Why "practice" religion?

[PathDiagnosis]

Your statement pretty much supports my theory that those who disbelieve the existence of God do not base their conclusion on true logic.

When I was Catholic, I could not comprehend why some Christians were Protestants since it was obvious to me that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Since I am apathetic towards God/religion/spirituality, I might just be thinking with a different paradigm from yours.

You think God exists. Great. But, as Christian (non Catholic I assume), you are very specific about your beliefs in God. Do realize that if the Catholic Church is true, that you are wrong?That is what interests me and concerns me before I become Theistic again.

 

[PRmerger]

Do realize that if the Catholic Church is true, that you are wrong?That is what interests me and concerns me before I become Theistic again.

Why would someone else’s errors enter into the picture?

If someone spells “persistent” wrong, does that influence you to believe that there’s no correct way to spell word?

If someone doesn’t believe that Jefferson City is the capital of Missouri, does that convince you that there’s no truth in geography?

If a pilot crashes his plane, does that convince you that aviation is wrong?

 

[1voice]

When I was Catholic, I could not comprehend why some Christians were Protestants since it was obvious to me that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Since I am apathetic towards God/religion/spirituality, I might just be thinking with a different paradigm from yours.

You think God exists. Great. But, as Christian (non Catholic I assume), you are very specific about your beliefs in God. Do realize that if the Catholic Church is true, that you are wrong?That is what interests me and concerns me before I become Theistic again.

How does it correlate that … Different expressions and emphasis of expression of worship … can refute the existence of Christ.

… Given that those who would refute must ignore the words spoken concerning his life … starting thousands of years before his birth … and would have to refute this evidence … which is statistically accurate to a mathematical probability of 10 to the 50th power.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

How does it correlate that … Different expressions and emphasis of expression of worship … can refute the existence of Christ.

… Given that those who would refute must ignore the words spoken concerning his life … starting thousands of years before his birth … and would have to refute this evidence … which is statistically accurate to a mathematical probability of 10 to the 50th power.

It’s true that Christians believe the OT prophecies are fulfilled in the NT. That is based on Christian interpretation of the OT. Jews do not believe in Christian interpretation. You’re basically saying the Bible proves the Bible is true.

---

Also, the reasons why I ask religious people"what if you are wrong" is because I think the best way to learn is to step back and look at the big picture. That’s what happened to me. I stepped out of Protestantism around age 19 and looked at Christianity. Catholicism made more sense because I viewed Sola Scriptura as a big big big evil heresy. Then I stepped backed and looked at the history of religion and even the history of the whole planet as best I could.

I might be wrong. Maybe I’m just a “soulless” person with no spiritual interests.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, the reasons why I ask religious people"what if you are wrong" is because I think the best way to learn is to step back and look at the big picture.

This is a non-sequitur, Path. The best way to learn does not follow from "the reason why I ask people ‘what if you’re wrong’ "

If you never do/believe/act on anything “in case you’re wrong” you’re going to be one lonely, miserable guy. You’ll never leap into the arms of someone you love, because “you might be wrong”, eh? You’ll never say yes to med school because “you might be wrong” about this desire. You’ll never fly on an airplane because “you might be wrong” about trusting in the competency of the pilot.

Why do you use such a strict criterion for this one aspect of you life: your religious faith, than you do with everything else?

 

[PathDiagnosis]

This is a non-sequitur, Path. The best way to learn does not follow from "the reason why I ask people ‘what if you’re wrong’ "

If you never do/believe/act on anything “in case you’re wrong” you’re going to be one lonely, miserable guy. You’ll never leap into the arms of someone you love, because “you might be wrong”, eh? You’ll never say yes to med school because “you might be wrong” about this desire. You’ll never fly on an airplane because “you might be wrong” about trusting in the competency of the pilot.
**
Why do you use such a strict criterion for this one aspect of you life: your religious faith, than you do with everything else**?

Ok. Maybe not the best way, but it is a way.

I could take a step back and imagine how big God is. I will. But then that is just me trying to make sense of things, even if it does make sense, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

Because religious faith is BIG. It is TOO BIG. It pertains to matters that exist outside of time and space. So, why bother? Why not just ignore spirituality and focus on the here and now? That is the meaning I assign to my life. Not everyone wants that. For now, I think it is what makes the most sense to me.

I could be wrong. If there is a God, maybe he will reveal himself to me somehow. I’m going for a walk today and will stop by an Adoration chapel near my home…sit and relax…think about things…***.I really do not feel a desire for spiritual things…I’m just being open the possibility of it being true…maybe there is something wrong with me because I lack spiritual desires?

---

I feel all my questions have been answered. People are religious/spiritual because they see God/spirit world as something real. It’s the only reason we do things.

Thank you all. I really think it’s time to end this unless someone continues it in such a way that I must respond.

Peace

 

[1voice]

It’s true that Christians believe the OT prophecies are fulfilled in the NT. That is based on Christian interpretation of the OT. Jews do not believe in Christian interpretation. You’re basically saying the Bible proves the Bible is true.

Mathematical probability is only accurate if it is not applied to the Bible by Christians?

 

[PathDiagnosis]

Mathematical probability is only accurate if it is not applied to the Bible by Christians?

Writers of the NT could have written it to fulfill the OT.

 

[1voice]

Writers of the NT could have written it to fulfill the OT.

Christ was a fictional character?

 

[Tenofovir]

Writers of the NT could have written it to fulfill the OT.

The 4 gospels were written within 20-40 years of Jesus’ Ascension. I guess they could have written them so but remember the NT was not a book we discovered 1000 years later, the Church was a living, breathing organ from the time of Christ. It would have to have been quite a conspiracy to doctor all these lies, to create what? A new religion? For what purpose? Were the Church Fathers rich and successful because of this new religion?
It’s not the case at all. Besides there is no evidence that these things were doctored. A religion which gets you shunned by your relatives and friends and killed by the authorities? Er, no thank you. Besides there were plenty of religions to go into, and ones which were much safer to practice.

I think Occam’s Razor applied here would go against this being a doctoring unless, we found the Bible 100s of years after these events happened with no-one to remember them independently and carry any traditions of them. Then sure, someone could have doctored them, at the time the Church had more power and when it was profitable to be a cleric. But the Church could not have arrived from thin air. Christianity was already established in Rome when Nero slaughtered Christians. There had to have been enough Christians to kill and they’d have to have been known enough to be blamed - not an obscure group of several hundred but a well known and hated community of many thousands. Again if so hated, why do Christianity? For a lie? It’s possible but far less likely then what is known now.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

Christ was a fictional character?

There is evidence that suggest he existed. I’ve looked into the Didache, Polycarp, lots of stuff about the early church. I understand what you mean about the mathematically probability of Christ, etc. The cannon of scripture came about at the Council of Carthrage in 397 AD (I think, I might be wrong about the year and the council). What came together might have matched what is now known as “Christianity”.

Really, I was just interested in why people are religious. If don’t know if there is a God just like I don’t know there is life on other planets. Thus, I just don’t care. No, I didn’t come here because I thirst for God, please don’t say that.

I think it boils down to if you believe in God, or just care about spiritual things. If you do…have fun…pick a religion…

I will look more into this math/Christ you speak of. An open mind is best, right?
Thanks.

 

[Tenofovir]

Christ was a fictional character?

Yes, as our glorious newspaper the Komsomolska Pravda suggested. I mean Stalin approved it, so it must be true, Comrade. The non-existent Christ is traced back to Pravda in the early years of the USSR. And a scholarly journal it was.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

The 4 gospels were written within 20-40 years of Jesus’ Ascension. I guess they could have written them so but remember the NT was not a book we discovered 1000 years later, the Church was a living, breathing organ from the time of Christ. It would have to have been quite a conspiracy to doctor all these lies, to create what? A new religion? For what purpose? Were the Church Fathers rich and successful because of this new religion?
It’s not the case at all. Besides there is no evidence that these things were doctored. A religion which gets you shunned by your relatives and friends and killed by the authorities? Er, no thank you. Besides there were plenty of religions to go into, and ones which were much safer to practice.

I think Occam’s Razor applied here would go against this being a doctoring unless, we found the Bible 100s of years after these events happened with no-one to remember them independently and carry any traditions of them. Then sure, someone could have doctored them, at the time the Church had more power and when it was profitable to be a cleric. But the Church could not have arrived from thin air. Christianity was already established in Rome when Nero slaughtered Christians. There had to have been enough Christians to kill and they’d have to have been known enough to be blamed - not an obscure group of several hundred but a well known and hated community of many thousands. Again if so hated, why do Christianity? For a lie? It’s possible but far less likely then what is known now.

Thank you. I’ll think about this.

 

[Tenofovir]

It’s true that Christians believe the OT prophecies are fulfilled in the NT. That is based on Christian interpretation of the OT. Jews do not believe in Christian interpretation. You’re basically saying the Bible proves the Bible is true.

The Bible is a collection of writings. If some writings from hundreds of years before corroborate later writings and events in history, it is not circular reasoning to say the Bible proves the Bible is true.

---

Also, the reasons why I ask religious people"what if you are wrong" is because I think the best way to learn is to step back and look at the big picture.

What is the big picture? Hyperskepticism based on no empirical evidence? What is the evidence that these things are lies? Who said it? When? How many manuscripts are there? Did we find the bones of Christ? Who hid them? Did Jesus marry, even if He existed? Where is the proof? I don’t see a bigger picture at all but speculation with no evidence.

That’s what happened to me. I stepped out of Protestantism around age 19 and looked at Christianity. Catholicism made more sense because I viewed Sola Scriptura as a big big big evil heresy. Then I stepped backed and looked at the history of religion and even the history of the whole planet as best I could.

History of the planet? Theory of Evolution disproves Christianity? Is that your argument?
The notion that people have and had different beliefs? But to me it sounds as if you’ve transcended it all, filled in the blanks with skepticism and decided that that’s the truth. I don’t know on what basis you say this.

What about existence itself? Can you prove that there is a world outside your mind? Yeah you throw a rock and someone else ducks, but that proves nothing. Everything you know seems to be filtered through your senses. What if they’re not reliable? What if all of this is a simulation? Where does the skepticism stop?

I might be wrong. Maybe I’m just a “soulless” person with no spiritual interests.

And one who loves to repeat himself.

 

[1voice]

There is evidence that suggest he existed. I’ve looked into the Didache, Polycarp, lots of stuff about the early church. I understand what you mean about the mathematically probability of Christ, etc. The cannon of scripture came about at the Council of Carthrage in 397 AD (I think, I might be wrong about the year and the council). What came together might have matched what is now known as “Christianity”.

You keep referring to extraneous things/ people / events/ religions/ points of view in order to cast doubt on the basic facts as written and statistically analyzed.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I am unable to take time off of work now to help. I will not boast of my good words,because I don’t like to brag, not because scripture says we shouldn’t, but I help the “developing/third” world via other means.

I wasn’t attacking or criticizing, I thought what you said spoke specifically to the thread topic.

As I recall the post I responded to, you were talking about sitting in the lap of relative luxury while people died of starvation. This is what I know: you (and I) have the power to save lives, to relieve suffering, to educate children, to feed the starving.

When you write that check, (click stuff online with your debit card in front of you) you are practicing religion.

God, I am pretty sure, cares not one whit how many folds anyone’s scapular has.

Catholicism is less a religion, though the many centuries have certainly loaded us up with ritual, than it is simply following Christ.

Just follow Him. Feed the hungry. I’m pretty sure as you have a doorman and I have a disability check, you can save more lives than I can in this direct way. Here’s the issue if you decide to become a true practicing Catholic Christian: how many can you save?

You are a beautiful and beloved child of God whether you know it or not. In the Church, amidst all the trapping, we encounter the Divine every single day on every altar across the world. This is transformative. It’s life. It’s Eternal. The prayers you stopped saying were also saving lives. The communion of Saints is real, so is the exchange of spiritual goods. So is Love.

Your choice.

 

[jmcrae]

Writers of the NT could have written it to fulfill the OT.

If they were writing fiction, they would not have gone into the jaws of the lions proclaiming to their last breath that everything they wrote was true. They would have admitted straight away that it was nothing but fiction, and no one would ever have had to be eaten by lions for it.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

If they were writing fiction, they would not have gone into the jaws of the lions proclaiming to their last breath that everything they wrote was true. They would have admitted straight away that it was nothing but fiction, and no one would ever have had to be eaten by lions for it.

“The blood of the martyrs are seeds of Church”. I heard that before. I am aware of the stories of some martyrs: St. Philomena, St. Agnes, St. Pantaleon (my patron since I work in medical/diagnostic sciences), and St. Perpetua. There are martyrs even earlier in Christianity. I get what you’re saying, that they died for something they really believed in, and some of them were witnesses or new witnesses of Christ.

Something to think about…I’ll think about how this is an argument for Christianity and also investigate refutations thereof.

Non-Christians were also martyred for their faith:
Raud the Strong and Eyvindr Kinnrifi. Both refused to convert to Christianity.

The human psyche is complex. Brave Christians that submitted to martyrdom because of religious zeal, etc. We will never know. I’m going to research a bit more.Martyrdom migt just prove the tenacity of man, and man’s willingness to give up his life for a higher cause. That doesn’t mean that the higher cause is necessarily the correct cause. Some ancient religions involved giving oneself up for human sacrifice, etc.

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

The human psyche is complex. Brave Christians that submitted to martyrdom because of religious zeal, etc. We will never know. I’m going to research a bit more.Martyrdom migt just prove the tenacity of man, and man’s willingness to give up his life for a higher cause. That doesn’t mean that the higher cause is necessarily the correct cause. Some ancient religions involved giving oneself up for human sacrifice, etc.

Thanks.

Yes, please do research on “martyrdom knowing that what you’ve proclaimed is a bold-faced lie.”

I am a skeptic on this–that anyone would have the fortitude to face the jaws of a lion knowing that all you have to do to save your life is, “Yes, it’s not true, I made it all up!” when you actually did make it all up. And that would save your life.

You, as a proclaimed skeptic, ought to be quite suspicious of this type of paradigm.

 

[jmcrae]

“The blood of the martyrs are seeds of Church”. I heard that before. I am aware of the stories of some martyrs: St. Philomena, St. Agnes, St. Pantaleon (my patron since I work in medical/diagnostic sciences), and St. Perpetua. There are martyrs even earlier in Christianity. I get what you’re saying, that they died for something they really believed in, and some of them were witnesses or new witnesses of Christ.

Actually, I’m talking about the eight men who wrote the books of the New Testament. Seven of those eight went to their deaths at the hands of the torturers, rather than say that anything they had written was fictional. They said, “we wrote only what we saw.”

St. John died of old age on the island of Patmos, in exile, because the Emperor was terrified of him. He went into exile in his old age rather than say that anything he had written in his Gospels was in any way false.

Obviously, if I am told something but didn’t witness it, I might believe it and die for it, even if it isn’t really true. But those who actually witnessed it, also died for it.

(By contrast, none of the original Protestant Reformers ever died for their new religions, but only their second-generation followers. Mohammed, also, died in comfortable old age; he took no risks nor made any sacrifices for his new religion.)

Non-Christians were also martyred for their faith:
Raud the Strong and Eyvindr Kinnrifi. Both refused to convert to Christianity.

Did they have first-hand evidence of the religions that they practiced, or were they next-generation believers?

Martyrdom migt just prove the tenacity of man, and man’s willingness to give up his life for a higher cause. That doesn’t mean that the higher cause is necessarily the correct cause.

In the case of next-generation believers, this is certainly a possibility. But when the first-hand witnesses are also dying for it, then you have to think that there is something to it.