Figuring Out Religion

[D1984]

Appreciate the posts that are going. Let me take a quote and swap out some words.

When secular individuals and organizations attempt to blend their beliefs with political machinery, it seems that it ends up looking mostly like politics and like they are forcing their beliefs on others.

Putting the negative impact on religious organizations who get "dirty in politics aside" for a moment, I think if you substituted pretty much any other interest group name into the place where Christian or church was, prima facie it would be considered an outrageous statement...but yet it's completely cool to stick religion in there. Why?

Probably because we are supposed to have separation of church and state and have government based on secular constitutional law, not on any particular religion (or any particular religiously derived belief).

Also, pretty much everyone in the US who is for legalized abortion--and/or for that matter, virtually anyone who is against forced school prayer, or against taxpayer-funded purely religious displays (vs historically-oriented ones) of, say, the Ten Commandments--aren't in favor of FORCING everyone to have an abortion, or to be atheist, or not be allowed to pray on their own in school as their conscience dictates, or to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize atheism, etc. Plenty of hard core evangelicals (and some Catholics as well) are in favor of using government force to coerce people to do the reverse. If religion wants to avoid being singled out then perhaps certain religious people should quit trying to force laws on others based on their interpretation of Christianty (or any other religion for that matter).

Same things with many of the Muslims over in Europe (from what I can see we don't really have enough of them here to have a critical mass to try something like that in the US); they complain about "discrimination against Islam" or "anti-Muslim hate" or "Islamophobia" or "hate speech" or whine about how Muslims are being oppressed.....not because of any real actual oppression of Muslims or people who believe everything in the Quran is true, but because some (non-Muslim) people have the temerity to dare criticize Islam/Mohammed/Islamic beliefs/etc! Just because one is not allowed force one's religion on others (or force actions/laws based on religion, and/or force them not to criticize one's religion) doesn't make one oppressed....this should go without saying! Having your faith be criticized is NOT "anti-religious discrimination" and not having laws centered around one's own religious beliefs does not mean one is being oppressed/persecuted/discriminated against.

I've often wondered what the Democratic Party would be like (and the R party for that matter) if their platforms were "party members will vote their personal conscience and the party will take no political position on matters of religion, sexuality, marriage and reproduction." I think it would completely scramble our politics and probably make general elections competitive again.

Assuming you still had political parties and still had primaries then nothing much would really change. In all but the bluest states GOP voters would still tend to prefer candidates who were against legalized abortion and Dem voters in all but the reddest states would tend to prefer candidates who were in favor of legalized abortion (virtually the same goes for either party for issues like marriage, sexuality, guns, etc). The "different than my party on this one issue" guy/gal wouldn't likely make it past the primary.

[Mountaineer]

This is a good refresher on what our collective beliefs were almost 250 years ago: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Tragic indeed that so many have replaced "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" with "I hold my, and only my, self-focused always changing truths to be self-evident".

[vnatale]

This is a good refresher on what our collective beliefs were almost 250 years ago: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Tragic indeed that so many have replaced "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" with "I hold my, and only my, self-focused always changing truths to be self-evident".

That was what was said in words. But the reality was that they did not apply to women, children and blacks. It really only applied to white men and even in those cases, the more well to do white men.

For women, children and blacks life has improved immeasurably in the intervening 250 years.

[Xan]

Probably because we are supposed to have separation of church and state and have government based on secular constitutional law, not on any particular religion (or any particular religiously derived belief).

ANY law is an expression of collective morality, which is based on a religiously-derived belief. Maybe it isn't a "religion" in the traditional sense but it certainly comes from people's ideas of what's right and what's wrong. You can't separate that from religion.

Also, pretty much everyone in the US who is for legalized abortion--and/or for that matter, virtually anyone who is against forced school prayer, or against taxpayer-funded purely religious displays (vs historically-oriented ones) of, say, the Ten Commandments--aren't in favor of FORCING everyone to have an abortion, or to be atheist, or not be allowed to pray on their own in school as their conscience dictates, or to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize atheism, etc. Plenty of hard core evangelicals (and some Catholics as well) are in favor of using government force to coerce people to do the reverse. If religion wants to avoid being singled out then perhaps certain religious people should quit trying to force laws on others based on their interpretation of Christianty (or any other religion for that matter).

The religion of non-religion (and it absolutely is one) is HUGE on forcing its beliefs on people. Our local school district is a major sponsor of "Pride Month", and all year long walking through the school it's rainbow this and rainbow that everywhere. They're marketing homosexuality to children.

[vnatale]

Probably because we are supposed to have separation of church and state and have government based on secular constitutional law, not on any particular religion (or any particular religiously derived belief).

ANY law is an expression of collective morality, which is based on a religiously-derived belief. Maybe it isn't a "religion" in the traditional sense but it certainly comes from people's ideas of what's right and what's wrong. You can't separate that from religion.

Also, pretty much everyone in the US who is for legalized abortion--and/or for that matter, virtually anyone who is against forced school prayer, or against taxpayer-funded purely religious displays (vs historically-oriented ones) of, say, the Ten Commandments--aren't in favor of FORCING everyone to have an abortion, or to be atheist, or not be allowed to pray on their own in school as their conscience dictates, or to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize atheism, etc. Plenty of hard core evangelicals (and some Catholics as well) are in favor of using government force to coerce people to do the reverse. If religion wants to avoid being singled out then perhaps certain religious people should quit trying to force laws on others based on their interpretation of Christianty (or any other religion for that matter).

The religion of non-religion (and it absolutely is one) is HUGE on forcing its beliefs on people. Our local school district is a major sponsor of "Pride Month", and all year long walking through the school it's rainbow this and rainbow that everywhere. They're marketing homosexuality to children.

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

[Xan]

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

Vinny, the numbers in my head used to be like yours: around 1% of people would be in this situation, and it had to be something they really wanted.

But look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... gbt-gen-z/
21% of people born between 1997 and 2003 identify as "LGBTQ". TWENTY-ONE PERCENT!

Why the big generational difference? The marketing has been successful.

[flyingpylon]

The religion of non-religion (and it absolutely is one) is HUGE on forcing its beliefs on people. Our local school district is a major sponsor of "Pride Month", and all year long walking through the school it's rainbow this and rainbow that everywhere. They're marketing homosexuality to children.

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

They are absolutely marketing it. Kids are very vulnerable because they are on a continual quest to figure out who they are and where they fit in. Once many of them discover that they are not in the "popular kids" group, they question themselves and look for alternatives. The primary "alt" group right now is LGBTQ+ and they put a ton of pressure on kids to label themselves and form their identity around sexual preferences they are far too immature to fully understand. For the ones that are not already "born that way" (a relatively small % of the population), it's not so much that they want to be homosexuals (or whatever), it's that they want acceptance and some of these groups are leading them astray.

[vnatale]

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

Vinny, the numbers in my head used to be like yours: around 1% of people would be in this situation, and it had to be something they really wanted.

But look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... gbt-gen-z/
21% of people born between 1997 and 2003 identify as "LGBTQ". TWENTY-ONE PERCENT!

Why the big generational difference? The marketing has been successful.

That is an astounding number. But we will have to see how many of them identify that way for the long-term. Or, if they later say something similar to those people who say, "I used to be a Democrat but now I'm a Republican." They might be saying / identifying without a firm, deep, unchanging conviction.

[Mountaineer]

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

Vinny, the numbers in my head used to be like yours: around 1% of people would be in this situation, and it had to be something they really wanted.

But look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... gbt-gen-z/
21% of people born between 1997 and 2003 identify as "LGBTQ". TWENTY-ONE PERCENT!

Why the big generational difference? The marketing has been successful.

That is an astounding number. But we will have to see how many of them identify that way for the long-term. Or, if they later say something similar to those people who say, "I used to be a Democrat but now I'm a Republican." They might be saying / identifying without a firm, deep, unchanging conviction.

Vinny, I noticed the words probably, will have to see, and might In your posts. Sounds a bit like we will have to pass that bill to know what is in it! There will be much water and a lot of crap passed under the bridge by then that won’t flow back up hill with countless lives ruined (check the suicide rates of homosexuals vs straights and check out how monkeypox is primarily contracted). Sewage runs down hill and stinks mightily along the way. Be careful about what you assume, and remember what assume stands for.

Non-religious teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than religious teens. That's a stunning, undeniable witness to the value of religion in human care. And the suicide rate is rising. Is there a correlation among percentage of people identifying as LGBTQ+ increasing, percentage of people identifying as Christians decreasing, and civil unrest increasing? Is there a cosmic unseen battle between good and evil ramping up?

[Jack Jones]

When Christian individuals and organizations attempt to blend their faith with political machinery, it seems that it ends up looking mostly like politics and little like faith.

Jesus' example was to be in the world, but not of the world, right?. E.g. he lived during Roman times, but didn't concern himself w/ the matters of the Roman Empire.

[vnatale]

Are they "marketing" it or teaching kids to be accepting / tolerant?

It's only a tiny percentage of the population that is born with homosexual tendencies and, probably, a not small percentage of them wish that they did not have those tendencies.

Are there many non-homesexuals who wish that they had the tendencies? I don't think so. Who would want to be born into a distinct tiny minority lifestyle and all the negatives that that brings to you.

Vinny, the numbers in my head used to be like yours: around 1% of people would be in this situation, and it had to be something they really wanted.

But look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... gbt-gen-z/
21% of people born between 1997 and 2003 identify as "LGBTQ". TWENTY-ONE PERCENT!

Why the big generational difference? The marketing has been successful.

That is an astounding number. But we will have to see how many of them identify that way for the long-term. Or, if they later say something similar to those people who say, "I used to be a Democrat but now I'm a Republican." They might be saying / identifying without a firm, deep, unchanging conviction.

Vinny, I noticed the words probably, will have to see, and might In your posts. Sounds a bit like we will have to pass that bill to know what is in it! There will be much water and a lot of crap passed under the bridge by then that won’t flow back up hill with countless lives ruined (check the suicide rates of homosexuals vs straights and check out how monkeypox is primarily contracted). Sewage runs down hill and stinks mightily along the way. Be careful about what you assume, and remember what assume stands for.

Non-religious teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than religious teens. That's a stunning, undeniable witness to the value of religion in human care. And the suicide rate is rising. Is there a correlation among percentage of people identifying as LGBTQ+ increasing, percentage of people identifying as Christians decreasing, and civil unrest increasing? Is there a cosmic unseen battle between good and evil ramping up?

Referring to the dates Xan excerpted above .... 1997 to 2003 .... those people would now be between 19 to 25 years old.

If the lifestyle has been so marketed and accepted by so many in our society give me the list of all the male professional athletes in the four major sports - baseball, football, hockey, basketball - who identify with this lifestyle. Even bring it to the male college level for these sports where there are far more athletes to chose from. In both cases I'm guessing that the percentage would be sub 1.0%.

There are definitely many in those sports who are part of that lifestyle but it is still not popular or acceptable in our current society to be outwardly public about it.

[Mountaineer]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

[joypog]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

That podcast was a classic case of nut-picking. I could easily respond with the extreme anti-abortion bill drafts that don't provide a carveout for the life of the mother. And let's not pretend that Josh Hawley is above performative jackassery.

I would recommend that we avoid the worst examples of both sides...and when we indulge in consuming self righteous fare, we should avoid dehumanizing our political opponents.

[Kbg]

I don't know how anyone who has read the New Testament and understands its historical context comes away with the thought that Christ was apolitical.

Sadducees, Pharisees...look those guys up, read every sentence in the NT that has one or both in it. And then there's the moneychangers in the temple. Actual anger and a bit of violence.

I think a more correct interpretation is that you should put God first in your life and that should be your priority. I've never personally taken the teaching to be in the world but not of it to be a call to aesthetic monkism. Personally, I think I'm here to try to be a force for good.

(Even if sometimes I get to be pretty Sponge Bob Cranky Pants on some of the economic threads. )

One of the teachings popular in my faith right now is...the only thing we should label someone with is that they are a child of God and loved by Him.

To easy to forget in today's world but whenever I take a breath and say that about someone who is annoying me, making me angry, doing things I completely disagree with, whatever...it recenters and refocuses me on how I should treat and think of them.

[Mountaineer]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

That podcast was a classic case of nut-picking. I could easily respond with the extreme anti-abortion bill drafts that don't provide a carveout for the life of the mother. And let's not pretend that Josh Hawley is above performative jackassery.

I would recommend that we avoid the worst examples of both sides...and when we indulge in consuming self righteous fare, we should avoid dehumanizing our political opponents.

And we should avoid dehumanizing our unborn children, frequently by the cruelest means imaginable.

[vnatale]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

That podcast was a classic case of nut-picking. I could easily respond with the extreme anti-abortion bill drafts that don't provide a carveout for the life of the mother. And let's not pretend that Josh Hawley is above performative jackassery.

I would recommend that we avoid the worst examples of both sides...and when we indulge in consuming self righteous fare, we should avoid dehumanizing our political opponents.

Excellent admonition!

[joypog]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

That podcast was a classic case of nut-picking. I could easily respond with the extreme anti-abortion bill drafts that don't provide a carveout for the life of the mother. And let's not pretend that Josh Hawley is above performative jackassery.

I would recommend that we avoid the worst examples of both sides...and when we indulge in consuming self righteous fare, we should avoid dehumanizing our political opponents.

And we should avoid dehumanizing our unborn children, frequently by the cruelest means imaginable.

Unitil you figure out how to love Elizabeth Warren, you are as pagan as she is.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[Mountaineer]

This might curl your toenails. Especially the Elizabeth Warren worldview. God help us. Is life worth anything to these types?

https://overcast.fm/+F1mtom-s

That podcast was a classic case of nut-picking. I could easily respond with the extreme anti-abortion bill drafts that don't provide a carveout for the life of the mother. And let's not pretend that Josh Hawley is above performative jackassery.

I would recommend that we avoid the worst examples of both sides...and when we indulge in consuming self righteous fare, we should avoid dehumanizing our political opponents.

And we should avoid dehumanizing our unborn children, frequently by the cruelest means imaginable.

Unitil you figure out how to love Elizabeth Warren, you are as pagan as she is.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Did I touch a nerve? What makes you think I don't love EW? From the Mindreading 101 course you apparently have taken, what are the characteristics you belive I've displayed in all my comments on this "figuring out religion" thread? Please forgive me if using the word dehumanizing (i.e. killing, an act of evil) of the unborn upsets you. I'm more of a Luther guy, you know, a theologian of the cross that calls a thing what it is; a theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. And a Christ guy, you know, the One who does not tolerate evil, the One who does not sweep unpleasant truth under the rug, the One who speaks of forgiveness, which by the way was the topic of our sermon today. Thus, I can say, as I think Christ says, that killing unborn humans is evil and not good like EW apparently thinks and says. Even people who do the vilest things, or supporting them can be forgiven if they receive the gift of repentance and believe in Christ's promises. Thus, I call abortion evil but can at the same time say those who have done it or had it done on the advice of others or themselves to plead for Christ's forgiveness and mercy. I pray that EW does so too.

Blessings to you joypog, fellow child of God. If I have misunderstood your comments I hope you will forgive me; I certainly respect your right to whatever opinions you have and hope I've never committed the dreaded ad hominum to you or others. I hope you avail yourself of the gifts of repentance, forgiveness, and mercy too; I ask for it daily.

[joypog]

Read the Lord's words carefully. You don't get to wait on loving your enemies until after they repent.

What I saw in your previous posts was a dismissal of leftists as a faceless "type" and a defensive deflection response when I wrote a both-sides comment about the dehumanization of political opponents.
(How do you feel when our leftist friends call you a monster who advocates for forced birth even when it kills the mother?)

Together, your posts were steeped in a poisonous tone that undermines the love you claim to hold dear.

You can get away with such language when chatting in your Lutheran echo chamber.

But want more Jesus in this nation? Then live up to His impossible demands in deed and word.

[Mountaineer]

Read the Lord's words carefully. You don't get to wait on loving your enemies until after they repent.

I DON’T. NEITHER DOES GOD.

What I saw in your previous posts was a dismissal of leftists as a faceless "type" and a defensive deflection response when I wrote a both-sides comment about the dehumanization of political opponents.

LEFTISTS IS A KINGDOM OF THE LEFT TERM. I DON’T THINK GOD FAVORS LEFTIST OR RIGHTIST. HE JUST WANTS ALL TO KNOW HE WANTS ALL TO BE SAVED. SATAN WANTS US TO TO LOOK FOR THINGS OTHER THAN GOD FOR SECURITY, IDENTITY, AND MEANING. THAT IS, TRUST IN SELF RATHER THAN GOD.

(How do you feel when our leftist friends call you a monster who advocates for forced birth even when it kills the mother?)

I DON’T ADVOCATE FOR THAT. AND, I REALLY DON’T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO VALUES THAT AREN’T SCRIPTURAL.

Together, your posts were steeped in a poisonous tone that undermines the love you claim to hold dear.

SORRY YOU INTERPRETED ME THAT WAY.

You can get away with such language when chatting in your Lutheran echo chamber.

REALLY SORRY YOU VIEW LUTHERANS (CHRISTIANS) THAT WAY.

But want more Jesus in this nation? Then live up to His impossible demands in deed and word.

IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMANS. ONLY CHRIST CAN DO THAT.

SO DO YOU FORGIVE ME? I FORGIVE YOU FOR MISINTERPRETING ME.

My response in CAPS IN YOUR POST. YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW SCRIPTURE VERSES. DO YOU THINK WE MIGHT BE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER? OR DID YOU HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE WITH SOME HIGH-HORSE CHRISTIANS AND ARE FEELING VINDICTIVE, UNVALUED, UNLOVED, MISUNDERSTOOD? It’s never too late to ask Jesus for the gifts of repentance, forgiveness, mercy. I hope you find what you feel is missing in your life. Emptiness is awful. Thanks for the discussion and your time.

[joypog]

We may well be talking past each other.

I'm not religious. I've fortunately never had a traumatic experience within the religion; I just no longer believe in the truth claims of the Bible. But my parents are still devout and I respect those who are.

However, I have zero respect for the current version of degenerate Christianity that has taken over the politics in this nation.

That's why I bristle whenever a Christian sidles near modern evangelicalisms' cruel divisive rhetoric. It is ruinous to our discourse and defames the great religion it represents.

To be fair, I don't think you meant to be malicious, and I grok your frustration with the hard left - I have similar feelings about the hypocritical right. But take a moment to reread what you wrote and try to see how it could be read as callous dismissal of a group of people that you love. Conversation is difficult, especially in the minefield of written medium.

Yes it's unfair to hold Christians to a higher standards while frenzied wokesters run wild with their euphoric declamations. But one is a religion of grace while the other is a pseudo-religion of raw power.

Trust that grace will win out. God's on your side.

[Kbg]

And I appreciate especially the bolded statements above. I'm going to be thinking about that for some time here.

Glad to give you something to think about.

A core personal belief of mine is that I'm a flawed person and make way more mistakes in life than I wish I did. I also know I'm strongly influenced and have been shaped by life's experience for good and bad. We all get both refined and warped a bit by this thing called life...and if that is what I do, and what I am subject to I need to cut everyone around me a big piece of slack and I just hope they will do the same for me.

[joypog]

Just finished Stephen Prothero’s God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World

As can be gathered from the title, he does not believe that all religions are ultimately the same. Instead, he posits that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Yoruba Religion, and Daoism explore different questions and come up with different solutions.

With that premise, the book is a survey of these eight religions (plus atheism) covering their histories, sects, and philosophies. Quite an interesting listen as an audiobook. I certainly recommend.

[vnatale]

Just finished Stephen Prothero’s God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World

As can be gathered from the title, he does not believe that all religions are ultimately the same. Instead, he posits that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Yoruba Religion, and Daoism explore different questions and come up with different solutions.

With that premise, the book is a survey of these eight religions (plus atheism) covering their histories, sects, and philosophies. Quite an interesting listen as an audiobook. I certainly recommend.

However, here is a question for all here.

Given the type of people who are here which is skewed atypical to the general population in that we are more logical and rely more upon facts rather than emotions....I'd be surprised (extremely) if anyone did not agree that every one of us is subject to the same laws of the physical world.

I can proclaim as much as I want that I do not believe in gravity. But guess what? If I jumped off my roof it does not matter one bit what I believe. I am 100% going to be fully subject to the laws of gravity. I could take this in a covid direction that the virus does not care what your political beliefs / ideologies are but I will leave it solely at this comment so as to stay on the theme of this topic - religion.

I prefer to say "spiritual beliefs" rather than "religion".

I hope that I've made my case that no one here doubts any of the laws that we are all subject to irrespective to how we chose or chose not to believe them.

Would this not be the same in the spiritual world? Let's confine it to what happens to you when you die.

Are we not going to be all subject to the same spiritual laws no matter what you believe? What I'm getting at is that I may believe in a Heaven or Hell while you believe you just end.

Let's stipulate that one of us is right and say it is your beliefs that are correct.

Or, I'm saying that we cannot both be correct holding conflicting spiritual views, particularly when one of them is the correct one and the other is mutually exclusive to the first one.

The book states that there are Eight Rival Religions.

I've been trying to establish here that there must be a definitive set of spiritual laws that apply to all of us. Since no one but Jesus has permanently come back from the dead we otherwise have no information from anyone else as to what really happens when we die.

Is it possible that all the eight rival religions each have some bits of the truth of the absolute spiritual laws or that some of them have a higher percentage of the truth than others?

Do you believe that there is an absolute set of spiritual laws that govern all of us? I'm not asking you which one. That would be a next level question. Just asking if similarly to you believing that we are all governed by the same set of physical laws of which we have identified and understand many of them through scientific process.....do you believe there is some absolute set of spiritual laws that govern us? Again not asking you to identify what those are.

[joypog]

I'd say that Prothero would say the question itself is an example of a Christian conception of religion. Christianity is uniquely focused on sin and salvation to be mediated via belief in correct doctrine. His argument is that other religions are not nearly as focused on orthodoxy and explore other aspects of humanity, such as Confucianism and a well ordered society (Confucius had zero interest in cosmology or metaphysics).

On my end, as a non-dogmatic atheist, I'd say that there might be some wide laws of psychology, but the human mind - and society - is extremely malleable. As such, I'm not inclined to put much notion into the idea of spiritual laws, at least anything more detailed than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Of course there are pathologies, mental illness and societal chaos, that result in dire outcomes. But outside of those edge cases, I think the human experience is quite variable.

to pull from the original premise of this forum, selecting an investment portfolio is mix of divination with a scientific flavor...and look at all the different portfolios that the members on this forum have landed upon, even though we were all drawn to this place due to Mr. Browne's PP.