Religico.com is a no spin zone for debates on Religion, Politics, Science, and life in general. While we know their is really no such thing as a “No Spin Zone” and the phrase has been over-used in the media, we make the following promises to you:
- We do not censor, or edit the views of our bloggers (staff or guests).
- Literally anyone can post a blog article* (become a guest blogger).
- We love free speech.
* This asterisk in necessary because we will not post, or allow any blogger (guest or staff) to post hate speech, nor will we allow anyone to post anything that promotes anything that is illegal (plans to build a bomb, where to get drugs, etc). Opinions are welcome, illegal or hate activities are not.
Staff Bloggers
Mike – A conservative. Please do not read Republican! Mike left the Republican part during the McCain/Obama presidential election of 2008 when the Republicans lost their way. Mike is an independent voter and independent thinker. Mike supports business rights, lower taxes, and less government – especially where small businesses are concerned. Mike believes the constitution is not a living document and should not be interpreted to the extreme it has been today. Mike is pro-life, and pro second amendment. “Everyone should own a gun and take a gun safety course.”
From a religious perspective Mike is a christian, although he does not necessarily believe that the Bible is inerrant or that the Genesis story is pure fact. However, he does believe that the world has a fingerprint of a creator upon it and finds evolution to be somewhat of a religious following. In his words “How can DNA, at 3 meters long containing 619 Terabytes of storage evolve? That’s my geek brain at work. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
Craig – Politically Craig considers himself almost completely in the middle, with a slight leaning towards the left. Craig is a pro-environment, pro-universal healthcare and is for personal freedom, but generally anti-government regulation on many other issues and believes we should have fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.
Craig does not consider himself particularly religious. Craig considers himself to be an agnostic, that is in his words “I do not know” when it comes to God or the afterlife. Craig appreciates the positive aspects of Christianity that he grew up with and helped shape his morals. Craig currently practices Buddhist Zen meditation but does not consider himself an actual Buddhist. He appreciates some of eastern religions’ approach to morality, the recognition that this world, its desires and having material things, will never make you content. He also appreciates the belief in the interdependence of all things, including man’s dependency on nature.
Above all Craig considers himself a skeptic. He believes all attempts at truth are just that, attempts, and no one has it right. He believes everyone is biased to some degree and therefore what they tell you about their religion or political beliefs is colored by that bias, often without them realizing it. Craig thinks this applies to the authors of religious books such as the Bible or the Qur’an as well. He thinks that amazing claims such as miracles should require amazing amounts of evidence to be regarded as true.
All that being said, Craig assumes that he too is wrong about certain things.
If anyone can blog, how do I become a blogger at Religico.com?
Simple! Shoot us an email and we will create you an account. All guest accounts require posting approval, which simply means your post must be approved by a moderator. Religico is different from other blog sites. We may not agree with your post, or your opinion – however, as long as your topic is not hate related or insult based, we will post it. Send us an email and welcome aboard!
Those same people that complain about “God allowing earthquakes” would use the same argument if there were no natural disasters. Eventually they’d say “why does God allow there to be poor people” or “why does God allow people to die” or “Why does God allow people to be mean to each other”… And if you keep taking those things away eventually … See Morethose people would be down to “THere can’t be a God, because he wouldn’t allow people to have hangnails” So whatever the worst thing is that exists, would be the extreme bad in this world.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
David,
I agree with the idea that there can’t be light without dark, cold without hot, etc. The discrepancy comes from the problem of a perfect God (as we understand Him) in an imperfect world. Is this as some theologians put it, “the best of all possible worlds?” where both free will and God’s will can coexist? Could God not do better yet still provide freewill?
True some people would complain that there can’t be a God even if the worst suffering was no more than a hangnail. But that begs the question of why we don’t live in a completely perfect world already? Why would a completely good and loving God allow any suffering or evil at all? Why is freewill necessary? Also, even if freewill and some degree of suffering is necessary, how can God allow the degree to which many people suffer, such as torture, famine and plague? … See More
The idea of original sin similarly brought up more questions for me than it answered. If Adam and Eve sinned, why did God allow their descendants to inherit that? Why did he punish all their descendants for their parents’ sin? (This concept is in other places in the bible as well.) Why did the animals have to suffer? Why would one sin cause natural disasters and such? If everyone has freewill, what happens to unborn and children who die young? Do they get free will? Then you have the concept of the afterlife. Why would God (according to many Christians) allow this calamity, which not only causes untold suffering to human and animal life on earth, but also cause the vast majority of humans to burn in Hell after death (wide is the road to destruction.) They only inherited this sinful nature from the first parents which was beyond their control.
I was never able to find satisfactory answers to these type of questions. They are generally glossed over by mainstream Christians, and among theologians they have been debated over for centuries. I think no matter what religion you believe in the problem of evil will always be a problem and mystery. So my tendency is to assume that
A) There is no God(s) at all (atheism), or
B) There is a God, but he has chosen to remain mysterious and does not directly/physically intervene at all, although He may give us spiritual strength (deism.)
In either case, all religions are to some extent wrong or at least only symbolic.
Now I realize this will all come across as offensive to many christians, and my friend Brett will say I’m unfairly picking on Christianity. The fact is that Christianity is the religion i know best and what most people on here talk about, so I probably argue about it more. But there are philosophical problems with every religion. I don’t fully buy into pantheism, reincarnation, karma, Allah, polytheism or a host of other beliefs either. I think they all have merits and flaws, some more than others.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Craig – My biggest problem with Christianity (lately anyway) has been cafeteria Christians.
It bugs me to no end to see people take just the pieces they like and follow them, then throw out the rest. Either the whole thing is real, and you believe it, or the whole thing is a lie.
In fact, I believe there is a verse in the Bible which says something along those lines, but I don’t have time to look it up…. See More
Now if you want to really get into a debate. The Bible even says the earth is flat and does not move from its location. We know for a fact those are wrong. How do you reconcile that? Is it a poem, or is it word for word accurate? I love arguing that with fundamentalists.
I’ll tell you what I believe (from a Christian standpoint) but I want to hear your thoughts first.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Well I think you hit the nail on the head. You can’t really be a fundamentalist christian and be intellectually honest. Its too easy to lookup the logical and moral failings of the Bible. Of course to many of those people, being logical or not self-contradictory may not be important–its all faith, and the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Of course, at that point is really hard to have a meaningful conversation or debate about whats true or not, since anything can be believed on pure faith alone if it doesn’t have to measure up to any human standards of morality, evidence or reason.
The only alternative is to some degree be a cafeteria christian, picking out the parts that are blatantly proven wrong or immoral, yet still believing in things like Christ is your savior, the love of God, human tendency to sin, etc. that noone can really prove scientifically true or false. The rest then becomes symbolic such as heavens golden streets or hell’s flames, or simply a cultural discrepancy of a bygone era, such as women not being allowed to speak out in church. I would argue that this is what most Catholics fall into, and many, if not the majority, of Protestants as well. Its simply NOT necessary to be a fundamentalist or biblical inerrantist and be a Christian, IMHO.
I read something recently thats helped me. Karen Armstrong says that we should not confuse “mythos” and “logos.” Mythos which gives meaning and hope to people but isn’t supposed to be believed literally, and Logos, which is physical and scientific truth. This is in many ways the stance of Zen and other forms of Eastern Mysticism–all the stories are true, but only in a sense. Zen says the words are like a finger pointing at the moon. Don’t just look at the finger, look at the moon! The real truth of “God” and the universe is too big for us to conceptualize or prove. The ancient Hebrews did not even use the name of their God for fear of idolatry, and ancient hindu yogis would similarly find more truth in silence than the names for all the different aspects of Brahman (God.) … See More
I think as human beings we’re all after the same thing: truth, love, morality, redemption, peace, meaning, but we differ on how we get their based upon our culture, personal experiences and how literally we take the traditions we’ve been taught.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
I find this helpful with concepts like the Christian Trinity. If you believe in the trinity literally, its a problem. How can God be both One and Three? If God can be three, why not ten or ten thousand? This is similar to Hinduism BTW, where some traditions say all the other gods are merely a manifestation of Brahman.
But what if you take … See Morethe trinity more symbolic? Then its not so much of a problem. You have God the father, which is transcendent, all powerful and separate from his creation. You have God the Son, in which the will of the father was incarnate (again literally or figuratively) in Jesus the Christ in a unique way and in which we learn to likewise become sons of God. Then you have the holy spirit, God is immanent and present in the souls of all Christians, or perhaps all human beings to a lesser or greater degree. its one God, but experienced and conceptualized three different ways. It doesn’t HAVE TO limit God to only being understood in those three ways, but it helps people with their understanding of how we can talk about God in Christianity or how the early Christians understood Him.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Craig, at times I’m willing to entertain the idea that God distances himself from the creation and takes a “watch and see approach” But I cannot entertain the idea of there being no God at all. I spent years of my life analyzing that question and learning more and more about the universe and the very nature of life itself and it only reinforces … See Moreto me that there was some greater intelligence behind it all. Even Carl Sagan (who is often believed to be Atheist, although he was actually agnostic) said something to the effect that the laws of the universe (things like strong force, gravity, electromagnetism, etc..) Seem to be enforced by something but no physicist can seem to explain it, and that itself tends to suggest some kind of God.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
I don’t think Mike is talking about The Trinity. It’s the holier than thou assholes that cause a seeker to lose interest…
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Linda, no we kind of got off on a tangent…
Rate Comment:
0 
0
So Mike I still want to hear your perspective…
Rate Comment:
0 
0
I have really enjoyed this thread and what you have all had to say. More importantly, the respect that you have kept throughout the discussion.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg
I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped?
Rate Comment:
0 
0
I just wanted to tell you what a great read your insights were for me. I’ve grown to simply despise religion in all its forms and your posts made me smile. I thank you. I think your take on things are right on the money and if you ever wish to express opinions about anything else I would gladly read those as well.
Rate Comment:
1 
0
Just out of curiosity and because I’ve enjoyed reading them all so far, what happened to Part 6?
Rate Comment:
0 
0
How many people did Satan GIVE life to?
If I bred 7 billion fruitflies…I probably wouldn’t feel bad about killing off some of them – especially if I felt they were disrespecting me. If someone else started killing my fruitflies though, well, I’d be pissed off.
Rate Comment:
0 
2
I thought God was all about love and forgiveness. Why should he be allowed to kill? He breaks his own commandments by doing so, so shouldn’t be setting the example? God gave man free will, that means they are on their own and he shouldn’t punish for creating humans the way HE WANTED TO.
Rate Comment:
0 
0
ah see how you are. You frame it as “Are you still beating your wife or are you trying to quit???”
…how about you liberal namby pamby guys just cut way back on your consumption and stop bothering and coercing us to do the same. We think you are full of bull sh it.
Rate Comment:
1 
0
Not really. A true conservative will not try to coerce you into believing or living like they do.
…..compare that with a liberal….they are constantly brow beating and passing laws trying to coerce others.
Rate Comment:
1 
0