Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Atheists & Agnostics] know more about your religion than you!

1356711

Posts

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I expect a person who is culturally Catholic to know about transubstantiation considering you can't grow up in a Catholic environment without hearing about it from a priest.

    I also expect that. I believe that they actually explain the doctrine to you as you prepare for first communion when your younger, as was the case for me. Remembering it is another thing.

    Corehealer on
    488W936.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.

    Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.

    Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.

    Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.

    That's bullshit in the case of Catholicism though. I'm pretty sure that not believing in transubstantiation is heresy according to the Church. It makes you "not a catholic" by definition, no matter how hard you claim you are.

    Julius on
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.

    Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.

    Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.

    Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.

    That's bullshit in the case of Catholicism though. I'm pretty sure that not believing in transubstantiation is heresy according to the Church. It makes you "not a catholic" by definition, no matter how hard you claim you are.

    Though it is true that most Christian religions, at least within the US, require nothing more than to show up and to drop a dollar in the bucket.

    Mikey CTS on
    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    Though it is true that most Christian religions, at least within the US, require nothing more than to show up and to drop a dollar in the bucket.

    Mmmm, no. It'd be more accurate to say all are welcome, not all are taken seriously as Christians.

    emnmnme on
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    Though it is true that most Christian religions, at least within the US, require nothing more than to show up and to drop a dollar in the bucket.

    Mmmm, no. It'd be more accurate to say all are welcome, not all are taken seriously as Christians.

    I guess some won't take you seriously until you let them baptise you, so that's true.

    Mikey CTS on
    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    zeeny wrote: »

    I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
    Depends on why you're participating in a religion. If you never gave it any thought and just believe without any reason, that's stupid.

    But if you participate in religion because it gives your ailing mother joy, that's a pretty good reason. You might not believe to the same extent as she does, but you engaging in the outward expressions of faith might make her happy in a dark time.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
    Depends on why you're participating in a religion. If you never gave it any thought and just believe without any reason, that's stupid.

    But if you participate in religion because it gives your ailing mother joy, that's a pretty good reason. You might not believe to the same extent as she does, but you engaging in the outward expressions of faith might make her happy in a dark time.

    Some people lay out the good china when mother comes to visit. Others hang crucifixes and portraits of Jesus. Is that what you're saying? Participation in a religion can be a little white lie?

    emnmnme on
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
    Depends on why you're participating in a religion. If you never gave it any thought and just believe without any reason, that's stupid.

    But if you participate in religion because it gives your ailing mother joy, that's a pretty good reason. You might not believe to the same extent as she does, but you engaging in the outward expressions of faith might make her happy in a dark time.

    Some people lay out the good china when mother comes to visit. Others hang crucifixes and portraits of Jesus. Is that what you're saying? Participation in a religion can be a little white lie?

    I agree. I've never found that particular argument very persausive. Just because it's "comforting" doesn't make it right or true.

    Mikey CTS on
    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I expect a person who is culturally Catholic to know about transubstantiation considering you can't grow up in a Catholic environment without hearing about it from a priest.

    I also expect that. I believe that they actually explain the doctrine to you as you prepare for first communion when your younger, as was the case for me. Remembering it is another thing.

    Wouldn't they also hear it in confirmation class? Hearing that what you are eating is actually really blood and really flesh in the "substance" yet somehow remains exactly the same according to your religion seems like one of those things that would stick out.

    Couscous on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
    Depends on why you're participating in a religion. If you never gave it any thought and just believe without any reason, that's stupid.

    But if you participate in religion because it gives your ailing mother joy, that's a pretty good reason. You might not believe to the same extent as she does, but you engaging in the outward expressions of faith might make her happy in a dark time.

    Some people lay out the good china when mother comes to visit. Others hang crucifixes and portraits of Jesus. Is that what you're saying? Participation in a religion can be a little white lie?

    I don't think it's even a 'little white lie' so much as it is recognizing that religious identification can be more an identification with culture than theology. While I've seen no evidence on the question, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to me that this is actually the majority experience. I'm not convinced very many people give enough of a crap to have even considered the implications of the undelying theology in their preferred religion.

    JihadJesus on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I don't think it's even a 'little white lie' so much as it is recognizing that religious identification can be more an identification with culture than theology. While I've seen no evidence on the question, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to me that this is actually the majority experience. I'm not convinced very many people give enough of a crap to have even considered the implications of the undelying theology in their preferred religion.
    So God is dead then.

    Couscous on
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    The sabbath question is tricky, and I wouldn't expect a non-jew to necessarily know the specifics since- practically speaking- the bulk of the sabbath actually takes place on Saturday.

    Yeah I failed that one. I also inexplicably said that the majority of people in Pakistan were hindus, which is of course silly.

    I missed the Jewish Sabbath question, the question about Job, and the First Great Awakening question. That's puts me above 87% of the public.

    And honestly, I probably would have missed the Joseph Smith question too had it not been for multiple-choice process of elimination.

    TheCanMan on
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
    Depends on why you're participating in a religion. If you never gave it any thought and just believe without any reason, that's stupid.

    But if you participate in religion because it gives your ailing mother joy, that's a pretty good reason. You might not believe to the same extent as she does, but you engaging in the outward expressions of faith might make her happy in a dark time.

    Some people lay out the good china when mother comes to visit. Others hang crucifixes and portraits of Jesus. Is that what you're saying? Participation in a religion can be a little white lie?

    I don't think it's even a 'little white lie' so much as it is recognizing that religious identification can be more an identification with culture than theology. While I've seen no evidence on the question, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to me that this is actually the majority experience. I'm not convinced very many people give enough of a crap to have even considered the implications of the undelying theology in their preferred religion.

    Or they choose to ignore those implications. I'd be curious to see how many people don't know what's in the bible versus how many people just ignore the things they don't like in it.

    Mikey CTS on
    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • Technicus RexTechnicus Rex All your base.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I will say I've always been astounded that there are people who apparently:

    a) believe the Bible is the most important book ever written and contains insight into the nature of the universe provided by its creator, and
    b) haven't read it.

    :^:

    Technicus Rex on
    People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazi's. You can't trust people. - Super Hans.
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I don't think it's even a 'little white lie' so much as it is recognizing that religious identification can be more an identification with culture than theology. While I've seen no evidence on the question, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to me that this is actually the majority experience. I'm not convinced very many people give enough of a crap to have even considered the implications of the undelying theology in their preferred religion.
    So God is dead then.

    Pretty much this, right? I mean - and this is what ultimately led to my own religious education and abandonment of said religion - how can you not want to spend any time considering what your religion teaches and the basis for those teachings, when the practice of your religion (or the degree of your faith, etc.) literally makes the difference between eternal post-mortal bliss or torture?

    Unless, and I suspect this is the case with a lot of people who would never admit it - you don't really believe that anyway.

    I'll never forget the conversation I had with my mother about Christianity in which I informed her that Christians believe Jesus is God.

    "No," she said, "he's the Lord. He's the Son of God."

    "He's GOD, Mom," I said. "That's what the Trinity means."

    To this day she doesn't agree with me. I mean, they say the freaking Nicene Creed every week! It's right in there!

    sidhaethe on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I still say the Trinity makes God MPD....


    I took the 15 question quiz on the site, and I scored 100%.

    Now, onto the other things.

    I identify myself as Jewish. I do not go to synagogue on a regular basis like I used to as a child (my synagogue basically pushed me out when I turned 16. They thought my hanging around after my bat mitzvah was a bad influence on the other kids. yeah I got bitter).

    I hold onto my Jewish traditions and culture very closely. I do not keep the Sabbath as I should, and I struggle to keep completely Kosher.

    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name. I can answer most tradition questions, and I can answer most cultural questions that anybody has to ask me. In my small town, I'm one of very few Jews at all. Let alone Jews who will talk about the fact that they're Jewish.

    I'm both more and less religious than I thought. I hold some of my beliefs very closely (the whole reconstructionist thing with rewriting the bible to more prominently include the women of the bible annoys the living daylights out of me), and some of them, I struggle with (that synagogue is necessary for the building of a community is accurate, but I don't need to attend to be a good Jew).

    But I scored a 100% on that little quiz there.

    So that's gotta say something, right?

    like wow I'm smart..

    lonelyahava on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited September 2010
    I love how some of the reporting on this implied that it was weird that protestants don't 'know' they're supposed to believe that you get into heaven through faith and not acts.

    As far as I can tell, American protestantism is so huge and varied that there is literally no through-line to their beliefs other than the name of the book they like and 'Jesus'.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Temple of Jerusalem got smashed.

    emnmnme on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I love how some of the reporting on this implied that it was weird that protestants don't 'know' they're supposed to believe that you get into heaven through faith and not acts.

    As far as I can tell, American protestantism is so huge and varied that there is literally no through-line to their beliefs other than the name of the book they like and 'Jesus'.
    Fucking sola fide is one of the very basic parts of Protestantism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
    Historic Protestantism (both Lutheran and Reformed) has held to sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially, but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict / pardon of justification. Thus, "faith alone" is foundational to Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian communions. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Excerpts_from_confessions_and_creeds_which_support_sola_fide

    Couscous on
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    That is the Jewish interpertation of "not taking the Lord's name in vain," if I'm not mistaken. The third commandment.

    Mikey CTS on
    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • TwoQuestionsTwoQuestions Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Temple of Jerusalem got smashed.

    I thought it had more to do with the whole "don't take his name in vain" commandment. As in, his name is only used for special ceremonies and such.

    A Jewish friend of mine was telling me that any document with God's name on it (the name starts with a 'Y') becomes a holy relic, and it's bad if it's destroyed. Before a document (such as a handwritten Torah) is made, they leave out his name and make corrections, because once his name is on it it's holy now, and you can't erase it. Which is why they use the special pointer thingy when they read from the Torah, because the oil from your hands tarnishes the page, and why many Jews will type G-d, because a screen is constantly being destroyed and rewritten.

    Edit: dammit Mikey :P

    TwoQuestions on
    steam_sig.png
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fucking sola fide is one of the very basic parts of Protestantism.

    I'd say sola fide *was* one of the very basic parts of Protestantism. But modern American protestants are barely even their own category, unless you mean 'non-Catholic'. Beyond that, it seems like they're all over the map on every single question you could pose to them. It's more of a classification than an actual religious movement at this point.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Temple of Jerusalem got smashed.

    I thought it had more to do with the whole "don't take his name in vain" commandment. As in, his name is only used for special ceremonies and such.

    A Jewish friend of mine was telling me that any document with God's name on it (the name starts with a 'Y') becomes a holy relic, and it's bad if it's destroyed. Before a document (such as a handwritten Torah) is made, they leave out his name and make corrections, because once his name is on it it's holy now, and you can't erase it. Which is why they use the special pointer thingy when they read from the Torah, because the oil from your hands tarnishes the page, and why many Jews will type G-d, because a screen is constantly being destroyed and rewritten.

    Edit: dammit Mikey :P

    That's actually pretty interesting.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fucking sola fide is one of the very basic parts of Protestantism.

    I'd say sola fide *was* one of the very basic parts of Protestantism. But modern American protestants are barely even their own category, unless you mean 'non-Catholic'. Beyond that, it seems like they're all over the map on every single question you could pose to them. It's more of a classification than an actual religious movement at this point.

    All the major Protestant denominations publicly claim to believe in sola fide.

    Couscous on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.

    That's bullshit in the case of Catholicism though. I'm pretty sure that not believing in transubstantiation is heresy according to the Church. It makes you "not a catholic" by definition, no matter how hard you claim you are.

    Only if you accept the Catholic Church as the final arbiter of the Catholic religion. One could easily claim to be a Catholic and also hold that the church has been corrupted and no longer represents the true will of God, or that transubstantiation is "actually meant to be interpreted like this" etc. etc.

    As religion is essentially a belief structure built around inherently unprovable ideas, there's no really useful way to specifically identify who is and isn't religious.

    You're approaching a variable that cannot be proved (what someone "truly believes") regarding a subject that is inherently undefined and unprovable in all regards (at least within the current limitations of what we know and what we are capable of) in reference to varied books and teachings with different interpretations and translations of each prescribing often vague or contradictory edicts that can again be interpreted or transcribed in many different ways.

    So yeah, good luck defining any of that.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So if a devout Jewish person comes across the name Yahweh on a web page, do they then have to screenshot it forever?

    TL DR on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So if a devout Jewish person comes across the name Yahweh on a web page, do they then have to screenshot it forever?

    They just have to leave it there. Can't ever close the window or navigate away.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The title of this thread is obviously inaccurate. Nobody knows more about another person's religion than they do themselves.

    Of course, this is informed by my conviction that no two religious people truly believe in the same religion. Functionally identical beliefs, sure, though it's rarer than you might think. But truly sharing an identical conception of God is beyond the capacity of human communication to achieve. There are always and everywhere differences in interpretation of the nonsensical idea we call "God."

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kalkino wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.

    Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?

    When you live in a culture, you pick up some cultural knowledge. If you're a Muslim and you live in America, you probably know when Christmas is and have a vague idea what its about, even if you don't study Christianity at all. If you're a Christian living in America, the only way you'd pick up knowledge about Ramadan would be if you went out and specifically studied it.

    I think its less that non-Christians are smarter because they have to defend their beliefs and more that non-Christians have a knowledge set that is, in American, outside the norm.

    So if you're an atheist, you're going to have ideas and arguments about religion as part of your belief system and you're also going to have ideas and arguments about religion that you pick up simply by living in America. As a Christian, you'd still have those default cultural ideas and arguments, but you wouldn't be exposed to the non-mainstream concepts unless you specifically sought them out.

    While this is all well and good, it doesn't explain why Christians lose on their own religions questions.

    For my part, I grew up in a very catholic environment, classes during the week in addition to the regular masses and Sunday school classes. Transubstantiation had to be mentioned 10000 times in the whole run. It's basic doctrine.

    All that study and I eventually ended up atheist... oh well. As for a lot of the other stuff (Ramadan and such) that all came through in news and just outright curiosity

    TheBlackWind on
    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    And only about one-third of those polled know which famous court trial dealt with whether evolution could be taught in public schools; 31% know this was the Scopes trial, while 36% say it was Brown vs. Board of Education and 3% name the Salem witch trials.

    Ok, I'll freely admit that if I was asked what the Scopes trial did I wouldn't have a freaking clue. But in a mutiple choice question about teaching evolution, if you answer Brown vs. the Board of Education you should be punched in the face. And if you think the Salem witch trials are responsible for public schools teaching evolution, after your punch to the face you should be forcibly sterilized.

    TheCanMan on
  • TwoQuestionsTwoQuestions Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm beginning to wonder if people go to church more to hang out with friends and tell everyone else they're going to hell than to save their souls.

    Either way, it would be pretty cool if Christianity had those guys from Dragon Age who can only speak in Bible verses. Maybe they might actually read the damn thing then.

    TwoQuestions on
    steam_sig.png
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Temple of Jerusalem got smashed.

    I thought it had more to do with the whole "don't take his name in vain" commandment. As in, his name is only used for special ceremonies and such.

    A Jewish friend of mine was telling me that any document with God's name on it (the name starts with a 'Y') becomes a holy relic, and it's bad if it's destroyed. Before a document (such as a handwritten Torah) is made, they leave out his name and make corrections, because once his name is on it it's holy now, and you can't erase it. Which is why they use the special pointer thingy when they read from the Torah, because the oil from your hands tarnishes the page, and why many Jews will type G-d, because a screen is constantly being destroyed and rewritten.

    Edit: dammit Mikey :P



    Depending upon who you ask, this is why. The taking of the Lord's name in Vain. Also, the only person and place and time where the name could be said was by the High Priest within the Holiest of Holies on Yom Kippur.

    Unfortunately, we have no more high priest, the Holiest of Holies (first within the Tent of the Covenant with the Ark and then within Solomon's Temple) are no longer in existence.

    But they typing of G-d is very true. I used to do it more than I do now. And back in University I would write all my papers and essays with that spelling and the professors had to accept it.

    Interesting note: If a Torah or a prayer book or anything with the written name of G-d is damaged or just so old it can't be used anymore, that object is given a proper burial.
    So if a devout Jewish person comes across the name Yahweh on a web page, do they then have to screenshot it forever?


    You adjust for the age of where you are. God is very forgiving in that aspect. It's one of those things that you as a person just adapt to. Kinda like the Sabbath or Hannukah candles in old Soviet Russia. Many devout Jews still lit the candles, even though it would possibly bring them harm and death. However, they were permitted (by the Rabbis teachings) to extinguish the candles after a certain period of time (my family tells that their traditional time was 18 minutes, but I've seen it as little as 7). That way, the family still observes the Law, but does not put their lives into danger.

    Nitpick pet peeve: There is no "w" in the Hebrew language. The proper spelling is Yod Hay Vav Hay. There is no 'W', there is no 'J'.

    Little Fact: In most prayer books and in the Torah, the Name is spelled out exactly like that Yad Hay Vav Hay, or abbreviated to Yod Yod. But it is read and pronounced as either "Adonai" when in actual prayer or "Adoshem" while practicing your prayers.



    I will probably be corrected many times over on some of the finer details by the others here more religious than I. But these are what I know and how I learned.

    lonelyahava on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    While this is all well and good, it doesn't explain why Christians lose on their own religions questions.

    Actually, this is inaccurate (only slightly, but in an important way). From the OP's article with emphasis added:
    On questions about Christianity – including a battery of questions about the BibleMormons (7.9 out of 12 right on average) and white evangelical Protestants (7.3 correct on average) show the highest levels of knowledge. Jews and atheists/agnostics stand out for their knowledge of other world religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism; out of 11 such questions on the survey, Jews answer 7.9 correctly (nearly three better than the national average) and atheists/agnostics answer 7.5 correctly (2.5 better than the national average). Atheists/agnostics and Jews also do particularly well on questions about the role of religion in public life, including a question about what the U.S. Constitution says about religion.

    So unless you're excluding Mormons and Protestants, it would appear that, limited to Christianity alone, certain subsets of Christianity are very knowledgeable about religion.

    Which shouldn't really be surprising. People tend to know things they need to know to participate in their own cultures.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    I'd be curious to see how many people don't know what's in the bible versus how many people just ignore the things they don't like in it.
    Take the good parts, ignore the bad. It's pretty much the standard human approach to, well, anything.

    It's a lot easier to be a Christian if you basically ignore the bloody parts of the Old Testament and only focus on Jesus' teachings. That probably holds true for most other religions.

    The Catholic Church is really good at downplaying the parts of the Bible that are kind of icky. It's all marketing.

    @lonelyahava: One thing I find interesting about Judaism is the willingness of Rabbis to be pragmatic when following the strict rules of the religion would lead to injustice. I read an article a while back about the priest/penitent privilege in legal cases. They interviewed a Rabbi who said, when asked whether he would keep a murderer's confession confidential: "Of course not."

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Kalkino wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.

    Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?

    When you live in a culture, you pick up some cultural knowledge. If you're a Muslim and you live in America, you probably know when Christmas is and have a vague idea what its about, even if you don't study Christianity at all. If you're a Christian living in America, the only way you'd pick up knowledge about Ramadan would be if you went out and specifically studied it.

    I think its less that non-Christians are smarter because they have to defend their beliefs and more that non-Christians have a knowledge set that is, in American, outside the norm.

    So if you're an atheist, you're going to have ideas and arguments about religion as part of your belief system and you're also going to have ideas and arguments about religion that you pick up simply by living in America. As a Christian, you'd still have those default cultural ideas and arguments, but you wouldn't be exposed to the non-mainstream concepts unless you specifically sought them out.

    While this is all well and good, it doesn't explain why Christians lose on their own religions questions.

    For my part, I grew up in a very catholic environment, classes during the week in addition to the regular masses and Sunday school classes. Transubstantiation had to be mentioned 10000 times in the whole run. It's basic doctrine.

    All that study and I eventually ended up atheist... oh well. As for a lot of the other stuff (Ramadan and such) that all came through in news and just outright curiosity

    I was raised Episcopalian, well sort of, my parents didn't really believe that shit either. Nice group of people, none of the "ass sex is going to ruin us all, condoms are from the devil, dinosaurs are a lie" bullshit.

    However each service, was mostly a bunch of people singing. A quick reading from the bible, chanting of the same prayer, and then a sermon from the pastor. Sermons were never a scriptural thing, more like a rant about various issues of the day and the goings on.

    Then we went to the country club and the men talked politics and finance, the women went off and talked about women stuff (I dunno I never hung around the women, the guys smoked cigars and didn't complain when I ate only bacon!) and the kids goofed off.

    Church events for youth. Well it was maybe a quick 5 min quote from the bible, usually a psalm, and then a day of playing ball and hitting on the girls.

    It really had fuck all to do with the bible or Jesus, it was more of a social gathering. I found out about it by reading the bible and some books at a seminary and holy fuck was that a mess.

    I think my experience was pretty typical.

    I dated a fundie once (great in the sack and totally easy which I found hilarious for all she talked before that and her attitude on sex) and went to her church. It was just 2 hours of some angry old guy ranting about gays, blacks (though not in direct terms), city people, and moral corruption. Not really much about the bible. And after that people sitting around praying in toungues and eating doughnuts (I'm a fan of boston cream!) followed by a ton of talk about what can be done to restore christian values to American.

    In truth, I don't think most "christians" actually are ever educated on what they are reading, nor do they really care. They just walk in and whatever the man tells them, that's that. More time is spent discussing the pastors sermon, and what they can do now that they "know" than it is looking for any sort of scriptural meaning behind it and if it's just bollox, because a holy man can't be wrong.

    I'd also wager if you're the kind of person that takes something on the faith of "well just because" instead of bothering to form your own opinion about it, you're not a curious individual prone to seek out your own truth on the matter.

    nstf on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    MM, one of the key, most important nigh unshakable tenants of Judaism is that you do nothing, you take no action whatsoever, that will endanger human life. Life is the most precious thing that we have. And you are the most important life there is.

    When given a choice between conversion or death during the Inquisition, it was determined to be religiously ok to convert, as doing so saved your life. That's why you were allowed to extinguish the candles instead of risking discovery.

    Life is the most important thing in judaism.

    I'm not sure exactly what the belief is on the confidentiality clauses. But my guess is that if the Rabbi was faced with a choice between putting a confessed murderer behind bars or letting him free to possibly kill again, then I believe that morally and religiously, it would be the Rabbi's responsibility to supply the confession.

    lonelyahava on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    However, I hold that there is One true God and he shall not be called by his name.

    Out of curiosity, why is this?

    Temple of Jerusalem got smashed.

    I thought it had more to do with the whole "don't take his name in vain" commandment. As in, his name is only used for special ceremonies and such.

    A Jewish friend of mine was telling me that any document with God's name on it (the name starts with a 'Y') becomes a holy relic, and it's bad if it's destroyed. Before a document (such as a handwritten Torah) is made, they leave out his name and make corrections, because once his name is on it it's holy now, and you can't erase it. Which is why they use the special pointer thingy when they read from the Torah, because the oil from your hands tarnishes the page, and why many Jews will type G-d, because a screen is constantly being destroyed and rewritten.

    Edit: dammit Mikey :P

    Judaism seems like the most OCD religion ever conceived by man.

    FCD on
    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    I was raised Episcopalian, well sort of, my parents didn't really believe that shit either. Nice group of people, none of the "ass sex is going to ruin us all, condoms are from the devil, dinosaurs are a lie" bullshit
    Ass sex is cool. But condoms are bullshit.

    And only suckers believe in dinosaurs.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    The sabbath question is tricky, and I wouldn't expect a non-jew to necessarily know the specifics since- practically speaking- the bulk of the sabbath actually takes place on Saturday.

    In Judaism, each 'Day' starts and ends at sunset, when the first stars appear in the sky.

    Grey Paladin on
    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Sign In or Register to comment.