Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I vote and go for the person who prays. I figure that person has a humble character and doesnt think thay are all high and mighty.

Question: If you could, would you vote Bush next election?

I think I'd vote for the guy who doesn't use his religion to attract voters.

If you're out flaunting your faith, you're anything but humble. Just another one of the hypocrisies that has led me to abandon faith/belief in any religion in particular.

I think my personal moral code resembles more closely that of Hinduism/Buddhism. Maybe even Utilitarianism, as I sort of have a hedonistic calculus approach to decision making. I also believe that our actions do have a karmaic effect on the world. Not relying too heavily on newtonian physics but every action would seem to have an equal reaction. Therefore, I strive to act in a manner that minimizes the suffering of others. I say minimize, because we can never eliminate that effect, in order for me to live, something or someone else must die or sacrifice.

In short, I have morals, driven by my own reason and empathy as a human. I do not believe strongly in the existence of a supreme being, but that is not to say I strongly believe that there is no such thing.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Careful. It's easy to be mislead in that way. Suppose that there was a presidential candidate who claimed to be a devout Christian, but was nothing of the sort in truth. You might never find out.

You'd vote for him, right? Especially if the other candidate was a godless heathen.

If the heathen is full of anti god statements the person wouldnt get my vote.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Question: If you could, would you vote Bush next election?

Yes if I have no other choice.
My religion serves a compass that points me in a direction. Ultimately my goal isn't to get the right person to lead the country. My goal is to get everyone I know to follow Jesus Christ so that they wont be disappointed with leaders that can't meet their every need. Every leader that I vote for who points to God in one form or another is doing the work I put them there to do.

Unfortunately, Bush is a poor representative of the Christian body now, and as such would be considered an ineffective "witness," if one would even dare use that term to describe him.
The saying "Actions speak louder than words" is not without merit.

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If the heathen is full of anti god statements the person wouldnt get my vote.

That's hardly a fair answer. You see, it's unlikely that any candidate for the presidency of the United States of America would ever have even a single serious "anti-god statement" on the public record, because he represents all Americans, and there are a substantial number of Christians in the American voting public. For the same reason, I question if it is appropriate for a presidential candidate to criticise Islam. Of course such criticism would not have the same devastating effect at the ballot as criticisms aimed at Christianity, but that wouldn't make it appropriate. The President represents American moslems as well as American Christians, which is why I feel that the faith of a candidate is immaterial.

The question is not whether you would support a candidate who actually criticised your faith, but whether you would favour a Christian candidate over a non-Christian, regardless of who is better for the country. Even a non-Christian can protect Christian rights, and he would be bound to do so by the constitution. I would also like to say that I agree entirely with PackRat's post above. We are reading from the same page here.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I think I'd vote for the guy who doesn't use his religion to attract voters.

That's exactly the attitude I think is best. Being Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or even atheist is basically irrelevant to a candidate's suitability for office. His stated policies are what matter.

I find myself often swayed to agnostic deism.

It is not that I cannot decide if I believe, as I do believe in a driving universal force in our existence. The name of that force, the sex of that force, and the intentions of that force are outside my realm of knowledge, however. I cannot conceive of all knowledge, how can I conceive of a being with all knowledge?

I believe it is nearly impossible to ever know if a religion or belief is true. I would even venture to say that it is wholly impossible as most religions dictate that a supreme being is omnipresent, omnipotent, omnipotent, transcendent, and benevolent. It is a being that is, through definition, outside our realm of understanding, and so I prescribe to the process of thought that it stays outside of our realm of understanding.

I believe there is a force, though I cannot begin to tell you the qualities of that force -- it is, as I said, outside my ability to conceive.

Originally Posted by packrat

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

I would stick with the theistic person. At least that individual could be held accountable to their belief system which is accessible to anyone who wants to point out errors in conduct. Saying that Bush is a poor christian representative at least makes written religious doctrine look good. The atheistic person however is only held accountable to what is lawful by the state and saying that that person is "bad" is purely a judgment call without some reference other than opinion.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That's hardly a fair answer. You see, it's unlikely that any candidate for the presidency of the United States of America would ever have even a single serious "anti-god statement" on the public record, because he represents all Americans,

Good point. Like I said before, the leader I want is there to help me bring others to Christ. By calling people to pray (during hard times & National day of prayer) Bush has at least kept this door open for me with this kind of appeal to the public.

Originally Posted by Cain

I believe it is nearly impossible to ever know if a religion or belief is true.

Part of the reason why I gravitated to Jesus Christ is because of this statement:
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

Other faiths are not as clear when it comes to following their systems. I want to aim at a specific mark when it comes to working out my eternal situation. I hate guessing and in the spiritual realm there is allot of guess work.
The reason why the spiritual is foremost on my mind is because I have seen plenty of death and suffering by volunteering in service to the homeless and visiting nursing homes on my job. Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I
Part of the reason why I gravitated to Jesus Christ is because of this statement:
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
[...]
Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

Well, from an anthropological point of view, that is the entire point of religious systems. They give conformity, uniformity, and belongingness. They give a common deity of which multiple people can band together on and, ultimately, become a stronger culture.

The psychological effects of religion are numerous. For example, it is a known fact that going to church causes a chemical reaction that lifts the mood. Prayer, in studies, is generally useless practically but it does elevate the moods of the praying.

It promotes social connections as well. Religion and religious observation does have positive psychological and social effects. That is not to say, of course, that these effects are completely dependent on the existence of religion. You can have all of these things through other actions as well as through devoutness.

Ultimately, like I said, I cannot find irrefutable proof that something does or does not exist. I think Anselm used the term "Greatest Conceivable Being" to push the ontological argument; but I believe that being has well surpassed the concept of conceivable. It's something too great for me to conceive of, but I can only hope that it exists.

I have no proof, nor argument; simply a hope.

Originally Posted by packrat

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

This is a fundamentally flawed question to pose. Not a single intelligent person would prefer to have an incompetent and corrupted politician in power regardless of what their belief about the cosmos may be.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I would stick with the theistic person. At least that individual could be held accountable to their belief system which is accessible to anyone who wants to point out errors in conduct...

It's astonishing that so many people associate atheism with immorality and devil worshiping. If even 10% of Americans were atheists and thereby on the lunatic fringe, we should be seeing murder and rape, excuse the pun, on a biblical scale.

How could anyone possibly think we get our morals from scripture? If the bible is the perfect guide to morality we should be stoning homosexuals. We should be stoning people for thought crimes. We should be keeping slaves. The bible clearly illustrates this to be man's moral imperative. Oddly, 6 of the 10 Commandments have nothing to do morality. 3 are honesty Commandments and the final one, murder, is just there for what could only be amusement considering the level of murder, violence, bigotry, and hatred we see around the globe.

Any decent, civilized, rational human being will be able to come to a conclusion that stealing, and murder, and cheating are wrong without the aid of a magical book.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The reason why the spiritual is foremost on my mind is because I have seen plenty of death and suffering by volunteering in service to the homeless and visiting nursing homes on my job. Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

You fit the bill perfectly when Daniel Dennett says many so-called religious people don't actually believe in God. But instead believe in belief. Your belief that there is a second life after your natural life on Earth no doubt comforts you greatly. The idea removes the uncertainty of death and what will become of you. But at no stage in believing in the afterlife does it ever become true, simply because you believe it to be.
[Insert Sam Harris' example of believing you have a diamond the size of a refridgerator burried in your back yard]

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Any decent, civilized, rational human being will be able to come to a conclusion that stealing, and murder, and cheating are wrong without the aid of a magical book.

This is true. I just pointed out that when a person says they follow the book anyone can correct that individual and help them stay on the path they said they are on. This is harder to do with a "grey area" oriented person. Without a written standard excuses can be made for anything.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

You fit the bill perfectly when Daniel Dennett says many so-called religious people don't actually believe in God. But instead believe in belief. Your belief that there is a second life after your natural life on Earth no doubt comforts you greatly. The idea removes the uncertainty of death and what will become of you. But at no stage in believing in the afterlife does it ever become true, simply because you believe it to be.

Dennett is incorrect. My belief that there is a heaven is built upon my knowledge of God which comes form a Bible. I have dealt with suffering people and tough circumstances and witnessed miracles in answered prayer and fortitude in people that are in constant pain. When you get under the hood and see the engine of faith at work it makes you a believer that its founded on something real. This is the reason why I pointed to my personal heros in Martin Luther King Jr. & Mother Teresa. They were around for a long time and experienced too much to just right off as so much wishful thinking.

Get ready for such an experience. Remember a Christian is praying for you.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

This is a fundamentally flawed question to pose. Not a single intelligent person would prefer to have an incompetent and corrupted politician in power regardless of what their belief about the cosmos may be.

Setting aside the now vocal opinion that the question I posed is, in one sense, what every American goes through every election year("lesser of two evils" votes), the purpose of my question is to gauge whether LordSword really feels that he would rather have "Christian" leadership, regardless of their adherence to the belief system which they proclaim(or lack therof), leading to what is essentially misrepresentation and defamation of this belief system or group.
Obviously, his response to said inquiry demonstrated that he has little, if any, understanding of this concept; or just isn't giving it the consideration that it deserves. The question is not flawed because it was intended to test how much he cared for the concept of public opinion, aiding me in deciding whether I should pursue any further discussion on the topic.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

This is true. I just pointed out that when a person says they follow the book anyone can correct that individual and help them stay on the path they said they are on. This is harder to do with a "grey area" oriented person. Without a written standard excuses can be made for anything.

Isn't the Bible pretty much full of contradictory commandments? If they were found to have mounds of dead hookers in their basement they could simply claim that they were witches and as such he was scripturally justified in their murders.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Dennett is incorrect. My belief that there is a heaven is built upon my knowledge of God which comes form a Bible. I have dealt with suffering people and tough circumstances and witnessed miracles in answered prayer and fortitude in people that are in constant pain.

Pretty much all religions make these claims; what makes your so special? I know that in my life amazingly lucky things have happened to me, but I never felt a need to put it down to anything but dumb luck.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

When you get under the hood and see the engine of faith at work it makes you a believer that its founded on something real. This is the reason why I pointed to my personal heros in Martin Luther King Jr. & Mother Teresa. They were around for a long time and experienced too much to just right off as so much wishful thinking.

Get ready for such an experience. Remember a Christian is praying for you.

There have been many incredible Atheists who have made amazing contributions to mankind even though they had no faith in some greater being.

Some noted Atheists include - Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Benjamin Franklin and Sigmund Freud to name but a few.

Just because someone has a belief in something and then does good work, that does not mean that what they believe in is real.

Remember an Atheist is thinking for you.

Originally Posted by packrat

Setting aside the now vocal opinion that the question I posed is, in one sense, what every American goes through every election year("lesser of two evils" votes), the purpose of my question is to gauge whether LordSword really feels that he would rather have "Christian" leadership, regardless of their adherence to the belief system which they proclaim(or lack therof), leading to what is essentially misrepresentation and defamation of this belief system or group.
Obviously, his response to said inquiry demonstrated that he has little, if any, understanding of this concept; or just isn't giving it the consideration that it deserves. The question is not flawed because it was intended to test how much he cared for the concept of public opinion, aiding me in deciding whether I should pursue any further discussion on the topic.

I would stick with the theist. Honestly your question made me think about this issue for a while, church types don't get taught much about the role of politics and forwarding the faith. In the past I just aimed at the character of humility in leadership defined by some indication of faith in God. I have more faith in that because I have seen it work in myself.

The past few years with Bush has made me grow and change a bit because I did help put him in office and have been disappointed to a degree but I chose to maximize what he has done for my personal benefit and in dialogue with others in various arenas. That man with his faults has opened up much in discussion on the Christian faith and I think that is great for witnessing & exposing people to their own issues and their need for a savior. Sure I will take a Christian who messes up. I can build on that.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

That man with his faults has opened up much in discussion on the Christian faith and I think that is great for witnessing & exposing people to their own issues and their need for a savior.

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More people depending on imaginary saviors instead of relying on their own self worth in the world. Trading heroine for God is simply replacing the addiction for an imaginary savior for another one that's less fatal.

I finally saw "Borat." During the course of the movie he goes to a Christian revival in Texas and plays the part of one who wants to convert. People are running around, shouting out God, talking in tongues, etc etc. This was also a mainstream church in Texas; the Chief Justice of the State and a Senator showed up for speeches. Borat proceeded to shout in tongues with the minister, all blabbing together in a group in the voice of the Holy Spirit. It was really quite striking.

The difference is that Borat knew he wasn't really speaking the voice of the Holy Spirit. The difference was that he wasn't temporarily insane. Speak to me of the wisdom of Christianity LordsSword, and I'll speak to you of it's madness.

Originally Posted by Cain

Well, from an anthropological point of view, that is the entire point of religious systems. They give conformity, uniformity, and belongingness. They give a common deity of which multiple people can band together on and, ultimately, become a stronger culture.

If by anthropological you mean anthropology circa 1930's when we were studying the 'noble savage.' Actually, religion's meaning changes based on what culture you're looking at. But, nice swing and a miss there.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

If by anthropological you mean anthropology circa 1930's when we were studying the 'noble savage.' Actually, religion's meaning changes based on what culture you're looking at. But, nice swing and a miss there.

You are right. The meaning does, indeed, change. That is not what I meant, however. The meanings do change, but the affect stays the same. Universally, belief of any sort will foster an inclusive environment.

I'll again say, just to be fair, these things are also found ELSEWHERE. A commo