The basis of religion is spirituality. In any case what exactly do mean "real" religion? Most religions are real. Many may be bizarre, absurd, obscure or whatever but to those that practice them they are very real.

 

 

 

 

If you believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, then sure...but not everyone takes every single thing in the bible literally...the Quran is an even better example in that it explicitly states certain things are not to be taken literally (though it doesn't specify which things, still leaving it up to interpretation)...

Furthermore, one can be a "Christian" and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ without needing all the other "baggage"  included in the bible...

I don't believe in the Bible period and the literal translation is a Christian made problem. The Bible which of course is cherry picked for the good parts and the unappealing parts just get ignored. Isn't that what is wrong with this country ... they cherry pick the Constitution and only acknowledge the parts that fit their agenda. As far as I am concerned ... it is the whole enchilada ... or nothing (my preference).  If one desires to just believe in Jesus but refutes the word of God as represented in the Bible … then I daresay they aren’t much of a Christian then, just a fence walker. Curiously, what parts of the Bible do you doubt that you need to pick and choose to make peace with your mythology?  

There are things in the bible that are pure allegory (Jesus used allegory constantly).  There are minor (and they are) transliteration and translation errors. There are historical accounts that appear very much to be an oral retelling of actual historical events but as in many oral tales may indeed have erroneous elements to them.  There are other things that are historically sound, philosophical and moral statements. The bible is fossilized, ancient words--removed from us by centuries of time and details of culture often no longer understood fully by us.

There is no more way to just "read the bible and get it" than there is to "argue facts with a God you're unable to understand".

If all the bible offered was tales and moral lessons and theology and philosophy then it would be one book, one religion amongst many.  The bible is a gateway to experience--for those willing to enter in.  For those unwilling, it is a continual stumbling stone--which is exactly what Jesus said it would be.

The core of scripture--the validation of it--is the person of Christ.  Not merely the historical or traditional accounts of him.  If you look for textual facts alone in the bible to prove to you "Jesus is real" you will never get enough "facts"--not the full sort your intellect and will require anyway.

The bible is a clue, a sign, a question that requires a response to test if it has any truth.  Holding the book, staring at the pages and telling it over and over that "It can't be right" will get you nowhere.  there is only one evidence promised in scripture that can be apprehended by anyone sincerely looking and that evidence is Jesus.  Jesus is the point where your experience and understanding can be accommodated.  The bible (NT) points to that--the experience with Christ and gives a guarantee if you proceed by sincere faith the experience will follow. You can argue that "it's impossible" but that's what happened to me--and I was quite surprised.

I couldn't "unbelieve" now even if I wanted to.  I don't currently attend a church (though I have and can) and I don't need anyone to explain for me that Jesus is real--I know.

Sit in your corner and intellectualize and rationalize all you want. I've had an experience--shared with millions of others by the way--for which the best answer is "Jesus".  I get that you don't get that and can't believe it but your disbelief and lack of experience don't make you the expert.  All you have is an opinion.

I think there could be alien life somewhere out in the universe.  But I can't describe it, predict its form or nature or even know if its there.  It would be absurd for me to begin a movmement to "prove" or "disprove" aliens exist.  I can do neither.  You are in the same position with God.

Which is why this conversation will only stay about "religion" because that's the only angle a non-believer can get their hands on and head around.  The rest will always be "ridiculous" and "offensive" because it will never be considered.

The bible points to Christ--Christ is the proof of the bible.  I don't expect you to understand that but that's how it works..."Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

At some point you need to realize I (at least) am  discussing atheism here in the form of science. Your Mississippi rendition is pointless and can easily be refuted with the facts. If I am not allowed to present the facts ... how I am supposed to support my views which are all fact based ... religiously (?), I think not. If the facts frighten you, then just ignore them which is the Christian solution to all their unknowns of life. You cannot defend yourself David because you shy away from reality … but that doesn't mean I need to follow suite. If you have some arguments make them as I have.

Silly, as seems to be the case when dealing with religion. I am a scientist (by nature) and I investigate everything I can find to study within my interests. Faith alone is just not enough for me. First I need to be convinced there is something to have faith in. Simply, I need to know God is as claimed … BEFORE … I go to some completely manmade object (the Bible) for guidance let alone to turn my complete life upside down. It seems that many are able to do this … but there is no logic or reasoning involved in the process. That takes it outside of my understanding of life and I can find nothing besides emotions that prompt this kind of insanity. It never works … putting the cart in front of the horse and trying to make believers out of people who should know better today.

 

Obviously the USG thought it a good idea … ever hear of “search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)”, a useless endeavor(IMO) with current technology … but we are making the effort nonetheless. The problem here is not my understanding of your God; it has all to do with religion (you) and what they try to pass off as some Godly truth. When I was younger, I really believed in Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. Couldn’t prove any of it, didn’t even care to … a preponderance of the evidence pointed to it … then I grew up and had to start making adult decisions … so I left all the fairy tales behind … all of them, eventually. I would much rather think we were seeded from little green men than the wrathful, vengeful and jealous God of the Bible. It is time for people to morally grow up and take responsibility for themselves and their actions … and to stop trying to BUY redemption at the cost of their free will. This is not the place for a personal (private) disclosure and the reasons should be obvious. I give myself leeway when privately discussing something which I cannot do on an open forum. Here, I have to defend by beliefs against religion (as worldly represented by the RCC) … not your specific flavor … there are just too many different flavors of God worship to go person to person. I have met several Christians who actually were practicing their ‘faith’ … that should be respected. These comments are not intended for people who actually practice what they preach … instead of preaching what they practice. 

Isn't this exactly what you would have of me??? Don't be hypocritical it is unbecoming. I don’t care if you refute science … I just don’t understand how anyone can in the modern age. I am sure everyone would like to know how to prove Jesus is/was real (even me) ... but you already know you cannot do that. You may believe whatever floats your boat ... but don't confuse that as proof of anything besides the state of your mind and what you have chosen to 'believe' of your own volition. God may be incognito for the duration, but I am an open book and my number is public …

 

"If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, "

There are those who do not believe are resentful of those who do.

Doesn't this action render Jesus vulnerable w/o a source? Where would Socrates be w/o Plato?

Boobz...your response is completely biased and emotional.  You assume things about me that aren't in any way true, you attribute doctrines and mindsets to me that are simply a projection of what you imagine "I" am.  You couldn't possibly know.  You also sound angry and invested in this far beyond a "scientific view" and certainly aren't approaching it that way.  What you are having is a slanted rhetorical debate where you state your perceptions as fact and ignore the other side.

I'm also not asking you to believe anything.  Nothing in what I have said is an appeal for you to act--I'm simply relating what differentiates a Christian from a rote practitioner of religion or those who have no belief and pointing out where some of your assumptions don't apply (along with those of some others).

• I haven't refuted science in the least.
• I haven't been hypocritical.
• I haven't asked you to do anything.
• I'm not frightened by the facts.
• I'm not ignoring the facts.

My point is very simply you don't have all the facts and are not asking all the right questions  What's really happening is that when confronted by someone who says, "I have had a real experience" you insist they must be irrational, superstitious, incapable of critical thought, self-analysis or coherence and they must "shut up because they aren't scientific.".

I'm beginning very much to relate here to how Galileo must have felt at the Vatican.

A lot of the baggage is "extrabibilical"--sectarian theologies, denominational imperatives, etc. [Catholicism or Creationism for example] You can be a believer without those things and it isn't contradictory at all.

 

stevendedalus, sorry but this won’t fly anymore. What atheist zealotry are you bemoaning in your article? The way I see it, we have ‘science’ which views things in the real world, physical things, detectable things. Then we have the various theologies that seem to believe that they have a better solution garnered from their particular book of enlightenment. No connection here: science and mysticism. You cannot prove magic and you cannot mystify the history of the Universe and everything in it because some book says otherwise. These battles are usually brought about by the religious community in their misplaced exuberance they try and use science to justify (or not) their obsessions … most feverishly indeed.

Sinperium,

Re: your posts # 80 and 84 ....

Most of your assertions about the Catholic Church and Catholicism are either partially or totally incorrect. 

For example,

RE: the highlighted. No, it's not the Catholic CHURCH that became the Christian religion, but rather the Catholic FAITH, Catholicism, that is Christ's Christian religion. On the first Pentecost Day in 33AD. Christ sent the Church to finish His Mission of  teaching and preaching in His name His Christian religion, that would later be known as Catholicism. Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture confirm this.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. That is the members are bound together and to Christ, their Eternal Head into a spiritual though real organic body by the supernatural life of grace received at Baptism.

 The Catholic Church is the visible organic society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body,by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, and the same 7 Sacraments, under the authority of Christ's appointed earthly head of His Church and the bishops in union with him.

 Here's how we know and understand that.

There is a theological unity in Christ's Church and Christ's religion.

St. Paul describes that unity in Ephesians 4:4-6 ... there is but "one body", "one Spirit", "one hope", "one Lord", "one faith", "one baptism", "one God and Father of us all who is above all, through all and in us all." .

Now when you say that the Catholic Church claims special status, that's true. The Church claims that she was Divinely established and that she and only she truly fits exactly the theological unity described by St.Paul in Eph. 4:4-6. No other church or religion can make this claim and have it be true.

 

The Catholic Church is the Mystical "one Body" of Christ. The "one Holy Spirit" maintains the unity of the "one body". The Apostles taught both in Tradition and in Scripture that Christ constantly calls and gathers together the people of His New Covenant, which is the Catholic Church into a unity of faith, hope and charity. "One Lord" is the Eternal Head of the "one body". They profess "one Faith", the Christian religion, that Christ taught  and which the Apostles and the Catholic Church have expressed in clear statements of doctrine and dogma.

During the very time the Catholic Church's bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, the Church was a functioning organism. Historical documents and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the CC and on Christ's promise will continue until the end of time despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.

 

 

What does this mean?

 

 

 

Sad but true.

Lula, it simply means that the RCC has made claim that they were and still are the only ones self-empowered to speak for God in all matters … and all others are just pretenders ... many times you told me this???

Steven - Sorry I missed your return!  I hope you are still around to titillate our intellect!