I have a Faith and Associate myself with a religion

[454697819]

Leaving Lozzo's thread about Jesus and Easter I thought it would be equally interesting to start this thread for the purpose of discussion.

I have found more and more people seem to be scared of religion, faith etc as they don't understand it, on the surface it appears flawed and flaky, that is not my experiance when you ask questions and dig a little deeper.

anyway

I am a Christian.

I believe in Jesus, God & the Holy Spirit.

Its not straight forward, in fact its pretty damn complicated.

I am far from perfect.

My religion does not make me stupid, uneducated, naive , blind to fact, ignorant of explanation or foolish.

So ask a sensible question and I will try and answer it.

If you wish to religion bash or troll please take that elsewhere.

Thank you

[Bibio]

good on you if it brings you comfort.

[Spank86]

My religion does not make me stupid, uneducated, naive , blind to fact, ignorant of explanation or foolish.

Of course not.
Nobody with an ounce of sense would suggest it.

Not least because that would be putting the cart before the horse.


If you wish to religion bash or troll please take that elsewhere.

I'd rather talk about bikes.

These threads never go anywhere nice and always wind up alienating sections of a forum and sowing discord.

[a_monkey_hint]

I was brought up around Christianity. Some would say it was forced upon me as a child. I got confirmed as a teenager, but in my later teens wondered why I was spending so much time worshiping something I didn't actually believe in.

I'm now an atheist. I make my own footsteps and own guidelines/rules.

Got nothing against religion apart from I truly believe it causes more damage than good. I totally understand why people turn to religion (having spent so many years around it).

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

[arc123]

what branch of christianity do you worship?

What are your thoughts on other forms of christianity?

what are your thoughts on Jehovah's Witness?

[Runako]

what are your thoughts on Jehovah's Witness?

Hey! You leave those Jehovah's alone ... they were there for me when I had no one to talk to. They would visit every Sunday whether I asked them to or not. They were always cheery, even after I could see their ears bleeding after me asking "Why?" for the one millionth time, they never asked for a cup of tea or food and they would always send a new friend (victim) every week. Funny thing is, they just stopped turning up. i looked out for them for a while but they never knocked my door again. I thought I glimpsed someone passing my front window a few times, but it was a bit of a blur ...

[Bibio]

Hey! You leave those Jehovah's alone ... they were there for me when I had no one to talk to. They would visit every Sunday whether I asked them to or not. They were always cheery, even after I could see their ears bleeding after me asking "Why?" for the one millionth time, they never asked for a cup of tea or food and they would always send a new friend (victim) every week. Funny thing is, they just stopped turning up. i looked out for them for a while but they never knocked my door again. I thought I glimpsed someone passing my front window a few times, but it was a bit of a blur ...
hhhahahaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaa. thanks m8 that cheered me right up

[ClunkintheUK]

Numbers, what in your view is a sensible question about religion/Christianity. A lot of the questions I keep coming up with in my mind are a little unfair as they are more directed and the proponents of religion or somewhat simplistic. For example, How can God exist if there is so much suffering in the world, like the catholic priests who are unaware of the innocence of childhood?

[Bibio]

suffering is man's doing for his sins and not god's will.

[Spank86]

Numbers, what in your view is a sensible question about religion/Christianity. A lot of the questions I keep coming up with in my mind are a little unfair as they are more directed and the proponents of religion or somewhat simplistic. For example, How can God exist if there is so much suffering in the world, like the catholic priests who are unaware of the innocence of childhood?
the biblical god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

With regards to the priests that's a failing of man judge them by their actions of paedophilia not their words professing to be "men of god"

[ClunkintheUK]

Like I said. What is a suitable question, as the ones I keep coming up with are retarded?

but taking Bibio's point, why then should children who have not sinned be punished for the sins of those who have?

[Spank86]

That's not punishment and in a lot of ways Bib is wrong there (although there are aspects of punishment but it's only in our banishment from Eden and into the world of suffering not exactly what goes on here).

That's a natural consequence of allowing free will.

They aren't stupid questions if you genuinely want the answers.

[Bibio]

there is not one question anyone can ask about religion and especially the Christian one where they don't have an answer. they have had thousands of years to come up with answers for every conceivable question you could ask and that is why it makes it all sound so convincing.

man, woman, children all suffer for the disobedience of Adam. so we are all stuffed and might as well sin.

[Spank86]

there is not one question anyone can ask about religion and especially the Christian one where they don't have an answer. they have had thousands of years to come up with answers for every conceivable question you could ask and that is why it makes it all sound so convincing.
How did Judas die.

[Bibio]

i don't know i'm not a priest :-) go look it up on google or read the bible.

[Spank86]

i don't know i'm not a priest :-) go look it up on google or read the bible.


It's in the bible.

I already know that.

It's just the accounts differ between Michael and Acts.

[Bri w]

In my younger years, way back in the 60's, I was brought up a Catholic. Being from good Irish stock, albeit living in England, there was little choice in the matter. Without giving a blow by blow of the next 10 years, the end result was I hated the strict regime of Catholicism and escaped it in my late teens. And yes, the local priest was a sick evil #######. Thankfully I managed to avoid that experience, just - but that's another story probably best left unsaid.

But it was only the RC church I escaped, not my belief in a God. I accept all religions, atheists and agnostics. Do I feel that one God or religion is better than another? No. Do I feel science trumps religion? There are still enough unanswered questions out there for there to be room for both. But one day science might prove that religion is a fallacy, or maybe the final answer behind the big bang was God clapping his hands.

So just what has religion given me? A code of conduct and a morality. Is it better than that of a non-believer or a believer of another God? No not at all.

Am I sad? I'm probably more happy and content than I've ever been. Am I ignorant? No more or less than the next man or woman - although my job, house, car, bank balance suggests I'm not too stupid. Would I be safe on a jury? Well, I'm not a hang 'em high guy nor a turn the other cheek but I am very aware of society's expectations and would vote on the facts, not my beliefs - they actually wouldn't even enter into my thoughts. Oh no, I've been brain washed. ;)

And finally, am I gullible? Only in so much as I tend to look for the best in people and not have a cynical view of their 'worth.' I've had my fingers burned because of my trusting nature but to be honest I'd rather believe in people than be a cynic.

[Spank86]

Science vs religion is not a real debate because religion can never disprove science, science adapts to fit evidence but it remains science.

Not unless god comes down in a giant ball of fire and proves his omnipotence (in which case he'd have just invalidated both science AND all major religions).


Until that point it's best to use science as a tool for understanding as much as we can and keep religion as a personal belief that doesn't interfere with it (morality aside, but then morality is changeable)

[Bri w]

Science vs religion is not a real debate because religion can never disprove science, science adapts to fit evidence but it remains science.

Not unless god comes down in a giant ball of fire and proves his omnipotence (in which case he'd have just invalidated both science AND all major religions).


Until that point it's best to use science as a tool for understanding as much as we can and keep religion as a personal belief that doesn't interfere with it (morality aside, but then morality is changeable)

And I wonder how many times in the past a scientific fact has been disproven by the next generation of scientists. Some of today's scientific facts may well be disproven in the future.

I prefer an open mind.

[Fallout]

If God exists there is a scientific explanation for the chap! Science and God can coexist. Religion is faith in what we don't know and science is an explanation for what we do know.

[Bibio]

In my younger years, stuff

much the same views as myself but i was not brought up around religion, in fact the very opposite.

i went to sunday school once as a few of the mates were going and i thaught it would be fun. first day there i was handed a bible and told it was a gift and free. next sunday i went back and they asked for 50p and i said why, they said 'for your bible' ermm it was free so i no longer went to sunday school... lol.

i still have that bible as a reminder.

[SvNewbie]

And I wonder how many times in the past a scientific fact has been disproven by the next generation of scientists. Some of today's scientific facts may well be disproven in the future.

I prefer an open mind.

That is exactly the point in science, it adjusts its views based on the available facts. We know that as a concept this works, for example Einstein was able to predict the effect of time dilation on a moving object years before we had clocks accurate enough to measure the effect at relatively low speeds.

I personally believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I can certainly see the view point of those who think that religion has had a net negative impact on the world. Not just as a source of conflict but in the hundreds, if not thousands of years it has held back science and medicine. Even to this day abortion, in Ireland, is denied to woman in genuine medical need (not that they lack the common sense to use contraception) based on religious grounds.

If the derision of those who feel that religion is foolish feels like persecution then perhaps it would be worth considering the treatment of those throughout history who dared to question the existance of one god or another. It is only in recent history that this has become acceptable, and at many points in history would have been a horrendous crime.

[BanannaMan]

I am a Christian also.

I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Saviour.

Doesn't mean I perfect but that I recognise that I'm not and need to be forgiven.



I'm amazed at the 'faith' people have in science.
In the past science has proved such greats as 'sick people need to be bled', and how many times have they flip-flopped over even something simple like whether an egg has good or bad colesterol?

Science is merely evidence found to support a theory.
Science likes to claim that as fact but over time often is proven otherwise.
Look back at science even 50 years ago. My how facts have changed or do we really know it all now?

[Runako]

The term "Science" just like the word "Religion" has too wide a connotation to mean just one thing. You can further define these terms (until Kingdom come) to terms like "Progressive Science" or "Modern Religion". The concepts share a fundamental similarity in that they are both interpreted through human consciousness so trying to prove or argue that they are the polar opposite of each other - at two ends of a scale -is pointless.

Equally to dismiss either is also pointless. To argue science is invalid because it can be disproved is the same as saying religion is false because it cannot be proven or is self fulfilling. The reality is more about the effect that either produces. Turning the intangible into the tangible. Whether its through theorising about atomic energy, to eventually building the first nuclear reactor to provide sustainable power. Or whether it is to develop and display what we understand as a sense of morality, which leads to charitable work or living an altruistic lifestyle. These are, in my view, some of the true outcomes of Science and Religion.

Of course, this means that there are also negative outcomes to both. But this only reinforces the idea that its our human nature which determines these things and not an absolute set of rules that exist in either case.

[Spank86]

And I wonder how many times in the past a scientific fact has been disproven by the next generation of scientists. Some of today's scientific facts may well be disproven in the future.

I prefer an open mind.


exactly!

Science is in the method NOT the results. It changes when new evidence becomes available. Newtonian physics is WRONG, but it's still an effective model for us to use in most earth based scenarios, you can still build a skyscraper with it but science now has better models.



I'm amazed at the 'faith' people have in science.
In the past science has proved such greats as 'sick people need to be bled', and how many times have they flip-flopped over even something simple like whether an egg has good or bad colesterol?
not science, bleeding was not based on the scientific method and so was not science. In fact it was mostly done by monks in monasteries.

Eggs and cholesterol is basically down to the fact that we don't know. The media just likes to take evidence presented by scientific papers and announce it as fact before it is truly known.

[flymo]

"Science is merely evidence found to support a theory."


That just about says it all. Ok, I'm going to bite the bait.

Science is a practice that allows us to lay down a theory based upon our knowledge at that point in time, and then to attempt to prove or disprove the theory. Using facts to reach a conclusion. Until a theory is proven or disproven it remains just a theory. Nobody proved that the world was flat, quite the opposite as I'm sure you are aware ;-)

I have a theory about religion, that it does indeed (in some cases) promote a set of behaviours and traits that when practiced are probably a good thing. Its the supernatural aspects that are used to fill the gaps that personally I find ridiculous. There are no rational explanations for anything other than what we currently refer to as the natural world, and certainly none that have been proven even slightly, as a track record over thousands of years you would think that at least some of the religious theories would have been supported by some evidence.

I'm sorry if that offends, it isn't intended to. But just because something hasn't been proven or disproven by science doesn't make it fact, religion is faith in particular theories, that's it.

[timwilky]

I respect anyone's right to have a belief. Just don't try to justify or impose your beliefs on me.

Like some others on the org, I was brought up in a catholic household. Until I started to see the hypocrisy of it all. You can do what the hell you want, go to confession, and walk down the aisle for Sunday communion forgiven and in gods favour.

I have my own moral beliefs now. Many opposed to catholic teaching. such as the right to divorce, abortion etc. How the hell a man who has never dipped his wick in anything but an alter boy can try to lecture anyone of relationships and family life is beyond me.

Worse though are those who think they have the right to knock on my door and exploit the kids they have brought with them. I will slam the door in the face of unwelcome callers. But hate doing it to 4&5 year olds who are trying to please granny. By regurgitating the rubbish she has indoctrinated them with at such an early age.

I believe myself to be basically a moral and good man. I strive to care for friends and family. I give a little to charity and don't prejudge. Maybe that christian upbringing has rubbed off on me!!! Agghhhhh off for a long bath in debauchery. heee heee

[Spank86]

It's worth noting that even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round and that even our most rigorously proved (real meaning of proved)theories remain theories. Gravity for instance is a theory.

[ClunkintheUK]

It's worth noting that even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round and that even our most rigorously proved (real meaning of proved)theories remain theories. Gravity for instance is a theory.

Thanks for saying that.

The Greek in questian was Ptolemy, and he calculated the circumference of the earth to within about 400 miles of what it has been measured at with modern instruments. He and his contemporaries also postulated that the earth revolved around the sun based on the evidence of the movement of the planets and the sun in the sky. I believe in around 300 bc IIRC.
(but I digress and could go on about this for a long time)

Also as you alluded to earlier Spank, Gravity in the Newtonian concept has been disproven along with most of Newtonian mechanics. There are several competing theories as to what "gravity" is, or rather the mechanics of the gravitational effect, which are being tested.

[ClunkintheUK]

Of the OP, in the thread title you say you Have a Faith and Associate yourself to a religion. To you, are these two separate (albeit linked) statements? Is it possible to have faith without having a religion?

[Fordward]

just posted in the other thread, having read this now maybe I should have put it in here

[Spank86]

Also as you alluded to earlier Spank, Gravity in the Newtonian concept has been disproven along with most of Newtonian mechanics. There are several competing theories as to what "gravity" is, or rather the mechanics of the gravitational effect, which are being tested.
my personal preference is that it's nothing more than acceleration through spacetime.

[ClunkintheUK]

my personal preference is that it's nothing more than acceleration through spacetime.

True, since gravity is indistinguishable from any other form of acceleration. That definition however makes little sense of why light rays are bent by massive objects. It's also why I said what causes the gravitational effect.

[Spank86]

True, since gravity is indistinguishable from any other form of acceleration. That definition however makes little sense of why light rays are bent by massive objects. It's also why I said what causes the gravitational effect.

because they're not bent directly by massive objects.

they're bent by the result of massive objects, they are bent round that curvature of spacetime that massive objects cause

or at least that's the only time it's visible.

If we are truly accelerating towards the planet (or it's accelerating up to meet us) then that only makes sense against a moving (or still depending on reference frames again, moving in relation to other parts of space) background which is what light is travelling through.

That's actually part of what I like about the theory that it does deal with that so neatly and why all objects no matter how small attract each other, because they all deform space a little.

[ClunkintheUK]

I thought it was they always travel in a "straight line" within space time, but spacetime gets curved by massive objects, though I could be splitting hairs due to poor articulation on my part and a few years of rustyness, and frankly Tensor Calculus always eluded me.

[Spank86]

I thought it was they always travel in a "straight line" within space time, but spacetime gets curved by massive objects, though I could be splitting hairs due to poor articulation on my part and a few years of rustyness, and frankly Tensor Calculus always eluded me.
that's what I mean (it may have been poorly articulated on my part).

Massive objects don't bend them, objects with mass (slight difference) bend spacetime and light travels straight from it's point of view but curved from ours as we can't see the bend in space.

[ClunkintheUK]

We always used massive to mean "has mass" which it did originally. Just checked the online dictionaries, and yes, it seems that use has now fallen out of use.

Sorry, we really have derailed the original thread. Physics is one of those things I tend to get caught up in. Though I tend to prefer working in Newtonian frames of reference.

[ClunkintheUK]

Back to the original thread. Can I ask the question that made me an agnostic again, so probably aimed more at the non-religious here.

Where did Sentience come from?

just to make sure I am articulate here. I understand the theory of evolution and think it is correct. Even though we do not currently know where life came from exactly, I can see that is something that science can and probably will find out. But being self aware is not really something evolutionary selected for necessarily.

I have several trains of thought on this but would be curious to see what thought the mighty org has before I articulate any of them.

[Spank86]

depends how you define sentience really.

Obviously we think we have free will and aren't simply a mass of processes producing result but we don't have an objective way to test that.

Pretty much everything about us that we class as sentience or intelligence is a massive benefit to group survival so it's no wonder it would be selected for evolutionarily. All our morality, our critical thinking etc has made us dominant over every other form of life (as a group not individuals). In many ways many animals come close to us and many others not so close but its very difficult to draw a line and say this animal operates purely on a stimulus-response level and this one demonstrates sentience.

[Fordward]

Where did Sentience come from?

Do you include a sixth sense in your meaning of Sentience?

[Thunderace]

Oh my what a thread.

[Spank86]

Do you include a sixth sense in your meaning of Sentience?
proprioception?

[ClunkintheUK]

I just mean self aware "i think therefore i am" type thing. Yes I agree that our critical thinking has made us dominant as a group, but that is different from sentience, or has sentience developed out of critical thinking?

Knowing that "I" exist is not necessarily passed on in those early generations, which implies that it was a gradual awareness of the concept of "Me".

[ClunkintheUK]

Do you include a sixth sense in your meaning of Sentience?

I see dead people.

[Spank86]

I just mean self aware "i think therefore i am" type thing. Yes I agree that our critical thinking has made us dominant as a group, but that is different from sentience, or has sentience developed out of critical thinking?

Knowing that "I" exist is not necessarily passed on in those early generations, which implies that it was a gradual awareness of the concept of "Me".

I believe it has.

You should read up some of the psychology studies on awareness in young children. Even adults are very bad at looking at things from others points of view. We all secretly believe that the universe is there for our benefit, it's (IMO) an extension of childs way of looking at things, there's an experiment where you ask a child to draw things from another perspective and up to a certain age they will always draw from their own instead.

IMO that's also where our desire for religion comes from, the need for it all to be about something for US.

[Thunderace]

Adam leave the children alone!;)