Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[hunter71485]

@ddadain
i'm asking GK if he believes in that. i'm not saying that for myself, for being out of context is not my style. i have a conservative view on things, you know, especially about religion and its many eccentricities.

 

[Gold Knight]

now, about the part that jesus isn't the way to heaven: do you mean it literally, like you've got to join some odd bunch of people who believe they're the only people who'll be saved because they worship him?

jesus showed us the way to salvation. that's why he is the way to heaven. he set an example. we don't have to pray to him, because he prayed to God the father, right?

I didn't see that question, sorry hunter.

I didn't say that Jesus isn't the way to Heaven, at least for Christians, and also any people who followed Christianity at some point. I think that once you have been introduced to the Bible, especially Christ's teachings, you are then in a situation where God is directly testing you to see whether you believe in His Son or not. If you pass yourself off as a Christian, then you'd better really believe Jesus is the way to God.

But for people who never had a chance to "get to know Jesus" (such as Muslims who deal with a lot of peer pressure to believe in Islam instead), I tend to think that God had different plans (tests you could say) for them as far as how they can prove their faith the best.

People that I believe to be truly in danger in the after-life is the ones who refuse to believe in a God at all - and the ones who refuse to follow Him as well. The others, I really can't say. It'd be foolish to pretend like we know everything that God intends to happen. So I try my best not to judge or criticize others by my own religious beliefs.

Even atheists - I can totally sympathize with people who feel like it's too hard to believe in something they can't see. It's hard enough for me to feel like there really is a God sometimes, and I do. But then again, whoever said having faith was easy.

 

[hunter71485]

But for people who never had a chance to "get to know Jesus" (such as Muslims who deal with a lot of peer pressure to believe in Islam instead), I tend to think that God had different plans (tests you could say) for them as far as how they can prove their faith the best.

People that I believe to be truly in danger in the after-life is the ones who refuse to believe in a God at all - and the ones who refuse to follow Him as well. The others, I really can't say. It'd be foolish to pretend like we know everything that God intends to happen. So I try my best not to judge or criticize others by my own religious beliefs.

Even atheists - I can totally sympathize with people who feel like it's too hard to believe in something they can't see. It's hard enough for me to feel like there really is a God sometimes, and I do. But then again, whoever said having faith was easy.

lemme ask you a question:

what do you think happens to people who have died WITHOUT having even heard of the bible/word of God/Jesus/"the Good News"? do you think they'll go straight to hell because of that? what about the people who were born BEFORE God chose Israel and started Judaism? are they all going to hell?

atheists can never understand what faith in a Creator is. remember that Dawkins dude? that evolutionist? he rants things about christianity that he never really understood. what he knows is only gleaned from DIRECT observation. he never became a christian to experience it.

 

[Gold Knight]

lemme ask you a question:

what do you think happens to people who have died WITHOUT having even heard of the bible/word of God/Jesus/"the Good News"? do you think they'll go straight to hell because of that? what about the people who were born BEFORE God chose Israel and started Judaism? are they all going to hell?

Nope, I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. God's far too merciful for that. As long as the people are good souls, anyway.

 

[hunter71485]

that's the point! God made sure that even those who lived outside of his Son'S ministry may benefit from His grace.that's why we know what's good and bad FROM THE DAY WE WERE BORN. that's why we have a conscience, to reflect on our deeds (would-be or otherwise) to know what is the right thing.

but that doesn't apply to people who are already aware of the fact that God sent his only begotten Son to be the savior of the world, and still rejected Him.

btw, what do you think of 'christian' homosexuals? i'm not biased against them because of what they are, but i'm biased against them because of what they do, what they think and how they act.

didn't sodom and gomorrah got erased from this world because of this kind of wickedness?

 

[xi0]

How can you say Richard Dawkins doesn't understand Christianity? As a scientist I believe he's done plenty of research on religion, otherwise people wouldn't even listen to what he says, as it would be unfounded. Dawkins was brought up in a traditional Anglican household. In fact, he began to doubt the existance of God as he got older, but was reconverted after studying by the argument from design.

I think the majority of atheists or agnostics understand religion just as much as people who are believers. They see it for what they think it is. They interpret it. Without interpretation there would be know organized religion in the first place.

 

[Bouland]

I didn't say that Jesus isn't the way to Heaven, at least for Christians, and also any people who followed Christianity at some point. I think that once you have been introduced to the Bible, especially Christ's teachings, you are then in a situation where God is directly testing you to see whether you believe in His Son or not. If you pass yourself off as a Christian, then you'd better really believe Jesus is the way to God.

But for people who never had a chance to "get to know Jesus" (such as Muslims who deal with a lot of peer pressure to believe in Islam instead), I tend to think that God had different plans (tests you could say) for them as far as how they can prove their faith the best.

People that I believe to be truly in danger in the after-life is the ones who refuse to believe in a God at all - and the ones who refuse to follow Him as well. The others, I really can't say. It'd be foolish to pretend like we know everything that God intends to happen. So I try my best not to judge or criticize others by my own religious beliefs.

Even atheists - I can totally sympathize with people who feel like it's too hard to believe in something they can't see. It's hard enough for me to feel like there really is a God sometimes, and I do. But then again, whoever said having faith was easy.

as shia muslims

we believe that our faith will be tested once we die by two angles, Munkar & Nakeer, sent to our grave. those angels will ask the following questions " who is your god ? who is your prophet ? what is your book ? what is your Qiblah (the direction at which we pray to) ? who are your Imam ? " the answers to those questions should be " Allah, Muhammad, the Quran, Mecca, the 11 descendents of the Imam Ali" (which should be answered by mentioning the name of each one of them) " respectively.

Spoiler

1- ali ibn abi talib
2- hasan ibn ali (al mujtaba)
3- husain ibn ali (al sha'heed)
4- ali ibn husain (zain al abe'deen)
5- muhammad ibn ali (al ba'qer)
6- ja'far ibn muhammad (al sa'deq)
7- mosa ibn jafar (al ka'zem)
8- ali ibn mosa (al re'dha)
9- muhammad ibn ali (al jawad)
10- ali ibn muhammad (al ha'di)
11- hasan ibn ali (al askari)
12- muhammad ibn hasan (al mahdi) messiah

Imam Ali is the husband of Fatima the daughter of the prophet (pbuta)

we believe that we can't answer that question by "memorizing" the answers. only a true believer will be able to answer those questions when asked by those angels.

Spoiler

In my own opinion, even those who don't believe in god have the right to enter heaven, as long as they keep doing "good things" in their life.
if anyone thinks carefully about his past he will be able to recall a time when he's been mean to someone or treated someone like some trash. that's what i believe that everyone will be judged on by god mostly not whether am i a "faithful" muslim or not, or have i kept promoting to my relegion
i think ,again- my own opinion, that the critical point on which it'll be decided whether you go to heaven or not is by what you have done to yourself, your family, your society & humanity NOT whether you believe in god in the first place or whether you were faithful to your relegion

I think relegions were only sent by god to give us the "guidelines" into doing these things

 

[hunter71485]

@xi0
do you think of faith as a matter of falsification of observation?

i wasn't talking about religion anymore. Christianity is truly NOT a religion; but a state of mind. you may belong to different sects like anglicans and protestants and whatever, but whatever you do, when you put God's perspective into yours, then you are a Christian.

and don't go telling me "ooh, you're so uber wrong. this is what ****pedia says about Christianity--" i base my beliefs on the bible. and you should, too.

 

[ddadain]

hmm... xi0, whom were you replying to? :P

 

[xi0]

@xi0
do you think of faith as a matter of falsification of observation?

i wasn't talking about religion anymore. Christianity is truly NOT a religion; but a state of mind. you may belong to different sects like anglicans and protestants and whatever, but whatever you do, when you put God's perspective into yours, then you are a Christian.

and don't go telling me "ooh, you're so uber wrong. this is what ****pedia says about Christianity--" i base my beliefs on the bible. and you should, too.

So now you're telling what I should believe in?

I was raised Roman Catholic and confirmed Roman Catholic but I don't practice the faith. I consider myself agnostic as I think the belief that atheists have that when we die, nothing happens to our consciousness and our minds cease to be sounds very foreign to me...and I don't believe any one path has the right and true answer as to how we should live, or what becomes of us. You can be a moral and decent person without following any specific edict or teaching.

"Most of us are atheists about every religion except for one, but there are some who take it one step further." That's something Richard Dawkins said, and I think it's a telling statement. Who knows the true faith? I don't agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, but your characterization of him as not knowing anything because he doesn't practice religion is unfair in my view. Like I said before, he was raised Anglican and struggled with his belief MANY times, just like many believers, even Mother Teresa herself struggled. He's seen faith firsthand, and made a choice on his own to not practice. Many things he says are confrontational, and I might not agree with that tactic myself, but he's just trying to get his point across.

There are plenty of college graduates who pick theology as a major but themselves are agnostic or atheist.

hmm... xi0, whom were you replying to? :P

Not you dain

 

[hunter71485]

You can be a moral and decent person without following any specific edict or teaching.

and how can you be sure of that? people who grow up without a specific set of guidelines for living do only what their impulse dictates.

and not just because

There are plenty of college graduates who pick theology as a major but themselves are agnostic or atheist

means they're right, but the idea of picking theology as a course is dumbfounded(kinda.) i mean, why waste your time on that? did you go to college just for that?

 

[xi0]

and how can you be sure of that? people who grow up without a specific set of guidelines for living do only what their impulse dictates.

So you're just equating humans to reckless animals? Well in a way that's true. But in a natural sense, many things that a human does are considered irrational, including religion and philosophy, while our impulse just tells us to survive. Religion and many philosophical ideas try to convince us that we aren't animals, and that we are of a higher order, when we really aren't. We're special and intelligent sure, but still animals.

Because we are intelligent we know there is a sort of natural law. These ideals may have come from religion and philosophy as a base, but they are still known to the most uneducated people.

means they're right, but the idea of picking theology as a course is dumbfounded(kinda.) i mean, why waste your time on that? did you go to college just for that?

That's just your opinion really, many people who didn't grow up influenced by a specific religion find the topic of theology fascinating, same with many other social sciences. Also people who did might just want to learn more about it. There are many impractical majors in college, theology is really only one of them.

 

[hunter71485]

So you're just equating humans to reckless animals? Well in a way that's true. But in a natural sense, many things that a human does are considered irrational, including religion and philosophy, while our impulse just tells us to survive. Religion and many philosophical ideas try to convince us that we aren't animals, and that we are of a higher order, when we really aren't. We're special and intelligent sure, but still animals.

do you really think that without religion there will be world peace? you might say i'm talking out of context, but if we are all animals (which i'm just supposing in this argument, but not saying the statement is true) without a written moral code, then an acceptable level of harmony will be achieved. AND every nation's sense of justice is based on a religion's teachings, even if they copied it from another country.

Because we are intelligent we know there is a sort of natural law. These ideals may have come from religion and philosophy as a base, but they are still known to the most uneducated people.

define uneducated. there are many forms of uneducation, much less maleducation. the natural law you refer to isn't "built in" by nature, or by mere observance of events. rather it is an intelligent design, which proves there is a God.

 

[xi0]

do you really think that without religion there will be world peace? you might say i'm talking out of context, but if we are all animals (which i'm just supposing in this argument, but not saying the statement is true) without a written moral code, then an acceptable level of harmony will be achieved. AND every nation's sense of justice is based on a religion's teachings, even if they copied it from another country.

I'm not talking about world peace in this instance, I'm only talking about man's ability to know the difference between right and wrong. There were backward ways of thinking prior to the Abrahamic religions, but there were still civilized people, intelligent thinkers, and laws. And saying every nation's sense of justice is based on religious teachings isn't true either, as nations based on communism reject the idea of organized faith and religion completely.

define uneducated. there are many forms of uneducation, much less maleducation. the natural law you refer to isn't "built in" by nature, or by mere observance of events. rather it is an intelligent design, which proves there is a God.

How can you say it isn't "built in" by nature? What proof do you have? It's impossible to escape the influence of some sort of organized faith, regardless of where you are in the world. Who's to say that the anthropological relations between humans would be as savage as your implying without a religious influence? There's evidence to suggest that we're both correct here, but saying religion has the sole-responsibility for civility between humans is an unfounded statement in my view. Polytheists of Greece and Rome contributed greatly, probably just as much as Monotheists of the Western world in culture to civics and law.

 

[hunter71485]

if you know what's right and what's wrong then you shouldn't need to be writing laws. AND you say communism has a sense of justice? what kind of justice? if you say justice of fairness, then isn't it a copy from other democratic countries?

How can you say it isn't "built in" by nature? What proof do you have? It's impossible to escape the influence of some sort of organized faith, regardless of where you are in the world. Who's to say that the anthropological relations between humans would be as savage as your implying without a religious influence? There's evidence to suggest that we're both correct here, but saying religion has the sole-responsibility for civility between humans is an unfounded statement in my view. Polytheists of Greece and Rome contributed greatly, probably just as much as Monotheists of the Western world in culture to civics and law.

take notice on what you just said: words italicized contradict words in bold. you just answered your own question.

 

[ddadain]

lol... hot hot hot... :P

Should I give my purely neutral view? XD

Points to raise:
Richard Dawkin's arguments about the "delusion" of religion, taking a note that he has SERIOUS issues with Christianity in particular (evi: His documentary), is basically done in a manner like: "Science has proven... miracles do not... placebos... evolution... dinosaurs... carbon dating... billions of years... etc. which are all fine and dandy why you're trying to disprove something disprovable by facts, but really, if he looks half as smart as he seems, with the British accents and all, he'd realize he's barking to the wrong tree. It's already been established HERE, that religion and science are not complimentary events, therefore they cannot be used to explain why one is wrong and the other is not.

It's a well known fact among sociologists and psychologists that religion plays a BIG PART, not the WHOLE part, in the formation of "MORAL" values. Morality, in itself, is a self-explanatory term of its origin.

The simple fact is, religion has sparked wars all over human history. Yet, the biggest, bloodiest ones in recent history, are often times (almost all the time) not caused by religion (evi: WWI, WWII, JAP-War, RusVsIraq, etc.). If religion never existed, humanity would be less of what we are today.

Oh, contrary to what you say, the notion of communism rejecting religion is false. It rejects the notion of religion being a necessity, but not the possibility of its truth. Communism is more like: "Who needs gods, when we've got us!"

 

[xi0]

if you know what's right and what's wrong then you shouldn't need to be writing laws. AND you say communism has a sense of justice? what kind of justice? if you say justice of fairness, then isn't it a copy from other democratic countries?

I agree that the theory is that if everyone behaved we wouldn't need to be writing laws, which is a nice and dandy sentiment, but the fact is that we live in an imperfect world which does need them. I don't know how that disproves what I was trying to say though.

Communism has it's own sense of justice. It's a fact, not my opinion. Many people and countries who follow communism agree. This isn't an argument about whether communism is the right or wrong way.

take notice on what you just said: words italicized contradict words in bold. you just answered your own question.

I misspoke I guess. I meant religion, as in the dominant monotheistic religions of today's world - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

---

lol... hot hot hot... :P

Should I give my purely neutral view? XD

Points to raise:
Richard Dawkin's arguments about the "delusion" of religion, taking a note that he has SERIOUS issues with Christianity in particular (evi: His documentary), is basically done in a manner like: "Science has proven... miracles do not... placebos... evolution... dinosaurs... carbon dating... billions of years... etc. which are all fine and dandy why you're trying to disprove something disprovable by facts, but really, if he looks half as smart as he seems, with the British accents and all, he'd realize he's barking to the wrong tree. It's already been established HERE, that religion and science are not complimentary events, therefore they cannot be used to explain why one is wrong and the other is not.

It's a well known fact among sociologists and psychologists that religion plays a BIG PART, not the WHOLE part, in the formation of "MORAL" values. Morality, in itself, is a self-explanatory term of its origin.

The simple fact is, religion has sparked wars all over human history. Yet, the biggest, bloodiest ones in recent history, are often times (almost all the time) not caused by religion (evi: WWI, WWII, JAP-War, RusVsIraq, etc.). If religion never existed, humanity would be less of what we are today.

Oh, contrary to what you say, the notion of communism rejecting religion is false. It rejects the notion of religion being a necessity, but not the possibility of its truth. Communism is more like: "Who needs gods, when we've got us!"

I raised the argument that I disagreed with the notion that Dawkins doesn't understand faith because he doesn't believe. The key point is he doesn't believe anymore.

Dawkin's job is to be though-provoking, and yes controversial. We can argue the merit of him trying to convince people that faith is garbage until the cows come home, but he makes a living trying to do just that. I agree that it's most likely futile to try to disprove something which is disprovable by facts, but it's what he chose I guess.

Isn't rejecting religion as necessity and rejecting the possibility of its truth the same thing essentially? If religion was truth in their eyes they would not reject it, for fear of being heathens.

 

[hunter71485]

for fear of being heathens? maybe that's why they embraced darwin's theory as the truth, because deep inside they cannot think of being "pagan"...

ok, now i think we should stop being confrontational...

 

[xi0]

I'm not trying to be confrontational here hunter, so please don't take it that way.

And I would hope anyone would accept Darwin's theory as being scientific fact...even though some do still tend try to debunk it. It is a theory after all, but it makes the most sense to me.

I don't think communists consider themselves pagan either, in fact they don't consider themselves anything since they don't acknowledge any belief system really.

 

[hunter71485]

i was talking to all of us... not just you ^^

communists don't really think much of a belief system except that their government is their 'god' in the sense that it will provide everything equally.

and may i ask, does your (anyone's really) church/denomination/religion tolerate gays?