Religion Thread

[King Douche]

I decided to create a thread to talk about religion if that is okay with everyone. I know this is such a touchy topic and all but can be a great one aswell. Would like to know people's thoughts on the subkect and their beliefs. So what do people think of the subject of religion?

 

[Remix]

Religion in my view is a tool. It arose to explain how things that man couldnt understand. Why does the sun rise? Because god made it happen. Where did the world come from? God made it.

Of course now science can explain things better. Why does the sun rise? because the earth rotates on its axis. Where did the world come from? particles of dust were attracted to one another by gravityand formed an insanely hot sphere that cooled down, got hit by metiorites and developed an atmosphere until it became what it is today.

Religion in a modern society isn't required. Science gives better answers than religion, and so it isn't needed. However, on the whole its harmless (with the exclusion of insane fundimentalists) and what entity people choose to worship is their own buisness.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Religion in my view is a tool. It arose to explain how things that man couldnt understand. Why does the sun rise? Because god made it happen. Where did the world come from? God made it.

Of course now science can explain things better. Why does the sun rise? because the earth rotates on its axis. Where did the world come from? particles of dust were attracted to one another by gravityand formed an insanely hot sphere that cooled down, got hit by metiorites and developed an atmosphere until it became what it is today.

Religion in a modern society isn't required. Science gives better answers than religion, and so it isn't needed. However, on the whole its harmless (with the exclusion of insane fundimentalists) and what entity people choose to worship is their own buisness.

Um...that right there is a statement of faith. You are trying to explain your world in a manner that you can understand. I really am failing to see how this is any different than someone holding beliefs that parallel with any kind of organized religion.

I am of the general opinion that atheism is relatively impossible...at the very least improbable. Paul Tillich makes a good point of this in Dynamics of Faith.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Um...that right there is a statement of faith.

If you mean that it is a statement of faith in that one doesn't devise his own methods and experiments to test the world around one and one simply believes what one reads in books or what people tell one, then I can sort of see where you're coming from. I mean, one can sort of see where you're coming from.

If, however, you are oblivious to the methods and extensive testing that goes into forming scientific hypotheses, as well as the constant the evolution of ideas, as well as the fact that the most common scientific answer is "We just don't know - it's beyond our understanding" and how that sets science apart from religion then I must disagree with you.

I am of the general opinion that atheism is relatively impossible..

I don't understand what you're getting at here. It's impossible to not believe in God? I suppose you mean that it's impossible there is no God, which I'd like you to explain further.

 

[BladeRunner]

I don't see religion as any sort of "pre-science mentality". I have a different definition of it.

Science may tell you how something works. But can it tell you how to live? Like how to make good choices with your life to be happy? No, it's just facts.

Like for instance, science can tell you how your body works. But it's up to you how you use those facts and that's what makes up your beliefs. Science provides good information, but the application of that information to live a good life is the realm of belief systems. Some call it "wisdom".

I'm saying there's a difference between a fact, and what you ought to do to live a good life.

To me, a belief system is just a culture. Some people eat fish, some are vegetarians. Some people live in communes, some people live alone. These are lifestyle choices. There's nothing backwards about them, or "pre-scientific".

Some people believe there's gods in the sky. Some people believe there's not. Some people believe in one god. These things don't affect me, so I let people believe what they want. You don't have to believe in anything supernatural to be religious.

To me, just imo, religion is a set of viewpoints which you can use to have a happy life. I believe in virtue theory for instance. The theory that's there's lots of virtues, and if we live by these various virtues we will have a good life. And I also believe the point of religion is to create ways to make your life happy.

For instance the virtue of patience can create happiness in your life.

Or the virtue of compassion.

These virtues are wisdoms based on applying these things to real life to see if you benefit. Because it wouldn't be called a virtue if you nor anyone else ever benefited from it.

The point of life is to live a good, fulfilling, happy life. And a religion is simply a set of methods that benefit you and those around you so that everyone can be happy. A deeper point of religion is to live according to nature, thereby benefiting from all of the beautiful things it can offer. But that's just how I see it.

What I believe is based on Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Tzu mainly. So if you find what I said interesting, you could check those guys out.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I don't see religion as any sort of "pre-science mentality". I have a different definition of it.

Science may tell you how something works. But can it tell you how to live? Like how to make good choices with your life to be happy?

Actually yes. Through the sciences of things like psychiatry and biology, one can live a very happy life.

Average life expectancy has shot through the roof because of medical progress, which is getting exponentially faster. We may have a cure for blindness, AIDS, cancer and numerous other diseases before the decade is out. Even if we don't, our treatments for such things will have increased an incredible amount.

Science has been used to diagnose and treat mental disorders which people were previously either oblivious to, or would have locked people up in a cage for having such a thing.

Not to mention that technology has provides you with millions of hours with entertainment and has connected the world. I mean, you're talking to people scattered across the planet from your home.

Personally, I'm what I believe to be a good person because I have a conscience. I'm not afraid of punishment in the afterlife, nor am I looking forward to a reward.

 

[BladeRunner]

Actually yes. Through the sciences of things like psychiatry and biology, one can live a very happy life.

Average life expectancy has shot through the roof because of medical progress, which is getting exponentially faster. We may have a cure for blindness, AIDS, cancer and numerous other diseases before the decade is out. Even if we don't, our treatments for such things will have increased an incredible amount.

Science has been used to diagnose and treat mental disorders which people were previously either oblivious to, or would have locked people up in a cage for having such a thing.

Not to mention that technology has provides you with millions of hours with entertainment and has connected the world. I mean, you're talking to people scattered across the planet from your home..

I never said science doesn't benefit us. We have gained enormously from it, there's no denying that. It's been incredibly beneficial. But the application of facts, facts we've learned from science, is based on wisdom. A computer can know a thousand science facts. It's the application of facts that is what I'm talking about.

For instance it doesn't matter how well you know about something, if you can't apply it to your life. And applying things to your life is kind of an art, and that's where wisdom comes in.

Like, you might know exactly, scientifically, how to eat right to live a healthy life. But if you don't do it, then what good is that knowledge?

Wisdom is the shared common cultural experiences, along with the applied knowledge to actualize happiness.

I don't believe it's an "either/or" problem "Science versus religion". I don't believe you either believe in science or you believe in religion. I think you need both parts.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Sam, I was referring to what Paul Tillich labels "ultimate concern."

Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man's ultimate concern. Man, like every living being is concerned about many things, above all about those which condition his very existence, such as food and shelter. But man, in contrast to other living beings, has spiritual concerns--cognitive, aesthetic, social, political. Some of them are urgent, often extremely urgent, and each of them as well as the vital concerns can claim ultimacy for a human life or the life of a social group.

Thus, whatever in our lives that claims ultimacy would be "God" and would be the subject of our faith. Tommy was projecting ultimacy upon theories of science, and in turn, was making a statement of faith.

As for the atheism notion...I will once again refer to Tillich:

The fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God. It is always present in any act of faith, even if the act of faith includes the denial of God. Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the name of God. One God can deny the other one. Ultimate concern cannot deny its own character as ultimate. Therefore, it affirms what is meant by the word "God." Atheism, consequently, can only mean the attempt to remove any ultimate concern-to remain unconcerned about the meaning of one's existence. Indifference toward the ultimate question is the only imaginable form of atheism....In any case, he who denies God as a matter of ultimate concern affirms God, because he affirms ultimacy in his concern.

Thus, for Tillich, if one was claiming to be an atheist, he or she would automatically not be an atheist, as he or she would have an ultimate concern...atheism. And the ultimate concern is the infinitely regressed version of what we would refer to as "God."

 

[BladeRunner]

I've read some of Tillich's stuff. I like it a lot. Especially his "ground of being".

 

[Razor]

Well. I myself am a Deist.

I believe that, first and foremost, God wants us to behave morally. Secondly, I believe that God gave us the ability to reason, and wants us to use said ability to reason. Third, I believe that God has a Heaven set aside for the souls of those who behave morally.

Deists reject as false any religion based upon a set of books or teachings that claim they are the literal and unerring word of God. We also reject prophecies and miracles as being false.

Now, Deism gets a little individualistic after those basic tenets. I blame this on the fact that there is no real Deist Bible or Church. Deism has many famous Deists, such as John Locke and many of our Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams come to mind), and David Hume (who happens to be one of my favorite philosophers). Some, including myself, hold these men to be Deistic Teachers, of some sort. We don't worship them, but we hold their arguments on the basis of Deism to be true. What I'm saying is don't expect me to be take a religious holiday on David Hume's birthday.

I'll just outline what I, myself believe. In order for God to hold moral behavior as a necessity for Heaven, he must seed such ideas of ethics and morals into our very being at birth. Therefore, we are all born with an idea of what is Good. Whether or not we turn out Good is our own choice, something that can be seen throughout the world. How many times do horrible, abusive parents produce children that want nothing more than the happiness of their fellow Man? How many times do great, loving parents come up with homicidal maniacs as children? It's all based on an individual choice, which God gave us the ability to make at birth.

I may reject the world's religions as false, but I do not automatically condemn their masses of believers as Hell-bound. The teachers Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, and the like had very real and very true ethical teachings. The true followers of their respective religions thereby follow these ethical and moral teachings. So they get into Heaven. The same applies to every religion in the world. Hell, if Satanism teaches morally correct ways to act, then Satanists get into Heaven. God makes no qualms about why you act morally, as long as your actions mesh with the moral teachings he gave to you.

I mesh science with my own faith by prescribing to the Watchmaker metaphor often offered by religious scientists or religious people who aren't blind to the idea that God may very well not think all scientists are going to Hell for their infernal calculators and thinking that the World is older than 6000 years. God made the Heavens and the Earth and all of Existence through the creation and application of Scientific Laws. The Big Bang, Evolution, Gravity, Laws of Thermodynamics, all of that is the work of God. We use our ability to reason, which God gave to us at our birth, to identify these Laws.

By a very incident of having these beliefs, I also believe that God would not be angry if people were to then use such knowledge to better ourselves. When science understands how to use genetic engineering to make sure we never have another child born with Tay-Sachs or any other genetic abomination, then why would God be angry if we were to use such knowledge? To me, it is not acting as if we are God ourselves. It is acting on the ability to reason and the ability to act morally that he gave us to better the lives of our fellow Man.

This is how I can go about my life. I simply could not believe in a God that would actually condemn a moral man to an eternity of suffering simply because he didn't believe in a certain religion. I also could not believe that many centuries of science that has been tested over and over, again and again, was wrong because they dated the world to be millions of years old. I had to find a way to mesh these ideas, and I did.

 

[Remix]

Thus, whatever in our lives that claims ultimacy would be "God" and would be the subject of our faith. Tommy was projecting ultimacy upon theories of science, and in turn, was making a statement of faith.

Except that I dont put blind faith in science. I put my faith in concepts that have been demonstrated, and repeated in a laboratory. These concepts have been observed and tested. You dont need faith when what you believe has been proven. do you need proof that gravity exists? or that fire is hot? There is no need for a God to explain the universe, or to consider science to be a miricle explanation (which I dont think of it as, by the way). For me all of the things that god supposedly did have more likely (and/or believable) explanations, and thus I've concluded that there is no god. This is the same process that happens in courts all over the world, you look at the evidence and make your decision based on that.

and for the record, I dont regard science as my 'ultimate concern'. Outside of my course, I dont give a toss about it. The nonexistance of God is very low on my list of priorities.

Thus, for Tillich, if one was claiming to be an atheist, he or she would automatically not be an atheist, as he or she would have an ultimate concern...atheism. And the ultimate concern is the infinitely regressed version of what we would refer to as "God."

The problem about that is that has the same reasoning as 'the causation argument' for god's existance (god is the first cause and is self causing). I loath, abhore and detest that arguement. It requires you to think of God as the preminant being, and for your spiritual concern to be more important than anything else. for me it isnt. I think of the following things to be more important than God, the essentials (food, drink and clothing), shelter, my health, my family, my friends, my education (now) and job (after graduation), my haterid of Leeds, and then God. so that arguement fails. I would think those things were more important than God even if I still believed in him (I was raised a christian), and chances are I'd be in the same university, doing the same course, still not take the bible literally. I would however care slightly more than I do now about blasphemy.

To take Tilches words, I am indiferent towards the ultimate question. after all, I already know the answer. It's 42.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

No. Tommy. Whatever is at the top of your list is your ultimate concern...your "God." Thus, for you, the "essentials" are that which claim ultimacy and would serve as "God."

And how is putting faith in a deity blind? What you think has been "proven" by science is only proven within a very finite realm. You are trusting that your senses are of great significance. You are trusting that just because you see something over and over and over again that it will always happen under the same conditions. Thus, science is authoritative for you. A person who places authority in religion/spirituality is no different. He or she senses things and logically deduces that it is a result of some infinite being.

 

[Remix]

what you are saying is that food, drink and clothing are my God? No, they arent. My ultimate concern they may be, but I as sure as hell dont consider them to be God. I said essentials because I consider them to be of roughly equal importance and didnt want them to be thought of as separate concerns.

and actually the 'it happens repeatedly under the same coinditions' does pretty much mean that it will always happen. That is how engineering (the formulae that apply to steel bridges in america apply to steel bridges in england, or anywhere else in the world), and that drugs affect the samr receptors in the body in everybody. That's not faith. it is a fact. if they were not facts, then iron bridges (or any other sort of long term structure) would be impossible to build (you wouldnt know how much material to use, you wouldnt know if the joinery techniques would work, you wouldnt know if the material is strong enough). and if drugs didnt affect the same receptors in the body everybody would have a different reaction to them I might take an asprin and find it makes my headache disappear. you might take it and find it makes your headache worse. That woud make modern (i.e. evidense based) medicine an impossibility. If two people in a lab use the same equipment and get vastly different results, someone screwed up.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

what you are saying is that food, drink and clothing are my God? No, they arent. My ultimate concern they may be, but I as sure as hell dont consider them to be God. I said essentials because I consider them to be of roughly equal importance and didnt want them to be thought of as separate concerns.

According to Tillich, essentials are your ultimate concern. And often, we use symbolic language to label our ultimate concerns, and that is generally where "God" comes in.

and actually the 'it happens repeatedly under the same coinditions' does pretty much mean that it will always happen. That is how engineering (the formulae that apply to steel bridges in america apply to steel bridges in england, or anywhere else in the world), and that drugs affect the samr receptors in the body in everybody. That's not faith. it is a fact. if they were not facts, then iron bridges (or any other sort of long term structure) would be impossible to build (you wouldnt know how much material to use, you wouldnt know if the joinery techniques would work, you wouldnt know if the material is strong enough). and if drugs didnt affect the same receptors in the body everybody would have a different reaction to them I might take an asprin and find it makes my headache disappear. you might take it and find it makes your headache worse. That woud make modern (i.e. evidense based) medicine an impossibility. If two people in a lab use the same equipment and get vastly different results, someone screwed up.

You are missing the point. You are placing authority in your senses and things that seem logical to you. This is no different than a vast majority of religious people.

 

[Remix]

The problem is that I defined my essentials as food, drink and shelter. without them, life would be impossible (you'd starve, dehydrate, freeze in the winter, and get severe sunburn in the summer without them). I dont consider god (or faith as a whole) to be on the same level as thos material things that make life possible to live.

Actually I am placing a great deal in things that have been proven, and proven repeatedly, and proven (repeatedly) to be statistically significant. Not to mention that not all science is logical. look at quantum physics (which makes no sence if you delve deep enough), black holes (which break the laws of the universe), and some parts of modern medicine (e.g. general anaestesia). I do not need faith in asprin to reduce my pain. it has a proven effect in the body (specifically it blocks an enzyme called cyclooxygenase) that prevents the body feeling certain types of pain. I don't need faith that hydrocorsisone cream will get rid of contact dermatitis (a rash caused by contact with an alergen), because steroids reduce swelling. that is why the body produces them.

If I am putting faith in anything it is the scientific method. However, I do not consider it to be my god. And I'd put my faith in it, if I was still agnostic (which I was for several years), or if I never stopped believing in God. However as I said, I meet Tillch's definition of an atheist.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

No...you do not fit Tillich's criteria for atheism because you have stated that you have ultimate concern.

 

[King Douche]

Well. I myself am a Deist.

I believe that, first and foremost, God wants us to behave morally. Secondly, I believe that God gave us the ability to reason, and wants us to use said ability to reason. Third, I believe that God has a Heaven set aside for the souls of those who behave morally.

Deists reject as false any religion based upon a set of books or teachings that claim they are the literal and unerring word of God. We also reject prophecies and miracles as being false.

Now, Deism gets a little individualistic after those basic tenets. I blame this on the fact that there is no real Deist Bible or Church. Deism has many famous Deists, such as John Locke and many of our Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams come to mind), and David Hume (who happens to be one of my favorite philosophers). Some, including myself, hold these men to be Deistic Teachers, of some sort. We don't worship them, but we hold their arguments on the basis of Deism to be true. What I'm saying is don't expect me to be take a religious holiday on David Hume's birthday.

I'll just outline what I, myself believe. In order for God to hold moral behavior as a necessity for Heaven, he must seed such ideas of ethics and morals into our very being at birth. Therefore, we are all born with an idea of what is Good. Whether or not we turn out Good is our own choice, something that can be seen throughout the world. How many times do horrible, abusive parents produce children that want nothing more than the happiness of their fellow Man? How many times do great, loving parents come up with homicidal maniacs as children? It's all based on an individual choice, which God gave us the ability to make at birth.

I may reject the world's religions as false, but I do not automatically condemn their masses of believers as Hell-bound. The teachers Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, and the like had very real and very true ethical teachings. The true followers of their respective religions thereby follow these ethical and moral teachings. So they get into Heaven. The same applies to every religion in the world. Hell, if Satanism teaches morally correct ways to act, then Satanists get into Heaven. God makes no qualms about why you act morally, as long as your actions mesh with the moral teachings he gave to you.

I mesh science with my own faith by prescribing to the Watchmaker metaphor often offered by religious scientists or religious people who aren't blind to the idea that God may very well not think all scientists are going to Hell for their infernal calculators and thinking that the World is older than 6000 years. God made the Heavens and the Earth and all of Existence through the creation and application of Scientific Laws. The Big Bang, Evolution, Gravity, Laws of Thermodynamics, all of that is the work of God. We use our ability to reason, which God gave to us at our birth, to identify these Laws.

By a very incident of having these beliefs, I also believe that God would not be angry if people were to then use such knowledge to better ourselves. When science understands how to use genetic engineering to make sure we never have another child born with Tay-Sachs or any other genetic abomination, then why would God be angry if we were to use such knowledge? To me, it is not acting as if we are God ourselves. It is acting on the ability to reason and the ability to act morally that he gave us to better the lives of our fellow Man.

This is how I can go about my life. I simply could not believe in a God that would actually condemn a moral man to an eternity of suffering simply because he didn't believe in a certain religion. I also could not believe that many centuries of science that has been tested over and over, again and again, was wrong because they dated the world to be millions of years old. I had to find a way to mesh these ideas, and I did.

Pretty sure if were satanists we go to hell. They do not worship GOD, they do bad things, cannot go to heaven doing bad things. I found this out by looking at a tv show on the history channell that tells you satanists do bad things and do not beleive in GOD. Sorry they go to hell my man.

 

[Razor]

Pretty sure if were satanists we go to hell.

In my belief system, I'm not so sure about that.

They do not worship GOD,

Did you read my post? You don't have to worship a specific God or even any God to go to Heaven in my books.

they do bad things,

Who said that? Most satanists merely believe in the whole "Doing what makes you happy here and now" philosophy. Also, most believe in magic.

cannot go to heaven doing bad things.

True. But you haven't proven Satanists do bad things. Worshipping Satan isn't exactly immoral. Beating a child is, worshipping a picture of a goat-man isn't.

I found this out by looking at a tv show on the history channell that tells you satanists do bad things

I can look at the History Channel and find a show saying that Christians launched something called the Crusades. Killed thousands of Muslims. Also, I can look at the news and find self-proclaimed Christians killing each other and a few bombing Abortion Clinics/killing Abortion Doctors. Am I now going to go to my Christian mother and tell her she's evil?

Oh, I'm not? Well then. Don't judge every Satanist by the acts of a few, and I won't judge Christians by the acts of a few.

and do not beleive in GOD.

They believe in Satan, so they most obviously believe in the God that Satan believed and was cast down by. Just because they worship Satan and not God doesn't mean they don't believe in the existence of a God.

Sorry

Don't apologize to me, I'm not a Satanist. Never liked goats. And candles aggravate my allergies sometimes.

they go to hell my man.

And that is in direct conflict with my own belief system, in that you can't just cast away an entire group to Hell because you think a few may be bad. It's okay, we'll see who's right when we die. I'll bet on my belief system, and you bet on yours.

 

[King Douche]

In my belief system, I'm not so sure about that.



Did you read my post? You don't have to worship a specific God or even any God to go to Heaven in my books.



Who said that? Most satanists merely believe in the whole "Doing what makes you happy here and now" philosophy. Also, most believe in magic.



True. But you haven't proven Satanists do bad things. Worshipping Satan isn't exactly immoral. Beating a child is, worshipping a picture of a goat-man isn't.



I can look at the History Channel and find a show saying that Christians launched something called the Crusades. Killed thousands of Muslims. Also, I can look at the news and find self-proclaimed Christians killing each other and a few bombing Abortion Clinics/killing Abortion Doctors. Am I now going to go to my Christian mother and tell her she's evil?

Oh, I'm not? Well then. Don't judge every Satanist by the acts of a few, and I won't judge Christians by the acts of a few.



They believe in Satan, so they most obviously believe in the God that Satan believed and was cast down by. Just because they worship Satan and not God doesn't mean they don't believe in the existence of a God.



Don't apologize to me, I'm not a Satanist. Never liked goats. And candles aggravate my allergies sometimes.



And that is in direct conflict with my own belief system, in that you can't just cast away an entire group to Hell because you think a few may be bad. It's okay, we'll see who's right when we die. I'll bet on my belief system, and you bet on yours.

Satanists actually do not beleive in nor satan or god, they said this on the history channell. And yeah they beleive in themselves, whatever makes you happy. See thats when bad things come out. See man is well evil, and doing what makes them happy for most will prompt them to do evil.

Also I read the satanists little 10 commandments and it said some harsh things to do to people if they do things to you. Now it said if a person disrespects you in your own home to destroy that person. Woah! Why not just kick them out your house why you gotta destroy that person.

Also it clearly says in the bible you have to have faith on GOD to go to heaven. Which means you have to beleive in GOd if you want to go to heaven. I do not know were people get this you do not have to beleive stuff from. If that was the case what be the point in having faith. Also I know not all satanists are bad, some are okay I guess.

 

[Razor]

Satanists actually do not beleive in nor satan or god, they said this on the history channell.

Seriously, there are multiple forms of Satanism. There are those who worship Satan and find him as the ultimate source of power and knowledge, and there are those who belong to the LeVayan Satanic cult. You're citing the LeVayan cult, of which there are no inherently bad people. However, I'm sure you'll beg to differ.

And yeah they beleive in themselves, whatever makes you happy.

They have a very individualistic approach to life. They look to helping their friends, attacking their enemies, and living to make their own lives better. That's not inherently immoral, from the way I view it.

See thats when bad things come out. See man is well evil, and doing what makes them happy for most will prompt them to do evil.

So. It makes me happy to buy a lollipop. That makes me evil?

No, doing what makes you happy doesn't promise evil actions. If helping others would make me happy, then LeVayan Satanism tells me to do that.

Also I read the satanists little 10 commandments and it said some harsh things to do to people if they do things to you. Now it said if a person disrespects you in your own home to destroy that person. Woah! Why not just kick them out your house why you gotta destroy that person.

1) Lulz.

2) You're citing LeVeyan Satanism, not Satanism as a whole.

3) Destroy that person can be largely symbolic. "Destroy" can mean "yell at him and make him realize that he should not have disrespected you. Yell at him and make him know that he is nothing, and should not have even let such an idea to disrespect you in your own home cross his mind." Not necessarily kill him. Which, since you're reading them with the direct purpose of calling them immoral, is what you read from that.

Also it clearly says in the bible you have to have faith on GOD to go to heaven.

You started a thread on Religion, yet are attacking someone who believes something differently from you?

Also, why are you citing the Bible to someone who has said he rejects the Bible as an untrue representation of God's Word? I said in my post I reject the Bible as false. Don't cite it to me. It holds no meaning to me.

Which means you have to beleive in GOd if you want to go to heaven.

To Fundamentalist Christians, sure. But there are other Christians who realize that God can in fact be the same God that the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews worship. But then again, that wouldn't be any fun to believe, would it? It wouldn't give you your all important power trip.

I do not know were people get this you do not have to beleive stuff from.

I'm not a Christian. That's where I get it from.

If that was the case what be the point in having faith.

Hindus have Faith in their Gods. According to you, that faith is also going to send them to Hell. What is the purpose of their Faith? It's just going to send them to Hell.

Also I know not all satanists are bad, some are okay I guess.

If they're not all bad, then why do they go to Hell? Is Hell not reserved for the morally unrighteous? Or just those who don't believe in God? Do you think that Gandhi, one of the most morally pure men of this century, went to Hell because he's a Hindu?

 

[King Douche]

Seriously, there are multiple forms of Satanism. There are those who worship Satan and find him as the ultimate source of power and knowledge, and there are those who belong to the LeVayan Satanic cult. You're citing the LeVayan cult, of which there are no inherently bad people. However, I'm sure you'll beg to differ.



They have a very individualistic approach to life. They look to helping their friends, attacking their enemies, and living to make their own lives better. That's not inherently immoral, from the way I view it.



So. It makes me happy to buy a lollipop. That makes me evil?

No, doing what makes you happy doesn't promise evil actions. If helping others would make me happy, then LeVayan Satanism tells me to do that.



1) Lulz.

2) You're citing LeVeyan Satanism, not Satanism as a whole.

3) Destroy that person can be largely symbolic. "Destroy" can mean "yell at him and make him realize that he should not have disrespected you. Yell at him and make him know that he is nothing, and should not have even let such an idea to disrespect you in your own home cross his mind." Not necessarily kill him. Which, since you're reading them with the direct purpose of calling them immoral, is what you read from that.



You started a thread on Religion, yet are attacking someone who believes something differently from you?

Also, why are you citing the Bible to someone who has said he rejects the Bible as an untrue representation of God's Word? I said in my post I reject the Bible as false. Don't cite it to me. It holds no meaning to me.



To Fundamentalist Christians, sure. But there are other Christians who realize that God can in fact be the same God that the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews worship. But then again, that wouldn't be any fun to believe, would it? It wouldn't give you your all important power trip.



I'm not a Christian. That's where I get it from.



Hindus have Faith in their Gods. According to you, that faith is also going to send them to Hell. What is the purpose of their Faith? It's just going to send them to Hell.



If they're not all bad, then why do they go to Hell? Is Hell not reserved for the morally unrighteous? Or just those who don't believe in God? Do you think that Gandhi, one of the most morally pure men of this century, went to Hell because he's a Hindu?

Sorry I did not read your full posts only took parts out, was a long read. Okay look let me tell you something, I'm a christian right but have doubts about my faith and everything. You see when I was younger I had no problems, but now that I'm older, 18 to be exact I'm thinking like wait a minute is this real? Its scary to know that a man can go to hell like me if I do not beleive.

Now I'm not attacking your faith, I do not even know what faith you have, also not sure if Ghandi is in heaven or hell. See christians say and catholics too, that if you do not beleive in the ''true GOD'' you go to hell. I hope Ghandi not in hell if their iso ne, he does not deserve it. He is a great and pure man like you say.

Now on to the satanisim thing, did not know their was more parts, just thought the Levitan or whatever his name is, was the only one. I mean hey if he telling you to be a great person, help friends and attack enemies then hey, go for it. Does not seem wrong to me really. Want to make life good for you and go for the fullist of life, hey go for it.

Off topic, what faith are you Razor? And you proably do not feel the same way towards me but I like talking to you, seem like a cool and smart dude. By the way love your avatar as it has Velvet Sky sexy ass and the BATMAN!

 

[BladeRunner]

I don't know about afterlifes. Can't say really.

But I don't think God ever gives up on you.

You choose the life you want to live.

Who's to say what God's judgements are about people?

Some guy you may hate, God may like a lot

 

[X]

Pretty sure if were satanists we go to hell. They do not worship GOD, they do bad things, cannot go to heaven doing bad things. I found this out by looking at a tv show on the history channell that tells you satanists do bad things and do not beleive in GOD. Sorry they go to hell my man.

Yeah you very clearly know absolutely nothing about Satanism. Most people think Satanism is worshipping the literal Christian "devil", the man with the pointy red horns. Which is total bullshit, all Satanism is about is living life for YOURSELF and no one else. It's about being selfish. LaVeyan Satanism is the best example of this.


Most organized religions disgust me. Nothing but feeble minded sheep following an arbitrary set of rules of what humans deemed as morality thousands of years ago. Not to say that spirituality is a bad thing, it's just that once you organize that religion into a church 99 times out of 100 absolutely nothing good will come of it.

I don't know...I believe there's definitely something unexplainable out there that we could deem a "higher power", but I certainly don't believe in some omnipotent all-knowing white bearded man in the sky judging us. Science is my religion.

 

[BladeRunner]

The liberty of man consists solely in this; that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.

I like this quote because it defines what I was talking about with virtue theory and going by nature.

You find the laws of nature, and you go by them because that's the way existence is. From the laws of nature one can surmise certain ways to act conducive to living a good life. These are the virtues. And the better you understand them and apply them, the better off your life will be.

Man is not outside of nature he is apart of it. And being apart of it means going by the laws of it. And those who go against the laws suffer because of their ignorance.

Nature has made us so that we have to balance out various aspects of our existence to maximize our happiness. So balance, or moderation, is another key aspect of living a good life.

 

[X]

I like this quote because it defines what I was talking about with virtue theory and going by nature.

You find the laws of nature, and you go by them because that's the way existence is. From the laws of nature one can surmise certain ways to act conducive to living a good life. These are the virtues. And the better you understand them and apply them, the better off your life will be.

But the point of that quote from Bakunin is that those virtues you've just described are only important and only can be considered "virtues" solely if you as an individual recognize them as such. By itself these "virtues" have no power, we give it power.

Not sure if we should go into Bakuninism though because than we're in a discussion of politics and not religion. I suppose one man's religion is another man's politics though.