What is your religion?

[emma]

I also don't get Satanism, because really to believe in it you have to believe in Christianity (since Satan is a product of Christianity), and then aren't you just believing in Christianity?

[emma]

In response to NecroVale - I think the evolution debate can have a conclusion. There is definitive proof that it happened. There is proof that the world is so-and-so many years old. Creationism relies entirely on a book. A book that says the world started with Adam and Eve, etc., etc.

A book that is verbatim from a book in an earlier religion. An earlier religion that acknowledges that Adam and Eve were probably not real people.



This pretty much explains (in much fewer words) what I don't get about Christianity.

[Scone]

I also don't get Satanism, because really to believe in it you have to believe in Christianity (since Satan is a product of Christianity), and then aren't you just believing in Christianity?

Think about what Satan represents in Christianity: Sin, deception, "evil", cruel, human.

But even with that said, there are differences between Satanism and straight up humanism. I can't tell you them now...uh, because I haven't developed my own beliefs well enough to start looking for the differences in other people's beliefs to say that the organizations are not equal.

We're same-sies!

And you are a freaking clairvoyant!


Also, just like Randall is taking back Porch Monkey, I'm taking back "Devil's Advocate." It's used as a derogatory statement for supporting something which is viewed evil. Well, what if a lot of people don't believe Satan represents evil? I am more than happy to be a Devil's Advocate.

In exchange, I think we can all agree "Cthulhu's Advocate" is more universally appropriate. Even it's followers know he's an evil mother fucker.

[Hawkaris]

To be honest, I believe exactly what you make out to be so terrible, that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

Out of curiosity, why would it be so bad to think of religion as simply stories? In all probability, given the incredibly overwhelming evidence of countless different religions, different gods, different morals, etc, throughout time and across the globe, how is it any one particular one is absolutely ultimately right? What if every single religion known was suddenly proven to be false? Does that kill off the possibility of some higher power? Goodness no!

There really isn't any way to tell if there is one or not, but there very well might be, and there's lots of philosophical evidence seems to point to their being some higher power. Think about it though, what if there is a God, but not as any of us have ever imagined or thought about it? What if there are multiple gods? What if religion stems because of our ability to sense this power, but only very vaguely? What if that poor perception is what causes us to come with so many different ideas? We all think there's something, but we can't know what, so we add our own human ideas and ideals.

And ultimately, what if there is no higher power? What if we're the masters of our own will? If there isn't some higher power, will you stop being a good person, or living life properly? What if nothing means anything? There's still philosophy, there's still humanity, and all our other values. Just because there isn't some greater force doesn't mean we have nothing left to exist for. You make your own meaning.

So, you don't think the Bible is to be taken literally, eh? Do you also want to insist that the events in the Bible couldn't have happened? (I'll assume you are of a scientific bent, so by "couldn't have happened" I mean "are so incredibly improbable that they aren't worth considering") Emma already stated that God didn't talk to people and the Red Sea was never parted. As you seemed to agree with those sentiments, I'll assume you're of the camp that denies that Jesus ever came back to life, a day's worth of oil burned for an extra week, and just about any other historical miracle.

Assuming so, you deny all evidence of the supernatural. Then you turn around and say that "lots of philosophical evidence seems to point to their being some higher power." You accept that there might be multiple gods, you accept that people might be able to sense the divine. You say we all can sense god(s), but might not have a clear picture of him. But then you have the nerve to say that the Bible's perspective is flat-out fictitious. Either you accept the supernatural or you deny the supernatural. You aren't allowed to pick whichever one is most continent for your argument, then sway to the other side at the slightest hint of breeze.

Thanks for the feel-good message at the end, though. It's good to know that people wouldn't turn into a bunch of murderous maniacs the moment they stop believing in God. My question to you is fairly simple: why not? People that don't believe in God can obviously still be good people, but where does that goodness come from?

[Allen!]

Seriously, how the fuck do we not have any Muslims.

[Beta-guy]

I also don't get Satanism, because really to believe in it you have to believe in Christianity (since Satan is a product of Christianity), and then aren't you just believing in Christianity?

as I read your post I couldn't help but to think of this http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/113/door_to_door I posted this with a sense of humor I don't want to offend anyone

[St. Ricktopher]

Most of the Bible (up to the birth of Christ, ish) is pretty much the Torah, verbatim. Most branches of Judaism do not treat the Torah as truth, but as a story with meaning. When my dad was young, he approached our rabbi with a very literal question about one of the stories, and the rabbi himself said "it's a story. It didn't really happen."


What I am about to say is not meant in offense to Christians at all, and if it comes across that way, I'm sorry. But I will say it anyway: as a Jew, I really don't get Christianity at all. I don't understand it. I understand different religions that come from their own roots that say "this is what happened, this is what I believe". I am totally cool with that. I believe that they can both be right, and their stories can hold just as much truth as mine. If someone believes in Norse mythology, I think they are just as justified in that as I am in in believing in Judaism - even if I don't agree that the world was sweat out of a giant's armpit.

What I don't get is how a religion can take an already existing religion, add a few books on the end, and say that it is truth, as opposed to the one before it. Judaism has been around for as long as the story of Yahweh has been around. Christianity took that story of Yahweh and added stuff on to it - but I never really understand how that began, and how all of a sudden everything that they believed before was ignored, and new things were put in place. I don't understand how a collective can decide that all of a sudden something new is truth.
In Judaism, there are different levels, but they all believe the same thing. We believe in the same God, and the same rules - the different levels of religion just differ in how heavily we obey those rules. Some levels believe that women must pray in seperate sections of synagogues and celebrate in different rooms, while other levels let them mingle. Some believe that meat and dairy products can not even be eaten on the same plate (even if they're washed in between), while other levels just believe they shouldn't be eaten together. Either way, they are the same beliefs. Doing something wrong in Reform Judaism is pretty much the same as doing something wrong in Orthodox. Both levels believe that mitzvahs are the most important thing, both believe the same history and the same future.
But Christianity - christianity is completely different in different sections. Rules differ completely, even beliefs. In one section of Christianity you will go to hell for an action, in another you will not, for the same action. I have never understood how someone could justify that these rules came about.
In my mind, Catholicism makes the most sense as a religion because it was the 'first' one (though I still think it makes no sense because it is essentially taking the rules of Judaism but deciding that other ones are equally or more important - how are they justified in saying that?)- but I don't get how Luther just came along and said "this rule is untrue, and this one" and all of a sudden people know that when their priest says they won't go to hell for something, they won't.

I realize that I went off on an extreme tangent there, and I'm sorry.

Ever hear of Hillel and Shammai?
Did they agree on the Law?

There are also different branches of Judaism. Reform, Orthodox, Hasidic, etc. Each with different interpretations of the Tanakh.

[Hawkaris]

As for Satanism, my understanding of it has two different branches of the exact same name.

There is the classic perspective (see Door to Door) in which one worships the Devil of the Bible. Basically, it's rooting for the underdog; all those people that though Darth Vader and Boba Fett were pretty neat guys fit into this camp.

Then, there is modern Satanism, which follows the Satanic Bible, as written by LaVey. This basically states that one should be selfish, indulgent, and respect power and property. This version of Satanism usually tosses in a "be nice to children" and "don't be a hypocrite" into the rules. Really, there isn't a Satan in the entire religion. It just kept the name to scare away the people that didn't have the courage to give themselves such a despised title.

[emma]

I also don't get Satanism, because really to believe in it you have to believe in Christianity (since Satan is a product of Christianity), and then aren't you just believing in Christianity?

Think about what Satan represents in Christianity: Sin, deception, "evil", cruel, human.

But even with that said, there are differences between Satanism and straight up humanism. I can't tell you them now...uh, because I haven't developed my own beliefs well enough to start looking for the differences in other people's beliefs to say that the organizations are not equal.

If you believe in Satan, you thereby believe in at least some aspects of Christianity, because Satan is a Christian concept. If you said you were humanist, great! But by identifying as Satanist, you are asserting that you believe in Satan, and thus believe in at least some systems of Christianity. Which is a bit confusing, is it not?

[-Geoff-]

Atheist.

I don't buy into it either, but Deism always seemed entirely more reasonable to me than Theism. Sort of wish that one had more legs.

[St. Ricktopher]

Just as you could assume that people aren't being reasonable to take the bible literally, the ones that do, could assume the same about you, for not taking it literally.

And people like me who dont take it literally, but believe in the truth of it, can think both sides are being unreasonable.

There are 2 kinds of truth. Scientific kind of truth, and 'meaning of life' kind of truth. I believe that scripture's role is primarily about explaining the second kind.

[Scone]

If you believe in Satan, you thereby believe in at least some aspects of Christianity, because Satan is a Christian concept. If you said you were humanist, great! But by identifying as Satanist, you are asserting that you believe in Satan, and thus believe in at least some systems of Christianity. Which is a bit confusing, is it not?

I am not denouncing belief in Christianity. Hell, it's even called the Church of Satan, where churches are strictly a Christian thing. But when considering Satanism, it should not be thought of as each member simply looking at Christianity in reverse.

[Vaughn]

Ill accept whatever they want to think as long as they do the same for me.

[Lord Chrusher]

I would like to point out a major misconception about the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory is not a theory about the origin of the universe or what happened at or before the 'Big Bang'. Such regions are currently beyond science - any thing you have heard about such regions is pure speculation with no grounding in observation.

The Big Bang is a theory about the evolution of the universe. (In cosmology and in astrophysics evolution is used in the sense of development with time, not in the sense of natural selection.) At its most basic the Big Bang theory is the theory the universe was once very small and hence both very dense and very hot.

While the classical Big Bang theory had several problems with it (such as the horizon problem and the flatness problem) including a period of inflation (a time when the universe was growing exponentially rather than linearly) removes these problems. While there are several areas of research in connection with the Big Bang, most notably what is dark energy, the basic idea of the Big Bang, that the universe was once hot, dense and small, is quite strongly supported. Expecting the Big Bang theory to explain the origin of the may be akin to trying to use the theory of plate tectonics to explain the origin of the Earth - the failure of a theory to explain things outside its domain does not invalidate the theory.

While the Big Bang theory is inconsistent with most religious or traditional cosmologies, nothing in it is inconsistent with idea of a creator. Indeed an early criticism of the Big Bang theory was that it fitted with a religious concepts too were; it was seen as a way of bringing religion into science, an idea that was not helped by one of the early proponents being a Jesuit.

[Hawkaris]

Ever hear of Hillel and Shammai?
Did they agree on the Law?

There are also different branches of Judaism. Reform, Orthodox, Hasidic, etc. Each with different interpretations of the Tanakh.

Let me see if I still have that email floating around here... ah yes. I asked about splinter religions once, and I got a fairly lengthy response from a good friend. In summary:

Every religion thinks they are "the one true path" and that every other version has "lost their way". This is usually because one of their rules isn't interpreted "correctly". Sometimes, people add an addendum where they feel it is necessary, and sometimes they write a new book to tack onto the end. Of course, these additional books are divinely inspired, so they can't be wrong. Anyone that doesn't accept "The New and Revised Word of God" is, of course, going to Hell. Some worked (e.g. New Testement) and some didn't (e.g. Book of Mormon).

Ill accept whatever they want to think as long as they do the same for me.

No, you don't get off that easily. If I may: I think you're going to Hell unless you give me ten dollars. Do you now accept that you're going to burn for all of eternity unless you pay my get-out-of-Hell fine?

If you really can just wantonly accept what any passing bird says, then I am either in awe of your open-mindedness, or in sorrow for your empty-mindedness.

[NecroVale]

In response to NecroVale - I think the evolution debate can have a conclusion. There is definitive proof that it happened. There is proof that the world is so-and-so many years old. Creationism relies entirely on a book. A book that says the world started with Adam and Eve, etc., etc.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but when it comes to something like this, there really isn't anything that is really "definitive proof". Bones can be tampered with, or mixed with other bones. The dating methods that scientists use, are not always accurate. That goes for trying to figure out how old things are too. A snail that had died a week prior was tested and the machines told the scientists that it died 12,000 years ago.

If evolution is how everyone thinks it is, and humans have been evolving for however many hundreds of thousands of years, it doesn't seem to add up mathematically. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but looking at what information I've been able to find, human beings must not have really discovered procreation until very recently.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif

Which from those numbers matches up pretty closely with wikipedias numbers at that point. (Yeah, yeah, wikipedia wooo, but the first link is government run, so...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Again, no offense meant.

[Lord Chrusher]

In response to NecroVale - I think the evolution debate can have a conclusion. There is definitive proof that it happened. There is proof that the world is so-and-so many years old. Creationism relies entirely on a book. A book that says the world started with Adam and Eve, etc., etc.

Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or not, creationism, even when dressed up in sheep's clothing as intelligent design, is not science and has no place in the science classroom.

[Hawkaris]

If evolution is how everyone thinks it is, and humans have been evolving for however many hundreds of thousands of years, it doesn't seem to add up mathematically. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but looking at what information I've been able to find, human beings must not have really discovered procreation until very recently.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif

Which from those numbers matches up pretty closely with wikipedias numbers at that point. (Yeah, yeah, wikipedia wooo, but the first link is government run, so...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Again, no offense meant.

Wait wait wait. What? Are you seriously trying to say that humanity is only 100 years old through linear extrapolation of that graph?

[Vaughn]

Ill accept whatever they want to think as long as they do the same for me.

No, you don't get off that easily. If I may: I think you're going to Hell unless you give me ten dollars. Do you now accept that you're going to burn for all of eternity unless you pay my get-out-of-Hell fine?

If you really can just wantonly accept what any passing bird says, then I am either in awe of your open-mindedness, or in sorrow for your empty-mindedness.

you misunderstand, i accept that YOU think im going to burn in hell if i dont give you ten dollars,
and i request that YOU accept i can spend that ten dollars in a better fashion.

[NecroVale]

If evolution is how everyone thinks it is, and humans have been evolving for however many hundreds of thousands of years, it doesn't seem to add up mathematically. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but looking at what information I've been able to find, human beings must not have really discovered procreation until very recently.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif

Which from those numbers matches up pretty closely with wikipedias numbers at that point. (Yeah, yeah, wikipedia wooo, but the first link is government run, so...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Again, no offense meant.

Wait wait wait. What? Are you seriously trying to say that humanity is only 100 years old through linear extrapolation of that graph?

No... what I'm saying is that, either when we were primitive we didn't believe in sex, or at least humans aren't as old as evolution would want us to believe.

[Scone]

I am also fond of the Slag-Blah perspective even though I do not follow it myself (as much as one could follow it).

"But religion exists to provide a stable, comforting mega-philosophy that sentients use to establish a code of conduct and to help prepare themselves for entropy or death. Adherents of Slag-Blah are sure of nothing."
"No, today I am sure that when I die, my soul will dance with the lizard kings! Tomorrow, I'll be sure that when I die, I will travel to the great desert of squim to help count every grain of sand to make sure that the universe will be reborn. Who is to say that I will not do them all?"

Ill accept whatever they want to think as long as they do the same for me.

No, you don't get off that easily. If I may: I think you're going to Hell unless you give me ten dollars. Do you now accept that you're going to burn for all of eternity unless you pay my get-out-of-Hell fine?

If you really can just wantonly accept what any passing bird says, then I am either in awe of your open-mindedness, or in sorrow for your empty-mindedness.

So, I ask you, Hawkaris; Why might he not allowed to accept each and every one of them.

(Note: Not putting words in Vaughn's mouth, but I want to know Hawkaris's reaction nontheless)

[Hawkaris]

you misunderstand, i accept that YOU think im going to burn in hell if i dont give you ten dollars,
and i request that YOU accept i can spend that ten dollars in a better fashion.

So, you don't accept what I think; you just accept that I think it. I'm with ya.

So, I ask you, Hawkaris; Why might he not allowed to accept each and every one of them.

Oh, he's more than welcome to. It is just that there are so many conflicting perspectives in the world that to be able to accept them all would drive a person mad. For instance, I find it difficult to believe that there is a God, there is not a God, the world was seeded by aliens, we evolved from some lightning-struck ooze, and that God created us. All at once.

The alternative is to accept those things one at a time, and forget the previous one when the next appears. That would just be blind faith to the nearest bidder, which I feel is an intellectual nightmare of epic proportions.

[Vaughn]

Gods are like tea, some a green, some are french, some are ridiculusly expensive, and im not particularly favorable to any one of them.
=D

Bad metaphor is bad. Do not consider this an actual opinion.

[Lord Chrusher]

Sorry NecroVale but your argument fails.

You have committed the grave error of taking data from a limited time period then extrapolating the data backwards. That the world's population had begin growing rapidly in the last fifty years does not imply that the worlds population has been growing that fast for all of human history. Improvements in the agriculture and in medical care have allowed the Earth's population to explode in the last century.

If there truly were problems with the techniques used to date biological finds then we will expect that the dates would be all over the place rather than lying near a date. I would be extremely surprised if dating did not have some inaccuracies attached with them.

[NecroVale]

Gods are like tea, some a green, some are french, some are ridiculusly expensive, and im not particularly favorable to any one of them.
=D

Bad metaphor is bad. Do not consider this an actual opinion.

Wait... so what happens if we drink them all? Do we get all their powers?