Communicating with people of different faiths/no faith discussion/debate

[Coronach]

Would you also rather learn physics from someone other than a physicist? Carpentry from someone other than a carpenter? Reading from someone who doesn't read?

These are hardly the same (though you'll continue to argue they are). Carpentry, reading, and physics don't make moral claims about how one should live their lives. As such, they're not taught in this sort of manner, and the fundamental rules, procedures, etc.. are agreed upon by almost the entire community.

Information/a skill is presented, and you can conclude (in almost every case) that the information is not falsified or misinterpreted in any way (i.e. Newton's laws of motion are always the same, and always agreed upon).

The same cannot be said (in most cases) about religion. There are few fundamental aspects of the doctrine that are agreed upon by all (even within the same denomination), and then you have to deal with that issue.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. If it were the case that I could trust any given religious person to give me the most accurate (according to a given holy text) and widely-accepted informational aspects about their religion, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Why Buddhism, of all faiths? (No, it's not a rhetorical question, and neither is the previous one).

Because of the modern faiths, it is the only one that seems to fit (at least with my superficial knowledge of it) my personality and worldview.

[capricaabydos]

Eh, I am not opposed to being with a religious person by default. I just don't think I want to learn a religion from someone who is an active member of the faith. I'd much rather learn it in a class setting, as it can help to reduce bias, especially if it's a professional in the field. Of course it won't reduce it completely, but it helps, .

I certainly won't ever practice a religion to learn it, as it would go against the fundamentals of what I personally believe. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to trying Buddhism, but I'm sure it has its hidden flaws that I don't even know about.

No, I'd rather just learn about them...as it gives a more objective view of what many religions are actually about.

Lol I was just messing with you coronach I though you were gonna say something like "I'm not interested in an emotional relationship at the moment" just kidding but sometimes the school setting could get a little boring I remember sitting with my mom thru 2 hour of theology class twice a week and one hour debating the class in our "learning how to speak in public" class but there are many ways of learning I just like the hands on approach better!!

[Coronach]

Lol I was just messing with you coronach I though you were gonna say something like "I'm not interested in an emotional relationship at the moment" just kidding but sometimes the school setting could get a little boring I remember sitting with my mom thru 2 hour of theology class twice a week and one hour debating the class in our "learning how to speak in public" class but there are many ways of learning I just like the hands on approach better!!

Haha, I know you were.

And regarding school settings, to each their own . I really like learning things in a classroom, though I don't mind hands-on experience for things if it's something I'm really interested in.

[capricaabydos]

This sort of hits at the heart of the debate of how theists and atheists can discuss things - in order for me to make sense out of the bible, I would have accept the argument that god can do whatever he wants, which would require me to have faith. In order to have faith, I would have to accept that god can do whatever he wants, otherwise the bible makes no sense.

Whereas people who already have this faith, ignore this paradox because they want to believe in something. Confirmation bias is a strong factor in faith. The promise of eternal life and that there is an all powerful being looking over us and protecting us is a nice thought, and people will ignore whatever flaws are in the theory in order to hold onto this hope.




The way I actually see whole jesus dying issue is -
'We have a mesiah...whoohoo...'
'He's dead...erm...he was supposed to die!'


It's kind of like when you knock something over and say...'I meant to do that'

Faith is beliving in something you can't see touch or even taste or smell as an infant we rely on all of our senses to be aware of our surroundings so my question is does the same principal of faith apply when we're talking astrophysics let's say "dark matter" you can't touch ,smell ,taste or see but you know is there so is the same concept with god you can't see it(him/her) but you can feel its presence and know its there as to the matter of Jesus he was the ransom sacrifice that paid for the" original sin"
And that doesn't mean in any way that someone can go on a killing spree and be forgiven , it means that we are forgiven from the original sin we inherit from Adam and eve and that after the sacrifice of Jesus we are able to have eternal life again as opposed to death which was the punishment for the original sin now we would be able to go back to Eden and live an everlasting life as was the plan of god any sins committed after the ransom sacrifice can be forgiven only if we repent and change our way of life it is said that when your forgiven and you go on committing the same sin is like a dog who vomits and eats from its own vomit. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's how it works

[Bareassedmunky]

Faith is beliving in something you can't see touch or even taste or smell as an infant we rely on all of our senses to be aware of our surroundings so my question is does the same principal of faith apply when we're talking astrophysics let's say "dark matter" you can't touch ,smell ,taste or see but you know is there so is the same concept with god you can't see it(him/her) but you can feel its presence and know its there as to the matter of Jesus he was the ransom sacrifice that paid for the" original sin"
And that doesn't mean in any way that someone can go on a killing spree and be forgiven , it means that we are forgiven from the original sin we inherit from Adam and eve and that after the sacrifice of Jesus we are able to have eternal life again as opposed to death which was the punishment for the original sin now we would be able to go back to Eden and live an everlasting life as was the plan of god any sins committed after the ransom sacrifice can be forgiven only if we repent and change our way of life it is said that when your forgiven and you go on committing the same sin is like a dog who vomits and eats from its own vomit. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's how it works

Dark matter isn't an issue of faith. We can measure it's effect, but it doesn't emit any light, so we can't see it with our eyes*. Measuring it's gravitational effect is just as valid way of detecting it's presence as using light it. It may be harder for us as humans to relate to this as we cannot detect gravity with our bodies, but this does not mean it requires faith to accept it's existence. If there is a future theory that explains what we detect without the need for there to be actual matter, then physicists around the world would cease to believe in dark matter. That is the difference between believing a theory, and having faith - a willingness to change when new evidence contradicts our existing belief.


As for the jesus dying bit - I still don't see the relationship between his death and original sin. First of all, why does god need to forgive me for something Adam did...he did it, I wasn't even born yet? Secondly, why does jesus dying have any bearing on my level of responsibility for any sin I or anybody else may have committed - he didn't do it?

And anyway, jesus's sacrifice has nothing to do with original sin - that's what baptism is for. Jesus was baptised before he died.




*By the way, a lot of photos taken of things in space are actually taken in frequencies other than the visible spectrum, but the picture are adjusted so our eyes can see it. This is because the visible spectrum is actually very small, and by looking beyond it, there is more information about the object available.

[Coronach]

*By the way, a lot of photos taken of things in space are actually taken in frequencies other than the visible spectrum, but the picture are adjusted so our eyes can see it. This is because the visible spectrum is actually very small, and by looking beyond it, there is more information about the object available.

This made me angry when I first looked through a telescope. We were looking at one of Messier's objects (I forget...maybe 13?), and I'm all "wtf? Why is everything all gray and stupid looking?".

It doesn't make any of it less beautiful (especially considering how the EM spectrum works), but it was unexpected, to say the least

[Jace021903]

Dark matter isn't an issue of faith. We can measure it's effect...

Many people (including me ) will say that about God.

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

There is a story about Helen Keller who was deaf and mute all her life. When her teacher Annie Sullivan explained the concept of God to her, Helen said, "I always knew He was there; I just didn't know His name."

As for the jesus dying bit - I still don't see the relationship between his death and original sin. First of all, why does god need to forgive me for something Adam did...he did it, I wasn't even born yet?

He doesn't have to forgive you for Adam's sin. He is offering to forgive us of our own. We inherited our sinful nature from Adam but we are sinners because of our own sins.

The Bible calls Christ the second Adam to contrast what happened when the first Adam sinned (death entered the world) to when Christ died (we have the gift of eternal life).

Secondly, why does jesus dying have any bearing on my level of responsibility for any sin I or anybody else may have committed - he didn't do it?

Exactly. He is the only one who could offer Himself for us because He didn't have any sins of His own. Only God in the flesh could do that. He had to be fully man so he could represent us and had to be fully God to be sinless perfect. This is a picture of the Old Testament when the priests sacrificed a perfect lamb to atone for the sins of the people.

And anyway, jesus's sacrifice has nothing to do with original sin - that's what baptism is for. Jesus was baptised before he died.

The Bible is clear that Christ's death is the reason that we can be declared righteous (justified) before God.

The primary purpose of baptism is identification.

Christ was baptized to identify Himself with the followers and the message of John the Baptist who had publicly proclaimed Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." This baptism marked the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry; an inauguration of sorts.

[Coronach]

Many people (including me ) will say that about God.

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

And many people (including me) would argue with this, . I mean, surely you can't think of a scientific procedure that could be used to "measure God", could you? I think that's the whole point about a god, sure, but in that case you and Bareassedmunky are not talking about the same thing. One is empirical evidence that can be universally seen, while the other is something that is more personal that, despite however powerful it is to someone else, can't help me see what they see.

I don't discount the possibility of a god, but I don't hold a belief in one. This is why I'm an agnostic-atheist, and it means just that.

Something that can be explained away by something else is, to me, not proof of such a being. I can see the earth and sky and learn (to a reasonable margin of error) how they came to be through purely natural processes. Sure you can always say a god put these processes in motion. That's certainly your prerogative. I would, however, highly contest the "no excuse for not knowing God" bit. Which god should I think did everything? Arbitrarily, I'd rather pick Odin.

There is a story about Helen Keller who was deaf and mute all her life. When her teacher Annie Sullivan explained the concept of God to her, Helen said, "I always knew He was there; I just didn't know His name."

So she was a deaf, blind, mute believer. Good for her

He doesn't have to forgive you for Adam's sin. He is offering to forgive us of our own. We inherited our sinful nature from Adam but we are sinners because of our own sins.

Interesting, and I mean that seriously. Is it the case, then, that we don't have to worry about original sin, as long as we never commit a sin while living? Speaking purely hypothetically, of course

I know several Christians who don't agree with that statement, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Exactly. He is the only one who could offer Himself for us because He didn't have any sins of His own. Only God in the flesh could do that. He had to be fully man so he could represent us and had to be fully God to be sinless perfect. This is a picture of the Old Testament when the priests sacrificed a perfect lamb to atone for the sins of the people.

Interesting. So, in regards to the question above, if I don't commit any sin in life, am I then God in the flesh? Or are there sins that simply can't be helped? If so, why can't they be helped?

[Bareassedmunky]

And many people (including me) would argue with this, . I mean, surely you can't think of a scientific procedure that could be used to "measure God", could you? I think that's the whole point about a god, sure, but in that case you and Bareassedmunky are not talking about the same thing. One is empirical evidence that can be universally seen, while the other is something that is more personal that, despite however powerful it is to someone else, can't help me see what they see.

I don't discount the possibility of a god, but I don't hold a belief in one. This is why I'm an agnostic-atheist, and it means just that.

Something that can be explained away by something else is, to me, not proof of such a being. I can see the earth and sky and learn (to a reasonable margin of error) how they came to be through purely natural processes. Sure you can always say a god put these processes in motion. That's certainly your prerogative. I would, however, highly contest the "no excuse for not knowing God" bit. Which god should I think did everything? Arbitrarily, I'd rather pick Odin.



So she was a deaf, blind, mute believer. Good for her



Interesting, and I mean that seriously. Is it the case, then, that we don't have to worry about original sin, as long as we never commit a sin while living? Speaking purely hypothetically, of course

I know several Christians who don't agree with that statement, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it.



Interesting. So, in regards to the question above, if I don't commit any sin in life, am I then God in the flesh? Or are there sins that simply can't be helped? If so, why can't they be helped?

Damn, you got there first!

[SoulReaver]

in order for me to make sense out of the bible, I would have accept the argument that god can do whatever he wants, which would require me to have faith.

guess so. then again mostn people regardless of religion (or lack thereof) seem to have absolute faith in something (if it's not God, then it's the State & its Laws). even today there don't appear to be many libertarians, unfortunately :/

The promise of eternal life and that there is an all powerful being looking over us and protecting us is a nice thought

IMO not so much those things (there are religions that do not mention an afterlife, and others with either multiple non-omnipotent gods or no god at all) but rather the promise of an infallible justice & retribution for those people who did wrong & got away with it (and god knows there's many such people eh)

[SoulReaver]

Interesting. So, in regards to the question above, if I don't commit any sin in life, am I then God in the flesh?

not that this is possible but if you did pull that off then yeah apparently you'd be the next Jesus or something (guess that means you'd be able to look inside the Ark of the Covenant without getting disintegrated :-)

[Coronach]

not that this is possible but if you did pull that off then yeah apparently you'd be the next Jesus or something (guess that means you'd be able to look inside the Ark of the Covenant without getting disintegrated :-)

Lol, I was asking the question because the idea seemed odd to me, even hypothetically. And of course you can pull it off, at least according to what I'm seeing here. Babies that are born and then die of complications are, by this logic, without sin and therefore equal to Jesus?

I know this isn't right, and that there's something that the poster will have to fill me in on with regards to this. It's just this is the first I'm hearing of the idea that we didn't inherit original sin as an actual sin.

[Bareassedmunky]

guess so. then again mostn people regardless of religion (or lack thereof) seem to have absolute faith in something (if it's not God, then it's the State & its Laws). even today there don't appear to be many libertarians, unfortunately :/

The only thing I have faith in is the idea that every claim should be proven before it is accepted as fact.

IMO not so much those things (there are religions that do not mention an afterlife, and others with either multiple non-omnipotent gods or no god at all) but rather the promise of an infallible justice & retribution for those people who did wrong & got away with it (and god knows there's many such people eh)

I have never in my life come across a religion which does not include an afterlife. (although a jehovah's witness did tell me that he didn't believe he would go to any form of afterlife once...suspicious I checked the internet straight away, and...he was lying!)

Lol, I was asking the question because the idea seemed odd to me, even hypothetically. And of course you can pull it off, at least according to what I'm seeing here. Babies that are born and then die of complications are, by this logic, without sin and therefore equal to Jesus?

I know this isn't right, and that there's something that the poster will have to fill me in on with regards to this. It's just this is the first I'm hearing of the idea that we didn't inherit original sin as an actual sin.

Original sin is inherited, Jesus and Mary are the only two people to have been born without it (as a result of the immaculat conception...which refers to Mary's birth, not jesus's). Baptisms are when it is forgiven. This is why, according to catholism but not all denomination of christianity, children who die before baptisms go to purgatory. You've gotta love how god punishes people for the actions of their parents...just like the egyptian children

[SoulReaver]

You've gotta love how god punishes people for the actions of their parents...

yeah but sometimes human law does too (cf. my previous comment on inheritance)

as for the jehovahs, no that's not an example but - if I'm not mistaken - only followers get an afterlife or something (convenient), others get nothing (no heaven no hell, just...nothing) so basically that means not everyone's immortal
Taoism or Shintoism could be examples of religions with no afterlife
some forms of judaism didn't emphasize an afterlife either, even to the point of denying it outright (the Saducean branch ?) though I'm really not sure about this

[Bareassedmunky]

yeah but sometimes human law does too (cf. my previous comment on inheritance)

as for the jehovahs, no that's not an example but - if I'm not mistaken - only followers get an afterlife or something (convenient), others get nothing (no heaven no hell, just...nothing) so basically that means not everyone's mind is immortal
Taoism or Shintoism could be examples of religions with no afterlife
some forms of judaism didn't emphasize an afterlife either, even to the point of denying it outright (the saducean branch ?) though I'm really not sure about this

I never said human law was perfect...far from it.

You have half triggered some memory in the back of my mind about judaism not originally having an afterlife...but it is faint in the back of my mind. It's too late to research this now, but tomorrow I will. But these are only a few smaller religions, the mainstream ones all preach an afterlife, which is why they attract people (and why they flourish, and become mainstream).

The Jehovah's witness was just lying to me becasue I asked a loaded question, and he wanted to knock me off my line of questioning by saying he didn't believe he was going to heaven.