The Religion and Philosophy discussion thread!

Greetings, and welcome to the religion and philosophy discussion thread, where we sit on fancy armchairs in front of warm fires whilst sipping on an aged scotch, discussing the aforementioned matters like grown ladies and gentlemen.

Now I know that obviously a lot of views that may be discussed within this thread are subject to ridicule and/or criticism, which is why I ask that we remain civil and mature when discussing them, despite the unpopularity of certain views (including sensitive subjects such as Young-Earth Creationism, abortion and gay marriage). Remember that we all come from different backgrounds and that our views are subject to change; people come from all walks of life including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Atheism, Pantheism, Agnosticism, Wicca, Jainism, Voodoo, Rastafarianism, amongst many others, which is why any non-constructive, pointless, hateful and/or offensive posts will constitute as spam and will be treated as such, and thus reported to the mods. Instead of condemning someone for their "frivolous" views, one should educate them. This is a discussion thread. No one here is a heretic. Refer to diagram for clarification.


All that being said, let us commence discussing

I hope this doesn't turn into a shitstorm

Well I grew up in a non-religious family, so the whole religion thing is kind of foreign to me, so I'm not getting the whole hate against them. I'm not denying that stereotypical Bible-thumpers aren't annoying, but that goes to anyone who's being a dick over their religion, or lack of.

Long story short: believe what you want, don't be a dick about it.

Yep, I'm totally and completely on your wavelength (aside from the fact I grew up in a Roman Catholic family). If this turns into a shitstorm it's likely going to be due to spam, which won't be tolerated (irony?).

Thankfully we're mature here, aren't we?

...guys?

There's less people here, and I don't think I know any militant Atheists on here.

Alright, well that's a good start.

The other day I quickly read over Ecclesiastes 7 and read something interesting; Ecc 7:15 and 16 (in this case, 16 and 15):

"Do not be over-wicked, why die before your time? But do not be over-righteous either". To me (and most other people) it sounds like God says it's totally cool to sin on occasion, in order to fully appreciate life (so you fornicated with your long-distance girlfriend the other day when she visited? Ehh, that's totally cool, brah). Others would say not to be too self-righteous, i.e. making your own rules, and others would say that it just means not being a stubborn dick and thinking you're the most righteous person due to your beliefs (which is obviously a form of pride). Discuss.

Yes, this is biblical.

SUPA LATE EDIT: Yet another thing that makes the concept of mortal sin confusing to me.

To me that sentence reads more like "It's cool to do some sinning, but don't go overboard. Live your life, but in moderation."

Grungie wrote:I hope this doesn't turn into a shitstorm

How can a discussion of religion on the internet can possibly go wrong?

:

Dammit Adam

I'm sorry , i had to

I'm not very religious myself and my biblical knowledge is shocking even though I went to sunday school and church when I was a kid. My parents belonged the Reformed Dutch Church. I like having discussions about other religions and how they sometimes have the same roots or vice versa. I know religion and politics are usually 2 taboo subjects since it usually ends ina shit storm but if someone don't mind discussing their thoughts and opinions without judging or trying to convert me, then I', A-OK.

debbie wrote:I'm not very religious myself and my biblical knowledge is shocking even though I went to sunday school and church when I was a kid. My parents belonged the Reformed Dutch Church. I like having discussions about other religions and how they sometimes have the same roots or vice versa. I know religion and politics are usually 2 taboo subjects since it usually ends ina shit storm but if someone don't mind discussing their thoughts and opinions without judging or trying to convert me, then I', A-OK.

Yup, that's what we're trying to avoid here; this thread is for intelligent discussion without the pushing of values. The point of this thread is mostly to learn and share knowledge, but the occasional insult-free debate is also welcome and may even be encouraged.

I avoid politics though.

So a reformed church, you say? I've always thought branches like Calvinism were alien to me (despite having about 80 million adherents worldwide) because it means one is unable to choose between good and evil, and in fact, God "elected" those who are to be saved.
However, the more I read about it, the more interesting and thought-provoking it is. It says that for those predestined to be evil, when they commit "good" acts such as charity, they're in fact doing it partly for egoistic reasons (such as to look good, to feel accomplished, etc). This can lead us to the true altruism debate, which is quite interesting.

I try being a "good" person, but I cannot think of a single occasion in which a "good" action doesn't involve a certain level of ego in it; for example, when you give to the poor, even if you don't boast about it, you feel accomplished while attempting to achieve a greater good. It's this sense of accomplishment that pushes humans to do good actions (and if you believe in spirituality and such, one could say that this feeling is absolutely justified and earned; doing good is immediately rewarding in that sense).

Despite this, I think that a "good" action done for self-gratification (such as giving to charity to "look good") is already an excellent thing (Catholics call this "imperfect faith"; they believe that if one commits good actions merely for their own benefit, such as giving to charity for a good reputation or helping others to be liked in return, in order to avoid damnation/receive salvation, it is already better than no faith at all). However, like Kant (who was either an agnostic, deist, or perhaps even an atheist philosopher) taught, the most morally correct action, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God, is the one done purely with the will of doing good for the sake of doing good. Thus, I have a hard time siding with Calvinists (and Lutherans, and Armenians) for this.

However, Calvinist denominations such as the Baptists and the Puritans will say that those who are elected to be saved will naturally commit acts of perfect faith, which is an interesting counter-argument. These are the people who taught sola fide (or "faith alone"), in that the faith in Christ is what allows one to be good.

I'd have to absolutely disagree with sola fide, however, as I myself have become much more of a morally good person since my apostasy from the Catholic church (I think I identify myself as a deist at the moment), even for Christian standards (which convinces me that faith, while perhaps being helpful, is not fundamental to Christianity; this is something me and the Catholics can agree on). Above all, barring the concept of predestination, I'm quite skeptical regarding the argument of "special salvation" for those who have never heard of Christ (such as tribes living on remote islands or children that are too young to understand the concept) or are unable to accept him as their savior due to handicaps. Again, this pushes my own view farther, in that being good in heart is what matters the most (and some Catholics will tell you that certain apparitions of Mary have said that "God loves all forms of spirituality" (which naturally was/is subject to controversy)). Hell (pun maybe intended), even the Bible supports salvation for those who had no faith/knowledge of Christ; the dead, "righteous" Jews in Sheol (land of the dead) were saved and the wicked ones were damned when Christ had gone down there.

On another note, it would be cool to have our own SlackerBabbath hehe

Wow, that was quite a mouthful. I have no idea how my church relate to all of that, but all I know is that they strongly disagree with the Catholics and for some bizarre reason think that they are more blasphemous than atheists. Don't ask me how or why, that is one of the few things I can remember. I'm more of a listener really than a debater when it comes to religion due to my lack of knowledge on this subject.

I personally also believe that being a good person trumps belonging to a certain religion.

Not gonna lie, I'm not a fan of some Protestant views such as those you mentioned, but I keep an open mind (and let's not kid ourselves, Catholics have done their fair share of bad actions as well, hahaha). Actually, I really like the Anglican church due to some of its values (though I've always considered it a popeless Catholic branch or a branch on its own). Acceptance of gay marriage and of artificial contraception are some of them.

And it's perfectly fine not to be a debater. I'm not a fan of debate either, but the part I find the most fruitful of it is the learning aspect of it myself (which is why I usually take the part of the devil's advocate (which is an actual position in the Catholic church, by the way ), fighting for the weaker side, whether I agree or not).

Yeah, if I were still Christian, I'd most likely be a universalist (despite some Biblical support against it) for different reasons; one of them being that I'd rather be roommates in Heaven with a kind, altruistic and loving atheist than a jerky, self-centered and/or hateful Christian (even though you and I both know that the opposites happen all the time ). Again, this trumps non-predeterministic concepts of sola fide IMO. Last time I checked, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were atheists.

At the moment, I follow natural law, doing what I think is right, and a lot of it falls under Biblical law (which, in the New Testament, is partly based off of it)

also, regarding your first sentence, that's what she said

JoelCarli wrote:
also, regarding your first sentence, that's what she said

I knew I was going to regret that one.

This is all moonspeak to me

Dem walls of text

Well it is a religion and philosophy thread where you can't exactly have single sentence opinions and arguments.

So I'm curious, what's the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics since they have the earliest split from the church, or do you know?

Joel has to answer that one... As me something about Ancient Alien theory.

Grungie wrote:So I'm curious, what's the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics since they have the earliest split from the church, or do you know?

There are slight differences but the two churches are vastly similar. The main difference is that the Orthodox don't follow the pope. The Catholics tend more towards observation and understanding of the world, religious texts and historical events whereas the Orthodox tend to be more into rituals and spiritual practices (though both churches go in both directions). There are also different rights amongst the two branches; for example, Orthodox priests can marry whereas Catholic ones cannot, and divorce is permitted (albeit only if certain requirements are met) in the Orthodox church, but not in the Catholic church (which may dissolve a marriage, but through annulment rather than through divorce).


Note: The difference between divorce and annulment is that divorce dissolves the marriage, no questions asked. Annulment, on the other hand, dissolves a marriage if and only if the marriage is deemed to have never been valid, such as the couple not consummating after matrimony or one of the members of the couple is deemed not having true feelings for the other in the first place (like my mother's ex-husband; though she is Catholic and has had two children with him, annulment was made possible because the church judged that there was no marriage in the first place, despite what some priest once declared. This led her to be able to marry my father).

Then of course you have Anglicans and Protestants, and other tiny groups like non-mainstream Christianity (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists) and non-denominational (people who believe in Christ but don't follow any specific church; see Anne Rice).

debbie wrote:Well it is a religion and philosophy thread where you
can't exactly have single sentence opinions and arguments.

Irony?

Okay, that makes sense, I was always curious what the difference between those two were.

The divorce versus annulment I found quite interesting.

All of my good thoughts on Religion and Philosophy come at night laying in bed or zoned out in class. I completely forget every philosophical thing I know when I'm on the internet. Anyways, my view on religion is that it has stopped us from knowing what the world really should be like. Everyone's (by everyone, I mean everyone is 'civilized' countries) basic standards of right and wrong are based off of religion, regardless of if they are religious or not. Religion is so engrained into everybody's thoughts that it is impossible to remove without defying all of the basic rules of 'right and wrong' that religion has established in society. To do this, you would be considered 'evil' or 'psychotic' by many 'normal' people. Most people strive to be 'normal' because it gives them 'acceptance' and 'belonging.' The 'psychotic' people are 'psychotic' because they lack the humanistic desire for 'acceptance' and 'belonging' and fall into the humanistic desires to 'kill.' One might argue that they would also fall into the humanistic desires of 'lust' or 'thievery,' but those also stem from the humanistic desires of 'acceptance' and 'belonging.' 'Killing' stems from the most basic humanistic desire of 'selfishness.' We are born selfish, and the humanistic desires that closely follow 'selfishness,' are 'control' and 'power' because we do not want to haggled by any rules. We want to do what we want. 'Killing' is a way to display your desire for 'control' and 'power,' but it is not the most effective way because you only have the short time before the person you are 'controlling' is dead. A more effective way to display 'control' is through what Nietzsche called 'will to power.' This is the belief that if you have 'power', you should use it to impose your 'will' onto those weaker than you. Unfortunately, this only works until someone who is stronger than you thrusts his 'will to power' onto you. The humanistic desire of 'selfishness' cannot be satisfied, therefore, neither can the humanistic desires for 'power' or 'control.' Because these desires cannot be satisfied, something else must fill the space. Many people fill it with religion and other philosophies. This is why I find religion to be important because without it, no one would be satisfied.






I can't believe I just fucking wrote that. I'm a fucking genius.

I'm impressed. Never thought a just-turned-15 kid could come up with that (either that or our educational system is garbage, giving me low standards lel)

You do bring up a good point, though you have to keep in mind that Greek philosophy brought us natural law, which originally was completely unrelated to religion. However, it's natural law and Greek Philosophy in general which inspired Christianity, and by extension, Islam (amongst other religions).

As a matter of fact, one argument that explains why Christ was sent to Earth at the time he was is due to the fact that before Greek philosophy, humanity was too primitive for his message, and after his time, humanity would have been too advanced. Think about the thousands of religions that are created every day in this day and age, shared through the magic of telephones, internet, television, radio, and carrier pigeons! None (or few) actually get anywhere due to the fast-pacedness of society today.

Of course, this is often refuted by the fact that Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst other religions, survived just fine, and are much older than Christianity.

So you are technically incorrect in saying that removing religion would remove the objective concepts of 'right and wrong', as natural law as defined by several philosophers through history like Aristotle, Saint Thomas of Aquinas and Immanuel Kant exists and, like I said, served as the basis for western religions. However, you are correct insofar that adherence to the views of natural law philosophies are in their own way an adherence to what could constitute as a religion, without necessarily any spiritual aspects or dogma.

I personally think that the most important aspect of religion is that it gives us a reason to live and to behave in a certain way (as opposed to natural law, we have a reason to be good, instead of just being good for the sake of being good), for an ultimate reward in the end. From a non-spiritual standpoint, some people, namely Sigmund Freud, claim that belief in the supernatural is an evolutionary mechanism that distracts us from death.

Interestingly, a people known as the Sadducees were a Jewish sect that believed in a God, but not in an afterlife or redemption/penalty.

JoelCarli wrote:You do bring up a good point, though you have to keep in mind that Greek philosophy brought us natural law, which originally was completely unrelated to religion. However, it's natural law and Greek Philosophy in general which inspired Christianity, and by extension, Islam (amongst other religions).

That technically depends on what religion you actually do choose to believe because Abrahamic religions choose to believe that religion has existed since The Creator (using this in place of God or Allah) created.

I think that natural law could be considered a Nontheistic religion because it is based of the philosophy of a small group of people (unless of course, you consider those philosophers to be gods, in which case, it would be polytheistic), which is pretty much the same for any religion. That could be disputed though because there is no prayer or meditation or anything for natural law.