Religion Again

[Riptide]

On can choose to "believe" anything one wants, but one cannot make a claim to truth. It's when truth is claimed that problems arise.For example, even with Jesus holding forth in defense of the poor and the persecuted, the Bible basically condones slavery, the righteousness of slavery.. Slaveholders were on the winning side of a theological argument and they knew it and they made a hell of a lot of noise about it. Slavery was abolished despite the moral inadequacy of the Bible, not because of it's treatise on morality.


Someone once said that "Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail." As BB has said, it is the willingness of science to say "I don't know"- to really integrate doubt into their view of the world, to test all theories - that constitutes their privileged position with respect to truth. There are an uncountable number of questions upon which religion once offeredfaith-based answers (no doubt chosen with the comfort in mind of those giving the answer), which have now been ceded to the care of science. We hardly need examples, and there are many we can cite in this day and age. Was it Dawkins who wrote that"the process of scientific conquest and religious forfeiture is relentless, unidirectional, and highly predictable"? What is also evident is that thoughout the ages and evenin some cultures today, there has been/is an eagerness to subjugate and even murderthose whochallenge "the truths", thedoctrine, to which the religioushave become emotionally attached.

[dipstick]

Religion I suppose will always be with us. It's been there (I almost said since time began) but certainlysince man or at least Homo Sapiens got going and it's been thriving ever since. A lot of religious people who are free thinking have discarded certain partseven dogmas of their faith. For example, no one takes the Old Testament seriously unless you favour being stoned to death on Sunday for picking sticks and so forth. These peopletry to remain religious andpick what they need from their religion.


The problem I see today with religionisthe rise offundamentalism , aided and abetted by nutters such as George Bush and his ilk. Whatever freethinking is allowed in moderate religions fundamentalism certainly does away with. The purpose is to instil blind faith and obedience and it succeeds very well.


We had the same problem here in Ireland for decades, a priest ridden country (literally and metaphorically) What we had, thanks to Dev, was a fundamental type of catholicism. Ireland remained in the dark ages while the catholic church dominated our every move, thought , our whole life. Thankfully, due I suppose to the various scandals and a more secular outlook that day seems to be gone in Ireland but I fear the Al Qaeda and other such groups because of their extreme fundamentalism which is really the most dangerous type ofreligion of all.


Science holds a lot of answers and no doubt will provide us with more. Religion will always be there too though because it is needed by some. Who knows, it may be right in the long run, about "God' that is.

[Riptide]

For example, no one takes the Old Testament seriously unless you favour being stoned to death on Sunday for picking sticks and so forth. These peopletry to remain religious andpick what they need from their religion.

Well indulge me when I say that that it is extraordinarily obvious that neither you, me,norany infalliblepope, nor any other Christian is in a position to determine as remotely truthful the New testament's claim that Jesus was actually born of a virgin or that he will one day return to earth wielding magic powers.


Sorry, in one of those moods.

[dipstick]

For example, no one takes the Old Testament seriously unless you favour being stoned to death on Sunday for picking sticks and so forth. These peopletry to remain religious andpick what they need from their religion.

Well indulge me when I say that that it is extraordinarily obvious that neither you, me,norany infalliblepope, nor any other Christian is in a position to determine as remotely truthful the New testament's claim that Jesus was actually born of a virgin or that he will one day return to earth wielding magic powers.


Sorry, in one of those moods.

Hold tough Riptide, I'm actually on your side. I've already stated in my previous posts that I'm not religious. Virgin births, resurrection and so on were all prerequisitesfor thesetting up a religion in those days and the New Testament isn't a whole lot better than the old when it comes to tall tales. For example, miracles were also an essential ingredientof the religion recipeof the time. I wonder what wine Jesus favouredin the water to wine miracle? Was it French or New World? Red or white? Merlot or Shiraz or maybe a cool Chardonnay? Who knows?


Interestingly, virgins are also important in other codes like Islam where 72 of these chaste maidens await you when and ifyou get there. Why 72? Is it a bit like the lad withthe 12 underpants, one for each month of the year? But, with the virginsyou are allowed 6 every month. One and a half virgins a week! Anything is possible in religion. Why did they remain virgins? Were they for example too ugly?That's a frightening thought. You arrive at the pearly gates awaiting your ration of virgins and discover they are dog ugly. I know where I'd keep ol' JT. Why are virgins so important I wonder? Because the authors of the various scriptures or at least one of them fantasized about them and the rest of them plagiarized his ideas.


Why resurrect after 3 days? Was Jesus taking a rest after being killed or did he know Sunday was the only of the week that you were allowed to resurrect? If he had died on Thursday would he have waited until Sunday? Maybe 3 days was the maximum amount of days allowed dead in those days before you began to smell.


I'm only having a crack at religion and I respect those who are religious because it's their choice.Science is open to ridicule why shouldn't religion?

[Balla Boy]

For example, no one takes the Old Testament seriously unless you favour being stoned to death on Sunday for picking sticks and so forth. These peopletry to remain religious andpick what they need from their religion.

Well indulge me when I say that that it is extraordinarily obvious that neither you, me,norany infalliblepope, nor any other Christian is in a position to determine as remotely truthful the New testament's claim that Jesus was actually born of a virgin or that he will one day return to earth wielding magic powers.


Sorry, in one of those moods.

Hold tough Riptide, I'm actually on your side. I've already stated in my previous posts that I'm not religious. Virgin births, resurrection and so on were all prerequisites of setting up a religion in those days and the New Testament isn't a whole lot better than the old when it comes to tall tales. For example, miracles were also an essential ingredientof the religion recipeof the time. I wonder what wine Jesus favouredin the water to wine miracle? Was it French or New World? Red or white? Merlot or Shiraz or maybe a cool Chardonnay? Who knows?


Interestingly, virgins are also important in other codes like Islam where 72 of these chaste maidens await you when and ifyou get there. Why 72? Is it a bit like the lad withthe 12 underpants, one for each month of the year? But, with the virginsyou are allowed 6 every month. One and a half virgins a week! Anything is possible in religion. Why did they remain virgins? Were they for example too ugly?That's a frightening thought. You arrive at the pearly gates awaiting your ration of virgins and discover they are dog ugly. I know where I'd keep ol' JT. Why are virgins so important I wonder? Because the authors of the various scriptures or at least one of them fantasized about them and the rest of them plagiarized his ideas.


Why resurrect after 3 days? Was Jesus taking a rest after being killed or did he know Sunday was the only of the week that you were allowed to resurrect? If he had died on Thursday would he have waited until Sunday? Maybe 3 days was the maximum amount of days allowed dead in those days before you began to smell.


I'm only having a crack at religion and I respect those who are religious because it's their choice.Science is open to ridicule why shouldn't religion?

3 days is the space between the death of the old moon and the birth of the new. Hence the three day resurrections of Mithras and Bacchus - it's standard eastern mediterranean lunar cult procedure to be resurrected in a way that mirrors the lunar cycle.


In solar cults, like the egyptian, resurrection will tend to be linked to the harvest or theequinox.


Thevirginbirth thingis another classicalrelic - sons begat ofGods knocking up mortals were ten a penny at the time it seems.

[sewa]

Ye're all going to hell.

Not possible doesn't exist[img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]

You're only making it worse for yourself.

Monty Python at their best. Love it [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]

[SecondRowGal]

On the virgin thing Dipstick (as an addition to Balla's more knowledgeable reply), I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's about male dominance,power and ownership. What man doesn't fantacise about being the "first", not to mention the one and only, and we mere females are supposed to hang around for it and be eternally (no pun intended) grateful! (This is the rationale behind it - not an accusation, btw).


The same thing with all religons that have thewse "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife" clauses ('cause us mere females are there to be covetted, and are not capable of doing the covetting), the Koran's and the Tora's requirement for females to cover up and remain modest! It's all because, apparently, you boys just can't control yourselves in the presence of the peek of an ankle or a real head of hair.The idea was that all men will covet all women, including YOUR woman and wecan't have that, can we, because all us young, nubile, gorgeous virgins are weak and will run off with the first hairy, bearded, smelly auld fella that tips us the wink. So ratherthan give some measure of choice to the ladies,it was easier formen to control women. Control, control, control...


Sorry for drifting off the point... Am really enjoying the discussion on this thread!

[The Crimson King]

Just very quickly on the "72 virgins" (which makes NO sense - surely you'd be looking for "72 game trollops" [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]!)- there's an increasing body of scholarship that suggests that's actually a mistranslation from several centuries ago.


The mistranslation would render the original phrase "72 raisins." How gutted would you be! [img]smileys/shock.gif[/img]

[bruffian]

On the virgin thing Dipstick (as an addition to Balla's more knowledgeable reply), I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's about male dominance,power and ownership. What man doesn't fantacise about being the "first", not to mention the one and only, and we mere females are supposed to hang around for it and be eternally (no pun intended) grateful! (This is the rationale behind it - not an accusation, btw).


The same thing with all religons that have thewse "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife" clauses ('cause us mere females are there to be covetted, and are not capable of doing the covetting), the Koran's and the Tora's requirement for females to cover up and remain modest! It's all because, apparently, you boys just can't control yourselves in the presence of the peek of an ankle or a real head of hair.The idea was that all men will covet all women, including YOUR woman and wecan't have that, can we, because all us young, nubile, gorgeous virgins are weak and will run off with the first hairy, bearded, smelly auld fella that tips us the wink. So ratherthan give some measure of choice to the ladies,it was easier formen to control women. Control, control, control...


Sorry for drifting off the point... Am really enjoying the discussion on this thread!

well,according to the torah,gsopels and the koran,men are supposed to remain virgins as well up until marriage.its not like it says men should go off riding left and right,and women have to remain celebate does it?

[McCloud]

There's females for ye taking the whole discussion off on a different tangent[img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]

[dipstick]

How does Hell work I wonder? You go there with your buddies (where else would they go!) for eternity or infinity if you want to be scientific about it, to be burned for the rest of your life. What if you were cremated? Surely that would annoy old Nick. Not another pot of ashes, no joy there for the ultimate arsonist I'd say. I can imagine what he'd say to his buddy another fallen angel called Uzza also known as Eddie. ( the fallen angels were cast out of heaven because of Pride)


"For f**ks sake Eddie, not another load of ash. The last batch we got nearly put out the Fire. Nip across there like a good man, sorry Ed, like a bad man of course, and f**k the whole lot into the river Styx. That bollixCharon fell out of the boat again last night, langers of courseand is being dried out in the oven"


" OK Boss, but they were pissed off the last time over in Hades (Gwlad)as we blocked up the river and the smell of s**t was pure Hell"


" Good joke , sorry bad joke, Ned. There's always a smell of s**t over there at the best, sorry, worst of times. I suppose we could snort it like we did the time before. Where's this batch from?"


" Hold on Boss, it's here on the cover. It's some politician called the Boss, Boss"


" Jaysus, Holy God, get rid of it quick somewhere. He'll corrupt every last one of us."

[Balla Boy]

On the virgin thing Dipstick (as an addition to Balla's more knowledgeable reply), I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's about male dominance,power and ownership. What man doesn't fantacise about being the "first", not to mention the one and only, and we mere females are supposed to hang around for it and be eternally (no pun intended) grateful! (This is the rationale behind it - not an accusation, btw).


The same thing with all religons that have thewse "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife" clauses ('cause us mere females are there to be covetted, and are not capable of doing the covetting), the Koran's and the Tora's requirement for females to cover up and remain modest! It's all because, apparently, you boys just can't control yourselves in the presence of the peek of an ankle or a real head of hair.The idea was that all men will covet all women, including YOUR woman and wecan't have that, can we, because all us young, nubile, gorgeous virgins are weak and will run off with the first hairy, bearded, smelly auld fella that tips us the wink. So ratherthan give some measure of choice to the ladies,it was easier formen to control women. Control, control, control...


Sorry for drifting off the point... Am really enjoying the discussion on this thread!

well,according to the torah,gsopels and the koran,men are supposed to remain virgins as well up until marriage.its not like it says men should go off riding left and right,and women have to remain celebate does it?

Where in the bible does it say that Bruffian?

[SecondRowGal]

On the virgin thing Dipstick (as an addition to Balla's more knowledgeable reply), I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's about male dominance,power and ownership. What man doesn't fantacise about being the "first", not to mention the one and only, and we mere females are supposed to hang around for it and be eternally (no pun intended) grateful! (This is the rationale behind it - not an accusation, btw).


The same thing with all religons that have thewse "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife" clauses ('cause us mere females are there to be covetted, and are not capable of doing the covetting), the Koran's and the Tora's requirement for females to cover up and remain modest! It's all because, apparently, you boys just can't control yourselves in the presence of the peek of an ankle or a real head of hair.The idea was that all men will covet all women, including YOUR woman and wecan't have that, can we, because all us young, nubile, gorgeous virgins are weak and will run off with the first hairy, bearded, smelly auld fella that tips us the wink. So ratherthan give some measure of choice to the ladies,it was easier formen to control women. Control, control, control...


Sorry for drifting off the point... Am really enjoying the discussion on this thread!

well,according to the torah,gsopels and the koran,men are supposed to remain virgins as well up until marriage.its not like it says men should go off riding left and right,and women have to remain celebate does it?

Fair enough Bruffian, but except for the tongue in cheek comment about women having to hang around for it perhaps you could point out where I said menwere off riding left and right?? What I was saying was that the Koran promises 72 female virgins to those male martyrs - is there a corresponding reward for us ladies?? I don't know, if you do please tell me, I'm converting tomorrow!

[dipstick]

On the virgin thing Dipstick (as an addition to Balla's more knowledgeable reply), I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's about male dominance,power and ownership. What man doesn't fantacise about being the "first", not to mention the one and only, and we mere females are supposed to hang around for it and be eternally (no pun intended) grateful! (This is the rationale behind it - not an accusation, btw).


The same thing with all religons that have thewse "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife" clauses ('cause us mere females are there to be covetted, and are not capable of doing the covetting), the Koran's and the Tora's requirement for females to cover up and remain modest! It's all because, apparently, you boys just can't control yourselves in the presence of the peek of an ankle or a real head of hair.The idea was that all men will covet all women, including YOUR woman and wecan't have that, can we, because all us young, nubile, gorgeous virgins are weak and will run off with the first hairy, bearded, smelly auld fella that tips us the wink. So ratherthan give some measure of choice to the ladies,it was easier formen to control women. Control, control, control...


Sorry for drifting off the point... Am really enjoying the discussion on this thread!

well,according to the torah,gsopels and the koran,men are supposed to remain virgins as well up until marriage.its not like it says men should go off riding left and right,and women have to remain celebate does it?

Fair enough Bruffian, but except for the tongue in cheek comment about women having to hang around for it perhaps you could point out where I said menwere off riding left and right?? What I was saying was that the Koran promises 72 female virgins to those male martyrs - is there a corresponding reward for us ladies?? I don't know, if you do please tell me, I'm converting tomorrow!

Of course there is a reward for you ladies SRG. You get to lie down don't you! And the poor men have to do all the work again. Such is a mans lot. Anyway, I must go off, I've a stoning to do in the afternoon.

[Balla Boy]

Once you've deflowered the 72 virgins, do you get new ones? Or do you have to spend eternity with 72 increasingly moody and unattractive women?

[Riptide]

Yep, it's quite easy to mock the 72 virgins and scoff at the notion that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. People on this rugby forum will be quick to dismiss such a claim, but many will gladly accept and even promote the claim of the popes (any of them), and their priests about the exclusive validity of Christianity. This claim is, at best, ludicrously provincial. The evidence adduced in support of Christian doctrine can be found in every other religion - saints performing miracles, resurrections from the dead, channeled visions, psychic powers, devotional thrills, unconditional love, etc.-these claims are either equally compelling or equally bogus.


Given my view of faith, I must believe that religion is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception.It's more than a conflict of what is known(i.e. whatwe havevery good reasons to believe) and whatmany want to be true. There isreal deception at work; there is a pillar in the lives of many that appears to be crumbling with corrosive inconsistencies, but we've agreed not to talk about it.

[dipstick]

Yep, it's quite easy to mock the 72 virgins and scoff at the notion that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. People on this rugby forum will be quick to dismiss such a claim, but many will gladly accept and even promote the claim of the popes (any of them), and their priests about the exclusive validity of Christianity. This claim is, at best, ludicrously provincial. The evidence adduced in support of Christian doctrine can be found in every other religion - saints performing miracles, resurrections from the dead, channeled visions, psychic powers, devotional thrills, unconditional love, etc.-these claims are either equally compelling or equally bogus.


Given my view of faith, I must believe that religion is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception.It's more than a conflict of what is known(i.e. whatwe havevery good reasons to believe) and whatmany want to be true. There isreal deception at work; there is a pillar in the lives of many that appears to be crumbling with corrosive inconsistencies, but we've agreed not to talk about it.

It sounds like you know them Riptide[img]smileys/wink.gif[/img]

[spinner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY


Nuff said

Guys - for logical analytical people youdo tend to make one very silly mistake. Don't confusion religion with God. Religion is about organisation and conformity. God is basically a being beyond our own level. We could all (including our universe) be sitting in a test tube in a lab somewhere and the God that created us is a NERD who gets dressed by his mother every morning. But that still makes them a God.


Now personally I think people also need to understand that when you quote the bible you're not quoting the bible. You're quoting a translation, of a translation, of a translation of an edition of a translation of an edition stretching back over thousands of years.


Prime example - Moses parted the Red Sea? Right? Wrong he parted the Reed Sea. Which is actually a much smaller and easier explained "miracle". There are many misunderstandings like that in the bible where things have been mistranslated or just written wrong through laziness and mistakes. Also major chunks of the bible were removed for being irrelevant to the story. Now obviously the argument is that "it's a conspiracy" and the bits removed refer to Jesus, his 50 children, 3 divorces etc. They then write works of total and utter fantasy based on disproven lies and start the books with statements that the following is true. In reality the bible is full of long and winding detail.


However, it is also full of more proven fact than people realise. For example look up David Rohl and Garden of Eden on Google. He proved that if you actually take a proper analytical approach to the bible rather than the dismissive approach of people who claim to be "rational" you find out a lot more. For instance if you follow the description of the garden of Eden as a geographical description you can actually draw a map template. If you place that template on a real map you find it fits - right down to the statues of flaming guardians. Now that proves nothing in terms of Adam and Eve but it proves that the Garden of Eden is a memory not just a myth.


Anyway I digress. BB, you're half right. If someone chooses to believe something you have the right to analyse it and challenge it. But many choose to take that (as 2 of my colleagues do) as meaning they have the right to be offensive, abusive and dismissive in an aggressive way. That's not about being critical that's about being an arsehole. Sadly the man this thread started about is such a person.


Anyway personally I believe there is a spiritual side to our existence that we haven't even begun to understand. I've had experiences, as have members of my family, that strongly support the fact things have happened that science has as yet failed to explain. BTW I'm all for learning, challenging, theorising and analysing (I make a living as a system analyst). But I think you can't explain everything through pure science as we know it - like how we could start with absolute nothing, nothing at all then something suddenly comes into existance. Science still can't explain that one.


Also a theory, is a theory, is a theory no matter how much you try to pretend it's special cos it has the word scientific attached to the front of it.

[dipstick]

Science admits it can't explain everything EO. These "gaps" though are becoming less numerous as science and technology marches on. I agree with you about Dawkins that he comes across as pompous and somewhat arrogant but he makes somevery valid points. For example, you feel that certain things that have happened to you and your family, that science has failed to explain,have a spiritual side to them. Maybe they have. But could they be one of the "gaps" that Dawkins refers to? If not, why should they be spiritual, just because science can't explain them?


I don't see your logic also in assuming that becauseDawkins is arrogant that he is an arsehole and nothing more. Arseholes have a function too, you know! He uses science and mathsas a tool to explain his rationale for the God Delusion. His arguments are very convincing.


Are you being a tad arrogant yourself when you reprimand us for confusing religion with God? And you condescendingly write that BB is half right. Maybe you've more in common with Dawkins than you realise.

Science admits it can't explain everything EO. These "gaps" though are becoming less numerous as science and technology marches on. I agree with you about Dawkins that he comes across as pompous and somewhat arrogant but he makes somevery valid points. For example, you feel that certain things that have happened to you and your family, that science has failed to explain,have a spiritual side to them. Maybe they have. But could they be one of the "gaps" that Dawkins refers to? If not, why should they be spiritual, just because science can't explain them?


I don't see your logic also in assuming that becauseDawkins is arrogant that he is an arsehole and nothing more. Arseholes have a function too, you know! He uses science and mathsas a tool to explain his rationale for the God Delusion. His arguments are very convincing.


Are you being a tad arrogant yourself when you reprimand us for confusing religion with God? And you condescendingly write that BB is half right. Maybe you've more in common with Dawkins than you realise.

I certainly didn't mean to be condescending just that there's an extension to that argument. In terms of the religion/God thing, if anything this backs up a lot of what you guys are saying. You can disprove or our doubt a lot of religion. But as I say religion is about control and organisation. Being able to question and disprove religion has little relevance to there being a God. In terms of BB, he's a highly intelligent and educated guy that I have a lot of respect for. He has totally opposite views to me on how this religion/belief stuff pans out but I still wouldn't mean to be condescending about his views/knowledge.

[rathbaner]

You're making it sound that those who believe in things that are not factually proven are going to destroy humanity.

TBH Harry, nearly half the history of humankind has been about 'believers' attacking and destroying 'the others'.

Christian/muslim/Hindu whatever

[Balla Boy]

EO,


I'm sort of with you on the "higher being" stuff- Dawkins himself is quite open about the fact that if you choose to cast God as a nebulous "other" in the way that people do when they ascribe religious belief to Eistein etc then there's little that can be done to rebut it. He openly says that if you choose to define God as the laws of the universe, then he believes in God.


I just don't see a reason to suppose the existence of a God. And if you take away the pointers and cues given by religion, what you're left with are some feelings or hunches that can't be explained. You can choose to call them God, I choose to believe that it's stuff we'll understand in the future.


The last 500 or so years has been a constant process of the human definition of God (which is, after all, the only definition there can be) shrinking and disappearing in the face of growing human understanding. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to ascribe universal power to the scraps that remain.

[i_like_cake]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...a-environment/

[Valencia]

Religion (to some degree) = The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Northern Ireland, The Balkans, Afghanistan etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. I have not much time for Religion.


I do like what the Dalai Lamai says, to paraphrase: The way to live your life is Kindness

[isola ciarrai]

Religion (to some degree) = The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Northern Ireland, The Balkans, Afghanistan etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. I have not much time for Religion.


I do like what the Dalai Lamai says, to paraphrase: The way to live your life is Kindness

As Henry James wrote - there are three important things in life - the first is to be kind, the second is to be kind and the third is to be kind. Except in Heineken Cup of course - then is is weakness.

[i_like_cake]

[QUOTE=dipstick;63588]How does Hell work I wonder? QUOTE]

[MrsMcGahan]

God can be experienced but not understood with the gross mind.

[i_like_cake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098

speechless....

[B.A.]