Are You Religious?

[geodave]

Word.

And having an argument for something you already believe is called "apologetics". I'm not terribly good at it, but the point of apologetics is not to explain your beliefs, but to show that they are reasonable. Very few people, if any, are converted this way.

You belief system is based on feelings, not on logic. Even if you show people that there is logical inconsistency in their belief system (and they all have some), it's unlikely to convince them to change.

[Markus]

the current theory

before the Big Bang

This pretty much contradicts itself .

[geodave]

Ummm...I said "nothing existed before the big bang"...which is not inconsistent.

Unless you are referring to a different post....

[geodave]

All religious belief systems have some inconsistencies or unknowns (the unknowns are, in fact, required in any logical system.) I'll give you four from Christianity just for example:

1. The law (somewhere in Leviticus or Dueteronomy) says you should not marry your sister. However Sarah was Abraham's sister (probably half-sister.)

2. The law says you should not marry a woman and then marry her sister as a rival wife, yet that's what Jacob did.

Now, those two can be explained away since they happened BEFORE the law was given, but what about:

3. The law says that if a Moabite marries a Jew, their offspring are not Jewish for four generations. But David's great-grandmother Ruth was a Moabite -- so was David, or Jesse, not Jewish? How does that impact Jesus' heritage as king of the Jews.

and of course the old stand-by:

4. The book of Acts and the gospels disagree on how exactly Judas died.



These questions (and many others) DO NOT make me question my faith, but they do keep me from being a Biblical literalist.

[BitBuster]

Well, you can explain away any contradiction or perceived inconsistency in any given text, provided that you're sufficiently motivated and creative enough (you can witness this when it comes to the Bible or the Star Wars prequels). That said, I still question why it makes sense to trust the Bible if you don't take it literally.

[IceyLava108]

...well, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's an "argument"...it just seems to come across as more of an explanation for something you've already bought into, but then, maybe that's just me.

Also:

LOL, this.

[Markus]

^ Isn't that what most Christians think nowadays?

[geodave]

Well, understand what is meant by "literally". The Bible, for example, refers to a locust chewing its cud. Locusts don't do this. The Bible is not a reliable scientific document.

However, it was never INTENDED to be a scientific document. The idea of science (at least in our known history) is newer than the Bible, so of course that was not the intent. The Bible is a compilation of tradition, eyewitness accounts, preaching and poetry. It is supposed to encompass the faith, not define science.

I know that there are plenty of people out there who insist that you have to take everything in the Bible literally or you have to throw the whole thing out. That's INSANE. Okay, not insane, but also not logically valid. If there's a little mold on your cheese you don't have to throw it all out. [That's a terrible analogy, but you get what I mean.]

In case you aren't aware of this, the Roman Catholic bible has more books in it than the protestant bible. Protestants don't consider those books to be inspired, so they just pulled them out. The bible is not one big, monolithic work. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the history of the faith (and most people don't.)

[Lessinath]

I'm usually fine with religion, and while I don't follow any of the major religions I am spiritual myself.

But there's one thing that bugs me to no end, and if you know me well you'll understand why I am asking this:

Why do religious people tend to think they need to convince other people that what they think is the only thing that can be right? Is it a lack of confidance in their own belief, or some belief that they must have a moral high ground? Or a third option? I'm aware religious people are not the only ones guilty of it and may not even be the worst offenders, but it is most obvious when they do it and religion is what this thread is about.

As an extension of this, what gives religions the right to discriminate against and hate people and in doing so say things and commit actions that no other group would be able to get away with? Don't hand waive this with the Word of God, because the terrorists on 9/11 few those airplanes into those buildings in the name of their god, and that being done in the name of god doesn't make that ok. Dispicable actions are dispicable no matter what, and should not be acceptable or allowed no matter what the excuse is or whos word they say or think they're trying to fufill.

[BitBuster]

The Bible is not a reliable scientific document.

However, it was never INTENDED to be a scientific document. The idea of science (at least in our known history) is newer than the Bible, so of course that was not the intent. The Bible is a compilation of tradition, eyewitness accounts, preaching and poetry. It is supposed to encompass the faith, not define science.

I get that. However, given that it's allegedly the word of God, and given that God was bound to know that science was going to eventually have a greater place in society, it might have been nice to throw in a few mentions of science...heck, a few suggestions re: medicine, mathematics, etc. might have been useful in a practical sense, not to mention a means of giving more validity to the text.

I know that there are plenty of people out there who insist that you have to take everything in the Bible literally or you have to throw the whole thing out. That's INSANE. Okay, not insane, but also not logically valid. If there's a little mold on your cheese you don't have to throw it all out. [That's a terrible analogy, but you get what I mean.]

But see, with the moldy cheese, it's easy to tell which parts are "bad" and which are "good" (unless you're dealing with pepper jack). When it comes to a text which describes things that you can't prove either way, you don't have that luxury. Sure, you can "cut out" the parts that are obviously untrue, but what about the rest>

In case you aren't aware of this, the Roman Catholic bible has more books in it than the protestant bible. Protestants don't consider those books to be inspired, so they just pulled them out. The bible is not one big, monolithic work. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the history of the faith (and most people don't.)

...and then you get into conspiracy theories and the Dead Sea Scrolls and various translations, etc.

Why do religious people tend to think they need to convince other people that what they think is the only thing that can be right?

I believe it's because some people interpret the Bible in such a means that they feel obligated, as Christians, to spread the "word of God."

As an extension of this, what gives religions the right to discriminate against and hate people and in doing so say things and commit actions that no other group would be able to get away with?

Our own compliance gives them that right. We let them "get away" with it.

Dispicable actions are dispicable no matter what, and should not be acceptable or allowed no matter what the excuse is or whos word they say or think they're trying to fufill.

But what makes an action good or bad? Some people would say that abortion is wrong. Some would say that it's not.

Heck, some people think that 9/11 was not a despicable action. We, of course, think that it was. But then we (as a community, as a whole) don't have quite the same revulsion when it's us doing the killing.

I remember the way people partied in the streets when Bin Laden was killed. I was sickened, not because I had any real sympathy for the man, but because I don't think that the death of another human being is ever anything to be celebrated. Was it despicable to kill him? Well, I think we'd be getting into a capital punishment argument here...let's just say that I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.