Do religious people actually believe in religion? - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

Various surveys have shown that members of the clergy don't believe a lot of the claims made by Christianity. Not sure how many of them would admit to such things in their sermons though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urrection.html

Of course, I mean, how else would you have ~41,000 different denominations by 2011. Yet (most) of us still consider each other Christian.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:30 AM

#27

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husker

Various surveys have shown that members of the clergy don't believe a lot of the claims made by Christianity. Not sure how many of them would admit to such things in their sermons though.

Religulous interviews some member of the vatican that called all the stories in the bible "stories"

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:33 AM

#28

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangler241

has "religion" saved anyone?

Sure. Lots of people overcome addictions and whatnot by turning to religion.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 11:52 AM

#29

mangler241

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 534

Hmm...I would consider myself "religious" and so would many others, but I do not actually "believe in religion".

I believe in Hashem ( "G-d" ) and I believe in Yeshua ( "Jesus" ), but "religion" is not what I believe in. Who ultimately saves? Only Hashem and today, it is through Yeshua HaMashiach; there is no other path to genunine salvation except through "Christ Jesus" = Yeshua, the Messiah. He is the only mediator one needs to be reconciled to the Most High.

Going to church/mosque/synagogue every week or every day won't save you. Joining a church or being a member of any religious organization won't save you. Becoming a rabbi, priest, imam or any kind of clergyman won't save you. Saying prayers five times a day or the Shema or Lord's prayer three times a day won't save you; nor will fasting twice a week or forty days a year save you. Memorizing the Torah, Quran or New Testament won't save you. Casting out demons and healing the sick and feeding the hungry won't save you. Only "G-d" through the Incarnate Word, Yeshua HaMashiach can save you from sin and give you the Ruach HaKodesh = "Holy Spirit" to overcome the world. Repent and trust in the "Lord Jesus Christ" = Yeshua, the Messiah and follow him.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 12:41 PM

#30

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangler241

Going to church/mosque/synagogue every week or every day won't save you. Joining a church or being a member of any religious organization won't save you. Becoming a rabbi, priest, imam or any kind of clergyman won't save you. Saying prayers five times a day or the Shema or Lord's prayer three times a day won't save you; nor will fasting twice a week or forty days a year save you. Memorizing the Torah, Quran or New Testament won't save you. Casting out demons and healing the sick and feeding the hungry won't save you. Only "G-d" through the Incarnate Word, Yeshua HaMashiach can save you from sin and give you the Ruach HaKodesh = "Holy Spirit" to overcome the world.

This is wrong. Neither G-d nor Yeshua can save you either. Mostly because the entire concept of being saved is entirely invented by the christian religion in the first place. So christianity invents this imaginary need (to be saved from hell, or whatever) and then says that christianity is the only cure for the imagined malady it itself invented.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 12:52 PM

#31

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

This is wrong. Neither G-d nor Yeshua can save you either. Mostly because the entire concept of being saved is entirely invented by the christian religion in the first place. So christianity invents this imaginary need (to be saved from hell, or whatever) and then says that christianity is the only cure for the imagined malady it itself invented.

Surely you can source that claim? Should be easy to specify that point in history where "christianity" invented that need.

In addition, I'm interested in your discussion of relevant passages from the OT that appear to deal with similar notions and show how they differ from the christian notion in a way to justify your statement.

You get extra credit if you can explain, why and to what extend you regard the christian religion and christianity to be synonymous terms (as the quote seems to suggest).

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:10 PM

#32

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

wat.

lol, seriously, what is this?

I have no idea when in history christianity invented the need to be saved (from hell, I suppose). Can you show me a pre-christian notion of hell? (seriously curious -- i.e. I know jews don't share the christian notion of hell).

Yes, christianity=christian religion, get over it. Why are you hesitant to associate your self with the christian religion? Have some integrity man, if you take that side the least you could do is own it.

It seems like you have some shame associated with being christian (which you should); which is a good thing, it means you have a good person inside you which is beginning to take notice that christianity is immoral. Now you just need to take the leap and disown the ideology that's causing so much destruction on this planet.

Quote:

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
[kris-chee-an-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural Chris·ti·an·i·ties.
1.
the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Last edited by Hector Cerif; 06-03-2013 at 01:18 PM.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:20 PM

#33

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

So it seems I'm not doing you injustice if I translate that into

1) No, I can't.
2) Wait - there is something possibly comparable before christianity? Huh.
3) Uhm, wat? Dictionary sez so.

So 0 for 3, then.

You might want to refrain from making claims that you can't back up when challenged. Otherwise, you run the risk of appearing to be talking out of your ass.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:40 PM

#34

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

So it seems I'm not doing you injustice if I translate that into

1) No, I can't.
2) Wait - there is something possibly comparable before christianity? Huh.
3) Uhm, wat? Dictionary sez so.

So 0 for 3, then.

You might want to refrain from making claims that you can't back up when challenged. Otherwise, you run the risk of appearing to be talking out of your ass.

lol wat?

So you can't find anything to refute the fact that christianity invented the need for saving from hell, and yet you strongly disagree with the fact. Typical religious non-thought (just more evidence of the harm caused by religion).

Um, yes. Dictionaries are usually where we get the definitions to words. I don't live in the world of religion, I don't just make things up and pass them off as fact.

You are the only one talking out of your ass here. You offer nothing of value, and your lack of integrity and honesty shines through (just more evidence of the lack of moral character so often exemplified by the followers of religion, the damage caused to I'm sure who would otherwise be a very respectable person).

Quote

06-03-2013 , 01:58 PM

#35

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

So you can't find anything to refute the fact that christianity invented the need for saving from hell, and yet you strongly disagree with the fact. Typical religious non-thought (just more evidence of the harm caused by religion).

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Quote

06-03-2013 , 02:03 PM

#36

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

See, to people who are curious, this is a good example of anti-religion prejudice, where someone makes all sorts of unjustified assumptions and claims about a person's character and actions on the mere basis of their identification as religious.

Also, a dictionary can tell you how people use different words, but not what a religion is.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 02:45 PM

#37

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

lol wat?

So you can't find anything to refute the fact that christianity invented the need for saving from hell, and yet you strongly disagree with the fact.

Of course I can. I, however, wasn't making claims -- you were. So the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims, not me.

Spoiler:

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:14 PM

#38

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

Of course I can. I, however, wasn't making claims -- you were. So the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims, not me.

This isn't how this works. Only the person making poorly accepted theories needs to provide evidence, not the person making generic claims (otherwise no discourse would be possible as we would all need to make citations about how the sky is blue etc).

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:17 PM

#39

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Saying I am prejudiced against religion is fair and accurate; but don't tell me I'm unjustifiably so. I can make assumptions about the character of a member of a religion the same as I can make claims about a member of the Klan, or the Nazi party.

And no, those are not so different, one is simply more socially acceptable due to the longevity fallacy.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:21 PM

#40

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

This isn't how this works. Only the person making poorly accepted theories needs to provide evidence,

Then I'm even more surprised that you still haven't provided any substantiating evidence for your claim.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:23 PM

#41

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

Obv. the belief in a place like hell from which man needs salvation was not a christian invention. Judaism has the sheol as a kind of twilightish realm. Greek mythology knows the Hades. Many other religious systems of the same period have similar concepts. The belief, that you can be rescued from that is a late addition to judaism but is present well before christianity: 2 Makk 7 not only talks about resurrection of the righteous but also damnation and agony for the wicked. The idea of resurrection is present even earlier than 2Makk: Link

So Christianity didn't invent it, but developed an existing theologoumenon further.

Hades, and sheol are not the same thing as hell, sorry. (this is a pretty irrelevant tangent in any event).

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:29 PM

#42

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

I never claimed they were. I'm still missing the positive evidence you put forward to substantiate your position.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:34 PM

#43

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

Only the person making poorly accepted theories needs to provide evidence, not the person making generic claims (otherwise no discourse would be possible as we would all need to make citations about how the sky is blue etc).

Your logical fallacy is *STILL*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

Hades, and sheol are not the same thing as hell, sorry. (this is a pretty irrelevant tangent in any event).

Have you forgotten your initial claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by you

the entire concept of being saved is entirely invented by the christian religion in the first place. So christianity invents this imaginary need (to be saved from hell, or whatever) and then says that christianity is the only cure for the imagined malady it itself invented.

So if you are claiming that "Christianity invented the Christian concept hell" (and meaning that there was no previous doctrine that identically aligns with whatever it is you think the Christian concept of hell is*) I don't think there would be much of an objection. But to claim that the "ENTIRE concept of being saved is ENTIRELY invented by the Christian religion" then you still have much work to do.

* as if there's a singular "Christian" concept of hell...

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:35 PM

#44

Hector Cerif

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

I never claimed they were. I'm still missing the positive evidence you put forward to substantiate your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

Would saying Christianity invented Christianities specific brand of Hell (which is really much different and much worse than what you cited) work for you?

How about I concede that there are similar things to hell that existed pre-Christinity?

This conversation is really boring and pointless. Move on.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:38 PM

#45

RollWave

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 12,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

no, because it goes by scrabble rules. If the challenge is unsuccessful the challenger loses a turn.

or in a debate setting, every comment you make challenging an opponent's claim is a missed opportunity to present your own claim as well as providing the opponent an opportunity to to show you wrong by successfully defending a challenge. its folly to give an opponent free ammunition.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:39 PM

#46

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

This conversation is really boring and pointless.

This conversation is interesting because it reveals deep logical flaws in your understanding of discourse. The fact that you're backing out without actually addressing your error reflects a certain level of "non-thought."

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:40 PM

#47

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

You mean, conceding that you were, after all, talking out of your ass in your initial claim? Yes, that would work for me.

Quote:

This conversation is really boring and pointless. Move on.

That is what usually happens if you post crap and get called out on it. The fun stops very quickly and trying to sort through actual history reveals itself as surprisingly tedious.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 03:58 PM

#48

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollWave

Thanks for this analogy.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 04:12 PM

#49

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector Cerif

Yes, the problem is that your assumptions are unfounded.

However, what I was pointing more towards in your comment was the emotional loathing toward religion evident in your attitude and how it distorted your ability to think clearly about the topic. Going immediately to Godwin in your response is only more evidence of this distortion.

Quote

06-03-2013 , 06:25 PM

#50

BeaucoupFish

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

re: hell, for a moment I thought you were going to make the point that there is not much in the Bible to really make a strong claim that there is such a place - then I remembered you were Catholic!!

re: the third point, can you explain what you mean that Christianity and the Christian religion as not interchangeable?

Quote

Page 2 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last