RELIGION Thread

[Jackstar]

First and foremost, Jesus existed and it`s very well documented:

Lots of events are documented, including your barely contained desire to engage in coitus with your own mother. Does that make it 'true'? Only you can know that in your heart.

[K_Dubb]

Now we're cooking with gas!

Even Jessica Christ herself said she wasn't going to bring peace but a sword, so I don't know where this idea of Christianity as being all hearts and flowers comes from.

He goes on to say He's going to split up families, too -- some of you rebels might recognize the phenomenon.  He was a revolutionary.  It's a warning, not a prescription.

He subverted the system that linked Divine favor to economics, national identity, and outward piety, leaving it open to exploitation by profit, war, and hypocrisy.  (You leopards may discern herein the pure, clear light of the Gospel.)  That it never succeeds for long and religion always returns to the usual abuses is beside the point -- the seeds of every reformation are in it from the beginning.  Pretty ambitious and sophisticated for a bunch of illiterate peasants.

Polytheism was much more stable as a body of ideas than Christianity, which has led to countless bloody quarrels over the centuries.

Funny you say that because that's where most of the major denominations are if you'd bother to look, though it's hidden in ugly modern words like ecumenicism and interfaith dialogue.  Bless them all and let God sort them out.

If you are going to believe in nonsense, I'd far rather you decided that they were all equally true/false and left it at that.

It works differently, but I'll show you.  You always prefer to simplify belief as a binary choice, whereas I see it as a weighted, tenuous conclusion.  When we hope it's true, it's faith.

The early Christians invited their persecution by the Romans, when all they had to do was burn a bit of incense in a temple and go about their business.

They were fighting the compulsion, silly.  I'm surprised you'd take some requirement that you pray so phlegmatically.

The trouble with monotheism is that it wants to be the only onion in the stew and it has to be true to have any validity. If it were just a case of quasi-believing in a few myths I wouldn't care very much; it's the insistence that they are correct that leads to problems and divisions.

Quasi-belief!  Now you're talking my language.

Absolutely, it a powerful and dangerous idea.  But think of nationalism, another baddie that flares up regularly, but most of the time gives us warm fuzzies and playful jesting.  I sincerely hope you can hear Spirit of England with all the thrill of a native without self-conscious cavils, otherwise Englishness is completely wasted on you and my vicarious jealousy isn't salved in the least.

The kind of joking we do all the time here shows it is possible to be authentically one thing, think your thing is best, and acknowledge, respect, even appreciate, the other.  It's playing with fire all the time so we know how to handle it. 

The only reason Christianity caught on was because it had to import elements of polytheism to appeal to the barbarian conquerors of Rome, hence all your saints and all the rest of that bloody nonsense. It was calculated policy rather than anything innately convincing, otherwise it would have gone the way of Osiris and Marduk long ago.

Smashing saints again!  I knew it!  Seriously, history is just something we acknowledge and move on, unless you're a loser like me and revel in it.  I prefer the ideas Christianity started with, but I've lit a few candles to the BVM and my namesake in his church with no fear for my idolatrous soul, and my stern forbears sleep soundly.  Those distinctions vanish unless being flogged for political reasons.

Atheism isn't joyless, it just takes the view that happiness is to be found in this world rather than an imagined next. Religious people have trouble with that idea and get very defensive, in the way that Epicureanism was traduced by the Catholic church for being all about self-indulgence when it was anything but.

Absolutely valid critique and, if that's where it remained, people would listen.  Defensiveness happens when you make people feel stupid (naturally) and pick fights with fundies who can do nothing but shout slogans in reply.  I understand the latter as a way of maintaining group cohesion -- plenty of other groups do it -- but it usually means you're on the fringe.

Abstract ideas are hard for human beings to grasp intuitively so they resort to personifying everything to make it explicable. We'll pass through all this eventually, hopefully, but it will take a long time. There are far more stirring and absorbing mysteries to contemplate without having to reduce it all to the level of a simple-minded five-year-old.

We understand religion the same way.  But like the iconoclasts you are, you take the easy way and attack the symbols because they are symbols, imagining you destroy the ideas they represent.  The ideas, which try to answer those eternal questions about purpose you pretend don't exist, are the important things, and the symbols -- carved, painted, set down in notes and words, distilled into ritual -- have evolved over centuries to bring their hope and comfort within everyone's grasp, fortifying us to live in the world, celebrate its beauty and cope with its tragedy.. You can make fun of my teddy bears all you want, but I think the idea we've birthed a new species that prefers to take Kant or Lucretius to bed is just plain laughable.

My biggest gripe about theism is that it's so boring, both intellectually and aesthetically. Who's to say that artists liberated from the need to circumscribe their minds within religious orthodoxies could not have come up with something far more sublime and challenging?

Now you've lifted your eyes from this world!  I'd love to see you guys start thinking about that stuff.  I like the monuments you have been putting up, but how your delicate, sterile noses must wrinkle at that whiff of hagiography!

[Jackstar]

I don't understand how neither of you seem to be able to reconcile the simultaneous expression of both polytheism and monotheism. It's not a question of mathematics, it's a simple acknowledgement of that which is so.

Now we're cooking with gas!

I choose pie.

[ksm32]

Thanks so much 21.
I'm at 3/4 of listening right now to this gem of Art Bell
"Art Bell, G.Kimball - Hidden Politics of the Crucifixion"

Did Pilate create Pilates?

[pate]

... You can make fun of my teddy bears all you want..

Universe said I must leave this hear:\\\


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWdU0tmNFgw

-or-
\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEMCeymW1Ow

[theONE]

Did Pilate create Pilates?

lol

[pate]

RoFlol...

[SredniVashtar]

Jessica, huh? Are you simply blissfully ignorant or is that your attempt at being provocatively snarky? Not sure which, but neither do I care. You should read up a bit. You`re certainly entitled to your beliefs and that`s a great thing, indeed. However, there are some items that are considered fact by the majority of religious scholars. you may be somewhat surprised to learn them. First and foremost, Jesus existed and it`s very well documented:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

I don't have any beliefs where this is concerned, rather a lack of one. I imagine that religious scholars are going to agree on a few details because their faith predisposes them that way. You really don't have much in terms of contemporary accounts to fall back on. The gospels were written decades after the fact by we-don't-know-whom. You get a mention about someone called 'Christus' in the annals of Tacitus (over a century after the 'fact'), but you think he'd merit more than a passing reference if it was that significant. The disciples were illiterate and didn't leave anything behind them for us to verify. There are contemporary accounts of the sun looking pale for a year after Caesar was assassinated, yet no mention anywhere about the darkness that supposedly occurred after the Crucifixion.

Oral testimony is notoriously unreliable, viz. all the accounts of these school shooting where people see multiple shooters. People have a tendency to confabulate, and when you factor in all the time that passed, it would be easy to imagine all kinds of fictitious stuff being added to the tale. There may have been a teacher called Jesus, but I don't see any reliable testimony to prove that he was divine.

Of course I was being snarky. I'm not all that interested in someone's personal beliefs. Like most people who don't believe in God, I just don't like the way that it bleeds into public life, or the way that believers try to guilt others into following their own line, otherwise they will go to Hell.

[K_Dubb]

I don't have any beliefs where this is concerned, rather a lack of one. I imagine that religious scholars are going to agree on a few details because their faith predisposes them that way. You really don't have much in terms of contemporary accounts to fall back on. The gospels were written decades after the fact by we-don't-know-whom. You get a mention about someone called 'Christus' in the annals of Tacitus (over a century after the 'fact'), but you think he'd merit more than a passing reference if it was that significant. The disciples were illiterate and didn't leave anything behind them for us to verify. There are contemporary accounts of the sun looking pale for a year after Caesar was assassinated, yet no mention anywhere about the darkness that supposedly occurred after the Crucifixion.

Oral testimony is notoriously unreliable, viz. all the accounts of these school shooting where people see multiple shooters. People have a tendency to confabulate, and when you factor in all the time that passed, it would be easy to imagine all kinds of fictitious stuff being added to the tale. There may have been a teacher called Jesus, but I don't see any reliable testimony to prove that he was divine.

Of course I was being snarky. I'm not all that interested in someone's personal beliefs. Like most people who don't believe in God, I just don't like the way that it bleeds into public life, or the way that believers try to guilt others into following their own line, otherwise they will go to Hell.

Look at the dates that separate Tacitus and his subjects, or between Suetonius and Tiberius DN quoted so memorably.  History itself is veiled in mist at that distance and, if we were to insist on contemporary eyewitness accounts of Rome, we'd know next to nothing of the emperors, let alone the lives of peasants.  The kinds of evidence rules you're trying to apply don't work on that period.

[SredniVashtar]

Look at the dates that separate Tacitus and his subjects, or between Suetonius and Tiberius DN quoted so memorably.  History itself is veiled in mist at that distance and, if we were to insist on contemporary eyewitness accounts of Rome, we'd know next to nothing of the emperors, let alone the lives of peasants.  The kinds of evidence rules you're trying to apply don't work on that period.

Rome was a highly literate culture and there are plenty of contemporary accounts to choose from. The difficulty is sifting and deciding whether they are self-serving or not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You could say the same thing about Socrates, that there isn't independent evidence to suggest that there really was such a figure, all we get is secondary accounts from people like Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. The difference is that we don't need to believe that Socrates existed to get some benefit from his wisdom. With Jesus, everything is predicated on him being a real historical figure and we need (at least I do) more in the way of hard facts.

[FightTheFuture]

You really don't have much in terms of contemporary accounts to fall back on. The gospels were written decades after the fact by we-don't-know-whom. You get a mention about someone called 'Christus' in the annals of Tacitus (over a century after the 'fact'), but you think he'd merit more than a passing reference if it was that significant. The disciples were illiterate and didn't leave anything behind them for us to verify.

Actually that`s not entirely true. You forget the writings of Paul. You can debate whether he actually experienced a visit from the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus, but what is NOT in question is the fact that he sincerely BELIEVED he did. He then met with Jesus` brother, James (an ardent skeptic prior to seeing his brother rise from the dead) and Peter just 2 or 3 years after the Cross.

You`re a smart guy, Sred. We may disagree on a thing or two, but I respect you and your opinions. They`re generally well thought out. You may find the following video interesting. Dr. Habermas has had a significant influence on me. I`ve read all his books and I believe him to be one of the leading Christian Scholars of of our time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q

[SredniVashtar]

Actually that`s not entirely true. You forget the writings of Paul. You can debate whether he actually experienced a visit from the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus, but what is NOT in question is the fact that he sincerely BELIEVED he did. He then met with Jesus` brother, James (an ardent skeptic prior to seeing his brother rise from the dead) and Peter just 2 or 3 years after the Cross.

You`re a smart guy, Sred. We may disagree on a thing or two, but I respect you and your opinions. They`re generally well thought out. You may find the following video interesting. Dr. Habermas has had a significant influence on me. I`ve read all his books and I believe him to be one of the leading Christian Scholars of of our time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q

A fair point, but he was Saul at the time of the crucifixion, didn't know Jesus, and only converted decades later.  I suppose it depends on how much you are willing to accept on faith or not. I like to have robust discussions about this stuff, but ultimately people can believe as they see fit, it's not really my business to convince them otherwise.

I'll have a look at that video, as I am always intrigued to hear arguments from the other side.

[K_Dubb]

Rome was a highly literate culture and there are plenty of contemporary accounts to choose from. The difficulty is sifting and deciding whether they are self-serving or not.

All history is self-serving to one degree or another, particularly in that era of of patronage.  We try to determine the writer's intent and use that to weigh what he says, not throw it out wholesale.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You could say the same thing about Socrates, that there isn't independent evidence to suggest that there really was such a figure, all we get is secondary accounts from people like Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. The difference is that we don't need to believe that Socrates existed to get some benefit from his wisdom. With Jesus, everything is predicated on him being a real historical figure and we need (at least I do) more in the way of hard facts.

So you would reject the ideas that swept over half the globe because you can't discern the exact nature of the pebble that was dropped into the eastern Med that produced such waves.

[SredniVashtar]

All history is self-serving to one degree or another, particularly in that era of of patronage.  We try to determine the writer's intent and use that to weigh what he says, not throw it out wholesale.

That's why history is called 'history', it comes from the Greek meaning 'inquiry'. Nobody said that you need to take it all at face value, it's just that the evidence is fairly thin, from my perspective, when it comes to substantiating Jesus as divine.

So you would reject the ideas that swept over half the globe because you can't discern the exact nature of the pebble that was dropped into the eastern Med that produced such waves.

A lot of those ideas came from Platonism. Socrates talked about forgiving your enemies in the Phaedo, for example, they weren't originated by JC. You can take the Sermon on the Mount as a ethical system, and fair enough, but most people found their belief on it being the undiluted word of God. If not, then you bracket it with philosophy rather than theology.

[FightTheFuture]

A fair point, but he was Saul at the time of the crucifixion, didn't know Jesus, and only converted decades later.  I suppose it depends on how much you are willing to accept on faith or not. I like to have robust discussions about this stuff, but ultimately people can believe as they see fit, it's not really my business to convince them otherwise.

I'll have a look at that video, as I am always intrigued to hear arguments from the other side.

Enjoy! Be sure to stick around for the Q&A at the end. I found that especially interesting.

[K_Dubb]

That's why history is called 'history', it comes from the Greek meaning 'inquiry'. Nobody said that you need to take it all at face value, it's just that the evidence is fairly thin, from my perspective, when it comes to substantiating Jesus as divine.

Yeah the divine stuff is a matter of faith.  But the ahistorical-Jesus idea is a fantasy.  We can't afford to reject any material from that era outright.  They're just data points, duly weighted.

A lot of those ideas came from Platonism. Socrates talked about forgiving your enemies in the Phaedo, for example, they weren't originated by JC. You can take the Sermon on the Mount as a ethical system, and fair enough, but most people found their belief on it being the undiluted word of God. If not, then you bracket it with philosophy rather than theology.

Hahaha so the illiterate peasants turn into philosophers!  You are coming around!

I agree the ideas draw from those old Greeks and maybe from further east -- fascinating to speculate whether the flight into Egypt and the Magi represent some influence, metaphorical or real.  Where you put it in your personal library is up to you; my point is that it should be there rather than in the shredder.

[GravitySucks]

A fair point, but he was Saul at the time of the crucifixion, didn't know Jesus, and only converted decades later.  I suppose it depends on how much you are willing to accept on faith or not. I like to have robust discussions about this stuff, but ultimately people can believe as they see fit, it's not really my business to convince them otherwise.

I'll have a look at that video, as I am always intrigued to hear arguments from the other side.

Hey SV. Hope things are well on the fortress. We may need a solid rock soon.

Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He was a Pharisee and was present at the stoning of Stephen. He certainly must have been aware of Jesus and most likely have heard his sermons.

His conversion on the road to Damascus was within years of the crucifixion. Not decades.

[K_Dubb]

I choose pie.

A quick look at the word list gives you a choice between deywós and perk.  I'm intrigued by the latter, but the paucity of edifying rhymes, and several ones that inspire satire rather than reverence, make me scurry back.

[Jackstar]

It's not a word; it's a body part and/or food group.

[SredniVashtar]

Yeah the divine stuff is a matter of faith.  But the ahistorical-Jesus idea is a fantasy.  We can't afford to reject any material from that era outright.  They're just data points, duly weighted.

Hahaha so the illiterate peasants turn into philosophers!  You are coming around!

I agree the ideas draw from those old Greeks and maybe from further east -- fascinating to speculate whether the flight into Egypt and the Magi represent some influence, metaphorical or real.  Where you put it in your personal library is up to you; my point is that it should be there rather than in the shredder.

I saw the Habermas video that FTF posted last night. It was quite interesting, as these things go, putting the emphasis on Paul's testimony as evidence for the resurrection. As always with religion, though, the advocates are those  who already have a dog in the hunt and have an innate predisposition to find something that will confirm their beliefs. Just as I (to be fair) have an innate bias that it's not true. I go along with Bertrand Russell that the three major religions have directly competing claims so that, simply as a matter of probability, you have to assume that you are destined for damnation whichever one you pick.

As far as I can tell, religions have their benign side that focuses on harmless rituals that try to give meaning to life; my objection comes when people stop thinking for themselves about important questions and trust authority instead of their own reason. When you start down that path you are on a slippery slope to Creationist museums, with the (vegetarian!) T-Rex pottering about in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  If you've ever come across Ray Comfort (and I pray to the Lord above that you haven't!) you can see just how silly this stuff can become.

On that video, the guy cited some (probably bogus) survey that 20% of atheists are 'angry at God'. Well, you can't be angry at someone you don't believe exists, but you can be angry at the things that are done in 'God's' name. There is almost nothing that you can't get some people to do if they think they have the mandate of a deity behind them, and that's my main concern. If you want to eat the filling but leave the crusts, fine, but a  lot of people aren't like that, and that's where the harm comes from.

[Jackstar]

putting the emphasis on Paul's testimony as evidence for the resurrection.

There are none so blind, as those who refuse to see.

[K_Dubb]

I saw the Habermas video that FTF posted last night. It was quite interesting, as these things go, putting the emphasis on Paul's testimony as evidence for the resurrection. As always with religion, though, the advocates are those  who already have a dog in the hunt and have an innate predisposition to find something that will confirm their beliefs. Just as I (to be fair) have an innate bias that it's not true. I go along with Bertrand Russell that the three major religions have directly competing claims so that, simply as a matter of probability, you have to assume that you are destined for damnation whichever one you pick.

As far as I can tell, religions have their benign side that focuses on harmless rituals that try to give meaning to life; my objection comes when people stop thinking for themselves about important questions and trust authority instead of their own reason. When you start down that path you are on a slippery slope to Creationist museums, with the (vegetarian!) T-Rex pottering about in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  If you've ever come across Ray Comfort (and I pray to the Lord above that you haven't!) you can see just how silly this stuff can become.

On that video, the guy cited some (probably bogus) survey that 20% of atheists are 'angry at God'. Well, you can't be angry at someone you don't believe exists, but you can be angry at the things that are done in 'God's' name. There is almost nothing that you can't get some people to do if they think they have the mandate of a deity behind them, and that's my main concern. If you want to eat the filling but leave the crusts, fine, but a  lot of people aren't like that, and that's where the harm comes from.

Today Jesus would storm His own temples with such fury we'd gladly trade places with those poor old Jews.  Where you guys attack our corruption, shameless profiteering, and hypocrisy you serve Him more faithfully than we do.  Those were His targets, and much of the New Testament, including the first part of Revelation nobody reads, is made up of that kind of self-examination and reproof -- almost absent in religious dialogue now.  That's the whole point of it.  We are our own worst enemies, not you guys.

My biggest beef with atheism is that you attack the harmless rituals and symbols that, to me, represent the purest distillation of religion's beauty precisely because their generation-spanning refinements lift them above normal grubby human touch.  When we look at other societies, it's these which often strike us first (where they are not simply barbarous) as the flowerings of culture, and you've managed to convince a lot of people -- the kind for whom religion would never be more than a simple observance -- that their own heritage is somehow discreditable.  It's like when my grandpa in Indonesia had the Dayaks burn their fetishes but instead of giving them bibles and teachers you name-drop some philosophers they'll never read.  Now we call what Grandpa did "cultural imperialism" or, in today's ridiculous hyperbole, "cultural genocide", but whatever you call it, it's ugly.  It's my aesthetic sense that is offended more than anything.  But that is my guide, just like your damn urn.

The truth is that we've each acknowledged the other's position but worry about what happens when the commoners get their dirty hands on it, and we both deserve to be flogged up and down for our audacity hahaha.

[Camazotz Automat]

Jack Chick woke up in paradise to seventy-two virgins and didn't know what the fuck to do.

Someone pass Mr. Chick the assassin's hashish - the imprint is most definitely not gelling.

We may have to crank Jacob's Ladder down a notch and let him re-scale.  Goes against protocol, but whaddyagonnado?

These pamphlet flesh-bags are always so confused upon arrival.

Pet the Great White Buffalo, spore hustler.  Mind his blue tongue.  Egyptian scarab got his dung?  Welcome the Beetles' Black Sun.

The frogs' croaking is the worst.

Enjoy the skee-ball wave/particle function while you can. 

It's all rinse and re(St.)peat.

~ B U M P ~

[theONE]

When this political high wears off in a couple if days I will share some more interesting stuff with you
you believers and you sinners, in mean time carry on  





BellGab - worst than fucking heroin !!!

[theONE]

On your knees everybody and start praying you sinners /my self included
things are going to get strange


"Hallelujah" - Leonard Cohen


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9pGaHLa6BI

[theONE]

"Hallelujah(Aleluya) in 3 languages(English,Russian,Arabic)."The Voice Kids Russia 2015.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tM5lYmUw8

watch till the end..there is a nice treat at he end

[theONE]

*Oscillating between time of the past and of the future, I often run away
towards the present and don't move at all,
scared to face my visions of the forthcoming doom!.*  -theONE 13.NOV.2016 3:32 AM


Leonard Cohen - "Who By Fire"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtMi8PpyTvc&index=1&list=RDjtMi8PpyTvc

[mikuthing01]

"Hallelujah(Aleluya) in 3 languages(English,Russian,Arabic)."The Voice Kids Russia 2015.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tM5lYmUw8

watch till the end..there is a nice treat at he end

that was nice

[pate]

I don't have any beliefs where this is concerned, rather a lack of one.
...
Of course I was being snarky
...

Merging of thread is naow un-quest-able>?

Meow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZkKsGtrW88

[theONE]

"LGBT EXPOSED - Hard-Hitting, Major Russian TV Film (SODOM)" HD Eng Dub

A hard-hitting, major recent Russian film which provides a devasting look into the LGBT movement worldwide. Highly recommended.
This blockbuster, 1 hour documentary originally aired on Russian prime-time TV in May of 2015, causing a sensation in Russia at the time.
It has never appeared anywhere in English, until now, subtitled or dubbed. This translation is dubbed.
It is available exclusively on the Russia Insider Youtube channel.

It had a substantial 6 figure budget, allowing Russian journalists to travel widely - to San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Washington DC, Italy, Australia, Germany, and elsewhere, to do ground-breaking, original investigation into the LGBT movement.
The film is interesting on a number of levels.
It was made by Arkady Mamontov, a popular TV host and investigative journalist famous for his ground-breaking documentaries.

Mamontov is a conservative Christian. His best known recent film is about the Greek orthodox monastic island of Athos (in Russian only).
He has also done a lot of work on Russian social issues, and on the Ukraine conflict.
...more info is available in that link in the comments section

Also you can read this related article: "EXCLUSIVE: Major Russian TV Film, 'SODOM', Blasts LGBT"(HD Video - Eng Dub)
http://russia-insider.com/en/exclusive-major-russian-tv-documentary-sodom-blasts-lgbt-hd-video-eng-dub/ri16005


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uvWkgz1XQM