What do you think of religion?

Of what? What is proof to you?

 

So you don't have proof.

Non believers don't have proof of our ideas either, but we don't outright disbelieve the opposite opinions.

I'm only saying this because so far you've been constantly opposing other people's views.
No offence. Just an observation.
You can still be open minded without losing sight of belief. If that's what you are worried about.

 

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with belief or non-belief. It has to do with common sense that not everything which is influcend by man automatically has errors in it.

 

So you are saying that mans continuation of religious belief is flawless?
Never been overexaggerated or adapted to sound more believable?
Where's proof.

 

Nope, that's not what I said at all. Maybe you should step back from your extreme either or mentality.

 

Interesting.
Well I won't get anywhere with you it seems.
You change your stance when approached with a question and you are very fixed on your opinions when opposed with a counter idea.

All I'll say is don't be too close minded. You can still believe in your beliefs and respect others'

 

Cultural myths usually have moral and creation stories attached to them. The cultures that won out in the global race propagated their own. Makes sense and is kind of comforting that the winning cultures have religions based around respect, love, and all that.

There is literally no point in arguing whether God exists or not. The subject, the context of the argument, and the positions that were already taken by the arguers make the whole thing a mess. Nobody is going to budge, which makes sense since they are 99% of the time not in it to be swayed. The argument revolves around a what-if and an absence of evidence. Why argue?

There are people that believe in SCIENTOLOGY. There are literally people who flip through the 'space opera' and decide, "Hey! This is totally reasonable and possible!" I would rather meet a Christian than a Scientologist. A Christian honestly seems more grounded in reality.

 

Precisely this is why I neither believe nor disbelieve.

 

Where's your proof?

How have I changed my stance? I think you play the victim really quickly when presented with a counter argument. Furthermore I do not have to be tolerant of other views when those views are contrary to common sense. It would be uncharitable to treat 2+2=5 as being equally valid as 2+2=4 simply for the sake of "respecting" someone else's belief.

I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

Cult followings for a start, they are the extemes of religion, twisted the original meaning and made it even more hypnotic, often bad. Human influence.

There's proof.

Can you simply agree to disagree?
I have, hence why I don't believe or disbelieve.

Answering questions with questions doesn't go anywhere.

Saying things like "do not have to be tolerant of other views", just means close minded.
Please stop trying to press your point as the truth.
Be open to ideas.

Plus the thread is titled "what do you think of religion".

Not

"Religion is truth or religion isn't truth"

It's an open discussion where we must all respect each others opinions and not argue, but discuss.
Discussion is not one sided, you listen and you add. Never force opinion.

So let's just agree to disagree.

 

This is like saying the first three players in a game of telephone won't mess it up but there's a pretty good chance it'll be a silly message by the time it gets around to the end.

 

Ugh. Seriously you've taken something I've said out of context, so let's take a step back and review shall we?!

The generalization made here is that if something is influenced by humans then it automatically has errors.

My response is that is incorrect since there are plenty of things influenced by humans which do not have errors. Note I didn't say everything humans influence is infallible.

Then you come in asking for proof, because you incorrectly assume I'm saying all religion is free from human error.

Lastly, I personally don't care if you think I'm closed minded. If being open minded means treating error and truth as being equally valid, then I will gladly be closed minded.

 

Nice analogy even if I failed to catch up with the context of it.

 

You couldn't even agree to disagree.
Yet more forcing your opinion as truth.

Goodbye.

 

Well I am a Christian so yeah... I do have problems with other religions especially Islam but I don't really want to get into it here. I don't think here is the place to argue or debate.

 

This. Is so on point.
Morals point to God. A set of values held to be right can only come from someone perfect like God.
Evolved animals can't create their own morals.

 

To which religion are you referring? I maintain that we were created with the natural tendency to worship our creator. In lieu of a religion given by God, men have formed their own religions. Every culture that has ever existed has held some religion. So obviously a great many religions are man-made.

To answer your question I further maintain that God has revealed divine truths and given us the true religion. So your question, I assume, is about why we have such a conviction that our own religion is the true one given by God himself. I admit it is a bold claim, but it is not without justification.

Here are a couple of the reasons why we hold the Catholic Church to be that religion:

• Jesus Christ is a historical person. His life is documented by the four evangelists in the New Testament of the Bible, the historical veracity of which there is no reason to doubt. He claimed to be the son of God, sent by God in order to fulfill the Judaic prophesy of a redeemer. He justified that claim throughout his life by showing his command over the laws of nature, working numerous miracles, and teaching holiness through word and example. He taught the Christian faith and established the Catholic Church. Furthermore, he promised that he would be with his church until the end of the world, preserving it from error and destruction.
• The Catholic Church has existed ever since that time, having succeeded the old Judaic religion. The line of popes can be traced all the way back to St. Peter. The church has never changed any of its doctrine, preserving it all intact since the time of the original twelve apostles. Missionaries of the church have brought it to every corner of the globe. The church has not just survived, but thrived, through nearly two millennia of heresy, hatred, and persecution all throughout the world. This fact supports the promise of Jesus to preserve his universal church.
• Morally speaking, the teaching of the church, when followed, inspires people to be the best they can be. Part of the reason the church is hated so much by the world is that it teaches absolute moral truth. The more corrupted by vice a person is, the more he resents seeing virtuous people. Now the world at large is corrupted by vice on a massive scale. Thus, the world abhors and fears the Catholic Church, which makes no compromise on matters of morality.

Finally, to answer your question from a different angle, our religion is indeed man-made. It was established by Christ. He is a man. He is also God. Therefore it is both made by God and by man. Pretty neat, huh?

We are not arguing about whether or not God exists. We are having a reasonable and peaceful discussion about religion, as the thread's title would suggest. Personally, I am answering questions, clearing up misconceptions, etc. I think we all appreciate the opportunity to discuss this subject in a forum where we all share in common a serious problem in our lives. Because of this 'bond,' if you will, we can expect that there will be no nasty words and that everyone here will be respectful, even on a topic which would often lead to hostility.

Did you know that 63% of all percentages are made up on the spot? Anyhow, I myself did not come into this thread expecting to sway anyone per se. Rather I am here to give my input on the topic and to practice apologetics. As for the non-believers, they are participating in the discussion as well. No one is forcing them to do so. We appreciate everyone's input.

Also, our arguments involve the use of reason. You wouldn't discount that, would you? We have certain evidence as well. Historical evidence, for example.

People may be ignorant or prejudiced against the true religion, but they still have a natural religious tendency. Thus, they will find a substitute in lieu of the real thing.

We're flattered.

If you are referring to the intact preservation of religious teaching, then God would have to ensure that it is preserved without error. In fact, that is exactly what we hold to be the case. (See my reply to Hiraeth at the top of this post.)

 

P, your reply to Hiraeth totally nullified what you said about whether or not you're arguing for the existence of God. You are indeed arguing for the existence of an Abrahamic God if you are arguing for the divinity of the source of Christianity. I also enjoyed your play on words with the 'man-made but by God' explanation. I'll expound on Hiraeth's question.

Let me bring into play your stated "natural religious tendency." What you are calling natural religious tendency is becoming more and more accepted as general curiosity in the scientific community. It's not difficult to accept that early thinkers who did not have a scientific method and fundamental understandings of biology, chemistry, or physics would resort to supernatural explanations when attempting to decipher the wonders of life. Every single continent in the world had creation myths. Let us not forget that Christianity adopted many dates from earlier religions for their own celebrations. As I've said earlier in the thread, religions born in that fashion were attached to the culture of their creation. Christianity has enjoyed the benefit of being the religion of choice for Europeans and their subsequent expansion outwards during their imperial years.

It is not so difficult to see how the Church thrived following its adoption as the religion of Europe's imperial powers. Like leaders of other cultures who often declared themselves their god's 'chosen one', European leaders also lived with the belief that they had divine right to rule. As such, it was a very effective move to introduce Christianity, what with its promises of never ending heaven and nearly guaranteed forgiveness, to debase rulers of other cultures. Japan would not have cared so much about missionaries if they were not carrying the message that the Abrahamic God was the one true God, thereby refuting the divine right of the Japanese Emperor.

The historical veracity of the New Testament can definitely be challenged, as the only events agreed upon and confirmed by secular sources are the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist and the execution of Jesus Christ by Pontius Pilate. I don't mean to compare apples to oranges here, but I want to point out that there are definitely churches around the world where pastors are still driving out demons and causing tremendous physical and psychological reactions from their followers. The effects of being in a biased crowd and worked into abnormal behavior by crowd mentality are well documented by sociologists and psychologists alike, and it is not far-reaching to think that people who were completely uneducated in modern sciences and therefore had no mental guard against believing in the supernatural would have been much more easily influenced to experience such events, for better or for worse. I once had a psych professor share the story of a woman who regained her sight following a divorce after going blind over the course of a stressful marriage. He chalked it up to psychosomaticism. A Christian could call it a miracle.

It is difficult to agree with the sort of reasoning that supports itself without true objective evidence. You may say A(God) + B(God's son) = C(Catholic Church), but I will say that there is no proof of God's existence, and Jesus may possibly not have been divine. Does C (The Catholic Church) still exist? Yes it does. However, A (God, or his existence) does not have to exist because C exists, and B (Jesus) still may very well have not been divine. As I have said before, the argument revolves around a what-if and an absence of evidence. This is specifically for the Christian side because they are arguing for the object that is lacking evidence, not against. This is because arguing for the existence of God with the current amount of evidence is impossible. Correlation is not causation. You can say that God showed Constantine the true way, I can say that barbarians were simple folk who believed in strange and mysterious powers behind symbols, and were thrown amuck by Roman confidence in a symbol that had never been seen painted on Roman shields by the barbarians in battle before. Arguing for the historical existence of Jesus or the Church is not the same thing as arguing for the divinity of Jesus for that very reason.

Christianity and its doctrine have definitely changed over the years. There is a lot of historical evidence for that. Do not forget that there were times when sins could be paid away by making donations to the Church. Or to make it about less disconcerting and negative matters, I can bring up that there were councils throughout history held to determine what was canon and not as the philosophical and spiritual analysis of Catholicism grew over time. This was also the cause for the breaking off of many branches of Christianity. It was not so much developed heresy as it was philosophical and religious exploration being declared non-canon by the Catholic church during one of their councils. Much like the universe of Star Wars.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. However, in this case, it makes this argument absolutely pointless because the person who is arguing against the object which has no evidence to its existence must first acknowledge the object before being able to argue against it. The acknowledgement creates a sort of existence for something that the mentioned person does not regard as existing in the first place. The person arguing for the object's existence will already have won in their mind. The truth is that the former is really arguing for the fact that there is no solid evidence of divinity or an almighty creator, aka reliable historical evidence, while the latter is relying on their own subjective beliefs as the evidence.

I hope your beliefs in the 'true religion' have not prevented you from opening books of another. There are teachings about compassion, humility, and respect across many religions in the world. The fact that Catholicism succeeded is not so miraculous or magical when viewed through a historical lens, given the population distribution of the world and the history of how it was achieved. Do not try to establish the existence of God or the divinity of Christ through the success of the Catholic Church.

I went to a Jesuit school starting from kindergarten, and moved on to a Marianist high school before I went to college. This is by no means an attack on the morals and values taught by the Church, as I am a firm believer in them, but a friendly reminder that there is no real evidence of divinity or miracles. Funny evidence turns up every now and again that further debunks the miracles that happen in the bible. There was one from a while back where it was discovered that the kind of bush Moses was talking to was has hallucinogenic effects when burned. It is convenient that God simply stopped directly interacting with the world once civilization hit a stage where historical record-keeping and scientific method became very reliable.

 

Religion? I do my best to stay as far away from it as possible. It creates way too many barriers between man and God.

But instead of trying to defend my worldview online, I'd rather live it. I've been saved by grace alone and for that I'm too blessed to be stressed.