of stories meant to help you live better, well, then that's fine, but it kind of makes the rest of the trappings of Christianity pointless. If Christ was just a nice man who taught good life lessons, then the whole point of Christianity is defeated. (Fundamentalist Christians I know have made this same arguement.) The end result, for me, is an inability to believe. And honestly, I'd like to be able to believe in something, because I bet it's a whole lot more comforting, but belief is intrinsic; you can't chose to believe, you either do or you don't.

Two cents. I don't think I need to tell you to take it with a grain of salt.

This post is closer to what Im feeling right now than any other in this thread.

Thank you.

[Mercury Hat]

Religion was never a big part of my life, so I don't tend to dwell on theological matters. I'm just a strong agnostic: Mankind can't ever know definitely one way or the other if God exists, so why should I worry about it?

However, if I were to pick a religion--or at least believe a God of some form exists--I'm quite attracted to deism. Worked well for a few of the Founding Fathers, at least.

[Stinkywigfiddle]

I agree with what Nanda said.

[Nanda]

I agree with what Nanda said.

4thalord, I'm truly sorry for what's happened to you. It's hard enough facing a crisis of faith without it being brought upon by such awful circumstances.

[Rkolter]

I'd just like to make a counterpoint to Nanda's statement.

Religion does have all the answers. Those answers however, are rooted in, and based upon, the religion in question. It is not correct to say that religion did not offer you answers. Rather, you chose not to accept those answers. The questions a religion cannot answer, they aren't answering because they don't like what the answer would be. Rather, they aren't answering because within their framework, the answer makes no sense.

By definition, a religion has all the answers. They may not be answers that satisfy you. And if the answers religion gives no longer satisfy you, then you have to try to find the answers for yourself.

[KittyKatBlack]

I'd just like to make a counterpoint to Nanda's statement.

Religion does have all the answers. Those answers however, are rooted in, and based upon, the religion in question. It is not correct to say that religion did not offer you answers. Rather, you chose not to accept those answers. The questions a religion cannot answer, they aren't answering because they don't like what the answer would be. Rather, they aren't answering because within their framework, the answer makes no sense.

By definition, a religion has all the answers. They may not be answers that satisfy you. And if the answers religion gives no longer satisfy you, then you have to try to find the answers for yourself.

Damnit Kolter. I was getting into what you were saying and then I glanced over at your avatar, and the last set of "You have to try and find the answers yourself.... BOOM! Hehehe." fell into my head and made me laugh and now I feel horrible because this is a serious discussion.

[Nanda]

I'd just like to make a counterpoint to Nanda's statement.

Religion does have all the answers. Those answers however, are rooted in, and based upon, the religion in question. It is not correct to say that religion did not offer you answers. Rather, you chose not to accept those answers. The questions a religion cannot answer, they aren't answering because they don't like what the answer would be. Rather, they aren't answering because within their framework, the answer makes no sense.

By definition, a religion has all the answers. They may not be answers that satisfy you. And if the answers religion gives no longer satisfy you, then you have to try to find the answers for yourself.

Nowhere in my post did I say that religion didn't claim to have all the answers, or that the church didn't offer me answers. What I said was that it could never adequately answer my questions, implying that there were answers, but that they were not satisfactory to me, because they seemed either convenient, or contradictory, and that a lot of times I was told not to question, and just accept things on faith, which ultimately proved unacceptable to me.

[Rkolter]

I'd just like to make a counterpoint to Nanda's statement.

Religion does have all the answers. Those answers however, are rooted in, and based upon, the religion in question. It is not correct to say that religion did not offer you answers. Rather, you chose not to accept those answers. The questions a religion cannot answer, they aren't answering because they don't like what the answer would be. Rather, they aren't answering because within their framework, the answer makes no sense.

By definition, a religion has all the answers. They may not be answers that satisfy you. And if the answers religion gives no longer satisfy you, then you have to try to find the answers for yourself.

Nowhere in my post did I say that religion didn't claim to have all the answers, or that the church didn't offer me answers. What I said was that it could never adequately answer my questions, implying that there were answers, but that they were not satisfactory to me, because they seemed either convenient, or contradictory, and that a lot of times I was told not to question, and just accept things on faith, which ultimately proved unacceptable to me.

Nanda, I used your name instead of just quoting the text because the text was long and had already been previously quoted. You're right, you do not say that the church did not provide you answers. You said the church didn't provide you the answers you were looking for:

I was raised to question anything and everything, human beings are inquisitive by nature, and it bothered me greatly that the church would tell me not to question, and just take things on faith. Even when there were answers, they seemed convenient, or contradictory.

And I was just offering a counter-observation, that they seemed convenient or contradictory because to be accepted you must be willing to take things on faith. That you were not willing to do so does not mean they were providing the wrong answers. They were providing the only answers they could provide within the limits of the religion.

Nor does your unwillingness to take those answers on faith mean you are a bad person. I was clear on that too. Or thought I was. I wasn't attacking you. I was giving a different view of the problem.

[Glarryg]

A personal anecdote:

There was an associate pastor at my church named Father Mark. As you may know, the Catholic Church chooses Bible readings for Mass based on a three-year cycle, so priests have to sermonize on the same passages over and over. The week in question was about the famous multiplying of the loaves and fishes. Father Mark offered a different interpretation of this story. He theorized that perhaps everybody in the crowd of 10,000+ had brought food (makes sense if you're going to be following a guy you just met to who-knows-where), but that they were hiding their belongings from each other the whole time they followed Jesus. When it was time to eat, and Jesus took the meager offering and blessed it, what then happened was a change of heart rather than a conjuring of matter, and the people in the crowd started sharing their food until they realized that they all had taken with them more than they needed in the first place. There is little to no evidence in the text itself for or against this interpretation, but in my opinion that was a pretty interesting spin on a well-known story.

A few days later I told this story to a co-worker, who was considered among the department to be a devout Catholic (from way back in the "Mass in Latin" days). She basically scoffed at the idea, saying that it "limited God's power." That was a disappointing reaction to me, because I figure that a change of heart is much harder to accomplish than creating bread out of thin air (which, if you believe in God, is something you already know He can do. I mean, if He made the universe from nothing, how much more special is making bread? But I digress).

I guess my point is this: you can read the Bible, you can study the Bible, you can believe or not believe the Bible, but in the end I think the point of the Bible (and, moreso, Christianity) existing is ultimately to foster change for the better. And not just feeling beter, but more importantly doing better. If it doesn't do that for you, then, no, there's not much point to it. Other people find other ways of becoming better.

Glarryg

[Nanda]

Kolter: There wasn't any intended malice in my response, I was just trying to keep things matter-of-fact. I didn't think you were attacking me.

But again, I never said they were the "wrong" answers, either. Just not answers that I found in any way satisfying. It's a matter of personal choice and belief; it always was. I'm not saying the church is wrong, I'm just explaining why I, personally, can't ascribe to any religious beliefs. I would never say that any religion is wrong, because what the hell do I know? What the hell does anyone know?

[Rkolter]

Well good then. As long as you didn't think I was poking you with a sharp stick.

Dull sticks last longer.

[KittyKatBlack]

I'd just like to make a counterpoint to Nanda's statement.

Religion does have all the answers. Those answers however, are rooted in, and based upon, the religion in question. It is not correct to say that religion did not offer you answers. Rather, you chose not to accept those answers. The questions a religion cannot answer, they aren't answering because they don't like what the answer would be. Rather, they aren't answering because within their framework, the answer makes no sense.

By definition, a religion has all the answers. They may not be answers that satisfy you. And if the answers religion gives no longer satisfy you, then you have to try to find the answers for yourself.

Nowhere in my post did I say that religion didn't claim to have all the answers, or that the church didn't offer me answers. What I said was that it could never adequately answer my questions, implying that there were answers, but that they were not satisfactory to me, because they seemed either convenient, or contradictory, and that a lot of times I was told not to question, and just accept things on faith, which ultimately proved unacceptable to me.

I hate when people tell you not to question something. It just shows that they don't really know what they're talking about and are simply trying to mislead you, or are scared they might be wrong. And apparently this is done a lot in religion because, let's face it most of the stuff they're talking about is as far fetched as the idea aliens came down and created the human race. I mean the evidence for either is exactly the same. Nothing but speculation. I mean if one were to interperet the bible in that way, figuring in the fact that ancient people didn't know much about the universe and could have easily mistaken an extra-terrestrial as a god, it's not really as strange as it sounds. But I don't think that happened either. My point is that the bible may be about interpretation but you have to realize that back when this thing was made people didn't know shit about ANYTHING. There's this common practice in all religions to place a god in an area 'inaccessable' by man. Zeus was supposedly on top of a mountain that was impossible - at the time - for any man to climb and find out for himself. God originally started as being in the sky. The devil was underground. But once we started to fly and nothing was up there, it was like, 'Well, he's probably above the clouds'. Then we got into space and it changed to, 'Well, heaven is on a different plane of existance, so we can't see it.' Interpretation is all well and good, but I just find it way too convienent that the story is so flexable that when something is disproven (Dinosaurs, anyone?) that people can dismiss it as open to interpretation. There's seriously a limit on how far you can push something.

[McDuffies]

Well good then. As long as you didn't think I was poking you with a sharp stick.

Dull sticks last longer.

Reminds me of worn out pointing stick from Simpsons. "They still point, don't they?"

[Yeahduff]

A personal anecdote:

There was an associate pastor at my church named Father Mark. As you may know, the Catholic Church chooses Bible readings for Mass based on a three-year cycle, so priests have to sermonize on the same passages over and over. The week in question was about the famous multiplying of the loaves and fishes. Father Mark offered a different interpretation of this story. He theorized that perhaps everybody in the crowd of 10,000+ had brought food (makes sense if you're going to be following a guy you just met to who-knows-where), but that they were hiding their belongings from each other the whole time they followed Jesus. When it was time to eat, and Jesus took the meager offering and blessed it, what then happened was a change of heart rather than a conjuring of matter, and the people in the crowd started sharing their food until they realized that they all had taken with them more than they needed in the first place. There is little to no evidence in the text itself for or against this interpretation, but in my opinion that was a pretty interesting spin on a well-known story.

A few days later I told this story to a co-worker, who was considered among the department to be a devout Catholic (from way back in the "Mass in Latin" days). She basically scoffed at the idea, saying that it "limited God's power." That was a disappointing reaction to me, because I figure that a change of heart is much harder to accomplish than creating bread out of thin air (which, if you believe in God, is something you already know He can do. I mean, if He made the universe from nothing, how much more special is making bread? But I digress).

I guess my point is this: you can read the Bible, you can study the Bible, you can believe or not believe the Bible, but in the end I think the point of the Bible (and, moreso, Christianity) existing is ultimately to foster change for the better. And not just feeling beter, but more importantly doing better. If it doesn't do that for you, then, no, there's not much point to it. Other people find other ways of becoming better.

Glarryg

That makes sense. Catholics believe in transubstantiation: The bread and whine literally become the body and blood of Christ. Sure, it works fine as metaphor, but Catholics don't deal in metaphor. He's the son of god. He can feed ten thousand people without anyone's help. I'd say the priest was pretty radical for even suggesting that, though yeah, great sermon.

I hate when people tell you not to question something. It just shows that they don't really know what they're talking about and are simply trying to mislead you, or are scared they might be wrong. And apparently this is done a lot in religion because, let's face it most of the stuff they're talking about is as far fetched as the idea aliens came down and created the human race. I mean the evidence for either is exactly the same. Nothing but speculation. I mean if one were to interperet the bible in that way, figuring in the fact that ancient people didn't know much about the universe and could have easily mistaken an extra-terrestrial as a god, it's not really as strange as it sounds. But I don't think that happened either. My point is that the bible may be about interpretation but you have to realize that back when this thing was made people didn't know shit about ANYTHING. There's this common practice in all religions to place a god in an area 'inaccessable' by man. Zeus was supposedly on top of a mountain that was impossible - at the time - for any man to climb and find out for himself. God originally started as being in the sky. The devil was underground. But once we started to fly and nothing was up there, it was like, 'Well, he's probably above the clouds'. Then we got into space and it changed to, 'Well, heaven is on a different plane of existance, so we can't see it.' Interpretation is all well and good, but I just find it way too convienent that the story is so flexable that when something is disproven (Dinosaurs, anyone?) that people can dismiss it as open to interpretation. There's seriously a limit on how far you can push something.

Well, you have a point. But while tradition is far from infalible, a belief sustaining for two thousand years (six thousand, to be technical) is pretty impressive, and weighs more than a cobbled together idea involving aliens.

[Garasade]

Well, I try to discover the answers for myself, or rather I sheepishly expect an answer to materialize out of life's many travails. I can almost always justify anything that happens to me on religious grounds, although I sometimes flat out refuse to do so since it seems so convenient, just like the answers I receive from others (not to denigrate their offer of help, of that I am very grateful). It is like a certain person that I know that has a peculiar and eternally optimistic outlook; anything bad that occurred, was a cause celebre attributed to you know who that it wasn't something that could have been worse. I believe the Bible contains an anecdote where Jesus says along the lines that if people had the simplicity of trust and faith demonstrated in a child then there would be paradise on earth. Maybe we do not have to question so much as try to understand from what we already know...just a timid suggestion.

There are times that people tried to give me an answer, which did not satiate my inquisitive, however subdued, nature. That perfectly makes sense, that for them it is the best answer that they could give pertaining to something they themselves are not perfectly cognizant of...faith I think is a deeply personal thing, unique for everyone else, just like how someone has come to become aware of a religion in the first place. So their answers are merely something I take in my own search of something in the context that I can understand and appreciate. Catholicism is impossible for me to get my head around and I will never fully comprehend it until the day I die, but I am not disappointed nor discouraged by lack of answers or seeming lack of coherence to today's societal requirements or responsibilities. I merely use belief to actualize my often wayward outlook on life and that sometimes I am aware of its presence in my mind is all that is enough to satisfy my needs. For some the Bible is an important source of faith and literal interpretation of it is a cornerstone of their comprehension. For me the Bible is more a reference book abridging the vast history of my religion, along with valuable content in which I can discover some relevance to my personal travails and find some if not temporal comfort in.

Sorry for my rambling, but just like this thread, everyone has a unique opinion on the Bible and religions. I hope I just laid out what it means to me, not what it is. I am not a fervent religious person by any means, but I do believe there is a higher power, in the context of some religious denomination that I can most empathize.

[Guildmaster Van]

For lack of better words I believe in god, simply for the de facto reason that I believe in things that can't be measured or examined in any conventional sense of the word.

More specificly I could be accused of being a sophia worshipper.

When I look at the bible I see a lot of things I believe have come to pass. I also see a lot of things I believe to be man-made lies concocted by power hungry men creating a system to control human will. I take everything I see with a grain of salt, since the bible was written millennia ago by only god knows who. Coupled with my overwhelming desire to question and debate everything and anything I've never had a set opinion on religion and, much like my opinions on many things, my thoughts on it depend on the circumstances in which the question is asked.

It's sort of the reason why I read up on so much of the Christian offshoots, as well as look into neo-pagan religions (Not so much Wicca as into neo-Celtic druidry, since I always had an interest in early European peoples like the Celts)

I believe at the very least the bible is an effective philosophical tool. The bible presents a guide to what is and is not socially acceptable. Murder, adultery, and thievery for example all are mortal sins and, naturally, things that our society reject. Other things, like the condemning of homosexuality as sinfulness, can be taken with a grain of salt. The effect of the bible can be seen in our society, and religion itself can be seen as a necessity for societies to grow and evolve.

Religion creates order and structure, which in turn creates lawfulness and prosperity, which in turn creates a society in which democracy and liberalness can thrive and develop, which in turns creates a world that outlives its use for religion. Although our society is nearing the very end of this scale, we can still see how religion affects developing nations across the globe.

Of course, I'm just rambling, and given the opportunity could probably think something up to counter my own points.

[KittyKatBlack]

Well, you have a point. But while tradition is far from infalible, a belief sustaining for two thousand years (six thousand, to be technical) is pretty impressive, and weighs more than a cobbled together idea involving aliens.

Seeing as how the idea of aliens is only about as old as space travel itself (Which isn't that long at all compared to 6 thousand years) it's pretty easy to see why an idea like this doesn't have the same impact. Things that are started early on tend to snowball. But it's not like christianity is the only religion to survive that long. There are a ton of them that all have that kind of staying power and they are all different. Who's to say that they all didn't interact with the same alien, but their experiances with it were different? Again, I'm not proposing god is an alien, I'm just using it as an example of how interpretation can be used to create any meaning you want to hear.

On another note, I was having a discussion with a friend about a topic similar to this and I wanted to extend this part of that conversation to this topic. The main thing about religion that kinda makes me question it a lot is that it deals in absolutes. Regardless of the interpretation there are supposedly things that are the way they. In my opinion, there is no absolutes in our universe, or should I say, there is only two. Yes or No. On or off. 1 or 0. Black or White. Is or Is Not. The concept of this, often called boolien logic, is the only absolute in the universe. Everything exists in one of these two states. Everything in the universe can be described with a series of yes or no questions. A lot of them are required for complex things, but at it's core everything boils down to this base. Existance or Non Existance. Everything else is a combination of many things residing in various states of this to make a larger picture. The only constant in the universe is that everything has to be in one of these two states. There is no other option. Everything else, even scientific facts, are not 100% absolute. Everything in the universe can be changed simply by changing the state of one of it's components. We get 'facts' from observing things that will react the same way nearly every single time. But there is a chance something different could happen, even if that chance is 0.0(Insert a couple million 0's here)01%, it's still not 100%. Basicly to wrap this up, religion, or more specificly - Faith - deals in absolutes. It basicly tries to ignore the fact that the universe is a gamble, based on chance, and make it look like a sure thing. Science does similar things, admittedly, however Science at least makes educated observations of things before coming to a conclusion. I haven't seen this happen much in religion. People just believe because they are told to believe. They don't try to figure out why they should be believing. They just do. That is what Faith is.

I understand that most of these were based on the idea of teaching moral values, mixed with a way to control the masses. And back in the day these were written, they were very effective at both. But I personally no longer see the need to do things in this way, as we now have government laws in place of holy word, and education systems designed to instill the basic foundation of morality on our youth. (Though, admittedly this is faltering a bit as of late.) Putting the 'fear of god' into someone to do what you want them to do seems to be an outdated practice to me. But people will cling to things they once knew and I doubt religion will be going away any time soon.

I'm not trying to start a war here or anything and if I offended anyone then I will appologize ahead of time. I'm simply voicing a personal opinion, nothing more. I'm not trying to impose my thoughts on anyone else, just expressing them for you to think about.

[Terotrous]

In my opinion, there is no absolutes in our universe, or should I say, there is only two. Yes or No. On or off. 1 or 0. Black or White. Is or Is Not. The concept of this, often called boolien logic, is the only absolute in the universe.

Everything exists in one of two states. Everything in the universe can be described with a series of yes or no questions. A lot of them are required for complex things, but at it's core everything boils down to this base. Existance or Non Existance.

It may be too late at night, but these statements confuse me.
You seem to be saying that while nothing is absolute, everything can be expressed in absolute terms.