The great and all powerful religion thread!

So what about presenting the shortcomings of evolution then? Do you not see the problem with presenting it as truth when it is incomplete and is not been scientifically proven? Do you not see the faith it takes? Do you not see the deception of presenting it as if it is just plain old truth?

when was the last time you people went to school?im in highschool tell you that biology teachers DO in fact tell us that evolution is a theory. and they tell us that it is also possible that we are the product of intellegent design. and my biology teacher said it was even possible for God to use evolution. So basically, everyone here is wrong, you dont give the school system enough credit, and dont believe most the stories you here about the narrow mindedness of schools. or it may just be my school. but in conclusion...

YTour opinions are bad and you should feel bad!
 
Are you saying you oppose the discussion of the shortcomings or "yet-to-comings" because they may create questions which some people would answer with "religion"? Or simply that the schools should not present the religion?



ENT! No prize!

I am saying that it takes some faith to believe that evolution describes everything we see in front of us. The mind control comes in where you KNOW something is incomplete or inadequate to fully explain something, but you hide that fact and present it as if it is just fact.

I do agree that religion can, has and will be used by man to attempt to control others, though.

we know religion is incomplete and inadequate, yet many decide to hide that fact.

no, we can discuss short comings. actually "yet to comings" is perfect. and thats how it should be adressed.
~gR~
 
That video was not meant for you since you are not a bible believing Christian. It seems you accept that God does not have a hand in daily affairs. What do you think God is and why do you believe in him?

My beliefs actually fall into a mixture of deist and evolutionary principles. Mind you, I believe a lot of the evolution theories are a load of shit, especially that Miller-Urey experiment. One isolated example does not mean anything.

Here's a blog I wrote on the subject. (next post)
 
A Boy and his God
Current mood: cynical

This is a relatively new ideal for me, so if something does not make sense to you, I apologize. Please criticize as you see fit.

For millenia, people have been trying to define the transcendent being known concisely and popularly as "YHWH", or "God", as the Christians eventually named him. Though he has appeared in a number of different religions under a variety of names, terms, and definitions since his original creation (some would say discovery) by the Biblical man Abraham, most later God-spurned religions have usually confined to one common characteristic: humanity.

Yes, ever since man became familiar with the concept of God, he has tried to make God seem more like someone he might live among or befriend. He has often refused to look upon God as exactly what he is (or is supposed to be): the fabric of existence itself. Though the early Jewish tribes saw God as a force of nature who was not to be messed with, people began to become dissatisfied with such a being who would not provide a fatherly/motherly feeling of security for them. They did not want to fall on their knees at the mercy of a being who was just and would punish and reward each human action accordingly; they wanted HIM, not IT. This change in paradigm is most obviously displayed in the songs written by King David, compiled in an book known as "Psalms" (which later became "canon"). In his lyricism, David described God as someone who was more or less just like a man, albeit a very powerful man who controlled the cosmos. However, this still hadn't truly bridged the gap between man's adversity to the almighty judicial rule of God, but people began to view God in a different light. Such an event was destined to come, and come it did.

Several centuries after the rule of David, a young man from Galilee traversed the lands of the Roman-ruled Israel to preach new ways of interpreting the existing Judaic teachings. One of the most significant results of these teachings was of people viewing God to be one whom they could personally relate to, someone who was essentially like them. Thus, once Jesus had passed on and left his disciples to their own devices, the paradigm shifted once more to allow God into the hearts and homes of people all across the world until the latter day, in which many can see the presence of a "human" God all around the Catholic/Christian church (and this view is also held by many who disregard Christianity).

But enough of the historical part. Now, how do you view God? Does he appear as a friend, or as a foe? Well, in my opinion, he is NEITHER.

As I said in the beginning, the Jews were afraid of the concept of God, and rightly so, for they had seen some frightening things occur in their history (the great deluge, AKA "the flood", the "divine" slaughter of many neighboring tribes, slavery in Egypt, etc. Thus, many people strived to change this view, and they succeeded.

But what is our purpose for making God "one of us"? Why does he have to be "our buddy" or "our homeboy"? Who knows. God has never showed himself to us, and I believe that the reason why is because God simply does not exist for us to see him. Truly, I think that God is in the earth itself. He is not some guy sitting on a golden throne in a cloud-borne paradise. Think of how he appeared to his followers; as a piece of burning foliage to Moses, as a pillar of cloud and fire to the Jews; simply, in phenomenons of NATURE. We are too quick to see God as a powerful and potent HUMAN and miss the ultimate transcendence that he displays: in a NATURAL setting. Humans have changed drastically over the course of time due to a "higher moral standard" and an increasing "intelligence quotient", but one thing that has remained consistent throughout time is NATURE. And that, I think, makes God seem much more real and easier to believe in. Not a God that wants to please me as I fulfill his "purpose", but a God who is displayed through the ultimate miracle: the universe.
 
we know religion is incomplete and inadequate, yet many decide to hide that fact.

no, we can discuss short comings. actually "yet to comings" is perfect. and thats how it should be adressed.
~gR~

You have faith!

Well, I admit that my "religion" (Christianity) cannot be proven and contains many things that I do not fully understand, and some I maybe don't understand at all. That doesn't disprove it, and there are many more things I see in it that are valuable. I believe it is adequate.

I think many people are afraid to question their beliefs, and I do think that even Christianity is presented wrongly by many people.
 
people do not choose it.. he chooses it for them if he exists... plus he also punishes alot of good compassionate people when they are alive... good christians.. is that a compassionate God? i think not... humans have been trying to explain their existence since they were able to speak... so what makes Christianity any more right then any past or present religion... what makes it more right then let's say the Gods of ancient Greece or Rome? ... Religion in the classic sense should not be about the worship of a "god(s)" and instead should be about enlightnment ala Buddhism... there is no conflicts nor resentments in Buddhism and similar thinking "religions"... ever wonder why? ...
 
The point of religion is not to provide a scientifically-proven thesis for existence, but to put one's faith in a higher power to give them purpose for going about their lives. I think that even if Christianity (or any religion, really) was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt, very few people would convert.

"Hell" in the original sense of the term (created by the Jews back in their early religious days) was a definition for separation from their PEOPLE; the Jews were very community-oriented and to be "sent to hell" meant something along the lines of being ostracized by the community for crossing their moral bounds. Thus, hell indeed can be considered separation from God, because their God became synonymous with their lifestyle.

Where the hell did all this fire and brimstone bullshit come from, anyway? It says nowhere in the Bible that HELL IS HOT.
 
The point of religion is not to provide a scientifically-proven thesis for existence, but to put one's faith in a higher power to give them purpose for going about their lives. I think that even if Christianity (or any religion, really) was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt, very few people would convert.

"Hell" in the original sense of the term (created by the Jews back in their early religious days) was a definition for separation from their PEOPLE; the Jews were very community-oriented and to be "sent to hell" meant something along the lines of being ostracized by the community for crossing their moral bounds. Thus, hell indeed can be considered separation from God, because their God became synonymous with their lifestyle.

Where the hell did all this fire and brimstone bullshit come from, anyway? It says nowhere in the Bible that HELL IS HOT.

personally i think Hell is where people go to fornicate, drink alcohol (no hangovers), do drugs (No OD's) etc.. without restrictions.. sounds like fun... :kickass: