Netami's Religion Thread

[Darkmoon]

Wow, they made a society... At least we know that if another ethnic cleansing happens along the order of the Holocaust during world war two, we have a group we can sell out to stay alive.

[xHaZxMaTx]

And this would be their home page.

...Holy crap, that website makes me want to kill... something!

[superluser]

Did you miss that whole part in your history lessons where the church made Galileo into a heretic for trying to prove the Earth was round.

No, but I think you did.

Galileo was born in 1564.  Ferdinand Magellan had circumnavigated the world by 1521.

The spherical earth seems to have been the majority position since the first century AD, and no one but nutters have believed that the world was flat since around the seventh century.

Galileo proved many things, but chief among them were that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that other planets had moons.

The dominant position had been the Ptolemaic system, which hypothesized that everything revolved around the Earth, and the fact that the orbits weren't circular could be explained by epicycles.

These were thoughts that were considered very dangerous by the corrupt people that were in the hierarchy of the church at the time (remember--this was about the time of the Reformation--people were selling indulgences and all sorts of nasty stuff.  The church was very sensitive to criticism at the time).  Copernicus had come along and suggested that the Earth wasn't at the center, but they didn't excommunicate him because he paid his dues.

Yes, bad stuff happened.  We're really sorry for it.  The Catholic Church has even taken steps to make amends.  In fact, Stephen Jay Gould was pretty impressed by the Catholic Church's embrace of science.

It also turns out that the Copernican system was flawed because he had presumed that the orbits were determined by perfect circles, and in fact, sometimes the Ptolemaic system was actually more accurate than the Copernican system--I think that some of Galileo's observations were the ones that led to the rejection of the Copernican system.  Kepler and Brahe came up with the first system that was a consistent improvement over the Ptolemaic system.  And then came ones based on the many-body problem and General Relativity.

Also: You people are only now finding out about the Flat Earth Society?  You know about the Birchers, right?

[Stygian]

You know, the whole idea of thinking that you can choose what to believe is a bit absurd. It's one of those things (actually, this has been proven through several independent studies, and it really does make sense) that you're basically dispositioned for or not. Everyone has a sense of spirituality, or so it would seem, but just how strong it is or what triggers it really depends on your person. So, again, we come to the point of fatalism and human limitation here...

Of course you can be indoctrinated or have religion forced upon you. That's basically how religion seems to prevail in some cases. But if one can choose to follow a religion and its rules, but can't possibly feel that sense of spirituality, then what's the damn point of it? Isn't it better then to use guidlines like common sense and ethics? Philosophy and science? And who really believes that it depends on your individual belief whether you go to Heaven or Hell or Nirvana or just fade into darkness when you die? It doesn't go together. Either, there is logic to it all and some form of order, or there isn't, and all is just materium.

I'm not a fatalist. I believe that the universe in itself is a marvel and that it through its sheer complexity and power is more glorious than any lowly, simplified doctrine or code or human idea of any kind can explain. And trying to frame it in and denote all those moments of revelation, all that brilliant existence and all the small things to something that the human mind can put together into a whole image is folley to me.

[Knight]

Well, superluser, it appears that you're right, (and that was informative), but we were mainly centering around the point that new information could be considered heretical, simply because the current doctrine or whatnot couldn't be disproven, at least not to the point of acceptance.  Even in the updated situation, it's kinda the same thing...

As far as fatalism and whatnot... genetics only account for a certain percentage... and I'm not one to believe in fate, personally.  I mean, sure we're all dispositioned to a caliber, but that's what makes us all individuals.  People can still go one way or the other.

Either, there is logic to it all and some form of order, or there isn't, and all is just materium.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. 

[Darkmoon]

Agreed. Thanks for the history, though.

[Damaris]

Although, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

[Darkmoon]

http://www.xkcd.com/

[Knight]

Although, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

Something that brings to mind is the lack of a 13th floor on about 90 percent of USA buildings, and the amount of money lost every Friday the 13th because no one leaves the house.  Just goes to show how much we've lost our superstition.

http://www.xkcd.com/

Hehe, he makes fun of young Earth creationists, and then he prays.  :p

[Darkmoon]

If you hover over the picture, it has commentary.

[Knight]

D'OH!

[superluser]

Although, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

I know that's the popular perception, but is that actually true?

The ``Columbus v. Flat Earthers'' story appears to have been invented in the 19th century by Washington Irving for his semi-fictionalized biography of Columbus.  Or so says Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, written by a professor emeritus of History at UC Santa Barbara.  Professors emeriti can be kinda kooky (see Alexander Abian), but this guy is working within his field and quite a few reviews in peer-reviewed journals on JSTOR agree with him.

I'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

As to the concept of religion being at loggerheads with scientific progress, I'd like to know what you think religion has to say about genetics or the scientific method.

[Knight]

I know that's the popular perception, but is that actually true?

Mayyyybe.  Mayyyybe not.

I'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

I'll be honest, that's kind of a completely different subject.

I'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

As to the concept of religion being at loggerheads with scientific progress, I'd like to know what you think religion has to say about genetics or the scientific method.

I'm not aware, and don't really think it matters, unless:

A) It comes to odds with common sense and ends up a dictation to people that they'll burn in Hell for believing something other than what they do, or

B) Pressures them to feel miserable about themselves unless they conform (being told that you're destined to burn in an eternal fire and knowing that your friends, family, and coworkers actually believe this tends do this by default, to be fair)

C) Incites their own congregation to lash out against others of a different mindset, or,

D) Encourages them to blow themselves up for a dead dude and the promise of fourty (apparantly also dead) virgins or something relatively as blatanly insane and dangerous. 

At that point, yeah, I'd probably pay attention to their personal opinion on genetics and scientific method.  Otherwise I'd rather hear about it from scientists.

But, I am aware of and concerned about things like this:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm

And, to be fair, I'm sure the Catholic Church has made great progress and reform towards the goal of telling it's millions of adherants that they don't have to be afraid of a giant goat that will singe them after their death if they use a little rubbery device that keeps Africa from bursting apart at the seams with AIDS victims and unwanted, unsustainable children, but that progress just doesn't match my expectations.  Maybe I'm picky.

By the way, I never accused you (especially personally) of taking it unquestionably.  I don't even know your religious preference, so how would I know the process that you came to it by?  All I can say is that if decided to be [insert big ass religion here], the questions and answers you went through when deciding obviously weren't enough to dissuade you from conforming to it. 

[superluser]

By the way, I never accused you (especially personally) of taking it unquestionably.

Not you.  This guy:

But, for the record, it seems less like you're questioning the rules and more like you're simply following them.

As to condom use, I've gotta say, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning, so use a condom.

But condom use is not going to stop AIDS.  Condom use will most certainly slow it down, but it will not stop it.  Given that the average number of sexual encounters per year is 103 globally, (and that I can't find statistics for Africa) and 800 million people in Africa, and assuming that every one of those encounters is using a condom properly, there are still approximately 50 people per second that are effectively having unprotected sex on the African continent.

[Knight]

How does one measure the number of sexual encouters, globally?  Just curious, as I would like to participate in this field of research.   

As to condom use, I've gotta say, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning, so use a condom.

Hm... I would say something more along the lines of, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning in the eyes of your church, so you may as well invite her friend over.

[superluser]

How does one measure the number of sexual encouters, globally?  Just curious, as I would like to participate in this field of research.   

http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=398&intMenuOpen=9

[Knight]

Ahhh.  Sadly, that's probably based on what honesty people give on surveys, and not hot, hot voyeurism.

[Destina Faroda]

Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

[Knight]

I'm not sure what unnerves me more, the fact that Destina just appeared out of nowhere, or that she just made some sense.  However, I will point out that most Christians, and the bible itself, don't seem to me to convey this as Christianity, sadly.  The "accept Jesus and that's it" argument is made by a lot of Christians (makes a great selling point, doesn't it?).  Is that really Christian, though?  Isn't this more like "neochristian" or something?

[bill]

AFAIK, it's a general (over)simplification of Protestantism. It's like Cliff's Notes Christianity.

[rabid_fox]

I like being Catholic, mostly because I'm still finding it hard to find a better fundamental philosohpy than "Treat other people the way you'd like to be treated."

Even if someone laid down conclusive proof in front of me and said "Haha, there, no god, proved," I'd still say "That's ok. I'm still Catholic." I don't think religion is about what you believe in, I think it's about how you live your life and what standards you adhere to. It's a very personal thing for me and while there are people out there who'd cheerfully call me a miserable failure as a Catholic, or tell me that I'm standing in defiance of rationalism, I don't mind.

[Amber Williams]

It's a very personal thing for me and while there are people out there who'd cheerfully call me a miserable failure as a Catholic, or tell me that I'm standing in defiance of rationalism, I don't mind.

YOU ARE A FAILURE OF A CATHOLIC!

...But you are awsome so I forgive you.

I guess in a way religion to me is like ones sexuality.  I don't mind or care what a person's is, everyone likely has some varient version and possible views regarding other versions.  It's never a big deal if its something that is brought up in a conversation with friends or respected peers...but I never feel cool when either are sort of launched from the gun.  Or when its done in such a way that its like "I R PROUD THAT I ______"  I mean, I'd hope that anyone in their life is happy with their standings, be it orientation or religious belief.  But when either become a springboard to launch  your soapbox, then it goes into annoying-land for me.

[GabrielsThoughts]

what I find Ironic is the Cult who started the rumor that we never landed on the moon, is the same group who is trying to prove the earth is flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_hoax 

[Jigsaw Forte]

It's never a big deal if its something that is brought up in a conversation with friends or respected peers...but I never feel cool when either are sort of launched from the gun.  Or when its done in such a way that its like "I R PROUD THAT I ______"  I mean, I'd hope that anyone in their life is happy with their standings, be it orientation or religious belief.  But when either become a springboard to launch  your soapbox, then it goes into annoying-land for me.

You think that's annoying enough, then try explaining to your (also-Jewish) mom why some nutjob who's on TV about her 5-month-old son is bragging about him being not just breast-fed, but 'intact'.

... like I really needed (or wanted) to know that about her baby's penis, honestly. 

[superluser]

what I find Ironic is the Cult who started the rumor that we never landed on the moon, is the same group who is trying to prove the earth is flat.

Ironic?  I find that appropriate.

Anyways, nutter theories are always fun.

One of my favorites (and it involves religion!) is that the King James Version of the Bible is the only true version of the Bible that is accurate.

Yeah, yeah.  Another one of those ``my translation has a bigger dick than yours'' debates, right?  Not when you insist that you need to learn English to truly understand the Bible, and that no one had a true version of the Bible before 1611.

I once came across a website that claimed that the Great Vowel Shift occurred so that we could properly pronounce God's Word as revealed in the King James Version.

It took me a while to realize that they were joking.

[bill]

My ESV is better than your NKJV. 

[GabrielsThoughts]

The first translation by Luther PWNs all. not that sissy Latin/Greek/Hebrew version that cam before it.

[bill]

Martin Luther is pretty much the shit.

[Netami]

Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

This is pretty much my stance, except for the firm belief in Christ part. Whether or not I believe it isn't the point I am making, but whether or not it applies to people who either have never heard of Jesus or people who simply do not believe. If Jesus died for all sins, it shouldn't matter whether or not you believe in him or that occurrence. If Jesus died then and there for ALL sins by ALL people, then ALL people are forgiven no matter what. Let their realization of this fact be postmortem , I just think that anyone who condemns others for their evil acts forgets that, by their own standards: 1. All sin is equal and 2. All sin is forgiven. People often preach about how the holy system works in mysterious ways, beyond mortal comprehension... Is ultimate mercy, even in the face of horrible atrocities, not fitting of that description? In my mind, Hell isn't a very well populated place at all.

[Darkmoon]

Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

This is pretty much my stance, except for the firm belief in Christ part. Whether or not I believe it isn't the point I am making, but whether or not it applies to people who either have never heard of Jesus or people who simply do not believe. If Jesus died for all sins, it shouldn't matter whether or not you believe in him or that occurrence. If Jesus died then and there for ALL sins by ALL people, then ALL people are forgiven no matter what. Let their realization of this fact be postmortem , I just think that anyone who condemns others for their evil acts forgets that, by their own standards: 1. All sin is equal and 2. All sin is forgiven. People often preach about how the holy system works in mysterious ways, beyond mortal comprehension... Is ultimate mercy, even in the face of horrible atrocities, not fitting of that description? In my mind, Hell isn't a very well populated place at all.

I never thought I'd say this, but Netami makes a good point.

I can't say I agree with EVERYTHING he said above, but most of it is very reasoned, open-minded, and well thought out.

Props to Netami.