Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[R_Daneel]

TA good analogy is jail. Few if any people commit crime wanting to go to jail, even though many of them know there’s a fair chance they’ll go there even at the time they’re doing it.

The only conclusion one can reach is that they are just so attached to the rewards of crime, whatever those might be, or else find it so burdensome to be law-abiding (after all, crime is many times easier), that they’re willing to make the leap into crime even though the end result is jail.

We don’t think it’s wrong to send criminals to jail in such circumstances, since they knew there was that risk.

Jail is not a good analogy. If someone contemplates an unlawful act, they have all the resources to investigate the possible repercussions. They could read the law. They could visit those who tried that crime and failed. They could get first hand testimony. They could visit the courts and actually observe the judicial process. They would know what the result will be if caught, they would have absolute proof of the process.

None of that is not applicable here. The only “evidence” for being caught is an ancient book (loaded with ridiculous superstitions and scientific nonsense) and the belief of those who take that book seriously. There is no “open” court, where God can be observed, there is no official “rule-book”, the condemned cannot be visited and interrogated. In other words, there is nothing beyond the belief of some people, whose credibility is nil.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually they are most relevant. I stopped believing in God because I realized that the picture you (in the general sense) painted about God is full of nonsensical contradictions. You guys depict God as a dumb tyrant, who wants to “get” our love by commanding it, while he does nothing to earn it. Someone who values “blind faith” over rational arguments. For me the concept of the Christian God is as nonsensical as the concept of the Eastern Rabbit or Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster,” that was spoken like a trooper from some militant atheist website. But, “Eastern Rabbits?” What? :banghead:

(It was a typo, I know; but, it is funny!) “Flying spaghetti Monster,” those three words are one of my pet peeves with atheists. It’s so apropos of nothing.

Actually, this is only your belief. I think that God (if he exists) would value my lack of belief, since that lack of belief is grounded in the lack of evidence.

Then Jesus was sent to endure the Passion for no good reason? Then Christ’s establishment of His Church on earth was bollocks?

God gave us evidence. It is just too bad you and I weren’t around, in those days, to witness it.

I also believe that God would be just, and justice demands that in the case of lack of evidence there cannot be full responsibility.

As has been said many times, in these fora, God knows our hearts. For you, you may be right. We’re not God’s judges, at that level.

Many Christians realize and understand that God’s existence cannot be established without resorting to faith - faith in some “revelation”.

“Cannot” is a very permanent word. Rational and informed Faith is the center of our belief system. That does not mean that “rational” must be left on the doorstep. Of course, you will assert that Christians are not rational. But, you are?

“…some ‘revelation’”. Hmmm. “Some revelation,” eclipsing a thousand years, give or take; eclipsing at some level or another a thousand people, or, perhaps many more; producing seventy-three books in the “library” called the Bible; that was compiled through three traditions. I could think of simpler ways of doing it, but, they wouldn’t be believed either!

Except that you wasted a sizable portion of your life on meaningless rituals, while I filled my life with meaningful activities. But, of course, when we are dead and gone that does not matter any more.

Traipsing around in whorehouses is not a “meaningful activity?”

The first commandment says it, too. Which is curious, since God seems like commanding our love, not “hoping” to earn our love out of free will… think about it. It is asserted that the value of free will is to love God “freely”, without coersion.

With each of us possessing free will, do you think most of us would ever even think about God if He had not? Seriously. Look around.

A coerced, or forced love is of no value.

Unbelievable! It took all this time!!

And then you get the first commandent, which commands you to love God. Don’t you see the inconsistancy?

No. I see consistency. The consistency of training, of teaching, insipid man to value his Creator. God also knows that Satan is out there working hard to win hearts, too.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

R Daneel

The first commandment says it, too. Which is curious, since God seems like commanding our love, not “hoping” to earn our love out of free will… think about it. It is asserted that the value of free will is to love God “freely”, without coersion. A coerced, or forced love is of no value. And then you get the first commandent, which commands you to love God.* Don’t you see the inconsistancy?***

No. I see a whole lot of anger and irrrationality. God commands our love not as a military general who deprives us of our free will on the field of battle, but as a good human parent might command our respect and our love … because he has already earned it by being a creator, provider, protector and friend. It is the hatred of such a father and such a God that is inconsistent with being a good son.God warns us in the commandment that we must be grateful to him and seek his friendship, or we will be prey to the devil, who roams about the world seeking whom he may devour."

It seems to me that the derision and hatred of a Father is “consistent with an ingrate son,” don’t you agree?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You see, I like you, too. You are a very nice person, and I feel sorry for your sadness. Just go back to the exchange you replied to. Charlemagne asserted most forcefully that on my deathbed I will be concerned about God. He presented this as an absolute, inevitable fact of how things will unfold. I find these assertions ironic. As I replied, I am already past my “first and second deathbed”, and I was not thinking about God. Yes, there are atheists in the foxholes.

Not to lessen your two emergencies, but, you might not have been precisely “at Death’s door” yet. Left unattended, a small cut can result in the death of the subject. Left unattended, a heart attack can result in the death of the subject. You may be right, perhaps you were at Death’s door and didn’t spot him. Of those that medical science, could have, and has investigated, most do not duplicate your experience, as you probably know.

As a matter of fact, I strongly believe that the way I conducted my life is the way how God wanted me to conduct it - with the exception of not having worshiped God. But, you see, I believe that God (if he existed) is far above us. He cannot possibly be concerned with our “adoration”. What a demeaning and disrespectful idea, that the Almighty Creator of All Things would care about our “worshiping”.

The obvious extension of that belief, is that Christ is a lie.

If that is not unjustified “pride”, than I don’t know what is - and you guys assert that atheists are what they are out of “pride”.

We can’t afford it; God can.

That God has nothing better to do than “sneak” into our bedroom as a disgusting Peeping Tom, and judge if two people express their love toward each other in a “prescribed or proscribed fashion”. There is nothing I could say which would be more disrespectful toward God,

You can say that again!

[SNIPPED]You say that God is “offended” by my lack of belief? Come on.

We’re just telling you what we’ve been told since Christ, at the very least.

I recall one of the funniest Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, where Hobbes says: “The strongest sign that there are other intelligent beings in the Universe is that they never came to visit us!”. I like to paraphrase this: “The strongest evidence against God’s existence is that fact that he never came down and kick the living daylight out of the believers who spread such ridiculous nonsense about him”.

From the looks of it, I guess that would include Jesus?

Don’t be sad on my behalf. I am confident that God would embrace me for what I am, and how I conducted my life. If he existed, that is. Which is just too bad, if he does not. I would like to believe that there is an afterlife, but I see no evidence for it. And “wishful thinking” is just not my cup of tea.

And, what do you attribute the utterly unthinkable, incorrigible stupidity of intelligent believers to?

There is no doubt that, in my life and times, the most intelligent people that I have ever met, were believers. Atheists can be very bright, but let’s face it, typically they learn the relatively few opposing arguments and juxtapose them around throughout their negations. It is way too easy to assert the negative, and, as you can no doubt see, much more difficult to assert the positive.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You neglected the other part. If we are just toddlers, below the age of reason, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. No, a toddler does not know the difference between right and wrong, or that obedience is “must”. And the toddlers need to be taken care of. Also, the toddlers need to be reminded frequently and periodically about the commands… None of these happen. Moreover, the punishment is not just a “smack”, it is eternal damnation. Does not look like a “loving” parent to me.

RD:
I don’t know . . . but, it seems to me, I’d rewrite this paragraph if I was you!

This is why I said that God’s worst enemies are the apologists. Instead of being logical about it, all I see is “excuses” and “cop outs”.

Just regarding our own personal concepts, apologists are necessary. There are times when we do not like them much, I’ll grant you that. But, given the crass misunderstandings that I see herein every day, they definitely serve their purposes.

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Then Jesus was sent to endure the Passion for no good reason? Then Christ’s establishment of His Church on earth was bollocks?

I’d like to issue you a challenge. I want you to write a story about the life and death of Ronald Reagan. His rise to prominence, his life as an actor, and ultimately in the White House. In this book, I would like you to extensively document his words and quotes.

But here’s the trick. You have to do it from memory. Not just yours, feel free to interview anyone you’d like. But you cannot use any modern technology whatsoever. No reading newspaper archives, no using the telephone, no online research. You must travel on foot to meet anyone you’d like to meet, and they, too, can use only their memory and handwritten records.

Do you think you’re going to get a very accurate accounting of his life? No, I didn’t think so. And therein lies the problem with the Jesus story.

It was penned decades after he passed. It may or may not be an outright hoax. It may have been penned in sincere belief that it was true, but by relying on stories that were stretched far beyond reality. As for the word for word quotes, unless you make a great effort to memorize it, you won’t even be able to report a word for word quote of this very post in 10 days, much less 10 years, without being able to come back to the source. And unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, there were no tape or video recorders available 2000 years ago to accurately document what he did, and did not say.

And then there’s the question of why. Why is it necessary for an all-powerful God to send his Son (I thought we were ALL his children?) to SUFFER at the hands of humanity? And, at the end of the day, other than a very temporary physical pain, what did JC really sacrifice? His life? No, he still exists as he existed before. His status? No, he’s got that too. A day or two of pain, no matter how horrific, is nothing compared to eternity as the HDIC (Head Dude In Charge).

God gave us evidence. It is just too bad you and I weren’t around, in those days, to witness it.

But did he? An all powerful, all knowing God could give us incontrovertible, undeniable, unquestionable evidence. Instead we get multiple, competing, mutually exclusive documents that all claim to be the truth, and that, for the most part, all claim that a failure to believe THAT SPECIFIC DOCUMENT is grounds for eternal torture. Nevermind the fact that (most) of them teach that it’s immoral for us to torture each other, even those who have committed horrific acts, but it’s perfectly OK for God himself to torture people for all of eternity for having chosen the wrong book.

If God wanted us to KNOW, we’d KNOW, and there would be absolutely zero room for debate or doubt.

God also knows that Satan is out there working hard to win hearts, too.

An all powerful God is going to allow a creature such as this to exist? One who has the ability to trick his children into believing the wrong thing, when believing the wrong thing is what leads to damnation?

Would you allow your children to play russian roulette with a fully informed adult who was allowed to cheat?

 

[Seeker2010]

It seems to me that the derision and hatred of a Father is “consistent with an ingrate son,” don’t you agree?

It seems to me that a lack of belief, and ‘derision and hatred’ are two very different things. One cannot hate something that one does not believe in. While I suppose anger (and hate, even) are possible towards God if someone DOES believe, that’s a much different circumstance than simply not believing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

If a Catholic starts to question their religion, and through study concludes they don’t think it’s right, is that willful disbelief? Or just the ignorance you referred to above?

It is willful disbelief. You don’t stop being a Catholic by questioning your religion. I’ve been a fallen Catholic in my own life. At the time I fell, I persuaded myself I was following a sincere belief in rejecting Christ. It was only many years later that I realized I had deceived myself. A lie to oneself is no excuse for rejecting Jesus. You cannot cover the self deception by calling it sincere.

The bottom line is that, if there is a God, the best possible god we can find all over the earth is known by the name of Jesus Christ. His followers are imperfect, to be sure, but he alone holds out the offer of faith, hope, and charity.

 

[Seeker2010]

In your particular case you have sufficient information relative to what is defined as sinful, based on numerous conversation on various topics.

Really? What authority have I spoken with that has given me definitive information? Take masturbation, it’s true I am aware that a number of people, claiming to be Catholic, on an anonymous internet forum claim that it’s a sin. I am also aware that at least some people, claiming to be catholic, claim that it is not, and a whole slew of non-catholic christians, and non-christian religious (or spiritual) would say the same thing.

So there is certainly no consensus.

Ah, but you would point out that the AUTHORITIES of YOUR church have given us definitive answers. To that, I would ask, HOW did they become authorities, and more importantly, how is it they have greater insight and knowledge of the TRUE expectations of God than does, say, my dog? Or me?

The pope says condom use is a sin, for it is an effort to block life that God is trying to create, I say that’s ridiculous, for if God can impregnate a bona-fide virgin, overcoming a layer of latex a fraction of an inch thick is not very challenging. Why does the pope have more credibility than I, is God actually in direct, two-way communication with him?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Really? What authority have I spoken with that has given me definitive information? Take masturbation, it’s true I am aware that a number of people, claiming to be Catholic, on an anonymous internet forum claim that it’s a sin. I am also aware that at least some people, claiming to be catholic, claim that it is not, and a whole slew of non-catholic christians, and non-christian religious (or spiritual) would say the same thing.

So there is certainly no consensus.

Ah, but you would point out that the AUTHORITIES of YOUR church have given us definitive answers. To that, I would ask, HOW did they become authorities, and more importantly, how is it they have greater insight and knowledge of the TRUE expectations of God than does, say, my dog? Or me?

The pope says condom use is a sin, for it is an effort to block life that God is trying to create, I say that’s ridiculous, for if God can impregnate a bona-fide virgin, overcoming a layer of latex a fraction of an inch thick is not very challenging.

Obviously God can miraculously override any of our choices. He could have turned Cain’s club into hydrogen, or teleported Abel to Australia, or whatever. The point is, are you choosing to do God’s will or your own. That’s where the sin comes in. The fact that God is more powerful than you is irrelevent to the point that you are choosing to work in opposition to his will.

Why does the pope have more credibility than I, is God actually in direct, two-way communication with him?

It’s not just the Pope sitting around pontificating, this has been the consistent teaching of the Church since the beginning. And I’m sure you know that no Catholic claims that the Pope has any more direct communication with God than you do. What he has is the authority and guidance of the Magisterium, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Seeker2010]

I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you don’t understand here. Your rephrasing is exactly correct. I need you to clarify your question please.

The question was for you to clarify your position. From what you said, on the one hand it’s sinful (and therefore punishable) to believe in the wrong doctrine, on the other hand genuine, sincere belief invokes ‘invincible ignorance’ and thus is shielded from punishment. As both cannot be true, which is it?

No, I’m thinking more of a situation where, for instance, someone really believes Catholicism is the truth, but intentionally persuades themselves otherwise for whatever reason.

But again, how do you do that? You (the generic you, not YOU you) believe what you believe. I believe that I don’t know what the truth is, it could be catholics are right, it could be muslims are right, it could be atheists are right, or it could be none of the above. It’s impossible to believe something you don’t believe.

Sure, no one would pick damnation over salvation, if everything else is equal. But it’s not equal.

I disagree.

No one would pick damnation over salvation, period. If God himself appeared to humanity in such a manner that there was no room for debate that he was who he claimed to be and proclaimed that the road to salvation was sleeping on beds of nails, and failure to do so would lead to eternal punishment in hell, you can bet your sweet bippy every single human would sleep on beds of nails from that point forward. They may complain, they may not get much rest, but if we KNEW beyond doubt that’s what was required we’d do it. Just the same as if a man was pointing a gun at your head and making the same demand, and for pretty much the same reason.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Ah, but you would point out that the AUTHORITIES of YOUR church have given us definitive answers. To that, I would ask, HOW did they become authorities, and more importantly, how is it they have greater insight and knowledge of the TRUE expectations of God than does, say, my dog? Or me?

Common sense.

If you have a bad health condition, would you rely on the authority of your neighbor, or on the authorities in the medical profession?

If you have a legal problem, would you rely on the opinion of Joe Sixpack, or would you rely on legal authorities?

If you were allergic to dogs, would you go to a dog to cure your allergy?

I’m not aware of any priest or bishop who thinks masturbation is not a sin, even if some Catholic laity are so ill informed, or rebellious, or so sated in wishful thinking as to say it is not.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I’d like to issue you a challenge. I want you to write a story about the life and death of Ronald Reagan. His rise to prominence, his life as an actor, and ultimately in the White House. In this book, I would like you to extensively document his words and quotes.

But here’s the trick. You have to do it from memory. Not just yours, feel free to interview anyone you’d like. But you cannot use any modern technology whatsoever. No reading newspaper archives, no using the telephone, no online research. You must travel on foot to meet anyone you’d like to meet, and they, too, can use only their memory and handwritten records.

Do you think you’re going to get a very accurate accounting of his life? No, I didn’t think so. And therein lies the problem with the Jesus story.

The two scenarios are completely different. The apostles were part of a culture with a very strong oral tradition. They spent years in close proximity to the man, making a concerted effort to learn and remember what he was teaching. This cannot compare at all to a stranger’s vague recollections of Ronald Reagan.

It was penned decades after he passed. It may or may not be an outright hoax.

Literally no credible historian believes it to have been an outright hoax. Not one.

It may have been penned in sincere belief that it was true, but by relying on stories that were stretched far beyond reality. As for the word for word quotes, unless you make a great effort to memorize it, you won’t even be able to report a word for word quote of this very post in 10 days, much less 10 years, without being able to come back to the source. And unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, there were no tape or video recorders available 2000 years ago to accurately document what he did, and did not say.

And then there’s the question of why. Why is it necessary for an all-powerful God to send his Son (I thought we were ALL his children?) to SUFFER at the hands of humanity? And, at the end of the day, other than a very temporary physical pain, what did JC really sacrifice? His life? No, he still exists as he existed before. His status? No, he’s got that too. A day or two of pain, no matter how horrific, is nothing compared to eternity as the HDIC (Head Dude In Charge).

His suffering is a sign of solidarity, and a reassurance to us that there is a real purpose in our own sufferings. We have not been told precisely what that purpose is, but it is related to the redemption of this fallen world.

Yes, he sacrificed his life. Dying, he destroyed our death. He then rose. Rising, he restored our life. The fact that his death was temporary does not controvert the claim that his death was a sacrifice. Nothing in the term “sacrifice” necessarily implies permanence.

But did he? An all powerful, all knowing God could give us incontrovertible, undeniable, unquestionable evidence. Instead we get multiple, competing, mutually exclusive documents that all claim to be the truth, and that, for the most part, all claim that a failure to believe THAT SPECIFIC DOCUMENT is grounds for eternal torture. Nevermind the fact that (most) of them teach that it’s immoral for us to torture each other, even those who have committed horrific acts, but it’s perfectly OK for God himself to torture people for all of eternity for having chosen the wrong book.

I have not seen any document that truly competes with the Bible. Nothing that even comes close. What document are you thinking of?

If God wanted us to KNOW, we’d KNOW, and there would be absolutely zero room for debate or doubt.

Sure. The question is not, is Christianity utterly and completely proven, but is it credible? I think it is.

An all powerful God is going to allow a creature such as this to exist? One who has the ability to trick his children into believing the wrong thing, when believing the wrong thing is what leads to damnation?

Would you allow your children to play russian roulette with a fully informed adult who was allowed to cheat?

Again, honest mistakes don’t result in damnation.

 

[Seeker2010]

The fact that God is more powerful than you is irrelevent to the point that you are choosing to work in opposition to his will.

Actually, it’s not. If my usage of a condom prevents my sexual partner from becoming pregnant, it only serves to prove that God himself is indifferent on whether or not my partner becomes pregnant, and thus has allowed the laws of physics and biology to determine whether or not it happens. For if he wants her pregnant bad enough, I don’t even have to have sex with her for that to happen.

And I’m sure you know that no Catholic claims that the Pope has any more direct communication with God than you do. What he has is the authority and guidance of the Magisterium, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Seems to me you just contradicted yourself.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Can you please elaborate on the contradiction?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The question was for you to clarify your position. From what you said, on the one hand it’s sinful (and therefore punishable) to believe in the wrong doctrine, on the other hand genuine, sincere belief invokes ‘invincible ignorance’ and thus is shielded from punishment. As both cannot be true, which is it?

Ah, I see the confusion. My point was that while it is objectively sinful to hold false doctrines, the culpability can be mitigated or eliminated entrely, based on circumstance. Not all sin is punishable - invincible ignorance, for example.

But again, how do you do that? You (the generic you, not YOU you) believe what you believe. I believe that I don’t know what the truth is, it could be catholics are right, it could be muslims are right, it could be atheists are right, or it could be none of the above. It’s impossible to believe something you don’t believe.

I think the beliefs we hold are the result of a combination of being drawn to conclusions and of deliberate choice. Our choices are powerful. For instance, who do you think killed JFK? Oswald or the CIA? Whatever yu believe, I bet you could convince yourself of the opposite.

Obviously this has limits. I don’t think we can convince ourselves that the sky is green, but where ambiguity exists, our will has considerable latitude.

I disagree.

No one would pick damnation over salvation, period. If God himself appeared to humanity in such a manner that there was no room for debate that he was who he claimed to be and proclaimed that the road to salvation was sleeping on beds of nails, and failure to do so would lead to eternal punishment in hell, you can bet your sweet bippy every single human would sleep on beds of nails from that point forward. They may complain, they may not get much rest, but if we KNEW beyond doubt that’s what was required we’d do it. Just the same as if a man was pointing a gun at your head and making the same demand, and for pretty much the same reason.

But there is always room for debate. No matter what series of miracles he performs, there will be someone claiming its just a funky atmospheric phenomenon or mass delusion or martian vampire wizard. And there will be people who seize any excuse, because they would rather live a self-centered life than a God-centered one.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Actually, it’s not. If my usage of a condom prevents my sexual partner from becoming pregnant, it only serves to prove that God himself is indifferent on whether or not my partner becomes pregnant, and thus has allowed the laws of physics and biology to determine whether or not it happens. For if he wants her pregnant bad enough, I don’t even have to have sex with her for that to happen.

God’s choice to not perform a miracle to stop or override your sin does not mean that he doesn’t care about the sin. This kind of gets back to free will. If he pushes you back on the path every time you start to go off into the weeds, you don’t have much choice.

 

[Seeker2010]

The two scenarios are completely different.

It’s really not, but if you think Reagan is a bad example, pick another. Choose any human you like, and write an accurate biography, including extensive quotes, 30 years after their death. Interview whomever you like, but remember the rules. No modern technology. Word of mouth only.

It can’t be done, not with any degree of accuracy. Especially the quote part.

Literally no credible historian believes it to have been an outright hoax. Not one.

That may be true, I don’t know one way or the other. Regardless, the chances are greater than zero.

Yes, he sacrificed his life. Dying, he destroyed our death. He then rose. Rising, he restored our life. The fact that his death was temporary does not controvert the claim that his death was a sacrifice. Nothing in the term “sacrifice” necessarily implies permanence.

I don’t know how to reply to this without going in circles, but again I say, he lost nothing. He did not die, he merely changed forms. And his existence before was identical to his existence after, so there was no sacrifice.

I have not seen any document that truly competes with the Bible. Nothing that even comes close. What document are you thinking of?

Go to forums.jewish.com or forums.muslim.com (note: totally made-up websites, they may or may not exist, and if they exist, they may or may not be what the name implies) and you’ll find plenty of people who say the same about their books.

Sure. The question is not, is Christianity utterly and completely proven, but is it credible? I think it is.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. That is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point.

A God who loves us, who desires salvation for us, is not going to stack the deck against us. If that God decides, for whatever reason, that believing in him, and following certain rules is required to receive salvation, is he then going to allow other ‘Gods’ (who may not even exist in reality) to have books that are just as credible as his own.

 

[Seeker2010]

God’s choice to not perform a miracle to stop or override your sin does not mean that he doesn’t care about the sin.

His ability to override ‘the sin’ means ‘the sin’ is irrelevant. I cannot override the will of God by using a bit of rubber.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

His ability to override ‘the sin’ means ‘the sin’ is irrelevant. I cannot override the will of God by using a bit of rubber.

By that logic, nothing is sinful, even murder, and our choices are irrelevent. I guess you can believe that if you like, but I hope you understand why that belief is incompatible with Catolicism, which is after all what we’re discussing.