Are you religious?

[clarion]

Clarion, where is this getting us? We start with a problem that different people understand "religious" and specifically "Christian" in different ways, and some of them insist that theirs is the only correct definition. You are pointing out that most "Christian" churches describe their defining beliefs in terms of "belief" in "God" and "Jesus". But doesn't that just re-present us with exactly the same problem, because different people will understand belief, God and Jesus in different ways?

So I have achieved something, since it was being denied a few pages back that Christians believed in God, or that religion was defined by belief in a supernatural power. You seem to agree with both definitions, and I hope I have demonstrated that, since, for tha vast majority of Christians (and a lot of dictionary compilers) belief in God is an absolutely central tenet of faith, it would be foolish to grasp at a few outliers and pretend that redefines the understanding of billions of people worldwide.

 

[clarion]

Lying to children is usually abuse. Doing it systematically is not acceptable.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Personally I think that Clarion's Googling has helped a lot in terms of clarifying what this thread is about.

There has been a line of dialogue which goes along the lines of religious believers not necessarily believing in a deity etc.

Maybe this is the case with a small percentage of people - although I still struggle to see how.

My personal view is that if you are religious in the context of subscribing to a faith that has supernatural Humans/Elephants/Monkeys/Dogs/Snakes etc as a central tenet the you do believe in a god.

And that's where it all breaks down for me. Many different deities all responsible for the same events. Doesn't really seem likely does it?

Are we here because of Magical Elephants? Amazing Snakes? Bearded man on a throne behind the pearly gates? It all sounds so absurd doesn't it?

And yet we have millions of people who believe this nonsense. And yes it is nonsense, just ask a C of E vicar what he thinks of this sort of rollocks:

http://hinduism.about.com/od/lordganesha/a/ganesha.htm

I doubt whether said vicar would give much credence to it.

And then do the same with a Hindu and he could well say how ridiculous it is that you believe in one God as it is well known that there are thousands/millions of gods:

"What are the major Hindu deities?:

Hinduism believes that there is only one supreme Absolute called "Brahman". However, it does not advocate the worship of any one particular deity. The gods and goddesses of Hinduism amount to thousands or even millions, all representing the many aspects of Brahman. Therefore, this faith is characterized by the multiplicity of deities. The most fundamental of Hindu deities is the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva - creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. Hindus also worship spirits, trees, animals and even planets."

See how silly that is?

 

[Davidc]

[QUOTE 2373933, member: 45"]You're now arguing against what I'm saying by repeating what I'm saying.

And it's not arrogant, it's realistic to accept that 8 is not an age of conviction. You used the wrong word, that's all.[/quote]
No, it's arrogant, and you are fundamentally wrong.

 

[Dan B]

For my money - and, I'd suggest, for that of the vast majority of people - including the vast majority of Christians - the word 'Christian' may allow any number of different flavours, but one thing it demands is a belief in Jesus not just as a nice guy but as The Son Of God. Literally.

Literally? You mean a DNA analysis of the Son and the Father would reveal their relationship? As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in any major branch of Christianity to suggest that God the Father even has DNA and plenty to suggest that he doesn't (the Son being described as "the Word made flesh" for example, leading one rather to assume that the Father is not of flesh), which makes you wonder somewhat about what physically happened during the begetting if we're also reading the phrase "only begotten son" entirely literally. So what do you mean when you say "Son of God"? I bet it's not the same as everyone else: I'd even hazard a guess that most of the people who've actually thought about it have slightly different interpretations of those words.

 

[swansonj]

So I have achieved something, since it was being denied a few pages back that Christians believed in God, or that religion was defined by belief in a supernatural power. You seem to agree with both definitions, and I hope I have demonstrated that, since, for tha vast majority of Christians (and a lot of dictionary compilers) belief in God is an absolutely central tenet of faith, it would be foolish to grasp at a few outliers and pretend that redefines the understanding of billions of people worldwide.

I think, if I read you right (and I'm not trying to play games, just to understand), you are equating belief in God with a certain type of belief in a certain type of superhuman deity. I think there are plenty of adherents to religions who would be reasonably happy to go under the umbrella of "belief in God" whilst not meaning by that the same things as some of the posters here do. And that seems to me the problem. Take, for example, the very liberal Christian theology in the tradition of Robinson, Spong, etc. There are versions of that which are almost Buddhist like in not having any sense of an external deity but seeing "God" as within us - but they would still use the word God and still are accepted as having a place within the Christian church. Some posters here would see that as counting as belief in God and being religious. For others, it is not a belief in God, and therefore either evidence that these people are not religious, or evidence that you don't need to believe in God to be religious. To me, the label is just a matter of definition and therefore largely arbitrary.

 

[swee'pea99]

Literally? You mean a DNA analysis of the Son and the Father would reveal their relationship? As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in any major branch of Christianity to suggest that God the Father even has DNA and plenty to suggest that he doesn't (the Son being described as "the Word made flesh" for example, leading one rather to assume that the Father is not of flesh), which makes you wonder somewhat about what physically happened during the begetting if we're also reading the phrase "only begotten son" entirely literally. So what do you mean when you say "Son of God"? I bet it's not the same as everyone else: I'd even hazard a guess that most of the people who've actually thought about it have slightly different interpretations of those words.

I mean Son of God, literally. Just as it's been understood by the vast majority of self-professed Christians throughout history. Ie, God provided the necessary 'spark of life', Jesus's having been, as is crucially and unambiguously stated in the bible, a virgin birth. Remember 'the Virgin Mary'? When they wrote 'Virgin' Mary, they didn't mean it figuratively or metaphorically or poetically. They meant it literally. That's what I mean by literally. That's what I mean by 'Son of God'. And I think you'll find it is 'the same as everyone else. Or pretty much everyone else. Apart from Rev Willy Wonka and the like. As to whether God has DNA, well, I leave that to the believers...

 

[SpokeyDokey]

I think, if I read you right (and I'm not trying to play games, just to understand), you are equating belief in God with a certain type of belief in a certain type of superhuman deity. I think there are plenty of adherents to religions who would be reasonably happy to go under the umbrella of "belief in God" whilst not meaning by that the same things as some of the posters here do. And that seems to me the problem. Take, for example, the very liberal Christian theology in the tradition of Robinson, Spong, etc. There are versions of that which are almost Buddhist like in not having any sense of an external deity but seeing "God" as within us - but they would still use the word God and still are accepted as having a place within the Christian church. Some posters here would see that as counting as belief in God and being religious. For others, it is not a belief in God, and therefore either evidence that these people are not religious, or evidence that you don't need to believe in God to be religious. To me, the label is just a matter of definition and therefore largely arbitrary.

Look; if someone doesn't believe in an external god but believes that god is within them what the heck is it that is within them? If someone believes that god is within them then surely they believe in god don't they?

Same old same old - "well I don't believe god is really out there but I sure do believe god is inside me" - big circles of idiocy.

 

[Dan B]

I mean Son of God, literally. Just as it's been understood by the vast majority of self-professed Christians throughout history. Ie, God provided the necessary 'spark of life'

Restating your position is not the same thing as explaining it. Were there spermatozoa involved?

It's interesting that you felt it necessary to put 'spark of life' in quotation marks there, but we can probably assume safely that you didn't literally mean the DNA was communicated from father to son by static electricity - so how did it get there?

 

[swee'pea99]

Restating your position is not the same thing as explaining it. Were there spermatozoa involved?

It's interesting that you felt it necessary to put 'spark of life' in quotation marks there, but we can probably assume safely that you didn't literally mean the DNA was communicated from father to son by static electricity - so how did it get there?

Not my problem. As a non-Christian, I don't believe there ever was a birth that wasn't preceded by a sexual encounter. If you want the whys & wherefores of virgin birth, you'll have to address your enquiries to those who believe in them. Which is to say, Christians.

 

[clarion]

OK, you agree with me. We're getting somewhere.

Flame? Not the sort of thing I do.

 

[clarion]

Eh? Right back atcha.

 

[Dan B]

Not my problem. As a non-Christian, I don't believe there ever was a birth that wasn't preceded by a sexual encounter. If you want the whys & wherefores of virgin birth, you'll have to address your enquiries to those who believe in them. Which is to say, Christians.

You're the one asserting that the vast majority of Christians believe J is 'literally' the son of F, and by extension that the DNA of a non-corporeal being somehow ended up being combined with the egg of a virgin. Given (1) that you don't even share this belief but merely attribute it to others, (2) that the concept of a non-corporeal being having DNA is preposterous bordering on semantically null, perhaps a more plausible explanation is that you don't mean by 'literal' the same thing as they do?

 

[cookiemonster]

Many of the Western Buddhists used to make me think of the Judean peoples front sketch

SPLITTER!!!!!!!

 

[swee'pea99]

You're the one asserting that the vast majority of Christians believe J is 'literally' the son of F, and by extension that the DNA of a non-corporeal being somehow ended up being combined with the egg of a virgin. Given (1) that you don't even share this belief but merely attribute it to others, (2) that the concept of a non-corporeal being having DNA is preposterous bordering on semantically null, perhaps a more plausible explanation is that you don't mean by 'literal' the same thing as they do?

Any 'extension' is yours. Christians state that Jesus was the son of God and was born of a virgin. And they mean that literally. In exactly the sense I mean it. That Mary was a virgin, yet she gave birth. To the Son of God. Literally. I'm not sure what their take on DNA is. You'd have to ask them.