All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[HillBilly]

I would probably joim the rebel forces against christianity!

Islam?

[Erenan]

2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.

Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?

It's a very nice way to look at things, Radiant, but Law is about imposing restriction, and has abstract moral founding to do that. And morality is very much about passion as well. So... what OSquinky said.

And for that matter, how can you be rational without beliefs? Logic relies on statements assumed to be true. So whenever a law is established, it's because someone believed that it was for the best, whether those beliefs were "religious" or otherwise.

I'm really wondering about this. If we can't involve our religious beliefs in politics, then essentially that means that religious folk can't be political. Does it makes sense to make religious people pretend that they aren't religious while they are engaging in politics? The logical thing for a person to do is to behave in a manner suggested by his or her beliefs. To say that religious beliefs are inherently less appropriate for politics is a philosophical assumption with which not everyone agrees. Anyway, if the majority of the population wants to involve religion in politics, then a democratic society would have to do that, right?

[Paper Carnival]

1.  I don't really know, but the world is getting less and less christian so I guess not

2.  Morally based, yeah. Not everyone is a Christian. But I don't think wars are caused because of religion, religion is always the excuse.

3.  Yes they do, but I can't decide if they should or shouldn't be. Some leaders are using religion as an excuse for their practises or to get people on their side (see above and below)

4.  Be neutral. I'd welcome a true Theocracy, but that's extremely hard to happen. Unfortunately, some people will always want to exploit religion, it can have a lot of profit for those in high places.

I'm kinda sick of seeing many other Christians destroying themselves by being too legalistic or close minded. I've met Christians who take the Bible literally (except the parts that are obviously symbolic) and yet are very down-to-earth, open minded and intelligent people - but sadly, I have to admit that most devoted Christians I met are very naive. I noticed that a lot of times when Christians are extreme about certain situations they just want to convince themselves about their beliefs that they doubt themselves but won't admit it (if that makes sense).

I'm also sick to have people tell me I have to back everything up with Scripture or else my opinions on certain issues don't stand. Okay smarty pants, next time you go to the super market check your Bible to find your shopping list.

I lost a great friend once because she got influenced by 7th day adventists and had to "follow what God told her" and ended up as a radical person who was on a rampage against Christmas trees / Santa Clause (because they're taking focus off the birth of the Savior) and against going to the movie theatre (I'm embarassed to type the reasons of why not go). That's when I became more liberal.

I went kinda off-topic there, it's some of my thoughts as a semi-liberal christian.

[LimpingFish]

Organized Religion means little, if anything, to me.

If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?

If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?

If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?

Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?

Oh, its His way. I see.

Its all smoke and mirrors.

God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...

"I don't like you, ergo, God doesn't like you. He told me so."

Why does God talk to so many assholes?

[Raggit]

I lost a great friend once because she got influenced by 7th day adventists...

That's ironic, 7th Day Adventism is the religion I just came out of!! Ã, (Thankfully)
Do you ever wonder if your friend is following what God says, or what Ellen G. White says?

I think the solution to allowing Christians to involve themselves in politics (as they should indeed be able to) is to always remember that the Bill of Rights promises religious freedom. Ã, So, the minute a Christian politician proposes questionable legislation based heavily on a Biblical/Christian doctrine, it can be stopped because it is endangering our freedom of religion.

[HillBilly]

Organized Religion means little, if anything, to me.

If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?

If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?

If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?

Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?

Oh, its His way. I see.

Its all smoke and mirrors.

God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...

"I don't like you, ergo, God doesn't like you. He told me so."

Why does God talk to so many assholes?

Because man created God in his picture.

[rharpe]

Where is rharpe?  I need an official answer from him!

After that I will post my answers! 

Nikolas, I knew you would bring me into this... here goes:

I'm a traditionalist. Many of the things I believe you may find out of the ordinary... or crazy in comparison to your liberal lifstyles. Not all of you are liberal, but from past posts, I can assume most are. Those of you that are not, you may disregard what I just said.

Religion to me is a life style, not a simple once a week thing. I fast on the days appointed by the Church, abstain from meat on fridays and other days required. I also say my morning prayers, evening prayers, and Rosary with my family. During Advent and Lent, I make small sacrifices to atone for the sins I have committed against God. For example, I try to give up: eating sweets, eating in between meals, watching TV, and eating too much during meals. I also try to do spiritual reading, pray more, and focus more on the passion, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There are many more other things I should be doing as well... for example: giving alms to the poor, visiting the sick, frequent the sacraments, pray for the deceased, and do spiritual meditations. Basically, I should stop focusing on what I want, and just do God's will. By no means is this an easy task! As a human being, I'm selfish, self-centered, and not worthy of Heaven and the Beatific Vision.

I follow the moral stature and doctrine of the Catholic Church because I was brought up in it, believe it, and practice it to the best of my ability. It makes all the sense in the world to me when I see liberals trying to find complete happiness in this world, when there is no such thing. I see all the struggles they have, and the misguidance the world gives them. They are confused, unhappy, alone, and rely on themselves and no one else. It's really sad that they try to separate their spiritual nature, (the soul,) from their human nature, (the body.) The soul being our "unseen" battery, and the rest being our physical clock-works.

For the record though, I'm not a saint. Neither are any of you. We are all given a certain amount of time on this Earth to prove to God that we love Him above all things. And that we are willing to sacrifice the things of the world we live in, for Him. He sacrificed so much for us... what will do in return for Him?

Catholic or not, our salvation is not set. We must strive to do God's will. Only God knows the outcome.

Politics deal with moralty as does religion... the two cannot be separated. Religion defines it, while the politics enforces it. Many centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church was the supreme authority of moral and doctrinal issues, making it political and religious at the same time.

If you would like to PM me regarding my beliefs, you may.

[Erenan]

If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?

You don't.

If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?

You don't.

If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?

Because people are not love.

Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?

It doesn't, actually. Trying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.

God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...

Isn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?

Why does God talk to so many assholes?

Maybe because they need his help not to be assholes? Anyway, just because some assholes say that God talks to them doesn't mean they are right. But that doesn't mean God doesn't talk to anyone.

[LimpingFish]

rharpe

Many of the things I believe you may find out of the ordinary... or crazy in comparison to your liberal lifstyles.

I don't find believing in God, or the 'reward' of eternity in paradise in exchange for living your life in the service of God, crazy.

I find listening to a person, or organization, TELL you what God wants because he has spoken to, or through them, and that your beliefs should corespond with those of said person  and/or organization, if you are to be considered "Christian", to be far harder to swallow.

If you believe The Bible to be the Word Of God, without question, then you may want to skip the next few lines.

The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed

The King James edition seems to be the most widely available, which makes me wonder how it differs from other versions. What did he add or omit? How can I take The Bible to be the Word of God when so many other voices speak on its pages?

Believing in and wanting to live your life in accordance with Gods wishes is a noble pursuit, and I wouldn't dare to try and sway people from where their faith lies, but I find it increasingly difficult to understand how so many "Christians" can hold so many differing and fragmented views on what God wants and what Christianity is and isn't.

Erenan

Trying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.

Tell that to the Catholic Church.

Erenan

Isn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?

So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?

Aren't they aware that God is capable of loving those whose actions displease him? Other christians, who spoke out against this action, are they more liberal, more understanding, closer to God?

Erenan

Anyway, just because some assholes say that God talks to them doesn't mean they are right. But that doesn't mean God doesn't talk to anyone.

So who do I believe? A guy on a street corner, a priest, a president? Do good christians get a special pair of glasses that lets them see who is speaking on Gods behalf and who is lying?

I just don't get it.

[Radiant]

2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.

Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?

I didn't say law was purely rational, I said it was about rationality. Law should not be passionate; it should be objective and fair. Passion is, almost by definition, neither objective nor fair. Belief is not objective in that many people perceive it differently; in that it is roughly the opposite of law. This is an easily misunderstood statement, but religion is not rational - it stems from feeling and intuition, rather than from deduction and logical analysis.

It's a very nice way to look at things, Radiant, but Law is about imposing restriction

I disagree. The point of law is not to impose restrictions. The point of law is to create a workable society. Restrictions are a means to that end, but never the goal. Some misguided moralities or ethical systems see restrictions as a goal, but that is flawed. I kind of agree with Nikolas's point.
A society can (and generally does) have multiple moralities. These need to live together in a practical fashion. Allowing one morality to push its point of view over the rest will, in the long term, not work, and lead to discontent and societal instability. The most obvious example of that are the morally-imposed prohibition laws, but it goes equally for old laws oppressing women, homosexuals, or certain races.
Laws based purely on morality are inevitably overturned as a society grows more civilized.

However, truth is narrow.  You can't be open about certain things - either they're true, or they are not.

Truth is by definition narrow, but it is seldom black-and-white. That's a tricky but important difference.

One shouldn't lump different religions into one entity, and say that religion as a whole is against the idea of democracy and progressive ideas.

Religion is certainly not opposed to democracy. However, judged by history, religion does have a strong tendency towards conservatism rather than being progressive.

And for that matter, how can you be rational without beliefs? Logic relies on statements assumed to be true.

Logic relies on the least possible number of assumptions, as stated by Occam and Descartes. The rational man can certainly believe in God; that does not imply he has to believe what televangelists infer from their interpretation of a translation of parts of the bible.

I'm really wondering about this. If we can't involve our religious beliefs in politics, then essentially that means that religious folk can't be political.

Exactly. Separation of church and state. If you think about the core issues of both, you'll see that the goals of a church and of a state are wholly different. In particular, it is crucial to a state (but not a church) to pay attention to groups outside of it, and differently thinking groups within.

To say that religious beliefs are inherently less appropriate for politics is a philosophical assumption with which not everyone agrees. Anyway, if the majority of the population wants to involve religion in politics, then a democratic society would have to do that, right?

No, wrong. True democracy does not imply that the majority gets to assert their ways over the minority. The point of democracy is that minorities have rights and can be heard (incidentally, this once more illustrates the fallacy of a two-party system). Politics is about discussing and compromising and working out a solution for all involved parties, and would never work if everything was simply put to a majority vote.

So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?

Anyone making death threats for whatever reason has entirely missed the point of true Christianity. Love thy neighbor. Judge not lest ye be judged. Do not unto others. It's really not that hard if you think about it. True religion is love, not hatred. Harmony, not threats.

[Erenan]

The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed

False. Modern translations of the Bible, especially the New Testament, are made mostly from documents dated from long before King James showed up on the scene. In fact, we have manuscripts dated from 200 A.D., and not only that, but the manuscripts we have are all similar enough (and numerous enough) that though there are minor scribal errors, we can get past them. With our present resources, we have very little reason to doubt that we have access to the text as it was originally conceived or very nearly.

Believing in and wanting to live your life in accordance with Gods wishes is a noble pursuit, and I wouldn't dare to try and sway people from where their faith lies, but I find it increasingly difficult to understand how so many "Christians" can hold so many differing and fragmented views on what God wants and what Christianity is and isn't.

Because it's a complicated subject matter. It's natural that people will disagree. People disagree about lots of historical things.

Trying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.

Tell that to the Catholic Church.

Maybe I should. By the logic that evidence for God's existence is bad for faith, we ought to pray for God to remove all evidence for his existence, all reason for believing in him. But then it would be completely arbitrary to believe in him as opposed to embracing atheism or agnosticism. Faith isn't believing in something for no reason. It's more about acting in such a way that suggests that you actually believe what you believe.

Isn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?

So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?

Those people aren't God. They don't even represent God. Are their actions a reflection on the God they claim to serve? Of course not. Sometimes people are stupid.

Other christians, who spoke out against this action, are they more liberal, more understanding, closer to God?

It's very possible. But I doubt closeness to God could be determined solely on the evidence of one issue. Political stance has little bearing on that matter, in my opinion.

So who do I believe? A guy on a street corner, a priest, a president? Do good christians get a special pair of glasses that lets them see who is speaking on Gods behalf and who is lying?

No, of course not. But Christianity isn't about simply taking the word of someone who claims to hear God's voice. All we can do is look at the source and use our own brain to try to figure it out for ourselves.

[Raggit]

To the believing Christians who are currently involved in this, I want to ask some direct questions.  I'm not trying to set you up or corner you, I just am wondering:

As a Christian, how do you think God feels about politics?  Does God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings? 
When you accept Christ, does he try to modify your political and social beliefs?

[LimpingFish]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620&q=who+wrote+the+bible

Slightly off topic...

I don't agree with every conclusion Dr. Beckford reachs, but the program raises some interesting arguments.

[RickJ]

Hi Raggit,

IMHO, If you reduce Christianity down to it's essence, Jesus pretty much said that we should be kind, charitable, forgiving, and just in our dealings with other people, that we should obey the law and pay our taxes, and that we should thank God for our blessings.      I don't think he was much more specific than that.

You may find some of Father George Coyne's lectures about cosmology etc interesting an perhaps conforting.  I grew up near Pittsburgh Pensylvania where it's mostly Catholic mill workers and coal miners.  The people around there would all claim to be Christians but you would find them nothing like what you have described.  For the most part they are a very practical lot and don't abide by any nonsense.  When I was 4 years old my father was on strike and not working.  A new priest came by to visit and told my father that God wanted him to have more children.   My father explained that it was hard enough to get by with twol, especially being out of work the way he was.  The priest told him it matter and that God wanted him to have more children.   My father got upset and told the priest that when God put food on the table and helped feed the kids he would think about having more and then told the priest to leave. 

Take a look at my comments in the "Paranormal" thread on page #4.

Hope this is helpful to you in some way.


Cheers.

[Helm]

Logic relies on the least possible number of assumptions, as stated by Occam and Descartes.

The least possible amount of epistemological assumptions has always been, and will always be: None. Good luck with that. Anything you hold to be correct and enduringly reliable and possible on top of that, is the subject of some sort of faith. Faith in causality, faith in gods... we're not talking strictly different things here. However much of this goes outside the scope of the thread. Excuse.

[rharpe]

As a Christian, how do you think God feels about politics?

God knows what He wants, it is our job to do His will and govern ourselves based on His laws He has set for us.

Does God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings?

Yes. He wouldn't teach us to follow His example if He didn't want us to follow Him.

When you accept Christ, does he try to modify your political and social beliefs?

God sends grace to us to do His will, whether we accept it or not, that's entirely up to our free will He gave us.

[Tiki]

I don't find believing in God, or the 'reward' of eternity in paradise in exchange for living your life in the service of God, crazy.

How can it be a reward when you don't earn it?  Rather, it's a gift.

The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed

Completely false.  In the Old Testament's case, scribes would copy the original manuscripts letter by letter, not even word by word.  After completing each copy, they would go over and count how many times each letter appeared, and then count the ones of the original to ensure they matched.  If there were three or more mistakes, the copy was burned.  These scribes took their jobs very seriously.  Also, there are so many thousands of copies of the Old Testament that they can easily be compared to eachother.  Any changes would be quite evident.

As for the New Testament, any book that appears in it had to be written before 100AD.  This ensured that there would be some witnesses to the original events still alive to verify its information.  There are 6000+ copies of the New Testament available, some from as early as 90AD.  Compare that to Plato's work, of which there are 7 copies made 1,000 years after the original.

There are still copies being found today, and they still match up with what the current Bible says.  If "the Kings" had been changing the Bible as they pleased wouldn't they 1) Contradict the Bibles found in other parts of the world and 2) Contradict more recent unearthings of scrolls?

[Raggit]

Does God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings?

Ã, 
Yes. He wouldn't teach us to follow His example if He didn't want us to follow Him.

But did he ever actually say that we should form government laws based on the Bible?  All the years I spent as a Christian, I never saw anywhere in the Bible that Jesus discussed politics, or said that laws should be made from his teachings.  I always thought they were to be followed personally.

[rharpe]

But did he ever actually say that we should form government laws based on the Bible?

You're right. Our Lord never did say, "...form government laws based on the Bible." But He did say, "If any man will come after me, let him renounce himself,and take up his cross and follow me." 

All the years I spent as a Christian, I never saw anywhere in the Bible that Jesus discussed politics, or said that laws should be made from his teachings.  I always thought they were to be followed personally.

What do you mean? Are you saying that Christ didn't want us to imitate His example... note the quote above. What do you mean when you say, "follow personally?"

[MarVelo]

Those are just liberal lies from Godless "scientists!!!!" Ã, 

liberal lies

If the liberals are lying so much, then what the conservatives doing?