Are your religious beliefs a choice?

[The New California Republic]

Responding with a question mark does fuck all to counter an argument.

Nah, you’re just making no sense at all.

This is pretty clear, I really don't see how else I can simplify this for you:

1. First, Communism and helping each other to survive are two different things. This is a collective charity effort by people who acknowledge that their possessions are from God. This is in NO way a Marxist heresy.

2. This only means that one puts God before money. You would agree that greed is bad, right?

Here it has many of the same tenets as Socialism. If it looks like a duck...

At least try to address my argument, instead of using the excuse of "you are making no sense!" in bad faith...

[Ifreann]

Nations don't speak for anything, it's just a game.

Depends if one roleplays their nation in accordance to their RL beliefs.

I do in mine, and thus I have high spirituality AND scientific advancement.

I've been ranked in top 10% for most WA endorsements and my nation isn't in the WA.

It's just a game.

[The New California Republic]

Depends if one roleplays their nation in accordance to their RL beliefs.

I do in mine, and thus I have high spirituality AND scientific advancement.

I've been ranked in top 10% for most WA endorsements and my nation isn't in the WA.

It's just a game.

Hell, my nation is a fictional take on a fiction, so it is even further removed from reality...

[The Emerald Legion]

My nation is literally me attempting to wipe old age off my cause of death chart and somehow that ended up with a booming economy.

[Korhal IVV]

Nah, you’re just making no sense at all.

This is pretty clear, I really don't see how else I can simplify this for you:

Here it has many of the same tenets as Socialism. If it looks like a duck...

At least try to address my argument, instead of using the excuse of "you are making no sense!" in bad faith...

Oh look, the guy who thinks that Christianity is Communist just because the early church decided to help each other out. And mind you, that is the ONLY incident of it happening in the New Testament. After that period, there is no incident of believers selling their possessions and lands for the sales to be given to the poor en masse. In fact, Paul being a tent maker for his own financial support and Lydia’s business of purple cloth are two examples of totally non socialist early Christians (and a legitimate capitalist, in Lydia’s case). They simply removed selfishness from their midst and sold their lands for others not because the state or whoever told them, but purely due to their own voluntary act of philantrophy and compassion to one another.

So, no, Christianity is in zero ways a Socialist cult.

[The New California Republic]

At least try to address my argument, instead of using the excuse of "you are making no sense!" in bad faith...

Oh look, the guy who thinks that Christianity is Communist just because the early church decided to help each other out. And mind you, that is the ONLY incident of it happening in the New Testament. After that period, there is no incident of believers selling their possessions and lands for the sales to be given to the poor en masse. In fact, Paul being a tent maker for his own financial support and Lydia’s business of purple cloth are two examples of totally non socialist early Christians (and a legitimate capitalist, in Lydia’s case). They simply removed selfishness from their midst and sold their lands for others not because the state or whoever told them, but purely due to their own voluntary act of philantrophy and compassion to one another.

So, no, Christianity is in zero ways a Socialist cult.

You finally respond honestly. Thank you. That wasn't really too difficult, was it?

And I didn't say that Christianity is Communist, I said that "it has many of the same tenets as Socialism". Many of the same tenets =/= Christianity is Communist. Seriously, stop trying to strawman the fuck out of me.

I could also cite the following instances to indicate similarities:

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10.

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack
2 Corinthians 8:13-15.

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
Ephesians 4:28.

And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
Luke 3:11.

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
1 John 3:17.

At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.
Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
James 5:1-6.

If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
Leviticus 25:35-38.

[The Federal District of Vice Santos]

Yes, it’s a choice, particularly once you become an adult. This is from someone who was raised into religious beliefs, became spiritual in his teenage years/early adulthood and in now a cultural Anglican as an adult.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

No, my religious belief is not a choice, it is indoctrinated to me from birth when there's only 1 point of view. My irreligiousity today however is.

[Hollibourn]

Yeah, mine was a choice. I grew up in a Christian household that didn't force religion on people. I didn't have Christian helicopter parents and I wasn't entirely shielded from the outside world. The examples made by those close to me helped influence my choice, and by 16, decided to give my life to the Lord.

[Nolo gap]

well they're not from the influence of physically living other sapients,
but the observably universal wonder of strangeness is in no way dependent on our personal nor statistical choices.

i choose to attempt to be considerate of invisible and unknown things,
as of environments and living ones.

logic and observation form the bases of my beliefs, as do experiences which do not depend upon the existence of other knowledge or beliefs,
nor claims made by others of knowing the will of unknown and unseen things.

it is not my choice nor do i, blindly adhere to any brand name flavor of belief, if that is what the question is intended to ask.

i don't claim to be entirely understanding it. the question that is.

hopefully my splatter of answers covers most of the possibilities.

i do believe basically, that nothing is limited by or to what we think we known,
even though we can and do determine that some things, quite predictably, can and do, happen more often then others,
or when other things happen first.

i'm sorry if anyone is offended by brand name flavors of belief making no logical sense to me,
while the unknown being a thing both unknown and that exists, does.

i don't "choose" logic. logic is logic.
which does not exclude the possible existence of anything,
only the indebtedness of anything, to what anyone thinks they know about it.

[Neanderthaland]

Beliefs ought to be an obligate condition, determined by your best understanding of the facts. So no, they shouldn't be.

Would you believe your mom loved you? Or believe justice to be a good thing? Or believe equality to be right?
They're not so random as questions, not so different from: would you believe in a god representing idealistic traits you look up to or endorse?

I don't see how this relates to beliefs being an obligate condition at all. Except in that it seems to be suggesting that you should believe in things because you want them to be true.

If that is what you're suggesting then... well, I find it difficult to articulate how pathetic and dishonest that is. It's a suggestion that lacks all integrity. It abandons the search for truth in favor of wish fulfillment. And makes it impossible to better yourself or society.

[The Andromeda Archipelago]

I have no problem with the True & Living God.
It's the people who speak for him I have a problem with.

[Neanderthaland]

I have no problem with the True & Living God.
It's the people who speak for him I have a problem with.

That's nice, but it's not really what this thread is about.

Do you think religious beliefs are a choice?

[The Andromeda Archipelago]

I have no problem with the True & Living God.
It's the people who speak for him I have a problem with.

That's nice, but it's not really what this thread is about.

Do you think religious beliefs are a choice?

As I answered in the poll: Yes.

[The New California Republic]

That's nice, but it's not really what this thread is about.

Do you think religious beliefs are a choice?

As I answered in the poll: Yes.

For future reference we can't see your poll choices, so you actually need to tell us what you have chosen.

[Mystic Warriors]

Yes, 100%.

[AliceW]

My religious beliefs are my choice. Perhaps because in my childhood my parents did not pressure me with the question of religion, I now normally relate to the topic of religion. I have many atheist acquaintances and their choice, just based on the fact that parents from childhood imposed their faith on them.

[The Feylands]

So, no, Christianity is in zero ways a Socialist cult.

Indeed it isn't. It's an utopian, proto-socialist subversive doomsday cult who's followers later adopted some "pagan" values, traditions and beliefs.

And even if that is nice, there is always the risk of X-tians lapsing back into the religion's founding values. Which happens now and then.

"Family Values in Christianity?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEqoltgSQE

[Nordengrund]

Mine were predestined.

[Sovaal]

Yah. Maybe not your choice, such as with forced conversions and such, but still a choice.

[Korhal IVV]

So, no, Christianity is in zero ways a Socialist cult.

Indeed it isn't. It's an utopian, proto-socialist subversive doomsday cult who's followers later adopted some "pagan" values, traditions and beliefs.

And even if that is nice, there is always the risk of X-tians lapsing back into the religion's founding values. Which happens now and then.

"Family Values in Christianity?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEqoltgSQE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What. The video's source is beyond pathetic in trying to bring down Christianity by picking on overused arguments like "muh Inquisition", an obvious skewing of Jesus' statement, and so and so.

There is nothing in the video or the sourcw that flinched me by even an inch, as I am already aware of the history as per me reading a kiloton of books on church history. This in fact looks like more an exposition of anti-Roman Catholic news, and technically speaking I shouldn't care since I am Calvinist but whatever. You will all probably start screaming "NOOOO TRRRRUEEEEE SCOTSMAAAAN" all over again when I start smashing this vase to bits. It is honestly funny when you generalize the faith as bad when every religion has its own fair share of idiots in them. You honestly took the selfish and BLATANTLY un-Christian behaviour of Inquisitors, kidnappers, and other kinds of reprobates as "Oh My LoOk ChRiStIaNiTy Is EvIl" when you aren't stopping to consider what the teachings of Christ really are. If they do not follow what Christ said, why call them Christian at all? They are just like wolves with sheep's clothing in the flock. They are the epitome of heretics and the false believers. Taking part in terrible acts like human trafficking is indicative of the absence of God's justification of the individual. All these people were doing was to violate extremely basic principles of Christianity; enough to warrant that the adage of "Christian" be removed from them and replaced with "Chaos Worshipper".

I can go and crack this piece of propaganda piece by piece and then burn it in the pyre, but I don't have the time to do so right now, and probably pointless since you will just resort to the classic No True Scotsman shtick.

[Hanafuridake]

I've been ranked in top 10% for most WA endorsements and my nation isn't in the WA.

It's just a game.

Hell, my nation is a fictional take on a fiction, so it is even further removed from reality...

Mine is literally Heian Japan in space with a lesbian aristocracy.

Either this game shouldn't be taken seriously or Elon Musk needs to offer me a job quick.

[The Feylands]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What. The video's source is beyond pathetic in trying to bring down Christianity by picking on overused arguments like "muh Inquisition", an obvious skewing of Jesus' statement, and so and so.

There is nothing in the video or the sourcw that flinched me by even an inch, as I am already aware of the history as per me reading a kiloton of books on church history. This in fact looks like more an exposition of anti-Roman Catholic news, and technically speaking I shouldn't care since I am Calvinist but whatever. You will all probably start screaming "NOOOO TRRRRUEEEEE SCOTSMAAAAN" all over again when I start smashing this vase to bits. It is honestly funny when you generalize the faith as bad when every religion has its own fair share of idiots in them. You honestly took the selfish and BLATANTLY un-Christian behaviour of Inquisitors, kidnappers, and other kinds of reprobates as "Oh My LoOk ChRiStIaNiTy Is EvIl" when you aren't stopping to consider what the teachings of Christ really are. If they do not follow what Christ said, why call them Christian at all? They are just like wolves with sheep's clothing in the flock. They are the epitome of heretics and the false believers. Taking part in terrible acts like human trafficking is indicative of the absence of God's justification of the individual. All these people were doing was to violate extremely basic principles of Christianity; enough to warrant that the adage of "Christian" be removed from them and replaced with "Chaos Worshipper".

I can go and crack this piece of propaganda piece by piece and then burn it in the pyre, but I don't have the time to do so right now, and probably pointless since you will just resort to the classic No True Scotsman shtick.

You're a Calvinist? Woah. That guy was ten times worse than the RCC. Doing X-tianity in a manner worse than Saudi Arabia.

John Calvin staunchly believed that executing unrepentant heretics was justified

(as a comparison, the KSA doesn't execute Shiites for their beliefs, only ISIS does that)

the continued to believe that Old Testament capital offenses should be enforced today– such as rebellious children being executed?

(okay I know that's just biblical x-tianity... even though people pretend it's not..)

Did you know that when one individual in Geneva had the gall to call Calvin an “ambitious and haughty hypocrite” Calvin conceded to having him arrested, tortured, nailed to a stake and then beheaded for heresy? Did you know that during his influential, pastoral rule over Geneva there were dozens of recorded executions–including drowning unmarried, pregnant women? Did you know that one of John Calvin’s friends implored him to repent of his despotism and departure from Christ’s mercy, stating, “If Christ himself came to Geneva he would be crucified” (see article below).

https://atheologyintension.com/2015/04/ ... -to-grind/

(And this source is a Christian himself btw..)

I'd say one could well be entirely justified in feeling that for the sake of protecting humanity, Calvinism and everyone of its descendant sects should be sanctioned as terrorism. Or why not Christianity and Islam altogether? Not feasible of course, but entirely justified by a simple look at history. -.-

But... in the defence of the RCC, their former opposition to "freedom of religion" at least kept extremist sects that took the bible literally suppressed, thank God. Which probably, on the average, prevents more suffering that it causes... considering that literalist X-tianity advocates beating babies for the good of their salvation, since thinking freely is a revolt against "God" (YHWH).

"In order to form the minds of children,the first thing to bedone is toconquer their will, and bring them to an obedienttemperament. To inform the understanding is a work of time,and with children it must proceed by slow degrees as they areable to bear it.

http://www.gracebaptistmississauga.com/ ... earing.pdf

I'd rather argue that YHWH is a demonic entity and a supernatural totalitarian enslaver that everyone deserves to be liberated from. I experienced liberation from the demon. You may, as well.

[Free Arabian Nation]

I've been ranked in top 10% for most WA endorsements and my nation isn't in the WA.

It's just a game.

Hell, my nation is a fictional take on a fiction, so it is even further removed from reality...

Then you have me, a nation based on a book based on socialpolitical events that would probably not exist in the book due to circumstances.

Yeah, it's a game.

Anyways, my belief is not a choice, as a choice would imply the fact of my belief is a debatable opinion.

[Hakons]

I was raised Methodist and I'll be Catholic this Easter, so it's a choice. We all have free will and freedom of thought. Some may be forced into religion or irreligion, but they will always possess their thoughts. One may be forced to or barred from Church, but that doesn't change one's heart.

Indeed it isn't. It's an utopian, proto-socialist subversive doomsday cult who's followers later adopted some "pagan" values, traditions and beliefs.

And even if that is nice, there is always the risk of X-tians lapsing back into the religion's founding values. Which happens now and then.

"Family Values in Christianity?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEqoltgSQE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What. The video's source is beyond pathetic in trying to bring down Christianity by picking on overused arguments like "muh Inquisition", an obvious skewing of Jesus' statement, and so and so.

There is nothing in the video or the sourcw that flinched me by even an inch, as I am already aware of the history as per me reading a kiloton of books on church history. This in fact looks like more an exposition of anti-Roman Catholic news, and technically speaking I shouldn't care since I am Calvinist but whatever. You will all probably start screaming "NOOOO TRRRRUEEEEE SCOTSMAAAAN" all over again when I start smashing this vase to bits. It is honestly funny when you generalize the faith as bad when every religion has its own fair share of idiots in them. You honestly took the selfish and BLATANTLY un-Christian behaviour of Inquisitors, kidnappers, and other kinds of reprobates as "Oh My LoOk ChRiStIaNiTy Is EvIl" when you aren't stopping to consider what the teachings of Christ really are. If they do not follow what Christ said, why call them Christian at all? They are just like wolves with sheep's clothing in the flock. They are the epitome of heretics and the false believers. Taking part in terrible acts like human trafficking is indicative of the absence of God's justification of the individual. All these people were doing was to violate extremely basic principles of Christianity; enough to warrant that the adage of "Christian" be removed from them and replaced with "Chaos Worshipper".

I can go and crack this piece of propaganda piece by piece and then burn it in the pyre, but I don't have the time to do so right now, and probably pointless since you will just resort to the classic No True Scotsman shtick.

I would advise against arguing with Feylands. They have quite a convoluted view of "Abrahamites" (they also dislike Islam and Judaism). I'm hardly an example of this, but we should also keep in mind how we post when we're representing Christianity.