teh_pwning_dude said:
I guess then you'd have to ask, are any Christians telling you slavery is right? Like I said before, we do ignore parts that were correct at one point but are no longer relevent. It's like some of the stuff from Judaism and Islam; it's obviously in place because they were tribes in the desert, and stuff like the separation of food was made a religious law to make sure people didnt get sick as often. Any one who thinks that the Bible wasn't written by humans and influenced by humans is fooling themselves.
Would I have to ask that? Your religion's encyclopedia of conduct, and alleged path to holiness is saying bad things. You clearly don't swing that way. Others have in the past. Religion played a role, and it remains culpable for it. History doesn't cease to be relevant, particularly when religion hasn't even changed that bit.
My view: Religion is a tool for controlling humans, and it taps into inner desires of humans to do it. (Fear of death, desire to think of yourself as "good", acceptance by others...)
Government too is a tool for controlling people. The difference is: we hold government accountable for what it does, and what it makes people do. You are refusing to let your religion be accountable for its misdeeds, and continue to justify what is written as appropriate for the times. To further the government analogy, it's like saying "as long as nobody follows that law anymore, there isn't any problem." I think there's still a problem: that law shouldn't have ever existed. By extension: either clean up those parts in the Bible, and release it as a clarifying revision, specify which parts SHOULD be followed, or stop all religious claims to morality.
teh_pwning_dude said:
I hope you're not the sort of person who tries to define my faith for me. I've been told that I'm not a real Catholic because I don't think that the Pope is perfect. No-one can tell me what my faith is, especially not an atheist.
My personal view is that religion is about faith, which is why many people have trouble comprehending it; because they don't have it. And that's fine, I'm not asking you to have any. It makes no difference to me.
Organised religion has done some pretty terrible things. Organised religion has done same pretty awesome things too. Likewise, since people seem to think they're diametrically opposed, science has done some pretty terrible things and some pretty awesome things.
Upon saying that, religion receives an increasing amount of critisism for things that don't matter. Sure, bag out the Catholic stance on condoms; it's ridiculous. But don't hang shit on us because of things written in our books, books written by people, that we ignore. We ignore it for a reason. There's some messed up shit in the Bible, any sane Christian will admit that. But if we can ignore it, you lot should be able to.
Science brought us medicine and atomic bombs. Religion brought us charities and violent extremism. Nothing is perfect. Criticise the parts that deserve it, fine. But leave the faith out of it. It builds tension that doesn't need to be there. We are talked down to constantly.
A reasonable person of faith does not ask for religion to be given a free pass. That's illogical. But I get the feeling many people will bag religion for no other reason that to make their dick feel big. They don't understand it. If you ever wonder how people can believe in something, and no matter how hard you think, you can't understand why, please don't participate in discussion unless you're askin for it to be explained because you will add nothing until you understand what faith is and what it delivers.
A reasonable person does not believe in things without evidence (aka a reason to believe). That's illogical. This is why Science and Faith are diametrically opposed. One discovers truth, the other assumes truth.
What do you have faith in then? I used to be a person not dissimilar to you in my beliefs. I rejected what I deemed especially ridiculous portions of the Bible, and the Catechism I viewed as fallible and often incorrect, as I viewed the Pope. Yet I believed in the existence of God and the time and miracles of Jesus Christ.
As I learned more, I realized that the Bible was chock-full of obscenely immoral lessons and dictums, and I rejected it. Why should I believe that something full of such lessons has any claim to morality? Thinking about it, I wondered, "What reason do I have to believe ANYTHING in the Bible is true? There really isn't any evidence for it." Why should Jesus be God? Those writers could just have made that up! Their stories differ, and in several Jesus doesn't even mention that he's God. The Bible is a collected series of stories written and selectively chosen by the church, but they don't even maintain any continuity. What reason do I have to believe anything the Church says? Why should I believe anything the Bible says? All we've really got is a culture where we believe what others believe, and a DESIRE for there to be a God. A desire does not reality make (contrary to what The Secret has to say). So to bridge the gap between something we have no reason to believe and what we WANT to believe, we have faith.
In my experience, faith is supposed to be reassuring. The idea that there is a uber-powerful cosmogod watching over you, who loves and cares about you and your life; this is material to make you feel more comfortable, and make your life richer. Faith does not rely on anything other than your ability to believe the same thing, regardless of what happens.
You claim that faith delivers something into your life. How do you view faith, and what does it deliver into your life?
