|
Post by ringmasterrob on Feb 9, 2005 17:12:15 GMT
Please enlighten us to your religious beliefs, or just discuss your opinions of religion as a whole in this thread. Please try and keep it civil, respectful and polite, otherwise posts WILL be deleted to avoid a fiasco like the previous incarnation of this thread. Discuss away!
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Feb 12, 2005 18:53:44 GMT
First, I'd like to give you some background. I was raised a catholic until I was sixteen, including getting taught by nuns all the way through school. I've been on religious retreats, batpised, confirmed and only missed four sunday services between being born and being 16. Used to say nightly prayers and go to 8am mass in the convent during Lent...in primary school. Suffice to say, I had religion shoved down my throat my whole life. Over time, I began to question and reject many of the tenets of roman catholicism, and then of wider christianity. Eventually I became more aware of alternative relgions as my school started to let in (gasp), people of other faiths, or no faith. My best mate at school is now a priest for f**k's sake. I am not unaware of how organised religion works. Was it Karl Marx who said that religion was the opiate of the masses? IMHO, that's quite an accurate description.
Anyway, over time I have read widely, had loads of debates online and off, and formed the following beliefs, or opinions:
There is no monotheistic deity, who just happens to look like a human.
There are no gods. I believe that the thousands of gods worshipped by everyone from the mayans to the american indians to the romans and greeks, the hindus and just about every other organised religion and cultish off-shoot merely satisfy man's desire to believe in something greater.
I believe that organised religion has profoundly been a force more for (to put it simplistically) bad than good. From the crusades, to islamic fundamentalists ruling nations and oppressing its people, to missionaries indoctrinating african tribes to this day, to the current war on terror, which being led by an evangelical, under-educated, criminal, dangerous frat-boy, might as well be called the war on islam.
I do not believe in heaven, hell, or purgatory. The problem with major religions is that they are constructs of mankind, and as such subject to our weaknesses.
I believe that people should be free to practice religion, but not be allowed to actively convert others to it.
I believe that the religious right is dangerously close to the seats of power in the west, and that their influence is damaging.
I believe that all religion merely symbolises man's fundamental need to believe in something more powerful to explain the unexplained.
I believe that science has served to disprove the majority of religious theory. The study of evolution, through forensic anthropology, geology, paleontology and other disciplines provides substantial proof.
The point of science, it that it is continually questioned, refined and analysed. Scientific theories such as evolution, atomic theory, germs, gravity, thermodynamics and countless more stand up to constant scrutiny.
Religion does not stand up to scrutiny, because by its very nature, faith precludes questioning. This idea is another construct of man, of religious leaders who wanted to centralise power. The vatican, anyone ?
I do not believe that religious beliefs should be held sacred automatically. It is completely correct to question someone's beliefs if you find them misguided. After all, how many atheists have been subject to misguided abuse on this very forum, by relgious people?
The fact that organised religion is controlled fanatically by an elite raises a lot of questions.
I believe that many religous people are good people, but misguided. Many people pratice religion in a harmless personal way, and get something from it. Fair play to them, it's just not how I choose to live my life.
I believe that children should not be made to follow the religion of the parents, because at a young age, children are very susceptible and easily influenced. Without being able to make an informed decision, children are effectively indoctrinated into a way of life that they may not have chosen otherwise.
At the ages of 6 and 12, I had to take part in a ceremony where I had to recite a number of rules dedicating myself to god and rejecting satan and his freaky mates. I had no idea what I was doing, I just did what I was told to do.
Forcing children to go into a darkened room and confess their sins to a priest behind a screen is cruel. For those who haven't done it, it's a frightening process. It was common to try and feign illness to not have to go in there and make shit up to then be rewarded with clemency after saying a few hail marys and an our father.
Religion distorts, deceives and controls. To subscribe to any religious belief is to submit yourself to altering your behaviour, to following a moral or religious code which defines your actions, criminalises your thoughts and instills fear.
I believe that I am better off out of that environment.
|
|
|
Post by ooohcarrots on Feb 17, 2005 0:07:21 GMT
Hey sorry I disappeared - computer broke down... so yeah thank God the last thread got closed down it was really annoying me...
I agree with Modeski on many points - I hate relgion because it does put people through a whole load of stuff that just isn't necessary. I love God, God hates religion, I hate religion - makes sense eh?
You all know my beliefs so I dont need to write much more there do i?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Feb 17, 2005 17:06:47 GMT
It was Joseph Stalin who said religion is the opiate of the masses, not Neitzche. But I still think Stalin had a point. Take a look at the article I wrote about religion for more on that.
Not sure about the idea that God hates religion. It was kinda his idea (alledgedly), with the whole ten commandments shebang onward. JESUS, on the other hand, most probably did hate and despise religion in any form, as it served simply as a tool to those who would use it to bolster their own power, and that's one of the reasons I find Peter so damned suspicious. I don't believe Jesus was right, and I don't believe there is a God, but I DO believe that the entire history of the Church from Peter onward was a brutal attempt at perverting what Jesus had said to shift the balance of power in religion, and not destroy it as Christ probably wanted.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 17, 2005 17:53:17 GMT
(Welcome back, Carrots!)
I used to be Jewish till I was about 15, then I became an atheist. In both of these states people are essentially blinded one way or the other by the rigid nature of religious doctrines. So initially I hated religious anathema, then later I became dismissive of religion altogether.
Since I was about 20 I've been agnostic. I've recognised that religion doesn't have to be so rigidly defined or followed according to the word of others. You can be religious in your own way and in your own right without following anyone else's terms. And although I'm sure that no religious scripture, literature or orthodoxy can be literally true, I do acknowledge that there are crumbs of truth, distorted or scrambled, hidden away beneath the surface. My remaining atheist feelings, such as they are, are for organised/mass religions instead.
I've often thought that all quests into 'ultimate truth', be they scientific or religious, are just feeling different parts of the elephant. (For anyone here who doesn't know the parable I'm referring to, I may explain what that expression means some other time. Let me know if you want me to.)
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Feb 17, 2005 21:00:44 GMT
My experiences with religion are uncannily similar to HStorm's, I was a Methodist until I was 15, but instead of switching to being an atheist I became an agnostic. My experiences with the Church weren't too bad, although I never really questioned or had a deep-rooted faith in Christianity, like Modeski, I just did what I was told to. When I was about 14 and in the true 'young adult' branch of Sunday school some 'youth leaders' were brought in to teach us. Their ideas were pretty radical and they were exceptionally patronising and pandering to the typical stereotype of youths to get their point across; "God's like a fridge because he's cool!"
This type of Christian was what drove me away from the church as they are often quite naive, ignorant and, some would say, brainwashed. Basically the traditional Church worship was something they tried to move our group away from, in favour of ‘yoof’ events such as concerts and clubbing with a Christian spin. There was also the premise of trying to push us to bring others to church with us and to make out that Christianity was ‘cool’ and ‘happening’, most definitely a turn off. To this end I feel that 'hand-me-down' religion isn’t always a good idea, passing on a religion to your children is a nice idea, but often it's not so much passed on as it is FORCED upon.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Apr 6, 2005 12:50:33 GMT
Hey, apologies for reviving an old thread, but I just came across one of the greatest posts I ever read on religion, and would like to share it.
Consider the power of the position of pope. In this current climate, the following paragraphs become all the more significant.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 15, 2005 15:05:20 GMT
Sorry to bring up this topic again but I have something interesting to share. Someone whose blog I have been reading for quite some time recently uploaded several old entries, many on the subject of religion and Christianity. He mentioned some lesser know things about the Bible that have been altered by the Church in the past, here's one thing he had to say that surprised me:
I sure know that when I used to go to Church we were told it was Mary Magdalene who anointed his feet and I have definitely heard it said by religious people that she was a prostitute. Does anyone else know about this and have any further information?
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jun 15, 2005 18:17:13 GMT
I remember being told that it was Mary Magdalene who did the whole anointing thing. However, being a catholic, I probably wasn't told at the time that she was a whore. I've since heard it from so many different sources that I would be surprised if she wasn't. [Edit by RMR: 'Whore' removed from word censor for the benefit of this topic]
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 16, 2005 10:07:16 GMT
Well, I've done a very small amount of research into this, mostly off www.magdalene.org and here are the most interesting things I have found so far. The big question answered: About her role in the actual Bible: So very blatant sexism on the part of the early Christian Church and misinterpreting her as a low class character. Pretty harsh stuff all in all.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jun 17, 2005 16:57:36 GMT
I believe that perhaps I may be of assistance?
Magdalene was painted as a whore in the early third century AD by Byzantine priests, shortly before the Romans converted to Christianity. Prior to that point she was generally regarded as either Christ's wife, or at very least his deputy. In later bibles, most of her lines were given to James and Peter, while she herself gradually lost more and more standing until she was a worthless prostitute. However, her surname does give clue as to who she really was; the Magdalene line traces it's ancestry back to King Solomon. Which makes prostitution a very unlike profession for her.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 18, 2005 8:33:22 GMT
Well that certainly sheds some light on the matter... (On a side note, welcome back Naselus! It's always nice to see you here! )
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 14, 2005 13:16:42 GMT
Ah, the beliefs thread. Its about time I returned to my old haunts (am I getting withdrawal symptoms? ) Right - something new. I gave up trying to convert you lot a l o n g time ago, so I'm not going to bother bringing up bad memories. First off, this a serious statement from me and will be kept to throughout the thread - I will not make any attempt to force anything on you guys, and I won't bring up any issue concerning the eons old "Chistians vs. Atheists" argument - I think we've done that one to death. So, my first suggestion for a new topic is the following: The Da Vinci Code. Have you read it? Do you believe it? Got any pointers on it you'd like to talk about? I read the first half of it a couple of months ago, and it got me thinking. Yes, I do think its a load of rubbish in terms of the infamous conspiracy theory that it details, but it has sparked a huge debate about the whole Jesus having a baby and other bits of crap (trying not to sound too biased here).
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 14, 2005 13:32:03 GMT
"The Da Vinci Code. Have you read it? Do you believe it? Got any pointers on it you'd like to talk about?"
No I haven't read it, nor am I going to after reading a substantial list of errors ranging from gaping plot holes to simple factual errors. I think it's now a widely accepted fact that it's all a load of twaddle...
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 14, 2005 15:34:22 GMT
The Da Vinci code isn't all twaddle, just mostly. Some of it's accurate(ish), like Constantine's grand meeting on how to organise his Church. That genuinely happened. Oddly, despite the fact that there's almost no surviving information about it, the author's able to fill in all the gaps. Funny, that.
However, while 'The Da Vinci Code' was generally baised twaddle (and pissed off a lot of serious scholars even more than it did the Catholic Church), the book it based it's information on ('Holy blood, Holy Grail') is deeply factual and extremely thoroughly researched. It's author spent ten years looking for the Grail and eventually came back with the idea of Sang rael, the bloodline of Christ.
And it would be hugely suprising if Jesus didn't have a baby, as we've pointed out in the 'Jesus Christ was married' thread. Unless he was gay, which I doubt even more.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 16, 2005 12:52:35 GMT
I've yet to see any proof on this forum that Jesus was married, had children, or was gay.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 16, 2005 13:00:43 GMT
True, it's not conclusively proven, but that hasn't stopped you believing other things, has it? Anyway, the main reason to support Christ being married is cultural pressures. For a man to reach the age of thirty in the New-Testament era was for him to be approaching the end of his natural life. The average lifespan for a man was 35, for women 28. Men would generally marry by 16 and women by 12, and there were extremely few exceptions to the rule. Holy men did it too, as did bisexuals, and even several classes of slaves. In fact, just about the only reason you wouldn't have been married at least once by the time you reached thirty is if you were gay. Oh, and they found that Jesus bar Josef tomb a few years back that had an Urn for Jesus, one for his wife, and three for his children. Which may or may not have been the Jesus, but since the resurrection myth only surfaced about 100 years after his death it's more than likely it is.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 19, 2005 9:38:16 GMT
Nobody f*cks with the Jesus man. Nas is absolutely right about the life-span thing. Customs then were (by definition) archaic, and it would have been most unusual for Jesus not to be married off. Mind you, he might have had trouble pulling birds: J: Hiiiii, how you doing? I'm the son of god, doncha know. Girl: Whatever, you and a million other guys. Men! Think they're god's gift...
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 19, 2005 10:15:19 GMT
Seeing as Jesus was the son of God and was totally different to anything anyone at that time had encountered before, it is extremely likely that he didn't marry. Come on, if you were just a regular joe in Biblical times, would you normally see a guy with 12 of his mates walking around blaspheming against the state religion, performing miracles and dissing Pharisees? He never conformed to the society of the time.
Ergo: He most probably did not marry.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 19, 2005 10:51:33 GMT
Seeing as Jesus was the son of God and was totally different to anything anyone at that time had encountered before, it is extremely likely that he didn't marry. Come on, if you were just a regular joe in Biblical times, would you normally see a guy with 12 of his mates walking around blaspheming against the state religion, performing miracles and dissing Pharisees? He never conformed to the society of the time. Ergo: He most probably did not marry. Thing was, he wasn't the son of god (come on, havent you seen Seinfeld? every jewish mother thinks their son is god's gift )., there is no such thing as god, and the bible conveniently misses out about 18 years of his life. If you think about it rationally, there were probably other people as rebellious as Jesus at the time. I doubt he was the only person in first-century Jerusalem who spoke out against the powers-that-be. There is only anecdotal evidence of miracles, from people with mysteriously western names. (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?.....Please.) Everyone hangs around with a few of their mates, and has done since time immemorial. A bunch of twenty-something fishermen and joiners would be a common sight even in Jesus' time.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 20, 2005 17:01:15 GMT
Seeing as Jesus was the son of God and was totally different to anything anyone at that time had encountered before, it is extremely likely that he didn't marry. Come on, if you were just a regular joe in Biblical times, would you normally see a guy with 12 of his mates walking around blaspheming against the state religion, performing miracles and dissing Pharisees? He never conformed to the society of the time. Ergo: He most probably did not marry. Allegedly. Dude, don't try and use the 'son of God' thing again, it doesn't count as solid evidence. Especially since Jesus didn't think he was the son of God, his contemporaries didn't, and indeed no-one even raised the possibility until 100 years after the event of his death. He was always recorded as a mortal prophet, and the majority of Christian groups prior to the 'Romanisation' of the church placed him there. The whole son of God thing was borrowed from Greco-Roman pagan religions. Also, Jesus conformed pretty thoroughly in almost every other aspect aside from his religious philosophies. Hence the conplete failure of the bible to mention anything from the 'lost years'... It's because he was almost certainly just a carpenter, paying his taxes and going to the temple to pray. If you want to fact check any of this, then one of the other threads (I think it's the Jesus was married one) contains the URL for earlychristianwritings.com. They've got a vast online database of christian writings, several of which pre-date the four gospels you're willing to listen to, and many of which paint a far more human picture of the Big J. Take a look. Oh, and why exactly would it be so likely the son of God wouldn't marry? Surely him not marrying and just choosing to hang out with twelve guys and a couple of hookers suggests he was far, far worse than a bloke with a wife and two kids would be?
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 21, 2005 10:21:28 GMT
[quote author=modeski board=miscell thread=1107969135 post=1127127093Thing was, he wasn't the son of god (come on, havent you seen Seinfeld? every jewish mother thinks their son is god's gift )., there is no such thing as god.[/quote] Now who isn't providing proof, you hypocrite! For someone who frequently demands proof for any line that I type, I find this post hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 21, 2005 11:59:52 GMT
[quote author=modeski board=miscell thread=1107969135 post=1127127093Thing was, he wasn't the son of god (come on, havent you seen Seinfeld? every jewish mother thinks their son is god's gift )., there is no such thing as god. Now who isn't providing proof, you hypocrite! For someone who frequently demands proof for any line that I type, I find this post hilarious.[/quote] Wait, proof for what - the jewish mother/son stereotype (which was a *joke* btw). Or do you mean there being no such thing as god? If it is the latter, then consider this point (and I'll make it simple): [glow=red,7,700]The burden of proof is not on me, because you cannot prove something's nonexistence. You have to prove that something DOES exist, not that it DOESN'T.[/glow]Are you clear yet? If not, please refer to previous beliefs threads, where we went over this issue already. [edit - comedy glow effect]
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 21, 2005 14:53:48 GMT
Liq, we've been through the logical fallacies before now. Many times. You're going for the same 'leprechauns must exist because no-one's proven they don't' angle again, and it's bollocks.
Why exactly did you raise the issue of Jesus being married/having kids, if all you were going to do after we begin debating it is fall straight back to your old trick of saying everything is how you say because that is the will of God? It's poor debating technique. We look at evidence, proof, and logical conjecture based on the two, rather than faith and unfounded beliefs.
Please, please, PLEASE go and research the issue a little more thoroughly, and learn to accept the fact that your copy of the bible is NOT the word of God, or indeed the word of anyone who knew Jesus, or was even alive in the same century. There are more than a few examples of the bible being completely wrong about certain PROVEN matters (e.g. rabbits are claimed to chew the cud, which is impossible without at least two stomachs. Are we to believe the cows made the cud and then handed it over to the rabbits?), meaning that it's not a reliable document. Therefore, try to avoid sweeping statements involving God, who's entire existence is only validated from the bible we have already noted is INVALID.
Also, while it is true we have no proof of our own views, we are basing them on sociological pressures and known historical events. On the other hand, you base your assumption that he didn't marry on the idea he didn't conform. In keeping with this, I'll just add a few other things that Jesus did usiong your logic.
Jesus didn't conform to Judean society. Judean society did not believe in the consumption of human flesh. Ergo, Jesus ate only human children.
Jesus didn't conform to Judean society. Judean society felt masturbation in public was rude. Ergo, Jesus wanked constantly in polite company.
Jesus didn't conform to Judean society. Judean society was made up of humans. Ergo, Jesus was a large monkey.
Hence, with your logic, Jesus was a man-eating monkey who jerked off at your auntie Flo's funeral. Which means you're right, he probably wasn't married, but also means your religion has failed to mention a great many things.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 21, 2005 14:59:19 GMT
Hence, with your logic, Jesus was a man-eating monkey who jerked off at your auntie Flo's funeral. Which means you're right, he probably wasn't married, but also means your religion has failed to mention a great many things. Now that is a guy who I'd worship. Or buy a beer, at least.
|
|