What religion are you?

[The Aussie]

OK, let's come right out and say what we are.
It needs to be said here that 90% of us in the world have our mother's religion. Most of us can't help what we are. We are born into it, although many are influenced by rubbing shoulders with so called intellectuals during education. Many are influenced adversely this way.
Most of us can't believe what religion others belong to. It is a blame game.
We all know that our religion is the only one that is right.
It takes a very special person or incident in a person's life to convert to another religion. I am talking about a person who already has a religion that was probably their mother's. To take on change is hard.
I am not talking about the ex criminal or bad person who repents, or the so called 'born again' Christians. Many of those take on religion because they become frightened about the consequences of their past actions.
So let's see it. Who are you?

[Americano]

Agnostic married to a conservative, practicing Jewess.

[Greendruid]

Your categories are internally inconsistent and wrong and I need clarification.

Pagans and Heathens are, by their own definitions (and I think you will most certainly agree that each to his own definition of his own religion), different from each other.

I need clarification specifically on what you're calling "Wicker". It's not a word that's familiar to me, though I'm suspecting a non-standard English, Australian written-as-pronounced version of the word "Wicca". If such is the case, I will remind you that the Devil is not a deity figure of anything but the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[partofme]

Your categories are internally inconsistent and wrong and I need clarification.

Pagans and Heathens are, by their own definitions (and I think you will most certainly agree that each to his own definition of his own religion), different from each other.

I need clarification specifically on what you're calling "Wicker". It's not a word that's familiar to me, though I'm suspecting a non-standard English, Australian written-as-pronounced version of the word "Wicca". If such is the case, I will remind you that the Devil is not a deity figure of anything but the Judeo-Christian tradition.

You can get some really nice wicker furniture actually.

[Greendruid]

Then would you surmise that the linkage of wicker and devil worship is a display of distaste for wicker furniture? Or perhaps just a suspected association?

[partofme]

Then would you surmise that the linkage of wicker and devil worship is a display of distaste for wicker furniture? Or perhaps just a suspected association?

Don't devil worshipers make their human sacrifices of babies in wicker baskets? I believe I read that somewhere.

[Greendruid]

Don't devil worshipers make their human sacrifices of babies in wicker baskets? I believe I read that somewhere.

What does that make Moses' mother? This is what I've been trying to point out all along!

[The Aussie]

Oh no, no one was able to find their correct place in the poll.
Where I went wrong was that I left out 'wanker'. That is another Australian word that has gone into the language and was sorely missing.

No use doing another poll as it is now obvious that everyone here is the same.

[Dominick]

Oh no, no one was able to find their correct place in the poll.
On the contrary. It happens rarely in such polls that I can vote correctly. Usually 'Nothing at all' isn't in the poll options. At best it is replaced with 'atheism' in the sense of militant anti-religiousness and that doesn't fit me either.

[SMadsen]

No use doing another poll as it is now obvious that everyone here is the same.
Not necessarily. Two of the options are useless and there may therefore be people here who can't vote or who simply resorts to the nextbest option.

[Greendruid]

Oh no, no one was able to find their correct place in the poll.
Where I went wrong was that I left out 'wanker'. That is another Australian word that has gone into the language and was sorely missing.

No use doing another poll as it is now obvious that everyone here is the same.

Yes, how silly of me to point out a flaw in your poll. I'm just a professional social scientist who teaches others how to correctly design, vet and implement surveys to the general public. I've clearly lost my mind in trying to improve upon your poll, mea culpa.

We are indeed all the same. In fact, we're just one person. One bored, internet-addicted, desperate for attention person It's pretty unnerving, isn't it?

[Multiplum]

Religion is bullshit, and the most successful ones are the worst. They all depend on inspiring fear, guilt and terror to control people. The most prominent religions today (the three monotheistic) depend on scaring and brainwashing children; otherwise they would disappear in one generation. They force that shit into your head while it's still soft, and you have no say in it.

No, I'm not bitter, I had great parents who never did anything to influence my beliefs. Sucks for them that I became an intolerant atheist asshole.

[Non Sequitur]

Religion is bullshit, and the most successful ones are the worst. They all depend on inspiring fear, guilt and terror to control people. The most prominent religions today (the three monotheistic) depend on scaring and brainwashing children; otherwise they would disappear in one generation. They force that shit into your head while it's still soft, and you have no say in it.

No, I'm not bitter, I had great parents who never did anything to influence my beliefs. Sucks for them that I became an intolerant atheist asshole.

Hmmm, my experience with the three great religions has been nothing but the opposite. I chose Christianity, i feel no guilt or fear and I think I am far from Intolerant.

In answer to the poll question: Christian protestant Specifically Lutheran.

[Multiplum]

Hmmm, my experience with the three great religions has been nothing but the opposite. I chose Christianity, i feel no guilt or fear and I think I am far from Intolerant.

In answer to the poll question: Christian protestant Specifically Lutheran.

I've never heard anything like that. You chose Christianity? Out of all these options, what made this particular one appear the one true? Presuming you do believe there is one true religion, that is, which to me seems like a necessary element of belief. Would you pick the same one if you grew up in some other culture? And if you answer "probably not" to that question, how strong is your conviction?

And if a person associates himself/herself with a particular religion, to what degree can he/she claim to belong to that faction?

"I'm a catholic, but I don't believe in hell." Here, I wouldn't know if this person is a "real" catholic or not.

It's like I can't get my head around the requirements that need to be met in order to associate yourself with one particular religion. If you don't go all the way, you're picking and choosing. That, or it's like being half pregnant or fifty percent dead.

In the end, I guess it's just choosing your identity, but for most of these religions, the book claims to hold the answers and makes it clear that its content is infallible. This applies, again, to the three monotheistic. How can you pick and choose then, and still belong? That god is very, very resolute.

[dilettante]

Well, I think the poll question here is problematic, since technically speaking people aren't religions. That said, I affiliate most closely and feel most comfortable with protestant Christianity.

Religion is bullshit, and the most successful ones are the worst. They all depend on inspiring fear, guilt and terror to control people. The most prominent religions today (the three monotheistic) depend on scaring and brainwashing children; otherwise they would disappear in one generation. They force that shit into your head while it's still soft, and you have no say in it.

No, I'm not bitter, I had great parents who never did anything to influence my beliefs. Sucks for them that I became an intolerant atheist asshole.

Actually, the "prominence" of the three monotheistic religions is really a Western thing; Judaism doesn't have nearly the numbers of Hinduism or Buddhism in a global context.

Along with Non, I can't fully relate to your characterization; I don't think I'm all that intolerant, and I try not to go about inspiring guilt or terror in anyone.

And, if I can be allowed to respond to a post not aimed at me, I don't think the notion of "one true religion" is a prerequisite for associating with any one religion. Though I call myself a Christian I recognize many facets of Islam, Judaism and Buddhism that I think are good, worth of respect and "true." Most religions (perhaps all, depending on how one defines the term) have considerable overlap. I'm drawn to one more than the other, but I don't claim that truth doesn't exist outside it, or that it holds the answer to every possible question.

I think you've hit upon something though when it comes to problems of categorization. IMO, people seem more preoccupied with putting everyone in a religious pigeonhole and stressing sharp distinctions than in examining shared beliefs, practices and perspectives. Not that all religions are the same, but I personally don't see the benefit of so enthusiastically affixing labels.

On a final (somewhat different) note; I'd quibble with the assertion that the "big book" of each monotheistic religion claims that it holds all the answers or is infallible. People make such claims about them; I'm not convinced the books themselves do. But then, so much is left to interpretation...

[wphelan]

On a final (somewhat different) note; I'd quibble with the assertion that the "big book" of each monotheistic religion claims that it holds all the answers or is infallible. People make such claims about them; I'm not convinced the books themselves do. But then, so much is left to interpretation...

I think you make a good point. I'm only familiar with the Christian bible, so that's all I can comment on, but I'm not aware that the text itself claims to be infallible. As you said, it's people making the claim about the text. It wouldn't surprise me to find other religions and their books to be in the same boat.

On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'

[Multiplum]

Actually, the "prominence" of the three monotheistic religions is really a Western thing; Judaism doesn't have nearly the numbers of Hinduism or Buddhism in a global context.

Along with Non, I can't fully relate to your characterization; I don't think I'm all that intolerant, and I try not to go about inspiring guilt or terror in anyone.

Of course, they are prominent to me. There are few jews around, but I'm presented with western media. I know nothing about what's going on with important Buddhist figures these days, for instance, because nobody around here cares. I get the same news as you do, pretty much, so for everyone here, these three should be the most familiar.

I believe I tried to describe the history (and/or nature) of the religion rather than everyone who affiliates with it when I mentioned guilt and fear. Generations have been made to feel guilty about their sexual urges and orientation. So many have been told that hell is a real place in which they will end up unless they conform to unrealistic ideals. And much of that boils down to superstition. Perhaps you won't tell your children about hell, or even take them to church unless they ask to come along, and that's fantastic. But it makes me wonder if there will be a decline in chruch attenders if this becomes the norm.


And, if I can be allowed to respond to a post not aimed at me, I don't think the notion of "one true religion" is a prerequisite for associating with any one religion. Though I call myself a Christian I recognize many facets of Islam, Judaism and Buddhism that I think are good, worth of respect and "true." Most religions (perhaps all, depending on how one defines the term) have considerable overlap. I'm drawn to one more than the other, but I don't claim that truth doesn't exist outside it, or that it holds the answer to every possible question.

I think you've hit upon something though when it comes to problems of categorization. IMO, people seem more preoccupied with putting everyone in a religious pigeonhole and stressing sharp distinctions than in examining shared beliefs, practices and perspectives. Not that all religions are the same, but I personally don't see the benefit of so enthusiastically affixing labels.

On a final (somewhat different) note; I'd quibble with the assertion that the "big book" of each monotheistic religion claims that it holds all the answers or is infallible. People make such claims about them; I'm not convinced the books themselves do. But then, so much is left to interpretation... See, I do have a problem understanding this, especially considering the ten commandments, the demand for death by stoning, the "you shall have no other gods before me". If you acknowledge even elements other beliefs, the abrahamic god seems quite clear on the matter, and there are no shades of grey. And he's no gentleman as far as women are concerned. From what I can tell. You may have noticed that I'm no theologist. I have not read the bible, except the hilarious bits.

(Genesis 22:3)

[partofme]

I think you make a good point. I'm only familiar with the Christian bible, so that's all I can comment on, but I'm not aware that the text itself claims to be infallible. As you said, it's people making the claim about the text. It wouldn't surprise me to find other religions and their books to be in the same boat.

On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'


Church of Christ. They make Southern Baptist look like Unitarians. They are so hard core slow dancing is forbidden unless married and the music in the services is all singing with no instruments because of a literal interpretation of one verse that says to make music with your hearts. They exist in various countries but it's mostly centered here in Western Kentucky and through much of Tennessee.

[Dominick]

I think you've hit upon something though when it comes to problems of categorization. IMO, people seem more preoccupied with putting everyone in a religious pigeonhole and stressing sharp distinctions than in examining shared beliefs, practices and perspectives. Not that all religions are the same, but I personally don't see the benefit of so enthusiastically affixing labels.
I for one would be much more lenient towards religion as a societal force if their proponents, and I'm here referring much more to the leaders than the ordinary followers, would focus on the common aspects rather than the differences. There have been wars, massacres, genocides and whatnot over the most ridiculously trivial differences. The first five or six centuries of Christianity are amost surreal in that aspect (cf. Gibbon).[/QUOTE]


On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'
I was brought up arch-Catholic but it never stuck, not even when I was a kid. I think, in hindsight, though with a memory as poor as a homeless person that got his cardboard box foreclosed, that the huge difference between what the officials of that church preached and what they actually did, put me off. The Catholic church, with a few individual exceptions, has always been the church of the establishment. Preaching about the poor in a setting of extreme luxury and wealth doesn't quite cut it.

[The Drunk Guy]

On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'
Baptist. Not Southern Baptist. Just Old Fashioned Baptist. The church where my grandfather preached was the only building left standing in the old coal mining community that my father grew up in. It was a 45 minute drive on Sunday mornings. They, too, only sang the hymns, but that was because the church was too poor to buy any instruments. The best part I can remember is that they had a board behind the pulpit that posted the weekly offerings numbers. :D Luckily, we stopped going there when I was very young.

Later in life, I ventured to the Church of Christ with my brother. This one was different, too. It was some crazy shit. I remember that I saw my State Representative walking atop the pews and speaking in tongues. Good times!

The last time I set foot in a church was the worst. It was another small Baptist church, but this one had been taken over by a Jim Jones-type character. I was there for the funeral of a former co-worker, a very sweet girl that was working her way through nursing school. Anyway, the poor girl had made the mistake of living with her fiance to save money for school and that bastard of a pastor told us that she was probably going to hell for that and not coming to church more often. I'm not sure if the worst part was that the family, driven by his sermon, all got saved there in front of her casket or if it was the guy doing the worm in the aisle.

[Donkey]

On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'
In all honesty, the only thing that was really "Catholic" about my upbringing was the name and the extremely regular church attendance. I was raised in an atmosphere that I was either taught or guided toward not believing in hell, being open to the idea of reincarnation, etc.

The only truly solid concept was the very real presence of God. That and the ritual. My mom liked/likes Catholic ritual, for any number of reasons that aren't really that salient.

I'm not even sure that my dad believes in God anymore. When I was discussing my own lack of belief he said "but don't you think it's easier to believe in God than not?" And that might be the only real difference.

I wouldn't say that I've gone from something to nothing, though. I've gone from an extreme confidence in the existence of God to the active assertion that it does not exist, but I still retain a lot of leftovers. I was discussing it with another "Catholic Atheist" friend of mine, and she sees it the same way I do. I think if you have an amicable separation from Catholicism, you never quite lose the self identity as such.

[phungus420]

OK, let's come right out and say what we are.
It needs to be said here that 90% of us in the world have our mother's religion. Most of us can't help what we are. We are born into it, although many are influenced by rubbing shoulders with so called intellectuals during education.
I was born Quaker, and still phillosophically hold many of the ideals of the religion. However by the age of 4 I realized that most of the stories we were being told in Bible School were non sensical, and became an athiest. I suppose it's possible I was influenced, but I don't remember anyone trying to get me to challenge christian beliefs (though it was a long time ago, my memory is certainly not perfect here). In fact I remember having many debates with other quakers about it. The story that finaly broke the cammel's back for me was Noah's ark. It just made no sense to me, and I let the whole class know. After getting read that story I became an athiest, interesting considering now I'm more of a soft egnostic. I ran into my old bible study teacher 2 years ago, and talked with her for a while. She kept thanking me for challenging her in class (that's a quaker thing, at least at the meeting I attended, critical thinking was encouraged). Anyway though, this just confirmed my memories of those days, every sunday where I would juts argue are point out the absurdities in the stories we were being read...

[dilettante]

See, I do have a problem understanding this, especially considering the ten commandments, the demand for death by stoning, the "you shall have no other gods before me". If you acknowledge even elements other beliefs, the abrahamic god seems quite clear on the matter, and there are no shades of grey. And he's no gentleman as far as women are concerned. From what I can tell. You may have noticed that I'm no theologist. I have not read the bible, except the hilarious bits.

(Genesis 22:3)

I guess I'm not quite sure what part you don't understand.

It seems to me that religions are assortments of various different things (beliefs, practices, worldviews, etc) collected together and given a label. I'm not sure there's anything terribly wrong with accepting parts of a given collection and rejecting other parts, especially since there seems to be only limited agreement as to what the various collections should and should not include.
The all-or-nothing approach to religion ("You must either accept all of these things or you can't accept any of them"), which is all too often invoked by religious individuals, doesn't make sense to me. It seems needlessly divisive.

[drgoodtrips]

I was born Quaker, and still phillosophically hold many of the ideals of the religion. However by the age of 4 I realized that most of the stories we were being told in Bible School were non sensical, and became an athiest. I suppose it's possible I was influenced, but I don't remember anyone trying to get me to challenge christian beliefs (though it was a long time ago, my memory is certainly not perfect here). In fact I remember having many debates with other quakers about it. The story that finaly broke the cammel's back for me was Noah's ark. It just made no sense to me, and I let the whole class know. After getting read that story I became an athiest, interesting considering now I'm more of a soft egnostic. I ran into my old bible study teacher 2 years ago, and talked with her for a while. She kept thanking me for challenging her in class (that's a quaker thing, at least at the meeting I attended, critical thinking was encouraged). Anyway though, this just confirmed my memories of those days, every sunday where I would juts argue are point out the absurdities in the stories we were being read...

That's interesting. I think that, perhaps, I was able to hold onto the affiliation that I have with Christianity specifically because of the fact that both of my parents basically told me when I was a child that the Bible was not verbatim truth. Because of this, I was never subject to an "Aha!" moment when I was in Sunday School and reached an age where I figured out that some of the things occurring were either impossible or absurd or both.

I was always told that it was a book of parables.

[bug]

I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'

I was raised in one of those evangelical, Bible-as-literal-truth churches. I went there three times a week for seventeen years, and believed in their doctrine of "all or nothing" wholeheartedly. The result was cronic guilt, obesession with purity, the maturing process coming to a standstill, and the singing of decidedly creepy worship songs ("Oh Lord, I want to be dead to myself" "I am nothing without you"--I am avoiding the ones refering to Jesus as a lover in an attempt to retain a solemn tone) I divorced from my pious way of life in a violent frenzy at 18 years old, as several things in my life were proving the Bible to either not be literal/divinely inspired, or a way to further my notion that God was a liar, among other things (mostly expletives). Religion is now discarded. The Bible, which I know inside out from many years of study, is also discarded. I've read the thing cover to cover five times, and the best thing it ever did for me was get me an A on an essay interpreting "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" as a Biblical parable. I wish I had a story like some of you do, realizing when you were young that most of the things you were being taught just didn't make sense.

I believe in God, in a "watching us from a distance" sense. Therefore, he doesn't matter much. But I suppose the belief that remains shows that I haven't fully disconncted from my parents' religion. I've certainly fully disconncted from their church. If I had nothing more interesting than the possibility of jail ahead of me, I'd buy some C4.

[Donkey]

That's interesting. I think that, perhaps, I was able to hold onto the affiliation that I have with Christianity specifically because of the fact that both of my parents basically told me when I was a child that the Bible was not verbatim truth. Because of this, I was never subject to an "Aha!" moment when I was in Sunday School and reached an age where I figured out that some of the things occurring were either impossible or absurd or both.

I was always told that it was a book of parables.
I think this applies for me too. I was always encouraged to take the reality of the stories in the Bible with a critical eye. The point was never whether or not it happened, but what it meant.

[dilettante]

This is interesting. My story could start out almost identical to bug's, in that "I [also] was raised in one of those evangelical, Bible-as-literal-truth churches. I went there three times a week for seventeen years, and believed in their doctrine of "all or nothing" wholeheartedly."

I was in college when I read a book on "Bible Doctrine" which tried to logically and empirically prove that the protestant Bible must be inerrant, authoritative, and read literally. I found the reasoning in the book to be not only illogical but also blatantly deceptive. This upset me at the time (still does when I think back on it), but I was even more upset when I realized I couldn't come up with better argument that would prove such an assertion about the Bible. That was my single greatest "crisis of faith" (ironically inspired by a book defending my religion), and I came close to chucking the whole thing.

In the end, though, I decided that doing so would really just be affirming the whole "all-or-nothing" mantra; just because I'd decided this Book wasn't 100% perfectly, authoritatively, literally and Absolutely true, it didn't follow that it must therefore be 100% false, evil or worthless. It was a weird life-transition, but I've come to a point where I can (and do) believe there is considerable goodness, beauty, and truth in the Bible and Christianity as a whole, but still feel free to disagree with certain parts of the book and the religion.

[SMadsen]

On a different note, I'm curious as to what, if any, religion everyone in the 'nothing' category grew up with. I know Donkey has mentioned his Catholic upbringing in the past, and I was just wondering how many people here were brought up with 'something' and turned to 'nothing.'
If I ever turned to 'nothing' I'll let other people judge but I always remained a stout adherent to the 'something' I was brought up with: Skepticism and reasoning.

[partofme]

Isn't Hindu technically pagan?

[Michael]

No Catholics here? :ummm:

That seems odd. If I were to 'choose' to become a Christian, I definitely would choose Catholicism over Protestantism (on purely theological grounds).

Personally, I could never accept Protestant doctrine (too much trouble with predestination, freewill and bible literalism there for me to ever accept that kind of doctrine). Catholicism has a doctrine that can accept 'big-bang' theory and can accept 'evolution'.

The fact that the Catholics usually have way better looking churches as well is point in their favor (no comparison actually, Protestant churches have all the architectural charm of a government building). Heck, whenever I travel to a foreign country, I always want to visit some local Catholic cathedral - just to see the place - they are usually stunningly beautiful buildings - a living testament to faith.

[Michael]

Isn't Hindu technically pagan?
I would classify it as such.

It is not a religion "of the book" (like Judaism, Christianity or Islam) and with its multitude of Gods and Goddesses looks exactly like classical Greco-Roman 'pagan' religion.

I guess the "monotheism" angle is the defining element here.

[dilettante]

No Catholics here? :ummm:

That seems odd. If I were to 'choose' to become a Christian, I definitely would choose Catholicism over Protestantism (on purely theological grounds).

Personally, I could never accept Protestant doctrine (too much trouble with predestination, freewill and bible literalism there for me to ever accept that kind of doctrine). Catholicism has a doctrine that can accept 'big-bang' theory and can accept 'evolution'.

I don't think there really is such a thing as "Protestant doctrine" in the same way there is Roman Catholic doctrine; protestant churches aren't part of unified organizational structure. As best I can tell, these days "protestant" just means "Christian, but not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox".

As far as having room for the big-bang and biological evolution, it depends on your flavor of "protestantism," but one can certainly be Christian, but not Catholic, and accept those theories.


The fact that the Catholics usually have way better looking churches as well is point in their favor (no comparison actually, Protestant churches have all the architectural charm of a government building). Heck, whenever I travel to a foreign country, I always want to visit some local Catholic cathedral - just to see the place - they are usually stunningly beautiful buildings - a living testament to faith.

No argument there; there certainly are some very beautiful and impressive Catholic cathedrals.

[Michael]

I don't think there really is such a thing as "Protestant doctrine" in the same way there is Roman Catholic doctrine; protestant churches aren't part of unified organizational structure. As best I can tell, these days "protestant" just means "Christian, but not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox".
There very much is "protestant doctrine". The fact is, Americans seem to like "religion lite" where one just picks the doctrines you like and ignore the other bits you don't like - and this is always put under the label of "protestant" which is absurd.

Protestant doctrine is as clearly stated as is Catholic doctrine. When Catholics pick and choose amongst their doctrines, they know that's what they are doing (picking and choosing, or ignoring the Church's rules on birth control for example). They know the correct religious rules, they just choose to ignore them.

When Protestants do the same thing (picking/choosing doctrines they like), they think it is doctrinally acceptable - which is absurd.

As far as having room for the big-bang and biological evolution, it depends on your flavor of "protestantism," but one can certainly be Christian, but not Catholic, and accept those theories.
Only if you pick and choose the doctrine of your religion according to your own rules.

I'm not aware of any Protestant doctrine that can accept big bang or evolution in any way at all. If there is some, please cite.

Indeed, those churches most famous for this kind of association (Episcopalian or Anglican-Lutheran) are notoriously the Churches that have been in non-stop decline for the last forty years (in all countries). No surprise there - any religion that can't stand up for its own doctrine is doomed to die an unmarked and unloved death.

Martin Luther is the father of protestantism and provides the essential doctrine of protestantism. And Luther is clear that God's word is scriptural and literal. This is protestant doctrine. Genesis and the Garden of Eden explain EVERYTHING there is to know about the origin of this planet and or human beings. There is no 'middle ground' on this issue according to Protestant doctrine as that requires you going outside of Bible scripture and that's not permitted. Protestant Christianity is based on a literal interpretation of scripture and scripture alone as the "word of God".

Bottom line is that 'evangelical' protestant Christians are the only ones that (supposedly) follow actual protestant Christianity. Only Catholic doctrine accepts evolution. If you are Christian and you accept evolution, you are following Catholic doctrine and rejecting Protestant doctrine.

[partofme]

No Catholics here? :ummm:

That seems odd. If I were to 'choose' to become a Christian, I definitely would choose Catholicism over Protestantism (on purely theological grounds).

Personally, I could never accept Protestant doctrine (too much trouble with predestination, freewill and bible literalism there for me to ever accept that kind of doctrine). Catholicism has a doctrine that can accept 'big-bang' theory and can accept 'evolution'.

The fact that the Catholics usually have way better looking churches as well is point in their favor (no comparison actually, Protestant churches have all the architectural charm of a government building). Heck, whenever I travel to a foreign country, I always want to visit some local Catholic cathedral - just to see the place - they are usually stunningly beautiful buildings - a living testament to faith.

I actually thought the huge cathedrals looked kind of bad for Catholics. I dated a Catholic girl way back in high school when I hadn't chucked my faith yet and she bragged about how huge and beautiful her cathedral was compared to my church and I responded: "Yeah we tend to blow all our money on helping the poor and silly stuff like that".

She was not amused.

[Michael]

I actually thought the huge cathedrals looked kind of bad for Catholics. I dated a Catholic girl way back in high school when I hadn't chucked my faith yet and she bragged about how huge and beautiful her cathedral was compared to my church and I responded: "Yeah we tend to blow all our money on helping the poor and silly stuff like that".

She was not amused.
Rightly so.

Catholic churches/congregations probably put Protestant ones to shame when it comes to doing charity work for poor people.

Protestant churches seem to make it a policy to see how rich they can make the pastor. No comparison between the income of a American protestant preacher and the income of a Catholic priest. Catholic priests don't usually live in mansions with servants.

[partofme]

Rightly so.

Catholic churches/congregations probably put Protestant ones to shame when it comes to doing charity work for poor people.

Protestant churches seem to make it a policy to see how rich they can make the pastor. No comparison between the income of a American protestant preacher and the income of a Catholic priest. Catholic priests don't usually live in mansions with servants.

I can't speak for all protestant churches but I know the one I grew up in and the one my wife grew up in do a huge amount of charity work. In fact protestant churches do almost all of it in more rural since there are not real secular alternatives. Here there is such a huge variety of churches that I'm sure you could say that about some protestant churches but it would be like calling all people awful because a few kill.

I can't believe you have me defending protestants. :)

[dilettante]

There very much is "protestant doctrine". The fact is, Americans seem to like "religion lite" where one just picks the doctrines you like and ignore the other bits you don't like - and this is always put under the label of "protestant" which is absurd.

Protestant doctrine is as clearly stated as is Catholic doctrine.

I disagree. Who would have the recognized authority to determine and state "Protestant doctrine"? Unlike Roman Catholics, Protestants (as a group) recognize no central figure, group or organization as having doctrinal authority over all of them. Put another way, there is a Roman Catholic Church [singular], but there are Protestant churches [plural]; they neither act in unity nor have anything like a unified doctrine.


When Catholics pick and choose amongst their doctrines, they know that's what they are doing (picking and choosing, or ignoring the Church's rules on birth control for example). They know the correct religious rules, they just choose to ignore them.

When Protestants do the same thing (picking/choosing doctrines they like), they think it is doctrinally acceptable - which is absurd.

Again, there is no overarching Protestant structure or authority.

For example: Two Catholics may hold different beliefs and debate who's view is close to "correct" Roman Catholic doctrine. But they can do so only because they both agree on the source of how Roman Catholic doctrine is decided (through the established leadership and councils of the Roman Catholic church). Theoretically, they could go ask the Pope and the Pope could "officially" settle the issue for them.
But if two protestants from different domination differ (a Baptist and a Methodist, for example) who could they appeal to settle the matter? The Baptists does not acknowledge the authority of the Methodist leadership, nor via versa. They might debate whose doctrine is true, but it would be senseless to debate whose doctrine was more Protestant, because there is no agreed upon "Protestant doctrine," nor any figure or organization granted the authority to develop one. And, truth be told, I've never heard anyone appeal to "Protestant doctrine."


Martin Luther is the father of protestantism and provides the essential doctrine of protestantism. And Luther is clear that God's word is scriptural and literal. This is protestant doctrine.

Again, I disagree. Many protestants agree with Luther on various points, and I think a good many would accept him as "the father of protestantism" (though Luther died a self-identified Catholic), but none of them would grant him the authority to officially determine "Protestant doctrine" in the sense that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church can determine Catholic doctrine. In fact, one of the defining points of Protestantism is a rejection of granting such authority to any individual.
In other words, "Luther declared X," in and of itself, carries little or no authoritative weight among most Protestants; some may agree, and some disagree with Luther, though most will acknowledge him as a wise and good man. It only takes on authority if one declares "God says X". But since (in the aforementioned absence of any generally recognized authority figure), the determination and interpretation of what "God said" is left up to the individual, church, or denomination to decide there can be no single authoritative doctrine.


If you are Christian and you accept evolution, you are following Catholic doctrine and rejecting Protestant doctrine.

I think that kind of distinction is essentially pointless and only reflective of the desire to fit people and beliefs into distinct boxes that don't really exist.
Personally, if the goal is to have a religion that helps to make the most sense if universe, I'd rather have people "pick and choose the doctrine of their religion" than demand that that they select some pre-packaged and officially labeled set of doctrines and call them inconsistent if they don't (though sadly many religious figures are prone to do just that).

But anyway, many self-identified "protestant Christians" can and do view evolution as compatible with their Christianity; that was my original point.

[Donkey]

No Catholics here? :ummm:

That seems odd. If I were to 'choose' to become a Christian, I definitely would choose Catholicism over Protestantism (on purely theological grounds).

Personally, I could never accept Protestant doctrine (too much trouble with predestination, freewill and bible literalism there for me to ever accept that kind of doctrine). Catholicism has a doctrine that can accept 'big-bang' theory and can accept 'evolution'.

The fact that the Catholics usually have way better looking churches as well is point in their favor (no comparison actually, Protestant churches have all the architectural charm of a government building). Heck, whenever I travel to a foreign country, I always want to visit some local Catholic cathedral - just to see the place - they are usually stunningly beautiful buildings - a living testament to faith.
No Catholics, but maybe a few former ones. I don't think I'm the only one... I could check back.

I like the churches and cathedrals, especially in Latin America, but in addition to being beautiful, they make me a little bit ill.

[wphelan]

If I ever turned to 'nothing' I'll let other people judge but I always remained a stout adherent to the 'something' I was brought up with: Skepticism and reasoning.

I only used the term 'nothing' because the poll did. Didn't mean to imply anything by it. :)

[wphelan]

No Catholics, but maybe a few former ones. I don't think I'm the only one... I could check back.

.

Well, I went ahead and voted Catholic. If someone asked me in casual conversation, that's what I'd say. It's the short answer. It's hard not to identify with the church. My take on everything, however, actually seems pretty similar to your experiences you described in a previous post.

[partofme]

This is random but if I ever did become religious (which I'm sure I never will) I would become a Buddhist. It's a religion that has all the good ethical stuff in in it without all the fat. It doesn't even involve a deity. Personally I try to meditate when I can and it does help me to be more focused and calm. I also try to practice mindfulness whenever doing something that seems tedious. While I don't believe in reincarnation or even enlightenment by their definition there are practices in it that are beneficial.

[Donkey]

Well, I went ahead and voted Catholic. If someone asked me in casual conversation, that's what I'd say. It's the short answer. It's hard not to identify with the church. My take on everything, however, actually seems pretty similar to your experiences you described in a previous post.
Heh. People get confused when I say "Yes I am Catholic" and "I don't believe in God" in the same conversation. ;)

[partofme]

Heh. People get confused when I say "Yes I am Catholic" and "I don't believe in God" in the same conversation. ;)

I guess it's similar to cultural Jews. I saw a report once that indicated that there are more non-believers among Jews than among the general population. What is the deal with Catholics losing so many members? I know more former Catholics than people that left anything else. If only evangelicals could drive people away in those numbers.

[wphelan]

I find Catholicism and its followers extremely interesting. I know non-practicing Catholics that haven't been to church in years that still don't eat meat on Fridays during lent. And I know people who attend church every Sunday (or Saturday night) to receive communion who wake up those mornings with a person to whom they're not married.

I can't imagine having been brought up in some of the churches people here attended while growing up. Although I went to church every week, went to CCD from the time I was 5 or 6 until I graduated high school, my experience doesn't sound anything like some described here.

I think a lot of it has to do with a non-literal interpretation of the bible. There was never any speaking in tongues or prohibitions on dancing, or anything remotely like that. If someone started speaking in tongues at the church I attended growing up, there's a good chance everyone in the congregation, in addition to the priest, would insist that the person be admitted into a mental institution.

If I'm not mistaken, the position of the church is that the bible is inerrant, meaning not that it is literally true, but that what it teaches is true. That's why Catholicism generally doesn't contradict science and insist that the Earth is only 40,000 years old, evolution is bogus, or promote some of the other crazy ideas literalists insist upon.

[wphelan]

I guess it's similar to cultural Jews. I saw a report once that indicated that there are more non-believers among Jews than among the general population. What is the deal with Catholics losing so many members? I know more former Catholics than people that left anything else. If only evangelicals could drive people away in those numbers.

I've read that the number one religious denomination in the United States is Catholicism. The second largest is fallen-away Catholics. I don't know if that's still true, but it's a pretty amazing number.

[partofme]

I find Catholicism and its followers extremely interesting. I know non-practicing Catholics that haven't been to church in years that still don't eat meat on Fridays during lent. And I know people who attend church every Sunday (or Saturday night) to receive communion who wake up those mornings with a person to whom they're not married.

I can't imagine having been brought up in some of the churches people here attended while growing up. Although I went to church every week, went to CCD from the time I was 5 or 6 until I graduated high school, my experience doesn't sound anything like some described here.

I think a lot of it has to do with a non-literal interpretation of the bible. There was never any speaking in tongues or prohibitions on dancing, or anything remotely like that. If someone started speaking in tongues at the church I attended growing up, there's a good chance everyone in the congregation, in addition to the priest, would insist that the person be admitted into a mental institution.

If I'm not mistaken, the position of the church is that the bible is inerrant, meaning not that it is literally true, but that what it teaches is true. That's why Catholicism generally doesn't contradict science and insist that the Earth is only 40,000 years old, evolution is bogus, or promote some of the other crazy ideas literalists insist upon.

To understand how I was brought up and the mindset of most people here in the bible belt you should rent the movie Jesus Camp and keep in mind the church I went to was slightly worse in a couple ways. What bothers me about most people living here is that it is automatically assumed that everybody agrees with this sort of thinking by default. Today I saw a report on our local NBC affiliate about increased church attendance due to the recession in which the reporter lead into it with: Well at least we have this bit of good news coming out of the recession.

[SMadsen]

To understand how I was brought up and the mindset of most people here in the bible belt you should rent the movie Jesus Camp and keep in mind the church I went to was slightly worse in a couple ways. What bothers me about most people living here is that it is automatically assumed that everybody agrees with this sort of thinking by default. Today I saw a report on our local NBC affiliate about increased church attendance due to the recession in which the reporter lead into it with: Well at least we have this bit of good news coming out of the recession.
Amazing. In a scaring sort of way.

I haven't seen Jesus Camp yet but I've heard alot about it. I expect it to be pure horror to watch so I'm wondering what the church you went to did that was slightly worse? It's ok if you don't want to tell, though.

[partofme]

Amazing. In a scaring sort of way.

I haven't seen Jesus Camp yet but I've heard alot about it. I expect it to be pure horror to watch so I'm wondering what the church you went to did that was slightly worse? It's ok if you don't want to tell, though.

I just meant by not having instruments and being super strict about contact with the opposite sex. Other than that it was pretty much the same. We didn't talk in tongues though.

[Michael]

I can't speak for all protestant churches but I know the one I grew up in and the one my wife grew up in do a huge amount of charity work. In fact protestant churches do almost all of it in more rural since there are not real secular alternatives. Here there is such a huge variety of churches that I'm sure you could say that about some protestant churches but it would be like calling all people awful because a few kill.

I can't believe you have me defending protestants. :)
I think the better answer to this point is to acknowledge that Protestants probably outnumber Catholics 10:1 in rural Kentucky to begin with and thus, most religious charity work is going to come from the Protestants.

I suspect Catholic numbers are traditionally much heavier in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago (even before the arrival of Hispanic Catholics).

In Toronto where the Catholic/Protestant split is probably 50/50 in the city, Catholic-run charities dominate the charity scene. I can't even think of the name of a Protestant run charity group up here, but I can name a half-dozen major Catholic-run charity groups.

[partofme]

I think the better answer to this point is to acknowledge that Protestants probably outnumber Catholics 10:1 in rural Kentucky to begin with and thus, most religious charity work is going to come from the Protestants.

I suspect Catholic numbers are traditionally much heavier in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago (even before the arrival of Hispanic Catholics).

In Toronto where the Catholic/Protestant split is probably 50/50 in the city, Catholic-run charities dominate the charity scene. I can't even think of the name of a Protestant run charity group up here, but I can name a half-dozen major Catholic-run charity groups.

Granted they are not a majority simply because there are so many denominations. However, they do tend to have among the biggest churches and I would say they compare to the largest of those around here.

[Multiplum]

I'm trying to put words to why I'm annoyed with religion, and I might be on to something. The annoying part, I guess, is this feeling that we're "special". That there's something "out there" that's all-powerful, and has the same characteristics as us. It's all about our species for believers. I don't know if that last sentence is horribly generalizing or not. What I'm saying is that I see no reason whatsoever to believe we're part of the scheme of some greater "will". Believing that to the point of certainty is either insanity or denial to a third party such as myself.

I'm having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this.

[Greendruid]

I'm trying to put words to why I'm annoyed with religion, and I might be on to something. The annoying part, I guess, is this feeling that we're "special". That there's something "out there" that's all-powerful, and has the same characteristics as us. It's all about our species for believers. I don't know if that last sentence is horribly generalizing or not. What I'm saying is that I see no reason whatsoever to believe we're part of the scheme of some greater "will". Believing that to the point of certainty is either insanity or denial to a third party such as myself.

I'm having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this.

Not all religions believe any of the points you've raised. Most of them are easily identified as components of the Abrahamic religions. However, all of these are antithetical to my own religion of druidic paganism for example. Some of these points are antithetical to Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the much lesser known tribal religions around the world.

[Multiplum]

Not all religions believe any of the points you've raised. Most of them are easily identified as components of the Abrahamic religions. However, all of these are antithetical to my own religion of druidic paganism for example. Some of these points are antithetical to Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the much lesser known tribal religions around the world.

Of course, I know little about these religions, as they are fairly low profile. I suppose I just find this anthropocentric point of view to be desperate and pathetic. I guess from what I know, the Buddhist approach is fine. Not necessarily concerned with superstition, if I remember correctly.

[Michael]

I just took the liberty of correcting a couple of the poll choice entries to make them less biased and more 'correct'. :)

[Lily]

Born into a family of Southern Baptists (mother's side) and Lutheran ministers (father's side). Briefly attended a Baptist Church as a child and intensely disliked it. Neither parent was particularly religious. I've been agnostic for many years.

[Evangeline]

I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing what's out there and perfectly comfortable knowing that no one else really knows either, however much they pretend to.

[KSigMason]

I consider myself a non-denominational Christian. I selected Protestant.

Growing up my parents were never zealously religious and we hardly went to church unless it was a special occasion. I eventually started going to the LDS/Mormon church since my friends went there, but after being baptized I realized how crazy many of them they were and many of them were self-righteous assholes. That drove me away. I also asked too many questions for their liking.

During my youth, and to this day, I studied mythologies and I am a fan of them.

[Michael]

I consider myself a non-denominational Christian. I selected Protestant.

Growing up my parents were never zealously religious and we hardly went to church unless it was a special occasion. I eventually started going to the LDS/Mormon church since my friends went there, but after being baptized I realized how crazy many of them they were and many of them were self-righteous assholes. That drove me away. I also asked too many questions for their liking.

During my youth, and to this day, I studied mythologies and I am a fan of them.
As is the most common case, you appear to have inherited your parent's 'never zealous' religious views.

Anyway, I'm curious about your studies of mythology. That's a topic I'm rather familiar with, though I've only studied the European mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse).

[Leprechaun]

It's quite interesting that the atheists outnumber the religious by almost 2 to 1. Is this reflective of the entire forum? Personally I was born Roman Catholic but my family wasn't religious and the only contact I had with the Church was through school. At about 11/12 I questioned the historical accuracy of the Bible and found it was a mismash of older religions (zoroastrianism draws some interesting parallells with Christianity) and then I questioned the existance of any God. I now don't believe in a God(s)/Goddess(es). I think this is reflective of Ireland as a whole, Church attendances and the number of new priests are declining, most people only go to church on social occasions. I find this trend refreshing when one considers the negative effects that Catholicism has had on politics in Ireland, even just since the foundation of the Repbulic.

[Michael]

It's quite interesting that the atheists outnumber the religious by almost 2 to 1. Is this reflective of the entire forum?
Probably yes.

Its pretty obvious that atheists outnumber all religious folks 2:1 on the internet generally speaking.

And you will find that 'atheism' corelates rather closely to higher education. We have quite a few Bachelors, Masters and Ph.D's here at this forum, thus, the ratio doesn't surprise me at all.

I've also often joked that it is impossible to get a Masters degree in Philosophy and still be religious. And this forum originates with myself and several others engaging in philosophy discussions at another forum. ;)

However, I should like to point out that despite the fact that I'm a 'hard-core' atheist, I'm probably one of the strongest defenders of religious liberty you'll ever meet on an discussion forum.

Personally I was born Roman Catholic but my family wasn't religious and the only contact I had with the Church was through school. At about 11/12 I questioned the historical accuracy of the Bible and found it was a mismash of older religions (zoroastrianism draws some interesting parallells with Christianity) and then I questioned the existance of any God. I now don't believe in a God(s)/Goddess(es). I think this is reflective of Ireland as a whole, Church attendances and the number of new priests are declining, most people only go to church on social occasions. I find this trend refreshing when one considers the negative effects that Catholicism has had on politics in Ireland, even just since the foundation of the Repbulic.

Btw, I believe theology associated with "Mithras" was the single greatest influence on the creation of Christian theology.

As for Ireland's history with the Catholic Church, suffice it to say that I'm a very strong proponent of separation of Church and State. Combining the two will guarentee to kill one and probably both.

It does look like the Church is the one that is dying due to such secular involvements. No sympathy for the RCC - they've been warned long enough to know that secular political authority will always cause the Church to fail.

[The Drunk Guy]

It's quite interesting that the atheists outnumber the religious by almost 2 to 1. Is this reflective of the entire forum? Personally I was born Roman Catholic but my family wasn't religious and the only contact I had with the Church was through school. At about 11/12 I questioned the historical accuracy of the Bible and found it was a mismash of older religions (zoroastrianism draws some interesting parallells with Christianity) and then I questioned the existance of any God. I now don't believe in a God(s)/Goddess(es). I think this is reflective of Ireland as a whole, Church attendances and the number of new priests are declining, most people only go to church on social occasions. I find this trend refreshing when one considers the negative effects that Catholicism has had on politics in Ireland, even just since the foundation of the Repbulic.
Yes, finding the Judeo-Christian predecessors was the thigh on my last leg of religious belief. The shin was a stint following theoretical quantum-physics (we're all connected), which ended in the foot, where I was a Deist for about half a year.

[Michael]

I finally got around to fixing ALL the errors and spelling mistakes in the poll that Aussie created. I think it is a decent poll now. :)

[KSigMason]

As is the most common case, you appear to have inherited your parent's 'never zealous' religious views.

Anyway, I'm curious about your studies of mythology. That's a topic I'm rather familiar with, though I've only studied the European mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse).
Originally I studied Egyptian mythology, but got very interested in Greek and Roman. Then after talking with my grandmother and learning of my Norwegian roots I studied Nordic lore. If anyone had known me pre-2007 you would have seen me as IDARNG_Loki

I also looked a little at Middle Eastern, Asian, and Indo-Asian mythologies and religions.

[Arkady]

I am neither (atheist/agnostic), but have interests in Islam, so if I had to, I would select that option.

[Zarquon]

None.
I was raised a Sikh(still have the long hair), and identify as a Secular Humanist (something I stand for), as opposed to merely an atheist(something I declare myself to be in reaction to others harassment; though definitely a 'strong' atheist rather than a 'weak' one).

[Lasher]

OK, let's come right out and say what we are.
It needs to be said here that 90% of us in the world have our mother's religion. Most of us can't help what we are. We are born into it, although many are influenced by rubbing shoulders with so called intellectuals during education. Many are influenced adversely this way.
Most of us can't believe what religion others belong to. It is a blame game.
We all know that our religion is the only one that is right.
It takes a very special person or incident in a person's life to convert to another religion. I am talking about a person who already has a religion that was probably their mother's. To take on change is hard.
I am not talking about the ex criminal or bad person who repents, or the so called 'born again' Christians. Many of those take on religion because they become frightened about the consequences of their past actions.
So let's see it. Who are you?
Why was there no "Jewish" category?

[Lasher]

None.
I was raised a Sikh(still have the long hair), and identify as a Secular Humanist (something I stand for), as opposed to merely an atheist(something I declare myself to be in reaction to others harassment; though definitely a 'strong' atheist rather than a 'weak' one).
Wow, Zarquon, you really sound interesting! Why do other people harass you? Good to know you're a "strong" atheist. Those "weak" ones don't do much good, do they?

[Lasher]

Originally I studied Egyptian mythology, but got very interested in Greek and Roman. Then after talking with my grandmother and learning of my Norwegian roots I studied Nordic lore. If anyone had known me pre-2007 you would have seen me as IDARNG_Loki

I also looked a little at Middle Eastern, Asian, and Indo-Asian mythologies and religions.
And did any of those strike your fancy? When you were Loki, were you very mischievous?

[Lasher]

I finally got around to fixing ALL the errors and spelling mistakes in the poll that Aussie created. I think it is a decent poll now. :)
To what purpose, Mike?

[Lasher]

Yes, finding the Judeo-Christian predecessors was the thigh on my last leg of religious belief. The shin was a stint following theoretical quantum-physics (we're all connected), which ended in the foot, where I was a Deist for about half a year.
Lasher is beginning to believe this thread is way over His humble head.

[Lasher]

Not all religions believe any of the points you've raised. Most of them are easily identified as components of the Abrahamic religions. However, all of these are antithetical to my own religion of druidic paganism for example. Some of these points are antithetical to Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the much lesser known tribal religions around the world.
Greendruid, may Lasher ask where you go to church? Lash has no recollection of ever seeing a Druid Pagan church.

[Lasher]

I just took the liberty of correcting a couple of the poll choice entries to make them less biased and more 'correct'. :)
That was so good of you, Mike.

[Lasher]

As is the most common case, you appear to have inherited your parent's 'never zealous' religious views.

Anyway, I'm curious about your studies of mythology. That's a topic I'm rather familiar with, though I've only studied the European mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse).
Mike, all religions are myths.

[Lasher]

I guess it's similar to cultural Jews. I saw a report once that indicated that there are more non-believers among Jews than among the general population. What is the deal with Catholics losing so many members? I know more former Catholics than people that left anything else. If only evangelicals could drive people away in those numbers.
The butt-pirate priests caused it.

[Lasher]

I find Catholicism and its followers extremely interesting. I know non-practicing Catholics that haven't been to church in years that still don't eat meat on Fridays during lent. And I know people who attend church every Sunday (or Saturday night) to receive communion who wake up those mornings with a person to whom they're not married.

I can't imagine having been brought up in some of the churches people here attended while growing up. Although I went to church every week, went to CCD from the time I was 5 or 6 until I graduated high school, my experience doesn't sound anything like some described here.

I think a lot of it has to do with a non-literal interpretation of the bible. There was never any speaking in tongues or prohibitions on dancing, or anything remotely like that. If someone started speaking in tongues at the church I attended growing up, there's a good chance everyone in the congregation, in addition to the priest, would insist that the person be admitted into a mental institution.

If I'm not mistaken, the position of the church is that the bible is inerrant, meaning not that it is literally true, but that what it teaches is true. That's why Catholicism generally doesn't contradict science and insist that the Earth is only 40,000 years old, evolution is bogus, or promote some of the other crazy ideas literalists insist upon.

wphelan: Maybe you can help me with a religious dilemma I have; it concerns a few passages in the Bible that I simply can't seem to reconcile. One is when I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Another is I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

[Lasher]

Your categories are internally inconsistent and wrong and I need clarification.

Pagans and Heathens are, by their own definitions (and I think you will most certainly agree that each to his own definition of his own religion), different from each other.

I need clarification specifically on what you're calling "Wicker". It's not a word that's familiar to me, though I'm suspecting a non-standard English, Australian written-as-pronounced version of the word "Wicca". If such is the case, I will remind you that the Devil is not a deity figure of anything but the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Lash believes the word "wiccan" is derived from the word "wicked," which Satan worship definitely is.

[Lasher]

Hmmm, my experience with the three great religions has been nothing but the opposite. I chose Christianity, i feel no guilt or fear and I think I am far from Intolerant.

In answer to the poll question: Christian protestant Specifically Lutheran.

Maybe you can help Lasher out, Non; He is puzzled about a couple of God's Laws; to wit: Lash knows He is not allowed any contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is, how does Lash tell? He has tried asking, but most women take offense.

Also, Lev. 25:44 states that Lash may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of Lasher's claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't Lash own Canadians?

[wphelan]

wphelan: Maybe you can help me with a religious dilemma I have; it concerns a few passages in the Bible that I simply can't seem to reconcile. One is when I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Yes. Duh.

Another is I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

How am I supposed to answer that if you don't tell me her age? Get serious pal, and then I'll tell you a fair price.

[Americano]

Yes. Duh.



How am I supposed to answer that if you don't tell me her age? Get serious pal, and then I'll tell you a fair price.

I suggest detailed images before quoting price.

[Non Sequitur]

Maybe you can help Lasher out, Non; He is puzzled about a couple of God's Laws; to wit: Lash knows He is not allowed any contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is, how does Lash tell? He has tried asking, but most women take offense.

Also, Lev. 25:44 states that Lash may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of Lasher's claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't Lash own Canadians?

:) good questions, but you missed some of my favorite verses. Paul says that women should be "silent" in the church (1 Corinthians 14), the same letter says don't get married unless you "can't control your lustful desires", and Elisha calls two random she-bears out of the woods to maul a bunch of kids (2 Kings 2). This is all to say that the Bible, while inspired by God, was written by human beings over a period of three thousand years. Men (predominantly) wrote the various books and thus certain passages reflect that bias. Now the passages you mention (or the ones I do) would certainly pose a problem if one read the Bible literally. Literal interpretation is a fairly new form of reading the Bible and was a response to the modern movement. What we must remember is that while the Bible does teach truth it teaches truth through story, not historical or scientific fact. thus some stories (like the Elisha story) are not going to make sense (read Genesis 4 sometime). Also, the law codes in the Old Testament functioned as a law code for a society that existed three thousand years ago, so of course the laws are going to be out dated sometimes. God did not drop the Bible out of the sky complete with maps. People wrote it and thus people had an influence.

On a side note: Lash can't own Canadians because it violates the whole "love your neighbor as yourself" thing. Also helpful on the subject is Mark 10:5 "because of your hardness of heart he [Moses] wrote this commandment."

[Lasher]

Well, I think the poll question here is problematic, since technically speaking people aren't religions. That said, I affiliate most closely and feel most comfortable with protestant Christianity.



Actually, the "prominence" of the three monotheistic religions is really a Western thing; Judaism doesn't have nearly the numbers of Hinduism or Buddhism in a global context.


...
Do you have any idea why it is so ubiquitously omnipresent in the United States?

[Lasher]

See, I do have a problem understanding this, especially considering the ten commandments, the demand for death by stoning, the "you shall have no other gods before me". If you acknowledge even elements other beliefs, the abrahamic god seems quite clear on the matter, and there are no shades of grey. And he's no gentleman as far as women are concerned. From what I can tell. You may have noticed that I'm no theologist. I have not read the bible, except the hilarious bits.

(Genesis 22:3)
When God says "Ye shall have no other gods before me," couldn't He mean that you can have other gods equal to Him, but not "before" Him?

[Lasher]

I was born Quaker, and still phillosophically hold many of the ideals of the religion. However by the age of 4 I realized that most of the stories we were being told in Bible School were non sensical, and became an athiest. I suppose it's possible I was influenced, but I don't remember anyone trying to get me to challenge christian beliefs (though it was a long time ago, my memory is certainly not perfect here). In fact I remember having many debates with other quakers about it. The story that finaly broke the cammel's back for me was Noah's ark. It just made no sense to me, and I let the whole class know. After getting read that story I became an athiest, interesting considering now I'm more of a soft egnostic. I ran into my old bible study teacher 2 years ago, and talked with her for a while. She kept thanking me for challenging her in class (that's a quaker thing, at least at the meeting I attended, critical thinking was encouraged). Anyway though, this just confirmed my memories of those days, every sunday where I would juts argue are point out the absurdities in the stories we were being read...
You are not supposed to point out absurdities, you are supposed to take them on faith as the indisputable Truth if you expect to go to heaven and abide with the Lord.

[Lasher]

This is interesting. My story could start out almost identical to bug's, in that "I [also] was raised in one of those evangelical, Bible-as-literal-truth churches. I went there three times a week for seventeen years, and believed in their doctrine of "all or nothing" wholeheartedly."

I was in college when I read a book on "Bible Doctrine" which tried to logically and empirically prove that the protestant Bible must be inerrant, authoritative, and read literally. I found the reasoning in the book to be not only illogical but also blatantly deceptive. This upset me at the time (still does when I think back on it), but I was even more upset when I realized I couldn't come up with better argument that would prove such an assertion about the Bible. That was my single greatest "crisis of faith" (ironically inspired by a book defending my religion), and I came close to chucking the whole thing.

In the end, though, I decided that doing so would really just be affirming the whole "all-or-nothing" mantra; just because I'd decided this Book wasn't 100% perfectly, authoritatively, literally and Absolutely true, it didn't follow that it must therefore be 100% false, evil or worthless. It was a weird life-transition, but I've come to a point where I can (and do) believe there is considerable goodness, beauty, and truth in the Bible and Christianity as a whole, but still feel free to disagree with certain parts of the book and the religion.
Weird, isn't it?

[Lasher]

No Catholics here? :ummm:

That seems odd. If I were to 'choose' to become a Christian, I definitely would choose Catholicism over Protestantism (on purely theological grounds).

Personally, I could never accept Protestant doctrine (too much trouble with predestination, freewill and bible literalism there for me to ever accept that kind of doctrine). Catholicism has a doctrine that can accept 'big-bang' theory and can accept 'evolution'.

The fact that the Catholics usually have way better looking churches as well is point in their favor (no comparison actually, Protestant churches have all the architectural charm of a government building). Heck, whenever I travel to a foreign country, I always want to visit some local Catholic cathedral - just to see the place - they are usually stunningly beautiful buildings - a living testament to faith.
The architecture of their meeting places is probably the best determinant of the validity and value of the different religions.

[Lasher]

I actually thought the huge cathedrals looked kind of bad for Catholics. I dated a Catholic girl way back in high school when I hadn't chucked my faith yet and she bragged about how huge and beautiful her cathedral was compared to my church and I responded: "Yeah we tend to blow all our money on helping the poor and silly stuff like that".

She was not amused.
Should she have been?

[Donkey]

When God says "Ye shall have no other gods before me," couldn't He mean that you can have other gods equal to Him, but not "before" Him?
Well, in the context of when the commandments were written, the Israelites probably believed that other Gods existed, but that Jehova was their dude.

[Lasher]

I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing what's out there and perfectly comfortable knowing that no one else really knows either, however much they pretend to.
Good for you Evangeline; BTW, did you and Gabriel ever get back together?

[Lasher]

I suggest detailed images before quoting price.
Sorry, Americano, she isn't into posing for pornography. Try some of the porn sites on your computer if that's your thing.

[Lasher]

:) good questions, but you missed some of my favorite verses. Paul says that women should be "silent" in the church (1 Corinthians 14), the same letter says don't get married unless you "can't control your lustful desires", and Elisha calls two random she-bears out of the woods to maul a bunch of kids (2 Kings 2). This is all to say that the Bible, while inspired by God, was written by human beings over a period of three thousand years. Men (predominantly) wrote the various books and thus certain passages reflect that bias. Now the passages you mention (or the ones I do) would certainly pose a problem if one read the Bible literally. Literal interpretation is a fairly new form of reading the Bible and was a response to the modern movement. What we must remember is that while the Bible does teach truth it teaches truth through story, not historical or scientific fact. thus some stories (like the Elisha story) are not going to make sense (read Genesis 4 sometime). Also, the law codes in the Old Testament functioned as a law code for a society that existed three thousand years ago, so of course the laws are going to be out dated sometimes. God did not drop the Bible out of the sky complete with maps. People wrote it and thus people had an influence.

On a side note: Lash can't own Canadians because it violates the whole "love your neighbor as yourself" thing. Also helpful on the subject is Mark 10:5 "because of your hardness of heart he [Moses] wrote this commandment."
Thank you for your answers, non. Another situation that Lasher has trouble with is His neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Is Lash morally obligated to personally kill him?

[Lasher]

Well, in the context of when the commandments were written, the Israelites probably believed that other Gods existed, but that Jehova was their dude.
Lasher was under the impression that the Israelites were monotheistic believers - sorry.

[Donkey]

Lasher was under the impression that the Israelites were monotheistic believers - sorry.
Well Jews certainly are now, and retrospective theology dictates that the ancient Israelites also were, but it's not very likely.

[Non Sequitur]

Thank you for your answers, non. Another situation that Lasher has trouble with is His neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Is Lash morally obligated to personally kill him?

Then he [Jesus] said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). You don't have to follow the sabbath strictly to be a true believer.

see the problem with what you are saying is that you assume that everything in the Bible carries equal authority. This is just simply not true (unless you feel like taking the Bible literally in all cases).

[Donkey]

While I am an atheist, I am consistently aggravated by the all-or-nothing approach that belligerent atheists take to try to discredit people of faith.

[Americano]

While I am an atheist, I am consistently aggravated by the all-or-nothing approach that belligerent atheists take to try to discredit people of faith.

I make no attempt to discredit any belief system unless said belief system is attempting to govern me with their dogma.

[Donkey]

I make no attempt to discredit any belief system unless said belief system is attempting to govern me with their dogma.
I would hardly call you belligerent. ;)

[Michael]

While I am an atheist, I am consistently aggravated by the all-or-nothing approach that belligerent atheists take to try to discredit people of faith.
I should like to think that puts you squarely into my camp on religious issues. ;)

[Americano]

I would hardly call you belligerent. ;)

I did get carried away on another forum with Catholics and fundies attempting to defend pending legislation in Texas requiring all abortion candidates undergo an MRI and view the results before an MD could perform an abortion.

In that same thread I was chastised for using the word fundies as a slur, by a Catholic mod who describes gays as perverted.

[Lasher]

I did get carried away on another forum with Catholics and fundies attempting to defend pending legislation in Texas requiring all abortion candidates undergo an MRI and view the results before an MD could perform an abortion.

In that same thread I was chastised for using the word fundies as a slur, by a Catholic mod who describes gays as perverted.
If gays aren't perverted, who is?

[Donkey]

I did get carried away on another forum with Catholics and fundies attempting to defend pending legislation in Texas requiring all abortion candidates undergo an MRI and view the results before an MD could perform an abortion.

In that same thread I was chastised for using the word fundies as a slur, by a Catholic mod who describes gays as perverted.
That's different.

I'm referring to "The Bible says that you have to kill women if they get married and aren't virgins, therefore god cannot exist."

[Zarquon]

I am not a fan of religion and I view it as a from of tribalism bereft of any validity or utility, that exercises an excessive influence on society, and has an unwarranted special/not to be questioned status.

It(majority conservative religion and not that wishy-washy interpretive or liberal religion) promotes a fallacious and absolutist mortality that is counter-productive from a Humanist view, denys the Human animal and seeks to destroy it, denigrates this life for a world that cannot be, and promotes this or that jewel of parochial 'wisdom' as the apogee of human thought. Also, its the second biggest, and the most pernicious, barrier to human cooperation, the other being culture/language.

Its effect on self-esteem and critical thinking cannot be understated.
As someone who was indoctrinated and who grew up in a society as medieval and religious as India's, I can attest to that.

To sum it up, I quote the person who's view on religion mine is closest to, Bertrand Russell:
“Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”

[Americano]

If gays aren't perverted, who is?

That definition was long ago removed from use by mental health professionals. You must be living in the horse and buggy era.

[Lasher]

That definition was long ago removed from use by mental health professionals. You must be living in the horse and buggy era.
That would seem to reinforce the general notion that "mental health professionals" have a very high ratio of homosexual aficionados in their ranks, along with the highest percentage of suicides.

[Americano]

That would seem to reinforce the general notion that "mental health professionals" have a very high ratio of homosexual aficionados in their ranks, along with the highest percentage of suicides.

I don't subscribe to general notions.

[Michael]

If gays aren't perverted, who is?

Perhaps those who think gays are perverted. :shrug:

I should think purient interest in the sex lives of others is proof of perversion.

[Lasher]

I don't subscribe to general notions.
Pity!

[Lasher]

Perhaps those who think gays are perverted. :shrug:

I should think purient interest in the sex lives of others is proof of perversion.
That would include God Himself, my friend.

Do you think it is perversion to not want one's children exposed to semi-naked people passionately kissing others of the same sex? To not want their children taught in schools that homosexuality is just an "alternate lifestyle?" To be exposed to constant television and movies with homoerotic themes? This is symptomatic of the downfall of great nations, and one deserves no plaudits for the encouragement of such behavior.

[Zarquon]

Well, do you also believe in creationism and want the 'controversy' to be taught? Or geocentrism? or a flat earth for that matter?
Fact of the matter is homosexuality is neither a recent phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) nor is it 'unnatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)', and its quite likely that orientation is not static but dynamic or 'fluid' if you prefer(especially among women).
And whatever happened to the libertarian principle of individual freedom? or is that just for corporations and not human beings?
And why do other people bother you so much?

[Lily]

If gays aren't perverted, who is?

Let me see... those who believe they are ordained by some supernatural being to stick their noses into others' sex lives? :ummm:

[Lasher]

Well, do you also believe in creationism and want the 'controversy' to be taught? Or geocentrism? or a flat earth for that matter?
Fact of the matter is homosexuality is neither a recent phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) nor is it 'unnatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)', and its quite likely that orientation is not static but dynamic or 'fluid' if you prefer(especially among women).
And whatever happened to the libertarian principle of individual freedom? or is that just for corporations and not human beings?
And why do other people bother you so much?
No one bothers Lasher, old friend - even you.

[Lasher]

Let me see... those who believe they are ordained by some supernatural being to stick their noses into others' sex lives? :ummm:
What a cute, yet naive reply, sweetie.

[Lily]

What a cute, yet naive reply, sweetie.

I'm not your "sweetie." Back off.

[Michael]

That would include God Himself, my friend.
God doesn't appear to show much interest in anything actually.

God's earthly supporters on the other hand...

Do you think it is perversion to not want one's children exposed to semi-naked people passionately kissing others of the same sex?
I consider it hypocritical bullshit if they don't hold the same aversion to having one's children exposed to semi-naked people passionately kissing regardless of the sex of the kissers.

To not want their children taught in schools that homosexuality is just an "alternate lifestyle?"
No proper school actually teaches this.

Indeed, the definition of "alternative lifestyle" is rightwing propaganda to begin with. Are you accusing schools of fostering rightwing propaganda here? :ummm:

Your position seems confusing.

To be exposed to constant television and movies with homoerotic themes? This is symptomatic of the downfall of great nations, and one deserves no plaudits for the encouragement of such behavior.
Please cite one example of the downfall of a great nation due to television and movies with homoerotic themes. I can't think of any off hand.

[Michael]

... and its quite likely that orientation is not static but dynamic or 'fluid' if you prefer (especially among women).
Actually, it seems equally dynamic amongst both males and females according to my understanding of the evidence.

Though, this is a rather heretical position on this issue though - strongly contested by the activist groups. :shrug:

And whatever happened to the libertarian principle of individual freedom? or is that just for corporations and not human beings?
You appear to misunderstand American style "libertarianism".

They do like to favor liberty, but primarily only for capital. Human liberty is acceptable only in so far as it is supportive or condusive of liberty for capital. If human liberties interfere with the liberty of capital, the libertarians will always assert that human liberty will have to be constrained.

True libertarianism that is not divorced from its classical liberal roots is much more respectable (often called "leftwing libertarianism" in contemporary discussions).

[Lasher]

I'm not your "sweetie." Back off.
Well then, who is the lucky girl?

[Lily]

Well then, who is the lucky girl?

Not you.

[Lasher]

Not you.
Very witty, dear.