pashley
Being Christian doesn’t mean one stops listening to science. This whole creationism vs evolution has been hashed out before.
As fo the OP, religion help us discover who we are and how we should live. There are Christian denominations that are not as reactionary as the mainstream, such as the Reformed branch, which includes Presbyterianism and its lesser known Dutch cousins, Christian Reformed, Reformed Church of America.
My question about religion has to do with its relationship with the TRUTH. Dosn’t that count for something?
Pashley said:
As opposed to the self-evident value of an “everthing is prohibited- live in fear- God hates you” gathering?
Yo Bigdaddy, that’s true, but not always. For a lot of people, being christian involves a lot of blind faith, and when science and church collide, a lot of people stamp their god-fearing feet and insist that their beliefs are right because they just are and that’s why and it just is.
There is usually no coherent thought behind any of it, nothing to back it up, no sound reason to think that they are right, they just insist that they are.
I’m not going to bring up any age-old debates that have been hashed out before, just suffice it to say that organized religion has nothing to offer me. Frankly, I don’t think that it has much to offer anyone. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s bad and should be banned. I just think that more people should try thinking for themsleves.
Religion… It’s all a bunch of hokey mythology and tired hear-say. The idea of the bible or any other book being the word of God is ridiculous. God didn’t write any of that stuff, it’s the history of many people written by several men.
Organized religion today is the same thing it has always been. Mankind always seems to say “Oh, what were they thinking with that? Now we know better.”
The Greeks I am sure scoffed at those before them as they worshipped Zeus and Hera and Dionysus and Athena and Poseidon et-freakin’-all.
And now we teach it as literature in public school under the guise of “Mythology”.
Some day 2,000 years from now folks are going to say “Oh what were thinking with that? Water into wine, river of blood? Now we know better.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I can understand the need of the masses for something to believe in, but taking it to the point of fanaticism is retroactive.
Most religion I’ve seen is so corrupted by man that it accomplishes nothing but making people insecure and assuring them that God is a big all powerful vengeful sick twisted fuck that will damn you to an eternity of infinite suffering if you don’t do certain stuff and if you do do other things.
I’ll agree, religion does have it good points. But the fact is that it takes credit for things that any amount of common sense tells you to do.
-Respect your mom and dad. Duh.
-Don’t cheat on your wife/husband. Duh.
-Don’t steal. Really?
-Don’t randomly murder people. No shit?
-Don’t lie. Thanks for the tip.
-Don’t envy your friend’s stuff. Good idea.
The other four are pretty dumb, and I have no idea why they even exist, but who am I to judge the word of God?
-Don’t worship any God but me. Well, that’s just good business.
-Don’t worship any carved (or craven) images or statues or anything. Boy that one sure went out the window in a hurry.
-Don’t say my name unless you really mean it. I am just as bewildered by this one as you are. Does it distract the all-knowing, omnipotent from more important stuff?
-Remember Church day and keep it holy. Take a day off, basically, but don’t forget who’s boss; a really good idea actually.
Oh, I have heard every argument of my Catholic-Mexican family to convert to dillusional insani-er, I mean, Catholicism. Stuff like “Well, where do you think you got that common sense?” From how you raised me, of course.
“Well where do you think we got it?” I know you want me to say “From God,” but I won’t because that’s bullshit. You got it from your parents. And they from their’s, and so on and so on all the way back til there was no Catholocism in our family and we were Aztecs. And (even further back) all the way back till we were Pagans in the hills of what is now known as Spain.
I have heard all kinds of arguments, and none of them seem to hold water. They are all argumentative, circumstancial and so full of holes that they are nearly transparent.
Summarily, I can’t stand religion; it seems to be made up of easily-led automotons and two-faced, over-zealous bigots.
But if you want or need to waste your time with it, that’s your prerogitive. Just don’t preach hellfire and brimstone at me, I have heard it all, I was raised Catholic and then non-denomination christian so I am no stranger to the conversion process.
Thank you, merciful father, that it did not work.
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
FWIW:
Dredging up memories from theology class in high school, IIRC, this commandment was really important at the dawn of Judaic history.
In that era, many people used the names of gods and other supernatural entities to try to control them to do magic. Jehovah wasn’t having any of that: He was in charge; you could ask Him for stuff, but you couldn’t command Him.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
Crabcakes, crawfish, lobster, catfish … this is denial? I’m pretty hungry for some denial myself.
“Honey we’re recovering Christians.”
–Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo
Neutron:
Lobster or all-you-can-eat crab legs certainly would not be in the spirit of the Lenten fast, especially in light of my approach, which as I mentioned earlier involves real, honest-to-goodness fasting - that is, I ate no food at all on Ash Wednesday, period.
Nor would lavish seafood consumption be in the spirit of Friday penance.
You left out at least one other thing shepherds do to sheep.
Very lonely shepherds.
When no one is looking.
Moving along … I’d just like to state the obvious, namely, that everyone, everywhere, neutron star included, practices religion. Our daily interactions constitute our form of worship. Our convictions are rooted in our sense of self. Every religion, in its purist form, has only one true believer.
What game are YOU playing?
Then I’d like to know why at this time every year, all the restaurants have “Lent Specials” featuring fish. Fish isn’t meat, but beef and chicken are?
“Honey we’re recovering Christians.”
–Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo
Uhhhh … no.
My dictionary says religion is :
“Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”
Made-up silliness like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Christian Bible are things I do NOT believe in.
“Honey we’re recovering Christians.”
–Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo
Sounds like you need a better dictionary.
What game are YOU playing?
How am I practicing religion in my day to day life? I’m not worshipping anything or anyone. Sure I may admire someone, but that doesn’t mean I’m worshipping them.
I do not believe in anything that I don’t know to be true. I am not practicing religion.
“Honey we’re recovering Christians.”
–Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo
Let the people say amen!
The strength of your convictions would put some evangelists to shame.
What game are YOU playing?
Neutron, since you are using the Lenten fast as a prime example of the irrationality of religious practices I’d like to delve into that a bit. Although I am not religious or a believer in any sort of supernatural beings, I do believe that trying to understand the context in which various religious practices arose is better than merely viewing them as absurdities and congratulating ourselves on our good sense, without any effort at understanding.
First off, all though it is not really relevant to my main argument, the Catholic Church has never taught that its Lenten practices were commanded by God. It has always acknowledged that they were a matter of Church discipline, instituted by its human officials.
As for the Lenten fast itself, my views have been shaped by Marvin Harris’ “Good to Eat: Riddles of Food & Culture” [1985]. Harris’ thesis is that while different cultures’ and religions’ dietary practices may arise for all sorts of non-rational reasons, the ones which were institutionalized and persisted were those which happened to make economic and social sense for a particular culture’s environment. One of the major examples he cites is that in the Middle East, because of the type of vegetation there, pigs are a very inefficient means of converting plant matter into concentrated protein and fat. Pigs eat many of the same types of vegetation as humans- grain, nuts, roots, and thus where vegetation is sparse as in the Middle East, they are competitors with humans for the limited plant matter. Much better for that environment would be animals who could efficiently convert shrubbery and grass, inedible for humans, into protein- which just happens to be animals with cloven hoofs who chew cuds. Thus the Judaic and Islamic prohibitions against eating pork.
While Harris does not address the Lent issue, I believe a similar analysis could show that it made a great deal of social and economic sense for medieval Europe. Back then food production was pretty close to the edge, and preservation techniques were primitive. Around February food supplies must have been starting to get rather short most years. Ordinarily, that would result in the more well-off spending more of their money to maintain their usual diet, and the poor being priced out of the food market. Under those circumstances, it would make a lot of practical sense for the authorities to impose short rations on everybody, to reduce demand on the dwindling food supply. (Remember, the original Lenten fast allowed only 1 meal a day, and was not merely a prohibition of meat on Fridays). The meat ban would make a lot of sense too, since once the supply of meat from animals slaughtered in the fall disappeared there would be a lot of temptation to kill breeding stock and draft animals to take care of immediate hunger, and to heck with next year. Allowing substitution of seafood, especially tasty seafood, would reduce the temptation to kill domestic animals.
Lex, you’re a closet UU!
http://www.beginbids.com/ubb/smilies/icon25.gif
Sorry, sorry, couldn’t resist…
Esprix
There are many vegetarians who use this distinction as well, for reasons completely unrelated to religion.
According to my Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions of “meat” (2b) is “FLESH; specifically : flesh of domesticated animals,” which would exclude fish.
So, yes – in this context, fish isn’t meat.
By the way, Neutron, you might want to look waaaaaaaay back for my own thread entitled “Liberal Religions,” where I talked about UUism in the context of people thinking for themselves in a religious context.
Esprix
So fish are plants?
Nevermind, this is being dragged off topic and it’s mostly my fault. My main question here is : do you unquestionably believe? Can you accept that your beliefs may be wrong? Is there any doubt at all in you? Or did “faith” take care of that?
What I love about the Christians is that blind faith is such a huge part of their religion. In other words, “Don’t start asking questions, Sonny, or people will start to think you don’t have faith and aren’t a REAL Christian!” The whole concept of blind faith is simply to keep the collection plate full.
“Honey we’re recovering Christians.”
–Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo
neutron star:
Yes, I can accept that my beliefs may be wrong. Sometimes, I have doubts.
I can see you hate the church.
Actually, the Bible encourages us to put our faith to the test. Ask questions, probe, etc.
Do some Christians just blindly believe? Sure. But some atheists do the same. They just blindly deny, not allowing for any chance of there even being a God.
I ask questions of my priest often.
I give to the collection basket because I want to help keep the church building in good repair, the priests housed, and the donations to the poor ensured. I don’t always give, sometimes I forget my wallet, or only have a $20 or whatever.
I understand what you see religion as, I believe. I used to do the same. I was also very mad at God, and thought Priests were hypocrites, and the followers selfish. But since i have delved into it further, I’ve come to understand the beauty of some of the practices and beliefs.
Do you really need to be so hateful against religion? Your tone is one of resentment and spite. Why? Did some Christians make you feel uncomfortable? Were you a christian once, and now aren’t?
If you feel we are just a bunch of fools, how does that personally affect you? Just leave us be, man.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
I absolutely accept that my beliefs might be wrong.
By the same token, I accept that there may not be such a place as China. But the theory that China exists doesn’t run afoul of anything I can actually observe, and more importantly, assuming that China exists is a model that has, thus far, accurately predicted the behavior of the world.
I believe that a brick has an inside, even though I’ve never seen it. Sure, I’ve broken bricks – but that just creates more outside surface. But the brick having an inside is a useful theory that, at least so far, isn’t contradicted by anything I’ve been able to observe.
In the same way, I believe that there was such a person as Jesus, and He was of divine origin. Now, I might well be wrong. But that theory doesn’t fly in the face of anything I can personally observe, and it’s a useful model in predicting how the world around me will react and how I should react to the world.
Does that count as blind faith, or not?