The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet Not sure which is worse - Teenagers (even 18 year olds) being kidnapped against their wills or young children too young to have a will or imagine Mommy and Daddy are insane as in Wikipedia - Jesus Camp Highlights from Jesus Camp Documentary

Yet more twisting and perverting of the truth.

"The directors' claims that they were simply trying to create an 'objective' film about children and faith ring hollow. I don't question the motives of the Christians shown in the film. Indeed, the earnestness and zeal with which the young people pictured attempt to live out their faith are admirable. Unfortunately, however, it appears that they were unknowingly being manipulated by the directors in their effort to cast evangelical Christianity in an unflattering light."

https://web.archive.org/web/20070103...gDownCamp.html

Why Intellectuals Don't Take Religious Believers Seriously

This "intellectual(?)" certainly does!

It seems to me that our good Dr. Dutch has a h-u-g-e chip on his shoulder, and an agenda that he is quite determined to press. But, frankly, his article borders on the incoherent.

You see, "intellectual-ism" can be "a religion (of sorts)," too. To me, the line is crossed when someone, in pressing their own point, begins to attack, or at least to denigrate, anyone who doesn't feel generally as they do. All of us are entitled to our own opinions, "facts," and beliefs. But we should s-t-o-p short of "the next guy's nose!" Talk about yourself. Don't talk (negatively) about the other guy, as though he were somehow your opponent, or "not to be taken seriously."

I think he should have been more truthful in his title: "Why Intellectuals I Don't Take Religious Believers Seriously."

"Religious Belief" has been a fundamental part of human society for all time. It is, therefore, a very serious matter. There are plenty of scientists(!) who have deep-set religious beliefs. People can explore the world around them both "scientifically," and "intuitively," and "religiously," and none of these viewpoints or perspectives ... nor the human beings who hold them ... should ever be cast in a negative light.

And let's let that blade cut both ways. "Scientists" should not be buried or condemned-to-hell by "Religious" folk, either.

It's best that we listen to one another's viewpoints, respectfully and seriously. Even if you 100% don't agree with them, "take them seriously."

@sundialsvcs - In large part I actually do agree with you.... provided we are talking about private spirituality which, to me, does include the few religions/sects that are not evangelical. You have pointed out how Christianity was co-opted by The State under Constantine to "keep the peasants in line" and we all know all too well how The Taliban and ISIS operate, not to mention India's caste system which underneath it all has religious underpinnings. How can anyone who champions "all men are equal under the law" not stand up against such tyranny?

IMHO such oppressive and repressive organizations MUST be criticized and shown to be what they are or soon become - all about wealth and power, and given the accompanying Divine Right mindset they often prove to view other humans like tomcats who "will be so much better" after castration..... or tortuous death.

Arguing about Big Bang and Evolution is trivial compared to this. It's just that one so often follows the other.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Yet more twisting and perverting of the truth.

You're right that is the problem, we can't suck the mythology from all your brains!

Just because we evolve with it doesn't mean it will or need be there once evolved, dinosaurs didn't give a bash about ghostuality!!! And no one needs to!

In good speaking, should not the mind of the speaker know the truth of
the matter about which he is to speak?
		-- Plato

...non sequitur......non sequitur...

AronRa: "Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs ...

From a more religous mind, perhaps?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs This "intellectual(?)" certainly does! It seems to me that our good Dr. Dutch has a h-u-g-e chip on his shoulder, and an agenda that he is quite determined to press. But, frankly, his article borders on the incoherent. You see, "intellectual-ism" can be "a religion (of sorts)," too. To me, the line is crossed when someone, in pressing their own point, begins to attack, or at least to denigrate, anyone who doesn't feel generally as they do. All of us are entitled to our own opinions, "facts," and beliefs. But we should s-t-o-p short of "the next guy's nose!" Talk about yourself. Don't talk (negatively) about the other guy, as though he were somehow your opponent, or "not to be taken seriously." "Religious Belief" has been a fundamental part of human society for all time. It is, therefore, a very serious matter. There are plenty of scientists(!) who have deep-set religious beliefs. People can explore the world around them both "scientifically," and "intuitively," and "religiously," and none of these viewpoints or perspectives ... nor the human beings who hold them ... should ever be cast in a negative light. And let's let that blade cut both ways. "Scientists" should not be buried or condemned-to-hell by "Religious" folk, either. It's best that we listen to one another's viewpoints, respectfully and seriously. Even if you 100% don't agree with them, "take them seriously."

Amen to that (or to quote jamison, "apeople" )!

Some years ago I found myself discussing religion (among other things) with people of various backgrounds in the course of the work I was doing, and noticed that those who were easiest to get on with, and seemed to have the most genuine regard for others, were those who actually tried to live their religions. It didn't seem to matter much what their religion was, or whether their ideas agreed with mine (or whether I thought they made sense), but there was definitely something about those who'd spent years studying and applying what they believe to be right. IOW, trying to improve themselves rather than the rest of the world.

In strong contrast were/are those who get fired up trying to improve everyone else - those who like to "talk about the other guy" - I think most of us have met one or two of these, and probably didn't enjoy the experience.

The world is: right, wrong and religion...

fairy tales to preach mutates a leech.

Originally Posted by enorbet @sundialsvcs - In large part I actually do agree with you.... provided we are talking about private spirituality which, to me, does include the few religions/sects that are not evangelical. You have pointed out how Christianity was co-opted by The State under Constantine [...]

Actually, I was the one who pointed that out:

Originally Posted by OregonJim The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official state religion. (over 300 years after it began!) Quite a different picture than your original statement implies. Remember that Rome persecuted Christians for several centuries until Constantine came to power and saw the advantages of exploitation rather than persecution. And, of course, the Roman Catholic church, from that point on, turned its brand of Christianity into barbarism, bribes, and political control of the masses - finally sparking the Reformation in the 16th century.

Please don't confuse Roman Catholicism with Evangelicals. Additionally, Evangelicalism today has undergone a different kind of deterioration such that the umbrella term "Evangelicals" has lost any significant meaning. Neither represents true Christianity.

Originally Posted by enorbet IMHO such oppressive and repressive organizations MUST be criticized and shown to be what they are or soon become - all about wealth and power, and given the accompanying Divine Right mindset they often prove to view other humans like tomcats who "will be so much better" after castration..... or tortuous death.

I agree with you.

Soon? ROTFL

Gentlebeings, may I cordially suggest that the present discussion "has de-evolved into an impasse." If there is no common ground between the two positions that have been most-recently bantered-about on the thread, then perhaps it is time to "park" them ... and find something else to talk about.

- - - -

OregonJim: "Evangelicals" never entered into my thoughts. I know nothing of what you're speaking of in this case. And, I shall elect to remain neutral as to what either this, or "Roman Catholicism," 'represents.'

Regarding the most elusive things we learn, it has been my experience that often I can hear or read the same thing many times before one day, the lights go on. Like the tumblers in a lock, all the pieces must be in place before one can open the lock and pass through the door. This manner of discussion has gone on for millennia and will likely continue on for many more. By virtue of that, while it may be a sort of impasse in general, it is also likely that someone, some day, will read thoughts here and think like never before, on one side as well as the other, I'd wager. So it does serve a purpose IMHO... but if you've grown tired of it, that is also entirely understandable. One of the points someone may someday ponder is exactly how important is it to answer such "Big Kahuna questions"? How much, really, will it change how you live? That, too, is a question with a constantly evolving "answer". Existence is apparently a Continuum, and we but an infinitesimally small part.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs OregonJim: "Evangelicals" never entered into my thoughts. I know nothing of what you're speaking of in this case. And, I shall elect to remain neutral as to what either this, or "Roman Catholicism," 'represents.'

Actually, enorbet was the one who combined the two, though I can see why you misread my (poorly worded) reply.

With respect to evangelicals, I was speaking of the broad characterization of throwing every-pseudo-christian-under-the-sun beneath that banner. The term 'Evangelical' used to represent reformed theology only - that which predates roman catholic corruption. Now it means next to nothing, as it includes charismatics, new-agers, faith healers, word-of-faith preachers, and prosperity gospel peddlers. Exactly when and where this shift took place is a matter of (relatively pointless) debate.

Of course, this is not unexpected, as the Bible predicts it clearly. Soon, they will all be under the banner of the 'universal' religion of peace, along with islam, buddhism, hinduism and others. The popes have been working on this since the 1970s, and the current pope Francis is pushing really hard for ecumenicalism among all the groups mentioned here. "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere." You'd think they all read the end of the Bible, and thought it was a good thing...

OregonJim, I know that you read the apocalyptic-literature books (and sections) that are in the Bible and consider them to be infallible prophecy of dreadful "end times." Prophecies which you consider to be coming true right before your eyes.

I yield to your prerogative to hold that view, but I personally don't agree with it.

We are still living with one remnant of the old Roman Empire: its State Church, Roman Catholicism, including its Goddess. The power that it holds on the world stage is still considerable because so many people around the world subscribe to it, and many of them do regard the man who holds the office of Pope as a demi-god. That's an unprecedented amount of power and influence upon one's fellow men, and it is easy to see how it can be (and certainly has been ...) abused.

But, I read The Revelation of Saint John with several pounds of salt. The first section has a series of messages, all of them ostensibly from Jesus but some of them quite "forced," and reflective of Christian thought as the Roman Empire was splitting in two. The latter half combines a hellish, bloody apocalypse and a description of a heavenly city (a very small one, actually ...) using a description almost lifted from accounts of Solomon's Temple. Most strangely, after Jesus finishes kicking-butt, the story continues for a finite duration: one thousand years. And then, it says no more.

Apocalypses were popular: if you were being persecuted, you wanted to read that Jesus was going to come and kick butt. We have more apocalypses than any other type of Christian literature from that period of time. Since the book contains an explicit reference to Emperor Nero, not-so hidden in an open-coded number ("666"), it's pretty clear what some pseudo-epigraphical contributor considered to be "the enemy," but other sections (especially, the earlier "messages to the churches") suggest a date a century different.

The thing that I found most alarming, though, was the fixation that some people seem to have about "the end of the world as we know it," being confident that they will be "raptured" to a grandstand seat before any of this actually happens. Author Tim LaHay wrote an entire series of books, and sold millions of each volume. (I daresay as many people have the entire Left Behind boxed-set as they do The Purpose-Driven Life.) But if you actually read the damned things, they are vicious ... and quite vengeful. (But, since Jesus is supposed to be the one doing all the vengeance, it's okay?) I didn't like what the books said, and I was quite alarmed at what people said about them. There was something in that scenario which connected to a lot of people, and I don't mean that just in the sense of "this is prophecy and it's going to come true and/or it's coming true." To me, I sense that it connected to some really awful thoughts: vengeance, bigotry, blood-lust. Most apocalypses are pretty bloody, but few describe a river of blood "as high as a horse's bridle." (At five pints apiece, you do the math ...) I saw people gloating about that image.