If One of the Main Theistic Religions Had To Be True.....

strobe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

This is an oversimplification of the vast diversity that exists between Protestant Christian denominations. Even within the same denomination, such as Lutheran, there are extreme differences, as with the way evolution and creationism are treated between the Lutheran ELCA and the Lutheran Missouri Synod, the former allowing for evolution to be taught in their universities and colleges, and the latter vehemently denouncing and not tolerating evolutionary theory in the slightest.

Further, where do you place one of the fastest growing Protestant denominations in America, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormans), when many a Christian on the Christianity forum denounces the Morman faith as being Christian?

Furthermore, where is the category for the most diverse group of all, the agnostics, some of whom profess a belief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Did you even read the OP? Answered before you asked.

Black Swan

strobe wrote: »

Did you even read the OP? Answered before you asked.

Yes I did read the OP:

strobe wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to have Catholics in one section and "non catholics" distinct. I know the non catholics differ greatly from sect to sect but I think all the main veins have more in common with each other than with Catholicism.

I was challenging the notion of the black-and-white fallacy of "oversimplification" that exists in the OP categorization poll both between Christian (Catholic) and Christian (non-Catholic), as well as within Christian (non-Catholic) denominations; the distinctions being so vast in some cases to make the utility of such a distinction problematic, and sometimes meaningless (e.g., I would suggest you google the Christian-Mormon debate regarding if Mormonism is Christian; i.e., if 4.9 million plus Mormons are in fact not Christian, then where do they fit in your schema?).

Excluded obviously from this poll categorization critique was the (somewhat poor) attempt at humour with the agnostic reference to the The Flying Spaghetti Monster, including the denoted at the end.

strobe wrote: »

Answered before you asked.

This comment is not a substantive argument, and adds nothing to the strength of your position.

It's just a fun poll

sponsoredwalk

Okay....

iguana

It's not a major religion with only roughly a million followers worldwide in loose groups with a wide variety of beliefs but I have a soft spot for neopaganism. It's a faith with one central rule "an it harm none, do what you will" it doesn't really preach or seek to interfere with people's lives, except to encourage environmental consideration. If any religion was to be real I definitely choose it. I'd enjoy seasonal celebrations, reveling in all of nature, especially food and sex. You aren't really beholden to your gods as they are really just nature stories. And best of all if you want to devote yourself to the religion and become a Wiccan (the priesthood) you get superpowers.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Further, where do you place one of the fastest growing Protestant denominations in America, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormons), when many a Christian on the Christianity forum denounces the Mormon faith as being Christian? The Mormons claim 4.9 million members in the US alone, with more overseas.

Mormonism isn't a Protestant off-shoot, it sees itself as a restoration of what Christianity should have been but never was. It holds that the Old and New Testaments are incomplete and those incompletions are restored in The Book of Mormon. In Mormonism there is the belief that the universe has many, many populated planets and that these planets are ruled by different gods. The different gods are humans (men) who have ascended to godhood through their actions in their human lives. They are then given a celestial kingdom (planet) to populate with their many wives. "Our" god is Elohim and he and his wives had so many children on whichever planet they were on many of those children were sent to Earth with Jesus in charge, following a battle with Lucifer. It's Christianity Jim, but not as we know it.

Black Swan

bluewolf wrote: »

It's just a fun poll

Hi bluewolf! "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" footnote attempt at humour was for the "fun" people, but I guess I failed in that regard. This means I will not quit university and try out for the Last Comic Standing.;)

rational

Seems to be a lot of experts on hinduism here. Or maybe a lot of Simpsons watchers.

Another inspired question.

Black Swan

iguana wrote: »

Mormonism isn't a Protestant off-shoot, it sees itself as a restoration of what Christianity should have been but never was.

There is a huge debate over the question "if" Mormonism is in fact "Christian." You can find the debate by googling, where many contemporary Christian theologians reject Mormons as Christians; or if you are brave, open a thread calling Mormons = Christians on the Christianity forum, and see what happens.

strobe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Yes I did read the OP:


I was challenging the notion of the black-and-white fallacy of "oversimplification" that exists in the OP categorization poll both between Christian (Catholic) and Christian (non-Catholic), as well as within Christian (non-Catholic) denominations; the distinctions being so vast in some cases to make the utility of such a distinction problematic, and sometimes meaningless (e.g., I would suggest you google the Christian-Mormon debate regarding if Mormonism is Christian; i.e., if 4.9 million plus Mormons are in fact not Christian, then where do they fit in your schema?).

Excluded obviously from this poll categorization critique was the (somewhat poor) attempt at humour with the agnostic reference to the The Flying Spaghetti Monster, including the denoted at the end.

This comment is not a substantive argument, and adds nothing to the strength of your position.

Listen, like Blue says, it is just a poll, based on a silly hypothetical. If I intended it to be an in debt discussion on the validity and compatibility of the various "types" of Christianity I would have worded it entirely differently, dropped the poll completely and started the thread in the Christianity forum.

But as for Mormonism, well like you say a significant portion of Christians don't consider Mormonism to be a legitimate sect of Christianity so to respond to your statement "(e.g., I would suggest you google the Christian-Mormon debate regarding if Mormonism is Christian; i.e., if 4.9 million plus Mormons are in fact not Christian, then where do they fit in your schema?)." well they obviously fit nowhere into my schema, not being christian, or if considered to be christian they then fit in the christian (other) part of my schema.

You can only have something like 12 poll options so there simply is no room for including every single quasi-Christian religion in there (or all the flavours of Islam or Hinduism). Although having read the OP as you say you have, you will see I made the suggestion that if any option was glaringly left out to ask Dades or Robin to stick it in there. Feel free to do so. But this is a primarily Catholic country in terms of religious beliefs and the RCC themselves hold Catholicism separate from all other practices of Christianity ("This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.") so I thought it was valid and would be interesting to give them their own option distinct from the rest of Christianity.

Like I said, answered in the OP, although admittedly without going in to much detail. Happier?

Black Swan

strobe wrote: »

You can only have something like 12 poll options so there simply is no room for including every single quasi-Christian religion in there (or all the flavours of Islam or Hinduism).

Fair enough. My comment challenges categorization of people into convenient, mutually exclusive sets (e.g., we "Irish" believe, or "Catholics" believe, or Christians that are non-Catholic believe). Sometimes these categorizations are arbitrary and capricious, with lines of demarcation drawn in the sand, which, when the frequent winds of change blow, so does the line. "Convenient" in this case includes a software limitation that you unfortunately have no control of, but at the same time challenges the validity and reliability of such nominal categorizations.

strobe wrote: »

But this is a primarily Catholic country in terms of religious beliefs and the RCC themselves hold Catholicism separate from all other practices of Christianity ("This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.") so I thought it was valid and would be interesting to give them their own option distinct from the rest of Christianity.

Born Irish, I was raised like most to be Catholic. When still under that influence as a teen, I once visited a monastery on a student retreat for a couple weeks during summer break. Oddly, there were a large number of Lutherans there too, and a young Lutheran minister with them said to us and the monks during evening discussions, "Why am I not a Catholic?" The major difference boiled down to whether the Pope was infallible, the other differences pretty much being "a rose by a different name." They did agree that the advice of the Pope was to be valued in many cases, but they questioned if it came directly from God.

Then I was blown completely away when the Lutherans were allowed to partake in the Catholic sacraments administered by the Catholic priest assigned to the monastery, which they did several times during their stay. Other than the disagreement over the Pontiff's God-connection, the line in the sand between these Lutherans and Catholics was a bit messed up indeed, not supporting your mutually exclusive categorization between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians in your poll. Granted, this was only anecdotal and limited evidence, but experienced first hand a few years ago.

If there was craic in your OP as a few have alluded to, and I missed it being so serious, then you have me there indeed.

strobe

It's a valid point you raised Blue 2 and I acknowledge what you were getting at and agree with you to a certain extent. Just a little beyond the scope of the thread and my intentions in starting it.

Might make an interesting thread in it's own right over on The Other Forum though.

Zombrex

please God anything but the Hebrew religions :P

seamus

Solipsism is a religion right?

krudler

Wicknight wrote: »

please God anything but the Hebrew religions :P

which god? :pac:

bnt

seamus wrote: »

Solipsism is a religion right?

If it appears to be a religion, then it must be, and I'm not really saying so.

Zillah

seamus wrote: »

Solipsism is a religion right?

You'd need to consider yourself to be a personal God for it to count as a theistic religion.

mikhail

Zillah wrote: »

You'd need to consider yourself to be a personal God for it to count as a theistic religion.

Aye, he's confusing a solipsist with an autotheist like me.

I guess solipsism is consistent with agnosticism - if you're unsure the the world truly exists outside of your own mind, you're probably not that confident about a god who isn't you.

Gregor Samsa

Certain strains of Hinduism are atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism), but I don't think that would be enough for me to embrace it if I had to. I'd probably go with Unitarian Universalism on the extreme left fringe of non-catholic Christianity. But reluctantly.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

if you are brave, open a thread calling Mormons = Christians on the Christianity forum, and see what happens.

Here's one they prepared earlier: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055579530

Dougla2

hindiusm would do me good im vegetarian

padma

I've pondered whether to post here because when I read in the atheist forums I'm always taking aback by the anger and hatred which can be found in here, but anyway. The poll is interesting if for example we all want to have a true religion, it would have to be this.

4 blind men in different villages in different parts of the world want to know what an elephant is like. The 1st Blind man goes to the front of the elephant and feels the trunk and tusks and pats the head, run backs to the village and tells everyone about the elephant. Wow long nose sharp tusk, little beard tongue etc.

2nd blind man approaches the elephant from the side wow Massive ears big strong legs and hoof, runs back to the village describing the curves on the elephant etc.

3rd blind man feels a big massive belly and the back legs. Back to the village telling everyone wow its so huge, massive the spine is hard the belly is soft the legs are tough like tree trunks etc.

The 4th blind man feels the tail smells something funny the back legs etc runs back to the village telling everyone about the smell etc etc.

See it's all the one elephant but each of them only have a different description of the elephant. That is religion. That is why people are divided, because their leader/teacher told them this was God, this other teacher says no this is God and so on so forth. Yet they all have a part of the truth.

So in answer to the poll. I believe in the elephant being the true description :P

ColmDawson

padma wrote: »

I've pondered whether to post here because when I read in the atheist forums I'm always taking aback by the anger and hatred which can be found in here, but anyway. The poll is interesting if for example we all want to have a true religion, it would have to be this.

4 blind men in different villages in different parts of the world want to know what an elephant is like. The 1st Blind man goes to the front of the elephant and feels the trunk and tusks and pats the head, run backs to the village and tells everyone about the elephant. Wow long nose sharp tusk, little beard tongue etc.

2nd blind man approaches the elephant from the side wow Massive ears big strong legs and hoof, runs back to the village describing the curves on the elephant etc.

3rd blind man feels a big massive belly and the back legs. Back to the village telling everyone wow its so huge, massive the spine is hard the belly is soft the legs are tough like tree trunks etc.

The 4th blind man feels the tail smells something funny the back legs etc runs back to the village telling everyone about the smell etc etc.

See it's all the one elephant but each of them only have a different description of the elephant. That is religion. That is why people are divided, because their leader/teacher told them this was God, this other teacher says no this is God and so on so forth. Yet they all have a part of the truth.

So in answer to the poll. I believe in the elephant being the true description :P

Your analogy is flawed: the elephant can be shown to exist.

padma

and this is why I shouldn't post in this forum because of the finger pointing who can claim what where etc.

Galvasean

padma wrote: »

and this is why I shouldn't post in this forum because of the finger pointing who's got the bigger dick attitude a lot here seem to have

Get over yourself.

It's clearly me

WeeBushy

padma wrote: »

and this is why I shouldn't post in this forum because of the finger pointing who's got the bigger dick attitude a lot here seem to have

But he's just pointing out a flaw in your analogy, what's wrong with that?

padma

i wasnt trying to start a debate about the existence of something beyond comprehension. Yes I'M aware this is the atheism forum but it bores me senseless the same debates continuously rehashed here, trying to convert the religious through never ending debates.

This is how I see it. Simple as,

robindch

padma wrote: »

i wasnt trying to start a debate about the existence of something beyond comprehension.

We usually only hear that "god" is beyond comprehension as soon as logical flaws surface in the arguments of the religious.

Up to that point, the religious are invariably very sure indeed what their god is, what he likes and doesn't like, and what he does.

padma

thats because no-one will pretend to know the true nature of God, therefore they say beyond comprehension. Brain logic is different to understanding the direct connection felt within. If you were coming from this point of view you would feel the same as I do. Until then debating using words is not wise with someone who uses their theism as you find when you discuss these things with the Christians etc..

Ickle Magoo

"who uses their theism"? Does that mean I have a theism I don't use?

padma

well, you have a belief system of no belief, you have studied around this system of belief and you use your brain logic to demonstrate to others the power of this belief system over theirs. Therefore you would have accumulated enough anti-theism to strengthen every one of your beliefs, similar to how the other religious use their belief system in a likewise manner.

jayzusb.christ

thats because no-one will pretend to know the true nature of God, therefore they say beyond comprehension. Brain logic is different to understanding the direct connection felt within. If you were coming from this point of view you would feel the same as I do. Until then debating using words is not wise with someone who uses their theism as you find when you discuss these things with the Christians etc..

Why isn't God generous enough to give us all that special internal connection beyond brain logic? I'm not being sarcastic: if he loved us all, surely he'd see fit to communicate with us all equally so as to give us all a chance of salvation.

And do you have any suggestions as to how to debate something without using words? Debate and discussion are what keep this forum interesting and fresh. It seems to me you're putting yourself in a frankly rather arrogant position of being divinely right, where nothing anyone else can say can affect your rightness.