It's a childish argument. If you ask God for a pony and he doesn't give you one, does that mean he doesn't exist? And any argument pointed specifically at one religion is just petty. All it does is show a very specific anti-Christian bias. Same with the sarcastic nonsense, Spiritfiend. You could just as easily have made it about God only choosing a small group of folks in the Middle East and making sure Moses got dicked out of seeing the Promised Land. But you didn't. Childish attacks on theism are off-topic and thus == weak.
Not once did you address my questions. How do you explain all the numerous different denominations then? Shouldn't there just be one group called Christians?
Jesus only wanted a minority of people to be saved, which is one of the reasons he spoke in riddles (parables). There is only one true denomination, the rest are all lead by anti-christs, who only pay lip service to God while secretly serving the evil one.
Same with the sarcastic nonsense, Spiritfiend.
Wait, was spiritfiend being sarcastic? If so, I would like to give him a golf clap. He fooled me. Maybe I've been reading too many Christian arguments recently. From a religious perspective, though, spiritfiend's argument makes more sense than your invective, Sparkybuzzed. Also, I second Andrew's request. He makes a good point.
How do you explain all the numerous different denominations then? Shouldn't there just be one group called Christians?
The simplest way I can think of to explain it is in a sense of philosophy. In a "perfect world" there is one unifying philosophy that holds all answers. This need not be a religious answer by any means, but one truth. When it comes to Christianity, you are examining one branch of philosophy. Specifically, you are studying that around the life (and death/resurrection/etc) of Jesus. Now although there may be one truth about that interpretations of that truth is many sided. Being human we are therefore prone to being influenced by our individual experiences and observations. Also, being that this is a faith based argument, different people's gut, or intuition, will also help shape this ideal.
From here you span into two different branches. Or different paths of divergence.
One is the path of ideology of interpretation. Different people reading the same passage and coming to different conclusions. These could be for reasons of knowledge (one of the largest is women in ministry which relates to a passage talking about women being quiet in church... which stems from prostitutes advertising back in ancient time), or just simple mistranslation (it was widely only read in the original greek, or hebrew, till common man translation by Martin Luther. And then from there you get translations, of translations... etc).
The other is political. Now as stated before in this thread, I'm talking the internal stuff that comes from any organization that is larger than 1. Many times this comes out of the first branch. with two parties not able to come to an understanding about different things. Sometimes it is a geographical thing. Many churches started in America because they were to far removed from their own home branches in Europe. Separate but the same. Then over years they slightly changed to fit there surroundings. Sometimes is pure bullshit politics were two groups wants power and they can't win, so they split. Stupid, but human.
Hope that helps some.
Edit:just reading back through the thread and figure I'd add on instead of making another post.
If God were the head of the church, and guided the people's hearts as they claim, there would be no confusion over the intent or interpretation of scripture.
You could also draw comparisons to politics straight up. Technically GW Bush is the "head" of the Republican party. Although I agree with him on many aspects, on many I do not. Being the head of something does not mean all members of your group will be identical to you. They should have a general ideology that is close, otherwise the group makes no sense, but people within the group need not be the same as the head. In Christianity this issue is present as well. On one hand you have the argument that all religion has, in which we are human and therefore cannot be perfect, but attain unto it. That in itself will result in discrepancy. Different changes from that true purpose will result in different results.
You could also look at it with the thought that, if everyone did indeed have the word of God perfect in their hearts, there'd be no need for religion.
You could also draw comparisons to politics straight up. Technically GW Bush is the "head" of the Republican party. Although I agree with him on many aspects, on many I do not. Being the head of something does not mean all members of your group will be identical to you. They should have a general ideology that is close, otherwise the group makes no sense, but people within the group need not be the same as the head.
If that statement was actually analogous to your argument you would be saying that it's ok for people to disagree with God. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's terrible analogies.
You could also draw comparisons to politics straight up. Technically GW Bush is the "head" of the Republican party. Although I agree with him on many aspects, on many I do not. Being the head of something does not mean all members of your group will be identical to you. They should have a general ideology that is close, otherwise the group makes no sense, but people within the group need not be the same as the head. In Christianity this issue is present as well. On one hand you have the argument that all religion has, in which we are human and therefore cannot be perfect, but attain unto it. That in itself will result in discrepancy. Different changes from that true purpose will result in different results.
So lets say you disagree with God on the Murder thing, but you agree with everything else. Are you ok?
In a way that isn't incorrect. It's only slightly ambiguous. The difference in my argument relies on man's perception. Theoretically, should God exist he represents an absolute truth. In part of my argument about how different religions (and here it could be argued more than just Christianity) perceive this truth. A person's understanding, or agreement will influence their path and their faith. That individual faith will in turn effect their division of religion.
So in a way, you are correct. Part of the division of different religions is each religions disagreement with God's absolute truth.
In a way that isn't incorrect. It's only slightly ambiguous. The difference in my argument relies on man's perception. Theoretically, should God exist he represents an absolute truth. In part of my argument about how different religions (and here it could be argued more than just Christianity) perceive this truth. A person's understanding, or agreement will influence their path and their faith. That individual faith will in turn effect their division of religion.
So in a way, you are correct. Part of the division of different religions is each religions disagreement with God's absolute truth.
It's kinda like rolling the dice. Randomly you are born into a sect that may or may not disagree enough with God's "absolute truth" to get you in trouble. At a few points in your life you can randomly depending on who you encounter at the right time switch your "understanding" to fit into your own or a different sects interpretation. However, you will never know if you have strayed too far from the teachings that you piss God off. People will say that you changed sects because God showed you the way but just as many people switch into the sect you left. Thus causing people to move around depending on their own personal opinions.
I mean really, in this case you might as well all be Unitarians, it's just easier and your encompassing all the religions of the earth at least on some level.
Yea I completely agree. That's part of the reason the "pushy" Christians piss me off. I'm a firm believe of self belief. People who go around saying "you will be forever damned unless you believe what I believe" annoy me for that reason. Now don't get me wrong, I still believe that there is a one truth, and hope (read have faith) that I believe in it. However I won't force that view on other and command them to believe what I believe. I think there's already too much of that in this world, and just doing what others say because they said it to me isn't a good reason. I think belief in something (and even more so with religious faith itself) needs to be something internal.
Not once did you address my questions. How do you explain all the numerous different denominations then? Shouldn't there just be one group called Christians?
People are fallible. There's your answer.
>Apparently, any attack on theism is childish. *rolls eyes*
In this discussion, yeah. It's petty. It's a chance for essentially a cheap-shot. This was a decent discussion about race and politics. Now it's devolved into another FRC forum attack on God and religion.
Actually, I think ALL arguments concerning religion should be pointed specifically at one at a time. A religion is a system of belief. If someone decides to claim that said system is based in truth, anything and everything they say is liable to attack from anyone else in the world. Religion doesn't and shouldn't get a "free pass."
I don't want religion to have a free pass and never asked for it. What I want is for there to be a general understanding that religious beliefs exist, aren't going away, and do not instantly make every argument invalid! It is ludicrous to attack everything a person says or thinks simply because they choose to believe in God. Does the fact that murder is forbidden by scripture make laws against it invalid? Should everything that began because of a religious belief be called into question? That's a damn long list.
Christians say god wants everyone to live in peace.
Muslims are willing to wage a jihad on behalf of the same god.
Christians claim to talk to god through prayer.
Muslims claim to talk to god through prayer.
Jews claim to talk to god through prayer.
Jews claim to be god's chosen people.
Christians claim the same god has eradicated the tenets of Judaism.
Muslims waged the Seven Day War against the Jews for being infidels.
Christians waged the Crusades against the Muslims.
Either god is toying with these poor people and pitting them against each other; none of them can talk to god; god only talks to some of them but not others; or there is no god. So what do the believers here think is causing the monotheistic division?
Should everything that began because of a religious belief be called into question?
Everything that has no rationale beyond its religious origin most certainly should be called into question.
aren't going away
I hope and expect that they will someday.
do not instantly make every argument invalid!
Not necessarily. But, at the same time, religiously-based arguments hold absolutely zero weight, so why bother even making them? They provide no support to any idea.
Unless you are arguing the finer points of religion the use of religion to form the basis of your argument equals instant fail. It's no different than trying to use Star Wars or Star Trek as a basis for why some form of future tech is possible.
"The theory of relativity clearly points out that nothing with mass greater than zero can achieve c." "Then how do you explain the Enterprise moving at warp speeds?"
FAIL
"The carbon dating on these fossils shows they are over five million years old." "That can't be true, God only made the world about five thousand years ago."
FAIL
"Do you think the Catholic Church should allow woman to become priests?" "Well, according to the Bible..."
"Do you think the Catholic Church should allow woman to become priests?" "Well, according to the Bible..."
WIN!
According to Catholic dogma, people shouldn't be citing the Bible because they can't comprehend properly what it contains. Your example itself fails in this regard.
According to Catholic dogma, people shouldn't be citing the Bible because they can't comprehend properly what it contains. Your example itself fails in this regard.
If you can't comprehend what it contains, then even if it is true, there is no way you can possibly hope to live your life by it. Every prayer, ever ritual, every everything, will be an educated guess at best. There is no way to know if your prayers are pissing god off or not. If you have an incomprehensible bible, it doesn't matter if it is true or false, and your best course of action is to live as if it didn't exist. If you can't possibly understand something, you can not even consider taking it into account in your decision making process. Best to just take into consideration everything else in the world.
"Do you think the Catholic Church should allow woman to become priests?" "Well, according to the Bible..."
WIN!
According to Catholic dogma, people shouldn't be citing the Bible because they can't comprehend properly what it contains. Your example itself fails in this regard.
If my example is a FAIL than so is the Catholic religion. If you can't use the religion's own text in an argument about itself then that is a COSMIC FAIL.
"So, how does this Large Hadron Collider work?" "Let's look at the manual and the theory behind it."
WIN
"So, how does this Catholic thing work?" "No one understands the manual so I can't tell you."
According to Catholic dogma, people shouldn't be citing the Bible because they can't comprehend properly what it contains. Your example itself fails in this regard.
According to Catholic dogma, people shouldn't be citing the Bible because they can't comprehend properly what it contains. Your example itself fails in this regard.
Not once did you address my questions. How do you explain all the numerous different denominations then? Shouldn't there just be one group called Christians?
People are fallible. There's your answer.
So how do we determine who's right and who's not? Many different sects of Christianity claim that they know the ONE truth, and the rest are wrong. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 144,000 people will get into Heaven and the rest will not, no matter how good they are. The rest of Christianity (as far as I know) says that you can get into Heaven provided you follow the tenants of the faith.
For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 144,000 people will get into Heaven and the rest will not, no matter how good they are.
They are obviously not telling the truth. If they truly believed that than they would be actively discouraging people from becoming Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, wouldn't it suck if you were a Jehovah's Witness standing in line at the Pearly Gates only to find out that some poor schmuck you converted last week stole your spot in Heaven?
For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 144,000 people will get into Heaven and the rest will not, no matter how good they are.
They are obviously not telling the truth. If they truly believed that than they would be actively discouraging people from becoming Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, wouldn't it suck if you were a Jehovah's Witness standing in line at the Pearly Gates only to find out that some poor schmuck you converted last week stole your spot in Heaven?
Or they might not be selfish pricks, and might actually have an interest in helping people (however misguided).
For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 144,000 people will get into Heaven and the rest will not, no matter how good they are.
They are obviously not telling the truth. If they truly believed that than they would be actively discouraging people from becoming Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, wouldn't it suck if you were a Jehovah's Witness standing in line at the Pearly Gates only to find out that some poor schmuck you converted last week stole your spot in Heaven?
You're destined from birth, according to the faith. It's not a "first come, first serve" kind of deal. So, they're trying to get people who might not know that they're destined.
EDIT: Again, I'll ask the question: Given a situation such as the above, where two different people have two different sets of mutually exclusive beliefs (i.e. 144,00 will get into Heaven vs. anyone can get into Heaven if they're good), and both are fervently faithful and believe that they are right and the other wrong, how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? What criteria do we use? Both sets cannot be correct simultaneously, and if we believe that one of the beliefs is correct, which one is it?
EDIT: Again, I'll ask the question: Given a situation such as the above, where two different people have two different sets of mutually exclusive beliefs (i.e. 144,00 will get into Heaven vs. anyone can get into Heaven if they're good), and both are fervently faithful and believe that they are right and the other wrong, how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? What criteria do we use? Both sets cannot be correct simultaneously, and if we believe that one of the beliefs is correct, which one is it?
You look at evidence, and so far there is little evidence in either case, which would lead a neutral, logical person to question whether such a complete answer can be given with such little available evidence. Because there is no evidence of the existence of or, assuming existence, policies of an ethereal afterlife, no one can definitively say that any scenario is more likely than any other scenario.
EDIT: Again, I'll ask the question: Given a situation such as the above, where two different people have two different sets of mutually exclusive beliefs (i.e. 144,00 will get into Heaven vs. anyone can get into Heaven if they're good), and both are fervently faithful and believe that they are right and the other wrong, how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? What criteria do we use? Both sets cannot be correct simultaneously, and if we believe that one of the beliefs is correct, which one is it?
You look at evidence, and so far there is little evidence in either case, which would lead a neutral, logical person to question whether such a complete answer can be given with such little available evidence. Because there is no evidence of the existence of or, assuming existence, policies of an ethereal afterlife, no one can definitively say that any scenario is more likely than any other scenario.
Well duh, I know that. I can refute specific claims, though, as no specific claim can bring evidence to its backing. If you make a claim, and then cannot bring evidence to back it, your claim is (essentially) self-refuted.
I'm looking more for the religious person's answer to that. I'm really curious.
Well duh, I know that. I can refute specific claims, though, as no specific claim can bring evidence to its backing. If you make a claim, and then cannot bring evidence to back it, your claim is (essentially) self-refuted.
I'm looking more for the religious person's answer to that. I'm really curious.
I suppose one could say, dunno... something along the lines of "there's a limited amount of space therefore only 144,000 people can fit"..?
Well duh, I know that. I can refute specific claims, though, as no specific claim can bring evidence to its backing. If you make a claim, and then cannot bring evidence to back it, your claim is (essentially) self-refuted.
I'm looking more for the religious person's answer to that. I'm really curious.
I suppose one could say, dunno... something along the lines of "there's a limited amount of space therefore only 144,000 people can fit"..?
Right, because an omnipotent, eternal being can't fit more than 144,000 people in his infinite sky kingdom.
Right, because an omnipotent, eternal being can't fit more than 144,000 people in his infinite sky kingdom.
Actually, Revelation 21:15-18 provides pretty detailed measurements on the dimensions on the sky kingdom.
The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia [Ed: around 1400 miles] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits [around 200 feet] thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using.
PS: The study of scripture absolutely fascinates me.
Comments
Also, I second Andrew's request. He makes a good point.
From here you span into two different branches. Or different paths of divergence.
One is the path of ideology of interpretation. Different people reading the same passage and coming to different conclusions. These could be for reasons of knowledge (one of the largest is women in ministry which relates to a passage talking about women being quiet in church... which stems from prostitutes advertising back in ancient time), or just simple mistranslation (it was widely only read in the original greek, or hebrew, till common man translation by Martin Luther. And then from there you get translations, of translations... etc).
The other is political. Now as stated before in this thread, I'm talking the internal stuff that comes from any organization that is larger than 1. Many times this comes out of the first branch. with two parties not able to come to an understanding about different things. Sometimes it is a geographical thing. Many churches started in America because they were to far removed from their own home branches in Europe. Separate but the same. Then over years they slightly changed to fit there surroundings. Sometimes is pure bullshit politics were two groups wants power and they can't win, so they split. Stupid, but human.
Hope that helps some.
Edit:just reading back through the thread and figure I'd add on instead of making another post. You could also draw comparisons to politics straight up. Technically GW Bush is the "head" of the Republican party. Although I agree with him on many aspects, on many I do not. Being the head of something does not mean all members of your group will be identical to you. They should have a general ideology that is close, otherwise the group makes no sense, but people within the group need not be the same as the head. In Christianity this issue is present as well. On one hand you have the argument that all religion has, in which we are human and therefore cannot be perfect, but attain unto it. That in itself will result in discrepancy. Different changes from that true purpose will result in different results.
You could also look at it with the thought that, if everyone did indeed have the word of God perfect in their hearts, there'd be no need for religion.
So in a way, you are correct. Part of the division of different religions is each religions disagreement with God's absolute truth.
I mean really, in this case you might as well all be Unitarians, it's just easier and your encompassing all the religions of the earth at least on some level.
Muslims claim the same god is guiding them.
Christians say god wants everyone to live in peace.
Muslims are willing to wage a jihad on behalf of the same god.
Christians claim to talk to god through prayer.
Muslims claim to talk to god through prayer.
Jews claim to talk to god through prayer.
Jews claim to be god's chosen people.
Christians claim the same god has eradicated the tenets of Judaism.
Muslims waged the Seven Day War against the Jews for being infidels.
Christians waged the Crusades against the Muslims.
Either god is toying with these poor people and pitting them against each other; none of them can talk to god; god only talks to some of them but not others; or there is no god. So what do the believers here think is causing the monotheistic division?
"The theory of relativity clearly points out that nothing with mass greater than zero can achieve c."
"Then how do you explain the Enterprise moving at warp speeds?"
FAIL
"The carbon dating on these fossils shows they are over five million years old."
"That can't be true, God only made the world about five thousand years ago."
FAIL
"Do you think the Catholic Church should allow woman to become priests?"
"Well, according to the Bible..."
WIN!
see: Sola scriptura: Under Roman Catholic position
"So, how does this Large Hadron Collider work?"
"Let's look at the manual and the theory behind it."
WIN
"So, how does this Catholic thing work?"
"No one understands the manual so I can't tell you."
COSMIC FAIL
So, who's right, who's wrong, and why?
EDIT: Again, I'll ask the question: Given a situation such as the above, where two different people have two different sets of mutually exclusive beliefs (i.e. 144,00 will get into Heaven vs. anyone can get into Heaven if they're good), and both are fervently faithful and believe that they are right and the other wrong, how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? What criteria do we use? Both sets cannot be correct simultaneously, and if we believe that one of the beliefs is correct, which one is it?
I'm looking more for the religious person's answer to that. I'm really curious.
Aside from that, Revelations is the weird book out of everything; it's an isolation (and probably drug) induced vision. A little crazy if you ask me.