Religion

[philpot123]

I find the sentiment more akin to what you believe is correct for you but that doesn't mean other things can't also be true for someone else. Just personally.

 

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by saying that it could "be true for someone else." Can you explain that a little further?

[Obscure_Trash]

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by saying that it could "be true for someone else." Can you explain that a little further?

For you it's true that the Christian version of God exists, and for me, it's true that he doesn't.

 

We're looking at the apple from different sides.

[KageSora]

If I present a challenge, they simply say "well, that's right for you, and what I believe is right for me. Leave me alone." Not many people here are like that. But the people I talk to in real life are. And it's a rather large pet peeve of mine.

Probably because, honestly? They don't want to deal with you trying to convert them. I'm fine with discussing religion online, because I can always just leave the conversation if I don't feel like continuing it.

 

But when I'm trapped behind the counter at work and somebody comes in to "challenge" what I believe--aka, preach at me and attempt to convert me during a time when I'm not open to conversation on the matter? I'll damn well just shut it down however I can. (I've had that happen. Kids came in to try and convert people, I couldn't leave since I was on the clock.)

 

Now, if we're having a civil debate and it's something I WANT to talk about, and I know I can leave the conversation if I really feel uncomfortable or like I need to take time to think over what's been said, I'm much less likely to try to shut it down with a "right for everybody" idea.

[DustyBelle]

I haven't read all of the preceeding 85 pages, but the parts that I have read confirmed my belief that religion based discussions tend to be inflamatory. Religion is a subject that is extremely personal and often important to those who hold any kind of view on this subject.

 

It is a matter of belief. People are taught what to believe or learn varios theories and choose what to believe or not to believe. People can and do change their religious views over the course of their life. They don't have to do so, they often choose to do so.

 

I do not profess to be correct and have "god given insight into THE TRUTH of Theological matters." I believe in what seems to be true to me. The basic contents of The Bible has been around for longer than actual written words. Yes, because it is indeed in part oral history it likely has been changed over time. Interpretation of what is stated is subjective as a human does or did the interpretation. Humans are fallible; thus, they may be wrong.

 

Debate all you'd like as long as you are polite to others who post. You do not have to agree with their thoughts, but it is correct to allow them to express and hold their own opinions.

 

Math facts are facts, but the interpretation of those facts can be in error as it is done by humans and proof readers, editors, and printers don't always copy correctly. thus mistakes slip into the printed word and are accepted as facts.

 

 

 

Odd note, do you speak English? If so do you use the term Good bye? If so check its origins if you are a non believer as you are wishing the other God's presence on his journey. Good bye is God be with you.

 

Listen to others. Think for yourself and decide what you believe and be comforted as you treat others well. All of us should treat others well. This I believe.

[Obscure_Trash]

Odd note, do you speak English? If so do you use the term Good bye? If so check its origins if you are a non believer as you are wishing the other God's presence on his journey. Good bye is God be with you.

Actually, when I use "good-bye" I'm using the modern meaning, not the etymological meaning. The neat thing about language is the evolution they have as time passes.

 

Probably because, honestly? They don't want to deal with you trying to convert them.

 

That and maybe because - well, isn't that the whole point of faith? Belief without proof. So, to me, it really doesn't make sense to try and argue what is "correct" when there's no proof towards any of it. Hence why I usually don't debate the ins and outs of religion but rather poke around asking questions about things I may not understand myself.

[philpot123]

For you it's true that the Christian version of God exists, and for me, it's true that he doesn't.

 

We're looking at the apple from different sides.

Define truth. Because I think we're working with different definitions, here.

 

Probably because, honestly? They don't want to deal with you trying to convert them. I'm fine with discussing religion online, because I can always just leave the conversation if I don't feel like continuing it.

You guys seem hung up on this "conversion" thing like all I do is quote Bible verses or something. I'm not talking about when I'm actively proselytizing. Me saying "what about this glaring flaw in your worldview" is not trying to convert someone. And I'm not talking about cornering someone in an awkward situation where they don't want to talk. I'm talking about people who just want to trumpet their opinions and don't want to deal with being challenged, because everyone is right after all!

 

 

[HeatherMarie]

Define truth. Because I think we're working with different definitions, here.

 

 

You guys seem hung up on this "conversion" thing like all I do is quote Bible verses or something. I'm not talking about when I'm actively proselytizing. Me saying "what about this glaring flaw in your worldview" is not trying to convert someone. And I'm not talking about cornering someone in an awkward situation where they don't want to talk. I'm talking about people who just want to trumpet their opinions and don't want to deal with being challenged, because everyone is right after all!

But that's the thing (and I know *plenty* of people in real life who don't understand this either), to MANY people hearing someone say "well part of your belief is flawed" IS a type of "conversion". When someone expresses their beliefs, and the other person starts picking apart those beliefs and noting all the ways they are flawed, frankly it can be downright rude. And it *feels* like the person is pushing their own beliefs on you, because otherwise WHY would they feel the NEED to tear apart your own personal beliefs?

 

Can you understand that? That some people don't mind talking about religion in general, but get rightfully defensive and/or angry when someone INSISTS on going "but that doesn't make sense" and "that's not how it works" etc etc. Sometimes it's OKAY to just TALK without picking apart everything someone says.

[Obscure_Trash]

Define truth. Because I think we're working with different definitions, here.

I really think you're getting too caught up in definitions and specifics and are missing the point. It isn't some psychological, Jedi mind trick. It just is. There are no facts or proof to faith. You can't claim one faith as true for everybody, just for yourself. That's kind of the whole point of faith.

[philpot123]

But that's the thing (and I know *plenty* of people in real life who don't understand this either), to MANY people hearing someone say "well part of your belief is flawed" IS a type of "conversion". When someone expresses their beliefs, and the other person starts picking apart those beliefs and noting all the ways they are flawed, frankly it can be downright rude. And it *feels* like the person is pushing their own beliefs on you, because otherwise WHY would they feel the NEED to tear apart your own personal beliefs?

 

Can you understand that? That some people don't mind talking about religion in general, but get rightfully defensive and/or angry when someone INSISTS on going "but that doesn't make sense" and "that's not how it works" etc etc. Sometimes it's OKAY to just TALK without picking apart everything someone says.

I don't walk around saying "let's talk about your beliefs so I can tell you how wrong you are." I'm talking about when people want to publicly trumpet their beliefs, but somehow expect that everyone should sit back and not challenge it. Let's change roles here. If I started quoting scripture at you and telling you how wrong abortion and homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is, would you not challenge me? wouldn't it be unreasonable of me to cut the conversation short at that point and say "hey! I don't want to defend this, I'm just as right as your are, stop bothering me!" ? You'd think I was ridiculous.

 

 

I really think you're getting too caught up in definitions and specifics and are missing the point. It isn't some psychological, Jedi mind trick. It just is. There are no facts or proof to faith. You can't claim one faith as true for everybody, just for yourself. That's kind of the whole point of faith.

Definitions MATTER. I'm "caught up" in definitions because they change what we're talking about! Have you ever done any sort of competitive debate? Definitions make or break the round. How can you expect to discuss things without defining terms? How can we have reasonable conversation when we're using the same word two different ways? Discussion is not possible without defining terms. So again, if you could define truth, that would be wonderful. If not, this won't go any further.

 

For what it's worth, I disagree with your assessment of faith, but my explanation won't make sense unless we define terms.

[Cecona]

I'm pretty sure there is only one definition of truth. And honestly if you REALLY want to talk about which belief is "fact" or "Right" in such a direct interpretation, I would say that would be the belief in Science since that is where facts come from. Science has facts, and proof, and instead of going "Oh well I don't understand this so it much be a higher power" they go "Well science has yet to discover all the answers but we do our best to understand the world around us."

[philpot123]

I'm pretty sure there is only one definition of truth.

Then define it.

Edited October 13, 2013 by philpot123

[Cecona]

Then define it.

Truth, facts, things that are not lies, things that can be proven.

 

Or if you prefer I present you the Merriam-Webster definition of Truth:

 

truth

noun \ˈtrüth\

 

the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

 

: the quality or state of being true

 

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true

[philpot123]

Truth, facts, things that are not lies, things that can be proven.

 

Or if you prefer I present you the Merriam-Webster definition of Truth:

 

truth

noun \ˈtrüth\

 

the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

 

: the quality or state of being true

 

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true

So truth is objective?

[Cecona]

So truth is objective?

Yes, it can be, and that is why people are saying that what is true for you may not be true for them, and they are both true.

[Obscure_Trash]

Definitions MATTER. I'm "caught up" in definitions because they change what we're talking about! Have you ever done any sort of competitive debate? Definitions make or break the round. How can you expect to discuss things without defining terms? How can we have reasonable conversation when we're using the same word two different ways? Discussion is not possible without defining terms. So again, if you could define truth, that would be wonderful. If not, this won't go any further.

 

For what it's worth, I disagree with your assessment of faith, but my explanation won't make sense unless we define terms.

There is an apple.

 

 

One side of it is green and the other side is red. From where you are standing, you can only see the green side. From where I am standing, I can only see the red side. Someone in the other room is curious about the apple, so they shout to us "what color is the apple?"

 

You shout back, "green," as I holler back, "red."

 

Which is true?

[Awdz]

However, the statements "every person must be saved through faith is Jesus Christ alone or suffer punishment" and "there are multiple ways to salvation/a good afterlife" are absolutely not compatible.

I reconcile the notion by considering that Jesus is God, and the only way to salvation is through a healthy relationship with God (i.e., through God's grace), whether or not in this life you profess that Jesus is the prophesied Christ.

 

I do not think we see/understand enough in this life to reconcile all the ways that folks can relate to God. I do believe that after we die, we will see much more clearly, and that those who denied Jesus in this world will understand how God reached out to us in that manner.

[philpot123]

There is an apple.

 

 

One side of it is green and the other side is red. From where you are standing, you can only see the green side. From where I am standing, I can only see the red side. Someone in the other room is curious about the apple, so they shout to us "what color is the apple?"

 

You shout back, "green," as I holler back, "red."

 

Which is true?

Both are true statements, because they are not contradictory. Two things that are not contradictory can both be objectively true. If one of us said that the apple is exclusively red, and the other said the apple was exclusively green, we would both be wrong, because those are contradictory. The apple can be both red and green. Jesus cannot be both the only way to have access to God and not the only way to access God.

 

I reconcile the notion by considering that Jesus is God, and the only way to salvation is through a healthy relationship with God (i.e., through God's grace), whether or not in this life you profess that Jesus is the prophesied Christ.

You're definitely free to believe that, but I don't see support for that in scripture.

[Obscure_Trash]

Both are true statements, because they are not contradictory. Two things that are not contradictory can both be objectively true. If one of us said that the apple is exclusively red, and the other said the apple was exclusively green, we would both be wrong, because those are contradictory. The apple can be both red and green. Jesus cannot be both the only way to have access to God and not the only way to access God.

Ah, but to us, the statements do appear contradictory. We cannot see the other side of the apple and we only know of apples as one color. If you could not see the side of the apple, did not know the apple was split down the middle in color, which would be true then?

 

EDIT: But I suppose this more treads the ground of philosophy than religion. o.o

Edited October 17, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[DustyBelle]

Morals are not restricted to those who believe in god or God or even gods.

According to the Free Dictionary

 

mor·al (môrl, mr-)

adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

 

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

 

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

 

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

 

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

 

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

 

n.

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.

 

2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.

 

3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

 

The Bible may mention morals and applaud them but they are not biblical in origin or nature. That is my opinion at any rate.

[AwesoMan30000]

I think I'm losing my religion to the Illuminati via subliminal messages.

 

[zorua9]

This post is to the topic and the first comment......., i don't believe in any gods, but i respect peoples choice in religion.......

Edited October 17, 2013 by zorua9

[philpot123]

Ah, but to us, the statements do appear contradictory. We cannot see the other side of the apple and we only know of apples as one color. If you could not see the side of the apple, did not know the apple was split down the middle in color, which would be true then?

 

EDIT: But I suppose this more treads the ground of philosophy than religion. o.o

Apparent contradictions are not necessarily actual contradictions.

 

The truth would be that the apple is green, and if you said that it WAS NOT green, then you would be objectively wrong. Saying "the apple is red" =/= saying "the apple is not green." If I said "the apple is red" and you said "the apple is not red," then we have a problem. An actual contradiction.

 

Philosophy and religion are terribly closely linked

[ShinyTomato]

Sometimes it's nice to see how little things have changed.

 

Religious truth can be subjective, though, depending on what "evidence" you're using.

[philpot123]

Sometimes it's nice to see how little things have changed.

 

Religious truth can be subjective, though, depending on what "evidence" you're using.

Isn't it, though? nice to see you around!

 

In what sense?

[KageSora]

If one person is capable of only seeing in shades of red and one person in shades of green express the apple is the color they see, which is right?

 

From the point of view of the person who can see both, they're both right. But to each, the other is wrong.

 

That's kinda what's up here.