I don't trust any of the major religions, however I do believe there is a God..

I'm not saying any of them are wrong or right. I'm just saying we should keep an open mind to other pssibilities.

Discuss.....

Religion has stronger ties and is related more to tradition and politics than to God, IMO.

Like Mr. George Carlin once said: "Religion was "created" at the beginning of civilization as we know it, by a group of elders that we're trying to govern the masses. One of the elders probably said; Let's tell them that if they don't do what we want them to do HE will punish them"

Religion has stronger ties and is related more to tradition and politics than to God, IMO.

Like Mr. George Carlin once said: "Religion was "created" at the beginning of civilization as we know it, by a group of elders that we're trying to govern the masses. One of the elders probably said; Let's tell them that if they don't do what we want them to do HE will punish them"

Yeah, totally agreed. Every civilization has had it's own religion. No matter how far apart in the world they were. From the Greeks to the Incas. Politicians have always been using religion to control the masses.

But this is no fun. I need someone to disagree with me so we can argue.

Religion has stronger ties and is related more to tradition and politics than to God, IMO.

This would really depend on your definition of “religion.” If you define religion as that of the masses, (or rather the corrupt few that represent the masses), then you are right. However, I have to argue this point. All too often I see statements like this that represent a particular religion as a whole; of which can be said, “Are there really absolutes in the definition of religion as a whole?” The answer is obviously no; absolutes can be refuted as rather ignorant standpoints, especially coming from the diversity of sociology throughout the world as well as religious branches and beliefs. For instance, I know many Christian men who would say that true religion is not influenced by tradition or politics. Thus from their standpoint, any religion that shapes it’s doctrine primarily from tradition or politics is therefore not “true” by their definition of “religion.”
I think religion was created very early on in civilization in order to fill a longing in man’s heart for a deeper meaning; a heightened sense of conscience, if you will. Then, and only then, was that used to thus manipulate the masses for political and traditional gain throughout every society. Men have perverted that which was originally made to be innocent; should we then judge what something was first created upon by what it has become through corruption? Of course not. Judge the religion by the religion, not by the men who pervert it. Remember to keep things in perspective of the religion’s entirety, and not just a select few who claim to be “good representatives” of that religion.

Politicians have always been using religion to control the masses.

Therefore, I’ll reiterate. Because you see this societal misrepresentation by the politicians as well as make note of it, you have no basis to claim that the religion is faulty by how the politicians portray it. That argument is a fallacy simply because you judge the original religion by a select few that you call the “politicians.” Do not judge merely by what you see in front of you; rather judge by the original foundation, before the house of corruption was built upon it. To say that just because the house looks messy that the foundation must be messy as well, is ignorant. How the house looks usually says nothing about the foundation; it may very well be a solid foundation but rather built upon by very poor builders. Before making an absolute claim as both of you are so eager to do, make sure you look at every aspect throughout history; meaning it’s origins in relation to where it is now.

Good arguing points mouse.

We both agree that it has been perverted over the centuries. Knowing this, how can we believe anything we read or hear today. For example the Bible. It was written by man and translated by man and for all we know it's true teachings could have been lost a long time ago. How can we know that none of these stories have been edited by those in power? You can preach all you want, but you'll truly never know the truth until your dead.

I believe in God, but at the same time my mind is open to any possibility.

For example the Bible. It was written by man and translated by man and for all we know it's true teachings could have been lost a long time ago. How can we know that none of these stories have been edited by those in power?

Now you’re going into the doctrine of inerrancy; which simply put is: The doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings. Theologians have argued over the levels to which the Bible is inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant, then our knowledge of God may be inaccurate and unreliable. Inerrancy is a corollary to the full inspiration of the Bible. Theologians have employed a number of strategies to explain the apparent discrepancies between biblical passages. While detailed scientific descriptions or mathematically exact statements are not possible, inerrancy means that the Bible, when judged by the usage of its time, teaches the truth without an affirmation of error.

The term inerrancy means different things to different people, who contend over which position properly deserves to be called by that name. It is therefore important to summarize briefly the current positions on the matter of inerrancy. Note: This is a very brief summarization, as each of the seven points could be argued and talked about in volumes upon volumes of theological and philosophical literature.

1.
Absolute Inerrancy – holds that the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matters both scientific and historical, is fully true.

2.
Full Inerrancy – also holds that the Bible is completely true. However, the understanding of the scientific and historical references are quite different. i.e. they are reported the way they appear to the human eye; they are not necessarily exact, rather, they are popular descriptions- often involving general references or approximations. Yet they are correct.

3.
Limited Inerrancy – also regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references. A sharp distinction is drawn, however, between nonempirical, revealed matters on the one hand, and empirical, natural reference on the other. The Bible may well contain what we would term errors in these areas...this, however, is of no great consequence, since the Bible does not purport to teach science and history. For the purpose for which the Bible was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant.

4.
Inerrancy of Purpose – holds that the Bible inerrantly accomplishes its purpose. Factual inerrancy is an inappropriate term; truth is thought of not as a quality of positions, but as a means to accomplish an end. Implicit in this position is a pragmatic view of truth.

5.
Theory of Accommodated Revelation- advocates do not claim or desire to use the term “inerrant.” The Bible came through human channels, and then participates in the shortcomings of human nature. They believe that this is not only true of historical and scientific matters, but also the religious and theological.

6.
Revelation is nonpropositional – maintain that the Bible in itself is not a revelation. The Bible contains errors, but these are not the word of God; there are merely the words of the authors. The presence of errors in no way militates against the Bible’s functional usefulness.

7.
Inerrancy is an irrelevant issue. “Inerrant” is a negative term and is not a biblical concept. In the Bible, erring is a spiritual or moral matter rather than intellectual. They argue that this concern for inerrancy distracts us from hearing what the Bible is really trying to tell us about our relationship to God. It also inhibits biblical research.

What do you believe, Mouse? About the Bible that is.


Do you ever wonder if it is all an elaborate lie playing on our wishful thinking of a life after death?


PS For the love o' God keep it short, please. I have limited time to read between calls.

PS For the love o' God keep it short, please.

I lean more in-between Full Inerrancy and Limited Inerrancy. There are a few places in the Bible where the stories do not add up 100 percent; then again as the theory of Full inerrancy states – we have to remember that they are reported and written by humans who saw different angles of the same situation. Thus, every angle will report slight differences than the other. However, the more I really study theology as a whole, as well as focus primarily upon Christendom, I find more proof for the Bible’s validity than I do with educated arguments refuting it’s validity to civilization as a whole. I’m starting to realize why even extreme atheistic scholastics with PhD’s who pursue to prove the Bible wrong, end up becoming disciples of it; not necessarily because the masses say that it is infallible, but because there is little to no proof that it isn’t.

We'll have to continue tommorow. As for now I gotta go.

My dad, who attended a Christian high school, read a book while in hs. He recommends it for reading to try and understand the religion and the scientific theories.

"Worlds in Collusion" by Immanuel Velikovsky

I have not read it as I haven't had the time to dedicate to a book such as that. It's on my list of books to read, when I do.

Yea, I have a lot of books I want to read too. But, do you have any comment on this topic? Where do you stand, and on what basis do you form your beliefs from?

Religion is man's law

Christianity is God's law

I believe in God and Christianity. I don't believe in EVERYTHING one particular religion teaches as gospel. I take what makes my spirit at peace and go with that. I'm also open to other's opinions, even if I disagree.

Religion is man's law ... Christianity is God's law

Would Judaism not be God’s law as well, since it was pre-Christianity? To play the devil’s advocate here, if you take away Judaism from Christianity, there’s nothing left. So if religion is man’s law, what’s to say that the branch of Christianity is not merely man’s law as well? Some would argue that God’s law is the written Scripture, and everything outside of it, (i.e. the practice by men), is religion.

I believe in God and Christianity. I don't believe in EVERYTHING one particular religion teaches as gospel. I take what makes my spirit at peace and go with that. I'm also open to other's opinions, even if I disagree.

“I don't believe in EVERYTHING one particular religion teaches as gospel.” Wait, I thought you believed in Christianity which states that the Bible as a whole is the gospel, (whether different denominations differ in opinion on infallibility, they all agree that the Bible in it’s entirety is the gospel). “I take what makes my spirit at peace and go with that.” You sound more like Buddhist than a biblical Christian. Those who believe that what the Bible says is true and follow after its theology, believe that suffering for God is actually a good thing. i.e. “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” – 1 Peter 4:16. It’s not so much as striving to avoid hardships, so much as it is building a peace in our soul’s with the Holy Spirit so that we can better endure the hardships with love and reverence for God, as Philippians 4:13 says.

he didn't say he believed in christianity. he said he believed that God exists.

Let's just make it simple Mouse.

I follow my heart.

I follow my heart.

That’s what leads to sin. The disciple that Jesus calls us to be is actually the complete opposite of our heart, or “ourselves.” That’s why one of the central themes throughout scripture is the denying of one’s self; a denying of my will, so that God’s will may better live in me. “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” –Jer. 17:9 Do you want to chase after your own desires and live the way you want in accordance with your will, or do you want to live the way the Bible tells us to live? We can not eat at two tables at the same time. It's the selfish verses the selfless.

following the heart is also what leads one to God as well. the Bible only looks down on the heart when it's set on the ways of the flesh. that's why all the verses concerning the heart conclude with having the heart follow the spirit.

Exactly. But you can’t walk the narrow road with just your heart, you have to constantly use the lamp of the Holy Spirit to FIRST guide you and show you where the path is. A man may think that he is walking the narrow path to salvation, and also may very well have the best intentions; but if he does not use the Bible to illuminate that path, then how can he be so sure that he has not strayed off in the midst of absolute darkness? Pride sometimes stops people from grabbing a lamp and admitting that they cannot do it on their own. And as Christians, we know that the only true lamp is that of the Holy Spirit which is revealed to us through Scripture; not on merely our “good feelings” and own self-absorbed view that we don’t need to continually ask ourselves, “Am I still on the path? Have I strayed a little far from it? How can I walk it better?” etc. That is spawned from the holy reverence and fear of God that the bible so eloquently tells us is so desperately needed for anyone who desires a life of deeper communion with God. When there is no fear, no “holy reverence,” then the question of where the path is, is of no use to the person who is lost. Ignorance is bliss.

I will repeat myself.

I follow my heart.

I do not always make the right decisions and when I do fail at that, my heart tells me. Like when I snap at someone for doing something stupid. I feel guilty. That it is my heart talking to me. I listen to it.

I follow my heart. Word it any way you want, but I do what is best for me.

I will take the stance of the Christian God.

However I am forced to believe only in the old testament fully, as the new testament was the word of men, plus it was written in a time wen kings were too powerful and was edited (historical fact) to unite the pagans and catholics of Rome, by Constantine the Great. Christianity contains so many pagan signs it is unreal.

1) 25th December celebration date of the pagan Sun god.
2) Jesus was only declared son of God in +- 450 AD
3) Halo's on the heads of saints represent the sign of the sun god
4) Jesus was married, and this is clear through paintings of the last supper, and there is a dagger by an anonymous hand and st.peter is gesturing too kill Jesus's companion (Mary Magdalene).
5) There are 13 cups in the last supper, not one holy grail..

ALL these points, and others, PLENTY others are in two extremely good books, and i suggest everyone read them, its 600 pages, but it takes like 3 days because it CANNOT be put down ;). It is a book(s) based on historical fact.. Im trying too keep this short for the person who asked.. "The Da Vinci Code" , "Angels and Demons", both by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code is more about Christianity's pagan relation, and Angels and Demons is mroe about New Science, where people HAVE PROVED a GOD to be real, prehaps not the Christian one, but there is a God, and SCIENCE doesnt lie, if it was proven by science it is real, therefor religion is ALSO a basis too try help us live good lives free from pain and suffering, by refraining from things that will maek others suffer.

Now too some up religion and faith in my opinion-
Religion is a metaphor for the unphantomable, this is why we must have faith,
SO people can find as many flaws in the Bible as they want, but until they understand religion is a methaphor for somehting we could possibly never comprehend, they will keep trying to destroy our religion.. i believe all our paths lead too one place, explained differently and this is where all other religions spring from, different ways of trying to explain the inexplicable, so have FAITH ;)

Earnestly
Lukas

wish i saw this topic when it first started.

Adam, what are your views on this topic?

i follow Allah, and his Crimson Jihad. we will dispose of the western christian devils. you have rapped our land, women, and culture for too long.

Ma'asalama,
The Golden Bear and his future virgins

With or without Arafat, "bitah'rir Filisteen ya jamaa!"

ALL these points, and others, PLENTY others are in two extremely good books, and i suggest everyone read them, its 600 pages, but it takes like 3 days because it CANNOT be put down ;). It is a book(s) based on historical fact.. Im trying too keep this short for the person who asked.. "The Da Vinci Code" , "Angels and Demons", both by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code is more about Christianity's pagan relation, and Angels and Demons is mroe about New Science, where people HAVE PROVED a GOD to be real, prehaps not the Christian one, but there is a God, and SCIENCE doesnt lie, if it was proven by science it is real, therefor religion is ALSO a basis too try help us live good lives free from pain and suffering, by refraining from things that will maek others suffer.


they're both good books for entertainment but half of the **** in there is not true. for example, galileo was never even illumanati. brown's good at taking certain facts and adding a lil of his own theories and twists to make very captivating plots. but i would never consider basing a faith on a nonfiction author who writes for sheer entertainment. to me it's no different then watching the matrix trilogies.