Should religion be eliminated

[Karl Rand]

As for Bishop John Shelby Spong, he's an Episcopalian, and he is speaking about his church. One I do not have enough knowledge of to comment about their creed, but I do not believe their foundational beliefs are vastly different than most mainstream Christian denominations.

Spong may have been Episcopalian (Anglican in the UK but with some differences) but his writings, sermons and public addresses have many of the US Episcopalian creed seeing him as apostate.

But if you really want to have a conversation on diversity, you first need to understand that it applies to much more than religion. It applies to all things. Whereas you may see this as a negative, it is without a doubt a positive and a strength. In fact without it there would be no progress and advancement.

Yes but such becomes a serious issue when supporters of different translations and interpretations of scripture all claim their version is the inerrant 'Word of God’. Unless the Almighty expresses himself/herself etc in riddles and contradictions I suggest all such claims must be taken with more than a grain of salt.

 

[Karl Rand]

As for Bishop John Shelby Spong, he's an Episcopalian, and he is speaking about his church. One I do not have enough knowledge of to comment about their creed, but I do not believe their foundational beliefs are vastly different than most mainstream Christian denominations.

Spong may have been Episcopalian (Anglican in the UK but with some differences) but his writings, sermons and public addresses have many of the US Episcopalian creed seeing him as apostate.

But if you really want to have a conversation on diversity, you first need to understand that it applies to much more than religion. It applies to all things. Whereas you may see this as a negative, it is without a doubt a positive and a strength. In fact without it there would be no progress and advancement.

Yes but such becomes a serious issue when supporters of different translations and interpretations of scripture all claim their version is the inerrant 'Word of God’. Unless the Almighty expresses himself/herself etc in riddles and contradictions I suggest all such claims must be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Biblical apologists though always have a way of wriggling out of such problems. Some claim the apparent contradictions within the bible and it’s many versions are seen in their true light only by those who are imbued with the Holy Spirit’ HMMM!

 

[well named]

I wonder what you mean here by ’The bounds of scripture’ surely that was already a moving target?

I mostly mean the kind of bounds that modern Christians often assert, but equally I mean the bounds which would have appeared natural to Jews of the time.

You can say the exact same thing about all religions. It is perfectly natural to diversify. Just look around at nature. Diversity is not only good it is necessary. There can be no advancement without it. So while some people see diversity of thought in religion as bad, the reality of it is that it is natural, necessary and good. Rather than being a sign of weakness it is a sign of strength.

Sure, I didn't mean to say it was a negative. When I was a practicing Christian it was something I took as a positive, which is why I'm fond of Patristic theologians. I find the development of vedanta in India and the ways it incorporated ideas from Buddhism and Jainism fascinating for similar reasons.

Let me ask you this question, do you believe that the early Christians believed in the Trinity and transubstantiation?

If we define those terms in relation to the meanings they were given later, than clearly no. I think it would be reasonable to describe some early Christian beliefs as proto-trinitarian perhaps, but other common Christian beliefs were quite different, for example Arianism. I think it's fair to posit a very early belief in something like the divinity of Christ, but it takes a lot of different forms. As far as the Eucharist, My recollection is that some sort of Eucharistic practice is quite early in Christianity but I'm not sure to what extent there was anything like a belief in transubstantiation. If there was I haven't run into it in my reading.

 

[Karl Rand]

If we define those terms in relation to the meanings they were given later, than clearly no. I think it would be reasonable to describe some early Christian beliefs as proto-trinitarian perhaps, but other common Christian beliefs were quite different, for example Arianism. I think it's fair to posit a very early belief in something like the divinity of Christ, but it takes a lot of different forms. As far as the Eucharist, My recollection is that some sort of Eucharistic practice is quite early in Christianity but I'm not sure to what extent there was anything like a belief in transubstantiation. If there was I haven't run into it in my reading.

This is only one attempt to understand the early approach to ’the last supper’.
THE LORD’S SUPPER IN THE EARLY CHURCH from The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries on JSTOR

 

[BreezeWood]

another example, one more to your liking - to work with ...
Look, I find it embarrasing that maybe someone will imagine I’m defending the KKK but that slogan may not have been placed there by the clan but have come as a permanent fixture in a hired hall. The ’sin’, if we can call it that, may lay with whoever rented or allowed the KKK to use their premises.
On the other hand the KKK members would all probably be horrified if they met the original Jesus and realised he wasn’t exactly white as the driven snow.

.

Look, I find it embarrasing that maybe someone will imagine I’m defending the KKK but that slogan may not have been placed there by the clan but have come as a permanent fixture in a hired hall. The ’sin’, if we can call it that, may lay with whoever rented or allowed the KKK to use their premises.

but that slogan may not have been placed there by the clan ...

who are you kidding -

it's only an example, there is one for every century since the 4th ... its a wonder they find the crucifixion as something of a surprise or not predestined. that's the problem.

 

[Andylusion]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

Ah.... no. That would be incorrect. I have had 2 specific individuals that openly advocated to ban religion.

Given the existence of 2 people that supported such a move, I would be willing to guess there are more than that. How many more, I don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

 

[ding]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

 

[Taz]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Why logically is there only one God?

 

[sealybobo]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

A generic creator. One that created the universe but didn't make Adam and Eve on purpose and doesn't have a heaven waiting for us.

There could be a creator but it never visited and doesn't care about you any more than you care about a bird or bug.

 

[OldLady]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

 

[Taz]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?

 

[ding]

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

A generic creator. One that created the universe but didn't make Adam and Eve on purpose and doesn't have a heaven waiting for us.

There could be a creator but it never visited and doesn't care about you any more than you care about a bird or bug.

One who created existence where the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create? That doesn’t sound like an accident.

If he doesn’t care about right and wrong then where did we get our strong beliefs about them?

 

[ding]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.

 

[anynameyouwish]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."

There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.

Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.

Keep trying!

 

[ding]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."

There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.

Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.

Keep trying!

Research the founders beliefs on natural law and get back to me.

 

[OldLady]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?

Don't be a bitch. It struggles because our town has less than 600 people (although the church certainly welcomes folks from out of town), because the current minister doesn't attract the young folks who would actually attend and bring their children, and because because, like everywhere else, a lot of folks no longer get into the organized religion thing. It is mostly older folks who attend now, I hear; even their annual fund raisers are hard because everyone doing the work is over 70.

 

[sealybobo]

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

A generic creator. One that created the universe but didn't make Adam and Eve on purpose and doesn't have a heaven waiting for us.

There could be a creator but it never visited and doesn't care about you any more than you care about a bird or bug.

One who created existence where the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create? That doesn’t sound like an accident.

If he doesn’t care about right and wrong then where did we get our strong beliefs about them?

You made it up.

 

[ding]

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

A generic creator. One that created the universe but didn't make Adam and Eve on purpose and doesn't have a heaven waiting for us.

There could be a creator but it never visited and doesn't care about you any more than you care about a bird or bug.

One who created existence where the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create? That doesn’t sound like an accident.

If he doesn’t care about right and wrong then where did we get our strong beliefs about them?

You made it up.

Funny, but no.

 

[sealybobo]

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

A generic creator. One that created the universe but didn't make Adam and Eve on purpose and doesn't have a heaven waiting for us.

There could be a creator but it never visited and doesn't care about you any more than you care about a bird or bug.

One who created existence where the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create? That doesn’t sound like an accident.

If he doesn’t care about right and wrong then where did we get our strong beliefs about them?

You made it up.

Funny, but no.

You can laugh but you believe something just because ancient goat herders of yester yore made up a story. Seriously, the stories you and the churches tell get thrown out if you use the scientific method. And don't tell me in order to understand I have to throw out science or practice the same cognitive dissonance you are suffering from.

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

You have formed a hypothesis but after that your hypothesis gets thrown out because you can't conduct an experiment. Conclusion? Your ancient goat herders made it up and you swallow it. Now that's funny.