NationStates Jolt Archive

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

In other news, fire might be hot.




:p

I've been there. It's a hard thing to admit to yourself that what you've believed all your life might be false. It's even harder to act upon it. Not only is it getting out of your comfort zone, but because religion deals with matters extending into eternity, you'd want to be DAMN SURE before withdrawing from it.

I was Catholic until I was 24. It took a huge leap of faith for me to admit to myself that I could no longer accept it as the true Church.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

That's what illustrations are for. :)

I've been there. It's a hard thing to admit to yourself that what you've believed all your life might be false. It's even harder to act upon it. Not only is it getting out of your comfort zone, but because religion deals with matters extending into eternity, you'd want to be DAMN SURE before withdrawing from it.

I was Catholic until I was 24. It took a huge leap of faith for me to admit to myself that I could no longer accept it as the true Church.


Did you transfer to another religion, stop believing entirely, or just become a believer outside any organised religion?

no I don't think I could, though I must say I have replaced God with other idols (http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/ci303fa01/students/mulford/Science/mr-t-back.jpg)

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

it weird you see I don't actually see myself as religious :confused:

That's what illustrations are for. :)

well it certainly makes it more interesting (http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg)

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

It's funny... even when I still tried to be Chrisitian and tried to believe all that jazz, I never thought that Christianity is correct. Especially since that meant that the rest of the world got it all wrong, and I just couldn't believe that.

By now, I've come to the conclusion that religion is whatever the individual chooses for them. The only wrong there is is total blind faith without thought or common sense.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.
Yes you are right, I'm a Christian because I was born in a culture where that is the normal way to believe in the divine. If I had been born in a culture where some other religion is the norm I would have followed that religion instead. I realize "It's the most common religion in my homeland therefore it is the most correct religion." is not convincing. Different religions are just different traditional ways to express faith.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

I think most religous people face this thougth at some point or otger in their lives, I know I have.

I also think that one possible way around this is the rather deist/aminist view that God is all and all of our holy scripture are mere attempts to describe that which is largely indiscribable. So in essance although no one relioin can lay claim to total truth all will contiane a kernal of it.

My religion cannot be wrong because as an Atheist, I have no such faith.

Did you transfer to another religion, stop believing entirely, or just become a believer outside any organised religion?

At first I was just a believer in God but outside any religious organization. I'd stillc all myself Catholic but I no longer practiced it nor did I believe most of its tenets. I dabbled in Witchcraft and Wicca and found a lot of things in that I liked, especially concerning the perspectives I was hearing on the spirit world and the nature of God. I never considered myself a Wiccan although I spent a lot of time among friends who were. Later on, as a result of prayer, I recived a testimony about the Mormon church, and subsequently joined it. What I found out was that the Church taight a lot of things I already believed about the nature of the Universe and even God, that would be anathema to my Catholic teachings.

My religion cannot be wrong because as an Atheist, I have no such faith.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

Learn2read OP :p

Even if my religion's pantheon is wrong, it teaches some very important things and is a good way to lead a life.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.Well, at least catholics would say that, although God is not represented in whole by how we talk of him, that doesn't necessarily mean our talk is inaccurate, just limited.

For myself, I wouldn't say they were wrong. Rather, there aren't any criteria for 'correct' talk about god so saying one religion is accurate or inaccurate is just a misunderstanding. Inaccurate according to what standard? Now that is a more interesting question.

Learn2read OP :p

I was once considering religion but then I went to Atheism. I dabbled in Buddhism for a while.

In all probability, we have an incorrect view of G-d. Exactly how incorrect, I'm not sure.

Jews believe that the Written and Oral Law, plus a few prophecies later on, are all we're going to get. The idea that one or two ideas (particularly those contained in the Oral Law) could have been corrupted is quite reasonable. In fact, I'd say it's probable. But the idea that we have had serious corruption is very unlikely.

I was once considering religion but then I went to Atheism. I dabbled in Buddhism for a while.

OIC. Ignore me then. :)

In all probability, we have an incorrect view of G-d. Exactly how incorrect, I'm not sure.

Jews believe that the Written and Oral Law, plus a few prophecies later on, are all we're going to get. The idea that one or two ideas (particularly those contained in the Oral Law) could have been corrupted is quite reasonable. In fact, I'd say it's probable. But the idea that we have had serious corruption is very unlikely.

G-d? What's g-d? Gobsmacke-d?

G-d? What's g-d? Gobsmacke-d?

Greg Dunne. You read it as 'G to the D'. He's an aspiring rapper.

What I found out was that the Church taight a lot of things I already believed about the nature of the Universe and even God

but the question is, are those beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

i mean, while its especially silly in the case of mormonism since it only could be true on some sort on parallel earth, the fact that something agrees with our previous beliefs is not actually evidence that it is right unless we have independent reason for thinking our previous beliefs are right.

G-d? What's g-d? Gobsmacke-d?

Heh Jews don't like to write the word God. so they leave the O out, for what reason, well I just don't know.

but the question is, are those beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

i mean, while its especially silly in the case of mormonism since it only could be true on some sort on parallel earth, the fact that something agrees with our previous beliefs is not actually evidence that it is right unless we have independent reason for thinking our previous beliefs are right.

Ahhh but religoin is not reasonable is it.

Heh Jews don't like to write the word God. so they leave the O out, for what reason, well I just don't know.

Some pretentious reason. Basically, you're not supposed to call God God, but rather Hashem, as a way of referring to God (Yaweh) without actually using the name.

Some pretentious reason. Basically, you're not supposed to call God God, but rather Hashem, as a way of referring to God (Yaweh) without actually using the name.

Don't make no sense to me. We have a similar thing in Sikhi where some people don't like the idea of having 'Ik onkar' (One God) tattoed on the hand. The reasoning behind it cgoes something like, it the very first words in our holy scripture Guru Granth Sahib, which also happens to be our eternal Guru, so what happens when you wipe your arse with Gods word?

I guess your hand get covered in shit!

The thing is though Sikhi also teaches that God is all, God is in everything, your hands, your shit, that big greasy kebab you have just eaten, also God is beyond insult so what I wonder is the point in getting upset about it?

My religion is completely right.

But then again my religion is flexible and adapting, and can accomodate changes easily. Like water.

but the question is, are those beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

i mean, while its especially silly in the case of mormonism since it only could be true on some sort on parallel earth, the fact that something agrees with our previous beliefs is not actually evidence that it is right unless we have independent reason for thinking our previous beliefs are right.

I'm going to assume your question is rhetorical since you followed it with remarks that make it pretty clear you've already made up your mind how to respond to whatever answer I'd give. I'm always perfectly happy to talk about things like that, but I won't give it to you to hold up for ridicule. ::shrug::

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

what are you, some kind of agnostic?

I'm going to assume your question is rhetorical since you followed it with remarks that make it pretty clear you've already made up your mind how to respond to whatever answer I'd give. I'm always perfectly happy to talk about things like that, but I won't give it to you to hold up for ridicule. ::shrug::

its not my fault that your chosen religion makes a whole pile of utterly laughable empirical claims that are absolutely central to the possibility of its truth. we don't need to run through this and make you embarrass yourself again if you like, though the fact that you know you can't support the claims of your religion against the actual evidence should give you pause.

but the question is still very real. what reasons do you have for thinking that your prior beliefs about god and the universe are right, such that a religion that matches them is the proper religion to be? i mean, you cannot actually believe that your prior beliefs are always right, and thus in every case you should accept things that agree with them and reject those that don't. that would be ludicrous. so what independent reasoning lends them support?

Ahhh but religoin is not reasonable is it.

presumably if there was a right one, it would be supportable in some fashion. at the very least it wouldn't come into conflict with the universe.

its not my fault that your chosen religion makes a whole pile of utterly laughable empirical claims that are absolutely central to the possibility of its truth. we don't need to run through this and make you embarrass yourself again if you like, though the fact that you know you can't support the claims of your religion against the actual evidence should give you pause.

How charitable of you. Remind me to send you a Christmas card.

I find it fabulous that you're claiming a superior level of knowledge on this subject to my own. I also find it interesting that you presume to k now me well enough to conclude a few things about my perceptions and/or methods. I guess that's what one has to do in order to criticize, but that's okay. Apparently I'm to be held to a much higher standard of evidence for my opinions than you are.


but the question is still very real. what reasons do you have for thinking that your prior beliefs about god and the universe are right, such that a religion that matches them is the proper religion to be? i mean, you cannot actually believe that your prior beliefs are always right, and thus in every case you should accept things that agree with them and reject those that don't. that would be ludicrous. so what independent reasoning lends them support?

Your question isn't real.

I'm not going to answer your question because your question is meant as bait, not a genuine effort to communicate. (How do I know? People who ask reasonable questions generally have a reasonable tone.) No matter what I write in reply, whether it be based on logical reasoning, spiritual experience or some combination of the two, you're going to have some snide juvenile response to it and quite frankly I'm not interested.

What about the "I believe my religion is right, and it is important to me to show my faith, but I must admit that there chances are good that my interpretation may not be the right one."

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

I do think it's possible. I don't find my religion, as religion has many human aspects, to be infalliable. THis is why I try to understand other religions and their interpretations of God.

That's what illustrations are for. :)

Blasphemer! :eek:

I'm completely right and anyone who tries to question me is absolutely wrong. Also I have 5 PhDs. You wouldn't question a man with 5 PhD's would you?

:p

Pantheistic shamanism all the way.

How charitable of you. Remind me to send you a Christmas card.

I find it fabulous that you're claiming a superior level of knowledge on this subject to my own. I also find it interesting that you presume to k now me well enough to conclude a few things about my perceptions and/or methods. I guess that's what one has to do in order to criticize, but that's okay. Apparently I'm to be held to a much higher standard of evidence for my opinions than you are.

this isn't the first time we have discussed the subject. our previous discussions speak for themselves. in them, you ran away when faced with the disheartening lack of evidence on your side and the mountains of easily accessible evidence on the side of reality. not the best strategy, but probably slightly better for the old self esteem than any alternative that doesn't involve rejecting your religion's spectacularly silly claims.

Your question isn't real.

yes, it is. it is a real and vital question that requires answering. here is why;

suppose we adopt the standard "i should believe that things that fit with my preconceived notions are true". now suppose that i, like most people who haven't learned otherwise, believe that heavy things fall faster than lighter things because they are heavy. i then encounter a theory of gravity that adopts this as part of its explanatory framework. by the proposed standard, i should adopt that theory, because the 'evidence' of my preconceptions and it agree. but in reality this is not a good theory of gravity at all, what with the being wrong and all. therefore our standard has failed us.

why did it fail? because preconceptions are not on their own evidence, and are not necessarily true. we need independent evidence that our prior notions are right before we can justly use them to build upon further. so what is your evidence that your prior beliefs are right?

or perhaps you would prefer to instead argue that we should accept conformity to prior belief as good evidence in just a few particular fields of inquiry? but on what grounds would you rest that claim?

this isn't the first time we have discussed the subject. our previous discussions speak for themselves. in them, you ran away when faced with the disheartening lack of evidence on your side and the mountains of easily accessible evidence on the side of reality. not the best strategy, but probably slightly better for the old self esteem than any alternative that doesn't involve rejecting your religion's spectacularly silly claims.


Yep you've got me pegged, Dr. Phil.

Actually if you've discussed this with me before (and yes, I do remember) then you ought to remember that I will discuss, at length, any subject with anyone who is capable of doing so as an adult. On the other hand, people who can't break the habit of taking personal shots or lacing every argument with vitriol aren't worth my time.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess which category you were in.



yes, it is. it is a real and vital question that requires answering. here is why;


No it isn't, and here's why: Your entire premise is based on the mistaken idea that I turned to Mormonism BECAUSE it fit with what I already believed.

Here's what I said:
Later on, as a result of prayer, I recived a testimony about the Mormon church, and subsequently joined it. What I found out was that the Church taight a lot of things I already believed about the nature of the Universe and even God, that would be anathema to my Catholic teachings.

Those sentences should be read sequentially. I made the decision to convert PRIOR to realizing how well it fit my understanding of the universe.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but to be clear now: That was one reason it caught my attention but NOT the reason I converted. I told my conversion story on a thread about 6 months ago (And may have been the same thread you referenced above.)

Some pretentious reason. Basically, you're not supposed to call God God, but rather Hashem, as a way of referring to God (Yaweh) without actually using the name.

Actually, IIRC, it's because ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels. There are diacritical marks that assume the existence of spoken vowels, but there were no written vowel sounds. Thus the name of God, Yahweh, would have been written YHWH, which translators have dubbed the Tetragrammaton (insert obligatory Equilibrium reference here).

I'm almost certain that my religion doesn't get it all right, because humans suck at things like interpreting the supernatural. I still stick with my current religion because it gives me beautiful ways to address the parts of it I'm quite sure are correct.

:p

I made the decision to convert PRIOR to realizing how well it fit my understanding of the universe.

that's even worse.

but who was talking about reasons for converting? i was talking about the truth or falsity of that understanding.

that's even worse.

but who was talking about reasons for converting? i was talking about the truth or falsity of that understanding.

So now you're switching up your criticism to something else?

Yep you've got me pegged, Dr. Phil.

Actually if you've discussed this with me before (and yes, I do remember) then you ought to remember that I will discuss, at length, any subject with anyone who is capable of doing so as an adult. On the other hand, people who can't break the habit of taking personal shots or lacing every argument with vitriol aren't worth my time.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess which category you were in.

actually, i (and others) only got really snarky at you when after you asked for sources and i gave you some, you cried and said you were taking you ball and going home.

others can go look for themselves if they want. trace back from here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991424&postcount=288

In other news, being hit by an nuclear explosion at point-blank range may be hazardous to your health.

So now you're switching up your criticism to something else?

nope

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13562410&postcount=20
What I found out was that the Church taight a lot of things I already believed about the nature of the Universe and even Godbut the question is, are those beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

i mean, while its especially silly in the case of mormonism since it only could be true on some sort on parallel earth, the fact that something agrees with our previous beliefs is not actually evidence that it is right unless we have independent reason for thinking our previous beliefs are right.

the question is about truth, not about whatever crazy reason you may have had for choosing a religion.

In all probability, we have an incorrect view of G-d. Exactly how incorrect, I'm not sure.The word is God, not G-d.

Jews believe that the Written and Oral Law, plus a few prophecies later on, are all we're going to get. The idea that one or two ideas (particularly those contained in the Oral Law) could have been corrupted is quite reasonable. In fact, I'd say it's probable. But the idea that we have had serious corruption is very unlikely.Well, the Silmarillion is uncorrupted as well.

I will follow the core of my beliefs without doubt, simply because they are what's important. But I will keep in mind that the leaders of the church are only human and can be wrong, and thus I will only believe what they tell me if it is proved by things acceptable according to that core belief

actually, i (and others) only got really snarky at you when after you asked for sources and i gave you some, you cried and said you were taking you ball and going home.

others can go look for themselves if they want. trace back from here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991424&postcount=288

I'm glad you linked the post you did, because my reply was simply a link to this post, which I will reprint here for the convenience of those who are interested. You will find that everything I said there is consistent with what I've been saying to you:


Ok this is for everybody.

I'm not gonna play the "My source is better than yours game." The reason is pretty clear: Nobody's mind is gonna get changed one way or the other. if I provide my sources then you'll go looking for sources to support your side. Then, I'll find more fo rmine etc etc etc. Now, I don't know about you but I'm at work and I haven't got time to webcrawl all day just so that we can go in circles and come back to where we started.

I'm also not gonna play by YOUR rules. Your rules state that anybody on your side of the argument cam make any statement they want and I'm obligated to believe it wholeheartedly and at face value. Any failure on my part to do so is an indication that I can't handle empirical evidence or that somehow I'm being willfully ignorant. Meanwhile, any assertion I make must be backed up with ironclad 100% irrefutable evidence provided by atheists, scientists and Al Franken himself before it would even be considered.

I'd rather just have a friendly conversation and agree to disagree when necessary.

I'm not here to convert you. I didn't start this thread. I find this thread of interest to me personally and I like answering HONEST questions so I participate. I make no demands of you to read it, believe it or convince anybody else. I do expect people to be respectful to each other but I know there are too many juveniles to expect that, but I try anyway.

If my refusal to play by a set of rules that are meant to unbalance the debate in favor of your side then you'll just have to call me whatever names you feel are apropriate and move on, 'cause I won't do it. I'm not an idiot and I have pretty good reasons for believing the things I do. If you want to know more, we can have a friendly chat about that. if you just want somebody to play punching bag for you to vent your anger issues, keep moving because I won't be it for you.

So that's it. if you want to have a mature discussion on issues related to LDS history, doctrine or spirituality then stick around and let's be friends. if you want to try and rip up my beliefs to validate whatever you subscribe to then you're wasting your time. I've debated much more formidable theological opponents than anything I've seen in this thread, so don't flatter yourself.

/soapbox

Turned out my religion was/is wrong, but then, I'd only been a member for several weeks.

Lots of the Raelians were nice people, and I tried very hard to sincerely internalize their teachings, but I couldn't.

All I'm out is plane fare to the seminar, which I dutifully owe as fool tax, anyway.

Does anybody know of any other religion or cult I might try?

In other news, being hit by an nuclear explosion at point-blank range may be hazardous to your health.

Quoth the Saint of Killers, "Not enough gun."

Quoth the Saint of Killers, "Not enough gun."

English translation?

English translation?

Sorry, from a book by UK author Garth Ennis called "Preacher".


The Saint of Killers took up the role of a weary Angel of Death who happened to be playing cards with Satan when a man entered hell with a heart so full of hate, it froze the gates shut.

To solve the matter, the Angel gave up his sword and the Devil reforged it into a pair of Colt pistols whose hammers would never fall on empty chambers, whose every shot would be fatal, and the Saint of Killers was born.

Years later, the Saint was walking the earth on the ill advised authority of frightened angels, seeking out the Preacher who dared chase God.

A man named Starr wanted the Preacher for himself, so he arranged for a nuclear weapon to hit the Saint of Killers.

When the electromagnetic storm subsided, the Saint stood unscratched, and remarked "Not enough gun."

I'm glad you linked the post you did, because my reply was simply a link to this post, which I will reprint here for the convenience of those who are interested. You will find that everything I said there is consistent with what I've been saying to you:

yeah, we get it, you are afraid of facts and having to back your claims up. which is why i want to ignore particulars here and talk in the abstract about why we should believe something is true.

I can't tell you how much I hate seeing this regrettably common phenomenon.

Atheists and Agnostics are lumped together!

I HATE THAT! All right-thinking sane people should be agnostic. Of course. But atheism? That makes no sense! They are farther apart than Islam and Buddhism!

I can't tell you how much I hate seeing this regrettably common phenomenon.

Atheists and Agnostics are lumped together!

I HATE THAT! All right-thinking sane people should be agnostic. Of course. But atheism? That makes no sense! They are farther apart than Islam and Buddhism!

agnosticism is the less tenable position. it maintains either there is no possible way to determine whether god exists or not (which is a very strong claim indeed), or that gods must be held to some ridiculous standard of evidence that we would never use for anything else. the arguments for agnosticism about gods are arguments for agnosticism about russell's teapot.

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.


Of course, there is a lot that is interpretted incorrectly in Christianity. That isn't an issue at all though. While the parables are not meant literally, the messages are the same.

I don't agree with how some interpret, some don't agree with me. That's ok too. It's a personal relationship that is more about experience than words anyway.

yeah, we get it, you are afraid of facts and having to back your claims up. which is why i want to ignore particulars here and talk in the abstract about why we should believe something is true.

I'm real sorry that either a)Your reading comprehension is so tragically broken that it's all you see or b)You're so jaded (or perhaps you yourself are so likely to employ such a tactic) that you are incapable of seeing any other motive. In either case, it's not my problem.

Now run along.

I'm real sorry that either a)Your reading comprehension is so tragically broken that it's all you see or b)You're so jaded (or perhaps you yourself are so likely to employ such a tactic) that you are incapable of seeing any other motive. In either case, it's not my problem.

Now run along.

the question, of course, remains open. are your beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

anyone feeling braver than NB that would be willing to actually try to honestly answer the question about their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?

the question, of course, remains open. are your beliefs correct? what reason do you have for thinking so?

anyone feeling braver than NB that would be willing to actually try to honestly answer the question about their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?

Sure, I do not believe that there is any god or gods (I'm an agnostic atheist), however, I freely admit that I could be wrong - lack of proof is not proof of lack.

Sure, I do not believe that there is any god or gods (I'm an agnostic atheist), however, I freely admit that I could be wrong - lack of proof is not proof of lack.

no fair using reasonable epistemic practices!

no fair using reasonable epistemic practices!

Sorry :(

I take that back then... ;)

How many religious people are willing to consider the following.

Their religion is likely wrong, they still believe in god, but the way in which their religion represent him/her is incorrect.

My main point is that if god is ... well god, an attempt to represent him using something so human as language is pointless.

I'm willing to consider it, but I don't worry about it. I know that representations of gods in descriptive form (i.e. art, written description) are to be taken as allegroical or metaphorical rather than literal. I also believe they hold a deeper truth.

Being polythestic (kinda) I don't regard the gods as being absolutely all powerful and absolutely omnipotent, so perhaps this is less of an issue than for monothestic belief?