• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion Disenfranchises the Will to Act

michijo

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
750
Reaction score
120
Location
Carolina del Norte
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on. My will to action provides me with information I want.
 
Last edited:
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on.

As far as Christianity is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. We have 100% free will and God will not and cannot impinge on that free will. God's very nature is to love and love that is coerced or forced in any way is a sham and is NOT love. We have free will, because without it, we cannot love God or each other. We have full responsibility for our actions and there is nothing in Christianity that says otherwise. When I follow God's will, I do so out of my own free will and when I don't I do so out of my own free will. As far as person achievements are concerned, the Bible is full of commendations for personal achievement. Look at the Old Testament for being blessed, they are about your personal achievements being successful. Look at the New Testament and you'll see the same (albeit to a lesser level).
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments.
I've had the opposite experience with Bhuddism.

The Bhuddist does not sit and wait for inspiration or 'a sign', but must choose to act on his own. Bhuddists aren't worried about what any god thinks of them or even if gods exist. There's no magic sky fairy, not even a spaghetti monster looking over a Bhuddist's shoulder.
 
i don't know that scripture tries to deny earthly achievements, except that the rich are condemned, but the greatest detriment to solving our collective and individual problems in this lifetime comes from the "endtimes crowd." Having grown up around them, they clearly look forward to the world ending and they will be around to witness it. In that sense, they deprive themselves of meaning in this world, kind of like nihilists really, except for popping out babies every year, but there's a darker side to their faith that harms us all.

Anything that comes to be gradually accepted as not sinful is held up as a sign that the antichrist is upon us and - counter-intuitively, since they long for endtimes - an excuse to brutally oppress. They are adamantly opposed to science and human truth, and we would still be without medical treatment and anesthesia and social progress of any kind if these lunatics got their way all along. We'd still be hanging "witches" and burning people alive.
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act.

I haven't found it to be wishy-washy at all, and certainly has not taken away my will to act. In fact, it's probably given me more of a will to act, as it has added depth and meaning to my life, and helped me form a more thorough sense of self. There is nothing in religion which says not to act. It says to act correctly, and soberly, and with good intention, which are some of the strongest actions which can be taken.

The will to act isn't determined by religion. It's within the spirit of the individual. A timid person will be timid regardless of his religion, and a defiant one will be defiant as well. You seem to be confused regarding what the role of religion can be in the individual. It doesn't turn us into compliant indistinguishable sheep-type individuals. That tendency is already there, and the religion will only influence the direction and focus that that tendency takes.
 
i don't know that scripture tries to deny earthly achievements, except that the rich are condemned, but the greatest detriment to solving our collective and individual problems in this lifetime comes from the "endtimes crowd." Having grown up around them, they clearly look forward to the world ending and they will be around to witness it. In that sense, they deprive themselves of meaning in this world, kind of like nihilists really, except for popping out babies every year, but there's a darker side to their faith that harms us all.

Anything that comes to be gradually accepted as not sinful is held up as a sign that the antichrist is upon us and - counter-intuitively, since they long for endtimes - an excuse to brutally oppress. They are adamantly opposed to science and human truth, and we would still be without medical treatment and anesthesia and social progress of any kind if these lunatics got their way all along. We'd still be hanging "witches" and burning people alive.

Nowhere does the Bible state that the rich are condemned. The whole "camel through the eye of a needle" refers to a man-sized gate in the walls of a city. When a city was attacked, the only way in or out of the city was through this gate. In order for a camel to traverse the gate, it would have to unload it's burden and come through on it's knees. A analogy for setting aside what is held as valuable (not doing away with, but making them less important than entering the city) and then submitting (getting down on it's knees).
 
The concept of omniscient justice after we die does certainly seem to make some people care less for instituting justice while we're alive. This tendency was used intentionally to promote complacency among slaves in this country.
 
Nowhere does the Bible state that the rich are condemned. The whole "camel through the eye of a needle" refers to a man-sized gate in the walls of a city. When a city was attacked, the only way in or out of the city was through this gate. In order for a camel to traverse the gate, it would have to unload it's burden and come through on it's knees. A analogy for setting aside what is held as valuable (not doing away with, but making them less important than entering the city) and then submitting (getting down on it's knees).

And when do the rich set aside what is valuable, diminish the importance of wealth, or submit to anything? I'd like to hear how a billionaire could reach such fortune without obsessing over wealth

Nonetheless, the verse points out the obstacles faced by the rich to enter heaven and it's clear the biblical jesus was not fond of the rich
 
As far as Christianity is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. We have 100% free will and God will not and cannot impinge on that free will.

God has impinged on that free will several times over in the bible. In fact if you displeased god in any way he would smite you without hesitation. This is especially the case in the Old Testament. Hell God even punished and slaughtered people for their unfaltering faith in God.
 
Nowhere does the Bible state that the rich are condemned. The whole "camel through the eye of a needle" refers to a man-sized gate in the walls of a city. When a city was attacked, the only way in or out of the city was through this gate. In order for a camel to traverse the gate, it would have to unload it's burden and come through on it's knees. A analogy for setting aside what is held as valuable (not doing away with, but making them less important than entering the city) and then submitting (getting down on it's knees).
And here I thought I was the only person on this forum who knew that :)
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on. My will to action provides me with information I want.

Wow, what a load of crap.

You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling.

Really? Ever hear of Martin Luther?
 
And when do the rich set aside what is valuable, diminish the importance of wealth, or submit to anything? I'd like to hear how a billionaire could reach such fortune without obsessing over wealth

Nonetheless, the verse points out the obstacles faced by the rich to enter heaven and it's clear the biblical jesus was not fond of the rich

Really? Jesus hung out with quite a few rich people. Matthew the tax collector (one of his disciples) was definitely rich. Being a poor tax collector in the Roman Empire wasn't something that happened. ALL tax collectors were rich. Peter and Paul were boat owners in a society where most fishermen fished from the bank because buying a boat cost a LOT of money, they weren't "poor fishermen". Even Jesus Himself was most likely financially successful. He was a carpenter (a HIGH skill job in that time and place) and being God, He would have been a fantastic one. What He wasn't fond of was the attitude that so many of them had of being more in love with their money than with God. Remember money wasn't the root of all evil, but rather the LOVE OF money. God has no problem with us being rich, in fact He encourages it. What He has a problem with is money taking precedence over Him.
 
God has impinged on that free will several times over in the bible. In fact if you displeased god in any way he would smite you without hesitation. This is especially the case in the Old Testament. Hell God even punished and slaughtered people for their unfaltering faith in God.

No, He didn't. He ALWAYS gave people a choice of the paths they should follow. He hesitated EVERY time. My guess is that you know very little about the Bible beyond what you've seen in movies, read on discussion forums or just plain pulled out of thin air. Take the time to study the Bible. Not just read it, but study it. Get a Strong's concordance, a Greek and Hebrew Bible dictionary and actually study it and do so with an open mind, instead of one that seeks to disprove or prove anything.
 
No, He didn't. He ALWAYS gave people a choice of the paths they should follow. He hesitated EVERY time. My guess is that you know very little about the Bible beyond what you've seen in movies, read on discussion forums or just plain pulled out of thin air. Take the time to study the Bible. Not just read it, but study it. Get a Strong's concordance, a Greek and Hebrew Bible dictionary and actually study it and do so with an open mind, instead of one that seeks to disprove or prove anything.

Why does almost every Religious person here insist I haven't read scripture when I have proven time after time I have? It's insulting at this point, but whatever. There are plenty of notable examples of God commanding people and giving them orders. In Genesis, God turned Lot's wife into salt for merely looking back at an explosion of her home. (An explosion god sent down b t dubs) and in Exodus, it is stated very specifically that god hardened the heart of the pharaoh so he would be unable to allow Moses' people to go free. (Well in spite of God sending Moses to free the Jews.)

I read the bible, I've read ever since I was a young child and when I was a Catholic. If you're going to call me a liar, or call me ignorant at least counter my arguments instead of attempting to discredit me for my lack of Religious beliefs.
 
Why does almost every Religious person here insist I haven't read scripture when I have proven time after time I have? It's insulting at this point, but whatever. There are plenty of notable examples of God commanding people and giving them orders. In Genesis, God turned Lot's wife into salt for merely looking back at an explosion of her home. (An explosion god sent down b t dubs) and in Exodus, it is stated very specifically that god hardened the heart of the pharaoh so he would be unable to allow Moses' people to go free. (Well in spite of God sending Moses to free the Jews.)

I read the bible, I've read ever since I was a young child and when I was a Catholic. If you're going to call me a liar, or call me ignorant at least counter my arguments instead of attempting to discredit me for my lack of Religious beliefs.

In Lots case, she chose her course of action by looking back. God gave her the opportunity to do the right thing and she chose to do the wrong thing.
As far as Pharaoh was concerned, this explains the point far better than I can: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval/Hardened_Hearts.shtml

Reading the Bible is FAR from studying it. Because we have something that was written in an entirely different culture than ours, in order to understand it, we must study both the scripture and the culture. Both of the examples you gave are examples of the fact that you have never studied the Bible, simply read it. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am pointing out that your conclusions are strong evidence of a lack of effort or opportunity to study the Bible in such a way as to understand it. Start with finding some books on pre-1st century Middle Eastern culture and get an understanding of the culture in which the Bible was written. Then start studying the Bible by looking at the original language meanings of the scriptures are.
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on. My will to action provides me with information I want.

False, what religions like Christianity preach is humility, to be humble when you do things, and not an arrogant prick.

Pride comes before the fall, I sure as hell know how true that is given my character which I'm trying to change through religion.
 
In Lots case, she chose her course of action by looking back. God gave her the opportunity to do the right thing and she chose to do the wrong thing.

Lot's wife was perfectly innocent though? Her only wrong doing was defying the will of god. Is that truly something a merciful god will do if he allowed free will?

As far as Pharaoh was concerned, this explains the point far better than I can: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval/Hardened_Hearts.shtml

The "Modest" claim falls short on the fact that God himself sent down these plagues to force the Pharaoh into releasing the slaves in the first place.

Reading the Bible is FAR from studying it. Because we have something that was written in an entirely different culture than ours, in order to understand it, we must study both the scripture and the culture. Both of the examples you gave are examples of the fact that you have never studied the Bible, simply read it. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am pointing out that your conclusions are strong evidence of a lack of effort or opportunity to study the Bible in such a way as to understand it. Start with finding some books on pre-1st century Middle Eastern culture and get an understanding of the culture in which the Bible was written. Then start studying the Bible by looking at the original language meanings of the scriptures are.

You're attempts to discredit me are falling horribly short. You want to keep playing the semantics game and try to say reading is different from studying it. Fine, I know what I have read and I know I once I had the same faith you have in the bible as you currently do. If you were to truly think beyond your church and think for yourself and question the bible instead of merely apologizing for it you might have better arguments than the ones you have now.
 
Lot's wife was perfectly innocent though? Her only wrong doing was defying the will of god. Is that truly something a merciful god will do if he allowed free will?



The "Modest" claim falls short on the fact that God himself sent down these plagues to force the Pharaoh into releasing the slaves in the first place.



You're attempts to discredit me are falling horribly short. You want to keep playing the semantics game and try to say reading is different from studying it. Fine, I know what I have read and I know I once I had the same faith you have in the bible as you currently do. If you were to truly think beyond your church and think for yourself and question the bible instead of merely apologizing for it you might have better arguments than the ones you have now.

Do you feel superior because you lack faith or something?
 
Really should have put Abrahamic or monotheistic religion in here. Doesn't really apply to a few.
 
Lot's wife was perfectly innocent though? Her only wrong doing was defying the will of god. Is that truly something a merciful god will do if he allowed free will?
Innocent?? She wanted to go back to the life she had in Sodom, a place that chose to ignore God's word so badly that He chose to destroy it. God calls us to leave our sin behind, not carry it with us. That was her sin, that of wanting to return to the moral degredation of Sodom.


The "Modest" claim falls short on the fact that God himself sent down these plagues to force the Pharaoh into releasing the slaves in the first place.
Pharaoh could have said "No" until his entire Kingdom had been destroyed, so he always had the choice in how to respond.

You're attempts to discredit me are falling horribly short. You want to keep playing the semantics game and try to say reading is different from studying it. Fine, I know what I have read and I know I once I had the same faith you have in the bible as you currently do. If you were to truly think beyond your church and think for yourself and question the bible instead of merely apologizing for it you might have better arguments than the ones you have now.

I apologize for nothing, I just ask that if you are going to act like you are Biblical expert, that you put in the work to actually be one. I was blessed to have had a Pastor who loaned me a book on pre-1st century culture (a secular book at that) when I first got saved, so I've always understood much more that most about the Bible, simply because I have a better understanding of the culture in which it was written. I was also taught to study the Bible by going back to the original language meanings of the words and phrases used in the Bible. What I'm talking about is NOT semantics, but rather critical to understanding the Bible. To try to isolate the Bible from the culture it was written is leads to all kinds of bad doctrine (a lot of which is erroneously accepted as being accurate in most churches), misinterpretation and general confusion. We have the ability to understand it, but it does require a little work to do so, work that I've put in and continue to put in.
 
Why does almost every Religious person here insist I haven't read scripture when I have proven time after time I have? It's insulting at this point, but whatever. There are plenty of notable examples of God commanding people and giving them orders. In Genesis, God turned Lot's wife into salt for merely looking back at an explosion of her home. (An explosion god sent down b t dubs) and in Exodus, it is stated very specifically that god hardened the heart of the pharaoh so he would be unable to allow Moses' people to go free. (Well in spite of God sending Moses to free the Jews.)

I read the bible, I've read ever since I was a young child and when I was a Catholic. If you're going to call me a liar, or call me ignorant at least counter my arguments instead of attempting to discredit me for my lack of Religious beliefs.

Maybe because you show no evidence of having read much Scripture. And your claims do not jibe with even a cursory reading of the Bible.
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on. My will to action provides me with information I want.

You're making many overgeneralized assumptions here, including the claim the religion weakens the will to act rather than inspiring it.
 
Really? Jesus hung out with quite a few rich people. Matthew the tax collector (one of his disciples) was definitely rich. Being a poor tax collector in the Roman Empire wasn't something that happened. ALL tax collectors were rich. Peter and Paul were boat owners in a society where most fishermen fished from the bank because buying a boat cost a LOT of money, they weren't "poor fishermen". Even Jesus Himself was most likely financially successful. He was a carpenter (a HIGH skill job in that time and place) and being God, He would have been a fantastic one. What He wasn't fond of was the attitude that so many of them had of being more in love with their money than with God. Remember money wasn't the root of all evil, but rather the LOVE OF money. God has no problem with us being rich, in fact He encourages it. What He has a problem with is money taking precedence over Him.

And how many billionaires today would "hang out with" a carpenter from nazareth who proclaims his divinity and says it's easier for a camel to perform miraculous tricks than for the rich to enter heaven? To become a billionaire, one must love money above all else.
 
Innocent?? She wanted to go back to the life she had in Sodom, a place that chose to ignore God's word so badly that He chose to destroy it. God calls us to leave our sin behind, not carry it with us. That was her sin, that of wanting to return to the moral degredation of Sodom.

Who says she wanted to go back to a place that was currently burning from fire and sulfur? Their is nothing in the bible that even remotely indicates Lot's wife wanting to return to Sodom. Other than of course turning around to see her home and everything she knew destroyed before her very eyes because God didn't like how the people of Sodom used the free will he gave us.


Pharaoh could have said "No" until his entire Kingdom had been destroyed, so he always had the choice in how to respond.

Except he couldn't have because God directly influenced the Pharaoh by hardening his heart. Either admit scripture has dictated that god has directly influenced and control man or continue this line of dishonesty.



I apologize for nothing, I just ask that if you are going to act like you are Biblical expert, that you put in the work to actually be one. I was blessed to have had a Pastor who loaned me a book on pre-1st century culture (a secular book at that) when I first got saved, so I've always understood much more that most about the Bible, simply because I have a better understanding of the culture in which it was written. I was also taught to study the Bible by going back to the original language meanings of the words and phrases used in the Bible. What I'm talking about is NOT semantics, but rather critical to understanding the Bible. To try to isolate the Bible from the culture it was written is leads to all kinds of bad doctrine (a lot of which is erroneously accepted as being accurate in most churches), misinterpretation and general confusion. We have the ability to understand it, but it does require a little work to do so, work that I've put in and continue to put in.

So wonderful, we both put in work to understand the bible except unlike yourself I'm not questioning your biblical literacy. However I am questioning the fact that if you have read and studied this bible and seemingly dishonestly try and apologize for God's needlessly cruel actions. In short, God has directly intervened with free will and one could even argue he continues on to this day.


Do you feel superior because you lack faith or something?

What gave you that idea?

Maybe because you show no evidence of having read much Scripture. And your claims do not jibe with even a cursory reading of the Bible.

Are any of the quotes I have quoted not from scripture? Are you attempting to call me dishonest?
 
Oh I disagree completely. And, for what it is worth, I am an agnostic and always have been.

Religions provide a social home, to relate to like-thinking people. They provide comforting in times of trouble. Don't think that religions only have to do with some deity or something. They are a social network.

Every book that I have ever read on wellness or happiness seems to say that it is helpful to have a spiritual component of some sort. For many, religion helps fill this need while others find it elsewhere. I find it in the solitude of the forest but do not begrudge someone getting that spirituality elsewhere.

Not sure why you think that they take away individual responsibility. Most understand that you need to do the stuff on your own to live a good life.
 
Back
Top Bottom