Do you also find religious debate quite scary?

Question

Hi. I find it quite scary reading peoples opinions about their religion or lack of. Some are just extremely convinced in their truth. I'm actually quite scared. I'm scared of the intense feelings and also scared about making the right decision.

Do you also find the religious debate quite scary?

Answer 1

Sometimes, but in the end, it's like debating on who would win in a fight between Spiderman and Batman.

Answer 2

I personally love religious debate. I have found a religion that I am comfortable with but I will not discount any one else's religion. If they believe in the three headed goat herder then I would love to know why they place their belief there.
The decision that you make about your religious beliefs should be your own. If you are comfortable with the religion that you have chosen then be happy and don't let anyone tell you that you are wrong. But you should always keep an open mind, you have the right to change how you feel or how you believe if you think that something more logical or belief worthy comes along.

Although religious fanaticism can be scary at times you can't do anything about people who have closed their minds and hearts to the rest of the world. Read Karen Armstrong's book "The Battle for God". It's a great book about fanaticism.

Answer 3

nope. Been there, lived through the fear and decided i could do without it. Religion like politics is a very personal subject to people and they defend it with more passion than they defend most other things in their life. But if you have been reading the Q&As here, you know that with the huge number of religious/ nonreligious beliefs, it's impossible to knw if you are right or wrong. Each religion says theirs is the one and only and you cannot have theirs and believe in the other so don't be afraid of making the wrong decision. There is no wrong decision when there is no way to verify what's right or wrong. Pick the one that fits you the most. That's how people choose religions/nonreligious beliefs; either they stick with the one they were raised in or they explore the options and choose the most suitable.

Answer 4

I used to find religious debate scary. That was before I really understood the topic and my opinion about it.

It's often scary to discuss a topic that you aren't confident about. It is like giving a class presentation without being prepared.

It might also be scary to encounter an argument you hadn't thought of.

Finally, it might also be scary to admit that you don't have all the answers, or admit that you are wrong when proven so.

I find that most people who are too afraid or unwilling to discuss their beliefs about a certain subject (religion in particular) are afraid to admit that they might have been wrong this whole time, or are afraid to really examine their own beliefs.

If you approach a subject with the purpose of sticking to your beliefs, you might be afraid that you'll fail or that you'll start to doubt yourself.

If you approach a subject with the purpose to learn more about it, your friend's view, and your own view, you have nothing to fear.

It can be hard and scary to learn and grow, but less so if you approach the subject honestly.

Answer 5

No. I have to admit, I'm sometimes shocked at the fact that there are actually people in the world who hold opinions like "Young Earth" or who expect The Rapture within their lifetimes - I mean, I know they're out there, but when I'm confronted with them, I just can't believe they're for real. But scary? No. If anything, bracing. This is what reasonable, responsible, forward-thinking people - the people upon whom the future of the human race actually hinges - are up against.

Answer 6

I find it nice for people to debate over everything, included religion, open-mindedly and respectfully. Learning others' opinions helps people to develop themselves. I also like reading other religions' holy books and learning the way they pray, etc. But when the religion theme is so strong in movies, or books etc. I can sometimes get uneasy. Religions don't need advertisement, but I suppose in every religion, the believers mission is to 'tell' about the truth, not to 'advertise' it. Consequently, my opinion is that debating is good when done in a polite and limited way.

Answer 7

The opposite of love is not hate but fear. Fear makes people say and do some amazingly destructive things.

Again and again the message comes up in the Bible, "Do not be afraid," "Love one another," "Love your enemies," "Peace be with you." If you believe in a God of justice and mercy, that God is not going to trick you into hellfire with a belief test. What kind of afterlife qualification is that? "By their fruits you shall know them." It is one thing to prick a conscience awake, but religionists who promote pointless anxiety and exclusion are not bearing Christian "fruit". Jesus' yoke is easy, and his burden light, designed to free you from sin, not exchange it for the burden of legal and fideistic hair-splitting.

That was one of Jesus' main criticisms of the religious authorities of his day, scrupulous observance of the details of the Law without any regard for the meaning, the spirit of the Law. Understanding Jesus' command of love, humility and service matters, not "predestination", "dispensationalism", "papal infallibility" or any other man-made doctrinal sausage ground out of the Bible.

The more insistent a preacher is that HIS way is the only way to interpret the Bible, the more worried he is and the more he needs to be validated by others. He's so concerned about his theological posture that he never has time to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted or visit the imprisoned.

I occasionally think about the possibility of such a narrow, exclusionary viewpoint gaining enough predominance to influence public policy. But the very damage it would inflict on people insures that it can't prevail. Sooner or later, people wise up. A God who plays mind games with the destiny of fallible, vulnerable creatures is too petty to deserve the title. We KNOW what is right. We don't need to be convinced of the folly of the endless search for selfish security, or of the ultimate wisdom of "making friends with the goods of this world", so that you might pile up heavenly treasure. If one's insistence that salvation is based solely on faith keeps one from doing any practical works at all, he becomes one of those "noisy gongs" Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians. As James said, "Faith without works is dead," and by "works", he didn't just mean preaching.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss ways of thinking about God, but I'm confident that no one gets it perfectly right or perfectly wrong. If I find a viewpoint intimidating me, I remind myself that it comes from a fellow human being.

Answer 8

No I do not find religious debate scary. What I do find as troubling is that those who often engage in debate are not fully aware of their presuppositions and are basically talking past one another.

One cannot simply state “I believe in {evolution, God, young earth, etc.} because anything else is not rational”, for to say this or similar things is irrelevant until one has first defined their presuppositions of truth, knowledge, and morality. On the topic of "facts" and rationality:

No person attempts to make their interpretation honest to “the facts”, but rather “the facts” are determined by reference to the individual’s system of interpretation.

Therefore, our systems of interpretation (presuppositions) determine how we look at the world. No one is a neutral explorer.

The cumulative case arguments for the existence/non-existence of God are often constructed without proper consciousness of the system of interpretation being applied to the evidence.

As the arguments are presented in this fashion, they purport the myth of objectivity. Therefore, everyone should quit acting as if they objectively evaluate the evidences in some neutral laboratory before arriving at the likely rational conclusion. Both explorers (believers and non-believers) possess different commitments that control their interpretations of the evidences.

As a Christian, I presuppose a Triune God exists. Therefore, I am obligated to see all of reality in the light of who God is and what He has revealed to me in His word, the Bible and in the world around me.

While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world I do not fully understand or experience with my five senses, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all objectively accept, using our presuppositions and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality, for they do not seek this absoluteness in all things. Hence, their epistemologies are not fully formed; they speak without proper understanding of the nature of knowledge.

Why is it we can believe in many things using rational analysis, even when what we believe is only partially known, yet when it comes to matters like a supreme being, we suddenly want the "show me beyond a shadow of doubt" proof? As Aristotle once stated, "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

When evaluating evidences for belief, I base my judgments on the Bible and God’s revelations in the world around me. These are my presuppositions. Obviously, my presuppositions may not quite line up with your basic beliefs about life. Then where does that leave us? Are believers and non-believers left to guffaw at one another while understanding that **both sides** possess presuppositions that taint the evidence? No. Even due to the fact that we possess different paradigms for interpreting our reality, I believe that by weighing the coherence of our worldviews much fruitful dialogue is available from this point.

In short, unless two parties to any discussion about belief/non-belief define their inherent presuppositions and the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity (epistemology), there can be no meaningful dialog.

Answer 9

yes, to find people all confused and mixed up about the Bible. theres countless people out there who do not even read the Bible and claims that its false people will see in Jesus's second coming that the Bible is true and that Jesus is the only way. "I am the way" John Chapter something verse something

Answer 10

Yup, too much lack of live and let live is indeed scary.