You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:26:31 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Religion- Oh no not that again  (Read 24639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #250 on: April 17, 2012, 10:19:29 AM »
But it can be just as damaging if not more so than many illegal acts.

"Damaging" is a subjective term.

Legality is not. Either it is, or it is not.

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #251 on: April 17, 2012, 10:23:15 AM »
Religious instruction to children is brainwashing. Children don't know any different. They're programmed by evolution to accept everything their parents tell them as absolutely true. This is useful say, if the parent says not to put their hand in the light socket you'll get hurt. But this is not a good thing when it comes to religious instruction in which religion can not be tested to determine whether it's true. The child is being indoctrinated at a young age to believe jesus saves or the holy spirit lives within the saved or god watches over everyone just as much as real things like two plus two is four, the colors of the rainbow, and how the plants use photosynthesis.

Nobody is born believing religious beliefs. They have to learn them. So when a child is indoctrinated in this way, they really really believe it to be true. A lot of times they tend to close their minds to everything else, even more so than those who haven't been indoctrinated as kids, because they were told it by their parents so it must be true. Or they really really want it to be true.

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They have kids wearing these shirts that say god hates fags. They believe it to be absolutely true because of religious instruction. Extreme example, but it gets the point across. Or kids trained to be in the Taliban and blow up buildings and kill people for their religion? Is this ok? Neither of these are illegal in their respective countries. It's not illegal to dress a kid up in a shirt that says god hates fags nor is it illegal in other countries to give kids weapons and have them fight for God.

I was born into a religious family, I know how this process goes. I've known many people who also were born into religious families. Several of them have told me that I was demon possessed for being gay, I believed that as well for some time. Why do you think people said this? It's not because they were given a chance to learn about the world. No. It's because they were indoctrinated at a young age to believe one single way, and they did. Children just don't know any better.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #252 on: April 17, 2012, 10:32:58 AM »

I was born into a religious family, I know how this process goes.

No, you know "how the process goes" for your family and your experience

You do not know "how the process goes" for any other family except your own. The only family you can speak for is your own.

And if we are going to use the dictionary definition of "brainwashing" (instead of your own personal definition), almost anything learned by a child can be equated to "brainwashing" i.e.  any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion.

By that definition, learning the times tables (which I did in school by rote and repetition) is brainwashing.

Quote
Children just don't know any better.

Which is why we as parents make decisions for them.

Offline Lilias

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #253 on: April 17, 2012, 10:36:34 AM »
Children don't know any different. They're programmed by evolution to accept everything their parents tell them as absolutely true.

[...]

Children just don't know any better.

Children are perfectly capable of questioning everything they are told. With embarrassing candour. In public. That's something that people just don't get until their own children drive it home.

There are plenty of kids who are raised religious and later reject it, and plenty others who do the exact opposite. I suspect 'enlightened atheist' parents are no more chuffed when a child of theirs grows up and finds God than your parents were.

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #254 on: April 17, 2012, 10:42:44 AM »
And the dictionary definition of indoctrination is:

the act of indoctrinating,  or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view: religious indoctrination.

Which would make the times tables not brainwashing.

Yes, I can speak for myself, but I can also speak for people I've known and grown up being friends with. And yes, parents have to make decisions for their children every day, but indoctrination is the key problem. I don't have a solution here because this problem would be very hard to get rid of. I'm presenting it as a problem.

Quote
There are plenty of kids who are raised religious and later reject it, and plenty others who do the exact opposite. I suspect 'enlightened atheist' parents are no more chuffed when a child of theirs grows up and finds God than your parents were.

Actually most atheist families would be perfectly fine with children who go on to believe religious beliefs since they're not particularly concerned over whether their child is believing the right things or not. They would be a bit annoying, of course, but much more ok with it than if a religious family's child deconverted.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #255 on: April 17, 2012, 10:44:02 AM »
Children are perfectly capable of questioning everything they are told. With embarrassing candour. In public. That's something that people just don't get until their own children drive it home.

There are plenty of kids who are raised religious and later reject it, and plenty others who do the exact opposite. I suspect 'enlightened atheist' parents are no more chuffed when a child of theirs grows up and finds God than your parents were.

Yes. Thank you.

Any parent who thinks they are raising an automoton without any capability of free thought is going to be highly disappointed.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #256 on: April 17, 2012, 10:54:46 AM »
And the dictionary definition of indoctrination is:

the act of indoctrinating,  or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view: religious indoctrination.

Which would make the times tables not brainwashing.

You just proved my point. Anything learned by a child could be defined as brainwashing or as indoctrination.

Quote
Yes, I can speak for myself, but I can also speak for people I've known and grown up being friends with.

Actually, no. You can't.

Quote
And yes, parents have to make decisions for their children every day, but indoctrination is the key problem. I don't have a solution here because this problem would be very hard to get rid of. I'm presenting it as a problem.

Not everyone sees it as a problem.

Quote
Actually most atheist families would be perfectly fine with children who go on to believe religious beliefs since they're not particularly concerned over whether their child is believing the right things or not. They would be a bit annoying, of course, but much more ok with it than if a religious family's child deconverted.

Again, you cannot say what "most" atheist families would do.

Offline vtboy

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #257 on: April 17, 2012, 11:44:00 AM »
So honour beatings on young women who 'dishonour' their families are okay because that's how their parents want to raise them? Or female circumcision? Yes, I'm choosing some extreme examples but I'm sure that the parents who do that say 'well, it's what's best for them' and they're all religiously motivated.

I think that it's ridiculous that there's so much that people get away with because they put it under the header of 'religious freedom'. There's a time and a place for cultural respect, but you can't just write everything off as parental rights.

I am very sympathetic to the views you've expressed, and believe that among the many sins committed by organized religion has been its use of terror tactics, such as tales of eternal punishment, in indoctrinating children with their doctrines. Perhaps, as Christopher Hitchens suggested, this particular form of religious instruction should be treated as a form of child abuse.

Putting aside for a moment the subjection of children to physical or psychological injury, the indoctrination of children with normative beliefs appears to be a feature of socialization common to all cultures. Though institutions outside the nuclear family have taken on an ever larger role in the process, parents remain a major conduit for conveying values, especially to the youngest children.   

I would prefer to live in a world free of the influence of organized religion which I view, on the whole, to have been pernicious. However, short of outlawing religious practice, I don't see any way to prevent parents from passing on their religious beliefs to their kids. After all, even raising one's children to figure out religion on their own is a form of value instruction.   

Offline Reno

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #258 on: April 17, 2012, 11:56:16 AM »
You just proved my point. Anything learned by a child could be defined as brainwashing or as indoctrination.

How does the quoted definition prove that point? That relies on the implicit claim that everything learned by a child is a "doctrine, principle, or ideology."  This is not a claim that is particularly difficult to reject, but I can imagine it nearly impossible to support it rationally.

Offline Cheka Man

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #259 on: April 17, 2012, 01:47:21 PM »
I suggest that apart from weddings and funerals, the under 18s should be legally banned from religious buildings and schools. If the fuel of religion is cut off, in fifty or so years it will either die or be lowered to the cult level.

Offline Lilias

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #260 on: April 17, 2012, 02:11:32 PM »
I suggest that apart from weddings and funerals, the under 18s should be legally banned from religious buildings and schools. If the fuel of religion is cut off, in fifty or so years it will either die or be lowered to the cult level.

You really believe that religious practice is limited only in places of worship? :o

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #261 on: April 17, 2012, 02:48:45 PM »
Who, then, would be allowed in religious schools?

Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #262 on: April 17, 2012, 02:59:14 PM »
I suggest that apart from weddings and funerals, the under 18s should be legally banned from religious buildings and schools. If the fuel of religion is cut off, in fifty or so years it will either die or be lowered to the cult level.

While I can agree with this in spirit - it certainly would be interesting to see how many would take up a religion after a childhood completely free of it (I'd suspect not that many) - it's completely unworkable in practice, and may even have the opposite effect than intended.

As Lilias pointed out, religion doesn't start and stop with religious establishments. In fact, private home life plays a massively important part too, and frankly, legislating upon what amounts to private opinions within a family setting has the unpleasant smell of Big Brother about it.

Also, some religious groups and sects actively thrive on a perception of being persecuted, and in some cases it actually bolsters the fervency of the belief - as we see in the case of the WBC, where they believe that the loathing they receive validates Biblical scripture (at least, how they see Biblical scripture). What we could possibly have, were religion ever prohibited in such a way, is a rise in fundamentalism at the cost of a more moderate or laissez-faire religosity.

Offline Lilias

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #263 on: April 18, 2012, 03:45:30 AM »
What we could possibly have, were religion ever prohibited in such a way, is a rise in fundamentalism at the cost of a more moderate or laissez-faire religosity.

Or a shift in the government that tried to legislate such prohibition. Because it has already been attempted.

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #264 on: May 03, 2012, 05:18:26 AM »
I know this thread is a bit dead and probably should stay that way, but I'd like to add something to the remarks I've made previously in this thread, so I'm gonna.  Also, I'm not insightful enough to express myself with great brevity, as is the norm in these kinds of threads, so I'm just gonna say what I have to say, and if you don't want to read all of it, by all means, don't.  (I think you'll miss my point if you skip any of it, but there certainly are lots worse crimes.)  Lastly, I think this post is generally relevant to several things that have been discussed in this thread, but I also think it makes sense to be read on its own, without having read the whole thread.  (I for one have only read parts of this thread, because I'm a very slow reader.)

Geez, I'm so embarrassed by the length of this that I'm gonna hide it inside one of those handy-dandy "spoiler" tags, which will make it even easier for you to skip if you want, hehe.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
It's an absolutely essential thing for people to develop their truth- and falsehood-sniffing apparatuses until they're as sharp as they can possibly be; everyone needs a good crap detector because there's just so much crap out there, and we all see people around us who get hornswaggled by some kooky con artist or other and end up believing the most outlandish B.S. and (worse yet) telling everyone else about it.

(It's funny, though, how certain outlandish B.S. is considered so much more culturally acceptable than others.  New-age-y motivational hucksters can talk millions of people into buying their original philosophical treatises -- it happens all the time, just look at any bestseller list -- and as long as they don't make one or two crucial mis-steps, they can be welcomed onto all the talk shows and generally approved-of in polite society.  One big example of a crucial mis-step that will get your outlandish ass immediately thrown out the back door of any civilized public establishment is to suggest that any other person's philosophy can be deluded or largely mistaken, rather than equally valid to every other subjective personal philosophy.  In short, relativism reigns in 2012, and "truth" -- or "truthiness," har-dee-har -- is, quite literally, a joke.)  (But I digress, sorry.)

So, anyway, once you've got yourself a state-of-the-art, well-educated, and keenly-skeptical crap detector with which to test the validity (or invalidity) of various philosophical propositions (not everyone has one, or has a very good one, so that's not a skill to be taken for granted in any way), then your average seeker is confronted with a whole range of competing philosophies, most but not all of which contain mutually-exclusive propositions about the nature of reality.  It's considered a worthwhile pursuit in our modern society for each individual to spend a certain amount of time considering the various established religions that are out there and eventually choosing one as your own personal "faith tradition," assuming you weren't grandfathered into a religion at your parents' and other relatives' lifelong insistence.

This brings us to my point (didn't think I had one, didja?  heheh).  I am a Christian, and a certain sort of one, one who believes that Christianity is the only true religion, and all others are false, including many watered-down varieties of Christianity, perhaps even the one professed at your local church or synagogue.  I recognize and even lament or bemoan the horribly-offensive nature of my religious beliefs, but I adhere to them because I consider them the only true beliefs that anyone can have.

The point is, if one grants that the truth about life is knowable, and the truth about life might exclude (render false) at least some alternative truth-propositions, how is any sensible adult supposed to arrive at the truth, or know whether or not they have done so?  Here is my answer ... (drum roll) ...

The answer is that if the truth is the truth, then it will convince you that it is the truth.  The burden of proof always rest with the accuser, correct? with the person making the accusations, making the proposals?  So it is with religion:  the burden of proof rests with the religion's spokesperson, its source.

Christianity has the unmitigated gall to suggest that its source, its original spokesperson, is not a human person but a non-human person -- namely, God himself.  It's an absurd, offensive, ludicrous claim; and it's also a true claim.

I am suggesting here that any person who chooses to believe Christianity will become convinced of the truth of Christianity by God himself.  God, a real and specific and sentient being, will personally convince you.

Okay, so what's the catch?  If your crap detector is any good at all, you're smart enough to know that there's always a fuckin' catch, man.  :)  The catch, in this case, is the following:  God will not convince you of the truth of Christianity until you choose to believe it.  He will not convince you beforehand.  He insists, for whatever reason that only he knows, that you make the choice without being convinced in advance.  The choice is what is known as a "leap of faith," which is, by definition, a choice to believe something is the case without knowing in advance that it is the case, i.e., without being convinced in advance that it is the case.

Finally, let me add a personal note:  without being facetious in any way, I personally think that the choice of whether or not to believe Christianity is a shitty fucking choice.  What do I mean by that?  I mean that it is a choice that doesn't feel good or seem reasonable, i.e., it doesn't fit well with one's emotions or sense of reason.  Christianity contains an explanation for why it is that way, why it's such a shitty fucking choice, and most Christians who look into it apparently decide that that explanation is good enough for them -- they accept it without continually being upset about it.  For some bizarre reason, I have not come to that conclusion myself, based on my personal life experiences and based on my own crap detector's signals.  I have come to the conclusion that it's a fucking shitty choice, and I'll be happy to argue the point with any other Christian who cares to do so -- in fact I welcome the opportunity most eagerly -- and I'm not even willing to hide my opinions about this from non-Christians, as if it might dissuade them from becoming a Christian.  I believe one has to face the truth in order to become a Christian; by definition, in fact, becoming a Christian involves a direct encounter with the truth (or The Truth, if you like).  If that is so, then there's no reason to hide from the facts about anything, and the facts tell me that it's a shitty arrangement, this whole Christianity thing.

My crap detector and my best faculties also tell me that Christianity is the truth, whether it feels good or not, and whether it seems true or not.  Why is that good enough for me?  Why am I a Christian if I think being a Christian is kind of a shitty deal?  Because -- believe it or not? -- because God himself has convinced me.

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #265 on: May 03, 2012, 03:29:48 PM »
"Truthiness" is a joke, yes, but it's a very serious satire on just what you're talking about. Truthiness is believing something because it feels right or because you think it's true. Without the actual evidence to back it up. It's a satire on the relativistic culture you are talking about. And it really applies to the rest of your post as well.


Also: I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was touched by his noodly apendage. He convinced me of the truth of his own existance, but only after I believed in Pastafarianism.


See? Anyone at all can make that claim. And they do. And they have. Throughout history. Wars have been fought over who's version of religion is right.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #266 on: May 03, 2012, 05:11:25 PM »


Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
It's an absolutely essential thing for people to develop their truth- and falsehood-sniffing apparatuses until they're as sharp as they can possibly be; everyone needs a good crap detector because there's just so much crap out there, and we all see people around us who get hornswaggled by some kooky con artist or other and end up believing the most outlandish B.S. and (worse yet) telling everyone else about it.

(It's funny, though, how certain outlandish B.S. is considered so much more culturally acceptable than others.  New-age-y motivational hucksters can talk millions of people into buying their original philosophical treatises -- it happens all the time, just look at any bestseller list -- and as long as they don't make one or two crucial mis-steps, they can be welcomed onto all the talk shows and generally approved-of in polite society.  One big example of a crucial mis-step that will get your outlandish ass immediately thrown out the back door of any civilized public establishment is to suggest that any other person's philosophy can be deluded or largely mistaken, rather than equally valid to every other subjective personal philosophy.  In short, relativism reigns in 2012, and "truth" -- or "truthiness," har-dee-har -- is, quite literally, a joke.)  (But I digress, sorry.)

So, anyway, once you've got yourself a state-of-the-art, well-educated, and keenly-skeptical crap detector with which to test the validity (or invalidity) of various philosophical propositions (not everyone has one, or has a very good one, so that's not a skill to be taken for granted in any way), then your average seeker is confronted with a whole range of competing philosophies, most but not all of which contain mutually-exclusive propositions about the nature of reality.  It's considered a worthwhile pursuit in our modern society for each individual to spend a certain amount of time considering the various established religions that are out there and eventually choosing one as your own personal "faith tradition," assuming you weren't grandfathered into a religion at your parents' and other relatives' lifelong insistence.

This brings us to my point (didn't think I had one, didja?  heheh).  I am a Christian, and a certain sort of one, one who believes that Christianity is the only true religion, and all others are false, including many watered-down varieties of Christianity, perhaps even the one professed at your local church or synagogue.  I recognize and even lament or bemoan the horribly-offensive nature of my religious beliefs, but I adhere to them because I consider them the only true beliefs that anyone can have.

The point is, if one grants that the truth about life is knowable, and the truth about life might exclude (render false) at least some alternative truth-propositions, how is any sensible adult supposed to arrive at the truth, or know whether or not they have done so?  Here is my answer ... (drum roll) ...

The answer is that if the truth is the truth, then it will convince you that it is the truth.  The burden of proof always rest with the accuser, correct? with the person making the accusations, making the proposals?  So it is with religion:  the burden of proof rests with the religion's spokesperson, its source.

Christianity has the unmitigated gall to suggest that its source, its original spokesperson, is not a human person but a non-human person -- namely, God himself.  It's an absurd, offensive, ludicrous claim; and it's also a true claim.

I am suggesting here that any person who chooses to believe Christianity will become convinced of the truth of Christianity by God himself.  God, a real and specific and sentient being, will personally convince you.

Okay, so what's the catch?  If your crap detector is any good at all, you're smart enough to know that there's always a fuckin' catch, man.  :)  The catch, in this case, is the following:  God will not convince you of the truth of Christianity until you choose to believe it.  He will not convince you beforehand.  He insists, for whatever reason that only he knows, that you make the choice without being convinced in advance.  The choice is what is known as a "leap of faith," which is, by definition, a choice to believe something is the case without knowing in advance that it is the case, i.e., without being convinced in advance that it is the case.

Finally, let me add a personal note:  without being facetious in any way, I personally think that the choice of whether or not to believe Christianity is a shitty fucking choice.  What do I mean by that?  I mean that it is a choice that doesn't feel good or seem reasonable, i.e., it doesn't fit well with one's emotions or sense of reason.  Christianity contains an explanation for why it is that way, why it's such a shitty fucking choice, and most Christians who look into it apparently decide that that explanation is good enough for them -- they accept it without continually being upset about it.  For some bizarre reason, I have not come to that conclusion myself, based on my personal life experiences and based on my own crap detector's signals.  I have come to the conclusion that it's a fucking shitty choice, and I'll be happy to argue the point with any other Christian who cares to do so -- in fact I welcome the opportunity most eagerly -- and I'm not even willing to hide my opinions about this from non-Christians, as if it might dissuade them from becoming a Christian.  I believe one has to face the truth in order to become a Christian; by definition, in fact, becoming a Christian involves a direct encounter with the truth (or The Truth, if you like).  If that is so, then there's no reason to hide from the facts about anything, and the facts tell me that it's a shitty arrangement, this whole Christianity thing.

My crap detector and my best faculties also tell me that Christianity is the truth, whether it feels good or not, and whether it seems true or not.  Why is that good enough for me?  Why am I a Christian if I think being a Christian is kind of a shitty deal?  Because -- believe it or not? -- because God himself has convinced me.

Generally I do not like to get into debates about religion simply because I believe that it is something that is personal between each person and the deity (or lack of one). I do not believe in forcing my beliefs down the throats of others just as the religion I practice does not seek to convert others to it.

That said, I really do not like religions that claim they are the one and only way, that only that belief system knows the truth. I really, really do not like religions that use guilt on itís followers, uses threats to keep itís adherents in line (though that obviously does not work well), and actually shuns anyone that does not fit in the square mold the religion creates whether because the clergy cannot catch up with the times or because the clergy remain focused on only one part of the scriptures. I do not like religions that say an adherent has to ask forgiveness of itís deity for being human.

Now, while I am perfectly happy to discuss my religion with others and listen to others discuss theirs, I draw the line at Ďwitnessingí or attempts to convert. I am an educated woman who has found my belief system, study for well over a decade and am now an ordained Ďministerí (weíll use that word for simplicities sake). I actually take offense when someone feels the need to tell me that I am wrong and that I need to change my belief system or else. One, their insistence infers that I am not intelligent enough to make a decision for myself. Two, I was raised in a christian household. I spent all of my childhood and most of my teens going to church so I know the bible, I know the doctrine.

I wonít go into all of the facts about Christianity simply because this is not the thread to do so, but I will say that I have a hard time believing in a belief system that says it is the one and only true way when it borrows (takes over pagan holidays) so heavily from the old religions.

As a last note, I am of the belief that it is not the deityís job to convince anyone to follow Him/Her/It. It is not Odinís responsibility to convince me nor am I a slave to Him. I share a fellowship with Him and the other Gods and Goddesses. I honor Them and They encourage me to grow and advance.

Offline Aoria

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #267 on: May 04, 2012, 12:47:13 AM »
My thought on religion is it has done more harm then good,most religions have hurt people or made them outcast cause they were different or cause they were born in a certain class. Sure religion has helped thinkers and bring a time for peace but for me the bad out weighs the good, through out history from my point of view more people have gotten hurt from religion.

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #268 on: May 04, 2012, 07:30:51 AM »
Iniquitous Opheliac --

Quote
I actually take offense when someone feels the need to tell me that I am wrong and that I need to change my belief system or else. One, their insistence infers that I am not intelligent enough to make a decision for myself. ...

I hope no one here feels that I've done these things -- belittled anyone's intelligence, or told them they were wrong and need to change their beliefs or else.  I understand that that would be offensive.

As I tried to explain a few times, I consider some of my beliefs to be offensive; I don't think there's any way around it.  To suggest that certain beliefs about life are right and others are wrong is an offensive suggestion to make, and I make it.  When I do so, I hope I don't manage to offend anyone directly, but I can only try to be understanding and apologetic if I do.  I don't think it's best for me to hide my beliefs or make them out to be something other than what they are.

Quote
... See? Anyone at all can make that claim. And they do. And they have. Throughout history. Wars have been fought over who's version of religion is right.

Quote
... most religions have hurt people or made them outcast cause they were different or cause they were born in a certain class. ...

True, true, true, and true, all true.  I agree with so many things that many non-Christians in this thread have said, including many people far more eloquent and better educated than me.

I am happy and eager to talk to anyone about what my beliefs are and why I believe what I do, but I don't wish to "proselytize" or "witness."  If it sounds like I'm doing that here, all I can say is that it's not my intention.  My intention is only to point toward the truth, because I know it and have a responsibility to point towards it.  (Yeah, I know that makes me sound like a giant, conceited ass.)

I think that the more closely anyone listens to what I have to say, or the more they know about me and my life, the more they'll see that I'm very often full of shit, mistaken, and even not-so-likable, and the less they'll learn about truth or religion or Christianity.  I think that if you want to know the truth, you can; anyone can; it's not very complicated, and it's no secret; it's all around you, in fact, and right in front of you ... but in order to see it, you'll have to stop looking at me; you'll have to somehow look past me.  I'm a terrible representative of Christianity, a poor advocate for it, and I'm not saying that facetiously; I think it's the case.

"It," the truth that I know and anyone else can also know, is Jesus, Christianity.  It, he, is God, an actual being, a real person; and although it sounds utterly preposterous to even say it, he actually wants to know you and me; he comes after each of us and will continue to do so, with urgency and patience, out of love.  Fortunately for everyone concerned, that will remain the case no matter what anyone thinks about me or about any of my inadequate explanations and misrepresentations.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 07:32:28 AM by rick957 »

Offline vtboy

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #269 on: May 04, 2012, 07:31:56 AM »
The catch, in this case, is the following:  God will not convince you of the truth of Christianity until you choose to believe it.  He will not convince you beforehand.  He insists, for whatever reason that only he knows, that you make the choice without being convinced in advance.  The choice is what is known as a "leap of faith," which is, by definition, a choice to believe something is the case without knowing in advance that it is the case, i.e., without being convinced in advance that it is the case.
I'm left wondering which came first: Christianity or snake oil? Obviously, the peddlers of the one took their spiel from the peddlers of the other.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 07:38:31 AM by vtboy »

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #270 on: May 04, 2012, 08:41:30 AM »
... touchť!

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #271 on: May 04, 2012, 08:45:57 AM »
I still maintain that my best response to one of those 'peddlers' (and I do distinguish those from people with an honest belief - y'all don't wake me up far too early on a Sunday), when they asked if I thought I was going to Heaven was:

I have every anticipation of a favorable afterlife.

Took him a good minute and a half to untangle that.  O:)

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #272 on: May 04, 2012, 12:10:48 PM »
Well of course people are wrong. The truth is just that, the truth. It lines up with reality. Not everyone has the truth about it. So there will be people who are wrong. There's no two ways about that. If someone were to say that plants make energy through photosynthesis they would be right. If someone were to say that plants make energy through magically ingesting rhinos, they would be wrong. It is no different for anything else.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 01:13:35 PM by YaoiRolePlay »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #273 on: May 04, 2012, 12:35:25 PM »
The problem with applying that to religion is that there's only one known way to find out what happens after death - and we haven't had any data come back from that process.

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #274 on: May 04, 2012, 04:21:10 PM »
That one is a wash, obvious. But it's not the only claim religion makes. And if most of the religious claims are found to be faulty, why not dismiss the other ones on the likelihood of being faulty as well?