Beliefs Spectrum

[Popolo]

Religion for me is a system of beliefs that allow me to live my life to the fullest extent of morality and succes without either conflicting the other. I'm a Catholic because, rationally, I believe there is one, loving, Creator who equally loves all of the people on Earth regardless of their beliefs and sins, because in respect to sin, all of us have wronged God equally and therefore we all have the same chance of redemption.

I'm Catholic. Ask me why.

[Mike Draconibus]

My religious belief development story:

When i was very little, i was taught by my father to pray every night at dinner and before bed, making it routine by doing it with me every night for about 3-4 years, my dad being a quite religious Christian. It was around age 5 when he told me what sins were and that sinners went to hell; a place of fire that burned for eternity to punish the wicked for their actions in life.... a reeeeeaaalllly good idea to tell a friggin' 5 year old>:I (wasn't told the salvation story with that...)I had nightmares about demons and people burning and screaming in hell for YEARS, sometimes when i had done something bad (not even that bad), i would be so terrified that i would pray about 5 times before trying to go to bed and ending up with tears slowly falling down my face before i fell asleep. A few years go by, the nightmares become less and less frequent, but i still got constant reminders from things around me about the devil and so on. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that i started to rationalize everything i had been told by my dad and others, and i came to realize that it had way to many contradictions to be completely true.

My end result was that there is no religion that has ever been created in the whole human existence that will ever represent the higher power that most likely exists.

To summarize, was Christian, turned into my own form of being Agnostic (essentially)

As for others and their religion:

Do what makes you happy and worship the way you want to, or don't worship if you don't believe in any supreme being(s), fine with me. In my book, as long as you aren't like one girl i have met that has become the only person i hate (If you want to know, PM me, i dont want to waste space here) or like that baptist church that protests funerals of soldiers, soldiers themselves, and other things along the lines of "Thank God For 9/11." That is shitthat pisses me the hell off.


But enough of that, do what you gotta do to be happy.

I think what I think, you think what you think, that is all cool with me..

[Rachel]

rationally, I believe there is one, loving, Creator who equally loves all of the people on Earth regardless of their beliefs and sins, because in respect to sin, all of us have wronged God equally and therefore we all have the same chance of redemption.

Rationality as defined in the free dictionary: Is to "the possession or utilization of reason or logic", ergo you'd need to suggest reasons or a flow of logic that's lead to that belief. Otherwise it's kind of irky. Also when you said "one Creator" what would this reflect upon the idea of the Holy Trinity or the Triune God, from my understanding, God or Yaweh is the "Brains" while the holy spirit is the "hands" and Jesus as his message. Where you'd need God and the Holy Spirit to create things as connected parts. (As it's a core tenet of the Catholic faith, I'm hoping you can inform on this.)

Fundamentally, where as the Doctrine of Sin is concerned: While we are said to have wronged him simply by being born human from Adam and Eve's crime, there is a sin, so unforgivable that the person is sentenced to eternal damnation. "he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" Mark 22-30 is the full passage. Ergo by a black swan, not everyone will have the same chance of redemption.

And as a minor contention: While everyone may have sinned equally (or not), according to the Theologian John Calvin proposed that while Jesus died for our sins, salvation as infinite as it could be to encompass the entirety of the human race, was covered those that were elected and atoned. Ephesians 1:4-5 (NIV) "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" and Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live." both would suggest election, but the latter does show give creditance that it's of our free-will, but he has selected people, and in's clear in the next line Deuteronomy 30:20 that it's for the people that are the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

EDIT: I didn't notice you were Popolo, you've changed your avatar.

[Popolo]

Rationally:

What caused existence?
E.g., Everything has a cause. You can't argue with that.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The big bang is NOT the cause of the universe, based on the laws of physics, there must have been something before it. (law of conservation of matter)
Therefore, either the universe extends in time back infinitely, which is impossible because nothing could be the first thing to happen, because everything has a cause (i.e. the question is never answered by this 'answer')
Or something different, with the power to create matter, which caused itself. (which is a primitive definition of God.)

Tell me where I went wrong, if you think I did.

Blasphemy is defined, from a non-religious standpoint, as a false utterance against something known to be true, i.e. if you don't believe in God, God in his nature will forgive you for that if you act in a moral and righteous way.

Also, I'm not a Calvinist, so by nature of what I believe, I interpret those phrases differently.

[Rachel]

What caused existence?
E.g., Everything has a cause. You can't argue with that.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The big bang is NOT the cause of the universe, based on the laws of physics, there must have been something before it. (law of conservation of matter)
Therefore, either the universe extends in time back infinitely, which is impossible because nothing could be the first thing to happen, because everything has a cause (i.e. the question is never answered by this 'answer')
Or something different, with the power to create matter, which caused itself. (which is a primitive definition of God.)

I can turn this on it's head, What caused God? I do recongnise that has the Cosmological argument, which frankly people do argue about it, and have been doing it since Thomas Aquinas wrote about it, and even before that to the Greeks. But Given we have Matter, and indeed we can't destory Matter but simply convert it into energy (E=MC(Squared)) and Energy can't be destoryed (First law of Thermodynamics). So the logical conclusion would be that the matter has existed before an event: The Big bang is also know as an expansion, but there is a Lecture by Lawerance Krauss "Universe from nothing", who discusses the previous topic, not of the expansion but matter coming from "Nothing". ;3

But the Cosmological is merely a philosophical argument of varying creditablity, it's based on Human perception. David Hume remarked it's more of a tool and nothing else. But really if it's [the universe] impossible for it to have a cause, then it's you'd need to state evidence that God is an exception to that, and why we can accredit the start of the universe to that God, .. as there are many diverse stories of different Gods and Godess carving the world from the bones of Giants, Masturbating it into existing, etc. Thing is, if a "God" can be a first cause, coming from nothing, then Pantheism could be a reconciliation between the two ideas.

Also, I'm not a Calvinist, so by nature of what I believe, I interpret those phrases differently.

It's really what makes the bible fascinating. ^_^

[Popolo]

What caused existence?
E.g., Everything has a cause. You can't argue with that.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The big bang is NOT the cause of the universe, based on the laws of physics, there must have been something before it. (law of conservation of matter)
Therefore, either the universe extends in time back infinitely, which is impossible because nothing could be the first thing to happen, because everything has a cause (i.e. the question is never answered by this 'answer')
Or something different, with the power to create matter, which caused itself. (which is a primitive definition of God.)

I can turn this on it's head, What caused God? I do recongnise that has the Cosmological argument, which frankly people do argue about it, and have been doing it since Thomas Aquinas wrote about it, and even before that to the Greeks. But Given we have Matter, and indeed we can't destory Matter but simply convert it into energy (E=MC(Squared)) and Energy can't be destoryed (First law of Thermodynamics). So the logical conclusion would be that the matter has existed before an event: The Big bang is also know as an expansion, but there is a Lecture by Lawerance Krauss "Universe from nothing", who discusses the previous topic, not of the expansion but matter coming from "Nothing". ;3


But the Cosmological is merely a philosophical argument of varying creditablity, it's based on Human perception. David Hume remarked it's more of a tool and nothing else. But really if it's [the universe] impossible for it to have a cause, then it's you'd need to state evidence that God is an exception to that, and why we can accredit the start of the universe to that God, .. as there are many diverse stories of different Gods and Godess carving the world from the bones of Giants, Masturbating it into existing, etc. Thing is, if a "God" can be a first cause, coming from nothing, then Pantheism could be a reconciliation between the two ideas.

Also, I'm not a Calvinist, so by nature of what I believe, I interpret those phrases differently.

It's really what makes the bible fascinating. ^_^

God causes himself, ergo He is neither energy nor matter, ergo he exceeds the physical laws of matter.
Even if you don't want me to say 'god' something exceeding matter and energy must have been the first thing.

The reason being that one does not simply create energy either. If the universe did indeed come from energy simply, It has to have been there before.

I also assume you agree with the basic axioms of philosophy, correct?
If you don't, then you are either crazy or actually do believe they exist, e.g. denying their existence assumes their presence.
If you do, Aristotle uses the faultlessly to prove the existence of a god, not a catholic, roman, etc. god but a god nonetheless.

[Rachel]

God causes himself, ergo He is neither energy nor matter, ergo he exceeds the physical laws of matter.
Even if you don't want me to say 'god' something exceeding matter and energy must have been the first thing.

But what's the evidence that would suggest God is self-causing? Why not Leprechauns are self-causing, or Russell's Teapot, The Amazing Marvin.. etc ad infinitum of any being or concept you can come up with. Even if we don't know what came first, why should we assume with certainity that it was X when it could be anything? But even if it was such and such, it causes more questions than it solves, which would be acceptable, if there was any evidence for it.

I'm however waiting, to here what the physicists have to say, if you're British you may have heard of the documentary on the "Theory of Everything".

The reason being that one does not simply create energy either. If the universe did indeed come from energy simply, It has to have been there before.

Which isn't exactly a new idea, There is the Cyclic model of the universe. Which does not break the Law of conservation of Matter.

I also assume you agree with the basic axioms of philosophy, correct?
If you don't, then you are either crazy or actually do believe they exist, e.g. denying their existence assumes their presence.
If you do, Aristotle uses the faultlessly to prove the existence of a god, not a catholic, roman, etc. god but a god nonetheless.

Could you provide a source of his argument?

[therealgamer5]

I'm Christian, that's about all I can say.

[Tricky Step]

I'm Catholic, the point with God is that a great deal of it is based on faith. God is supposed to be omnipotent and have sovereignty over everything. If you don't have the faith than everything else becomes a bit more hard to understand because we try to understand phenomenons in a limited human way. The understanding of God can never be fully tapped, people try to drasitically bring God down to our level so we can understand him but I think in the end its ineffective and a bit insulting. I know this sounds trite and you're probably thinking I'm just some servant that believes it all but that's what God does ask of us in a way.

"Blessed are the ones that believe but have not seen." Also another passage is about the man who finds a child on the beach. The child has dug a small hole in the sand and is pouring water from the ocean into the hole. The water disappears into the hole and the man asks the child why he is doing this. The child wants to take all the water from the ocean and bring it into the small hole. The man replies that his task is impossible. The boy says back that he has a better chance of doing this than the man does at ever fully understanding God. This very concept seems to clash with all human logic on some level but we work through it anyway and try to stay faithful no matter what for us true believers.

This idea should be kept in mind when pursuing more knowledge and insight about God and religion. It's not bad to pursue information to try and understand more about our faiths but at some level, we can't make it another step without having faith.

[Kureno]

I've yet ta hear anyone mention the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't tell if that's a surprise or not.

[Rachel]

If you don't have the faith than everything else becomes a bit more hard to understand because we try to understand phenomenons in a limited human way.

As a rational empiricist I contest that claim, although I understand that by the Doctrine of Sin, that without Faith it is believed that humans are tragically flawed ("Hamatria") and will fall off the course of their own endeavours, causing them to fail at every turn. (The Hebrew term, translated into "Not Straight".) But Science has advanced our understanding, from us from the renaissance, and Islam had their golden age during the dark ages, in both cases our knowledge grow multifold,. From agriculture to maths, to reason and logic, by our success shows that you don't need faith in a Christian God, Science requires no gods and the results will be the same, while Islam arguably worships a "Similar" God but is still theologically different.

Blessed are the ones that believe but have not seen."

I do not have to check, because I know this was Jesus words to Thomas. The story however acts as a two-bladed sword, Thomas one of Jesus Disciplines had witnessed this fantastic miracles, saw Jesus defy logic and travelled with Jesus, yet still didn't truly believe. "unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." Besides, if we were to believe without evidence, and not question it, what about other possible scenarios which may contradict or punish us for believing in such a notion?

"For every unknowable idea that rewards a particular behaviour there is another unknowable idea that will punish the same behaviour." Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU Betting on Infinity, although the video is about Pascal's wager, it shows it's not quite a false dichotomy but there are 'many' options...

and the other parable, I've yet to come across, but the only time I've came across something even remotely similar is in Stephen King's "Insomina", when Ralph expresses his horror that he may be eatting other people's life force to fuel his psychic powers, Two Supernatural Doctors shakes their head and use a similar image to console him. But your parable does cause some grief with Epistemology, for example, I have this orange here. But let's imagine you have it instead, "Could you understand this orange?" it seems like a silly question, but as you may list it's physical properties, there are multiple layers that you aren't addressing. Even if you do mnage to completely psychoanalyse the orange, showing and explaining it's repressed feelings to be a pineapple, It's an Orange.

Although it's a fruit, we can clearly see other people could have a different interpretation; applying a different anthropomorphic traits to it, or making up a crude 1940's Detective back-story or what ilk. The same can be applied to God, different people have different interpretations, Deists would say God can be deducted by Reason, while Born Again would say God is to be experienced. Some have a personal and knowable God (Or in reverse a impersonal and unknowable God), others think God is the Universe (pantheism.) Others believe that they themselves, in absence of a truly divine possibility, call themselves God (Levayian Satanism.)

This idea should be kept in mind when pursuing more knowledge and insight about God and religion. It's not bad to pursue information to try and understand more about our faiths but at some level, we can't make it another step without having faith.

Fundamentally the problem is, that if we have two people of equal expertise in a field, but one is more enthusiastic, do they essentially know more? Unless it's on how to be motivated, the answer is in the question. Religion is like that as well, for example, I studied Higher English qualification at High School, and I'm equally as fit as the others in my class that got the same grade as me who also were more motivated to read the Harry Potter series. (I also did some modules on Theology.)

[Reverberation]

I've yet ta hear anyone mention the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't tell if that's a surprise or not.

Pshhhh, Invisible Pink Unicorn is where it's at, may her translucent horn touch us all.

[Aristokat]

Believe it or not, im mormon.

[Quilly]

I've yet ta hear anyone mention the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't tell if that's a surprise or not.

/POUNCE

Church of the Flyin' Spaghetti Monster over here!

[Kureno]

I've yet ta hear anyone mention the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't tell if that's a surprise or not.

/POUNCE

Church of the Flyin' Spaghetti Monster over here!

Hehe, I knew you'd be the first ta say so after I posted? XD