The Hype Religion Discussion and Debate thread!

[Danger Mouse]

You've got a ****-ton of work to do, my friend. Enjoy!

Will you be paying me for it? No? Then I guess I don't have to do squat. As I've explained previously to another poster, I'm not out to convert you. You disagree, fine by me. I'll continue to enjoy reading SHH with my Mountain Dew. No biggie.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17



No, I'm citing Christian examples because we have been discussing the Christian religion. I imagine this applies to any religion, as religions are made up of people, the ideas of the people change.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this is a Hype Christianity Discussion thread. And no, what you quoted are all exclusive to Christianity. They do not apply to 'any religion'. That, sir, is your biggest fallacy. Your premise to start off with is flawed beyond reason. To equate Christianity as representation of all religion is in itself ludicrous.

I'm willing to accept that this is possible, if you're able to cite which religions exist today that have maintained identical practices and beliefs since "since time immemorial."

It is, of course, largely beside the point. We're having this discussion because you claimed that religion, unlike ethics, is constant. We've established that religion is obviously not constant, because if it were we would not have all these different religions created (or destroyed) by emerging ideas and perspectives through the ages, and we certainly wouldn't have the changes we've observed within the established institutions. It seems that we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that "Religion is constant" is a completely asinine thing to say.

No, we have NOT established that religion is obviously not constant. You quoted example from ONE religion and used that as a representation of all religions. You may have successfully established that CHRISTIANITY is not constant. But that was all you did. That, I say again, is a serious flaw in the entire premise of your arguments. That, I'm afraid, is completely asinine on your part.

 

[JStorm]

I really want to jump in, being a liberal Methodist, but this thread carries so much weight, I can't just isolate to one post.

 

[Danger Mouse]

I've been reading the Bible. In the Bible, he has felt anger, happiness, regret, sadness, and jealousy. Do we need specific passages?

Anger? Exodus 4:14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.

Happiness? Psalm 149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation.

Regret and Sadness? Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Jealousy? Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Again, as I have stated earlier, you're quoting Christianity as an example and wrongly used it as a representation of ALL religion. May I remind you that this is a Religion thread, not a Christianity thread.

 

[Danger Mouse]

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the Bible.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[JStorm]

Amazing, isn't it?

I would like to debate, as well.

I know much, and refute just as much, yet I am a devote Methodist.

 

[blksuperman2]

Why is ignorance amazing? Why would Christians be any different than any other group? There are many Americans who don't know anything about American history or which states neighbor theirs or things that most people would deem common knowledge.

I'm not surprised when I talk to fellow Christians and they don't know certain things about the Bible.

 

[Dark Phantom]

Again, as I have stated earlier, you're quoting Christianity as an example and wrongly used it as a representation of ALL religion. May I remind you that this is a Religion thread, not a Christianity thread.

Well you didn't really specifiy in what religion you believed in. Also, you can't just say you believe in a God and an afterlife because that falls into the Judeo-Christian category. If you are a said Christian, than you have to believe everything in the bible or not at all, otherwise you and other followers aren't truly following the word of your God. basically what most of us are trying to point out is that when it comes to religion, if you are a true follower, if you believe what is written is truth, than you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow because that would be fallace.

This is the contradiction of religion. Not just Christianity. Islam shows it. Inherently, religion should promote good for all mankind, but look at what man has done. man has written ancient scriptures forcing people to take every word as truth. they took into account those that would oppose these ideas with some savage rules. i would be hard pressed to believe that if there is a god or gods, he would not tell his potential followers to behave that way

 

[JStorm]

Why is ignorance amazing? Why would Christians be any different than any other group? There are many Americans who don't know anything about American history or which states neighbor theirs or things that most people would deem common knowledge.

I'm not surprised when I talk to fellow Christians and they don't know certain things about the Bible.

Lead a horse to water.


Some people thrive and live on the mere words of his or her Minister.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Well you didn't really specifiy in what religion you believed in. Also, you can't just say you believe in a God and an afterlife because that falls into the Judeo-Christian category. If you are a said Christian, than you have to believe everything in the bible or not at all, otherwise you and other followers aren't truly following the word of your God. basically what most of us are trying to point out is that when it comes to religion, if you are a true follower, if you believe what is written is truth, than you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow because that would be fallace.

This is the contradiction of religion. Not just Christianity. Islam shows it. Inherently, religion should promote good for all mankind, but look at what man has done. man has written ancient scriptures forcing people to take every word as truth. they took into account those that would oppose these ideas with some savage rules. i would be hard pressed to believe that if there is a god or gods, he would not tell his potential followers to behave that way

That would then be the fault of the followers, not the religion.

 

[Alex The Great]

If there was no religion, and science was taken seriously waaaaaay back when. The world would be so much more technologically advanced

 

[JStorm]

If there was no religion, and science was taken seriously waaaaaay back when. The world would be so much more technologically advanced

Monotone destroyed.

 

[Dark Phantom]

That would then be the fault of the followers, not the religion.

your logic is so confusing...i mean, you still havent stated what religion you follow.

do i have to repeat what i said? it's a double edged sword. if you pick and choose what you want to believe from a specific religion, then you cant be fulfilled as promised in the written scriptures. however, if you are truly a devoted follower, than you may have commited some atrocities.

 

[blksuperman2]

Well you didn't really specifiy in what religion you believed in. Also, you can't just say you believe in a God and an afterlife because that falls into the Judeo-Christian category. If you are a said Christian, than you have to believe everything in the bible or not at all, otherwise you and other followers aren't truly following the word of your God. basically what most of us are trying to point out is that when it comes to religion, if you are a true follower, if you believe what is written is truth, than you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow because that would be fallace.

This is the contradiction of religion. Not just Christianity. Islam shows it. Inherently, religion should promote good for all mankind, but look at what man has done. man has written ancient scriptures forcing people to take every word as truth. they took into account those that would oppose these ideas with some savage rules. i would be hard pressed to believe that if there is a god or gods, he would not tell his potential followers to behave that way

That is really debatable. I believe that things written between Genesis and Revelations to be the "Truth". But I don't believe it to be the infallible word of God because simply put, it's man's accounts on God's teachings. I'll give a quick example of what I mean.

The 4 gospels all basically give the same account of Jesus' teachings. If I were a reporter today and I interviewed 4 people who followed a local celebrity around for 3yrs I'd probably get 4 distinct versions of the same story. Many non-believers quote the gospels and point out varying discrepancies but I chalk it up to 4 different dudes and their unique perspectives.

 

[JStorm]

I feel like being attacked.

I'm a Methodist, and I believe the bible is flawed.

 

[Danger Mouse]

your logic is so confusing...i mean, you still havent stated what religion you follow.

Do I need to make such a declaration to lend credibility to my arguments? If I condemn capital punishment on serial rapists, do I first have to be a serial rapist?

do i have to repeat what i said? it's a double edged sword. if you pick and choose what you want to believe from a specific religion, then you cant be fulfilled as promised in the written scriptures. however, if you are truly a devoted follower, than you may have commited some atrocities.

What atrocities? Just because one is a devoted follower, then one may have committed some atrocities? Based on what? Let's take Christianity, for example. I don't see the Pope wielding a gun capping prostitutes. Do you? Can't get anyone more devoted to Christianity than him.

 

[wiegeabo]

If there was no religion, and science was taken seriously waaaaaay back when. The world would be so much more technologically advanced

Would that really be such a good thing? Technology isn't the answer to everything. Look how close we came to wiping ourselves out just a couple of decades ago.

 

[Danger Mouse]

If there was no religion, and science was taken seriously waaaaaay back when. The world would be so much more technologically advanced

Religion never stifled science.

Let's take Islam, for instance. At the height of it, Muslim scientific and mathematics scholars broke new ground in their respective fields. And they were devout Muslims within the Muslim empire who went to mosques daily and led prayer congregations. All with the blessing of their religion.

 

[TimBisley]

Some devoted christian. Protecting child rapists.

 

[Dark Phantom]

That is really debatable. I believe that things written between Genesis and Revelations to be the "Truth". But I don't believe it to be the infallible word of God because simply put, it's man's accounts on God's teachings. I'll give a quick example of what I mean.

The 4 gospels all basically give the same account of Jesus' teachings. If I were a reporter today and I interviewed 4 people who followed a local celebrity around for 3yrs I'd probably get 4 distinct versions of the same story. Many non-believers quote the gospels and point out varying discrepancies but I chalk it up to 4 different dudes and their unique perspectives.

See, I used to think that way, but then I realized that if man can recognize that some ancient scriptures are NOT the direct word of god, then what merit do they hold as reasonable beliefs if it cannot be backed by evidence?

Do I need to make such a declaration to lend credibility to my arguments? If I condemn capital punishment on serial rapists, do I first have to be a serial rapist?


What atrocities? Just because one is a devoted follower, then one may have committed some atrocities? Based on what? Let's take Christianity, for example. I don't see the Pope wielding a gun capping prostitutes. Do you? Can't get anyone more devoted to Christianity than him.

You neglect to see it from my perspective, however i understand where you're coming from even though I don't agree. My point is that if someone truly believes that God's teachings are infallible, then that follower must abide by all the laws given. Therefore the Pope isn't really a devoted follower. You don't hear the Pope telling other followers to stone and kill the children who curse their parents. It's a massive contradiction.

Even Evangelicals who are known for taking the bible literally, they're just as guilty. that's what i'm saying. Religous followers can talk the talk, but they rarely walk the walk.

 

[Danger Mouse]

You neglect to see it from my perspective, however i understand where you're coming from even though I don't agree. My point is that if someone truly believes that God's teachings are infallible, then that follower must abide by all the laws given. Therefore the Pope isn't really a devoted follower. You don't hear the Pope telling other followers to stone and kill the children who curse their parents. It's a massive contradiction.

Even Evangelicals who are known for taking the bible literally, they're just as guilty. that's what i'm saying. Religous followers can talk the talk, but they rarely walk the walk.

Then, as I have said, that is the fault of the man, not the scripture. That's inherent in all religion. Some are extremists, some are liberal. But those are all the failing (for lack of a better word) of the followers, not the religion.

 

[Saint]

It only makes life itself worth living and gives you a reason to go on and a future to look forward to.

Sure--but you can just also find a reason to go on and look to the future within your life, regardless of the fact that it's going to end. Again, I just don't see how an afterlife is necessary at all.

For many people, life is never rewarding and nothing but an exercise in pain.

Life is what you make of it. Certainly, there are some individuals for whom circumstance absolutely dictates suffering, but I imagine those of us living in the developed world have the tools at our disposal to ensure that life is more than an "exercise in pain." Not suggesting that's easy, of course.

That said, my life is pretty decent and the vast majority of my problems are of my own design, so I'm not qualified to speak on how surmountable or insurmountable suffering is.

 

[Saint]

Will you be paying me for it? No? Then I guess I don't have to do squat. As I've explained previously to another poster, I'm not out to convert you. You disagree, fine by me. I'll continue to enjoy reading SHH with my Mountain Dew. No biggie.

You could have saved yourself a lot of unnecessary keystrokes by just typing "Yeah, I guess that was a ridiculous thing to say."

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this is a Hype Christianity Discussion thread.

It's not, but Christianity has been the frame through which we have been discussing religion over the past few pages. This isn't difficult to grasp.

And no, what you quoted are all exclusive to Christianity. They do not apply to 'any religion'.

Of course not; they were specific Christian examples. Please attempt to employ your power of reading comprehension before responding to my posts. While the examples may be Christian, I suspect the principle of change they demonstrate can apply to any religion. That's why we call it an "example."

That, sir, is your biggest fallacy.

I see. Well, if we're pointing out each other's flaws, yours is probably that you have no actual argument, merely a string of increasingly ridiculous claims that you cannot substantiate.

No, we have NOT established that religion is obviously not constant. You quoted example from ONE religion and used that as a representation of all religions. You may have successfully established that CHRISTIANITY is not constant. But that was all you did. That, I say again, is a serious flaw in the entire premise of your arguments. That, I'm afraid, is completely asinine on your part.

Groan. Your argument, by necessity, is that there exist religions that sprung, fully formed, from the minds of their creators and never developed or changed in any way. If you try really hard, you may perceive exactly how ridiculous this concept is. As I have already written, religion is clearly not constant, as thousands of different religions have emerged--and continue to emerge--as the result of changing people, changing ideas, and changing beliefs. Where do you think religions come from? Do you think a bunch of vikings sat down one day and dreamed up the entirety of Norse myth? No. These sorts of beliefs evolve from other religions, or other spiritual beliefs, which in turn evolve from still other beliefs.

Furthermore, your attempt to degrade my argumentation is hilarious, considering your refusal to defend you claim in any way. Let's review:

Danger Mouse: "Religion is constant!"
Saint: "Religion changes all the time."
Danger Mouse: "Explain how religion changes all the time!"
Saint: "Here are some Christian examples."
Danger Mouse: "That's just Christianity! There are other religions that haven't changed!"
Saint: "Such as?"
Danger Mouse: "Your argument is dumb!"

And you feel that my argument is the one lacking? Have you been reading this conversation? At All?

 

[Saint]

Religion never stifled science.

Inaccurate. While it's probably true that not all religions have "stifled" science, it is also true that scientific development has sometimes been suppressed or marginalized for religious purposes. The most obvious example is that it was once illegal in certain states to teach evolution, rather than creation, in schools.

 

[TimBisley]

You could have saved yourself a lot of unnecessary keystrokes by just typing "Yeah, I guess that was a ridiculous thing to say."


It's not, but Christianity has been the frame through which we have been discussing religion over the past few pages. This isn't difficult to grasp.


Of course not; they were specific Christian examples. Please attempt to employ your power of reading comprehension before responding to my posts. While the examples may be Christian, I suspect the principle of change they demonstrate can apply to any religion. That's why we call it an "example."


I see. Well, if we're pointing out each other's flaws, yours is probably that you have no actual argument, merely a string of increasingly ridiculous claims that you cannot substantiate.


Groan. Your argument, by necessity, is that there exist religions that sprung, fully formed, from the minds of their creators and never developed or changed in any way. If you try really hard, you may perceive exactly how ridiculous this concept is. As I have already written, religion is clearly not constant, as thousands of different religions have emerged--and continue to emerge--as the result of changing people, changing ideas, and changing beliefs. Where do you think religions come from? Do you think a bunch of vikings sat down one day and dreamed up the entirety of Norse myth? No. These sorts of beliefs evolve from other religions, or other spiritual beliefs, which in turn evolve from still other beliefs.

Furthermore, your attempt to degrade my argumentation is hilarious, considering your refusal to defend you claim in any way. Let's review:



And you feel that my argument is the one lacking? Have you been reading this conversation? At All?

"Thats the way you do it! Thats the way you debate!"

 

[Danger Mouse]

Danger Mouse: "Religion is constant!"
Saint: "Religion changes all the time."
Danger Mouse: "Explain how religion changes all the time!"
Saint: "Here are some Christian examples."
Danger Mouse: "That's just Christianity! There are other religions that haven't changed!"
Saint: "Doesn't matter. It is largely beside the point. It applies to any religion."
Danger Mouse: "Your argument is dumb!"

Fixed.