• Religious Discussion

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 6:43 am**

Charty why does one need there "sins wiped away?" see that can be anther tool of some one whom wishes to pervert religion into a tool for control. Keep the faithful living in guilt and the the clergy can hear there confession and throw there god grant absolution after assigning pinents. You see first you set the standereds so high that no one can fallow them. I mean of you look at the 10 commandments the rules are actually vary simple what makes it more complicated is that men could not leave simple alone so then you have something much more complicated being added to it. there was a point in the distent past when it was vary hard to tell a Christin form a jew, They both lived under the same laws prayed in the same temples ate the same food. The only thing that was deffrent was that they fallowed the teachings of christ. and the Jewish Religion is one of the simplest and most basic ones out there infact for the most part you dont need a rabi or a priest of any kind you just need 3 adults a prayer book and the Torah thats it.

We humans tend to make things more complcated then they realy need to be. often as a means of gaining or holding power over others...

as for saying god or gods dont exist because there is no proof they do. is abuse of the Scientific methead. if fact I once had a scince teacher asked about if there was a god or not. hes Answer as a scientist was I can not prove there is or there is not so there might be. as for what I believe matters of faith are my own business

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 10:45 am**

Tms3,

The fact that you would lead with a question like "why does one need there (sp) "sins wiped away?" suggests that any answer I could provide would be beyond your comprehension. You just wouldn't understand.

And you seem to lack an understanding of the function of confession in religion. It is to release guilt, not keep anyone living in it. :roll:

You mostly seem to be grinding your favorite axe at your favorite stone. Especially as your rant goes quite far afield from anything I said.

To be frank and blunt, if you consider something that is supposed to relieve someone of pain to be a perversion of religion, I really can't say I see any use for religion at all and I certainly wouldn't be interested in hearing what you think it should be used for.

Shang Li,

I wasn't really talking about your sins, was I? I was expressing an understanding of those who would want to have their sins wiped away.

Like Tms3, it seems you do not understand either.

Then again, maybe if you could have them wiped away, you wouldn't need such powerful intervention to keep from becoming a monster.

Either way, I'm not seeing anything in this conversation that hasn't been expressed many times in other places. The only oddity I've seen so far is that those who seem to be on the side of supporting religion as a useful part of human existence were also the ones to deride my sympathy for their cause.

The cynical side of me (which is probably all of me) suggests that this is because people don't support religion in general but only their beleifs specifically. There also seems to be quite a bit of backlash on both sides of this conversation against the dominant western belief system. So far, only Clarity has spoken in favor western belief.

And so far, she has also been by far, the most convincing on the pro religion side.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 11:55 am**

Ugh, the religion thing.

It might surprise people who know me that I'm still Russian Orthodox. I still try to go to church (I'm bad at it), I generally (begrudgingly) help clergy, and I try to do good things. This isn't because of the old man in the sky. I do it because I feel it's the right thing.

I guess I'm a big believer in the ripple effect - what you do resonates.

I don't judge people - okay, that's sort of a lie. I do have opinions - strong ones - but I don't believe I can tell if people are going upstairs with the Big Man or not, or to mete out some sort of punishment on his behalf. God is the one who decides that stuff, not me. But I don't fault people for not believing, I don't hate gay people, I don't think all witches should burn (except Mel), and I don't believe one should try to convert others - people should make up their own minds.

I'm also a bad Christian in many ways. I still smoke, drink, curse, get angry, etc. We all do. I like to think compassion and wisdom are the virtues that should be toted, rather than guilt and sin being the things we should be reminded of.

I think the idea that one has to organize a faith and give it political power is stupid to the extent that Catholics and Orthodox have. While good people and good acts are fine, I don't think it's up to to the church to decide who are good people - that should be evident.

Like I said before, people don't have the right to judge on behalf of the Big Man, IMHO. Even if they did, that judgment isn't the point to me, but to grow as a person and help others do the same if they want, in some way or another.

I'm told that makes me spiritual. Sure, why not, I guess.

I'm not sure I feel religion is 'necessary'. I don't need someone telling me how to live, what to do, what to think. I freely admit I don't mind the help, though. And sometimes I think there's just too many good coincidences for me to rule out his/her existence.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 12:47 pm**

Hey Sparks!

Now it all makes sense! Suddenly my eyes are wide open and I see the light!

Now I understand how it is you're able to kick butt so righteously!

:twisted:

Oh, and no one can be burning Mel at no stakes while I'm her guest. Not that I care mind, but because my bro would give me no end of grief over it. :wink:

Have a good day, all!

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 2:20 pm**

You're both impossible.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 3:10 pm**

Gotham Witch wrote:You're both impossible.

Given that we both exist, I think what you mean is that we're improbable.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 3:22 pm**

Daichan wrote:
Gotham Witch wrote:You're both impossible.

Given that we both exist, I think what you mean is that we're improbable.

Inconceivable!

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 3:56 pm**

Transgressions may not be wiped away merely by asking them to be. It takes sincere acts to address all that has been wronged and make it right.

Trying to redress for the wrongs I did in the past I have been shot, stabbed, bitten, pummeled, tormented by nightmare spirits, clawed, bitten and had most bones in my body broken at least once. I have laid for hours in icy slush and suspended myself underneath a bridge from midnight until the sun rose.

I can't ever truly make right all the things I've done wrong, so I try to prevent wrongs from happening to others.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 3:59 pm**

As worthy a religion as any, Ron.

Posted: **Sat May 05, 2012 1:41 pm**

Strong, honorable beliefs for a strong, honorable man, for some reason I am not surprised.

Posted: **Sat May 05, 2012 10:47 pm**

heres the point we have to look at is it posable for some to live under the codes of behaver or the religion in question or is it a case of.

"With out a saver none maybe saved for all have sinned and failed in the glory of god"

THat is the idea I have a porblem with. if you can not live a life worthy of god no mater how hared you true? it is resanable for most to question the hole point. I do not see how that helps us to be come better people

condemning confession. no not really just pointing out how it can be abused its like the idea of selling indulgences. That was a abuse of the idea of confession and pinice. confession can be useful in some cases I think.. if only in letting some one let go of there guilt

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2012 5:28 pm**

Cynthia wrote:So far, only Clarity has spoken in favor western belief.

And so far, she has also been by far, the most convincing on the pro religion side.

Quite frankly, that’s very disheartening. Let me try to voice my beliefs in a peaceable way. But before I do, everyone, please let me add a comment to start. Unless I specifically address someone by name and ask a question, I’m not insinuating anything. I don’t like to attack people’s beliefs or their religions. Religion is not a science that can be proven one way or another by applying the scientific method. Likewise, if an absolute statement is made, it’s only been in my experience; that’s not to say I studied it in a lab and found it irrefutable; I haven’t. Some people’s replies I had questions to. I’ll quote them and address them, but I don’t mean to attack.

Firstly, I believe Cybermancer’s Godfather’s absolute statement, “Anyone who is trying to teach what to think is trying to control you. Anyone who is trying to teach how to think is trying to free you,” is found only in his experience as well and doesn’t hold true to everyone. Parents often “tell” their toddlers, based off religious ideals, what to think because the children don’t have the capacity to make such critical decisions in their lives just yet. “Stealing is wrong,” “Don’t touch the fire,” “Don’t play in the street,” and so forth. Is the parent trying to “control” a child? Maybe, maybe not; or perhaps they just don’t want their child injured. Hopefully, the parents will continue to teach as their children grow older. But it’s hard to come up with solid reasoning behind moral codes that, for many reasons, have no quantifiable consequence when broken. “Committing adultery” is wrong (again, in my experience) because it involves the husband (or as the case may be, wife) of another; it involves covenant-breaking, secrecy, lying, and more.

What about consensual sex between two unmarried, legally aged adults? Sometimes “faith” is enough because they don’t want to offend God. But for those who don’t think that’s enough,
things become a little more difficult to explain because there is no “apparent punishment or reason” affixed. Well, there is the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases, perhaps, but “safe sex” measures take much of that risk away. However, is a commandment of God “broken” or rendered “obsolete” because humans have managed to circumvent the physical drawbacks? Somehow, I doubt it. I’d relate more according to my own personal experiences on the matter, but honestly . . . it’s still too close an issue for me to speak about objectively.

Sparks wrote:Ugh, the religion thing.

It might surprise people who know me that I'm still Russian Orthodox. I still try to go to church (I'm bad at it), I generally (begrudgingly) help clergy, and I try to do good things. This isn't because of the old man in the sky. I do it because I feel it's the right thing.

For some reason, reading your posts, that doesn’t surprise me at all. Although I’ve always wondered if it has to be an exclusive thing. Will we be judged for the reasons we try to do good, I wonder? I’m still puzzling that out myself. Certainly, it seems Christ berated hypocrites harshly than others, so that must be a part. Will someone who obeyed because her mother made her get as high a reward as another who obeyed because they wanted to?

Something that certainly struck a chord with me was the savior’s parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, in Saint Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 1 through 16. Some of the workers could have been hypocrites, I suppose. Depending on where one sees oneself, many would also be grateful. Yet he treated all the workers fairly.

Ron Caliburn wrote:Transgressions may not be wiped away merely by asking them to be. It takes sincere acts to address all that has been wronged and make it right.

Ron . . . you’re right. I’ll leave it at that.

Tms3 wrote:heres the point we have to look at is it posable for some to live under the codes of behaver or the religion in question or is it a case of.

"With out a saver none maybe saved for all have sinned and failed in the glory of god"

THat is the idea I have a porblem with. if you can not live a life worthy of god no mater how hared you true? it is resanable for most to question the hole point.

Why do you have a problem with that, Tms3? If I’m understanding you correctly . . . well, I don’t. Are you referring to Romans 3, verse 23? What was your problem with it? The point of the atonement was to overcome this obstacle; that is, if one wants to return to live God, it must be done by his rules.

I don’t know if we “need” God anymore than we need air. If one doesn’t want to return to him, then certainly, one doesn’t “need” him or follow him. At least, that’s what I’ve always thought.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 1:52 am**

This thread has served the purpose for which I created it. As such, I will be withdrawing from further discourse on this particular subject.

For those who feel that they may still profit from continued discussion on this subject, please, feel free.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 12:42 pm**

Here is the thing and I think I have hit on a point. and this would be a good thing for clergy to do. and that is teach people to find forgiveness form with it. if you can not forgive your self for your actions how can one posably accept forgiveness form others even when it is give honestly

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 4:05 pm**

I am unable to defend that faith, not from animosity, but lack of understanding. I have read the book, understood the words, but many of the concepts expressed in it baffle me. A son of god, I can understand and accept, for after all, the Imperial line is of direct decent from Amaterasu. I can understand the commandments, for after all did not Siddhartha also try to tell us how to be good for one another?

I was taught that nirvanna exists within us all, that inside each being is a bhudda waiting to be understood and brought forth. I never met the bhudda from Nazareth, he was long since ascended to Nirvanna before I was born. But what wrong have I done him that I must seek his forgiveness? If he stands in the doorway to Nirvanna, and only through his will can one enter, is he not more akin to the demon Mara who attempts to keep men from achieving Nirvanna? Why would a goodly being show people the path to Nirvanna and then bar the path?

I hope I have not angered anyone with these questions, the last time I freed them from my mind, I was forced to choose between a preist's life and my own. My blade was faster than his pistol, and fortunately, the Portugese capitan who brought him chose not to make issue. But that brings me to another puzzlement that has bothered me for a very long time. Why would a priest who preaches love, peace, and kindness attempt to kill a man for trying to understand the teachings he brings?

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 4:43 pm**

Shang Li wrote:I never met the bhudda from Nazareth, he was long since ascended to Nirvanna before I was born. But what wrong have I done him that I must seek his forgiveness? If he stands in the doorway to Nirvanna, and only through his will can one enter, is he not more akin to the demon Mara who attempts to keep men from achieving Nirvanna? Why would a goodly being show people the path to Nirvanna and then bar the path?

Christ was not so much a “bouncer” as he was a gatekeeper. It’s often been said that heaven, or nirvana, is “God’s home.” If that’s the case, if one tries to enter by any other means than by God, that person would be considered more of a thief than a guest.

Nor, by my perspective, is he “barring” good people from entering, but rather, helping them feel more comfortable. Shang, by your own mouth, you’ve said you are a monster and harbor a demon inside of you. I’m not sure how you view that or yourself, since Western and Eastern views of “demon” vary widely, but let me try to understand. Would you feel comfortable sitting at God’s right hand at a magnificent feast, knowing that he knows, and perhaps everyone else as well, that you alone, harbor a demon, call yourself a monster, and have been, if not respectful, utterly indifferent to him and his teachings; while every other guest has praised him, striven to follow his teachings, perhaps even died trying to share his love, and would be called “saintly” by the world over or well down the path to enlightenment?

My guess is . . . no. At least, I know I wouldn’t be comfortable sitting with them if I were still Celeste.

Shang Li wrote:I hope I have not angered anyone with these questions, the last time I freed them from my mind, I was forced to choose between a preist's life and my own. My blade was faster than his pistol, and fortunately, the Portugese capitan who brought him chose not to make issue. But that brings me to another puzzlement that has bothered me for a very long time. Why would a priest who preaches love, peace, and kindness attempt to kill a man for trying to understand the teachings he brings?

Sorry, I don’t know enough about you, the priest you speak of, or the circumstances to try to accurately answer some of those questions, Shang. But, taking a moment to pretend you believe Christianity is true, you just killed one of God’s children. Isn’t that enough to merit at least an “I’m sorry”?

As for the priest’s actions, there is a scripture, Saint Mathew 7:22. I don’t understand it fully, but I take it to mean hypocrites and people who have left “the faith.” It suggests to me that not everyone who says, “Jesus, I believe!” will be saved, just because they call themselves “Christian” and use that as a shield to perpetrate vile acts.

All I can say with any certainty, Shang, is that you haven’t offended me at all, and that I hope my words were at least of some help.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 11:25 pm**

I was mistaken for placing what used to be here in a public place, I apologise to all, it shall not happen again.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 1:27 am**

No Troll names were invoked here.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 2:16 am**

I'll merely hope that Miss Solstice will forgive me for my impudence. I apologise for any offense given, and offer only the lame exuse that it has been a trying day of following unpleasant paths that never should have been trod in the first place.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 8:52 am**

All fixed.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 1:29 pm**

As you wish

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 1:50 pm**

It’s perfectly fine, Shang. Everyone makes mistakes; a simple misname is trivial. Darcy, thanks for being aware of me and my possible feelings.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2012 3:44 pm**

Did I miss something here? There are plenty of edited posts—but no reason that I can tell—unless some harsh words were spoken and then retracted.

As for my own thoughts on religion—the jury is still out on that. Religion is simply too diverse to be all evil, all good—perhaps a medium in between. For me, I’m pretty sure there is a god—whether it’s “God,” creator—whatever. The stars in their alignments are just too elaborate in their motions to have been a simple accident—even in a billion years, the chance of everything might just “fall into place” are too remote in my mind.

On the other hand, if there is a god—where is he or she? If god doesn’t exist, are religions moot? If he does, are some “wrong?” What’s the difference between us when we say—in effect—“Watch out, there are monsters out there who want to eat you”—and the priest who says—“Repent, or you’ll go to hell?”

I can’t produce proof of the monsters’ existence—any more than the priest can produce proof of my reservation in hell.

For me, it’s all about faith—I trust religion means well, whether they “tell how” or “show why” or whatever—but I haven’t proof of my convictions on that. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if religion started out as a good thing and became “tainted” by one of the many horrors we describe—shapeshifters that pretend to be angels, god—so forth.

In the end, if more people try to do good or rethink things because of religion—it’s a good thing, then.

Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Well, let’s not let her stand alone, then . . . .

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

All I can say is . . .

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

Re: Religious Discussion

It’s fine

Did I miss something here?