Topic awaiting preservation: Churchless? Need a Church?

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/

Something a bit alterative.

Dan @ Code Town

Amen!

Attempting to trick people into thinking is not such a bad thing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Great Gallumping Galapagos!

If this is a 'serious' movement, I find it every bit as worrisome as any of the others.

The very second one organizes to accept reality, in my view, one begins changing one's perception of it.

Therefore, it is no longer reality.

Tricking people into thinking?

Tricking people into thinking like them...no diffferent than than any other religion.

You will note, they are happy to have received their tax-free status. This may well tell one more about the movement than anything else.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The "tricking them into thinking" line comes from their Our Hidden Agenda page.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Attempting to trick people into thinking is not such a bad thing.

---

That's the whole purpose of religion in the first place...

As for the site - from looking through, I wouldn't call it a "serious" movement. Just someone trying to make a point who has sunk to the "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em" level.

What an awful waste of time and effort...

quote:

---

What an awful waste of time and effort...

---

Amen!

One can't bottle up wisdom and "sell" it (or "purchase" it, for that matter). One has to earn (live) it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

That's the whole purpose of religion in the first place...

---

I was thinking more along the lines of religions who specifically discourage the flock from thinking.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I was thinking more along the lines of religions who specifically discourage the flock from thinking.

---

And....are you suggesting there are exceptions to that scenario? =)

ever so slightly off topic...

i never realised how easy it is (at least in NZ) to start your own Christian denomination. an acquaintance of mine recently opened his own church. as far as i can tell it's based on the Bible. his version of confession is pretty original - his parishoners (or whatever you call them) tearfully confess their deepest darkest deeds in front of the entire congregation every Sunday. i know because some of my idiot cousins have joined that church. so far confession time has uncovered, amongst other lurid scandals, 5 or 6 adulterous affairs from within the congregation itself. i can just imagine it... 'good morning brothers and sisters in God, today i want to confess that i saw Brother James in the broom closet with his cousin's wife, Sister Stevens... may God forgive me for dawdling in the chapel after prayer service instead of going straight home like i should have. i would have never heard the banging buckets...'

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

(Edited by LaSun on 10-21-2005 03:07)

I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

ok.
such as?

Yeah...such as?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The noblest pleasure of being a Mod, is having members who are capable of making themselves understood."

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-21-2005 04:07)

Hey, is there an echo in here?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

are you suggesting there are exceptions to that scenario? =)

---

But of course!

There are Xians who are open to discussing the tough questions. I do my best as a leader in our congregation to encourage that kind of thinking about our faith and why we believe the things we do. There are other churches that do the same.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-21-2005 04:27)

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-21-2005 04:28)

*taps on mike*

Is this thing on?

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

There are Xians who are open to discussing the tough questions. I do my best as a leader in our congregation to encourage that kind of thinking about our faith and why we believe the things we do. There are other churches that do the same.

---

Sure.

However, you said "religions", not "people who are religious".

Big difference there

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own regarding faith issues. Or they do not know where to start. They need help, tools, etc. (Scriptures, persons, etc). They need knowlegeable people to explain things to them, to guide them like Christ did when he preached the good news as he walked to planet for Christians. This is called "EVANGELIZATION" Thats why we have a bible, preachers, etc and because people are needy regarding the spirit. They gravitate to other spiritual persons. Then these persons are able to ponder life issues with the right info. Who is tricking who? Who is the grand master counterfit conspirator regarding love? It has to be pin pointed to a person, not many persons. And what are his reasons for leading people to think there is a God of love.

(Edited by jade on 10-25-2005 18:44)

jade:

quote:

---

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own regarding faith issues.

---

I have this very impression when I hear/read believers. They all use the same bigoted language/phrases.

quote:

---

jade said:

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own

---

That is obvious. You are a prime example.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything...

quote:

---

That is obvious. You are a prime example.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything...

---

Well me and the other billions and billions who embrace religions of many faiths, if thats how you want to think about it.

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

quote:

---

jade said:

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

---

I know it is convenient for you to sum me up in that way.
You make a great number of very false assumptions about me in doing so.

That's your perogative. But once again - just comes down to you igoring reality. I have shown myself many times to not be the person you would like to make me, despite you wanting so badly for me to fit your premade label.

As to your allegory about eye doctors -
Uh....is there an actual point there?
Yes, if I were an eye doctor, i would be much more interested in the physical workings of my patient's eyes than the emotional messages within them, since that would be my job!.

If you were an eye doctor, you would go out of business and have your license revoked =)

Oh, and:

quote:

---

Well me and the other billions and billions who embrace religions of many faiths, if thats how you want to think about it.

---

No, that's not how I want to think about it.
I am talking about *you* specifically here.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-25-2005 21:33)

quote:

---

No, that's not how I want to think about it.
I am talking about *you* specifically here.

---

\

Why me? Why only single me out? There are dozens and more of mes out there. I am only posting what many others think and do in the name of the Lord and Savior, Christ.

quote:

---

'......if we were both eye doctors. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate

---

And just how much would you charge for such a service?

quote:

---

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

---

Facing reality and science is not incompatible with being sensitive to beauty and poetry. On the other hand it seems difficult, for many, to embrace faith and reality.

quote:

---

jade said:

Why me? Why only single me out?

---

Um.....because I am having a conversation with.....you. I cannot speak for the millions of other catholics, and how well they can think for themselves. I have personal experience with your ability to do so, and so I feel free to comment on it.

Umm...the eyes are incapable of expression.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Umm...the eyes are incapable of expression.

---

That is not true. Pupils can dilate - which can express meaning.

I find this incredibly naive, and dangerous

quote:

---

Then these persons are able to ponder life issues with the right info. Who is tricking who?

---

Yes, exactly who (or what institiution) is tricking who here?
The "right" info?
A belief, contains the "right" info? No evidence, no facts, nothing other than belief?

Some of the biggest atrocites in human history have been built on such. Jade, are you truly aware of what you are saying here? It is one thing, to believe such for yourself. But you are suggesting that your way is the right way (and the only way, if I am understanding you correctly) - and therefore applies to everyone! Is this truly what you are suggesting? That your way is the one and only true way, and all must follow it or be "lost"?

To what lengths would you be willing to go, to "enforce" your will, assuming that power and authority are not a problem?

President Jade. My god... that would have even those anal dwelling penguins running for cover. =)

oooh a debate about god. i think...

so this thing with the Church of Reality:

quote:

---

Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of reality, the Church of Reality is about the pursuit of reality the way it really is.

---

'no one knows all of reality' = 'no one knows all the mysteries of God'

yup. it looks like all they've done is re-labelled traditional religion trying to pass it off as a revolution.

by the way...

quote:

---

A belief, contains the "right" info? No evidence, no facts, nothing other than belief?

---

just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

oh, and i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

hhmmm...

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

quote:

---

just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

---

Yes. "Believers" must have 'faith' and to date faith is based on 'nothing' other than a belief.

Hmm, pupils dialate or contract, in reaction to the amount of light.

Facial muscles, eyebrows, eye-lids may react in a manner we have come to interpret as a variety of expression. Eye-balls are incapable of expression, though some may claim different. It is the flesh around the eyes which reacts and which we interpret.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

in reaction to the amount of light.

---

And certain drugs, legal and not.

quote:

---

Hmm, pupils dialate or contract, in reaction to the amount of light.

---

And emotional state.

Studies in subconcious signals, that we send out and interpret in the first couple of seconds in any contact have proven this.

As for

quote:

---

are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

---

Yup. A belief is based on either faith or assumption - there is no proof, no evidence, no scientific facts to back it up.

quote:

---

i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

---

Errr...no. The first is based on historical reference. The second on hysteria. They are totally unrelated.

some Muslims are terrorists. some religious people are murderous fanatics who instigate atrocities - both historical facts. neither of these facts, though, invalidate the benefits that faith in a God (and adherence to a lifestyle based on this faith) can offer to believers.

i am by no means a zealot. i don't even go to church. i'm just interested in the logic behind the arguments for and against God/religion.

for example... how have you explained away the historical implications of the Bible?

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

quote:

---

LaSun said:

how have you explained away the historical implications of the Bible?

---

You'll have to be a hell of a lot more specific than that...
What "historical implications" ?


(and you may find this FAQ entry worth looking through: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/24877 )

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-26-2005 15:30)

Ok WS, I'll grant you that, but the interpretation of that dialtion/contraction I argue, is dependant entirely on the facial muscles reaction.

If one were to be able to take the eyeball away from the face and watch the pupil go through it's act, one would be unable to determine if it due to light, drugs or emotion.

LaSun, if there is a benefit to self-delusion, then religion is just the opiate.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

some Muslims are terrorists. some religious people are murderous fanatics who instigate atrocities - both historical facts.

---

This has nothing to do with

quote:

---

i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

---

Some terrorists are xians, some are Buddhists, some are [insert appropriate religion here] and some are not religious at all. Some religious fanatics are willing to do anything to force their beliefs on others. These are examples of individuals, not Religious institutions.

And that all is a far cry from religious institutions that have committed atrocities on a scale that is truly hideous. An institution needs most (i.e. the majority) of its members to support the activities (or at least not to hinder them) and go along with it all.

These Religious institutions are still alive and being allowed to thrive to this day. They have never been brought to trial, and sentenced for their crimes against humanity.

quote:

---

I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".

---

quote:

---

Ok. Such as?

---

Such as, that while I do see the bible & religion, is filled with "bunk", I do not see that this "bunk", was purposeful created to deceive.

(Edited by Zynx on 10-27-2005 04:04)

Of course it was. It was intended to delude and thus control people's thoughts and actions..all with the very highest of intentions of course...for their 'own good' y'know.

The HPP's of the day just "knew better" than the unwashed.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

quote:I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".
quote:Ok. Such as?

Such as, that while I do see the bible & religion, is filled with
"bunk", I do not see that this "bunk", was purposeful created to
deceive.

(Edited by Zynx on 10-27-2005 04:04)

---

That neither answers the question nor embellishes your original statement...

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Yes. "Believers" must have 'faith' and to date faith is based on 'nothing'
other than a belief.

---

The apostle Paul who died for preaching the gospel explained to the Corinthian church:

quote:

---

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
...
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

---

I believe the testimony of the apostles. Is it based on 'nothing'? Well, possibly. If they lied then I am to be pitied for wasting my time. But some beliefs are better founded than others even though they are still beliefs.

If I were to come in here and tell all of you that I just got an email from a large company wanting to purchase one of my images what would you say? Would you believe me? If you did believe me, would that belief be based on 'nothing'?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

E-mails are real, there is no evidence other than anecdotal either xist or the apostles were.

So, maybe I'd believe your e-mail story if you provide a copy. Never the others unless you can provide some palpable proof.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

If I were to come in here and tell all of you that I just got an email from a large company wanting to purchase one of my images what would you say? Would you believe me? If you did believe me, would that belief be based on 'nothing'?

---

That raises the question - would you lie to us here, at the Asylum about such

IMHO, the person that I have come to know here on the Asylum as Bugs, wouldn't do that. And no, I wouldn't think that such would be based on nothing - on the contrary, you have been honest in the past (as far as I can tell, anyway).

I think the question should be re-formulated, actually, to completely present the issue at hand. Let us say, that a company has approached you, and are expressing interest in your images. So, you think that they are valuable, and come here to the Asylum asking for large amounts of investments so that you can start your own business and sell your Images on a professional level. Of course, all who invest (and I mean large amounts here) will recieve stock options in the Company, Bugimus & Co. and will though dividends more than earn their investments back.

Now, who here is going to invest, based on nothing more than the airy words typed here in this forum? And then large monetary amounts?

I would hope that most would not, without a legal, written, binding contract to begin with!

I think the above more accurately portraits the issue.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

If I were to come in here and tell all of you that I just got an email from a large company wanting to purchase one of my images what would you say? Would you believe me? If you did believe me, would that belief be based on 'nothing'?

---

1) Yes, I would beleive you

2) Not quite, but...basically yes. That belief would be based on having no reason to not believe you, and giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Were I called into court to give testimony of your business arrangement, I would most certainly be sure to point out that I did not know anything whatsoever other than what you had said to us.

3) This is in no way at all an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparsion would go something like this:

At another forum I frequent, I was told by some people there of a guy who used to frequent the boards years ago but is dead now, who told them that he got an email from some big company looking to buy his work.
I have therefore decided that in order to achieve success in this field, I must follow his business model and so should you.
Of course, I know what his business model is like because some of the guys there told me about it.

And that is the point where I cry "Snake Oil"

Dan @ Code Town

And why I avoid religion entirely. I'm fine with religion and I'm fine with what people believe. I'm even fine with you talking to me about it. I will never follow a religion again. Religion is a tool. Period. Truth or not, God or not, it is a tool. Truth isn't important. It's what the belief in that "Truth" does to you that is important. Without proof you aspire to an Ideal. THAT is an admirable thing. Aspiring to an idea of what you want to be like and how you want people to view you. I can do that without religion. I DO do that without religion. Iconic following have only one purpose, control of the masses. A bending to the will of one person or groups view of what people should be rather than individuals aspiring to achieve their own goals and futures.

Bugs - To reduce this debate to whether or not I would believe you or some guy down the street isn't the point. I have faith in what I know of YOU. Your belief and/or religion have no bearing on who I know you to be. You are a well balanced, intelligent, friendly person who I don't expect to lie to me. Again... I have faith in you and the decisions you make, not your sources.

My mind is sort of sloshing around. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if what you believe is based on nothing (at least not to me) because it doesn't matter if what you believe is real or not. Your belief affect your personality whether it be founded or not. Just as my beliefs affect me. This iconic church versus another iconic church makes no nevermind to me. I won't follow this one or any other one. I don't need to and to be honest... neither do you. I don't know but I think <pick your faith> is a perfectly acceptable way to live. You WANT to know, that's what is important to me.

<sigh> I'm sorry guys... this isn't really here nor there, is it? I just needed to vent I guess... on with the show!

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 11-01-2005 17:26)

I wouldn't apologise. It is far more cogent than a good deal of the posts that are found around here.

As for what you are saying, if you can pull it off you are doing yourself and others a great service. If you feel that you need to be in the midst of massive numbers for your ideals to be supported you should rethink how you are living your life, and what ideal you are following. To feel whole you should be confident in your own views that you can stand alone against any assult and weather the storm. If it is your ideal and you hold to it you need no support.

Support is nice, but it should not be the foundation.

Religion is not the problem. All religion is, is a belief in a higher power, and reverance for that power. Religion (as defined) does not cause the problem. Organized religious groups are what can cause the problem. They do not have to cause problems, but they can, and they often do.

If you can hold onto your beliefs outside of an organized religion, and you are being true to yourself and your beliefs then you are doing fine. You can even enter into an organized religion when you have your own personal base. The problem is those who enter the organized religion without a base. You then become the pliable sheep, which you should not want to be.

Make your own decisions, believe what you want to believe.

Beliefs can be dangerous, but if you must have them, make sure they are yours and not something that someone else has engrained into you.

Dan @ Code Town

Religion was not created to DECEIVE people, as much as it was created to give people hope.


Religion was not created to allow people to live a "bad" way of life.


Religion has "bad" in it, but it is a "bad" that is religiously subjective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Religion, IMNSHO, was created to give certain people control over others.

Those who have recognized this fact have either become members of the clergy, or otherwise used religion and the gullibillity of those who follow religion, to further their own ends.

Dumbya is a perfect example of this. He professes great piety to gain the support of the gullible pious, but he practices none of the tenets of the faith he professes.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

He professes great piety to gain the support of the gullible pious, but he practices none of the tenets of the faith he professes.

---

But that is the "conerstone" of most religions. Do as I say, not as I do.

Xianity just makes it much, much easier - you can sin your a** off, but you will be forgiven if you truly believe that Jesus is the Savior. Therefore, any and all actions are allowed, as long as they are for the "greater good" - justification is easy under such a belief system.

I think it is clear, looking throughout history, that - for starters - religion was not at any time 'created'. Like any other human process, it evolved.

It should be clear enough that the original intent had nothing to do with control at all.

It is equally clear that the with each religion, the potnetial use as a political tool was very quickly recognized and abused by the type of people who recognize and abuse every such avenue.

Religion provides the means, and provides the 'justification', but the mankind supplies the deceit, control, and violence all on its own - as it has done with and without religion throughout the history of our species.

I'm not saying religion holds no fault - it certainly does. But it is absurd to suggest that religion was actually created for the purpoe of control.

quote:

---

Religion provides the means, and provides the 'justification', but the mankind supplies the deceit, control, and violence all on its own - as it has done with and without religion throughout the history of our species.

---

Amen to that! Spot on!

I dunno Dl, some clod back when we were just developing language doubtless found out he was not afraid of thunder and lightening while others were.

By claiming he was a friend of the gods which were bowling in the sky he found he could get the others to do things for him out of fear.

That is control pure and simple. Anthropologists doubtles have other theories, but mine makes more sense and doesn't suffer from political corrctness.

So he prepetuated the myth and today we have xianity.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

So he prepetuated the myth and today we have xianity.

---

Your logic takes leaps and bounds that astound me.

Religion was developed over time with the intent of giving people a possible solution to the timeless questions, Why are we here, where did we come from, etc. They were theories, ideas, thoughts... Ideologies before they were religions. I imagine that the first religions were just 'clubs' of people with like minded theories. It was the first bastard that insisted he was right and killed everyone who didn't agree with him that started the whole religious ball rolling to where we are today. To say that it was created to control is a very close minded viewpoint IMO... Religion wasn't created and probably wasn't intended for the purposes it is used for today. That doesn't mean that it isn't used for nefarious purposes or that any religion is spared the brush of human depravity though. If Religions were still Idealogies we'd all have one, the one that worked for us. Alas, they are no longer Ideologies but theories twisted into tools of control and only a few preach them... the rest just bleat and follow to the sheering shack.

GD

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

but mine makes more sense and doesn't suffer from political corrctness.

---

Makes more sense? I'm at a loss as to what you base that assessment on.

Your theory fits into a 'black-and-white' 'everything-fits-a-label' kind of view, where you promote only the ideas that support what you want, but it hardly makes sense in any actual context other than imaginary.

It's the kind of view that we have spent a great deal of time telling the religous doesn't work.

As for political correctness - obviously there are many people here who are not worried about being politically correct. It's not something that will make you stand out




(Edited by DL-44 on 11-02-2005 20:52)

Well DL, it is at least as good a theory as any other I have heard, including GD's well written response.

The PC comment was not aimed at anyone on these boards, but a general statement.

The point is, it makes as much sense to assume religions evolved from the basis I suggest as any other.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

The point is, it makes as much sense to assume religions evolved from the basis I suggest as any other

---

Which is very easy to say, of course...

Of course, basic truths tend to be that way.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Or pure fabrications =)

Be careful - the mentality you are displaying here is the same one that drives the Jades of this world...

^Exactly!

My people used a lot of our religion and Folklore to store information and survival tips in. These were easy to pass on to the next generation, in the form of stories and legends. Many of the stories are origin stories, or stories that explain how things came to be how they are now.
As DL pointed out so well, people mis-abuse such methods, to control others. But they didn't invent them, to do that. Rather, they take advantage of what is already existing, to do this. The same thing goes with politics. In fact, the same thing goes for any type of group dynamic involving humans.
So, more plausible, is that one heard some thunder and thought up a story about a great bird in the sky, that caused thunder from its wings in it's passings. Later, someone seized upon this, and used it to cower and control others by saying this great bird was the Thunderbird, a being of great power. If it was not apeased, then bad things would happen. This, timed correctly with some loud thunder, would tend to lend a bit of credibility to the words.
But I sincerely doubt that someone invented the story of the Thunderbird, for the sole intent of controlling and manipulating others.

Actually, Dio, I think you're merely in need of a history lesson; not that I want to give one: please excuse me if any of the below information is wrong.

Some of the earliest signs of religious development are hand-paintings on cave walls, discovered in France in the 1970s. In them, pigment was blown onto the hand, creating an outline. Most scholars believe these primitive paintings demonstrated primitive magic as recognition of the supernatural and man's awareness of his insignificance in comparison to nature. This aspect of spirituality evolved to becoming the mystical, naturalistic religion of the Druids as it migrated north into Britain and Germania. The Druids developed an established matriarchal religion which explained man's relationship to nature - among other questions explored by religion.

Other religions developed similarly; think of the fertility/sun cults which developed into the Greek and Roman religions. Were these religions "established" by some power-mongering tyrant? A manipulative pedant-cum-priest? Why would Judaism, and Christianity, be any different? Many non-religious scholars believe Abrahams journey to Ur - one of the first Mesopotamian city-states (I know I use the world incorrectly, but I think it applies) to establish a monotheistic religion worshiping a "sun god" - inspired him to beget "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense.

I get the sense that you have not read the Bible, yet you criticize it heavily. The Jewish religion evolved to the point where it required reform. It became a political system no longer dedicated to answering religion's questions but instead fulfilling your description of religion. However this was not always the case, as much of the Old Testament describes. Jesus had no pretensions of grandeur in the human sense. Nor did the apostles. Although I do not believe Jesus to be divine, the Bible describes him as a reformer who recognized the corruption and decadence of the Jewish church. Early church writers describe their religion ("Christianity") as an inspirational, accepting, and emancipating, religion. Not one of politics and power. Those developments did not occur until later.

Dio, although you make some good points, your assumptions about religion are unwarranted and untrue. Religion answers questions, very base questions, which arise when one analyzes him or herself in relationship to the world. Why am I here? What is beyond me? What is there that I cannot see? etcetera. Is this not what Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, etcetera, all describe?

Thanks all for the elightenment.

I suspect WS, someone had come up with a theory about thunder and lightening before your people possibly crossed the landbridge and long before the Roman or Greek civilizations.

That different peoples may have used those myths for different purposes I don't disagree.

I confess I have not read any versions of the bible since I was much younger, neither have I re-read the encyclopedia. So what? The enclycopedia at least contained some facts.

Perhaps mythology/religion was not originally conceived as a control method. However, I maintain my belief it became one very quickly afterwards and has sustained that principle raison d'etre ever since.

Oh yes, it is dressed up in fine apparel, high sounding words, goals and ambitions, but it umtimately comes down to people like jade who simply want to control the lives of others based on their own narrow, ignorant and uninformed points of view.

I disagree religions provide answers for anything. They purport to, but nothing they claim is, in any way, provable. Therefore, at best they provide a theory on what may be the case. More often, in what they want you to believe is the case.

Furthermore, there are more people than me here who either doubt or at least question, the historical existance of that fella xist. Which casts a whole lot more doubt on the entire issue of that particular religion.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Interesting article;

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18religion.htm

They have their own 'church'; http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I confess I have not read any versions of the bible since I was much younger, neither have I re-read the encyclopedia. So what? The enclycopedia at least contained some facts.

---

I don't really have time to respond in full right now, but to the best of my knowledge, the Bible is very historically accurate. I'd reccomend "Evidence that Demand a Verdict" by Josh McDowell on this subject. He shows that many common criticisms fall flat. However he makes the rather irritating assumption that the Bible is a priori true; he is trying to resolve conflict people have with the Bible, and does so admirably. It is a well-researched, legalistic book which takes a logical stance on most every issue it approaches.

I suggest you look through these threads throughly for further reference material on the subject of the authenticity of the various "bibles".

Having done so, you may wish to revisit your above statement.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

cfb said:

but to the best of my knowledge, the Bible is very historically accurate.

---

Then I would recommend much further research!

quote:

---

cfb said:
I'd reccomend "Evidence that Demand a Verdict" by Josh McDowell on this subject.

---

again:

I would most definately *not* recommend reading anything by Josh McDowell unless you are well versed enough in the facts to see what an idiot he is and how wrong he is with almost everything he has to say!

Can't locate the links I had in mind to post for you, but a quick google search turned this page up which seems to have a good start -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

That's definitely enlightening; thank you DL. I haven't read the entirety of the web page yet, but it's interesting to see McDowell discredited. I always thought "Evidence" was considered reputable, regardless of one's belief in Jesus. It doesn't negate the previous post (before that one), however. What I had read was that no "historical fact" i.e. non-anecdotal piece of canon, could be refuted. I'll have to look into this more.

quote:

---

I don't really have time to respond in full right now, but to the best of my knowledge, the Bible is very historically accurate. I'd reccomend "Evidence that Demand a Verdict" by Josh McDowell on this subject. He shows that many common criticisms fall flat.

---

Besides that which DL has pointed out, I suggest checking out Talk : Origins for a more thought-out view (though it mostly deals with Creation vs Evolution, much discussed andpresented there has to do with Bible "accuracy", etc).

cfb, I am pretty appalled that you first admonish Dio with such as "you haven't really read the Bible, have you?" - in an attempt to undermine his position, and then you turn around and use soeming like "Evidence that Demand a Verdict" by Josh McDowell in the same breath.

That's like saying "You idiot! The Moon is not made of cheese! It is made of pudding!"

I've read both books; "Evidence" appeared logical, although flawed, which I admitted. The Bible appears logical, but is also flawed.

I said: "the Bible is very historically accurate," meaning in terms of dates, places, and events. I also meant the Bible as a whole, and as a historical record. Not as a religious document. I did not, however, realize many of the flaws in McDowells reasoning. I am finishing reading through the site now. I will admit it has been some time since I read the book - however I couldn't have been younger than 12 or 13 when I read it, and I am 17 now - and it was presented to me by some overzealous parents. Although I no longer believe in God, or Jesus, it must have stuck with me. That doesn't negate that, while heavily flawed, it does have some merit, and that presenting that merit is never unreasonable.

And again, I made a mistake; I don't think it should detract from my argument if it is acknowledged as that.

When you mention the Bible, do you also consider the New Testament, as well? Or just the Old Testament?

I believe very little of the bible has been proven accurate in any regard.

Kudo's to you CFB for keeping an open mind.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

cfb said:

I said: "the Bible is very historically accurate," meaning in terms of dates, places, and events. I also meant the Bible as a whole, and as a historical record.

---

Which is how I took it, can't speak for anyone else.

The bible has not been shown to be accurate in any real sense.

It mentions names that we know were real in some cases.

It mentions places that we know were real in some cases.

It makes reference to events that may be real in some cases.

But there is certainly no cohesive historical accuracy threading the bible together. It cannot be said, in any sense, that any portion of the bible is "very historically accurate".

At best, it can be said that the bible has some historical generalities that reference some real places/people or events.

quote:

---

DL-44 said: At best, it can be said that the bible has some historical generalities that reference some real places/people or events.

---

Yes and I think much the same can be said about astrology, tarot readings and phrenology. Personally, I prefer phrenology.

quote:

---

it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

---

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/overview.htm


=)

DL: I guess my approach was different than yours; when I read Thucydides, Caeser, Plato, or any classical writer, my approach is: "what I read is true, until proven wrong." I try to see the Bible in a similar light.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:Religion was developed over time with the intent of giving people a
possible solution to the timeless questions, why are we here, where did we come from, etc.

---

I disagree. People in earlier times, believed whatever they wanted to believe. THEN someone came along and made it a "Religion". And that "intent", was not simply to answer "timeless questions".

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:I imagine that the first religions were just 'clubs' of people with like minded theories.

---

"Like Minded Theories"? So is this a split from the, "Higher Intellectual clubs", ? I mean these early "clubs" must have started with reality, or facts, right?

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:It was the first bastard that insisted he was right and killed everyone who didn't agree with him that started the whole religious ball rolling to where we are today.

---

1) Why do feel that it was "religion" that created this "bastard"?
2) Why do you consider that this creation was done by a "bastard"?
3) Exlain your idea of a "bastard"? [quote]

quote:

---

cfb said:, my approach is: "what I read is true, until proven wrong." I try to see the Bible in a similar light.

---

Why? Meaning why are you so adamant with your approach to the "bible" for truth, than say,..........................."Shawshank Redemption"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Perhaps because I was raised religious and am feeling the lingering side-effects of that? Who knows. Is it a mistake? That can be argued.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

I disagree. People in earlier times, believed whatever they wanted to
believe. THEN someone came along and made it a "Religion". And that "intent",
was not simply to answer "timeless questions".

---

I suppose I can agree with that... in principle. Your 'someone' that came along and made it a religion ties into my 'bastard' comment later on.

quote:

---

Zynx said:
"Like Minded Theories"? So is this a split from the, "Higher Intellectual
clubs", ? I mean these early "clubs" must have started with reality, or facts,
right?

---

No actually. almost nothing we deal with in religion is due to facts or reality. It is the 'perceived' reality that drives the faithful. Oh.. and it doesn't take intelligence for people with the same ideas to get together and talk about what they think.

quote:

---

Zynx said:
1) Why do feel that it was "religion" that created this "bastard"?

---

I don't. I didn't say I did. I said:

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:
It was the first bastard that insisted he was right and killed everyone who didn't agree with him that started the whole religious ball rolling to where we are today.

---

I think it was this person that started 'religion' as I define it today. You've got it backwards.

quote:

---

Zynx said:
2) Why do you consider that this creation was done by a "bastard"?3) Exlain
your idea of a "bastard"?

---

Bastard... Asshole, a Son of a Bitch. I don't mean illigitimate child. You would define them as a 'bad person'. I define them as a social dissident. To be honest... this person who made religion, or religious theories work for them was probably an entrepreneurial genius. A bastard, but a genius all the same.

Now... because I know the question is coming...

Religion is the business engine by which a person or group of persons use a single theory or idea, often not their own, to manipulate the masses to gain control of vast volumes of money and/or influence in political arenas. Through the use of figureheads, icons, and fear of the unknown these few persons use religion to get the masses to carry their cause forth and spread the 'faith'... thus separating themselves from what they have wrought while reaping all of the benefits. As afore mentioned the purpose of this control is typically for monetary gain or it is a reach for power, rarely does it result in overall benefits for all mankind.

Yep... that pretty much sums it up for me.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 11-04-2005 22:08)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Xianity just makes it much, much easier - you can sin your a** off, but you will
be forgiven if you truly believe that Jesus is the Savior. Therefore, any and
all actions are allowed, as long as they are for the "greater good" -
justification is easy under such a belief system.

---

Although...you reap what you sow. And certain individuals are reaping negative public opinions from what they have sown...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said: I didn't say I did.

---

I apologize, I misunderstood you.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:To be honest... this person who made religion, or religious
theories work for them was probably an entrepreneurial genius. A bastard, but a genius all the same.

---

Shamans, or the elders in a society, were not bastards, or what have you, They were most respected. As for being a genius, I doubt that. They had wisdom passed down from group to group. Maybe your not going as far back into time as I am describing?

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:Now... because I know the question is coming...Religion is the business engine by which a person or group of persons use a single theory or idea, often not their own, to manipulate
the masses to gain control of vast volumes of money and/or influence in political arenas. Through the use of figureheads, icons, and fear of the unknown these few persons use religion to get the masses to carry
their cause forth and spread the 'faith'... thus separating themselves from what they have wrought while reaping all of the benefits. As afore mentioned the purpose of this control is typically for monetary gain or
it is a reach for power, rarely does it result in overall benefits for all mankind.

---

That would be "organized religion" right? I have seen first hand small town church produce amazing people who are not into the "business" of religion as you describe. I myself am disgusted with "religion" as a rule, but many times I have personally seen myself proven wrong. It's not a black and white issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 11-08-2005 01:00)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

quote:WebShaman said:Xianity just makes it much, much easier - you can sin your a** off, but you will be forgiven if you truly believe that Jesus is the Savior. Therefore, any and all actions are allowed, as long as they are for the "greater good" - justification is easy under such a belief system.Although...you reap what you sow. And certain individuals are reaping negative public opinions from what they have sown..."For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

---

Errr...not according to xianity - if you truly believe that Jesus is the Savior and died on the Cross for your sins, then you will NOT reap what you have sown, ultimately, according to xian belief.

And yes, certain individuals are reaping the negative public opinions for what they have sown. I see you are back to using your old name - any reason for that James?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Shamans, or the elders in a society, were not bastards, or what have you,
They were most respected. As for being a genius, I doubt that. They had wisdom
passed down from group to group. Maybe your not going as far back into time as I
am describing?

---

Actually. I'm going much further back in time. But even unto the shaman and druids there isn't what I would call a religion. Ideology, theology... Yes... religion... No.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

That would be "organized religion" right? I have seen first hand small
town church produce amazing people who are not into the "business" of religion
as you describe. I myself am disgusted with "religion" as a rule, but many times
I have personally seen myself proven wrong. It's not a black and white
issue.

---

Quite correct and yet, not. Were those people products of the religion or themselves? Was religion a required component for them to be 'amazing' people? My viewpoint is no. It is the Ideology behind the religion that gives people the drive, the incentive. Most 'religious' people I know aren't religious at all. They either follow what they want to follow and don't do what the religion says to do, but call themselves <pick a religion>. Or claim to follow what the religion says to follow explicitly but stop when it's inconvenient. Neither of those people are following a religion. They are following an Ideal. One is more despicable then the other from my POV but that's just me. But... I will concede... I do intend to mean organized religion... Just understand that, while smaller than those religions we talk about here most often... they still have the same goal they just aren't as successful at it.

GD

The earlist religious concepts of beliefs, came from those who had wisdom to heal, wisdom of the seasons, and the wisdom of travel during those times, not to mention the wisdom to create early tools!

A persons ability to do these things, within an early human tribe, becames the basis for a groups beliefs. And those beliefs gave rise to,..................................................................."religion".

What time frame R U suggesting?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:I'm going much further back in time.

---

quote:

---

ZynxWhat time frame R U suggesting?

---

Come, "Sitting Bull", give us a, "Nudge Nudge".

(Edited by Zynx on 11-09-2005 01:51)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Come, "Sitting Bull", give us a, "Nudge Nudge".

---

Dude... it was only a day and a half at best. Talking about things that 'gave rise to religions' and equating them to religions is circular logic and defeats itself. I'm talking about those things that were prior to the actual organizations of religions that we know today. Those things that 'gave rise to religion' but were just ideas. I'm certain that I could convince people that may way was the right way and that everyone should follow me to be 'good people'. I would be developing a religion around MY personal belief... that doesn't make my belief a religion. Belief in deity or spirits or anything else doesn't equate a religious belief. Lots of people believing those things still won't equate a religious following until there is a leader/follower relationship. Religion begins with some 'salesman' selling an idea to people with extended warranties and service agreements attached. The warranties and service agreements have nothing to do with the Idea that was sold but serves to hold the followers to the religion and the religious leader. Until that 'salesman' exists and succeeds... everything is just thoughts and ideas.

As I stated earlier... I am focusing on religions as they are today(what else is there to focus on?).

I think where the disconnect is between us is that I think every religion is 'organized' and you do not. Is that basically correct?

GD

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:I think where the disconnect is between us is that I think every
religion is 'organized' and you do not. Is that basically correct?

---

Yes. Basically. While I again remind everyone, I abhor religion in and of itself, I have seen it work for the betterment of people. Was it organized? Yes, but only as organized as to be fruitful for the SMALL masses.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:... it was only a day and a half at best.

---

Sorry, I found the discussion worthy. But please take your time.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:I'm talking about those things that were prior to the actual organizations of religions that we know today. Those things that 'gave rise to religion' but were just ideas. I'm
certain that I could convince people that may way was the right way and that everyone should follow me to be 'good people'. I would be developing a religion around MY personal belief... that doesn't make my
belief a religion.

---

I suggest that the early idea of "beliefs" came from what man could not explain. And when man came up with answers to these questions that he could not explain, that individual became their spiritual leader. Now after time, that leader passed down his knowledge to others, and then it became a belief structure. A belief structure that was followed by the leaders of that clan. This "Majic" was the earliest conception of religion. This is where I believe "religion" started.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:Belief in deity or spirits or anything else doesn't equate a religious belief.

---

Yes it does. It is exactly these ideas that inspired early man.



4 the sake of discussion GD, I am "thinking", about the origin of religion, based on man existing, over 100 thousand years in the past. Yet perhaps I have gone far to back in time?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 11-10-2005 03:03)

The time frame is really unimportant. The same process happens all over throughout time but to clarify... while you are 'thinking' about the origins of religion... I'm talking about the ideas and beliefs that came before that. It may have spawned religion but it wasn't religion yet. That's what I'm trying to point out to you, that you blatently ignored BTW, is that you are equating things that 'gave rise to religion' WITH 'religion'. If those things that eventually evolved into religion were already religion then nothing 'gave rise' to it at all. Thats what I meant about it being a self defeating arguement. Inspiration can't equal the result of that inspiration. The result of that inspiration is something else.

If theorizing about things that we don't understand equals a religious belief then all of the scienctists and philosophers are SOL and apparently believers in religion. This idea, I suppose, supports the camp that believes that Atheism is a religion.

You seem to have gotten into your head that this control and drive for power and profit I spoke of in my definition of religion is 'bad' for mankind. I said it is rarely done for the benefit of mankind. That doesn't mean it can't benefit mankind. That just isn't the primary goal. Some religious leaders believe what they preach... others don't. Some(most I would think) religions are run without malice but they all work towards one goal. A singular society of followers of one particular faith to the exclusion of others with all of the power and control that entails. It's a market of faith with us as the consumers. These religions are trying to put each other out of business and hostile takeovers don't appear to be finished yet.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 11-11-2005 17:38)

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:The time frame is really unimportant.

---

I say WRONG! A "time frame" will show an exact point of understanding.

GD, show us some specifics!

I say this;
1) A single persons beliefs was realized.
2) That persons beliefs was discussed within a group of individuals.
This is a path, that MIGHT have allowed others to CREATE a "religion". No proof, but the possibility exists.

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:It may have spawned religion but it wasn't religion yet.

---

Again, GD, show us some specifics!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "