Why Not...

Spending time with one religion, to me, is like listening to one song on a whole album. It might be a popular single on the radio. But there are also other songs on the album just as good if not even better for all their respective reasons. This one has its meaning in the theme of the album. But the others are not going to be any less relevant or worth listening to than that one. But the real point is appreciating the entire album as a complete work of art, not just one song. Why was the album put together? What is behind its theme? What stage in life were the artists at while writing it and how did that influence it?

Proteus wrote: ....((snip)).... But the real point is appreciating the entire album as a complete work of art, not just one song. Why was the album put together? What is behind its theme? What stage in life were the artists at while writing it and how did that influence it?

I accept the inherent flaws of analogy and I try not to get hung up on focusing on the story, but look for the meaning.

The best I can get in stepping behind this particular curtain is a pretty painting of a dark night sky sans stars or other external lighting.

The best of humanity, as seen in the art, music and architecture - of populaces under the grip these "other songs" - has more to do with humanity transcending the particular track and less to do with the song.

The problem with the analogy of harmony between songs on the album is in the details of the discordant lyrics on the other tracks.

Silas Mercury wrote: Because, in my opinion, the Bible is just a book. Paper. It is a fictional story about a charismatic Arab written by some desert dwelling scribes who were bored. It has just as much relevance today as Harry Potter, or oliver Twist. Just a book.

how much of the bible have you actually read, yourself, personally?

also, is it possible that the reason that stories such as harry potter and oliver twist are so enduringly popular, is because they do actually have relevance today?

Jorah Mormont wrote: ...here I stand

For what it is worth -
I am Christian.

I'm not inclined to detail what that means to me, (suffice to say, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of other Christians, but given the number of "Christian" churches, most of them don't agree with each other either)


I have yet to find anything in my identity as a Christian that conflicts with any of my other identities.

There are many "flavors" of Christianity as far as I can tell. Anyone who wants to live his/her life similar to what we know about Jesus is A-OK in my book.

But many Christians I know still uphold the idea that their religion is the only right one and everyone else is wrong, and I'd rather not get associated with that.

It's simply because I don't believe in god and both the bible and the quran is old and faulty.

Therefore I find it useless to pray to something I have no faith in.

I don't like the dogmatic aspect of Christianity or the proselytizing aspect of it. Stripping away the story of the bible and leaving only the ethics (also setting aside the dogmatism) you're left with a kinda decent ethical system, but no argument is really made in favor of any of it other than the dogmatic or fear-mongering arguments (e.g. "if you don't believe/follow this, you're going to hell.") so I find philosophical publications more useful for finding relatable ethical stances. Overall, I don't agree with the vast majority of metaphysics, history, ethics, politics, etc. found in the bible, new or old testament (I was raised Jewish, so I'm more familiar with the old testament), so there's really no reason why I would be a Christian.

After some exploration of Christianity, I hit a wall that I can't get beyond, so here's why not:

The God that the Bible speaks of contradicts himself. He sent his only begotten son to save us. Save us from what? From Hell. Who created Hell? God. Why make us broken so that we would have to be saved from something that he created? Some would say "FREE WILL!". That's fine, but God created the rules, so why make it so we could be eternally separate from him? He wants us to be saved. Saved from what? Himself: his own rules.

Doesn't make sense.

I apologize to those I may have insulted by defending this broken philosophy.

To be blunt is because the doctrine is similar to robbery or rape in my opinion. Do as I say or suffer. That is not choice any more then the person pointing a gun at you to take your wallet is giving you a choice. That even ignores the many instances or God murdering innocents in the bible and the fact that no loving being with infinite wisdom, power, and love would allow the vile things that go on to continue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to sound very sacrilegious....

Let's start with: God didn't make us broken on purpose. I don't believe God to be Omniscient. As omniscient as a being can get, sure, but not completely. I don't think he actually saw us becoming what we are. Too many times in the Bible he wanted to say "screw this species".

So he sent his only begotten son to prove it's possible to overcome the temptation to not follow His rules. Which is not the same as saving us from Hell. We aren't being saved from Hell, we're being saved from ourselves because our species would go to hell (in a physical allegoric sense, not in the afterlife sense) without order. Take a look at the 10 Commandments (just the 10, nothing else) can you honestly look at those and say "if everyone did these things, we would be a fine society"? They are pretty common sense. Even Adultery saves you from having to deal with the problems of a jealous wife/husband. Because it can really get that way. Random note: I've yet to meet a couple in an open relationship that has a healthy relationship with each other. There's a LOT of drama that eventually surfaces. Either within their current relationship, or with one of their side relationships. Anyways, point is, the rules are pretty basic and common sense.

So if you look at it from the prospective that He's saving us from his punishment, sure- it's pretty egotistical. But if you reframe it and consider what the actual rules accomplish from a societal standpoint, it's really not God saving us from Him, so much as saving us from ourselves. And all the atonement stuff is meant to help us work through it. Convict us to work harder at being better community members. In the end, you go to Heaven or you go to hell...Some don't even believe it's really hell, but that you basically just end up waiting until judgement day and then you're judged as to whether or not you get blotted out of existence.

I mean, this isn't meant to sway you. Only to give you another prospective. You could still look at this and say "Yeah, even though that makes a bit more sense, we've evolved past that point. We have our own rules and we've figured out how to live with them perfectly fine, and we don't need to be exclusive! So God's rule isn't necessary anymore". Which is your prerogative. Like I said, just a different prospective to consider.