Oooooo, we Catholics call this “Heresy” … Not a chocolate bar…
I kid… I am not here to convert anybody or make them believe as I do…
It’s quite a bit more than that. Theology is the study of God and His relation to His creation in all facets. It not only deals with written word or prophecy, but also science and philosophy. It’s a wide breadth of study in which there are many specialties with in. Like any en devour of learning, it begins with a well thought out proposition, in this case “God Exists” and builds on it.
That’s what separates it from mythology or mere story telling as it proposes to tie into the Creator of Being and not just merely teach a lesson.
You could but it’s a hard sell. Evil isn’t necessary and simply acknowledging that evil exists is a way to prove that God exists – See the Moral Argument.
1 Like
I am not sure Scientologists have it right in what they profess to believe any more than the tea pot floating around Mars thing. I do have questions and VERY BIG issues with the way they treat those who try to leave the faith and how they try to ruin their post-Scientology lives.
Oh yeah I remember the Scientology thread. I actually watched Going Clear quite recently.
Scientology can be quite instructive to believers who have an interest in understanding where atheists like me are coming from. Its SOOOO easy not to believe in it, because it is obviously a package of lies, it obviously enriches a select few and it obviously causes a great deal of damage to people who fell for it and then wanted to get out.
The point I was getting at is to draw a distinction between being an atheist and agnostic. If I say its bullshit but acknowledge I can’t prove it isn’t true, does that make me agnostic when it comes to Xenu and Scientology? I’d argue that it doesn’t, I simply don’t believe in it. Thus atheist.
The same basic thought process applies to all of the other religions. You either believe in them, or not, right?
1 Like
I am a believer and I think it’s a load of horseshit, myself. Not that it may not have its good points and no I cannot prove its dumber than a lot of other things, but L. Ron Hubbard was a fat pedophile-groady-greasy-pig of a man sailing the seas to avoid prosecution and who failed as a science fiction writer; so he started a religion.
I believe that’s who Jim Morrison had in mid when he wrote the lyrics “We could plan a murder, or start a religion.”
If you have to resort to space aliens you cannot prove, you might as well go to the Creator of Being which has legitimate arguments for It’s existence. That’s just my thought.
I have a lot of issues with those people. When I was in Hollywood, I sat and watched the Scientology tower for a while. What struck me were the women, they were all dressed like ‘little-bo-peep’, like the Branch Dividians or that Phelp’s cult guy. They were weird looking, even for Hollywood. Actually the bums looked more natural.
What I find interesting about them is one of their initial practices, the e-meter. In Catholicism we have something like that too, it’s call ‘Confession’. Except the difference is that it’s not recorded and the contents are protected up to and beyond the death of the minister. In scientology it can be recorded and used against you. I think that’s the part of it that bothers me the most.
Religions should be, must be, completely open to criticism and reasonable speculation. Further, practitioners must be free to leave without consequence.
Scientology is the opposite of that, you give your life to them and if you do anything out line, especially leave, it’s your ass.
1 Like
I’m not so sure many religious leaders will agree with you on that one.
Absolutely. And that’s why I think it is important for atheists to acknowledge the difference between religions and cults. Sometimes that line can get a little blurry, but again, Scientology comes to the rescue with a very clear example.
And no, I’m not sorry if I’ve offended any practicing Scientologists in this or other threads.
2 Likes
I chose to address this separately because it’s not such an easy answer. The point of religion is to develop a relationship with God, the Creator of Being. Religion is a means by which to do that, but they are human run entities and though I would argue mainly correct on many of the big issues, definitely split at the fringes.
Being part of a faith isn’t that you are forced or you force yourself to swallow whatever it tells you. A good religion always encourages self-development and discovery, independent of the faith.
There are core values that the community does believe in but it does not mean you have to believe whatever the church tells you to. It’s not a slave colony.
As Christians, our profession of faith can be found in the Nicene Creed. Those are the fundamentals of Christian faith. Believe them and you can call yourself a Christian, believe them not and well your something else, which is neither a good or bad thing, but just a thing.
So what I am saying is that most of us believe a core set of values upon which our faith is based. Beyond that, opinions and arguments are as diverse as they can be anywhere. But religion isn’t the end, its the means. The end is between you and God, including whether or not you believe in Him or not.
On the contrary, [quote=“twojarslave, post:46, topic:229234”]
I’m not so sure many religious leaders will agree with you on that one.
pat:
[/quote]
Very few, who are not cultish in nature would disagree, contrary to the optics most of us are not freaks. It’s actually a teaching in Catholic Exegesis. But I will shut up now… I have taken too much of this thread and others deserve to have their say.
I share your mea culpa if I offended any Scientologists. I am willing to learn, if you are willing to speak. I am looking at it from the outside and from mostly negative hearsay.
1 Like
I have an issue with this…
In the late medieval period, a group of Christians, who were later called “mystics”, came into being. Instead of going to church and following its rituals, they worshiped God in a personal, private way. Mysticism, from then on, became a valid form of Christianity, enriched with truth but lacking a church.
The idea that a church is a way to God, in my opinion, is misleading. It may let people think that the church is the only way to Him, which is very untrue. I’m a Christian, but I don’t go to church, which is acceptable.
God, after all, is with all of us, church-goers or not.
@pat Well I gotta give credit where credit’s due. We’re coming up on 200 years since the last heretic was executed by the church. Took a thousand years or so, but the church eventually came around on that one, which was nice when I stopped going to mass without the hassle of an inquisition.
So yes, you’re right, at least when it comes to Roman Catholics. Hopefully they come around on the whole contraception thing. I’m not so sure that’s producing good outcomes in all parts of the globe.
William Scott Peck has some good thoughts on this.
Did you mean M. Scott Peck?
I googled William Scott Peck and my search led me to M. Scott Peck.
Woops! Yep I did. Mixed him up with Burroughs.
I actually have his book, The Road Less Traveled.
Anyway, why did you mention him? What are the things he wrote or said that has anything to do with what we’re talking about?
His assertion that organized religion is actually not conducive to a real spiritual experience.
I forget which book it is in. It’s been about 15 years since I read his stuff.
Cool. Thanks.
Maybe I should read the book then (The Road Less Traveled).
Sure. It helped me out a good bit. I was at odds between believing in God and not wanting to participate in an organized religion. I needed to develop some sense of spirituality, but wasn’t willing to tolerate a lot of what I had seen and experienced in churches.
Heck, I might even give it another read. Its interesting how differently the same things can look at a different point in life.
I am a agnostic atheist, because I do not know (Agnostic) if supernatural/human being(s) exists, therefor I find no reason to believe in the supernatural/human (Atheist).
If that’s your only beef, come on back… That’s a very minor issue, comparatively. Abortion is a big fat no-no. Contraception is frowned upon, but it’s not dogma. It gets a lot of attention because people are soooo hung up on sex, but there are actual bigger fish to fry.
I am sure it’s not, but there is a lot of subtle things about the church people don’t know about. And even in the days of yore, the Church didn’t just go around rounding up heretics and burning them. There was an additional threat involved.
There is also a lot of (I would say deliberate) misinformation about the church’s history. If you are interested, I would also invite you to look at the good things the church was involved in. It’s not so black and white. There were some bad people, but there was always a remnant towing the line and holding fast to the truth. It’s a large deep topic. But I a merely asking you to keep an open mind…
For instance, I would reckon you like Sam Harris so this may be a good read. It’s lengthy but detailed and informative:
I think ye should get a copy of an ESV Bible or NSRV or New American translations. They better translations, more true to the original. The King James Bible has 800 major transnational errors in it according to biblical scholars who spend their lives looking at translation. The greek word for “love” used in 1 Cor 13:1-13 is agape which the King James translators used ‘charity’ for instead. It’s not well understood why as ‘agape’ appears through out the NT and is translated as ‘love’ in most instances but not this one.
When I set out to read the whole Bible, I researched the translations and methodologies behind them. I found the ESV the most accurate ‘word to word’ translation from Hebrew to English/ Greek to English. The New American is a good ‘thought to English’ translation, but if you are looking for accuracy, I don’t think you can go wrong with ESV.
Plus, once you read 1 Cor 13 translated as correctly as possible, its even more powerful.
3 Likes