Discussion about Religious Beliefs

[Last Fearner]

Greetings all,

Following a brief exchange in another thread about the "Christmas" holiday, I have decided to start this thread with the intention of allowing individuals on every side of the topic of religion to discuss their viewpoints and present facts, research, as well as personal interpretation of events and other related subjects. This thread is intended to be a "discussion" rather than a "heated debate!"

Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "ridiculous," "absurd," "foolish," or "flat out lies!" No one should be so arrogant as to think that it is impossible for them, the evidence they offer, the experts they quote, or the conclusions they have drawn to be wrong. Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.

I will start with this question. Have any of you ever seen the PBS show of the late Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D., or are you aware of his work? I saw the show where he teaches about the academic reasons and logical conclusions that led him to believe the stories about Jesus, as presented in the New Testament, to be true. It was fascinating, and quite compelling

Here is the bio page of his website in case you are not familiar with him:
http://www.drgenescott.org/docbio.htm

I look forward to a healty, productive, and polite discussion of religion! (fingers crossed)

Last Fearner

 

[Andrew Green]

I will start with this question. Have any of you ever seen the PBS show of the late Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D., or are you aware of his work? I saw the show where he teaches about the academic reasons and logical conclusions that led him to believe the stories about Jesus, as presented in the New Testament, to be true. It was fascinating, and quite compelling

What where they? I'll be honest, every attempt at applying logic and reason to faith that I have seen comes across as weak, which IMO is why it is considered faith. Reason and science cannot lead a person to God.

[/quote]
Here is the bio page of his website in case you are not familiar with him:
http://www.drgenescott.org/docbihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDU7rKleDFYo.htm

I look forward to a healty, productive, and polite discussion of religion! (fingers crossed)

Last Fearner[/quote]


Polite? and you bring Gene Scott up?

I don't know, but in my mind a person looses some credibility when they die from the cancer they claimed God cured them of and refuse medical treatment.

Fiath is a personal thing, it makes people feel good, gives them hope and purpose. Whether there is a reality behind it cannot be decided by reason.

My objection to religion is not faith on a personal level, but when reality is ignored because of ancient teachings, or wishful thinking. A person refusing medical treatement because a faith healer got God to heal them, that is wrong. Denying our history (evolution) because people thousands of years ago had a different theory, also wrong. Going to war and killing people because God told you to, very big wrong.

The message behind all religion seems to be peace, wellbeing, be kind to your neighbour, be a good person, etc. Really nice ideals. But when people use other peoples faith to manipulate them, whether it is going to war, crashing planes, bombing abortion clinics, telling them which lifestyle choices are ok, and which are abominations, that is where I have a problem with religion.

That and when I get refered to as a godless heathen... no, nevermind, I'm ok with that, it's true.

In a lot of ways I prefer the older polytheistic views on religion. Where you could accept that different people have different gods, and that is ok. If you are in Rome, then Roman Gods are there, but Egypt might have different Gods. Gods where more human-like, they had strengths and weaknesses. Some where good, others bad, or rather they where all shades of grey.

The one God, and only one God who is perfect, omnipetent, omniscient, benevelent and there are no others and anyone that says so is wrong attitude of Jeudeo-Christian belief I'm not so found of. Acceptance of other belief systems is a lot harder when you take the stance of there is one, and only one true religion.

Acceptance means accepting that other people have other beliefs. And if your beliefs require that only your beliefs are valid, and that you must try and convert all others in order to "save" them, I think that interfers with your ability to accept them, and there beliefs as valid as well.

I'm an athiest. I have never seen a convincing piece of evidence to show me that any one of the thousands of religions is true, or that any sort of god(s) exist. That's the way my brain works, logic tends to get in the way of faith. If someone was ever able to prove me wrong, I'd be quite happy with them.

I'd also never try to sway anyone to becoming an atheist. I don't see the point. People should be free to believe as they choose, providing it doesn't interfer with the freedom of others to belive as they choose. So while I would not try to get a person to become a atheist, I would perhaps argue to the point that there beliefs are not correct to the exclusion of all others, and that in the absence of that, it's probably better to accept that other religions have value as well, and followers should not be converted in order to be saved, they are fine as they are. (especially us godless heathens)

 

[tellner]

It's a noble effort. Really. I just think you're going to have to pan an awful lot of gravel to get the nuggets here. Good luck.

 

[Shaderon]

My beliefs are simple but I don't know who else believes them... i.e., I don't know what the name of the religion is IF there is one.

I believe that we are all part of what some people call "god", our spirit comes from a great spirit, is joined to it even in life, and goes back to it when we die taking the information and experience it gained with it. That's the simplest form, it really means that everything we do here on earth, is really all very small and insignificant in the end. Every life is short but important, for without it we would not experience ourselves. We are here to live, to be happy and to experience our own love.

When things get difficult, it's what we have chosen to live like, before we became concious here, we chose our paths before we started to live them. Here on earth, we are seperate from each other only so we can fully experience, if we knew we were all the same being, then we wouldn't act the same. Would the Lion kill the Zebra if she knew it was herself? If she felt it's pain? Probably not, but it needs to in order to survive.

Beyond that, the questions of whether Jesus lived, or whether other highly enlightened people lived is immaterial to me, as we are all the same person in the end, does it matter who lived? They were all just teachers and we have to now find the answers within ourselves.

I also believe that every religion has it's points, but it's like the blind men experiencing the elephant, one will feel the tail and say it's like a rope, one will feel it's feet and say it's like a tree, one will feel it's trunk and say it's like a snake, but none of them will ever see the whole unless they accpet each others beliefs and study them too.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not really sure what the topic of this thread is. Are we discussing the historiography and textual criticism related to the Bible?? Or, are we discussing our own personal philosophical beliefs?? Both are very broad subjects and this thread could end up going in a number of different directions.

I ask this because Biblical historiography has very little, if anything, to do with my own personal philosophical beliefs. Even if I felt compelled to draw upon the Judeo-Christian tradition for analogy to my own positions, it would be from perennial mystics like Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, John of the Cross, Johannes Eckhart, or even the more modern Thomas Merton. The Bible would play virtually no part at all in a discussion of my beliefs.

While I am not an atheist, I find myself largely agreeing with Andrew Green's post in the ways in which "mythology" can conflict with "reality" and the repercussions this can have on humanity. As such, my own rejection of much of the Biblical narrative is for scientific reasons, not philosophical ones. Philosophically, the Bible is irrelevant to me personally.

I hope that made sense.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i think a line needs to be drawn between faith and religion.

for purposes of the discussion, i'm going to give some definitions. they're not the best ever, but they should serve to illustrate my point.

by 'faith' i mean an individual's personal belief in and relationship with the divine -- be that god, allah, thor, gaia or the flying spaghetti monster.

by 'religion' i mean the institutions that exist as a result of faith. the nation of islam, the roman catholic church, branch davidian and all the rest.

faith seems almost universally a good thing. it comforts people, it moves folk to do good works, it serves as a concience.

almost everything that's ever happened to make people disdainful of people of faith was the fault of religion. holy wars. the existence of wedge issues. entrenched dogma rather than informed debate about evolution and abortion. take your pick. faith didn't cause those. it was the manipulation of faith by religious institutions.

with faith you get discovery, peace, joy. with religions you get beuracracy, power politics and the abuse of power.

there are exceptions. many religions are responsible for widespread good works. my point isn't that relgion is inherently bad. it's just that faith seems a good thing, but that it can be spoiled by religion if one isn't careful

 

[Empty Hands]

faith seems almost universally a good thing. it comforts people, it moves folk to do good works, it serves as a concience.

almost everything that's ever happened to make people disdainful of people of faith was the fault of religion.

You can't have religion without faith. Thus, attempting to separate the two is disingenuous. What is bad due to religion is at least in part possible and due to faith.

 

[Andrew Green]

You can't have religion without faith.

But you can have faith without religion.

You also can't eat KFC without chicken, doesn't mean chicken is unhealthy.

 

[Empty Hands]

But you can have faith without religion.

In individuals, perhaps. But people in general are social animals. I doubt that any shared faith in the long run could fail to generate an organized structure. Even small tribes had their power-holding shamans.

Look at it this way as well. The fact that someone has faith means you have a potential lever of power to use on them. Eventually, someone will want to give those levers a pull, and religion is how you do it.

 

[Andrew Green]

The I think the question becomes which controls which. Do the people control there faith, and in turn there religion? Or does there religion control them?

There is a difference between a culture that allows people to believe as they choose, and religion comes about do to the fact that people are social in contrast to one that has a specific priest class that dictates the religion and its values to the people.

 

[Carol]

Humans are also showing a trend of being increasingly less and less social. Why with computers we can shop, work, develop photos, and even have groceries delivered without dealing with *shudder* other people.

I dunno...just speaking for me and me only...my faith seems to become more and more of a personal thing to me. Its something that I want to share only with those closest to me...only with those that I trust.

 

[Xue Sheng]

What I find absolutely amazing (EDIT: and sad) here is that in a discussion titled “Discussion about Religious Beliefs” that the following statement was necessary.

Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "ridiculous," "absurd," "foolish," or "flat out lies!"

And it WAS necessary.

OK, I’ll go now

 

[bushidomartialarts]

You can't have religion without faith.

true

Thus, attempting to separate the two is disingenuous. What is bad due to religion is at least in part possible and due to faith.

not so much. as was already mentioned, you can have faith without religion.
religion is faith decided by committee.

interesting point earlier about how a religion evolves and why it exists. one that grew as a natural combination of humanity's tendency towards faith and humanity's tendency towards being social is a very different animal from a religion that was cynically set up as a means of achieving and maintaining power.

my belief (based on extensive but neither exhaustive nor systematic reading and research) that most religions begin as the former but eventually devolve into the latter.

 

[Andrew Green]

Here is a interesting article on religion, well more of a interview:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/02/elaine_pagels/index.html

It's on a recently uncovered document regarding the Gospel of Judas, and how Christianity has changed over time.

 

[Last Fearner]

There have been some interesting contributions here, and I am glad to see this thread attracting some interest.

I'm not really sure what the topic of this thread is.

...this thread could end up going in a number of different directions.

To give this thread some more specific direction, I would like to focus on certain key issues pertaining mostly to the existence of a God (or an supreme diety), examination of various religious documents and any evidence which supports or refutes them in part or whole (The Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Torah, etc.), and the significance of any key individuals in these various religions (Jesus, Buddha, The Pope, etc).

I would like to see people ask questions about religious matters that they feel they are missing explanations, and for others to provide specifically referenced data, and research that offers one possible explanation or theory.

Here are some things that I have considered when pondering religion, and my own personal beliefs.

I. Either there is a "God" (supreme diety) or there is not?
(if there is not, it might be difficult to prove that other than to say that I have not discovered evidence of one yet, thus can not prove or disprove it)

II. If there is a God, is there one and only one, or multiple Gods?

III. If there are multiple Gods (or such spiritual entities), is one more powerful than all the others, or are there two or more that have the same power and abilities?

IV. Have any living figures been direct descendants of God(s) such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, Jesus of Nazareth, or any other person?

V. Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?

VI. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to heal people through means other than conventional methods? (I'm looking for specific cases, and discussion over relevant facts rather than just a personal belief that these things happen).

VII. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to predict the future? (More specifically about famous prophets and notable predictions as opposed to modern day psychics - unless you believe in a modern day prophet). I am looking for the exact prophecy, or prediction, when it was made and by whom, and if it came to pass.

VIII. Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament).

IX. What is your viewpoint on the "time-line" of Earth's history, and how it relates to the theory or belief in creation or pure evolution? (keep in mind, I believe it is scientifically proven that plants and animals do evolve, and have evolved to adapt to their environment over time. Indicating that the evolutionary process occurs does not rule out creation, just that we could have evolved after creation). Other than simply saying one theory makes sense and one does not, what specific evidence concludes that one or the other is the primary source of human existence and the other is not?

For the creation theory, how do explain the apparent age of the Earth, the presence of dinosaurs over millions of years (or do you deny they existed - ), any discoveries of human skeletons dating hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neandertal and other pre-historic "man-like" creatures)

For the evolution theory, what evidence (if any) exists to show fossils, or skeletal remains of creatures that existed for whatever period of time it took humans to evolve from each step prior to bipedal, or any figures resembling modern man before Neandertal, or "Lucy" or others? If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?

If you believe that some of the above questions are unanswerable, then don't address them. These are just thoughts and questions that have crossed my mind. I'm looking more for specific research, and proof (with some personal interpretation allowed) rather than long replies about personal, individual beliefs. Let's get to the hard facts, and root of these issues! (politely, of course)

Last Fearner

 

[Carol]

For the creation theory, how do explain the apparent age of the Earth, the presence of dinosaurs over millions of years (or do you deny they existed - ), any discoveries of human skeletons dating hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neandertal and other pre-historic "man-like" creatures)

Depends on which creation theory you are talking about. I did a google search on creation stories once and found dozens of them.

 

[Makalakumu]

LF - Each one of your points would be a wonderful thread in its own right!

 

[Empty Hands]

The I think the question becomes which controls which. Do the people control there faith, and in turn there religion? Or does there religion control them?

I am not sure anyone can control their faith. You would be hard pressed to find a devout theist that would claim they could choose to become an atheist, or a "devout" atheist who would claim they could choose to believe in God tomorrow. This is not to say that faith can't be influenced - most Christians have Christian parents and live in Christian societies, most Muslims have Muslim parents and live in Muslim societies, etc.

As for religion, some people will always resist the elements of control - like those who are "spiritual but not religious." Looked at from a wider view however, over a longer period, it is hard to argue against religion as controlling. Also, that the religious lever can't gain a hold without that faith, no matter how benign originally. This is also not to say that all control is "evil" - using religion and the "Fear of God" to steer people away from murder and cheating on their taxes is control, too.

There is a difference between a culture that allows people to believe as they choose, and religion comes about do to the fact that people are social in contrast to one that has a specific priest class that dictates the religion and its values to the people.

Sure, but my point is that no matter how freely chosen and benign, religion offers potential levers of control over people. It is hard to avoid that priest class eventually springing up when all that power is just left lying around. Also, once again, that you can't have the religious control without the faith - thus it makes no sense to claim that religion is "bad" and faith "good".

 

[Empty Hands]

And it WAS necessary.

Who has been disrespectful? No one I have seen.

 

[Empty Hands]

not so much. as was already mentioned, you can have faith without religion.

Yes, but you can't have religion without faith. Thus, any evil that descends from religion depends in part upon faith. Thus faith cannot be considered an unalloyed good. Not that it is intrinsically bad, just that it can be used for bad ends.

my belief (based on extensive but neither exhaustive nor systematic reading and research) that most religions begin as the former but eventually devolve into the latter.

Yes, that is exactly what I am getting at. No matter how "nice" the religion and how it is or used to be, it can always "devolve."