Guest posts by Hamish MacWolf

1

Religion / Re: Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

« on: August 10, 2010, 12:20:09 am »

Precisely.

Viz. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10154.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10154.0.html)

2

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 08, 2010, 11:20:27 pm »

If two people believe in the same thing, but have completely different beliefs about that thing, does it even make sense to say they believe in the same thing?

No. No, it doesn’t. But the point here is that these three faiths do not have completely different beliefs, but differing beliefs. A comparison would be the difference between communism and capitalism, and the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. The difference between the first two is a complete difference, whereas the second two have differences over common ground. Compare the Republican party with the Chinese Communist Party of the 1950s, and suddenly the Republicans look a lot closer to the Democrats than they may do otherwise.

And if we decide that they do indeed believe in the same thing, why is it limited to Jews, Christians and Muslims? Why don't we say that spiritualists and Satanists (LaVeyan; believes that they are god) believe in the same God? After all, if we don't decide what God they believe in based on their beliefs about it, what criterion do we use?

The three faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are often linked because they arose from a common ancestor and, as PuppyChow helpfully pointed out, even share an overlap of holy texts. Even from a classification perspective, they are similar in that they are monotheistic beliefs with a paternal God, as opposed to the pantheism of Hinduism, or animism of Shinto. It would be like asking, “Why are people always comparing BMW, Mercedes and Porsche?” They are all German automakers, and have more in common with one another than with Ford, or Toyota.

Do we define them to be the same if they all agree on it? What about people who disagree? Do we define them to be the same if they came from the same historical groups? Then everyone worships the same God if you go back far enough.

I must humbly beg your indulgence, but I’m afraid I don’t understand this point. Could you please rephrase it?

In my view, every group worships a different god that they call the same name.

Do you mean, in your view, everyone worships the same god with a different name? Otherwise, yes, every monotheistic religion does worship a different god with the same name – ‘god.’ But atheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic and burritoonastic religions do not.

3

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 08, 2010, 03:42:16 am »

I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.

Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.

But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.

I guess my own example as stated above applies somewhat.  Luckily, I was young, had the time to think about it, was able to hold a conversation with myself, and did not rely on debating others to figure it all out.  When the internet came about, (what a wonderful invention!), I was then able to confirm my understanding.  There was vast volumes of data I can read through and hear all about different views and learn basically anything that anybody in the world was willing to put out there.  I still have this enormous fascination with the internet, to the point where some may claim addiction.  I am pretty much a recluse when it comes to anything else.

I have tried to have this and other debates with my mother, but she tries desperately to avoid it and can not explain why she believes what she does.  I am not a parent myself, but I could imagine that if one were to teach their children in a religion (worldview and morals included), and then come to the realization it was all wrong, and that they had set their children back and made judgments on their children based on wrong morals--that would be psychologically impossible.  I think for someone in my mother's position, it is too late.  There is a fear or basic instinct to not change.

Now this is perfect – you’ve made a statement about your personal testimony, as opposed to a vague person or group of people. Well done, you, for your advanced communication, and the courage to be personal online.

I completely understand the difficulties you may have had with your family; often, those closest to us are the most difficult to reach. If I could draw a cheeky parallel here, it was in Jesus’ home town that he actually had one of his worst receptions, as his extended family listened to him speak, and then said to one another, “That’s no great prophet! I saw him growing up, peeing in my rose bushes and throwing rocks on my roof with his friends.” Roughly speaking, anyway. It loses a bit in translation.

My mother-in-law is similarly difficult to debate with. She displays a strong degree of conflict avoidance, and so desperately tries to steer away from any topic which may be controversial, and papers over differences, with a general kind of “each to his own” philosophy. I am a parent myself, and I believe that more important than teaching my children what to think is teaching them how to think. That isn’t to say I’m not also imparting my own views; once again, I’m back to my earlier statements about theory and practice. I teach them a rule, or ideal, and then try to show them how I myself interpret, enact and pursue it. So of course, my lessons to them will be from my perspective, and my bias. But I don’t think there is anything to be ashamed of in that. I know that whatever I teach them, it will be tested on day, sooner or later. And depending on how well I have taught them to analyse and reflect will probably be a key factor in whether they abandon their philosophy up to that point, or else integrate it into their psyche even more strongly.

Parents, teachers or leaders who present a school of thought, and upon having it question, reply with “Because I told you to!” will never be truly successful in passing the seed along. It is like the difference between understanding the mechanics of quadratic equations, versus memorizing a list of answers by rote. One day, you may get thrown a curly question you haven’t seen before, and the whole thing begins to come unstuck.

I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc.  If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car?  Or do you also believe in those things, as well?  I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.

Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.

And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.

I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.

I can understand what you are saying here, but I could also turn that statement around on you.  If you see a difference between them, then you have already discounted gremlins and faeries.  There are people to this day (and you can find their testimony all over the web) that do believe in faeries.  There was a time when that was a wide spread belief.  There was once a time when slavery was justified by the majority of people.  If you say that belief in faeries is not as likely to be true as a deity are you not insulting those who believe in faeries?

I am trying to be as honest as I can in this conversation and I am trying to find out why people believe the things they do.  I am not trying to make anybody pissed off or feel inferior.  When you ask if I really, really do not see the difference, I am saying that I do not.  If you say that a majority of the world believing in something lends some creedence to the belief, I have to say you are wrong.  Look at the history of the world, and you will see countless ideas that were held by the majority of people at the time as being right and that we now know are wrong.  If there is something more to that argument, then I am not recognizing it, so please point it out for me.

In this conversation you are seeing why I hold the view that I do, or at least I hope you are.  If something doesn't make sense logically to me, I will say so.  You can't say some parts of the conversation are immune to logic or discussion, because then we are no longer examining ideas, but just two TVs turned on and pointed at each other.  If your intention is to minimize venom or offensiveness, then great.  What I get offended at is when someone asserts something as true without rationality behind it--that is the textbook definition of bigotry.  Since we are all still here conversing, that means we are all open to learning from each other.  So when I say something that looks like my intent is to belittle or incite--why I am actually saying it is because that is how I understand it to be.

Gracie: I'd go with you but...
Jack: I know, there's a problem with your face.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, my primary point was about delivery. I’m all for honesty – more of it, I cry! – but one should strive to deliver honesty with grace, humility, respect and tact. You can tell a fat person that they are fat, and you will be being honest, factually correct, and even possibly well-intentioned, but you will still probably hurt their feelings.

I’m afraid I do see a very big difference between gremlins, faeries and God. Yes, fey folk were once genuinely believed in, but mostly by credulous, simple folk, or earlier than that, by various animistic pagan faithful. I am not aware – although my awareness is limited enough to prevent me from stating it as a fact – of any present, genuine faiths which include gremlins and faeries, as we know them. Whereas many highly intelligent, clear-headed, enlightened people have professed to have a belief in God. In my comment, I was not stating the truth about one view or another, but rather, that one conclusion was far more likely than another.

It is possible to examine different views, subscribing to none of them yourself, and still state that one is more possible, or more likely, than another. Picture a crime scene, with a dead body, stab wound in the neck. As a detective, you may believe that it was actually a domestic dispute, and the killer was the spouse. Another detective theorises the killer was a burglar, surprised in the act, while a third officer claims it was actually a ninja. It is quite sensible for you, the detective, to retain your original theory, and still say that it is far more likely for the killer to be a burglar than a ninja. You are not compelled to say that because you don’t think it was either, they are both just as ridiculous as one another.

And yes, my chief goal previous was to minimize venom and offence, as I have unfortunately seen far too much of it here. Not by you, Smuglapse, I might quickly add, but by others. I do understand you are trying to be primarily honest and open; I don’t believe any offence you may cause would intentional. It is the inadvertent offence which trips us up, when we can make a statement that we have no problem with, but cuts another deeply in ways we may not be aware of.

We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn’t we, Wang?

4

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 08, 2010, 02:41:38 am »

You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason.  I say it is not.  It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment.  Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."

Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.

And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.

This seems to be a utilitarian argument for religion.  Are you suggesting that no matter what the belief, if the outcome is good (an enriched life), the belief is a worthy one?

No, I am saying that the proof is in the pudding.

If someone makes a claim, such as ‘this product is easy to use’, and you see someone apparently using it with ease, it gives credibility to the claim. If someone says, ‘this lifestyle philosophy will increase your happiness’, and you see someone living by that philosophy, and they are freaking miserable, it detracts from the claim.

It is the essential blend of theory and practice, thought and action. In an area such as faith, or social science, where conclusive proof in the theory cannot be produced via a machine, or laboratory process, the next best proof can be gained by a study of the species.

Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?

I came to my current thinking through "theorizing" I guess you can call it, lying awake at night when I was younger trying to make sense out of the world.  I came to the conclusion that if people are forced to gamble for their salvation (thanks ratcharmer for the apt phrase) then a god wasn't worth worshiping.  I had these thoughts on my own because through other experiences I had learned that if you find something important it might be safer to keep it to yourself.  Being that it is my whole family is religious, I was afraid that I might be ostracized or punished in some way.  As I grew I learned more critical thinking and became more independent to the point where I felt safe expressing my views and also in confirming them against reality.  I find it amazing that I once thought there was a god and I wonder how I can help people come to the same realization.

As far as new encounters, I do a quick cost/benefit analysis before deciding on whether testimony or more is needed.  If someone says, "hey, this ice cream tastes great", then I consider what is the worst that can happen--I could have a bad taste in my mouth.  So I don't need a study done before I give it a try.  However, if someone says ,"hey, this ice cream allows me to float off of skyscrapers", well then I would need considerable proof--scientific studies, video evidence, etc.

I’m just curious for clarification; having missed ratcharmer’s use of the phrase, “gambling for salvation”, what do you mean by that?

Also, when you refer to keeping something important to yourself, did you mean something potentially controversial, or was there another meaning I have missed?

5

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 08, 2010, 12:35:10 am »

I've broken this up into multiple posts, simply because I was afraid of it becoming a monster. Hopefully, it will also allow anyone to comment on a single point more easily.

So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?

It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”

What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?

I'm asking anyone who is reading who is not currently a Muslim, why they are not.  As for myself, I see Islam the same as Christianity, and all other religions.  I think this quote from Richard Dawkins says it best "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

I would slightly disagree with this Dawkins point. I would classify an atheist perspective as an outright casting off of a view, and many believers of a faith do not have that perspective to other faiths. For example, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all “children of Abraham”, and all believe in the same God, but name Him differently, and ascribe different words and actions to him. I would not think that any one of these faiths would throw away the entirety of the other two, but be more precise in what was agreed and disagreed. A scalpel, rather than a broadsword.

Of course, there are some faiths which are completely incompatible with others. Theravada Buddhism is, technically speaking, an atheist religion, and is incompatible with a monotheistic view, while the pantheism of Hinduism is also fairly irreconcilable. But for the most part, I believe that this quote by Dawkins illustrates the man’s own preconceptions more than anything else.

Specifically in terms of MY perspective on ISLAM, I do not believe in it, as the fact that the Koran wholly comes from one man, the Prophet Mohammed, increases the chances of human error becoming involved. I also look at the examples of its followers, and even steering well-clear of a reactionary comment about terrorism, I still see a widespread culture of inequality between men and women. There seems to me too much in Islam which directly benefits certain people within the faith, which then in turn smacks of human invention, rather than divine inspiration.

All that said, I am not an ex-Muslim, nor a Muslim scholar. I will be the first to admit my own deficiencies of Islamic study, and prepare to stand corrected on any errors in my thinking. It is simply my reasoning for not being a Muslim.

6

Religion / Re: Is belief in Relgion dangerous?

« on: August 07, 2010, 11:47:28 pm »

Point being, I doubt anyone turned crazy over religion and started doing bad things, that they wouldn't have done if there hadn't been something similar to religion available for them.

Point well made. It reminds me of an analyst, commenting on the case of a British nursery school worker being charged with paedophilia. It isn’t a case of child workers being likely to become paedophiles, but rather, paedophiles becoming child workers to gain access to children. Many atrocities committed in the name of religion are done so by people who are more interested in the atrocities, than the religion.

But religion makes a convenient scapegoat to its opponents, and is much easier to summarise than investigating a complex history of racism, cultural tensions and inequality in the political system.

7

Religion / Re: Why don't you believe in God(s)?

« on: August 04, 2010, 10:52:22 pm »

essence what on  is a telempathic experience?  ???
anyway i just never really believed in it(religion) my families quite religous though-i just never needed god and never really thought about him and when i did i had no faith in him.

i am a catholic and everyone needs to believe in god..your question is "why didn't i had fate in god"

This is not promoting religious tolerance XD I have never felt that I needed God (what exactly is there to need?) but then again, it is hard to feel like you need something that you don't believe in.

I second the motion! Even if God exists, and even if Catholicism is the best way to serve Him, that still is a lousy method of reaching out to those who disagree! Start with a chocolate biscuit, ask someone about their day, buy them a pony… anything, rather than the conversational equivalent of a Sherman-mounted flamethrower!

After all, wasn’t Jesus humble?

In other news, SeddyRocky, you pose an interesting question. What is there to need?

If I could play Devil’s advocate for a moment (no joke intended), and take our friend BloodlinE213’s own faith, Catholicism, what is it that their God can offer? Absolute justice? The meaning of life? Eternity? Love?

Please understand, I pose this not as a claim of truth, but as a philosophical response to your own question, based on a hypothesis that God is real. What are your thoughts?

8

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 04, 2010, 10:38:35 pm »

Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.

Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.

This is correct.  But one is not born a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, one must determine which is correct.  In order to choose you have to view the other options and determine they are incorrect or just blindly pick one.  So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?

It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”

What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?

Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down

You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason.  I say it is not.  It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment.  Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."

Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.

And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.

Really, it’s backing up words with action, and as humans, it’s what we expect to see from anyone making a claim, whether is religion, politics, or new Whizzo floor polish, with added spiff molecules for that deep-down clean!

Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?

c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.

In regards to these experiences, how do you know it is a divine presence and not just your mind playing tricks on you?

That’s a very specific question, and would need to be asked to each individual, over each instance of supposed spiritual intervention. And it is hard to answer. Some occurrences really may be coincidence, or the mind playing tricks. Others… may be something metaphysical. But to take a wider view, it will also depend on how credulous or skeptical the individual is.

For example, a particular person may hear a click, once, during a phone conversation, and exclaim, “The phones are bugged! The Government is monitoring me!” Another person may notice a black van, driven by two men with earpieces, which seems to be driving three cars behind them everywhere they go for six months, and say, “Wow, what an extraordinary series of coincidences.”

Two extreme examples, at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have met both kinds of people, with regard to views on spiritual intervention, or miracles. Or aliens. Or ghosts.

In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.

I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.

Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.

But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.

How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain

That is my perception of reality, yes.  I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc.  If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car?  Or do you also believe in those things, as well?  I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.

Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.

And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.

I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.

As to the other point, and reference to the Matrix, it is actually a common question and theme running through most philosophy – the definition of “reality”. Buddhist thought speculates on life as a dream, and asks, “Who is dreaming us now?” French philosopher Rene Descartes pursued the concept of existence, and found that the material world was insufficiently reliable, and that the only undeniable truth he could claim was Cogito Ergo Sum, or, I think, therefore I am. And, as used here, The Matrix is a modern exploration of the fluid nature of reality, and our perceptions of it. It is a theme which strikes a chord with many, as we see numerous examples of it, perhaps most recently with Inception.

This world may indeed be no more than what we encounter in it. Then again, this material universe may only be one layer of something deeper. Of course, neither you nor I expect giant mutant ants, but if there really is more to this existence than meets the eye, when the outside breaks in, or we break out, we are going to be rather surprised by what we did not expect.

“I was born ready.”

9

Religion / Re: Why do you care?

« on: August 04, 2010, 09:21:55 pm »

ok guys..believe jesus is the only way to heaven..

To quote the notorious Pauline Hanson - please explain?

10

Off-Topic Discussions / Re: What's your favorite game you've ever played?

« on: August 04, 2010, 02:08:14 am »

I think I've invested quite a few hours into Company of Heroes... whether or not I should have is another matter. Still, it has helped me with my German. Does that count as "educational"?

11

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: August 04, 2010, 01:06:47 am »

Can you go to heaven with sin? No.
Are we sinners? Yes.
Did Jesus Christ forgive our sins? Yes.
Can Jesus forgive our sins if we don't let him into our hearts? No.
So, if we believe in Jesus as our savior, can we go to heaven? Yes.
If we don't? No.
(Note that that's one of the main reasons Christianity is so evangelical. Believers want to save those that don't).

Personally I feel this is a core belief of Christianity.I may not agree with what certain denominations of it say, however, this is the most important thing to me.

For those who believe in this path to heaven, why do you feel it is right over another path, such as Islam?  Is it the actions of the religion's followers or a reading of various holy books, or something else?

For those who believe there is no reward or punishment in choosing a faith, does it boil down to just a personal preference then, like what flavor of ice cream you like?

Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.

Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.

Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.

In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell* have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.

* What the hell is Gracie Law doing here?

12

Half Bloods / Re: What are they made of?

« on: August 02, 2010, 11:14:13 pm »

Yes, I am aware of that much. But are they randomly generated each time, or does each element bring a predetermined set of cards from that deck? And what is the pillar / deck ratio?