Simtropolis Religion Thread

[jmsepe 2,038]

First off I respect everyone's belief here in this forum. There is no definite truth when it comes to religion and the existence of a supreme being and there is no way concrete way in which both can be proven as such they are called beliefs.

 

For me, I reject the concept of religion. Religion is a unified system of doctrines and principles created by men who deemed themselves god's prophets and messengers. Religion is nothing but man made creation that is modified by differences in culture and necessities as such even Christianity alone is divided to different smaller divisions. I am no atheist though, I do believe in the existence of a supreme being but for me, religion is not the right way to interpret god. Religion is like putting God in a box, putting limits and creating laws. 

 

For me, God is too broad to be understood by simple beings like us, the only way we can understand his persona is to communicate and experience god himself. Take it this way, it's like buying a Tim Horton coffee (since I haven't tasted this one yet). No matter how much I described it to you, you will never know how it really tastes until you drink it yourself. In the same way, people who never had an encounter with god will never understand his rational. That is why I prefer individual perception of god than unified one called religion. It's not about being religious but being godly. 

 

I am not bashing any religion and I'm sorry for those who have been offended but take it this way. Why does Islam allow multiple marriage while Christianity does not? Why is it that cow is sacred for the Hindu and not for Islam and Christianity? Why is it that the issue on LGBT god Christianity divided? Why are there many divisions in Christianity alone: Seventh-day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Pentecostals, Baptists. and the list goes on? Because we all have different understanding of god and it only proves that He does exist but then again since all of us have different perception of him, I think it is only proper to respect each other and focus more on god himself. In this way, god becomes a little bit more of a personal issue and relationship than a social one. 

 

I hope I offended none.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@jmsepe: You really sound like a Wiccan if you will forgive me for laying a category on you.  The concept of the creator stems from the idea that something had to cause the Big Bang.  It has all been cause and effect since, so I rather fancy Zenna Henderson's stories of the People and the Presence or First Cause. 

 

In any case, organized religion with a hierarchy of priests, or even an unorganized religion such as Islam which really has no priests except for those who jump themselves up through false self-aggrandizement all strike me as human inventions. 

 

Voltaire was right: "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to create Him".  Homo Sapiens isn't sapiens enough to go it alone so invents a superior being to blame things on.

[jmsepe 2,038]

You have quite a good point there @A Nonny Moose but you yourself have said that it is all a matter of faith. As what I have said the perception of god varies in different person, some people have seen it as mythical and non-logical while others feel sincerity and passion in its existence. At the end of the day, however, it is too pointless to argue something we do not have evidence on. What we can only do is to trust on what we have created truth in ourselves. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The main problem is the credulity of ancient and not so ancient people who believe others who claim some miraculous revelation.  Probably just an internal parasite producing hallucinogens.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

[jmsepe 2,038]

Hahaha, I just love this thread.

 

It's not easy to grow up in a social strata where everybody shoves in religious stuff in you as if it is the only absolute truth that exist. Religion or so they call spirituality is a matter of a choice, choice to believe, choice not to believe and choice to be apathetic. One has no right to force other people to believe on what he assumes as correct and true. 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Hahaha, I just love this thread.

 

It's not easy to grow up in a social strata where everybody shoves in religious stuff in you as if it is the only absolute truth that exist. Religion or so they call spirituality is a matter of a choice, choice to believe, choice not to believe and choice to be apathetic. One has no right to force other people to believe on what he assumes as correct and true. 

 

That's the problem. People that are into a religion have mostly inherited it from their parents, there has been no choice there.

[jmsepe 2,038]

 

Hahaha, I just love this thread.

 

It's not easy to grow up in a social strata where everybody shoves in religious stuff in you as if it is the only absolute truth that exist. Religion or so they call spirituality is a matter of a choice, choice to believe, choice not to believe and choice to be apathetic. One has no right to force other people to believe on what he assumes as correct and true. 

 

That's the problem. People that are into a religion have mostly inherited it from their parents, there has been no choice there.

 

 

Exactly and those who oppose such traditional mindset ends up being the evil one. How can that possibly be fair? People are given their own intellect and will to decide for themselves what they think is appropriate and right. Parents are in no position to force their children to believe in whatever fantasies they have. This mindset of passing the baton has become one the clear valid reasons of why the generation today are having a hard time coping up with society and rebellion is rampant because they have become too fixated on choosing which sides to believe and in the end, committing more compromises. Children should be given the chance to craft their own future and identity. 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

And...

 

Most religious people claim they found god, but instead they have been given one... and if it had not been the case they certainly wouldn't have needed one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Many people find comfort in some belief that solves the unknowable.  The ones I find objectionable are the ones who try to bring you to their faith by committing an ultimate sin.  Any good theologian will tell you that no one can know the mind of God, yet people prance around insisting that they've been 'saved'.  This idea of "I've been saved" is more than mildly heretical, it is the sin of presumption, which is deadlier for believers than any of the seven deadly sins.

 

If she had said she was 'saved' (in a state of grace), the tribunal would have burned Joan of Arc to a crisp the same day.  Instead she said, "If I am in a state of grace, I pray God will keep me there.  If I am not in a state of grace, I pray God will place me there."  Confounded Bishop Cauchon and put off her execution for weeks.

[APSMS 1,892]

^^^Under the Catholic tradition, that is. I make no claim to know God's present plan for me, aside from the specifics I already have access to (namely, the Bible).

on that same note, there is no worse sin. All sin is deserving of death, and therefore the smallest of false testimony is worthy of condemnation. The seven deadly sins are appropriately named, but not because they happen to be deadlier than any others. They are rather much harder to repent from when entrenched in them.

 

All sin, if that is what you choose to call it (I do, as a Christian), is worthy of death, but some sins (e.g. adultery, homosexuality) are harder to repent from than others, like, say stealing (of course, this depends on the person, and is in no way meant to be condemning or judgmental. God commands Christians to judge other Christians, but not the unbelievers; he's saved them for himself). Presumption, primarily as a condemnable heresy, is a Catholic doctrine. I presume nothing as regards the state of grace that I am in. I do know that the Bible teaches that grace is the basis of Christian salvation and that I can do nothing to get close to God because the smallest of sins makes me unholy before him. I cannot state whether I am in God's good graces affirmatively, but I am painfully aware that I can't save myself by the righteous life I'm currently living (insert appropriate sarcasm here).

 

All things being equal, of course, I noticed--having recently reread the entire thread--that there is an abundance of equating Christendom with Christianity. Nonny, you should be well aware that the two are not the same, at least for the very reason that the Bible doesn't outline a worldly Christian government apart from one that is ruled directly by Christ. I think it is pretty clear no such government currently exists, whether you believe he is alive or not.

 

I noticed there were some other points I wanted to address that were flying round the forum, but were only being addressed by atheists, agnostics, and pantheists. Firstly, the conclusion that evolution has happened, because of the modern scientific "evidence" that currently seems to support that view of life; part and parcel with this, of course, is the idea that the universe formed from nothing approx. 13.7 billion years ago from a singularity smaller than the current smallest particle we know exists, though I am aware that it is not necessary to have the big bang to have evolution, and that the two processes are not directly related. Of course, there is no real reason, outside of the religious mindset, to believe in a literal creation (of any tradition, Christian or otherwise). As a Christian, it should be understood that there are critical elements of the model of salvation in Jesus that make it...hard to affirm a positive belief in both Christianity and evolution. The whole thing, of course, boils down to the presence of sin in the world, where it came from, and if not Adam, then by whom, and if it didn't enter through one man, how can one man take it all away? There is a disjoint between Intelligent design and Creationism, and this is where the Intelligently-guided evolution fails, since the Bible also teaches that death entered in Adam's sin, and evolution obviously makes this not the case. I'll scan through the other thread; these particular thoughts are probably appropriate there as well.

 

The other point that I've been seeing is this very large question of, if religion and why anyone in particular has the right to force it on anyone else. The short answer is no. A slightly longer answer is: because GOD.

A real answer, though, is that if said religion is true, then shouldn't you worship the deity that created you? In the particular Christian sense with which I am familiar, I can safely say that the Christian is called to proselytize (if you can call it that) and evangelize in LOVE and Patience. Nowhere in the Bible does it allow condemning of people to death for failure to convert to Christianity. In fact even the Old Testament, if I recall correctly, doesn't do this; the Tanakh was written by and for the Jewish nation, which is why its laws are codified and why the New Testament ones are not (save in non-Biblical earthly institutions, like the RCC and southern baptists, to name two). It's worth mentioning that if Moses wrote the Torah, and it is even close to accurate (which, for reference, I affirm wholly), then he is absolutely insane. Not only is he mentioned in a particularly poor light at the beginning of his own history, but why would he leave a wonderful life as a shepherd at the age of 80! to go an lead a nation that he had long since (over 40 years) severed ties with, and who didn't know him from Adam? And after somehow leading this slave revolt successfully, continues to put up with these complainers for the next 40 years! Sure, he could be exaggerating, but if we want to assume the account is remotely accurate, then Moses is clearly certifiable. Among his history that he supposedly constructs--I say via divine revelation, you say via personal motivation to remain "in power"--he creates a whole timeline of World History that can be traced in dates, devises a series of very faulty Patriarchs, a God that may seem very wrathful at times, and loving at others, and a whole law code that, in short, outlaws the very behaviors that allow Abraham to be given God's blessing, would have prohibited Isaac from gaining the birthright, outright condemns Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachel (two sisters), and furthermore condemns the participants in a union of a man with his aunt to death--which just so happened to be the relationship of his parents! I leave it to you to decide whether Moses did this because he wanted to, or because he was called and commanded to by this higher power who's existence or lack thereof seems to be the topic of this thread.

 

At any rate, God should be worshiped because he commands us to do so. That's a simple enough answer. There is no evident punishment to those who refuse; the book of Job makes this much clear--the wicked prosper, and a mans works and success are no indication of his relationship with his creator. The Jews weren't even commanded to kill those who didn't convert. They were commanded to kill those committed to evil, which, as far as the inhabitants of Canaan were concerned, were in the sight of God (as expressed in the Pentateuch). Whether you think it is justified is irrelevant to the argument; the point was not conversion, but rather cleansing of evil, a modern definition of which turns out to be rather muddy. A Biblical definition, however, hasn't fundamentally changed over the entire course of its history--those people committed to living a life contrary to the way God prescribes in his revelation to man, first the Jews (OT) and then the world (Gentiles/NT)

 

Again, none of my arguments are verifiable proof of anything in particular to skeptics. I am merely trying to address a concern I see that persists in this thread (and elsewhere in the world) regarding what Christianity is, what it means to believe in a god, and the whole issue of rightness as regards religion.

 

As a final point (for now), the Christian God doesn't demand worship. Salvation from sin and eternal death/punishment and the resultant promise of Immortality is only granted--in the Christian religion--by a belief in the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, in that he died for the sins of all who would believe in his redemptive work, and in the "omnibenevolence" of his heavenly father, who most Westerners refer to when they say "God". Specifically the YaHWeh God found in Exodus 3.14

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Catholic Church used to differentiate types of sin as Original, Venial, and Mortal with different punishments for each.  That's the way it was when I left.  Where it has gone since then I can't say.  However there is no question, if you believe in hell (an old testament concept), then the sin of presumption is clearly mortal and damns you into the arms of Lucifer.

 

In order to accept the Christian God, one must be a Christian.  Christ is pretty much stated to have closed 'hell' forever.  Church bells ring out 'No Hell, No Hell' and that's the end of it.  The Christian deity is all forgiving.  Rather difficult to reconcile with Yahweh, a god of revenge, eh?  Quite a contradiction, so how is your faith?

[APSMS 1,892]

Well, Yahweh, as far as I am concerned, hates evil and sin (according to his stated definition). The "Christian deity" you list isn't the one I know, because the God of both old and new testaments appears to me to hate sin in all literature. Notably the difference is that the OT is concerned with governing a nation that is given promises by God and is therefore expected to keep said promises, or face consequences for disobedience. The NT is concerned with governing believers, who are forgiven by God because of their faith in Jesus and their repentance of their sins. David in his adultery was condemned by God (and his own judgment) before he repented for murdering Uriah and marrying Bathsheba. The modern [hu]man is just as condemned to God's wrath if he fails to worship God and recognize the sacrifice of Jesus for his sins.

 

So, no contradiction. God condemns idolaters, murderers, liars, fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals in both old and new covenants. The primary difference is that he is no longer commanding nations to worship him, but individuals. The God-ruled/guided/chastised nation of Israel is no longer the way God manifests his glory, blessing, and plan of salvation to the world. The plan, which started with Abraham, didn't change, but the manifestation of the blessing through Israel did, because Christ came and fulfilled the covenant. The promises to Abraham haven't been satisfied yet, though. The KJV is good to read for the language, but I think Tyndale's translation, if you like Old English (okay, early modern English) is better. For comprehension, I like the ESV and NLT; they are a little less archaic and have more modern sentence structure flow; This^^^ is relatively clear in both Romans and Hebrews, though it's not necessarily simple.

 

God doesn't forgive you if you deny his son's sacrifice and if you deny the power he has over your life, because it means you haven't repented and are still committed to sinning, and because you lack faith (a necessary element) that he will provide the tools and means necessary for: worship, renewal, survival, etc.

[Bdub01 201]

So I have a question. Does God have a double standard from the OT to the NT?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No, the god of the OT has just simply reformed, if you believe the NT.  The NT, however, has the same problem as the Koran.  "You've got to be a believer".  Remember that the God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. is all-powerful so can do things that seem arbitrary to mere mortals.  One thing that quotes Jesus is "In my Father's house there are many mansions" meaning you don't have to be a Catholic or any other denomination to be a Christian.

 

I like the ethic, but reject the folderol.

[Mary Maurine Mayo 984]

A year ago I rejected religion. I do not reject the notion of God or even Satan. I rejected religion because as many have mentioned in prev posts it invites judgements on others.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Happy Easter everyone! Today is a great day!

--Ocram

[Fatherted 129]

@OcramSeattle

 

If only because I like chocolate eggs...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Heh!  Bright and sunny today for Easter, which happens to coincide with the Orthodox churches this year for the first time in a while. 

 

Meanwhile, notwithstanding various exhortations to peace in the various 'holy' books, people continue to kill each other for various reasons that all distill to selfishness and greed.

 

I've basically given up on organized religions.  I make my deal directly with God, if He exists.

 

"If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him".

-- Voltaire

[jmsepe 2,038]

Easter? What Easter? Just kidding! Hahahaha. Call it your way but I definitely love the mall activity held a while ago because of this event. LOL

 

Anyhow, if Christ died in Friday then got resurrected three days later, shouldn't it be Monday instead of Sunday or I'm just totally a sucker for basic math. 

 

BTW I love that perspective Nonny, that is how it should be. No religion just personal relationship and interaction with God, if He exists.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

It is written that Christ rose on Sunday and we celebrate Holy Thursday. I don't know/remember what day the Last Supper took place on.

I also find it ironically funny that most people celebrate with idols of the Pagan Rabbit of Spring Fertility.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

 

Anyhow, if Christ died in Friday then got resurrected three days later, shouldn't it be Monday instead of Sunday or I'm just totally a sucker for basic math. 

 

<snip>

Church math is transcendental.  Some idiots in some fundamentalist churches use the calculations made by a feverish Irish bishop (Usher) to claim that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that the archaeological and palaeontological evidence is the work of the (non-existent) devil.

[Duke87 1,070]

If only because I like chocolate eggs...

 

If you can wait until tomorrow to buy them, half price!

 

Anyhow, if Christ died in Friday then got resurrected three days later, shouldn't it be Monday instead of Sunday or I'm just totally a sucker for basic math.

 

The "Three Days" are not counted the way we would - they are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

 

The basic story is that Jesus was crucified on Friday, and then hastily put in a tomb because his followers who were doing so, still following Jewish tradition, had to go and get home before sundown for the sabbath. Sunday morning they returned to finish the job of burying him properly, and found him alive instead of dead.

 

This is why in Christian tradition the "holy day" shifted from Saturday to Sunday, and why mass is traditionally celebrated first thing Sunday morning. Rather than being about God resting on the seventh day of creation, it is about Jesus' resurrection.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

My Easter involved 12 hours of work on Sunday. My friend at work dressed up at the Easter bunny!

[APSMS 1,892]

It is written that Christ rose on Sunday and we celebrate Holy Thursday. I don't know/remember what day the Last Supper took place on.

I also find it ironically funny that most people celebrate with idols of the Pagan Rabbit of Spring Fertility.

--Ocram

Based on the math and the timetable, it would seem likely that the Last Supper took place on Thursday night/Friday morning (Jewish time), since Jesus spent pretty much all night in custody of the Pharisees/Jewish religious leaders, and was crucified during the day on Friday. I'll have to take a much closer look later, as the specific layout of the events (time/day-wise) isn't immediately obvious to me. Some people posit that Jesus actually ate and broke leavened bread at the Last Supper, which I find absurd, seeing as it's particularly difficult to "break" leavened bread (but not hard to "break" the cracker-like passover bread) and the fact that the overly cautious Jews have a tendency to burn all of the leaven/yeast in Israel one whole week before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which makes finding yeast-made bread ridiculously hard to do even today in the modern era (in Israel).

[Mary Maurine Mayo 984]

I hope everyone had a nice Easter wheather you believe in the Easter Bunny or not/ resurection Sunday.

I worked for a few hours.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Easter bunnies are some sort of myth that is very much after the events.  Easter itself if a matter of faith and as such may not be questioned (too deeply).

 

All things considered, there are too many events in 'holy' week.  It should probably be over much more time.  Pilate's court would have taken half a day at least.  Romans could not be panicked by exhortations from despised religious subjects.  But then, God moves in mysterious ways.

[Duke87 1,070]

Welp, I successfully obtained 10 ounces worth of half price chocolate bunny after work today for 4.33 USD including tax.

 

Hey, at that discount, the price is competitive with just buying 10 ounces of Hershey bars!

[Mary Maurine Mayo 984]

I just bought 2lbs of chocolate in the form of a bunny... lol... cost me 4 something American money

[AkemiAzula 280]

At work we were given an egg