Why do people reject religion? I think I know

[rumborak]

Convenient for you. Rule #1 of any sect if you want it to be successful: Make the members feel they are a selected lot, special before God.
Bummer for those Amerindians, only second-rate believers!

rumborak

[reo73]

Convenient for you. Rule #1 of any sect if you want it to be successful: Make the members feel they are a selected lot, special before God.
Bummer for those Amerindians, only second-rate believers!

rumborak

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

Edit: I think I see what you are getting at but it doesn't have to do with convenience or being special, it merely has to do with how God has made himself known to mankind.  And neither are 1st rate or 2nd rate.

[ehra]

Something that I've been thinking about is why God's policy on how much "proof" he gives people of his existence seems to have changed compared to back during the stories told in the Bible. Adam and Eve had NO reason to doubt God existed, they had conversations with him. Why doesn't God have conversations with anyone today? It'd be pretty hard to doubt His existence if he were anywhere near as chatty as he was back then. Or how about Jesus; he, allegedly, came back from the dead. Why the doesn't anyone else come back from the dead? That'd be pretty damn convincing. We don't even have to go that far, just show me some priest walking on water or turning water into wine. Then pretty much everyone would have damn good reasons to believe and we could stop fighting over that and get back to bickering over if masturbating will send us to hell and important topics like that.

Why did people back in the day get to see all of these miracles that are obvious proof of God, or at least a time traveling multi-class Cleric/Wizard, and we're left with "you just have to have faith"? Inevitably someone will replay with "it's all part of his plan," or some variation if it, which opens up a whole other can of worms. God, in his infinite wisdom, comes up with a "plan" that results in more and more people beginning to doubt His existence as they slowly discover how the very universe He Himself made works? Eventually it gets to the point where his "plan" has far shittier results than what he was doing way back when.

[rumborak]

Convenient for you. Rule #1 of any sect if you want it to be successful: Make the members feel they are a selected lot, special before God.
Bummer for those Amerindians, only second-rate believers!

rumborak

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

Edit: I think I see what you are getting at but it doesn't have to do with convenience or being special, it merely has to do with how God has made himself known to mankind.  And neither are 1st rate or 2nd rate.

Of course there's 1st-rate and 2nd-rate. Your point is that, oh how nice, you've been exposed to General Revelation (just like everybody else) but also Special Revelation. Those suckers, the 17th century Yanomamo, only got the General Revelation, but it's their fault they suck to not seek for Christ in the face of Jesus everywhere in nature.
It's a bit like saying "I'm not anti-gay, but after all the gays know what's right, only that they've been 'blessed' with a damaged mind from the getgo. I for one am straight, but even if I was gay I would know the right thing to do!"

rumborak

[7StringedBeast]

The fact that there are, and have been so many different religions in the world also makes me reject religion as a whole.  If there are so many religions, how can there be one true way to God?  There can't be.  Remember Jesus, wasn't the first God walk the block.  Think of all the polytheistic religions before that.  Why should anyone believe that everything just suddenly changed once Jesus showed up?  Just as polytheism is seen as crazy today, I suspect Christianity and other monotheistic religions to fall by the wayside just as the others did.

It's funny how God only revealed himself to a very certain few people who were able to write it down.  It's amazing they get so much credit for being "correct" and everyone else is not.  That is my problem with religion as a whole.  Everyone thinks they are so right, when in fact no one knows anything.  That is why I choose to not follow religion. 

[Zook]

The fact that there are, and have been so many different religions in the world also makes me reject religion as a whole.  If there are so many religions, how can there be one true way to God?  There can't be.  Remember Jesus, wasn't the first God walk the block.  Think of all the polytheistic religions before that.  Why should anyone believe that everything just suddenly changed once Jesus showed up?  Just as polytheism is seen as crazy today, I suspect Christianity and other monotheistic religions to fall by the wayside just as the others did.

It's funny how God only revealed himself to a very certain few people who were able to write it down.  It's amazing they get so much credit for being "correct" and everyone else is not.  That is my problem with religion as a whole.  Everyone thinks they are so right, when in fact no one knows anything.  That is why I choose to not follow religion. 

Not true. Try cracking a book sometime.

[orcus116]

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

It's convenient because explaining something simply by saying God had something to do seems to be the only answer. Despite other logical options existing they get dismissed because God isn't involved.

Also you mention how God has made himself known to humans. In what ways? I'm hoping they're actually compelling instead of the usual "natural disasters are God showing us how angry he is" nonsense.

[7StringedBeast]

Not true. Try cracking a book sometime.

If people didn't think their religion was right, why the heck would they follow it?  I have no problem with people who think their religion is right, but they do believe it.  I just believe something else.  Try to be less condescending next time.

[Zook]

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

It's convenient because explaining something simply by saying God had something to do seems to be the only answer. Despite other logical options existing they get dismissed because God isn't involved.

Also you mention how God has made himself known to humans. In what ways? I'm hoping they're actually compelling instead of the usual "natural disasters are God showing us how angry he is" nonsense.

Actually it's the usual "I've had many times where god has shown himself to me, but I don't feel comfortable talking about it."

[Zook]

Not true. Try cracking a book sometime.

If people didn't think there religion was right, why the heck would they follow it?  I have no problem with people who think their religion is right, but they do believe it.  I just believe something else.  Try to be less condescending next time.

Tell that to William Wallace. He said it first. I was simple moc.. I mean, quoting him.

[7StringedBeast]

So was your post supposed to be in green and I missed it then?

[Zook]

So was your post supposed to be in green and I missed it then?

As green as white can be.

[7StringedBeast]

[Sigz]

The only difference is that WW actually had a point. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that the Bible was intentionally written as an 'opiate of masses'.

[Zook]

The only difference is that WW actually had a point. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that the Bible was intentionally written as an 'opiate of masses'.

The evidence is the bible itself.

[William Wallace]

Of course it would. But, tell me then how the 17th-century Yanomamo could be saved had they only chosen? How do you learn about a 1st-century Palestinian when nobody has made it to the New World yet?
(please don't tell me they all had dreams about it and all chose to reject it. Or something)

rumborak

Again, your misunderstanding of the theology is the trouble, not the theology itself (i.e. "population x hasn't read the Gospels, how can they be saved?!"). Salvation isn't based on one's knowledge of the New Testament. If it was the mentally disabled, children who die in infancy, etc. would never be saved, and rarely is the same question asked about these groups.

It's also worth nothing that rejecting Christianity is a conscience decision. For example, Joe Atheist is exposed to the teachings of Jesus and, after assessing them, knowingly walks away. That's entirely different than somebody who happened to live at a place in time where the Bible was inaccessible and happened to be ignorant of those teachings. As best as I can tell, it's the former that is jeopardizing himself. 

[j]

Maybe Joe Atheist doesn't find the claims of Christianity convincing?  If we assume that Christianity is the real deal, at what point does he become culpable for fully understanding but rejecting it, as opposed to merely being ignorant of the "truth"?  That would seem to indirectly promote some degree of ignorance.

I mean I've heard people argue that anybody who REALLY understood Christianity would never choose to reject it.  If that's the case, we're all safe because those of us who don't buy in simply don't "get it".

-J

[reo73]

Convenient for you. Rule #1 of any sect if you want it to be successful: Make the members feel they are a selected lot, special before God.
Bummer for those Amerindians, only second-rate believers!

rumborak

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

Edit: I think I see what you are getting at but it doesn't have to do with convenience or being special, it merely has to do with how God has made himself known to mankind.  And neither are 1st rate or 2nd rate.

Of course there's 1st-rate and 2nd-rate. Your point is that, oh how nice, you've been exposed to General Revelation (just like everybody else) but also Special Revelation. Those suckers, the 17th century Yanomamo, only got the General Revelation, but it's their fault they suck to not seek for Christ in the face of Jesus everywhere in nature.
It's a bit like saying "I'm not anti-gay, but after all the gays know what's right, only that they've been 'blessed' with a damaged mind from the getgo. I for one am straight, but even if I was gay I would know the right thing to do!"

rumborak

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing???

[rumborak]

Of course it would. But, tell me then how the 17th-century Yanomamo could be saved had they only chosen? How do you learn about a 1st-century Palestinian when nobody has made it to the New World yet?
(please don't tell me they all had dreams about it and all chose to reject it. Or something)

rumborak

Again, your misunderstanding of the theology is the trouble, not the theology itself (i.e. "population x hasn't read the Gospels, how can they be saved?!"). Salvation isn't based on one's knowledge of the New Testament. If it was the mentally disabled, children who die in infancy, etc. would never be saved, and rarely is the same question asked about these groups.

It's also worth nothing that rejecting Christianity is a conscience decision. For example, Joe Atheist is exposed to the teachings of Jesus and, after assessing them, knowingly walks away. That's entirely different than somebody who happened to live at a place in time where the Bible was inaccessible and happened to be ignorant of those teachings. As best as I can tell, it's the former that is jeopardizing himself.  

So you're saying that everybody who never heard of Jesus is fine and goes to heaven? If that is indeed your point, I'm pretty sure you are in a tiny minority of Christians who believe that.

rumborak

[reo73]

OK...What's that have to do with General Revelation & Special Revelation for which the comment was it's "convenient".  Do you know what General Revelation or Special Revelation refers to theologically?  There is nothing about it that has to do with being 1st rate or 2nd rate.

It's convenient because explaining something simply by saying God had something to do seems to be the only answer. Despite other logical options existing they get dismissed because God isn't involved.

Also you mention how God has made himself known to humans. In what ways? I'm hoping they're actually compelling instead of the usual "natural disasters are God showing us how angry he is" nonsense.

My answer about General Revelation and Special Revelation was in response to the question of what about those who have not heard the Gospel.  It's simply a Christian theological point about how God has made himself known to man, but you want to bring the discussion back to the basic premise of God or No God at which point any theological point about God is worthless to you and our discussion will go around in circles.  

[reo73]

Of course it would. But, tell me then how the 17th-century Yanomamo could be saved had they only chosen? How do you learn about a 1st-century Palestinian when nobody has made it to the New World yet?
(please don't tell me they all had dreams about it and all chose to reject it. Or something)

rumborak

Again, your misunderstanding of the theology is the trouble, not the theology itself (i.e. "population x hasn't read the Gospels, how can they be saved?!"). Salvation isn't based on one's knowledge of the New Testament. If it was the mentally disabled, children who die in infancy, etc. would never be saved, and rarely is the same question asked about these groups.

It's also worth nothing that rejecting Christianity is a conscience decision. For example, Joe Atheist is exposed to the teachings of Jesus and, after assessing them, knowingly walks away. That's entirely different than somebody who happened to live at a place in time where the Bible was inaccessible and happened to be ignorant of those teachings. As best as I can tell, it's the former that is jeopardizing himself.  

So you're saying that everybody who never heard of Jesus is fine and goes to heaven? If that is indeed your point, I'm pretty sure you are in a tiny minority of Christians who believe that.

rumborak

No...what the Theology of General Revelation is saying is that God has made himself known to all through his creation and that a sense of the creator has been imprinted on all of mankind's heart.  Some will accept it and worship the creator (even though they do not understand who the creator is) while others will reject it.  The act of this choosing may be enough to be considered righteous because they acted according to God's will with what had been made known to them. 

Yes, it's a debated topic but not by a small minority.

[GuineaPig]

If God had revealed himself to Native Americans, why did they form their own mythologies and religions, and not recognizable variants of Christianity?

[rumborak]

I think at this point it should be fairly clear why it's fairly easy to reject religion. Once you have to invoke "special" theology concepts such as General Revelation and Special Revelation to make sense of the obviously nonsensical, it's not for me.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I think at this point it should be fairly clear why it's fairly easy to reject religion. Once you have to invoke "special" theology concepts such as General Revelation and Special Revelation to make sense of the obviously nonsensical, it's not for me.

rumborak

There's really no way to win the argument. If God doesn't offer salvation to everybody he's a prick, unworthy of worship. If he does it's "obviously nonsensical." Of course, this is all moot anyway. If somehow we could provide an answer up to your standard you'd fall back on another reason to be skeptical, because we're starting with different assumptions.

If God had revealed himself to Native Americans, why did they form their own mythologies and religions, and not recognizable variants of Christianity?

I don't see why they wouldn't form their own religions. People who were aware of Christianity in the past did the same thing, so the existence of different faiths isn't that significant. But many world religions share certain similarities with Christianity, and in the Bible people who practiced them weren't always lambasted for not being explicitly Christian. Acts 17:22 is one example.   


   

[rumborak]

WW, I can't believe you actually buy into this supposed supremacy of the Christian faith. I mean, you read enough to see enough other faiths that make exactly the same claim of deliverance and salvation.

rumborak

[sonatafanica]

I think I reject religion because I'm o.k. with the idea of dying forever.


Phew, dodged that bullet

[sneakyblueberry]

I think I reject religion because I'm o.k. with the idea of dying forever.

How do you 'die forever'?  Isn't once enough?

[gmillerdrake]

WW, I can't believe you actually buy into this supposed supremacy of the Christian faith. I mean, you read enough to see enough other faiths that make exactly the same claim of deliverance and salvation.

rumborak

If all views are acceptable (as modern society would dictate), why is Christianity chastised so strongly by those who claim to be enlightened? Quite simply, when confronted with the reality of sin, mankind must either repent or reject. If mankind repents, it must face it's own sinfulness and accept the consequences of its sin. Repentance brings salvation. On the other hand, if mankind rejects the reality of sin, it must also fight to destroy those who remind it of the depravity of its sinful nature. In doing so, it deludes itself into believing that its sin is nonexistent and those who reveal the sin are the ones who are wrong.

[7StringedBeast]

That's only assuming there is a reality of sin.  I don't believe in sins.

[gmillerdrake]

That's only assuming there is a reality of sin.  I don't believe in sins.

   On the other hand, if mankind rejects the REALITY OF SIN, it must also fight to destroy those who remind it of the depravity of its sinful nature. In doing so, it deludes itself into believing that its sin is nonexistent and those who reveal the sin are the ones who are wrong.

[7StringedBeast]

You can't reject a reality of sins, if its not a reality.  That's assuming that I am wrong and just turning a blind eye.  You can reject the idea of a sin, or the possibility of sins.

[eric42434224]

That's only assuming there is a reality of sin.  I don't believe in sins.

   On the other hand, if mankind rejects the REALITY OF SIN, it must also fight to destroy those who remind it of the depravity of its sinful nature. In doing so, it deludes itself into believing that its sin is nonexistent and those who reveal the sin are the ones who are wrong.

If one rejects the idea and reality of sin (meaning one doesnt believe even in the concept or existence of "sin"), how can one be reminded of its own sinful nature?  Why must one fight to destroy something it doesnt feel exists in itself or in others?

[gmillerdrake]

That's only assuming there is a reality of sin.  I don't believe in sins.

   On the other hand, if mankind rejects the REALITY OF SIN, it must also fight to destroy those who remind it of the depravity of its sinful nature. In doing so, it deludes itself into believing that its sin is nonexistent and those who reveal the sin are the ones who are wrong.

If one rejects the idea and reality of sin (meaning one doesnt believe even in the concept or existence of "sin"), how can one be reminded of its own sinful nature?  Why must one fight to destroy something it doesnt feel exists in itself or in others?

Believe me when I say that I wish that I were able to fashion and construct a sentence that could undeniably "prove" that sin does in fact exist. That it is most certainly not an attribute or condition that man created. All I can say is that I firmly believe that man knows “right” from “wrong” due to the fact that God has written his laws into our hearts and minds. When we deviate from and violate the tenants of those laws we in fact, “sin”.  If one chooses to pretend that sin does not exist to justify their own behavior….that is certainly their choice.

[Adami]

But we're not choosing to pretend that sin does not exist. We simply do not believe in sin. Much in the same way you probably don't believe in Karma. (the actual definition)

[rumborak]

If "right" and "wrong" was only as easy as religion claims it is.

rumborak