[Phaethon]

Yesterday, my religious family has blamed me for 'picking and choosing' from different religions, philosophies and spiritualities, rather than "honestly" taking the whole thing. When it comes to religion, this accusation is often directed by conservatives to liberals. I've also heard leading atheist figures blaming Christians and Muslims for "ignoring" the allegedly violent and intolerant content of their sacred texts.

At that moment I didn't really know what to answer, but after thinking about it, my reply would certainly be: "Yeah, and? Isn't it my right to recognize the radical differences between the Gospel of Jesus and some parts of the Old Testament? If my reason tells me that a God of Love doesn't fit with executing blasphemers in Leviticus, should that be a problem? Christians have never read the Bible as one coherent text until very recently anyway. And does adhering to one philosophy automatically shut me off from everything else?"

In the end, I think creating one's own 'religion' should not only be accepted, but encouraged, though I'm not sure whether the term 'religion' can still be employed in this case. After all, each of us is unique, and we all have our own way of seeing life, which doesn't necessarily make some of us 'more right' than others, but simply different. 'Picking and choosing' should be praised as a sign of individual research. Heck, even the Apostle Paul said "Test everything, hold on to the good".
Humans have been seeking truth since the beggining, and this 'quest' has been recounted by writers from all over the world until today. Why take hold of one and throw the rest into the fire?

Discuss

[RollandGarros]

I didn't bother reading because I know it's going to be a stupid post. So just go to bed and get some sleep.

[M1011]

May I be a disciple?

[Pinkhead]

(Original post by Phaethon)
If my reason tells me that a God of Love doesn't fit with executing blasphemers in Leviticus, should that be a problem?

Yes, it is a problem if you are worshipping said God. Pretty obvious.

Christians have never read the Bible as one coherent text until very recently anyway

LOL.
That explains A LOT

'Picking and choosing' should be praised as a sign of individual research. Heck, even the Apostle Paul said "Test everything, hold on to the good".

Are you kidding me? Picking and choosing classes as individual research?
So this is what religious people mean when they say they've researched their views and remain religious....

Let me get this straight.

Out of all the supernatural beliefs, you choose the believe in THIS one and THAT one, but not the rest for no real reason, and this should be encouraged? What are you smoking?

'Humans have been seeking truth since the beggining, and this 'quest' has been recounted by writers from all over the world until today. Why take hold of one and throw the rest into the fire?'

Yes, let's just forget all the scientific research which tries to find out the actual truth instead of guesses about magic men and focus on some crap that I thought of last night while taking a long dump.

I call Poe.

[Miracle Day]

Ahh a spiritual shopper

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Phaethon)
Yesterday, my religious family has blamed me for 'picking and choosing' from different religions, philosophies and spiritualities, rather than "honestly" taking the whole thing. When it comes to religion, this accusation is often directed by conservatives to liberals. I've also heard leading atheist figures blaming Christians and Muslims for "ignoring" the allegedly violent and intolerant content of their sacred texts.

At that moment I didn't really know what to answer, but after thinking about it, my reply would certainly be: "Yeah, and? Isn't it my right to recognize the radical differences between the Gospel of Jesus and some parts of the Old Testament? If my reason tells me that a God of Love doesn't fit with executing blasphemers in Leviticus, should that be a problem? Christians have never read the Bible as one coherent text until very recently anyway. And does adhering to one philosophy automatically shut me off from everything else?"

In the end, I think creating one's own 'religion' should not only be accepted, but encouraged, though I'm not sure whether the term 'religion' can still be employed in this case. After all, each of us is unique, and we all have our own way of seeing life, which doesn't necessarily make some of us 'more right' than others, but simply different. 'Picking and choosing' should be praised as a sign of individual research. Heck, even the Apostle Paul said "Test everything, hold on to the good".
Humans have been seeking truth since the beggining, and this 'quest' has been recounted by writers from all over the world until today. Why take hold of one and throw the rest into the fire?

Discuss

I like this post... If one does go down the theist route, I see nothing wrong with doing this...
You're my favourite theist so far

Spoiler:

Show

dont get too excited, you're still competing with others

[Occams Chainsaw]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I like this post... If one does go down the theist route, I see nothing wrong with doing this...
You're my favourite theist so far

Spoiler:

Show

dont get too excited, you're still competing with others

It would certainly make it harder for people like me to ridicule religion since there would be so much variation. I can't just ask if you're a catholic or muslim and troll accordingly, *sighs*, I guess I would have to just mock religion as a whole

To the OP: Most religious texts are pretty much the same anyway since they originated from the same ancient stories, each people having their own variation of the anthropomorphically portrayed solar deities and astrological observation. You will actually notice that most religious texts are basically plagiarism of previous ones. All the stories are the same (as were the activities in the sky, so that makes sense) but societies rulers manipulated the stories in different ways to get what they wanted from the people. e.g. The Vatican of the Roman Empire manipulated the texts to scare the people into abiding to moral laws and to give them money in the form of tithe. Only saying that their eternal fate resting on them doing this would suffice.
Anyway, My point being it doesn't matter if you pick or choose certain passages of the Quran, Bible or any other religious texts, if you think of it as personifications, literacy and anthropomorphic hybrids, you will actually see that they are all telling the same story!

[Pinkhead]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
It would certainly make it harder for people like me to ridicule religion since there would be so much variation. I can't just ask if you're a catholic or muslim and troll accordingly, *sighs*, I guess I would have to just mock religion as a whole

It would actually be easier to ridicule because it would be obvious (as if it wasn't already) that they are made up stories.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
It would certainly make it harder for people like me to ridicule religion since there would be so much variation. I can't just ask if you're a catholic or muslim and troll accordingly, *sighs*, I guess I would have to just mock religion as a whole

If you mean religion in general rather than just god, fair enough
ridiculing those who take the piss is enough for me. That said, given science can't prove or disprove god, I'd stray away from taking the piss out of people for just being theist, that would just be sad...

[koko298]

If your belief makes you a better person, then let it be, encouraged it. I don't see why not After all its all about ourselves

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Pinkhead)
XXX

First things first: the atheist leitmotiv 'You're assuming God exists' is getting rather stale. I'd suggest you drop it.

Out of all the supernatural beliefs, you choose the believe in THIS one and THAT one, but not the rest for no real reason, and this should be encouraged? What are you smoking?

You misunderstand. To be honest, aside from a few, I don't really care about 'supernatural beliefs'. I couldn't care less about unicorns and spaghetti monsters. I'm almost exclusively interested in the philosophy of different religions, especially Christianity and Buddhism. I read the so-called Scriptures like I would any words of wisdom, not like historical truth. Take the book of Genesis for example: if you materialist dimwits accept to suspend disbelief for one minute you would realize it is full of insight on the human condition.

Yes, let's just forget all the scientific research which tries to find out the actual truth instead of guesses about magic men and focus on some crap that I thought of last night while taking a long dump.

You know, when people say they want 'truth', they usually aren't talking about genes and atoms. In fact, science is about utility, not about truth. It doesn't matter whether a theory is fundamentally true or not, what really matters is its usefulness.
No, the truth I want is about life, not the biological phenomenon, but how to live my life, and how to give the best of myself in the short time that we've been given. And only philosophy can help me with that. That's what I mean by "individual research'.
Only if you weren't so narrow minded, you'd have understood.

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I like this post... If one does go down the theist route, I see nothing wrong with doing this...
You're my favourite theist so far

Spoiler:

Show

dont get too excited, you're still competing with others

I'm honored thank you, I'll try not to dissapoint your expectations^^

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
It would certainly make it harder for people like me to ridicule religion since there would be so much variation. I can't just ask if you're a catholic or muslim and troll accordingly, *sighs*, I guess I would have to just mock religion as a whole

To the OP: Most religious texts are pretty much the same anyway since they originated from the same ancient stories, each people having their own variation of the anthropomorphically portrayed solar deities and astrological observation. You will actually notice that most religious texts are basically plagiarism of previous ones. All the stories are the same (as were the activities in the sky, so that makes sense) but societies rulers manipulated the stories in different ways to get what they wanted from the people. e.g. The Vatican of the Roman Empire manipulated the texts to scare the people into abiding to moral laws and to give them money in the form of tithe. Only saying that their eternal fate resting on them doing this would suffice.
Anyway, My point being it doesn't matter if you pick or choose certain passages of the Quran, Bible or any other religious texts, if you think of it as personifications, literacy and anthropomorphic hybrids, you will actually see that they are all telling the same story!

Having studied both the Gospel and the Quran, I beg to differ. Though both texts share the same Abrahamic context (the Hebrew Scriptures) and share the same monotheism (even if the Quran's is somewhat more strict), their implications are very different. The Quran mainly emphasizes the reforming of society, rendering it more just and stable. However, though I do agree that Islam in its original form is a religion of peace, the God of Islam is by no means a God of Love: there is no intimate relationship whatsoever between Allah and the 'Ummah'.
The Gospel takes the opposite turn, focusing much more on self-improvement than on changing political institutions. Jesus didn't really care about the latter, even though he repeatedly encourged his followers to help the poor.

That's just one example. Notice that viewed this way, teh Quran and the Gospel seem almost complementary...

[py0alb]

(Original post by Phaethon)
Yesterday, my religious family has blamed me for 'picking and choosing' from different religions, philosophies and spiritualities, rather than "honestly" taking the whole thing. When it comes to religion, this accusation is often directed by conservatives to liberals. I've also heard leading atheist figures blaming Christians and Muslims for "ignoring" the allegedly violent and intolerant content of their sacred texts.

At that moment I didn't really know what to answer, but after thinking about it, my reply would certainly be: "Yeah, and? Isn't it my right to recognize the radical differences between the Gospel of Jesus and some parts of the Old Testament? If my reason tells me that a God of Love doesn't fit with executing blasphemers in Leviticus, should that be a problem? Christians have never read the Bible as one coherent text until very recently anyway. And does adhering to one philosophy automatically shut me off from everything else?"

In the end, I think creating one's own 'religion' should not only be accepted, but encouraged, though I'm not sure whether the term 'religion' can still be employed in this case. After all, each of us is unique, and we all have our own way of seeing life, which doesn't necessarily make some of us 'more right' than others, but simply different. 'Picking and choosing' should be praised as a sign of individual research. Heck, even the Apostle Paul said "Test everything, hold on to the good".
Humans have been seeking truth since the beggining, and this 'quest' has been recounted by writers from all over the world until today. Why take hold of one and throw the rest into the fire?

Discuss

If you mean creating your own conception of a philosophy of morality, then everyone (except religious people obviously) already does that without even really thinking about it.

We can all see that Jesus is quoted as having said some vaguely insightful things, as was Mohammed and Buddha and Nelson Mandela and John Stuart Mill and loads of other people.

Its not a religion though because its based on your personal rational assessment of what is and isn't moral rather than just on believing what you've been taught to believe by one particular group.

What you're talking about actually sounds very much like secular humanism. Picking and choosing is great. What isn't great is doing what a lot of moderate religious people do which is to pick and choose from various sources and then still claim that one particular source is the "ultimate source of morality" because they're obviously either lying or confused about the meaning of the word "ultimate".

To pick and choose is to intrinsically reject the supremacy of any particular religion. People should just admit that this is what they're doing.

[Occams Chainsaw]

(Original post by Phaethon)
Having studied both the Gospel and the Quran, I beg to differ. Though both texts share the same Abrahamic context (the Hebrew Scriptures) and share the same monotheism (even if the Quran's is somewhat more strict), their implications are very different. The Quran mainly emphasizes the reforming of society, rendering it more just and stable. However, though I do agree that Islam in its original form is a religion of peace, the God of Islam is by no means a God of Love: there is no intimate relationship whatsoever between Allah and the 'Ummah'.
The Gospel takes the opposite turn, focusing much more on self-improvement than on changing political institutions. Jesus didn't really care about the latter, even though he repeatedly encourged his followers to help the poor.

That's just one example. Notice that viewed this way, teh Quran and the Gospel seem almost complementary...

Jesus' teachings are irrelevant. I think you misunderstand the concept of anthropomorphic interpretation. But I agree with you on the whole.

[Occams Chainsaw]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
If you mean religion in general rather than just god, fair enough
ridiculing those who take the piss is enough for me. That said, given science can't prove or disprove god, I'd stray away from taking the piss out of people for just being theist, that would just be sad...

Meh, there are more rational explanations than a man in the clouds etc etc, unfortunately you have to have quite a bit of knowledge, especially in terms of astronomy to understand most of it.

EDIT: Also, yes I do mean religion in general. I mock the beliefs, not the people. If they choose to take offence, that's their decision. They can mock my beliefs that we are a produce of evolution if they like.

[allyz04]

Hi

[Pinkhead]

(Original post by Phaethon)
First things first: the atheist leitmotiv 'You're assuming God exists' is getting rather stale. I'd suggest you drop it.

What do you mean? Sorry, but I don't think I made any reference to the your/whomever's assumption that God exists.

I read the so-called Scriptures like I would any words of wisdom, not like historical truth. Take the book of Genesis for example: if you materialist dimwits accept to suspend disbelief for one minute you would realize it is full of insight on the human condition.

But the thing is, many people take it literally and say that it must be taken literally because it is the infallible word of god. If people keep changing how they read scriptures, how are others and I to know which you are referring to? It can get awfully confusing.
Nevertheless, why is it that you need religious scriptures to get an insight into 'the human condition'. They all all awfully outdated, and to get your philosophical views from a book written many, many years ago would be pointless apart from at face value. They are not relevant to how much has changed and how we live our life now, so surely they aren't of much use today.

You know, when people say they want 'truth', they usually aren't talking about genes and atoms. In fact, science is about utility, not about truth. It doesn't matter whether a theory is fundamentally true or not, what really matters is its usefulness.
No, the truth I want is about life, not the biological phenomenon, but how to live my life, and how to give the best of myself in the short time that we've been given. And only philosophy can help me with that. That's what I mean by "individual research'.
Only if you weren't so narrow minded, you'd have understood.

Narrow minded? Because I'm not being pretentious about every line in some scripture and attributing it to something it isn't?
Our life is meaningless relative to everything else in the universe, but you are right in that you need to think about how to live life to it's fullest considering that it's likely that it's the only one we're going to get.
However, picking and choosing from random scriptures is not the way to do it (IMO anyway). If you look hard enough at anything, I guarantee you that you will find some 'deep, philosophical meaning' in it. Why not think for yourself?

[Pinkhead]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
If they choose to take offence, that's their decision. They can mock my beliefs that we are a produce of evolution if they like.

Please don't refer to it as a belief. Creationists will misunderstand evolution and think that it is just a matter of faith like their own beliefs. I understand what you mean, but others wont.
Sorry to be pedantic, but it really does make a difference.

[Occams Chainsaw]

(Original post by Pinkhead)
Please don't refer to it as a belief. Creationists will misunderstand evolution and think that it is just a matter of faith like their own beliefs. I understand what you mean, but others wont.
Sorry to be pedantic, but it really does make a difference.

Hmm. I suppose your right. My wording was perhaps targeted towards the more rational section of TSR.
I was actually subtly trying to imply that anyone who does make a mockery of evolution is just ignorant and irrational considering the plausibility, especially relative the that of religion. It's difficult to be sarcastic on here since there is no 'tone'!