Jump to content
  • Join in

    We would be honored if you would join us...

Drake

The Religion/Philosophy Debate

Recommended Posts

Chickenman

It is weird, but I do get tired of the atheists trying to run the country. The US is built on primarily Christian values. No one is forcing you to believe or participate in a prayer service, so why are you working so hard to take God away from us?

Hahaha. Where do we begin. For one, America was NOT built on Christian values. The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of religious freedom and of not having a state sponsored religion. The Treaty of Tripoli, voted on unanimously by a Congress comprised of framers of te Constitution, states that America is NOT a Christian nation Because when a particular religion has the backing of the government, in every single case you have the government cracking down on people with different beliefs while the ones that step in line get special privilege.

To say that America is a Christian nation is a tremendous insult to the millions of people of people of countless different beliefs, ALL of whom contribute to make this country great. America is a melting pot, a beautiful diversity of Christians, Jew, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, Zoastrians, Wiccans and legions upon legions of others that I'm both forgetting and have never heard of. THAT'S what makes America great. It's not the flag-waving or sithty country music. It's the dizzying array of ideas, cultures and beliefs.

Now about those mean old Atheists. While it is true that there are many Atheists who are just as hate-filled and intolerant as Fundamentalists, they are by no means the majority. In fact, the trend in the past half decade or so has been a significant shift to a more friendly dialogue. Most serious Atheists of today are willing to work hand in hand with believers to create a better world for both.

Any attempt to "take God away from you" is almost always an attempt to stop the Government from endorsing one religion over another or, in the worst cases, to force a particular religion on its citizens. Atheists don't want to run religion out of your life. They want to make sure that everyone gets their fair share, that every voice is heard, that everyone's rights are respected. I can't think of anything more American.

The Ten Commandments don't belong in a courtroom because it's a government building (especially one that deals with law,) and to do so acts as an endorsement of one religion's laws against all others. The argument that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments is laughable, as we only follow two of them, don't kill and don't steL, which, let's face it, are common sense.

The prayer in school debate is misrepresented by the talking heads, so I'll explain. The debate is not about forbidding prayer from school. Any student of any creed, can pray whenever they want (I suggest right before finals). If such a law was passed, I'd be right there with you fighting against it because it would be a gross injustice. But no such law has ever been considered. The problem is teachers and faculty leading the class in prayer. These are authority figures backed by the government, leading impressionable young children who are conditioned to listen to always obey their children. If you can't see the wrongness in that situation, I don't know what to tell you.

The pledge of allegiance didn't have "Under God" in it until the 1950s, when it was shoehorned in for political reasons. In fact, it was thrown right in the middle of a strong sntence about unity, "One nation, inivisible" and removes the strength of the original meaning, ironically by throwing in an incredibly divisive phrase. It restructures the entire meaning of the sentence, and justsounds awkward anyway. And this is a pledge we're supposed to be making to our country, and more importantly, to our fellow countrymen. In order for me to make this promise, I have to swear allegiance to the Judeo-Christian god. And of course, the children have to stand up at the begining of every schoolday and recite it until it's drilled into their heads.

And of course, the war on Christmas is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad furday

I'd have to add that I think that one of the smartest things the founding fathers/writers of the Constitution did was NOT instituting a national religion for this country. While these men did believe in a higher power, they are considered Deists, not specifically that of a Judeo-Christian faith. I think they realised that the freedom to choose and the freedom to come to this country and worship (or not) as one desired went hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickenman

I agree. The First Amendment is the foundation of the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ender

Not to mention that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to name a few, seriously doubted the existence of God and hated organized religion in every form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Well, if they hated it that much it doesn't exactly make them lovely people either. lol

Edited by Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickenman

What do you mean that much? They ensured it's survival in all forms by establishing freedom of religion. The difference in hatred here is that while the Founding Fathers hated organized religion, they allowed it to exist and thrive without much government interference. He'll, they're tax exempt How much more sepaparation of church and state do you get than that. *Rolls eyes.* On the flip side, organized religion hates, for instance, gay people. But they don't turn the other cheek, agree to disagree and allow gay people to practice their lives without interference. No, they do all they can to restrict the basic civil rights of gay people, condemn them to hell, preach a lesson of hatred that the absolute scum at the extreme of the flock use to justify hate crimes.

We're talking about two very different kinds of "hatred" here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Princess

Okay, here's the deal. Straight talk from the Prinster. Sometimes religious/philosophical discussions start from random comments. If these conversations last more than half a page, please move them to this thread so that those who do not share similar beliefs and get offended by religious discussion can avoid the discussion easier if they so wish. Not trying to ban the discussion outright, but making the atmosphere more comfortable for everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope

Figured this post would go better here.

So I started singing with the stake choir last year and it's been a blast. This past weekend we had a regional conference for which I was in the choir. And we got to sing two of my favorite hymns. Now, these were Mack Wilburg arrangements. Those of you who are not LDS probably don't know about Mack Wilburg, so let me give you some background. He is one of the directors for the Tabernacle Choir. He writes arrangements with very beautiful, intricate harmonies. However, his pieces are notoriously fecking hard. He also likes to send the sopranos into the stratosphere. And I sing Soprano 1. Our director is an Alto 2, so I don't think she looks too closely at the Soprano 1 part sometimes. Anywho, click the links below to hear the arrangements we did:

I Believe In Christ

Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing

Even if you don't agree with the religious aspect, you can't deny the Tabernacle Choir is amazingly good. I wish I was good enough to sing with them, but alas, I am not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayingel

mmmmm....Come Thou Font has always been a favorite of mine...And that organ!

Edited by Ayingel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope

I know. The organ at the Conference Center is amazing.

"Come Thou Fount" was in our hymnbook the edition before the one we have now (cuz we shamelessly steal hymns from other religions :p). I heard a rumor that it was supposed to be in the current edition, but got left out by mistake. That of course made us all very sad because literally everyone knows and loves that song.

Edited by Radioactive Isotope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheUnknown

Life sucks and then you die.

The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayingel

(Way late...) But what I believe you were looking for Drake is "4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under [a]the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." (Galations 4:4,5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayingel

Here is an issue I'm having. A friend posted a status that had a religious jerk off saying something rude and not becoming of someone who believes in God. One of our mutual friends said that that's why they hate organized religion.

I had an interesting encounter with someone at work yesterday. Every once in a while someone will hand me a church pamphlet or card for their church, tell me to have a nice day and be on their merry way. Instead of being a nice guy, one man and his wife decided to be really pushy about me coming to his saved church. I finally politely told him, "Thank you but I don't really believe in God." He got really upset at that and stormed out. While he was leaving, I heard him say to his wife that my baby would be better off dead. Some days I really hate people.

I feel that she handled this in the best way possible (especially since she was at work), and I completely agree that the guy was being a huge jerk about it.

This is why I hate organized religion, it makes people like them.

In my opinion, religion doesn't just do that to people. People can be that way in the first place. So, my response was

However, Art, that rationale is the same one they use. Please don't group me in with jerk offs like that.

Grouping people together like that is just what that man was doing. He shouldn't say that her baby is better off dead. Her husband is catholic, and I know what happens with their baby has been something they've discussed.

I never said I hate religious people, I hate when religion gets organized into something bigger than one persons beliefs and ideals. Based on what Danie said he was pushing an organized religious stance not his own.

Here's my issue. That man wouldn't have been saying what he did unless he really believed she needed to hear it. The man didn't do a good job, but he was pushing his own belief.

Another one of her friends said

Laura, faith is different than religion. Faith is believing in something; religion, the organized variety especially, is agreeing to believe in what everyone else believes.

I'm part of an organized religion. Am I a bad person now? Because I confess in creeds with my congregation that I believe what they do.

I responded with

"Based on what Danie said he was pushing an organized religious stance not his own." He wouldn't have been saying anything about it if he didn't believe that it was 100% true, especially with the last thing she heard "I heard him say to his wife that my baby would be better off dead."

And yes, while that is what religion is, Ariel, I attend church and confess that I believe what other people I go to church with believe.

Did I say the right thing? I never got along with this group of people in the first place, they're all so clique-y and apparently close-minded that it was never easy to be around them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ana

I think you did just fine. You clearly tried very hard to articulate yourself, but they weren't of the mindset to see the difference. There's a huge difference between individuals who follow an organized religion, and individuals who follow an organized religion and desire to impose their/their congregations' beliefs on everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayingel

I'm hoping to get some good discussion out of this. My synod is going through an interesting event right now as the translation of the Bible that we use (NIV1984) will no longer be published. It has brought up quite a bit of debate among many people in the church, since the new NIV has different wordings that could be taken different ways than the version that we currently use.

What is everyone's take on Bible translations? What is acceptable to deviate from the original text? What Bible translation do you use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Princess

I don't know. However, the Catholic church just revised the Roman Missal, which is the directions (for lack of a better year) for Mass. I hate the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James the Defender

I feel all Scripture should be as close to the original text as possible, of course with modern language used. Reading an interlinear translation is tough, and some idiomatic expressions are used. Such as the Hebrew expression 'he hid his feet.' which means he releaved himself (the number 2 kind). Since the skirts Hebrews wore came above their feet, when they did their business, the skirts came down and covered the feet. So, that verbiage has to be put into a form we can understand.

I use the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translation commitee went back to the most original manuscripts which could be found in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and translated the Bible from there. It is not merely a modernizing of another version, or taking another version and using different wording. It also restored the name of God in the over 7,500 places where it had been replaced by Jewish scribes. The four letters of the tetragrammaton YHWH, in English rendered JHVH or Jehovah,were removed by Jewish scholars because they felt the name of God was too holy to pronounce and replaced it with the word Adhonai, meaning "Sovereign Lord." But, how can one really get to know someone without using their proper name? Plus, the name was removed from the original manuscripts so it has been restored.

BTW, in the NWT the expression 'he hid his feet' is rendered 'he eased nature.' Tasteful, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

BTW, in the NWT the expression 'he hid his feet' is rendered 'he eased nature.' Tasteful, IMHO.

Really? 'he eased nature' sounds like he is going to the toilet. :l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope

We use the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James the Defender

BTW, in the NWT the expression 'he hid his feet' is rendered 'he eased nature.' Tasteful, IMHO.

Really? 'he eased nature' sounds like he is going to the toilet. :l

Yes, exactly. Instead of 'he hid his feet', the expression 'he eased nature' is used. It clears up the idiomatic expression. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.