What is the role of religion in our modern secular world?

[exchemist]

spidergoat,



Atheists don't know that God doesn't exist, so that blows that reasoning out of the water. They can only, and I mean only, believe that God doesn't exist and to do that, they have to block natural inclination, such as other peoples experience, and the complexity and beauty of the world, (reducing it to blind unaided processes that just happen to form the way it did by chance), seriously taking into consideration the idea that something can come out nothing. I would be angry if I had to carry that stuff on my shoulders.



God didn't create ''homosexuals'', God created man, and man has the freedom to choose how to live his life. Homosexuality is an act, not a person, and while it may be as natural as daffodils to homosexuals, the act is regarded as abominable (in the Bible). There's nothing we can do ab.out that but try to understand (for those of us who are interested) why this is so. The act of adultery is also charged as an abominable act.


jan.

I think you people should spend more time on the New Testament, i.e. the teaching and example of Christ, and a lot less trying to impose Old Testament thinking on the modern world. You will find the NT a lot less prescriptive and a lot more nuanced and reasonable.

 

[Magical Realist]

I think you people should spend more time on the New Testament, i.e. the teaching and example of Christ, and a lot less trying to impose Old Testament thinking on the modern world. You will find the NT a lot less prescriptive and a lot more nuanced and reasonable.

Take the book of Revelation for instance. No book in the Bible is filled with more hatred and hostility for non-christians than this book. Monsters and plagues and massacres and wars and seas of fire and brimstone. It's like one big vengeful fantasy for the disgruntled christian. To this very day churches preach the coming apocalyptic doom of planet earth while they wait in excitement to be rescued from it all by the returning Jesus. If that's the true spirit of christianity I want nothing to do with it.

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."--Revelation 21:8

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,
Atheists don't know that God doesn't exist, so that blows that reasoning out of the water.

We can know that the God of Abraham does not exist. There are many reasons for that which I won't go into again. There is also an argument to be made that the term is incoherent in the first place, and can be dismissed without evidence.

They can only, and I mean only, believe that God doesn't exist and to do that, they have to block natural inclination, such as other peoples experience, and the complexity and beauty of the world, (reducing it to blind unaided processes that just happen to form the way it did by chance), seriously taking into consideration the idea that something can come out nothing. I would be angry if I had to carry that stuff on my shoulders.

After all this time, you could at least acknowledge the other side's arguments in this regard. There is no natural inclination to believe in the God of Abraham. There might be a natural inclination to ascribe agency to events, a useful skill for a human. Other people's experiences don't mean much to me, as so many of them are nuts, deluded by religion and lack of critical thinking. The beauty and complexity of the world can be explained in many ways, and I object to your continuing ignorance of evolution. It is absolutely not random chance. Additionally, god doesn't explain anything, because you can't explain god. It's just a way of shuffling all the mystery into one tidy unit. It's still a mystery to you. However, modern mathematical theories do go a long way to explaining how complexity can come about through simple rules. I don't know if everything came out of nothing or not, it doesn't affect my atheism. But you are the one who says the same thing. God, the source of everything, came out of nothing... or was eternal. Well the universe could be eternal. There is nothing to be angry about.

God didn't create ''homosexuals'', God created man, and man has the freedom to choose how to live his life. Homosexuality is an act, not a person, and while it may be as natural as daffodils to homosexuals, the act is regarded as abominable (in the Bible). There's nothing we can do ab.out that but try to understand (for those of us who are interested) why this is so. The act of adultery is also charged as an abominable act.

Yes, he did create homosexuals, they are people, not acts of fucking. There is certainly nothing you can do about the existence of this hateful book which anchors us to the morals of ancient Jews. That's why it makes otherwise good people do evil things.

 

[billvon]

God didn't create ''homosexuals'', God created man, and man has the freedom to choose how to live his life. Homosexuality is an act, not a person

Homosexuals are people. A gay person is not defined by his act, any more than a heterosexual is. (i.e. a woman waiting for the right man does not "give up" her heterosexuality just because she's not having sex with men.)

, and while it may be as natural as daffodils to homosexuals, the act is regarded as abominable (in the Bible). There's nothing we can do ab.out that but try to understand (for those of us who are interested) why this is so. The act of adultery is also charged as an abominable act.

So is wearing a cotton/polyester blend, or playing football, or using a mule. Fortunately we disregard such silliness nowadays.

 

[Magical Realist]

God didn't create ''homosexuals'', God created man, and man has the freedom to choose how to live his life. Homosexuality is an act, not a person, and while it may be as natural as daffodils to homosexuals, the act is regarded as abominable (in the Bible). There's nothing we can do ab.out that but try to understand (for those of us who are interested) why this is so. The act of adultery is also charged as an abominable act.

If God is the assembler of every human being at the cellular level as you creationists claim he is, then he does indeed create homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. There is simply no getting around that. And speaking of things that religion has called unnatural, that would include fornication or sex outside of marriage too wouldn't it? I suppose masturbation would fall under that category too. Oral sex? Yep..The problem with consulting a book of ancient tribal laws to define what is natural for human beings is that you end up with very little that IS natural except screwing to have babies. And even then, isn't this the very "war in my members" that Paul complained about in Romans? The battle between the natural or carnal man and the spiritual man? So if you are goin to resort to the naturalism argument, bear in mind that your religion isn't exactly in line with what is considered natural for human beings.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."--1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Jan Ardena]

Take the book of Revelation for instance. No book in the Bible is filled with more hatred and hostility for non-christians than this book. Monsters and plagues and massacres and wars and seas of fire and brimstone. It's like one big vengeful fantasy for the disgruntled christian. To this very day churches preach the coming apocalyptic doom of planet earth while they wait in excitement to be rescued from it all by the returning Jesus. If that's the true spirit of christianity I want nothing to do with it.

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."--Revelation 21:8

You do realise that ''death'' means death of the ''physical body'', meaning that it is destroyed, and not resurrected for burning. So unless you're purposely being dishonest, the picture you posted, represents nothing but a nonsensical idea.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Think of open heart surgery, cell phones, the internet, etc., the list goes on and on.

A century ago these things would not be viewed as paranormal?

Neither cell phones or the internet existed a century ago, so how would they have been viewed as paranormal? Supposing that we could travel back in time with the technology, you could probably freak people out a bit, but 1913 isn't sufficiently far enough back to make anyone believe you're using magic. And since time travel isn't possible, how does the claim "technology could be viewed as formerly paranormal" support your claim that there is evidence of paranormal activity?

Oh, and open-heart surgery existed more than a century ago. And nobody thought it was magic when they started it.

Things we dont know or understand today may be viewed as paranormal. One day if we can generate lightning bolts and throw them would today be viewed as paranormal but if the technology came where we could do that then it is no longer paranormal.

So what is your point? Where is the evidence of paranormal activity?

Another example, 500 years ago if someone said "i can get travel 1000 miles in around an hours time". Would people have viewed that as paranormal? Yet today we can do that, the means by which we do that are now understood and really the methods to do just that have little bearing on weather or not it would be viewed as paranormal so then the paranormal becomes normal.

Well, i think that multiple universes\alternate realities very well may exist yet this was at one time viewed as paranormal but today it is actually being taken seriously.

Again, what's the point of all this? Nobody's travelling back in time with modern technology and spooking people out. None of the stuff you're talking about ever actually was viewed as paranormal.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

We can know that the God of Abraham does not exist. There are many reasons for that which I won't go into again.

I said atheists do not know that God (Supreme Being) exits, not ''the God of Abraham''.

They can only, and I mean only, believe that God doesn't exist and to do that, they have to block natural inclination, such as other peoples experience, and the complexity and beauty of the world, (reducing it to blind unaided processes that just happen to form the way it did by chance), seriously taking into consideration the idea that something can come out nothing. I would be angry if I had to carry that stuff on my shoulders.

After all this time, you could at least acknowledge the other side's arguments in this regard.

I have, the argument/claim is you, see ''no evidence''. If there is more to it, please explain.

There is no natural inclination to believe in the God of Abraham.

There is a natural inclination to believe in God (Supreme Being). I would have thought that was obvious.

There might be a natural inclination to ascribe agency to events, a useful skill for a human.

That's not belief in God, that is ascribing agency to events. Belief in God occurs inspite of that.

Other people's experiences don't mean much to me, as so many of them are nuts, deluded by religion and lack of critical thinking.

Maybe you should get out more.

The beauty and complexity of the world can be explained in many ways,

Sure, but you reduce it to blind, natural, unaided by any form of intelligence, right?

...and I object to your continuing ignorance of evolution.
It is absolutely not random chance.

I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about begining.

Additionally, god doesn't explain anything, because you can't explain god.

God explains Himself, and we can realize God through realizing ourselves. We don't believe in God to understand the world, as we can do that ourselves.

It's just a way of shuffling all the mystery into one tidy unit. It's still a mystery to you.

I imagine that despite all the literature on ''air'', it is still a mystery to the vast majority of people on the planet, but no matter how ignorant of it one is, we still know what it is.

However, modern mathematical theories do go a long way to explaining how complexity can come about through simple rules.

That's fine, but it still boils down to belief that God does not exist, not evidence.

But you are the one who says the same thing. God, the source of everything, came out of nothing... or was eternal. Well the universe could be eternal. There is nothing to be angry about.

In this regard I think the anger arises out the atheist not being able to relax in his/her belief system because God is always brought into the equation, spoiling it for them.

Yes, he did create homosexuals, they are people, not acts of fucking.

It's interesting how you reduce ''homosexuals'' to ''acts of fucking'' as oppose to loving relationships, but that aside He created bodies/vehicles for the spirit of man to reside, the personality and character traits of every individual is their own responsibility. Of course if you can show any scripture that claims God made people from scratch (character traits, personality, and such) then I will gladly retract my statement.

There is certainly nothing you can do about the existence of this hateful book which anchors us to the morals of ancient Jews. That's why it makes otherwise good people do evil things.

You have the OT and the NT, both ultimately have the same message, but have different types of events. This indicates that the same message is applied to time, place, and circumstance, so the people of that region, at that time, were needing of that type of religion. So while it may seem hateful, it was as you said, specific to the Jews according to their circumstance.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Magical Realist,

If God is the assembler of every human being at the cellular level as you creationists claim he is, then he does indeed create homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

Notice that when God created Adam's body, it wasn't until He blew breath into it's nostril that the body became a living soul. Also, Adam's personality and character wasn't created at that moment, he existed before he was made to enter the body. Just from these couple of texts, and a little look at the Quran should change your perspective, but I doubt it will.

And speaking of things that religion has called unnatural, that would include fornication or sex outside of marriage too wouldn't it? I suppose masturbation would fall under that category too. Oral sex? Yep..

What do you mean by religion?
Abstaining from sexual acts, or learning how to control sexuality, is beneficial to us if we choose to advance spiritually.

The problem with consulting a book of ancient tribal laws to define what is natural for human beings is that you end up with very little that IS natural except screwing to have babies. And even then, isn't this the very "war in my members" that Paul complained about in Romans? The battle between the natural or carnal man and the spiritual man? So if you are goin to resort to the naturalism argument, bear in mind that your religion isn't exactly in line with what is considered natural for human beings.

I didn't define the homosexual act as ''un-natural''. It is natural to seek pleasure. It is however unatural to me, as beastiality, pedophilia (not that i'm comparing) and so on.

The body is rooted to it's nature (natural) and the soul is rooted to it's nature (spirit), the body being temporary, and dead (refer to when God made Adam), is inferior to the soul whiose nature (spiritual) is the opposite of the body. The body becomes animated at the arrival of the soul, and is destroyed once the soul departs. Religion, as I mentioned earlier, serves to educate the spirit aspect of man, to bring him round to the realisation that we are not the body, but a spirit-soul. So it's not that sex isn't natural, it just focuses the mind on the body to the point where we lose our actual identity.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."--1 Corinthians 2:14

There you go, this verse explains the two different natures very nicely.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

billvon.

Homosexuals are people.

Okay.

A gay person is not defined by his act, any more than a heterosexual is. (i.e. a woman waiting for the right man does not "give up" her heterosexuality just because she's not having sex with men.)

That's a good point. Would you regard a pedophile, or beastial person in the same way, as people not defined by their acts?
My point is that the default, working method of building life is the union of male and female, which is why ''heterosexuality'' is the norm. When it comes to sex, pleasure, relationships, then anything goes.
I'm not comparing these sexual practices, I'm just saying that without principles, we are limited only by our ability and imagination.


jan.

 

[Magical Realist]

What do you mean by religion?
Abstaining from sexual acts, or learning how to control sexuality, is beneficial to us if we choose to advance spiritually.

Not as how you define religion. Here's your own definition of religion:

"Any type of education that aid one in the pursuit of self-realisation.
Self-realisation is to understand one's essential nature, the point of which is to ultimately join with it's source.
The source is what we would call God, or the Supreme Being."

Since coming to terms with one's own sexuality IS a crucial part of self-realization, then that means there is no conflict between being gay and being religious. Denying it or feeling guilty about it would NOT lead to self-realization. Only self-delusion.

I didn't define the homosexual act as ''un-natural''. It is natural to seek pleasure. It is however unatural to me, as beastiality, pedophilia (not that i'm comparing) and so on.

You just said it was unnatural. So yes you do define homosexuality as unnatural.

The body is rooted to it's nature (natural) and the soul is rooted to it's nature (spirit), the body being temporary, and dead (refer to when God made Adam), is inferior to the soul whiose nature (spiritual) is the opposite of the body. The body becomes animated at the arrival of the soul, and is destroyed once the soul departs. Religion, as I mentioned earlier, serves to educate the spirit aspect of man, to bring him round to the realisation that we are not the body, but a spirit-soul. So it's not that sex isn't natural, it just focuses the mind on the body to the point where we lose our actual identity.

Sex no more makes us lose our actual identity than eating or exercising or sleeping does. In fact it shows us exactly who we are as physical beings. It is getting in touch with the natural in oneself--a human nature that has been over 4 million years in the making.

 

[Hapsburg]

And speaking of things that religion has called unnatural, that would include fornication or sex outside of marriage too wouldn't it? I suppose masturbation would fall under that category too.

Not really. Quite a few religions in the past were positive towards sex, or at least held it as a good thing to indulge in and an integral part of spirituality and the world around us. Fertility religions especially. Many revival movements have taken this to heart, as well, and are very sex-positive. Some even have sexuality as central to their practices.
So no, not all religions are sex-negative. You keep generalising religion based off of conservative Christianity. That is not a fair extrapolation.

 

[arauca]

I would not say the book is hateful . We the people hate the book is because we do not want to obey the guidance that is in the book . I think if the books that are in the bible would be separated as in the old Jewish version The Torah , Prophets , writing and History of the Jews , it would not be so called hateful and people would not blame the whole book for some historical events

 

[Magical Realist]

Not really. Quite a few religions in the past were positive towards sex, or at least held it as a good thing to indulge in and an integral part of spirituality and the world around us. Fertility religions especially. Many revival movements have taken this to heart, as well, and are very sex-positive. Some even have sexuality as central to their practices.
So no, not all religions are sex-negative. You keep generalising religion based off of conservative Christianity. That is not a fair extrapolation.

Oh geez..I forgot about some pagan fertility cults that existed millenia ago. But then those don't really fall under what people mean by religion nowadays do they? Why is it so hard to use to a word in its common vernacular sense here? Because people are always looking for the exceptions..

 

[Hapsburg]

Oh geez..I forgot about some pagan fertility cults that existed millennia ago.

Those "pagan fertility cults" were kinda the mainstream religions of their time. That is to say, up until 2000 years ago in Western Europe, up until 1,000 years ago in the rest of Europe, and still is the case in China, India, and much of Africa. Polytheism is still predominant in some cultures, and didn't go quietly in the places it no longer is.
To say nothing of the rapidly-growing revival movement in the West.

But then those don't really fall under what people mean by religion nowadays do they?

They most certainly do.

Why is it so hard to use to a word in its common vernacular sense here?

Because you're twisting the meaning of the word in the pursuit of an attack on Abrahamic monotheism. Go right ahead and rag on them; but use proper words and don't lump entire other religions in with Christianity when they have little in common aside from being a belief system.

 

[Magical Realist]

But then those don't really fall under what people mean by religion nowadays do they?

They most certainly do.

No they don't. When people talk about religion they aren't talking about pagan fertility cults of the past. They are talking about the common institutionalized forms of religion in our society today. Christianity. Judaism. And Islam. Comprising a total population of adherents of 3 billion 213 million. Maybe Buddhism and Hinduism too. But sex cults of 1000 BC? Not a chance. Unless you're an anthropologist conducting a lecture on ancient religions.

Because you're twisting the meaning of the word in the pursuit of an attack on Abrahamic monotheism. Go right ahead and rag on them; but use proper words and don't lump entire other religions in with Christianity when they have little in common aside from being a belief system.

I'll continue to use the word religion in the exact sense I want to. The 3 abrahamic religions on our planet ARE religions, therefore when I talk about them I am talking about religion as it exists today. And no, I'm not talking about ancient fertility cults that don't even exist anymore. This should be more than obvious to most people reading this thread.

 

[Sarkus]

I'll continue to use the word religion in the exact sense I want to. The 3 abrahamic religions on our planet ARE religions, therefore when I talk about them I am talking about religion as it exists today. And no, I'm not talking about ancient fertility cults that don't even exist anymore. This should be more than obvious to most people reading this thread.

To be fair, MR, this is the religion forum, and "religion" covers more than just specific (Western) examples of it.
If you comment on something as general as "religion" then it is implied that you do encompass all religions.
If you only wish to refer to a few specific examples of religion then you really should name those to which you want your comments to apply. Or at least qualify your comments in some way in this regard.
Doing so should at least limit responses with regard religions that are otherwise outside of the remit of your comments.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you comment on something as general as "religion" then it is implied that you do encompass all religions.

Only all or most extant religions. And no I'm not going to play the game of defining religion into something so general noone can say anything about it. Religion is exactly how we refer to it nowadays. The OP was even explicit about the role of religion in the modern secular world. It's assumed therefore I'm not talking about ancient fertility cults, Mayan virgin sacrifices, or neolithic shamanism. If you don't like this modern useage of the word I'm sorry. But everybody participating in the thread so far knows exactly what I mean. I've learned to tune out the anal nitpickers.

 

[leopold]

Where is the evidence of paranormal activity?

i can think of 2:
1. group think.
2. the ability of dreams to incorporate real world events.

 

[Balerion]

i can think of 2:
1. group think.

What is "group think?"

2. the ability of dreams to incorporate real world events.

You mean predict real-world events? Can I have some evidence of this?