Confused about religion

Lemme see, now...if I remember correctly...this is called "projection", correct?

I just read the final two pages of this "debate" and there is nothing being said about the stated topic. It ought to stipulate "confused about more than just religion." By the way, you have more hair than I, Frank. How do you do it?

For a long time I have walked around and defined the questions in my head that were not directly scientific as religious by nature. I confused religion with my thoughts about morality and spirituality, because these are subjects religion talks about. But, with the help of various members of A2K and some of my friends outside the web I realized that there are simply too many implications in the word religion for it to be a useful term. I believe in god, in the sense that when I watch the sunset I get a sense of perspective that invariably blows me away. But I am no longer dependent of some system of belief to categorize this experience. I find that it is much better when enjoyed for what it is. A beautiful sunset.

As I see it, spendius, and I am not saying this to provoke you, I experience christianity as the tool of oppression against inquisitiveness. Control of the masses, power, justification, these are the things christianity stand for. The words of Christ, wich I find to be an immense source of comfort when I am in need of it, seem to be less important to the church than the riches it can earn from those who fear the wrath of god. This was the situation 400 years ago, and in my opinion it is the situation still.

Cyracuz...

...I cannot tell you how much I agree with the thrust of your last remarks.

In many, many threads both here and over in Abuzz...I have talked about the high regard I have for the teachings of Jesus...for the moral compass of the man.

I do not agree with his views on what makes the world go...and I can tell you that if you ever get into a debate with a Christian about the nature of the god of the Bible...they will, in every way possible, disassociate themselves from the god that Jesus worshipped.

If only Christians would find Christ...I might buy into some of the stuff that has been said in this thread. But the most unChristianlike people can be found among people who most vociferously decale their Christianity.

So long as that is the case...all that other stuff about "what works" simply doesn't matter.

Sire:-

I don't mind being provoked.I thrive on it.

There is no need to believe in the Church's dogma to support the total project.Of course there are imperfections.One has to sort of swallow it whole.
It is a system.It is our system.It has worked pretty well and it can be improved.One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Before you question a dogma though you should try to understand it.It might have more wisdom that appears at first sight.It might even be a metaphor.
The Church has to be rich to carry clout.

spendius.

I like it better when we agree frank. You are a formidable opponent. But if I disagree in the future I won't hesitate to speak up:)

I do not deny that there is wisdom in the teachings of the curch. But there is wisdom to be found in the visions of Adolf Hitler as well. You never hear about it though, because the monstrous actions he is responsible for outweighs the weight of a universe in wisdom. It is much the same with christianity. The god of christians is a god for christians and no one else, even though Jesus said that every man's business with god is his own. The core of my dislike for the church is that it goes directly against the word of Jesus, upon wich the religion is founded. Hence christianity.

Is there an inherent contradiction in what you just wrote there...or did you just leave a word or two out?





I suspect if one of us had written that...you would have jumped all over it. How about fleshing out that "it has worked pretty well."

Compared with what?




Well, I cannot speak for Cyracuz, but I know quite a bit about the "dogma"...and for the most part, it has even less wisdom than appears at first sight. But I am open-minded enough to discuss any particular that you can raise.

As for the idea of it being "metaphor"...I suspect that argument is used more when rationalizing than explaining.

Do you think the pope, for instance, would consider explaining how the Assumption of Mary is metaphor?




You might want to consider what Jesus had to say about that!

Maybe Frank,just maybe,no more,it might be that you have never seen a Lady ascending into heaven.
There's a famous painting by Boticelli,I think, which depicts one man's take on it.He used to have one of his apprentices hidden in the room where he was
giving one of his models one with a view to capturing her expression at key moments.He tried it on himself but gave up the idea.

You might want to consider what Jesus had to say about your bank or some of your other activities.Is it not possible to consider Jesus as a symbol of the preaching of what doesn't work.Ask your Gov't about the turning of the other cheek idea.Or of how to feed 270 million,is it, with a miracle.
I left out no words.What you saw is what I meant.

One thing you can compare it with is where they were then.Another is with non-Christians.I only said "pretty well".I'm not a perfectionist.I would never have crucified the man though.I would have argued with him and suggested what Dylan suggested-
"Why didn't he just slip away to a quieter place instead?"

We better not discuss dogma.Not for a while at least.It isn't easy in soundbites.We are dealing with practical politics and how to save Europe from the barbarian hosts so that America could be founded and you could live the high life with your Capitol and your Senate and your classical architecture.

Is that any good Frank>

spendius.

Does the expression "non-sequitur" mean anything to you?

If you have an example of some piece of dogma which you want to offer as an example of dogma that is metaphor...please offer it. But I respectfully suggest that the very notion is oxymoronis (if there is such a word!)




Sounds like you have some difficulty in conceding a point...even when it is blatantly obvious.

But I would be interested in what you can offer from the words of Jesus that would make your comment: "The Church has to be rich to carry clout." seem more reasonable as a Christian concept.



So..you meant to say: "There is no need to believe in the Church's dogma to support the total project.Of course there are imperfections.One has to sort of swallow it whole."

Well...I think that makes no sense. But I certainly am willing to listen to what the hell you meant here.




Huh???

I don't know what the "it" refers to...and I don't know what the "they" refers to.




I have no idea of what in hell you are talking about here.




I am mystified. If anyone can explain what Spendius is talking about in this post...I would welcome it. I truly want to give his considerations a response...but he might just as well be posting in Greek for I can fathom what he is talking about.





Ummmm....no!

I remember reading somewhere that bottichelli didn't really want to paint religious motives. He just did it not to be burnt on a stake. Don't know the source, don't know the reliability of this statement.



To me this sounds like the essence of what is wrong with christianity. I am amazed. Jesus christ had the chance to renounce his faith. To die on that cross was a concious choice he made. It sounds like you have no idea what Jesus actually was saying. You are more concerned with what your religion has to say about it. This is why I have renounced christianity. Because I respect the words and actions of Jesus Christ. But you can't seem to get that part.
And by the way: Where I come from "believing" and "swallowing whole" means pretty much the same.

I do not know the contents of the christian dogma, but I know why dogmas exist. So that people will not have to, and therefore be less likely to, think for themselves.

Oh boy, if anyone enters this thread to find something about religion, then he/she is in a big doo-doo, as YOU are. Well, dude, I have a suggestion: why don't you take a ride with me with a dirt-bike in Paraguay, and I tell you what religion is all about

Thanks Frank and Cyracuz for your thoughtful insights.

By the way, I opened this thread to express my own thought about my confusion about religion. I came from a Muslim family, I am married with a Christian woman, and my best friend is a Jewish man. I do respect all religions, and I strongly believe in a supreme force. But personally, I can do without religion. So you might ask: if I do respect religions, then why do I think that they are dead. Well, I always believe death in not our final path in life.

I respect your Christian project, but you have no right to ridicule us. Hope you understand, but from the tone of your writing, I also think you are way over your head.

Well, here is someone who knows what religion is all about and tries to stipulate more! You might be right though. I could be a confused free man, but at least, I am free :wink:

Live2befree, I disagree. You are not free from confusion.

Personally I think this thread is true to it's headline.

live to be:-

You ain't free mate.You are having yourself on.

"Are birds free from the chains of the skyways?"
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
And that's just a couple from well known songs.
Society means loss of freedom.Freud said that civilisation necessarily involves neurosis.
This problem has been debated for thousands of years.Why I can't imagine.There's no possibility of a society of 270 million allowing more than a semblance of freedom.A token of it.What would be the point of legislation if society could afford freedom?Legislation is entirely concerned with the restriction of freedom in the interest of the group.
The written record of our legislation runs to whole shelves of books with thin pages and small print.On top of that there's customs and conventions and taboo.You'll be telling me next that Gulliver's Travels is pointless.Anybody who is even slightly free will be ostracised and in most societies killed.
Freedom equates with anarchy and nihilism and any society which allows more than a token,and a manageable token at that,is doomed.If you come off that bike of yours in the dirty outback won't it be the duty of others to rescue you and the duty of taxpayers to pay for it.With helicopters maybe if necessary.You're in baby mode.Am I free to refuse to contribute to the cost of that rescue.Is anybody else?Suppose your house gets on fire.
We can afford a few egomaniacs doing daft things but just let everybody come down there on your advice for a cheap kick out of a dirt=bike and then see what happens.You'll have traffic lights and cops telling you which lane to be in on pain of punishment and spare parts for damage will have to become a major industry with planning permissions and there will have to be hospitals with operating theatres all kitted out ready and drugs to save you etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc round the clock,all week,every month,year on year for ever and ever.A free society would let the tourists in SE Asia stew in their own self indulgent juice.So your so called freedom requires the rest of us to forgo some of our freedoms.Who made the bike?Mass production workers clocking on and off with eight hours of highly drilled techniques.What fuel does it run on?It won't be mountain stream water.
If that post represents your religious knowledge you can stuff it up your backside.Not only has it nothing for me it has nothing for any other grown up person.
As for me going to Paraguay you can put that far enough up the same location to scrape the back of your teeth with.
You're not doing without religion at all.You just think you are.Which is as bad as thinking you are Napoleon.As delusional I mean.
I'll tell you what dude-go read this post to your local chief of police,your local army boss,your local gov't boss and see what they say about it.
I bet you would get a laugh out of farting in church.
I know all about shamans and wierd jungle drugs.Look where it got them.Anywhere outside Christendom is a dump.I know-I've carried a gun in some of those places.Dirt-bike riding ain't macho.
It's playing with toys.
And that sucking up to Frank and Cyr will get you nowhere.
I'd take it easy if I was you.

spendius.

Freedom, my friend, is not the independence of others as you say. Live2befree can go to paraguay to dirtbike because there is a whole net of security around him in case something goes wrong. Freedom is not to have no obligations. Freedom is not the choice. Freedom is a state of mind. I cannot escape gravity or the ageing of my body, and yet I am free. Because I do not see gravity as a barrier but a safety. I don't have to worry about floating off into space, and for that I am grateful. I will also get help if I am in need of it. In turn I am obliged to help those in need. This is not a restriction to my freedom. It is a privilege I enjoy in concert with all my fellow humans.

Look at Jesus Christ again, one of my biggest heroes. He was captured and killed, but was he not free? No one could take away his security, his sense of the divine. They tried, but all they got was his dead body. Not his submission and not his freedom.

I get the sense that you are offended by my opinions. I can understand that though was not my intention, and I would like to apologize for any inappropriate remarks I might have made.

Sounds as though Spendius is off his meds.

Yep Frank,I know what a non-sequitur is.They are hard to avoid sometimes.
I am aware that you don't know what I'm talking about.When I started on algebra I didn't know what they were talking about,
The "it" is where we are now and the "they" are those who were somewhere else before Christendom took control.The dark ages if you like.
And boy were they dark. The "they" also included non-Christians.Perhaps something else would have done better but I rather doubt it.I fear that you think the task is a great deal simpler than it actually is.
One might see the virgin birth as metaphor.Isn't James Bond a metaphor?Shakespeare's tragedies are entire metaphor.
You're mystified are you.Right then.
You're sat in Rome as Pope in,say,1400.You have reports of hordes of armed horesmen laying waste your outlying lands by force of numbers.You look at your numbers.Your walls are tumbling down and your head is on a lance if you do nothing.The same position Augustus was in and Mr Bush now.But then numbers mattered most.The hordes reached Vienna.How do you get numbers up Frank?And then train and equip them.(This isn't mystifying I hope.I didn't ought to be.It is simple and it did happen and if it hadn't you wouldn't be living the luxurious life I presume you to be leading.)Now it's no good asking me exactly how it was made to happen.I do know roughly and I've met people who know a lot more than I do about the matter but it was made to happen and that's for sure.And the job isn't done with yet.The process is not one you need to know about.In fact I don't think you would wish to know.Suffice to say here that numbers may not be as important now as they used to be.Nukes and smart bombs being available now.One thing is obvious though.Since the advent of those technologies porn has been legalised and other sexual relief systems which don't cause babies have appeared.Fifty years ago such things were either crimes or subjected to social forces.One of those social forces is the influence on peasants of metaphor.I know you're not a peasant Frank and I'm happy for you in that regard but you seem to have difficulty seeing that that is what the Pope had to work with and the structures of cohesion worked out under his aegis have actually produced where we are now and any suggestions of a heretical nature are pure guesswork and with hindsight added.
Hang on Frank-Jesus overturned the money tables.Your bank is a money table.Jesus turned the other cheek.Your Gov't hasn't done that thank goodness.If Jesus had seen credit cards he'd have freaked out.
I never said anything about Jesus commenting on the church being rich.Jesus was no church.The editor of The Spectator,which is quite famous,once wrote in an editorial that he would have been shouting "crucify him" as loud as anybody else in that mob.(That's assuming it actually happened and it isn't just an extended metaphor.)Charles Moore is his name and he went on to edit The Telegraph under the ownership of Conrad Black.All I said was that THE CHURCH needs to be rich in order to have reach.Under certain circumstances which we don't have now it needs to be ruthless too.But I don't know what point I'm supposed to be having some difficulty in conceding.I don't really bother with points.I stick to facts if I can.The Church became an institution under Constantine in the fourth century AD.Before that it was persecuted.It was to do with the sociological facts that Constantine had on his hands not the dogma.
Peace and security were what mattered just like now.You must have failed to wrestle with Gibbon.It only takes a few months.
Can you not imagine saying to Jesus-"Look mate-they'll have you if you carry on like this and when this lot have you you're going to know about it goodstyle.Why don't you just go fishing like the rest of us."I can easy imagine saying that.I've said similar things to people.

Is that any clearer>

spendius.

What you don't understand spendius, is that when the pope commands armies he is no longer acting as a spiritual leader, but as a general. What is even worse, he is acting in direct violation to the words of Christ. I would like an answer to this one question if you don't mind: Why, if Christians follow Christ, do they ignore his words?

And also: The minute the pope makes a decicion on behalf of another person, he is violating the word of Christ.
The minute he tells a lie, he is not only violating the word of christ, he is doing the bidding of his Devil. Yes, spendius. Religion is a metaphor, and so is shakespeare. Just because shakespeaqre wrote in rhyme it does not give me the right to interpet it however I see fit.

And by the way. In the year 1000 Norway was christianed. The choise given was: Renounce your pagan gods or die by the sword. No trial, just blood and blood and death. If that is not hellish I don't know what is.

Oh sire:-

There's no need to apologise to me.I'm as thick skinned as a Galapagos turtle.You couldn't possibly offend me with mere words without you being a judge.
I didn't say freedom was the independence of others.I said freedom is a fantasy.
We have potholers here.They often get stuck and the taxpayer has to shell out to rescue them.Do you think they are entitled to be rescued when it costs a fortune and risks the life of the rescuers.It is only a whim after all.

In France it is a law that you help people in distress.It isn't a law here.Is it where you are.But
why make a law if everybody would help.That would be pointless law and Gov'ts don't go in for that.

Jesus said "Father Father why has't thou forsaken me."That's pretty terrible don't you think?

spendius.

Come on Frank:-

That ain't debate.You won't catch me with a post like that on file on a philosophy and debate forum.It's junior school stuff.And obviously so.

spendius.