Serious Faith/Religion Thread

[Shapok]

I'll leave it here since debating this with two extraordinarily devout people isn't really going to get anyway for either of us.

All I'll say though is faith should not be all encompassing, and you should not delude yourself with zealotry. But, if that is what you must do in order to cope with the world and in order to carry on as a good person, then do as you wish. I simply wish to live the way I want, and even if I do not outright agree or support the ways you wish to, I will support your right and freedom to live in those ways (assuming none of them are genuinely harmful to others or are breaking the law)

God bless my friend.

 

[Warwick]

I'll leave it here since debating this with two extraordinarily devout people isn't really going to get anyway for either of us.

All I'll say though is faith should not be all encompassing, and you should not delude yourself with zealotry. But, if that is what you must do in order to cope with the world and in order to carry on as a good person, then do as you wish. I simply wish to live the way I want, and even if I do not outright agree or support the ways you wish to, I will support your right and freedom to live in those ways (assuming none of them are genuinely harmful to others or are breaking the law)

The thing that I will finish on is that we are not extraordinarily devout. I go to Church on Sundays and when I am free, I go to Pilgrimage when it is necessary, and pray daily and try and learn about my faith. You should examine your use of words so as to avoid loaded statements and questions, such as "delude yourself with zealotry", and also - as a show of good faith, typically you don't agree to step away from an argument or discussion by making a claim, with no opportunity to retort. Regardless, we have love for you as a Child of God, and peace be with you.

 

[Sil]

God bless my friend.

Likewise :)

 

[Shapok]

The thing that I will finish on is that we are not extraordinarily devout.

This is a very good point. As an Orthodox Catechumen in a historically Catholic country I am in no way as devout as I'd like to be. And even then, my personal acts of asceticism are minuscule to those we can read about in scripture or in the lives of the Holy Saints or Church Fathers.

And just to be clear to the atheists et al reading this thread, many Christians you will find online will present themselves as paragons of virtue, which in and of itself shows a deep misunderstanding of the Faith. I have personally indulged so much in this life, be it through casual sex, countless drugs and at times terrible hate and evil thoughts (which is why I do not agree with the sentiment of living by one's own desires and wants). I was the most atheist of atheists, devoted to his scientific literature, sometimes even pretending to be pagan to invoke anger in people.

There was a time I wished I could take it back, but in a way it helped: it helped in the sense that it is conducive to humility, self-flagellation and therefore to remain on the path of good and never stray back to those dark days. For me, it is only once you show weakness before God that you can begin to claim victories over these evil thoughts and acts. Only once you realise that what comes out of your head can often be misleading and not in your best interest can you begin to be good and just. We can see this in the story of Saint Moses of Ethiopia, a slave, a thief, a brigand and a murderer, who turned to Christ Jesus, and was martyred by raiders in his church, giving his life so that others may live. Hopefully my story won't be nearly as epic, lol.

I'm also studying to be a traumatology surgeon, if that helps make me seem less of a "zealot" and complete religious nutjob lol.

Regardless, we have love for you as a Child of God, and peace be with you.

Amen.

 

[NightLock]

I can see some things have happened on this thread whilst I've been at work, and so would just like to say I'm only commenting on my direct replies, and I hope no ill will is extended towards me for progressing with this conversation. If you would rather not partake... Well I guess you could just not respond, but feel free to just also say you do not intend to reply to me, I would absolutely understand

We know what God's will with sexuality is because we can look to the first who possessed it: the first humans, Adam and Eve. And we know that humans were created by God with two distinct modes of being, male or female (Genesis 1:27), so that they may be in close communion with each other. In fact, this exclusive bond between a single male and a single female is seen as perfect by God himself (Genesis 2:24), which is why as Christians we must remain within the framework given to us by God so that we may be righteous.

This is really the question I was asking in the first place. Do Christians (on this thread, or generally, although its unfair to generalise to that degree) hold these beliefs but just don't be so loud about it... and the answer is yes. One of my big problem is, that priest from the video, and on the thread, it was eeked around as a thing of "No, actually its just because of no procreation." So frankly, I'm just happy that someone just kind of gave it to me straight (hehe, ironic)

Absolutely incorrect. Contraception changes either the outcome of a relationship, or the physical attributes of a woman. Hormonal contraception destroys women’s bodies and frankly should be illegal. There’s a reason why we don’t have a male contraceptive pill, and it’s because if a pill with the same side effects were to be released to the public today, it would be rejected for being too destructive to their bodies.

Like it or don’t, Catholics that forgo contraception (as the Church teaches), have some of the lowest divorce rates in the world. Simple as that.

Contraception is not solely speaking for the pill, but in this context would extend to any contraception, such as an IUD, condoms, etc. So it's not really giving a full answer here.

On top of that, low divorce rates do not mean the marriage is a happy one, just that they believe divorce, same as contraception, is a sin and so must be avoided.

 

[NightLock]

We know what God's will with sexuality is because we can look to the first who possessed it: the first humans, Adam and Eve. And we know that humans were created by God with two distinct modes of being, male or female (Genesis 1:27), so that they may be in close communion with each other. In fact, this exclusive bond between a single male and a single female is seen as perfect by God himself (Genesis 2:24), which is why as Christians we must remain within the framework given to us by God so that we may be righteous.

Also I am sorry for adding on after a while - However none of this verses say it's exclusive to men and women, just that men should be loyal to their wives above all else.

 

[Shapok]

This is really the question I was asking in the first place. Do Christians (on this thread, or generally, although its unfair to generalise to that degree) hold these beliefs but just don't be so loud about it... and the answer is yes. One of my big problem is, that priest from the video, and on the thread, it was eeked around as a thing of "No, actually its just because of no procreation." So frankly, I'm just happy that someone just kind of gave it to me straight (hehe, ironic)

I am an Orthodox, and the videos you viewed were Catholic I believe, therefore I cannot speak for them, but the take I gave was my own, correct. EDIT: The Pope said that homosexuality IS a sin, however it is not mortal (meaning it does not exclude you from God's love, in the current Catholic tradition seen as we are all sinners)

Also I am sorry for adding on after a while - However none of this verses say it's exclusive to men and women, just that men should be loyal to their wives above all else.

As Christians, we believe that however things are created by God is the perfect form of that "thing", because to us God is just.

I'd like to say, however, that every single one of us is a sinner, whether it be sexual, pride, gluttony and whatnot. You are a sinner just as much as I am my friend, however we can all make efforts to vanquish our sin and live a life of righteousness :)


EDIT: [THE BELIEFS OF MY OWN FAITH] I will personally not speak on contraception as it is quite clearly an affront to God. I have been taught that sexual relationship is founded on procreation, and the relationship between husband and wife must and will always be centred around the children they have produced. Not very tolerant, I know, but tolerance is not my priority. We must love everyone, bar Satan and the suffering and temptations he brings unto us. Luke 5:32.

 

['77 East]

How can you possibly claim to love your family if you do not go to their home and visit them?

Even Jesus or his disciples didn't need to seek shelter in a temple 24/7 to pray.
Why should anyone be forced to pilgrimage if it's impractical or they wish to do otherwise?

A family is a collection of people. I can call sections of mine whenever I reasonably can, facetime some, send texts if either of us are short on time - I do all these things, but none of it's possible with a physical building. Driving hours to visit a church versus simply praying wherever you want is a bit of an odd thing to make demands of.

This isn't a modern sacrilege, thousand of years before now people continued to pray while away from churches. Faithful covertly prayed under persecution from many regimes, under hardship and lack of transport. Why does a building represent the pinnacle of your faith, and not the teachings, the core of a faith?

Deciding to just ignore parts of your religious teachings because you don’t like it anymore is heresy

I'd say that we agree on this - but this exact argument is why different religious sects exist.

Not to mention, as an example you might agree entirely with the catholic interpretation of the bible, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge the communion of saints. You haven't contradicted the teachings or the scripture, merely a practice espoused by the church.

What does this represent, in your opinion?

Listen closely to Father Mike’s analogy

While I'm still about to post, I'd like to touch on this too for a quick second:

Why do people place such an emphasis on attentively demanding people kowtow to raw opinions of pastors, clerics, etc all the time?

They're reading the same book you are, likely from the exact same sect too if you're eager to use them as examples, so why instead of reading the actual book do people throw extracts of these sermons out as gospel when they're often just opinions - sure, they might use sections of scripture to support ideas, but that doesn't make the ideas or the words themselves righteous without actual backing.

Not saying that notions brought forward in this way can't be true (according to a faith) but they have to be substantiated.
Raw opinion does not equal scriptural backing.

 

['77 East]

the relationship between husband and wife must and will always be centred around the children they have produced.

I don't mean this as a 'gotcha' but more of a puzzled thought:

If a relationship cannot (for medical reasons, not talking about consent nor celibacy here) be consummated, or one spouse is infertile, what would your teachings require?

Like it or don’t, Catholics that forgo contraception (as the Church teaches), have some of the lowest divorce rates in the world. Simple as that.

Divorce rates are incredibly low for catholics simply because to a large majority (sect dependent, yes, but this is the official stance as you note), it is not permitted. Contraception is not permitted, meaning couples who marry to have marital benefits may suddenly wind up with kids and no ability to seperate. An easy path for resentment and much worse.

My great grandfather came home traumatized from kokoda and spent his remaining sixty years between chronic alcoholism and beating up my great grandmother simply because neither of them could divorce each other. Divorce rates should not be treated as some blessed-by-divinity sign that relationships of a particular faith are worthy or not.

 

[MaXenzie]

If a relationship cannot (for medical reasons, not talking about consent nor celibacy here) be consummated, or one spouse is infertile, what would your teachings require?

can only give the Catholic answer, not Othordox, but:

"If I am unable to bear children, can I still be married in the Catholic Church?"

> Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null. Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage (can. 1084).

from the code of canon
ALSO from the code of canon

> “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (#1084.3).

so uh...
if you're infertile, you're a-okay
if you can't get it up, you're shit out of luck

 

[Warwick]

I'd say that we agree on this - but this exact argument is why different religious sects exist.

Not to mention, as an example you might agree entirely with the catholic interpretation of the bible, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge the communion of saints. You haven't contradicted the teachings or the scripture, merely a practice espoused by the church.

What does this represent, in your opinion?

Read the Apostle’s Creed and then get back to me.

Why do people place such an emphasis on attentively demanding people kowtow to raw opinions of pastors, clerics, etc all the time?

Because they have spent years serving the Church, followed by years in the Seminary and been trained in Apologetics by the best theologians on the planet. It’s quite simple really. When there is a pandemic, we listen to epidemiologists. When we want to know what to do with our faith, we listen to priests.

Raw opinion does not equal scriptural backing.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are prescriptive, but do not follow Sola Scriptura.

 

[Shapok]

Even Jesus or his disciples didn't need to seek shelter in a temple 24/7 to pray.
Why should anyone be forced to pilgrimage if it's impractical or they wish to do otherwise?

A family is a collection of people. I can call sections of mine whenever I reasonably can, facetime some, send texts if either of us are short on time - I do all these things, but none of it's possible with a physical building. Driving hours to visit a church versus simply praying wherever you want is a bit of an odd thing to make demands of.

I was answering the specific claim that "you are free to never visit a church". Yes, you are free to never do so, and to "facetime" your family, however this does not invalidate my point that if you love your family it might be a good idea to go and visit them. I'd like to point out that justification is not realised from faith alone, works are necessary (James 2:24-26), and just because we believe in Christ Jesus does not mean we are eternally redeemed: is a killer, a rapist or any kind of agent of evil justified solely because he states that he loves God? Of course not, for if he loved God he would not do these things. Your works should reflect your faith, in the same capacity that your love for your family should drive you to go and be close to them, and break bread with them. Of course, it isn't on the same level, but I hope you get my point.

This isn't a modern sacrilege, thousand of years before now people continued to pray while away from churches. Faithful covertly prayed under persecution from many regimes, under hardship and lack of transport. Why does a building represent the pinnacle of your faith, and not the teachings, the core of a faith?

You misunderstood the point. A church is not the "pinnacle" of my faith, just as the house of my family is not the pinnacle of my love for them. We know from Matthew 26:17-30 and several other passages that it is important to receive Holy Communion, and it is important for us to strive towards being IN Holy Communion with our Lord. This is why the faithful that were persecuted by these regimes routinely built hidden churches, notably underground in many ancient cities. The building itself is not the pinnacle of faith, it is what the faithful do within that building which is important. How can you love your fellow man if you are perpetually alone? And what is there to guide you in your faith if all you have is a Bible and noble intention? One might say, The Holy Spirit, but how can you possibly differentiate, as a layman, between Holy Spirit or your own thoughts, or worse, forces of evil influencing your thoughts? I'll put this down to pride.

Not to mention, as an example you might agree entirely with the catholic interpretation of the bible, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge the communion of saints. You haven't contradicted the teachings or the scripture, merely a practice espoused by the church.

Protestantism and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race, lol. Christianity is more than just the Bible, and we know this simply by the fact that Christianity has existed longer than the Bible has.

I don't mean this as a 'gotcha' but more of a puzzled thought:

If a relationship cannot (for medical reasons, not talking about consent nor celibacy here) be consummated, or one spouse is infertile, what would your teachings require?

This is an extremely complex problem and I am certainly not "qualified" to give a sufficient answer, so I will take the admittedly lazy route and redirect you to a Church Father. Seen as the issue puzzles you it might be for the best you get a decent answer :)

Parish Ministry Resources - When the Fruit of the Womb is Not Expedient

THE CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE WITH INFERTILITY Among the many themes present during the marriage service in the Orthodox Church, two seem to be particularly stressed: God’s blessing and childbearing. Over a dozen times each of these themes is reiterated and their connection to one another would...

www.oca.org

 

[NightLock]

As Christians, we believe that however things are created by God is the perfect form of that "thing", because to us God is just.

I'd like to say, however, that every single one of us is a sinner, whether it be sexual, pride, gluttony and whatnot. You are a sinner just as much as I am my friend, however we can all make efforts to vanquish our sin and live a life of righteousness :)

I understand that your God (I say "your" just as I don't want to speak for any other religions and their interpretations of god, or even just different sects of Christianity because that is a WHOLE thing) is seen as an infallible, just being. However, religious texts that is referred to by followers, clergymen, etc, are written by the same fallible, sinful humans that are on the earth. My knowledge is rusty on the exact topic, and I believe there's some collaboration between God and the writers of the bible in the canon of the book itself, however it leaves plenty of room for humanity to go off script, to mistranslate (intentionally or unintentionally), when putting these writings to ink and scripture. I understand that religion is all about faith, but it is a tremendous leap to just... trust these old guys that "No, I REALLLYYY talked to God, pinky promise!" If there is actually another explanation in the canon of the books, I would love to learn what that interpretation is.

Regardless, it is also a bit short sighted for something to be seen as only right and just and divine if it is written in the scripture. There are many things throughout history, as well as the modern day, that was never written of. Does the fact there is no specific reference to it make it sinful to partake in that thing? Just the internet, the phone/computer you're using to reply, would that, in the eyes of your God, be a sinful action as it was not condoned in the writings that you follow (assuming it is the direct word of God for this paragraph).

On the subject of "Everyone is a sinner" the statement has always been.... off to me. It's said to people's faces all smiling in a stupor, but I can't help but feel there's a knife behind their back when they say it. Because as per your belief system, everyone is a sinner, but also the ones who follow God, repent etc are able to get into heaven, the afterlife and, whereas everyone else is cast into hell (whether that be a place of fire and torture, or just a place without the presence of God, I know there's many interpretations). It makes the statement seem disingenuous when it's being said to me, personally, as it is a thing of "Everyone is a sinner but I'm a better sinner because I do my best to follow God's teachings and absolute authority"

 

[Shapok]

I understand that your God (I say "your" just as I don't want to speak for any other religions and their interpretations of god, or even just different sects of Christianity because that is a WHOLE thing) is seen as an infallible, just being. However, religious texts that is referred to by followers, clergymen, etc, are written by the same fallible, sinful humans that are on the earth.

The books of the Bible are written, in their outstanding majority, by righteous prophets and devout followers of the Lord. You are free to not trust them, just as I am free to heed their words. However, I would argue that literary analysis of the texts as well as the absolutely mind boggling cross-referencing present in the entirety of scripture across a millenium and a half points to its veracity and Divine origin. There is also a case to be made for the prophecies the Bible makes which are realised in later books. I saw some crazy probability stat the other day about Jesus fulfilling all of the prophecies in Isaiah about his coming, pretty crazy stuff when you delve into it. You've probably already seen this nice chart of the KJV's (protestant bible, meaning it has had books removed) cross references:

My knowledge is rusty on the exact topic, and I believe there's some collaboration between God and the writers of the bible in the canon of the book itself, however it leaves plenty of room for humanity to go off script, to mistranslate (intentionally or unintentionally), when putting these writings to ink and scripture.

That "collaboration" is the Holy Spirit working through these men, and it can also be direct interventions by God relayed by the writer. Furthermore, we have the an immense amount of thousand year-old manuscripts of these books which still line up with what we have today, and even then these are manuscripts copied from original works which we can deduce were produced contemporarily to the events they describe (not Genesis, obviously). On the topic of "going off script", we are very much aware of this, and it is the reason why we have ecumenical councils, most notably the First Council of Niceae which gave us the Nicene Creed.

it is a tremendous leap to just... trust these old guys that "No, I REALLLYYY talked to God, pinky promise!"

This is a recurring argument I see. A majority of these "old guys" were brutally massacred, tortured, strung up in unspeakable ways (and we know this because the people who did these atrocities wrote it down) for the truths they spoke of. It is absolutely laughable to think they simply did it for glory, personal gain or whatever else I hear so often. They got nothing out of it, and objectively ended up worse off by being so devout. Would you die for a funny little lie you made up with your mates?

Regardless, it is also a bit short sighted for something to be seen as only right and just and divine if it is written in the scripture. There are many things throughout history, as well as the modern day, that was never written of. Does the fact there is no specific reference to it make it sinful to partake in that thing? Just the internet, the phone/computer you're using to reply, would that, in the eyes of your God, be a sinful action as it was not condoned in the writings that you follow (assuming it is the direct word of God for this paragraph).

My computer is a creation of man, it is therefore inherently sinful because man is sin. The nuance being that I am actively doing my best to not use it for sin, just as a married man or woman can love his partner without lusting for them. I mean, you really don't need a new book to the Bible to realise that the constant bombardement of our minds by temptations such as lust, passion, envy, hate and the works that we receive on these little light emitting boxes is kind of bad for our spirit. It's a question of not indulging and not falling into temptation.

On the subject of "Everyone is a sinner" the statement has always been.... off to me. It's said to people's faces all smiling in a stupor, but I can't help but feel there's a knife behind their back when they say it. Because as per your belief system, everyone is a sinner, but also the ones who follow God, repent etc are able to get into heaven, the afterlife and, whereas everyone else is cast into hell (whether that be a place of fire and torture, or just a place without the presence of God, I know there's many interpretations).

Well first off I'm sorry it came off that way, but I see and know exactly what you mean. This is a problem (and heresy, I might add) exclusive to protestant doctrines, which claim that salvation (access to Heaven) is done by faith alone. You can be the worst of the worst but if you are sAvED (a term I hold a great disdain for) ie simply believe that Christ died and rose from the dead three days later OR in baptist tradition simply get baptised I believe you are the greatest person to walk the Earth and will absolutely and without question enter Heaven. This is why the view of Christianity in places such as America is so bad.

In Orthodoxy, there is no such thing. In fact, we do not even have a doctrine surrounding the question of Heaven and Hell, just a consesus of opinions from Church Fathers and Saints. Heaven and Hell aren't even physical places in Orthodoxy, but states of being, and we taste both of them everyday of this life, and then one day when it's over I guess I'll wind up in one or the other. I don't know, I'm just doing my best whilst I'm on the ride. The consensus is difficult to describe, personally when I'm asked on a whim I simply reply that Orthodoxy is about carrying your cross as Jesus did (metaphorically, of course).

This article I was reading the other day put it incredibly well: "The Orthodox faith is about one’s personal transformation from their prison of self-centeredness to a state of giving of oneself to another, that is, “becoming love itself” to everyone and all of creation. Becoming love is not just to pull love off the shelf and use it here and there and then put it back on the shelf. It is said in Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” The New Testament was written in ancient Greek, and “mind” here means the spirit/heart region or nous in Greek. It is the condition and transformation of the heart that opens the door to the Kingdom of Heaven and enables us to receive all that God wants to give and share with us."

It makes the statement seem disingenuous when it's being said to me, personally, as it is a thing of "Everyone is a sinner but I'm a better sinner because I do my best to follow God's teachings and absolute authority

Well yes, you've probably always heard it from people who really believed they were better sinners because they "follow God's teachings". Saint Moses of Ethiopia famously said: "You fast, but Satan does not eat. You labor fervently, but Satan never sleeps. The only dimension with which you can outperform Satan is by acquiring humility, for Satan has no humility." What does this mean? Well, it is that God loves you just as much as he loves me, regardless of what any of us do to gain or lose his favour. God is infinitely complex, how could I, a lowly human possibly understand his wisdom? And why should I, a sinner, be rewarded better than you, a sinner too? I hope this makes sense lol. I'll reiterate that I'm deeply sorry my remark came off that way, though.

 

[Reggie]

didn't see this thread until now, figured i'd step in.

I'm a practicing Shia Muslim, I try my best to be a righteous and good person generally, although I have to admit living in the west had made it difficult to practice Islam at times. I exclusively eat zabiha halal meat, I fast for Ramadan, I don't drink alcohol, and I try and pray five times a day but I miss fajr (very early morning) quite often. I do not believe in dictating what others do or practice, even other Muslims- if one calls themselves a brother or sister in Islam- who am I to question their beliefs, even if they do not follow the tenets as strictly as I do? A lot of the time, I play it up for the meme on the internet, and I do enjoy roleplaying as an extreme zealot at times, but let it be known that does not reflect in my actual beliefs.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."

Surah Al-Baqara, verse 256

 

[Sil]

didn't see this thread until now, figured i'd step in.

I'm a practicing Shia Muslim, I try my best to be a righteous and good person generally, although I have to admit living in the west had made it difficult to practice Islam at times. I exclusively eat zabiha halal meat, I fast for Ramadan, I don't drink alcohol, and I try and pray five times a day but I miss fajr (very early morning) quite often. I do not believe in dictating what others do or practice, even other Muslims- if one calls themselves a brother or sister in Islam- who am I to question their beliefs, even if they do not follow the tenets as strictly as I do? A lot of the time, I play it up for the meme on the internet, and I do enjoy roleplaying as an extreme zealot at times, but let it be known that does not reflect in my actual beliefs.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."

Surah Al-Baqara, verse 256

actual image of Reggie there is no doubt in my mind of this

 

[NightLock]

A lot of explanation about beliefs in Orthodoxy

Thank you for replying to this! A lot of the things you pointed out are new ideas to me, and pretty cool to learn about. I can't comment on absolutely every piece, so I'll mostly just focus on things that you've said specifically I'm curious on elaborations for, or want to discuss further. But overall, I do get that a lot of things come down to faith, so I'll try to stay way from that side of things of questioning the authenticity of your holy books, and similar.

Well first off I'm sorry it came off that way

And this, don't worry. It wasn't a statement on your specific use of it, more just the overall vibe I've always gotten when it comes to the statement being used. I am grateful for your apology, but there is no need to apologise for an offense you didn't intend. I feel similarly for a lot of other sayings. "God be with you", "I'll pray for you", etc etc. Many platitudes that are given by Christians.

However, I would argue that literary analysis of the texts as well as the absolutely mind boggling cross-referencing present in the entirety of scripture across a millenium and a half points to its veracity and Divine origin

When it comes to this, why is it seen as a point of divine origin? Could it not be people simply writing about what they have read from previous books? I know the timeline is, absurdly large, but it still seems quite likely to me that the reason they get written about as having "come true" is because the writer of that book saw the passage, or heard it in some way, and then added it on to their own writings.

Would you die for a funny little lie you made up with your mates?

This made me chuckle, I'll admit. However I didn't mean it in that way. I made it a bit funny in my post, but I meant more be a thing of them having a belief in God and so writing what they believed God would approve of, without it actually being the direct word of God. Hence why (to my understanding) the writings of the books very much fall in line with the attitudes at time of writing

Well, it is that God loves you just as much as he loves me, regardless of what any of us do to gain or lose his favour.

This interpretation of God I find far more digestible to me personally. Many of the things I've seen (whether it's American Christianity, Protestantism, I'm not sure) kind of paint God as just... being kind of a dick? This is a very strong statement to make, and I hope it doesn't cause offense, but it does feel as if, in the way some talk about God, that they are a bit of a... narcissist. Demanding favour despite giving no reason, and casting out all that do not bend to every whim. The version that you speak of seems to make more sense as to why people would actually follow God, as sometimes I do wonder why anyone does (with that version I spoke of in mind)

 

[Shapok]

Thank you for replying to this! A lot of the things you pointed out are new ideas to me, and pretty cool to learn about. I can't comment on absolutely every piece, so I'll mostly just focus on things that you've said specifically I'm curious on elaborations for, or want to discuss further. But overall, I do get that a lot of things come down to faith, so I'll try to stay way from that side of things of questioning the authenticity of your holy books, and similar.

If you'd like to understand the Orthodox "mindset" better I recommend Father Spyridon Bailey's Youtube channel, it's honestly one of the most accessible and consistent sources of Orthodox teachings online. And yes, I'm sorry if I I write a bit too much lol.

And this, don't worry. It wasn't a statement on your specific use of it, more just the overall vibe I've always gotten when it comes to the statement being used. I am grateful for your apology, but there is no need to apologise for an offense you didn't intend. I feel similarly for a lot of other sayings. "God be with you", "I'll pray for you", etc etc. Many platitudes that are given by Christians.

It's just that many times when I debate with atheists they always believe I'm coming from a patronising or condecending place, which I find always makes the whole thing a bit awkward for both parties. But it's no one's fault, as I'll admit most Christians you'll find online are in fact quite patronising and condecending.

When it comes to this, why is it seen as a point of divine origin? Could it not be people simply writing about what they have read from previous books? I know the timeline is, absurdly large, but it still seems quite likely to me that the reason they get written about as having "come true" is because the writer of that book saw the passage, or heard it in some way, and then added it on to their own writings.

This made me chuckle, I'll admit. However I didn't mean it in that way. I made it a bit funny in my post, but I meant more be a thing of them having a belief in God and so writing what they believed God would approve of, without it actually being the direct word of God. Hence why (to my understanding) the writings of the books very much fall in line with the attitudes at time of writing

Well that's the thing, in the New Testament the writings were absolutely not aligned with previous teachings. Take for example the 10 commandments and how Christ Jesus "fulfills" them in the Gospel of Saint Matthew 5:21-48. He took commandments such as "Do not commit adultery" and turned it into "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart", which made some very very devout people extremely angry (I'm only taking a single minute example from a huge list of them). He even fervently criticized how the Jews at the time prayed to Him (the Father), which didn't win him any kind of favour amongst them. This is why we can read about the persecution of the Apostles and early Christians by, most notably, the Pharisees, an extremely devout and structured community of Jews (who some argue are responsible for the crucifixion of the Christ, but that's a whole other topic). They did not fall in line with the attitudes of the time at all, and put the Old Testament on its head, most notably by the fact that in the Old Covenant, God only justified His people, that being Israel, but in the New Covenant went to Gentile cities to give them the good news, something contrary to previous scripture. However, both can be reconciled when one knows the whole story from both Old and New Testament.

This interpretation of God I find far more digestible to me personally. Many of the things I've seen (whether it's American Christianity, Protestantism, I'm not sure) kind of paint God as just... being kind of a dick? This is a very strong statement to make, and I hope it doesn't cause offense, but it does feel as if, in the way some talk about God, that they are a bit of a... narcissist. Demanding favour despite giving no reason, and casting out all that do not bend to every whim. The version that you speak of seems to make more sense as to why people would actually follow God, as sometimes I do wonder why anyone does (with that version I spoke of in mind)

I think it might be because you haven't had someone explain Christianity to you, rather them blaming your for not being Christian, which is quite the recurring theme these days. A part of scripture that people often forget is the beginning of Genesis 6: basically, Adam and Eve are long since gone, and now humans are on Earth being humans, and of course, as humans regrettably tend to, they're being nasty and evil to each other, falling easily into temptation and generally just being bad people. And so, we read in Genesis 6:6 that "the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." He gave us life, yet seeing how easily perverted by evil we are, how rife suffering is, He, the all-knowing God, regretted it. I think this speaks quite well to why God loves us.

There's loads of things I'd need to explain for you understand everything though, and I myself don't know much at all. To top it all off, there's no possible way a created being such as ourselves can entirely comprehend the divine, so to a certain extent we're stuck. To understand better why God makes some suffer and not others, I recommend this video on the Book of Job made by the BibleProject, I think it might answer a few of your questions from your last point.

 

[Merlinsclaw]

(EPIC BASED READING MUSIC.)

I was raised as a Lutheran. Around 11 or 12 I underwent the Confirmation Process which was about a year long thing. All the children (~11-16) would meet after church, learn scripture, recite what they'd been told to study, and sometimes go to camps. This process was extremely time consuming for me and stressed me out during an already extremely stressful time in my life. The circumstances were made worse due to the fact that the pastor of the Lutheran Church I was going to was strange. He tackled a ~15 year old girl infront of me for having her phone, maybe tried to groom me, and I speculate (sorta satirically) that he killed his wife. Shortly after this period, my family stopped regularly going to church and then basically stopped going all together - in part due to him and in part due to my own wishes.

Around this time until early high school-ish, I became propped myself up as a staunch atheist with vague agnostic beliefs. However, as I got deeper into high school I began to get back into religion. I'm not sure any one specific event got me back into it but I'd, funnily enough, pray when things got bad and my grandparents always preached to me. During this time, I considered myself 'religious' but without a staunch religion or, more accurately, a denomination to point to.

I sorta considered myself somewhere between Catholicism and Lutheranism. Living staunching in the South, nearly everyone I knew were Southern Baptists. I considered Southern Baptism to be too involved in politics and 'showmanship' -- S.B seemed more focused on showing off snake handlers and baptisms in swimming pools rather than a deeply spiritual and long lasting religion. However, I clearly had problems with both the doctrines of Catholicism and Lutheranism. The 'Through Faith Alone' doctrine seemed braindead and Catholics had alot of problems in my opinions.

Around this time, I also started researching Islam and Judaism. I also learned through some of my High School classes about both and more about Christianity in general. One thing that surprised the shit out of me was that Baptists didn't do communion every Sunday and usually used grape juice. Around this time as well, I had a discussion with my father. My dad had been to prison several years prior (around the time I 'left' Lutheranism.) During his time in prison, he took his decree to become a Muslim (the Shahada?) (not the Islamic Brotherhood.) (He prayed five times a day but generally didn't do anything anything else required of a Muslim.) Anyways, I was talking to him about how Islam viewed Jesus and how I generally thought about it. He turned to me and said, "Do you believe in the same God as Abraham?" I replied yes and he went "Well then, you're a Christian, you're a Muslim, and you're a Jew. We all believe in the same God."

This really ended up changing my outlook on religion as a whole. In the years following, I learned that this is sort of an Islamic view. I also have largely found myself more receptive to the view of Islam on Jesus and several other issues. I found it curious how Islam viewed the latter half of the New Testament (including Revelations, etc. which I always somewhat thought related more to the Fall of Rome than actual Judgement day.) After moving to D.C for school, I also became friends with a few Muslims and a few Jews and discussed religion a great deal with alot of different people. I also recently became a Freemason which has also made me more religious. I also bought the an English translation of the Quran recently. Despite all of this, I have alot of quarrels with the doctrines preached by the three Abrahamic religions but, to a degree, I believe that alot of these quarrels, in my opinion, are just due to the fact that the religions have been twisted in translations and interpretations over thousands of years.


Despite all of this, I consider myself a increasingly religious person by the day. Over the past year or two, I've considered myself an 'Abrahamic' person - a mix of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. It's my personal goal to read the Torah, the Quran, and the Bible fully someday. Inshallah.