Religion

[Bluegirl]

The same standards that anyone uses to interpret any text ever: the one that you think help you deduce what the author tried to say.
As for which parts of the text you should follow: the parts that you think are meant to be followed in a changed environment, in a different culture and a different time. The things that you think are timeless, and in correspondence to what you think is at the heart of the text, at the centre of the religion. This means different things to different people.

And no, that doesn't mean that what Bluegirl wrote isn't correct; but that's not a christian interpretation, that's a political (in the broadest sense of the word) use / abuse of the text. I can take Buddhist writings to mean we should burn all heathens, too. I can take Marx to justify killing the religious as well as the wealthy. I can take Richard Dawkins to justify killing the religious and raping women. I can take whatever I want and manipulate it into meaning whatever I want it it mean. But that is not what most religious people do.

Most people don't interpret religious text at all or at least not in a way that is not bias toward what they were already taught. Religion maybe a large part of many peoples lives but most would never dig deep into it. That is why people do things against there own religion all the time. Now, personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Not everyone needs to dig into theology as long as they are respectful of others. However, out of the people who do study a religion there are plenty who will try to exploit it and they are usually the ones who dictates the tenets of a religion. And when I say that I don't mean in a "lets go blow people up" way. I mean the controls that are apart of a religion in order to give them power over the worshipers. How many religions will use guilt and fear and even the concept of faith to discourage questions or other interpretations and to get people to go to church. Encouraging marrying and socializing in your faith in order to make the religion harder to leave, ect. These things are apart of many religions and are small controls to keep people in a faith. It maybe that I am particularly sensitive to noticing these things because in the religion I grew up in it was very blatant and as I began looking at other religions I realized it was everywhere.

[Elke]

Well, as someone who doesn't only study but actually teaches religion (catholicism, in my case), I can only say that my job is to make people realize what it is they're reading, give them tools to interpret texts and discern between historical/cultural context and philosophical/ethical/spiritual/religious ideas and apply these ideas to every day life; and then give them the space to formulate their own ideas vis à vis the text.

It's the job of teachers, not just religion teachers, to give kids those tools (instead of preparing them for tests or turning them into parrots). Once someone's mind is sharpened, religious control as you describe it is gone, unless someone chooses it. In which case: it's their life, it's their choice. Some people feel safer in submission.

[carpenoctem]

However, out of the people who do study a religion there are plenty who will try to exploit it and they are usually the ones who dictates the tenets of a religion. And when I say that I don't mean in a "lets go blow people up" way. I mean the controls that are apart of a religion in order to give them power over the worshipers. How many religions will use guilt and fear and even the concept of faith to discourage questions or other interpretations and to get people to go to church. Encouraging marrying and socializing in your faith in order to make the religion harder to leave, ect.

I hear this sort of thing a lot and I find it confusing. For one, you seem to be talking about religions as if they are self-aware tyrannical dictators who are knowingly using their powers to control the weak-minded ("religions will use guilt and fear... to discourage questions or other interpretations" etc.), rather than systems of belief that were inspired by one person or a group of people a long time ago and survive today through their texts. Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things. It would be wrong to blame the religion itself; it would be more appropriate to blame those who use the religion for achieving these ends, as we know many people have done. I would just say be careful about anthropomorphizing religion and making it a target - it reminds me of what America has done in perpetuating the belief that all Muslims are extremist terrorists.

[Timinator]

Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things.

I take issue with this; it's not so simple. People say this, but it's not the way it works in practice.

In the same way that crowds of people will do things that none of the individuals in it would do any collection of people can do things with a will that seems to come from somewhere. Political parties, corporations, angry mobs, even romantic couples: they can become more than the sum of their parts, or they can descend below the lowest common denominator. Sometimes there are leaders edging the group in certain directions.

We are social animals, and things happen when we get together. Wonderful, frightening things. You cannot reduce the credit or blame to individuals.

[dolemite]

Dogmatism, not religion, is one problem. It's possible to be religious but still believe in things like science and freedom. Unfortunately, for many people, dogmatism and spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) go hand in hand. And, dogmatism and politics often go hand in hand as well. The second problem is that social, political, and religious groups are made up of humans. Humans are bound to be corrupt and power hungry at some point in time, and war is often the result in both religion (e.g. the crusades) and politics (e.g. Nazism).

Religious and political ideas are, by themselves, harmless. It's how humans decide to interpret and execute those ideas that are dangerous. So for me, mankind, and our flaws, are the problem - not religion, politics, or any other social organization or construct through which our ideas are socialized. Interpretation, socialization, and execution of ideas are all related, but different animals.

[Elke]

You know Tim, I take issue with that idea. If the impact of masses is so inevitable, then how come during the Nazi occupation so many people from so many different walks of life risked their lives, often in very private and simple ways, to go against the stream? How come a single human being could start the Prague Spring, the Arabian Spring? It's individuals that change the tide, it's individuals that are the rocks on which the waves of apathy and laziness break.

And that's, to me, exactly what it is: apathy and laziness. The by-stander effect, the idea that you only act when the group acts, disappears when you know what it is and how it works. Yet I see students who I personally taught at the beginning of the year about bullying and how it works and how to break it, go along with the group. Are you really implying that what happens there is beyond their control? Because it isn't. They allow it to happen - and usually for very good reasons. But they're not passive, they're not an element in a process they can't control.

I guess in that respect I am a true child of Enlightenment: human beings do have the moral responsibility to act, to better themselves, to take responsibility and decide for themselves upon careful reflection what the right thing to do is. And however much science can explain why we don't do that, that is not an excuse.

So yes: religious groups often take the wrong turn. And yes, often lack of education is at fault here. But if your holy text explicitely states that you cannot judge others before you are perfect yourself, and that you should love your enemy, and that the kingdom of heaven is not for those who have any wordly posessions left - you cannot possibly be Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, or Fred Phelps. And you cannot possibly follow them. And if you do, you do this because you want to - for whatever scientifically describable and probably justifiable reason.

Sorry, rant. I'm just so tired of people making excuses for bullshit actions.

[Bluegirl]

I hear this sort of thing a lot and I find it confusing. For one, you seem to be talking about religions as if they are self-aware tyrannical dictators who are knowingly using their powers to control the weak-minded ("religions will use guilt and fear... to discourage questions or other interpretations" etc.), rather than systems of belief that were inspired by one person or a group of people a long time ago and survive today through their texts. Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things. It would be wrong to blame the religion itself; it would be more appropriate to blame those who use the religion for achieving these ends, as we know many people have done. I would just say be careful about anthropomorphizing religion and making it a target - it reminds me of what America has done in perpetuating the belief that all Muslims are extremist terrorists.

Unless you have your own personal religion chances are your religion is being run by a governing body. They decide what is goes on, what is taught and how things are interpreted. You as an individual can decide to follow these ideas but that does not change what the religion is. That is why there are so many religions. People disagree and break off. There are people actively deciding what the beliefs of the religion are and it affect the beliefs of the worshipers. Even in early Christianity there were councils that decided what Christians believed. They decided what the religion was and anyone who did not share there beliefs were no longer Christian. The definition of religion is very different from the practice. If it was just about the beliefs of people from long ago then organized religion would look completly different then it does today. Most of the ritual, most of the dogma and most of the holidays would not exist.

Can you judge worshipers and not the religion they worship? Can you judge some of them and not all of them? Is it even fair to say that extremist are even in the same religion as non-extremists when they claim to believe the same thing? I don't know but I don't think it is as simple as saying the concept is separate from the people who create and/or live by the concept.

[Timinator]

Elke: if I were to go back to edit my previous post I would clarify the last sentence as "You cannot always reduce the credit or blame to individuals."

I never said that the mob is inevitable, nor did I say that individuals cannot act, nor that they cannot be the triggers for the mob (in fact, they often are). I only said that mob mentality, groupthink, strength in numbers, are real. I was taking issue with the fact that carpenoctem said that religion is all down to individuals. That doesn't mean I think individuals are blameless either.

[littlemonkey613]

this shit is going viral, and it's incredibly stupid.



Somehow he avoids the fact that Christianity is a religion... when he goes about endorsing Christianity and explaining the difference between Jesus and religion in such vague and meaningless ways that it drives me insane. In other words, the "meaning" behind this meandering BS (when you strip away his bad poetic affectations and get to the point) is that his religion is true, so therefore it's not a religion.

The fact that so many people find this horse shit "inspiring" sucks. Jesus wasn't a republican? No shit. Thanks for the info.

FUCK THIS GUY DUDE.

His fucking pastor is THE ONE AND ONLY MARK DRISCOLL.

THIS GUY.




Fuck this shit to hell. I can't believe this man is all over my newsfeed now. UGH. His new spoken word video on love and marriage he says was actually "inspired" by the book on marriage that MarK Driscoll wrote. What are the odds?! I've been reading Driscoll's stuff all year long. Fuck this dude!

Riddle me how you could hate religion and admit to this douchebag being your freaking pastor. I can't believe he literally goes to the Church I've been focusing on most in studying.



#Religiongenderspamdonefortoday

[Dra508]

Speaking of newsfeeds: I have a FB friend (former co-worker) who posts a lot of religious stuff which I actually like - he's starting to get into Humanism and has exposed me to thought I had not been before. Interesting stuff.

[theruiner]

FUCK THIS GUY DUDE.

His fucking pastor is THE ONE AND ONLY MARK DRISCOLL.

THIS GUY.

I can't believe there are people in the year 2012 that still believe this crap. I remember Candace Cameron, of all people, clinging to the tiny thread of relevance she still had (or thought she had) making the news a few years ago with her declaration that all wives should submit to their husbands, and that "submission" gets a bad name, because "husbands will still have to deal with their nagging wives...ha ha ha ha." Yes, Candace. That's it. You're not equal to your husband and you don't have equal say, but at least you can whine about it and maybe the great, big, manly man will listen to the thoughts of wittle old you. Made me sick.

[Space Suicide]

LOL. Funny shiz.

[joplinpicasso]

Did I just witness him circling around the doctrine of women being submissive in the household by saying that most men who aren't the breadwinners were losers? He can go fuck himself. Can't even go in this thread.

[theruiner]

Did he actually imply that people who are in a relationship but not married don't love each other?

How can one person be so wrong on so many things?

[Space Suicide]

I watch the 700 Club for shits n giggles when I'm bored. This morning a woman asked advice on whether or not her beginning to watch the Twilight movies (argh) is really demonic and witchraft practicing as someone told her. Good old Pat said that the Twilight movies are evil and allow demonic penetration as you welcome it for watching such movies. He then said vampires aren't real (no shit). His black co-host then said that the eyes are window to the soul to which Pat said not to watch as it'll allow you to be possessed. He then went on about soem girl being possessed by a demon or some shit.

My question is, how can Twilight and vampires be demonic and life changing if he himself said they aren't real? If they're not real they hold no physical power no? His sentences were void of thought.

[Harry Seaward]

I watch the 700 Club for shits n giggles when I'm bored. This morning a woman asked advice on whether or not her beginning to watch the Twilight movies (argh) is really demonic and witchraft practicing as someone told her. Good old Pat said that the Twilight movies are evil and allow demonic penetration as you welcome it for watching such movies. He then said vampires aren't real (no shit). His black co-host then said that the eyes are window to the soul to which Pat said not to watch as it'll allow you to be possessed. He then went on about soem girl being possessed by a demon or some shit.

My question is, how can Twilight and vampires be demonic and life changing if he himself said they aren't real? If they're not real they hold no physical power no? His sentences were void of thought.

My question is, 'How can people believe in these things after the age of 5?'

I will never, ever understand it.

[NINmuffin]

http://www.av1611.org/crock.html - About mid way down the page.. interesting snippet that made me laugh..

[NIN64]

http://www.av1611.org/crock.html - About mid way down the page.. interesting snippet that made me laugh..

There are some bat shit crazy weirdos behind that site there. . .

[NINmuffin]

SERIOUSLY.. but when it comes to anything involving religion you are going to encounter bat shit crazy people. I think that's why I am so interested in religion in general.. it makes people insane! I was talking to someone recently who asked me if i had been saved.. I mean wtf.. who just asks a random stranger offensive shit like that? He was telling me about being in the hospital and a figure coming to his bedside in white and blue and asking him if he was afraid to die.. he told the figure no and when he turned his head back.. she was gone.. sounds like too much morphine to me.. and I would like him to share.

[Elke]

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_ha...scendence.html

I thought this was a very interesting TED talk, offering a different kind of explanation for the evolutionary roots of religion. I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of evolutionary theory in explaining cultural phenomena, but at least this seems to take in a lot more aspects of the complexities of religion.

[YKWYA]

Could you explain to me what you just said there because I dont understand.

"evolutionary roots of religion" what do you mean by this?

"I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of evolutionary theory in explaining cultural phenomena" What do you mean?

And would you mind for a second answering me

a) is your God a capitalist?
b) do animals (of any species) appear 'religious' to you?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Watching the video would be a useful preliminary, before the question and answer period begins.

[YKWYA]

Does the video invalidate any of those questions?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

No, but it provides the context that could allow you to answer the first two for yourself.

The second pair of questions are invalid on their own.

[YKWYA]

If its so easy - It should be easy for you to show me why then?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

There are two working definitions for 'capitalist':

1) a person of wealth who does business and makes investments in a 'capitalist' economic system. Whatever one might say about the relationships between religion and wealth around the world, this one clearly does not apply. God is not a tangible entity acting as an individual, independent agent within an economy. There's no Conglomerated Jesus, Inc., with CEO: God.

2) a advocate of a 'capitalist' economic system. The first problem is, of course, that the time of the Bible some 2000 years ago, and our last "Word" from God, didn't have a capitalism on which to comment or pledge support. Even if we interpret the available documents as supporting a capitalist economy, we cannot read God as being an advocate of capitalism: were this really the case, there would be no question about it.

As for your second question, the answer is Yes because humans are animals, however, we cannot have this insight about other species because our ideas of religious expression are limited to those we understand in our own, and religion as we've defined it requires means of transmission for culture & belief systems that may or may not be present or even possible in other animals.

At best I'd say the question could be better worded as, "Do you believe animals have a sense for 'divinity'?"

[Elke]

"evolutionary roots of religion" what do you mean by this?

Evolution researchers having been debating the roots of religion since Darwin (or thereabouts, check Nietzsche), and the usual reply is different from the one in the video. Hence, the proper answer to those first two questions would be: watch the video. It's truly excellently interesting.

And would you mind for a second answering me
a) is your God a capitalist?
b) do animals (of any species) appear 'religious' to you?

Euh....
a) God is... God? I'm sorry, weird question. I guess if you're going by biblical sources, then the judeo-christian tradition would be a lot more leaning towards socialism than capitalism, if that's a reply?
b) No, but I'm not such an animal. I don't know what a herd of elephants is thinking or feeling or doing when they bury a baby elephant, so... Animals definitely have rituals, so that might be some sort of common trait... Don't know.

[littlemonkey613]

the judeo-christian tradition would be a lot more leaning towards socialism than capitalism

Please tell this to Amercuh!

[Elke]

I would love to, but they wouldn't believe me. If you can interpret 'the workers of the latest hour' to mean that Jesus was against minimal wages, you're a lost cause. Sadly.

[Jinsai]

this evangelical pastor's comments have been floating up onto some news circuits and causing some (deserved) controversy, but holy shit... It's still surprising to see people making statements like this