Why do people reject religion? I think I know

[7StringedBeast]

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

rumborak

This exactly.  Moral codes are different in every culture you go to.  There is no universal moral code anywhere.  There is no way to prove there is "Sin" because that means you could prove there is a Christian God.  Which you can't do.

[gmillerdrake]

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

rumborak

I've never recieved the impression that "right" and "wrong" were easy. In fact, if it were easy then adhering to that law or charge wouldn't be as difficult as it is. I find it challenging at times not to give in to my "flesh" and obey it's every desire. It doesn't bother me though that my faith calls me to travel the more difficult path because I know that the rewards for my spiritual obediance outweigh and superceed any carnal compensation or immediate gratification that may accompany "secular" living.
   It has always appeared to me that people who do not 'believe' can't understand or even make the attempt to understand why 'believers' would deprive themselves of what their "flesh" requests. It's all about what one feels is important to their life and for that  matter, their 'eternal' life.

[gmillerdrake]

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

rumborak

This exactly.  Moral codes are different in every culture you go to.  There is no universal moral code anywhere.  There is no way to prove there is "Sin" because that means you could prove there is a Christian God.  Which you can't do.

Sin isn't merely a 'Christian' term. Many of the worlds religions suggest sin.
Sin:an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this

[Adami]

I don't believe, but I have a good understanding of why believers do what they do, and I respect them for it. I just don't agree.

[eric42434224]

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

rumborak

This exactly.  Moral codes are different in every culture you go to.  There is no universal moral code anywhere.  There is no way to prove there is "Sin" because that means you could prove there is a Christian God.  Which you can't do.

Sin isn't merely a 'Christian' term. Many of the worlds religions suggest sin.
Sin:an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this

Exactly.    By your own definition, if you dont have religion, you dont have sin.
I dont have religion, therefore I dont have sin.

[reo73]

The problem with this whole discussion is that it invariably always circles around to a discussion about the existence of a creator in the first place.  There are many reason people don't believe in God from intellectual ones, to emotional ones, to theological ones.  But you can't discuss theological issues such as sin, God's revelation, predestination unless everyone starts on some similar ground that assumes there is a creator.  Otherwise the theology is just discounted as religious myth in the first place and the arguments usually boil down to something that resembles "I don't believe in God because I reasoned God to be a human creation and contradictory to scientific knowledge".  Or as Orcas would say "religious people are usually the worst people in the world."  Really there is no where to go from there unless you want to debate the pure existence of a creator for which you can't prove it either way.
But, if you are able to accept the basic premise of a creator then you can start to discuss the theology of who this creator may be and what his/her involvement might be in the creation.

[gmillerdrake]

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

rumborak

This exactly.  Moral codes are different in every culture you go to.  There is no universal moral code anywhere.  There is no way to prove there is "Sin" because that means you could prove there is a Christian God.  Which you can't do.

Sin isn't merely a 'Christian' term. Many of the worlds religions suggest sin.
Sin:an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this

Exactly.    By your own definition, if you dont have religion, you dont have sin.
I dont have religion, therefore I dont have sin.

“Sin” being attributed to religion isn’t the factor here. The issue is that to assume that there is no universal, underlying ‘code of ethics’ or morals that we all “know” and are either consciously or sub-consciously aware of and understand…is ridiculous. For all the talk in P/R about how man has ‘evolved’ from a lesser life form into what we are now and how we have become so much more enlightened and superior than all other species…the main contributing factor to that theory is the actuality that what sets apart and has escorted our ‘evolution’ along that path is the compassion and moral code that is inherent and instinctual within us all. I happen to believe that ‘code’ was encrypted within us by God, but however it has been sewn into our souls, the fact is that it is there. 
  So it seems silly to assume that “sin” does not exist. It is denying the very truth that distinguishes man from all other living creatures. Just because one chooses to ignore “sin” because of its religious connotation does cause its extinction.   

[Adami]

You can't say that not believing in sin is ridiculous because it's obvious that there's sin.


In my opinion, and many others, morality is something that we came to logically and is completely subjective. There are many morals we all agree on, but they're only morals because we all agree on them, not vice versa.

I know you don't agree, and that's fine. But to claim anyone who doesn't agree with you is silly or ridiculous is just not helping the conversation at all and simply serving to polarize the already well situated positions many of us have.

[Perpetual Change]

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

Yeah, though I'm not sure I'm getting WW right.

For what it's worth, even as a Christian, I find asserting that God revealed himself to the Native Americans whilst posing the question "Why do people reject Christianity?" to be pretty damn ironic.

By extension, I'm starting to formulate my own theory. People "reject" Christianity because Christians utterly fail at answering everyone's big reservations in ways that are not just convincing and reassuring, but also somewhat theologically sound.

In sum, there are at least two kinds of people: 1.) the people like myself who like who want to be a part of something they consider to be bigger than themselves and don't really care about finding the "answers" and 2.) the more legalistically minded people, who like to be able to boil everything to an authoritative document and/or code which can be understood, explained and eventually mastered through the creation of an "ideological system." Neither is necessarily better than the other-- but I think plenty of Churches do a bad job of catering to both types. Either the people from the first group get turned-off by those who are too interested in theologizing, or the people in the second group feel like the "truth" is being dumbed down by a lack of real understanding.   

[gmillerdrake]

You can't say that not believing in sin is ridiculous because it's obvious that there's sin.


In my opinion, and many others, morality is something that we came to logically and is completely subjective. There are many morals we all agree on, but they're only morals because we all agree on them, not vice versa.

I know you don't agree, and that's fine. But to claim anyone who doesn't agree with you is silly or ridiculous is just not helping the conversation at all and simply serving to polarize the already well situated positions many of us have.

I see your point and realize that 'ridiculous' may have been a bit too harsh a word in that instance. I'm not trying to demonize anyone or suggest that my 'belief' is superior and I apologize if I come off that way. It is clear that neither 'side' will ever be able to produce tactile sufficient evidence to firmly prove their position. I'm merely trying to say that whatever the path was that man came to this understood and universal morality we all are aware of and practice to some extent, whether it has been provided by God as I believe or is the sum of logic as you have indicated, the fact is that it does exist. Whether it is classified as “sin” or not… I suppose is dependent on your beliefs, but that code is present and does regulate how we live our lives. Not believing that in the existence of “sin” or logics ‘logical’ conclusion…well it just makes no sense to me to be honest with you.  

[j]

Gmiller, how specific is this universal morality of which we're all supposed to be aware?  I mean beyond the obvious murder, adultery, etc that most people basically agree on, there are a lot of sketchier details that aren't as unanimously "obvious".

-J

[Adami]

You can't say that not believing in sin is ridiculous because it's obvious that there's sin.


In my opinion, and many others, morality is something that we came to logically and is completely subjective. There are many morals we all agree on, but they're only morals because we all agree on them, not vice versa.

I know you don't agree, and that's fine. But to claim anyone who doesn't agree with you is silly or ridiculous is just not helping the conversation at all and simply serving to polarize the already well situated positions many of us have.

I see your point and realize that 'ridiculous' may have been a bit too harsh a word in that instance. I'm not trying to demonize anyone or suggest that my 'belief' is superior and I apologize if I come off that way. It is clear that neither 'side' will ever be able to produce tactile sufficient evidence to firmly prove their position. I'm merely trying to say that whatever the path was that man came to this understood and universal morality we all are aware of and practice to some extent, whether it has been provided by God as I believe or is the sum of logic as you have indicated, the fact is that it does exist. Whether it is classified as “sin” or not… I suppose is dependent on your beliefs, but that code is present and does regulate how we live our lives. Not believing that in the existence of “sin” or logics ‘logical’ conclusion…well it just makes no sense to me to be honest with you.  

Sin carries a greater weight to it than simply breaking a moral code. I believe killing is against the majority populations moral code, but I do not believe anything is a sin. Our breaking of moral codes only go as far as the population takes it. Sin implies an objective law that is beyond our control that carries eternal punishment, I just don't believe in anything like that.

[gmillerdrake]

Gmiller, how specific is this universal morality of which we're all supposed to be aware?  I mean beyond the obvious murder, adultery, etc that most people basically agree on, there are a lot of sketchier details that aren't as unanimously "obvious".

-J

You’ve hit on a couple pretty important ones. I subscribe to (8) more but I think that everyone is aware that you can’t just walk up to someone and beat the crap out of someone and take their clothes/money etc. Breaking into someone’s home and stealing their possessions, thieving in any manner actually I consider a ‘code’ that we all are sensitive to. Sure there are less obvious nuances to the ‘universal’ code that has been mentioned certainly. As a believer I trust that as I study the Bible and God’s instruction I receive a greater understanding as to how to abide the commandments he’s set before me. I am unsure as to how a ‘non-believer’ thinks it is best to fine tune that code in order to develop the understanding necessary to appreciate the less obvious details of morality.

[Ben_Jamin]

Just because you don't go to church doesn't mean your not religious. Most people just go through the motions, while the faithful will hold on in the face of temptation. It feels that some are lost and confused where to go, they lack that spiritual sense every human needs. The ying-yang. Being a good human isn't about going to church, its about living the life of god. Amish, are the ones who live by this, yet they allow their own to choose wheter to live the life of hard work, or live simply. You get a better sense of fondness making your own home, growing your own food.

  Some don't even think about that, Does God love the corrupt politician who is basically a hypocrite that goes to church everyday or the simple man who lives his life to fullest without worry knowing god is always with him as long as he has faith in him?

[eric42434224]

Being a good human isn't about going to church, its about living the life of god.

Or being a good human is about being a good person.

[Ben_Jamin]

Yes, which is the life of God. Good=God.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Yes, which is the life of God. Good=God.

For you, maybe

I don't need God to be a good person. Actually, I'm kind of a sinner, assuming that what God wants is good. But I'm a good person because I act in such a manner that I believe is good. Not because God says so

[gmillerdrake]

You can't say that not believing in sin is ridiculous because it's obvious that there's sin.


In my opinion, and many others, morality is something that we came to logically and is completely subjective. There are many morals we all agree on, but they're only morals because we all agree on them, not vice versa.

I know you don't agree, and that's fine. But to claim anyone who doesn't agree with you is silly or ridiculous is just not helping the conversation at all and simply serving to polarize the already well situated positions many of us have.

I see your point and realize that 'ridiculous' may have been a bit too harsh a word in that instance. I'm not trying to demonize anyone or suggest that my 'belief' is superior and I apologize if I come off that way. It is clear that neither 'side' will ever be able to produce tactile sufficient evidence to firmly prove their position. I'm merely trying to say that whatever the path was that man came to this understood and universal morality we all are aware of and practice to some extent, whether it has been provided by God as I believe or is the sum of logic as you have indicated, the fact is that it does exist. Whether it is classified as “sin” or not… I suppose is dependent on your beliefs, but that code is present and does regulate how we live our lives. Not believing that in the existence of “sin” or logics ‘logical’ conclusion…well it just makes no sense to me to be honest with you.  

Sin carries a greater weight to it than simply breaking a moral code. I believe killing is against the majority populations moral code, but I do not believe anything is a sin. Our breaking of moral codes only go as far as the population takes it. Sin implies an objective law that is beyond our control that carries eternal punishment, I just don't believe in anything like that.

Well that eternal punishment for sin you refer to is only present and executed if you are un-repentant for that sin. Which leads us full circle back to the origin of the debate. If you don’t believe in sin or its existence then by your belief you’re not going to receive any punishment for your disobedience. Obviously I’ve tried to make the argument that “sin” exists whether you believe it or not. I guess my faith makes it difficult for me to understand how one can disregard sin. I look at is as that point of view is just someone’s way of trying to write a free ticket so to speak. I’m not trying to be insulting or  make light of you or anyone else’s beliefs. Like I said, it’s just difficult for me to put into context in my mind.     
       When I see this lack of “sin” recognition, I automatically attribute that ‘attitude’ to the devil having succeeded in confusing and distracting someone enough to lead them to that conclusion. Again, I am just trying to be honest with you and everyone about how I view it, I’m not trying to offend or upset people. I know it is probably as difficult for ‘non-believers’ to understand this opinion as it is for me to grasp yours. I am just attempting to explain my point of view so don’t get the impression that I think somehow I am better because I believe what I do. I derive my opinion from countless scripture detailing the distemper and purpose that the devil has here on earth. It is quite clear that his intention is to have all question the existence of God and himself.

[William Wallace]

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

Yeah, though I'm not sure I'm getting WW right.

For what it's worth, even as a Christian, I find asserting that God revealed himself to the Native Americans whilst posing the question "Why do people reject Christianity?" to be pretty damn ironic.

By extension, I'm starting to formulate my own theory. People "reject" Christianity because Christians utterly fail at answering everyone's big reservations in ways that are not just convincing and reassuring, but also somewhat theologically sound.

In sum, there are at least two kinds of people: 1.) the people like myself who like who want to be a part of something they consider to be bigger than themselves and don't really care about finding the "answers" and 2.) the more legalistically minded people, who like to be able to boil everything to an authoritative document and/or code which can be understood, explained and eventually mastered through the creation of an "ideological system." Neither is necessarily better than the other-- but I think plenty of Churches do a bad job of catering to both types. Either the people from the first group get turned-off by those who are too interested in theologizing, or the people in the second group feel like the "truth" is being dumbed down by a lack of real understanding.   

What I'm saying seems entirely reasonable. People are saved by grace and not by how many Bible verses they happened to have memorized. Rumborak, why is the existence of competing religions so significant? And what's your take on this, PT? What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

[eric42434224]

    When I see this lack of “sin” recognition, I automatically attribute that ‘attitude’ to the devil having succeeded in confusing and distracting someone enough to lead them to that conclusion.

I find religion to be the distraction.  I live a far better life now I am not involved with it.  My life is fuller, more engaged, and more satisfying, now that I live for the moment and my family.

And I would suggest that you try harder to understand others viewpoints here, and take more care in expressing your views as just that...your views...and not as more or less the facts.  I know it can be dificult, but that is what P/R is all about.  People RARELY change their own personal views, but people understanding the views of others, and how those views can be perfectly valid given the person and his/her history, religion, etc. happen all the time, and are very worthwhile.

[gmillerdrake]

And I would suggest that you try harder to understand others viewpoints here, and take more care in expressing your views as just that...your views...and not as more or less the facts.  

Advice that I appreciate and whether it has been detected or not, have been trying to do. It does take some adjustment to get acquainted with the subtleness of P/R and trying to present an 'argument' or point without offending someone and making yourself seem like a jerk.

[eric42434224]

What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

You could rot in a box.  You could move on to another plane of existence.  Who knows.
It seems unlikely to me that it hinges on one book, written by some mammals on a little planet (and not even all the mammals agree on it), on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy with billions of other planets, in a billions of years old universe full of billions of galaxies.

EDIT:
My view is that if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing creator of everything....and if he/she/it allows beings to move on to another plane, or sit up with him/her/it in a fluffy cloud castle in the sky, he/she/it isnt going to care if you followed the rules in some book...or if you believed, or even cared, if he/she/it even existed.  I prefer my "god", if there is such a thing, to be more enlightened than myself.

[eric42434224]

And I would suggest that you try harder to understand others viewpoints here, and take more care in expressing your views as just that...your views...and not as more or less the facts.  

Advice that I appreciate and whether it has been detected or not, have been trying to do. It does take some adjustment to get acquainted with the subtleness of P/R and trying to present an 'argument' or point without offending someone and making yourself seem like a jerk.

It is quite a tightrope to walk in here sometimes.  I have found myself much more tolerant of religion and "believers" after listening to some others' viewpoints.  I usually dont agree with them, but my understanding of why they think as they do has benefitted me as a person.  It is difficult to detach yourself and truly try to see something through another persons eyes....especially going from "believer" to "non-believer" and vice-versa.  But doing so is a skill that will benefit you as a person.

[William Wallace]

What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

You could rot in a box.  You could move on to another plane of existence.  Who knows.

The significance of the question changes with the person it is addressed to. I was interested in PT's response because he is also a Christian.

It seems unlikely to me that it hinges on one book, written by some mammals on a little planet (and not even all the mammals agree on it), on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy with billions of other planets, in a billions of years old universe full of billions of galaxies.

Good for you, but that's not an argument.

EDIT:
My view is that if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing creator of everything....and if he/she/it allows beings to move on to another plane, or sit up with him/her/it in a fluffy cloud castle in the sky, he/she/it isnt going to care if you followed the rules in some book...or if you believed, or even cared, if he/she/it even existed.  I prefer my "god", if there is such a thing, to be more enlightened than myself.

Still not an argument. Besides, I haven't said anything judgmental towards non-Christians in this thread, only that humans aren't mercilessly cast into hellfire. They're offered salvation whether or not they've ever read the Bible.

[eric42434224]

What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

You could rot in a box.  You could move on to another plane of existence.  Who knows.

The significance of the question changes with the person it is addressed to. I was interested in PT's response because he is also a Christian.

It seems unlikely to me that it hinges on one book, written by some mammals on a little planet (and not even all the mammals agree on it), on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy with billions of other planets, in a billions of years old universe full of billions of galaxies.

Good for you, but that's not an argument.

EDIT:
My view is that if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing creator of everything....and if he/she/it allows beings to move on to another plane, or sit up with him/her/it in a fluffy cloud castle in the sky, he/she/it isnt going to care if you followed the rules in some book...or if you believed, or even cared, if he/she/it even existed.  I prefer my "god", if there is such a thing, to be more enlightened than myself.

Still not an argument. Besides, I haven't said anything judgmental towards non-Christians in this thread, only that humans aren't mercilessly cast into hellfire. They're offered salvation whether or not they've ever read the Bible.

Didnt realize it was directed to PT.  My apologies.

And my statements werent meant as arguements.  Just some of my feelings/opinions on the subject.

[Perpetual Change]

What I'm saying seems entirely reasonable. People are saved by grace and not by how many Bible verses they happened to have memorized. Rumborak, why is the existence of competing religions so significant? And what's your take on this, PT? What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

I'm not sure, though I did post my rough take awhile back. It was probably swallowed up by all the discussion.

If there is a heaven, I'd say God probably gives good people one last chance after they're dead. I'd imagine the conversation God has with the souls of well-meaning agnostics and atheists goes something like this:

God: Hey.
Deadguy: God? Is that you.
God: Yes, it's me. Do you believe in me now?
D: I, uh, am I dreaming?
God: No. Do you believe in me now?
D: Well, uh, how do I know I'm not--
God: Listen. You've lived a decent life. You've helped others and made genuine attempts to make the world a better place. You fell short sometimes, but you always tried your hardest to live up to the standards you'd set for yourself. Because of that, I'm willing to you in, even though you spent most of your life ignoring and/or denying me. But here's the thing-- you've got to believe in me and in the place where you're currently at. We have all of eternity ahead of us, and we are not spending that time on existentialism.

[William Wallace]

What I'm saying seems entirely reasonable. People are saved by grace and not by how many Bible verses they happened to have memorized. Rumborak, why is the existence of competing religions so significant? And what's your take on this, PT? What lies in store for people who die without knowledge of the Bible?

I'm not sure, though I did post my rough take awhile back. It was probably swallowed up by all the discussion.

If there is a heaven, I'd say God probably gives good people one last chance after they're dead. I'd imagine the conversation God has with the souls of well-meaning agnostics and atheists goes something like this:

God: Hey.
Deadguy: God? Is that you.
God: Yes, it's me. Do you believe in me now?
D: I, uh, am I dreaming?
God: No. Do you believe in me now?
D: Well, uh, how do I know I'm not--
God: Listen. You've lived a decent life. You've helped others and made genuine attempts to make the world a better place. You fell short sometimes, but you always tried your hardest to live up to the standards you'd set for yourself. Because of that, I'm willing to you in, even though you spent most of your life ignoring and/or denying me. But here's the thing-- you've got to believe in me and in the place where you're currently at. We have all of eternity ahead of us, and we are not spending that time on existentialism.

So we're not that far apart. It seems the only difference is how those who blatantly reject God will fare.