Research on Belief in God

[Altitude]

Where are you getting that from?

“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”

Exodus 34:14

 

[Altitude]

As this thread seems to be discussing christianity almost exclusively, I will pose the following question(s) to christians:

What do you make of people who are never exposed to your brand of god and religion? Or of children who are killed or starve before they have a chance to even contemplate religion? Do they go to hell? Why would your god create such circumstances?

In your opinion, which is worse: Someone who identifies themselves as christian and worships your god, who attends church and other religious functions as much as possible, but at the same time is also a person who in reality has no regard for others, who lies and cheats their way through life, and who "sins" repeatedly, yet goes to confession and is therefore "forgiven" on a regular basis... OR... Somone who - for whatever reason - does not believe in god, rejects all forms of religion, yet is a genuinely good person who treats others with respect, who is honest and kind, and who instills these same decent and honorable traits in their children/family? In your opinion are they both going to hell, just one of them, or neither of them?

Do you fault someone who comes to reject god/religion based on some form of traumatic/horrific experience? For example:

Someone:
who is molested by a priest when they are a young child
whose close friend/family member is murdered by a serial killer
whose home and life is destroyed by a natural disaster
whose young child dies for any reason
who experienced the Holocaust or other instances of genocide

What about people who simply observe these things from an outside perspective and conclude that there could not possibly be a god who not only allows these things to happen, but apparently is responsible for them?

Isn't it incredibly insensitive and narcissistic for one to claim to have god watching over them when they.. recover from illness, recover from a drug addiction, give up a life of crime, win a sporting event, ect... while there are thousands of people around the world suffering and dying everyday?

These are just a few of the questions that I have had since I was about 14 years old (there are many more, of course). Note that I have left science out of this post, as I feel that these moral/logic based questions are just as important to ask of religious folk. Spare me the ".. works in mysterious ways" bullsh!t by the way. If that's your only response then don't bother.

 

[The Hitch]

On the other hand, one cannot say Bin Laden didn't commit his crimes because he was a Muslim. There are precepts in the Quran and other sacred Muslim texts that can very easily be interpreted the way they were interpreted by Bin Laden.

The problem is, at least in the world I live in, we cannot argue with a Muslim that their religion influences people like Bin Laden. All they have to do is deny it. And we get mocked for claiming that we know more about Islam than the Muslim. Typical atheist arrogance. To think that we can argue with someone about their own religion.

The Muslim, so human logic goes, will always know more than a non Muslim about his religion. Same for all other religions.

 

[BroDeal]

As this thread seems to be discussing christianity almost exclusively, I will pose the following question(s) to christians:

What do you make of people who are never exposed to your brand of god and religion? Or of children who are killed or starve before they have a chance to even contemplate religion? Do they go to hell? Why would your god create such circumstances?

In your opinion, which is worse: Someone who identifies themselves as christian and worships your god, who attends church and other religious functions as much as possible, but at the same time is also a person who in reality has no regard for others, who lies and cheats their way through life, and who "sins" repeatedly, yet goes to confession and is therefore "forgiven" on a regular basis... OR... Somone who - for whatever reason - does not believe in god, rejects all forms of religion, yet is a genuinely good person who treats others with respect, who is honest and kind, and who instills these same decent and honorable traits in their children/family? In your opinion are they both going to hell, just one of them, or neither of them?

Do you fault someone who comes to reject god/religion based on some form of traumatic/horrific experience? For example:

Someone:
who is molested by a priest when they are a young child
whose close friend/family member is murdered by a serial killer
whose home and life is destroyed by a natural disaster
whose young child dies for any reason
who experienced the Holocaust or other instances of genocide

What about people who simply observe these things from an outside perspective and conclude that there could not possibly be a god who not only allows these things to happen, but apparently is responsible for them?

Isn't it incredibly insensitive and narcissistic for one to claim to have god watching over them when they.. recover from illness, recover from a drug addiction, give up a life of crime, win a sporting event, ect... while there are thousands of people around the world suffering and dying everyday?

These are just a few of the questions that I have had since I was about 14 years old (there are many more, of course). Note that I have left science out of this post, as I feel that these moral/logic based questions are just as important to ask of religious folk. Spare me the ".. works in mysterious ways" bullsh!t by the way. If that's your only response then don't bother.

You think too much. It's all part of god's plan. Little girl walking down the sidewalk stops to help a turtle off the road and gets killed by a car. God's plan. Israel, in the name of "never again," steals the Palestinian's land and puts the inconvenient inhabitants in the world's largest concentration camp. God's plan. Serial killer murders forty-three people. God's plan. Idiot president invades another country and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. God's plan. The reasonable person starts asking himself, "With a god like this, who needs the devil."

 

[Luke Schmid]

“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”

Exodus 34:14

So God does not want people worshiping anything else, I am not sure what there is to explain.

 

[ElChingon]

So God does not want people worshiping anything else, I am not sure what there is to explain.

He's an egomaniac, can't accept there might be something/someone else. If you do well then you're sent to the dungeon! How dare you question him, quite the tolerant one isn't he.

 

[Luke Schmid]

He's an egomaniac, can't accept there might be something/someone else. If you do well then you're sent to the dungeon! How dare you question him, quite the tolerant one isn't he.

Tolerance is a load of nonsense, something is right or it is wrong.

 

[zigzag wanderer]

You think too much. It's all part of god's plan. Little girl walking down the sidewalk stops to help a turtle off the road and gets killed by a car. God's plan. Israel, in the name of "never again," steals the Palestinian's land and puts the inconvenient inhabitants in the world's largest concentration camp. God's plan. Serial killer murders forty-three people. God's plan. Idiot president invades another country and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. God's plan. The reasonable person starts asking himself, "With a god like this, who needs the devil."

God is omniscient and knows how everyone will behave before they do - this leads to another difficult question:

Why does an all-loving God allow you to be born in the full knowledge you're going to Hell, and causing misery to his beloved people on the way?

 

[Descender]

The problem is, at least in the world I live in, we cannot argue with a Muslim that their religion influences people like Bin Laden. All they have to do is deny it. And we get mocked for claiming that we know more about Islam than the Muslim. Typical atheist arrogance. To think that we can argue with someone about their own religion.

The Muslim, so human logic goes, will always know more than a non Muslim about his religion. Same for all other religions.

To hell with political correctness.

 

[ElChingon]

God is omniscient and knows how everyone will behave before they do - this leads to another difficult question:

Why does an all-loving God allow you to be born in the full knowledge you're going to Hell, and causing misery to his beloved people on the way?

I think you're either proving its all a Catch 22 or that you (people) are in control, not one sadistic individual.

 

[Tank Engine]

On a lighter note. British sausage week is upon us. Apparently sausage eating was declared a sin by the Catholic church in 320, due to their relation to pagan festivals.

http://www.lovepork.co.uk/assets/pdf/sausage-facts-2011.pdf

 

[rhubroma]

On a lighter note. British sausage week is upon us. Apparently sausage eating was declared a sin by the Catholic church in 320, due to their relation to pagan festivals.

http://www.lovepork.co.uk/assets/pdf/sausage-facts-2011.pdf

Well that's a riot, because Catholicism is just paganism with the names changed. But what a spectacle!

The dates, and everything else, remain the same. The peasants live this better than anyone else.

And I'd invite you to a sagra della salsiccia in Umbria. Preferably with a bottle of sagrantino.

 

[Luke Schmid]

From the Gruen Transfer an Australian TV program about advertising. Religions should be banned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvW3b0-brlc&feature=related

 

[gregod]

i wonder if this has been posted yet. rowan atkinson as the devil. click on the picture for the youtube link (audio only).

 

[oldborn]

Well that's a riot, because Catholicism is just paganism with the names changed. But what a spectacle!

The dates, and everything else, remain the same. The peasants live this better than anyone else.

And I'd invite you to a sagra della salsiccia in Umbria. Preferably with a bottle of sagrantino.

Of course you are right St. Valentine or St. Patrick are pagans holidays so this is evidence that Church in order to gain popularity took some dates, older beleives, or lot of saints, that is all dude.

As my Marxist professor used to say; " Children, enemy of working class should be destroyed as well Church cos they are poisoninig people with their pagans beleives"
Did you maybe attend his classes? I am sure you would be given A

 

[rhubroma]

Of course you are right St. Valentine or St. Patrick are pagans holidays so this is evidence that Church in order to gain popularity took some dates, older beleives, or lot of saints, that is all dude.

As my Marxist professor used to say; " Children, enemy of working class should be destroyed as well Church cos they are poisoninig people with their pagans beleives"
Did you maybe attend his classes? I am sure you would be given A

No, but I do have a historical perspective, which is the only pespective that we mortals have to go on. Capito?

PS: I'm sure I'd have failed his course, because I don't consider these things in terms of ideology, but rather the culture of civilization, of which I feign knowledege.

 

[ElChingon]

i wonder if this has been posted yet. rowan atkinson as the devil. click on the picture for the youtube link (audio only).

Gotta love the fact that we can post all the satan pictures we want.

Take that Onion Skinners!

 

[oldborn]

No, but I do have a historical perspective, which is the only pespective that we mortals have to go on. Capito?

PS: I'm sure I'd have failed his course, because I don't consider these things in terms of ideology, but rather the culture of civilization, of which I feign knowledege.

So what exact culture of civilization or just civilization in historical perspective teach "Catholicism is just paganism" theory? I am all ears.

Do not you think that even Hiduism is pagan beleive, which may offend some feelings?

P.S. Comrade rhubroma

 

[Boeing]

To do no evil;

To cultivate good;

To purify one's mind.

 

[rhubroma]

So what exact culture of civilization or just civilization in historical perspective teach "Catholicism is just paganism" theory? I am all ears.

Do not you think that even Hiduism is pagan beleive, which may offend some feelings?

P.S. Comrade rhubroma

Well, to answer your question, I will refer you to the luminaries from Erasmus, to Burchard to Von Pastor, to Pasolini, etc.

Having been exposed to the Catholic faith since childhood and having been a student of Rome for 25 years, circa, I have formulated a citical analysis and drawn my conclusions.

And, don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the pagans, so how could be in contention with Hinduism?

 

[Tank Engine]

On tolerance

Tolerance is a word that has come up from time to time here, sometimes lauded sometimes in a negative light. What is tolerance? Allowing something to occur through indifference or apathy is not tolerance. Tolerance should be an active appreciation of the freedom of other individuals and promotion of this freedom. Such an understanding implies the limits on what we call "toleration". We should not "tolerate" actions which impede the freedom of others.

Since tolerance is not apathy, it does not mean that we should withhold our opinions, but that they should be given while respecting others as humans. In New Testament terms , such tolerance could be understood as patience (a component of love).

Such tolerance has been sadly lacking in history, both by those who professed faith in God and by those that did not. This shouldn't be treated by those on either side of the discussion as proof of their point of view, or a reflection of what those on the other side believe. Rather, such actions should be treated as examples of the evil that humans can show, rather than the good that they are also capable of.

I remember that when I was in Poland there was a series in which Jozef Tischner (a priest/philosopher) talked with Jacek Zakowski (a journalist from Gazeta Wyborcza, the paper that originated in the Solidarity movement). Tischner gave a different twist to the story of Abraham and Isaac in which it is related that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Tischner put forward the idea that it wasn't the voice of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son, but his internal voice and that this internal voice is one that has lead to crusades and totalitarianism, among other things. He argued that instead of simply listening to the internal voice of "what was right", one should first reflect whether the intended actions agree with the maxim of "do unto others as you would have others do onto you".

 

[oldborn]

Well, to answer your question, I will refer you to the luminaries from Erasmus, to Burchard to Von Pastor, to Pasolini, etc.

Having been exposed to the Catholic faith since childhood and having been a student of Rome for 25 years, circa, I have formulated a citical analysis and drawn my conclusions.

And, don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the pagans, so how could be in contention with Hinduism?

Well as far I read (you are way out of my league) first two had certain concerns about deviation of formal Church or Popes or common people tradition, which neither is so tragical if we understand that those manuscripts were made in 11 or 16th century, and folklore or way of life by those people then.
You should IMHO not judged whole church by acts of few.

But none of them did not teach (or I am unaware) "Catholicism is just paganism" theory.

I think that every one who is telling people what his religion is, or how should be named or treated is not very wise dude.

Hinduism paralel Paganism regards; I think you have something against every religion, not just Hindusim or Paganism dude. Maybe I am wrong?

It is ok with me, but calling names or just categorized some religion in certain Humanistic nisha is not very wise.

Let people to belive in what they beleive, drinking blood, sacrifing goats, Tom Cruise worship, Star Trek Bishop, Jesus, Kali etc, just let them live comrade

 

[rhubroma]

Well as far I read (you are way out of my league) first two had certain concerns about deviation of formal Church or Popes or common people tradition, which neither is so tragical if we understand that those manuscripts were made in 11 or 16th century, and folklore or way of life by those people then.
You should IMHO not judged whole church by acts of few.

But none of them did not teach (or I am unaware) "Catholicism is just paganism" theory.

I think that every one who is telling people what his religion is, or how should be named or treated is not very wise dude.

Hinduism paralel Paganism regards; I think you have something against every religion, not just Hindusim or Paganism dude. Maybe I am wrong?

It is ok with me, but calling names or just categorized some religion in certain Humanistic nisha is not very wise.

Let people to belive in what they beleive, drinking blood, sacrifing goats, Tom Cruise worship, Star Trek Bishop, Jesus, Kali etc, just let them live comrade

And precisely because you haven't read these things, nor studied the history of Rome and Catholicism, my label rings somewhat brazen ans rather absurd to you.

However, believe me, in terms of both the history (centralized ecclesiastical and administrative power) and religious traditions and rites (volks kultur) of the Catholic Church; especially as it regards its geographical home in Italy and the Mediterranian World, as we can witness in any traditional religious procession or rite - consumption of the sacificed god's flesh and blood, purification use of incense (like the pagan priest at the ancient Roman temples) and so forth - of the Madonna or some saint in Italy, Spain and France: it is pagan Roman through and through, just under a new packaging and brand name.

Now we can debate the specifics of this, but not the general phenomenon.

And I'm not being disrespectful, just historical in my analysis.

 

[oldborn]

And precisely because you haven't read these things, nor studied the history of Rome and Catholicism, my label rings somewhat brazen ans rather absurd to you.

However, believe me, in terms of both the history (centralized ecclesiastical and administrative power) and religious traditions and rites (volks kultur) of the Catholic Church; especially as it regards its geographical home in Italy and the Mediterranian World, as we can witness in any traditional religious procession or rite - consumption of the sacificed god's flesh and blood, purification use of incense (like the pagan priest at the ancient Roman temples) and so forth - of the Madonna or some saint in Italy, Spain and France: it is pagan Roman through and through, just under a new packaging and brand name.

Now we can debate the specifics of this, but not the general phenomenon.

And I'm not being disrespectful, just historical in my analysis.

Comrade rhubroma, I am still not aware that some of the first two scholars or bishop whos you mention did teach paganism theory, if you can help me I will be thankful

You are looking at Roman Church at symbolism, ritual level (which IMHO is very important to some cultures) so playing with numbers like Kabala dude, dates, witchcraft, customs or just superstition is same IMHO as you tell us that St. Peter's Basilica is Stonehandge copy.

As I mention before Roman Church in order to gain popularity or just tradition in early period accepted some believes from older religion, people folklore, but that does not mean paganism by any means. Retain or adapt the rites of their pagan ancestry or environment, on at least, reproaching them.

I am more likely to beleive that paganism make a path for Roman Church, cos religion as every aspect of human life grow and evolved.

Roman Church is not same in Philippines, Mexico or Texas, that is a beauty IMHO, but doctrine is.

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:22-24).

So as Roman Church strugle and grow, we can also read some texts from Old Testimony (see The Golden Calf story) were dudes fighting against paganism, and we can say Christianity emerge from those constant fighting against pictures, symbols, idols or superstitions.

Of course non of the above I claim to be supernatural truth. or have something aginst paganism if exist, IMHO it exist in people heads and communist papers

 

[rhubroma]

Comrade rhubroma, I am still not aware that some of the first two scholars or bishop whos you mention did teach paganism theory, if you can help me I will be thankful

You are looking at Roman Church at symbolism, ritual level (which IMHO is very important to some cultures) so playing with numbers like Kabala dude, dates, witchcraft, customs or just superstition is same IMHO as you tell us that St. Peter's Basilica is Stonehandge copy.

As I mention before Roman Church in order to gain popularity or just tradition in early period accepted some believes from older religion, people folklore, but that does not mean paganism by any means. Retain or adapt the rites of their pagan ancestry or environment, on at least, reproaching them.

I am more likely to beleive that paganism make a path for Roman Church, cos religion as every aspect of human life grow and evolved.

Roman Church is not same in Philippines, Mexico or Texas, that is a beauty IMHO, but doctrine is.

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:22-24).

So as Roman Church strugle and grow, we can also read some texts from Old Testimony (see The Golden Calf story) were dudes fighting against paganism, and we can say Christianity emerge from those constant fighting against pictures, symbols, idols or superstitions.

Of course non of the above I claim to be supernatural truth. or have something aginst paganism if exist, IMHO it exist in people heads and communist papers

Don't get me wrong, Oldborn, I didn't mean to be patronizing in a condescending way, that was just my point: namely, the building of a religion from the foundation up in its ancient historical sense. In the Caribbean and South America in the more recent past, Catholicism, but also presently in these regions the evangelical Christian sects, have combigned traditional Catholic and/or Christian beliefs and rites, with aspects of animist - vodoo rites resulting from the converted slaves and natives, etc. So what one preaches, to answer your initial inquiry, and what one practices (or how one behaves, yes, even just at the symbolic level too) is frequently an entirely different matter.

I am thus well aware that Catholicism as it spread into the colonies took on somewhat different natures, where indiginous tradition blended with its European heritage. However, the Madonna is the Madonna and theotokos whether represented in the Byzantine tradition, or she looks like some beautiful Italian woman as in a Raphael painting, or has a more Southern Pacific look. But I was talking about something else, which had to do with the man-made, profane and historical forces that shaped Catholicism from its nascent beginnings.

None of this means I'm against the religion/s, per se, just that to me they have no transcendental and supernatural basis. In short, they are man-made and, as such, have a history, which we can critically disect and put back together again just like any other human activity.

And I revised something I mentioned before:


However, believe me, in terms of both the history (centralized ecclesiastical and administrative power) and religious traditions and rites (volks kultur) of the Catholic Church; especially as it regards its geographical home in Italy and the Mediterranian World, as we can witness in any traditional religious rite - consumption of the sacificed god's flesh and blood, purification use of incense (like the pagan priests did at the ancient Roman temples) and so forth - or the pius processions of the Madonna or some saint in Italy, Spain and France: it is pagan Roman through and through, just under different packaging and a new brand name. This was my point. We even get this in the liturgical calendar, for instance in the dates of some noted religious feast days such as Easter, June 24th (St. John), August 15 (Mary Annunciate), Nov. 1 (All Saints Day), December 25, and so forth. All of which have precedents in the pagan Roman calendar as feste (feast days when the good will of respective gods would be bestowed and celebrated, as opposed to nefeste, nefarious days when the underworld spirits would roam among the living, thus days of bad luck and portentious omens).

What you thus call "taking from", though transfoming, I see as merely putting a new band lable on it being the rational secularist I am.

But St. Peter's Basilica is an entirely different matter. That was the Renaissance papacy trying to one-up the ancient Roman emprors in the realm of monumental architectural, Rome being both the seat and ideology of the Catholic Church. To provide the Roman Church and the papacy from that time forward, with an imperial identity. Visually it was a smashing success, religiously, though, it was a disaster, when one considers the building of it was just one reason why Luther started the protestant reform.

Cheers