Religion?

[Fwib]

A: "I believe in Chocolate."
B: "I believe in Peanut Butter."
C: "I believe in Chocolate and Peanut Butter!"

(Exercise to the reader: Can you spot the Roman Catholic among the A,B and C?)

I believe that people ought to be excellent to each other.


Which one _is_ the RC? I was brought up as one (well, theoretically) and I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Prak]

1178722580[/unixtime]]

A: "I believe in Chocolate."
B: "I believe in Peanut Butter."
C: "I believe in Chocolate and Peanut Butter!"

(Exercise to the reader: Can you spot the Roman Catholic among the A,B and C?)

I believe that people ought to be excellent to each other.


Which one _is_ the RC? I was brought up as one (well, theoretically) and I'm not sure what you're saying.

*nod* same here. Wizards allows discussions of religion when they pertain to the game, which is usually the context in which I begin religion discussions... but even those get closely watched by mods. For example, I once had the idea to play a satanic paladin, and decided to ask people what they thought, it was a very civil discussion, and didn't get locked.

[NineInchNall]

I would imagine that the Roman Catholic is C, as Catholic doctrine is that Jesus was both wholly man (Chocolate) and wholly God (Peanut Butter).

As to the rules regarding religious discussion, well ... I don't think there's really much to be gained by any sort of religious discussion that isn't thoroughly critical. That is, if all we do is present our beliefs (or lack thereof) then we aren't really doing anything beyond this:

Poster A: I think Jesus is t3h r0xx0rZ.
Poster B: The Buddha was so awesome they named my favorite plant after him.
Poster C: Dude! Shiva's got multiple arms and isn't afraid to use them. He gets my vote.
Poster D: I just say whatever.
Poster E: Marshmallow badgers compose curried symphonies of Pop-Tarts!

Meh. While civil and sometimes informative, it's little more than a survey or poll.

[Fwib]

1178725072[/unixtime]]Poster E: Marshmallow badgers compose curried symphonies of Pop-Tarts!

Giant Frog!

[CalibronXXX]

I'm going to have to agree with Nall. A discussion where you can't talk about anything who disagrees with you says is both pointless and probably not actually a discussion now that I think about it...so yeah...also I don't like Catholicism because of all the random crap they made up that has nothing to with the Bible, but I still appreciate all the good woks they do round the world; not that that makes up for the crusades or any of their more recent debacles. *cough*childrape*cough*

[NineInchNall]

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating that we actually have a real discussion on the topic! That would be crazy-talk. Religious discussions, real religious discussions, tend to enflame tempers among most people (philosophers included). That's a Bad Thing.

[JonSetanta]

1178707804[/unixtime]]

1178672045[/unixtime]]*home brewed belief system*

You believe in a god, who most likely is infinitely more powerful than you, but you plan on telling them to shove it upon death. This seems...unwise.

I'll take my chances. That, and I'm not known for being very wise.

Also, certain sects of Buddhism believe it's possible to surpass divinity, but in doing so you cease to exist as you know yourself. Untouchable by anything.
Nirvana. I'm game for that.

And yes, we are still in topic very much so; this is everything D&D can't 'handle' or at least everything WOTC would hate us discussing!

[Prak]

don't worry sigma, I've got your back when you tell god to go to hell. and I'll be saving a corner table for ya there.

[CalibronXXX]

I'm having a serious problem understanding you guys(Prak and Sigma mostly). Do you just not particularly care about spiritual matters, a concept which I can at least fathom, or do you...umm...like I said, I'm drawing a blank here. This is actually pretty disconcerting for me, as I've always been possessed of a certain level of empathy that helps me understand the thought processes and emotions of others.

I'm a born again Christian BTW, I'm not preaching at you since you're obviously not interested in hearing it and the chance of me accomplishing anything is negligible; though I have helped lead people to Christ before, and let me tell you, that is a truly beautiful experience.

[Prak]

I believe in spirits, some greater in power than humans, and some lesser in power, that answer to a multitude of names. Should christianity be right, I'll flip off saint peter, moon heaven and merrily jump into hell to hang with satan. That's where I'm coming from. I was raised christian(catholic, specifically) and I left the path to go over to that of the left hand.

satanism isn't worship of satan, he's merely used as a symbol.

[tzor]

1178722580[/unixtime]]Which one _is_ the RC? I was brought up as one (well, theoretically) and I'm not sure what you're saying.

It's a joke based on modern apologetics. There are a lot of arguments where one argues that the question is not one of A or B, but rather that it must be A and B. A classic example is the standard divide between faith and works. Catholic apologetics would insist it is not faith or works but faith and works together as a package deal.

Faith and reason are also two chocolate peanut butter combinations that was strongly talked about by the previous pope.

Listen enough times to Scott Hann and you will hear it repeated on almost every subject.


Anyway, back to my argument. Let's consider the following quote, "I don't like Catholicism because of all the random crap they made up that has nothing to with the Bible." That's an excellent example of discussing religion in the third person. I'll just say in response, "wanna bet?" (If I were mean I'll reflect the stone into the glass house and ask for where "sola scriptura" is in the Bible.)

Chesterton said it best when he said that there are fery few people who hate the Catholic Church but there are a million people who hate what they think is the Catholic Church. The same applies to all religions and faiths and sects.

There is an old saying (or an ols daying as I originally typed) that when you "assume" you make an "ass" out of "you" and "me." I'm not saying that we're going to agree, we can't even do that with game rules. But I'm not going to make assumptions about games I've never seen the rules to. I'm not going to do that about governments I've never studied. I'm not going to do that about matters of faith and belief.

[Fwib]

I guess I'd go with that Chesterton guy and agree that judging a class/category because of the properties of some small percentage of its members might tend to be a bad idea.

[Judging__Eagle]

I like how the current bible exists b/c someone decided to chop out a bunch of books. Since said books were ones that he didn't like.

Also, poo poo, pee pee.

[Fwib]

1178744741[/unixtime]]I like how the current bible exists b/c someone decided to chop out a bunch of books. Since said books were ones that he didn't like.

Also, poo poo, pee pee.

All those 'apocryphal' texts that I kept seeing referenced when I was looking at various wikipedia pages the other day?

[Username17]

If I were a stickler for scripture, and I am not, I would be quite upset at the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Protestant, or crazy-town like Witness or Mormon) who don't believe in the divinity of Osiris. It's a major statement in the Bible that Jehova walked into Egypt himself and defeated the gods of Egypt in combat (that's Exodus, btw).

I'm really not even sure how people can look at he first commandment and walk away from it with the idea that there is only one god. That's not the point. The entire scripture says not that there is only one god, but that there is one god who is mightier than the rest and you should give Him praise first.

So the entire concept of monotheism as practiced today confuses me. Straight up the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not say that there are not other gods - only that followers of that faith should only give worship to the one.

----

But of course, I'm not a stickler for scripture. Faith is something that I find insulting. It's dangerous, and I don't like it. A person who can accept things without question is someone who will accept things without question - and that's seriously scary shit.

Once someone can get you to believe that 2+2 =/= 4 then they can get you to believe that we have always been at war with Oceania. Once someone can get you to believe that a life after this one is of primary importance then they can get you to accept anything in your life right now.

I no longer believe that faith can be recconciled with positive action for the betterment of society. The evidence to the contrary is simply too strong.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

And once again Frank says it better than I can.

But I'm going to pointlessly agree anyway.

[User3]

Well, probably "well-intentioned faith" was too unclear on my part; I meant faith as in "devotion", not "belief", as in being devoted to whatever you do, and what you do being well-intentioned. Also, whoever convinced you that 2+2=4 has power over you too; as a wise man said, counseling is corrupting (imprinting one's part over others). Anyway, yes, monotheism = error.

[bitnine]

1178745527[/unixtime]]Once someone can get you to believe that 2+2 =/= 4 then they can get you to believe that we have always been at war with Oceania.

Wouldn't Kierkegaard say that if someone else gets you to believe something, it isn't really an internal truth or issue of faith at all? Not that that isn't all sorts of fun in its own right, but some ideas about the concept of faith are incongruous with the sort of idea of an external source that you appear to be referencing.

(Seriously, he did have some zany yet interesting ideas, like the heavy emphasis on the internal to the point of two knights of infinite resignation not even being able to have a conversation and comfort each other.)

Oh, and as far being random as Jason and the Argonauts go, I have a print of Hylas and the Nymphs hanging in my bathroom. That and Waterhouse's Ophelia up in my bedroom. Those are some neat paintings.

[Crissa]

Also, the implication of only being able to speak in first person means that any minority will be drowned out...

...As well as meaning secularists or scientists wouldn't be able to speak, either.

-Crissa

[User3]

Technically, a secularist could show their/its (:)) chosen philosophy; but the idea seems pointless simply because, was one satisfied with hearing without questioning, reading books would be much better - discussion is meant to be where people discuss, after all.

[NineInchNall]

1178745527[/unixtime]]So the entire concept of monotheism as practiced today confuses me. Straight up the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not say that there are not other gods - only that followers of that faith should only give worship to the one.

Apparently there's some debate among textual analysts as to whether the word elohim, used in Genesis, refers to a singular entity or a plurality. Do a search for it. It's kind of NOT entertaining reading at all.

But of course, I'm not a stickler for scripture. Faith is something that I find insulting. It's dangerous, and I don't like it. A person who can accept things without question is someone who will accept things without question - and that's seriously scary shit.

Once someone can get you to believe that 2+2 =/= 4 then they can get you to believe that we have always been at war with Oceania. Once someone can get you to believe that a life after this one is of primary importance then they can get you to accept anything in your life right now.

I no longer believe that faith can be recconciled with positive action for the betterment of society. The evidence to the contrary is simply too strong.

Agreed. Faith, in the sense of belief without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence, is incompatible with rational discourse. An appeal to faith is as fallacious as appeals get, yet it is given weight as though this were not the case. As soon as someone says, "I believe this on faith," then the discussion is over. It is functionally impossible to go any further.

[Maj]

Some, when told I don't want to, tell me I'm "lost" and I must be "saved".

I usually thank them for their attempts at trying to save me and their concern over the status of my soul, but admit I'm bound for Hell and confess that their efforts will be unrewarded.

I suspect that at some point, someone will be persistant, but all so far have just looked sad and left me alone.

Anyone else?

I label what I believe in as "God" for lack of a better term, but I don't believe it's intelligent, benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Just present.

Oh, and as far being random as Jason and the Argonauts go, I have a print of Hylas and the Nymphs hanging in my bathroom. That and Waterhouse's Ophelia up in my bedroom. Those are some neat paintings.

We just hung a Waterhouse in our living room. My husband's been begging me for years to find a place to put it up.

[Neeek]

1178753444[/unixtime]]

I usually thank them for their attempts at trying to save me and their concern over the status of my soul, but admit I'm bound for Hell and confess that their efforts will be unrewarded.

I generally go with "I'm rather be honestly wrong than dishonestly you."

Alternatively, "I'd rather burn in hell, thanks."

[NineInchNall]

I usually say something to the effect of, "Never, Harkonnen!" Blam blam blam!

[Cielingcat]

No one's ever tried to save me.