What's your religion?

[MFSxA]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

only Anh Minh is making rational sense while most others

Some people believe making an unsubstantiated claim is being rational.

When one says "persecution can be justified in the bible," it is only proper to ask, "on which basis? how did you arrive at such a conclusion?" As you have already seen no basis nor justification was provided. Suddenly we are in the subject of mind control in the exodus or God's "genocidal" actions, irrelevant to the original contention and issue, which are new issues. Now tell me, where is the rationality in that?

To make his claim even more wild he states "They're 'saving souls'. Or something like that." Persecution in order to save gentile or heathen souls. Wow. Dig a deeper hole.

Oh wait, the dude said "I think it's all covered under 'spreading the message'. Stretched a bit, sure, but not to the breaking point." Statements without explanation nor basis, worthless. Its covered under spreading the message? Then cite this scripture that impliedly provides a conclusion of persecution as a justified Christian mode of action and then explain it. Stretched a bit? what is valid stretching of an idea in biblical scripture? When is it beyond the breaking point? Am I supposed to conclude that stretching is well you know stretching and just don't go beyond breaking point which is the breaking point.

Surely, if one was familiar with the Bible literature, and truly believes such command (or justification) of persecution exists - how hard is it to cite such? Cite and explain it, supplement it with commentaries or rational opinions; I can't reply - game over for me, very very simple.

Unless of course you are willing to provide scriptural basis and scholarly fiat on Anh Minh's claim that persecution can be justified. Anything less than that is a baseless claim. Should we even argue if a baseless/unsubstantiated claim is rational? I think it's too obvious.

I didn't rebut all other points of Anh Minh because someone was concerned on topic guideline so I respected that, I so much wanted to give him (Anh Minh) a piece of my thoughts - but I gotta respect the plea of a fellow poster. Bad decision for me.

Plus it is obvious that he is either stating things that are besides the point (hello mind control and genocide) or his obvious lack of knowledge on the matter (unsubstantiated claims), and obvious misconceptions (moral authority derived from general accepted principles of a civilized society, I'd love to argue with him on this point). The contention still stands. Where is the basis and the justification of such basis?

The rest of his wild claims I am willing to argue should Anh Minh agree to such over PM.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

especially MFSxA who decided to resort to a personal-inclined attack.

I don't think I made a personal attack, but since you think so, what? If I agree with your claim that it is truly a personal attack I will humbly apologize. Nobody's perfect aye?

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Statistically speaking, practically most of the Christians I have spoke to never, or hardly read the Bible and try their own interpretation, instead relying on the word of mouth of others. As it is a book which is written like the Canterbury Tales, interpretations differ, so who has the right one?

The right one is a decision that one makes upon a study of the Bible, the work of scholars, and discourse with others.

There is a dearth of literature, aside from the Bible itself, that gives context to the various passages. Bottom line is you can make your decision based with additional literature and your natural comprehension. If you think you are right, then argue your point. Scientists are familiar with this concept when they publish their works for critic. Most writers especially on the life of Jesus (for or against), usually justify their intepretation of the verses by following a set of rules or guidelines. One rule for validity or reliability is multiple attestation. Once you get that done on a verse, you can use various works on the context of the times to lend a meaningful interpretation to such.

The early Christians relied on discourse. Now you may ask, where the eff did I get that? Read the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul in the New Testament. The apostles and Paul used discourse, one of best tools for conversion was discourse.

Now who has the right one? That is a decision that one needs to make upon a study of primary sources (Bible), secondary sources (works of scholars), and discourse. God gave the will to decide, whether you are truthful and reasonable to yourself is something you also will decide upon a study of the sources and through discourse.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And yet there are people who seem to believe that everything can be explained via scientific inquiry. The idea that if an answer is not yet known, it's simply because we haven't found it yet.

We are living creatures, made up of physical matter. All the components that make us the individuals that we are, we can explain in the detail today, thanks to advancements in genetic/biological sciences. We can predict, with a great degree of certainty, what kinds of biological developments can lead to what kinds of illnesses, and take the necessary corrective action to remedy the problem.

But can we predict creativity? It's an activity that happens in our brains, a physical organ that can be reduced to neurons and synapses, and so on. If we have the genetic sequence of Beethoven, and created an individual on the exact same template, can we expect this individual to again compose the Ninth Symphony?

Are there not limits to what kinds of knowledge we can gain through scientific inquiry alone?

Well the absence of proof does not mean the absence of existence, nor does it mean that one just hasn't found it "yet". The great thing about science is that it doesn't simply stop if it finds a roadblock, but rather tries to go beyond or around it. The problem of course again is that the we don't know if the roadblock could be there either because there simply is no more road to go on, or the roadblock is an inadvertent limitation of the method of travel. Besides my convoluted metaphorical point (can't find a better one), the irony is that in science, sometimes faith not necessarily of religious origin bridged the gap of the unknown until science caught up. Faith believed in that "thing" that it couldn't find, believing it to be there, until it made the necessary tools to eventually find it.

Perhaps then, if we don't simply put faith in a religious aspect, that in this case faith did help push science along.

Neurologists have been making strives in discovering how the brain is able to processes things that is seemingly outside of logic, reason and rationale. The purely rational probably no longer exists because people cannot perfectly escape his emotions and irrationality. This attempt to define how the brain can process abstractions and creativity is probably one of the ultimate goals of neurosciences. It's an amazing feat if they do, too bad I don't plan to take neurology in the future.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by MFSxA

Now who has the right one? That is a decision that one needs to make upon a study of primary sources (Bible), secondary sources (works of scholars), and discourse. God gave the will to decide, whether you are truthful and reasonable to yourself is something you also will decide upon a study of the sources and through discourse.

The problem I've always observed is that many religions end up being something you merely inherit from your predecessors. Having studied in in a Jesuit University, one of my professors raised this point and asked if people really sought to understand their faith or merely follow along. He was a Jesuit and a Nietzsche scholar, likely the one who got me into reading almost half the existentialist's work, and said that a a Catholic who doesn't understand his or her faith and simply decides to go with the flow is better of just discarding it and being godless, so to speak.

The sad part is that most people don't have the time to examine their own faith, and this applies to any religion.

Additionally even if you study primary sources, even these sources have their differences and even times of writing. The four Gospels are supposedly ordered in time of writing; many Biblical agree Mark's was written first, John last, and none were exactly written in real time during the Ministry. Heck, The Trinity wasn't even approved as Canon and Nicaea 300 years later. Then you must factor in that in the end, no matter how much the Vatican insists on a specific interpretation, no two people will ever wholly and empirically interpret their faith the same way.

In a way, this is probably the beauty of faith, and probably the way Jesus had always intended it. Of course there is a very broad definition of good and evil in there, but in the end where we put ourselves in "Love each other as I have loved you" is up to our own choices. Our faith is different from each other, and also makes us unique.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's a valid question. As MeoTwister5 puts it, that's what eminent physicists believe is possible. A single unifying theory to unite all phyiscal laws. Everything we experience as physical reality can be reduced to systems, systems reduced to societies, societies reduced to individuals, individuals reduced to organs, organs reduced to molecules, molecules reduced to atoms, atoms reduced into protons, electrons and neutrons, and still reduced further into quantum particles.

Everything, from the perspective of physics, it may appear, is reducible and thus explanable. To what extent is this correct?

If it's entirely correct then doesn't that mean this entire Universe is like one massive chemical equation no something, with no intrinsic value or meaning?

[MFSxA]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The sad part is that most people don't have the time to examine their own faith, and this applies to any religion.

I agree on your point. There are times when you have to prioritize certain things.

But I think if faith or one's religion or lack thereof is really important to oneself then giving time, no matter how small is possible.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Additionally even if you study primary sources, even these sources have their differences and even times of writing. The four Gospels are supposedly ordered in time of writing; many Biblical agree Mark's was written first, John last, and none were exactly written in real time during the Ministry. Heck, The Trinity wasn't even approved as Canon and Nicaea 300 years later. Then you must factor in that in the end, no matter how much the Vatican insists on a specific interpretation, no two people will ever wholly and empirically interpret their faith the same way.

This is also true. I think if one really has no time to choose which versions and authors they want, I suppose one can trust your local pastor/imam/priest/fellow atheist/professor/family on their recommendation. Unless they have an agenda to keep one ignorant, hehe.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

In a way, this is probably the beauty of faith, and probably the way Jesus had always intended it. Of course there is a very broad definition of good and evil in there, but in the end where we put ourselves in "Love each other as I have loved you" is up to our own choices.

Yes sir.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by MFSxA

I agree on your point. There are times when you have to prioritize certain things.

But I think if faith or one's religion or lack thereof is really important to oneself then giving time, no matter how small is possible.

This is also true. I think if one really has no time to choose which versions and authors they want, I suppose one can trust your local pastor/imam/priest/fellow atheist/professor/family on their recommendation. Unless they have an agenda to keep one ignorant, hehe.

Yes sir.

Well some religious conspiracy theorists say that the ancient Church supposedly did intend to promote a degree of ignorance in order to promulgate one unifying interpretation, said to have started by insisting that Mass be done only in Latin and thus a language majority didn't understand but that's OT at this point.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Haak

If it's entirely correct then doesn't that mean this entire Universe is like one massive chemical equation no something, with no intrinsic value or meaning?

I don't know how you leap from "big equation set" to "no intrinsic value or meaning". However, there's an immense amount of work to do in connecting the dots from the smallest bits of "fluff" to the complexities of supermassive black hole to the even more complex myriad life forms and then to consciousness and symphonies or Lady Gaga.

Complexity theory, emergent behavior, and non-linear studies are really only a few decades old. Quantum mechanics is still just a tool set more than any description of what is going on (hence the many-worlds and wave-collapse discussions). The non-locality issues still indicate many things may be incomplete as a description of reality.

[MFSxA]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Well some religious conspiracy theorists say that the ancient Church supposedly did intend to promote a degree of ignorance in order to promulgate one unifying interpretation, said to have started by insisting that Mass be done only in Latin and thus a language majority didn't understand but that's OT at this point.

I don't know as to its truth but yeah, preaching in latin to people who can't understand the gospel is...well highly suspicious.

No purpose whatsoever, unless one intends to ensure that the hearing masses don't understand, and therefore install oneself as sole authority. There are a lot of things that the Catholic Church has done which is suspect. Specially indulgences, selling them so you can go to heaven, wow if you ask me.

I think we have to rise above these things and do better than our predecessors. I only hope that the future will continuously be peaceful. (Chime in Fallout 3 intro)

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I don't know how you leap from "big equation set" to "no intrinsic value or meaning".

Well...what meaning could there possibly be?

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by MFSxA

I don't know as to its truth but yeah, preaching in latin to people who can't understand the gospel is...well highly suspicious.

No purpose whatsoever, unless one intends to ensure that the hearing masses don't understand, and therefore install oneself as sole authority. There are a lot of things that the Catholic Church has done which is suspect. Specially indulgences, selling them so you can go to heaven, wow if you ask me.

I think we have to rise above these things and do better than our predecessors. I only hope that the future will continuously be peaceful. (Chime in Fallout 3 intro)

Indulgences were one of the reasons that actually sparked the Philippine revolution for independence, during which the Jesuits were expelled from the country for going against this method applied by the other orders.

War never changes

*Gets hit by a rotten tomato*

@Haak and Vexx

Perhaps to say that "meaning" isn't exactly intrinsic, but a value assigned by the observer?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

@Haak and Vexx

Perhaps to say that "meaning" isn't exactly intrinsic, but a value assigned by the observer?

Yeah, I know that's relativism. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But i'm wondering if there can be intrinsic or objective meaning.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by monstert

Don't you mean my point? Well, whatever. No, that part is not about your question, but about my original point.

Enough with the semantics please. It's making it too hard to stay on topic.

Originally Posted by monstert

Well, if you've read the Bible, then you know that Jesus preached about repentance and love. In fact, Jesus claimed that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love your fellow human beings. And Paul also wrote that Christians should not repay evil with evil.

I also know that the Bible contradicts itself in a number of places, and that you haven't offered me any logical reason why your interpretation is more valid than anyone else's. Just answer that question for me.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

But can we predict creativity? It's an activity that happens in our brains, a physical organ that can be reduced to neurons and synapses, and so on. If we have the genetic sequence of Beethoven, and created an individual on the exact same template, can we expect this individual to again compose the Ninth Symphony?

Are there not limits to what kinds of knowledge we can gain through scientific inquiry alone?

You're venturing into a free-will debate, whether you realize it or not. Creativity, as you are using it, is the result of our genetic programming and how our environment has patterned us. In that regard free will is merely an illusion. However there is the fact that, when we make a decision, our brains produce a set of alternative possibilities. These are pulled from our genetics/experience, but the exact possibilities that arise in our minds are somewhat random. This chaotic randomness can account for different decisions made by identical individuals (assuming they somehow had identical experiences as well).

As for limits to knowledge, I'm sure there are limits to human understanding. This isn't necessarily a permanent state, in my opinion IF we can get to a highly advanced understanding of the human mind we can expand our own abilities. Either way, a limit on human understanding does not make a limit on physics. There is no reason that anyone can present that reality should not be intelligible, even if we have yet to figure out all the details.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by monstert

Don't you mean my point? Well, whatever. No, that part is not about your question, but about my original point. Well, if you've read the Bible, then you know that Jesus preached about repentance and love. In fact, Jesus claimed that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love your fellow human beings. And Paul also wrote that Christians should not repay evil with evil.

"Qui aime bien, châtie bien". (He who loves well, punishes well.) Today, we'd call conversion at swordpoint persecution. But it's actually an act of love: you're saving the heathen's soul. Or so they claimed, when they felt the need for an excuse to get around the generally non violent message of the New Testament. And you've got to admit, it does make a certain amount of sense, if you believe hard enough.

Originally Posted by MFSxA

Some people believe making an unsubstantiated claim is being rational.

When one says "persecution can be justified in the bible," it is only proper to ask, "on which basis? how did you arrive at such a conclusion?" As you have already seen no basis nor justification was provided.

I've already admitted I wasn't going to provide specific scriptural quotations. But I did justify it in general terms. While I don't know the Bible that well, even I've heard of the gist of it. And of course, history backs me up: plenty of Bible scholars supported various abuses at one point or another.

Suddenly we are in the subject of mind control in the exodus

Provided as a counter-example to your claim that God didn't order persecutions.

or God's "genocidal" actions, irrelevant to the original contention and issue, which are new issues. Now tell me, where is the rationality in that?

How is God's example not relevant to what a good Christian should consider "good" and "just"?

To make his claim even more wild he states "They're 'saving souls'. Or something like that." Persecution in order to save gentile or heathen souls. Wow. Dig a deeper hole.

Historically speaking, that's what's been used to justify the Inquisition and various other unsavory practices. Isn't it happening today, to justify homophobia?

Oh wait, the dude said "I think it's all covered under 'spreading the message'. Stretched a bit, sure, but not to the breaking point." Statements without explanation nor basis, worthless. Its covered under spreading the message? Then cite this scripture that impliedly provides a conclusion of persecution as a justified Christian mode of action and then explain it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus say to spread his message about God? But what if people don't want to listen? Doesn't it make sense to make them listen, if you can?

Stretched a bit? what is valid stretching of an idea in biblical scripture?

It means you have to exert your brain a bit. Obviously, the Bible doesn't cover every possible situation except in the most general terms. You have to try to see the underlying principles and how they apply. For example, the Old Testament spoke of the conquest of the Holy Land. Jesus didn't say to do it again, but nevertheless, it still seemed like a good idea to the Crusaders.

I admit I've been pretty sketchy in my posts. I, too, expected people to just deduce the meaning by thinking about it a bit.

When is it beyond the breaking point?

Good question. When you're not convincing anymore, I guess?

Am I supposed to conclude that stretching is well you know stretching and just don't go beyond breaking point which is the breaking point.

And a tautology to you too.

Surely, if one was familiar with the Bible literature,

Which I never claimed to be.

[Skyfall]

Since the general conversation seems to be steering deeper and deeper in to a direction this thread wasn't meant to contain and AnimeSuki has no wish of hosting, i will have to ask that you please drop it; if anyone wishes to continue the debate of biblical validity, merits and demerits of faith, christianty or whatever, you are quite welcome to continue doing so through PMs, but please leave this thread in relative peace. Thank you.

[Zeyroth]

My Identity Card states that i'm a Buddhist, my mom's a Buddhist, my grandma's a Buddhist, i have no idea about my great grandmother but i think she's a buddhist too; But i don't even go to the temple nor do i pray. So... am i a Buddhist? Oh yea, i think i am ._.

Why hasn't there been any posts for the past few days? This is scaring me T^T.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Zeyroth

My Identity Card states that i'm a Buddhist, my mom's a Buddhist, my grandma's a Buddhist, i have no idea about my great grandmother but i think she's a buddhist too; But i don't even go to the temple nor do i pray. So... am i a Buddhist? Oh yea, i think i am ._.

Why hasn't there been any posts for the past few days? This is scaring me T^T.

well technically only if you want to be a buddhist

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zeyroth

My Identity Card states that i'm a Buddhist, my mom's a Buddhist, my grandma's a Buddhist, i have no idea about my great grandmother but i think she's a buddhist too; But i don't even go to the temple nor do i pray. So... am i a Buddhist? Oh yea, i think i am ._.

Why hasn't there been any posts for the past few days? This is scaring me T^T.

That was almost a koan.... some tweaking and its a poem as well.

[Zeyroth]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

well technically only if you want to be a buddhist

Oooooooooooooooooooh. I have no idea if i'm supposed to be happy about that. At least this kinda leaves me with a free choice right now, i guess.

Originally Posted by Vexx

That was almost a koan.... some tweaking and its a poem as well.

Wow. Lol. I never knew about the existence of 'koan' until you mentioned it xD. That's rather cool in one way or the other.

Anyway, that kind of leaves me with two options now. Well, if i chose to be a free-thinker, it'd be rather sad as a religion-less person.
But if i chose to follow the path of Buddhism, i'd feel as if i failed as a Buddhist somehow.

Hey, can one be a free-thinker and Buddhist as well? Damn. Religion crisis.

Or maybe i should just convert to a Christian.
OR maybe i should just follow my own personal 'God' figure.

But... all in all, whatever my religion, the idea of worshipping something that/who is worth following is the same isn't it?
SO YEA! I believe in my 'GOD' whoever that may be. Hah. (That kinda had no link to the thread. Oh man.)

[raile]

Roman Catholic...though I have to say I'm not really the religious sort (i.e. going to mass on Sundays).

[idiffer]

Zeyroth
you shouldnt just choose right away. read some buddhist literature, some philosophy and see what you like better. a mix of both is possible too. rather than choosing, it sort of comes to you as you gain XP and knowlege, now that i think about it...
and the words you are looking for are "identity crisis". cool period in life actually, despite being called a crisis.