Let's Talk About #2: Religion and My Life [Might Be A TL;DR]

[SnapSlav]

I never claimed it expanded anyone's potential. Of course that's bullshit. But it's medical benefits aren't.

But you DID go on a bit of a rant about something nobody remotely mentioned nor asked about. A dude says point-blank that he doesn't give a shit what anybody does with any drug, as long as they don't give bullshit reasons for why they like it, and you go off on a comprehensive explanation about cannabis. It was unnecessary. IF someone made a comment either suggesting that it had no beneficial uses OR asking what could it do besides make you feel good, then going into such detail was obviously provoked. But that didn't happen. That was my point when I said "Kinda missed the point".

 

[ChildServices]

I was high that entire day. The few days before, I was sober, lazy, and didn't want to do a damn thing.

Sounds to me like you've got a substance dependency buddy. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[Akratus]

I have a dependency on forums but I can quit any time I want!1!

 

[TorontoReign]

Legitimate historical texts? Mhmmm ... you might want to think about that again when talking about religions. The Bible for example, if that is what you mean is not a historical text. Who knows in 5 000 years people might take Smiths claims as historical information just as how some take Abraham as possible historical figures. But there is no way to know if it has any historical merrits or not.

The Mormon religion was founded by a horny sham artist. Comparing it to actual Christianity is a joke. Scientology holds as much value as Mormonism. At least Christianity dates back to ancient times.

2000 years ago Christianity was nothing more but a sect either and the jewish authorities of Jerusalem didn't saw in Jesus more than a lunatic. What holds value for me or you is not really the point. Christianity if practised seriously and literaly ... isn't more than a joke either if you think about it. I get your point, but I hope you realize how easy it is to pick on any religion. And for me personaly the age of a religion doesn't mean that much. It just means that it becomes at some point eventually a tradition. If it sticks around for long enough ...

Many things in the Holy Bible are historically accurate, or at least based on true events, with many archaeological sites proving the validity of these claims. Obviously I'm not claiming Jonah got swallowed by a whale, or Jesus walked on water; however, historical figures that actually existed - even other apocryphal texts - were mentioned. At the very least you get a general idea of what people believed or did in that time-frame. Where they might have lived. Archaeology is important in those regards. We are able to learn more about the past with these sacred texts. It is easy to pick on any religion, but some appear to be more legitimate than others. What I mean by this is, some religions appear to be sincere in their beliefs. When you start talking about Xenu and intergalactic space aliens you get a disconnect from actual history and off into fantasy.

Scientology was obviously created by a guy that spoke about creating a religion, so that is automatically suspect. Mormonism claims divine inspiration but is focused on human desires like fornicating with more than one wife. Evading taxes is one motive for people like that, sure. Then as far as Mormonism is concerned, even Christians don't get along with Mormons because they are so out there. I guess my point is other religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam - actually have a little more merit. You can't look in the Book of Mormon and expect some of those cities mentioned to actually exist, because it was all made up. You can read some of these other books and visit the places mentioned.

 

[ChildServices]

You could've honestly replied with this image and it would've been an equally valid response.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Legitimate historical texts? Mhmmm ... you might want to think about that again when talking about religions. The Bible for example, if that is what you mean is not a historical text. Who knows in 5 000 years people might take Smiths claims as historical information just as how some take Abraham as possible historical figures. But there is no way to know if it has any historical merrits or not.

The Mormon religion was founded by a horny sham artist. Comparing it to actual Christianity is a joke. Scientology holds as much value as Mormonism. At least Christianity dates back to ancient times.

2000 years ago Christianity was nothing more but a sect either and the jewish authorities of Jerusalem didn't saw in Jesus more than a lunatic. What holds value for me or you is not really the point. Christianity if practised seriously and literaly ... isn't more than a joke either if you think about it. I get your point, but I hope you realize how easy it is to pick on any religion. And for me personaly the age of a religion doesn't mean that much. It just means that it becomes at some point eventually a tradition. If it sticks around for long enough ...

Many things in the Holy Bible are historically accurate, or at least based on true events, with many archaeological sites proving the validity of these claims. Obviously I'm not claiming Jonah got swallowed by a whale, or Jesus walked on water; however, historical figures that actually existed - even other apocryphal texts - were mentioned. At the very least you get a general idea of what people believed or did in that time-frame. Where they might have lived. Archaeology is important in those regards. We are able to learn more about the past with these sacred texts. It is easy to pick on any religion, but some appear to be more legitimate than others. What I mean by this is, some religions appear to be sincere in their beliefs. When you start talking about Xenu and intergalactic space aliens you get a disconnect from actual history and off into fantasy.
...

That doesn't make the Bible a historical book though, or even close to it. Scientifically speaking!

Actually most events and people in the Bible actually can't be scientifically validated. The vast majority of non-christians, historians and scientists don't regard the Bible as historically accurate. And yes I am not talking about the mystical events, Jesus turning water in wine or god turning people to salt. It doesn't mean of course that everything has to be simply wrong because it is the Bible. It's just not a describtion of historical events but a collection of stories. The historical value of the Bible is more comparable to the Iliad. Most of the events, even the one that are historical have been described centuries after it happend. And both the old and new testament are extremly inaccurate, sometimes even contradicting. The different gospels, have been written 200 or 300 years after the death of their name giver. And they gave them the name of apostles as a way to actually make them more historical. Today we would call that counterfeit or faking documents. So the gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew. What you can read there is hearsay at best. And often enough rather the opinion of the autor than an accurate describtion about Jesus, his life or the life of the people in his time.

That's like if you or I would writte a historical text about the Inuits today without ever actually having any experience, outside of what someone else told us or what we have read somewhere. And to make it sound valid we give it the name of a famous historian. How accurate could that really be? Imagine how hard it is to find accurate sources about WW1 or WW2 and how difficult the work of historians sometimes is when they try to validate the different sources be it eye witness or some written stuff. And WW2 is just 60 years ago. And people back than had actually good recording technology compared to 2000 years ago. And yet, there are a lot of inaccuracies.

You are missunderstanding my intentions though. I am not calling the Bible a fantasy fiction like Lotr nor do I say it's shit. It's just not something that has scientifically much value. Even for the cases you're talking about, like the everyday life of the ancient Arameans. See the main problem is that the Bible we know today is actually a pretty modern book with modern language - as shocking as that might be for some. This is obvious when you compare the Dead Sea Scrolls some of the oldest known religious texts with the Bible from today. The Bible, like many other religious books/teachings today, has changed trough translations and different interpretations. What people believe in the Bible today is very different to what people believed 2000 years ago in Israel or the midle east. The Bible is simply not a good source if you want to create an accurate picture of the life people had 2000, 3000 or even 5000 years ago. Is the catholic Bible better compared to the book of Mormon? Well that is opinion. Scientifically speaking both are religious texts and not historical texts. And if you take any Bible serious, than it becomes a problem in my opinion because they all have a lot of whacky stuff inside. Doesn't really matter much to me if someone explains his hate on Homosexuals now with the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible.

By the way I never mentioned really Scientology. I am only talking about Christian sects. Like Jehowa, Mormons etc. You had many different groups and believs already 2000 years ago. The Catholic teachings we have today are nothing like the teachings 2000 years ago. That is not unique with Christianity though. That is one of the reasons why you have always orthodox movements in religon, like Judaism or the Salafi movement in Islam.

 

[The_WitchDoctor]

It's been said somewhere already in this thread.

The problem with the Bible - and many other religious texts I'd imagine, is that people take it literally instead of trying to decipher a meaning figuratively.

 

[SnapSlav]

It's been said somewhere already in this thread.

The problem with the Bible - and many other religious texts I'd imagine, is that people take it literally instead of trying to decipher a meaning figuratively.

This is a problem with PEOPLE, though. NOT a problem of the texts. Big distinction that needs to be made...

 

[Akratus]

Did you guys know it says something like 14 times in the bible that it is a sin to eat shrimp, but homosexuality is condemned like twice?

 

[Juza The Cloud]

Did you guys know it says something like 14 times in the bible that it is a sin to eat shrimp, but homosexuality is condemned like twice?

funny thing about those references, some modern historians/scholars think the anti homosexual tracts were more of a critique of contemporary religious practices then an admonishment of homosexuality.

 

[Kathy]

That is one of the reasons why you have always orthodox movements in religon, like Judaism or the Salafi movement in Islam.

Ummm no, Salafism is NOT an orthodox movement, it's fairly heterodox, and it's quite new as far as the Islamic tradition goes. Salafism reared its head during the colonial era, but before that many of its scholars and leaders were considered heretics at best and disbelievers at worst throughout the history of Sunni Islam, and were often jailed.

I know this is a tiny part of your post, but this is more for general knowledge. A lot of people hold this misconception and think that just because a group is more stringent or extreme makes it more "orthodox."

 

[SnapSlav]

Did you guys know it says something like 14 times in the bible that it is a sin to eat shrimp, but homosexuality is condemned like twice?

All the more reason why religious texts are MEANT to be taken with contemplation, not received at face value. Why was this or that said, why was this emphasized more that that, etc etc.

For example, that according to some philosophies, the reason shellfish was condemned so heavily in Christianity (and the reason ANY fish is accepted as "not meat" and thus totally okay to eat during Lent) was because of consequences of the story of Noah. If you ruminate on a story that you believe signifies that God drowned away all the sin and impurities of the world with a catastrophic flood, but you recognize that the fish were completely unaffected by this, then you come away from this with the notion that fish are sinful, or unclean, or whatnot. Ergo, you are making a personal sacrifice (the purpose of Lent) if you elect to avoid eating meats, because these are God's creatures; meanwhile fish made no sacrifices during the flood, so they get no free pass from you, so you are free to eat them and you're not avoiding an elected sacrifice at all.

It's not to be taken as an absolute rule, it's to be considered and pondered. Various religions take the time to condemn homosexuality because the homosexuality does not biologically result in childbirth. But these are taken to mean that ANY non-heterosexual philandering is instantly evil, and regardless of the situation or reasons, any homosexual deeds or thoughts are to be treated with zealous hatred. Taking the texts and stories and traditions leads to a potentially enlightened lifestyle. Taking them literally more than likely leads to a regressive and bigoted lifestyle.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Let's talk religion. I am going to write a little bit about my own experience with religion, as it stands.

WOW MAN! You've had a more religiously involved life than most people by far and you never let any of them control or mislead you. If our God is any God worth worshiping he'd agree and if he didn't he would not be the benevolent God anyone would want.

Personally I just combined all of these facts, that religion inspired and was spread through violence, that different cultures created different religions, how god in his creation was humanized, how it was used to soothe the masses, how much of a psychological crutch it is, how much reason one has to believe in the christian god over zeus, or apollo, or ra, or etc. etc. . . and that's what belief is about for me, rejection of the concept, based on those facts.

I swear if anyone wants to practice their religion properly they need to educate themselves on history first and then try and reconcile the problems it creates. You know that well.

In the end, what do I believe? Well I've shared enough that you can probably take a stab-in-the-dark guess. I have faith. But what do I have faith in? Well, does it really matter? I'm the only one who needs to know what I believe, because I'm the only person it will affect. I keep my faith to myself, and I wish others did as well, in most cases.

Here's some support:

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~~ Notes on the State of Virginia , 1781 – 1785

There are countless more by many others, but those two are my favorite.

Religion has never been apart of my life, except for Scientology. I was a Scientologist until I was 14, but I don't consider that religion. It's business. I'm also not religious, but I do RESPECT religion.

And I will defend religion. It's not a crutch, nor is faith- it's an incredibly valid and ancient way of looking at the universe. Anyone who dismisses it as a 'crutch' is seriously over-confident in their own worldview.

...

Really, some basic tenants of Christianity: charity to the poor, selflessness, love for all men. Bad, outdated how?

Certain portions are outdated, but again, Christianity is a moral philosophy and is still valid after 2000 years, because some basic social problems never go away (and civilizations are always prone to the same errors). Religion is a way to cope with basic human problems in agrarian civilization. Is it the perfect solution? No.

While my personal experiences with faith are exceedingly complicated what you've stated is the closest thing I have to a "summary" if I were forced to give one.

The basic idea, is that you better be able to put your ideology on the table and let the criticism come, because we all look at the universe through a keyhole, and opening the door is death itself.

This needs to be a world-famous quote.

I believe there is some sort of higher power outside the boundaries of our known universe, but I'm sure he/she/it/they/? doesn't give a fuck if my friend is gay, or how much money they give to a church that wasn't ever meant to exist in the form it is in today. I'm sure this hypothetical God doesn't advocate mass genocide, burning at the stake, Jihad, molesting young children, etc.. Actually if this God (or Gods if you like) exists I'm sure they want you to be happy, not a miserable sack of shit that protests at gay soldiers funerals, or preaches against contraceptives in Third World countries. I'm sure religions of all kinds would get more converts if they actually preached tolerance of others as opposed to harsh condemnation. I've seen shit that would turn your hair white, so I believe in something beyond our comprehension, but not one of us can imagine what a Godlike being would even begin to think, do, or look like. I'm sure if they do exist they don't look like animal hybrids, Father Time, or some sexy whore Goddess. Of course that's, just, like, my opinion man.

If a religions doctrine doesn't work when perfectly applied to reality then it can't be believed. You know that well.

For example, that according to some philosophies, the reason shellfish was condemned so heavily in Christianity (and the reason ANY fish is accepted as "not meat" and thus totally okay to eat during Lent) was because of consequences of the story of Noah. If you ruminate on a story that you believe signifies that God drowned away all the sin and impurities of the world with a catastrophic flood, but you recognize that the fish were completely unaffected by this, then you come away from this with the notion that fish are sinful, or unclean, or whatnot. Ergo, you are making a personal sacrifice (the purpose of Lent) if you elect to avoid eating meats, because these are God's creatures; meanwhile fish made no sacrifices during the flood, so they get no free pass from you, so you are free to eat them and you're not avoiding an elected sacrifice at all.

It's not to be taken as an absolute rule, it's to be considered and pondered. Various religions take the time to condemn homosexuality because the homosexuality does not biologically result in childbirth. But these are taken to mean that ANY non-heterosexual philandering is instantly evil, and regardless of the situation or reasons, any homosexual deeds or thoughts are to be treated with zealous hatred. Taking the texts and stories and traditions leads to a potentially enlightened lifestyle. Taking them literally more than likely leads to a regressive and bigoted lifestyle.

Excellent statement.


Attention all!As someone who has never spoken about his personal thoughts on faith whether online or IRL and whose often been asked many times and always kept quiet I've often thought I should write and share them somewhere. The problem was (and is) that I don't feel right saying anything if I can't explain the circumstances behind why (I blame my educational background in Science demanding I be thorough and cite sources) and those are numerous and complicated. Additionally I've found people are terribly effected by what I have to say regardless of what they believe or what I would intend (I try to remain fair and neutral as a reporter in what I say). Granted I obviously don't believe in anything severe or dangerous, but I do so many "strange" things I know it makes people wonder.

As much as I loathe having to write so much it's something I've carried as a small, but constant burden I mean someday to tell for other peoples sake.

Give me at least a few hours.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[The_WitchDoctor]

Why, thank you sir.

The best thing that religion has ever had to each anybody would be the Golden Rule; treat others as you would want to be treated.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Not only is this going to take a lot more time than I thought I had to start right at the time of night when all my friends ask to play multiplayer games. Give me a few days if I write at least an hour a day. Actually you'll see it here when it's ready and I have no idea how long it will take both to write or even try to write.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Beaushizzle]

VaultDweller, I made an account on NMA solely to follow your threads, especially the one you PMed me about. I have yet to be disappointed.


Sorry for off-topic.

I don't know the word for my belief, but I don't know enough about any single religion- let alone all of them- to ascribe myself to any one. That being I said, I like the idea of reincarnation, and the idea that no matter what you do, be it carpenter, soldier, call representative, whatever, you're doing it right. Example: a chair maker does his best to make comfortable, sturdy and stylish chairs? He is rewarded in the next life. A soldier destroys his enemy without mercy, does his duty faithfully and shows compassion to enemy prisoners? Rewarded as well.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

It ended up as an story (or an essay) that's so long I had to make give it its own thread.

I'm just posting here to say it's done.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller