Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[GhostAnime]

Truth is subjective? You think so? I'd disagree when it comes to plain ol 'facts.

If im not mistaken it should be somewhere talking about "doubtful" Thomas.

Do you know the verse or so?

 

[O.J. da Juiceman]

Truth is subjective? You think so? I'd disagree when it comes to plain ol 'facts.

*Moral truth

Although one would be well minded in deciphering truths from false-truths. People once believed the world to be flat as a fact. Now we know through the scientific broadening of our perspective that the earth is spherical. Just because something is proclaimed as a fact doesn't always mean it is true.

 

[Hotrod93]

Truth is subjective? You think so? I'd disagree when it comes to plain ol 'facts.


Do you know the verse or so?

Not sure on which one, I think its before Jesus died.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

I'm curious as to where this is.

If you'd like an explanation of whether it is ok to quesiton God, you could read this article. Let me quote part of the article: "At issue is not whether we should question God, but in what manner—and for what reason—we question Him. To question God is not in itself wrong....Insincere questions, or questions from a hypocritical heart, are a different matter.... In short, an honest question is not a sin, but a bitter, untrusting, or rebellious heart is." (They give Biblical examples along the way, too.)

Does that help?

 

[PokeJustice]

I'm curious as to where this is.

I never let the fact that I'm not a Christian keep me from taking issue with your questions. Proverbs 14:6 tells us that knowledge comes readily to the open-minded man.

As for questioning God, Job, Jeremiah, David and Jesus all question God repeatedly, and are not at all condemned or rebuked for doing so.

 

[Evil Quagsire]

As long as any segment of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam label homosexuality a sin, none of them forms a moral basis for society. A society based in bigotry is toxic and corrupt. And then, there's so many different kinds of all of these religions. Should it be Lutheran Christianity? Calvinist? Southern Baptist? Coptic? Greek Orthodox? Which parts of the Bible should be codified in law? Who gets to decide that? Can we vote on it?
But I see nothing really wrong with Buddhism, so I think it would be pretty cool to base society on that.

 

[PokeJustice]

Nowadays, it seems to be the homophobia present in the Christian church that turns people off, but there are plenty of other reasons to reject Christianity, and, implicitly, the Bible, as a societal compass.

I disagree with the assumptions of Buddhism, but I can certainly appreciate its peaceful nature.

 

[GhostAnime]

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

.. Huh?

Does that help?

Not sure which Psalms verses they are pointing out, but it's hard to discern what an "honest" question is. If questioning God's integrity is hypocritical, why is it? Because we're questioning his integrity? I can be open-minded, but I can't give God special treatment. I would question his idea of eternal punishment to the point of calling him a sadist just like I would any other entity in the existence of the universe and to reply with "God is different" just runs away from the question and gets us back to square one: WHY can't we question it?

 

[PokeJustice]

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Ha. The phrase "open-minded" is an alternate translation employed by the BBE.

If questioning God's integrity is hypocritical, why is it? Because we're questioning his integrity? I can be open-minded, but I can't give God special treatment. I would question his idea of eternal punishment to the point of calling him a sadist just like I would any other entity in the existence of the universe and to reply with "God is different" just runs away from the question and gets us back to square one: WHY can't we question it?

Important at times like this to note that not every Christian subscribes to the repugnant notion that unbelievers are eternally punished.

 

[kaiser soze]

I don't like having religion control anything imo. People have different religions so they will have conflicting views on their culture. I'm a Buddhist, but many people of my same culture are Catholic. The catholic church used to hold power over the government too, but due to conflicts it's best if the church and the government remained separate.

Our culture shouldn't be based off religion because everyone has different views. Like to me, I don't believe in God and I don't like the Catholic teachings because we are taught to fear God and we're supposed to do all these things just so we can hope to make it up to heaven if he lets us. But being Buddhist, I'm taught to be tolerant with other religions. I just don't understand why Catholicism insists upon preaching to others in attempts to convert them. If my whole culture was based off of Catholicism, there would be too many conflicts. You get to choose your religion, choose what you want to believe in, but you can't choose your culture, you're just born into it.

before you bad-mouth the catholics (and yes, I know we've done some stuff were not proud of, but what religion hasnt? we are all human) you do realize that because they had writing they preserved western civilization (including non-christian parts like ancient greek-roman literature) for pretty much 500 years. and we were in charge of education we developed the basic western educational structure. we taught critical thinking.

catholics arent that big on actively converting people, I think you got us confused with evangelicals/mormons etc. we try more to do good actions and hope others follow.
this guy named Jesus said something about "loving thy neighbor." catholic are taught to respect people of other religions because they are people too and have the same rights as others. and since we all have free will we all get to choose our religion.

your statement that a theocracy could not work because of conflict is not because of religion, but because of humans.

 

[PokeJustice]

before you bad-mouth the catholics (and yes, I know we've done some stuff were not proud of, but what religion hasnt? we are all human)

Yeah, we all have one or two or a few million skeletons in our closet, right?

 

[ShinySandshrew]

As long as any segment of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam label homosexuality a sin, none of them forms a moral basis for society. A society based in bigotry is toxic and corrupt.....But I see nothing really wrong with Buddhism, so I think it would be pretty cool to base society on that.

Let me ask you a question: which Buddhism? Some support homosexuality, some don't. And what about Ba'haism, Sikhism, Zorastrianism, and Jainism? They aren't Abrahamic religions, yet they condemn homosexuality.

BTW, Buddhism says that you should abstain from earthly pleasures. That rules out a lot of things. Still think there's nothing wrong with Buddhism?

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Well, let me quote something from a website about philosophy:

Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!

People who are baselessly convinced about something will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence.

Not sure which Psalms verses they are pointing out, but it's hard to discern what an "honest" question is. If questioning God's integrity is hypocritical, why is it? Because we're questioning his integrity? I can be open-minded, but I can't give God special treatment. I would question his idea of eternal punishment to the point of calling him a sadist just like I would any other entity in the existence of the universe and to reply with "God is different" just runs away from the question and gets us back to square one: WHY can't we question it?

1) They are referring to certain chapters of Psalms, not verses.

2) From the way you phrase the statement about questioning God's idea about eternal punishment, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Have you researched whether or not eternal punishment is just? The character of God?

 

[Profesco]

People who are baselessly convinced about something will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence.

I am compelled now to point out that the website, "All About Philosophy," that sparked your decision to remind us of the above happens to be a faction of an association called "All About God." The page you quote provides a bullet list of pseudophilosophical suggestions (not even ironclad arguments/properly-cited facts, mind you) amounting to "It really really seems like an intelligent designer created everything, doesn't it? Eh? Eh?" and uses those admittedly religion-neutral bullets to propose the Christian God's existence instead of a suitably neutral deity. Afterwards, with a link saying "Learn more now!" it redirects to a page titled "All About Truth," where God's Word and the Holy Bible are claimed as the titular Truth.

I believe the point I intended to make is clear, but in case of otherwise, choose any of the 'pot/kettle/black' or 'glass houses/throwing stones' phrases and consider it my endpoint.

 

[PokeJustice]

Profesco: What you note, that is, that arguments from design, while, I would point out, more airtight than naturalists assert, cannot be used to place points on the scorecard of any particular diety, is something missed by none too few creationist organizations. This leads to a lot of "Because the Bible says so" and this is circular logic.

 

[O.J. da Juiceman]

Here's my paradoxical question for anybody that believes God is omniscient:

So let's presume God knows everything (past/present/future).

God creates you.

God knows every detail of every event that will happen in your life.

Say you do terrible things in your life and get banished to the fiery bowels of hell.

Wouldn't this omniscient God know of these terrible things you would do?

Wouldn't God know you would end up in hell?

So finally, why would God create you in the fist place? Knowing full well your hellish fate?

 

[PokeJustice]

This is a question applicable only to those who believe in the existence of hell.

I believe in one God, and hope for happiness beyond this life.

But a God who makes a habit of dishing up infinite torment for creatures He created to be tormented eternally is more worthy of the disdain of mankind than its worship.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Profesco: What you note, that is, that arguments from design, while, I would point out, more airtight than naturalists assert, cannot be used to place points on the scorecard of any particular diety, is something missed by none too few creationist organizations. This leads to a lot of "Because the Bible says so" and this is circular logic.

I very recently had a lecture from a theist who made this exact mistake. When I called him out on it he purposely dodged the question. I spent the whole tutorial that followed lambasting his lack of intellectual integrity. It felt good.

I believe the point I intended to make is clear, but in case of otherwise, choose any of the 'pot/kettle/black' or 'glass houses/throwing stones' phrases and consider it my endpoint.

Will you marry me?

And what about Ba'haism, Sikhism, Zorastrianism, and Jainism? They aren't Abrahamic religions, yet they condemn homosexuality.

Then obviously his answer would be the same, and the same as mine as well. As long as they condemn homosexuality and homosexuals they are evil. The fact that they aren't Abrahamic is irrelevant.

 

[O.J. da Juiceman]

This is a question applicable only to those who believe in the existence of hell.

I believe in one God, and hope for happiness beyond this life.

But a God who makes a habit of dishing up infinite torment for creatures He created to be tormented eternally is more worthy of the disdain of mankind than its worship.

Isn't the potential for "unhappiness" beyond this life the backbone of religious moral code?

 

[GhostAnime]

2) From the way you phrase the statement about questioning God's idea about eternal punishment, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Have you researched whether or not eternal punishment is just? The character of God?

Yes. I've asked this question hundreds of times on this forum. I always get "because it's God" or "you're not worthy enough." What do you have to offer? Instead of attacking my supposed "bias" (which EVERYONE shares anyway), how about actually answering the question?

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Yes. I've asked this question hundreds of times on this forum. I always get "because it's God" or "you're not worthy enough." What do you have to offer? Instead of attacking my supposed "bias" (which EVERYONE shares anyway), how about actually answering the question?

Yes to what? Yes to the notion that you've already made up your mind? That you've researched the things I mentioned? Would you mind clarifying, please?

GhostAnime, I did not attack your bias, I pointed it out. In the same breath, you said that you can be open-minded, you go and make a closed-minded statement. Do you not see the inconsistency? Furthermore, in your post, you did not ask whether eternal punishment was good--you said you would question God to the point of calling Him, a sadist. If you want me to answer that question, would you be ok with a PM response?

@Tim the turtle: Prove that condemnation of homosexual actions is evil and that homosexual actions are morally acceptable. If you would be so kind, would you respond via PM? I don't want to spam up this thread.

@Profesco: Well dunk me in tartar sauce and call me a fish stick! What a terrible website! (Note non-serious twinkle in my eye)

Regardless of the strengths of their claims, the presuppositions they hold, or the accuracy of their arguments for God, the fact still stands that those who are already convinced that there can be no evidence for will not come to the conclusion that God exists. Also, pointing out the bias of the website does not help your case. They think there is objective proof that God exists. Thus that brings them to the same point as evolutionists. Both sides use statements about the universe (whether the statements are true are or not is a different debate) to support their religious views. Profesco, don't be guilty of intellectual snobbery.