The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e thank "god" I was not tought as a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Cannibalism is quite interesting, especially when practised we look at the forms in which it persists today, like in some highly self-respecting cultures. Take transubstantiation, for example, a process which is believed to happen to some wafers and wine when special words are uttered by a certified minister in a controlled setting. People then eat the wafer in order to live forever, and the wafer itself, according to such tradition, is not a wafer anymore, except for its outward appearence: it was in fact turned into real human flesh, belonging to a deity which is itself both human and divine. The same happens to the wine, which becomes the human blood of said deity. Given that the obtained flesh and blood are both real and human (there's even a fundamental dogma about that) this is not a symbolic or figurative form of cannibalism anymore, but it's real cannibalism. Am I missing something?

Here's what I'm talking about:
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Mysterium fidei (encyclical of pope Paul VI on the holy Eucharist)
The Credo of the People of God (by pope Paul VI)
Is Cannibalism Fundamental to the Development of Spirituality?

Originally Posted by Arcane Take Kundalini for example - everyone has it but only few people have access to it on regular basis like switch On&Off.

That's another very interesting topic. In fact I think that one of the reasons why people sometimes abandon the rigid and dogmatic religions they were taught, is that often such religions still associate physical well-being and pleasure with sin, guilt, devil, hell, and so on and so forth. On the other hand, other cultures often seem to have a much more complete, respectful and sane understanding of what life should be, and they even provide means that can help people to feel better not only in their own mind, but in their own body as well.

And yes, I know that many (Christian-)fundamentalists claim to be defending "life" (by condemning abortion, contraceptives, and even regular sex which is enjoyed outside of the self-hurting rules they themselves wrote). I actually got to know a few of them personally, and they seem to be pervaded by some kind of deep, raging frustration, or even sadistic feeling, which pushes them to judge the other people's life in a morbid fashion, jumping like enraged dogs onto anyone who appears as "sinful" to their eyes. Then you look closer, and you notice that they are nothing else than fragile, fearful, unhappy beings. Take them outside of their group and they will dissolve. Sometimes their obvious frustration leads them to seek a position of power inside of their closed community, or even outside of it. They obey blindly to their "leaders", and they are so brainwashed that they are a perfect tool when the "leaders" to whom they respond need some kind of vulnerable social entity which can be used for some purpose. Of course the life which they defend is probably their life, or their abstract idea of "life". On the other hand, they don't mind supporting wars when convenient. Just one example of a religious kind which makes people definitely unhappy, fearful and undignified.

Again, a few sources:
Mind control
Sect
One true church
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Actually, it would be interesting to learn something more about open and joyful forms of thought stemming from cultures outside of the European/Western paradigm. Anyone here on LQ would like to share his/her experience?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix {...}And yes, I know that many (Christian-)fundamentalists claim to be defending "life" (by condemning abortion, contraceptives, and even regular sex which is enjoyed outside of the self-hurting rules they themselves wrote). I actually got to know a few of them personally, and they seem to be pervaded by some kind of deep, raging frustration, or even sadistic feeling, which pushes them to judge the other people's life in a morbid fashion, jumping like enraged dogs onto anyone who appears as "sinful" to their eyes. Then you look closer, and you notice that they are nothing else than fragile, fearful, unhappy beings. Take them outside of their group and they will dissolve. Sometimes their obvious frustration leads them to seek a position of power inside of their closed community, or even outside of it. They obey blindly to their "leaders", and they are so brainwashed that they are a perfect tool when the "leaders" to whom they respond need some kind of vulnerable social entity which can be used for some purpose. Of course the life which they defend is probably their life, or their abstract idea of "life". On the other hand, they don't mind supporting wars when convenient. Just one example of a religious kind which makes people definitely unhappy, fearful and undignified.{...}

Great points but human factor is missing here. I suggest watch movies like Experiment - they try to show that despite our similarities to primitive savage life we still have something special - ability to do something about it and that is another key to solving this mystery about humanity.

http://www.prisonexp.org/
Looks like a good movie...

Causation. Pun intended: More "laws" from religions than ēvolūtiō↻↻↻

I liked End of the Spear.

Add: being safe should be a given but most religions say it's ok to sin!

Arcane, wow talk about a slow movie and it's definitely not seeding well-being like End of the Spear and my "Title:" cut and paste link... What goes around, comes around. Until we all change and with 7 billion of us it may not be possible so thank you religions (saitisarcasticsadly) for much needed apocalypses again and again.

Evolution is the most powerful idea in ..., organizing our knowledge about the history and diversity of life. We understand our own origins using the same tools that we use for organisms across the tree of life, from the simplest bacteria to the largest whales.

http://youtu.be/P3GagfbA2vo

Just one example of a religious kind which makes people definitely unhappy, fearful and undignified

It seems you are making the assumption of cause and effect here. Another possibility is that those people were drawn to that church because they were unhappy and fearful, and perhaps the theology taught there hasn't changed that yet. They might also have remained that way despite the pastor's best efforts.

Pastor, literally meaning sheep herder. Come on!

one can also preach any of the components of any worldview or philosophy

Add: ...

Originally Posted by SlowCoder Anyway, I suppose I'm a faithful, yet non-practicing Christian. I don't go to church regularly, but I think about God many times a day, and try to do what I think is right.

It seems like faithful and non-practicing are opposites.

Like saying to your wife, "I am faithful to you dear, but I do not practice manogomy."

Andy

Originally Posted by Fixit7 It seems like faithful and non-practicing are opposites. Like saying to your wife, "I am faithful to you dear, but I do not practice manogomy." Andy

Not if a person subscribes to religion/spirituality as a personal experience, and wants zilch to do with organizations of dogma. That has nothing to do with a bond with another individual or group. Your analogy is apples and oranges. In these two cases even "faith" has two different connotations. I'm afraid it comes off like the typical "I'm more pious than you" self-righteous, snide putdown.

Originally Posted by Fixit7 {...}Like saying to your wife, "I am faithful to you dear, but I do not practice manogomy."{...}

Ironical but true. Just like in latest video from DM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35_JHx_OzA4 People want to put responsibility to someone else. And before you do personal attacks again - not everyone would respond like that person in video but killing would be not pretty that is for sure. But then again - we don't have working alternatives so it is not really up to choices.

What's most-interesting to me is how ... in particular, the Roman Catholic Church ... absorbed so many practices of the ancient so-called "pagan" religions that surrounded them in conquered territories, re-branded them into "acceptable" (to them) terms, and then made them "canonical on fear of death."

(And I'm not talking about "eternal death" here – I'm talking about "a holy sword being stuck into your pagan gut right now.")

That, literally, is what has been called "Constantine's Triumph." He was the first ruler to fully absorb the power of "a State Religion, combined with a State Sword," to subsume indigent societies all around the world, even far beyond the reach of the Roman Legions.

However, in so doing, the RC canon picked-up a lot of very strange things, including "transubstantiation," which is just-about as mystical a concept as you can possibly get. (And, what exactly does such a concept usefully have to do with anything, anyway, except that you are supposed to dutifully stuff it down, completely turn-off your mind and your senses, and say, "yea, I believe it?")

It's a cracker. Your eyes and your taste-buds aren't lying to you. The ones who would tell you otherwise, are wasting your time. You've got better things to think about, and, isn't there something you could be doing? (Feeding hungry folks, for instance?) It's your brain ... be selective about what you decide to put into it. Don't let anyone else make that decision for you, because it's just not their decision to make. And, somehow, I just don't seriously think that, one minute after you've drawn your last breath, you'll wake-up standing next to some vengeful god who's holding the release-lever for an ominously-hot trap door that you find yourself now standing on, and who says to you: "It really wasn't a cracker, sucker! So long!!"

I guess that I just don't allow myself much time for the "eternal carrot vs. eternal stick" bit. All of that sounds far too much Roman Empire for me. And, "if Heaven is like that, I sure as Hell don't want to be there." "Yeah, I'll keep the lights (and heat) on for 'ya, while you do your Music Lessons."

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless It seems you are making the assumption of cause and effect here. Another possibility is that those people were drawn to that church because they were unhappy and fearful, and perhaps the theology taught there hasn't changed that yet. They might also have remained that way despite the pastor's best efforts.

The assumption was intentional, and of course it doesn't cover every possible situation. However, most religious people are probably sticking to the same faith they were taught during their childhood, and for such reason their education "caused" their faith. They did not choose, they absorbed it.

Of course there might be situations where the "cause" lies in the persons themselves: in fact one might already feel fearful, unhappy, or alone without having subscribed to a religion, and because of that one might feel attracted toward a given social group that holds certain beliefs, which might be perceived as attractive, relieving or reassuring. Of course, different places will host different social and religious kinds: because of that, any choice will be limited by their effective "availability". For instance, someone born and living in, say, Yemen, will probably not feel attracted by a U.S.-Bible-Belt kind of Baptist-Protestant religion and way of life, simply because there's nothing like that around, or because such religion and way of life are perceved as alien, or even highly hostile to his or her own country and culture. On the other hand, someone born and living in a Protestant community will probably not be attracted by the Yemeni culture, religions and way of life, simply because he or she doesn't know anything about them.

That said, the most powerful reasons why people endorse a given religion, or sect, have probably little to do with deities, theology and absolutes, being more related to educational, social, psychological, or even more mundane matters.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Pastor, literally meaning sheep herder.

Precisely, and even pastors are sometimes required to behave strangely in respect of that: look here for example, or here and here. Anyway, I prefer not to be a sheep, and even less being a n-level sheep ruled by a whole system of pastor-sheep belonging to different hierarchic levels.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What's most-interesting to me is how ... in particular, the Roman Catholic Church ... absorbed so many practices of the ancient so-called "pagan" religions that surrounded them in conquered territories, re-branded them into "acceptable" (to them) terms, and then made them "canonical on fear of death." (And I'm not talking about "eternal death" here - I'm talking about "a holy sword being stuck into your pagan gut right now.") That, literally, is what has been called "Constantine's Triumph." He was the first ruler to fully absorb the power of "a State Religion, combined with a State Sword," to subsume indigent societies all around the world, even far beyond the reach of the Roman Legions.

Take a pot-pourri of practises, beliefs, myths and superstitions of various origins, give a different name to some of them, glue everything together with some theology whose apparent rigour comes from having stealed a few concepts and tools from the ancient Greek philosophy, build a complex administrative and hierarchical organization in substitution of a former, decayed empire, promote yourself to the role of absolute judge, season it with opulent architecture, art, liturgy and rhetoric, maintain your own army, or outsource it when convenient, and serve (i.e. force) the whole thing to hungry, poor, unsatisfied people, who will then praise the deity for their condition. Of course you'll have to promise that they will live forever, but hey, only after death. This way, life (the only one we know of) is despised, and a resigned, "waiting for something to arrive and save/enlighten/free us" attitude settles in.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs However, in so doing, the RC canon picked-up a lot of very strange things, including "transubstantiation," which is just-about as mystical a concept as you can possibly get. (And, what exactly does such a concept usefully have to do with anything, anyway, except that you are supposed to dutifully stuff it down, completely turn-off your mind and your senses, and say, "yea, I believe it?")

Sure, that's a critical point. As I have already suggested, the "turn-off-your-mind" issue is probably a key one: forcing someone to despise his or her analytic and rational faculties is a genuine expression of mind control. Imagine to do it on yourself as an experiment: force yourself to believe in a contradictory statement, convince yourself that it is "true", even if you are aware of the conflict. What happens? It might be a privileged way to develop a mental illness, unless one doesn't really care about distinguishing well-founded statements from nonsense and, in the extreme case, from contradictions. In fact, many so-called believers do not really know what they are supposed to believe in order to be able to call themselves a member of this or that religious group. Many just "bulk-believe" the whole system without even knowing what it really is about. However, isn't one supposed to understand the meaning of a statement, in order to be able to believe that it is true? I think so. But then what happens when one understands that a given statement harbors a contradiction? Because a contradictory statement is false by definition, one should either reject it, or at least not express any judgement about it. On the other hand, if a contradictory statement is assumed, then any statement can be said to be true, without even paying attention to its meaning. This, of course, proves the falsity of the assumption. Also, language can be used in very ambiguous, yet powerful ways, especially when it plays with emotions, fears and desires: that is, when it speaks to the "gut", not to the mind. On these conditions, claims about "truth", "absolutes" and the like are suspect. Unless you disconnect your mind, of course.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix {...}In fact, many so-called believers do not really know what they are supposed to believe in order to be able to call themselves a member of this or that religious group. Many just "bulk-believe" the whole system without even knowing what it really is about. However, isn't one supposed to understand the meaning of a statement, in order to be able to believe that it is true? I think so.{...}

So true and when someone starts to question system they start to treat that someone like criminal without giving any benefit of doubt. No wonder many so called 'atheists' know more about same bible, for example, than someone from those who walk to your house(i guess they were named Jehovah's witnesses) and try to brainwash-force you to believe same. But then again 'believers' don't really have much choice cause they are required to follow group without going into conflict with them and leaders are not interested in revealing secrets aka sect policy.

This quote (added) is growing on me:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5179650
too bad programming all minds takes forever...

I'm not religious and never have been. I respect other people the way they are.

Only thing I can't stand is when people force their opinion/religion/anything else upon other people. Jehovah Witnesses being an example of that. They occassionaly knock on my door, either with or without bringing kids along. One time the guy started with "I bring you the light" I answered with "That's good, because the light in my bathroom is broken." End of discussion.

If people are religious that's their choice. As it is mine not to be religious.

For The Door Knockers thats a good one but I find "Sorry....I'm not superstitious" tends to stop them cold.