Comments for Religico http://www.religico.com Debating Religion and Politics Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:35:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on What if Global Warming IS Fake? by kiadragon http://www.religico.com/2009/12/18/what-if-global-warming-is-fake/comment-page-1/#comment-118 kiadragon Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:35:09 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=188#comment-118 Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped? Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg

I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped?

Rate Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Kristi Crouch Kahlden http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Kristi Crouch Kahlden Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:37:52 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-116 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Craig http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-115 Craig Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:37:29 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-115 So Mike I still want to hear your perspective... So Mike I still want to hear your perspective…

Rate Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Craig http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Craig Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:37:13 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-114 Linda, no we kind of got off on a tangent... :) Linda, no we kind of got off on a tangent… :)

Rate Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Linda http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Linda Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:36:51 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-113 I don't think Mike is talking about The Trinity. It's the holier than thou assholes that cause a seeker to lose interest... 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by David http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-112 David Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:36:28 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-112 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Craig http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Craig Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:36:11 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-111 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Craig http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Craig Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:35:48 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-110 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Mike http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Mike Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:35:28 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-109 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Cafeteria Christians by Craig http://www.religico.com/2010/02/01/cafeteria-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-108 Craig Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:35:11 +0000 http://www.religico.com/?p=230#comment-108 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. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>