finding a middleground for the weakness of Christianity and my belief in God

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by felonious_monk

and also i'd just stick with the bible rather than being a "christian" as like 90 percent of "christians" are not christians. unless you found a church that is real

Can't pick and choose. You either believe ALL of the religion, as the WestBoro Baptist Church people do (which is what happens from having full faith in any mainstream religion), or you believe none of it. To believe only partial bits means you probably realize it's nothing more than the literary expression of primitive mans' ignorance and rudimentary understanding of reality. Which then means that you believe some of it, because you think the philosophy of the bible writers was good at some points. In that case, there is far more up to date philosophy that is far better than what you'd find in those shitty religious books. Do you even need a goddamn ancient book to tell you how to be a good person? If so, kill yourself, you goddamn inferior human. Goodness is genetic, it has evolved over millions of years because people favor goodness. So if you absolutely need a religion to scare you into being good, it means you are a genetically-inferior/less-evolved organism. So kill yourself.

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

The NT in greek refers to God as "Theos" which is masculine/neuter. Remember, English bibles are translations of translations of translations of a text. Also, most Christian traditions view God as transcendent of gender. The post was referring to the Christian God.

You're right regarding translations; I assumed that the translator would pick an appropriate word, but that isn't necessarily the case.

Regarding theos, the word might be masculine/neuter, but in most Indo-European languages the gender of a word isn't related to the gender of its referent. Even if it was, though, you do say masculine... but let's forget theos for a second: what pronoun does the Greek use to refer to God? What about the Hebrew portions of the Old Testament? Considering the very prominent masculine bent to the Bible, I'd be surprised if the original languages always called God "it".

Regarding Christian traditions, I know the tradition around here (Texas) is that God is most definitely masculine in nature. I'm not aware of the current Catholic stance, but I was fairly certain it historically regarded God as masculine as well.

Concerning Galatians, the verse is from an early Baptismal formula, the sacrament in which one is born in the Spirit. Jesus was of the Spirit, not of the flesh. There are no distinctions between those with life in the Spirit. Or, is not God of the Spirit?

I'll concede that God is "of the Spirit," because I'm afraid I'm not versed enough in Christian theology to really understand what that means - so I'll take your word for it. I don't think the verse means to say Jesus was genderless, however, or by extension that God is.

Philosophy is fundamentally religious. You say so yourself:

Philosophy is an aspect of every religion. Furthermore, religion is an aspect of humanity...

We clearly have different ideas of what I am saying there. I am puzzled by your reasoning here, to be honest; to say religions include philosophy does not say, or even imply, that philosophy is religious... it only says, well, that "religions include philosophy"!* The statement sums up the extent of the relationship. If you don't like my other analogy, we can think of many more. The ocean includes salt, therefore salt is fundamentally oceanic? Pornography includes photography, so photography is fundamentally pornographic? Etc., etc.

To be fundamentally religious, all philosophy would have to be religious "in central or primary respects" - and it seems clear to me that many philosophies (Stoicism, to pick one at random) are not primarily religious... or religious at all. I think my position can be summed up by the dictionary, here. "Religion" and "philosophy" describe separate things, as the words are defined. This is useful so we can differentiate a belief system based on veneration of supernatural entities from the study of the nature of reality. *In fact, I think that if anything, we could say that religion is fundamentally philosophical - it's both a description of what the believer supposes the world to be like, and a prescription for how to act; two of the main functions of any philosophy: ontology and ethics.

Come to think of it, I seem to remember that theology is considered a branch of philosophy.

Not so fast. I don't know as much about human language as I'd like to, but I do know about human literacy. The oldest Chinese writing is found on Oracle Bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone_script). China of course, is no exception. Religion, Writing, and Reading go hand in hand. This knowledge was always linked with religion. The written word is mystical.

Think of Buddhists spinning prayer wheels with script they can't even read. Ever wonder why we put our hand on a Bible to swear an oath, instead of reading it? Words have a supernatural and religious power.

Sure; the oldest writing of any sort, however, is political and financial in nature (cf. beginning of writing, Kish tablet, Narmer palette). Religious texts are almost as early (the Narmer palette is mainly concerned with the eponymous Narmer, but it contains a symbol of a cow goddess too), but in the end I think it's most correct to say writing is fundamentally about record-keeping and communication, whether religious or financial.

For nearly all of humanity's existence, we have lived in an Enchanted Universe. Everything was filled with meaning and significance. Secularism is a recent invention. Are we better for it? That's debatable, however we cannot deny where we came from. Even the Atheist is pressed to find answers to these human questions. Indeed these questions would never have occurred to someone that is truly secular. To be so would be unhuman. We are Homo Religiosus.

What questions are those?

What!?!?!? You mean all aspects of life were at one time religiously significant?!?!?! That's just crazy Obbe.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Few would argue with that; I certainly wouldn't have, if that had been your original post. That's not what you say previously, though; or rather, you say more than that. This response doesn't actually address Obbe's argument(s), which is that "activity was one time affiliated with religion != activity is fundamentally religious today", and/or that "useful delineations can be made between spirituality, religion, and philosophy".

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by AdMech

What questions are those?

Oh, ya know, the questions that have scientifically established answers but which religious people willingly disregard in pursuit of more palatable, sugar-coated fairytales that leave a gullible person feeling content with a notion that the universe exists to contain human society for the sole purpose of having them totally submit to a supernatural entity so that these artificially-created creatures can experience rewards forever and forever in god's cloud kingdom surrounded by constant lightning and rainbows and mutant animals below the feet of god's throne, where god rests his elderly male homo sapien-like physical body on.

[Built To Last]

Originally Posted by AdMech

Regarding theos, the word might be masculine/neuter, but in most Indo-European languages the gender of a word isn't related to the gender of its referent. Even if it was, though, you do say masculine... but let's forget theos for a second: what pronoun does the Greek use to refer to God? What about the Hebrew portions of the Old Testament? Considering the very prominent masculine bent to the Bible, I'd be surprised if the original languages always called God "it".

Regarding Christian traditions, I know the tradition around here (Texas) is that God is most definitely masculine in nature. I'm not aware of the current Catholic stance, but I was fairly certain it historically regarded God as masculine as well.

This is actually turning out to be an interesting discussion on the gender of God. And, wouldn't you know, there's a wikipedia page on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God):

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Although God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender.

(Bold added, )

The Catechism of the Catholic Church #239: By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

I was honestly unaware there were Christians that conceived of God as an anthropomorphic male. Leave it to Texas to teach me something new .

I'll concede that God is "of the Spirit," because I'm afraid I'm not versed enough in Christian theology to really understand what that means - so I'll take your word for it. I don't think the verse means to say Jesus was genderless, however, or by extension that God is.

Jesus, while on Earth in the last days, was indeed a male.

To be fundamentally religious, all philosophy would have to be religious "in central or primary respects" - and it seems clear to me that many philosophies (Stoicism, to pick one at random) are not primarily religious... or religious at all.

I think we agree about more than we disagree. You seem to understand my point better than you are letting on. I hesitate, with my limited knowledge, to make such a claim. However, I will do so to see how far down the rabbit hole we can take this: all philosophy is religious. Or as you put, all religion is philosophy.

Stoicism provides an excellent example:

"God" for the Stoics was less a divine personality who actively engaged in human affairs than a divine principle (logos, or divine reason) that pervaded and governed the universe.

Apatheia was no mere resignation but a source of strength based on the conviction that a divine will controlled and directed all things.

The Stoic believes that it is possible to escape from his involvement in time. By detaching himself from the world he detaches himself from time. The essential part of man is Logos, and the Logos is timeless.

How is Stoicism not a religion?

I think my position can be summed up by the dictionary, here. "Religion" and "philosophy" describe separate things, as the words are defined. This is useful so we can differentiate a belief system based on veneration of supernatural entities from the study of the nature of reality.

Name one religion that doesn't claim make a claim about the true nature of reality. Furthermore, religious ritual is always about encountering the true nature of reality.

religion is fundamentally philosophical - it's both a description of what the believer supposes the world to be like, and a prescription for how to act; two of the main functions of any philosophy: ontology and ethics.

To you this might sound philosophical. To me it sounds religious.

Sure; the oldest writing of any sort, however, is political and financial in nature

I agree, but weren't most ancient governments centered around God-Kings? Weren't ancient economies agricultural? The connection between ag. and religion is well established.

"activity was one time affiliated with religion != activity is fundamentally religious today", and/or that "useful delineations can be made between spirituality, religion, and philosophy".

What exactly do we gain from saying we are "philosophical" and not "religious"? Or, "spiritual"? I think it has more to do with the word religion having negative connotations than it actually does any major difference in thought and action.

Is the atheist who believes the true nature of reality to be objective, and experienced through scientific experiment, any different from the Hindu who believes the true nature of reality to be Brahman and experienced through Puja?

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

What exactly do we gain from saying we are "philosophical" and not "religious"? Or, "spiritual"? I think it has more to do with the word religion having negative connotations than it actually does any major difference in thought and action.

Is the atheist who believes the true nature of reality to be objective, and experienced through scientific experiment, any different from the Hindu who believes the true nature of reality to be Brahman and experienced through Puja?

I like this. It is all just perspective.

[felonious_monk]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

that's fucking retarded on so many levels


if supernatural entities can create universes and life (as religious nutters think) then it is well within their magical powers to make the brains of humans structured in ways that favor good behavior. So why then does there exist human brains that have an innate propensity towards psychosis/schizophrenia/antisocial behavior?


People who think life is given just so supernatural entities can reward them after they die is the reason civilization fails so hard. Do you think highly advanced aliens are out there thinking, "oh life was made shitty by gods but herpaderp if i do good shit then my supernatural entity, Blahgak, will giv me cool shit when i die"? No, they probably won't think that because religion is the vestige of total ignorance. And they would probably use religion as a gauge of how progressed other species are that they come across in the cosmos. More religion = more dipshits. The way we look at those close-minded WestBoro Church fuckwits is how aliens would probably view any religious belief.

because if you resist the temptations then you get reward in the end. most of life works like that. if you resist the temptations of unhealthy food, smoking cigz, procrastination, meaningless sex, then like ur totally rewarded in the end obviously. not that hard to understand, whether you believe it or not.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by felonious_monk

because if you resist the temptations then you get reward in the end. most of life works like that. if you resist the temptations of unhealthy food, smoking cigz, procrastination, meaningless sex, then like ur totally rewarded in the end obviously. not that hard to understand, whether you believe it or not.

so, you're going to be rewarded after not doing shit your whole life when you're 80 years old...? Or is it just your corpse that's rewarded after you die? Flowers and a metal box is hardly a reward IMHO (not like the corpse that was once you will complain).

[ArmsMerchant]

A life lived well is its own reward. There is no pie in the sky, no heaven or hell, save that which we create for ourselves.

Live with the burdens of fear and resentment, and you consign yourself to hell, right here and now. Choose instead to manifest love and forgiveness--now that's heaven.