Is It Me Or Is There Something A Bit Illogical Here?

[Confused Ape]

The article is saying that religion is bad, and that one particular religion is good.

They can't say they follow a religion because, according to them, religion is the worst thing that ever happened. This is why I wonder what they do in their churches.

[Zen Badger]

Christianity isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with delusion.

[Angrboda]

You're missing the point. There is no single way to define the bible, and your interpretations are not automatically more valid than anyone else's. Every Christian claims to be a bible-based Christian, and you all interpret it differently.

Actually no, you just assume that you are speaking to someone repersenting a specific denomination view. (again you did not ask any questions.)http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html

as you can see from this thread I do not believe in any one denominational view as being correct. Meaning Christ ensured us with his attonement offered to give us the freedom to center our worship on Him, the best way we know how to.. So long as it does not conflict with the 'thou shalt nots' assoceiated with the Christian religion.

It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche

No, Drich, it's you that don't understand. There is no such thing as a "neutral interpretation" of a text. All interpretations are biased, it just depends on whether you agree with someone's biases whether you interpret it the same way or not. And consistent with what's termed "the bias blindspot," our biases often operate below the level of consciousness, or subconsciously; thus, your biases are often invisible to you because there's no fact of the matter in consciousness to be introspected. And as I've already observed, you suck at biblical exegesis; I wouldn't trust you on the bible as far as I can throw you. You know nothing of the larger context of textual interpretation and hermeneutics, so you apply a more or less arbitrarily picked set of principles, completely ignorant of other equally valid principles and larger issues, and so you end up practicing what, to borrow your phrase, might best be termed "red flag hermeneutics" — you abide by the principles which seem reasonable to you, that yield a result consistent with your prior belief, and that are applied with complete obliviousness to the larger philosophical and practical context of textual analysis.

Now, back to the question at hand. I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with a fellow moderator on IRC. He's a liberal Christian, and I had been spamming the channel with juicy bits from an anti-creationist website, and he decided he'd "take me out." What proceeded was a conversation which yielded the classic gem, "My belief in God isn't based on the bible." I took this to mean that he knew God in his heart, as Christians often say. I had to think a moment, as it was patently obvious to me that people, him included, wouldn't have an idea of God without the bible first, and the religions that make use of it second. It isn't as if you walked outside to get the paper one morning and said, "Whoah, look. A savior. Hey mom, can we keep him?" No, you were introduced to Christ through religion and your beliefs are still tainted by that source, whether you like to think of yourself as an "independent thinker" or not. You aren't. Matter of fact, you're not even particularly original. Just a little blinder and more arrogant than some (with your "work" and "challenging others" with questions and/or statements aimed to divine whether the person is worthy of your wisdom or not). You are one of the least humble and least correct people I know.

---

For what it's worth, my favorite from that list of so-called 'bad religions' is "Pagan Mumbo-Jumbo (Yin Yang)". I'm guessing they mean Taoism, but it's hard to be sure. Not sure whether to be offended or not.

---

For an interesting slice on some classical hermeneutics, read the Wikipedia article on Talmudic Hermeneutics and note the several inconsistent principles, and that they're often applied in a thoroughly ad hoc fashion, sometimes even within the same analysis or author.

[Zone]

Religion is mans attempt to reach out to God but Christianity is Gods attempt to reach out to man and all that business.

[CleanShavenJesus]

This is highly hipocrytical. It is the duty of those who worship Jesus to attend church. How can one be against organized religion and still be a worshipper of Christ?

That question was asked 400 years ago by a monk called Luther.

It resulted in a brutal 30 years war, the english civil war, a war between england and france, a war between england and the netherlands and a war between spain and the netherlands.
And in the following 300 years protestants and catholics would slaughter each other in europe over that useless and silly question.


Dont take this wrong, but 300 years of bloodshed have made it obviuos that the question isnt worth answering.

Lutherism was NOT the cause of any of those wars.

[ThomM]

[quote='TheLameMayWalk' pid='400399' dateline='1360704871']
This is highly hipocrytical. It is the duty of those who worship Jesus to attend church. How can one be against organized religion and still be a worshipper of Christ?


__________

THere are over 40,000 different "churches" that claim the christ to be one of their gods -

THere is NO NEED to believe in organized religion
If you claim that the god is everywhere - why do you need a place of worship?

Since it is established that prayer doesn't work in any statistically supportable way - why pray at all - much less together - it doesn't do anything.

[Minimalist]

Everything being defined by me is straight unfiltered bible.

That sounds like raw sewage, Drippy.