/rel/ - Religion

Step up to a man's fedora.

>>563

That makes no sense, God should only care about our free choice to love him, not our freedom to believe he exists. After all, how can we make a reasoned and informed choice about whom to love if we can't even figure out who exists?

This also totally fails to explain the misery-inducing flaws in the very design of nature itself, or the suffering of animals, and is entirely invalidated by compatibilist free will. But even if you come up with another excuse to explain away the flaws in nature's design and yet another for the suffering of animals, and illogically adopt a libertarian view of free will, you are still stuck in a quagmire of absurdity. For every argument entails that convincing evidence deprives us of free will. But there are a great many things for which we have convincing evidence. Are we to destroy that evidence, avoid it, so as to stay free? Don't you want convincing evidence before committing yourself to something? To assume we don't, to assume it is ever a good thing to believe a claim on unconvincing evidence, is to take a position on method that is wholly unlivable and inherently absurd, inverting all rationality, and divorcing faith from reason. It would mean that teachers, scientists, lawyers, are routinely committing unspeakable crimes against humanity, depriving everyone of their free will by providing convincing evidence to believe their claims.

There can be no merit in a belief that is held for bad reasons, in a loyalty that is given on uncertain knowledge of to whom you are pledging it, in a trust that is placed in something wholly unproven. And there can be no evil in telling a man what he needs to know to save himself and be happy, and proving to him, like Mr. Scrooge, that it is true. If you believe a man is obliged to prove a claim to you before believing it, then you cannot believe it is in any way wrong for a god to do so. If you believe it is a good thing for a preacher, an apologist, a missionary to give me more evidence and better reasons to believe, then you cannot believe it wrong for a god to do so. Otherwise, missionaries must be villains, and apologetics a wanton violation of man's free will. These are absurd conclusions. Therefore, this defense is absurd.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>592

a thousand times this

>>>/esperanto/ here, bringing you Oomoto (Esperanto was adopted by Oomoto in 1923 and practitioners often study it):

http://www.oomoto.or.jp/English/enFaq/indexfaq.html

>Oomoto is a Sectarian Shinto sect and one of Japan’s “New Religions.” (Sometimes it is spelled Omoto and also referred to as Omotokyo.)

>Since the middle of the nineteenth century, hundreds of religious sects, many based on Shinto and some on Buddhism, were founded. Several dozen still exist, a few of them large and thriving. Although Oomoto is not the largest, it is often cited as one of the more influential New Religions for many reasons: it gave birth to several other sects, which spun off from it amicably in most cases; it was an early proponent of interfaith cooperation, which today is widely practiced by Japanese religions; and it had a highly public and sometimes tragic history in its first fifty years.

>Oomoto has no professional priests. Some of the paid workers spend much or most of their time engaged in priest duties at the two headquarters. But in Oomoto anyone can become a priest. Men, women, and children are all eligible to study the doctrine and ritual, and to become certified to practice. Many adult priests started out by learning the ritual in their home shrines, where each family has a monthly service. Most branches have several followers who serve voluntarily for priestly duties at monthly services, weddings, funerals, and other rites.

I have this from /tg/. You can even go to page 62 and roll up random religions!

>>547

What would it take for any Catholic to follow an individual such as this?

>>569

amount of moderation

>>570 cont.