• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

most people on this forum probably agree religion is BS...but

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
84,998
which one do you think makes the most sense/most logicial


like if you had to pick a religious what would it be, and why?
 
Jesus-Christ, if he existed was the Logos or logic of God (see John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Logos.").

"Saint" Paul was the one who corrupted the message of Christ, which was to eliminate money.
 
Saint Paul was the one who corrupted the message of Christ, which was to eliminate money.

I don't think you can really blame Paul for not going along with the whole let's change the entire world single handedly thing. Besides, money isn't evil. It is a useful device. If Christ's plan was really to rid the world of money and not for people to love each other, then he was an idiot. I don't believe the man existed at all personally. But if he did and he seriously wanted to remove cash from the Roman Empire, he was an idiot. An idealistic idiot. The world has so much momentum. It cannot be stopped, only changed. If you remove cash, then people will have to trade, which is basically the same thing. Unless he was also saying to remove trade - the total deconstruction of society as we know it. Would that really be a good thing?

How does a world without money function? Without money, the people who do more work/work at hard jobs/study for years to get a degree, wouldn't be rewarded for doing so.

Maybe Jesus was a communist.
 
no religions make any sense really.

fact is, humans are pretty stupid and its naive to think we can just easily and simply explain the whole universe just like that.

science is probly just barely scratching the surface i reckon.
 
which one do you think makes the most sense/most logicial
Religion should have an element that is not-enclosed in the laws of logic and is not justifiable. That's at the core "how it works."

like if you had to pick a religious what would it be, and why?
That's the whole point why people don't understand what religion is. It's not something you just pick like your groceries in the store.
 
^very much correct and to the point. the 'logic' of religion is one that is exclusively internal (which is why its not logical). it's revelations find their basis in faith. from the outside, that looks like a circular argument (obviously of course, for 'most people on this forum') :

"Faith is to believe
what you do not see;
the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
- St. Augustine of Hippo

Reason is afraid of this. or rather, someone who identifies with reason is. it is the classic lyssophobia (fear of going insane), losing oneself/one's mind. essentially, faith or religion is the surrender of reason into it's 'other'. hence the term passion in christianity, for instance. the revelation of religion is the very core of the subject, namely the meaning of said subjectivity. it is the acceptance that reason, by its own very nature of objectivity, cannot explain (not without destroying the actual concept) that what is most intimate to us; namely, our subjectivity. the limit of reason is reason itself; it is illogical to speak of a subject in terms of an object. in terms of movement; the first implodes on itself, the second explodes outwardly, ie.: subjectivity disconnects from everything else to the singular point you call 'i', objectivity connects towards everything else in an ultimate 'not-i'. neither is independent from one another, because without an 'i', there is no 'not i' et vice versa. which means neither is absolute. which brings us to (since i feel like quoting today) :

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - wellyouknowwho

i found out that all religion makes sense, just not necessarily to you.
 
Last edited:
Although St. Augustine said it beautifully, I'm not entirely sure what the words mean without the poetry. You could apply it to all sorts of things. In Scientology, having faith in Xenu means that you will be able to "see"/feel him, whatever. But how is that a good thing? Faith has caused more wars than perhaps anything else throughout the history of the world. Faith isn't a good thing necessarily and religion isn't always a good thing either. I mean it can be. Most holy books are designed to be some sort of all encompassing manual/ self-help book for people who want to believe in something and need some direction in their lives. A lot of religious people have pretty high moral values. There are a lot of church based charities. If you can convince people that they will go to hell or come back as a snail or whatever if they aren't good, people will be good. But I don't really agree with that method. And despite good intentions, most religions end up causing a considerable amount more damage than they do good from what I've seen. If Jesus existed he was undoubtedly a good man, but his message got corrupted and the church got rich and Hitler killed a lot of people in the name of religious prosecution. It seems like religions are very dangerous things and the world would be far better off without them.

But if I had to be a religion it would be one where I get multiple wives. :)

I'm really tired but I didn't understand the exploding imploding i's and not i's of the objective subjectivity.
 
hinduism is cool, but also doesn't really represent a religion. it represents many belief systems, varying in degree of how important the spiritual aspect is, cultural, etc, and which god(s) are praised. hinduism is the name we give to a huge number of quite different but related religious belief systems. many of those systems are just as "close-minded" as the major abrahamic religions, anyway, though (ie christianity/islam/judaism)

out of the three major abrahamic religions, i like judaism the best. especially if it's more of a "cultural thing" and less of a "religious thing".

overall, although it's not really a religion in the normal sense of the word, bhuddism kicks all the other religions' asses. it doesn't impose a rigid belief structure on the universe, it is compatible with other religious beliefs, it is not the sort of ideology (you could even argue that it is a sort of anti-ideology..) that leads people to unnecessary violence, etc.

guatama bhudda (like many major "prophet figures" including jesu christ) told us to look within, that the potential for divinity exists in all of us. bhuddism is sort of like a guideline for living a happy but moderate life, revised/edited over the millenia by many wise men..

it is intimately related with hinduism (it branched off from it) and interestingly, in both hinduism and bhuddism, monks in many monasteries were encouraged to think about what the universe might be structured as... AKA, philosophy. this religion was quite ahead of its time, when its intellectual class was discussing true philosophy (without being tied to a particular dogma). that would be heresy in any christian monastery.

---

in sum: bhuddism wins because it's a "passive" belief structure (more like a guideline than a belief), absent of rigid dogma, compatible with other beliefs/religions, and tolerant of what normally would be "heresy".
 
Last edited:
i like the concepts of buddhism, or whichever religion it is that believes that god is a force in the universe. that idea makes a lot of sense, that we need to assign cultural symbols to make something valid and real to us. for example, every person in the world more or less sees the same archetypal images when in a mystical experience, just shapen from their culture, so seeing god as the driving force and presence behind it fits right in with the way i always envisioned it
 
^christian collective guilt extends to ALL pleasure, including every time you touch your weiner. christianity is one of the worst tragedies the human race has seen in terms of cost in lives, existential suffering, holding back progress in art and science, etc.

it's a social phenomenon that can and must be dispersed: militant atheism ;)
 
^christian collective guilt extends to ALL pleasure

And is also limited to Christians. Times are happier once you realise that there's nothing to feel guilty about.

For me it's all about knowing what kind of person I want to be, and doing my best to be that person at all times. That's my first and only commandment.
 
Christianity. Or rather Jesus-ism. (Big big difference.) I didn't pick that, though, he picked me. I was raised an agnostic. (My mother is an atheist; but I was fairly sure she doesn't know whether God exists any more than I know it, or anyone else, so I am an agnostic, as was my father. An agnostic Christian is not a contradiction in terms, btw; I do not know, I merely believe sometimes, and sometimes I merely hope, but it doesn't really make any difference to me if Christ exists in the external world; he exists in my internal one since turning up there a few years ago, and I'd be satisfied with that. Though of course it would be nice if he turns out to really still be alive. And has serious influence :)

Though I daresay it's no coincidence that I'm a socially progressive type who believes in tolerance, peace, love, and social justice -- as ideals, mind; I know perfectly well what the world is like. And that's Jesus's prgram too, pretty much. --To have the faintest idea what Jesus said you have to read the very skimpy bits where he's quoted, and sort out what's obviously somebody else's agenda inserted. And for God's sake you must ignore the nutjob fringe right-wing fundy types, who seem to have never read a word Jesus supposedly said, and instead cobbled together a religion out of the bits of the Jewish scriptures that almost all Jews decided a thousand years ago couldn't/should not be taken literally under any circumstances and certainly were not written by God in any case; which religion would have Jesus rolling in his grave (if he stayed there).
But I came to it through experiences that startled subtly but, when I persisted for decades in showing no sign of getting hints, eventually grabbed me by the collar and screamed in my face. That did it eventually, though I resisted mightily, being a skeptic by nature and by trade, as a science journalist.
I doubt I would have picked any religion, otherwise; I was pretty anti-religion.
Oh, and there is stuff to feel guilty about. Harming the innocent and powerless being a prime example. Hitler should have felt guilty as heck about the Holocaust. Fathers who rape their little girls instead of protecting them are deficient in guilt. I spoke to one and he felt no guilt at all about molesting his 4-year-old daughter when she came to his bed one night scared of a thunderstorm; so in place of internal restraints of harmful behavior, I had to call the police on him. I would rather he felt guilty at the idea and thus not proceeded to actually do what he wanted; it would have saved a lot of people a world of pain, and his daughter a part of her psyche that will never be whole again.
Homosexuality? No guilt necessary, because it's not a choice. Ditto truly victimless crimes that are crimes only because the law so dictates.
But sociopaths could really do with some guilt. Cut down on child molestation, rape, senseless violence, starting random wars on a whim; all good as far as I'm concerned, and a pity the guilt is in absentia.
 
Last edited:
Do

most people on this forum probably agree religion is BS
??

I buy into Christian Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Hermeticism and the 'perennial philosophies', Rosicrucianism etc.

I think one needs to parse out the concept of religion, and specific religions which one finds distasteful.

There is nothing wrong with religion, as a phenomena per se.
 
Top