Survey Finds 70 Percent In U.S. Believe Other Faiths Can Lead To Eternal Life

[Weesnaw]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hmm...well, your first objection shows that you basically believe in the secular humanist definition of "religion," and not the real one. You see, they like to think that everyone else has a "religion," and that they don't so they must be better/more right. WRONG! Everyone has a religion. A religion is a paradigm, a worldview, an organized set of beliefs by which we interpret life. That's what a religion really is. In fact, they even have their own Bible, the Humanist Manifesto. ^_^

Theology means what it is: "theo-" meaning god, and "-ology" meaning study of. And yes, I know that there aren't two o's in theology, but "-ology" is one of those fun suffixes that drops it's o when its prefix has one. Okay, syntax aside, "The study of god" applies to any god, be it Christian or Hindu. It's what a religion believes about their God. In Christianity, their theology is the belief in a single, all powerful God. In Hinduism, they believe in polytheism, in which there are many gods with often varying degress of power. In fact, there are 9 separate factors that can define every worldview: theology, ethics, economics, history, politics, law, philosphy, psychology, and sociology. What each worldview says about these things are what makes them what they are. For instance, socialism/communism looks at theology and says "there is no God." That is atheism. Thus, atheism is only one part of a broad selection of beliefs that make up a religion. It cannot be a religion on its own.

Well, just because some teachings are scary doesn't mean that they have to be. From some personal experience with the children's ministry at churches I've been to, most of the time the more frightening aspects of Christianity are handled quite well. If you approach the subject carefully, it's not too difficult to teach. But again, teaching is far better than forcing. Instead of say "you will believe this," we say, "this is what you should believe." Most children, who view their parents as the primary authority figure in their life, emulate the views of their parents. It is only when they begin to think indepently of their parents' thoughts and views that forcing can become a serious issue. If the child wants to believe something else, there is nothing the parents can do to force their own views on the child. There's nothing particularly heinous about maintaining things like church attendance and the like, but at the same time, they can't expect their child to suddenly change their mind. They should continue to teach, and let them draw their own conclusions. That's the most important part. They are becoming their own person, and must be able to look at the facts and decide what they believe for themselves.

Mother of god.

A) please try summing up your post

B) Whats with all this pussyfooting about being politically correct about what you call what. Believe what you want, define you're belief with whatever words you like. Then when others come rushing at you bitching about what you call what tell them to **** off. Simple

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weesnaw

Mother of god.

A) please try summing up your post

B) Whats with all this pussyfooting about being politically correct about what you call what. Believe what you want, define you're belief with whatever words you like. Then when others come rushing at you bitching about what you call what tell them to **** off. Simple

I did. The end of each paragraph had a conclusion, like any good paragraph in any good essay should. If people need it more spelled out than that, well, I could write it in full essay form (Opening paragraph/thesis, points, conclusion), but is it really necessary?

PC is bullsh*t. Defining words is very important however. People can be using the same words be be meaning completely different things. For instance, terms like "Puritan" or "Fundamentalist" are often given very negative connatations, but I think that they ought to be used positively. So, when I use them, I have to point out what it is I'm trying to show(In this case, people simply trying to get to the basics of their faiths, rather than "ignorant" or "uptight" among other adjectives I've heard). So in any debate, especially in religious deabte, definitions of words are absolutely vital. Being politically correct has NOTHING to do with it. And your approach may be simple, but I believe mine to be much closer to an actual debate style, as apposed to whining children bickering over the internet. At least attempting to remain civil is important when it comes to a logical debate.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by HB99

Hey, Locke, nothing against you, just trying to make a point with your comments:

Here's a perfect example of how Christians try to explain away others comments to try to prove theirs is the only right answer...

You said (and I left it above also): Not everything in the Bible should be taken literallyv(for instance, the "days" of creation and a lot of prophecy), but everything has one and only one correct interpretation. I believe that the Bible is 100% true.

Now, I can debate all day long that there are NO absolutes, so don't get me wrong by my comment, BUT if the Bible were 100% true then you HAVE to take it EVERYTHING literally. Only 1 correct interpretation, right?

Copernicus got into trouble with the Church leaders because he said the Earth is NOT the center of the universe and suggested the Earth revolved around the sun. Church leaders said the Bible says the Earth is immovable...which is why they thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

Who wrote that? Man or the inspired Word of God? Man must have since God would have known the Earth is not the center of the universe...which leads one to believe that ALL the Bible is the "creation" of plain old stupid...Man. Of course, the Old Testament is really just a Hebrew history book.

Several years later comes along this other fellow, Galileo...who PROVED the Earth revolves around the sun...interestingly...he is also labeled a heretic also and lives out his days under house arrest...

The Vatican is a member of the UN. Did you know they are NOT a voting member? Do you know WHY? It's really simple...the Vatican is a dictatorship. There are no woman's rights, abortions, or freedom of religion in the Vatican...other than Christianity no other religion can be practiced there...in case you are interested, yes, I've been there.

Isn't life grand?

Why is it in earlier versions of "history" Adam's first wife is called "Lilith"? And where did Cain and Abel's wives come from??? And why is it that after Cain slew Abel he was cast out and went to a city...and the people of the rest of the world were told not to harm him? Where did they come from? Were not they not even remotely "possibly" his cousins? Or were they other tribes not even related to A&E?

Either way, it's great that we can believe in whatever, whomever, we want to...

Thanks for listening...later...

Wrong, actually. For instance, in poetry, writers use artistic language, but can still be describing an objective object, right? Consider this to be much the same: using literary obfuscations to create deeper meaning. It makes reading the Bible a challenge, to be sure, but it is a challenge any Christian ought to be up to.

Wait, what? You go from "God-inspired words" to "book of crap" pretty quick. Yes, God knew that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The problem was a misinterpretation: fallible men, not directly inspired by God in the way the authors of the Bible were, made a mistake. The verse you refer is easily compatible with the heliocentric view of the galaxy. Have you ever seen people move the Earth? Unless we come up with some nuclear weapon strong enough to nudge the Earth, I don't see it moving from its orbit because of us for a very long time. Again, litery twists do not a contradiction make. Just a challenge, that's all.

Did I ever say I was a Catholic? Did I ever say I agreed with the Vatican's polices? Why bring that up?

These "earlier histories" you refer to are, in actuality, frauds, later, not earlier. Known as the Apocrypha, these books are not inspired by God. They can't be. The Bible, as it stands today, does not contradict itself. People look, point out little surface things, but these seeming contradictions are often easily explained away, once the underlying verses are properly understood, their interpretation made known. But, introduce a single one of these other books, and the whole Bible falls apart. So then, by definition, that leaves us with two options: either they have nothing to do with the Bible and are simply lies, or the Bible on a whole is a lie. Unfortunately for both sides, we can't really prove that the Bible is a lie or absolute truth. It can't be done. We can argue, yes, but the arguing will never cease. It all comes down to what you believe. If you believe that the Bible is truth, that's fine. If you believe the Bible is lies, that's fine too. There's nothing anyone can do to make you believe otherwise. Any debate or argument is ultimately futile, but serves one vital purpose; it gives the participants a better view of both their own views and others'. That, in and of itself, is a very important thing. That should be the purpose of any and all debates on religion.

Oh, and before I go, the other people thing? It's entirely possible that God created more humans. Any decent Bible study will reveal why this fact is left out: the Bible tends to "leave out" certain details that are not necessary to understand the point. Often, they can be filled in by either common sense, or similar/related accounts in other parts of the Bible. Any obfuscation designed to encourage a closer study into the finer points of the Bible, really. My personal belief is that God created more people after Adam and Ever were banished from the garden. After all, Adam and Eve had three sons total, no girls. So, short of an divine intervention, the human race would have ended right there. There had to be other men and women somewhere.

[Weesnaw]

It seems to me that most Christians are Christian in the sense of a personality trait rather than a belief system. They say they "are" Christian to be associated with the good sides of it, and otherwise discard the idea to the back of their heads and have it ready when it is needed. They use it as a tool to justify their actions and dodge their responsibilities. Looking up bible verses, picking the ones they want and never taking a second look. I mean, I haven't met one Christian who isn't as hypocritical and judgmental as everyone else, if not more so, and I live in the The Bible Belt(Alabama). I had a friend, who was always a church going person, but more recently fell into the ilk of even more religious people and never in my life I have I heard him criticize and judge others more. It just baffles me and makes me want to leave this turd of a state.