On The Topic of Religion [Archive]

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 07:34 AM

Since many have asked me to elaborate upon my religious leanings, I shall do my best in order to explain them as they are complex, interweaving, and ever-changing.
As religion ought to be.

I suppose I should start at the beginning. I am what they used to call, "a gifted child" only now they call it ADD. I was born in Salem, Oregon but grew up in the hell that was Eastern Oregon (Oregon's retarded siamese twin brother). I was an angry, oft violent youth. Eventually after all this time all I earned was the following:
A partially crushed skull (see post in picture thread) equaling a disjointed right eye.
A shattered right hand + wrist
Multiple cracked ribs
Fractures in both knees
A severly broken, never set big toe
A broken nose
A stab wound in my left shoulder
Several knife scars about the upper body and arms
Split knuckles on both hands
So after I sort of woke up one day, looked at myself, and thought "what a fucking mess." I realized that violence was pointless, all it leads to is the pain and suffering of both parties. I realized that I had done many bad things over the course of my life and I felt greatly saddened. I decided that the best way to end the misery would be to atone for my sins. Yet what church welcomingly accepts rebelious youth (preferably without brainwashing them). Turns out the Lutherans do! I started regularly attending church and discovered it to be highly enjoyable. I was later baptized into the Lutheran Church. At the age of 14. I completed the teachings of the Lutherans and eventually was confirmed into their church. It was all fine and dandy for awhile but after I finished reading the bible (turns out that takes a loooong time) I decided that it was time to branch out and see what the other faiths had to offer. At the age of 16 I ceased attending Lutheran church and studied religion as a hobby and pasttime. I read through the Torah, parts of the Talmud, the Quran (an english translation was remarkably hard to track down), the teachings of Lao Tzu (the Tao Te Ching and the Hua Hu Ching to be specific), the philosophical musings of many including, but not limited to, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbs, etc. I am currently reading thru (and very much enjoying) Confucius' Analects. I have met with as many local religious leaders as possible, including the leader of my former church Pastor Laurie (a good woman, excellent at drawing parallels between biblical passages and real-world examples).
I am trying my best to incorporate elements from all faiths into my own while trying to maintain a faithful Christian base. I believe that Jesus died to save all our sins (even the ones we haven't committed yet), whether we accept him or not (for if not accepting him is a sin, then it is forgiven). While trying to maintain the eastern simplicity of mind and calm spirit.

I welcome conversation with all faiths, creeds, and followings. If you have any sort of religious question of me, ask and I shall reply. If you wish to share your experiances with any sort of religion, then I would enjoy your tale. Tell me why you chose your faith (whatever it may be) and what led you to that choice. I find it all fascinating.

I actually found it so fascinating that I almost became a Theology or Philosophy major in college, but decided that money would be nice to have so I majored in business instead :O

Jay

04-21-2006, 07:46 AM

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 08:00 AM

There are a wealth of options for you to choose from!

I'm assuming that you wish to move yourself away from the more fantastical religions so I won't bother mentioning alternatives like Hinduism (fascinating ceremonies, plus Tantric sex!), Paganisms (the real ones), or Neo-Paganism (I really actually dislike this but thats another story).

I will however steer you towards the eastern religions + Nietzsche/Hobbs. Judging from your tone in the previous post I'll offer that you go out straight-away and purchase yourself a copy of the Tao Te Ching by the great Lao Tzu. It offers an amazing alternative look (apply Lao's criticisms on religions to catholicism and you get some spookilly accurate conclusions). Its not a long read and it informs you of how to purify your mind, thus becoming a better person, ultimately at one with the universe.

Friedrich Nietzsche (one of my personal favorites, absolutely amazing) and Thomas Hobbes (technically a political philosopher, but he's still relevant to this). My personal recommendation to you is the above "Tao Te Ching", and Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." You'll especially like Thus Spoke as it deals with how to make a religion out of avoiding religion.

Jay

04-21-2006, 08:05 AM

Sounds good, I'll look into that.

I'll just note at this point that I don't have a problem with religion itself, just the people who so willingly dive headfirst into this whole 'faith' deal, then berate the rest of society when they don't follow. The whole public eye ZOMG SAVIOUR WE MUST FOLLOW!! deal has put me off almost entirely.

But then, I wouldn't convert to Christianity if you paid me. Well... maybe if you paid me. :D

Cynic, born and bred. :gwitch:

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 08:09 AM

Cynic, born and bred.
“Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
~Lillian Hellman
;)

Jay

04-21-2006, 08:15 AM

"The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man and never fails to see a bad one. He is the human owl, vigilant in darkness and blind to light, mousing for vermin, and never seeing noble game. The cynic puts all human actions into two classes - openly bad and secretly bad."

~ Henry Ward Beecher.

:D

Jay

04-21-2006, 08:22 AM

"There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing."

~ Maya Angelou.

:rofl:!

But that's beside the point. Is there an online copy of Tao Te Ching that I can read? I'm sorely lacking in the money department.

BushyDough

04-21-2006, 08:48 AM

First question: Is there any sort of religion that doesn't require me to believe that a bearded bloke in rags walked on water, turned water into wine and rose from the dead?

I don't mind religion, but I also have ABSOLUTELY ZERO (and I mean zero) faith in this kind of thing. So I'm in a bit of a bind, as you see. :D

I would also refer you to Theravada Buddhism, a religion which I find myself leaning towards. I say leaning because I still have many questions about some of the deeper philosophies but as a whole I agree with what they teach. However, if someone was to ask me what my religion was I would say Buddhist.

The thing I like about Theravada Buddhism is the focus on the humanity of the Buddha. They dont try to tell you he is some god or that you should pray to him or what not. They also emphasize the fact that everyone must work for any bennifit they are to recieve. Personally, I think that any religion that tells you that you can get something for free (absolvement, eternal bliss etc.) without having to work for it is totaly false. Every other aspect of life shows us that we must work for our rewards. If you want good health eat right and excersize. If you want intellegence study hard and seek knowledge. Conversely, not doing these things will have detremental effects. Those who regularly eat unhealthy fattening foods and never excersize become fat and lazy. If you never read or exercize your mind it will become dull and uninteresting.

The main goal in Buddhism if, of course, to obtain enlightenment; or as the Buddha put it "to free yourself from craving and aversion." You do this through medditation, of which there are various types. Myself, I practice Vipassana (http://www.dhamma.org/). To get established in the tecnique it is recommended that you take a 10 day meditation retreat. It is completely free and accomidations are provided. More information is provided on the website I linked and I would also be happy to answer any questions you may have. The Vipassana Foundation has centers all over North America and worldwide including India, Japan, Australia, and New Zeland to name a few. Theravada Buddhism is not taught at these courses, nor are you required to be Buddhist to attend. They will accept anyone, of any religion or faith; however, I should point out that Buddhims is the basis behind the philosophies vocalized during the nightly disertations. This is not in an attempt to persuade you, but rather to explain some of the practices or answer some questions you may have. You are not asked to accept any of it, in fact the teacher (S.N. Goenka) encourages sceptisizm for how else do we learn? Instead he asks that you only focus on the practice of meditation which consists soley of observing your breath. Nothing more, or less. Sounds simple right? Well you would be surprised.

Ooops, sorry..I hope you're still with me. Guess I went on a bit of a rant there. I tend to do that when I feel passionatly about something (which consists of this and video games lol :frypan:). I understand if 10 days seems like a long time but I would really recommend it if you can get away. Or, if its the philosophies you are interested in I can recommend some of his books:

The Art of Living (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060637242/102-8008250-5944167?v=glance&n=283155)
Meditation Now: Inner Peace Through Inner Wisdom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1928706231/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/102-8008250-5944167?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

Or this list (http://www.dhammabooks.org.za/) of Theravada related material.

I hope thats usefull. And Beowulf I would love any insight you might posses on Theravada Buddhism vs Mahayana Buddhism :)

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 08:50 AM

But that's beside the point. Is there an online copy of Tao Te Ching that I can read? I'm sorely lacking in the money department.

Several full translations can be found here. (http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/ttc-list.html)

The one you should read first (before branching into the more complex translations) is Stan Rosenthal's translation, found here (http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/ttcstan3.html).

19. RETURNING TO NATURALNESS

It is better merely to live one's life,
realizing one's potential,
rather than wishing
for sanctification.

He who lives in filial piety and love
has no need of ethical teaching.

When cunning and profit are renounced,
stealing and fraud will disappear.
But ethics and kindness, and even wisdom,
are insufficient in themselves.

Better by far to see the simplicity
of raw silk's beauty
and the uncarved block;
to be one with onself,
and with one's brother.
It is better by far
to be one with the Tao,
developing selflessness,
tempering desire,
removing the wish,
but being compassionate.

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 09:05 AM

I hope thats usefull. And Beowulf I would love any insight you might posses on Theravada Buddhism vs Mahayana Buddhism
Well first I think its important, not discuss differences, but similarities between the classic sects. Of course Theravada is the older of the two but still shares many things with its newer cousin:
1. Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
2. The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
3. The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
4. The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Organization is the same in both schools.
5. Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
I know there are more but I can't remember any off the top of my head.

I think that the Mahayana truly do their best in trying to best represent the final teachings of Buddha. Although their claims that their "special teachings" were kept secret for 500 years (amongst Buddha's closest friends/followers), I doubt that its true. I like the fact that the Mahayana broke the Theravada goal down into the two "lower grades" of attainment (seems to be loads easier then actually becoming a Buddha, increases the esoteric appeal among followers). Its fairly easy to understand why Mahayana is called the Greater Vehicle as its true goal is to become an Arhant (or worthy one, one who has distinguished the truth from those around him and passes into Nirvana) which makes it easier for newbies to join. Also, I suppose the biggest distinction is that while Theravada is actually a philosophy, Mahayana has made the conversion to a real religion (this is of course a double-edged sword). Although I find their "three bodies of Buddha" situation a little dubious and lean more toward Theravada on the actual physical nature of Buddha (that he was a real person and a man, nothing more, nothing less, certainly not a god as Mahayana believes).

Again this is all I remember off the top of my head, I'll edit this if something else comes to mind.

BushyDough

04-21-2006, 09:27 AM

I would have to disagree with you on the fact that Theravada is just a philosophy and not a religion on the grounds that it posseses moral precepts by which to live your life. While other more debateable religions/philosophies like Daoism or Confucianism do posses a moral groundwork, I dont belive either of them posses distinct rules, but correct me if I'm wrong.

It is true that by practicing Mahayana you can achieve enlightenment "sooner" but only through Theravada can you attain full enlightenment. I put sooner in quotation marks because it is a very relative term. In either case it could take lifetimes :hat: . I also think that Mahayana became so popular in China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam because of its theory of merit. In Mahayana Buddhism it is believed that if you ask them to the Arhants will transfer some of thier merit to you. This is one part of Mahayana I have trouble accepting because, as I noted earlier, I really dont think there can be any rewards without work.

I do concur with your refutation of Buddha becoming a god. To me it seems to go against much of what Buddhism is teaching. The object it to be released from the cycle of rebirth so Buddha becoming a god seems kind of anticlimactic. According to Buddhist scriptures there are various levels of existence some of which can be equated with Christianities heaven and hell but Im not too well versed in that area. I think there are seven in total including our human existence...do you know anything of them?

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 09:39 AM

I know a marginal amount but decided to look it up rather make myself look like an ass.

I found some basic info here. (http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/family-tree.shtml#ten-worlds)

Six Worlds, or Six States of Existence (Samsara)Six States of Existence
Transmigration or Reincarnation
Six States of Existence (Reincarnation or Transmigration)
All sentient beings are trapped in the cycle of suffering (Sanskrit = samsara), the cycle of death and rebirth, unless they can break free by achieving enlightenment. There are six states in the cycle. The lowest three states are called the three evil paths, or three bad states. They are (1) people in hells; (2) hungry ghosts; (3) animals. The higher three states are (4) Asuras; (5) Humans; (6) Devas. Upon death, all beings in the Six Realms are reborn into a lower or a higher realm depending on their actions while still alive. Among the six, only humans can attain enlightenment, for the Deva -- who are allotted a very long, happy life as a reward for previous good deeds -- are hindered by their great happiness and thus they fail to recognize the truth of suffering. The Deva ultimately "use up" their good karma after countless years in paradise and once again fall down into a lower state. To escape from the cycle, one must either (A) achieve Buddhahood in one's life, or (B) be reborn in Amida Nyorai's Western Pure Land, practice there, and achive enlightenment there. The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen (ISBN 0-87773-520-4) has this to say about these realms of existence:

"Between the various forms of existence there is no essential difference, only a karmic difference of degree. In none of them is life without limits. However, it is only as a human that one can attain enlightenment. For this reason Buddhism esteems the human mode of existence more highly than that of the gods."

Six States of Existence (Transmigration or Reincarnation)

1. Beings in Hell. (Naraka-gati in Sanskrit) People in Hells
The lowest and worst realm, wracked by torture and characterized by aggression.

2. Hungry Ghosts. (Preta-gati in Sanskrit) Hungry Spirits, Hungry Ghosts
The realm of hungry spirits; characterized by great craving and eternal starvation.

3. Animals. (Tiryagyoni-gati in Sanskrit) Animals and Livestock
The realm of animals and livestock, characterized by stupidity and servitude.

4. Ashura. (Asura-gati in Sanskrit) Asura or Asuras
The realm of anger, jealousy, and constant war; the Asura (Ashura) are demigods, semi-blessed beings; they are powerful, fierce and quarrelsome; like humans, they are partly good and partly evil.

5. Humans. (Manusya-gati in Sanskrit) Humans
The realm of humans; beings who are both good and evil; enlightenment is within their grasp, yet most are blinded and consumed by their desires.

6. Deva (Deva-gati in Sanskrit). Deva or Devas
The realm of heavenly beings filled with pleasure; the deva hold godlike powers; some reign over celestial kingdoms; most live in delightful happiness and splendor; they live for countless ages, but even the Deva belong to the world of suffering (samsara) -- happiness constitutes the primary hindrance on their path to liberation, for it blinds them to the truth of suffering -- and thus even the Deva grow old, die, and are then reborn, typically in a lower realm.

Technically speaking, the road from hell to Buddhahood covers ten stages (the so-called Ten Worlds), not six.

Top of Page

TEN WORLDS OF EXISTENCE
The "Ten Realms" (Jp: Jikkai 十界)

1. Hells (Skt: Naraka, Jp: Jigoku 地獄 -- the lowest level)
2. Hungry Ghosts (Skt: Preta, Jp: Gaki 餓鬼)
3. Animals (Skt: Tiryasyoni, Jp: Chikushou 畜生)
4. Bellicose Demons (Skt: Asura, Jp: Ashura 阿修羅)
5. Humans (Skt: Manusya, Jp: Jin 人)
6. Heavenly Beings (Skt: Deva, Jp: Ten 天)
7. Sravaka Arhats (Jp: Shoumon 声聞)
8. Pratyeka Buddhas (Jp: Engaku 縁覚)
9. Bodhisattvas (Jp: Bosatsu 菩薩)
10. Buddhas (Jp: Nyorai, Tathagata, Hotoke 仏 -- highest level)

TEN WORLDS MAY ALSO BE WRITTEN AS:

1. Hell (Beings in Hell -- the lowest level)
2. Hunger (Hungry Ghosts)
3. Animality (Animals)
4. Anger (Ashura)
5. Tranquility (Humans)
6. Rapture (Deva)
7. Learning (Hinayana School, Arhat)
8. Realization (Hinayana School, Arhat)
9. Bodhisattva (Mahayana School, Bosatsu)
10. Buddha (Nyorai, Tathagata, Hotoke -- highest level)

The "Ten Realms" are divided into two groups. The first group (1 to 6) comprises the Six Paths of Suffering (also called the Wheel of Life in Tibet). The second group (7 to 10) comprises the four realms of enlightened existence, the "Four Noble Worlds."

BushyDough

04-21-2006, 09:54 AM

Ah, cool thanks...thats very informative. I think its also interesting to note that there can be different levels of existence within each of those six. For example: most people would agree that a house cat leads a much better life than an alley cat or that within the human existence there are a great many variations in the level of hapiness one experiences.

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 10:14 AM

I see where your going, sort of like how Dante tried to elaborate on all the different sub-levels of hell. Its an interesting thought. Perhaps such a concept could be applied to a Christian or Judaic version of heaven/hell. Perchance this could be taken a step further into the relm of reincarnation. I'm thinking different levels of reincartion based on the "level" of enlightenment. Maybe one Bosatsu gets a different reincarnation form then another based on their experiances or "merit" prior to their leaving Nirvana.

Edit: Sorry about speaking Mahayana terms there.

And btw I still think of Theravada as more a philosophy then a religion, I mean you can indeed practice it as a religion but my point is that you could be say, a Jew, yet still practice Theravada. Such a thing wouldn't really be tolerated in Mahayana however.

BushyDough

04-21-2006, 10:28 AM

Ahh, true...but I think its complete acceptance of everyone is what makes Theravada such a great religion. And eventually as you progress through the philosophies of both I'm sure you would find yourself leaning towards either one or the other. I used to think I was athiest but then I learned about this stuff and thought it made a lot of sence.

Morel

04-21-2006, 10:36 AM

Organized religion of any sort is just another form of control.

BushyDough

04-21-2006, 10:38 AM

Yes, it can certainly be used that way if you let it control you.

Klilynkun

04-21-2006, 10:59 AM

what exactly is organized religion... and what would unorganized religion be?

Unknown

04-21-2006, 12:03 PM

Unorganized religion would be Discordia or the Church of Subgenius.

Kiljou

04-21-2006, 12:18 PM

...the Quran (an english translation was remarkably hard to track down)...

If you still want a good translation, I advise "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an" by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Widely regarded as the best one.

King Kong

04-21-2006, 12:58 PM

I practice Zazen which is the main practice of Zen Buddhism. Of course I can call myself a buddhist, or a student, or a human being but ultimately all words are useless. Words, thoughts or beliefs hold no truth whatsoever. Truth is not subject to the processes of language, nor can it be understood by the intellect.
It can only be experienced by the mind of the observer.
This is what I've learnt from zazen practice.
Zen buddhism is a practical philosophy that places emphasis on experiencing the truth for yourself and more importantly than all, its about living in the present moment.

Klilynkun

04-21-2006, 01:19 PM

King Kong

04-21-2006, 02:28 PM

How can you experience the truth for yourself if words, thoughts and beliefs hold no truth whatsoever?

That would mean that you can't experience truth. Anything you believe/think to be true isn't true since they hold no truth

Can you describe the taste of a strawberry, or the beauty of a sunset?
No, because words are limited and any description is limited to reference points. Truth can only be experienced in the present moment, whilst thoughts and descriptions occur after the experience.
The idea that truth can be conviniently packaged as a thought in your brain, is a nice one, but far from reality.

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 07:33 PM

Organized religion of any sort is just another form of control.
The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
~Charles Darwin
Morel, you are only as controlled as you wish to be.

If you still want a good translation, I advise "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an" by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Widely regarded as the best one.
No, no, I have one now, I eventually ended up ordering one on Amazon.

what exactly is organized religion... and what would unorganized religion be?
"Organized" religion is merely a term used to indicate that a particular faith or culture has existed for an extensive period of time. It shows that they have a documented set of rules and regulations, and a large number of followers/practitioners. An "Unorganized" religion would be one such as my Church of Me. I have a spectacular following of one (me) and I am not recognized by any sort of official government.

Beowulf

04-21-2006, 07:38 PM

Can you describe the taste of a strawberry, or the beauty of a sunset?
No, because words are limited and any description is limited to reference points. Truth can only be experienced in the present moment, whilst thoughts and descriptions occur after the experience.
The idea that truth can be conviniently packaged as a thought in your brain, is a nice one, but far from reality.
I practice Zazen which is the main practice of Zen Buddhism. Of course I can call myself a buddhist, or a student, or a human being but ultimately all words are useless. Words, thoughts or beliefs hold no truth whatsoever. Truth is not subject to the processes of language, nor can it be understood by the intellect.
It can only be experienced by the mind of the observer.
This is what I've learnt from zazen practice.
Zen buddhism is a practical philosophy that places emphasis on experiencing the truth for yourself and more importantly than all, its about living in the present moment.
I, unfortunately, know very little upon the topic of Zazen. This is a fascinating description however, its almost a form of existentialist Buddhism. I've always thought us humans put to much emphasis on our respective languages. How clever we feel with all of our words and expressions. Did you know that scientists are hypothesising that one of the reasons humans no longer groom each other (as our ape ancestors/cousins are so wont to do) is because we invented words and phrases to do it for us? Keep that in mind the next time you tell your boss he looks sharp, your actually doing the verbal equivelent of picking through his oiled hair for parasites!

King Kong

04-21-2006, 09:47 PM

Did you know that scientists are hypothesising that one of the reasons humans no longer groom each other (as our ape ancestors/cousins are so wont to do) is because we invented words and phrases to do it for us? Keep that in mind the next time you tell your boss he looks sharp, your actually doing the verbal equivelent of picking through his oiled hair for parasites!

Thats amazing! There are many subconscious actions that we undergo, yet we aren't aware of them.
If you want to know more about zen, you may want to check this article out; http://homepage.mac.com/doubtboy/colorsofmind.html

Your body reacts nearly the same way to vivid thoughts about imminent danger as it does to real danger. And it's not just thoughts of danger that work like this. It's all of our thoughts. Rather than just living your life moment by moment as it happens, you're stuck in all these twisting swirling loops of thought that have your body reacting in all kinds of ways it doesn't need to in response to situations which not only do not exist, but which never could possibly exist. No matter how much you think you can encompass the whole universe in your conscious mind, it'll never happen. Whatever future situation you're worried about right now -- no matter what it is -- will never come to pass. I guarantee this, no matter who you are or what you're facing. It can't happen the way you imagine it.

and the blog of the same author http://www.hardcorezen.blogspot.com/, who I have to agree got me interested in Buddhism in the first place.

MoosecatcherPrime

04-21-2006, 09:53 PM

Beowulf, have you ever read any Julius Evola? He has a very Nietzsche-esque way of thinking, and has some fascinating ideas (devolution and stuff like that). I suggest Revolt Against the Modern World or Ride the Tiger as his best works.

setrict

04-22-2006, 12:14 AM

Beowulf, have you run across any good 'introduction' or references that try to give an overview of the different religions, but don't get too deep into the details? It's good to read the back of the dvd box before renting the movie. I found one from the 50's or so, but it was written as more of a summary of from a Christian perspective and pretty limited.

I suppose wikipedia would probably be good place to start, but sometimes it's hard to beat paper.

Nice thread btw.

Unknown

04-22-2006, 12:17 AM

Well Beowulf is not on, so I'll give you one.

religioustolerance.org

Beowulf

04-22-2006, 10:01 AM

My, my, my, so much to do!

Thats amazing! There are many subconscious actions that we undergo, yet we aren't aware of them.
If you want to know more about zen, you may want to check this article out; http://homepage.mac.com/doubtboy/colorsofmind.html
:D
Now I will reciprocate by advocating that you dabble in existentialist theory. Judging from the above article I can almost certify that it will be right up your alley! I have a good (if somewhat lengthy) introduction that can be found here. (http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialism/a/introduction_3.htm)
Existentialism encompasses so many different trends and ideas that have appeared over the history of Western philosophy, thus making it difficult to distinguish it from other movements and philosophical systems. Due to this, one useful means of understanding existentialism is to examine what it isn't.

For one thing, existentialism doesn't argue that the "good life" is a function of things like wealth, power, pleasure, or even happiness. This is not to say that existentialists reject happiness - existentialism is not a philosophy of masochism, after all. However, existentialists will not argue that a person's life is good simply because they are happy - a happy person might be living a bad life while an unhappy person might be living a good life.

The reason for this is that a life is "good" for existentialists insofar as it is "authentic." Existentialists may differ somewhat on just what is needed for a life to be authentic, but for the most part this will involve being conscious of the choices one makes, taking full responsibility for those choices, and understanding that nothing about one's life or theworld is fixed and given.

Hopefully such a person will end up happier because of this, but that isn't a necessary consequence of authenticity - at least not in the short term.

Existentialism is also not caught up in the idea that everything in life can be made better by science. That doesn't mean that existentialists are automatically anti-science or anti-technology; rather, they judge the value of any science or technology based upon how it might affect a person's ability to live an authentic life. If science and technology help people avoid taking responsibility for their choices and help them pretend that they are not really free, then existentialists will argue that there is a serious problem here.

Existentialists also reject both the arguments that people are good by nature but are ruined by society or culture, and that people are sinful by nature but can be helped to overcome sin through proper religious beliefs. Yes, even Christian existentialists tend to reject the latter proposition, despite the fact that it fits with traditional Christian doctrine. The reason is that existentialists, especially atheist existentialists, reject the idea that there is any fixed human nature to begin with, whether good or evil.

--------------------------------------------------

Beowulf, have you ever read any Julius Evola? He has a very Nietzsche-esque way of thinking, and has some fascinating ideas (devolution and stuff like that). I suggest Revolt Against the Modern World or Ride the Tiger as his best works.
Your confusing Nietzsche's brand of existentialism with Evola's borderline esotericism. While I haven't read all the way through (just snippets and passages here and there, mostly from Revolt Against the Modern World) any of his works he seems to fall into what I call, "The Marxist Dilemma." You see Prime, Marx was very very good at diagnosing what was wrong with societies. He was not good at prescribing a cure. While Evola's critiques are valid and thought provoking, his solutions leave something to be desired. Also he was a Facist (which isn't winning him any additional points in my book). Great ideas, bad execution.

--------------------------------------------------

Beowulf, have you run across any good 'introduction' or references that try to give an overview of the different religions, but don't get too deep into the details? It's good to read the back of the dvd box before renting the movie. I found one from the 50's or so, but it was written as more of a summary of from a Christian perspective and pretty limited.

I suppose wikipedia would probably be good place to start, but sometimes it's hard to beat paper.

Nice thread btw.
Your right, wikipedia was a good place to start! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions) And thank you, I'm happy as to how its progressing along, so much excellent discussion.

--------------------------------------------------

Well Beowulf is not on
Such lies you tell :liar:

religioustolerance.org
I was unaware of this site and I heartily give thanks as it is a bounty of information, as well as offering up excellent dissertations on contemporary issues, for example, gay marriage: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm)
Overview:

The institution of marriage has been in a state of flux for centuries:

It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.

It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S.

But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.

Just for the record I'm very much pro-gay marriage. So long as they don't try to marry me we shouldn't have any problems.

King Kong

04-22-2006, 10:29 AM

Now I will reciprocate by advocating that you dabble in existentialist theory. Judging from the above article I can almost certify that it will be right up your alley! I have a good (if somewhat lengthy) introduction that can be found here.

Quote:
Existentialism encompasses so many different trends and ideas that have appeared over the history of Western philosophy, thus making it difficult to distinguish it from other movements and philosophical systems. Due to this, one useful means of understanding existentialism is to examine what it isn't.

For one thing, existentialism doesn't argue that the "good life" is a function of things like wealth, power, pleasure, or even happiness. This is not to say that existentialists reject happiness - existentialism is not a philosophy of masochism, after all. However, existentialists will not argue that a person's life is good simply because they are happy - a happy person might be living a bad life while an unhappy person might be living a good life.

The reason for this is that a life is "good" for existentialists insofar as it is "authentic." Existentialists may differ somewhat on just what is needed for a life to be authentic, but for the most part this will involve being conscious of the choices one makes, taking full responsibility for those choices, and understanding that nothing about one's life or theworld is fixed and given.

Hopefully such a person will end up happier because of this, but that isn't a necessary consequence of authenticity - at least not in the short term.

Existentialism is also not caught up in the idea that everything in life can be made better by science. That doesn't mean that existentialists are automatically anti-science or anti-technology; rather, they judge the value of any science or technology based upon how it might affect a person's ability to live an authentic life. If science and technology help people avoid taking responsibility for their choices and help them pretend that they are not really free, then existentialists will argue that there is a serious problem here.

Existentialists also reject both the arguments that people are good by nature but are ruined by society or culture, and that people are sinful by nature but can be helped to overcome sin through proper religious beliefs. Yes, even Christian existentialists tend to reject the latter proposition, despite the fact that it fits with traditional Christian doctrine. The reason is that existentialists, especially atheist existentialists, reject the idea that there is any fixed human nature to begin with, whether good or evil.

Thats rather interesting. Although I agree mostly to the paragraph above, the existentualist theory is still a theory in the way that it is a by product of the intellect. Zen Buddhism is a result of meditation and requires no belief.
For example a week of meditation, will make your consciousness more alert and aware to everything around you. Everything seems vibrant and you have a sense of calm about you that helps you overcome tasks which before you were hesitant to accomplish.
The very act of walking in a park is as much pleasurable as taken for a ride in a rollercoaster. Of course since we are burderened with unneccessary thoughts we are oblivious to what is in front of us in the present moment.
Thanks for providing the information for the existentualist theory though, and I agree it is very close to the philosophy of zen. I will read more on the subject when I have the time.

gyoza

04-23-2006, 02:53 AM

Mysticalmelody

04-23-2006, 08:07 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if people were nice to other people cause it was the good and right thing to do, rather than because they think they'll go to hell if they don't. Be a good person, enjoy life by treating others with respect, cause nobody knows what's coming at the end of it all. I mean, there are thousands of religions out there in the world, and it's a good bet that not a single one is right.

For me, what I believe is just what seems like it would work, or what i've seen evidence of/experienced. I'm not sure if what i believe is any particular religion though. Probably not, because it's rather simple and requires no church equivalent. Even if there were a religion that did believe all of the things I do, I'm sure they would also believe stuff that I don't, and i'm not going to pretend to fall in line with everything.

For example, WAY too much stuff in the bible for me to believe it all, and for many religions i'd need to. also much of it conflicts itself or says nothing of things happening in the modern society we live in. just cause some of it i believe to be right doesn't mean the rest has to be too. I'm not a big supporter of people being taught religion, or anything. Curious uncertain people old enough to decide should look into different religious beliefs but I kinda think children should be left alone until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.

I had a friend whose father did a project, where he translated bible verses into an african tribal language. They sent missionaries there with modern equipment and played recordings of the bible verses.... These are people who didn't previously know noise could come from boxes... And they are told they are being saved and that all they are hearing is factual and true. That's not right in my mind....

Beowulf

04-23-2006, 09:33 AM

Nice thread you have here, Beowulf!

I'm just wondering, what was it that led you to start experimenting with other religions? You mentioned reading through the Bible... was it something you read, or a more general desire to search for truth? I ask this because I'm at a similar point now. I ask this because I myself am in the process of reading the Bible (and yeah it takes a really long time )
Why thank you, I'm enjoying it very much!
Now to the serious stuff.
I began going to church because I realized that I was in truth a very bad person. I had lived my short life up till then, violently and full of angst and hatred. All I had to show for it was scars. In truth, I suppose now that I was looking for atonement. Redemption. Thankfully I started with the Lutherans (my family were Lutherans), had I started with the catholics God only knows how I'dve turned out. I began reading the bible out of a feeling of obligation. God saved me from myself, now the least I could do was read his story book. As I progressed through (once again it takes a long time) I became more and more interested. I realized that men have loved, fought over, died for, and killed because of this simple book of paper and ink. I wanted to know why they should feel so strongly for it, why it and other religions like it have influenced people the way they have. I wanted to know if there was a God and why he put us here. I still haven't figured it out yet.

------------------------------

Wouldn't it be nice if people were nice to other people cause it was the good and right thing to do, rather than because they think they'll go to hell if they don't.
It's a sorry thing to say, but people need motivation. Fear is the best motivation. The writers of the bible (whether inspired by God or not) wrote the book in order to help people live out their daily lives. If there were no consequences for bad behavior, then why behave good? Such Hobbsian thinking.

Be a good person, enjoy life by treating others with respect, cause nobody knows what's coming at the end of it all. I mean, there are thousands of religions out there in the world, and it's a good bet that not a single one is right.
And what if the winner turns out to be Satanism? Then your all your respect will earn you is eternal torment. I feel that you make your own heaven and hell, God responds accordingly. I fully expect to spend time in whatever hell I make for myself at the end of it all.

For me, what I believe is just what seems like it would work, or what i've seen evidence of/experienced. I'm not sure if what i believe is any particular religion though. Probably not, because it's rather simple and requires no church equivalent. Even if there were a religion that did believe all of the things I do, I'm sure they would also believe stuff that I don't, and i'm not going to pretend to fall in line with everything.
Elaboration please! I very much enjoy people's conclusions on the nature of things.

For example, WAY too much stuff in the bible for me to believe it all, and for many religions i'd need to. also much of it conflicts itself or says nothing of things happening in the modern society we live in. just cause some of it i believe to be right doesn't mean the rest has to be too. I'm not a big supporter of people being taught religion, or anything. Curious uncertain people old enough to decide should look into different religious beliefs but I kinda think children should be left alone until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.
:clap:
I agree with you 100%. Religion is something found, not something forced.

I had a friend whose father did a project, where he translated bible verses into an african tribal language. They sent missionaries there with modern equipment and played recordings of the bible verses.... These are people who didn't previously know noise could come from boxes... And they are told they are being saved and that all they are hearing is factual and true. That's not right in my mind....
Brainwashing at its finest. I despise when religion is used this way. Remember kids, the first thing to do when attempting to conquer a civilization is to take away their religion! When thats done, remember to do away with their pesky native languages. When you finish, your halfway to brainwashing an entire country!
Sorry to offend any catholics out there (truly I am sorry, no sarcasm here) but I really do not like your religion very much. It is repressive, elitist, and has done some very very wicked things. If you wish to rebute me then please do, but remember, I'm not picking fights or looking for a debate, only a discussion.

Silverhawk

04-24-2006, 07:19 AM

Wow a topic on religion that is actually informative! That's rare :)

I have to ask though, do you think religion is some we humans need? Is it really necessary for us to have religion? You mentioned that fear is the best motivation... i do not disagree with that but there is something fundamentally wrong about doing good out of fear.

In my opinion, you do not need religion to dictate whether you do good or bad. Nor do you actually need religion to be "enlightened" or "salvaged". I once said something in a religious discussion which offended quite a few people, i will say it again here and ask your opinion on it.

I once got hit by a car which resulted in a broken leg. I was in a cast for 2 months and had to go around walking with crutches. Even after my leg had healed, i continued using the crutch. Why? Because my leg although healed, was still weak and it hurt just standing. The crutches were a less painful way for me to move around. However this only led to a slower full recovery since my leg was not getting the exercise it needed.

So for humans, religion is our crutch. It provides us a comfort zone which we do not wish to part with. Once you actually gather the courage to get rid of the crutch and begin walking without it, you begin to realise that you never needed the crutch in the first place. You also realise that the crutch was actually limiting your growth rather than helping it.

Needless to say, many took it the wrong way and thought i was saying that people with religion are like disabled people. Which if of course, not what i meant. I won't clarify exactly what i meant yet, i would like to see the response here first :)

Beowulf

04-24-2006, 08:06 AM

I have to ask though, do you think religion is some we humans need? Is it really necessary for us to have religion? You mentioned that fear is the best motivation... i do not disagree with that but there is something fundamentally wrong about doing good out of fear.
In a very technical sense, yes. The human is hardwired to believe in religion (whatever form that may take), just as it is hardwired to have a conscience, or to contemplate its future. Human's love to believe in higher powers. Whether its Malaysian tribesmen and their death rituals, Elvis worshippers, or alien conspiracy theorists. I disagree with you however, upon the topic of fear. I believe that fear is an excellent motivator and we use it far more then many of us realize. Universitys and schools use fear to teach us that success in life takes hard work. Our employers use fear to show us that if we perform poorly in our work, then we shall be punished. Our governments use fear to keep us from breaking the law, for fear of being arrested. Fear is a natural and normal part of nature, just as happiness or elation. If you wish to discuss this further I would greatly enjoy your view upon my opinion!

In my opinion, you do not need religion to dictate whether you do good or bad. Nor do you actually need religion to be "enlightened" or "salvaged".
No you don't need religion to dictate a "good" and a "bad" for us. Good and bad are merely labels that groups humanity have placed upon certain actions or beliefs. You are correct though, good and bad are dictated by society, religion merely helps enforce them.
And yes you don't need religion to be able to attain an "enlightened" state. Martial artists (of various forms) often speak of an inner calm or peace they experiance when practicing. Incidently, (you may consider this to be off topic, and I apologize if that's the case) they recently did a study where they monitered the brains of a nun in deep prayer, a buddhist meditating, and a atheist philosopher in deep thought. The exact same part of the brain lit up with activity for each and every one of them. Remarkable once you think about it.
Now salvaged I can speak of first hand (read through my other posts if your curious). People do bad things. People feel bad when they do bad things. For many people its easier to seek atonement and redemption from religion, as it sort of makes it official in their minds that they are forgiven. If you have the personal fortitude to face your demons without the assist and support that religion provides then your a stronger man then I.

I once got hit by a car which resulted in a broken leg. I was in a cast for 2 months and had to go around walking with crutches. Even after my leg had healed, i continued using the crutch. Why? Because my leg although healed, was still weak and it hurt just standing. The crutches were a less painful way for me to move around. However this only led to a slower full recovery since my leg was not getting the exercise it needed.

So for humans, religion is our crutch. It provides us a comfort zone which we do not wish to part with. Once you actually gather the courage to get rid of the crutch and begin walking without it, you begin to realise that you never needed the crutch in the first place. You also realise that the crutch was actually limiting your growth rather than helping it.
Ah yes, the classic dilemma...
This comes back to what I posted earlier:
you are only as controlled as you wish to be.
You see, Silverhawk I believe that you are totally correct (although I prefer the term "panic room" to "crutch"). The world can be a dark, frightening, generally scary place. People want to be told how to act, told how to behave, and told how to think. It just makes life so much easier. This (I believe) is a tragic flaw in the human psyche. People are not controlled by religion. They simply allow themselves to be controlled. When the world gets scary and the decisions are difficult and life-altering (gay marriage, divorce, death), religion provides a panic room to shut out the world and keep them safe. Religion provides acceptance, family, and love for those who are unable to find it anywhere else. But people fall so in love with their religion that they are unable to break away from it when the time becomes right. Yes, religion can be crutch, and like a crutch it can aid in healing and get us back on feet. But we have to know when to let the crutch go, stand on our own two legs, and begin thinking for ourselves again.

Klilynkun

04-24-2006, 08:27 AM

Can you describe the taste of a strawberry, or the beauty of a sunset?
No, because words are limited and any description is limited to reference points. Truth can only be experienced in the present moment, whilst thoughts and descriptions occur after the experience.
The idea that truth can be conviniently packaged as a thought in your brain, is a nice one, but far from reality.

How do you know what truth is then? It still comes back to your thoughts to have to be able to interpret what "truth" is that you experienced... No? But you said that thoughts aren't true so how can we do that? I would think that for someone to observe truth you half to know what truth is and be looking for it, but if you can't do that then how do you know what you are calling truth is actuall truth when you r not supposed to be able to.

I can describe the taste of a strawberry. Generally it's Nasty. I don't like them. Going into details I can't do that, because as you said... words are limited. But even then... though that may be the truth for me it may not be the truth for someone else. And even further it was the sensations on my tongue that went to my brain that relayed to me the message that I didnt like it so... the mind must be able to understand what truth is. Why couldn't a thought be true? I thought of the thought. I experienced the thought (doesn't matter whether the thing i was thinking about didn't happen as it's the actual thinking of the thought i'm thinking about). So wouldn't the thought be truth as I experienced it - it caused an expression - maybe made me sad or happy or whatever. I've looked at the sunset plenty of times and I felt nothing - it meant nothing to me. The thing that makes looking at a sunset nice is the actual thoughts that go through your head at that time. Whether it's about the sunset or something else.

Silverhawk

04-24-2006, 09:21 AM

I disagree with you however, upon the topic of fear. I believe that fear is an excellent motivator and we use it far more then many of us realize.
Ahh, i do not deny that fear is an excellent motivator. However, i do not think its the best way to motivate someone. As i said, its fundamentally wrong. Why? Because it lacks sincerity. Its like apologising for something you did wrong only because you're forced to.

Lets say, you're given the task of teaching a kid that stealing is wrong. The easist method would be to say stealing would get you put into jail and nasty things happen there. The other method is to teach the kid how the act of stealing affects people. Of course this isn't easy, but i find that it works well if you use people they have emotional attachments to(like their parents) as examples.

Now the kid knows that stealing is bad, but the reason for it being bad is different. The kid who was given the "fear motivation" may steal if he knows he will not get caught. The motivation only works if the risk of getting caught is there. Morally, that person is no better. However the other kid would not steal either way, because he has been taught of its effects on society.

I hope i managed to illustrate the difference clearly.

And yes you don't need religion to be able to attain an "enlightened" state. Martial artists (of various forms) often speak of an inner calm or peace they experiance when practicing. Incidently, (you may consider this to be off topic, and I apologize if that's the case) they recently did a study where they monitered the brains of a nun in deep prayer, a buddhist meditating, and a atheist philosopher in deep thought. The exact same part of the brain lit up with activity for each and every one of them. Remarkable once you think about it.
Yes i knew about the brain part :)

People want to be told how to act, told how to behave, and told how to think. It just makes life so much easier. This (I believe) is a tragic flaw in the human psyche. People are not controlled by religion. They simply allow themselves to be controlled.
People who allow themselves to be controlled are controlled by religion. Like someone else posted, it is a form of control. Not everyone will adhere to it, but most will and that's all that matters. If you can control the majority its good enough.

This is what makes religion as a form of control scary. With religion, faith is of the utmost importance. Its very easy to stir up the emotions of believers and compell them to do evil. I don't think i need to cite examples. So is religion entirely at fault? Of course not, its the fault of its idiotic believers. Religion does however play a role, since it shapes the mentality of its believers.

Beowulf

04-25-2006, 08:45 AM

Ahh, i do not deny that fear is an excellent motivator. However, i do not think its the best way to motivate someone. As i said, its fundamentally wrong. Why? Because it lacks sincerity. Its like apologising for something you did wrong only because you're forced to.

Lets say, you're given the task of teaching a kid that stealing is wrong. The easist method would be to say stealing would get you put into jail and nasty things happen there. The other method is to teach the kid how the act of stealing affects people. Of course this isn't easy, but i find that it works well if you use people they have emotional attachments to(like their parents) as examples.

Now the kid knows that stealing is bad, but the reason for it being bad is different. The kid who was given the "fear motivation" may steal if he knows he will not get caught. The motivation only works if the risk of getting caught is there. Morally, that person is no better. However the other kid would not steal either way, because he has been taught of its effects on society.

I hope i managed to illustrate the difference clearly.

I see what your saying, now I ask you to go and teach a child how stealing hurts others, and make sure that they actually understand what your saying. Make sure they know that thieving is really a problem because it hurts peoples ability to spend their "real income" (what one actually earns from wages that aren't deducted by taxes or basic living expenses) and therefor is bad for local economy. Tell them that career thieves are especially bad as they don't declare their income and therefor can't be taxed, which hurts our country. I think you'll find that its a far harder thing to do in actuality then on paper (or the internet...whatever).

This is what makes religion as a form of control scary. With religion, faith is of the utmost importance. Its very easy to stir up the emotions of believers and compell them to do evil. I don't think i need to cite examples. So is religion entirely at fault? Of course not, its the fault of its idiotic believers. Religion does however play a role, since it shapes the mentality of its believers.
And as our good President Bush showed, its just as easy to whip people up with nationalism. If religion doesn't do the controlling, something else will. The people who allow themselves to be controlled in such a fashion will only move from one controller to the next.

paideuo

04-25-2006, 09:43 AM

A great many forms of spirituality, including Buddhim, Hinduism, and Christianity I believe, hold fear to be a thing of evil which hypostatizes the negative aspects of God and his creation.

Personally, I believe that fear should never be a tool, no matter how convenient and expeditious a tool it should happen to be. It should be avoided wherever possible, unless its application be mandated by karmic law - supposing such a thing exists.

Tentatively and poorly backing up my claim that Christianity holds fear to be an evil, there is a passage in the Bible in which Christ says that "fear is an enemy to love". I don't have a Bible on hand, so I can't look up the exact passage, but I remember it well from my days in seminary (I only signed up for seminary so I could ditch; and ditch I did! One year was particularly fun: my friends and I all had seminary during same period and for the entire year we would ditch and go eat a second lunch or go to the mall or some such. However, I did attend enough the first year to finish reading the New Testament.)

-------

I would like to speak on a topic that was brought up at a much earlier time in this thread - Organized religion:

Organized religions and their members seem to create far more disharmony and social cleavage than they purport to eliminate and prevent - Christianity and Christians avouching this assertion quite nicely. Whenever large groups of like-minded people get together who think themselves to have a special purpose in this world, there is going to be fighting, posturing, death, and not the least of the consquences, stupidity. Look at the crusades. Each side continued fighting because each thought itself special, unique, and justified. Neither was, however, as we can all see.

What's more, the idea that one would try to learn about God, a being beyond this physical world, from some physical organization that has its filthy hands in filthy lucre is just a bit more than offensive and moronic, if you ask me.

I wish it weren't a fascist and evil thing to make illegal the formation and continuation of organized religious groups. We are just going to have to put up with them until people learn their lesson.

Beowulf

04-25-2006, 08:21 PM

Ah, now we see the return to Christianity discussions (my specialty!).

-------------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that fear should never be a tool, no matter how convenient and expeditious a tool it should happen to be. It should be avoided wherever possible, unless its application be mandated by karmic law - supposing such a thing exists.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Just try telling this to your government, schools, parents, etc...

Tentatively and poorly backing up my claim that Christianity holds fear to be an evil, there is a passage in the Bible in which Christ says that "fear is an enemy to love". I don't have a Bible on hand, so I can't look up the exact passage, but I remember it well from my days in seminary

Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.
Proverbs 3:25,26

In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.
Psalm 56:11

These were the first ones that came to mind, but maybe I'm wrong.
Most sects of Christianity depict God as a sort of refuge to help aid you in overcoming your fears.

Organized religions and their members seem to create far more disharmony and social cleavage than they purport to eliminate and prevent - Christianity and Christians avouching this assertion quite nicely. Whenever large groups of like-minded people get together who think themselves to have a special purpose in this world, there is going to be fighting, posturing, death, and not the least of the consquences, stupidity.
You seem to be confusing religion with the groups that practice it. Religion is simply a spiritual realization that a person makes over the course of their lives. It is a deep, personal, usually private thing. The organizations that practice certain religions however are a far different thing. Many of them are run more like businesses then purponents of worship.

Look at the crusades. Each side continued fighting because each thought itself special, unique, and justified.
Whoa, bad example. One side (the catholics) were the outright aggressors, while the opposing side (the muslims/moors) were the defenders/victims. The crusades are actually far worse then many give them credit for. For example, in the first crusade the catholics used children to attack muslim cities and communities. I'm not sure why you're trying to lay blame at the feet of the muslims as well. Keep in mind that it wasn't "Christians" who propogated the crusades, it was the catholics. That's really quite an important distinction. Also, keep in mind that when the crusaders attacked cities, they killed everyone. Women, children, the elderly, all were evil heretics in the eyes of the crusaders. The crusaders certainly thought they were "special, unique, and justified" but the muslims didn't. They were more like "wtf did we ever do to deserve this."

Neither was, however, as we can all see.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

What's more, the idea that one would try to learn about God, a being beyond this physical world, from some physical organization that has its filthy hands in filthy lucre is just a bit more than offensive and moronic, if you ask me.
This is really quite the unfair generalization. You seem to be just assuming that all religious groups have these "filthy hands" of which you speak. Also calling anyone who joins a "physical organization" offensive and stupid, is rude and rather ignorant. I'm sensing quite a bit of hostility in your post, is there any special reason why?

I wish it weren't a fascist and evil thing to make illegal the formation and continuation of organized religious groups. We are just going to have to put up with them until people learn their lesson.
Well despite what you may think it would indeed be a "fascist" and evil thing to do just that. You would, effectively, be telling everyone that their wrong, your right, so there. You would be forcing others to think as you do, and then you would be no better then what you sought to destroy. It would indeed be a most facist act.

paideuo

04-25-2006, 10:27 PM

As for the crusades, Salahadin fought bloody, horrific battles against the Catholics, even going so far as to poison their water supply causing them to thirst even to hallucinations and delusions, in order to retake the city for the Muslims because he believed the city to be of great spiritual importance to the Muslim people. The same was true of the Christians. Neither side would give in because each side supposed itself to hold the city at the highest spiritual praemium; each side supposed that it should continue on fighting because that was what God wanted them to do; each leader believed that God had ordained his taking of the city of Jerusalem. They can't have both been right.

As for the term religion, in my mind it has the meaning of an organized body of tenets, or canon, around which an organization is built. I am opposed to that.

You seem to be confusing religion with the groups that practice it. Religion is simply a spiritual realization that a person makes over the course of their lives. It is a deep, personal, usually private thing. The organizations that practice certain religions however are a far different thing. Many of them are run more like businesses then purponents of worship.

That is spirituality, not religion to which you are referring, in my opinion. Spirituality is an unfettered thing, a personal thing, whose course and unfoldment is dictated by the person and not a body of sanctimonious men and their arcane, foolish laws of their own design and not God's.

This is really quite the unfair generalization. You seem to be just assuming that all religious groups have these "filthy hands" of which you speak. Also calling anyone who joins a "physical organization" offensive and stupid, is rude and rather ignorant. I'm sensing quite a bit of hostility in your post, is there any special reason why?

When I say filthy hands, I mean that they have no right to speak for God because their perpetuation and survival are contingent upon cash flow; that is a conflict of interest. Those who purport to speak for God should not benefit from it in a worldly sense lest their aim and purpose should be vitiated and they should then take advantage of followers and unwitting individuals who just want to be closer to God. It seems to me that growing close to God should be a personal thing that happens in one's times of privacy primarily. The terms of one's relationship with Him shouldn't be constrained or dictated by some organization that is just out for money, no?

There is hostility precisely for the reasons given above. Religion creates strife and discord. Hostility may not be justified, but it is hard to help feeling this way, given the influence of religion upon our societies.

As for the bit about wanting to control peoples' thinking and take from them their religions, that was something of a joke. Nothing justifies the bereavement of a person of his personal sovereignty, in as much as he is not taking from others theirs

Smidge204

04-26-2006, 12:58 AM

I'd like to remain a spectator for the most part, but this quote struck me as something that needs special attention:

When I say filthy hands, I mean that they have no right to speak for God because their perpetuation and survival are contingent upon cash flow; that is a conflict of interest. Those who purport to speak for God should not benefit from it in a worldly sense lest their aim and purpose should be vitiated and they should then take advantage of followers and unwitting individuals who just want to be closer to God. It seems to me that growing close to God should be a personal thing that happens in one's times of privacy primarily. The terms of one's relationship with Him shouldn't be constrained or dictated by some organization that is just out for money, no?

Whenever there is a hierarchical power structure, there will be corruption. Anything that creates or requires a heirarchy will always, always, always become corrupt, no matter how well-meaning the original purpose. Religion is no exception.

...and in general, the bigger the power structure, the more corrupt it will be.

I think you'll find most people who argue against religion do not argue against the spiritual aspect, but rather the 'system' that is built around it.
=Smidge=

Beowulf

04-26-2006, 06:10 AM

When I say filthy hands, I mean that they have no right to speak for God because their perpetuation and survival are contingent upon cash flow; that is a conflict of interest. Those who purport to speak for God should not benefit from it in a worldly sense lest their aim and purpose should be vitiated and they should then take advantage of followers and unwitting individuals who just want to be closer to God. It seems to me that growing close to God should be a personal thing that happens in one's times of privacy primarily. The terms of one's relationship with Him shouldn't be constrained or dictated by some organization that is just out for money, no?

Whenever there is a hierarchical power structure, there will be corruption. Anything that creates or requires a heirarchy will always, always, always become corrupt, no matter how well-meaning the original purpose. Religion is no exception.

...and in general, the bigger the power structure, the more corrupt it will be.

I think you'll find most people who argue against religion do not argue against the spiritual aspect, but rather the 'system' that is built around it.
=Smidge=
Thanks for the assist Smidge! You're welcome to post anytime.

Now paideuo, this is where you really start to work into the details of the various sects. Should a religious organization seek to obtain monetary funds? If so, what should the funds be used for? I will relate to you the story of how Martin Luther came to begin the protestant movement (I actually have this memorized, lol):

You see paideuo, there was a catholic friar by the name of Johann Tetzel. Now old Johann had a brilliant idea, what if the Catholic church sold tickets to heaven in the form of indulgences? You see, when a Catholic soul goes on to the afterlife, if it has sins it did not repent, then it goes to purgatory. A sort of lesser hell where you "serve time" for your sins. The thought of purgatory scared people, the thought that your poor sweet grandmother may be trapped in the limbo of purgatory, simply because she was to sick to go to confession (or original sin, what a hellish idea that is), was a terrible one. So Johann would say to the poor farmer, "I'll sell you this indulgence, and then your grandmother will get into heaven!" The peasents jumped at the chance. People jumped at the chance to purchase a ticket to heaven for all their deceased relatives. Martin Luther saw this in his and thought, "Well wtf is this?" So Martin makes a journey to Rome, as was common for especially devout monks at the time. When he arrived, Martin saw where all the poor folks money went. To building this:
http://www.cycletourist.com/Scenes/St_Peters_Basilica.jpg
Behold St. Peter's Basilica. Arguably one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Martin saw this, and he also saw the mansions, the absurdly expensive dress, and the other mighty excesses of the Catholic church. Martin remembered the starving subsistence farmers. How they had sold the church their live savings for a few scrapes of paper that said "Grandma Goes To Heaven, Does Not Pass Go, Does Not Collect 200$" on them. Upon his return Martin began writing his 95 Thesis. And the rest is history.

You see paideuo, my point is that yes these organizations can be quite terrible in reality. But they can also do a lot of good with any funds they bring in, so long as the majority of the funds goes to helping people, not clothing the pope in the best of fineries.

There is hostility precisely for the reasons given above. Religion creates strife and discord. Hostility may not be justified, but it is hard to help feeling this way, given the influence of religion upon our societies.
I'm sorry, it just seemed to strike such a personal chord with you is all.

As for the bit about wanting to control peoples' thinking and take from them their religions, that was something of a joke. Nothing justifies the bereavement of a person of his personal sovereignty, in as much as he is not taking from others theirs
Again, I apologize.

Darth_E_

04-26-2006, 07:24 AM

Beowulf

04-26-2006, 07:48 AM

The crusades were one sided and only the catholic christians initiated it, so you can't blame the other side for defending themselves. When the christians entered Jerusalem, the holy city was in pools of blood. But when Saladin entered the city, not a single soul was killed. And let's not forget the eastern christians who were slaughtered and had their belongings looted by the crusaders on their way to the holy land.
This is just a supplement to Darth's post (btw Darth, thanks for clarifying what I retardedly forgot to address :knockout: ).

An interesting fact about the crusades that isn't terribly well known, is that in total there were eight crusades over a period spanning 1095-1270. It's not like these things were out of the ordinary for the times.

paideuo

04-26-2006, 08:18 AM

Weird, why does history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin) ( written by westerns, mind you ) disagrees with your account ?

The crusades were one sided and only the catholic christians initiated it, so you can't blame the other side for defending themselves. When the christians entered Jerusalem, the holy city was in pools of blood. But when Saladin entered the city, not a single soul was killed. And let's not forget the eastern christians who were slaughtered and had their belongings looted by the crusaders on their way to the holy land.

Firstly, why are you being hostile? or at very least sarcastic and rude?

The Catholic Church did initiate the entire conflict. That is true. First they gained control of Jerusalem and ruled over it for some time, but Salahaldin later had a "revelation" from God in which God told him that, if he were to retake the city of Jerusalem, all of his sins would be expunged. Well, that's precisely what he did. He called for a Jihad, and at that point all Muslims, by their faith, were obliged to participate to remove the infidels from their sacred land - the land where Mohammed rose into heaven to speak with God (or so they say). He challenged the Christians that remained in that city in an area a ways removed from the city, but not before poisoning that area's water supply. He then enjoyed a few years of peace in Jerusalem and even let the remaining Christians leave, unharmed. However, that peace was to be short lived, as Richard I, The Lion-Hearted, the King of England, having received news of what had happened, came down with his troops and started another conflict that lasted quite some time. While Richard was certainly more ruthless in many ways, Salahaldin was still quite vicious himself. Neither side would concede and just hand over the city to the other side because each side believed itself to be right and just. However, it is my opinion that neither was.

At any rate, this is all quite tangential, as the whole point of bringing up The Crusades was to give an example of why religion is a dangerous and ugly thing. I believe that I acheived that. If the Catholic religion hadn't existed at the time, then the Crusades would never have begun. Also, if there hadn't been any Muslims in the area, the people of Jerusalem likely would not have carried out their war against the Catholics for as long as they did. It was religious belief that kept them going, that fueled the fires of conflict and told each side that it was just, unique, right, and more deserving of the holy land of Israel than anyone else.

paideuo

04-26-2006, 08:25 AM

You see paideuo, my point is that yes these organizations can be quite terrible in reality. But they can also do a lot of good with any funds they bring in, so long as the majority of the funds goes to helping people, not clothing the pope in the best of fineries.

It sounds like we are on the verge of expostulating with one another as to whether "the end justifies the means".

Beowulf

04-26-2006, 08:27 AM

At any rate, this is all quite tangential, as the whole point of bringing up The Crusades was to give an example of why religion is a dangerous and ugly thing. I believe that I acheived that. If the Catholic religion hadn't existed at the time, then the Crusades would never have begun. Also, if there hadn't been any Muslims in the area, the people of Jerusalem likely would not have carried out their war against the Catholics for as long as they did. It was religious belief that kept them going, that fueled the fires of conflict and told each side that it was just, unique, right, and more deserving of the holy land of Israel than anyone else.
First off why are you being so hostile?

Man if you hate religion then you must really hate governments. And various ethnicities of people. And rich people. And crazy people. And basically every other sort of organization that has the power to initiate war or death.

It sounds like we are on the verge of expostulating with one another as to whether "the end justifies the means".
You still haven't really shown why you have this irrational hatred of religion. All the things I stated above are just as capable of the evils you level solely at religions feet. Why do so forcibly attack religion though?

paideuo

04-26-2006, 08:54 AM

Man if you hate religion then you must really hate governments. And various ethnicities of people. And rich people. And crazy people. And basically every other sort of organization that has the power to initiate war or death.

Yes, I do hate government.

Why add to the list of things that threaten to destroy us? Why not abate the dangers and difficulties appurtenant to life? If religion is dangerous, then, in so far as the act should be unanimously decided upon and should be humane and shouldn't create more suffering than it should be intended to prevent, it should be done away with. There is nothing wrong with ethnicities and I do not actually think them to be a threat, but if ever a group of people should set out to destroy another, it should be stopped as humanely as possible. Crazy people should be cured of their malady, if possible. Why put up with dangers, if you can avoid them humanely and justly? The fact that there are and have been many dangers, doesn't justify their continued existence; it doesn't mean that we should pile upon our already full plate even more dangers and difficulties. We should strive for as peaceful an existence as possible. The extirpation of religious organization is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

You still haven't really shown why you have this irrational hatred of religion. All the things I stated above are just as capable of the evils you level solely at religions feet. Why do so forcibly attack religion though?

I probably don't hate religion as much as you think; it is not some sort of out-of-control vehement rage against it. Secondly, my "hatred" of religion is not irrational; I have already given my rationale for hating it.

I really don't have anything more to say. I can but reiterate what I have said previously: I am a fan of spirituality. I dislike religion for the reasons given above.... over and over again.

ShadowDeth

04-26-2006, 10:22 AM

ShadowDeth

04-26-2006, 10:36 AM

Now to actually contribute to the thread:

In my younger days, I was a self proclaimed atheist bent on proving just how false the notion of a god is. I spent a lot of time "discussing" why religion/faith/beliefs in any form were in herently flawed, from the huge gap in existing empirical data confirming it's existence to the holes in the story described in the bible.

Fastforward about maybe, 10 years, and i'm starting to understand the larger picture. I'm not pretending to be some worldly scholar who has concluded the meaning of life and the universe, but I think I understand a few things now I didn't before (relating to religion)

1) Tolerance. I didn't have this as a kid. If someone was percieved to weak, less intelligent, reliant on religion or any number of other reasons I wrote them off as a human being.

2) Karma. I can safely say I believe in karma. Not necessarily that your actions will come back to you as a reward or punishment, but I feel the entire universe is a give and take. You throw something against a wall, and somewhere across the galaxy a tornado starts. A little melodramatic, but I see all this in physics.

3) Patience. Not everyone lives their lives to the standards you do, and it's one of the easiest things to remember.

4) Peace. I feel i'm not an angry child any more, mostly in attributed to the three reasons above this one. As I learn more about the world, I understand motivation people have for their actions, words, beliefs and so forth. Not to slurp myself, but very little gets to me these days. Life is life, and harping on situations I don't find favorable doesn't change anything.

5) Neutrality. It's hard to achieve actual neutrality in any given situation, because humans are creatures well versed in the familiar and associating bias due to past experiences. Having control of yourself at all times without regard to your emotional state is empowering.

These are all virtues I value, and attempt to model my behavior after. The more I think about what I believe, and what I see taught in various religions - is that they are one in the same. The issues I had with mass belief systems aren't there anymore, because they are all ultimately teaching the same thing. There is just a different guy in a robe.

So that's what I believe, and why I believe it.

Darth_E_

04-26-2006, 03:22 PM

Firstly, why are you being hostile? or at very least sarcastic and rude?

I was sarcastic because it's the first time in my life that I see someone distributing the blame on someone else other than the crusaders.

The Catholic Church did initiate the entire conflict. That is true. First they gained control of Jerusalem and ruled over it for some time, but Salahaldin later had a "revelation" from God in which God told him that, if he were to retake the city of Jerusalem, all of his sins would be expunged. Well, that's precisely what he did. He called for a Jihad, and at that point all Muslims, by their faith, were obliged to participate to remove the infidels from their sacred land - the land where Mohammed rose into heaven to speak with God (or so they say). He challenged the Christians that remained in that city in an area a ways removed from the city, but not before poisoning that area's water supply. He then enjoyed a few years of peace in Jerusalem and even let the remaining Christians leave, unharmed. However, that peace was to be short lived, as Richard I, The Lion-Hearted, the King of England, having received news of what had happened, came down with his troops and started another conflict that lasted quite some time. While Richard was certainly more ruthless in many ways, Salahaldin was still quite vicious himself. Neither side would concede and just hand over the city to the other side because each side believed itself to be right and just. However, it is my opinion that neither was.

What? Where ? When ? Do you have anything to back this up? I don't remember reading anything about Saladin getting a revelation from God ( *cough* unless you've been confusing him with bush :P ) or poisoning the water supplies ( which is nonsensical because in a desert area where water supplies are scarce, poisoning them means your death along with your enemies). I do , however, recall that he took over water supplies in the battle of hattin , which is a military tactic, to deprive the crusaders from water and tire them before battle. All is fair in war and love.

At any rate, this is all quite tangential, as the whole point of bringing up The Crusades was to give an example of why religion is a dangerous and ugly thing. I believe that I acheived that. If the Catholic religion hadn't existed at the time, then the Crusades would never have begun. Also, if there hadn't been any Muslims in the area, the people of Jerusalem likely would not have carried out their war against the Catholics for as long as they did. It was religious belief that kept them going, that fueled the fires of conflict and told each side that it was just, unique, right, and more deserving of the holy land of Israel than anyone else.

eh? What you say doesn't make sense. How's defending oneself against the invaders and claiming land which used to belong to him wrong? That's the human right for every man on this earth, regardless of religion or race. To quote Malcolm X : "There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

And I wouldn't go blaming catholic Christianity for the horrors of the crusades. Christianity teaches us to love everyone, even if he's the enemy - religion isn't to blame if it was used as a scrap goat for human acts, and that goes to any other religion. There will be always bad fruit in every organization/group of people. If you claim that religion is dangerous, then how you would justify the 2 bloody world wars? or the torture and ethnic cleansing in the soviet union against it's own population during Stalin's reign ( read : crimes committed by communists - people who don't believe in any God , Atheists in other words ) ?
I can list more crimes committed by/caused by unreligious reasons if you want. The point is people need to stop blaming religion(s) and accept the fact that there will always be people who will use any means to attain their wicked goals. Throwing the blame around ain't gonna solve any problem.

Beowulf

04-26-2006, 08:25 PM

"You seem to be confusing religion with the groups that practice it. Religion is simply a spiritual realization that a person makes over the course of their lives. It is a deep, personal, usually private thing. The organizations that practice certain religions however are a far different thing. Many of them are run more like businesses then purponents of worship."

100%, absolutely incorrect. I believe what you're describing is faith, not an institution telling you which of your beliefs is viable and which aren't.

I barely skimmed over the thread but it seems like an angsty kid came in finally, seems like it was overdue.

Blah blah crusades, religion has never done anything positive. Yeah yeah, we know what you think before you tell us.
Lol.
Next time try reading the thread. I'm the one advocating for religion, not the other way around.

1) Tolerance. I didn't have this as a kid. If someone was percieved to weak, less intelligent, reliant on religion or any number of other reasons I wrote them off as a human being.
-------------------------------------------------------

And I wouldn't go blaming catholic Christianity for the horrors of the crusades. Christianity teaches us to love everyone, even if he's the enemy - religion isn't to blame if it was used as a scrap goat for human acts, and that goes to any other religion. There will be always bad fruit in every organization/group of people. If you claim that religion is dangerous, then how you would justify the 2 bloody world wars? or the torture and ethnic cleansing in the soviet union against it's own population during Stalin's reign ( read : crimes committed by communists - people who don't believe in any God , Atheists in other words ) ?
I can list more crimes committed by/caused by unreligious reasons if you want. The point is people need to stop blaming religion(s) and accept the fact that there will always be people who will use any means to attain their wicked goals. Throwing the blame around ain't gonna solve any problem.
Thank you! That's what I've been trying to say without offending anyone. :clap:

paideuo

04-26-2006, 09:39 PM

Yes, the tenets of Christianity are just fine, but a religion or religious organization created around those tenets is dangerous and destructive, in my opinion.

As I have stated a few times, I am perfectly fine with spirituality.

TygressVirgo

04-27-2006, 12:53 AM

To: Beowulf,

Awesome thread. I must say that this thread is really what I always hope to see, but never really do.

I am curious, to know why you feel the way you do about catholics? And how much expierence have you had with catholics? I am one, and I love to know and understand other's views about my faith. I really do look forward to your answer.

To: Paideuo

You say that you are fine with spirituality, but where does one's spirituality come form? Is it not possible for one's spiritulaity or faith to come from one's own religion? I look forwad to your answer.

RoxFontaine

04-28-2006, 05:19 AM

Great thread, Man.

I, like you, had a fairly troubled childhood. (Albeit not nearly as many broken bones.) :)

It wasn't until I was 21 or so that I came to the realizations that you did. I wasn't doing bad but, I was sure I wasn't living to my potential. I decided I needed to do 2 things: Go to school and discover faith.

Long story short.....

After much personal research without any influence from any clergy or the "brainwashed" I found that my outlook was most in sync with the Baha'i faith. I've been SO enjoying life ever since.

If you're interested to learn more drop me line or, better yet, check out:

http://www.bahai.org

Beowulf

04-28-2006, 06:46 AM

I am curious, to know why you feel the way you do about catholics? And how much expierence have you had with catholics? I am one, and I love to know and understand other's views about my faith. I really do look forward to your answer.
Brace yourself cause no matter how I phrase this its probably going to hurt. Keep in mind that this is no way a pointed attack against you or your beliefs. I'm just calling them as I see them.
1. The church child molestation scandals. With the recent information coming in it now looks as though this has been going on for a long time. Some of the perpetrators actually thought they were entitled to the act due their position. So what does the church do? Burn the bastards at the stake? Call off that stupid celibacy act for priests (discussed below)? No, they just cover it up.
2. That stupid celibacy act! Do you know the real reason that sex was banned for priests? So that back in the day they couldn't have families. You see if they had families then their children would have inherited what would otherwise have been church land. Now thanks to that papal infallability act, they can't get rid of it. They have literally painted themselves into a corner.
3. The pope. You show me where in the bible it specifies that there needs to be a pope. Now go show me where it says you need cardinals. Now show me where it discusses the requirments for becoming a saint.
4. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503). Google this guy and you will find nothing but trouble:
Most Catholics would like to erase the sixth Alexander's name from the papal lists. While a Cardinal, Alexander kept several mistresses in Rome. He married a favorite, Vanozza de Catanei, off to three different husbands but he lived with her for years and fathered four children including Cesare and Lucretia Borgia. In 1489, he took the 14-year-old Giulia Farnese as his mistress. She remained his mistress throughout his papacy bearing him sons in 1498 and 1503. To placate her family, he gave a Red Hat to Giulia's brother, a man who later became Pope Paul III. Local Roman gossips referred to Giulia as "the bride of Christ." In 1493, Alexander made Cesare, his illegitimate son, a Cardinal. Cesare was 18 at the time.
Renaissance Popes (http://www.christianchronicler.com/history1/renaissance_papacy.html)
Popes will father illegitimate children, sleep around, and basically break any rules they want. How is that an example again?

There's so much more, but I'm tired and don't wish to overwhelm you so early in. You see I simply think that the Catholic church is simply to old. They are bound hand and foot by meaningless etiquette and pointless ceremonies. They have more traditions then the bible does teachings.

---------------------------------------------

I, like you, had a fairly troubled childhood. (Albeit not nearly as many broken bones.)
Yeah those hurt. A lot. The nose hurt the worst (I passed out when my buddy reset it).

It wasn't until I was 21 or so that I came to the realizations that you did. I wasn't doing bad but, I was sure I wasn't living to my potential. I decided I needed to do 2 things: Go to school and discover faith.

Long story short.....

After much personal research without any influence from any clergy or the "brainwashed" I found that my outlook was most in sync with the Baha'i faith. I've been SO enjoying life ever since.
I've heard of them but don't know much about them. I know that they've only recently (in I believe the last 20 years or so) gained any sort of real mainstream support. From the site it looks like some kind of awesome combination of unitarianism and buddhism. Ain't nothing wrong with that! Their goals seem a bit lofty (the creation of a world civilization) but noble. I enjoy this new view brought to the table.

ShadowDeth

04-28-2006, 07:19 AM

Lol.
Next time try reading the thread. I'm the one advocating for religion, not the other way around.

Next time try reading my response? There is a very distinct difference between a business and what you believe in. Religion is just a business. I was pointing out the factual issue with what you said, but the second part of my response was aimed at the rampant atheist.

Maybe obvious due to the fact my first and second sentence don't connect together?

Klilynkun

04-28-2006, 08:17 AM

i haven't read the posts... since i'm at work.... so i'm assuming that the person isn't acting very baptisty... so... my question is... what do baptists believe anyway?

Silverhawk

04-28-2006, 03:16 PM

I see what your saying, now I ask you to go and teach a child how stealing hurts others, and make sure that they actually understand what your saying. Make sure they know that thieving is really a problem because it hurts peoples ability to spend their "real income" (what one actually earns from wages that aren't deducted by taxes or basic living expenses) and therefor is bad for local economy. Tell them that career thieves are especially bad as they don't declare their income and therefor can't be taxed, which hurts our country. I think you'll find that its a far harder thing to do in actuality then on paper (or the internet...whatever).
Actually, i only said it because i've used it on a few kids. Maybe i got lucky that they're pretty understanding little fellows :P You don't have to go deep into details, just a simple concept will do.

And as our good President Bush showed, its just as easy to whip people up with nationalism. If religion doesn't do the controlling, something else will. The people who allow themselves to be controlled in such a fashion will only move from one controller to the next.
I'm no American, but didn't Bush also use religion to gather support for his cause?

Religion breeds a dangerous mentality. That's all I'm against. A mentality where one places faith above rationality is inherently easy to manipulate and thus dangerous. I know that not all religious people are like this, but those who are seem to be the majority not the minority.

Any system can be corrupt and manipulated, however they are not equal. Like the government for example has to provide evidence and proof(falsification still takes effort), religion can get away with using faith. If religion is just 1% more prone to corruption it is still more dangerous.

This is the only reason i dislike most religion. Buddhism i don't really consider it a religion, but its one of the "religions" I actually like. You don't see buddhist people advocating violence or discriminating you based on your belief. Their spiritual guidance is personal and they will only teach if you want to learn. That's the way it should be.

TygressVirgo

04-28-2006, 08:12 PM

Brace yourself cause no matter how I phrase this its probably going to hurt. Keep in mind that this is no way a pointed attack against you or your beliefs. I'm just calling them as I see them.
1. The church child molestation scandals. With the recent information coming in it now looks as though this has been going on for a long time. Some of the perpetrators actually thought they were entitled to the act due their position. So what does the church do? Burn the bastards at the stake? Call off that stupid celibacy act for priests (discussed below)? No, they just cover it up.
2. That stupid celibacy act! Do you know the real reason that sex was banned for priests? So that back in the day they couldn't have families. You see if they had families then their children would have inherited what would otherwise have been church land. Now thanks to that papal infallability act, they can't get rid of it. They have literally painted themselves into a corner.
3. The pope. You show me where in the bible it specifies that there needs to be a pope. Now go show me where it says you need cardinals. Now show me where it discusses the requirments for becoming a saint.
4. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503). Google this guy and you will find nothing but trouble:

Renaissance Popes (http://www.christianchronicler.com/history1/renaissance_papacy.html)
Popes will father illegitimate children, sleep around, and basically break any rules they want. How is that an example again?

There's so much more, but I'm tired and don't wish to overwhelm you so early in. You see I simply think that the Catholic church is simply to old. They are bound hand and foot by meaningless etiquette and pointless ceremonies. They have more traditions then the bible does teachings.

Hehe, thanks for the response.

I have a feeling what I am going to say is going to come back and bite me in the ass, but I will say it anyways.

The few things that you did point out are dealing with the wider rim of the Catholic Religion. I will be the first to point out the flaws that lie within the hierarchy of the church. I firmly believe that any priest who has ever abused children, needs to be stripped of his position and handed over the proper authorities.

As to the celibracy rule, I don't have to much to say other than, it is a sacrafice, the individual makes. I think it is a worthy sacrafice that is not taken lightly, but taken knowningly.

As to saying that the church is too old and steeped in traditions, I ask you, to explain, in light detail what your understanding of these traditions are? Which ones do you have a problem with? It is my understanding, that everything, down to the littlest detail, has a meaning to it.

Besides the obvious human problems of the church, what is your opinion of the faith itself?

I do hope that my questions make sense. I really am interested in seeing your responses.

<3 tygress

TygressVirgo

04-28-2006, 08:15 PM

This is the only reason i dislike most religion. Buddhism i don't really consider it a religion, but its one of the "religions" I actually like. You don't see buddhist people advocating violence or discriminating you based on your belief. Their spiritual guidance is personal and they will only teach if you want to learn. That's the way it should be.

To me, I view Buddhism as a relgion, but in one that is more a way of life, than a set of rules. It is a religion that I 'tip my hat too'. :clap:

Kuhool

04-29-2006, 04:24 AM

people, if you remove religion it won't stop someone from digging up some other reason to perform these immoral acts.

if people couldn't say it was God they were fighting for, they could very well just say they were fighting for liberty or something. if someone is crazy enough to kill someone, than that's because they're crazy, not because violent music or images influenced them. so if someone is so intent on an issue that they will use God to prove it, even without God they would find something else.

Beowulf

04-29-2006, 08:45 AM

people, if you remove religion it won't stop someone from digging up some other reason to perform these immoral acts.
What?

-------------------------------------------------

I firmly believe that any priest who has ever abused children, needs to be stripped of his position and handed over the proper authorities.
That's where you and your church apparently disagree. Otherwise why the obvious cover-ups?

As to the celibracy rule, I don't have to much to say other than, it is a sacrafice, the individual makes. I think it is a worthy sacrafice that is not taken lightly, but taken knowningly.
But that's just the thing, it is a sacrifice. A completely pointless sacrifice that leads to nothing but trouble. In the Eastern Orthodox church, priests are required to be married (and have families no less), and must get their families permission before becoming ordained. My Lutheran pastor has been happily married to her (that's right female priests, *gasp*) husband for 25 years now. There's just no reason to punish these poor guys who want to become catholic priests. And they wonder why the applications are coming in slower and slower these days...

As to saying that the church is too old and steeped in traditions, I ask you, to explain, in light detail what your understanding of these traditions are? Which ones do you have a problem with? It is my understanding, that everything, down to the littlest detail, has a meaning to it.
There are so many that you'd really have to ask for a specific few. Just give me 2 or 3 of the ones your curious about and I'll see what (if anything) I can recall about them. In counter-point, I also ask you how much you know about your own ceremonies and traditions.

Kuhool

04-29-2006, 09:30 PM

What?
i don't know why you quoted me, but...

there were a couple of posts i read (just skimming through) talking about religion being used as a reason to do certain things (ie crusades).

i'm saying if someone is war-crazy enough, with or without religion to back it up they would find some other reason to back it up. because religion is around, it's much easier to sway the public by using it.

King Kong

04-30-2006, 11:34 PM

How do you know what truth is then? It still comes back to your thoughts to have to be able to interpret what "truth" is that you experienced... No? But you said that thoughts aren't true so how can we do that? I would think that for someone to observe truth you half to know what truth is and be looking for it, but if you can't do that then how do you know what you are calling truth is actuall truth when you r not supposed to be able to.

I can describe the taste of a strawberry. Generally it's Nasty. I don't like them. Going into details I can't do that, because as you said... words are limited. But even then... though that may be the truth for me it may not be the truth for someone else. And even further it was the sensations on my tongue that went to my brain that relayed to me the message that I didnt like it so... the mind must be able to understand what truth is. Why couldn't a thought be true? I thought of the thought. I experienced the thought (doesn't matter whether the thing i was thinking about didn't happen as it's the actual thinking of the thought i'm thinking about). So wouldn't the thought be truth as I experienced it - it caused an expression - maybe made me sad or happy or whatever. I've looked at the sunset plenty of times and I felt nothing - it meant nothing to me. The thing that makes looking at a sunset nice is the actual thoughts that go through your head at that time. Whether it's about the sunset or something else.

Its been a long time since I set foot in this thread, so forgive my late response. All Im going to do is present a quote from Robert Pirsig;

"Any intellectually conceived object is always in the past and therefore unreal. Reality is always the moment of vision before the intellectualization takes place. There is no other reality."

The mind cannot present reality in any other way, thoughts are simply feedback or a tape that plays back a certain moment, but since it is in the past, it is not reality.
Its abit like looking up at the stars, some do not exist anymore since we are looking at the light from many a thosand light years away. Reality is in the present moment and thoughts are not.
This is the ultimate truth.

Idlethought

05-03-2006, 03:48 PM

I read some of the first page of this thread, I'm just gonna bump it up to the first page of the forum and reply later. Good shit though guys.

Idlethought

05-04-2006, 03:14 AM

Again, interesting stuff. On the subject of personal beliefs, since some people posted theirs, I'll post mine.

First and foremost it's not a formal belief system. I feel that those are detrimental to people because most of them just try to restrict you and control your mind to believe a b c is right and x y z is wrong and that if you don't believe this something bad will happen to you. I'd like to think of it more like a dynamic belief system in that it changes with my experiences in life. For example I used to think that certain things were absolute: you should never kill, steal, or lie. Now I believe more in conditions for certain actions. For example I feel that you're justified in taking the life of another if that person is directly coming after yours and it's no fault of your own. I feel that it's ok to steal from someone who has a massive excess and who is unwilling to donate it to you or give it to you for a reasonable exchange IF AND ONLY IF you're in dire need. I feel that there are also situations where it's necessary, mostly situations that involve self-preservation. In addition to that the rest of my "rights" and "wrongs" mostly go by the "do unto others" principle.

I also believe that God exists, but I also believe in the Big Bang theory. Heres how it pans out for me. I believe that in the beginning there was God. He created the enourmous mass that became the Big Bang, and then the universe took the course that science dictates that it has, and that God has been there behind the scenes tweaking certain things to happen certain ways whether on a large scale (making sure certain galaxies take form certain ways) or on a relatively minute scale (making it so that certain people do certain things). Let me expand on the latter. I specifically believe that God is looking out for me. Not me and only me in the sense that I'm the only thing in this world that matters. Me in the sense that he engineers certain events to take place certain ways at certain points in time in order to teach me lessons about life and the universe that I inhabit.

I also believe in, to a certain point, Karma. But it's more like crime and punishment (isnt that karma? maybe im just retarded). It's not just an arbitrary belief for me though, it really seems that even the most minute thing that I do wrong, I feel the consequences of it later. The same goes for the most minute thing I do right by people.

In addition to all that lol I tend to like feeling as if I'm in harmony with my environment at certain points in time. I guess this isnt so much a religious feeling as much as its just a personal feeling. Like I'll be walking home on a bright sunny day with clear skies and the green trees blowing in the wind and I'll just stop and take a deep breath and enjoy the moment I'm in.

That's all I can think of for now, it may jog my memory if anyone had a question about it.

paideuo

05-04-2006, 03:27 AM

Next time try reading my response? There is a very distinct difference between a business and what you believe in. Religion is just a business. I was pointing out the factual issue with what you said, but the second part of my response was aimed at the rampant atheist.

Maybe obvious due to the fact my first and second sentence don't connect together?

(This is the first time I have checked this thread since my last post)

When you said "rampant atheist" were you referring to me?! That is absolutely laughable! You really need to actually read the thread. At no point did I state that I was an atheist. I do in fact believe in God and spirituality but do not believe the in the organizations (religion) predicated upon certain spiritual precepts that are out to victimize people and rob from them - both their sovereignty and their money.

paideuo

05-04-2006, 03:30 AM

You say that you are fine with spirituality, but where does one's spirituality come form? Is it not possible for one's spiritulaity or faith to come from one's own religion? I look forwad to your answer.

That is easy enough to answer. In as much as a person is associated with a religion, I do not countenance what he does. To the extent to which he should be a spiritual, free-thinking, open-minded individual, not convinced of his own superiority and special purpose in life, I countenance his actions.

That is just how I feel. I do not need you to feel the way I do.

P.S. This post of yours seems to be predicated on the notion that spirituality must come from a religious organization. That is not at all true.

Idlethought

05-04-2006, 03:38 AM

P.S. This post of yours seems to be predicated on the notion that spirituality must come from a religious organization. That is not at all true.

Just curious, where do you pull your spiritual guidelines from? I got mine from philosophy, science, teachings from people, and personal experience.

TygressVirgo

05-04-2006, 06:27 PM

*Finally gets back to this thread*

To Paideuo: I always seem to come across wrong when I type in a forum. I was not in any way saying that spirituality must come from a religious background. It just seemed to me that you did not want to associate the two. The foundations of my personal faith come from my religion and my family.

To Beowulf:

When I look at the Catholic Church, I look at the individuals, then the entirety. In my experience, the priests that I have known closely through actively working at the church, have a special spirituality that stems from the sacrifice that they have made. Because it is an individual choice, I leave it up to the individual. Moreover, yes, there are less seminarians than before. What makes me wonder is that there are SO many opportunities for anyone to minister in the church, without making the sacrifice that a priest does, yet, many leave the church without trying these options. As to female priests, personally, during the Mass, the priest represents Jesus. I don’t know how I would feel with a female priest up there at the altar. I’m not going to say I’m for or against it until I actually experience it (not necessarily within the catholic church, but with other faiths).

Yes, there are many traditions in the Catholic Church, and I can’t claim to know or understand all of them fully (although I will attempt to).

For starters, I have been wondering how other faiths view the connections between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Within the Catholic Faith, we view them as one God, but with three separate distinctions. How does your Faith view the connection between the three?

To idlethought: I like the way you think *appalause*

Kuhool

05-06-2006, 01:07 AM

Idlethought

05-06-2006, 01:23 AM

well...I suppose so. And danke Tygress :)

Beowulf

05-06-2006, 10:52 AM

I think you are pretty much what philosopher's would call a Deist (Deism).
"The word deism comes from deus, the Latin word for god. When deists look up at a night sky, they see a divine celestial machine running on automatic pilot. They believe that a supreme being created this infinitely harmonious machinery but remains an absentee boss. In other words, the supreme being does not intervene in the course of history as a divine corrective force that performs miracles or hands down revelations. If this supreme being needed to intervene, it would imply that a mistake in the original creation required a kind of omnipotent cosmic repair person."
- "Philosophy - Questions & Theories", 2003 (School Textbook), Pg. 156

You better believe I cite sources, it's all about evidence bitches.
Ah yes, Deism. Also known as the "Clockmaker Religion" (sometimes mistakenly referred to as Agnostic, that's really something else altogether). Did you know that a good number of America's founding father's were Deists (I believe that Thomas Jefferson was one)? It was formerly called the Clockmakers Religion because it was described thusly (taken from memory, forgive any errors):
"Imagine God as a clockmaker. A clockmaker takes many thousands of tiny individual parts. He arranges and assembles them in a flawless intricate machine. Then he takes his masterful creation, and hangs it on a wall. From that point on, all he does is gaze upon it."

----------------------------------------------------

In my experience, the priests that I have known closely through actively working at the church, have a special spirituality that stems from the sacrifice that they have made.
What I'm saying is, is that this "special spirituality" that you describe, worth the consequences that could potentially occur? For these are not small consequences. They are potentially life-destroying and dire. I've talked to several catholic priests in my wanderings (2 of them told me I was going to hell, good way to respond in a discussion) and they seemed no more or less then any of the other spiritual leaders I spoke with. But I'm assuming that you've spent far more time with them so I'll try not to make assumptions.

As to female priests, personally, during the Mass, the priest represents Jesus. I don’t know how I would feel with a female priest up there at the altar. I’m not going to say I’m for or against it until I actually experience it (not necessarily within the catholic church, but with other faiths).
This brings me to another point of my own faith. I believe that no matter how much you study, and no matter how high you rise in whatever organization you belong to, you will remain a man. Nothing more. It is my belief that priests shouldn't try to imitate Jesus. For they are man, and man by his nature is flawed. I'm glad you hold no bias though, my support of female priests in any faith is sometimes greatly frowned upon (depending on the strictness of the faith).

Yes, there are many traditions in the Catholic Church, and I can’t claim to know or understand all of them fully (although I will attempt to).
This is exactly my point. At what point do all those traditions lose their intended meanings and become nothing more then pointless obstructions? In my opinion the Catholic Church needs to do some "pruning" and ask themselves what is really important in their faith.

For starters, I have been wondering how other faiths view the connections between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Within the Catholic Faith, we view them as one God, but with three separate distinctions. How does your Faith view the connection between the three?
In many (non-christian faiths) they view the three as a sort of poly-theism (which it is fully capable of being) and therefor could potentially violate its own fundamental principles. Also, you need to clarify before I can answer your question, do you mean my former faith (Lutheranism) or my own faith (my personal Church of Me)?

----------------------------------------------------

I also believe in the Big Bang theory. Heres how it pans out for me. I believe that in the beginning there was God. He created the enourmous mass that became the Big Bang, and then the universe took the course that science dictates that it has, and that God has been there behind the scenes
Goodness gracious, I thought for sure I'd never find anyone else who came to this conclusion besides me! Who else has the power to condense all matter in the entire universe into one big ball, then blow it out with such mighty force that it continues to expand even to this day. Our views on God's personal involvement differ however, I'll explain when its not 3 in the morning.

To idlethought: I like the way you think *appalause*
I concur TygressVirgo, Idlethought appears to be a very aware young man. Kudos to you for exploring the essence of the world you inhabit.

Idlethought

05-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Danke danke. The original reason for me for leaving christianity wasn't rational at all, i just hated my grandmother and didnt want to be associated with that because she loved that. Im glad it turned into something good lol

TygressVirgo

05-06-2006, 07:51 PM

[quote]In many (non-christian faiths) they view the three as a sort of poly-theism (which it is fully capable of being) and therefor could potentially violate its own fundamental principles. Also, you need to clarify before I can answer your question, do you mean my former faith (Lutheranism) or my own faith (my personal Church of Me)? [/qoute]

Both, if you don't mind. I must say, this is the first religous discussion i've had that someone didn't attempt to turn into a middle school fight. It's wonderful.

On a side comment, it has been my expierence that most people who strongly disagree with the catholic church, always seemed to have met up with the worst examples of the faith. If i ever hear any priest say within my hearing that 'someone is going to hell for not believeing in the catholic faith', I would personally proceed to argue with him. I don't know if i've just been lucky, but I have yet to meet a priest that has said this to someone. I really do think that the church needs a major overhaul. It is just that time again.

To idlethought: (I meant to comment on this earlier) you said you feel that god is watching out for you? I really feel that way, there are too many things in my life that I simply cannot say 'o it was just a coincidence', that have happened.

Idlethought

05-06-2006, 08:00 PM

Well I used to say things were coincidences but lately, last year especially, there were waaaaaaay too many things for me to say that.

TygressVirgo

05-06-2006, 08:12 PM

I know that feeling well.

When I was decideding what to do after high school, about a week before gradutaion, I was taking the summer off, so I still had time to decide before I went to school in the fall. Something kept pointing me in the direction of living with my grandparents in california. It was just a sudden urge to go there. At the time, my aunt who was currently living with them, was moving out and they would be pretty much alone in their house, but with family near by. When I made my decision, I made it based on the fact that I wanted to spend more time with them, life is short and all, and california has some really great colleges. So it was a win-win situation.

About a week after graduation, my grandparents got into a horrible car accident. They were damn lucky that they were able to survive with a few minor injuries. When I look at the pictures of their car, I can only think, God had to have been watching over them. I mean the car was flippin totaled into a ball, jaws of life were needed to cut them out.

I look back and think, I really didn't have that much of a reason to move out here. I could of visited my grandparents every summer and still have stayed in Guam. I really felt that my heart pointed me in that direction.

Idlethought

05-10-2006, 03:02 PM

STICKY THIS!!oneone

TygressVirgo

05-10-2006, 05:32 PM

*agrees and signs*

this thread and the safety thread (since they seem to keep popping up)

Beowulf

05-11-2006, 06:13 AM

STICKY THIS!!oneone
If the powers at be agree then whatever. I never expected this to become so popular but I must admit that I'm having a wonderful time!

---------------------------------------------

Both, if you don't mind. I must say, this is the first religous discussion i've had that someone didn't attempt to turn into a middle school fight. It's wonderful.
Well the Lutherans believe that God is almighty. They say that the holy spirit is more a personification of belief rather then its own mystical entity. They believe that Jesus was the supernatural son of God, a being sent to earth to die for all our sins (including the ones we haven't committed yet). Basically, the Lutherans say that since Jesus died for all your sins (again, even the ones you have yet to commit) then you will get into heaven.
I believe that God is almighty, not all-knowing and has thusly handicapped himself. If you look at the old testament its full of God personally exerting his will on earth. It is God smiting the evil and saving the good. But this approach bred reliance. It fostered stagnation and a belief that no matter what God would fix it for them. God must have seen that by simply showing himself on earth in an attempt to save humanity, was in fact doing us no good as people. I believe that God wants us to lead full, happy lives. I think that he wants us to make our own decisions and exert our own free will. If God wanted a perfect people then he would have had us evolve as such. Thus he created Jesus as the safety net. Because of Jesus we will all enjoy paradise after death without fear of God's wrath or retribution. I also believe that the holy ghost is God's way of acting subtly on earth. It is simply a small part of God manifested on this earth. My this got a little longwinded eh?

Now since I mentioned it I'll clarify my beliefs on evolution. I believe that the book of Genesis is a code/story. Early man could not have possibly even come close to understanding evolution. The necessary knowledge to its understanding was simply non-existant. So God had them write a story in order to explain a crucial part of our existence, while at the same time alluding to how we really got here. I think that since God created our universe with the big bang (creation of light maybe Gen 1:3?) he thusly has to act within the scientific boundries of our universe. God creates our planet and whats the first thing to form? Oceans and continents (the creation of water Gen 1:9?) were later formed. You see the way I look at it, the chance for humans evolving the way we did on this world was, what, a billion to one? A trillion to one? So how is it, save by God guiding our evolutionary patterns, that we could have come to where we are today?

TygressVirgo

05-11-2006, 07:52 AM

Beowulf

05-11-2006, 08:17 AM

Thanks, that was an interesting and well written response to read. One thing that I've taken from Genesis, is for me, seven days, means seven days in the Lord's time. A day in the lord's time meaning, several thousands of years in our time. It is just the way I think of it.
You're not the first to think this way. Clarence Darrow made this exact same point during the pointless debacle that was the Scopes Monkey Trial. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. We think of days a measurement of time. But what is a measurement of time for one who has created time? The answer certainly isn't known to us but I'm pretty sure it ain't 24 hours.

ruaidhri

05-14-2006, 02:56 PM

People always search for meaning and fear the unknown, the biggest being: What happens after I die? Throughout history religion has provided answers that comforted the masses. While the answers were often superstition and simple dogma they held a promise that appealed to the people. The problem was and remains that religious leaders often pretend to speak for God. In the process, it’s common that they line their pockets with gold while supporting the wealthy and powerful to maintain control over the population.

Like many other posters on OP9, I am no fan of organized religions or dogma. However, I don’t single out Christianity for my disdain. I believe all religions are creations of men and women, not Gods. Regardless, I do acknowledge that religious individuals have accomplished good deeds. I do believe the world is generally a better place because the world’s religions have promoted morals and standard laws of behavior. However, I also believe that sometimes religions have done harm by failing to understand and accommodate changes in what the masses acknowledge as acceptable behavior. Still, I believe, most people that hold religion close to their heart are honestly trying to be better people. The problem I see is that too many let their religious dogma do their thinking.

When I consider how we came to be here, I look to science for answers, not religion. Still, it would make me happy if there were a God, a heaven, reincarnation or something following death. That doesn’t mean I have faith in God or an afterlife although I certainly wish there were a God. I enjoy life too much to accept that it’s all going to end. That’s why I’d prefer that there were a God. It’s such a nice tidy end of one journey and beginning of another. Reason, however, prevents my faith. Life has taught me that desire doesn’t equal belief.

Religion is a very personal issue with each individual. I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion so long as that practice does no harm to me or my family. I have no desire to ridicule or, in any way, deride them. If they’ve found peace through their belief in God, I shout hurrah and in a way, I’m envious.

Beowulf

05-16-2006, 06:23 PM

People always search for meaning and fear the unknown, the biggest being: What happens after I die?
I always preferred the classic "why are we here?" discussion. Though these can both get rather confusing at times (to say the least eh?).

The problem was and remains that religious leaders often pretend to speak for God. In the process, it’s common that they line their pockets with gold while supporting the wealthy and powerful to maintain control over the population.
I agree with you 100%. I think that this becomes especially exacerbated when a church creates a strict hierarchy. A good example of this would be the pope (sorry TygressVirgo and any other catholics for offenses caused here, respond and we'll discuss) and his cardinals. I never liked the pope because he speaks for God and puts himself above us other lowly humans. Man cannot speak for God no matter how "enlightened" he is. If the bible tells us that man is flawed by nature, then we can thusly conclude that any speaking he does for God would therefor be flawed. And as for your gold comment, I believe that my earlier example of St. Peter's Basillica proves you right.

However, I don’t single out Christianity for my disdain. I believe all religions are creations of men and women, not Gods.
I agree with roughly 76%. I think that this idea is mostly right but I believe that us humans can be influenced or led by God/Gods. Though it only happens very very rarely and only in times of true religious crisis. As in not Pat Robertson.

However, I also believe that sometimes religions have done harm by failing to understand and accommodate changes in what the masses acknowledge as acceptable behavior.
Again I agree. To many religions are too reluctant to change and adapt to changing times. If God wanted things to be one way forever then he would have kept it that way forever instead of allowing us to develope and grow as a species.

Like many other posters on OP9, I am no fan of organized religions or dogma.
Well I must say I'm certainly glad that you didn't enter this thread trumpeting the evils of all organized religion. I appreciate all beliefs but please provide your reasoning for your beliefs. If you think religion is evil, please tell me why (though I ask you to read the earlier posts in this thread as we have partially discussed this). I'm interested to know, ruaidhri, why you think that reason and faith are two seperate things.

Trump

05-16-2006, 09:17 PM

So by your reasoning, since the bible was written by Moses (first and other men later) doesn't that make the bible flawed? I suppose this is one reason I'm for a more open interpretation of the bible. It isn't meant to be followed word for word especially since 95% of the world cannot understand the original words and there is no one alive who understands every word. The bible is a guide to both the history of several religions and to how to live your life. It is not the ultimate authority though.

I agree with ruaidhri in that I believe reason and faith are opposites. Faith is almost a lack of reason. When you have faith in something, you just believe it with regardless of the lack of supporting information. If you believe in God, that is faith because no one can prove he exists (or doesn't exist). There is no real reason to believe in God. Some people are on the side of reason (more logical perhaps) and say "well, you can't prove he exists" (and that sounds like ruaidhri) while other just have faith and say "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist".

Personally, I believe in God because I think I would like a world with God better than a world without God. I probably have a different view of what God is from most people though.

Beowulf

05-17-2006, 07:01 AM

So by your reasoning, since the bible was written by Moses (first and other men later) doesn't that make the bible flawed?
Exactly my point!

I suppose this is one reason I'm for a more open interpretation of the bible. It isn't meant to be followed word for word especially since 95% of the world cannot understand the original words and there is no one alive who understands every word. The bible is a guide to both the history of several religions and to how to live your life. It is not the ultimate authority though.
I agree, the bible is meant to be interpreted (also contextualized), not taken literally. The bible was written for a different era, one now lost to the sands of time. The bibles message remains clear, its literal interpretation just seems kind of out of place.

I probably have a different view of what God is from most people though.
Good. Differences encourage discussion which leads to learning. Imagine how boring this thread would be if we all agreed with each other.

ruaidhri

05-17-2006, 12:34 PM

Beowulf, you asked me to further define my comment “Reason, however, prevents my faith. Life has taught me that desire doesn’t equal belief. “ You also asked if I believed all religions were evil. Both are good questions suggested, yet unanswered, in my previous post.

First, let me emphatically state that I do not believe that all religions are evil. I do not believe that all leaders of religion are evil. I do not believe that all actions of any religion are evil. What I do believe is that, throughout history, men, not Gods, have used religions to manipulate and gather wealth. My problem with the faithful is that they often let their dogma do their thinking and became the willing vassals of their less than Godly leaders. In the process, I believe the misguided faithful committed evil acts to remove obstacles in their path. There are many examples throughout history, two of the most notable being the crusades and the September 11th attacks. Obviously, neither were attacks from God but rather from men so blinded by dogma that they committed acts in God’s name that directly contradicted His primary edict, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Now, why do I believe that reason and faith are separate. Let me start this answer with the simple comment that I want there to be a God. I want there to be am afterlife, a heaven or even reincarnation. I want there to be something other than just the end. I guess I could be called an aging and hopeful theist. As I wrote in a previous post on religion, I’ve always respected people that truly believe in God and honestly practice their religion. However, what’s most important to me is the simple Golden Rule where people treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.

Trump is correct. I have a personal problem with proof. I have a problem with blind faith. That doesn’t mean that I believe the religious are “wrong” simply because no one can prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a God (and I certainly hope there is) I would like to believe that it wouldn’t make any difference if a person is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic Atheist, or any other religion. I would find Heaven far to exclusive if there is only one true God and only His followers were allowed entry.

So, how do I try to lead my life? I try to be good and kind and generous because it makes me feel good. I’ve never regretted being kind but I’ve certainly had deep regrets when I was mean. Haven’t you?

Idlethought

05-17-2006, 02:34 PM

Still, it would make me happy if there were a God, a heaven, reincarnation or something following death.

In a scientific sense, we are reincarnated. In several ways. In fact you're even reincarnated while youre still alive. Had this discussion with my dad last night. Ex:

1). Your children contain a copy of your basic genetic blueprints. In a sense, once you have them, theyre the new you, while also be the new version of your wife, as well as a person within themselves. Just as you are the new version of your parents. Your son is Rory 2.0

2). Matter and energy are never created or destroyed. That said, when you die, your fundamental building blocks will decompose and become one with the Earth. The plants absorb all that shit and whether someone goes directly to the plant and eats that, or the plant gets eaten by say...a COW, and someone eats the cow, your essence is being assimilated into another person.

So even when you go, you never really leave ^_^

Trump

05-17-2006, 05:00 PM

But what about your soul? When people talk about reincarnation they usually mean your soul, not your body. It can't be your children because your soul can't be in two people. Maybe you give them some of your soul to live and grow from but it soon becomes their own.

I think that is part of it for me. How and why do people act so differently? We all start from embryos, single cells (or two single cells). Those cells are all very similar at the atomic level. But yet there are so many variaties of people, and furthermore so many varieties of personality that it can't be just science, at least in my mind.

How did existence get from the beginning (whether big bang or something else) to what we have today? I mean given the odds of going from primordeal goo to human beings, I'd bet against us every day. The chances of a habitable planet like we have now seems astronomically low. But here we are.

So I have faith that there is something else. Whether it is god and the human soul or just something science hasn't discovered yet, it doesn't even matter to me. I could go on about possibilities, but regardless if it is science, we won't figure it out in my life time anyway. So I have faith that there is more to life and existence than current science tells us.

Otherwise I believe similarly to Ruaidhri. I find I enjoy life much more by making people happy than by making people unhappy.

TygressVirgo

05-17-2006, 06:28 PM

Otherwise I believe similarly to Ruaidhri. I find I enjoy life much more by making people happy than by making people unhappy.

*agrees*

I must say that you all have such beautiful thoughts that must come from beautiful souls. I really enjoy reading what all of you have posted, and share a great deal of your thoughts.

Beowulf, please do not worry about offending me, it takes a lot for me to get offended or at least the right buttons pushed. I love my faith, but it is not tied to the church itself, rather the teachings that I find within it's faith.

As to the bible, I don't think I've ever taken it literally. For me, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written and interpreted by man. It is perfect in the sense that it is the word of God, but it is in our various understandings that we find and create errors.

Here is something I've been curious about for a long while. What are your views as to the place that Mary, Mother of God, holds in your faith? Does she holds any place or meaning for you?

For me, she is the example of how we should be. "I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done according to Your will", meaning that we should do our best to follow what we feel is the Lord's will, with the basic understanding that the two greatest commandments (about loving God, and loving our neighboors) are the foundation and guide to understanding the Lord's will.

Not only this, by I do view her as my spiritual mother. I do believe in the miracles of Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe. I wish to visit these places one day. I have asked things of Mary, good things for others, and those prayers were answered in turn. I know it probably sounds crazy, and sometimes I do wonder, but something in my heart tells me that praying to Mary is right. I in no way place her before God, but I do believe in her and the rest of the saints.

So my question is does she or any other saints, hold any place in your faith?

I look forward to whatever replies may come, and I do not mind being asked about why I believe what I believe (although it is harder to explain in this format).

Blessings to you <3!