The question is, are you religous?

[zenithSmil3]

sandsphinx wrote:Religion entwines itself through all cultures and creates socialization, and norms, and so on...

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I think that norms are a good thing, norms define cultures and social integrity. We cannot survive without norms for norms control what everyone does. Without norms we would not have different music, and different clothing, the world would be a mess, before scientific theories were created, religion ruled, and they were the foundation of norms, so we have to thank religion for norms. They are the building blcoks of civilisation, the roots of the tree, so to speak, and i think that now, our age of science and facts should branch off to a new direction, leaving religionm behind. But to stop religion, and to make everyone in the world believe in the facts, would take hundreds maybe thousands of years...

I couldn't disagree more. You use the word "norms" a lot. Norms means standards. The regular standards of living, of society... e.t.c. However,as you said "before scientific theories were created, religion ruled... so we have to thank religion for norms". Before scientific theories were created, the "norms" of that era was burning people on the stake who were accused of witchcraft. And drowning many innocent people. Witches are made of wood m'right?

Religion causes a lot of harm, religion also does do some good so I won't exactly argue too much on your "to stop religion". Because it can be argued that to stop religion is an extremely bad thing.

"Without norms we would not have different music, and different clothing, the world would be a mess"
Following standards isn't a good thing. A lot of music was made not because of the "norms". Are our music really so standard? I value individuality and expressing yourself. Not all music clothing follow some kind of universal standard.

"norms control what everybody does"
Huh... that does not sound like a good thing. It's Orwell all over again... and the Great Firewall... not all of us exactly follow the "rules of society" so as to speak.

[Possumdude0]

I think that norms are a good thing, norms define cultures and social integrity. We cannot survive without norms for norms control what everyone does. Without norms we would not have different music, and different clothing, the world would be a mess, before scientific theories were created, religion ruled, and they were the foundation of norms, so we have to thank religion for norms. They are the building blcoks of civilisation, the roots of the tree, so to speak, and i think that now, our age of science and facts should branch off to a new direction, leaving religionm behind. But to stop religion, and to make everyone in the world believe in the facts, would take hundreds maybe thousands of years...

Even though she is against religion, I have to agree for the most part with zenithSmil3, pretty much everything you said is either bad or wrong.

I'd debate the points of her that I disagree with, but it's not really worth it at this time (a.k.a. I'm busy).

EDIT:

edited to stop referring to zenithSmil3 by the wrong gender.

[zenithSmil3]

Actually, I'm a girl.

[Possumdude0]

Actually, I'm a girl.

Oops, fixed it.

[sandsphinx]

I do admit on hindsight that some of my points are a little awkward, and i totally agree with some points. I think i am getting way over my head here, I mean, religion and science has been debated over for years, and still not one side has won. I think that the question of religion is a personal factor. And by the way, i am Wiccan, which isn't entirely witchcraft, but consists of witchcraft... Do not lecture me on the history of the Witch Hunt, i am fully aware. And i stand by most of my points, and i agree that some are wrong.

[Possumdude0]

I mean, religion and science has been debated over for years, and still not one side has won.

I don't think either side needs to "win", because I think they're both right. (In the general sense, specific cases like Evolution vs the Christian creation account make it obvious that both of them can't be right in everything.)

[sandsphinx]

I mean, religion and science has been debated over for years, and still not one side has won.

I don't think either side needs to "win", because I think they're both right. (In the general sense, specific cases like Evolution vs the Christian creation account make it obvious that both of them can't be right in everything.)

True True, I wonder if the magnificent debate will ever come to a climax... in a few hundred years i suppose??

[zenithSmil3]

I mean, religion and science has been debated over for years, and still not one side has won.

I don't think either side needs to "win", because I think they're both right. (In the general sense, specific cases like Evolution vs the Christian creation account make it obvious that both of them can't be right in everything.)

True True, I wonder if the magnificent debate will ever come to a climax... in a few hundred years i suppose??

It will never come to a close -____- until everybody starts thinking and acting alike and everybody has the same opinion. Have you noticed that in the beginning of a debate you have already won in your mind? Opinions aren't easy to change.

[Spectre557]

Which parts? I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm saying I'd like you to point them out to me.

Creationism, miracles, there's plenty. Google it if you want a whole list.

1) Non of the Christians I know are against contraception. We're against premarital sex, but if a married couple wants to avoid having kids it's fine with us.

I take it you don't know any Catholics then. Fair enough, this specific example doesn't apply to Anglicans.

However, my point still stands. Using the Bible as evidence, you can justify almost anything you like if you pick the right bits and interpret them in the right way. Likewise, you can then prove the same thing wrong by using other bits.

2) Killing an unbeliever does not send you straight to Heaven. Murder is murder whether the person is a Christian or not. Note that all killing is not considered murder, but the distinction generally has less to do with the religious views of the parties involved and more to do with the specifics of the situation.

That's your belief now, because that's what the Church currently teaches. They didn't always, and the point remains that they have repeatedly changed their minds about what's right and wrong despite apparently knowing all the answers from God.

During the crusades the Pope claimed that any soldiers fighting on Christianity's side would receive forgiveness. This was totally wrong and I haven't seen a single scriptural passage that says otherwise, although I'm sure the Pope of the time had some interpretation to justify it.

Well since you're obviously not Catholic, again, the infallibility of the Pope isn't your concern. Not a single passage? You're not looking very hard. Here's just one example:

"And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

How basically everything is a sin but if you're sorry and you pray you'll be forgiven. Yet at the same time God knows everything you've ever said or done or thought so he knows whether you're sorry or not anyway.

It's the being sorry part (and actively working to change your ways) that brings forgiveness. God grants his forgiveness when you repent and turn away from sin, doing this doesn't necessarily require prayer, although many people find that regularly praying helps them to avoid sin.

But if you're sorry then it's because God has made you sorry as he controls everything. So if you're not sorry, then it's God's fault, but he punishes you nonetheless. I can't see how this makes any kind of sense, but please clarify if you can. Is it that God isn't omnipotent/omniscient?

Christians choose to ignore some bits of it, and embrace others.

And that is wrong. Not all people who call themselves Christian are saved.

This has nothing to do with who is "saved". I'm just saying that it's impossible to accept every bit of the Bible without being a total hypocrite.

God really contradicts himself a lot, eh?

All the contradictions and logical fallacies people have told me are in the Bible have turned out to be not so contradictory or false when I actually looked at them. Many of the people who make the claim that the Bible contradicts itself haven't been able to point out a single instance when asked. Others have pointed some out in a way that made it obvious they hadn't actually looked into it themselves (they couldn't give an answer when I asked them to clarify what the actual contradiction was when their original accusation was vague).

Then the people you asked clearly had no idea what they were talking about. It's incredibly easy to find numerous examples. I won't make a whole list here, but have a look at this page if you don't believe me. But bear in mind it's written by somewhat an amateur, not a philosopher.

Since non of the people throwing these accusations at my religion have been able to substantiate their accusations, I'm waiting for the book to be back in (it's due back sometime around the middle of the summer) so I can get it and see what it says.

I believe I have substantiated more than enough. But I'm eager to see if you can contest these points further, it's quite interesting to see what a Christian has to say about this.

[Finarfin Palantir]

Well, I do consider myself a Christian so I'll jump in here,

Basically to state my point I'll take two quotes from the very disputed book called "The Bible"

The first quote:

"One day Cain suggested to his brother, "Let's go out into the fields." And while they were together there, Cain attacked and killed his brother."

And

The second quote:

"Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

I see this happen all the time, well, okay not exactly like this, but you get the point, things are totally ripped out of context and people love doing this especially with the bible, don't get me wrong, the bible wasn't faxed or emailed out of Heaven (Although that probably would have been better for everyone)

It's just a book, there, I said it, someone had to say it, the bible is just a book, reading it won't make you a christian, that's like saying that when you read a math handbook, you suddenly become a mathmetician, sure you might know some cool stuff about math, but that's about it. Nobody is going to hire you as a mathmetician because you read a freakin book about it.

The bible was written by men, luckily we have history as well, and for everyone who thinks the bible is *that* corrupted that it can't be trusted, go check the history books, the bible isn't the only book with reference to the man called Jesus Christ.
Additionally, if you take the timeline of the bible and match that up with history, presto, 100% accurate.

Coz see here's the main thing about that little book that people don't get, christians we murdered because of it, guess what, they stilled followed it, it was banned and they protected it, people couldn't read it and it was translated, against the will of the catholic church, besides, if anyone wrote a bunch of make belief things in a book to gain power and wealth, don't you think they would have made it a little bit more believable? I mean come on really?