Do you have a religion? Introduce me to it!

[confused453]

I am not sure where I stand on some of those-

So you just pick and choose what you like from the bible to believe in? And ignore the stuff that you don't like?

 

[Sir Doom]

So you just pick and choose what you like from the bible to believe in? And ignore the stuff that you don't like?

Don't we all?

 

[ChristineES]

So you just pick and choose what you like from the bible to believe in? And ignore the stuff that you don't like?

Didn't you just do that? I wrote an entire novel with that post and you picked one line out of context and wrote something I didn't say? I have answered that question before a lot of times, and I don't have time to write again except for one word: NO I DO NOT! Edit: Whoops, that was 4 words.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you just pick and choose what you like from the bible to believe in? And ignore the stuff that you don't like?

Well, that's how the Bible was canonized, so...

 

[ChristineES]

Well, that's how the Bible was canonized, so...

Kind of. The Bible is not one book, but 66 (if you don't count the Apocrypha) books. I have read a lot of the ones not used in the canonized Bible, as well- like the Gnostic Gospels, the infancy Gospels, etc. I have a whole volume of them. It even contains the book of Enoch.

 

[Leyora]

Funny you seem to flip back and forth between answering my question and being confused about my answer to your question. Or did you forget that you asked me a question to start? It seems like you have so I'll go ahead and show you.

You're obviously not able to keep track of your own conversation, either that or you're dense. Until you get back on track and stop pretending to be ignorant of what I'm asking you, I won't be replying to or following to your posts.

Unless you propose we start over? Which would also be an interesting solution, but you can't seem to answer simple questions without being a jerk about it I'm afraid. :/

You stated this:

Have you found a better option? I'm interested in better options.

I must remind you, that giving the definition of the word better, which you've done multiple times... Isn't helpful. I know what the word means. I'm asking what you mean by it, and if you clearly can't figure this out, then there's no sense in talking with you. I even simplified my question by creating a scenario that most rational people could understand. You giving me the definition of better, something I already know is redundant and pointless. I'm asking you to give me an example of what you mean by it. I gave you the example of you eating a salad, and asking for "A better option," because you said "you were interested in better options." I present to you pasta, rocks, and soup. Is pasta BETTER for you? If you don't like pasta, it clearly is not. Is a bowl of rocks a BETTER option? Clearly, I'm quite sure you can't devour rocks. Is a bowl of chicken soup a BETTER option? If you're allergic, it's clearly not. So, even though I personally think that these are BETTER options... they're not to you, because you haven't explained to me what you MEAN by better.

And just to add one more example just in case the salad scenario confuses you even more. Say you're going in for a haircut, you say, "I want something better than this!" I then shave off all your hair. You don't like it. You turn around, look at me, and say, "This is not what I meant by better." I then tell you, "No, it's better. Here's the definition of better" and point at a page in the dictionary. I tell you, "You should learn what the word better means." This would annoy you because the barber is being retarded and doesn't understand that all your hair missing is not better.

That is basically what you're doing.

If you simply can't follow simple, plain, logic, then I'm done with you. Either answer the question of what you mean by better, (not the definition) or don't even bother.

I can't follow along if you can't comprehend this. Start from there, nowhere else. If you wish to discuss something else you've said, we can after. Right now, I'm asking you one very simple question.

To Kerravon and everyone else so far, I'll get to you later. Be patient! Thanks for replying so far, you've all been great! <3

 

[Sir Doom]

Oh alright, since you've gotten to the taking-my-ball-and-going-home stage. I'll go ahead and make a final post that sums it up for you since you are too stubborn to see where you messed this all up. Then I'll let you get back to flexing your brain in the mirror.

When I said, "Do you have any better options? I'm interested in better options."

I knew that there weren't any better options. It was rhetorical. There are only two options. God(s) or no god(s).

When I said, "I believe in god(s) because I have yet to find a better option." I phrased it this way because I knew you would take it to mean that I had examined lots of options. But I left 'god(s)' as a variable. Since I made no effort to provide value to the variable, it becomes a question of the variable being present or not being present. Yes or no. God(s) or no god(s).

Do you know why you couldn't come up with a mysterious third option? Because there isn't one. You illustrated it perfectly. WOOOOSH! right over your own head. How did you let that happen? I have yet to find a better option than god(s) because the only other option is no god(s) and that isn't better.

Now, if I had said, "I believe in Jesus because I have yet to find a better option." then your salad analogy would be spot on. You could have said, "Why not Krishna? Why not Thor? Why not Set? Why not Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pasta Lama Laikum)? But that isn't what I said. I just said god(s). So your salad analogy is bunk on its face. There aren't infinite options. There are only god(s) or no god(s). An option with potential benefit and an option with nothing at all.

Everything else that's been rubbing you wrong is me taking your questions literally and giving you literal answers to them. You couldn't take what I said the way it was said. You had to inject your preconceived notions about believers into my statement. You didn't take what I said literally, so I took everything you said literally. When you ask, "What do you mean by 'better'?" I answer with the definition of better because it satisfies the literal question. See how that works? All you had to do was rephrase. But you couldn't do that, that would be admitting that you made a mistake. Can't have that, can we? No, no. Better to harp on 'better', right? cwutididthar?

So, in conclusion, I will answer the question you should have been asking the entire time (but never actually did):

Why is a universe with god(s) better than a universe without them? Because an open-ended variable with limitless potential benefit trumps zero in every case. Will any further clarity be required?

 

[Jacksnyte]

:guitar1:unk::drums:

Oh alright, since you've gotten to the taking-my-ball-and-going-home stage. I'll go ahead and make a final post that sums it up for you since you are too stubborn to see where you messed this all up. Then I'll let you get back to flexing your brain in the mirror.

When I said, "Do you have any better options? I'm interested in better options."

I knew that there weren't any better options. It was rhetorical. There are only two options. God(s) or no god(s).

When I said, "I believe in god(s) because I have yet to find a better option." I phrased it this way because I knew you would take it to mean that I had examined lots of options. But I left 'god(s)' as a variable. Since I made no effort to provide value to the variable, it becomes a question of the variable being present or not being present. Yes or no. God(s) or no god(s).

Do you know why you couldn't come up with a mysterious third option? Because there isn't one. You illustrated it perfectly. WOOOOSH! right over your own head. How did you let that happen? I have yet to find a better option than god(s) because the only other option is no god(s) and that isn't better.

Now, if I had said, "I believe in Jesus because I have yet to find a better option." then your salad analogy would be spot on. You could have said, "Why not Krishna? Why not Thor? Why not Set? Why not Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pasta Lama Laikum)? But that isn't what I said. I just said god(s). So your salad analogy is bunk on its face. There aren't infinite options. There are only god(s) or no god(s). An option with potential benefit and an option with nothing at all.

Everything else that's been rubbing you wrong is me taking your questions literally and giving you literal answers to them. You couldn't take what I said the way it was said. You had to inject your preconceived notions about believers into my statement. You didn't take what I said literally, so I took everything you said literally. When you ask, "What do you mean by 'better'?" I answer with the definition of better because it satisfies the literal question. See how that works? All you had to do was rephrase. But you couldn't do that, that would be admitting that you made a mistake. Can't have that, can we? No, no. Better to harp on 'better', right? cwutididthar?

So, in conclusion, I will answer the question you should have been asking the entire time (but never actually did):

Why is a universe with god(s) better than a universe without them? Because an open-ended variable with limitless potential benefit trumps zero in every case. Will any further clarity be required?

Oooooh! git 'im!

 

[BruceDLimber]

Thanks Bruce; you forgot to answer the "why" you believe in this faith. It's a very easy and automatic reply for most people to be able to tell what their faith is and what they believe in, but not many people are faced with the question of "why."

The short answer?

Great good fortune!

Voices, feelings, or just instant knowledge? Also, do you know where this telepathic communication is coming from? The "entity" from "above"?.

The more detailed answer?

I heard no "voices,' had no "telepathic conversation," began with no feelings whatever, and definitely didn't have "instant knowledge!"

This is all the direct result of exstensive reading, prayer, investigation, study, research, and observation.

Since coupled with going on 41 years as a Baha'i during which I have NOT ONCE found any reason to regret this decision!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Jainarayan]

Hello!

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why. This meaning that I'm curious about what your theistic views are that you believe, and for what reasons you believe in them.

1. I believe in one God, Brahman, who is immanent and transcendant in the universe(s).
2. I believe Brahman manifests in many forms, viz. the deities of the Hindu pantheon: Kali, Ganesha, Durga, Saraswati, Lakshmi, et. al. with Their special powers and duties.
3. I believe Sri Krishna/Vishnu is the manifest Brahman, from Whom all other manifestations emanate. I believe Lord Shiva is the complementary manifestion of Brahman with Lord Vishnu.
4. Vishnu in turn incarnated many times in order to restore order and righteousness on Earth when it faltered. One of these incarnations was the earthly and manifest form of Sri Krishna, who spoke the Bhagavad Gita.
5. Previous to Sri Krishna's appearance was the incarnation (avatara) Lord Rama.
6. Lord Krishna and Lord Rama both ruled over kingdoms in peace and prosperity.
7. I believe we are re-born innumerable times per our karma, hopeful of gaining moksha, liberation from the cycle of re-birth and becoming one with God.

As to the 'why' of my beliefs, because it feels right. I can't give any reason other than that.

 

[waitasec]

I've never heard that before.

2 cor 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[ChristineES]

2 cor 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Oh, Paul's writings. (Or someone writing in Paul's name).

 

[Vadergirl123]

2 cor 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Read the context of the verse, it's not saying sinners can't recognze sin.
It's talking about how people will depend on their own minds, and won't look to the gospel.

 

[Leyora]

Oh alright, since you've gotten to the taking-my-ball-and-going-home stage. I'll go ahead and make a final post that sums it up for you since you are too stubborn to see where you messed this all up.

I messed nothing up. You were talking about something completely different.

When I said, "Do you have any better options? I'm interested in better options."

I knew that there weren't any better options. It was rhetorical. There are only two options. God(s) or no god(s).

Actually there's an infinite number of other options. If your question was rhetorical, you should have pointed that out and we could have saved a lot of time. Don't ask me if I can think of a better option if you're not serious.

When I said, "I believe in god(s) because I have yet to find a better option." I phrased it this way because I knew you would take it to mean that I had examined lots of options. But I left 'god(s)' as a variable. Since I made no effort to provide value to the variable, it becomes a question of the variable being present or not being present. Yes or no. God(s) or no god(s).

I never figured you had ever examined any options, since your mind is so binary. That's why I thought you were serious when you wanted a "better" option.

Do you know why you couldn't come up with a mysterious third option? Because there isn't one.

Yes there are.

You illustrated it perfectly. WOOOOSH! right over your own head. How did you let that happen? I have yet to find a better option than god(s) because the only other option is no god(s) and that isn't better.

Why isn't it better?

Actually... why does it matter what's "better?" Why aren't you focusing on what's true? Sure, you can make up all the gods you want, but that doesn't make it true. The better option is to except reality as it is.

Now, if I had said, "I believe in Jesus because I have yet to find a better option." then your salad analogy would be spot on. You could have said, "Why not Krishna? Why not Thor? Why not Set? Why not Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pasta Lama Laikum)? But that isn't what I said. I just said god(s). So your salad analogy is bunk on its face. There aren't infinite options. There are only god(s) or no god(s). An option with potential benefit and an option with nothing at all.

If you're mind is set on there just being gods, or no gods. Then sure... However, those aren't the only available possibilities on existence. Now in the case of "Are there gods or no gods?" it is a 2 choice question, yes. However, the question of "gods existing" are not the only answer to explain existence.

Everything else that's been rubbing you wrong is me taking your questions literally and giving you literal answers to them. You couldn't take what I said the way it was said. You had to inject your preconceived notions about believers into my statement.

I have no preconceived notions. That's why I created this thread, and the reason why I asked you to explain what you believe, and why. You told me you believe in gods because the only other option is no gods, and you don't like that. I told you this made no sense and I'm trying to understand why you would think that is a valid reason to believe in something. Your reply to this is, "Can you give me better options?" and that's where we got sidetracked.

You didn't take what I said literally, so I took everything you said literally. When you ask, "What do you mean by 'better'?" I answer with the definition of better because it satisfies the literal question. See how that works? All you had to do was rephrase. But you couldn't do that, that would be admitting that you made a mistake. Can't have that, can we? No, no. Better to harp on 'better', right? cwutididthar?

I've admitted I was wrong on several occasions in this thread. More specifically as an example, to "Rocky S."

I ask literal questions because I mean what I say. Why would I ask you something if I wasn't serious about asking you it?

Also, I did rephrase my request to you to help me understand what you meant by "better," several times, in fact. You just repeated the same thing.

So, in conclusion, I will answer the question you should have been asking the entire time (but never actually did):

Why is a universe with god(s) better than a universe without them? Because an open-ended variable with limitless potential benefit trumps zero in every case. Will any further clarity be required?

Why would I ask that question? I would never ask that question because that's not what I received from your answers. Now, if you'd like... and if you can actually follow along, and assuming you're not asking another rhetorical question and then dance around the subject without actually responding to anything... I'll answer this.

Why is a universe with god(s) better than a universe without them?

I personally haven't stated that I think it's better, or worse. If you want my personal opinion, a universe with an all powerful entity known as "god" would be better... but only under certain circumstances. It would depend what deity existed. An all loving, amazing deity who knows all, and makes sure we're okay? The one who gave us existence simply so we could experience existence? Sure. The current gods depicted in current religions? No, never. That would be far worse and I'd prefer a world, in that case, with no gods. I'd rather have no gods exist than selfish angry gods.

However...

Because an open-ended variable with limitless potential benefit trumps zero in every case. Will any further clarity be required?

...That is not reality. WANTING things to exist, and them actually existing, are two different things.

I asked you what you believed in, and you say "a world with god(s)."
I asked you why, and you said, "Because it's better than a world without god(s)."

And this is where the debate and trouble started. Because, I'm not understanding your reason for "why." Just because something is better doesn't mean it actually exists... And just because you WANT it to, or like the idea, doesn't mean it's true.

So, when you said that you choose to believe in a world with god(s) because it's better... To me, from my point of view... It sounds like you're making stuff up.

A world without disease, hunger, rape, death, and famine, would be a better world, wouldn't it? That would be the better option than a world WITH disease, hunger, rape, death, and famine.

So... does this mean because I believe that world without such horrors exists... It exists?

Clearly not, that's not how things work... So why would I accept your answer of "a world with god(s) is better" to be an acceptable answer, when it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Leyora]

:guitar1:unk::drums:

Oooooh! git 'im!

In the end, the cat clearly sided with me... and defended me from the 2 dogs...

Because cats are smart. =P

(I also did a double-take because that cat briefly looked like my cat. <3)

 

[Katzpur]

Hello!

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why. This meaning that I'm curious about what your theistic views are that you believe, and for what reasons you believe in them. I'd prefer you don't link me a Google or Wikipedia page if you can avoid it. I'd like to get personal accounts.

As I'll most likely have questions and I'm opening this to all religions, I've posted this in the "Debate" forum.

The presence of something that changes the way you think and makes some fundamentalists pretend that some basic things in our reality don't exist when they clearly do intrigues me. I'd like to know how you've come to this process and way of thinking. It must be something life-changing and powerful for you to have such strong feelings, regard, and firmness in what you know. So, I welcome you to share it with me.

Thanks in advance!

I'm a Mormon. (No, my face is not on a billboard. ) Mormons believe that Jesus Christ established His Church as part of His ministry. We believe that after He and His chosen Apostles died, men changed that Church. Finally, we believe that it has been re-established in this day and age. I guess I'd probably give the following reasons why I'm personally a Mormon.

1. I was born into a Mormon household where I was taught by example by good parents who loved me and wanted only the best for me.

2. I am convinced that both an Apostasy and a Restoration are realities.

3. I find the doctrines the Church teaches to answer my questions. I find no gaping holes in them or mysteries that "we're not supposed to understand" in its teachings.

4. I am lifted up rather than brought down by its message.

5. I can, and am expected to, put its teachings into practice every day of my life.

 

[Sir Doom]

Haha, I knew you couldn't let it go. Oh well, I guess I've made myself a liar. So much for final posts! Let me be generous this time. Before you go to answer any of the questions I'm about to ask, reread the quote that the question is responding to. It may just be a rhetorical question designed to illustrate the flaw in your argument. You don't have to provide an answer to each one. Capiche?

I messed nothing up. You were talking about something completely different.

What was I talking about?

Actually there's an infinite number of other options.

Name one.

If your question was rhetorical, you should have pointed that out and we could have saved a lot of time. Don't ask me if I can think of a better option if you're not serious.

Please demonstrate to me how I have made ANY effort whatsoever to save time. Then demonstrate to me how I indicated in any way whatsoever that I desire to save time. Then go ahead and demonstrate the consequences of me doing something you are now telling me not to do. Or is it safe to say that you are assuming I give a crap about any of that, when in fact I don't give a crap about any of that?

I never figured you had ever examined any options, since your mind is so binary.

AHA! The truth at last. Isn't that special, folks? I may have had it backwards about your thinking at the time, but the fact remains that you read into my sentence more than should have been read. Misunderstanding. Also known as, making a mistake. Good for you to admit it.

That's why I thought you were serious when you wanted a "better" option.

I know. But I can't help what you think. Or can I? Dun, dun, DUUUUUUNNNNN!!!!

Yes there are.

Name one.

Why isn't it better?

Seriously? The opposite question? Its the same answer in reverse. That's how logic works. Go read about it.

Actually... why does it matter what's "better?" Why aren't you focusing on what's true? Sure, you can make up all the gods you want, but that doesn't make it true. The better option is to except reality as it is.

I do accept reality as it is. I find the universe is much better if every single bit of it can be explained. Oh no... did I just say 'better' again? GAH!

If you're mind is set on there just being gods, or no gods. Then sure...

It is set. Why do you keep trying to pretend it isn't or shouldn't be?

However, those aren't the only available possibilities on existence.

They are the only possibilities on the existence of god(s). If you'd like to know about existence itself, maybe you should start a new thread since that's a separate topic.

Now in the case of "Are there gods or no gods?" it is a 2 choice question, yes. However, the question of "gods existing" are not the only answer to explain existence.

I've never once attempted to explain existence in this thread with god(s). That is just you injecting your preconceived notions into my words, once again.

I have no preconceived notions.

I beg to differ.

That's why I created this thread, and the reason why I asked you to explain what you believe, and why. You told me you believe in gods because the only other option is no gods, and you don't like that. I told you this made no sense and I'm trying to understand why you would think that is a valid reason to believe in something. Your reply to this is, "Can you give me better options?" and that's where we got sidetracked.

Sorry, but I stated the question during the statement of my belief. Did you somehow post in the middle of my post to prompt my eventual question at the end of it? NO. Try to rewrite the chain of events again, see if it works this time.

I've admitted I was wrong on several occasions in this thread. More specifically as an example, to "Rocky S."

I don't care.

I ask literal questions because I mean what I say. Why would I ask you something if I wasn't serious about asking you it?

If what you say here is your actual view of the situation, then you have no idea what 'literal' means.

Also, I did rephrase my request to you to help me understand what you meant by "better," several times, in fact. You just repeated the same thing.

Haha, post em. Don't forget to post my answers to each rephrasing as well, so you can see how my answers fit your literal questions and not the implied question you were trying to ask.

Why would I ask that question?

Because its the most logical follow up to my stated beliefs.

I would never ask that question because that's not what I received from your answers.

Exactly. That's called assumption. You should have asked that question.

Now, if you'd like... and if you can actually follow along, and assuming you're not asking another rhetorical question and then dance around the subject without actually responding to anything... I'll answer this.
Why is a universe with god(s) better than a universe without them?
I personally haven't stated that I think it's better, or worse. If you want my personal opinion, a universe with an all powerful entity known as "god" would be better... but only under certain circumstances. It would depend what deity existed. An all loving, amazing deity who knows all, and makes sure we're okay? The one who gave us existence simply so we could experience existence? Sure. The current gods depicted in current religions? No, never. That would be far worse and I'd prefer a world, in that case, with no gods. I'd rather have no gods exist than selfish angry gods.

Is there something about the word 'god(s)' that implies all-powerful, or loving, or selfish, or angry for that matter? I don't think there is. Maybe, just maybe, you are adding more parameters to the question than you should. The attributes that god(s) have or don't have is a completely separate question. It only matters if they DO exist. You don't get the option of a loving or hating god if there is no such thing in the first place. Are we tracking yet?

...That is not reality. WANTING things to exist, and them actually existing, are two different things.
I asked you what you believed in, and you say "a world with god(s)."
I asked you why, and you said, "Because it's better than a world without god(s)."
And this is where the debate and trouble started. Because, I'm not understanding your reason for "why." Just because something is better doesn't mean it actually exists... And just because you WANT it to, or like the idea, doesn't mean it's true.

Show me something that exists that I don't want to exist. I realize this is an impossible request, so don't go all batty trying to find an answer.

So, when you said that you choose to believe in a world with god(s) because it's better... To me, from my point of view... It sounds like you're making stuff up.

I already said that's exactly what I'm doing. The only caveat being that I only make up things that are beneficial. Don't knock it until you try it.

A world without disease, hunger, rape, death, and famine, would be a better world, wouldn't it?
That would be the better option than a world WITH disease, hunger, rape, death, and famine.

I don't believe so, no. Can you explain why you think it would be better that way? I assume you will refuse to answer this and just put it back on me in the opposite way. Or you'll take that last statement as a challenge that you can't pass up and make a lame attempt at applying your subjective opinion to the world and feeding it to me as objective. I can't wait to see which! Or maybe you'll come up with a mysterious third option between subjectivity and objectivity and the age-old debate will be ended forever!

So... does this mean because I believe that world without such horrors exists... It exists?

Yes. But you don't believe that, do you? Give it a try. See if you can make yourself believe in this world you have imagined. You might be surprised at your results. No cheating now, you have to actually believe it! I assume this will be impossible for you since you don't believe it works that way.

Clearly not, that's not how things work... So why would I accept your answer of "a world with god(s) is better" to be an acceptable answer, when it makes absolutely no sense.

This is exactly how reality works.
Now, lets get something abundantly clear. I do not give a flying rat turd what you will or won't accept. I value discussion because its good for me. Its beneficial. It helps me find the best ideas and run with them. Come along, or don't. Makes no difference to me either way. What I believe is not dependent on consensus its only suplimented by it. If you think that I've gone through all of this simply as some attempt to convince you of anything beyond the fact that I believe in god(s), you are sadly mistaken. I don't have any desire or need to convince you that what I believe is true. Only that I believe it. This is all you asked for in the OP. This is all you will get from me. We can have a separate discussion about truth and proof and reality if you'd like, but I assume you will be equally disappointed with my views on those things as well.