Ok, first thing is first. some of you may believe that what you believe in could be considered religion, but as something else, and that's ok. The Encyclopedia of Religion puts it like this...
--------
In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.
--------
basically one of the following

• a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
• a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality and virtue
• a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

That puts it so that anything you may consider it, goes into his thread.
(As this is but the introduction, i will post none of my thoughts in it. I will wait)

In this thread we can and probably will discuss all things religion. We can go topic to topic discussing one thing after another, bu i advise you talk about the current subject and not the first thing you want to as it may cause confusion. I also ask that you contain any temper you may have. Nobody would want any hatreds among the forums.

Rules:
1. Above all and forelse, never ever say that another person is wrong. All in all, it is an opinion that they percieve as fact.
2. Do not be ashamed to put anything, even something people might consider offensive (unless it breaks rule 1) into this discussion.
3. Because some people don't follow every rule, you might be attacked. In the event, I ask that you do not be offended under any circumstances. As I said before, it is their opinion that they perceive as fact.
4. This is not a topic you can 'win'. Do not expect others to 'win' either. Nobody can be declared the victor in a topic, as it is still opinion precieved as fact.
5. Do not change topics deliberately in the middle of a discussion.
6. Please, in uttermost sincerity, be mature about things.
7. If more than one person presents a topic they'd like to discuss about, then everyone (or an appointed this-topic-only mod if things get out of hand, which will be me at first unless an unanimous want of change is present) will choose/vote what they want. If it's obvious that people are just voting mostly for themselves, the mod takes the choice and it cannot be his/her topic.

Now, if someone would be so kind as to present something that we may begin with.

so....

the first thing i thought of was evolution, but thats more "religion vs science" then just a discussion about the religion, so i think we should save that barrel of monkeys for later.

im in a comparative relgions class right now at my school. thus far we have covered Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. i think we are gonna try to get through Christianity before the end of the semester too.

my house is an interesting place for religion. My stepmom is Catholic, my Dad is Buddhist, and as far as i can tell right now, im athiest. arguments in the house never revolve around religion (they more revolve around chores, and things being clean enough) whenever i think about the relative peace in my house, i wonder why so many people get in full out arguments and fights about religions. i mean, if one religon is the "right" religon, then why worry about and fight with the people who dont believe it? itll be their head when the "end" comes. so many wars have been fought over religon. as far as i can tell, more blood has been spilled over god than any other thing. my question is this: why do so many people actually fight about religion?

Because they can.

I suppose there might be a few who think that converting others gets them a better seat in heaven, and others seek to destroy religion of all forms. Mostly though, I think its because its there to argue over. Some might think themselves intelligent for arguing on this subject while others think them foolish. They'll argue about that too.

EDIT: Just donned on me that mankind is in a battle the likes of a verbal form of Highlander.

ONLY ONE OF US CAN BE RIGHT!

Verb might be in the lead on an individual level.

Not sure which religion is though.

As far as why religion must be fought over, it's because religion is based on faith, which is a very hard thing for us to base something as important as, well, our life on. If another faith is even so much as making mention that we are wrong (they do this by existing contrary to our beliefs), we either check ourselves to make sure we're right, and/or show why the other person is wrong. Both are valid, as long as they are done charitably.

I would like to bring up a few questions:

Why must we have Rule 1? - If I am right, than those who are not in line with me are wrong. Why do people feel that one should never say another person is wrong? Please, tell me I'm wrong, then point out why. One of two things will happen:

1. I have a crisis of faith where I will then go on and search to find the Truth. If I find that I was right in the beginning, I will move to number 2.

2. I will point out why you're wrong about me being wrong, and we continue the volley until one of us has number 1 happen to them.

Going through this, we will sooner or later reach the Truth.

The DOES NOT mean that you're an asshole about it. You must be charitable.

Questions two - Why is it "opinion perceived as fact?" I take some offense at my faith being called "opinion perceived as fact." We all have facts. Some of them are wrong. Maybe mine (though you'll have to prove it).

Ideas on the above ides?

Thats a two way road. If they're right, everyone who is not in toe with them are wrong including you. You will have to point out why they're wrong otherwise they're right.

If you don't have the means to prove them wrong, yet feel they are indeed wrong, you will have to say they're right until otherwise. The first rule is just to save keystrokes, emotions, and synapses.

EDIT


Sir/Madam/It, you have effectively misused either the word "fact" or the word "wrong", possibly both. A fact implies correctness, while wrong is synonymous with incorrect. It is an impossibility to have an incorrect fact, nor a wrong truth.

Plus, sometimes it's just funny.


I don't know about this. I manage fine by being an asshole.


Most probably because it's poor Paracetamol who gets his belief attacked more than anyone else here.

Actually, now I think about it, I get my beliefs attacked less than anybody else here and I'm probably the worst person by a shot and a half.


This is, of course, a minor problem when you base your arguments on asking for rational logic backing their claims and you are told about Faith.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I understand how Faith works. Belief without or even in spite of reasons. It's just a bit rich being asked not to call someone wrong when, in the end (and with me, eventually all that remains is Faith because I have my way with Reason. She's my bitch), they will cite irrationality as evidence they are correct.

I am not suggesting here that Faith is incorrect. I think it's irrelevant when it comes to discussions like this. We all have Faith of varying degree in various things - even I, in all my wondrous excellence, have not managed to logically determine every facet of my belief structure (minimalist though it is). Faith can even be a wonderful thing to experience. It is, however, near the very definition of irrationality and I would suggest that rather than forbidding "you are wrong" we should forbid "but I have Faith."


Or it was a clever application of the common belief that we are in possession of facts when all we hold are incorrect beliefs.

I tried to read what Lighthawk76 said literally, the word selection confused me.

since some people are having problems with rule one, i'll have to change it more towards it's original intention. what i meant was that if somebody wrote a nice essay and a few others either didn't read it, assuming it was either complete blasphemy, or forcibly kept their eyes open during the few minutes so they can begin disproving anything the other person wrote that they'd be the only one who was right at all. you're here to learn, not say "I'm right, you're wrong. it's indefinite."

about the "opinion percieved as fact", no, it's not because i am attacked. i myself consider my own theories as such. if there are different ideas on the divine portion of the universe, then obviously not all of them can be correct, not all of them complete fact. and nobody can prove that they're completely correct either, only express their faith and opinion of what they percieve as fact. and if this offends you, then does that not mean you didn't want to be called wrong?

as for why people start fights/wars/etc over religion, i'd have to side with Taz, indignity is prolly the biggest reason. when you feel like you have to do [action] in order to improve yourself and/or others, your most likely going to do it.

and to Verbose, refusing to let people say they have faith is a big no-no. that would make everybody feel as though they'd have to be a rebel in order to feel they're spreading a point across.

back to the general concept of religion, i think any of them is a good thing to have. they usually have the person require themselves to have high standards and good morals, which is why i never understood atheism. if someone didn't have a faith, then they would be more lenient to being another one of those idiots you see not caring for their or anybody elses life, or some variant of such. however, religious fussle can be a cause for murder. currently you see it all the time in the middle eastern. still, i think religion is a good thing to have. at least you'll think you're doing the right thing and feel better about yourself.

And I'm sure it wasn't a clever little satire put on the end of a long ranty thing.

I seem to be the only one who does that in real life.

As one of my friends pointed out once:

There is nothing wrong with religion as long as a critical and open mind is being kept at a higher level of priority.

I don't know. It's still usually pretty uncomfortable in a church.

I joke, I jest. I actually really enjoy churches. For the irony, if nothing else.

after a bit of study by one of my teachers, the students seem to remember the previous week's lesson better if there's humor involved. he doesn't mind if people joke around, and it works too. >_O quite the look forward to event.

And I'm sure there are studies on it. There are studies for just about everything these days. Universities full of up and coming psychologists have to do something, I suppose.

Well, one must understand a general rule of thumb with all these studies.

I mean, a study that goes about the effect of ingesting pineapples on the taste of a certain liquid is something entirely different than a study that goes on about the relation between, for example, assassinations and whether or not the goals the assassin had in mind were achieved afterwards.

While the latter is indeed a scientific case study, the former is just mumbo jumbo.

There is more comprehensive data on the first, though.

More practical application, you see. It should be its own branch of science, really. Semenotics.

I shall take your position...into consideration.

Why shouldn't they? We have all sorts of pseudosciences walking around, reaping the benefit of the name science.

Well, what I think about those pseudosciences, rhymes with "Cluckin' Bell".

I find them useful.

The second somebody quotes one, I know I don't want to be their friend.

I expect people to say I'm wrong. If you hold a belief I say is wrong, than the vice versa must be true. And I'm fine with using more key strokes, if I offend someone I'll apologize and back off, and synapses are always fun to break.


Well, yes, I do enjoy not being called wrong, but more importantly opinion means that no one is wrong, which I do not agree with. As you said, "there are different ideas on the divine portion of the universe." Theories would be a better term. Like I said, opinions imply equality. My faith is not equal to a Muslims. We can coexist, but my faith is so different from his own, that it is almost antithetical. Therefore, not opinions.


Faith cannot be argued. What Verbose is saying (in a very clever way) is that we shouldn't allow people to just use the excuse, because I believe it to be so. We can't even discuss what someone just holds as belief. I said it in the Golden Compass Thread, Fides et Ratio. This means faith will never contradict reason and vice versa. Sometimes, faith is not built upon reason, but if it's correct faith, it doesn't contradict.


I don't agree with this. Much of the morals and standard that a person lives by is not obtained through faith, but through reason. As such, the atheist has his own standards that can be obtained through reason. Now if he says "do what makes you feel happy" we have a problem.

Most wars are not simply fought for religious reasons, but that's just icing on the cake to get the blind to join in. Crusades for instance, whole lot of politics and economics going on behind the scenes. The common folk don't care. You tell them "Muslims are defiling the place where Jesus walked!" then they care. Trust me, the movers of the whole thing, probably cared little about the religious connotations. The wars right now are mostly cultural and tribal, though faith is cut along these same lines.

What happened if the conflicts were ideological? Would we blame ideas for mankind's wars?

Many of them are and very often we do.

that idea that athiesm or having no religion makes people immoral i think is completely rediculous. i suppose it would make it easier, in that one wouldnt have to worry about an eterinity in the firey pits of hell for doing whatever was done, but im guessing that life wouldnt be that good. if you break the law, you more than likely will get caught and go to jail. that would suck. and even so, even without some "bearded chap in the sky" giving us rules to follow, most of them are kind of common sense anyway. like, you know, dont kill people. people generally want to live. and i know that i wouldnt wanna be killed, so im not gonna kill people.

a read a comic in the newspaper once...it gave a pretty good answer to question of "The Meaning of Life", that i think anyone could live by.

"Make yourself happy without hurting others, then help others be happy without hurting yourself"

No finite evil that can be committed in a finite amount of time can justify infinite eternal torment.

This is from Catholic Theology.

You're correct, but if you defy the Good (an infinite evil) and refuse to repent as such (therefore never, therefore infinite) I think its easily justified.

Then again, I'm always iffy on hell as punishment. I see it as a way to make people happy. You don't want to be with God, then don't be with God. C.S. Lewis' Problem of Pain is a phenomenal read that has a chapter which deals with hell. Maybe hell isn't eternal punishment, just a place where you go if you chose not to be with God. Maybe hell is heaven to those people.

Everyone seems wrapped up on the idea that it is the sin that sends you to hell. You commit the sin and in doing so deny God. Think of it as a parent. If a father tells his son, come in by 10, and he comes in at 2, he will be punished, not so much for breaking the rule, as defying the father. Don't point out the inherent differences, I'm not saying God works exactly like this. It's called an analogy.

This is why there are mortal and venial sins in the Church's teachings. You take a person's pencil without permission and don't give it back. This is a sin, but it's venial. Think of it as an act which could lead to worser things. A mortal sin on the other hand, embezzling millions and putting thousands out of a job, is a mortal sin. You are not just defying God a little, you're giving him the finger as well. This is why you can't take the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. How can you take God into yourself when you defy and ultimately deny him?

So, act of a sin does not equal hell, consequence of a sin (denial of God) does.

I'm under the impression that one chooses it through the acts they make during their lifetime. The only thing we get from the bible as to the condition of hell is... Its hot, there is no water, you'll be sad and angry that you're there, and you can see those in heaven. Its kind of like being in a desert while watching an episode of Baywatch. I suppose the degree of heat, dryness, and despair is linked to the magnitude of your acts in life.

Seems like an odd punishment. Say you get in for Envy or something similar. Then you're put somewhere hot and dry while watching happy people in paradise. It breeds more envy.

Redemption should be the goal, not eternal punishment.

Envy is natural. Everyone suffers from envy, its only when you let it get the better of you and act on it is it wrong. Each of the "7 deadly sins" is based on excessive indulgence.

I also never said that one cannot be redeemed. Heh, I just realized how difficult this is going to be for me simply because everyone will assume that I ascribe to popular or common belief and try to use it in argument against me thinking it valid.

sorry, but i've never before in my life said any word that can be taken as offensive in any situation as to strengthen my resolve and never say it like people do today, so i'll refer to it as Hades, which is not considered offensive. everywhere i write hades, take it the same as the english translation you use. This is a place where i throw in my two cents, so please hang in here with me.

In latter-day revelation hades is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and ressurection, and persons who recieve the telestial glory will abide there until the last ressurection, at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hades. Hades, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their ressurection. Statements about an everlasting hades must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of Donctrine & Covenents 19:4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.

On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hades in the scriptures. This kind of hades, which is after the ressurection and judgement, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and ressurection. The one group are redeemed from hades and inherit some degree of glory. The other recieve no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the condition of Hades remain.

I interpreted what was said as talking about eternal punishment, but what you just said makes more sense.

One question: How are they to redeem themselves? Do they redeem themselves through action? Or is there a punishment, and when it's over they are redeemed?

i figure that part covers your question, if you need more on the subject from me, i'd need to research.

edit: i just realized you could be talking to me or taz O.0

Just wondering here, your tortured in hell before you submit yourself to a higher authority, hmmmm now where have I heard that before.

I have nothing against christians who want to help people, but when they are giving out free condoms and every single one has a hole in them? You start to think about the problems of any point of view when they start doing messed up stuff like that

could you explain a little further? im not following you...

Franco's Spain "You are tortured until you say you are sorry and then you are killed". I can see certain parralels between that and hell

and on the second point, A christian union group at my freshers week was handing out condoms, saying stuff like "safe sex" etc. I didn't go, but some of the guys who went and did use them had them rip, they then checked with other mates and every single one of those condoms had a hole in them.

Of course its probably too small a stdy to be accurate, but its still unnerving.

That's messed up...
And they expect to be taken seriously in this way?

~Bowen

I don't believe that Jesus died for anyones sins, and that mankind pays for what they do, whether in this world or the next. If you commit a wrong act, and feel no remorse, you will not be redeemed. If you do feel guilt, and try to make things right, you still did wrong and have to be punished for it, but you are not deserving of hell and upon death, accepted into heaven. The thing is, you have to never do it again. I think that is all summed up in the term "repent".



That right there is malicious and wrong of them on multiple levels.

They're lying in the form of offering false protection, purposely misguiding innocent people into an unwanted child birth.
It is also cruel of them to force it upon others.
I find no fault in safe sex practices, I believe that the soul enters into the human body upon his/her first breath. Until then, they're a lump of living meat, the semen and egg simply genetic material. Heartbeat and formation of organs mean nothing as they are not what make you who you are.

EDIT:



In Pen's rendition of hades, it would be closer to "You're tortured until you say you're sorry, and then you live."

i only call it hades because i don't swear >.>

It is not swearing in my book if one uses hell to refer to the place, nor is the word ass if one refers to a donkey, else one could not recite the bible without swearing.

no, it is not considered swearing, but if i say it in some sense, then my subconscious will get used to saying it, and it may come out at bad times.

eh, i was going to say something, but it's not the current topic, and i'd not like to change subjects. it can wait for a later time.

Personally, an eternity in a place that would be more boring than earth has no sort of appeal.

Its the same with all human utopias.

I appreciate the lack of swearing pent, but if you want to make a point sometimes you do have to swear your arse off

however i do occasionally feel an urge, i never have and never will under any circumstance. i'm also trying to stop saying words that are spelled and pronounced differently but imply the same thing. and i can make a point w/o swearing.

Its your funeral

Personally a good swear is better for you than a long mental breakdown, thats an old saying

one of my life's goals is to remain mentally awake and morally straight. part of it includes not going insane...

oh, and one of our prophets once described even the lowest degree of heaven as "so much greater than earth, that if you even experienced a second of it, you would kill yourself the instant you came back." but of course it's not as appealing to you right now. there's a saying for that, "one can not desire paradise until one's experienced it."

Who am I to argue with prophets.

Mentally awake and morally straight are difficult things, I am trying for both, but drinking swearing and enjoying are a bit of life to see

my idea of enjoying life involves always choosing the right option... which is why you'll never find me in a bad mood.

I know about the right decision, it is usually NOT the decision that makes you happy.

then call me unusual, but i am unashamed of any of my actions. i laugh at myself for mistakes, and am thankful for the oppurtunities i have to make the correct decision.

Such as?

I had to stop a girl going out with me because she was in love with me and I wasn't with her. She cried for 2 hours straight and now avoids me.

It sounds more like you made the decision that made you sad for the shortest possible amount of time, no choice would of actually made you "happy". It was either stop it early and move on, or lead her on only to break her heart later causing a greater degree of heartache while suffering from depression knowing that you don't love her.

The second option would also probably result in her becoming infuriated and possibly end violently.

So your saying it was not a "morally" right decision? To try and save the girls feelings was not morally correct and should be seen as some sort of wrong desicion because it also effects me?

If you are then I will fashion my own morality.