Religion (can open, worms everywhere)

[The Region Legion]

I suppose a bit of backstory before we begin - this will be pretty damn long.

I've been friends with a girl who lives in America for many years now, and I speak to her friends quite a lot. One of said friends is a Christian - heavily. American mid-west Christian.

Other than that, she's very sweet, very kind, intelligent.. but occasionally our radically different believes get in the way. Today was one of those days.

She posted a review of the new Mel Gibson film "The Passion" in an online weblog. In said review, the person writing it constantly refers to Jesus Christ and the things he went through as historical fact - for example:

The violence in The Passion of The Christ is focused on one person, who takes a beating so severe it seems nearly impossible to believe it actually happened

Last, the violence is hard to watch because it happened to a real person. This movie is based on a true story. As you watch terrible atrocities happening on screen, you can't help thinking `he really went through that'.

I had to comment on this - I said "I accept that to be Christian you have to believe this stuff happened, but I just hate it when it's stated as fact like that". She says "the review states it as fact because it IS fact" - Jesus is apparently an historical figure. She then posted up a link to a story - http://www.ucg.org/gn/gn44/existence.htm of a bone box found in the holy land that was inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" - Jesus's half brother.

She also mentions that there are historical records of Pontius Pilate executing a man called Jesus for being a thief etc. - the only thing that people question is if he's the Son Of God or not. She then added this:

Okay, now from a different perspective. When you look at the New Testement and the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they are all amazingly similar. They paraphrase so many of the same stories, sometimes it can get boring by the time you get to Luke (yeah yeah, the lady touched His robe and then she was healed by faith, already read this one twice before...). But I digress. These books were all written at different times (John was written decades after Jesus' death), yet they're all so similar. And it's not like the books were mass produced like they are today. So I think it's interesting that four different guys would write about events at four different times, and yet have everything be so similar. If they were making it up, well then they must've gotten really lucky to have agreed on so many events. But with so many similarities, it's impossible that they would just happen to have thought up the same thing (to really understand this, you'd have to read the NT). Meaning that these four guys must have actually witnessed these events. That alone isn't hardcore proof, but I find it still a strong argument nonetheless.

I retorted - Jesus, Joseph and James (at least their Hebrew origins) weren't exactly uncommon names at the time and just because Jesus is mentioned on his bone box (it was uncommon to name the brother, just the father) doesn't mean that this Jesus was the Jesus written of in the Bible. I always went on to say

As far as the 4 books go, I don't think similarity in events is proof that these people witnessed anything. You mention the similarities.. what about the errors? The contradictions to each other, often in the same book. 4 different versions of Jesus' last words, 4 different genealogies at the beginning of the books, none of which link him to God but back to Abraham even though he isn't related directly to Joseph at all.. the list goes on so here's a link for you

and sent her to http://www.cygnus-study.com, a site that presents some fair arguments on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Instead of actually having a reasoned discussion, she then refuses to "waste (her) time" on an "anti-Jesus site, just like you wouldn't waste your time on a yay-Jesus site", despite having already visited one - the link she had posted detailing the story of the bone box is from "The Good News: A Magazine Of Understanding".

Her inability to see her own hypocracy stuns me, but I'm aware this is not uncommon in people who have blind faith instilled in them from an early age - admitting that maybe this is wrong would destroy their worlds as they know it.

So after that, I decided to come here because I figure if anyone can have a REASONED discussion about Religion, it's Verbwhores. Sure, it's been done before and the result will be that we'll just all have to agree to disagree, but it's always an interesting topic.

Unfortunately, I am crap at starting discussion but pretty good at continuing it so I'm going to hope someone has something to say and that this massive post isn't just going to be a waste of bandwidth at the beginning of a thread of 1 or 2 replies. We've had a thread recently about what people's beliefs are but that's not really what I'm after - I'd like opinions on religion as a whole, what people think of those links I posted, perhaps a devout Christian or two who don't mind this being questioned to have an actual discussion about this stuff and perhaps we can all learn something from each other.

Or not?

[JesusAndYourBush]

I believe Jesus existed, however we can't know how much (if any) of the stories about him are true, or what percentage of truth there are in them.  As the books of the Bible were written tens, if not hundreds of years after the event, a form of Chinese whispers will have occurred, with each storyteller bigging up Jesus and exaggerating his exploits.

Religion is man-made, created by the educated few to control the uneducated masses.  Times are different now, and there's no place for religion in todays society.  With all the talk of multiculturalism lately, and that people should live together in harmony, that's exactly what people aren't doing.  People ghetto-ise themselves into their own communities, and thus driving barriers between other communities.  Religion isn't needed any more, it's served it's purpose, but now it's time for mankind to move on.

People even kill in the name of religion.  How fucked up is that.  When judgment day comes and they stand before God (assuming there is one etc... etc...) he'll boom out "NOT IN MY NAME" and they'll be straight down there with a red hot poker up the jacksy.

[jutl]

I've gone on about this before, and to no great effect. Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism. Members of this religion smugly assume that they have disproved the assertion that things can exist which are not susceptible to scientific examination. They respond to the failures of past moral systems by having no moral system, thinking that this failure to even try to behave justly makes them morally superior to those who have tried and failed.

[Reverend Minge]

As a kid I was forced to go to Sunday School and even then I remember thinking that Christianity just didn't add up.

In particular, if one of Jesus's own disciples (Thomas) doubted him - and he was THERE - then how are the rest of us supposed to believe in his divinity just from the say-so of the gospels written many years after Jesus's death?

[TOCMFIC]

I used to be a Christian. Then I woke up, saw what the "chrstians" a the church I went to were like, thought "bugger this" and have never gone back. Probably closest to buddhism now.

As for Jesus, I reckon the jews got it right. Son of God? Nah. Prophet? Yep.

[Alberon]

If I remember right the box with 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' has been shown to be a fake. The box is from the right period in history, but the inscription isn't. There are big arguments over this, as there always is with religion, so a clear proof one way or another will probably never be forthcoming.

As for the New Testement you have to remember that it was decades after Jesus death that these stories were set down. You also need to ask why these testements were included while others were excluded.

The first couple of centuries of Christianity was very chaotic, there was no organisation in charge of it all and it spread in all directions. It was not until the 4th Century that there was a council to work out what books went into the New Testament and which ones were thrown out.

What is clear is that all the books in the New Testament are not all the ones written by people who knew Jesus (and there is enough historical evidence to suggest that this guy did live). It is quite possible that any book that widely varied from the main four would be ignored. That the ones picked would be chosen because they were so similar.

You are not going to get your friend to discuss this. Religion has evolved the idea of taking everything on faith and not relying on physical evidence that contradicts your belief almost to perfection.

I've argued with theists on the net before and they've often said 'Why do you want to live in a world without God?' as if my beliefs have some say on the fundamental nature of the universe. The idea that I just want to know the universe as it is and all the evidence points to the non-existance of a god or gods is just alien to them.

[daveytaylor]

Simply ask this woman what Jesus is supposed to have looked like. Common Sense tells us that he will look more like Osama Bin Laden than Ted Nugent. You'd be surprised how such a statement will upset Mrs Middle America.

[Reverend Minge]

Although not religious I do think that Jesus hit on some philosophical and spiritual truths - as did Mohammed and Buddha. Trouble is, Man has hijacked religion for his own ends and the spirtuality has become diluted over the years.

Anybody read any Vernon Howard books? http://www.anewlife.org I think he explains quite well the essential spirituality of man and that "god" exists within yourself without the need of organised religion - which may have been the original message of the prophets mentioned earlier.

....and all those sightings of Jesus in the clouds or a stain on the concrete just crack me up - at best they look a guy with a beard. As there is no description of what Jesus looked like why do they assume that it's him? Could be Father Christmas or Che Guevara for all they know.

Oh, and while I'm at it - what is this bullshit culture regarding "personal" angels? Some of the "proof" attached to angel visitation is one of these gullible twats coming across a small white feather in the house or somewhere. First, may I suggest that it may have come out of one of your pillows? But more than that, nowhere in the bible does it say that angels have wings - the lovely white wings attached to angels are just an invention of religious artists.

May have gone off the thread here a bit, but it all points back to Man's hijacking of religion.

[fanny splendid]

I once held a test tube, therefore I know that religion is bunk.

[Pinball]

I've gone on about this before, and to no great effect. Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism. Members of this religion smugly assume that they have disproved the assertion that things can exist which are not susceptible to scientific examination. They respond to the failures of past moral systems by having no moral system, thinking that this failure to even try to behave justly makes them morally superior to those who have tried and failed.

Excellent point made as eloquently as usual, jutl ;-)

The big difference between rationalism and religion is that scientific hypotheses can usually be tested and discarded if incorrect. There is also more flexibility. Any system that is too inflexible to be adequately questioned is flawed IMO.

As for Jesus, I'm sure he existed, but personally suspect it's more likely he was just a man rather than the Son of Gawwwddddddddd. And he was more likely to have been brown than white. If the monks and believers couldn't even get his skin colour right...

Crucifixion is an inefficient means of execution. It's hardly surprising that after three days he "came back from the dead", 'cos he wasn't dead to begin with! Miracle schmiracle.

[Mediocre Rich]

I've gone on about this before, and to no great effect. Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism.

I think your having a bit of a downer on rationalists there jutl.  I don't think that all rationalists:

respond to the failures of past moral systems by having no moral system

If you look at these fora you will find lots of these rationalists railing against the immorality of the groups of people you describe (often those worshipping at a  Burberry clad altar with Timberlake as there Prophet and Maddona as Mother Mary).

This sect of rationalists, the materialist rationalists are quite happy to see the rest of the world burn as long as they are OK Jack.  The sect can be divided into lower Caste Burberry materialists and their bretheren the higher Caste materialist rationalists who worship at a slightly different alter.  These people worship themselves and the satisfaction of there Freudian id and exist in the upper echelons of the societal structure. Lawyers Financiers etc.

Perhaps we should declare a jihad on them?

EDIT: Bad spelling and grammar.

[jutl]

I've gone on about this before, and to no great effect. Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism.

I think your having a bit of a downer on rationalists there jutl.  I don't think that all rationalists:

respond to the failures of past moral systems by having no moral system

If you look at these fora you will find lots of these rationalists railing against the immorality of the groups of people you describe (often those worshipping at a  Burberry clad altar with Timberlake as there Prophet and Maddona as Mother Mary).

This sect fo rationalists, the materialist rationalists are quite happy to see the rest of the world burn as long as they are OK Jack.  This sect can be divided into lower Caste Burberry materialists and their higher bretheren the higher Caste materialist rationalists who worship ata a slightly different alter of themselves and who exist in the upper echelons of the societal structure. Lawyers Financiers etc.

Perhaps we should declare a jihad on them?

Yes, I agree. Actual rationalists are aware that rationalism has no claims to be all-encompassing - it's an approach to phenomena, and we have not yet encountered all phenomena (well, we might have, but it's certainly not proveable that we have.) My problem is with those who worship rationalism as an alternative to other religions - who misunderstand scientific method enough to assert that because we don't know how certain things happen, that therefore they must never happen. These people often observe that traditional religions have caused wars, and then maintain that this invalidates the concept of religion. Now this is clearly bollocks, and represents the kind of illogical woolly thinking that fans of rationalism ought to despise...

[Rats]

It is historical fact that he exsisted, there's no denying that. Whether you reckon he was tallking out of his holey arse holey when he said he was the son of god is a different matter.

Edit: That'll teach me to reply after reading about 3 lines

[Matthias]

If your faith makes you a better person then I have no problem with it.

However, much of the suffering that mankind has endured has been down to religion. Religion is contradictive, pledging love for all peoples and then waging bloody war on those that take a different view. Monotheist religions are especially culpable.

Religion was created by man as a way of explaining natural destructive occurances. For instance, a volcano erupts and destroys much of a village. The surviving villagers assume that the volcano is angry with them and so bring gifts to the foot of the volcano (that's how shrines came about) in an attempt to appease it. Naturally, volcanos don't erupt forever, but the villagers in their simple nature believe that the gifts have pleased the volcano. They then devote much of their lives to keeping the volcano happy so that it doesn't try to wipe them out again.

Much, much later, religion became more sophisticated. The bible/koran etc.  was written as a way of keeping unruly folks in check. It was a way of controlling the population.

"Live life in this way or you will burn in hell!"
"Derr, ok boss"

It's all about power. Give me rationalism any day.

We progress as a race thanks to science. Science is not infallible by any means, but it learns from it's mistakes and adjusts accordingly. Whereas, religion is wrong and stubbornly continues to be wrong because it is based around outdated life guidelines that consist of nothing but threats.

Out of all the famous atheists, I love the quote from Charlie Chaplin: "By simple common sense I don't believe in god."

That sums it up perfectly for me.

[Borboski]

Sorry to just post quotes - but the great man sums it up for better than me. Bertie Russell:

My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.

I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This virtue, though it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the world than Christianity or any other system of organized beliefs.

The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology.

But this one in particular;

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

I couldn't give a fucking toss.

Just don't impose any of your 'religious' beliefs on to me and I'll be fine and we'll get on.

[TOCMFIC]

I couldn't give a fucking toss.

Just don't impose any of your 'religious' beliefs on to me and I'll be fine and we'll get on.

That's my theory too. I have a friend who is a HUGE christian... I mean if God were a rockstar, he'd have the shirts, the posters, all the albums and bootlegs... You know the sort.

He tried once to convert me. He said his piece and then said "And that all I'll ever say on the matter". That was three years ago, and he's been good at his word. Conversely I had this twat friend who found religion... He DID believe that God was an astronaut, was a member of the Ancient Astronauts Society... Then he met this religious bird, and all of a sudden God is his saviour, I'm going to hell, and he spent the last few months before I left England trying to convince me to read the Bible (Which I have read a fair chunk of, though only because I love throwing it back at religious zealots who have never actually read the thing and rip on them for wearing wool etc...) and convert to the seventh advent hoppists or whatever the fuck he was.

I've known some truly bastardlike christians who routinely violate at least half the commandments and are total hypocrites. As I said to some christian harrassing me once... I looked skyward and said "God, I believe you exist in some form, but your envoys on Earth are wankers."

I've also, when harassed by JW's, or random people in parking lots who seem to think I need saving (seriously, I've had this happen) said that if heaven is full of people like them, I'd rather burn in hell.

[gazzyk1ns]

Jutl, before I type a 2000 word rant (again), would you call me a 'rationalist' (i.e. as you describe here)? I assume you read my views in the other recent religion-related thread here.

Oh dear, I'm getting all worked up now. You know that Harry Enfield sketch, Women: Know your limits!, Where they have the diagramatic demonstration of what happens when a woman tries to think? If you've not seen it then all the thoughts begin to scramble and then overflow in scribbles out of her head. That's what's happening to me here, what you've been saying about "rationalists" here sounds like you trying to defend people who worship Hairy Mary the Sugarplum Fairy by simply saying "ahhh but you don't know she doesn't exist! How smug of you! Science isn't all-encompassing! Foolish young scamp, open your mind!" It's not an actual defense, it's theory, which only "theoretically" proves that I can't be 100% right about my theory, that Hairy Mary doesn't exist. Which is absolutely meaningless, because anyone can theorise that anything is not 100% set in stone, in any time period, by simply saying any variation of the old chestnut "But we don't have all the facts at our fingertips... and even if we thought we did, then who's to say we're not seeing the bigger picture?". For me that is always at the back of my mind, but it's futile to ever use it as the basis of an argument as it will always be true - even in the year 3314508 you will still be able to use your vague "Aaahhhh but there might still be something greater out there, science is advanced now but it's foolish not to still keep an open mind." argument. If you agree that it's valid then in your mind you might as well just use that reasoning for everything, you'll never have trouble justifying anything to yourself again. I keep wanting to say "I just don't understand religious people..." but the whole point of my rants is that I think I do, I believe I can write a list of the various things which make/keep people religious. I'll list them later or something, at the moment I've dropped a cup of tea on my testicles and whilst it wasn't hot enough to burn, there was quite severe cup-to-testicle impact there.

Arrrgh anyway as I said, no rant yet, maybe you're referring to people I've not heard of/encountered.

Devlin:

I suppose you have to treat this niggle with your girlfriend as you would any other niggle, if you're not religious or interested in a lifetime of debate about it then... can you ignore it? Also, I suppose there's the issue of being honest with her, I guess it would be a little dishonest to do what I've suggested there and say "Yes it's fine honey..." whilst just planning to ignore it. If she knows your views and you know hers and bearing that in mind, you're both fine with a lifetime together then there's no problem, is there? The tricky bit is being honest with yourselves and each other, and not sweeping anything under the carpet temporarily, it's difficult where love is involved.

[Rats]

I've said it a few times but anyone who KNOWS they're right and looks down on others is a fool, wether they believe in willy wonka or science. Keeping an open mind is all you can do. I think we'll never know the truth but I'm happy to listen to what you think it might be. People don't seem to be able to grasp that science doesn't have any of these answers. It's exactly the same as when they say "well, she'd been brought up to believe in god, it's been there all her life"

[gazzyk1ns]

Nah I'm not having that Rats, it makes you sound modern and open-minded but there are some things with which I'm sure you believe yourself to be right about, and you look down upon others for holding the belief they do.

[Rats]

Stop tugging at my curtain, this is going well.
Honestly, I keep an open mind on everything, there is nothing that I can think of that I'm so sure about that I'd close my bonce to other suggestions. The wise man sits on the fence deer gazzy.

[wasp_f15ting]

I've said it a few times but anyone who KNOWS they're right and looks down on others is a fool

Right lets take this into medicine right? So If a doctor knows that his form of treatment is better than some happy fappy nonce like homeopathy is he a fool? Its all well and fine dismissing science as being a formation of grounded theoretic formulae and ideas, but it has real world applicability and its been relentlessly tested to ground its "truth" into our realities. So you can understand why I'd rather get treatment from a proper doctor than a spiritual healer.

Scientific medicine is right, you cant debase it or say it might be this or that, since its relative to your well being. A doctor can save your life and expend it for how ever many years further. A spiritual healer thinks they are, but in reality they are stupid cunts with no fucking idea of medicine or reality. Same applies to many of the homeopathic doctors who have against the wrath of the medical profession for they are sapping the money and life of people because they believe its an alternate valid choice, much like people who are grossly religious. Wasting their money so they can feed the Vatican and its popes / monks who run dungeons and use the nuns as sex slaves and monks as gimps..

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

That doctor isn't looking down on the homeopathist though. He just knows he's right. Perhaps Rats means the combination of the two makes you a fool.

[gazzyk1ns]

Stop tugging at my curtain, this is going well.
Honestly, I keep an open mind on everything, there is nothing that I can think of that I'm so sure about that I'd close my bonce to other suggestions. The wise man sits on the fence deer gazzy.

Hehe

I don't want to even mention the things which I'm sure you have 100% one-sided views on, because it's so stereotypical to mention them and it sounds like the poster is trying to tar religious people with the same brush as the groups of people he mentions.

Oh all right, now I've had my little disclaimer, I will. I'm sure your mind is made up about Nazis, to quote an obvious and over-used example. That doesn't make you a fool, that makes you someone with sensible, rational thinking and an unclouded judgement.

[sproggy]

A spiritual healer thinks they are, but in reality they are stupid cunts with no fucking idea of medicine or reality. Same applies to many of the homeopathic doctors who have against the wrath of the medical profession for they are sapping the money and life of people because they believe its an alternate valid choice, much like people who are grossly religious...

The power of spiritual healing and homeopathic treatments is founded on the ability of the body and mind to heal itself.  Have you noticed most people who truly believe in a religion seem to be more at peace with themselves, less stressed and easier to get along with (disclaimer: This may all go to shit if you decide to invade their country or actively support terrorist organisations)

The wise man sits on the fence deer gazzy.

The wise man has to jump off once in a while to avoid a dead arse.

[king mob]

The film mentioned in the initial post is creating a hellish fuss in America especially, now what Mel Gibson has done is film the old passion plays in a quite realistic manner judging by stills & early reports.

Whats causing upset is the way Jews are potrayed as the killers of Christ & allegations of it being anti semitic.Whatever the truth & regardless of believing in Christ as the son of god it looks to be a film thats worth seeing even if its just to see what the fuss is about.
What it will do is create a huge debate about religion in general which is only a good thing.

Heres a couple of links to what the fuss is about.

click

click

[Rats]

To be honest, I don't know much of anything, fools sit on the fence too you see. I'm sure the nazi's weren't all bad, I don't know enough about them but I do know that hitlers ideas were all based on his insecurities and that's not a good starting point for anything.
And I'm not on about medicine, I agree science is great but it has it's limitations, I don't think we'll ever answer any of the important questions through science.

[Pinball]

Have you noticed most people who truly believe in a religion seem to be more at peace with themselves, less stressed and easier to get along with

What like the Taleban? ;-)

Not to mention women in Iran.

[hands cold, liver warm]

I don't see why people see such a split between science and god. Science doesn't doesn't offer a belief system, it gives individuals the methods to understand how life and the universe works. It tells you how things change over time and space and allows you to make predictions about the future. For me, science has exposed the lies of religion but it can't answer the REALLY important questions like is here a god and is there an afterlife?.

Jesus was just the david koresh of his day

[sproggy]

Have you noticed most people who truly believe in a religion seem to be more at peace with themselves, less stressed and easier to get along with

What like the Taleban? ;-)

Not to mention women in Iran.

Naughty Pinny, you didn't quote my disclaimer.

You don't work for the Snu do you?