NationStates Jolt Archive

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

I may not be Christian enough to participate, but I believe it was Asimov that said "Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right."

I would pray about it, read the scripture again, study the background make sure I didn't misunderstand what was said, explore my feelings, figure out why I believe that and take all of that into account when deciding what to do.

47.8%

...honestly...according to religion, your "gut feeling" would be wrong. To you, and perhaps others, your intuition may carry more value, however if you were to talk to a priest or a minister, "god's word" would be superior.

I apologize for not being able to help any more. A former Roman Catholic, I was faced, among all sorts of things, with an even more difficult situation: What happens when the bible says one thing and the church (pope, priest, etc.) says another?

Make absolutely sure that your clear on what the scripture says for starters. If the conflict still exists then I would follow the gut feeling, The Bible is more of a collection of metaphorical guidelines and supports than actual rules and strictures.

i think that they should both be headed with respect. it would be wise to not act out on an impulse but to wait for a bit and see if the feeling is still there.
for many their feeling and intuition guide there faith. i think that as long as the discisson is rationally thought out it could be heeded.

i find the question interesting, on the account that there are few places where the scriptures would be unjust.

I would pray about it, read the scripture again, study the background make sure I didn't misunderstand what was said, explore my feelings, figure out why I believe that and take all of that into account when deciding what to do.

That isn't quite an answer to the question I asked. Which carries more weight to you?

I apologize for not being able to help any more. A former Roman Catholic, I was faced, among all sorts of things, with an even more difficult situation: What happens when the bible says one thing and the church (pope, priest, etc.) says another?

I had the same thing happen to me, except I was an evangelical christian. Among other things thats why I stopped going to those churches, I'm somewhat non-denominational now.

That isn't quite an answer to the question I asked. Which carries more weight to you?

whatever one makes more sense.

I can't make an absolute statment about something that is changeable.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

I would pray and study the scriptures.

I had the same thing happen to me, except I was an evangelical christian. Among other things thats why I stopped going to those churches, I'm somewhat non-denominational now.

I'm entirely non-demoninational now...pretty much a textbook agnostic. I'm not going to badmouth god or say that he/she/it doesn't exist...but I'm not going to go out of my way to worship something that can't be proven either way.

There was about a 6-year period in my life where too many things happened between me and the Roman Catholic church both directly and indirectly for me to ever be able to respect them as an institution, let alone worship among their ranks.

for many their feeling and intuition guide there faith. i think that as long as the discisson is rationally thought out it could be heeded.

Yes, I have heard a lot of Christians use a Cartesian explanation for their belief. They believe in God because they can feel God.

I was wondering that, if they can trust their feelings that much, why couldn't they trust their feelings in steering away from scripture.

I guess the end question is: Why is the Bible (and religion in itself) necessary? Wouldn't we be as well served to just ignore the question of religion altogether, and act as we feel is right?

Follow your sense of justice, and be positive of the consequences of your actions before you follow through with them.

The scriptures aren't meant to be taken at face value. Combine that with translation issues, and the changes in the meaning of words, and the true meaning of the scriptures can become very murky.

I would follow my gut, my gut haven't let me down yet! :D

whatever one makes more sense.

I can't make an absolute statment about something that is changeable.

Well, explain a little bit.

Neither scripture nor feelings make a whole lot of sense to me, so why would either make sense to you? What would cause you to trust scripture in the first place? Why would the process change?

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?
Give me an actual example of such a conflict.

Give me an actual example of such a conflict.

What purpose would it serve?

Well, explain a little bit.

Neither scripture nor feelings make a whole lot of sense to me, so why would either make sense to you? What would cause you to trust scripture in the first place? Why would the process change?

both feelings and scripture can be misunderstood you are correct.

Faith is a verb, not a noun, the action of my faith is trusting God, I feel His guidance in my life through prayer and study of the scripture, if I have a feeling that seems contrary to scripture I assume it is one of three reasons

1 the feeling is of the world and not of God
2 I misunderstand what is said in scripture and need to study more
3 I misunderstand why I feel the way I do

either of these can be true and they are not all mutually exclusive.

I guess the end question is: Why is the Bible (and religion in itself) necessary? Wouldn't we be as well served to just ignore the question of religion altogether, and act as we feel is right.

Oh a glorious question, Mr. Vittos, but unfortunately it can't be answered as it should. You place far too much faith in humanity. To ignore the question of religion and act as we feel is right would be a great idea, outside of two reasons.

First of all, as I said, you believe in humanity far too much. While a certain number may be able to handle the responsibility of acting 'right,' you have to remember that the majority of humans are stupid and ignorant, therefore making them unable to accurately lead themselves.

Second, the concept of 'right' is too fluid to simply 'follow.' Look at the differences among societies across the world. From the Far East to the Middle East to Europe to America to Africa, etc, different values are abundant...and while most of these values would most likely match up in some way or another...there are those that directly contradict each other. Who's to say which one is 'right?'

Faith is a verb, not a noun.

Faith is most definately a noun...

What purpose would it serve?
Because the question is conflict between feelings and scripture, correct? I'm just trying to think of a time where there might be such a conflict between what I feel is right and what scripture says and I'm having one devil of a time coming up with something.

I imagine the best thing to do would be to first really read the particular parts of the Bible that correspond with your dilemma, perhaps even within the context of a full lectio divinia to try and get some guidance on the issue.

You could also talk with your religious leaders, or with others of the same faith to try and figure it out.

Ultimately, prayer and communication are going to factor big in the decision.

Faith is most definately a noun...

then you misunderstand faith.

Yes, I have heard a lot of Christians use a Cartesian explanation for their belief. They believe in God because they can feel God.

I was wondering that, if they can trust their feelings that much, why couldn't they trust their feelings in steering away from scripture.

I guess the end question is: Why is the Bible (and religion in itself) necessary? Wouldn't we be as well served to just ignore the question of religion altogether, and act as we feel is right.

a good argument but, on of the basic tenants of Christianity is that humans are fallible, we make mistakes so some times feelings should not be trusted.
Feeling God and having a gut feeing about something are two different feelings. at lest they are for me. for me "feeling" God is very much the same feeling as when you know when some one is near you but you cant actually feel them, you just know that they are there.
the gut feeling is a different sense or feel- to me it just feels different. there have been a few times for me that they occurred at the same time.

for many people the bible is THE WORD OF GOD, meaning you don't mess with it no matter how you feel about it; its a personal feeling that i think is different for every one. its what having a Personal relationship is all about. Christians all worship the same God but no one sees God in the same way.

then you misunderstand faith.

no then you misunderstand grammar

"faith is not a noun, it's a verb" may be a cool sounding christian bumper sticker...but it's wrong...

both feelings and scripture can be misunderstood you are correct.

Faith is a verb, not a noun, the action of my faith is trusting God

You can't possess a verb.


I feel His guidance in my life through prayer and study of the scripture, if I have a feeling that seems contrary to scripture I assume it is one of three reasons

1 the feeling is of the world and not of God
2 I misunderstand what is said in scripture and need to study more
3 I misunderstand why I feel the way I do

either of these can be true and they are not all mutually exclusive.

How can you tell, and why wouldn't God lead you away from scripture if it served his purpose?

You can't possess a verb.
true.....

How can you tell, and why wouldn't God lead you away from scripture if it served his purpose?
why would it serve His purpose?

You can't possess a verb.

Unless you turn it in to a noun, although that can sound a little weird depending on the context.

no then you misunderstand grammar

"faith is not a noun, it's a verb" may be a cool sounding christian bumper sticker...but it's wrong...

meh.....I was speaking in spiritual terms.......or something.

Faith is most definately a noun...

its both. a noun is a person place thing or idea. faith is a idea. so a noun
but is is also an action it is some thing that you do so it is also a verb

Because the question is conflict between feelings and scripture, correct? I'm just trying to think of a time where there might be such a conflict between what I feel is right and what scripture says and I'm having one devil of a time coming up with something.

I, for one, have never felt the need for worshipping God.

I was raised Christian, and still hold many traditional Christian values, but I have always felt that one's works and not one's beliefs that gave a person merit. Scripture disagrees.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

meh.....I was speaking in spiritual terms.......or something.

I imagine you mean that faith is something you have to express through action as well as conceptual belief?

why would it serve His purpose?

That is not a question I am entitled to answer, however, you cannot deny that it is possible, correct?

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

Actually, scripture answers your question.
You're not gonna like it, though. (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html)
(When I heard about this passage it made me dislike at least 2 out of the 3 abrahamic religions even more then usual)

its both. a noun is a person place thing of idea. faith is a idea. so a noun
but is is also an action it is some thing that you do so it is also a verb

This debate is completely beside the point, in addition to being ridiculous. Faith is a noun. It just is. That is the english word, I'm afriad. Spiritually speaking, faith must be alive. Dead faith is no faith at all. So it is active, but being active does not make it an action or being, and thus it's still not a verb. Sorry.

I, for one, have never felt the need for worshipping God.

I was raised Christian, and still hold many traditional Christian values, but I have always felt that one's works and not one's beliefs that gave a person merit. Scripture disagrees.what Denomination?

I haven't heard of any traditional teachings that don't worship God and says that Belief is not needed for merit (I assume you mean salvation.) Worship of God does come in many forms, Deeds (done in His Name), Song and Praises, Prayer, and even just spending time talking to HIM. but the things that are needed are Belief and Obedience.

I, for one, have never felt the need for worshipping God.

I was raised Christian, and still hold many traditional Christian values, but I have always felt that one's works and not one's beliefs that gave a person merit. Scripture disagrees.
Actually that depends upon who you talk to, scripture seems to say both faith AND good works are needed. Or not, or perhaps one and not the other.

There's a lot of debate there.

I imagine you mean that faith is something you have to express through action as well as conceptual belief?
it's like when I say that Love is a decision and not an emotion. It takes active resolution to have faith in God.
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>
nice.

so, is trust a verb or a noun? wait, don't look it up, just tell me what you think.
That is not a question I am entitled to answer, however, you cannot deny that it is possible, correct?
I would suppose that anything is possible.

Actually, scripture answers your question.
You're not gonna like it, though. (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html)
(When I heard about this passage it made me dislike at least 2 out of the 3 abrahamic religions even more then usual)

iam afraid that you left tout the rest of teh verse


Deuteronomy 29:19 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

19 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, "I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way." This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry.

nice.

so, is trust a verb or a noun? wait, don't look it up, just tell me what you think.

Ah...trust is both

Trust and Faith are both ideas...hense both nouns.

Now...you can trust someone...making trust a verb as well

but you cannot "faith" someone...you can have faith in someone or something...making have the verb...but you can't faith someone

This debate is completely beside the point, in addition to being ridiculous. Faith is a noun. It just is. That is the english word, I'm afriad. Spiritually speaking, faith must be alive. Dead faith is no faith at all. So it is active, but being active does not make it an action or being, and thus it's still not a verb. Sorry.

No it is definately a ridiculous arguement...lol...I just figure since I started it...I might as well see it through...

This debate is completely beside the point, in addition to being ridiculous. Faith is a noun. It just is. That is the english word, I'm afriad. Spiritually speaking, faith must be alive. Dead faith is no faith at all. So it is active, but being active does not make it an action or being, and thus it's still not a verb. Sorry.

:confused: huh?

faith is active- and is shown by the way a person lives, not just Christians, every one.

a verb is a action. run jump hop live. i guess that fiath could be an adverb to life ,to live...

iam afraid that you left tout the rest of teh verse

I think the context implies that the people who receive the terms of the Covenant are bound to follow it, and if they decide to not follow it yet believe that because they are people of the Covenant they are safe from punishment, they will in fact be punished and severely.

If anything, it sounds like a simple statement: you agreed to this oath, and you have to follow it. If you don't listen, you're punished. It also seems like it applies to the Jews in this case since the whole chapter mentions:

You are standing here in order to enter into a covenant with the LORD your God, a covenant the LORD is making with you this day and sealing with an oath, 13 to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

:confused: huh?

faith is active- and is shown by the way a person lives, not just Christians, every one.

a verb is a action. run jump hop live. i guess that fiath could be an adverb to life ,to live...
You guys have heard that English often verbs nouns, right?

You guys have heard that English often verbs nouns, right?

explain.

what Denomination?

I haven't heard of any traditional teachings that don't worship God and says that Belief is not needed for merit (I assume you mean salvation.) Worship of God does come in many forms, Deeds (done in His Name), Song and Praises, Prayer, and even just spending time talking to HIM. but the things that are needed are Belief and Obedience.

I attended a Lutheran elementary school and a non-denominational church for most of my teens, but it never struck me as important to actually worship or even believe in God to be a good person.

explain.
What? Verbing nouns? Adding usual verb conjugations (s) (I.e. ed, ing) to a noun to make it a verb. For example, the word verb is a noun, meaning part of speech to show action. Verbing however is a noun +ing to use the noun as a verb for this sentence.

Faith seems to fall into either/or in terms of if it's an action or a thing.

Actually that depends upon who you talk to, scripture seems to say both faith AND good works are needed. Or not, or perhaps one and not the other.

There's a lot of debate there.

Most I have asked about this seem to think that salvation only comes through faith in God/Jesus, and that works are only a symbol of faith where a person who truly believes will act in the appropriate ways.

What? Verbing nouns? Adding usual verb conjugations (s) (I.e. ed, ing) to a noun to make it a verb. For example, the word verb is a noun, meaning part of speech to show action. Verbing however is a noun +ing to use the noun as a verb for this sentence.

Faith seems to fall into either/or in terms of if it's an action or a thing.
oh

thanks ;)

I attended a Lutheran elementary school and a non-denominational church for most of my teens, but it never struck me as important to actually worship or even believe in God to be a good person.
you don't need to believe in GOD to be a good person. but you do need to believe in God to have salvation.

Most I have asked about this seem to think that salvation only comes through faith in God/Jesus, and that works are only a symbol of faith where a person who truly believes will act in the appropriate ways.
That's actually a large prodestant/catholic debate. IIRC, Catholics believe that faith alone is not enough, one must also have good works; whereas many prodestant faiths believe that faith alone and not good works.

Then you get the question of limbo and that whole nine yards.

'Tis very confusing and seems to depend upon which denomination you are and your own faith. Scripture isn't too clear (or rather, it seems to condradict itself a few times with Jesus saying that only through Him can one come to the Father, and then also noting one needs good works).

iam afraid that you left tout the rest of teh verse

And what difference does that make?:confused:
Still means the same thing: "Don't listen to yourself, listen to this book".

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

As one of the few around here two whom your question was actually directed...

Your "gut feeling" is also known as a concience. This little known entity, often no more used than Pinocchio's, should theoretically always agree with scripture. If it does not, (from a Christian perspective) one of them has been corrupted.

At this point there are two questions. First, has scripture been changed since God gave it to us? And second, can a concience be perverted and/or decieved so it can be wrong? Or in other words, who is wrong: God or me?

As a Christian, the answer is obviously going to be that God is right, and I could be wrong. Of course, my first course of action would be to try to reconsile the two things together - by reexamining both scripture and myself. But if that really doesn't work, I'm gonna have to go with the theory that God is more right than I am. 100%.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

Interesting question.

Neither.
My understanding of scripture could be inaccurate.
My gut feeling could be selfish.

Only when I can reconcile scripture with that internal gut understanding AND the God-given reason and intellect we all should be excercising would I move forward into any particular belief or action.

I, for one, have never felt the need for worshipping God.

I was raised Christian, and still hold many traditional Christian values, but I have always felt that one's works and not one's beliefs that gave a person merit. Scripture disagrees.

Some religions teach that scripture disagrees would be far more accurate to say.

you don't need to believe in GOD to be a good person. but you do need to believe in God to have salvation.

And if you cannot be convinced that no benevolent and just god would turn away a good and caring person from the gates of heaven just because they don't believe?

I initially turned atheistic because I wouldn't accept any religion that held this premise, I have since become agnostic because it fits my values better.

That's actually a large prodestant/catholic debate. IIRC, Catholics believe that faith alone is not enough, one must also have good works; whereas many prodestant faiths believe that faith alone and not good works.

Then you get the question of limbo and that whole nine yards.

'Tis very confusing and seems to depend upon which denomination you are and your own faith. Scripture isn't too clear (or rather, it seems to condradict itself a few times with Jesus saying that only through Him can one come to the Father, and then also noting one needs good works).

Yes, I approached a protestant preacher with this question (he actually approached me, but I asked it), citing the scripture in which Jesus said something about when you help another man, you are helping Jesus, and that those who help their other man will sit at the right hand of the throne. He brushed away the idea of acts for salvation with pretty much the explanation I stated earlier.

As one of the few around here two whom your question was actually directed...

Your "gut feeling" is also known as a concience. This little known entity, often no more used than Pinocchio's, should theoretically always agree with scripture. If it does not, (from a Christian perspective) one of them has been corrupted.

At this point there are two questions. First, has scripture been changed since God gave it to us? And second, can a concience be perverted and/or decieved so it can be wrong? Or in other words, who is wrong: God or me?

As a Christian, the answer is obviously going to be that God is right, and I could be wrong. Of course, my first course of action would be to try to reconsile the two things together - by reexamining both scripture and myself. But if that really doesn't work, I'm gonna have to go with the theory that God is more right than I am. 100%.

Could it not be God overriding the scripture?

Some religions teach that scripture disagrees would be far more accurate to say.

This is true, I think the way people are able to arrive at such different interpretations actually answers my question, I think.

Since the bible is malleable, how much of its interpretation do you feel is a product of your intuition and values, and how much of it do you feel is the set in stone meaning of the word of God?

And if you cannot be convinced that no benevolent and just god would turn away a good and caring person from the gates of heaven just because they don't believe?

No matter how 'Good' a life you lead, it does not undo the sins you have already. Its not about if you believe or not, its about how you've responded to sin

This is true, I think the way people are able to arrive at such different interpretations actually answers my question, I think.

Since the bible is malleable, how much of its interpretation do you feel is a product of your intuition and values, and how much of it do you feel is the set in stone meaning of the word of God?
Hmm... that one is hard unless I plan to go through the entirety of the Bible to answer (and thank you, no). If I had to give you a general rough answer, certain aspects are set in stone, namely because there is no real way to have a different interpretation (Thou shall not kill is pretty black and white, ne?). Some of the more nitty gritty though, there is where people struggle with their faith and either come to a conclusion that allows for their own value system, or they drop the faith and move into either a different denomination, or into a different faith (or lack thereof) all together.

This is why Christianity isn't so much a religion as an ongoing argument over which of those values are supported, and why the same verse can be used to support two different values.

I would have to follow my gut. I do have a great sense for what is right and what is wrong. As most of us know, the Bible is a great Book, however, it is filled with contradictions and is easily misinterpreted, as it is written by man.

If you know the scriptures, you should use them as a guidance. It would be wise to follow the scriptures and to use common sense and the knowledge you were given of knowing Right from Wrong. We are all imperfect, if we make a bad decision, we should learn from it and move on.

It's good to use both your gut feeling or listen to your concience, and to try to follow the Bible.

Since the bible is malleable, how much of its interpretation do you feel is a product of your intuition and values, and how much of it do you feel is the set in stone meaning of the word of God?

How much is set in stone?
I'm not sure exactly how to answer that, but I would say that there are a few topics that are self evidently set in scriptural stone, "Love your neighbour" being one that comes to mind.
I would also say that there are significant other areas where scripture seems to offer some guidelines and expects us to each find our own path, an easy example of Jesus and John, one drinks and drinks with tax collectors and prostitutes, the other abstains from alcohol, rich food and separates himself from people by going into the desert.

How much is set in stone?
I'm not sure exactly how to answer that, but I would say that there are a few topics that are self evidently set in scriptural stone, "Love your neighbour" being one that comes to mind.
I would also say that there are significant other areas where scripture seems to offer some guidelines and expects us to each find our own path, an easy example of Jesus and John, one drinks and drinks with tax collectors and prostitutes, the other abstains from alcohol, rich food and separates himself from people by going into the desert.

That's a good point here. I would say there are overriding core principles that must drive any analysis of Scripture, and anything that comes into conflict with those core principles is either a mistake or misunderstood. More often it's the latter, given the fact that we live in a culture so many millenia removed from the daily experience the writers were having at the time. Applying Scripture to the modern experience does take some real thought in some cases.

So in answer to the original question, what if I have a gut feeling that seems to contradict Scripture? Here's what I check--and I'm more thorough depending on what the decision is:

1) Is the Scripture passage in question one of the core principles (example: things described in the 10 Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, "love thy neighbor"...)? If it's a core principle, then I can pretty much guarantee that the Scripture is right and I'm wrong. But if it's not a core principle, let's move on...

2) Is the passage out of context within the chapter? It's important to know that in some places, for instance, St. Paul gives his opinions and outright says that's what he's doing, but if you pull a verse from one of those sections out of context without his disclaimer, you can really mess up.

3) Is the passage out of cultural context? For instance, take the infamous "women should be silent and ask their husbands about what is said in church" verse. This one is an example of two kinds of "out of context"--first, you have Jesus in one of the Gospels directly telling a woman named Martha that her sister Mary was right to come learn from him, which culturally was "not allowed" in those days. Also, you have to consider that women in those days were uneducated, and therefore the verse becomes an admonition to get an education before making definitive statements on spiritual matters. Since women these days DO have an education, the gender-biased concern is no longer valid.

4) Is there potentially a mistranslation?

5) If it's a small matter, it might just be one of those agree-to-disagree things. Even St. Paul, who was certainly not a compromising person by nature, suggests there are some things where Christians should just agree to disagree--he seems to use that same "core principles" test I recommend.

6) If a core principle still seems to come into conflict with said verse, then after prayer, it may well be time to take a stand.

I know that sounds ponderous, but it really doesn't take that long if you're fairly familiar with the Bible.

And if you cannot be convinced that no benevolent and just god would turn away a good and caring person from the gates of heaven just because they don't believe?God set the rules, can you name a religion to a superior being that has a tenent of "Don't believe in me, I don't care?" Even Wiccans believe in the exsistance of Goddesses and spirits.

I initially turned atheistic because I wouldn't accept any religion that held this premise, I have since become agnostic because it fits my values better.and that is your choice to make.

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread, I just wanted to say that I think it's a very cool question. Props to the OP.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

Short Answer: Scripture

Meaningful Answer: There is no innate sense of justice. What we feel is just and unjust is a product of how we're raised and with what values we're taught to conduct ourselves.

For someone who was raised in their religion, this conflict is unlikely since they've been taught values of right and wrong that coincide with those teachings.

If one is a convert (like myself), then they have to have faith that if they've chosen the correct religion to adhere to, then that supercedes what they've previously learned.

For example: Suppose a person was raised to believe that playing hockey was absolutely wrong and the most heinous crime one could ever commit. Then, as an adult, they convert to a religion where the members regularly gather to play hockey. Their own sense of right and wrong will now be indirect conflict with the teachings of their new church. Does that mean they've chosen wrong, or that they were raised with the wrong values to begin with? Well, if they converted it's probably because they saw a truth in their new religion that was lacking in their life previously. That being the case, the teachings they've gained should supercede their old understandings.

"Game on!"

Hence my answer.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

About the same as they do with any of my other beliefs. Which is to say not much.

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

If that gut feeling is my conscience (and with me it likely is), and it is not in contradiction with my conclusions after extensive thought, research, and prayer, then sure. Conscience informed by careful thought, prayer, reseach, and a good grasp of scripture is far better than scripture alone, as far as I'm concerned.

I apologize for not being able to help any more. A former Roman Catholic, I was faced, among all sorts of things, with an even more difficult situation: What happens when the bible says one thing and the church (pope, priest, etc.) says another?
I'm Catholic, but that doesn't mean that I think the heirarchy is flawless. The Bible is the primary source of all Christianity. Men are fallible.

I would pray about it, read the scripture again, study the background make sure I didn't misunderstand what was said, explore my feelings, figure out why I believe that and take all of that into account when deciding what to do.
Same here.

I would follow my gut, my gut haven't let me down yet! :D
Lucky you haven't killed yet.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

I think what ends up happening is that intuition leads the interpretation of scripture. Like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Does that mean that if someone injures your eye that you must injure his, must at least injure his or that you must do no more than injure his, but preferably do less."

This is why there are war-mongers who think that Christ is pro-war. They are war loving wannabe killers, and so that shows through in their interpretation of scripture with all that "at the end of the world Christ comes back as a warrior" bullshit.

As Toni Morrison put it, "love is never any better than the lover. Selfish men love selfishly."

then you misunderstand faith.

Watch out or I'll faith you right in the face.

I'm gonna go faithing.

He faithed all over the couch, dude.


Nope, doesn't feel like a verb.

I think what ends up happening is that intuition leads the interpretation of scripture. Like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Does that mean that if someone injures your eye that you must injure his, must at least injure his or that you must do no more than injure his, but preferably do less."

This is why there are war-mongers who think that Christ is pro-war. They are war loving wannabe killers, and so that shows through in their interpretation of scripture with all that "at the end of the world Christ comes back as a warrior" bullshit.

As Toni Morrison put it, "love is never any better than the lover. Selfish men love selfishly."

While I don't think Christ was pro-war by any means, since I don't think He wants to see either side get hurt, I'm not sure God opposes defending others. The right to defend our own lives is one that I think is optional and probably when only our own lives are at stake, the most moral option is to not use lethal force and accept the risk of dying. But when it comes to defending others, I think we risk a moral violation if we refuse to stand up for someone else who is being tortured or oppressed.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?
Very much. My feelings and intuitions make up the vast majority of my religious beliefs since I believe very little of what the buy-bull tells me. ;)
If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?
My religious beliefs are my own. I don't expect anyone else to understand them, let alone share them. They have no basis in anything other than my own mind. Therefore, any gut feeling I have is going to be referenced against that before any outside source. That is, if it gets referenced against any outside source at all. [I'm ignoring the "justice" part of the question because I don't believe there is any such thing, but again, that's only a construct of my own mind and not applicable to you or the laws of the jurisdiction.]

I'm not going to post any more in this thread, but here's what I have to say.

The Bible is absolute. There are no "gray areas" or "ifs ands or buts." Your gut feeling, if it contradicts the Bible, is wrong, and you need prayer.

God is very pro-war. It's actually surprising, if you read the Bible, how many times He told His people to go to war. It was pretty simple: if they obeyed Him to the letter, they won. If they disobeyed Him, they lost.

I have a feeling God's going to teach us a lesson right now in this day and age. He created us, rebelling is pretty stupid, IMO. :D It's like in Star Wars Episode III when some of the clones disobey the Emperor and try to protect the Kaminoans and the cloning facility, but the Emperor wins. The Emperor is God, the rebelling clones are... well... people rebelling against God, the Emperor's clones are God's people. That isn't the best analogy, though... God isn't evil and sadistic. LOL

Anyways, I'm sure I've said enough.

This isn't troll-baiting, BTW... to me the thread itself is a troll-bait.

Have fun picking my post apart. :)

(snip)

Have fun picking my post apart. :)
No thanks, Rev. Phelps. I'll pass.

At the end of his life Martin Luther said, "I set out to destroy one pope, and I created a thousand more." There are over three thousand major Christian denominations now, all of whom 'follow the plain sense of scripture', and I'm beginning to wonder if the project of individual interpretation isn't an obvious failure. There seems to me to be a few options for your/my/anyone's quandary when our sense of justice seems to be meddled with by scripture: 1) With three thousand denominations all of whom are reading the same book, simply find one that offers a palatable reading with your personal view; 2) Redefine what you mean to believe about the inerrancy/infallibility of the book 3) Decide that 2000+ years of history and Christian existence might enjoy a comprehensive perspective that our few enlightened years may not--suspend judgment and submit to the biblical teaching.

Albert Schwiezter said that the search for the historical Jesus is like looking at the bottom of a very deep well, when your eyes finally focus, you see merely a distortion of your own reflection looking back up at you. That's too often how it is with the scripture. Instead of standing over and against the individual believer as a prophetic word, a worthy judge, and an able counsel, we look in and by golly, our biases are staring back at us from the page.

Luther also said that you are beholden to your conscience, accountable to be true to it above all else. Unfortunately, he neglected to mention that it is our equal duty to ensure the proper formation of our conscience. What constitutes proper formation? It opens a whole sack of other quandaries.

Never the less, if you are not yet so agnostic as to believe against God's existence, then perhaps you may be reminded that if indeed he exists, then indeed you and I will stand before God in judgment of our lives. And I know that in that moment regardless of my ability to fleece the minds of those to whom I peddle my justifications for wrong living, wrong thinking, wrong speaking, God will not be confounded by my bullshit rationalizations, and in love and full respect of human freedom he may with sincere grief cast my ass into the darkness of my choosing.

My friend, I do not think you meant it to be, but I think your question is a red herring; a choice does not have to be made. You, an agnostic should know that it is no longer an either/or world, but the zeitgeist of the both/and. Another question: "How can my conscience be formed such that the meaning and authority of scripture does not present such as to make me see an apparent contradiction?" If I cannot sincerely make such an inquiry, then may my insincerity be revealed to me before it cannot be undone.

Never the less, if you are not yet so agnostic as to believe against God's existence, then perhaps you may be reminded that if indeed he exists, then indeed you and I will stand before God in judgment of our lives. And I know that in that moment regardless of my ability to fleece the minds of those to whom I peddle my justifications for wrong living, wrong thinking, wrong speaking, God will not be confounded by my bullshit rationalizations, and in love and full respect of human freedom he may with sincere grief cast my ass into the darkness of my choosing.

And here is a question. You imply that if anyone has ever made a doctrinal or interpretational mistake, they are condemned to Hell. Do you truly believe that besides Christ, there are any Christians who have ever had a totally perfect understanding of God's will, and been able to carry it out to perfection? That gets to the crux of why Christ had to interpose Himself between us and the darkness--because we are inherently incapable of living 100% up to expectation.

When it comes to interpretation, even people who are well advanced in Christ still see through a glass but darkly. Not one of us gets an entirely clear signal, not through any fault in God's "transmission," of course, but thanks to our sinfulness. Sanctification is a work that progresses over our lives but is not complete until after our death--and until it is complete, there will remain some element of interference from the struggles of that sinful nature as it thrashes around in defiance of the defeat it knows is eventually coming.

I know very well that I will not be 100% perfect in my interpretations, and that even though I honestly feel supported by the Spirit in many of them, that I must accept the possibility I will be wrong both in cases I will discover later in life, and cases that I will not know about until after my passing. And I hope to be told about them because I truly want to know better and understand how the kingdom of Heaven works in a much clearer way than I do now. But I also think that I will be required--no, compelled from both within and without--to beg forgiveness for those mistakes in the name of Christ. I think He--and only He--will know who genuinely tried and who genuinely seeks forgiveness. This is an assurance I have received through prayer time and time again. It is not an excuse for when I am wrong, nor an excuse to stop striving. It is simply a reassurance that I will in the end be educated, corrected, and forgiven.

Do you believe in that forgiveness, that it is there if you ask for it, and that like all of us, you will need it?

(Thou shall not kill is pretty black and white, ne?).

Not at all.

Not at all.


Absolutely. "Thou shalt not kill" leaves open a whole host of ambiguities, which is why I think the commandement properly rendered is "Thou shalt not murder" in most translations.

God set the rules, can you name a religion to a superior being that has a tenent of "Don't believe in me, I don't care?" Even Wiccans believe in the exsistance of Goddesses and spirits.

and that is your choice to make.

My inability to name a religion whose superior being doesn't desire our faith and worship has no relevance here. It is a feeling I have that is contradictory to scripture.

I want to find out just what basis Christians attribute for their beliefs. People continuously say that they will trust scripture, all the while neglecting to provide a reason to believe in said scripture.

If, as I guess, it turns out that most beliefs are centered on feelings and sensations of God, then there is little reason to take scripture seriously in defining beliefs.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

For me, the matter is quite simple.

Even my priest tells me that Christians are asked to make decisions based on 3 things: Scripture, (Church?) Tradition, and God-given reason, thus suggesting that one of the three alone is not enough.

No matter how intelligent I am, I know that it's possible for me to incorrectly interpret even an orginal Greek or Hebrew document of the Holy Bible, but I also know that the Holy Spirit was sent out into the people in Acts 2 and that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) and I believe that this is a good explanation as to 'funny feelings' and 'gut feelings, thus I would rather trust the Holy Spirit than a book which I may wrongly interpret.

In other words, I would trust my God-given feelings over the words of the Bible (which I may be wrongly interpreting).

However, that does not mean scripture should not be taken seriously, as it contains many important words of Jesus (I personally don't think the Old Testament is actually something that happened, but rather a prediction of the future if we allow the world to continue the way it is going, in the same way it has made predictions which were fulfilled in the New Testament but which were talked about as though they had already happened). And Bible Study classes, or simply discussing scriptures with other people (whether Christian or not) face-to-face, on chat rooms on the internet, or in other ways, can help with interpreting a scripture.

Short Answer: Scripture

Meaningful Answer: There is no innate sense of justice. What we feel is just and unjust is a product of how we're raised and with what values we're taught to conduct ourselves.

I didn't want to get into this sort of a epistemological debate, mainly because I think that you are mostly correct. While I believe there are natural predelictions towards justice, their actual formation is mostly to entirely cultural.

However, I used that phrase "innate sense of justice" because it is analogous to the typical intellectual justification for Christian beliefs, a Cartesian knowledge of God.

Since belief and experience of God is truly a subjective experience, a huge validity question is raised, as it is impossible for an outside source to verify one's conclusions and observations. This is done away with usually by proclaiming an innate knowledge of God or an experienced sensation of God which one can claim as experience.

Like I said, this is analogous to an "innate sense of justice", and likewise it has the same problems of an "innate sense of justice", mainly that it isn't possible.

For example: Suppose a person was raised to believe that playing hockey was absolutely wrong and the most heinous crime one could ever commit. Then, as an adult, they convert to a religion where the members regularly gather to play hockey. Their own sense of right and wrong will now be indirect conflict with the teachings of their new church. Does that mean they've chosen wrong, or that they were raised with the wrong values to begin with? Well, if they converted it's probably because they saw a truth in their new religion that was lacking in their life previously. That being the case, the teachings they've gained should supercede their old understandings.


This doesn't address the question, which rephrased to be applicable to your scenario, is: "Is it an adjustment of values to the religion, or an adjustment of religion to meet values that occurs during conversion?"

How can a person change their values to meet a religion that would never appeal to them in the first place, were it opposed to their values?

My friend, I do not think you meant it to be, but I think your question is a red herring; a choice does not have to be made. You, an agnostic should know that it is no longer an either/or world, but the zeitgeist of the both/and.

I am a subtle yet strong agnostic, without belief in any absolute. Yet, while I do agree that feelings and scripture are not mutually exclusive, they are unlikely to always be in full accord.

Another question: "How can my conscience be formed such that the meaning and authority of scripture does not present such as to make me see an apparent contradiction?" If I cannot sincerely make such an inquiry, then may my insincerity be revealed to me before it cannot be undone.

I don't understand your question.

Do you believe in that forgiveness, that it is there if you ask for it, and that like all of us, you will need it?

If God is already aware of who is geniune, why must we ask him for forgiveness, why must we acknowledge him at all?

OMG, I KNOW THE QUESTION!!!

Boxers or briefs?!

God.

If you are a Christian, you necessarily believe that God > you, in every respect, including human intelligence versus divine intelligence.

And here is a question. You imply that if anyone has ever made a doctrinal or interpretational mistake, they are condemned to Hell. Do you truly believe that besides Christ, there are any Christians who have ever had a totally perfect understanding of God's will, and been able to carry it out to perfection? That gets to the crux of why Christ had to interpose Himself between us and the darkness--because we are inherently incapable of living 100% up to expectation. . .

. . . Do you believe in that forgiveness, that it is there if you ask for it, and that like all of us, you will need it?

I did not intend to imply that we are held responsible for our genuine ignorances. "What one knows" does not save. Rather the incarnation, the dying, and the rising of the One, saves. I think the mystery is beyond our grasp, the playing field is in an existential sense leveled: I kneel, the Pope kneels, Billy G. kneels and a illiterate lettuce picker kneels and the lettuce picker perceives the mystery more clearly than the rest.

It seems that the impteus of salvation history lies in "Deus es Caritas" his nature is love, and to judge based on right knowledge would culminate in a very spare family indeed. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I think what I am reacting to is the mental and theological gymnastics people engage in to evade responsibility and submission. I do not necessarily judge that to be the motivation of the author of this thread. Nevertheless, to choose the conscience over and against scripture or tradition is, while perhaps 'sincere', not 'christian' in any interesting sense of the word. It is no different than how we might like to think everybody makes decisions in the absence of an established moral tradition: by trying to do what they think is right.

kyrie eleison, christe eleison, kyrie eleison.

If God is already aware of who is geniune, why must we ask him for forgiveness, why must we acknowledge him at all?

The Christian understanding, as I interpret it, is that God seeks a meaningful relationship with us, and that would include that we apologize when we do things that bother or upset Him, just as you would for any other conscience. Even those of us who have pets usually feel moved to regret and to make it up if we accidentally do something that causes our pet distress...just because God is almighty doesn't mean He doesn't have feelings that need to be respected. No, He won't go and do something irrational as we would because of said feelings, but empathy alone suggests that even He wouldn't feel good about being mistreated or ignored.

I'm Catholic, but that doesn't mean that I think the heirarchy is flawless. The Bible is the primary source of all Christianity. Men are fallible.

The Bible may be the primary source, but the Pope is the primary dictator.

You admit that the heirarchy is flawed, and yet you remain Catholic, putting them on a pedistal above you. Even the priest has more rights before god than you do, a simple "civilian" in God's theological army.

You can live with that? I can't.

I did not intend to imply that we are held responsible for our genuine ignorances. "What one knows" does not save. Rather the incarnation, the dying, and the rising of the One, saves. I think the mystery is beyond our grasp, the playing field is in an existential sense leveled: I kneel, the Pope kneels, Billy G. kneels and a illiterate lettuce picker kneels and the lettuce picker perceives the mystery more clearly than the rest.

It seems that the impteus of salvation history lies in "Deus es Caritas" his nature is love, and to judge based on right knowledge would culminate in a very spare family indeed. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I think what I am reacting to is the mental and theological gymnastics people engage in to evade responsibility and submission. I do not necessarily judge that to be the motivation of the author of this thread. Nevertheless, to choose the conscience over and against scripture or tradition is, while perhaps 'sincere', not 'christian' in any interesting sense of the word. It is no different than how we might like to think everybody makes decisions in the absence of an established moral tradition: by trying to do what they think is right.

kyrie eleison, christe eleison, kyrie eleison.

There are some Christian traditions, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that suggest tradition, experience, and reason have valid and important roles to play in a Christian's interpretations as well as Scripture itself--thus some of these choices people make may not be strictly human conscience, but what we could call an augmented conscience. "Sola Scriptura" is a strictly Protestant concept, and while I do identify as Protestant, there are many times I think that we dismiss 2000 years of tradition, as well as experience and reason, only at our own risk. These are faculties God has provided us with, and while any of them can be distorted, I don't think that means we shouldn't try to use them (hence the need for prayer and the Holy Spirit).

Sometimes people get conclusions they base on Scripture that my instant reaction is not one of "Oh, I wish I could get away with X," but a feeling that what they have said is morally reprehensible and that if they or others follow it, it could be hurtful or destructive. Again, St. Paul himself says that even Christians well along in the Spirit will not always have total agreement. It's interesting you mention "right knowledge" in those words--that's what the Gnostics believed and one of the most dangerous parts of their heresy to the church.

I am a subtle yet strong agnostic, without belief in any absolute. Yet, while I do agree that feelings and scripture are not mutually exclusive, they are unlikely to always be in full accord.

Forgive me for being cheeky, but doesn't agnosticism decry being "strongly" anything (even agnostic), and preclude firm exclusion of "any absolute". I thought that an agnostic was: a / gnosis = no / knowledge, or popularly, no claim to affirm nor deny matters of spiritual truth. I actually have quite a bit of respect for agnostics--they tend to be very honest.

I think feelings (usually amoral) are different than conscience or 'sense of justice' (always related to morality), but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

I don't understand your question.

I read it again and can see why. I think what I am saying is that it might be prudent to suspend judgment (on scripture for example), temporarily defer to a moral code that has endured the test of two millennia (it was here before I came, and will be here after I die), and start one's analysis by assuming that the apparent contradiction (between my sense of justice and the ancient script) arises from a defect in my understanding or conscience formation.

Honestly Vittos, I am somewhat confused why you began this thread. Not the sort of thing I imagined an impartial observer in the existential quest to care about, let alone struggle with.

Not that you seem to be in any particular agony over it.

Forgive me for being cheeky, but doesn't agnosticism decry being "strongly" anything (even agnostic), and preclude firm exclusion of "any absolute". I thought that an agnostic was: a / gnosis = no / knowledge, or popularly, no claim to affirm nor deny matters of spiritual truth. I actually have quite a bit of respect for agnostics--they tend to be very honest.

I have been in many debates on here concerning the definition of agnosticism, primarily who should consider themselves agnostic.

My agnosticism (and the only agnosticism I think that can exist) states that one cannot make statements regarding evidence that points towards God, evidence that detracts from God, or probability of God's existence, with any level of knowledge whatsoever. So, I believe any "belief" in God's existence or non-existence, is completely groundless (outside cultural tradition), and excludes the holder from agnosticism.

I think feelings (usually amoral) are different than conscience or 'sense of justice' (always related to morality), but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Feelings are no different than conscience or a sense of justice, whether they are moral or not. For the purposes of our discussion, we can assume them to be moral when taken in the context of human relations, but amoral when viewed objectively. However, any feelings or "conscience" we feel are a product of our biology and our culture expressed in response to our current situation. There may be a small difference between them (depending on how you define them) but they are practically identical.

I read it again and can see why. I think what I am saying is that it might be prudent to suspend judgment (on scripture for example), temporarily defer to a moral code that has endured the test of two millennia (it was here before I came, and will be here after I die), and start one's analysis by assuming that the apparent contradiction (between my sense of justice and the ancient script) arises from a defect in my understanding or conscience formation.

But appeals to tradition are not necessary when dealing with a timeless and boundless creator. Certainly "God" would be as much a contributor to your conscience as he would be to scripture.

Honestly Vittos, I am somewhat confused why you began this thread. Not the sort of thing I imagined an impartial observer in the existential quest to care about, let alone struggle with.

Not that you seem to be in any particular agony over it.

It is simply another method of reaffirming my agnosticism, this time on a christian understanding.

If Christians will recognize that their "feelings" are the basis for their beliefs, then they stand on an equal position as me, a strong agnostic, religiously speaking, as we all are just doing as our gut (and reason) tells us.

Religion is wrong, do what is right.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

I think emotions should be left out of moral decisions. They cloud judgement. Philosophical reasoning and divine law are what is important, not feelings of disgust or nostalgia.

I think emotions should be left out of moral decisions. They cloud judgement. Philosophical reasoning and divine law are what is important, not feelings of disgust or nostalgia.

Those same rules should go for ALL debate; I have a feeling people would treat each other far better in the process and learn much more if they followed that.

I think emotions should be left out of moral decisions. They cloud judgement. Philosophical reasoning and divine law are what is important, not feelings of disgust or nostalgia.
morality is emotional. there is no objective morality. there are no thoughts untainted by emotions. ergo, thinking and morality are mutually exclusive, as then must be thinking and religion.

the issue is quite simple: the Bible is the word of God. God is much smarter than people. it is hypocrisy to believe that personal views should have sway over religious duties. that is your answer Vittos.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

(this will be my third attempt to post in this thread, form keept crashing yesterday...)

I am an INFJ (http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html), so I'm more inclined to trust my intuition than impersonal logic.

Thus far I have never had a feeling or impression that directly contradicted scripture, but if I did, and I was sure the feeling or impression was from God, then I would trust it.

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." (from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

Feelings and intuitions are tainted by sin. God's word is not.

So if my feeling contradicts Scripture, I should follow Scripture. Whether I will or not remains to be seen, but that is what I ought to do.

morality is emotional. there is no objective morality. there are no thoughts untainted by emotions. ergo, thinking and morality are mutually exclusive, as then must be thinking and religion.


I don't think morality is emotional at all. The entire field of philosophy and ethics would be seriously unfounded if morals were only based on emotions.

If I did 'what I felt like doing' I would be an extremely amoral person, much more amoral than most.

I'm only 14, but I'm a Christian. I don't think there should be any difference, for Christians, between what is in your gut and what is right by the religion.

Gut feeling=Conscience=Holy Spirit.

I'm only 14, but I'm a Christian. I don't think there should be any difference, for Christians, between what is in your gut and what is right by the religion.

Gut feeling=Conscience=Holy Spirit.

So if I feel it is right in my gut to cut someone stem to stern I should just do it? If I feel like having premarital sex with someone of my own gender I should just do it?

We feel like doing things that aren't right because of our natural inclination to sin, that's why we can't always trust emotions and 'gut instincts'.



Hey Edwardis, nice to see you.

I think emotions should be left out of moral decisions. They cloud judgement. Philosophical reasoning and divine law are what is important, not feelings of disgust or nostalgia.

Without emotion there is no action, without action there is no morality. Emotions must be there.

Without emotion there is no action, without action there is no morality. Emotions must be there.

Talk about ambiguity.

My agnosticism (and the only agnosticism I think that can exist) states that one cannot make statements regarding evidence that points towards God, evidence that detracts from God, or probability of God's existence, with any level of knowledge whatsoever. So, I believe any "belief" in God's existence or non-existence, is completely groundless (outside cultural tradition), and excludes the holder from agnosticism.

If I am hearing you correctly, it seems that you are saying that in order to be truly impartial, one must not regard the evidence at all, rather one must ignore evidence regardless of the direction it might lead to. In one sense I sympathize with this position: belief in God implies duty among other things, and disbelief implies life as an accident of the universe where there is no teleological significance for human existence. Neither are 'comfortable' in a sense. You are obviously a philosopher, yet you significantly part company with them when you say that evidence should not be commented upon. Many would believe this to be an untenable position to maintain--that one must decide (Pascal among them:

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing).


The other thing I think I am hearing is a offhanded discarding of the epistemological worth of culture. Now the ancients, the ruminators, and the peoples are upset because they have all been dismissed.

What then is your grounds for the belief of anything? Would it be any less justifiable for one of us to tell Vitto the City Sacker that she "believes that Vitto's belief that 'belief in God's existence or non-existence is groundless' is groundless?" If that statement is as fair as Vitto's, why, as an agnostic particularly, say anything at all? To shame the 'ig-nants' for their premodern unsophistication. Shame!


However, any feelings or "conscience" we feel are a product of our biology and our culture expressed in response to our current situation. There may be a small difference between them (depending on how you define them) but they are practically identical.

Then are we condemned to hopeless victimization by our biology and culture. Our so-called moral actions merely the chance interplay of microscopic molecules, enzymes, oxidations, and reductions? Conscience is the anthropoid equivalent of instinct. If so, then when I feel compelled to crush the skull of a puppy, I can do nothing else but to follow my 'conscience', after all, it's my biology and my culture doesn't care because I was born in a trailer park. I think you make too little of this. There is too much heroism and benificence in the world to suggest that mankind cannot exert influence over his wiring--and too much insidious evil in the hearts of man to not call them to account.


But appeals to tradition are not necessary when dealing with a timeless and boundless creator. Certainly "God" would be as much a contributor to your conscience as he would be to scripture.

And yet Vittos, he is sublime, and man fallen. Pseudo-pregnancy: The body is convinced on every level: hormonally, menstrually, weight, water-retention, morning sickeness-the whole lot. Yet no pregnancy. The ultrasound machine can look inside at what is hidden and reveal the truth--so too the ancient canon, the written word of the sublime one.


It is simply another method of reaffirming my agnosticism, this time on a christian understanding.

I find this to be petty and even worse, insincere of you. It suggests you are no more objective and self-reflective of your belief than a simpleton fundamentalist.

Indifference is a hallmark of confidence. Something is pursuing you, no?

Talk about ambiguity.

I am just saying that we don't make decisions if we don't have emotional drives, so removing emotion from our moral decisions would be impossible.

I am just saying that we don't make decisions if we don't have emotional drives, so removing emotion from our moral decisions would be impossible.

I see what you're saying. I probably didn't understand because I don't see decision making as an emotional thing (as least the optimal way in which to make decisions). I see it as a consideration of the possible results and validity of the method in which one is to do something.

Personally, I can not make decisions on 'gut instinct'. Nothing comes to me, I have to think about everything.

Feelings and intuitions are tainted by sin. God's word is not.

How do you know?

If I am hearing you correctly, it seems that you are saying that in order to be truly impartial, one must not regard the evidence at all, rather one must ignore evidence regardless of the direction it might lead to. In one sense I sympathize with this position: belief in God implies duty among other things, and disbelief implies life as an accident of the universe where there is no teleological significance for human existence. Neither are 'comfortable' in a sense. You are obviously a philosopher, yet you significantly part company with them when you say that evidence should not be commented upon. Many would believe this to be an untenable position to maintain--that one must decide (Pascal among them:

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing).


The other thing I think I am hearing is a offhanded discarding of the epistemological worth of culture. Now the ancients, the ruminators, and the peoples are upset because they have all been dismissed.

What then is your grounds for the belief of anything? Would it be any less justifiable for one of us to tell Vitto the City Sacker that she "believes that Vitto's belief that 'belief in God's existence or non-existence is groundless' is groundless?" If that statement is as fair as Vitto's, why, as an agnostic particularly, say anything at all? To shame the 'ig-nants' for their premodern unsophistication. Shame!

I am not arguing that we should be impartial in order to function as rational beings (rationality is always a slave to proclivity), rather I am stating that we must be impartial due to our form as rational beings. Our rationality is built on possibilities and causes, creating a chain of likelihoods and certainties of pasts and futures: this was, this happened, this is, this will happen. Because of this chain, we are also bound by space and time, attempting to create as clear spatio-temporal contiguities as we possibly can. In sum, our rationality works on probabilities and space-time. Those supernatural entities, those gods that people seek, will no doubt be unbound by the boundaries imposed upon our reason, ergo, we do not have the faculties to make statements upon the existence of God, and we do not have the faculties to declare observations as evidence of God.

You will see quite clearly that Pascal is in the same epistemological camp as me. It is the very point of his wager that, since we cannot know or fathom the existence of God, the risks and payoffs would state that we should believe in God if only for our self-interest (my interpretation of scripture [and Pascal's] would lead me to believe this is not significant faith, and Pascal's odd-making abilities have been shown to be faulty for a long time). Pascal's statement that we must decide is firmly entrenched in the realm of questions that he says are indeterminable to our reason. He assumes because of his beliefs in the Christian God, that we believe or we are cast into Hell, and because of this unfounded (even by Pascal's arguments) dichotomy deducts only two reasonable choices. In reality (as God is infinite) there are practically an infinite number of choices.

These views place me firmly in the naturalist camp, which has long struggled with applying a "meaning" to anything, and I am a nihilist by principle while an individualist for practicality's sake. You correctly noted my dismissal of cultural tradition and asked: "What then is your grounds for the belief of anything?" To this I can only reply paradoxically: Cultural tradition. There is no valid reason for accepting the values of culture at large or your social environment in particular, in that tradition is no argument for truth. However, I cannot deny that my morality is a product of my environment. Does this remove any concrete foundations for my argumentation? Certainly. Does this make my beliefs any less valuable to me? Certainly not.

Then are we condemned to hopeless victimization by our biology and culture. Our so-called moral actions merely the chance interplay of microscopic molecules, enzymes, oxidations, and reductions? Conscience is the anthropoid equivalent of instinct. If so, then when I feel compelled to crush the skull of a puppy, I can do nothing else but to follow my 'conscience', after all, it's my biology and my culture doesn't care because I was born in a trailer park. I think you make too little of this. There is too much heroism and benificence in the world to suggest that mankind cannot exert influence over his wiring--and too much insidious evil in the hearts of man to not call them to account.

To call us victims would be poor wording, as we would be victims to ourselves. Slaves would be a more accurate term, as we are certainly controlled by our biology and environment, I don't see any other avenue for control.

Largely I do agree that we must cease the moral reductionism at some point for our own sake, and I think our biology as social creatures will accomplish this, even if it bends and flexes at times.

And yet Vittos, he is sublime, and man fallen. Pseudo-pregnancy: The body is convinced on every level: hormonally, menstrually, weight, water-retention, morning sickeness-the whole lot. Yet no pregnancy. The ultrasound machine can look inside at what is hidden and reveal the truth--so too the ancient canon, the written word of the sublime one.

Unfortunately, your "sublime" message was delivered through a collection of horribly inadequate messengers. There are infinitely less middlemen within your conscience.

I find this to be petty and even worse, insincere of you. It suggests you are no more objective and self-reflective of your belief than a simpleton fundamentalist.

Indifference is a hallmark of confidence. Something is pursuing you, no?

Indifference and confidence are the hallmarks of the simpleton. No wise man is ever satisfied with his knowledge.


To explain myself a little more in depth, however, we must get back to my statement that our values are a product of environment. If this were true then we wouldn't be having this conversation, right? Nearly all on NS come from a similar environment, we all see the same routine observations. So why the difference in beliefs? Deduction.

So my goal is to establish commonality in our definitions and experiences, and then isolate the differences and fallacies in our deductions. If I am ultimately successful in this (unlikely), I will have taken all those who share a common environment with me and imparted a common belief upon them, and most importantly without fraud.

Hey Edwardis, nice to see you.

Nice to see you, too.

Nice to see you, too.Do you two use webcams?

How do you know?

God is perfect, therefore His word must be perfect (How can a perfect being create something imperfect?).

And His word says that we are totally depraved: there is not a part of you, no matter how we divide you up, which is not infected with sin and made in some measure contrary to God.

Do you two use webcams?

No. We're not really seeing each other: we're just saying "hello."

Or at least... I don't think anyone's seeing me.

<.<
>.>

God is perfect, therefore His word must be perfect (How can a perfect being create something imperfect?).

And His word says that we are totally depraved: there is not a part of you, no matter how we divide you up, which is not infected with sin and made in some measure contrary to God.what?

God is perfect, therefore His word must be perfect (How can a perfect being create something imperfect?).

And His word says that we are totally depraved: there is not a part of you, no matter how we divide you up, which is not infected with sin and made in some measure contrary to God.

Are we not God's creation? (How can a perfect being create something imperfect?)

And that wasn't what I meant with my question. How do you know that scripture is not tainted by men?

I posted this in reply to Nonmaleficence, but I can direct it to you, as well:

Unfortunately, your "sublime" message was delivered through a collection of horribly inadequate messengers. There are infinitely less middlemen within your conscience.

Are we not God's creation? (How can a perfect being create something imperfect?)Or further: how can anything exist against god's will? If every man is infected with sin, how could this possibly be contrary to god?

Or further: how can anything exist against god's will? If every man is infected with sin, how could this possibly be contrary to god?Edwardis?

what?

To you and Vittos:

The question comes down to "Is there a God and does He care?"

If God is there (a topic for another thread), then the question is now only, "does He care?"

And that is faith. I believe most definately that He cares, that He cares enough to make known to us the things necessary for us to know. And I believe the Scripture contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to be those things. And if He cared enough to give them to us in the first place, wouldn't He care enough to make sure they stayed true to His original word? I think so. He kept those He chose to write from error. And history backs me up on that belief. The Scriptures are nearly exactly the same as the earliest manuscripts we have, excepting the omition or adding of inconsequential elements such as punctuation and articles. No one has ever proven the Bible wrong ( a topic for another thread). Though many have tried and come up with interesting points (like the pi thing), not one of those points has ever broken Scriptures inerrancy. And we have so many copies, we can see where a mistake was made, so we can correct it (it is very unlikely that the same mistake would be made by everyone everytime). And it is also unlikely that any conspiracy would suceed: they truly believed what they were copying was the Word of God and would fear for their eternal soul to alter it purposefully.

Because it comes from God, it is perfect, just as all things are which come from God. But, some of these things (Men and angels) were given a will which was bound to nothing, to do as they wished. Some of the angels chose evil, as did both of the first parents of Men. Their wills are no longer free: they are bound to sin. And this perversion prevents us from relying on our selves. Rather, we must rely on that which God has preserved: His word.

No one has ever proven the Bible wrongWhat do you mean? The Bible has been proven wrong many times. The weakest point of the Bible is that there exists no independent source to confirm anything the Bible claims. The historic events mentioned in the bible are well attested by non-biblical sources, but the entire theology is not even noted anywhere else. In fact every other source contradicts the biblical theology.
And who says the bible comes from god?

Or further: how can anything exist against god's will? If every man is infected with sin, how could this possibly be contrary to god?Edwardis?

What do you mean? The Bible has been proven wrong many times. The weakest point of the Bible is that there exists no independent source to confirm anything the Bible claims. The historic events mentioned in the bible are well attested by non-biblical sources, but the entire theology is not even noted anywhere else. In fact every other source contradicts the biblical theology.
And who says the bible comes from god?

The integrity of Scripture is for another thread: the original question was which would hold more weight with you and why. I gave my reason for believing it to be inerrant and you explained why you don't. Any more than that and we should move to a different thread.

And who says the Bible comes from God?

God says, and my faith says. That's why it's religion.

Who are you to say the Bible doesn't come from God? No one, but your faith. And that is why every person has a religion (even atheists and agnostics): they must have faith for their beliefs about God (even if that belief is that He doesn't exist). You may have reasons for that faith, but it is still faith.

Edwardis?

It's called predestination, and it is another thread also. Again, this does not pertain to the question of the OP. If you want to make a thread for it, I will be more than happy to discuss it there.

To you and Vittos:

The question comes down to "Is there a God and does He care?"

If God is there (a topic for another thread), then the question is now only, "does He care?"

And that is faith. I believe most definately that He cares, that He cares enough to make known to us the things necessary for us to know. And I believe the Scripture contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to be those things. And if He cared enough to give them to us in the first place, wouldn't He care enough to make sure they stayed true to His original word? I think so. He kept those He chose to write from error. And history backs me up on that belief. The Scriptures are nearly exactly the same as the earliest manuscripts we have, excepting the omition or adding of inconsequential elements such as punctuation and articles. No one has ever proven the Bible wrong ( a topic for another thread). Though many have tried and come up with interesting points (like the pi thing), not one of those points has ever broken Scriptures inerrancy. And we have so many copies, we can see where a mistake was made, so we can correct it (it is very unlikely that the same mistake would be made by everyone everytime). And it is also unlikely that any conspiracy would suceed: they truly believed what they were copying was the Word of God and would fear for their eternal soul to alter it purposefully.

Because it comes from God, it is perfect, just as all things are which come from God. But, some of these things (Men and angels) were given a will which was bound to nothing, to do as they wished. Some of the angels chose evil, as did both of the first parents of Men. Their wills are no longer free: they are bound to sin. And this perversion prevents us from relying on our selves. Rather, we must rely on that which God has preserved: His word.

Your beliefs that God is perfect and that he chooses to communicate with us through a book rather than directly is not based in your feelings and intuitions?

The integrity of Scripture is for another thread: the original question was which would hold more weight with you and why. I gave my reason for believing it to be inerrant and you explained why you don't. Any more than that and we should move to a different thread.

And who says the Bible comes from God?

God says, and my faith says. That's why it's religion.

Who are you to say the Bible doesn't come from God? No one, but your faith. And that is why every person has a religion (even atheists and agnostics): they must have faith for their beliefs about God (even if that belief is that He doesn't exist). You may have reasons for that faith, but it is still faith.1. The integrity of Scripture is all you have.
2. If you can't show why you assume that the Bible comes from god, your religion is pointless. You can't give your belief as the reason for your belief.

It's called predestination, and it is another thread also. Again, this does not pertain to the question of the OP. If you want to make a thread for it, I will be more than happy to discuss it there.You fail to answer. Again:
How can anything exist against god's will?
If every man is infected with sin (your own words), how could this possibly be contrary to god?

And who says the Bible comes from God?

God says, and my faith says. That's why it's religion.


So religion=circular logic?

So religion=circular logic?Well, some religions. :rolleyes:

Your beliefs that God is perfect and that he chooses to communicate with us through a book rather than directly is not based in your feelings and intuitions?

No. My feelings were that I should sleep with other men. My feelings are that I should beat the head in of my roommate. My feelings are that I should spit on those idiots sitting across from me who slander my friends.

But, I don't do them because God commands me not to, through His word. It really has nothing to do with feelings.

Intuition is a little harder. God can use my intuition to prompt me to do something. But, if it goes against Scripture, then it cannot be of God.

You fail to answer. Again:
How can anything exist against god's will?
If every man is infected with sin (your own words), how could this possibly be contrary to god?

Because God allowed for other wills. The doctrine of free will is absolutely necessary to most versions of Christianity.

You fail to answer. Again:
How can anything exist against god's will?
If every man is infected with sin (your own words), how could this possibly be contrary to god?

God allowed the Fall into sin for His own glory. So that the glory of His wrath and justice might be displayed in the judgment on the unrepentant and so that His grace and mercy might be displayed in His forgiveness of the repentant.

We go against God, because He allows us. He chose to allow us, but we are still contrary to Him and are against Him.

Because God allowed for other wills. The doctrine of free will is absolutely necessary to most versions of Christianity.So god is not omniscient and omnipotent? If he is omniscient and omnipotent and knows the future there is no such thing as free will. If god knows the evil to come (e.g. the evil of Satan who he created) it is included in his will.

1. The integrity of Scripture is all you have.
2. If you can't show why you assume that the Bible comes from god, your religion is pointless. You can't give your belief as the reason for your belief.

No, I can't. This is a place where I know what is true and how it is true (through faith) but I have not yet been able to articulate it. I'm sorry that I am of no better help to you in this subject, but I must point back to my faith.

No. My feelings were that I should sleep with other men. My feelings are that I should beat the head in of my roommate. My feelings are that I should spit on those idiots sitting across from me who slander my friends.

Are those your true feelings? Are you actually a homosexual sociopath?

But, I don't do them because God commands me not to, through His word. It really has nothing to do with feelings.

Once again, why do you think that God's commands come through the bible and not directly from God?

You cannot say, "Because the bible says", that is circular logic.

Intuition is a little harder. God can use my intuition to prompt me to do something. But, if it goes against Scripture, then it cannot be of God.

Why?

God allowed the Fall into sin for His own glory.So god is proud? And thus imperfect? Well, according to the bible he is jealous(y). Very imperfect.

So god is not omniscient and omnipotent? If he is omniscient and omnipotent and knows the future there is no such thing as free will. If god knows the evil to come (e.g. the evil of Satan who he created) it is included in his will.

An infinite being would not be bound by our logical contradictions.

It is unimportant anyway.

No, I can't. This is a place where I know what is true and how it is true (through faith) but I have not yet been able to articulate it. I'm sorry that I am of no better help to you in this subject, but I must point back to my faith.So basically you say, you make this all up.

An infinite being would not be bound by our logical contradictions.
It is unimportant anyway.How so?

So basically you say, you make this all up.

No, I say that I have not studied this enough yet to order my thoughts well enough to explain them well enough for you to understand.

How so?

If you are referring to my comment about the nature of an infinite being, from post #109:

I am not arguing that we should be impartial in order to function as rational beings (rationality is always a slave to proclivity), rather I am stating that we must be impartial due to our form as rational beings. Our rationality is built on possibilities and causes, creating a chain of likelihoods and certainties of pasts and futures: this was, this happened, this is, this will happen. Because of this chain, we are also bound by space and time, attempting to create as clear spatio-temporal contiguities as we possibly can. In sum, our rationality works on probabilities and space-time. Those supernatural entities, those gods that people seek, will no doubt be unbound by the boundaries imposed upon our reason, ergo, we do not have the faculties to make statements upon the existence of God, and we do not have the faculties to declare observations as evidence of God.

If you are asking why it is unimportant, free will has little to do with the argument at hand, furthermore free will is a philosophical problem in general, rather than one of Christianity.

No, I say that I have not studied this enough yet to order my thoughts well enough to explain them well enough for you to understand.So why don't you study first before you voice your assumptions? If you can't even explain what makes you believe what you believe, how do you know at all what you believe? And what to believe?

No, I say that I have not studied this enough yet to order my thoughts well enough to explain them well enough for you to understand.

All the more evidence that your beliefs are a matter of intuition than scripture.

All the more evidence that your beliefs are a matter of intuition than scripture.scripture was also only made out of intuition. it lacks any confirmation. belief is inherently baseless, that's why it's belief and not knowledge.

scripture was also only made out of intuition. it lacks any confirmation. belief is inherently baseless, that's why it's belief and not knowledge.

Whether it is "knowledge" or not is for another thread, however, that trust in scripture is intuitive has been the point I am trying to get across.

No matter how far you break it down, religion (like almost everything else) must rely on intuition.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

Well, if I were a Christian that believed the Bible to be the complete inspired infallible word of God, I would have to say that my feelings and intuitions are fallible and impure motives can sometimes affect my judgment.

One can disagree that that's what you believe, but it's pretty clear that's what a Bible believing Christian would say.

Whether it is "knowledge" or not is for another thread, however, that trust in scripture is intuitive has been the point I am trying to get across.This is not for another thread. The very core of this is whether scripture is knowledge or made-up stuff. Trust in scripture must be based in some experience in the trustworthiness of scripture. In the case of the Bible there is nothing to justify any trust at all.

No matter how far you break it down, religion (like almost everything else) must rely on intuition.Then maybe religion or faith in general is pointless? And what do you mean by "almost everything else" ? Other attempts of describing the world rely on experience that is confirmable and reproducible. You know, that's what's called evidence.

So god is proud? And thus imperfect? Well, according to the bible he is jealous(y). Very imperfect.


I don't see how being proud and jealous makes one less than perfect? Sure pride and jealously can be misused and become sinful, but so can food and leisure become gluttony and sloth. But pride in loved ones and accomplishment and jealous of guarding your loved one's wellbeing is hardly sinful by any stretch of the imagination.

How much should your feelings and intuitions weigh into your religious beliefs?

If you had a gut feeling, lets say an innate sense of justice, that fell in direct conflict with scripture, which source of inspiration should one heed more seriously?

I usually call it the Holy Spirit and do what my gut tells me. The Bible doesn't know how my day went, my gut does, the Holy Spirit does,

I usually call it the Holy Spirit and do what my gut tells me. The Bible doesn't know how my day went, my gut does, the Holy Spirit does,

You bring up a good point. God also made our conscience. But we can desensitize that. The Holy Spirit is promised to those who believe - so those who do not believe would not know a whole lot about that. But I can also say that God would never give anyone an idea that contradicts what is already in His word because God is consistent.

You bring up a good point. God also made our conscience. But we can desensitize that. The Holy Spirit is promised to those who believe - so those who do not believe would not know a whole lot about that. But I can also say that God would never give anyone an idea that contradicts what is already in His word because God is consistent.

While I agree, I'd say that asking yourself the following questions would reconcile anything you might think contradicts the Bible:

Does it hurt me?
Does it hurt someone else?

If the answer is no to both, then whatever the Bible says, I'd say God's probably fine with it. The Bible is largely allegorical, and let's face it, in some ways outdated. That doesn't mean it's no longer a good book full of wonderful stories and advice, and it doesn't change the fact that it's the word of God, but if God wants me to follow EVERYTHING in it, he'd better update it so I can be sure.

I'm not trusting a book that's been translated more times than I can count in the last thousands of years. My faith tells me that believing in anything blindly is stupid.

This is not for another thread. The very core of this is whether scripture is knowledge or made-up stuff. Trust in scripture must be based in some experience in the trustworthiness of scripture. In the case of the Bible there is nothing to justify any trust at all.

No. The very nature of this is whether religion should be a malleable personalized thing, or a rigid standardized thing. I am arguing that beliefs should be a matter of intuition and conscience, others are stating that it should be a matter of codified scripture. The obvious extension of this is the dissolution of organized religion and the primacy of individual spirituatity.

Whether or not one has experiences that lead to trust in the bible, and whether or not that counts as true knowledge is merely secondary to the topic. It is possible for both individual spirituality and organized religion to be a result of knowledge or a matter of "made-up stuff". When we consider that I am saying that the two are basically the same (a matter of conscience) then to say that either is made-up (in a derogatory sense, my agnostic values are as "made-up" as any) is self defeating.

Then maybe religion or faith in general is pointless? And what do you mean by "almost everything else" ? Other attempts of describing the world rely on experience that is confirmable and reproducible. You know, that's what's called evidence.

I meant "almost everything else of a moral nature". I would go into an exposition of my underdeveloped skepticism of our understanding of nature and our likely inability to actually understand nature, but that would be well off topic.

I don't see how being proud and jealous makes one less than perfect? Sure pride and jealously can be misused and become sinful, but so can food and leisure become gluttony and sloth. But pride in loved ones and accomplishment and jealous of guarding your loved one's wellbeing is hardly sinful by any stretch of the imagination.

He would at least be hypocritical, which may be the one true imperfection.

Why is there this overwhelming insistence on the infallibility of scripture?

One one hand people state that men are fallible and subject to worldly influences, yet then immediately state that a book written by men can be free of said fallibility.

Bump