Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc: Religion

[DOB]

this sums my lifetime experience with religion,each X represent how much to fuck certain religion

Christians,Jews,etc. the standart jesus/moses religion : XXXX

Mohamad subhuman waste,alah akbar etc... XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I dont like christians but I hate koran derpers much more

 

[Shrooms00087]

Shroom: I do not look at the Bible as a whole as a historical document. From the last few Davidic and Omride kings of Judaea and Ancient Israel and up until Maccabbi II (Maccabbi not being part of the Judaic Canon and only part of some Christian Canons, it is a shame since it is spot on historically and is a valuable source of Jewish History. IF Jews can celebrate Chanukkah, a Hasmonean holiday, they should be able to include the Hasmonean History as well, Maccabbi I and II ) it is a very reliable historical document corroborated by arcaeology and non Judaic historical documents. It is before and after that interval where is is largely unreliable historically. As for Moses and the Red Sea, there is nothing to suggest he ever actually lived. That said, most myths do have a kernel of truth.

I don't understand your point about Jesus going to hell after the Crucifixtion. I mean, I am well aware of Catholic tradition but what was the point by Huxley and Cambell, and by Cambell you mean Joseph Cambell?

As for Heaven and Hell, these were Greco-Roman concepts pure and simple (as is so much of Christianity, from its usual Sabbath to Xmas itself). We Jews believe Heaven and Hell are here on Earth and it is up to us to create one or the other in our own lifetime. Death is sleep until the Day of Ressurection. The unrighteous will simply continue sleeping while the righteous will be ressurected.

For Huxley the point of religions is a desired (or conversely desireless) state of consciousness and demeanor. With Huxley Christ died on the cross for as I said, to die to persona. He doesn't mention Christ then going through the passages of Hell, but if he had it would probably be read as Christ shedding attributes of the selfness (greed, gluttony, lust, etc). For Campbell it's part of the "Hero Cycle". Although I know next to nothing about Christianity and far less about the other religions. It's just been an interest as of late.

And yes, I was referring to Joseph Campbell. Rereading my previous post I found a minor correction, it was Campbell who said Christ went through Hell after the crucifixion, the rest was Huxley. Campbell stresses this as a going then returning with boon. Campbell makes the connection of Holy Ghost as Christ in death going through Hell. Whereas Huxley stresses that his death was the final act before becoming the Spirit. **Bah and it isn't Total, it's Absolute.

 

[alasdairm]

to be frank, the op is a somewhat childish, rather gross oversimplification of a very complex issue.

rickolasnice, if i walked out my front door and shot dead the first person i saw and, when asked why i did it, i said "i killed that person in the name of rickolasnice", how responsible are you for what i did?

alasdair

 

[rickolasnice]

^ I don't see what you are getting at?

 

[alasdairm]

it's a simple question - take it at face value.

i walk out my door.

i shoot somebody dead.

i am asked "why?"

i respond "i did it for rickolasnice".

how responsible are you for what i have done?

alasdair

 

[rickolasnice]

I wouldn't be..

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Shrooms00087]

Think it through. A murder happened under the guise of an idea about your character. This doesn't mean the character is at fault rather the interpretation of the idea.

So as others have stated about Judaism being an ethnic religion the counter to this was Christianity where it sought to unite a community through an idea rather than throwing up arbitrary divisions. This made the religion an ideal foundation for colonization. So if you found yourself conquered, typically what soon followed was an introduction to a text which preached charity (in it's original meaning) and passiveness. Although I would argue the passiveness it seeks to relate is only a guide to enact change without barbarism. Contained within the Bible is all sorts of philosophical beliefs meant to bring about states of consciousness, rites and rituals, roles of society, logical inquiries, emancipatory practices, and most likely a whole lot more than I've been able to grasp yet.

 

[alasdairm]

I wouldn't be..

What does that have to do with anything?

so if person x kills in the name of a religion, who's responsible? you and i would seem to agree it's person x and not the religion.

like i say, it's a complex issue but i fear that it's all to easy to define "a religion" as "the followers of a religion" when you seem to agree they're different things.

alasdair

 

[rickolasnice]

The difference is God orders his followers to these things throughout the most religious texts..

I'm not a God.. and i certainly didn't order you to kill anyone.

 

[Shrooms00087]

The Bible also says not to kill. Which is a rule that supersedes the stories you speak about.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

The difference is God orders his followers to these things throughout the most religious texts..
.

Please just read the damn Tanakh, New Testament, and Qur'an(+sunnah/hadith) already. You obviously haven't.

Edit: The above wasn't a particularly constructive statement, but I would encourage you to explore the source material as well as books written more recently about the traditions that emphasize their relevance to people's lives.

I think you need to consider that these narratives have differing signficance and meaning in the lives of people who would self-identify as members of the faith. While there are some for who these myths/traditions (I'm not commenting on veracity when I use that terminology) form the foundation of their identity, who are more likely to be ultra-conservative and aggressive about their viewpoints, I don't think this represents what the faith is to most people. There are plenty for whom it means very little, but among the pious I think there are just as many for whom it is standard and pole star, who use the faiths as a support to develop their own meaning and live a more virtuous and fulfilling life.

This world can be an unforgiving place, and trial and error in personal development doesn't always work (or not quick enough), false starts and missteps can take years, and sometimes the damage can never be undone as opportunities, and youthful time/energy are lost. These traditions contain the collected wisdom of millenia worth of human experience, and have co-evolved to be compatible with life in Western society (in spite of some values dissonance). These narratives serve many as a trellis serves a vine, it allows folks to grow upwards, provides a blueprint for them to do so, and supports their wasteful growth until they can prune it off, where an unsupported person might fall before this happens.

Also, I think a lot of the prejudice associated with religion is the result of in-group/out-group thinking that arises over many different facets of cultural/economic shared identity, and is an unavoidable part of life in social groups.

Christians and Muslims merely exist as a common ideology.

Don't toss us Christians and Muslims off so casually with words like "merely". I don't hang around the non-drug-forums enough to be familiar, but you're Jewish? What do you think of the B'nei Noah (I know the whole idea attracts only the most Chasidic mofos, but still)?

 

[modern buddha]

so if person x kills in the name of a religion, who's responsible? you and i would seem to agree it's person x and not the religion.

like i say, it's a complex issue but i fear that it's all to easy to define "a religion" as "the followers of a religion" when you seem to agree they're different things.

alasdair

You're responsible in the name of the law. However, the argument still stands that if God told you to do it, actually told you to, then He's responsible for your safety hereafter while you undoubtedly go to prison. However, we see while Abraham was alive that He asked Abraham to kill his son. Abraham took his son to a place of sacrifice they had set up at the time, set up the sacrifice and was about to kill him. God said before Abraham made the sacrifice "I see you are a loyal follower of me. Do not kill your son."

So I guess the argument still stands: would God want you to actually go through with killing a fellow human being? I think this is where the line becomes fuzzy regarding killing in the "name of God".

 

[alasdairm]

in my head, rickolasnice told me to do it (even if he thinks he didn't). now who's responsible, rickolasnice?

alasdair

 

[Raasyvibe]

I had a quick read of posting rules and done a quick search but.. to be honest.. bluelights search function sucks No offence.

This thread is not meant to upset or anger anybody.

..

I'd like to know how anybody can believe in any one (if any) religion. I'll focus on Christianity as I know more about it.

To be a christian, you would have to believe in the Bible. In my opinion, Jesus and has Dad came from the bible. If you believe in Jesus and his Dad then logically you must believe in the bible.

But the bible is so full of contradictions, scientific impossibilities and down right horrible things.

God would order his men (strange thing for such a powerful being, don't you think?) to murder, rape and pillage areas or towns where the peoples would not accept God as the LORD. Bare in mind it would have been a small army of people claiming to speak the words of God. Pretty horrible stuff for a God of worship? The older stuff in the bible is full of a hateful, vengeful and spiteful God..

Then a long comes Jesus, his son, who for some reason he decided to make human.. teaching messages of love and kindness.. What is it God.. make up your mind. So yeah.. God sends his Son down.. which for some reason needed a woman to become pregnant with him to achieve.. to teach gods teachings? But they're not the same as earlier on in the book. Or maybe Jesus was his rebellious fuck you dad! kinda son.

So anyway.. God decides it would be a good idea if his Son was horribly tortured and crucified.. Nice God, nice Dad, ticking all the boxes. But it was for good reason, of course! Jesus died for our sins! I mean.. what is that even supposed to mean? Does that mean I can now sin all i want because Jesus died for them? Or did he only die for the people alive at his time of death? Why would a God require a human son to die for peoples sins? Could he not have simply pardoned them? Or accepted that he gave man free will so deal with it?

I'm also interested to know what happened every body that died before Jesus started spouting about that he's the son of god. I'm pretty sure they didn't have telephones, international TV or even the internet back in them days so how was the message expected to reach every person on the planet? Or did God not give 2 shits about them and sent them to hell anyway. Do new born babies go to heaven or hell? Do they spend eternity as a new born baby?

God created man in his image. Therefore are we not all parts of God? There is nothing we can do that could possibly be seen as bad in the eyes (or whatever he says) of God. God gave man free will.. sure.. but everything we do is because of God. Or is he not as powerful as he makes out to be?

To get in to heaven, all you have to do is repent...... Unless you're gay you are going to burn in hell..

I'm pretty sure that nobody on this planet has seen to or spoken to God or Jesus personally.. so why believe in the bible? Why are you not Muslim, Jew or Hindu? Are they all wrong? Are they all going to hell? Bare in mind most of their books outdate the Bible.. So what branch of Christianity are you? Church of England? Protestant? Roman Catholic? What one is the right one? Are the wrong ones going to hell?

May I ask how you think it possible to get 2 of every animal on to a boat? We can't even do that today with bigger boats. And can you explain how the world can flood from rain? Where did the rain come from? And where did it go?

If I were to tell you that I spoke to God last night.. he came to me in my sleep.. he sat with me in my room and told me that I am the chosen one. He told me I need to find a way to kill 80% of the worlds population. He told me he would help out a bit, with natural disasters, famine, disease and war but it was my job to build a following. I must spread this message to as many people as I can.. If you don't send me 50% of your current wealth then I am to kill you, rape your wife and burn your house down.. What would the difference be between my message and the old geezers in the middle east all those years ago?

Jesus was not mentioned in historical texts for at least 100 years after the birth of Christianity. Anything written about him after that wouldn't have been able to has seen him, spoke to him or even witnessed his existence due to the fact he was dead.. and had been for a long time.

Reading this post, it strikes me that the poster has a misunderstanding about Christiannity. Let me try to put you right on a couple of issues.

But the bible is so full of contradictions, scientific impossibilities and down right horrible things.

You write this as if it is fact. Top theologists and scholars of the world are still debating these issues. No-one has as yet conclusively proven the bible to be a waste of time, and there is answers to your qualms if you are willing to search for them

The bible is subject to a lot of misunderstanding.

Firstly, it is not a scientific journal and was never intended to be. If the bible stated the world was created 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years ago, the entire world would be christian, because we'd all know they'd have never known that 3,400 years ago.

Then the whole purpose of finding God, choosing to ignore God would be obsolete. As it is in Gods will to give us a choice... the bible being a scientific journal wouldn't work would it? Therefore these stories are considered to be more symbolic than empirical. It is unlikely "The world being created in 7 days" is referring to precise 24 hour periods.

In the old Testament God was depicted as an evil tyrant. Atheists dwell on this madly...... (all the child abuse, war, murder, stoning, etc etc) but everyone seems to forget that in the new testament jesus taught against this "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone", and preached about loving enemies. The general conception between Christians is that in the Old testament writers had a very primitive understanding of what god was like, and depicted him as a powerful tyrant... then in the new testament Jesus "clears it up".

I'm pretty sure that nobody on this planet has seen to or spoken to God or Jesus personally..

You're "pretty sure"? Is that supposed to be conclusive?

I don't know if anyones had a personal chat with God, but many, many people have had religous experiences which have caused them to shed their former atheism/agnostism lives and become devout Christians. I am one of those people. And if you spoke with many more Christians, you'd probably here a lot more stories.

I never read a page in the bible, I saw it as a big waste of time... until I had a religious experience, at which point i thought it would be sensible to take a read.

To get in to heaven, all you have to do is repent......

It's not so simple. Anyone can say "I repent", that won't get you to heaven. But to face up to your wrongdoings and embrace the remorse is something totally different. And something a lot of people aren't willing to do.

Unless you're gay you are going to burn in hell..

Yes I believe homesexual desires are wrong and perverse. But if a person doesn't realise this, or they've been manipulated somewhat, can they be blamed?

tbh most heterosexual relationships these days are no less sinful than homosexual relationships.

You can't blaim someone for developing an attraction. But you can blaim someone for recognising it's wrong, and choosing to ignore God and pursue it.

Whether you're a peadophile, rapist, pulling a hot girl in a club or lusting over a guy... the Christian belief is it's all peverse and wrong. Respect your brothers and sisters, remove pride, enmity and lust from these relationships you form with others. Conquer sexual desires. (easily said than done, i know)

 

[Ninae]

Hmm, I think it's right to say the bible is more like a mixture of truth and lies. Like the new testament is very different from the old one. I once read that Jesus initially belived in the ideas of the old testament that he was raised with. But as he travelled the world and visited places like Egypt and India he "gradually began to get a glimpse of a mild face" and I guess wanted to teach people that as an encouragement. Though the new new testament is much gentler than the old one. It seems more like a mixture of comfort and warnings. While the old one is basically just oreaching or politically motivated. It seems more like a political thing and about trying to create order in society. And given at a time wheb people tended to be much more evil.

I think there is a lot more of the Eastern spirituality in the Bible than what people usually consider. Although it seems both more entertaining and easier to accept. I definitely find the preaching and depressing warnings in the Bible a pain to read. But it might have more truth than we like to consider or have better consequences when practicing. I think there is definitely something like divine law and it's trying to show us that to decrease our burdens.

I think it depends on a lot of things like your present life situation, your level of consciousness, and age of your soul. Also your ability or willingness to deal with the reality of Creation will wary. It's much easier to be good while being happy, for instance. I remember while having a very good childhood I would almost automatically be able or willing to do the right thing. While undergoing trials it's much more difficult and a form of test. What I prefer myself is a mixture of Eastern and Western thought.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Hmm, I think it's right to say the bible is more like a mixture of truth and lies. Like the new testament is very different from the old one. I once read that Jesus initially belived in the ideas of the old testament that he was raised with. But as he travelled the world and visited places like Egypt and India he "gradually began to get a glimpse of a mild face" and I guess wanted to teach people that as an encouragement. Though the new new testament is much gentler than the old one. It seems more like a mixture of comfort and warnings. While the old one is basically just oreaching or politically motivated. It seems more like a political thing and about trying to create order in society. And given at a time wheb people tended to be much more evil.

Agreed. As I said in my former post, writers of the OT had a primitive understanding of God, and the depictions of Him weren't great... and as you said, it was more politically motivated.

 

[chasingabee]

I'd like to know how anybody can believe in any one (if any) religion.

Forgive me for stating the obvious but, what it comes down to is indoctrination. it’s no coincidence that the vast majority of religious people believe the religion of their parents. when you are indoctrinated you are too young to be able to form your own ideas or opinions about the world so you accept what you are told without criticising it or questioning it. When your world view has been formed without logic or reason maybe it makes it easier for you to believe in irrational things such as miracles and life after death such as can be found in religious texts. I’ve heard of people converting from religion to atheism and that it can be a very hard and painful transition. I think that when you have held these irrational beliefs for so long it can be very difficult to let go of them since your understanding of the world is turned upside down and there may be a lot of guilt and fear left over from the indoctrinated beliefs like fear of going to hell.

Rational people know that the time to believe something is when there is good reason to do so which means having evidence for it. Has any religion met its burden of proof? That depends on your standards of evidence. If faith or personal revelation counts as evidence then yes. But there are people who have faith or revelation in one religion just as strongly as people who have faith in another. From that information we can see that faith and revelation are not reliable paths to truth. For people brought up without religion and who have been taught how to think and not what to think, this just doesn’t cut it. Until there is good evidence to believe, some solid convincing evidence, then it is not justified to believe in God or any religion.

I was very sad to read about Tromps suppressing his sexuality because of his Catholicism. I think that could lead to some psychological issues. This is one of the things that is cruel about religion – the way it tries to make you feel flawed for being totally normal. I guess that’s one of the tricks they use to try and get you keep on believing.

 

[Tromps]

Jesus loves you so much that he died for you! But if you don't accept him he condemns you to the bowels of hell to suffer the worst torments imaginable." What kind of love is THAT? No thanks.

He loves us all equally whether we love him back or not. God doesn't send anyone to heaven or hell, we put ourselves there. From my understanding, Jesus was God. God came down through Jesus Christ, turned down all the powers and kingdoms of the world the devil offered him, overcame the temptations of the devil even in his human nature, suffered-tortured and died the most excruciating death possible, was able to overcome all temptations and evils even in his human nature, and that is why he opened the gates of Heaven, will forgive us our sins, because he knows how corrupt our human nature is. All he asks of us is to follow his example and be more like Him. Our sufferings are nothing compared to the sufferings that God/Jesus went through, and that's why he expects us to at least try to be compassionate, kind, and charitable people among other things.

Catholics don't believe salvation is ONLY for Catholics. At my Catholic school they are teaching me salvation can be for anyone who lives a moral/righteous life. There's a saying "ignorance is bliss" that is partly true. The more aware you are of wrong behavior, or the more you know something is wrong yet still choose to do it, the more sinful it is. But if you are someone living a moral life, doing what you believe is right, being a generous, compassionate, loving, charitable person, then salvation is certainly possible for you. It's only when you know something is wrong, yet you still freely choose to do it, that you will be judged for it.

There's a saying, that the one's who have fallen farthest from God, yet show the slightest sign of true repentance, will be the first to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. All the angels and saints in Heaven rejoice in celebration and praise in glory when the grave sinner shows the first sign of true repentance and wants to return back to the Lord, more so then someone who lived righteously their whole lives. It reminds me of the story of the Prodigal Son. A Father has two boys that work for him on the farm, one of them runs away for a long time while the other stays loyal working for his father, when the lost boy returns home, the father has puts on a huge feast celebration for his returned son who he thought had died, while the other son who stayed loyal gets no special celebration even though he stayed loyal. Or the story of the lost sheep, the Shepard will leave his flock of 99 sheep to go and find the lone 1 sheep that has run away, because he knows the group together will be ok.

I was very sad to read about Tromps suppressing his sexuality because of his Catholicism. I think that could lead to some psychological issues. This is one of the things that is cruel about religion – the way it tries to make you feel flawed for being totally normal. I guess that’s one of the tricks they use to try and get you keep on believing.

It wasn't even completely religious values that lead me back to a heterosexual lifestyle. After a few experiences and reflections, I personally concluded there's an element of unnaturalness to homosexuality, no one's born into homosexuality. After mediating on it for a few years, I decided I would be more happy being able to pass on my genes and have children of my own someday and that it would only be fair to my children if they had a loving mother as well. I wouldn't of wanted two moms or two dads, the distinct role of a mother and father in a child's life growing up is irreplaceable. And I don't feel like I'm suppressing anything, in-fact I feel much more free knowing I overcame my initial emotions and feelings, to a more logical and moral understanding of my own sexual purpose. So don't feel sad for me, I feel more happy today then I ever have before.

 

[Tromps]

I just want to add. Most Catholics I talk to would agree the idea of hell would be a fairly empty place. We believe in the redemption of the soul, no matter how far away from God you may have been, the more glory and willing He will be to celebrate ones return. God isn't as cruel or mean as some of you make him to to be. He has the most loving, kind, forgiving heart then any of us can comprehend. He never turns his back on us, we are the ones who turn away from him time and time again, yet he will always take us back again and again.

Even some of the worst people in history, such as Hitler, we would hope if they showed even the slightest sign of remorse or regret at the end of their lives, that we would be cheering them on for redemption and forgiveness. Even I hope everyone is forgiven and has a chance to work their way towards heaven, I don't want to see anyone go to hell, and surely Jesus/God has an infinite more forgiving heart then me or us humans do. This is where Purgatory comes in. Even though the Bible only makes few references to a third place other then heaven or hell for the purification of the soul, lets not forget the Bible was put together BY the Church and there are countless of other documents and writings that the Church did not include in the Bible that also refer to a place for temporary punishment of sins before Heaven. Think of it as the more sinful life you live, the more you will have to suffer before you are pure enough to be worthy of Heaven. The Church has thousands of years of doctrines and dogmas that we can follow and we don't only need the Bible, the Bible is a big part of it yes but there is so much more that Christ passed down to his disciples and His Church.

People who have never heard of Jesus or have never been blessed with God's revelation, but at the end of their lives he reveals himself to them and they accept him, they may be redeemed. God doesn't put anyone in hell. People put themselves in hell, by rejecting God even when they know He is Lord, and by doing wrong even when they consciously know what is wrong without remorse. If you stand before God, but still deny Him, do you really consider yourself worthy of Heaven? And it breaks His heart when we reject Him, He wants us more then we will ever be able to understand. We do it to ourselves, and that's the power He has given us with free will to make our own decisions. This is why I like today's Catholic Church, they seem to be teaching me the most forgiving approach to humanity that other religions such as Islam don't have.

 

[Raasyvibe]

God doesn't send anyone to heaven or hell, we put ourselves there.

Bingo.

This is one of the things that is cruel about religion – the way it tries to make you feel flawed for being totally normal. I guess that’s one of the tricks they use to try and get you keep on believing.

No it doesn't. You've invented that. Religion (in this instance, Christiannity) is there as an avenue for human spirituality. It is there to nurture your own spiritual nature, give direction and improve you as a person.

If someone is misinterpreting what the religion is wanting and developing problems, they must re-evaluate their understanding of the religion. Human corruption and misperception is rife through every religion, but the actual religion itself is there for good reasons.

It wasn't even completely religious values that lead me back to a heterosexual lifestyle. After a few experiences and reflections, I personally concluded there's an element of unnaturalness to homosexuality, no one's born into homosexuality

This is the biggest misconception about Christiannity I come across (apart from "The world was created in 7 days"):

"Christiannity opposes homosexuality but condones heterosexuality."

This is utter nonsense. Though eventual marriage should be between man and woman... this isn't too say it can be with anyone as long as they are of the opposing sex.

We all form attractions and harbour desires, whether it's for a man or a woman is regardless. Marriage was intended to be a spiritual desire... physical attractions outside of this are to be avoided altogether.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart" Matt 5:28

This is clearly referring to heterosexual desire.