All-Purpose Religion Thread

[chrisp65]

I've talked about this before, but I'll revive it now.

As far as I can see there are three main reasons people join (or remain in) religions:

(1) Cultural. You grew up with it, all your friends and family are in it, the rituals are familiar and comforting.

I can understand this. It must be difficult to reject something if it means you make yourself an outcast from your community, and take away your emotional safety net. I expect both Gary and Ivan can confirm.

(2) Intellectual (for want of a better word). You get this a lot with the highly educated types who still want the comfort blanket, as well as the people who don't really want to think about the hard science. The universe must have come from somewhere, the eye is too complex to have evolved, etc., etc. Very hard to argue them out of it due to the level of willful denial.

(3) (And this is the one we haven't seen much of on this thread - yet) - divine revelation. We've all heard it: "Oh, I was a cynic like you, but one day I heard Jesus call to me, deep in my soul, and I was filled with the holy spirit, it was better than any drug. And you can find him too, all you have to do is open your heart and ask for forgiveness..."

A friend of mine once said "When we talk to God, it is called 'prayer'. When God talks back, it's called 'schizophrenia'".

Most religious subscribers I've met fall into types 1 and 2, usually a combination of the two.

Type 3 though, is the hardest one to refute - and therefore a challenge. I like a challenge.

I believe there is a fourth group. You could possibly argue for it being a sub group of either 1) or 2) in some instances, but in it's most extreme its a 4th group.

It's the political christian. These are the guys that make a living out of being a politician or an evangelist or a rock star that panders to the more extreme 'fundie' end of the spectrum I may be doing these people a terrible dis service, but I believe there is a whole swathe of people that are in it for the power and prestige and therefore almost have to 'out extreme' their competitiors. It's highlighted in American politics, do some of these politicians really truly believe the extremities of the arguements they put forward? Or can they see that there is an audience for it, a paying, voting, powerful audience. Which makes it a route to power. They may even believe that they believe it, because they've pedalled it for so long.

i won't try and name names in the American system, I don't have the research. But on a smaller scale our own beloved Tony Blair appeared to latch on to a strong religious vibe around about the same time he went to war in Iraq and was working on his own personal exit strategy. Waddaya know, war, conversion, millionaire lecture circuit.

Now I know there are plenty on here who will point to plenty of war and bloodshed in the Old Testament. But I can't see any justification in the New for that sort of action. Was it to cater for a British fundie grouping? Surely not, I know plenty of church goers from plenty of denominations, almost all of which were opposed. I had far more 'secular' friends and associates that could see the merit in a war. But in the USA, there appears to be a significantly vocal and organised group that thrive on this. I'd call this wilfull mis interpretation, political christianity.

(and yes, I am aware of the crusades, but I'm basing this on more modern times not)

[norton65ca]

prior to Ronald Reagan, evangelicals and fundamentalists were apolitical, they didn't tend to sully themselves in such worldly things. With the advent of the moral majority and the republican tactic of mobilizing the fundamentalists over certain hot button "moral' issues such as abortion and "prayer in schools", all this changed. The initial strategy was astonishingly successful, but now the tail is beginning to wag the dog, as increasingly, the traditional republican must bend over backwards so far that his head is now firmly inserted into the toilet of fundamentalist whackiness, xenophobia, racism and conspiracy theory (birthers etc). The repubs have been ruthlessly hijacked by the extreme right and the strategy of using the fundamentalist loonie fringe to gain votes has derailed and now the loonies hold sway. The republican party risks annihilation as the more enlightened youth begins to become politically active and such backward and socially retrograde standpoints fail to attract.

[Xann]

If pinpointing the cowardice of one christian is deemed bad manners then so be it . I can live with that . It's not like I am condemning someone to an eternity of torture and revelling in it.

Though JWs are pretty, er, odd, I'm pretty sure she hasn't buggered any choir boys or tried to bomb a plane, yet seeing the venom in some of these posts you might think so.

Questions are directed at her, she responds, she gets rounded on in numbers and not politely either.

Who is the coward?

Too many people gleefully stick the boot in to an easy and obvious target.

If you really wanted a debate on religion Mike, VT clearly isn't the place to come.

Too much heat and not enough light.

[limpid]

As Lucifer was created perfect (as was man), why didn't god save him and the other fallen angels? I can't see that Lucifer did anything worse than Eve did. I guess god is just a misogynist.

[norton65ca]

Chrisp, the NT does seem to have a softer edge, but the theology is still harsh, The Pauline letters detail an exclusive, purist regime that leaves little doubt as to the fate of those who decline the "free gift" of eternal salvation. This is the theological basis for Calvinism. The Revelation of St. John, also, terrified me as a child and contains numerous eye opening views into what is to become of those on the left hand side of the throne, the goats, destined for the place where the flame never dies and the worm perisheth not... Those whose names are not found in the Lamb's book of Life, that Lamb who brings the sword and will divide the mother from her son, the husband from his wife and will slay the wicked and cast all who defy him into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. He is nice to kids in the backstreets of Jerusalem, apparently, but when he comes back for his second trip 'round here, he's gonna be some badass muthafucka. It ain't gonna be pretty.

[mjmooney]

As Lucifer was created perfect (as was man), why didn't god save him and the other fallen angels? I can't see that Lucifer did anything worse than Eve did. I guess god is just a misogynist.

All the mainstream Abrahamic religions are apallingly misogynistic.

[Chindie]

I'm genuinely unaware how anyone, in 2012, with the education we have now and the knowledge we have, how anyone could with a straight face and without cynicism or question accept literally talking about demons and angels as if they are real things.

You don't even really need to debate it much beyond that, or even really consider it. The moment you are seriously considering angels and demons as real things the 'This is nonsense!' warning light and alarm in your brain should be going off like Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

[chrisp65]

I'm genuinely unaware how anyone, in 2012, with the education we have now and the knowledge we have, how anyone could with a straight face and without cynicism or question accept literally talking about demons and angels as if they are real things.

You don't even really need to debate it much beyond that, or even really consider it. The moment you are seriously considering angels and demons as real things the 'This is nonsense!' warning light and alarm in your brain should be going off like Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

ok yes I'm with you on the angels and demons and ghosts and wotnot.....

But what about soul? What about that certain something within a human that gives them more insight, conscience, morals. I'm not talking about a fairy on your left shoulder. I was just wondering if you thought there was something that sets us apart?

Not necessarily gifted to us by a deity, just something that may have evolved in the mind over time and sets us apart with our heightened sense of fairness, help, community. Something beyond the community mentality of ants or meerkats. Something that causes everyday people in Reading give up money to help people they do not know in Pakistan.

I'd quite like to think I have a soul.

[Chindie]

The thing that sets us apart is our intelligence. It's that that ultimately has given us morals and whatnot. We learnt that a community survives more successfully than an individual, and by extension it became a norm to by and large act in the interest f the community.

In time we developed that into laws and cultural norms and we raise ourselves in that morality now.

That is 'soul', for me. It's nothing more than an offshoot of struggle for success that we have melded into society. Nothing of the religious nonsense, no eternal aspect to us. Just a thing we stumbled on and developed.

[mjmooney]

'Soul' is a useful word. I have no problem with using it to describe the summation of an individual's personality, psychology, tastes, temperament, attitudes, etc.

It's not immortal, except in the sense that some people get remembered for longer than others.

[Chindie]

I can accept 'soul' on that level - as the summation of what has defined who a person is. A synopsis of their being, if you will.

No ooga booga though.

[mjmooney]

Another thing worth discussing (along with the concept of soul) is 'spirituality'.

Unlike 'soul', it's a word I don't much like, but I can see that it addresses something that we all feel - the numinous, the hard-to-define feelings evoked by nature, art, music, love, etc.

I think it's a product of evolution like anything else, and divorcing it from faith does NOT devalue it for me.

But it's there, and it's part of what makes us human.

[mjmooney]

I'm tempted to go to this, and heckl^H^H^H contribute...

Professor Lord Harries of Pentregrath - Religion and the Public Sphere

Location: JSB Lecture Theatre, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP

Date and Time: Thu 24 May 2012, 17:30 - 18:45 (1.5 hours)

In this lecture as part of the University's Faith and the City Programme Lord Harries will discuss Religion and the Public Sphere.

Some suggest we live in a secular society. But do we? We certainly live in a society in which there are a number of vibrant religions. The lecture will suggest that it is important to our democracy that all religions should make their contribution to the formation of public policy. But should they try to do so in the religiously neutral language of “public reasoning” or should they bring their own religious perspective into the public arena? How far is it possible to build up an overlapping consensus or are there some fundamental differences?

Richard Harries was Bishop of Oxford from 1987-2006. On his retirement he was made a Life Peer, (Lord Harries of Pentregarth), and he continues to be active in the House of Lords. He is Gresham Professor of Divinity, and also an Honorary Professor of Theology at King's College, London. He is the author of a number of books on the interface of Christian faith and the wider culture.

This event is free of charge but places must be booked in advance. Entry is by e-ticket only.

To book a place email faithandthecity@bradford.ac.uk or call 01274 234009

[Chindie]

The 'spiritual' I actually somewhat believe to be more relevant when it's removed from religious dogma. Taken away from it's hostage situation under the church/faith/whatever, it becomes far more personal and far more individually unique imo.

I believe I was once accused here of either not being spiritual/or being unable to comprehend the spiritual in life, because I was an atheist. You, once again, have to laugh.

[mjmooney]

The believers jealously guard the words they think they have a monopoly on.

It's like the fact that almost ALL oaths, swearwords, exclamations, etc. have a religious origin.

I've actually had believers say to me things like: "You say 'Oh God!' and 'Jesus Christ!', so how can you claim to be be an atheist?"

The fact is that our language and literature is STEEPED in religious imagery. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to go around making up 'religiously neutral oaths', or saying "By Dawkins!", it would just sound silly.

IF religion ever dies out, the language may change, but there is no reason that it should do so any time soon.

[BOF]

Do you not tell the kids that thunder is just Richard Dawkins moving the furniture?

[mjmooney]

And, yes, I like to celebrate Christmas as a secular tradition - devoid of religious meaning, but loaded with nostalgia and cultural association.

The Xtians will just have to get over it.

[Chindie]

The believers jealously guard the words they think they have a monopoly on.

It's like the fact that almost ALL oaths, swearwords, exclamations, etc. have a religious origin.

I've actually had believers say to me things like: "You say 'Oh God!' and 'Jesus Christ!', so how can you claim to be be an atheist?"

The fact is that our language and literature is STEEPED in religious imagery. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to go around making up 'religiously neutral oaths', or saying "By Dawkins!", it would just sound silly.

IF religion ever dies out, the language may change, but there is no reason that it should do so any time soon.

Oh I've had the 'You just said 'Oh for Christ's sake!', and you claim to be an atheist! Hahahahaha, I do believe I win sir!' thing. It's a complete red herring of course but I have found myself occasionally going out of my way to not say anything like it around these debates (or with the knowingly... I'll be kind, faith-filled) simply because it's tedious when they think they've got one over on you on following such an outburst. Especially is we're dealing with some real mouthbreathers usually so it's hard to explain the simple things, they've minds like a corkscrew following the desperate search to make sure nothing either lets the doubt in.

[mjmooney]

The believers jealously guard the words they think they have a monopoly on.

It's like the fact that almost ALL oaths, swearwords, exclamations, etc. have a religious origin.

I've actually had believers say to me things like: "You say 'Oh God!' and 'Jesus Christ!', so how can you claim to be be an atheist?"

The fact is that our language and literature is STEEPED in religious imagery. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to go around making up 'religiously neutral oaths', or saying "By Dawkins!", it would just sound silly.

IF religion ever dies out, the language may change, but there is no reason that it should do so any time soon.

Oh I've had the 'You just said 'Oh for Christ's sake!', and you claim to be an atheist! Hahahahaha, I do believe I win sir!' thing. It's a complete red herring of course but I have found myself occasionally going out of my way to not say anything like it around these debates (or with the knowingly... I'll be kind, faith-filled) simply because it's tedious when they think they've got one over on you on following such an outburst. Especially is we're dealing with some real mouthbreathers usually so it's hard to explain the simple things, they've minds like a corkscrew following the desperate search to make sure nothing either lets the doubt in.

No, stand up for the right to use the English language!

Being an island nation, English idioms are also steeped in nautical references - 'by and large', 'copper-bottomed argument', 'three sheets to the wind', 'scuppered', etc.

Am I not allowed to use them on the basis that I am not a sailor? Of course not. (Formerly) religious terminology in everyday language is no different.

[limpid]

And, yes, I like to celebrate Christmas as a secular tradition - devoid of religious meaning, but loaded with nostalgia and cultural association.

The Xtians will just have to get over it.

They stole the celebration anyway. They needed to put down the last bits of Aurelian's solar cult and so stole the feast day. Conveniently this allowed them to subvert all the other winter solstice festivals too.

Almost everything nostalgic and cultural we do for Christmas has nothing whatsoever to do with the fable of Christ's birth.