Netami's Religion Thread

[Knight]

Questions have never been viewed as something sinful.

Whoa-ho-HO!  Do some research, and you'll find evidence to the contrary.

You're confusing logic with criminal law again.  There is no burden of proof in logic.  Having one would result in Bad Things.

For example, the Homestake mine was designed to detect electron neutrinos from the sun, but it only detected a fraction of the neutrinos that it should have found.

So, by your `logic,' all you could say is ``some electron neutrinos are undetectable.''  Which is wrong.

I'm not confusing anything.  I didn't say we needed "probable cause", "beyond reasonable doubt", or anything like that.  I'm just reasoning like a modern human should.  The only reason to assume there would be one of these godmen in this day and age is because some jackass a millenia or two said there was, and that any opinion to the contrary was wrong.  Why even entertain such brash bullshit, with the knowledge we currently have?  And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

[RJ]

Maybe he means he's an okama? Sounds Japanese. It's not another word for cute is it? Because I've had enough of kawaii as it is.

It's a reference to One Piece. Okama as I understand it means a crossdressing man.

...

Oh. But it still makes no sense as to why he says it....

[Brunhidden]

I do recall early Christian purists claimed that satan fashioned the first drum from human skin, but that belief has largely fallen by the wayside. most people today only give concession to this by leaving drums out of church music.

i find the need to clarify some things, just because i have a large amount of knowledge on the topics of demonology and cryptology (see my threads on these topics...wherever they went). the name of 'the' devil is often treated like an interchangeable title, and i wish to make sure everyone knows the basics of how the hellish highearchy works. first off every major devil (the ones we have names for) has a job to do or a domain of influence.

Lucifer- the angel of light, cast down from heaven as punishment for leading a rebellion of angels. Lucifer is the emperor of hell, and is not really as 'evil' as you may think. his existence is the ultimate testimate of free will, and as they say in order for winning to mean anything it must be possible to loose... in chess someone has to play the black pieces

Satan- the tempter, it is his duty to try to lure souls to damnation. often thought of as 'the' devil but that title is better saved for luci. Satan is the one who usually comes to earth to bargain for peoples souls, and generally is one of the only demonic beings able to freely come to earth without being summoned or sent so is usually the one depicted when the demon initiates the contract. Satan IS evil, even if he is 'just doing his job'

Beelzebub- definitely not either of the previous two. he is 'lord of the flies' as a title, which actually means things like flies were his creation and were sent to earth. Beelzebub is in charge with making life on earth as miserable as possible for mortals, and goes out of his way to think of new irritations and stupidity to unleash on us. don't believe me? turn on the TV

Belphegor- the 'demon of portals', who for some reason seems to be in charge of poop

Asmodeus- lord of sin, probably the most powerful demon of all time and the original 'the' devil before Satan got big. ass here could be blamed for most of the problems that happened before about 2000 BC, but king Solomon sealed him inside of a bottle and threw him into the red sea

Baal- lord of lies, main assistant to Satan. his job is to tempt people into creating their own web of lies to spread sin on their own and eventually lead to their own death, no contract needed.

Mammon- lord of avarice, greed, and ill gotten riches. he enjoys a bit of reprieve as being a very influential being without being targeted much. Mammon exists almost unchanged in every language, except Spanish where his name is "Dinero", or the word for money.

A generation of men is like a generation of leaves; the wind scatters some leaves upon the ground, while others the burgeoning wood brings forth - and the season of spring comes on. So of men one generation springs forth and another ceases.

[superluser]

I'm not confusing anything.  I didn't say we needed "probable cause", "beyond reasonable doubt", or anything like that.

And I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.

So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''

So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43.''

Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.

And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

[Netami]

Whoa-ho-HO!  Do some research, and you'll find evidence to the contrary

Well that may have been true in the past, but for the majority of my lifetime it hasn't been. I hope the same follows here and throughout your experience in life. The pursuit of truth to personal questions cannot be ignored!

[Ryudo Lee]

My $0.02

I may be going out on a limb here, but really, anything to do with religion needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Back in the day, when the (and I use the term loosely) "wise" men wrote all this stuff, they didn't have all the knowledge that we have today.  (And keep in mind that MEN wrote these writings as women weren't allowed back then.)  They believed that there really is a god.  Is there a god?  The faithful believe so.  But you shouldn't be revolving your life around your religion.  It's unhealthy and leads to long strings of arguments, logic that makes peoples brains go asplode, and lots of fighting in the names of various deities.

What you should be looking at is the fundamental lessons being taught in the various writings.  Take the Bible for instance.  Look at the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Love thy neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Stuff like that.  Granted, all religions don't teach the same lessons, and some teach some really bad ones, but in essence, that's how they should be treated: as a guideline for living your life.  But again, take it all with a grain of salt.

Take also with a grain of salt what the fundamentalists and extremists say.  They're the ones who warp what's written to their own benefit, which is why people are so upset with catholics.

Religions are as various and at the same time as contradictory as we are.

But still... Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Who knows?

Argue it all you like, but when you get right down to it you have those who believe and those who don't believe.  Those that believe take that these deities exist on faith and the various little miracles that happen in life (not to mention that Jesus always helps the winning team in any sporting event for some reason).  Those who don't believe take that God and other deities doesn't exist on the fact that there's no way to prove that they physically exist.  There's no real way to decide which side is right, and you can argue logic until you're blue in the face.  You either got faith or you don't.  It's as simple as that.

Are people who have faith stupid?  No.  I think it's wrong and demeaning to say such things.  People of faith are all over this world, doing great (and equally horrible) things.  Granted, there are rednecks fundamentalists and extremists, but that doesn't make all people of faith bad people.  There are genuinely good people who believe in a god out there.  They're just a minority in the community, unfortunately.

Are people who don't have faith wrong?  No.  They live their lives just like any other person.  In the end, we're all human.  We have the ability to decide what we want or don't want to believe in.  But just because someone's opinion differs from another's on something that can't really be proved by both sides, it doesn't mean their wrong (or right... yet).  The thing is, you don't know who's wrong or who's right in these instances.  Fingerpointing and arguments get you nowhere.

Alright, I'm done here.

[Alondro]

We could also put it this way:  Satan spent many years setting up all the false religions and paganized pseudo-Christian theologies, which evetually cause people to realize "Hey, all these idiotic beliefs and rituals don't make any sense!",  and then they invent atheism, which tosses away belief in all gods... thus he wins by default if everyone decides to become atheist because everyone is wiped out in the end.  Which is exactly what I'd expect from a being with phenomenal intelligence and a perfect understanding of the weaknesses of the human mind.

Oh, and I think people need to actually READ the Bible in its original form.  The 'hell' that developed over the centuries is actually derived from the Greek belief.  If one actually reads carefully, there is no eternal hell.  The passages people have used to infer it are misquoted parables (which Jesus used to teach to people familiar with Greek religion and to provide contextual information, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus being a prime example).  Other direct quotes from Jesus and prophets declare quite specifically that after the judgement, all those who will not be in heaven will be utterly destroyed.  There is also the quote "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything."  And "For dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."  There are also the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, which compare the soul of man to the soul of animals:  they are the same and both cease function upon death.  Therefore, the dead cannot be anywhere but in the ground.  Again, instant soul movement to heaven/hell was an infusion from Roman'Greek/Egyptian religion which took place gradually after Christianity was Romanized by the emperor.

And I shall quote Mr. Spock as far as logic is concerned "Logic is the beginning of wisdom... not the end."

For example, it is purely logical to say that if all humans were dead then there would be no more wars.  Therefore, to end all wars one must kill all humans.  Logic alone can lead to very horrible things.  That is why we have philosophy in all its forms.  With logic alone, there is no emotion.  With no emotion you have sociopathy and apathy.  Once those two are dominant, society dies.

[King Of Hearts]

The concept of hell exists... at least in the new testament... with the whole eternal torment, fire and brimstone, and gnashing of teeth... that lot in the revelations.

Even if one reads the purest form of any scripture, there will be differences on how it is percieved.

My friend is an adventist, their belief is that the devil does not rule in hell but is tormented there as well. That hell does not exist until the day of judgement to purify sin, as opposed to my Catholic belief that it already exists and all that is left on the day of judgement is the final sentence.

I think Ryuudo's post is all that has to be said in this topic.

And c'mon, ANOTHER religion thread that focuses on Christianity? Let's bring on the Taoists, the Zoroasterists, the Hindu for some equal facetime.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

.. And not the Wiccans?

I note that recently the US Army allowed the wiccan pentagram as an acceptable symbol to be put on a gravestone of a wiccan soldier who died in battle.

... Along with the 37 or 38 others they already had, including one for Atheists...

[Brunhidden]

what about the Aesirists?

i say RyudoLees statement a bit farther- assume that the big man did come down and lay down the law all those centuries ago. do you think everyone understood what he said? no way in niffleheim. Any divine contact would have to have been dumbed down by the speaker, misunderstood by the prophet, and then dumbed down again to be preached to the tribes of ignorant pagans that were the target audience. in addition assume that maybe 1 out of every 4 of these prophets was just some loony bird who ate the funny colored mushrooms that grow in the desert during the rainy season, this explains leveticus who for some reason thought that bunny rabbits, garden vedgetables, hamburger meat, homosexuals (interpreted as, not definite), synthetic fabrics, and i believe certain colors were all abominations unto god, and further went to say that god wants you to follow certain rules concerning the deaf, elderly, shaving, how you treat strangers, how you burn your offerings, how you are supposed to hurt yourself, how only heathens can be kept as slaves (nice and ambiguous), and the proper way to stone people.

now, try to understand that the first edition bible was not even that- about a third of it was passed down by word of mouth for a couple centuries before it was written down, people keep forgetting that the written word is not as old as we think, first being invented by king Scorpious of Egypt as a way of making sure everyone knew how badass he was in war and promptly used thereafter (in the form of tiles) as tax forms... many other languages weren't even invented as written scripts until about the halfway point of the old testimant.  so guess that between 3 to 10 generations of faithful Jews and unfaithful Jews who tainted it with their previous knowledge of goat sacrifice, passed down the nearly patronizing words of the prophets mixed with the lectures of a few guys who drooled on themselves. doubtless some precise wording was stretched.

example- in the old testimant Yahweh goes all "don't kill people or gunna cut you!" but in the new testimant Jesus says "dude, play nice alright? were all buddies here". its the difference both between a god that thinks his followers are children who need to be threatened with spanking and people molding their conception of god to follow traditional dogma of smiting and fear.

if you read the bible it seems about 75% of what Jesus does is correct the bad translations people had about god, a good example of this is when he had to clarify the whole working on the sabbath thing, because the theologians believed that even if your child was stuck down a well it was against religious law to save him because that would constitute 'work' on the sabbath day.

grain of salt people, consider if the works of Karl Marx were presented as read by paris hilton, some of the details get blurred.

I always know the exact wrong thing to say, call it a gift

[Knight]

And I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.
So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''
So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43.''
Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.


Quote from: Evil Richter on Today at 12:04:15 AM
And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

Are you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.  You've known what I've meant from the beggining, but you keep throwing up strawmen.  Logic or evidence or flippity floppity, religion is bullshit.  A collection of pleasant stories at best, the motivation for mass murder at worst.

And, thanks Netami.

[Reese Tora]

And I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.
So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''
So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43.''
Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.


Quote from: Evil Richter on Today at 12:04:15 AM
And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

Are you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.  You've known what I've meant from the beggining, but you keep throwing up strawmen.  Logic or evidence or flippity floppity, religion is bullshit.  A collection of pleasant stories at best, the motivation for mass murder at worst.

And, thanks Netami.

Well, maybe you should try backing up your statements instead of assuming that we'll take them as fact.  It's all well and god that you think religeon is BS, but if you have no reason to believe so, or aren't going to share your reasoning, they you're wasting our time and yours.  (unless we're the ones here for "teh drama", in which case we bring popcorn. )

So far, you've said that it's logical that god and satan don't exist, or, atleast, that's waht I've been able to get from what you're saying.  So far, you ahvn't said anything as to why it's logical.  I'm not saying you need to provide evidence, logic is not dependant on evidence, but logic does require reasoning, if which you've supplied none.

At the atheist comments earlier (this not in response to Evil Richter)...

I never really saw the point of Atheism.  I can believe something, not believe something, or believe something is not.  I don't see any benefit in beleving there is no god.  If god exists, then I'm screwed for denying him.  If god doesn't exist, then I've wasted the effort denying what doesn't exist.  Also in either case, there's certainly no benefit for me to proselytize.

[Ryudo Lee]

Pass the popcorn please.  I wanna see how this one turns out.   

[Alondro]

Atheism is very useful for those wanting to be evil.  After all, if there is no god at all, then there is no good or evil, just things in context.  And if you can gain control of society, you can make laws be whatever you want them to be.  Ethics are arbitrary.  Nothing matters because once you're dead it's all over and eventually the universe will run out of usable energy and be a cold dead nothing forever after.  
No reason to live...  
None at all...  
It's pointless...  
Meaningless...  
Useless...  
Futile...  

But at least there's no morality!  Sexxorz with everything!  Whoot!  

[Netami]

That's right! Spread those wild oats.

[Darkmoon]

Atheism is very useful for those wanting to be evil.  After all, if there is no god at all, then there is no good or evil, just things in context.  And if you can gain control of society, you can make laws be whatever you want them to be.  Ethics are arbitrary.  Nothing matters because once you're dead it's all over and eventually the universe will run out of usable energy and be a cold dead nothing forever after. 
No reason to live... 
None at all... 
It's pointless... 
Meaningless... 
Useless... 
Futile... 

But at least there's no morality!  Sexxorz with everything!  Whoot!   

Sorry, gotta disagree with you there. Being an atheist doesn't lead to evil any more than having a religion automatically leads you being good. People will do things whether they are motivated by "god" or not, whether they think god "thinks it's right" or not. People are people and will do what they like, religion be damned.

As for the logic of stating "there is no proof of god, therefore there is no god," I gotta say I agree with ER there. Nothing I have seen leads me to assume a god is at work behind the scenes, pulling strings. If anything, I think people make their destiny for themselves, manifest what they "deserve". No god is involved in that prospect. Logically, no proof has ever shown itself that says "yes, there is a God." The burden of proof is on those attempting to make a case FOR something.

You think there's a god? Why? What made it indisputable for you that says "hey, there really is some bearded freakball in the sky pulling my puppet strings!"?

[superluser]

Take also with a grain of salt what the fundamentalists and extremists say.  They're the ones who warp what's written to their own benefit, which is why people are so upset with catholics.

And which is why the Catholic Church has been moving away from extremism and fundamentalism.  We know that the stewards of the Catholic Church have been responsible for some heinous acts--unbelievably terrible things, and we're eager not to repeat them.

Biblical literalists often take a verse out of context and form it into something that it's not meant to be, such as Paul's attacks on being `soft' which somehow became `homosexuality.'

The Catholic Church has been moving to interpret scripture as a set of inspired works set down by holy men writing in the form of memoirs colored by cultural norms, rather than a book that appeared one day when the heavens were torn open.

We're working on it--we can use more help, but we really don't like extremists or fundamentalists.

Are you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.

We are in a text-based medium.  Our words are our only tools.  You said ``It's not the burden of a skeptic to prove that something doesn't exist, it's on the burden of the claimant.  Simple logic.''

I can only assume that you mean the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning when you say `logic.'

If you mean a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment, that's something else, not logic.

There is no burden for logic.  If you want to talk evidence, there is no burden for belief.  If I want to prove something, then there is a burden, but no one's trying to prove that God exists, here.

I've seen it written a million times--if there's no evidence for God, then we must assume that he/she/it/they do(es) not exist.  Similarly with sweatshops.  Have you ever seen evidence that they exist?  Couldn't your shirt have been sewn by some machine alone in a warehouse?

So I guess that means that we don't have to worry about worker abuse, since there's no evidence that those workers even exist.

I never really saw the point of Atheism.  I can believe something, not believe something, or believe something is not.  I don't see any benefit in beleving there is no god.  If god exists, then I'm screwed for denying him.  If god doesn't exist, then I've wasted the effort denying what doesn't exist.  Also in either case, there's certainly no benefit for me to proselytize.

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

Note that it still could make sense to proselytize, since you're helping others to get to God.

That's not my belief--my belief is that since God calls you to Him, proselytization is ineffective unless God's calling you right now.  If you've already heard the Word, then proselytization might push you away, but it's not going to bring you any closer.

Also, what Darkmoon said about atheism not leading to evil is more or less right.  You can be ethical and amoral and still do good things.

[Netami]

I feel as if there are things that cannot be explained by logic, I feel as if there are forces beyond our perception at work. Whether or not these things are God as we know it, or something else less calculating, I bet it's out there. Or at least I'd like to think so.

People always get hung up on Dogma and finer points of rules or equations, and they forget to feel things out. Religions are about spiritual feelings, unless you're a scientologist or something. If you cannot gain a deeper understanding of yourself as relating to the universe, what's the point?

[Zina]

I think all it boils down to is matters of opinion. You can't really argue something you can't prove, either way. Religon is based on faith, and evidence is what they wish to see. Likewise you can't really prove God DOESN'T exist. It's just what you choose to believe, and trying to argue something that you chose to believe is...pointless.
You can't prove with cold hard evidence that God exists, and you can't prove with cold hard evidence that God doesn't. This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

[Amber Williams]

This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

Isn't that how all internet arguments are won?  Keep head-butting till one gets bored and the remaining person is the victor? 

[Stygian]

Grain of salt people, consider if the works of Karl Marx were presented as read by paris hilton, some of the details get blurred.

Quoted for truth.

Also, two things; as long as we're debating religion here, we're not actually debating the existence of God. It might seem unneccessary, seeing as how we could not possibly judge, but in my belief and most logical capable deduction one must bear in mind that even if we were able to confirm or deny the existence of God, it would not neccessarily directly prove any religion or its ways as "wrong" or "right" whatsoever. The existence of God and the correctness of religion are two wholly different things and should be treated separately, really. And I think that you understand why, if you ponder it for just a second.

Secondly, I'm not with you, Alondro. Me, I am against the whole idea of religion as a system, and just like you say I view ethics as a product of the human psyche rather than any sort of rule or guideline. However, one must take into account that even with their limited thought capacity, people do try and act as logically and intelligently as they can, under the circumstances. And in practice, a person's intelligence is a whole lot more powerful, and correct, than any sort of ethics or morals. Normally, that is. Silly hypothetical questions and old stereotyped rules aside, there really are logical reasons and chains of thought and in the worst case emotional responses that keep people in line. And, seeing as how morals and ethics are not "hard-wired" to a person like emotions and instincts are, they're not going to do much to keep anyone not dispositioned to "good" straight and on the narrow path. Which is where religion fails too, really. Applied to humans and humanity, things work a whole lot differently than imagined.

So generally, I think Darkmoon is mostly right there. But not on the part about the existence of God. However, I will agree with you on the point of "Sexxors with Everything!". Because that's a really nice idea.

Also, Amber... Sometimes people act illogically, motivated and compelled by strong emotions. For example, they go on the net and post in forums, even though there really is no need or reasonable benefit from it. They even post in silly threads like ones about religion, where anyone with even the least of experience should tell that saying something really is like headbutting a brick wall. And then they are so damn stupid that they're even content with it, responding to basic urges and needs and feelings simply made up and triggered by the workings of their brains.

Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

[Amber Williams]

Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

Not really.  For all the zany and "wtf"ness that some people do, I tend to look optimistic on the human race. 

[Darkmoon]

It's a comment about the question of God. Feeling it out is the best response so far posted in just about any debate I've seen. It's gut instinct, but the gut is a smart brain, often enough, You let your guts do your thinking, often times it'll steer you right...

Although, other times, your guts have shit for brains. And this is where I but up against. It becomes a matter of gut w/ logic, and  gut vs. logic. Organized religion flies in the face of logic. God flies in the face of evidence.

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and some of the rules?
Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and none of the rules?
If you don't take the rules, do you really have the religion?
If you take ideas from two religions, because both seem right, is that having two religions?
If you take the ideas from different religions, would god care?
Should god care, if it feels right?

Those are the big questions, and the ones I run through about all the religions. It's a logical progression when "finding" one's self, and the reason I stand where I stand.

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
If you don't question it, you're a fundamentalist. I don't know how anyone in this day and age, with everything we see and are exposed to -- how can anyone not question to at least a certain extent their own religion?

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and some of the rules?
I'd be willing to bet that most Christians (and probably most other "religious" people, stand here on the issue. They like their religion, their feeling that it's the "answer" for them, and the contentedness that comes from knowing something that works for them. I don't fault that. More power to them...

But my issue comes from "at what point, once you've started to pick and choose, have you started to choose not to follow so many parts of the religion, you pretty well don't follow the religion?" Can you really be christian if all you believe in is God and Jesus? Is that enough of an anser for others? It certainly isn't the right one for me...

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and none of the rules?
This is a fringe few, likely (nicely represented in this thread), and they don't get my respect at all. They hold onto their religion out of fear that god will smite them if they don't "say" they have it, just in case god does exist.

If you're already to the point of questioning the very basics of the religion, why cling to it? Of course, that answer is below...

If you don't take the rules, do you really have the religion?
Some would argue yes, just so they don't get fucked vy god when they end up in "heaven" (a construct I don't believe exists, any more than hell does -- not in the classical sense of the term, anyway).

If you take ideas from two religions, because both seem right, is that having two religions?
I personally feel that it's forging your own path. Others would term it blasphemy, I'm sure.

If you take the ideas from different religions, would god care?
Christians would argue yes, I'm sure. God wants you to be "part of the flock" -- a sheep term for a sheep mentality. You can question and find the deeper answer i you follow the heard. Di god, if he really is behind all this and really did create us -- did god simply make us to then go "oh, here's the answer, now try to stick with it"?

That seems against the idea of making a planet and populating it. If we can't think for ourselves, we can't grow, and if we have the answers, we grow with a feeling of guilt for ignoring the answer that "should" be right... or you get where I am and realize the guilt is a construct of the organized religion, is false, and isn't necessary. Move past, move on.

With all that in mind, I pose one more question, and I think I'll leave it more or less open for someone else here to answer: If God made us, and he made us so we can grow as souls (since that seems like a solid, reasonable answer to the age old question of "why are we here"), then is he really going to slap us down for trying to find the answer that works for us?

[Stygian]

Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

Not really.  For all the zany and "wtf"ness that some people do, I tend to look optimistic on the human race. 

Ehm... I won't take you seriously on that one, and really, you shouldn't be taking me seriously at all either. I was being quite as sarcastic as I can possibly be right there.

[superluser]

However, one must take into account that even with their limited thought capacity, people do try and act as logically and intelligently as they can, under the circumstances.

I never thought I'd say this, but you've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

People don't always (or even often) try to act rationally or logically or intelligently.

And Amber, I'm optimistic about humanity, but rather not when it comes to us using logic.  Monty Hall and all that.

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
If you don't question it, you're a fundamentalist. I don't know how anyone in this day and age, with everything we see and are exposed to -- how can anyone not question to at least a certain extent their own religion?

What if you take religion and the deit(y/ies) because you're constantly questioning everything, and constantly coming up with the same answer?

If God made us, and he made us so we can grow as souls (since that seems like a solid, reasonable answer to the age old question of "why are we here"), then is he really going to slap us down for trying to find the answer that works for us?

If God says, ``Psst!  I'm God.  Worship me,'' and we say, ``LOL STFU, N00B!'' I think He may have a point.  Otherwise, see invincible ignorance.

[Darkmoon]

If you're taking the religion and the deities, and questioning everything, can you really take all the rules? What is the point of not eating meat on a friday if you're questioning the basis for everything?

[superluser]

What is the point of not eating meat on a friday if you're questioning the basis for everything?

Not eating meat on Fridays of Lent is a matter of discipline.

It is to remind us--in some small way--of the great sacrifice that Jesus made for us.  This could in theory be done by tying a string around your finger, or by chopping off that same finger.

But it makes sense for it to be somewhere in between those two.  No meat on Friday during Lent is probably a little bit on the light side for sacrifice, but it does the trick.

I should also mention that no meat on Fridays during Lent doesn't come from the Bible, but rather is just a matter of discipline from the Magisterium of the Church.  Benedict XVI could decree tomorrow that instead of no meat on Fridays during Lent is no longer a rule, and replace it with a rule that you have to keep Kosher on Fridays during Lent.  And that would be fine.

[Damaris]

Go with the scapular ritual then.  The basis for that is if you're good, wear your scapular, don't ever eat meat on Friday, etc, you will skip purgatory (which coincidently no longer exists, but we'll ignore that for now) and go directly to heaven no matter what.  Now please apply Darkmoon's question.

[superluser]

Go with the scapular ritual then.  The basis for that is if you're good, wear your scapular, don't ever eat meat on Friday, etc, you will skip purgatory (which coincidently no longer exists, but we'll ignore that for now) and go directly to heaven no matter what.  Now please apply Darkmoon's question.

OK.

1.) Purgatory exists.  You're probably confusing that with the Limbus Puerorum (or Infantium)--the place to which people theorize that unbaptized babies go.

Every few years (going all the way back to Augustine), the Catholic Church says, ``Look, we never said anything about that.  If you want to believe it, fine, but we don't see any evidence that it exists.''

2.) The statement on The Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was first recorded by a saint, so we have reason to believe that it was transcribed (from a supernatural source or otherwise) with fidelity.

But it's private revelation, and not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Look it up on the Vatican web site.  It mentions that it's good for devotion to Our Lady, but otherwise it says nothing about its salvific powers.

[Netami]

Why do catholics put so much time and effort into saints and not simply the holy three? Or the holy two? >_>