What difference does it make?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why is a person's religious belief a matter of concern to anyone else? Isn't that a personal matter?

Does a person's religious belief or affiliation define the person or tell anything about their character / trustworthiness / reliability / morals / behavior?

[Divine Insight]

.
Why is a person's religious belief a matter of concern to anyone else? Isn't that a personal matter?

Does a person's religious belief or affiliation define the person or tell anything about their character / trustworthiness / reliability / morals / behavior?

In another thread a Jehovah's Witness claimed that if a person doesn't believe in their God that person is wicked.

Apparently this is what their version of Christian dogma teaches them to believe. Their religious faction is certainly not alone in holding this belief. To the contrary I'm pretty sure that this claim is made in the Bible as well.

Therefore there are many religious people who have been taught by their theological institutions that those who do not believe in their dogma are indeed wicked people who have knowingly chosen to reject God and all that is good.

This is actually one of the vile characteristic of Christian theology that makes it so deplorable. It basically teaches it's followers to view everyone outside of the organization as being wicked for not believing in what the religious organization believes.

I'm pretty sure that these types of hateful accusations are also taught in various forms of Islam and possibly even some forms of Judaism.

So these dogmas and religious organizations do indeed teach their followers to judge others as being "wicked" if they haven't fallen in line with the religious beliefs of the organization.

Christianity has always been a bigoted religion in this way from the very beginnings of the Old Testament. Their God is a jealous God who demands that no other Gods be placed before him. This is also taken to mean that to not believe in the God at all makes him very angry.

In order to justify their angry God they have no choice but to decree that those who do not believe in their God are necessarily wicked. After all, there cannot be legitimate reasons for not believing in their God as this would destroy the entire basis of their Jealous-God theologies.

So yes, for many religious people of the Abrahamic religions, they are taught to view non-believers of their specific God to be wicked people who have purposefully and knowingly rejected their God and all that is good.

This is why I see this religion as a purposeful scam. Designed specifically to control how people think and how they view others who don't believe in the religion (i.e. cult). We not allowed to call religions cults, but when they pull these kinds of stunts I don't see how they can be anything else.

[Thomas123]

Excellent topic!

A person is not defined by their religion or non religion!

We all have a personal honesty mandate to consider our actions and their effects as deeply as possible. Our religious and political institutions are a work in progress for us. We cannot abstain from their realities. Am I defined by world poverty, only if I beat down on myself in a very self destructive way.

Religous doctrine has to be actively handled by it's custodians.
What was deemed fit for purpose in the past cannot be simply placed on a dusty shelf for future eventualities. This is dishonest. It must be burned for proper house cleaning. I have a garage like this where my roller blades are no longer fit for purpose.

Speaking of burning. The Christian Hell Fire Doctrine and its perverted origins of control and colonization are still conveniently stored in places like the Vatican attic.
Don't modify this, burn it, do without it, apologise for it and please don't reinvent it, or replace it ,with a draughty place with no windows!

Writing doctrine in stone is ultimately self defeating. You adapt or you die is objective morality. Doctrine needs to be ' ahead of the curve'. The big three, as you call them are all characterized by fear. Holding on to legacy has it's obvious limitations, one of which is that a moving target is much more difficult to hit.

It is a fact that institutional structure, be it in doctrine or administration, is defensive and hostile to internal reform and external onslaught. It's own argument is that defence is a requirement, ie fear! Why have old churches , such thick walls?

How much stuff can you bin when you start your spring clean. It usually depends on the size of the skip you hire.

[Divine Insight]

Writing doctrine in stone is ultimately self defeating.

Exactly. And this is precisely what the authors of the Bible did. They demanded in the OT that the words of the Bible are true as they are written and must not be changed. That's demanding that it must be carved in stone.

The authors of the NT did the same thing with Jesus by having Jesus proclaim that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until heaven and earth pass. Again, an attempt to carve the dogma is stone. These are also most like words that were never actually spoken by any historical Jesus who might have existed.

However. because the Christian dogma is founded on doctrines that demand that they must be carved in stone and never modified or change, this requires that the religion can never do this. Therefore modern day forms of Christianity that are indeed trying to change the dogma they were founded on are self defeating.

Other religions, such as various forms of Buddhism for example, do not demand dogma that is carved in stone. It fact it is reported that their original Buddha himself decreed that we must never accept anything just because it had been held to be true by someone at some point.

The Dalai Lama himself allows a completely open door and open mind for changing what one believes as new information becomes available. And this is indeed what the original Buddha taught.

In this sense Buddhism (at least this view of Buddhism) will never die because it's permitted to continually change as new information becomes available.

Not so with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All of those religions are necessarily carved in stone and stuck with their self-proclaimed Jealous God forever. There's no room to change the dogma without casting out the old dogma is being clearly wrong. So those religions cannot grow, and must die out eventually.

Buddhism actually has the potential to survive forever. Because it is not only free to change, but it is actually encouraged to do so by the original Buddha. So an ever-changing Buddhism is actually in perfect harmony with its founding principles.

[Purple Knight]

Does a person's religious belief or affiliation define the person or tell anything about their character / trustworthiness / reliability / morals / behavior?

Not really, since not a lot of people truly believe their religion to that degree. The people that believe it 100% literally are blowing people up and stoning hookers to death, while the rest wisely ignore the horrid bits and pick out whatever they can shoehorn into being a good moral to live a good life by.

The sad reality is that since times change, holy books don't, but religions do, you really can't judge people by their religious beliefs, perhaps with the exception of a recently formed religion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Writing doctrine in stone is ultimately self defeating.

Exactly. And this is precisely what the authors of the Bible did. They demanded in the OT that the words of the Bible are true as they are written and must not be changed. That's demanding that it must be carved in stone.

It seems as though the developers of Christianity (Paul/Saul and Gospel writers) were stuck with the Torah to gain apparent legitimacy. Without OT 'messianic prophesies', Jesus could not be claimed to be anything more than a wandering preacher.

The developers / promoters of the new splinter group religion deified him by claiming he was the promised Jewish messiah – a claim rejected by Jews – and told stories about 'miracles' and 'resurrection'.

It took fancy footwork and imaginative 'interpretation' to sideline Jewish law while still leaning on Judaism for the appearance of legitimacy. Once Christianity was codified under direction of Roman emperors and churchmen, it became 'written in stone'.

Over the centuries the 'must not be changed' has been worked around by informal changes, creative translation and 'interpretation', and splintering of tens of thousands of sects with their own doctrine and dogma. Now the umbrella term 'Christianity' covers a widely divergent menu of beliefs and practices.

In other words, 'carved in stone but not really' (or 'do what it takes to survive').

[Divine Insight]

.
It took fancy footwork and imaginative 'interpretation' to sideline Jewish law while still leaning on Judaism for the appearance of legitimacy. Once Christianity was codified under direction of Roman emperors and churchmen, it became 'written in stone'.

I think it's important to recognize also that, in the early days as Christianity was just forming, they weren't trying to sell the theology to Jews. Instead they were aimed at converting what Christians today would all "Pagans". So those Pagans probably weren't concerned or, even knowledgeable, of the Jewish OT or Torah.

Many of the early Christian movements where aimed at going to Pagan religious gathers to sell people on a "new demigod" story. I think we need to keep in mind that people in those days were still worshiping the Greek Gods and Goddesses like Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc.

In fact, I suggest that this is why there was much stress on decreeing Jesus as the "Only" begotten Son of God. They wouldn't have needed to do that with cultures that didn't already believe in other sons of gods.

The whole focus on Jesus being the "Only" begotten Son of God was to get people to let go of the other demigod myths and move over to Jesus as the only credible demigod (i.e. Son of God born of a mortal woman). This was a commonly accepted superstition in those days.

I hold that this also brings into question why any "Real God" would have used the same methods as had been previously used in human mythologies?

Sounds pretty fishy to me. This is exactly what I would expect from human con-artists. But not from any actual God.

Ok, so I got a bit carried away there. But my main point is that the early creators of Christianity weren't trying to sell the religion to Jews. They were out to convert Pagans to the new demigod myth. So the earliest Christians were actually Pagans who simply embraced a brand new demigod myth. A myth that they were already familiar with from their Pagan religions. Gods impregnating women to have Sons was a commonly accepted theological notion back then.

[Zzyzx]

.

But my main point is that the early creators of Christianity weren't trying to sell the religion to Jews. They were out to convert Pagans to the new demigod myth. So the earliest Christians were actually Pagans who simply embraced a brand new demigod myth. A myth that they were already familiar with from their Pagan religions. Gods impregnating women to have Sons was a commonly accepted theological notion back then.

I agree. The sales pitch to Jews failed so efforts were refocused elsewhere.

[Overcomer]

Zzyzx wrote:

Why is a person's religious belief a matter of concern to anyone else? Isn't that a personal matter?

It seems to be a matter of major concern to you. If it weren't, you wouldn't be here railing against God, the Bible, Christians and Christianity all the time. If it weren't a matter of concern to you, I think you would be happily getting on with your life, not writing angry, derogatory posts here.

Zzyzx wrote:

Does a person's religious belief or affiliation define the person or tell anything about their character / trustworthiness / reliability / morals / behavior?

A. W. Tozer, a Christian pastor in the States, said that what we believe about God is the most important thing about us because it influences everything in our lives. I agree with him.

And, again, given how you think about Christians, I would say that it has a tremendous effect on how you yourself view people. You seem to have definite opinions about anyone who believes in God and it's clear, based on your writings here, that you judge people on the basis of their religious beliefs accordingly. Of course, whether your understanding of God, the Bible, Christians and Christianity is correct is another matter altogether.

People may try to privatize religious beliefs for their own ends, but what gives them the right to do so? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to discuss their religious beliefs just as openly and freely as they are allowed to discuss their political beliefs or the subjects of economics, psychology, history, philosophy or whatever? Why should religion be exempt from freedom of speech?

And if you want to stop Christians from talking about Jesus, does that mean you want atheists to stop talking about him, too? Or is it just that you only want people who agree with you to have freedom of speech when it comes to religion?

Here's the thing: Jesus came as Saviour to all humankind. Since he came for everybody, everybody should be given the chance to hear about him.

Look at it this way: If you are in a burning building and you know the way out of it, would you tell others or would you just exit the building and save yourself, allowing everybody else to perish?

There's an excellent book on the topic of privatization of Christianity entitled Foolishness to the Greeks by Lesslie Newbigin that I highly recommend.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Foo ... NhwjqxRUQC

[Zzyzx]

.

Why is a person's religious belief a matter of concern to anyone else? Isn't that a personal matter?

It seems to be a matter of major concern to you.

Correction: Personal and private religious beliefs are of no concern to me. I do not even know a person's beliefs unless the announce them publicly. When people make a public show of their beliefs, claims, stories, testimonials, etc those announcements are subject to challenge.

If it weren't, you wouldn't be here railing against God, the Bible, Christians and Christianity all the time.

Those who propagandize their religion publicly cannot expect to be immune from challenge. However, many seem to get upset when others express disbelief of fanciful tales about invisible, undetectable 'gods' up in the sky (or wherever they are imagined to exist).

If it weren't a matter of concern to you,

My concern arises from efforts by religions to influence the society in which I live. Rational people can probably understand that they too would resist imposition of Islamic rules onto their society.

I think you would be happily getting on with your life, not writing angry, derogatory posts here.

What you think is not a matter of debate – or of any importance.

Readers, however, may well be aware that I have stated many times that I do not watch television, movies, videos, concerts, etc – which leaves plenty of time to debate. Crossing swords with fervent believers, fanatics, fundamentalists (and very seldom a Thinking Theist) is entertaining and often amusing. People often get SO emotional trying to defend some favorite mythology as though it was truthful and accurate.

Does a person's religious belief or affiliation define the person or tell anything about their character / trustworthiness / reliability / morals / behavior?

A. W. Tozer, a Christian pastor in the States, said that what we believe about God is the most important thing about us because it influences everything in our lives. I agree with him.

I disagree with you and the preacher. Feel free to invite him/her here to debate on a level playing field and see whether such ideas hold water.

Religious affiliations / beliefs cannot be shown to produce high morals. Christians are incarcerated at rates reflecting the percentage of Christians in US society. Christians divorce as frequently as anyone else. Christian women have half a million abortions per year in the US.

All the while Christians attempt to claim moral high ground.

And, again, given how you think about Christians,

Unless you pretend to be omniscient, you have no idea how I think about Christians. You would not, for instance, know that here in the Bible Belt many of my real life friends are Christians. HOWEVER, they do not wear their religion on their forehead and do NOT attempt any foolish god talk with me.

I would say that it has a tremendous effect on how you yourself view people.

Are you a trained psychologist – or just a pretender with warped opinion?

You seem to have definite opinions about anyone who believes in God

How would I know a person's god beliefs unless they make a show of them in public?

and it's clear, based on your writings here, that you judge people on the basis of their religious beliefs accordingly.

Has it ever occurred to you to debate the TOPIC rather than attempt half-baked attempts to attack the person?

Of course, whether your understanding of God, the Bible, Christians and Christianity is correct is another matter altogether.

My 'understandings' are as valid as anyone's. Theists have no monopoly on understanding (though some think they have been given special abilities by a spirit).

Can you dispute my stated position: “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�?

People may try to privatize religious beliefs for their own ends, but what gives them the right to do so? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to discuss their religious beliefs just as openly and freely as they are allowed to discuss their political beliefs or the subjects of economics, psychology, history, philosophy or whatever? Why should religion be exempt from freedom of speech?

You seem to take offense at my exercise of freedom of speech.

Should only pro-religion speech be accorded freedom?

Those who object to having their claims and stories challenged might be more comfortable posting in Holy Huddle.

And if you want to stop Christians from talking about Jesus,

I have no desire to stop Christians from talking about Jesus any more than I desire to stop people from talking about fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or other imaginary creatures.

However, I may challenge their claims of knowledge about such things – and they often get all upset and indignant – as though their tales are sacred.

does that mean you want atheists to stop talking about him, too?

Think about that a bit. If Theists stop talking about 'gods' and 'Jesus' what would Atheists have to protest?

Or is it just that you only want people who agree with you to have freedom of speech when it comes to religion?

You seem to be objecting to MY freedom to speak about religion. Is it a one-way street – freedom to throw out religious propaganda but no freedom to oppose the propaganda?

Here's the thing: Jesus came as Saviour to all humankind.

That is just a religious opinion -- a tale in an ancient book that has not been shown to be anything more than accumulated tales and folklore.

Since he came for everybody, everybody should be given the chance to hear about him.

Why does everybody / anybody need to hear about a long-dead Jewish preacher?

Look at it this way: If you are in a burning building and you know the way out of it, would you tell others or would you just exit the building and save yourself, allowing everybody else to perish?

Look at it this way: When here is no fire, saving people from an imaginary fire may seem heroic to some, but unless the fire is real, it is simply play-acting / pretending.