Offensive Symbols in KAG --> Offensive Symbols in General --> General Chat on Religion

Actually, chances are you wouldn't.

Confirmation bias being what it is, people rarely 'convert' from A to B without a process of catechesis (NB: I'm using the term outside of it's normal context in Catholic circles to indicate a more general period of growing more amiable towards a religion as you realise you agree, or have come to agree, with an increasing number of its tenants) followed by a significant catalytic event (which is to say, something that causes an epiphany) wherein the convert comes to the definitive conclusion that B > A.

So no. I disbelieve that a simple 'proving' would effect anything. (Not to mention that the value of any such 'quitting' is highly suspect, seeing as it could be reasonably argued that the action was motivated by fear only).

Also: FSM? Again?? EWWWWWW

The whole FSM is stupid and not inductive to any sort of constructive discussion. Creating a strawman and then going "Neener neener, you can't prove or disprove my strawman, so any talk about a potentually real god is equally silly" is on par with the antics of a four-year-old.

Either go follow Cthulhu, come have a real debate about religion, or (kindly) stfu+gtfo.

NB: My distaste is not aimed at you personally, Ranged66, but rather at the content you've brought up; namely, the FSM. Bringing up FSM in philosophical/theological circles as something serious is akin to suggesting in hacking circles that remote accessing a computer is in any way similar to playing pipe dream-- i.e. you're flagging a red rag to room full of bulls.

 

Oh my. So many cans of worms opened all at once...

Maybe I'll come back to this. Maybe. If I'm not too busy enjoying working hard IRL while you guys just dig yourselves deeper and deeper...

 

Um. All of it? Solely from Protestants?

 

Sorry, I really only focused on one part of your previous post, and sort of glossed over the rest. Just saying, I'm avidly opposed to the idea that it is predominantly protestants who preach that people will burn in hell if they don't receive Christ. All branches of Christianity are guilty of such prejudices, in some form or another, and to try to offload blame onto another branch, or simply by blaming 'less-informed' people is an absurd claim. If anything, I would personally say that Catholics hold more of the blame, partially due to the fact that prejudice was, for a long time, deeply ingrained in their values, but also for the sheer inflexibility that seems rife in their beliefs. Having said that, I like to think that I understand what you mean by your points, it's just some Christians [read: most Christians] aren't as liberal as others.

And now I come to your point about the topic of gay marriage. Personally, I don't see a problem with it; saying that marriage is necessarily between man and woman is totally understandable, but not a fully justified point in my opinion. What exactly is wrong with calling a union between two religious but homosexual persons a marriage? If God loves everyone, then why doesn't he love homosexuals enough to allow them to use the name 'marriage' when referring to their union?

Firstly, it should be noted that that calling something a marriage doesn't have to make it identical to what you know as a marriage. The Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it also states so many other things which are overlooked in this day and age; if a gay union is called a marriage, does that make it, strictly speaking, a Biblical marriage? I would say not.

Secondly, the argument that marriage is sacred holds just about as much water as a colander, one full of Swiss cheese. Marriage is something that remains practiced even among atheists, because it isn't just a religious thing anymore. It has become a civil term, and as such should not be limited by religion.
Just like marriage, at least two other highly prominent events held dear by religion are no longer exclusively religious. Christmas and Easter have devolved their meanings (which, from the pagan rituals held before the European coming of Christianity, were already at least reasonably dubious) to the point where they are festivals celebrating chocolate and gifts. Christians clearly are able to suffer through the 'abuse' of these holidays, so why is gay marriage such a big thing compared to the birth and death of their saviour?

 

I personally remain dubious of the value of SSM (for a number of reasons, including the unanswered [in my mind anyway] question of what kind of social sexual ecology it creates [read: is it wise for society to promote something that doesn't directly support the basis of that society?], and another point that I'll cover below), but speaking as a Christian I have to say THIS! ^^ DAMN TRUCKING THIS^^^ Theologically it doesn't matter a fig what non-Christians do, in the sense that they're not Christian so they don't have the same rules applied to them. The real issue (in my mind) is making sure religious celebrants can't get sued for refusing to preform a marriage ceremony on religious grounds.
----

Not going to fully expand on the topic, Hella dear, but the crux of the 'marriage is sacred' thingimabob (from a Christian* point of view) is that the marriage dealio is a simultaneous figurative and literal embodiment of the dealio that exists between Christ (who is God) and the Church (which is God's people. Note I'm talking about the Church Universal here, so it's not any one denomination but rather the entirety of all of God's people as God sees them from an eternal perspective-- wow that's already getting into deep waters, so I'll stop this aside here).

<Please note, gentle reader: the paragraphs above & below are the same one, I just thought I'd split them to give your eyes a break. :)>

Thus the reason Christians are so attached to the idea that 'marriage is sacred' is because, as far as they are concerned, it is sacred-- it's somehow both just a representation and the reality of the relationship Christians as a whole have with God.

So it's fair to say "the argument that marriage is sacred holds just about as much water as a colander from where I stand", but to make a broad generalisation about the sacredness of marriage is, well, unfair.
----

*NB: I will say this once, calmly and then I will start throwing large words (and garden implements) about:
Catholicism is just another branch of Christianity! Not a separate religion!

There are different groups of Christians (like the Catholic churches [yes, there are more than one], the few Orthodox churches, the many Protestant churches [of which there are now enough that we have subcategories {and even sub-subcategories} like Pentecostal, Evangelical, Charismatic, etc.]) but all the groups hold a few, core statements to be true (including things like 'Jesus was both the Son of God and God' and 'All have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God, the penalty for which is eternal death & suffering, and the only cure for this predicament is the one provided my God Himself, namely to adopt Christ as our Lord & Treasure') which makes them the same faith. The differences that keep the denominations (denomination being the technical word for any given faith-group under the Christian umbrella) separate are entirely about secondary & tertiary issues (like ordaining female ministers, or whether dancing is a sin)(and no, I'm not going to go into what the differences between primary, secondary & tertiary issues are-- ask me some other time) which, given that these non-primary issues are not life/death issues, kinda means you can think of different denomination as different 'country clubs', who all follow a similar patten of operations, but tend to differ from club to club on things like dress-code and who runs the bingo night.

...

Ugh. That was all very tedious to write and probably even harder to read.

SO DON'T MAKE ME DO IT AGAIN OR I WILL SIT ON YOU SO HARD YOU'LL WISH I WAS BILLY THE FRIDGE!

Fin.

{edit}
Also, just to add some fuel to the debate: gehenna, the word Greek word for hell (in the sense of 'eternal & not fun') is used 12 times in the NT-- 11 of those times it's Jesus using it and in most of those cases (iirc) he's pretty explicit about highlighting the fact that, one way or another, that it's a real place that people really will wind up in. Now, can we please drop this bollocks about 'well-informed Christians don't say people will go to hell if they aren't willing to get real & personal with the J-Man'? Please? Because it's bull pats. Plain & simple.

I know, there's a fantastic & rich discussion/exploration that can grow out of studying what the implications of having a good God and a hell of eternal punishment. Why don't people go puzzle that one out! Go! Do me proud! The answers aren't nearly as horrible & nonsensical as you might think... :p

 

You CAN, we simply haven't YET.

Once upon a time you COULDN'T explain waves or how the sun moves in the sky, and people took it as an act of God, but we sure explained that now didn't we?

We'll learn these things in time, the same way we'll learn about dark matter and at some point FTL travel.

We simply aren't there YET. It doesn't mean we never will be or that it is impossible.

This defeatist attitude is a terribly unhealthy one, and one of the main reasons I dislike religion.