Buffet beliefs

krudler

How many of your christian/catholic friends are buffet believers? as in they accept the things that are hammered into them from childhood in regards to what we're "supposed" to believe in, adam and eve, virgin birth, crucifixion, world created in 7 days, all that good stuff, but yet dont believe in the talking snake, noahs floating menagerie, that Jonah really lived in a whale, y'know, the crazier stuff thats in that troublesome little book.

From my own experience, most people have the common sense to know that a man cant live in a whale, snakes cant talk, bushes cant speak while on fire etc etc, but they'll happily believe that a man as born of a virgin, died, became the worlds first zombie and then flew back to krypton where him and his dad (who is also him...or something) reside there and have never again given us any reason to believe in their existence, aside from a book of "eye witness accounts" that was written by people who never met the guy in question and hundreds of years after the event in the worlds biggest chinese whispers game.

My nephew is 6, and hes brilliantly already started finding holes and flaws in this whole bible thing, they've began learning about religion in school (brainwash them early says the RCC) and he's questioning everything, which i wholeheartedly agree with, but his mother , like all good catholics, is of the "because thats why, holy god made it" brigade, sigh....

So why are christians in general so picky and choosy about what they believe in, anyone who says they believe everything in the bible is just being silly, as theres so much contradicting stuff in there its impossible, and the whole "interpret what this means to suit my own opinions" thing is nonsense "no no its not 7 days literally that god made the world, it could be 7 million years" yeah well it says days, if they meant years they should have ****ing wrote it that way!

And anyone who uses the "god works in mysterious ways" getout clause may as well go "look over there!" and run away instead of answering the quesions posed to them

herbiemcc

Unfortunately I'm not adding much to the debate by saying that I think you're totally right. Thinking back I've never believed in it all.

I believed when I was young that god was around watching us because that's the only part of the story that was quite simple and clear (the old "he's always been there and always will" statement didn't really give enough to pick holes in at that young age).

I went to sunday school and just couldn't make any sense of it at all but was far too shy to dream of questioning it. One reason that is subtle but crucial to me is the general lack of excitement most people have for the whole subject. The people like sunday school teachers, R.E. teachers, even ministers etc never really had a genuinely excited attitude towards all these MIRACLES. I would be happy to bet that a fair number of them were just going through the socially acceptable motions cos they didn't really get it either.

Why don't we leave religion until we're 18? Minors should get into heaven anyway (that seems fair) and adults can make a properly reasoned decision. I don't think the religious take up would be quite so high.

It really seems to me that 'religion' preaches about openness and reaching out to people. I've found that it only ever reaches out to people who can't / aren't willing to ask awkward questions. I don't think religious people are stupid at all but they seem to have a senior moment as generally their chosen faith states clearly that religion is the only thing that doesn't have to make any sense at all and positively makes a virtue out of blind faith.

I've heard them say science is obsessed with answers and will never be happy to just admit some things are unknowable. I think it's almost the opposite. 'Science' is just a process of discovery, answers usually just create a million more exciting questions. Religion is the one that provides easy answers to everything which really answers nothing.

So with regard to your post, buffet beliefs to me just bring the whole thing crashing down. Very few people believe every word and most others are quite vague and shallow in their beliefs. They accept some moral values and reject others from the bible. It has been argued that this is due to the fact that we really do have an evolved sense of morals and social responsibility. I agree that our innate sense of morals is not derived from 'holy texts' but instead they influence our understanding of them.

blackbetty69

...buffet.. ahh i see, so this isnt an all u can eat thread.

oh well

karlog

I believe Jesus was an alien....no joke

Nevyn

I would say that the majority of so called roman catholics are in fact al carte or heretical catholics who disregard the teachings of the catholic church which make little sense to them, esp in terms of sex before marriage and contraception.

It would be intresting to see if the catholic church here breaks ties from roman and reverts to more irish/celtic catholicism with the dwindling of numbers and powers of the priest and as laity start running the churches.

krudler

Ah the seasonal hypocrisy begins, was asked earlier if i wanted to go to mass tomorrow before dinner, as i've no intention of it i got the "but its christmas!" reason, like that makes it ok, this is from people who see the inside of a church only when people die/get marries/are baptised/its jeebus's birthday but who would never dream of going at any other time of year

Blackhorse Slim

IMO there's nothing wrong with Christians choosing which bits to believe and which to reject. Didn't we all start like that?

Your beliefs are too important to let someone else tell you what they are.

Sam Vimes

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

IMO there's nothing wrong with Christians choosing which bits to believe and which to reject. Didn't we all start like that?

Your beliefs are too important to let someone else tell you what they are.

People can believe whatever they want but they can't believe whatever they want and still call themselves christians.

Well when I say they can't, most if not all christians do it to some extent, they're just hypocritical for doing it

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People can believe whatever they want but they can't believe whatever they want and still call themselves christians.

Well when I say they can't, most if not all christians do it to some extent, they're just hypocritical for doing it

It would be a bit like me saying, "I'm an atheist, but I believe in God."

Blackhorse Slim

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People can believe whatever they want but they can't believe whatever they want and still call themselves christians.

Well when I say they can't, most if not all christians do it to some extent, they're just hypocritical for doing it

I think people can (and do) consider themselves christian if they believe in christ and his teachings in a general way. As has often been pointed out, there are so many inconsistencies in the bible that it's impossible to believe it all. And the church's teachings change over time. Not that it's a big deal to me, I don't think I ever considered myself christian.

Galvasean, I don't think it's quite the same thing. I doubt many christians DON'T believe in god, but that would be the same as an atheist believing in god. Atheism doesn't have a huge body of orthodox teaching that a religion would have, but if it did I'm sure I'd disagree with some of it.

krudler

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think people can (and do) consider themselves christian if they believe in christ and his teachings in a general way. As has often been pointed out, there are so many inconsistencies in the bible that it's impossible to believe it all. And the church's teachings change over time. Not that it's a big deal to me, I don't think I ever considered myself christian.

Galvasean, I don't think it's quite the same thing. I doubt many christians DON'T believe in god, but that would be the same as an atheist believing in god. Atheism doesn't have a huge body of orthodox teaching that a religion would have, but if it did I'm sure I'd disagree with some of it.

Thats my main problem with it though, say what you want about fundamentalists but at least they're commited in their beliefs, but by that logic why believe in Jesus but not in a talking snake or a boat with every animal in the world onboard? its all from the same source material, at the end of it the bible is merely morality tales and allegorys that people take a bit literally (when it suits them)

Blackhorse Slim

I guess we're talking about preferences here. I'd rather talk to a christian who sees through some of the bull**** than a fundie anyday.

krudler

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I guess we're talking about preferences here. I'd rather talk to a christian who sees through some of the bull**** than a fundie anyday.

thats exactly my point though, if parts of the bible are considered bull**** by the very people its aimed at, then why not see the entire thing that way?

Antbert

krudler wrote: »

thats exactly my point though, if parts of the bible are considered bull**** by the very people its aimed at, then why not see the entire thing that way?

I s'pose you've got to look at the bigger picture... People won't see the entire thing that way, as history has taught us, so we're lucky they don't go around stoning gays and unfaithful women.

That practicality aside, I do agree with you. How do they decide which bits of unlikely fairytale to believe? I have a Catholic friend. From a big Fianna Fail GAA playing Catholic family. He's had a girlfriend for 6 years. He conveniently forgets the sex before marriage part.

I think he sometimes reads this... Not to worry, I say it to him in person. If you're reading, Hello!

Dades

krudler wrote: »

thats exactly my point though, if parts of the bible are considered bull**** by the very people its aimed at, then why not see the entire thing that way?

Why throw out the baby with the bathwater, eh?

So the details of catholicism are unpalatable - damned if I'm going to give up my belief in heaven or someone to pray to when times are tough! :pac:

Sam Vimes

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think people can (and do) consider themselves christian if they believe in christ and his teachings in a general way.

By that definition I'm a christian because I think he was a great moral philosopher.

krudler wrote: »

thats exactly my point though, if parts of the bible are considered bull**** by the very people its aimed at, then why not see the entire thing that way?

I think it's a social thing myself. Everyone follows the religion so they do too and it's a place to go on Sunday to dress up nice and meet the neighbours. Whether any of the mad stuff actually happened is probably irrelevant to most people.

There's also how religion usurps things like morality. It tries to make you think you need it by saying that you can't be good without it, just like all good cults. Rational arguments aren't much good against someone who thinks we'd all be murdering each other in the street if their religion was false.

And it provides a comfort blanket by providing answers to all those big scary questions like "why are we here". I suppose for some people it's more important that they have answers to those questions than that those answers are correct. The atheist answers of either "I don't know" or "Who said there's a reason?" just aren't satisfying for some so they overlook the nonsense parts of their religion and focus on the good bits

Red Sleeping Beauty

krudler wrote: »

How many of your christian/catholic friends are buffet believers? as in they accept the things that are hammered into them from childhood in regards to what we're "supposed" to believe in, adam and eve, virgin birth, crucifixion, world created in 7 days, all that good stuff, but yet dont believe in the talking snake, noahs floating menagerie, that Jonah really lived in a whale, y'know, the crazier stuff thats in that troublesome little book.

From my own experience, most people have the common sense to know that a man cant live in a whale, snakes cant talk, bushes cant speak while on fire etc etc, but they'll happily believe that a man as born of a virgin, died, became the worlds first zombie and then flew back to krypton where him and his dad (who is also him...or something) reside there and have never again given us any reason to believe in their existence, aside from a book of "eye witness accounts" that was written by people who never met the guy in question and hundreds of years after the event in the worlds biggest chinese whispers game.

My nephew is 6, and hes brilliantly already started finding holes and flaws in this whole bible thing, they've began learning about religion in school (brainwash them early says the RCC) and he's questioning everything, which i wholeheartedly agree with, but his mother , like all good catholics, is of the "because thats why, holy god made it" brigade, sigh....

So why are christians in general so picky and choosy about what they believe in, anyone who says they believe everything in the bible is just being silly, as theres so much contradicting stuff in there its impossible, and the whole "interpret what this means to suit my own opinions" thing is nonsense "no no its not 7 days literally that god made the world, it could be 7 million years" yeah well it says days, if they meant years they should have ****ing wrote it that way!

And anyone who uses the "god works in mysterious ways" getout clause may as well go "look over there!" and run away instead of answering the quesions posed to them

Can I just pick up on the virgin thing. I was of the assumption that the word "virgin" has had a jumbled up meaning. It meant pure but for some of Christianity (or maybe all of it) they took virgin to mean "has not had intercourse". You'll find Christians and Catholics that will believe that Jesus (if he existed) that he was undoubtedly born the scientific way with sperm and an egg.

It was Mary who was born "without original sin" like the rest of us that then made her pure so that Jesus could have a virgin birth. Jesus' father would've still had to deposit semen into Mary.

krudler wrote: »

Ah the seasonal hypocrisy begins, was asked earlier if i wanted to go to mass tomorrow before dinner, as i've no intention of it i got the "but its christmas!" reason, like that makes it ok, this is from people who see the inside of a church only when people die/get marries/are baptised/its jeebus's birthday but who would never dream of going at any other time of year

There has to be a large majority of the once in a blue moon church goers isn't there? They take Catholicism/religion as just a membership you agreee to but don't have to do anything or even believe or proof you believe or proof your faith or anything. You just tick the box on the census and say "Roman Catholic" when you're being admitted to a hospital, go along to the funerals/weddings/christenings/december 24th masses and that's that. Grand. Has Christianity gotten so big because it allows people to phone it in ?



If you're living with your just go along with it anyway. Nae point sulking in the corner with a sign that says "I don't believe in god".

Flamed Diving

karlog wrote: »

I believe Jesus was an alien....no joke

I think that even this is more likely than what Christians claim.

Flamed Diving

Anyway, surely all Christians are buffet believers? From what I can gather, each individual has some personal interpretation of the books of the Bible, and how they apply to different situations, etc. Just pop your head into the Christianity forum to see this.

They all see what they want to see.

Red Sleeping Beauty

One thing someone pointed out to me the other day is gays and catholicism and in some cases really extreme devout types. I was telling a mate about David Norris being outside the Mansion House on his soap box spreading the word of god through a microphone and PA system - it was bloody well ****in loud! You could hear it at each end of the street. Anyway, there's the aul book of Leviticus which explicitly states that homosexuality is not allowed and yet there's homosexuals that go along with the religion.

scudzilla

Damn, i was thinking that this was a thread about Buffets, hope ya don't mind me carrying on then, given the misleading title.

I believe that buffets should have a strict order of eating, like the old people first, and that you should only be able to pile food 3 fingers high.

What is it about cold pizza at buffets too? That's just wrong.

Also i believe that the plates they usually give at buffets are way too small, or them plastic things that flop and drop food everywhere

There ya have it, my buffet beliefs

Galvasean

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Galvasean, I don't think it's quite the same thing. I doubt many christians DON'T believe in god, but that would be the same as an atheist believing in god. Atheism doesn't have a huge body of orthodox teaching that a religion would have, but if it did I'm sure I'd disagree with some of it.

Apologies. I should have been more specific and used an example.
I know many people who say they are Catholic but don't believe in the virgin birth or papal infalibility. Now, they still believe in Jesus' teachings which is fair enough. They really need to stop referring to themselves as Catholics when they disregard Catholocism's main teachings. Sure they're Christian, just not Catholic.

Antbert

Red Sleeping Beauty wrote: »

I was telling a mate about David Norris being outside the Mansion House on his soap box spreading the word of god through a microphone and PA system - it was bloody well ****in loud! You could hear it at each end of the street. Anyway, there's the aul book of Leviticus which explicitly states that homosexuality is not allowed and yet there's homosexuals that go along with the religion.

This really happened?! David Norris eternally confuses me. He seems so liberal... Well I suppose you can be both.

Quint

Forgiveness is another part that people seem to ignore. I remember a priest was getting slated on the radio for forgiving a rapist by people who were very involved with the church.

rohatch

Red Sleeping Beauty wrote: »

One thing someone pointed out to me the other day is gays and catholicism and in some cases really extreme devout types. I was telling a mate about David Norris being outside the Mansion House on his soap box spreading the word of god through a microphone and PA system - it was bloody well ****in loud! You could hear it at each end of the street. Anyway, there's the aul book of Leviticus which explicitly states that homosexuality is not allowed and yet there's homosexuals that go along with the religion.

That just seems strange. I thought he was an intelligent logical thinking liberal.

He is damned by god, because he was created that way by god.

Is he a practising homosexual?

rohatch

Galvasean wrote: »

Apologies. I should have been more specific and used an example.
I know many people who say they are Catholic but don't believe in the virgin birth or papal infalibility. Now, they still believe in Jesus' teachings which is fair enough. They really need to stop referring to themselves as Catholics when they disregard Catholocism's main teachings. Sure they're Christian, just not Catholic.

Can you consider yourself a christian without any recognised religion?

I agree with you about plastic/buffet catholics.

I assume to be an actual catholic you have to

go to mass every day/week
daily prayers
observe the sacrements
obey the commandments
no sex outside marriage
if gay or a priest then celibacy only

what else?


I had this discussion the other day with a family member who went through Ireland in the 40's and 50's.

A family friend had to get her child baptised to get into the local school. Her partner was baptist, she was lapsed RC, they are almost atheist.

Quint wrote: »

Forgiveness is another part that people seem to ignore. I remember a priest was getting slated on the radio for forgiving a rapist by people who were very involved with the church.

The priest shook the hand of the man in court after his conviction (jury watched the cctv evidence)

Anyway this always reminds me of bill hicks

"we're christians and we don't like what you said"

"well, forgive me."

Nevyn

rohatch wrote: »

That just seems strange. I thought he was an intelligent logical thinking liberal.

He is damned by god, because he was created that way by god.

Is he a practising homosexual?

That depends on if you take that the new testament trumps the old one,
so that thinking leads all of Leviticus to be over thrown by love your neighbor as yourself.

rohatch

Thaedydal wrote: »

That depends on if you take that the new testament trumps the old one,
so that thinking leads all of Leviticus to be over thrown by love your neighbor as yourself.

Interesting.

NT is the OT rewritten by man as imagined by what god actually meant in the OT.


BUT If you are catholic you do not get that option.

Galvasean

rohatch wrote: »

Can you consider yourself a christian without any recognised religion?

I suppose that would be a non-denominational Christian?

Funglegunk

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/07/07/warren-buffet-atheist-philanthropist.htm

Flamed Diving

Thaedydal wrote: »

That depends on if you take that the new testament trumps the old one,
so that thinking leads all of Leviticus to be over thrown by love your neighbor as yourself.

Yet the New Testament heaps praise on those who committed hideous acts in the Old Testament, take Jephthah, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJ0Qc10iV0

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yet the New Testament heaps praise on those who committed hideous acts in the Old Testament, take Jephthah, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJ0Qc10iV0

Tut tut tut, I'm afraid you have misinterpreted that part of the bible.

The story is meant as a warning against such pacts. The meaning to take from it is that even though it was morally reprehensible, god still gave him the victory he sought and still demanded human sacrifice, unlike with Abraham where an angel came down at the last minute and told him to stop.

I think you might be thinking of Lot who was considered a righteous man even though he sent his daughters out to be raped instead of two angels.

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tut tut tut, I'm afraid you have misinterpreted that part of the bible.

The story is meant as a warning against such pacts. The meaning to take from it is that even though it was morally reprehensible, god still gave him the victory he sought and still demanded human sacrifice, unlike with Abraham where an angel came down at the last minute and told him to stop.

I think you might be thinking of Lot who was considered a righteous man even though he sent his daughters out to be raped instead of two angels.

Angles>daughters, Sam.

Women are little better than cattle, according to The Good BookTM.

Anyway, whatever the meaning, the man was a flamin' galla. (Alf Style).

faceman

At the end of the day, whats wrong with buffet religion?

pH

faceman wrote: »

At the end of the day, whats wrong with buffet religion?

I'm not sure what's actually wrong with it, however there's something very self-centred and arrogant about believing that *you* have figured out God's mind.

I guess I can see where a Catholic (for example) is coming from, they're subscribing to a set of beliefs that millions of Catholics have believed in, they're accepting that these things have been thought about and are in some sense a system of beliefs to live your life by.

To then turn around and say, well most of it is true, except this bit on contraception and pre-marital sex for example just seems a far less defensible intellectual position than to fully embrace of Catholicism.

PDN

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what's actually wrong with it, however there's something very self-centred and arrogant about believing that *you* have figured out God's mind.

I don't think it's to do with anyone believing that they've figured out God's mind. Most Christians that I know are very aware that some of their beliefs may turn out to be mistaken.

I would have thought that most posters in this forum would be the kind of atheists who are in favour of people making up their own minds on a range of subjects rather than just swallowing the party line.

faceman

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what's actually wrong with it, however there's something very self-centred and arrogant about believing that *you* have figured out God's mind.

I guess I can see where a Catholic (for example) is coming from, they're subscribing to a set of beliefs that millions of Catholics have believed in, they're accepting that these things have been thought about and are in some sense a system of beliefs to live your life by.

To then turn around and say, well most of it is true, except this bit on contraception and pre-marital sex for example just seems a far less defensible intellectual position than to fully embrace of Catholicism.

I dont really see anything wrong with it myself. Depending on the religion of a person, will dictate the spiritual consequences of those actions. There are some religions outside Christianity where people take things very seriously and in some cases its more deterimental to society to have a gorup of people take their religion to the letter of the religious law. Which is often an interpretation of religious law without the benefit of common sense.

WRT to pre marital sex and contraception, man made those rules, not (the Catholic) God. AFAIK the pope didnt make them infallible decrees either. (not upto 1995 from what i recall but maybe they have since?)

pH

faceman wrote: »

I dont really see anything wrong with it myself. Depending on the religion of a person, will dictate the spiritual consequences of those actions. There are some religions outside Christianity where people take things very seriously and in some cases its more deterimental to society to have a gorup of people take their religion to the letter of the religious law. Which is often an interpretation of religious law without the benefit of common sense.

I do see where you're coming from, and I agree in general that buffet believers to tend to throw away the nastier more detrimental stuff. Yet you'd have to describe the "God hates Fags" crowd as buffet believers too, anyone who could read about Jesus in the NT and come away with a belief that homosexuality is the major moral issue facing the US is clearly picking and choosing too.

WRT to pre marital sex and contraception, man made those rules, not (the Catholic) God. AFAIK the pope didnt make them infallible decrees either. (not upto 1995 from what i recall but maybe they have since?)

It's all well and good to say that man made those rules, but as opposed to what? Are you saying that some rules aren't man made, if so which ones, if not why bother pointing out that those 2 are "man made"?

faceman

pH wrote: »

I do see where you're coming from, and I agree in general that buffet believers to tend to throw away the nastier more detrimental stuff. Yet you'd have to describe the "God hates Fags" crowd as buffet believers too, anyone who could read about Jesus in the NT and come away with a belief that homosexuality is the major moral issue facing the US is clearly picking and choosing too.

completely agree. But id moreso consider them to be nutjobs!

wrote:

It's all well and good to say that man made those rules, but as opposed to what? Are you saying that some rules aren't man made, if so which ones, if not why bother pointing out that those 2 are "man made"?

Strictly speaking, with christianity, there are only the 10 commandments. But has society and technology has evolved, the church has felt obliged to modernise religious rules and laws with it. however it seems that many of the rules were not thought through and many were done for selfish motives.

If we imagine God's law similar to contract law. In contract law, if you have someone sign a contract but one of the clauses is against the law of the land, then the contract isnt worth the paper its written on. So with religious law, if the church decided to introduce a law that was ultimately for selish motives, then i cant see how, under catholic dogma, that God would stand over the same law. Ok i realise im talking very hypothetical now but its something that i think is probably a contributory factor to why we have buffet beliefs.

PDN

faceman wrote: »

Strictly speaking, with christianity, there are only the 10 commandments.

Without wishing to drag the thread off-topic, I think you're confusing Christianity with Judaism.

Osgoodisgood

PDN wrote: »

I would have thought that most posters in this forum would be the kind of atheists who are in favour of people making up their own minds on a range of subjects rather than just swallowing the party line.

This atheist is more in favour of people looking at the available evidence and thinking things through and then arriving at a decision. Furthermore this atheist considers the notion of selecting a handful of pre-packaged iron age ideas to be a magical guide to life while reckoning the remainder to be not worthy of adopting to be only marginally less servile than if the list were swallowed whole.

And I say that with all due respect

PDN

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

This atheist is more in favour of people looking at the available evidence and thinking things through and then arriving at a decision.

But only if they arrive at the same decision as you?

faceman

PDN wrote: »

Without wishing to drag the thread off-topic, I think you're confusing Christianity with Judaism.

No, its my buffet beliefs!

Osgoodisgood

PDN wrote: »

But only if they arrive at the same decision as you?

Nope. Certainly not. People are welcome to believe whatever they want as long as their notions of gods and talking snakes etc never interfere with my right to go about my peaceful business unencumbered with such a burden.

The thread was discussing buffet beliefs. I offered my opinion.

Antbert

Buffet belief isn't a major problem. Not on the scale of religion have any power in the government. It is just... a bit... silly. It doesn't make me angry or anything. I understand the reasoning behind picking and choosing (sort of) but the main reason, for religious people who haven't thought about it, seems to be that that's what everyone else tells them.

Calling buffet believers up on it is always fun though.