Religion Doesn't Make Sense

[LYR]

Can you define those for me please? I seriously don't know lol

[Frigidus]

2) Ambrose was making the point that religions are not all equal, and that they shouldn't be chosen by how much pleasure they bestow. So you guys are in agreement.

Actually Ambrose is quite Christian, so I'm not sure what point he was trying to make...maybe that belief is more important than faith?

[OnlyAmbrose]

2) Ambrose was making the point that religions are not all equal, and that they shouldn't be chosen by how much pleasure they bestow. So you guys are in agreement.

Actually Ambrose is quite Christian, so I'm not sure what point he was trying to make...maybe that belief is more important than faith?

I was saying that we are called to faith, but not blind faith. I've spend my past few posts in this thread explaining why I'm Christian as opposed to some other religion.

I was saying that I don't agree with the concept that there's no real way to pick one religion over another. And hearing that come from a fellow Christian, I think, is indicative of a growing trend- Christians thinking that reason, science, and philosophy are against them. It's simply not true.

[MR. Nate]

Ambrose is on pretty safe logical ground when he says that they can't all be true. Truth is a fact that correlates to the reality, so opposing viewpoints cannot be true at the same time in the same way. It's the law of the excluded middle.

The statements:
"Jesus was God incarnate." (Christianity)
and
"Jesus was not God incarnate, just a wise teacher" (Islam, Hinduism & Buddhism)
cannot both be true, because they contradict.

[comic boy]

There isn't really a way to prove one's religion is correct over another... It's more faith than anything, it's impossible for one to claim their religion as the superior one... (Although we do) ...Including me, wooh go Protestants! Everyone else sucks because their religion is wrong!

Then why are you Christian? If one religion is just as good as the other, why not just choose the most pleasurable?

I would venture that the vast majority of believers do not choose their religion, it is more than likely simply the product of circumstance.

[OnlyAmbrose]

There isn't really a way to prove one's religion is correct over another... It's more faith than anything, it's impossible for one to claim their religion as the superior one... (Although we do) ...Including me, wooh go Protestants! Everyone else sucks because their religion is wrong!

Then why are you Christian? If one religion is just as good as the other, why not just choose the most pleasurable?

I would venture that the vast majority of believers do not choose their religion, it is more than likely simply the product of circumstance.

And I would definitely agree with you. But by age 18 (at the very MOST) I think you should know why you believe what you do, or why bother believing at all? This is something which so frustrates me with youth groups and other stuff I go to... there's a lot of arm waving, guitar playing, and singing, but no one knows WHY they're so excited to begin with!

[Dekloren]

How can one religion claim to be right when there are other competing religions that claim to be correct? Surely Christians must be wrong or Muslims must be wrong? How can either side prove the other is talking crap.

If they can't then surely religion is fake?

Or a mass population control medium?????

TV anyone??

[Symmetry]

RE: Mr Nate and Ambrose.

Logic is a tough ground to argue faith on. Neither statement concerning Jesus can be considered logically true. It's like saying:

A) Green is the best colour.
B) Green is good, but the best colour is blue.

I've picked my two favourites here. I sometimes switch between the two, and sometimes I'm hard pressed to say which I prefer. I wouldn't make wither of the above statements as an absolute though. Neither statement can be true, while the other is also true. In that aspect you are perfectly right. I exist in a middle ground- a horrible conflict of faith between my favourite colours.

My point? We are pretty fortunate not to be logical beings. We can hold a number of things that contradict each other within our own belief system (religious, aesthetic, or otherwise). Excluding the middle seems like a horrible way to believe in something. Not that switching arbitrarily is good, but that accepting that you can be in between.

[OnlyAmbrose]

RE: Mr Nate and Ambrose.

Logic is a tough ground to argue faith on.

I think logic is a very useful tool with which we can make a case for theism, but it's not so useful in choosing a certain kind of theism. What we were saying was that it's illogical to say that just because there are a diversity of religions, all of them must be false (or all of them must be true). THAT assertion is illogical.

[Colossus]

Ambrose, do you disagree with my argument that an infinite God cannot fit complete into any system which is fully graspable by man?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Didn't see it, I'll address it now.

I think they are all right and wrong. I think that all religions achieve what they intend by giving humans a framework through which to understand their world and feel secure and have an approach to how they should go about their lives. As far as being 'right' with respect to the definition of God, I think they are all wrong. If there is an infinite God, systematizing Him limits Him. Limiting the unlimited becomes necessarily wrong. 'Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid' is a pretty good book that talks about systems, and basically it demonstrates that no system can be fully described without reference from outside the system. So, the only real definition of God is undefined. In that sense, I think all religions are wrong.

The Christian and Jewish definition of God is "I am." I think that makes plenty of sense. God is. Didn't come from anywhere, doesn't change. He just is. We don't try to describe Him, we let Him describe Himself through his creation.

[Colossus]

Fair enough. I made that point in the atheist smarter than theists? thread yesterday, and I agree that 'God is' is pretty much as close to an accurate description as we could get. BUT, there are lots of religions that have basically that view of God when you distill the teachings down to their bare bones. It's the revealing Himself where they differ so much, and I think that is the crux of the question posed at the beginning of the thread, right? How can one religion get the manifestations part completely right? There are all kinds of details that religions get hung up on. Don't the details necessarily obscure the whole point of faith? And how can one set of details be RIGHT? I agree that there can be some systems of details that would hit nearer the mark than others, but don't think any of them can possibly RIGHT.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Fair enough. I made that point in the atheist smarter than theists? thread yesterday, and I agree that 'God is' is pretty much as close to an accurate description as we could get. BUT, there are lots of religions that have basically that view of God when you distill the teachings down to their bare bones. It's the revealing Himself where they differ so much, and I think that is the crux of the question posed at the beginning of the thread, right? How can one religion get the manifestations part completely right? There are all kinds of details that religions get hung up on. Don't the details necessarily obscure the whole point of faith?

Let it be a given that God desires to be known (I wrote a proof for it in a few threads, if you don't agree with the concept I guess I'll make it again, but in the meantime just take it for granted.)

If God desires to be known, he will have made the truth apparent in some manner. So, we have world religions. Obviously only one of them can be true. We are therefore left to choose which is the most true based on the available evidence. I spent several posts in this thread describing why Christianity is the most reasonable based on the the evidence.

[Colossus]

Ok, I'm with you so far, and I'm willing to accept the idea the God wants to make himself known. What I'm interested in is the distinction between 'true' and 'most true'. I think that no religion can be completely true, though some could certainly, I think, be more true than others. I also think that by 'true' when we refer to religion must mean capable of revealing God to believers. If you have a different meaning in mind, please correct me. If this is the meaning you intend, could it not be that different religions may be capable of revealing God in different ways that may be differentially effective for members of different cultures? Surely, you don't think that any particular tradition is capable of fully revealing God? So doesn't the degree to which a religion reveals God depend in significant ways on the nature of the audience to which it is revealing Him?

I personally believe that God reveals himself personally to individual people and that religious traditions of any persuasion are merely a tool to help the adherents find openness to God's revelation. It seems to me (and Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical to this effect) that different religious traditions are essential to a God making himself known to all people.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ok, I'm with you so far, and I'm willing to accept the idea the God wants to make himself known. What I'm interested in is the distinction between 'true' and 'most true'. I think that no religion can be completely true, though some could certainly, I think, be more true than others. I also think that by 'true' when we refer to religion must mean capable of revealing God to believers. If you have a different meaning in mind, please correct me. If this is the meaning you intend, could it not be that different religions may be capable of revealing God in different ways that may be differentially effective for members of different cultures? Surely, you don't think that any particular tradition is capable of fully revealing God? So doesn't the degree to which a religion reveals God depend in significant ways on the nature of the audience to which it is revealing Him?

I personally believe that God reveals himself personally to individual people and that religious traditions of any persuasion are merely a tool to help the adherents find openness to God's revelation. It seems to me (and Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical to this effect) that different religious traditions are essential to a God making himself known to all people.

I agree - to an extent. The terminology I think John Paul II used is that many religions contain "elements of the truth." That doesn't mean there is more than one truth.

There are certain "Christian truths," I guess you could call them, which are extremely important. Once again, the idea of Jesus dying and being resurrected is one of these. The elements of truth in other religions are generally "moral truths."

I've gotta go for now, but I'll complete this thought later.

[MR. Nate]

RE: Mr Nate and Ambrose.

Logic is a tough ground to argue faith on. Neither statement concerning Jesus can be considered logically true. It's like saying:

A) Green is the best colour.
B) Green is good, but the best colour is blue.

I've picked my two favourites here. I sometimes switch between the two, and sometimes I'm hard pressed to say which I prefer. I wouldn't make wither of the above statements as an absolute though. Neither statement can be true, while the other is also true. In that aspect you are perfectly right. I exist in a middle ground- a horrible conflict of faith between my favorite colors.

My point? We are pretty fortunate not to be logical beings. We can hold a number of things that contradict each other within our own belief system (religious, aesthetic, or otherwise). Excluding the middle seems like a horrible way to believe in something. Not that switching arbitrarily is good, but that accepting that you can be in between.

I'm struggling to comprehend how you can actually say "We're fortunate not to be logical beings" and mean it. I mean, your example is completely wrong. If you said "Green is not a color" and "Green is a color" that's a bit closer to what I was saying. It either is or it isn't, there is not middle option. Jesus is either God or not God, he can't be somewhere in between. And not examining your beliefs for logical consistency is a mark of ignorance and self-distraction, not exactly something to be proud of.

Fair enough. I made that point in the atheist smarter than theists? thread yesterday, and I agree that 'God is' is pretty much as close to an accurate description as we could get. BUT, there are lots of religions that have basically that view of God when you distill the teachings down to their bare bones. It's the revealing Himself where they differ so much, and I think that is the crux of the question posed at the beginning of the thread, right? How can one religion get the manifestations part completely right?

Fundamental difference between Christianity and other religions. Every other religion, we have to approach God and say what we've done to merit favor. Christianity says that people can't approach God themselves, they are completely unworthy of his favor, so therefore Christ had to die to provide the way, and nothing you can is adequate, you simple have to trust Christ.

And as for any of them being right, why is an individual so much more likely to know the truth than a group of people?

I think that no religion can be completely true, though some could certainly, I think, be more true than others. I also think that by 'true' when we refer to religion must mean capable of revealing God to believers. If you have a different meaning in mind, please correct me. If this is the meaning you intend, could it not be that different religions may be capable of revealing God in different ways that may be differentially effective for members of different cultures? Surely, you don't think that any particular tradition is capable of fully revealing God? So doesn't the degree to which a religion reveals God depend in significant ways on the nature of the audience to which it is revealing Him?

Isn't a better definitition of "true" congruence with reality? So, to the extent a religion accuratly depicts the way things are, it is more true. And why can't one religion be capable of being congruent with reality?

[OnlyAmbrose]

RE: Mr Nate and Ambrose.

Logic is a tough ground to argue faith on. Neither statement concerning Jesus can be considered logically true. It's like saying:

A) Green is the best colour.
B) Green is good, but the best colour is blue.

I've picked my two favourites here. I sometimes switch between the two, and sometimes I'm hard pressed to say which I prefer. I wouldn't make wither of the above statements as an absolute though. Neither statement can be true, while the other is also true. In that aspect you are perfectly right. I exist in a middle ground- a horrible conflict of faith between my favorite colors.

My point? We are pretty fortunate not to be logical beings. We can hold a number of things that contradict each other within our own belief system (religious, aesthetic, or otherwise). Excluding the middle seems like a horrible way to believe in something. Not that switching arbitrarily is good, but that accepting that you can be in between.

I'm struggling to comprehend how you can actually say "We're fortunate not to be logical beings" and mean it. I mean, your example is completely wrong. If you said "Green is not a color" and "Green is a color" that's a bit closer to what I was saying. It either is or it isn't, there is not middle option. Jesus is either God or not God, he can't be somewhere in between. And not examining your beliefs for logical consistency is a mark of ignorance and self-distraction, not exactly something to be proud of.

Fair enough. I made that point in the atheist smarter than theists? thread yesterday, and I agree that 'God is' is pretty much as close to an accurate description as we could get. BUT, there are lots of religions that have basically that view of God when you distill the teachings down to their bare bones. It's the revealing Himself where they differ so much, and I think that is the crux of the question posed at the beginning of the thread, right? How can one religion get the manifestations part completely right?

Fundamental difference between Christianity and other religions. Every other religion, we have to approach God and say what we've done to merit favor. Christianity says that people can't approach God themselves, they are completely unworthy of his favor, so therefore Christ had to die to provide the way, and nothing you can is adequate, you simple have to trust Christ.

And as for any of them being right, why is an individual so much more likely to know the truth than a group of people?

I think that no religion can be completely true, though some could certainly, I think, be more true than others. I also think that by 'true' when we refer to religion must mean capable of revealing God to believers. If you have a different meaning in mind, please correct me. If this is the meaning you intend, could it not be that different religions may be capable of revealing God in different ways that may be differentially effective for members of different cultures? Surely, you don't think that any particular tradition is capable of fully revealing God? So doesn't the degree to which a religion reveals God depend in significant ways on the nature of the audience to which it is revealing Him?

Isn't a better definitition of "true" congruence with reality? So, to the extent a religion accuratly depicts the way things are, it is more true. And why can't one religion be capable of being congruent with reality?

Well that's basically the completion of my aforementioned thought

[Colossus]

Yeah, this is where I agree to disagree. I really don't think that any religious system of man can represent the full reality of God. I agree that we, individually, can come to know God and that religious structure can help us get there, but I don't think that knowledge can fit within the bounds of a system because no system is possibly extensive enough to grasp the infinite nature of God. I think conversations like this are probably what lead atheists to assert that religion doesn't make sense. People who don't believe in God see believers like us arguing over the details, and I can't say I really blame them for being put off.

[Neoteny]

::Looks around::

I find it ironic that a serious conversation is going on in this thread. You guys had to go and ruin DMs fun...

[MR. Nate]

Yeah, this is where I agree to disagree. I really don't think that any religious system of man can represent the full reality of God. I agree that we, individually, can come to know God and that religious structure can help us get there, but I don't think that knowledge can fit within the bounds of a system because no system is possibly extensive enough to grasp the infinite nature of God. I think conversations like this are probably what lead atheists to assert that religion doesn't make sense. People who don't believe in God see believers like us arguing over the details, and I can't say I really blame them for being put off.

I didn't say it could represent the FULL reality of God. That is beyond human comprehension. But a religion could contain as much of God as is comprehensible by the human mind.