Are religious people misguided?

do you think that religious people are misguided in there beliefs about a higher power? whats your evidence? and plese dont say "the bible says so" thanks.

No, I don't feel misguided in my faith in God....nor do I think other Christians are misguided in their faith.

Proof?

You should free to read my My Near Death Experience and Ascent to Heaven.

Blessings...

neardeath expiriances evidence? anyone can have those on almost any drug. thats not evidence. but thanks for trying.

I think the purpose of religion is to misguide people. Why bother thinking for yourself if you have a book to do it for you. Better yet, why bother even reading the book if your parents already told you to believe in it with your life, and some old dude in a big building tells you to.

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

And historically, Christianity is the worst of all of them.

Originally posted by superevoman
neardeath expiriances evidence? anyone can have those on almost any drug. thats not evidence. but thanks for trying.

I'm not "trying" anything....You asked for MY opinion...so I gave you MY opinion.

Feel free to interpret my experience anyway you like.

Blessings...

sorry, but i asked for evidence, you gave it , i refuted it.:shk:

Originally posted by superevoman
sorry, but i asked for evidence, you gave it , i refuted it.:shk:

Ok..no need to be sorry, maybe you are but no need.

I see what you want now, you are asking for someone to prove to you that God exists. When you said "what is YOUR evidence" you really meant "try to convince me that your evidence is true & accurate".

Well what type of evidence would you accept? If we could narrow the field of acceptable proof it may save members a lot of time.



[edit on 4/9/2007 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by superevoman
sorry, but i asked for evidence, you gave it , i refuted it.:shk:

And you did it in under two minutes. Wow...
(fyi, posts are time stamped) What sort of evidence are you looking/would you find acceptable? How have you, in disbelief, not been misguided in a way that I, as a believer, have been?

ie, What's your point... be specific. (edit: more specific than your two sentence OP, ie 'Does religion misquide people but don't include religious texts in your argument/opinion')


Although rasobasi's strawman version of religious belief and, Christianity specifically, was great. Now that's reasoned discourse... who could argue.




(e

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Rren]

i would accept any evidence that is scientificly supported. and no i am not asking for proof of "gods" existenc but of that religion is misleading. i am not misguided because i can think for myself and have no need to ask help from a higher power. i do what i want. and ido good not because thats what it says in the bible, but because its the right thing to do. my morals dont come from the bible.

Originally posted by Rren

Although rasobasi's strawman version of religious belief and, Christianity specifically, was great. Now that's reasoned discourse... who could argue.

(e

What do you mean exactly? The topic itself is pretty broad, and since it's based on belief, and my belief (notice in the beginning of my post I said "I think") is that religion's purpose is to misguide and fool people, how could that possibly be a strawman?

Using Christianity as the best, most successful example is accurate in that sense as well.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

What do you mean exactly?

"Why bother thinking for yourself if you have a book to do it for you." ~Rasobasi420

Is a strawman

'they don't even read the book' and 'our thoughts/beliefs/positions come from some old dude in a big building' ~rasobasi420 paraphrased by Rren

Are both strawmen... or is it just Ad Hominem? Either way.

The topic itself is pretty broad, and since it's based on belief, and my belief (notice in the beginning of my post I said "I think")

Fair enough.

Using Christianity as the best, most successful example is accurate in that sense as well.

How so? All Christianity or; are you speaking of a specific group and/or denomination? Why such a big brush (ie, unreasoned discourse)?

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Rren]

Originally posted by superevoman
i would accept any evidence that is scientificly supported.

I see...so you will accept any scientifically supported evidence of my faith. lol

Could you give me an example of scientifically supported evidence of God?

Originally posted by kinglizard
Could you give me an example of scientifically supported evidence of God?

Maybe. But I doubt the OP will take the time to read the transcripts -or- listen to the presentation.

If You Can Read This, I can prove God Exists by Perry Marshall.

I think it's pretty fascinating, and may have something different for some to mull over.

Or not.

I use Christianity, Rren, because, as a rule, it has been the biggest culprit.

From the formation of the Catholic church, and it's iron fisted, deadly rule over Europe for over a millenia, to when a Christian opponent to Catholicism arose with a protestant reformation, and that religion ended up being as oppressive as Catholicism.

Now, although the state has stopped the practice of burning people at the stake, and exiling for different religious beliefs, Christians are still taught that those with different beliefs deserve to burn in hell because they think differently, and outside of the religious teachings.

This is the exact way that religion misleads people. It teaches exclusion, rather than inclusion. It teaches that those who are different are "evil".

Please don't confuse this with an individual belief in certain texts. Reading the bible is one thing, as long as it's understood that pieces were added, and removed at religion's whim....

(will have more, but I have work right now)

Ras, that may have been the strawiest of straw men posts I've ever seen. And if "strawiest" isn't a word, it should be for this context.

You're confusing Christianity with Catholicism [specifically the politicized, power broker aspects of the Vatican] and purported/self- referenced Christians with Christianity. Christianity has been misrepresented, misused, and appropriated for millennia. It takes a little digging, okay a lot of digging, to get below the surface. Don't think what you've heard or seen reported is the deal.

Not all "Christians" are taught (or believe) what you're stating here. In fact, I'd argue if they do, they're not Christian at all. In further fact, so-called "Christians" probably do more to drive people to atheistic agnosticism than any other group. And guess what? All that "different is evil" and "burn in hell if you think differently" is both un-Christian and un- scriptural, to the point of blasphemy.

Don't go by what you "hear" Christianity is, or what you think it might be. Read it for yourself. Or not. That's ok too.

Yes I think people are misguided. Big time. But not entirely in the way the OP meant.

As I've quoted before-
"Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult and left largely untried."
G.K. Chesterton

Yeahright,

Isn't that what this thread is about?

My definition of religion (that is Oxford's definition), though your's may differ:

Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship."
any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.

It's the unflinching, rigid structure that defines a religion as opposed to a spiritual belief.

Once a doctrine is written, and it's followers read, and abide by it unflinchingly, then we are stuck in a situation where the followers are likely to be misled. The world was made in 7 days, first it's meant literally, then metaphorically because it's been proven wrong. This happens over and over.

Christianity is a religion. It teaches a specific way to follow a specificlly defined God. This concept of God is not allowed to change, and is rigid in it's explaination, and definition of God. This is very misleading. What happened if evidence disproving God came forward tomorrow? Christian's would be * out of luck. They would have been misled.

Someone following their own spiritual path, however, would be able to adapt that into their belief without having to worry about "losing their religion".

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Isn't that what this thread is about?

I saw no mention of Christianity in the OP.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's the unflinching, rigid structure that defines a religion as opposed to a spiritual belief.

You picked the definition. I see nothing there about "unflinching rigid structure".

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Once a doctrine is written, and it's followers read, and abide by it unflinchingly, then we are stuck in a situation where the followers are likely to be misled. The world was made in 7 days, first it's meant literally, then metaphorically because it's been proven wrong. This happens over and over.

Is it just me, or are you creating the parameters here and then attacking them? Yes I agree with you. But what you're defining here isn't Christianity.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Christianity is a religion. It teaches a specific way to follow a specificlly defined God. This concept of God is not allowed to change, and is rigid in it's explaination, and definition of God. This is very misleading. What happened if evidence disproving God came forward tomorrow? Christian's would be * out of luck. They would have been misled.

"Evidence" or "proof"? I don't think proof is forthcoming. That is, proving a negative. And you continue to speak of "Christianity" as though it's some sort of monolithic enterprise. It isn't. There are as many flavors of Christianity as there are of jelly beans. No one has a copywrite on the term. Anyone can use it. Some organizations that do, shouldn't. And if God WERE proven to not exist, how would Christians be more out of luck than anyone else?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Someone following their own spiritual path, however, would be able to adapt that into their belief without having to worry about "losing their religion".

I'm not sure what you're saying here- but we just might agree. Yes, follow your own path. The only issue I have is in setting up Christianity as something it isn't and then attacking it.

See, I think Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and a whole bunch of others are religious aplenty. And more power to 'em. As long as what they practice doesn't infringe upon someone else.

Compare religion with that of a group of friends:

One group seeks your total loyalty and obedience to the group or it's leader. Any information, or rule passed on by this group and their leader is correct, no questions asked or entertained. Any information not approved by the group or their leader is either wrong or false.

The other group does not want your obedience, only your company, one is free to leave or participate in anyway, anytime or anywhere. Information is shared and not forced to accept. One is free to question any information being shared, to decide what to believe and what not to believe.

----------

The first group is like every other government or religion that exist in the world today, whose ultimate goal is total dominance and power over every indiviual and everything else.

The second group does not have a goal, instead individuals in that group help each other to grow in almost every way.

Which group of friends is more likely to cause trouble or suffering to indiviuals both within the group and others not of the same group?

[edit on 9-4-2007 by ixiy]

this is to yeahright. there are no "christians" because the word chritsian means "Christ like". i thought all christians knew that.

Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. If any religion is going to be picked as an example of religion misguiding the public, then Christianity is it. The same could be said of Islam, and Judaism. Hinduism as well, as it is an alteration of Vedic philosophy by Priests to again mislead and control the masses.

And though the rigid structure is not mentioned in the definition, it is a common thread within religions. The common and assigned belief that has worked for the powers that be are rarely ever changed, and any attempt to change is often met with hostility. Again, this is not limited to Christianity, or religion. This is true of near every organization. Especially organizations with vast followings or membership.

As for the parameters I've set, these are not mine. This happens with any "holy book". And sometimes when dealing with other central doctrines, like the Constitution of the USA. The 7 days thing was just an example. It was meant to show how rigid the text is, and how it is followed strictly by the mainstream until it can't logically survive anymore. And yes, Christianity as a whole falls into these parameters very well.

If something extremely drastic occurred to upset the core of the religion, the followers would be lost. Hypothetically, If Jesus himself dropped out of the sky and told the world that he was not the son of God, and that the NT was completely false, Christians wouldn't be able to handle it. They would deny it, disbelieve it, or freak out because their lives were meaningless. The same could be said of Muhammad and the Quran.