Religion and stuff...

[Jo van]

Actually, thanks to pressure, primarily from Islamic Theocracies, the UN is promoting an anti-blasphemy law amongst its member states.

Ireland is a signatory party to the new revised policy, primarily because it helps enforce the old Catholic hegemony.

Well thanks for that Moonbat, I was unaware of that, and it's certainly a worry.
There seems to be a popular "urban myth" that "left-wing PC types" are responsible for the "tolerance" shown to Islam in this country. But the reality is that most of the encouragement, and assistance in establishing mosques here, has come from the good ol' Church of England, and other "Established" religions.
I've mentioned before, in other threads that Prince Charles intervened in my own town, to get a £60million "Center for Islamic studies" Built in my own town. (Oxford) despite having the original planning application turned down by the council.
And he has said that when he's King, he will change the title to "Defender of Faith", to be "inclusive". It's the Right-wing, and the tories, who are in favour of perpetuating the 'old ways'....
Not the left.
You can hardly refer to the Heir to the throne as being 'left-wing'.
All religions are "backward" IMO., and it doesn't surprise me that they will each encourage people to be "respectful" to the others. If we are 'allowed' to start laughing at one, we may soon be laughing at all of them.
I wonder if I could be prosecuted for blasphemous disrespect...?
What about when a priest rapes a child....and a Cardinal called Ratzinger, covers it up for years?
Is that also 'blasphemous'...?

[saddle-tramp]

What about when a priest rapes a child....and a Cardinal called Ratzinger, covers it up for years?
Is that also 'blasphemous'...?

Or a state sanctioned Muslim rapes a wee nine year old... Ohh, wait, it's not rape per se, he's married to her...

[Jo van]

Let's not forget that many of "our own priests", in this country also thought it acceptable...
And the Pope covered it up, and stalled proceedings for years.
And that "The Virgin Mary" was only 12 at the time of the "immaculate conception", and was "betrothed" to a 45 year-old.
And that up until 1951, girls could get married at 12 in Ireland. Yhere are still a couple of States in the USA., where girls can marry at 13 under "exceptional circumstances" eg Pregnancy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ry_1.shtml

Betrothal and marriage
Mary, depicted as a girl in her teens, is smiling and showing a flower to the baby Jesus on her lap A young Mary: the Benois Madonna by Leonardo da Vinci, circa 1478 ©

Later Rabbinic sources tell us that Jewish girls could be betrothed as early as 12 years and a day or any time after the age of twelve and a half.

The actual marriage involved two stages. First of all there was the betrothal and then - after an interval of several months, perhaps a year - the young girl would have been taken to the house of her husband to be and at that moment, once they started to live together, they were considered properly married.

This could have been quite a traumatic process for a young girl; to leave behind her mother and father and all the people she was used to, and go to live in an alien household.

The choice of husband was made by the family, not by the girls themselves. It was a legal agreement between the father and the husband. Girls did not have a part in that legality.

And from the same site:

Rape

There was an ancient legend from the Jewish side that Mary was the victim of a rape. They even gave us the name of the Roman soldier who was supposed to have carried out this rape: a man called Panthera, which apparently was quite a common name for Roman soldiers.

Recently some scholars looked at this theory and decided it was simply an ancient slur, anti-Christian slander made up in the second century to try to prevent belief in Jesus. Some say that perhaps it isn't so impossible as previously we thought. There are certain clues in the New Testament to suggest that Mary was in quite a terrible state after the beginning of the pregnancy. The fact that she went in great haste to see Elizabeth. The fact that she talks about herself as a "lowly handmaid": why is she lowly? Some people believe the lowliness was because she was actually the victim of a crime.

The strength of the idea is that just as Jesus in his crucifixion identifies with those who suffer, Mary, as victim of rape, is somebody that women who suffer can identify with.

The problem of the theory is that Jesus could have been the son of a Roman soldier, which is even more unpalatable for people than the idea that Mary wasn't a virgin. The idea that Jesus was somehow genetically dependent upon a rapist is more difficult to swallow and it would take a tremendous radical leap of faith to accept that kind of theory.

The point of this thread, is that most of the religions, have strange laws, and rules, all derived from long ago, and "we" the west, shouldn't really be too "smug", we're only a few years "ahead" of those other religions..

[saddle-tramp]

Aye... But in yer own admission, we are ahead... therein lies the difference, and if THEY (and you all know who I am talking about) get in power, which THEY are sneaking in and getting it handed it to them by the lefties (and big ears is indeed a leftie in my opinion) then we will go backward...(?)

[zangie]

Well, you can not argue/debate or convince someone with logic/rationality that is standing from a position of an emotional conviction...and most religious views/faith/spirituality is by nature "emotional"...there is no factual "proof"...and you can't disprove it either...

FG had a point as to the difference between faith and religious dogma...I don't agree with everything the official church, or it's individuals , profess..can make my own choices/conclusions...

[Jo van]

Well, you can not argue/debate or convince someone with logic/rationality that is standing from a position of an emotional conviction...and most religious views/faith/spirituality is by nature "emotional"...there is no factual "proof"...and you can't disprove it either...

But there's plenty of "proof" Zange, the bible claims that the Earth is about 8000 years old, and claims that god made all the animals as they are.
If it's completely wrong in it's very first chapter, why do people selectively choose to still believe in the as-yet 'not specifically disproved' parts...?
It claims that the entire world was flooded, and all the animals were put on a boat.
It claims that God impregnated a 12 year-old, and that he performed miracles.
The church still claims miracles today, if someone has a remission from a terminal illness, and someone else prayed for them.
But they never seem keen to also claim "ownership" of, say, 250,000 innocent people dying in the Tsunami, or the 350,000 dead so far in Afghanistan...
What's the OPPOSITE of a 'miracle'...?
-an accident...?

FG had a point as to the difference between faith and religious dogma...I don't agree with everything the official church, or it's individuals , profess..can make my own choices/conclusions...

I understand where you're coming from Zange, and I think that most 'believers' take a similar 'non-extreme' view, maybe if all believers objected to the war in Palestine and the Middle east, they would stop it....?
The strange thing is, although all these conflicts seem to have religion at their heart, with possession of sacred sites, and history etc as their justification, the churches themselves say they're 'not involved'...
Odd that....

all the rest are quite answerable simply by admitting that everything is a plot by a very elite group of people known as {edited by the higher authority of the internet protocol 14759.9027635}

TINC......?

[zangie]

JO...

Most of the bible ( IN MY OPINION) is metaphor, at leat the less than probable stories (esp old testament) ( though as cosmo said....girls got married that young and younger when the life expentancies were short,many european royalty were quite young when they got married, all teh way through the 18th century I think)..it was written by men, who, inspired or not, are still human..the translators were also men..there is plenty of personal agenda , and it is almost totally a male point of view..my personal approach has always been to read it and take what I think it represents, and operate based on that...I think God intended it to be unclear and ambiguous...spiritual enlightment and all that..but, then I'm neither a fundamentalist, nor an evangelical, nor very literal at all about most things...

Jesus existed historically..it's a matter of faith whether you believed he had special powers or not...

Yhe message means more to me than the literal truth I guesss?

[Jo van]

Zange, I understand that belief in the afterlife etc, can help some people cope with the scary phenomenon of living and dying, and I also understand that for the most part, people are good (IMO)

Most of the bible ( IN MY OPINION) is metaphor,

Most of the bible, the koran, the tora etc is gibberish. Which is exactly what you'd expect of any writing, based on the superstitious beliefs of the time. Especially as it has been translated about four times to appear in 'English'..
The religions who espouse these "truths", have no choice now, but to claim it's "metaphorical" or "allegorical", because it has been proved to be false. But that's not how it was taught right up until recently. "In my day" the creation story was taught as fact, and there are still some people who wish to continue to do so. I think there are still cases ongoing in the US., and some very vociferous advocates of the literal teaching of the bible.
The main difference between islam and christianity, is that they still consider their 'teaching' literally, whereas we have stopped stoning women for adultery, they continue. But we the "civilised" west, no longer follow those rules, they are nonetheless still there in the 'Old Testament', and those books are considered 'sacred', and the "word of god".

You say that "my personal approach has always been to read it and take what I think it represents, and operate based on that."
And this is the current approach of most people, they say that religion gives them their values and morals.
But I disagree with that, there are just as many moral values in the tales of Hans Christian Anderson, or The Brothers Grimm "fairy tales", and most of them much more easily understood by children.
I taught my children 'moral values', we all know what's right and wrong, I'm no "christian", but an easy way to explain things to my children was: "If you wouldn't like someone else to do something to you, then don't do it to them", "Treat people the way you would wish to be treated" It's a good rule. Sound familiar..? "Do unto others....?"
There is absolutely nothing wrong in having 'moral values'. But the churches can claim no monopoly on 'morality', it clearly exists, even where their books and teachings don't!
The "Church" is big business, it's an institution who's existence depends on "belief" in it's "validity".
The church of England, The Catholic church, and the Jewish church, are some of the richest establishments in this country. The C of E has assets of around 4.5 Billion Pounds
And until some recent campaigning by outside organisations, like "The Campaign Against the Arms Trade {CAAT}, they were large investors in many Arms Manufacturing Companies. This was right up 'til about 5 years ago.
I thought one of their main "Rules", was "Thou shalt not kill"...?
It seems that they had to be prompted by non-christians before they adopted an "Ethical Investment Policy", they somehow didn't figure out by themselves, that investing their vast wealth in arms manufacturing companies, could be seen (by some) as "Immoral"...?

Asset Management
Investment policy

The Church Commissioners manage assets worth some £4.4 billion (at the end of 2008). The Church Commissioners' aim is to gain the best return from these assets to help sustain the nationwide ministry of the Church, without undue risk and in line with their ethical investment policy. Their portfolio includes stock market investments and commercial, residential and agricultural properties

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/chur ... rs/assets/

And it wasn't until outside organisations, and the media intervened, that the Pope, and senior catholic Cardinals realised that covering up child rape, was also "immoral"...
If they hadn't been "exposed"... would it still be going on today...?
These are the people who "teach" the bible, the pope is supposedly "God's Infallible representative"
I know you'll say "Aah Yes, but that's people, not god", but that's my argument really, there is only people...
Religion is a lie.
And I'm always suspicious of liars, particularly ones who dress-up, and demand "respect" for doing so...
There is no god, there is no devil, there are no demons, or angels, or miracles. Just ignorance about 'science'
There's really no way to dress it up Zange, all that pomp and circumstance, is just a sham.
You can read Richard Dawkins' Book, "The God Delusion", I found it really hard going, and he gets deeply into theological debate, and lots of historical references about who said what, when...
My logic is simple:
Look at what we 'believed' 50 years ago. (and by 'we' I mean 'society')
Look at what we believed 100 years ago,
Look at what we believed 500 years ago
1000 years
2000 years...
I just don't believe it, but I've still got 'morality', I'm still not a "bad person"..
I think that's true of most people. Believers or not.
But I've always been fascinated by WHY seemingly intelligent, educated people choose to believe...
And I think it's still a 'big deal' in "world affairs", and so really should be discussed and examined.

[verityone]

But I've always been fascinated by WHY seemingly intelligent, educated people choose to believe...
And I think it's still a 'big deal' in "world affairs", and so really should be discussed and examined.

The majority of people do NOT really want to examine their ideological beliefs. Not really.
Their 'beliefs' comfort them.

For others, anything less than 'understanding' is of no comfort whatsoever.

Religion has lectured people for centuries. Whatever was not understood, was attributed to a mystical higher power, with these supernatural powers, and influence, that "lorded" over us.
Which led people to believe that if they did not behave a certain way, the consequences to them individually, and as a collective, would be cataclysmic.

I could understand how people thousands of years ago, could be 'god fearing', when there was thunder or an eclipse, or a torrential rain, or a severe drout.
They were uneducated.

What I don't get is how people can still believe in 'god' when there is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much that used to be attributed to him, and his omnipotence, that has been exposed to be simple phenomena, but virtue of our increased awareness and understanding of the physical world that we live in.

The more we've progressed scientifically, the more religious teachings become exposed as fraudulent, as their 'teachings' become usurped by scientific knowledge.
In other words, "we no know better" than to believe in the "understanding" of "life", that the bible professes to have knowledge of.
It clearly didn't have a clue, whatsoever.

The bible is not supposed to be taken metaphorically.
It is meant to be taken literally, and representative of the WORD of god himself, and of the ORIGINS of the universe, and life within it.

If one is not going to take it literally, then I haven't a clue what possible purpose religion has in one's life, other than to assuage one from the fear of mortality.

[Moonbat]

But that's not how it was taught right up until recently. "In my day" the creation story was taught as fact, and there are still some people who wish to continue to do so. I think there are still cases ongoing in the US., and some very vociferous advocates of the literal teaching of the bible.

Respectfully, those who teach literal interpretation of the Bible are a relatively recent aberration and should not be used as exemplars of how the Bible was taught in the past or present. Any lecture from a divinity studies class at any major university or any good book on the history of religion will disabuse someone of that quickly.

The fundamentalism of the last century really is the product of a small subset of beliefs that has been very specifically traced to a few branches of religion.

The bulk of religious teachers and believers have, for the most part, always subscribed to the notion that much of what they are taught is mytho-poetic. Simply from the history of literature, the idea of keeping a literal history did not exist in the sense we know it until quite late in the second millennium of the common era.

The other thing to keep in mind whenever examining these issues is the completely different zeitgeist of the people under scrutiny. One must scrupulously avoid attaching the thinking patterns of 21st century people to the ancients...they simply did not view the world around them in the way we do. Their entire frame of reference was completely different and one must use a liberal dose of imagination to build up in their mind the mental picture of the people/time/place under examination to "grok" the question being examined, especially as regards pre-scientific peoples.

Pre-scientific worldviews differ very sharply with ours for instance...but that does not mean they were incapable of observation over time or coming up with tangible results, especially in feats of engineering and technology.

Literalism tends to be a product of poor education though - I agree on this - in one's own spiritual tradition and is a product of lay teachers teaching each other and/or a rejection of knowledge for "inspiration"...otherwise known as "make it up as you go."

All IMHO...your bushels, talents and lamps may vary.