What do you think of religion?

I strongly believe in spiritual signs that may come from above at times, like a force that wants to guide you in the right direction. It happened to me a lot of times and you know i think i've read somewhere on here that two times is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. Anyway, i understand that this topic is not about masturbation but i think there is something spiritual involved when you release semen too. Basically i think in India it is a common fact that when you do that, you release an immense amount of spiritual energy out of your body which is sort of detrimental. If you look at Christianity, masturbating is forbidden as well. I don't know about other religions but i suspect it's the same in every single major one and you know i think that is not without a reason.
If you don't even look at masturbating, there is always a major connection between religions, i think its just that the main theme in all of them is depicted differently (like the creation of the world, different gods, etc). But i believe that the commandments that they all possess have an equal meaning. Don't kill, don't steal, respect your parents, speak only truth and so on. It doesn't matter what religion you practice, those ''rules'' will be present in any of them. I believe that those are kind of the main rules of this life. However i myself am not indulged in any religion. I've just personally come to believe that we all come here for one purpose - to learn. All of the tough and the good times and the time that goes by shapes our soul and provides it with knowledge it needs. It's a never ending cycle where we ascend every time it repeats itself. Well at least this is all what i personally believe in.
I don't have a negative view on religions though. I think they help us shape our own views of the world and beliefs better. Blind worship is never good though, i wouldn't take everything that is said in the bible for example as a basis. It just helps me open my mind better, if i'd find the ideology of it really close to my own i most likely would follow it but sort of casually. Like if i said that i was christian, i would mean that my views come really close to the views of that religion. Of course there would be people who would use religion as a crowd control, zealots arguing that everything is only true according to what they believe in, but that does not mean that every religious person is that way and that anyone should come to a conclusion that religion is a bad thing. It's different for everyone. Again, this is just my opinion so i'd be grateful if no one judged me for it, haha.

 

My issues with who say there is no God is that that type of opinion is a double standard. Scientists use their tools to discover the mysteries of the physical universe. Saints, sages, boddhisattvas and others who have had direct experience of God use their tools to discover the mysteries of the spiritual universe. People who say there is no God make that statement without bothering to develop and use the psychological, mental and spiritual resources humans usually use to have direct evidence of God. Therefore their arguments are not valid because they haven't bothered to verify their hypothesis. That's like someone saying "Single-cell organisms do not exist" without bothering to look in a microscope.

 

I am going to be honest, your relative emotional claims are starting to annoy me. Even the pope says the church/religion built around the church isn't perfect. So the pope is wrong too, huh? Witchhunts and crusades are great right? Killing your 'religious enemy' is great yeah. Your ignorance and fanaticism are insanity.

 

Wat?!

 

I'm going to share a video. Discuss how you want. As I've said I view all religions equally and I cherish those who embrace true goodness and strive for world peace.

 

Great opinion I love it!

 

“...But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace.”
― Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force

 

NOW THIS is a Bible discussion worth sharing:

 

I admire your logic.

 

This is just screaming Born of Osiris.

 

'There is but one religion, the religion of Truth.' - James Allen

 

I did not nullify anything that I said. Hiraeth asked, "What if that religion wasn't made by god but man-made?" Perhaps I'm wrong, but I take that to be a question about our beliefs. Thus, I explained those beliefs, and why we hold them. Again, this is not an argument about God's existence. It's a discussion of religion, and I am explaining ours.

In the secular scientific community, any secular explanation for such a tendency may be accepted. There are plenty of modern thinkers who do have the scientific method at their disposal and do have such fundamental understandings of the physical sciences and yet are religious. I suppose they are just generally curious... Those sciences can discover the wonders of life, and we are glad for such discoveries. However, the physical sciences are just that: physical. They cannot explain the reason for life. They certainly cannot explain the existence of the universe itself. Let science not presume to cross the boundary into religious territory, and vice versa. As for the adoption of dates, to what celebrations do you refer? The culture of the birth of Christianity was certainly not in power in Europe. In fact, Christianity was persecuted in the Roman Empire until the year 313, when Constantine made it a lawful religion.

Whoa, whoa... The Catholic Church has never sought to debase rulers. As for the Japanese Emperor, his claim to personal divinity would be refuted by Catholic teaching, but not his right to rule. Also, you write about "promises of never ending heaven," and "nearly guaranteed forgiveness," (not sure why you put it that way) but you don't mention our strict moral code and obligations. Surely those things are not negligible when discussing the success of Catholic missionaries.

By challenging the historical veracity of the writings of St. John, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, and St. Paul, you open up a huge can of worms. Let me cite two sets of questions and answers already given on this topic:

"100. Must I believe the miracles recorded in the Gospels? Believe a thing which cannot be substantiated in order to be saved?"

Spoiler: Answer

"You are not asked to believe anything which cannot be substantiated in order to be saved. By what rule of evidence, then, can the miracles of the Gospel be substantiated? By sworn affidavit, or in other words, by written declaration on oath. If, in a modern court, I offered documentary evidence given by my friend Jones, the court would wish to be satisfied concerning five things. (1) Did Jones write this statement, or is it a forgery? (2) Is it just as Jones wrote it, or has it been altered or tampered with by interested parties? (3) Did Jones have reliable knowledge, or could he have been misinformed? (4) Granted his knowledge, was he telling the truth or lying? (5) Does he make this statement under oath before God? Now when I offer the Gospels as documentary evidence I am prepared to prove that the assigned authors wrote the books, that the books have not been tampered with, that the writers had first-hand knowledge, that they did not lie, and that they gave their testimony under oath before God."

"103. Will you prove the reliability of the Gospels according to the five requirements outlined by yourself to a previous inquirer?"

Spoiler: Answer

"By all means, although I cannot go very deeply into the matter in the brief time at my disposal. However I shall do my best to give the main elements.

Firstly, the authors assigned wrote the books attributed to them. A knowledge of Hebrew shows that the authors were certainly Jews. Historical and political references show that they were Jews of the first century, for Palestine is shown under conditions before and not after the Fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. Also had they been written after that date, the writers would not have omitted to make the point that Christ's prophecy had been fulfilled. They do not mention it. All the descriptions, also, are so vivid that they could only have been written by eye-witnesses. And in addition to this internal evidence, we have solid external evidence. Thus Papias, who was the disciple of St. John the Apostle, and who certainly lived in the first century, has left it in writing that one named Matthew first wrote in Hebrew, and that one named Mark wrote what he had heard of Peter. Papias could not have written this had not these two Evangelists already written their Gospels. The Muratorian Fragment, dating from at least the year 170, tells us that the third Gospel was written by Luke; the fourth by John. And there is no evidence at all to the contrary. We have not as much evidence for the authorship of many classical books, of which no one doubts. Also the Apostles and immediate disciples would not have allowed forgeries to be palmed off as genuine. Heretics and pagans would have found their strongest argument in showing the basic documents to be falsely attributed to immediate disciples of Christ. And all regions accepted these four Gospels. If they were not genuine, and one region began the fraud, the rest would have risen up in violent protest. No critic of any value denies the fourfold authorship to-day.

Secondly, the Gospels have never been tampered with or substantially altered. The Gospels had been multiplied by copyists and were quite familiar to the early Christians. Not all could be falsified simultaneously, and changes could easily be detected by comparison. And the early Christians were most vigilant, holding the Gospels in great veneration. Marcion the heretic fabricated a Gospel in the year 110 to suit his heresy, and there was a universal protest at once. All existing manuscripts, back as far as the fourth century, quote the Gospels as they are now. No substantial alterations can have occurred since the fourth century, and they were far less likely to occur during the times nearer to the Apostles. Sincere critics to-day admit the substantial integrity of the Gospels, and those opposed to Christianity concentrate upon other lines of attack.

Thirdly, the Evangelists were reliably informed. Rationalists take refuge in the thought that they were sincere, but laboring under some strange delusion or hallucination. They have no evidence to support the contention, but stake all on a preconceived improbability. They practically say, 'We do not see how such things could happen, therefore it's no use telling us that they did happen.' This is prejudice. A few years ago men said, 'A man could not speak to Australia from England by telephone, and therefore we do not believe that he ever will.' The fact has disproved them. A man with a theory can see almost anything, provided it supports his theory, and be blind to the most evident facts if they seem to upset his theory. Rationalists do not like the Gospel facts, and therefore deny them. Forced to admit authorship, integrity, and sincerity, they say, 'The writers must have been the victims of some hallucination.' But if you wish to deny a man's right to the property next door, you must prove something, if only that his title-deeds are false. But it is no use saying, 'I do not like the man!' Meantime, all the evidence is against the position of these Rationalists. They have to admit exactness as regards geographical, political, and religious conditions of Palestine. Why should they be less accurate when they describe the sayings and doings of Christ? They are perfectly sane in all their other statements. And are all four to have the same hallucination, and all their lives? There is no trace of fanaticism in their sober accounts; Christ had to accuse them of being 'slow to believe'; enemies then and there could not deny the miracles, and must have been suffering from the same hallucination; and the Jews never attempted to deny the facts. The Evangelists were quite reliably informed.

Fourthly, they were sincere. They not only knew the facts, but they told the truth. They gained martyrdom in this life, and on their own principles, stood to gain only hell in the next, if they were lying in so important a matter. If they intended to lie, they could have painted themselves as heroes, instead of depicting their own faults; and above all should not have described a mocked, humiliated, and crucified Master in order to win the veneration of men. On the Jewish material at their disposal they could not have invented the type represented by Christ as the Messiah, and if they did want to invent, might just as well have painted the portrait of a far more glorious Leader from a worldly point of view. No thinker to-day brings the old charge that the Evangelists lied. Finally, that the statements were made under oath before God is abundantly clear. The writers call upon God to witness to the truth of what they write. St. John says, 'I testify to everyone that heareth these words'; 'He that saw it hath given testimony, and his testimony is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that you also may believe.' St. Paul, also: 'I speak the truth. I lie not—my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.' No modern law-court would reject evidence as clearly given as that for the events and utterances attributed to Christ."

[Source: Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty. Radio Replies. Vol. 1, St. Paul, MN, Radio Replies Press Society, 1938. (Note that transcriptions of the material in this book and others in the same series can be viewed on the following website: www.radioreplies.info)]

The very existence of the universe and of the living creatures contained in it is objective evidence. However, we are not here to argue on the existence of God. If we were, it would be relevant to cite the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. But we are talking about religion. We do not claim that the continued existence of the Catholic Church proves the truth of its teachings. Such a claim would be absurd, and by the same logic, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, et cetera would all have to be the true religion as well, which cannot be the case. Please don't misrepresent my arguments. I argue that the fact that the Catholic Church has thrived even while beset at all sides by its enemies throughout history supports the promise of Jesus to be with it and preserve it until the end of time.

While the doctrines of protestant churches often change, I maintain that the doctrine of the Catholic Church has never changed, and it never will. Do not confuse doctrine with discipline. Church history only supports that claim. As for sins, they have never been "payed away" through monetary means. This is a common misconception. You are referring to indulgences. An indulgence is not a remittal of sin. Sins are forgiven through the sacrament of Confession. An indulgence is a remittal of the debt incurred when sins are committed. By Analogy, if one offends one's friend, one can say sorry and receive forgiveness. However, one must still make it up to the friend by doing something nice for him. The Church teaches that if one dies in the state of grace (meriting heaven) but with an outstanding debt, that debt must be payed off in purgatory before one can enter heaven. Indulgences are for the remission of that debt. In the time of Martin Luther, there were abuses by some members of the church, who presumed to "sell" indulgences for money. This was never sanctioned by the church, and was eventually specifically prohibited during the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.

The councils that you mention, (such as the Council of Trent), never alter doctrine. They clarify and officially define (or as you say, declare canon) doctrine that has existed since the time of the apostles. As for heresy, if baptized individuals persist in teaching their own religious doctrine as truth even after the Catholic Church has declared it not to be so, that is heresy.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that because you don't believe in God, there is no point in arguing against his existence, because you must at least acknowledge his conceptual existence? I deny that I have 'won in my mind' because you acknowledge a conceptual existence of the God that I hold to actually exist.

My belief in the true religion has certainly not prevented me from doing any such thing. There are many good things contained in the teachings of various religions. Don't forget that as Catholics, we must observe the teaching, "love thy neighbor." While we disapprove of false religion for obvious reasons, we hold non-Catholics with great respect.

The fact that Catholicism succeeded is pretty amazing, all things considered, when viewed solely through a historical lens. For a faithful Catholic, however, it is not amazing at all, but it is miraculous. Also, do not tell me what arguments I should or should not make. If I make a weak argument, you should rejoice, since it would be easy for you to refute. Nevertheless, I did not "try to establish the existence of God or the divinity of Christ through the success of the Catholic Church." Rather, I said that its success supports the truth of the promise of Christ to preserve his church.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in Catholic morals and values. Sadly, many people out there would claim to hold such morals, yet ignore certain ones that are especially inconvenient to them. Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that you do that, but there are certainly folks out there who claim to observe Christian morals, yet do so only selectively.

As for evidence of divinity and miracles, there is plenty. There is a difference, however, between evidence and proof. Now the evidence you cite about Moses undergoing a hallucination is little more than speculation, and yet you claim that such evidence "debunks" the miracles that are documented in the bible? Again, there is a difference between evidence and proof. Finally, what do you mean by God "directly interacting with the world"? In a certain sense, God did not directly interact with the world since long before the scientific method became reliable. If you are referring to miracles, I deny that they have "stopped." Consider the Miracle of the Sun in Portugal in 1917 or the stigmata of Padre Pio, for example. As for historical record-keeping, I deny that the new testament is unreliable. See the second question-answer quote that I included above.


Thanks for the reply. I may have to throttle back on participating in this thread, as it is eating up too much of my time.

 

I appreciate your response, and will withhold any further replies to you here also I'm glad that you believe God is the reason for the existence of the universe. Despite our difference in spiritual belief, I appreciate that there are folks like you out there.

 

The Warriors blew a 3-1 lead.

 

Unique random video I found:

 

Your gratitude is existentially contagious my good sir.

 

Wut?