Are you religious?

[Fnaar]

Actually God and Santa aren't as different as you might believe

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Creation stories as in Geneisis? Only a minority of the CofE vicars I know believe them to be true. I've never yet met a Catholic creationist, let alone a Catholic creationist priest.
Afterlife? Whole range of views exist on that one....
Metaphors? Loads of vicars are of that view. It's a perfectly valid, useful and acceptable belief system.

You objection seems to be that some people don't believe what you, ?as an unbeliever?, think they ought to believe if they claim to be believers!

No, I have no objection to people believing what they like.

What does baffle me is that on the one hand we have Vicars (or whatever) spouting on about God, God talking to them, God doing this and that and then on the other hand we have Vicars who really don't believe any of it but keep perpetuating the myths on to their congregations.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[SpokeyDokey]

I really can't believe this thread is happening.

The very first words of the Nicene Creed (accepted by the vast majority of Christian churches worldwide, including, I believe, all churches extant at the time) are:

We believe one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...

The essence, therefore, of Christianity, as for any other theistic religion, is belief in a God.

What defines Christianity apart from the other Abrahamic religions, is the belief in Jesus the Christ as a human expression of the divine.

It's a bit weird to claim otherwise. And taking the definition of Christianity from some out there preachers who, for whatever reason, like to claim to be Christian while at the same time proclaiming atheism (thus negating the message of the Christ) is, as User says, like taking the definition of a car from someone describing a rock, rather than being able to define what a car is.

Couldn't agree more.

What happens is that over time more and more of the cods written in the Bible becomes more and more out of kilter with the modern world. Then followers of religions (various) then do a little bit of catch up once their beliefs are seen to be absurd. They then go into 'Metaphor' mode or any manner of denial as to how their central beliefs are not literal etc. They also play catch up with science eg the latter day burgeoning acceptance of Darwinian evolution etc.

Reminds me of a CofE zealot in our village. He is constantly banging on about his beliefs and one day I asked him if he believed in evolutionary theory particularly natural selection and he said "No!" I then asked him how comes we have humans of many different colours on the planet? His reply was "Well God must have made different versions of Adam mustn't he".

Unbelievable, this idiot is the headmaster of a fair sized school and I pity his pupils.

I think the trouble with religion is that we give it too much space and pussyfoot around the idiocy of it.

My position is that if you truly believe in "Big Man in the Sky", Noahs Ark, Women from ribs etc then you are seriously off your trolley.

 

[Davidc]

[QUOTE 2372528, member: 45"]That's one of the options I put to you that you didn't like - that you had an idea at 8 that age and that as you developed your ability to investigate it your conclusion coincided with your immature view. Just so's we're clear.[/quote]
What a load of rubbish.

My view (realisation) was that religion was rubbish. My understanding has since, of course, developed in stages, in brief, with the understanding of how religion is bad news for humanity, and the understanding of why religion is false has of course also developed, both of these to my present mature and considered view.

I have no intention of filling Shaun's server with detail or explanations. There are plenty of books which will explain it to you better than I can if you wish to read them.

 

[Davidc]

[QUOTE 2372644, member: 45"]You're mixing two issues here, unless there really are plenty of books explaining your life.[/quote]
No, the books are for explaining why Atheism is the only rational view of religious matter, and why religion is very bad news for all of us..

My life is fine, thank you. A few inherited health issues, but not a lot else to comment on. No-one has yet seen fit to write about it and I'm not working on an autobiography, so you'll have to make do without either.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I really can't believe this thread is happening.

The very first words of the Nicene Creed (accepted by the vast majority of Christian churches worldwide, including, I believe, all churches extant at the time) are:

We believe one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...

The essence, therefore, of Christianity, as for any other theistic religion, is belief in a God.

Okay, let's take this logically.

1. There are people who exist who call themselves Christian who do not believe in God. Nobody is denying this, right?

2. This being the case, there are two basic responses:

- dismissal of the claim - i.e. they can't be Christian because no true Christian would say such a thing (the logically fallacious 'no true Scotsman' argument), or

- taking the claim seriously at some level.

3. If you assert that they are a priori not Christian whatever they claim to be, you are dismissing a claim of belief and identity, whilst asserting your own right to make such a claim and be taken seriously. This is hypocrisy.

4. If you dismiss their claim by recourse to scripture, some institutionally agreed script, speech-act, etc. you are relying on an already mediated understanding of 'Christianity', which requires that we accept that Christianity must be defined in a certain way - exactly the way in which the person making the claim to be Christian is already rejecting. This might satisfy you if you are fundamentalist or an adherent of one or other organised Christian sect etc. but it does not satisfy logic.

If you think that there can't really be religious people who think this, then I suggest you look up theological noncognitivism. I would also suggest that there are multiple accounts of Jesus Christ that do not see this particular figure in the same way (the story of Jesus in Islam is just one example), and it is possible, if unusual, to separate the question of Jesus's divinity from other religious implications and from his social and political teachings (or what is attributed to him, since the words of Jesus are nowhere recorded directly).

I should point out that I am not saying that this is desirable, good, better than other kinds of Christianity, just that it is possible and people who believe these things exist and call themselves Christian, and thus being a Christian who does not believe in God is not something you can deny except by recourse to the doctrine of a particular institution that would claim in some way to represent or define the idea of 'Christian'.

 

[swee'pea99]

There are people who exist who call themselves vegetarians who eat meat.

They are wrong.

Next!

 

[cookiemonster]

I have been a Buddhist (Mahayana tradition) since my late teens. Took an interest in it from one of my social workers whose friend was, and still is, a monk.

Has been an immense help in my life since then.

 

[MontyVeda]

I eat meat but people assume I'm a vegetarian... what's all that about?

 

[Rev]

Okay, let's take this logically.

1. There are people who exist who call themselves Christian who do not believe in God. Nobody is denying this, right?

2. This being the case, there are two basic responses:

- dismissal of the claim - i.e. they can't be Christian because no true Christian would say such a thing (the logically fallacious 'no true Scotsman' argument), or

- taking the claim seriously at some level.

3. If you assert that they are a priori not Christian whatever they claim to be, you are dismissing a claim of belief and identity, whilst asserting your own right to make such a claim and be taken seriously. This is hypocrisy.

4. If you dismiss their claim by recourse to scripture, some institutionally agreed script, speech-act, etc. you are relying on an already mediated understanding of 'Christianity', which requires that we accept that Christianity must be defined in a certain way - exactly the way in which the person making the claim to be Christian is already rejecting. This might satisfy you if you are fundamentalist or an adherent of one or other organised Christian sect etc. but it does not satisfy logic.

If you think that there can't really be religious people who think this, then I suggest you look up theological noncognitivism. I would also suggest that there are multiple accounts of Jesus Christ that do not see this particular figure in the same way (the story of Jesus in Islam is just one example), and it is possible, if unusual, to separate the question of Jesus's divinity from other religious implications and from his social and political teachings (or what is attributed to him, since the words of Jesus are nowhere recorded directly).

I should point out that I am not saying that this is desirable, good, better than other kinds of Christianity, just that it is possible and people who believe these things exist and call themselves Christian, and thus being a Christian who does not believe in God is not something you can deny except by recourse to the doctrine of a particular institution that would claim in some way to represent or define the idea of 'Christian'.

That ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is a superb post eminently sensible, fair and may I say clear!

Well done that man

 

[Rev]

I have been a Buddhist (Mahayana tradition) since my late teens. Took an interest in it from one of my social workers whose friend was, and still is, a monk.

Has been an immense help in my life since then.

Excellent I have also practised for some years in the Mahayana tradition (particularly Vajrayana Nyingma) both here and abroad. I have also spent some small time with the Theravadins.
If it is O.K to ask, what lineage are you taught in?

 

[cookiemonster]

Excellent I have also practised for some years in the Mahayana tradition (particularly Vajrayana Nyingma) both here and abroad. I have also spent some small time with the Theravadins.
If it is O.K to ask, what lineage are you taught in?

Lineages have always confused me, as Buddhism has a fair few of them, but I follow the Geluk/Lama Tsonghkhapa tradition/lineage but not averse to some Theravadin as I have friends in SE Asia.

 

[clarion]

Okay, let's take this logically.

1. There are people who exist who call themselves Christian who do not believe in God. Nobody is denying this, right?

2. This being the case, there are two basic responses:

- dismissal of the claim - i.e. they can't be Christian because no true Christian would say such a thing (the logically fallacious 'no true Scotsman' argument), or

- taking the claim seriously at some level.

3. If you assert that they are a priori not Christian whatever they claim to be, you are dismissing a claim of belief and identity, whilst asserting your own right to make such a claim and be taken seriously. This is hypocrisy.

4. If you dismiss their claim by recourse to scripture, some institutionally agreed script, speech-act, etc. you are relying on an already mediated understanding of 'Christianity', which requires that we accept that Christianity must be defined in a certain way - exactly the way in which the person making the claim to be Christian is already rejecting. This might satisfy you if you are fundamentalist or an adherent of one or other organised Christian sect etc. but it does not satisfy logic.

If you think that there can't really be religious people who think this, then I suggest you look up theological noncognitivism. I would also suggest that there are multiple accounts of Jesus Christ that do not see this particular figure in the same way (the story of Jesus in Islam is just one example), and it is possible, if unusual, to separate the question of Jesus's divinity from other religious implications and from his social and political teachings (or what is attributed to him, since the words of Jesus are nowhere recorded directly).

I should point out that I am not saying that this is desirable, good, better than other kinds of Christianity, just that it is possible and people who believe these things exist and call themselves Christian, and thus being a Christian who does not believe in God is not something you can deny except by recourse to the doctrine of a particular institution that would claim in some way to represent or define the idea of 'Christian'.

I'm Flying Monkey.

You can't gainsay it, based on the above.

 

[Rev]

First may I say hello flying monkey

Geluk/Lama Tsonghkhapa tradition/lineage

Brilliant! I stayed with Gelugpa/Gelukpa monks in Bodh Gaya and in Kushinagar. nice to meet you!
One of my main meditation teachers was a lineage holder of Geluk, Karma Kagyu and Nyingma lineages.

 

[Aperitif]

I used to deal with some over the internet. It was monk e-business.