I’ll agree with the above. The very nature of faith is that it cannot be proven by the means of man - it is faith - so trying to rationalize it is pointless.
Although I consider myself a religious person, more or less, there is much about religion, and Judeo-Christianity in particular, that I just don’t get, nor want to get.
Esprix
Does this imply that the “things of the Spirit of God” are only given to unnatural men, i.e. it is not natural to hold such a belief (herewith, I do not imply “wrong”, but simply unnatural, as in not exhibited in normal human behavior).
Oops, sorry about the punctuation. That should be a “?” in lieu of the “.”.
Not exactly. It is a somewhat complicated verse. When the Bible uses the term “natural man” in this verse, it means unregenerate, or unsaved. Someone who is saved is referred to as “spiritual” as opposed to “natural”.
However, you are correct in the statement that it is not natural to hold the beliefs stated in the Bible. According to my beliefs, we are all born with a sin nature, witnessed by the fact that you do not have to teach children to lie, steal, etc. They learn these behaviors perfectly well on their own. We are not naturally drawn to spiritual things, but are more often drawn to doing whatever we want to do, when we want to do it.
In my opinon, to understand the word of God, you must seek His aid, and He has promised to reveal Himself to any who seek Him.
Religion is a natural development in human history. Before there were rational explanations for natural phenomena, it only made sense that gods caused this or that to happen.
As far as any particular religion developing because it is the only true religion, that is crap. If there were a true religion, it would not be necessary to study theology or to have sunday schools to indoctrinate people. It would be as much a part of people as the drive to eat or have sex.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. (Karl Marx, 1845)
I think that the reason so many people readily accept the existence of a god of some form is that it serves as instant justification for their existance.
I’m not extremely religious, but I do believe in the existence of God. I’m Jewish, but if I were raised athiest, I believe that I would have eventually rejected that beleif. (not on any tangible proof, I admit)
Now, being raised under one religion and rejecting it is quite a different matter. If I were raised Christian (which I wasn’t), I doubt that I would have converted to another religion. I do not think that I would be as into Jesus as a lot of people I know are.
I have a lot of respect for people who are religious, but don’t make a display of it. What really bugs me is when people do things such as displaying the fact that they are praying over a sports event or something like that. Like, a football player crossing himself after a touchdown. I think that’s disgusting.
I mean, give me a break. It’s implying [very over-generalized] that “Jesus wanted me to beat the other team because of his love for me!” I don’t buy it. Lots of people do.
I respect their beleifs. It helps them get through life. I think that’s a large reason that so many people believe in God. It makes them feel that they have a purpose.
That’s my best answer to the original question.
–Rich Uncle Penny
SAVE A TREE: Eat a beaver
Belief in god is irrational. There is no evidence supporting his existence, so believing in god is no better than believing in Larry the Fairy.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by galen:
**Religion is a natural development in human history. Before there were rational explanations for natural phenomena, it only made sense that gods caused this or that to happen. **{/QUOTE}
Current Social Theory goes further I think, and maintains that religion (as a way to explain the unknown) is universal. And current cognitive psych theories suggest that the need to explain “why”, to come up with a way to understand the world, may be a fundamental need.
Against stupidity, the very Gods themselves contend in vain - F. Schiller
Shouldn’t we distinguish between the need to believe and the dogma, rituals and so on that develop?
A question/comment about dogmas in general and Judeo/Christian ones specifically. I don’t seem to remember the part of the Bible that says we get to pick and chose the rules we obey. And not just dietary restrictions. There’s a whole lot of them, mostly Old Testament. I notice a lot of my religious type friends are quick to point to this or that biblical passage to support some belief, while ignoring the rules they don’t like. Curiously irrational, much like religion itself.
Against stupidity, the very Gods themselves contend in vain - F. Schiller
As regards the OP,
To answer the small question first: No significant organized Christian body, including the Catholic Church, condemns masturbation. If Sister Rosemary told you it’d make you go blind or whatever, take it up with her and stop blaming the rest of us.
As to the rest, y’know, I don’t believe in UFOs, but if a million people from all walks of life, from many cultures, from different times and cultures, amny of whom were otherwise reliable witnesses, all started reporting the same thing, I might at least rethink.
For the last two thousand years, a billion people have reported having a real and dynamic encounter with the person of Jesus Christ. I’m not talking about people who sort of nominally believed and went to church. I’m talking about people writing and talking passionately about how their lives were changed by God. Illiterate backwoods folk, yes, but also people like Newton, Pascal, TS Eliot, Bach, Kierkegaard, Woodrow Wilson, Dostoyevsky and on and on.
I have no problem saying that there are plenty of intelligent people who are Athiests. (or Muslim or whatever). Why do so many people insist on saying that all Christians are gullible boobs, when it is empirically verifiable that they aren’t?
I was just reading this the other day: " It must be fixed in one’s memory as the highest rule, that what has been revealed by God is to be believed as the most certain of all things…we must give credence to the divine authority only, rather than to our own judgement." Descartes said that, and I don’t think he can credibly be labeled as gullible.
As to whether Christians would be so if they weren’t raised that way, you might want to ask where Christianity is growing nowadays? Not in the US, but in places like Africa and Asia, where people are converting from other or no religion. Or China. The church operates illegally, under sometimes violent persecution, and with minimal contact with Christians in the West. And yet it’s grown by several orders of magnitude in the last few decades. I suppose they willingly face death because they think it’d be fun, and they only converted away from the beliefs their ancestors have held for centuries, because, as we all know, Asians have so little respect for tradition.
Look, people much smarter than you or I have been wrestling with the questions of God and the meaning of life forever, and different people come up with different answers. If you want to really investigate a religion or worldview or philosophy and decide against it, that’s one thing. But when you make these condescending pronouncements about how they must all be dumb to “fall for this crap,” you only make yourself look asinine; every bit as asinine as I would if I went up to Carl Sagan and told him he was dumb because he didn’t think the way I did.
Along these lines, I am soooo tired of fundamentalists saying that the problems we are having in society is because of “godlessness” and that the only way to teach children/people morality is through church. How about teaching people not to lie/cheat/steal/kill because you wouldn’t like it if someone did it to you? Because the world is a better place when we are nice to each other? I personally don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to keep me from be a total bastard.
Pashley:
The misunderstanding of the term “Theory” is a matter of semantics that creationists use to their advantage. In the common vernacular “Theory” (According to the American Heritage Dictionary on my desk) includes definitions #3 and #4 as:
3. Abstract thought untested in practice and
4. An assumption or guess
In the scientific community a “Theory” cannot be claimed as such without a great deal (and I mean A LOT) of backup data, models, etc.
Creationists also point out that the scientific community changes directions, and hypothesis within the Evolution Theory as a reason that it is not fact.
As new data becomes available, the scientific community changes their Theory to match the new evidence. Religion changes the evidence to match their existing Theory.
The planet Earth is a Testament (definition 4 in my dicitonary: Convincing Evidence) to evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting the evolution “Theory”. The creation “Theory” cannot hold up to the same stringent study.
By the way if you have never had a Christian come to your door evangelising, you must not live in Dallas. The Southern Baptists are pretty big on making sure it is known that it is “Their Way or the Highway” around here.
I had another one this weekend (gearing up for Easter I guess). Non-protestants would be less critical if we did not get your point of view shoved at us constantly. :mad: