Ahhh, religion...

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, April 16, 2026 19:08
VIEWED: 10255
PAGE 1 of 1

NIKI2

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:40 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/10/15/pkg.can.church.cross
.globaltv?hpt=T2
There's one reason I dislike organized religion. Christ in a pineapple, Mary in a grapefruit...the easily led are so quick to want to "worship" things...it's sad to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

THEHAPPYTRADER

Friday, October 15, 2010 6:01 PM

Christianity is opposed to the worship of idols... if that is what you are implying. I fail to see what's to hate in the video. It seems the clergy folks of that church aren't ready to jump to conclusions yet, only some pilgrims. I got the general impression this clip was more of a 'hey guys look at this, and here's a little history' than a 'pay your respects to the weeping cross, Jesus Christ commands it!' I saw no evidence that anyone was 'led' to this, those pilgrims led themselves there. The priest didn't even try to convince us, he just gave us a quick history lesson and described the Vatican's process for sussing these things out.

I normally like your post (whether I agree or not) but frankly, that comment seems stupid or manipulative (more worthy of auraptor or kwicko), so I hope I'm misinterpreting.

NIKI2

Friday, October 15, 2010 6:14 PM

I agree with everything you wrote; my comment was not actually about the clip, but about people of faith's tendency to see "god" in irrelevant things, to see "miracles" in the unexplained, to attribute God's influence to other things.

The clip was fine, and realistic, it was just another example for me of religion making people see things that aren't there...and then want to WORSHIP them. I know it's the most uneducated and poorest who generally do this, and I understand why, it's just something at which I shake my head when I hear about it. Nothing more.

You're welcome to judge my comments as stupid; but this one definitely wasn't intended to be manipulative--nor do I think it COULD be. It was just my own musing on the above; every time I hear of these things (I mean, Jesus' face in TOAST?) it reminds me how silly people can be.

You ARE right in that, most of the time, it's not the Church pushing these visions; so I guess it's a reflection of people, not organized religion. I stand corrected. How about "people sure can be dumb sometimes!"?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

THEHAPPYTRADER

Friday, October 15, 2010 6:30 PM

'K, thanks for clarification, and I think the toast things are silly too. I assumed the quote was tied to the clip and that changes the context a mite. Far as seeing God in things, I believe it's possible he sends us signs from time to time and I believe that the miracles that have happened were meant to serve a purpose, not just there.

Jesus didn't just roam around making magic willy nilly in the bible, every miracle is meant to show us something, to teach us something about our faith. When confronted with a possible miracle or sign from God, I don't think the 'is this a miracle' portion is as important as the 'what does this mean to me and what does it show me' part. By that interpretation, my world is pretty shiney 'cause I see miracles all the time! I suppose that was somewhat a tangent... but I guess I was trying to say miracles can happen all the time and those that believe in them don't have to be nutjobs. In my opinion, the stupid comes from people trying to put in specific inflexible terms a religion that was often taught in parables and meant to be... interpreted, for lack of a better word at the moment.

EDIT: Oh, and in the new context I retract the stupid manipulative bit.

NIKI2

Friday, October 15, 2010 7:10 PM

Again I agree with most of what you said, in its intent. My only caveat would be that it doesn't take religion to see miracles everywhere. I see them and note them every day...the miracle of how ANYTHING works, be it a leaf or the human brain, leaves me awestruck. That doesn't mean I believe some entity planned it that way, but neither does that make it any less miraculous.

I guess my bias (and I know it is one) is against people considering "miracles" as coming only from an entity they worship and bestowing that entity with the sole power to do so. JMHO.

Ironically, one of the bases of buddhism is that we try to be aware of every miracle of life every day and pause to think "what does this teach me?". So we're not that far apart in that respect.

And I do believe in Jesus, insofar as I view him as a great figure like Buddha who had tons to teach us and who should rightfully be revered. Just not the son of some "god"...in that respect, I think Muslims have it better, believing Mohammed was a prophet and interpreter of their god, not holy in and of himself.

As to the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus as written, I don't believe in those because they were given to us by men (making their telling open to subjectivity), and men who chose whose account of what happened should be adopted and whose shouldn't be. Just to state my position clearly.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, October 16, 2010 5:28 AM

You remember Jaynestown, don't you? Really, one of the best treatises on religion I've ever seen.

"Ain't about you, Jayne. It's 'bout what they need."

Faith is not about what is true or real. Faith is not about Jesus or God or Allah. Faith is about what we NEED as a people: hope, inspiration, companionship, strength. But mostly hope.

REAVERMAN

Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Faith is not about what is true or real. Faith is not about Jesus or God or Allah. Faith is about what we NEED as a people: hope, inspiration, companionship, strength. But mostly hope.

Not sure if it's exactly what you're driving at, but I take issue with the philosophy that anyone needs faith. To quote Bill Maher (yes, I know he's crazy, but even a broken clock is right on occasion): "Faith is the art of making a virtue out of not thinking."

I agree that, as human beings, without the things you mentioned we would just fall apart. Where I disagree is that, from what I've seen, for every person uplifted and inspired by faith to be better people, there are ten who turn into complete assholes and/or unbelievable morons because of it. Unreasoning, unquestioning, unthinking belief of any kind has wrought more pain, death, destruction and grief than any other single thing in human history.

Tens of millions of people aroud the world, including myself, live happy, healthy, fulfilling lives, all the while outright rejecting faith of any kind.

----------------------------
Once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary.
Over many a strange and spurious pronsite of 'hot XXX galore'.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning.
And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour.
"Tis not possible!", I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server,
404

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:27 AM

Faith is not about what is true or real. Faith is not about Jesus or God or Allah. Faith is about what we NEED as a people: hope, inspiration, companionship, strength. But mostly hope.

Well put Canttakesky. Religion, IMHO, tends to pervert that in the sense that they make it about the object rather than believing in something. Like Shepherd Book said to Mal at Haven "Why do you always assume I'm speaking about God when I talk about belief."

Faith is about pulling 33 men out of a mine shaft.
What we know as God is in that act.

Religion, to me, is hauling yourself off to a building every Sunday (with a bunch of folk you talk behind their back about) forking over your hard-earned to a man dressed to the nines in the latest silky fashion.

You may have a handful who truly believe they are doing God's work, but for the rest it's lip service and grand positioning. There are those who need that community, but it is due to pretense; not faith.

SGG

Tawabawho?

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:38 AM

Another step on his path to be made a Saint.

Riiiight.

Seems pretty innocuous and straight forward to me. A shrine, not getting much attention, one day has a 'miracle' oily substance suddenly appear on a cross, and what do ya know ? Folks start to flock there, bringing all manner of donations, I'm guessin'.

HE truly does work in mysterious ways.

"Ain't about you, Jayne. It's 'bout what they need."

Bingo.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Not sure if it's exactly what you're driving at, but I take issue with the philosophy that anyone needs faith. To quote Bill Maher (yes, I know he's crazy, but even a broken clock is right on occasion): "Faith is the art of making a virtue out of not thinking."

Ah, I didn't say people needed FAITH. I said people needed HOPE, inspiration, companionship, strength...mostly hope.

Faith is believing, albeit sometimes erroneously, that hope exists. Faith interprets events in such a way that allows one to maintain whatever belief we need.

You may find faith in a deity to be "non-thinking." But I bet you have faith in other institutions, perhaps say, medical doctors and government--despite evidence that they are not doing their jobs. Maybe you have faith in the IPCC, or vaccines, or seat belts. Whatever it is, I can bring you evidence that those things don't work properly, and you absolutely discount that evidence. We ALL have areas in which evidence don't matter, blind spots as it were, where we store our faith.

One person's interpretation may appear to be quite "not thinking" to another. But make no mistake. We ALL have faith in something. Just in different things.

NIKI2

Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:17 PM

CTTS, I agree. Of course, from what I write it’s obvious that I think organized religion represents a “need” for more than the things you listed. I’m more with Reaverman in that I both think that for SOME (perhaps many), religion is an easy way not to have to think for themselves, and that for many (tho’ I wouldn’t say ten to one), it’s a detriment to how they behave, and what little they DO think.

However, CTTS, I disagree that we need “faith” in anything. I can’t think of a single thing I have faith in, and I sat here trying. I don’t have faith in anything to be what it’s supposed to be 100%, or even a lower percentage for government, DEFINITELY not doctors or any of the other things you mentioned. I don’t have faith in any one person, including myself, or anything else I can come up with, not science, not nature, not even Buddhism...I believe in its tenants, but that doesn’t mean I put any “faith” in it to do anything FOR me. Certainly I have HOPE that any of those things might work the way I want...I guess the closest I have to any kind of faith is that if I hold to what I believe in, it will make me a better person. That’s as close as it comes.

Inspiration, strength, and companionship (a bit--just a bit--from humans, DEFINITELY some from animals), those I need. Especially the companionship of animals...no doubt to give me at least one thing to which I can get and from which I can receive unquestioning love. But faith? I can’t think of a thing anyone can mention in which I have faith...full faith anyway.

I don’t think faith means hope exists. I have tons of hope, but no faith that any of that hope will come to pass. It’s the hoping that’s enough for me. I guess it gives me hope when I see things like what happened in Child come to pass, and things like the people here sending me to the Gulf...but I recognize fully that it’s the cause of HUMANS which put those miners in that predicament in the first place, that mining deliberately puts people in danger without giving a damn, and that for everyone who donated here to help the Gulf, there are dozen who wouldn’t donate a penny to ANYTHING. So how is it we need faith, Shiny?

I do agree with you about organized religion however. My first memories of same are being hauled off to church by my parents; mother made sure I sat between them, so that when dad nodded off (inevitably) and began to snore, she could nudge me and I could nudge him to wake up. I never saw any indication that either of their “faiths” did a damned thing for them aside from that. The joke was always that dad got his best nap in church, and mom’s main feelings about God were fear—she was terrified of dying, because she believed she would be judged, and despite the fact she was unable to break free of her patterns and continued them to her dying day, she feared that judgment. Was a weird dichotomy to me.

And yes, I fully agree that one of the biggest problems about religion is making it about the “thing” (and you can count the concept of God among those “things), and not what the religion is supposed to be about at its core. You can also count the preacher/rabbi/imam/priest/etc. as one of the “things”, insofar as people blindly accept that one person is interpreting The Word of God and therefore faith in them and what they say is all that’s needed.

There are, I know unquestionably, people who think for themselves and follow what each religion is actually about, rejecting the interpretations as fallible and acting on the basis of the actual teachings, but I fear they are a minority. Them I hold in high esteem; in fact anyone who behaves according to the true tenants of a religion (because they ALL hold essentially the same things), whether only somewhat or fallibly, I respect. They, too, represent a minority to me.

In this case, I don't think anyone deiberately faked the unknown substance, however; judging from the timbre of the priest's remarks, I think it is as much a mystery to him as anyone else, and he'd rather it NOT

NIKI2

Saturday, October 16, 2010 5:32 PM

By the way, as an afterthought, here's another wonderful thread of civility and intelligent debate, for which I thank you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

REAVERMAN

Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Ah, I didn't say people needed FAITH. I said people needed HOPE, inspiration, companionship, strength...mostly hope.

Fair enough. It was late and I misread what you were trying to say.

Quote:
You may find faith in a deity to be "non-thinking." But I bet you have faith in other institutions, perhaps say, medical doctors and government--despite evidence that they are not doing their jobs. Maybe you have faith in the IPCC, or vaccines, or seat belts. Whatever it is, I can bring you evidence that those things don't work properly, and you absolutely discount that evidence. We ALL have areas in which evidence don't matter, blind spots as it were, where we store our faith.

One person's interpretation may appear to be quite "not thinking" to another. But make no mistake. We ALL have faith in something. Just in different things.

I disagree. You seem to be operating on the idea that faith is "belief without proof", when it's really "belief without reason". You're right to say that I believe in many things without proof that my belief is validated. However, this isn't faith. When the evidence in favor of an idea is substantial enough, I believe it. If it's not, I dismiss it. I have reason to believe the things that I do.

Likewise, there are plenty of people I believe in, but no one that I have faith in. To have faith in someone, to my mind, is to meet them on the street and with no evidence, no past experience, and zero knowledge of what kind of person they are, you decide they are good people and will stand up for you and help you in your time of need. In other words, stupidity. The people I believe in have shown themselves to be worthy of that belief, as I have to them.

----------------------------
Once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary.
Over many a strange and spurious pronsite of 'hot XXX galore'.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning.
And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour.
"Tis not possible!", I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server,
404

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
I disagree. You seem to be operating on the idea that faith is "belief without proof", when it's really "belief without reason". ... When the evidence in favor of an idea is substantial enough, I believe it. If it's not, I dismiss it. I have reason to believe the things that I do.

Good point. But, in my view, "proof vs. reason" is six of one and half a dozen of the other. What constitutes evidence of sufficient substance is ultimately subjective. What is "substantial enough" for you may not be substantial enough for me, you see? Who determines where the cut-off lies for something to be "substantial enough" to constitute "reason"?

Case in point, Jaynestown.

Did the mudders have substantial evidence that Jayne was a good man and hero? Looking at only FACTS, he DID drop a huge box of money on them. They DID get to keep that money. They HAD reason to believe what they did.

Enter new evidence. He confesses his motivation for dropping the money. But that doesn't change the FACTS at all, that despite what he intended to do, what he actually DID was good for the mudders. How do you define "goodness" and "hero"? By intention or deed? Maybe Jayne has goodness in him that he himself isn't aware of--evidenced by the reality of the actual goodness he accomplished. They might argue that they still had evidence "substantial enough" to keep their belief.

So, my contention is, by and large, one man's reasonable belief is another man's faith. One man's substantial reason is another man's lack of proof. One man's optimism is another man's gullibility. The framework of our belief systems rests ultimately on definitions and is ultimately subjective.

I therefore try not to be judgmental about other people's faiths.

Of course, sometimes I can't help but snicker. :) Esp when I see stories like this:

Insurance for pet rescue in event of the Rapture.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/862663--christians-may-be-fine-w
ith-the-rapture-but-what-about-their-pets

http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

Hahaha.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
However, CTTS, I disagree that we need “faith” in anything.

Well, again, I wouldn't say we NEED faith. I think we NEED hope etc, and we use faith to project those needs ONTO various subjects. That is to say, I define faith as a psychological tool to meet our needs, rather than an object of need itself.

Here is an example. When interpreting dreams, many people try to interpret the artifacts of the dream--background, characters, objects, plot. Does being chased mean someone's going to come after me? Does a gray sky portent bad news in the future?

I once came across a school of dream interpretation that I found quite useful. You interpret the emotional content of the dream only. The actual dream artifacts, the being chased and the gray sky, are somewhat irrelevant. How you FEEL when you were being chased and how you feel under a gray sky--that is what matters. In this school, dreams simply allow you to express emotions and desires and fears that you repress when you're awake. Dreams help you express the needs you don't allow yourself to express in other means. Being chased allows you to express your feelings of helplessness perhaps, and gray skies may express your lack of control over your environment--if that was how you felt in the dream.

To me, dreams and faith have a lot in common. What you dream about, what you have faith in, doesn't matter so much. They are both tools for expressing and projecting one's emotions and needs, sometimes because they are repressed from other aspects of life.

NIKI2

Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:00 PM

What struck me when I read your post, Reaverman, was

Quote:
with no evidence, no past experience, and zero knowledge of what kind of person they are, you decide they are good people and will stand up for you and help you in your time of need

In a way, is that not the definition of how people view a priest, rabbi, etc? Or even, taken to the extreme, their god himself? And you’re right, it’s how I view “faith” too, as opposed to “belief”. But I don’t think I’d attribute it to “stupidity”...there are many reasons people adopt faith, for some it’s reflexive because of what they’re taught, for some it’s from study and self-determination, for some no doubt it’s belief that they’ve been “touched” by whichever god. That I’m incapable of bestowing complete faith in a god doesn’t make me “less stupid” than someone who is religious...I can’t come up with a term for the difference, but I definitely reject “stupid”. THAT fits, for me, when it comes to people who let their preacher, imam, etc., tell them what to do and they believe that person speaks for their god. To me that is gullibility, and perhaps ignorance—which is totally different from stupidity.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NIKI2

Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:01 PM

CTTS—yes, “proof” and “reason” are subjective, but that doesn’t, to me, make them any less valid for the PERSON, given they’re utilizing either or both in their own lives, which are subjective.]quote] So, my contention is, by and large, one man's reasonable belief is another man's faith. One man's substantial reason is another man's lack of proof. One man's optimism is another man's gullibility. The framework of our belief systems rests ultimately on definitions and is ultimately subjective.

I therefore try not to be judgmental about other people's faiths.

Does pretty much sum it up when it comes to how I view religion, and I try not to judge others’ faiths, either, except as in how they pertain to me. But yes, snickering is inevitable when anything is taken too far, and my own bias comes from having been attacked and hounded by prosletyzers, so I know I have a prejudice when it comes to religions. Nonetheless, I try to show respect (for as long as possible!) and ask them to respect my beliefs in turn. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t work that often. THAT is the aspect of religion I like second least (first is it being prostituted to incite violence); that many people are so strongly convinced (or subconsciously so insecure?) that they can’t help attacking others who don’t think like them. Same as in politics...

I believe in that form of interpretation of dreams, too, and it's worked perfectly for me. With the addition of "what emotion did you wake up feeling?"

On the other hand, there are different levels of "dreamability". My husband never remembers having a dream in his life...of course he has, but he's a pretty closed-off person and not very self-aware. I used sometimes have people on my website post their dreams and ask others what they think it means. Then there are those of us to whom our subconscious "speaks" very clearly, and so much so that it makes me laugh sometimes. A good 75% of the time I can interpret what my dreams are about...maybe because my subconscious isn't imaginative, I dunno.

But here's a perfect example: Back in the bad old days, when we had custody of Jeff, it was pretty bad. Jim didn't relate to him, and Jeff wanted him to desperately, so Jeff acted out. On particularly bad time, I dreamed Jim was standing on the San Francisco side of the Bay, Jeff was standing on the Marin side, and I was this giant standing with a foot in the water on both sides, reaching for Jim to bring him over...but I couldn't get ahold of him, and I felt very frustrated and sad. I mean, how much clearer can that be?!?! That happens to me all the time; I also get dreams that make no sense, aside from the emotion, but it always makes Jim and Choey and I laugh when I have one of those so-obvious ones. So does Choey, by the way, and a few other bipolars I've known. We are kind of FORCED to become self-aware to a degree in order to control our disorder as best we can, so maybe that's why.

So I think it's a combination of different things for different people. The emotion thing is definitely the key, no matter what. That is unquestionable to me. But depending on what kind of person you are, how self-aware, seems to me to determine how clearly your subconscious will "talk" to you. On the other hand, if you're not comfortable with yourself or un-self-aware, I think our subconscious uses allegory and imagination to bring about the emotion sought. Whatcha think?

Quote:
To me, dreams and faith have a lot in common. What you dream about, what you have faith in, doesn't matter so much. They are both tools for expressing and projecting one's emotions and needs, sometimes because they are repressed from other aspects of life.

That's a very interesting and thought-provoking statement. I want to think about that, and write it down to remember. I'm not so sure faith represents something repressed from other aspects of life, tho' you may be right, but the conundrum comes to me when so much anger, hate and rejection comes out of faith toward other faiths

REAVERMAN

Monday, October 18, 2010 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
In a way, is that not the definition of how people view a priest, rabbi, etc? Or even, taken to the extreme, their god himself? And you’re right, it’s how I view “faith” too, as opposed to “belief”. But I don’t think I’d attribute it to “stupidity”...there are many reasons people adopt faith, for some it’s reflexive because of what they’re taught, for some it’s from study and self-determination, for some no doubt it’s belief that they’ve been “touched” by whichever god. That I’m incapable of bestowing complete faith in a god doesn’t make me “less stupid” than someone who is religious...I can’t come up with a term for the difference, but I definitely reject “stupid”. THAT fits, for me, when it comes to people who let their preacher, imam, etc., tell them what to do and they believe that person speaks for their god. To me that is gullibility, and perhaps ignorance—which is totally different from stupidity.

I didn't intend to apply "stupidity" to religious belief. I know plenty of highly intelligent people who've been suckered by the invisible reward system that most religions employ. I was calling that specific scenario, i.e. believing positive things about a perfect stranger with zero reason to do so, stupid.

Religion is not "stupid" per se, but rather "enforced ignorance". At the core of every single religion, the root that they all came from, is ignorance. The fact that primitive peoples lacked the tools to make accurate observations of the natural phenomena they were seeing. Our natural curiosity drove people to look for answers, but without the aforementioned tools, the best explainations they could come up with were just as mystical and unexplainable as the things they were trying to explain. "God/the gods did it" is, after all, much more satisfying than no answer at all.

Only now that we have the tools to begin finding the real answers, religion, the remnant of our ignorant past, clings to life and seems to drag us down as a species, more often than it lifts us up. It's like the appendix of the mind: obsolete, useless, and extremely dangerous when it becomes inflamed.

----------------------------
Once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary.
Over many a strange and spurious pronsite of 'hot XXX galore'.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning.
And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour.
"Tis not possible!", I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server,
404

NIKI2

Monday, October 18, 2010 5:05 PM

Oh, wow, Reaverman, how well put. And exactly what I believe; you covered it pretty much completely where I'm concerned.

Until/unless we "evolve" past things like religion, we are doomed never to evolve into anything better than we are, in my opinion. Religion isn't the only one, but it may well be the biggest roadblock.

"Enforced ignorance". Excellent. Also "Invisible reward system". I'll remember those.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, October 18, 2010 5:58 PM

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a few things. I hope it doesn't destroy the relative civility this thread has enjoyed so far.

Quote:
I agree that, as human beings, without the things you mentioned we would just fall apart. Where I disagree is that, from what I've seen, for every person uplifted and inspired by faith to be better people, there are ten who turn into complete assholes and/or unbelievable morons because of it. Unreasoning, unquestioning, unthinking belief of any kind has wrought more pain, death, destruction and grief than any other single thing in human history.

Observing a group of people who react differently than you do and you can't possibly be the one that's wrong? I suspect much of the assholishness and relative intelligence is a matter of perspective, but I was not there, and even though I find that ratio hard to believe, you are the best authority on what you have experienced. I won't argue that there is no shortage of religious nutjobs in the world, but I would argue that it is not religion that makes them nutjobs. That would be human nature and the occasional charismatic leader who bends religious ideals to suit his or her purposes. However, the religion makes an excellent target doesn't it? Nice... big... easy to hit. I can't speak for all religions, but what my own experiences (from my religion and conversations with folks of other faiths) is that blind faith is generally not encouraged. Quite the opposite. Blind faith is viewed more like apathy, ignorance or laziness.

Quote:
Religion is not "stupid" per se, but rather "enforced ignorance". At the core of every single religion, the root that they all came from, is ignorance. The fact that primitive peoples lacked the tools to make accurate observations of the natural phenomena they were seeing. Our natural curiosity drove people to look for answers, but without the aforementioned tools, the best explainations they could come up with were just as mystical and unexplainable as the things they were trying to explain. "God/the gods did it" is, after all, much more satisfying than no answer at all.

Only now that we have the tools to begin finding the real answers, religion, the remnant of our ignorant past, clings to life and seems to drag us down as a species, more often than it lifts us up. It's like the appendix of the mind: obsolete, useless, and extremely dangerous when it becomes inflamed.

Naw, religious people aren't stupid, they're just ignorant fools. Just because people put more faith in a higher power than a scientific theory that is after all, a theory, does not mean they blatantly disregard any and all scientific discoveries. I thought I was allowed to be religious and intellectual, but maybe I'm just ignorant too eh? I wasn't aware religion and science had to oppose each other. I love science, I think it's fascinating and my favorite thing to listen to on the radio is npr's science Friday.

Perhaps you could direct me to the scientific research that proves a higher power cannot exist? Or the evidence that proves religion is "enforced ignorance" from research that is representative of the global population and not just some odd westboro-esque case study. In my personal experiences I have yet to come across and science that disproves God or any religious reasons to ignore science.

As they say, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because you can't understand how something works doesn't mean it can't exist, or that people who believe in such things are inherently foolish.

On a more positive but less related note, I think it's rather fascinating when science shows us an explanation for some of the 'miracles' in religion. I saw an interesting little bit where, under the right circumstances, the Red Sea becomes shallow enough to reveal a strip of land for a little while (thus parting the red sea). This natural phenomena does not diminish the 'miracle' in my opinion, it actually lends a little empirical support to some religious stories.

I personally believe faith is a wonderful

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, October 18, 2010 6:09 PM

I respectfully disagree with you Niki, I do not believe religion impedes science. You'll always see those morons wanting to believe the earth is flat or something, but how many of them (the morons) do you think would make scientific discoveries under different circumstances?

I believe faith and science can coexist, though as one is clearly observable and the other not so much, they can rarely support each other. Yet so often we see them being used to oppose each other and that baffles me. 'Course, those of us arguing this ain't making any scientific discoveries either, lol. Perhaps someone could elaborate on how religion is impeding our scientific progress?

NIKI2

Monday, October 18, 2010 9:10 PM

Damn. Lost my post. I know I started out asking goodness, where did I say science is impeded by religion? If I did, I wrote it wrong, because that’s definitely not what I believe. I know scientists who are religious and religious people who accept science, they are unquestionably not mutually exclusive in thinking people. I’m not sure where you got the idea I said that.

I forget the rest, so I’ll start again:

I do definitely disagree that “for every one...” I think the ratio is more in the other direction. We just hear about, see and interact more with the ones who are rigid in their religiosity (certainly I do, the minute they find out I’m buddhist!). I don’t think the ratio is anything like what Trader offered, from MY experience. Tho’, as you said, my experience is my experience, and just as, to cite an example, Wulf’s experiences have led him to completely believe many things are true of people, if his experience were wider, he might feel differently.

Religion may make a good “target”, but in far too many instances it is USED to negative ends, which puts it up there in the target range. No, I don’t think nutjobs wouldn’t be nutjobs if religion were eliminated, they’d find something else to be nutjobs about. But religion IS there, and convenient, so it gets its fair share of the blame. Obviously many humans gravitate toward anything that lets them view things through “us v. them”, nationalism, racism, wealth, politics, religion, status—that doesn’t let religion off the hook because it’s only ONE of them. I don’t think it’s been used any more or less than the others if you look throughout all of mankind’s history, but no, it’s not a “target” per se, what is said is accurate. It’s just not the ONLY target.

I agree religion doesn’t “create” nutjobs, don’t think I ever contended otherwise. But it’s a draw for them, as are all the above, which I think is the point being made. Take religion out of creating nutjobs, and the fact that it attracts so many, and in enough cases encourages them to behave in negative ways, and it’s valid to decry it. And I disagree that it’s only “the occasional” leader who “bends religious ideals to suit his or her purposes”. Perhaps I’ve seen an overportrayal in my lifetime of such people, but it only takes one Marjo Gortner or Billy Grahamto affect an awful lot of people, turn them away from what the religion intends, create a cult, get rich off the people, or any number of other things. The majority of PEOPLE who follow a religion may be good folk, but a lot of them can be turned into gullible fools by ONE charismatic leader. Look at all the scandals and figure out how many people were cheated, lied to, etc., etc., by each David Koresh (sp?). For example, under “Famous Evangelist Scandals” on Wikipedia, it lists

Quote:
Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
Jim & Tammy Bakker , 1986 and 1991
Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
Peter Popoff, 1987
Morris Cerullo, 1990s
Mike Warnke, 1991
Robert Tilton, 1991
W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
Bob Moorehead, 1998
Roy Clements, 1999
John Paulk, 2000
Paul Crouch, 2004
Douglas Goodman, 2004
Kent Hovind, 2006
Ted Haggard, 2006
Paul Barnes, 2006
Lonnie Latham, 2006
Gilbert Deya, 2006
Richard Roberts, 2007
Earl Paulk, 2007
Coy Privette, 2007
Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
Michael Reid, 2008
Joe Barron, 2008
Todd Bentley, 2008
Tony Alamo, 2008
George Alan Rekers, 2010
Eddie L. Long, 2010
Robert Schuller, Crystal Cathedral Debts, 2010

Consider how many good, religious folk were impacted by each of those leaders, and you’ve got quite a crowd...and that’s just evangelicals!

I would also caveat that what you said about scientific theory is true for religion, too. It is just as much an “unproven theory” as any scientific theory, however much anyone may believe in it. Everything you say about science can be turned around; there has yet, to my knowledge, been any scientific t

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, October 18, 2010 10:35 PM

Quote:
Whew. Sorry, fascinating subject and I get carried away.

I'm right there with ya!

Quote:
I would also caveat that what you said about scientific theory is true for religion, too. It is just as much an “unproven theory” as any scientific theory, however much anyone may believe in it. Everything you say about science can be turned around; there has yet, to my knowledge, been any scientific theory to PROVE God exists any more than any which disproves it. “Absence of poof” doesn’t prove anything, either.

I wouldn't argue that. I'm more arguing for the possibility of a higher power and the acknowledgment and acceptance of that possibility than trying to prove it exists.

Quote:
Religion may make a good “target”, but in far too many instances it is USED to negative ends, which puts it up there in the target range. No, I don’t think nutjobs wouldn’t be nutjobs if religion were eliminated, they’d find something else to be nutjobs about. But religion IS there, and convenient, so it gets its fair share of the blame. Obviously many humans gravitate toward anything that lets them view things through “us v. them”, nationalism, racism, wealth, politics, religion, status—that doesn’t let religion off the hook because it’s only ONE of them. I don’t think it’s been used any more or less than the others if you look throughout all of mankind’s history, but no, it’s not a “target” per se, what is said is accurate. It’s just not the ONLY target.

Excellent point. Religion can merely be a catalysts, along with several other things. So if we equated these catalysts to say... flammable materials for lack of a better analogy. Is it better to get rid off these flammable materials one by one, or try and educate people not to be jackass's with fire? I guess that might as well be hypothetical.

I still don't get where yall get this blind faith idea from. I go to church, listen to the preacher and occasionally disagree with his conclusions. Then I read the bible passages he mentioned, do a little of my own research and I learn more about my faith. I believe that is how Jesus would want us to be active in our faith and not a bunch of drones or sheeple. As far as evangelism is concerned, I believe the best method is to simply live your live by your principles as best you can and share your story with those who would like to hear it.

A while back on npr, I caught an interview with an author who wrote a very interesting sounding book on a bit of Alaskan history that was largely overshadowed by a gold rush or something (I'm sorry I can't remember the details). Title was something to the tune of "A murder, a cover up and the great reindeer rescue" or some such. Anyhow, US had just acquired Alaska and no one wanted to move there but Methodists Evangelicals and the like wanting to spread the word. Not surprisingly, a fair number of these were racists holier than thou jackasses, they'd shout scripture all confrontational like and tell them as different were going to hell. But our hero was one of the good ones, he thought the best way to reach these people was to lead by example and help them out without some kind of "you have to convert first" prerequisite. One of the bad evangelicals did something really terrible (I can't remember, it was a long drive and interveiw, maybe rape or something) and one of the natives killed the guy.

The good evangelical knew if the national guard was brought in it would be hell on the natives that were slowly getting kicked out of their own land, so he helped cover it up. Then, he began working on a plan to make the natives a permanent part of the economy, to keep them from being forced out. He worked with the natives to acquire a herd of Russian reindeer that they would raise and sell to the US, which was finding transportation up there more than a little problematic. So they get their herd, get all the female deer pregnant and then some whaling ship got stuck in the ice and the government ordered them to take the herd to go rescue the whalers.

These people were brok

KANEMAN

Monday, October 18, 2010 11:17 PM

Religion doesn't like you.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, October 18, 2010 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Christ in a pineapple, Mary in a grapefruit...

Reminds me of one of my favorite people, a co-worker at my old job for a tiny startup. He's this total atheist old guy who says all the things you're not supposed to say in polite company. And he especially likes poking fun at religion. Had religious sin-cleaning handy-wipes in his office, for example.

So one day a born-again type was visiting from Exxon/Mobile or somesuch, and this was on the day that, after a good decade of unclean dishes, my company finally got hot water to flow in the little employee kitchen. (Hot water was apparently too hard for a bunch of engineers and fluid flow specialists to handle HA!)

Anyway, my buddy walks in the room saying: "Hallelujah we have hot water! I saw the Virgin Mary as the water splashed in my hands!" and the born-again guy replies with a snort of disgust, but with complete, absolute seriousness, "How would YOU know what SHE looks like?"

Religion is not good for some people's sense of humor, I guess.

Hey, I have never seen scientists trying to say that God doesn't exist. They have said God isn't *needed*, but that's a different statement. Frankly, science doesn't need God. (Which is what I think offends so many religious people.) Science would be happy to never mention God again, but leave it for the home life. Science is forced, against its will, to care about God only when Religion goes public about taking the word of its favorite book above actual observation of reality. Humans riding dinosaurs in the WhackJob Creationist Museum, for example.

Problem is, with some people, religiosity closes their minds tight, and they try to shut down anyone with a still open mind. I've seen it right here on this site - people's religious beliefs are so tied into their emotions and self identities that they cannot even enter some conversations. They can't look at the fossil record, or discuss the bizarreness of an omniscient God. Try to get them to talk about it and they get all offended and sometimes even angry, then disappear.

Science, on the other hand, is a not a belief system, no matter how much Religion tries to portray it as such. Science welcomes doubt. The scientific method is in fact a codified way of revealing your own blind assumptions--the best thing you can do as a scientist is figure out where you're wrong. You strive for this. Experiment, the observation of nature, comes before any word that any human has ever written. I don't care if you're Stephen Hawking himself: if someone makes an observation that counters your theories, you HAVE to change them.

Try talking the Pope into changing his theories. Ha! Good luck with that.

Or to be fair - try making those extremist Muslim types (which only a SMALL percent of Muslims are!) give woman full and equal rights. Can't do it. Their belief are too ingrained, and they are too incapable of observing the raw, naked reality that woman are equally human.

(And pardon me for speaking for Science as if I represent it. I certainly don't, but the post worked better that way.)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

THEHAPPYTRADER

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:06 AM

Hey, I don't exactly represent all religions either, but no one else will advocate on their behalf, so I feel obligated to give it my best shot.

I'd argue the religion closes minds about as often as science makes an arrogant elitist tools. Scientist ain't exactly immune to close mindedness either. Faith should be able to stand up to questioning. If it can't, then maybe there's something wrong (hey, almost like scientific theories).

The thing about religion, it's about as reluctant to compete with science or more so than science. Religion is about how to live your life, follow your deity and help your fellow man. It's supposed to be interpreted by individuals and the context in which things are written tend to be kinda relevant to the message. Why are their two separate genesis stories in the bible? Why weren't we supposed to eat pork in the old days?

The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless. Like arguing tennis vs chess or something. They really don't share a context to be judged in.

Had more but I lost it and ran out of time. Might be back in this thread later.

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'd argue the religion closes minds about as often as science makes an arrogant elitist tools. Scientist ain't exactly immune to close mindedness either.

Indeed, some scientists can be impassioned dicks about whatever theory they get into. The difference between Science and Religion is: Science is designed to get around these human failings. The final answer comes from nature, which anyone can observe, if they take the time to learn how. Anyone can pick up a rock and drop it, then draw conclusions about gravity. And no matter how much power the guy with the prevailing theory has, if Joe Schmoe from Bumfuck, MO publishes a paper proving the theory wrong, and other scientists can replicate those results, that’s it. The elitist jerk with the attitude is done for.

Does that apply to the Pope? No way it does. Doesn’t matter how many molested kids are out there, or how many women who are quite capable of being first rate priests. If the Pope says no, forget it.

Quote:
Faith should be able to stand up to questioning. If it can't, then maybe there's something wrong (hey, almost like scientific theories).

And yet, I've not seen religion question itself the way Science does.

Pardon me, I know I’m about to offend. Please understand that this is based on my experience, which is likely a bit limited: I see religion as a trap of judgment and ignorance that some people manage to rise above. Some people don't believe all that: "stone to death your sexually active daughter and gay neighbor" crap. They stick to the good messages. (You seem to be one of these, HappyTrader

) But, very clearly given the rhetoric out in the public sphere these days, plenty of people actually believe in that crap. It’s behind many ills the world has seen, and still sees.

On the other hand, Science is something that people fall below. Human failings such as pride and selfishness can slow Science down, but the method is strong enough to pull the scientific community as a whole forward. The jerks may prevail for a day, but only a day. The observation of nature is what wins in the end.

Quote:
The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless.

Indeed. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but I continually experience religious people trying to redefine Science as a belief system, or trying to stop open discussion. Trying, in effect, to stifle reality Hey, I think the world would be a better place if people (in general, not you) were better at logic and truth, so I can’t stop trying.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:50 AM

Opposing religion is a losing position. Strategically, you might want to rethink it. The majority of people belong to one, many people belong to several ;)

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Opposing religion is a losing position. Strategically, you might want to rethink it. The majority of people belong to one, many people belong to several ;)

Ah - but the worm has turned, my friend. 100 years ago I might have been in serious trouble for saying all that I just did, and 500 years ago I'd have been burned at the stake.

The light is shining brighter and brighter all the time... not even the Tea Party can turn it off now!

And as my wise old pa used to say: if a billion people have a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:51 AM

Quote:
A religion that teaches you God is something outside the world--something separate from everything you see, smell, taste, touch, and hear--is nothing but a cheap hustle.

-Duncan Michaelson

KWICKO

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:01 AM

Quote:
The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless. Like arguing tennis vs chess or something. They really don't share a context to be judged in.

Then would you ask your religious friends to stop trying to teach their religion in the science classroom? I mean, unless you want science taught in your churches. 'K, thx. ;)

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Opposing religion is a losing position. Strategically, you might want to rethink it. The majority of people belong to one, many people belong to several ;)

Ah - but the worm has turned, my friend. 100 years ago I might have been in serious trouble for saying all that I just did, and 500 years ago I'd have been burned at the stake.

The light is shining brighter and brighter all the time... not even the Tea Party can turn it off now!

And as my wise old pa used to say: if a billion people have a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

Bingo.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NIKI2

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3:06 AM

Trader:

Quote:
Is it better to get rid off these flammable materials one by one, or try and educate people not to be jackass's with fire? I guess that might as well be hypothetical.

At this stage in mankind’s development: hypothetical, I agree.

Quote:
I believe that is how Jesus would want us to be active in our faith and not a bunch of drones or sheeple. As far as evangelism is concerned, I believe the best method is to simply live your live by your principles as best you can and share your story with those who would like to hear it.

As to the first, I have no DOUBT that’s how Jesus would wish it to be. As for the second; I would have no problem whatsoever with someone who wants to live their lives by their principles and share their story with those who’d like to hear it. That’s not the way it happens a lot of the time, unfortunately. Trust me; been there/done THAT, and am damned sick of being told how I’m going to burn in hell and if only I’d give God a chance and, and, and...!

GREAT story, and epitomizes exactly the things I DO admire about faith. We shouldn’t actually be “debating” anyway, after reading all you wrote; you are not one of those with whom I have any problem around religion. I have met a lot of intolerant people, which is where my bias comes from, and very, VERY few who are religious who are open minded. I know that comes from having lived in California, and particularly Marin, where religion is viewed differently by many than in, say, the Midwest (NOT putting down the Midwest, just that more rural communities have more close-minded people where religion is concerned than do this area of the world). We have a large buddhist community and, since I’m not around a lot of people, I don’t meet as many people whose attitude toward their faith I admire.

The problem I have is with those Mal4 mentions:

Quote:
Science would be happy to never mention God again, but leave it for the home life. Science is forced, against its will, to care about God only when Religion goes public about taking the word of its favorite book above actual observation of reality. Humans riding dinosaurs in the WhackJob Creationist Museum, for example.

I agree wholeheartedly.

And

Quote:
Problem is, with some people, religiosity closes their minds tight, and they try to shut down anyone with a still open mind. I've seen it right here on this site - people's religious beliefs are so tied into their emotions and self identities that they cannot even enter some conversations.

Yes again. One could replace “religious beliefs” with “politics”, too, but that’s another matter.

As to

Quote:
I'd argue the religion closes minds about as often as science makes an arrogant elitist tools

I disagree. If you want to talk numbers, there are tons more people who believe in religion than there are scientists. If you want to talk proportion, someone would have to find out the percentage of close-minded scientists v. close-minded religious people...I’m not sure, but I think it might go in favor of the religious, at least I’d like to think so, given how many of them there are. Some days, I think the opposite, but then as I said, I know my experiences have led to a bias.

Quote:
it's about as reluctant to compete with science or more so than science

THAT I disagree with wholeheartedly! Science, as far as I know, has no desire to compete with religion, whereas the religious nutwings can’t WAIT to compete with science, and if at all possible, shut it down. Surely you’ve seen that in action in America! There’s no question, In my opinion, that religious zealots (and we have a number of candidates this year who are among them) would dearly love to teach ONLY creationism in school, do away with scientific discovery and stop any possibility of stem-cell research, all on religious grounds.

Quote:
I've not seen religion question itself the way Science does

Oooo, nice one! It’s true...religion is generally for the following, not the leading. Few lead by ex

THEHAPPYTRADER

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless. Like arguing tennis vs chess or something. They really don't share a context to be judged in.

Then would you ask your religious friends to stop trying to teach their religion in the science classroom? I mean, unless you want science taught in your churches. 'K, thx. ;)

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

I am a teacher and do have many religious and teacher friends, but none who would advocate teaching religion in schools. We have enough to teach trying to cover all the national standards, we ain't about to look for extra work unless we really think it's important, lol. From the teacher's perspective, religion is kind of intimidating, we don't want to be seen supporting any kind of religion cause we want to keep our jobs. Got look around and make sure there's no kiddies or administrators before we pray or something. Wouldn't want to get in trouble for being human and all. That's also why I don't drink in the same town I work in

I saw one of my students from last year in a bar the other night, it was a bit weird, but not overly much as I just became a teacher and our ages ain't but 5 years apart.

If I get a full time teaching job and end up teaching choir, I would like for my students to sing in latin because it promotes good vowel formation and will help their singing tone. Most music written in latin, however, is liturgical. Masses motets and the like. They would learn so much more singing that than they would oldies like every other mediocre small town choir in the state. But I'm doubtful that will be much an issue. The administrators don't have a clue what we're doing in music class when they CAN understand the language.

Where was I going with that... oh yeah, haha. Most of the teachers I know are quite religious, christian at that, and not one of them wants to teach religion in school. That nonsense comes from idiots trying to tell us how to do our jobs. We've been used to that for a while from the government and administrators. Seems like every principal either used to be a football coach who lost too many games or were a mediocre teacher. Curious...

THEHAPPYTRADER

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:33 AM

I realize I am likely fighting a losing battle for religions as a whole, but I'm glad I've at least illustrated that good things can come out of it. I'm glad y'all view me as an exception to the common suck, but I believe I am who I am because of my religion, not in spite of it. It was a real turning point in my life when I accepted Jesus Christ and realized the 'verse ain't about me anymore. It's not about how unfair things have been for me and how unlucky I have been etc... It's about what I can do and how I can help others. That's part of what led me to teaching. I became 'saved' as a high school sophomore and was not indoctrinated into anything from birth. I sometimes wonder if those who grew up in the Christian setting think less about it because it is so familiar.

Afraid I can't back down though. Someone ought to defend faith and sides, y'all need someone to argue with

Quote:
I disagree. If you want to talk numbers, there are tons more people who believe in religion than there are scientists. If you want to talk proportion, someone would have to find out the percentage of close-minded scientists v. close-minded religious people...I’m not sure, but I think it might go in favor of the religious, at least I’d like to think so, given how many of them there are. Some days, I think the opposite, but then as I said, I know my experiences have led to a bias.

You raise a valid point on numbers, I was thinking more in terms of ratios, but I'll admit I have no data or statistics. That was just limited personal observation, I suppose it might as well be guess work.

Quote:
I've not seen religion question itself the way Science does

*Preemptive wince as I type* Religion does not have to question itself because it is the word of God, transcribed by man as well as man is capable of such things. (This might provoke interesting responses). What we, religious or scholarly curious types, should be questioning is what does it mean. What is the context, what is the setting, situation, cultural influences and the like. Was God angry at the peeps in Sodom for makin' homosex or was he angry at them for wanting to rape his emissaries? Was pork evil meat or was it a drain on resources and dangerous when not cooked carefully? Of course it's easier to interpret things as black and white, gay=bad pork=bad etc... but Yoda told us that's how the dark side works. Quicker, easier, but not stronger.

People not thinking are dangerous religiously, politically, grammatically... the scientific method is a shiney little check on that behavior. Some ideas just can't be measured like that. Those ideas require more thinking, not less, but we all know theory and practice don't always line up quite right.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:36 AM

In a not all that related story, I actually attended a service last Sunday.

Yep. They let me in and everything.

Even took communion, and did NOT burst into flames.

Though I should have asked.. how many calories ARE there in the body of Christ ?

He tasted kinda sweet, btw. A bit like coffee cake, w/ the wine. Not too bad.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

I suspect much of the assholishness and relative intelligence is a matter of perspective, but I was not there, and even though I find that ratio hard to believe...

I apologize in advance for not responding to all of your points, but you made entirely too many good ones and it's late and I need to cherry-pick to save time

. [/excuses]

Anyway, I'll re-iterate: Intelligence has little to do with it. There are many highly intelligent people that are also religious. Ignorance is not synonymous with idiocy; by definition, it is simply a lack of knowledge on a particular subject. When intelligent people look for answers to the big questions, they tend to go with whatever makes the most sense to them, which, in all fairness, is all we can really ever do. To people who are ignorant of the admittedly twisty and complicated logic that goes into coming up with complex scientific answers, it all looks like arbitrary mumbo-jumbo, so they look for something that makes more sense to them based on their subjective knowledge base, which is where religion comes in.

Oh, and that ratio you mentioned wasn't meant to be taken literally. I don't know what the real ratio is, but speaking from admittedly anecdotal personal experience, I would wager it's pretty close to what I said before.

Quote:
Just because people put more faith in a higher power than a scientific theory that is after all, a theory, does not mean they blatantly disregard any and all scientific discoveries.

You always see the term "it's just a theory" get bandied about as if that somehow discredits it. What most people don't seem to realize is that the scientific definition of "theory" is very different from the layman's definition. It is not a guess. It is a conclusion that has been tested thoroughly enough, with enough evidence supporting said conclusion, that it has been accepted as a likely explaination.

Evolution is the big one that everyone likes to bring up. Opponents say it's just a "theory" (meaning "guess" as per the layman's definition). In reality, the only thing keeping it from being declared actual fact is that we haven't observed it's effects long enough to know for sure that it holds true over the long term. There are mountains of evidence in support of it (if it was all printed out on paper and stacked up, that metaphor may actually be more literal than I intended

). 150+ years of observation, from the macroscopic to the microscopic. Barring some completely illogical twist of biology that reverses the process over the long haul and somehow magically falsifies the fossil record, it is fact. But 99.999% sure is still less than 100%, so it's still dubbed a "theory".

Quote:
Perhaps you could direct me to the scientific research that proves a higher power cannot exist?

We both know it doesn't (and can't) exist. Religion is an abstract opinion, like ethics or fashion. It has no physical basis, and thus is impossible to truly comment on using physical means of analysis. That and I never said there were scientific reasons why it was wrong. I was expressing an opinion; in my subjective view, a damn logical opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. Which is all anyone can do to argue it one way or the other, because as I said, it's all opinion. It's like arguing whether or not the sky is the "best" shade of blue.

Quote:
As they say, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because you can't understand how something works doesn't mean it can't exist, or that people who believe in such things are inherently foolish.

And neither is absence of proof proof of presence. But oddly enough, I agree with your second point there. I'm what I like to think of as a "true" atheist. What I mean by that is that I reject irrational belief, including the dogmatically irrational idea that it is absolutely impossible for a higher power to exist. I think it is highly unlikely, and I outright re

THEHAPPYTRADER

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:14 PM

Hey,

Far as, just a theory goes, well, isn't it always 99.9999999999999% until we find something better? I'm not going to argue against evolution. Evolution follows the same pattern more or less that God created things according to Genesis anyway right? And besides, unlike creationism, evolution is a very useful teaching tool in biology. Even superseded theories still occasionally find practical applications in the teaching of concepts. I would never argue against effective teaching.

Scripture, for those that believe, is 100% right. They just have to figure out how to interpret it and transpose the ideas into their own lives and areas. 100% vs 99.9999999999 etc... 100 still wins. This is just to explain why many folks have more confidence in their faith than in science. We both know such a comparison serves no purpose. Faith is an abstract thing you can only observe through the medium of a person. Science is a mite easier to dissect into different variables. In my opinion a person is better off with a healthy dose of both, but that's just my opinion.

Quote:
And neither is absence of proof proof of presence

haha, duh! Like I said earlier, I'm only arguing for the possibility and the acknowledgment of that possibility. If proof were clearly observable it wouldn't require faith.

I find it interesting that you believe things thousands of years old must be incorrect because they are so old (I apologize in advance if I am misinterpreting). I would consider something that has withstood the test of time for that long worth more than a moments consideration. Maybe they were on to something? Or even if they weren't, it must be quite fascinating to last that long.

Far as the I don't know you don't know, that's difficult for me to argue correctly just using text, and also I have no way of knowing what you know etc... I have faith and a feeling I attribute to the holy spirit. Might be there's a scientific explanation to that. Might be the holy spirit is still responsible for the scientific explanation. Either way, I can't expect someone to just believe in something I said that they can't see or feel, so I don't. Like that shiney evangelical in the little story I posted, I just try to do right, help folk and share my story with those of like to hearing it.

NIKI2

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:06 PM

Quote:
you believe things thousands of years old must be incorrect because they are so old (I apologize in advance if I am misinterpreting))

I think you are. I’m not speaking for anyone but me, but I for me, it’s a matter of rejecting the idea that the people who WROTE the scriptures thousands of years ago knew better what is appropriate for my life today. Pork for example. Back then, “Don’t eat port, it’s evil” was what they told people who couldn’t understand exactly WHY pork was dangerous under some circumstances, so “don’t eat it at all” was the easiest way to deal with it. Well, today I know how to cook and handle pork, so I should be able to decide for myself, and not just accept that “pork is evil” so avoid it. I don’t think it’s so much about them knowing the workings of the universe as it is that they had to speak in a language uneducated, unscientific masses back then could accept, I don’t need that today.

Then there’s The Gay. I’ll have to ask how you feel about that to find out how you interpret the scriptures, but to me it was a method of making people reject the “other”...male/female procreation was important back then, The Church (as in organized religion, not faith) had control over that, and having control over it meant having and wielding power. Ergo, homosexuality lessened that power; get rid of it, make it anathema. That’s what The Church and it’s proponents would still like to do today. It also equates to the chadri, the purdah covering women wear in Muslim countries, most especially Afghanistan. When I lived there we had a secular Shah (tho’ gawd forbid he admit it!); he removed the Chadri. It took bloody riots, but he did it. Now, the Taliban has retaken control, they want that control back over women; they reinstituted the Chadri, along with a lot of the other egregious things connected to it which were done away with.

Scriptures were written by MEN. Actually, the ones written by women were rejected, and whose “scriptures” survived were determined by a few. Ergo, is it the whole story? It can’t be, because a) It was written by humans, ergo carries human subjectivity, and b) the faithful aren’t given sanction to ALL the scriptures, so how do we trust those who chose which ones were allowable? I’ve never believed in the bible except as a gathering of stories as to what happened according to those who were there and how they viewed them, and writings created with more than one purpose in mind. Purposes like keeping people safe from pork, as well as purposes like keeping power in those in charge of the religion.

As to the teacher thing, I acknowledge everything you said. I’ve known a couple of university professors and what they had to say about the politics and back-biting of the education system shocked me, tho’ when I thought about it, it made sense (sadly). BUT, however well-intentioned the teachers themselves, there are those in politics who want to FORCE the teaching of religion as if it is fact, who want to minimize science if not get rid of it entirely...so it should be

Quote:
Then can we get those religious politicians and government officials to stop trying to teach their religion in the science classroom?

I know it’s not, by and large, the teachers themselves; like so many others, the attempt is to make them the pawns...but if some of the religious right get their way, they WILL be made pawns, pawns to force religion down kids’ throats BY LAW, and it is to that I believe he was referring. It is a fact, pure and simple, that some want only creationism taught and some what creationism taught alongside science. I disagree with both. Religion isn’t science. Have different classes, dealing with how religion interprets things, but don’t either add religion or replace science with it to explain things. That’s my view.

Religion in education offends me. There are many religions; each one teaches something slightly different. So whatever religious explanations you teach, you’re omitting every other reli

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:36 PM

I'm stayin outta this one cause I am a Maltheist, in case anyone wondered, and the discussion will be far more civil and informative without my two penniesworth.

-F

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I'm stayin outta this one cause I am a Maltheist, in case anyone wondered, and the discussion will be far more civil and informative without my two penniesworth.

-F

Yeah, when someone starts saying that the bible is The Word Of God and therefore it doesn't need to question itself, I really ought to check out.

I mean, the logical fallacies there are so obvious that, if they need to be explained, there's little chance of successful communication. Can a Believer be made to understand that belief is not fact? Can such a person consider that The Word Of God may be purely an invention of scared little human beings living in a hard-to-explain world? That would involve questioning, and the Word cannot be questioned, because it is the Word and therefore true, and will always remain true because it cannot be questioned...

It's a kind of evolution of thought process, survival of what can't be killed off. If a belief system cannot be questioned, then it will not ever be proven false. Which, really, is why I think religions exist. That, and the superiority factor. (God is like me and I am like God and I'll be going to Heaven na-na-na-na-na-na!)

Oops. I didn't check out quickly enough. Sorry, HappyTrader. I really think you're better than that, but the "Word of God" thing, brought into an otherwise logical conversation, kind of triggers my anti-logic gag reflex.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:13 AM

Haha, thanks for the compliments. I figured that one comment I made would trigger interesting responses. Mal, I'm not entirely sure I follow ya, or you follow me, so I'll try and clear things up a mite.

I believe the Bible is the word of God transcribed by man as best as he was able. It has to be interpreted in context to make sense. Also, it's taught largely through parables and the like. I suppose I should have been more specific on the questioning bit. We don't question its authenticity, but we ought to question what it means. Why did Jesus try multiple times to cure the blind man if he could have done it in one? There's an answer there, ya just gotta find it. Then, you maybe have to do a bit of transposition to bring the concept into our modern context. For example, sex outside of marriage was a very bad thing, because people married very very young, so if you had sex outside of marriage you were cheating on your wife or husband. Nowadays we can wait a while before we get married and still make babies, and we can have sex without making babies, so I'm not entirely sure how that should be applied to our generation. I do know if it is sinful, it's a sin I commit multiple times every weekend, but nobody's perfect. When I get a better job I might just make an honest woman out of her, but I won't make a commitment like that till I have the resources to fulfill it. Otherwise all I can offer is student loan debt.

I know I went on a bit of a tangent their, but did that clear things up? What I mean by not questioning the Bible, I mean it's not a theory to be put up for approval or disapproval. It's more like a manual on life that takes a little effort to understand properly. Otherwise it's like watching a foreign film with bad dubbing.

KWICKO

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:39 AM

Why shouldn't we question its authenticity?

Should science not question the origins of the fossil record? Should it not question the authenticity of its research?

Would you be satisfied if scientists just started out a conversation with "Well, nobody can question the authenticity of evolution, so let's just accept that as the baseline and move on from there..."?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:59 AM

As we have established, Religion is not science. It almost like trying to authenticate that red is in fact my favorite color. The religion is based off of God's message as recorded in scripture. Also, I'm curious as to how you would verify its authenticity? Might be this is something we have to take on faith, ya know, kinda like a religion or something.

In case I need to specify again, I ain't telling anyone what to beleive, just trying to help y'all understand why I and others feel the way we do.

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
believe the Bible is the word of God transcribed by man as best as he was able.

Right. Got whatcha mean. I don't happen to think that Jesus was Divine, but he was a great man with many great ideas, and I think it equally likely that the middle-men of his day (well, 200 years later) interpreted and recorded his ideas in the way they personally saw fit. I doubt they intended evil, but they thought enough of themselves to try and shape the world they way thought it ought to be. Just look at the place of women in the book, for instance, as Niki pointed out. They had no problem setting that down, to the detriment of millions (billions?) of women over the millenia since.

Quote:
We don't question its authenticity, but we ought to question what it means.

Then you aren't really questioning it.

Th Holy Book (any Holy Book) is some good stuff written by both good and bad people and then passed through a game of operator (whisper any message into a line of ears and what comes out the end is vastly changed.) So Jesus curing a blind man umpteen times might have more to do with several fellows liking their dad's particular version of the fable, and all are big donors to the cause, so all their versions have to be set down or the whole project might tank (kinda sounds like Congress, or my last faculty meeting) so a new take an the tale is born. It's all politics.

Who knows. The thing I feel confident about is that people then were much like people now, and people now do stupid shit.

Quote:
example, sex outside of marriage was a very bad thing, because people married very very young, so if you had sex outside of marriage you were cheating on your wife or husband. Nowadays we can wait a while before we get married and still make babies, and we can have sex without making babies,

Question again that which you define as "good" and "bad". For the man, having another man's child implanted in his own family has very bad indeed, as it's an affront to his manhood and his ownership of his woman, Then there's that strange DNA he's forced to nuture.... But he can go diddle something else and claim it's not his. He's got his freedom and his high moral horse too.

But to a woman, having multiple fathers puts more variety of traits into her offspring, more chance that at least some of her children will fit the changing times. And, in those olden Biblical days when she would not be able to care for herself, she's got secondary daddies to step up an support her and her brood in main daddy turns out to be an ass.

How knows. Could happen.

So what I see as definitions of Good and Bad in the Bible are most definitely set down by one limited and definitely NOT divine, but powerful group. They write their Word for the good of themselves only. Makes me doubt that source of that message pretty strongly. It's self-serving.

Quote:
It's more like a manual on life that takes a little effort to understand properly. Otherwise it's like watching a foreign film with bad dubbing.

It helps if you are its target audience, as it seems you may be.

If you are not, and what you are want is not one of the Officially Approved Biblical Ways Of Life™, there becomes even harder to see the Word as sound, or as necessary. I don't follow it, I don't need it, and yet I'm a moral, kind (mostly), empathetic and responsible person with an awe for what's out there, and not an overly high value set on what I've got inside of me. I'm just a cog having a decent time still rolling. Don't knee no damned book to coninue that alone,

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

KWICKO

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:28 AM

Yup, we're told by the "believers" that the bible is the "word of god" - and then we're told that parts of it are obsolete and not important.

I was having this discussion with someone the other day, and they kept insisting that homosexuality is against the bible. I asked them how so, and they pointed to Leviticus, in the Old Testament. So I asked them if the old testament wasn't obsolete, replaced by the NEW testament - the part that "christians" claim to follow. At that point, he claimed it was ALL the word of god, and it was all to be followed. So I told him that he was going to hell, whereupon he became incensed and demanded I explain myself. "Well, you shave your face and cut your hair! Further, you have several tattoos, and a couple of piercings. Hence, you're going to hell. It's in your book."

He said that I was wrong, and that no such thing was in there, at which time I pointed him right back to Leviticus, in the passages around the biblical ban on homosexuality, whereupon he claimed that THAT part of the book wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Seems if something was the infallible "word of god", a person should live by all of it, else what's the point?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:34 AM

Um, I really hope you aren't implying my religion is sexist. I can agree to disagree on several things, but a sexism accusation just might make me loss my cool. My mom had to work her ass off without the benefits of an education to raise me and my sis all by herself and make sure we got an education. She worked a crappy job with no advancement and just about every man in her life was... Well pathetic or they took advantage of her generousity (as in basically stole money, cause we were so rich and all...) She's a better person than any man I've ever met, though I wish she stood up for herself more. Hell, if I were sexist, it would be against men.

Say what you will about nutjobs and the like, but I fail to see how any intelligent person could be sexist or racist. They would be robbing themselves of the friendship knowledge and ideas of a large portion of the population. Much as I am trying to advocate on behalf of all faith's I won't defend anything that is meant to be sexist.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:41 AM

Old testament is obsolete in my opinion. Jesus made things simple for us. Anyone who believes and trys their best goes to heaven. Basically believe in God and love thy neighbor as thyself. The rest is window dressing. Old testament is about our history, new testament is about our future. And I don't care what any catholic says, there is no one sin that will send you straight to hell. No one deserves to get into heaven, which is why everyone can get in. Ya can't earn it, it's a gift so no one should feel high and mighty or like bragging about it.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:40 PM

Mal

The worm has relocated.

Really you would be burned at the stake for opposing the power of the Church. The RCC is a dying institution. Try instead to oppose Judaism, and see how far they let you get with it.

Of course, burning people at the stake was for show, to create a spectacle, it's why they have massacres in China. But our modern system is very civilized: We have our mainstream media who will pillory you until the people want to burn you at the stake. If that doesn't work, we have concentration camps full of torture chambers. We've killed far more opponents of Israel in a few short years than the Catholic Church was able to do in centuries.

And of course...

Jump to the other side, and it's no better.

Oppose Islam or Mohammed, and you can be burned at the stake in a number of ways. Including, probably, literally.

So, Christians have changed? Maybe, maybe not. Most christians now are like most christians then. The protestants, so called, I strongly suspect were mostly never catholics. The RCC actual control over Europe was very sketchy, even at the time of the Reformation, numerically, most of the people who joined the reformation were christians who were not yet catholics, and didn't want to be under the thumb of the RCC, so they were all dubbed "protestants" even if they weren't, in fact... so it's all very twisted.

The point being, the Church had a lot of power. It still does. It's just a different church. I'm not sure its leaders are different people. After all aren't we still on a Crusade?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:15 PM

Mal4Prez was not calling you sexist.

You have noted that there exist some things in the bible that should at least be thought about for better understanding; "is pork evil or is it expensive to raise and in those days hard to cook so it was safe to eat?" "Did God destroy Sodom and Gammorah because of homosexuality or because of the roving gangs of rapists?"

The question of women in the bible, right and wrong and roles expected of them as depicted should raise similar questions for you. Why can't a woman be a priest in the Catholic church? What is the purpose of the institution of marriage?

Your religion is starting to question these things. Kudos. Watch out for the traditionalists who will want to road block you with double standards, and believe on.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:37 PM

Quote:
Question again that which you define as "good" and "bad". For the man, having another man's child implanted in his own family has very bad indeed, as it's an affront to his manhood and his ownership of his woman, Then there's that strange DNA he's forced to nuture.... But he can go diddle something else and claim it's not his. He's got his freedom and his high moral horse too.

But to a woman, having multiple fathers puts more variety of traits into her offspring, more chance that at least some of her children will fit the changing times. And, in those olden Biblical days when she would not be able to care for herself, she's got secondary daddies to step up an support her and her brood in main daddy turns out to be an ass.

How knows. Could happen.

Excellent points, Mal4Prez, and an angle I hadn't considered before. However, I don't think the original intention of marriage was about control of women. Childbirth is a difficult process, and very often death by childbirth was a common outcome in the times that marriage was invented. People were already constrained by their life expectancy (though yes, pregnancy among young girls also greatly decreased life expectancy, but they didn't know that). Back then it was wise to codify something where women limited their chances of pregnancy by limiting their partners.

Men, of course, didn't really have any such risk, but at least in Islam, Judaism, and early Christianity, they were limited to four wives only, mostly because of resource concerns that more wives and correspondingly more children would create in a desert environment, not to mention community irritation with an irresponsible guy who just can't keep it in his pants. (See also early Mormonism, Joseph Smith) If men broke this, they could be expected to be stoned for adultery just like a woman could, because in small communities, people would know what everyone was up to. It wasn't just a woman getting pregnant unexpectedly that tipped people off, and it wasn't just the women who were punished.

Similarly, the headscarves of Islam was not about control either. The quran says they were introduced to prevent men from harassing women. The full-body burqa was merely the slippery slope result.

Arguably, both marriage and the headscarf/burqa became instruments of control later on.

I note that Judaism didn't used to be so unfriendly to women, back when it was a polytheistic religion, the supreme God had a wife, Shekina. Some Christians also continue to believe in a Shekina. And Early Christians were much more friendly to women; in fact, many of the Roman converts after the death of Christ were women because the religion originally allowed them to be priests without any extra conditions (like the Vestal Virgins had to deal with, or the Oracles).

It was later that Peter became a strong influence among the men of the early church that led to the ban of women priests. Peter did not like women, and also seemed to be jealous of Christ's attentions to the Magdalene. In any case, Peter's teachings won out eventually with the Nicene Council.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:56 PM

I must apologize, when I feel my religion is being accused of rampant sexism, it's hard to remain objective and not feel offended. It's like being called racist just for disagreeing with Obama or being a conservative. Oh, and by the way, women can become priest, least aways Episcopal's can. Women can also become religious leaders in a number of protestant denominations. And if we're going to keep attacking Christianity with outdated practices of Catholics from years past, can I bring up Expanding Earth thoery or Telegony (which by that way, was a scientific theory often associated with racism.)

So marriage is meant to control women? I should do more research before delving into this issue. I'm not married and not all that terribly familiar with the tradition. All I know is it didn't work out so shiney with my Mom and Dad so I'd like to make sure I do it right. Still marriage to control women seems silly, cause in practice, it seems to control men. I don't think I've ever entered a married couple's house and felt like it was the man's 'castle.' I 'spect the only power we really have is to agree with our mate and help her get pregnant.

I ain't even married and my g/f makes me slow down, eat better, and not stay out all night with the guys but like once a week. But I figured out when I get really good ideas that she likes I can get away with more. Ex: When I take her dancing, I can drink as much as I want! Well... actually that's a lie... but I can drink she's happy to DD.

So I guess marriage, is really just an acknowledgment of your relationship before God and a symbolic union of two families. I don't think I've ever been to a wedding where 'obey' was part of the vows. So my argument is marriage is to controlling women as Muslims are to killing folk. When it does happen, I suspect the marriage or Islam portions have very little to do with the evils attributed to them.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:50 PM

Didn't read my post to Mal4Prez?

That's okay.

The basic gist is, I'm a neutral party. I don't care about religion. I like to think I've done some research about it, but without faith you might not find it an accurate portrayal of reality.

There's some recent and still present angles to the marriage question, and I note that marriage exists in other religions as well, so this isn't just Christianity.

In some ways, as I noted above, marriage was a way to keep a guy from going around and impregnating all the women. However, consider elements of sexual dimorphism and jealousy. Imagine one marriage partner is usually larger and stronger than the other (women fight back more nowadays... Doesn't always end well for them though), and being able to force certain issues. Until recently, marriage was considered consent.

Now consider that same larger stronger person has historically been expected to be the breadwinner.

In modern times, we can agree this is somewhat unfair to the man as well. And it's becoming less commonplace.

However, control over money and the place where the woman can stay and being bigger and stronger, and maybe you might see why marriage has some elements of controlling women.

As I said, this wasn't ALWAYS the way marriage worked, it isn't how it always works now. But it is how it SOMETIMES works, and in the past, this is something that has been exploited.

The original intention probably was not control. Has it ever been about control? Yes. Less so recently.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:30 PM

Makes sense, except for marriage being the deciding factor. Big strong man had all the power in the old days, but not because of marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if his control was also evident his relationships, but arguing marriage is the cause (though, I'm pretty sure that's not what you're arguing) is like blaming the entire country of Germany every time my Volkswagen gives me fits.

The 'control' aspect in some marriages is a symptom of a larger disease, some kinda Pathiogenica Nutjobius and not marriage it self. Other symptoms include arrogance, intentional ignorance, using faith science and/or philosophy as a justification for violence, racism, sexism... etc...

Should I blame science as a whole everytime someone uses landmines, nukes, chemical warfare? Does that cancel out the good things science had brought us like medicine? Or, are all of these the fault of the individuals responsible? Could we view religion in the same respect?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:45 PM

I think you're missing me here.

Marriage is a structure. Individuals, yes, abuse the structure, but it's the structure that creates the opportunity for that abuse.

I've gotten the feeling you don't like government, and I don't either, so let's look at this from another angle.

Government is a structure. Individuals abuse the structure, but it's the structure that creates the opportunity for that abuse.

I don't know if that's any clearer. If a structure is created, then has the end result of abusing someone else through the use of that structure, then whatever the intention of the structure was initially, a function of that structure is control. Maybe that control is never utilized in a particular case, but this still becomes an inherent part of that structure, one of it's uses, part of it's purpose.

With marriage, this is case by case, and dependent upon the individuals. Arguably both men and women are controlled by marriage. And marriage can be used in fairly harmful ways against women. You might be able to think up some ways that it's been used in a harmful manner against men. The problem is pretty pervasive though.

Quote:
Big strong man had all the power in the old days, but not because of marriage.

Actually, it played a significant role. In many cultures, including European cultures but a number of African and Asian cultures, women used to leave the household of their birth with only a dowry, a pittance really, which became the property of the man. Women owned nothing BECAUSE of marriage, which downplayed their relevance in the marriage relationship to damn near insignificance.

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth of Shakespeare's time never married? Because then everything would belong to the King.

Quote:
Should I blame science as a whole everytime someone uses landmines, nukes, chemical warfare?

Hell, I do. What possible purpose can those applications of technology have, besides hurting people? Science is an amazing thing, it's the nobility of creation and discovery, it's the human legacy, the only thing (besides art/literature) that we can create that may outlive us all and carry our memory. But science DOES have a dark side, and you will not see me support that, and I will not just accept science gone wrong, nor will I cease to be vigilant about abuse.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:19 PM

yeah, we seems to be talking past each other. Marriage was a problem because men had all the control, and any structure can be used for bad intentions, even healthcare. I'm not a big fan of govt but I'm not sure what a better alternative would be. I think it would be great if everyone could take responsibility for themselves, but that can open doors to all manner of abuse. I still think marriage as a tool of oppression is a bunch of but even if it was, it was a male-centric culture that corrupted it for those purposes, not the will of God or anything.

In many early simple horticulturalist societies, woman had all the power because the women stayed home with the houses, plants and children and did not run into the wild and get killed by something. Ironically, I have somewhat of a bias against men. I don't think it likely that those women would exploit their position, but I suppose where they had the power and it was possible.

Back to structures, if your intention is to make us aware of the potentials of abuse, I'm with ya. I just don't think it's fair to blame it on structures. My crappy ass car could be a structure for homicide if I ran someone over, Muslim faith can be a structure for terrorism, even the insulin that allows diabetics to stay healthy can be an implement for violence. I saw that on an episode of NICS, not that tv shows are the best sources for these kinda arguments, but they are entertaining. Structures... weapons... they are just tools. I'm more inclined to blame the person using them.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:55 PM

Quote:
I still think marriage as a tool of oppression is a bunch of but even if it was, it was a male-centric culture that corrupted it for those purposes, not the will of God or anything.

No, not the will of God. But perhaps the will of organized religion. Certainly couples who are nicely paired off and have fiscal obligations to raise, feed, and cloth a number of children are easy to control, especially because it's survival and genetic preservation in question. Now it's more the government that takes advantage of this, but it used to be organized religion.

What is a tithing for? In non-Christian religions, what is a sacrifice of food or rice for? Both create an unnatural scarcity within the family environment. In particularly bad cases, it creates need, dependence, and obligation to the religion. Even barring that, there's religions that have spouses reporting on each other's misdeeds, religions encouraging the good spouse to influence the other.

I wonder if making women in particular susceptible to not owning anything, if this then made them more easily influenced by the church, and useful to cajole the husbands? Hmm. Don't mind me, just theory making here.

Also, not even necessarily male-centric culture. That's how it just happened to go down in recent history, but as you mentioned, there are a few examples of female dominated cultures. My suspicion, however, is that without a balance in the culture between sexes, one side is probably going to get the shaft.

It used to be our current culture was very male dominated. While I'm not sure women have quite caught up in the wages department, popular sentiment is entirely the other way around. Men are depicted as slaves to their desires/instincts, with women the wise stewards keeping them in check. Both versions of gender roles and stereotypes are farcical.

Quote:
Back to structures, if your intention is to make us aware of the potentials of abuse, I'm with ya. I just don't think it's fair to blame it on structures. My crappy ass car could be a structure for homicide if I ran someone over, Muslim faith can be a structure for terrorism, even the insulin that allows diabetics to stay healthy can be an implement for violence. I saw that on an episode of NICS, not that tv shows are the best sources for these kinda arguments, but they are entertaining. Structures... weapons... they are just tools. I'm more inclined to blame the person using them.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful how you use structures OR tools. If you have a gun, you should know gun safety. If you have a structure, like government, science, or marriage... Well, I think a similar argument applies.

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:51 PM

Wow. I wrote that post in a separate doc last night, and didn't proofread after copying it over. Sorry about the typos and incomplete-ness. I must have messed up the copy paste somehow and got a not-done version. Either that or I was sleepier than I thought!

But the idea got across. And you're so right Kwicko - the way people pick and choose what they believe of the Bible pretty completely knocks down the idea that the rules of the Church are the pure Word of God. Obviously the written word is being filtered, and that makes it the Word of Humans.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Um, I really hope you aren't implying my religion is sexist. I can agree to disagree on several things, but a sexism accusation just might make me loss my cool.

I haven't read the rest of your exchange with Bytemite, (though I saw that Byte addressed this) but I want to point out a few things here before I go further.

First - this is exactly what I mean about Religion not being able to discuss things openly. I'm about to say some things about the way the Church operates, and the content of the Bible. Are you capable of handling that as observations of an organization and a book, or must it become something personal and insulting to *you*? If it's the latter, my point about the mentalities of Religion versus Science is made.

Second - I meant absolutely no judgment or accusation of you or your excellent mother. I don't know either of you, and wouldn't judge you by your religion in any case. Unlike some posters here, I don't believe that the religious organization defines the individual. I may not like the organization, but I may like you fine. I'm open to finding out.

Third - hell yeah the Catholic Church is sexist. If a person has a penis, he can be a priest. If a person does not have a penis, she is not allowed. Sexism, cut, dried, and posted on dictionary.com.

And let's look at the big name players in the Bible: Mary and Mary. A Virgin and a Whore. These are the examples Catholic women have had, historically, to live up to? Not at all realistic, and it speaks volumes as to what men have expected of women over the past couple thousand years.

Quote:
Say what you will about nutjobs and the like, but I fail to see how any intelligent person could be sexist or racist.

I envy you. I've known plenty.

Problem is, few racist or sexist people think they are. This came up in another thread, the one about what acts are really unforgivably evil or something like that. I think few but the crazy serial killers intend to do evil (and probably not all of them do either!) People do bad shit because their own personal brand of logic/belief allows them to justify.

Sure, it's stupid to be racist or sexist. But people don't do it because it's logical.

Also, intelligent people can have the life skills of a doorknob. They fairly often do, in my experience.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The worm has relocated.

Cincinnati? Or did it head to a warmer climate? Wouldn't it have had to *turn* at some point on its way out?

Quote:
Of course, burning people at the stake was for show, to create a spectacle, it's why they have massacres in China.

Woo-hoo simplification! Massacres in China explain the motivations of Catholics burning Protestants at the stake in the 1500's... Forget six - one degree of separation will do!

Seriously, I fail to see the connection. Yes, people like to have a scapegoat to tear down. Religion is very good at offering them just that. Politics and nationalism will do it too, if people go at it with the same kind of raving enthusiasm they have historically brought to religion. (Hello Tea Party!)

Quote:
If that doesn't work, we have concentration camps full of torture chambers. We've killed far more opponents of Israel in a few short years than the Catholic Church was able to do in centuries.

More, really? I doubt it, certainly not when proportions are considered (there's a lot more people in the world now than centuries ago).

OK, I'm right there with you that America has done some evil shit. However, that doesn't make killings in the name of the church all right.

And why is this so often a defense of the religious and the conservative? "Oh yeah, well... someone else did something bad too!" So what? That makes it ok?

Quote:
Jump to the other side, and it's no better.

Oppose Islam or Mohammed, and you can be burned at the stake in a number of ways. Including, probably, literally.

You're seeing two sides to this discussion that don't exist in my mind. Islam is not the "other side." It's the same damned thing: yet another blind belief system that tends to numb rational thought and lead to pretty serious abuses.

Quote:
So, Christians have changed?

Did I say that? Christians may be as they always were, but there's less of them and they have less power. Pardon the pun, but Thank God.

Quote:
After all aren't we still on a Crusade?

Bush and his crew might have been, but a whole helluva lot of us are most emphatically NOT.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:
If that doesn't work, we have concentration camps full of torture chambers. We've killed far more opponents of Israel in a few short years than the Catholic Church was able to do in centuries.
More, really? I doubt it, certainly not when proportions are considered (there's a lot more people in the world now than centuries ago).

OK, I'm right there with you that America has done some evil shit. However, that doesn't make killings in the name of the church all right.

And why is this so often a defense of the religious and the conservative? "Oh yeah, well... someone else did something bad too!" So what? That makes it ok?

Quote:
Jump to the other side, and it's no better.

Oppose Islam or Mohammed, and you can be burned at the stake in a number of ways. Including, probably, literally.
You're seeing two sides to this discussion that don't exist in my mind. Islam is not the "other side." It's the same damned thing: yet another blind belief system that tends to numb rational thought and lead to pretty serious abuses.

I really don't think that's the point DT was making. He's a Taoist, his family was Jewish. He's not defending Catholics.

Though I didn't follow the China Massacre thing either.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:49 PM

Quote:
First - this is exactly what I mean about Religion not being able to discuss things openly. I'm about to say some things about the way the Church operates, and the content of the Bible. Are you capable of handling that as observations of an organization and a book, or must it become something personal and insulting to *you*? If it's the latter, my point about the mentalities of Religion versus Science is made.

Yeah, sorry about that, I ain't perfect and couldn't help but feel personally insulted. I was doing pretty good up until that point. I hope my lapse in judgment didn't completely destroy my argument that faith can be a powerful thing for the good of man AND womankind.

I'm tired of trying to argue for the churches, (which as I said earlier, I don't follow blindly), so I'm going to retreat for a bit and try to explain my view on things before I try and argue faith in general. I don't think Christianity is sexists, or at least it ain't supposed to be. I'm not a big fan of organized religion or of the catholic church. There are denominations that allow women into their ranks as leaders, even priest like Episcopals (I like to think of them as diet catholic, same great religion with half the guilt and corruption).

There's no way I can defend every aspect of every sect of Christianity, and it seems kind of arrogant for me to define what is right and wrong in Christianity. The Bible is a good reference for that kind of thing, but we all know it's incomplete, and too many people confuse church dogma with God's will. Losing my temper only makes me look like a stereotypical unthinking jerkoff. For now, lets just agree we're shiney people with different opinions on stuff (not that I've thought different of any of you, we are all browncoats after all).

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Yeah, sorry about that, I ain't perfect and couldn't help but feel personally insulted. I was doing pretty good up until that point. I hope my lapse in judgment didn't completely destroy my argument that faith can be a powerful thing for the good of man AND womankind.

It COULD be. Sadly, it often isn't.

Quote:
I'm tired of trying to argue for the churches, (which as I said earlier, I don't follow blindly),

LOL! Substitute "Obama" for "churches", and I know exactly what you mean. It's a great theory and has done some good things, and is better than many alternatives, but the reality just doesn't live up to the ideal...

Quote:
I don't think Christianity is sexists, or at least it ain't supposed to be.

I think it speaks well of you, and is sanguine (Zoe word!) as to the future of the church that you think so. But history is against you, my friend.

I just hope there are more like you out there.

Quote:
Losing my temper only makes me look like a stereotypical unthinking jerkoff.

I quite honestly didn't think you were, or I would have engaged at an entirely different level.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:19 PM

In the very least, Christianity wasn't anti-woman to begin with, and it's becoming woman-friendly again.

Though there's still an awful lot of church talk about Eve blame and Eve causing the fall, which was not at all the POINT of that story... It's about Satan and temptation. Do people still read Paradise Lost? Eve wasn't evil in that story, she was never evil. She was naive. Adam adored her so much that when she became mortal, he chose to stay with her. The first sin, they call it, but it was one God had planned for; Adam turned away from the protection of God and became the entity of free will God had wanted in the first place.

Actually, I compare the whole thing to a parent kicking his son out of the house and telling him to get a job.

OONJERAH

Saturday, August 6, 2016 11:56 AM

An After School Satan Club could be coming to your kid’s elementary school
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/an-after-school-satan-c
lub-could-be-coming-to-your-kids-elementary-school/2016/07/30/63f485e6-5427-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html

It’s a hot summer night, and leaders of the Satanic Temple have gathered
in the crimson-walled living room of a Victorian manse in this city
renowned for its witch trials in the 17th century. ...

They’re here plotting to bring their wisdom to the nation’s public
elementary school children. They point out that Christian evangelical
groups already have infiltrated the lives of America’s children through
after-school religious programming in public schools, and they appear
determined to give young students a choice: Jesus or Satan.
[ ^emphasis mine, Oonj ]

“It’s critical that children understand that there are multiple
perspectives on all issues, and that they have a choice in how
they think,” said Doug Mesner, the Satanic Temple’s co-founder.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.
Maybe a donut.

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, November 22, 2022 7:09 PM

A Secular Religion Is Being Established in American Law
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-secular-religion-woke-first-amendment-e
stablishment-clause-11666820331

Protesters are demanding for a non-religious Iran: What does this mean for the country?
https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/protesters-are-demanding-for-a-no
n-religious-iran-what-does-this-mean-for-the-country-11544641.html

Spiritual but not religious Americans are finding new ways of pursuing meaning
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-spiritual-religious-americans-ways-pursu
ing.html

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, February 14, 2026 8:27 PM

Exiled Iranian Prince Reza Pahlavi: "There are only two nations on this planet that can claim they have a biblical relationship with one another. One is Israel, one is Iran."

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/2022375963133108341#m

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, April 16, 2026 7:08 PM

Taqiyya, Al-muruna, Kitman and Al-tawriya

Muslim migrants pose as LGBT to gain asylum in the UK, Home Office vows to jail lawyers who help them
https://jihadwatch.org/2026/04/muslim-migrants-pose-as-lgbt-to-gain-as
ylum-in-the-uk-home-office-vows-to-jail-lawyers-who-help-them