Legit Religious Question

[studmuffin7]

This is a thread for religious people in general. I don't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or what but you must be a religious person for this discussion to apply. Also, no flame wars please.

So I have noticed that many people have been selling out the views of their religion in order to fit a more moderate profile. Muslims say that Islam is not a violent religion despite verses in the Koran saying the exact opposite. Mormons practiced polygamy until it became illegal, at which point they conveniently believed God told them to stop. Christian denominations have tried to claim that homosexuality is not a sin, despite Old and New Testament evidence otherwise. The list goes on.

So my question is this. Your religion believes fervently in X. X is not a popular view in the current social norm, but X is a definite and undeniable part of your religion. A law is passed that is in direct violation of X (maybe it prohibits X or enables what X opposes). Would you,

1) Sell out your religion. State that your religion does not believe in X and attempt to take a moderate, all encompassing stance to try and draw people to your religion.

or

2) Stand for X. Your religion stand for what it stands for and facts are facts. Defy the law and continue to spread your beliefs and live according to X.

[dySWN]

I would suggest that the response would vary greatly, depending on what X is and the extent to which X has been made illegal. If it's a misdemeanor, I'd do it just to frustrate the government ledgers. If it's a felony or violates a core tenet of what America was founded on, then it would be time to find a new religion.

On another note, do we really need an eighth religion thread on the front page?

[slowerthenb4]

At 4/16/09 10:58 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

So I have noticed that many people have been selling out the views of their religion in order to fit a more moderate profile.

I prefer the phrase, "dont adhere to the rigid antiquated body of rules but sill consider yourself spiritually inclined to a formal house of warship" over "selling out".

So my question is this. Your religion believes fervently in X. X is not a popular view in the current social norm, but X is a definite and undeniable part of your religion. A law is passed that is in direct violation of X (maybe it prohibits X or enables what X opposes). Would you,

last time i checked atheism was still a small minority. :)

1) Sell out your religion. State that your religion does not believe in X and attempt to take a moderate, all encompassing stance to try and draw people to your religion.

lol convert or die!!! you friken guys crack me up.

2) Stand for X. Your religion stand for what it stands for and facts are facts. Defy the law and continue to spread your beliefs and live according to X.

facts are never really facts in that context.

3) accept religion as a tool for self awareness and a foundation for living a selfless compassionate existence while not pursuing people to change their beliefs as you find it a personal journey and not relevant to seek others enlightenment because thats just fucking crazy... lol

[Shintogoru]

At 4/16/09 10:58 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: This is a thread for religious people in general. I don't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or what but you must be a religious person for this discussion to apply. Also, no flame wars please.

So I have noticed that many people have been selling out the views of their religion in order to fit a more moderate profile. Muslims say that Islam is not a violent religion despite verses in the Koran saying the exact opposite. Mormons practiced polygamy until it became illegal, at which point they conveniently believed God told them to stop. Christian denominations have tried to claim that homosexuality is not a sin, despite Old and New Testament evidence otherwise. The list goes on.

So my question is this. Your religion believes fervently in X. X is not a popular view in the current social norm, but X is a definite and undeniable part of your religion. A law is passed that is in direct violation of X (maybe it prohibits X or enables what X opposes). Would you,

1) Sell out your religion. State that your religion does not believe in X and attempt to take a moderate, all encompassing stance to try and draw people to your religion.

or

2) Stand for X. Your religion stand for what it stands for and facts are facts. Defy the law and continue to spread your beliefs and live according to X.

I guess I will discuss homosexuality since you brought it up regarding Christianity and I just happen to be a Christian. I suppose that I believe that homosexuality is a sin, especially according to the Old Testament; however, the only verses in the New Testament that discuss homosexuality are found in the letters of Paul, which I myself discredit as being "divinely inspired" because these letters are merely letters just as if some random modern-day evangelical wrote a letter to a modern-day church.

Also, I believe that the doctrine of which Jesus speaks claims that one is no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament--which I take to mean that one can engage in sinful activities but still be saved since Jesus died for all sins past, present, and future.

Jesus also specifically asserts that no sin is less sinful or more sinful than any other sin; therefore, someone who engages in homosexuality is no worse than one who lies. In other words, everybody sins, even Christians, so if a homosexual automatically deserves Hell for his sexuality, so too does a Christian who lies.

Christian exclusivism is another doctrine which I think is blasphemous toward the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps this is utterly ridiculous and I just want more people to enter Heaven, but I think that the crucifixion of Jesus and its abolition of sin saves everyone. Though I do believe that Jesus is unique and the only way to reach Heaven, I feel that Jesus will save practically anyone who is not completely malicious. Of course, there is really no way to tell how things will turn out until it is too late.

[slowerthenb4]

%u03B3%u03BD%u1FF6%u03B8%u03B9 %u03C3%u03B5%u03B1%u03C5%u03C4%u03CC%u03 BD or gn%u014Dthi seauton, or %u03C3%u03B1%u03C5%u03C4%u03CC%u03BD with the %u03B5 contracted

The saying "Know thyself" may refer by extension to the ideal of understanding human behavior, morals, and thought, because ultimately to understand oneself is to understand other humans as well. However, the ancient Greek philosophers thought that no man can ever comprehend the human spirit and thought thoroughly, so it would have been almost inconceivable to know oneself fully. Therefore, the saying may refer to a less ambitious ideal, such as knowing one's own habits, morals, temperament, ability to control anger, and other aspects of human behavior that we struggle with on a daily basis.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/16/09 11:43 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: %u03B3%u03BD%u1FF6%u03B8%u03B9 %u03C3%u03B5%u03B1%u03C5%u03C4%u03CC%u03 BD or gn%u014Dthi seauton, or %u03C3%u03B1%u03C5%u03C4%u03CC%u03BD with the %u03B5 contracted

What is that supposed to be?

The saying "Know thyself" may refer by extension to the ideal of understanding human behavior, morals, and thought, because ultimately to understand oneself is to understand other humans as well. However, the ancient Greek philosophers thought that no man can ever comprehend the human spirit and thought thoroughly, so it would have been almost inconceivable to know oneself fully. Therefore, the saying may refer to a less ambitious ideal, such as knowing one's own habits, morals, temperament, ability to control anger, and other aspects of human behavior that we struggle with on a daily basis.

Even if a person ever fully understood him- or herself, such a person cannot automatically understand other humans. No two humans think exactly alike; therefore, if even this person can approximate an understanding of another human, he or she will never fully understand that other human.

[studmuffin7]

Shintogoru,

I agree with much of what you said. It is true that homosexuality is a sin and that this sin is just as bad as lying or any other sin. The reason I oppose gay marraige and acceptance of it though, is that I think you have to repent of sins and accept Christ to be saved. Liers, murderers, etc... know full well what they do is wrong, but gays rarely ever repent. I don't know if this hiccup alone is a threat or not, but it is why I fight against the growing sentiment of acceptance towards it.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/16/09 11:51 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: Shintogoru,

I agree with much of what you said. It is true that homosexuality is a sin and that this sin is just as bad as lying or any other sin. The reason I oppose gay marraige and acceptance of it though, is that I think you have to repent of sins and accept Christ to be saved. Liers, murderers, etc... know full well what they do is wrong, but gays rarely ever repent. I don't know if this hiccup alone is a threat or not, but it is why I fight against the growing sentiment of acceptance towards it.

I agree with you, except for the reasoning for which you fight the acceptance of homosexuality. In all honesty, there is no actual proof that homosexuality is a sin. In the Bible, God never actually declares homosexuality a sin; there may possibly an implication of its sinfulness but no blatant ban. I believe, if anything, the reasoning for Judaism and Christianity banning homosexuality is more because homosexuality was a recurrent practice in Greek and Roman paganism, much the same reason as that of Paul's warning against witchcraft (which is actually pharmacaea in Greek). Anyway, even if homosexuality is a sin, I believe that humans possess the right to engage in homosexuality if they so please. Obviously, God granted humans free will, so humans can, in actuality, do whatever they want. That is not said to pardon sinful acts but rather to state the truth. Besides, if one goes by innate morals, homosexuality alienates no moral principle, except if done without moderation as with any act humans perform.

[JackPhantasm]

How about, fuck you, my religion is myself, my religion is my life, my religion is MY belief, according to what I think.

How about that?

[SolInvictus]

At 4/16/09 10:58 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: So I have noticed that many people have been selling out the views of their religion in order to fit a more moderate profile.

i like how your interpretation is the correct interpretation of another's religion.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/16/09 12:41 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How about, fuck you, my religion is myself, my religion is my life, my religion is MY belief, according to what I think.

How about that?

I have no problem with you doing whatever you want, so long as it does not overly harm anyone. Though you will probably reply something along the lines of "Christianity overly harmed countless people during the Crusade," but I really could care less about the Christianity of the past. As you say, one's religion is his or her own belief, and I believe in a much different Christianity that the dogmatic idiocy of the Crusades era and even that of the current era. That is not to say that all Christians are overly dogmatic idiots.

[Ericho]

It all depends on what X is. In terms of religion, I guess I would look back and try to think about what the creator of my religion would want. If so, then yes, I would choose b. If it was something that had a lot of benefits to it, well I guess that's just something I could disagree on with the creator.

[slowerthenb4]

At 4/16/09 11:50 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/16/09 11:43 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

What is that supposed to be?

it was a greek script of the saying.

The saying "Know thyself" may refer by extension to the ideal of understanding human behavior, morals, and thought, because ultimately to understand oneself is to understand other humans as well. However, the ancient Greek philosophers thought that no man can ever comprehend the human spirit and thought thoroughly, so it would have been almost inconceivable to know oneself fully. Therefore, the saying may refer to a less ambitious ideal, such as knowing one's own habits, morals, temperament, ability to control anger, and other aspects of human behavior that we struggle with on a daily basis.

Even if a person ever fully understood him- or herself, such a person cannot automatically understand other humans. No two humans think exactly alike; therefore, if even this person can approximate an understanding of another human, he or she will never fully understand that other human.

jeez. empathy: Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
I pose a question. could your own self awareness lead to a deepened understanding of the human condition?

At 4/16/09 12:41 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How about, fuck you, my religion is myself, my religion is my life, my religion is MY belief, according to what I think.

How about that?

AMEN.

[SadisticMonkey]

People are always picking and choosing parts of their religion to accept to suit their life and views, rationalizing parts which are insane/blatantly false. Nothing new.
And it's stupid to ask if they do that, because like I said, they're rationalizing, they're not actually going through and saying "Well I'm not going to believe this part anymore because society is beginning accept X behaviour", they're more like: "Oh yeah nah this was never meant to be taken literally this is just a metaphor."

[Porkchop]

What is X supposed to be?
Some things aren't as messed up as others.
Some things could warrant changing religion or dumping it in favor of another religion, while some things can be stood for

[poxpower]

At 4/16/09 11:27 AM, dySWN wrote: If it's a felony or violates a core tenet of what America was founded on, then it would be time to find a new religion.

You'd abandon your religion if it suddenly was against the law???
Haha that is a new low for you. To suggest that you'd be willing to change WHAT YOU BELIEVE depending on the laws of a country is just absurd.

Like, this is what lead to Nazis. This is EXACTLY what lead to that sort of shit. Good people switching ideals as soon as it becomes convenient to commit atrocities without a second thought.

[dySWN]

At 4/16/09 08:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/16/09 11:27 AM, dySWN wrote: If it's a felony or violates a core tenet of what America was founded on, then it would be time to find a new religion.

You'd abandon your religion if it suddenly was against the law???
Haha that is a new low for you. To suggest that you'd be willing to change WHAT YOU BELIEVE depending on the laws of a country is just absurd.

I think he was referring to membership in more radical religions or cults, where more socially deviant behaviors than my religion (Catholicism) would allow would be more prevalent, so I addressed the question through that lens. If the law came to infringe on the rights of moderate theists, then they would be against one of the core values that America was founded on - at which point, my first point is moot and I would stand firm.

[dySWN]

In any event, people here seem to be confusing "religion" with "faith". Religion is merely the manner in which one expresses their faith in whatever divinity they believe in; the law can never quash faith. However, if my personal religion involved eating live babies to show my belief in God, then could you really blame the law for having a problem with that?

[Shintogoru]

At 4/16/09 02:22 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

At 4/16/09 11:50 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/16/09 11:43 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

What is that supposed to be?

it was a greek script of the saying.

The saying "Know thyself" may refer by extension to the ideal of understanding human behavior, morals, and thought, because ultimately to understand oneself is to understand other humans as well. However, the ancient Greek philosophers thought that no man can ever comprehend the human spirit and thought thoroughly, so it would have been almost inconceivable to know oneself fully. Therefore, the saying may refer to a less ambitious ideal, such as knowing one's own habits, morals, temperament, ability to control anger, and other aspects of human behavior that we struggle with on a daily basis.

Even if a person ever fully understood him- or herself, such a person cannot automatically understand other humans. No two humans think exactly alike; therefore, if even this person can approximate an understanding of another human, he or she will never fully understand that other human.

jeez. empathy: Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
I pose a question. could your own self awareness lead to a deepened understanding of the human condition?

If you reread my post, you will see that I did not deny the ability of a person to empathize with another person. Empathy is not a complete understanding of this other person nor of the experiences of that person. Rather, empathy is the ability of one human to approximate an understanding of the plight of another human through making connections between one's own plight and that of another person. In other words, empathy is not knowing another person but using one's own experiences to help another human being going through similar--but not the same--circumstances.

At 4/16/09 12:41 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How about, fuck you, my religion is myself, my religion is my life, my religion is MY belief, according to what I think.

How about that?

AMEN.

I second that "AMEN."

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 4/16/09 08:30 PM, poxpower wrote: . To suggest that you'd be willing to change WHAT YOU BELIEVE depending on the laws of a country is just absurd.

And admitting you would be on your knees begging for mercy when your worst fear as well as the clipper to sever the root of your disbelief is glarring right at you is any different eh.

Like, this is what lead to Nazis. This is EXACTLY what lead to that sort of shit. Good people switching ideals as soon as it becomes convenient to commit atrocities without a second thought.

And a belief system where you aren't responsible for your won actions is any better huh?
There was nazi doctor who preformed tons of experiments of jews in the name of science, you would be a dead hearted bastard to agree and you would be contrdicting your won retarded belief in you disagreed so you're fucked either way 8P

[Korriken]

As much as i hate to say it, most followers of religion know about as much about their religion as their preacher/rabbi/imam tells them. they don't study on their own, their never ponder the obvious questions. Instead, they run to their holy man and ask him who gives them a convenient answer, depending on the holy man's goal. of course the 'moderate' preachers aren't going to say something that might be offensive, which is why a lot of err.. 'christians' believe they can sin it up 6 days a week, go visit the church, toss a bit of money into the collection plate. sing a song, say a few prayers, and god will automatically forgive them, as if god is some sort of machine that man can control.

You'll never hear a moderate preacher say. "he killed himself? oh, he's going STRAIGHT to hell!" nope, he went to heaven, despite being a blasphemous sinner his entire life and in the end, when his world fell apart around him, shot himself up with a triple dose of heroin and died.

Which is why I don't go to church. Churches today are a bastion of blasphemy that is leading the people astray for what they SHOULD be taught.

[thedo12]

At 4/21/09 06:00 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
And a belief system where you aren't responsible for your won actions is any better huh?

im sick of this arguement (well pretty much of any religous argement but this one especialy) wehn you commit a sin all you have to do shaggy is beg jesus for forgiveness and then your fine , your sin's are forgiven. non-religous atheist's on the other hand have to actualy seek forgivness FROM THE PEOPLE WE WRONGED or else we have to live with this shit on our consince for the rest of our lives.
anyway's with referring to ww2 hilter might have been an atheis butt it's argueable , thugh it's fact germany was a christian nation.

nazi oath

I swear by GOD this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.