Religion and Logic

[TGJesusfreak]

Yes, but Paul wasn't writing Scripture. He was writing letters to churches. Three hundred years later, his letters BECAME Scripture, but they were not Scripture when he wrote them. So that verse doesn't apply to my post.

Yes it is.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

That sounds like Christianity to me. Explain how Christianity does not fit that definition (that is the definition of the word "religion" by the way).

Also, if you really believe "Christianity isn't a religion" then if someone asks you what your religion is, you'd say "None," right? You can't say "Christianity" if you truly believe it isn't a religion.

That's not logic. A Hinduist can feel their gods in their heart and everything they do. Does that make Hinduism correct? A Muslim can feel Allah and the prophets in their heart and everything they do. Does that make Islam correct?

Using "I feel it in my heart" is not a good excuse, because everyone feels something different in their heart. In fact, listen to testimony of those who turned away from God and gave up Christianity. What will they say? "I couldn't feel the presence of God. I felt in my heart God abandoned me. I feel like God hates me."

You feel God in your heart? Let's see what the Bible says about the heart, shall we?

"The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?"

You can't appeal to "I feel it in my heart" because Hinduists and Buddhists and Muslims feel it in their heart that they're right too, and you don't think they are, do you? If that's true, then "I feel it in my heart" clearly cannot be evidence for God's existence.

Religion is a man-made idea. While it does technically fit the description for a "religion" there are a few key differences. One of which is it's not works based. For me, the rules in the bible are more of a "dont slam your hand in the car door" type of thing. Dont lie. Dont cheat on your wife. Y'know, stuff that will make sure you have a happy life.
As to the sacrificing in the OT, I think it was supposed to be sybolic. Like communion, you arent LITERALLY eating his flesh and blood... it's symbolic so that we can understand it easier.

and about my logical proof. There is HUGE proof for inteligent design, more proof than the opposing idea. I wasnt saying that what i felt in my heart proved it. However, christianity has a completely different feel than anything else. Because deep down, when christ enters your heart, you have to feel different. and I can tell you it is different. But that's not the evidence I was reffering to.

[goldenspines]

Yeah but pascal's wager doesn't prove anything. It works best for the self, sure. But that's the extent of it.

You're quite correct, hence why I didn't say that it proved anything. I only said I was reminded of it when the issue of religion and logic/reasoning is brought up. Pascal's wager is only a result of reasoning with no concluded truth of God's existence, but rather "odds" being in your favor if you believe in Him and He does turn out to be real.

[Okami]

As to the sacrificing in the OT, I think it was supposed to be sybolic. Like communion, you arent LITERALLY eating his flesh and blood... it's symbolic so that we can understand it easier.

Unless you're Catholic, where you believe in transubstantiation which is the changing of bread and wine into body and blood in which the ringing of the bell is the signal of the transformation once the priest and Holy Spirit bless the communion in order for the change to occur.

Or something to that effect...we discussed Catholicism a little bit in one of my classes last year, I don't remember too much, but your comment reminded me of these points that were in my notes. I figured it would be worth noting that not all Christians believe in Communion as symbolic to the body/blood of Christ.

At any rate, it's certainly something to chew on, something I've been thinking about for a while now, in the very least.

[Nate]

Pascal's wager is only a result of reasoning with no concluded truth of God's existence, but rather "odds" being in your favor if you believe in Him and He does turn out to be real.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it's more or less useless because other religions exist. If there was only Christianity or atheism, then Pascal's Wager would be at least somewhat useful (though still not proof). The problem is, what if Hinduism is correct? Then your belief in God is useless because you believed in the wrong one, and at that point your belief in God was worth just as much as the person who didn't believe in God at all, making the "wager" false.

Religion is a man-made idea.

Well, you're wrong.

While it does technically fit the description for a "religion" there are a few key differences. One of which is it's not works based.

Go back and read the definition of "religion" I posted. Show me where in that definition it says "works based." Go on, I'll wait. It says "often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Are you saying Christianity doesn't have a moral code? The definition says nothing about the moral code being necessary for salvation, it just says "religions have moral codes." And Christianity has a moral code, wouldn't you agree?

There is HUGE proof for inteligent design, more proof than the opposing idea.

There isn't proof for intelligent design, because you can't just take things that SEEM to be true and declare it true. Here's a good example.

I can prove I'm immortal. Every time I could have died in my life, I didn't die. That clearly proves I'm immortal because if I could die, I would have. Since I didn't, that proves I'm immortal.

I know what you're talking about, the whole "If our planet was x distance closer or farther from the sun it wouldn't be able to support life, if our planet wasn't tilted a certain way life couldn't exist," all that. That still isn't proof of intelligent design though. It's good evidence FOR intelligent design, but evidence isn't the same as proof. People have been wrongly convicted in the legal system based on evidence.

Look at the episode of Monk where a guy locks himself in his safe room and dies. He has a gunshot wound and when they open the door, his pet monkey is holding his gun. The evidence pointed to the monkey shooting and killing him in a horrible accident. But guess what? It didn't prove the monkey shot him, it was just evidence that the monkey had. But in the end, the evidence turned out to be wrong.

Am I saying the evidence for ID is wrong? No, I'm not, but having evidence for something isn't the same as having proof of something (as with the monkey example). I mean obviously I believe God created the universe, I'm a Christian. But ID isn't something you can prove, unless you can prove God exists (which again, isn't really possible).

However, christianity has a completely different feel than anything else. Because deep down, when christ enters your heart, you have to feel different. and I can tell you it is different.

And someone I know who converted to Buddhism from Christianity said he'd never felt as at peace or comforted as when he became Buddhist. He said he felt freed from the shackles of this material world when he converted to Buddhism, a peace he'd never felt as a Christian.

So is Buddhism right just because he felt so different and transformed from when he was Christian? No. "How your heart feels" doesn't prove anything, and Christianity doesn't have a completely different feel from anything else. If a person truly believes something, even something that's totally wrong, it can bring them peace and contentment.

Like communion, you arent LITERALLY eating his flesh and blood...

Catholics would disagree with you. Even Lutherans think Communion is more than symbolic (though they don't agree with the transubstantiation of Catholicism). And though I'm not Lutheran OR Catholic, I'm content to say I don't think Communion is purely symbolic, I think it's more than that.

As to the sacrifices of animals being symbolic or something more, Leviticus 17:11 says "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Emphasis mine. Leviticus says the blood of animals does make atonement for the soul. Since God Himself is saying this, it probably means that sacrifices were something more than symbolic.

[ShiroiHikari]

So is Buddhism right just because he felt so different and transformed from when he was Christian? No. "How your heart feels" doesn't prove anything, and Christianity doesn't have a completely different feel from anything else. If a person truly believes something, even something that's totally wrong, it can bring them peace and contentment.

Thank you for saying this. Just because you don't feel like a completely different person after you accept Christ doesn't mean you said the magic words wrong or something like that. Your feelings have little to do with it, and your feelings can trick you.

[Nate]

I find the ones who say their heart "felt different" or the like are usually people who converted at altar calls, which are specifically designed to manipulate people's emotions. The people who stay committed to the Christian walk after an altar call is actually not very high, many of them fall away from Christianity after the feelings are gone. This is why it's vitally important to not base our religion on how we feel, or say that how we feel in any way validates our beliefs.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Exactly. Much more time and focus should be spent on maintaining and growing those already in faith, rather than trying to convert people. The Holy Spirit does the converting, we're just his vessels.

[crusader88]

Interesting discussion I am reading. While Faith is assent, assent can be accompanied by wonder and inquiry. Given our human faculties, that is why reason may come in.