Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Arx]

Then the NT rolls in saying "Literally everyone is sinners and thus needs this new gospel, fortunately you only have to join us to be forgiven of everything.  None of those old rules actually mattered."

Not a NT innovation, Isaiah plotted out basically the entire Jesus thing well in advance, specifically relevant here is including the 'literally everyone is sinners and Jesus can fix it' part. Side note: that's the second time this has come up in the last little while, odd.

Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.

The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?

Thing is, I see absolutely nothing as deserving of worship (which, in my personal definition, includes placing something on a pedestal higher than oneself and throwing praise at it). I mean, it's all perspective. Compared to monkeys, we have what could be conceived of as conceptually similar to unlimited power. But I wouldn't want a monkey to worship me. If I met a being three times as powerful, or even as kind, as I am, I would not want to worship it and would be insulted were it to suggest I do so.

Yeah, this is a question of culture and context. Modern, Western, culture is individualistic to a slightly stupid extent. It makes 'worship' a bit of a loaded word. For context, in the isiZulu language, the word for 'thank you' is 'ngiyabonga', which literally means 'I praise you'. The idea of praising people's achievements in a slightly over-the-top way is something that was definitely strongly accepted in Classical culture, but in the modern culture of self-effacement, less so.

The idea of worshipping God is from the ancient Jews, who culturally were pretty similar to the Zulus in some ways. Praising God would be no different to praising a mighty warrior or a wise king, or whatever, which is why I say I respect God. It's just no longer the cultural norm to display that respect with extravagant songs and whatnot.

God combines vast power with supposedly infinite goodness (though there have been challenges to that last). That he expects me to worship him before he gives me my treat, even if he were to exist, would make a rebel of me.

I'm sure we've been over this at least once, probably more. The only thing Jesus says is necessary for salvation is accepting that he died for you. There is no worship involved. It's kinda expected that you'd appreciate it, and if you really care to try to be a good person, though.

[Egan_BW]

Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.

The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?

Maybe a good place to reach many people, but not good enough. I'd expect better from God.

[i2amroy]

Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.

The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?

Maybe a good place to reach many people, but not good enough. I'd expect better from God.

Yeah, Jesus should have simultaneously appeared before every single person to interact with them, right?

Per the belief vs. rules thing, it's also something that helped to set NT Christianity apart from other religions of the time. Most religions of the time (and many still today) are much more ritualistic focused, i.e. follow these steps, make these sacrifices, do this pilgrimage, etc. and you will be saved. NT Christianity's promise that all you had to do was "believe", something you could supposedly do right now, and didn't require you taking on a life of piety or sacrificing half of your income or anything else (not that they would be opposed if you decided to as a further sign of devotion), is quite an attractive one compared to things that require daily religious text reading, sacrificing your fattest cows on the altar and such forth.

And yeah, many versions of NT Christianity have some sort of rule that says that people who don't have the chance to convert and believe due to circumstances (which captures people who died before the NT, people who never heard the word, and babies that died too young) often get dumped into purgatory or something similar as opposed to straight into hell (or there is a tool like in Mormonism that lets you "save" your past dead ancestors through one process or another to bring them out of hell/purgatory).

[tonnot98]

I opt that we go back to pulling the hearts out of prisoners of war.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Pretty much all universalizing religions have a mass reduction in their ritualism, at least for the lay worshipers. It's a part of the whole deal. Christians just have to "believe", Muslims just have to say the shahada, and Buddhists basically have no entry gate. It only gets complex if you're committed or want a title.

Ethnic religions, by contrast, have often required very specific things of all followers. Judaism is the interesting example, since we see how it was once utterly this (kosher, sabbath, etc) but now has many people who only follow it in the same way most people follow a universalizing religion.

[TheDarkStar]

Pretty much all universalizing religions have a mass reduction in their ritualism, at least for the lay worshipers. It's a part of the whole deal. Christians just have to "believe", Muslims just have to say the shahada, and Buddhists basically have no entry gate. It only gets complex if you're committed or want a title.

There's more than that though. Muslims have dietary guidelines to follow and need to do more than just say the shahada - they also have to pray, pay alms, fast, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are enough varieties of Buddhism that generalizing is hard. And many Christian religions have their own moral codes to follow. As a Mormon, for example, I believe I have to keep certain commandments/rules (dietary stuff, service/being nice to people, praying/going to church/reading scripture) and I have to go to an LDS temple for various things (it's probably best comparable to Muslim pilgrimages to Mecca). The Catholics have less, but afaik they have church services with communion + maybe other stuff?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Pretty much all universalizing religions have a mass reduction in their ritualism, at least for the lay worshipers. It's a part of the whole deal. Christians just have to "believe", Muslims just have to say the shahada, and Buddhists basically have no entry gate. It only gets complex if you're committed or want a title.

There's more than that though. Muslims have dietary guidelines to follow and need to do more than just say the shahada - they also have to pray, pay alms, fast, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are enough varieties of Buddhism that generalizing is hard. And many Christian religions have their own moral codes to follow. As a Mormon, for example, I believe I have to keep certain commandments/rules (dietary stuff, service/being nice to people, praying/going to church/reading scripture) and I have to go to an LDS temple for various things (it's probably best comparable to Muslim pilgrimages to Mecca). The Catholics have less, but afaik they have church services with communion + maybe other stuff?

Yes, yes, the religions have rituals. But they aren't mandatory. They say they're mandatory for the sake of ideology, but they're functionally not. Plenty of Muslims never visit Mecca, never pay alms, pray once a week, and chug bacon-infused beer the other six days. Plenty of Christians definitely don't follow any claimed demands of the religion beyond describing themselves as a Christian (hence all the criticism people have of those who are sanctimonious and hypocritical). I'm sure you know of Mormons who do not exactly keep the commandments.

Fact is, with universalizing religions most converts get in by deciding "I believe this now" and most followers as a whole get it passed down from their parents. Compare to ethnic religions. You know what it takes to get recognized as a Jew by ones who are still even halfway into the religiosity of it? It's borderline impossible. I don't think most Hindus would ever accept a convert who wasn't Indian.

The Catholic Church, for the record, is primarily defined through the sacraments.

[TD1]

http://adam4d.com/list/

Yes..... Thank you God for Homeless people, natural disasters and stillborn babies.

You're great.


Edit: Also, worship meaning respect - my point remains. Even if God existed, I wouldn't respect him. Impressed/respect his power? To a certain degree. Respect God himself? No. Stripped of power, he becomes a small, petty person who wants everyone to love him and is prepared to punish those who don't. God is worshipped/respected for his ability to give treats. Take that away....and what is he?

Edit edit: http://adam4d.com/irony/
....
Is it impolite to laugh? I think it may be

[Rolepgeek]

I believe the idea is that yeah, those things suck. But if they weren't there, something else would happen that would suck more (maybe god gets to choose every time something terrible happens whether or not he wants to break causality. And the last time he did it there was a glitch in the system and a bunch of people had their firstborn children die because of a numbering error in the lineage system). Like causality breaking down.

God is worshipped for more than that, though yes, usually respect is given to one who is powerful. I'll ask you how many people there are who don't want people to like an appreciate them, especially if they've done something for them. For that matter, how many parents don't want their kids to love them, and will punish them if they mouth off? Like, three parts of all good all knowing and all powerful don't fit, yeah, but someone doesn't need to be all three of those things to be worthy of praise or respect. Worship? I mean, that's basically how gods worked back then. You praise the god and offer it sacrifices and it protects your village/town, makes sure the crops grow, and so on. It was how it worked. It's more or less how feudalism works too, except there you don't get to effectively choose your own taxes, though whether your fields got burned and towns pillaged was still largely random, depending on your lord.

I understand the sentiment; I don't like bullies. But if hell isn't actually fire and brimstone for eternity, it's just not Heaven, then it's hard to blame the guy. Yeah, yeah, no eternal paradise for infinity and that's just as bad as torture for infinity except no, not really.

People who had no way of possibly knowing about God are a whole different matter, with plenty of theological debate about it.

[Kot]

Like, three parts of all good all knowing and all powerful don't fit, yeah, but someone doesn't need to be all three of those things to be worthy of praise or respect. Worship? I mean, that's basically how gods worked back then. You praise the god and offer it sacrifices and it protects your village/town, makes sure the crops grow, and so on. It was how it worked. It's more or less how feudalism works too, except there you don't get to effectively choose your own taxes, though whether your fields got burned and towns pillaged was still largely random, depending on your lord.

Those Gods were okay. They never claimed to be something they aren't (all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and they had clear rules and so on.and stuff. Stephen Fry has it right - if I were met by a, let's say, bunch of Slavic Gods, or Greek Gods, or such I would be okay with that, they are pretty much really powerful humans so their motives can be explained.
Whilist Christian God is basically a mafioso that provides "protection". He says he's good, he cares about you, he says he's powerful and that he will help you, but in reality he's evilest dude around, his power isin't really as big as he would want but at the end of day he'll raid your shop even despite he said he won't and all you're supposed to do is to praise him.
Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.

[TD1]

I know this seems like an atheist pile-on, but I just want to say how much I agree. The Abrahamic God is perhaps the most flawed in terms of character, because he seems to pretend to be something he's not. A father who punishes his children so they'll be good is one thing - what God does is the equivalent of that father punching his son in the face, then locking him in an isolated room of the house perpetually on the edge of starvation.

If it were true that there was simply a "not-heaven" for non Christians, that would be nice. Doesn't quite fit the original literature, though, which was very emphatic when speaking of all the various sadistic tortures their god would visit on you.

[Rolepgeek]

So the worst thing to be is someone who claims to besomething other than they are? That's the worst possible thing to be?

You don't think the old gods that demanded human sacrifice to be appeased had a stick as well as a carrot? Really? Like, at a certain point you stopped making sense, there.

And actually, looking at the literature, the.impression I get is that Heaven is life everlasting. Hell is just death by fire. Literally called the second death. And that's specifically the new testament god, and when you take into account that the bible is not in fact divine word kept perfectly identical through millennia, (like how it was Ra, not god who hardened the pharoah's heart, iirc) it makes a bit more sense. And if I were him and knew people's options were 'death or immortality based on how close to me they can get emotionally', I know I might exaggerate a bit in the interests of having more people's souls not burn to death.

[RoseHeart]

Anyone heard of Bashar, Channeled by Darryl Anka?

Or Abraham channeled by Esther Hicks?

It's in the same vein as The Secret.

If they hasn't shaped my worldview I would probably consider my closest thing to religious figures Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross.

I suppose I do, still do anyway. There's something about living a public life of peace that is profound. Because it is shared.

[Shadowlord]

Do you have five minutes to hear the word of Sméagol, who died for your sins in Mount Doom?

[Teneb]

Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.

The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?

like how it was Ra, not god who hardened the pharoah's heart, iirc

Wouldn't Ra's presence in the Bible be an argument that there are other gods? And as such maybe other afterlives? There is an argument that Hell is existence without YHWH, then it could very well be that he believes that any afterlife that isn't his is shit.