Religion Is A Pop-Culture

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

yew pore soles.

this is series stuf.

u needa go ripent four al yew have sed in thes thred, and ect liek normil godfeering selfs.

tawking abuot sich thinks, xev ind avatar, yew are soliling the gud theest neym, so wee wil lews the batel and the wer agenst the athest. be verey carful and rimember yew our gods servints, wiling to convins evil pegins and athest of one trew religin, cristinitey.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar......

I just like to think myself as being an atheist, and then play 'God's advocate'. It takes at least some openmindedness.

How is it possible to play the part of an atheist effectively?

And what is the advantage of playing this role?

Do you think it is possible to convince someone of something they do not want to be convinced of?

You sound open, hope we can talk about the bible soon. After all it is a religion forum.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[(Q)]

Quoth Jenyar

Think about it: When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat?

Scientific proof is what seperates our reality from the fantasy of religion.

No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.

Thats rather asinine considering all Gods rewards are for when you're dead.

 

[Xev]

Thats rather asinine considering all Gods rewards are for when you're dead.

Extra asinine considering that God is dead Himself.

But of course you don't need to live.

 

[notme2000]

Jan:

How have you come to believe this?

Because the basis of religion always seems to cater to that ONE need.

Isn’t that the same belief in a godless/secular society?

Uh oh, you've only helped me prove my point. The fact that humanity has created a similar set of rules in society shows that humans need this sort of redemption/reward so it would make perfect sence to create an all-seeing God. The difference is here on earth, not every one who has killed has been punished. Some get away with it completely, some get away with it through persuasion or money (can we say Oj Simpson?). And while doing good in school gets you rewards, I mean good in the moral sence, in which you are not rewarded. Look at hippies. They are good people, though not wholly realistic... But they get treated like crap. No overlying justice... Humanity can't accept this and creates a supreme judge, God.

The body is like clothes.

I believe the body is clothes, but only to our brain. And I believe our brain dies too.

Whether or not you believe that, doesn’t really matter, it is actually the correct way to view the soul (as told by authorities), if you can understand that, then I guarantee your understanding of religion will improve.

That is what I believe the soul to be, I just don't believe it to exist.

That is not the point of real religion, real religion is education, it teaches one to understand the “self” in relation to God.

Never thought of it that way.

How do you think I would fare?

Not to well. I did not fare to well as a christian. I could not surrendor myself to someone I had no reason to trust. Before you say he died for us, I would die for him. Not because he is God's son, but I'd die for any of my fellow man, if required. I don't see any requirement to surrendor to a dead man. You must realize before you get defensive, I see Jesus as a very cool guy, but that's it. And there's been plenty of very cool people. You're probably very cool. But I'm not going to surrender myself to you. Get my point?

So you think you are neutral, as I said religion is education. If you never went to school, learned to read or write, do you think your position would be neutral?

I believe religion to be education of a lie. If I did not go to school I'd still be neutral. Neutral is an unmoving an-altered state. Education is not. I would not be educated, but I'd still be neutral.

Anxiety comes when people start to lose their youth and lustre, they will only be truly satisfied when the ageing process stops.

Who said the truth has to be satisfying?

But that doesn’t make anything better, people are more anxious than ever.

Probably cause of the rate of change this generation faces.

But can science stop disease, period? If it cannot do these things, then what is its use outside of sense extentions?

Understanding

not the modern ones who try and kill God in the minds of the innocent people by using simple tricks.

I never tried to kill God. I watched him die as I learnt more and more.
Jenyar:

Everything stays the same. Except yourself.

Wouldn't that mean that you are becoming wrong. The only thing that changes is your beliefs... So who says that makes them right? Not trying to piss anyone off here, just for the sake of debate.

When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat?

Fundamentally, nothing matters. We are but humans with a perspective, we can be happy or sad with our surroundings, but they will never change. All we can change is our perspective, and so God was born.

No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.

Concider the possibility there is no meaning to life but the meaning YOU give it, not what God gives it.

 

[Jenyar]

I'd talk about the Bible anytime you want, Jan. Both as a book and as a message...

I guess I can understand what makes an atheist just as little as an atheist can understand what makes a Christian. But the good thing is that we can try, isn't it?

Anyway, the Bible says itself that it cannot be understood using conventional wisdom, i.e. pure scientific or philosophical method. So I propose that religion is needs a 'third way of thinking', one that should be measured and investigated on its own merit. The 'science vs. religion' debate is an argument that can only be productive when they accept each other's realities. 'Philosophy' is the way of the mind, 'Science' is the way of the body, and 'religion' is the way of God. These destinctions should be as useful as de Bono's thinking Hats. That way we are forced to think laterally for solutions instead of blindly following what we already believe is true. If Philosophy and Science can co-exist, I can't see why there should be no place for religion as well, except that it presents notions that are alien to the other two, such as the death of 'self', and of course, the belief in God.

You don't need to believe in Einstein's theories in order for them to be true (or not). Science is a study of something that is already in place. Philosophy is a study of a mind we don't understand, using pseudo-scientific methods. Religion is the study of God, using your own life as guinea-pig. People could believe any combination of the three, the truth as it suits the individual. That is why, from a neutral perspective (nods to notme), it would seem futile to believe in any of those three (you could take it further and become an anarchist, refusing to believe in education as an institution as well). If everything is in a constant state of chaos, and nature tends towards entropy - the natural path from a neutral position would be one that leads to, say it with me, death. You can't deny the reality of death. But why does death even have to exist? (Hello Buddhism). Voila, we're in the realm of religion.

OK. I can only speak from a Christian POV, since I have just a general knowledge of any other religion. Christian belief is one that works backwards. It turns everything on its head. Living becomes dying, dying becomes living - it's a strange and alien paradigm. It's either madness (i.e. chaos and nothing) or there is some kind of movement. Hello Christians. We live now as an affirmation of what, in a sense, has already happened.

I'll leave it at that for now, before someone spontaneously awards me a PhD just to keep me silent.

 

[Jan Ardena]

notme2000.......

Because the basis of religion always seems to cater to that ONE need.

If you read religious texts, you will find that is not the basis of religion, it is much deeper than that. Religion is distributed according to time, place and circumstance.

Preliminary maths and advance maths is maths, but taught according to the level of the consciousness of the person. Religion is no different, it gives very simple accounts of what God and life are, because the idea is to attract the mind.
On the other hand it gives seriously deep and complicated understanding of the very Personality of God and the process of life and creation etc, that is not to say that the simpler explanations are in any way different in essence.

You seem like an intelligent chap, maybe you need to see something a little more scientific than what is in the Bible. The irony is, when you start to understand the science and philosophy of God consciousness, you develop a deeper understanding of the Bible and Qur’an.

The fact that humanity has created a similar set of rules in society shows that humans need this sort of redemption/reward so it would make perfect sence to create an all-seeing God.

What makes you think humanity created this method?
As far as I can tell, this has always been the way.

Humanity can't accept this and creates a supreme judge, God.

At what point did this occur?

I just don't believe it to exist.

That’s fair enough.

I could not surrendor myself to someone I had no reason to trust.

I can see your point, neither could I.

Before you say he died for us….

First and foremost, he died.
The question is, why did he die?
Because he taught God-consciousness?
Why should somebody be put to death because of that?
It is not that he came to "die for us," he dedicated his whole life to us as an example, death occurs naturally, it is the way.

Get my point?

Yes.

I believe religion to be education of a lie.

If you like, next time I can put up some quotes from Jesus or Muhammad (pboh), and we can scrutinize their teachings and see if it really is a lie. Just say the word.

Of course if you are talking about the “institution” known throughout the world as “religion,” then I can see where you are coming from.

Who said the truth has to be satisfying?

Truth is the most satisfying thing, as it is never changing. You can set your watch by the truth.
Sure it might be a little bitter at the start, but like any medicine, it will eventually improve your condition, and everything becomes clear, original.

We know sugar is sweet, but to a man suffering from jaundice, it is bitter, this is because of his condition. A course of anti-biotics or whatever, follow the instructions of the authority (doctor), and he will be as right as rain.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar......

Hello Christians. We live now as an affirmation of what, in a sense, has already happened.

That is a mysteriously interesting point, would you care to elaborate?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

In essence

There's a lot on this, but one example: Jesus died 2000 years ago for our sins. But mankind has done quite a bit of sinning since then. But He doesn't have to die for them again. He promised to come again, but to a new kingdom. The same with the promise of a new kingdom. The Israelites got Canaan as the promised land, but that doesn't mean the promise has been fulfilled and Christians have nothing to look forward to.

When Jesus died He reversed the world order, from leading to physical death to leading to spiritual life. You can't just stay where you are - stagnation is the same as dying.

So we live with a promise that has already been fulfilled. Since we have already been saved from death, it becomes more and more useless to sin - you don't really want to, and when you do it bugs you. When you ask for forgiveness you know He has already given it (he knew you'd ask It doesn't mean fishes suddenly become birds, by some miracle - but swimming upstream becomes a viable option. Being Christian cannot be an excuse for escapism, because you're not escaping, you're just living with the freedom of knowing that you are already free. There's nothing as liberating, I can tell you from experience.

 

[(Q)]

Jenyar proposes:

Anyway, the Bible says itself that it cannot be understood using conventional wisdom, i.e. pure scientific or philosophical method.

True, science and philosophy cannot explain fairy tales and fantasies.

So I propose that religion is needs a 'third way of thinking', one that should be measured and investigated on its own merit.

It already has its own way of thinking; irrationality.

The 'science vs. religion' debate is an argument that can only be productive when they accept each other's realities.

Unfortunately, religion is not a reality, it is a fantasy. How does one "accept" anothers fantasy ?

If Philosophy and Science can co-exist, I can't see why there should be no place for religion as well, except that it presents notions that are alien to the other two, such as the death of 'self', and of course, the belief in God.

It also presents notions of fantasy and make-believe. Fairy tales cannot co-exist with realities.

Christian belief is one that works backwards. It turns everything on its head. Living becomes dying, dying becomes living - it's a strange and alien paradigm. It's either madness (i.e. chaos and nothing) or there is some kind of movement.

True, fantasies usually do turn realities upside-down and backwards however, with reality, living is living and dead is dead. Those who choose denial will waste their lives praying to gods in the hope of some fantasy after-life of strawberries and cream, or whatever. Of course, they will never know of this after-life because..... hey, they're dead. The only "after-life party" they experience will be a party for all the little wormies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar......

Jesus died 2000 years ago for our sins.

What exactly do you mean by that?

He promised to come again, but to a new kingdom.

How will we be able to recognize him?

Since we have already been saved from death, it becomes more and more useless to sin

How have we been saved from death, when death is all around?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

tiassa....

I would propose the following, though: It is evidence of one True God that people have created

How would it be possible to create a one true God?

The whole of what people hope for transcends mundane characterization, and so they compress and mythicize it.

Basically, people want to be happy, wouldn’t you say?
If they are told there is no God, just eat, drink and be merry, here’s some money, why should they be interested in a one true God?

These things are good, those are bad, so to speak.

I disagree, we see laws which when transgressed, has a degridating effect on the individual soul, therefore rules are put in place in order to save the individual from such reactions.

the many manifestations of fire familiar to the community--may have lent to early speculation

This is why you cannot intellectualise spirituality.

So in that sense, I think it is possible to establish that the common aspects of diverse religions aspire toward one true something, but what that something turns out to be is its own mystery.

Strange that, you would prefer a “mystery” instead of a one true God.
I still don’t understand your spiritual stance, you say you are a theist, but you cannot accept God.


Love

Jan Ardena

 

[Tiassa]

Jan Ardena

How would it be possible to create a one true God?

I'm of the opinion that people create gods. Frankly, I think science would back me on that to a certain extent, but that's beside the point. After all, it is my opinion. And, just like one cannot pretend to know the whole of God by reading a sacred text, one cannot create the whole of God by simply adhering to one religion. However, when we compare the gods, compare the religions, the laws given by those gods, and so forth, we still see a certain hint of a singular truth. If humans create their minor deities, then humans also create the perception of the whole. You have examined mystical traditions, have you not? You are aware, are you not, of a condition of God that is bigger than any one religion the mysticism might work toward? People create the framework of what that is; the "True God" created by people is merely the theoretic pure expression of living values as relates to human perception.

I disagree, we see laws which when transgressed, has a degridating effect on the individual soul, therefore rules are put in place in order to save the individual from such reactions.

I would agree with you except for the fact that there are many silly laws which need not be. As far as the sacred texts are concerned, though, there are reasons for the laws. I like to use the Hebrews in the desert as an example, and I'm known to use the punch line, "We'll forgive them for not inventing microscopes."

The application of laws from any one religion is not entirely arbitrary. Some of those decisions do depend on the circumstances. For instance, if there was no such thing as witches, then there would not be a "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", such as we see in Christianity.

Nonetheless, I don't see how allowing a witch to live is degrading to the soul. Nor do I see how mandated silence based on gender is going to uplift the soul at all.

Yes, I'm picking on Christianity. The larger point, though, is that some of the rules are pretty stupid. Thus, these are good, those are bad, so to speak.

This is why you cannot intellectualise spirituality.

Hear, hear!

Strange that, you would prefer a “mystery” instead of a one true God.
I still don’t understand your spiritual stance, you say you are a theist, but you cannot accept God

I don't think the whole of what God has come to represent for humans, and the whole of what the existence of God implies can be contained by any one person. Therefore, God remains unknown. There is the simple mystery. Kind of like the idea that learning scientific perspectives is a way of understanding God's miraculous creation, as some would have it. What it is cannot be known, the mystery persists. In the context you seem to imply by my preferring a mystery, I do believe that exploring the mystery is a far better option than declaring an idol and falling to my knees.

I am a theist because my integrity demands it. Once presented with an idea of God that I could accept, well ...? What am I supposed to do then, lie to myself? Just because I won't kowtow to a shoebox deity such as IHVH/Jesus is no reason for confusion. Very simply, I'm not about to be so irresponsible as to declare that God is or isn't anything. I'll talk about what is apparent, what is inferred, what is possible according to what dogma ... but I will not claim to hold any truth beyond the simple phrases God is and God is that which is greater than we might perceive. Neither one can particularly be argued with because neither one means much of anything.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[notme2000]

What makes you think humanity created this method?

Since the beginning of humanity, not since the beginning of time. In my opinion.

At what point did this occur?

I can't say for sure, but I don't think cave men had a God. I may be wrong.

If you like, next time I can put up some quotes from Jesus or Muhammad (pboh), and we can scrutinize their teachings and see if it really is a lie. Just say the word.

I think Jesus preached a very powerful message, no doubt from me there. The lie being a God, or that Jesus is God's son. I think he was a very deep person, like many of us here. But he had the guts to do something about it. That made him admirable, and people praised him, and turned him in to the basis of a religion. The messages Jesus, and other strong religious figures, have delivered, are incredibly true. But instead of looking at him as God's son, why not look at him as our potential... I think that would be more productive.

Truth is the most satisfying thing, as it is never changing. You can set your watch by the truth.

True enough, in that sence, what I believe to be true is satisfying. Knowing I understand my surroundings to a certain degree, and continue to strive to improve, that is very satisfying. But I mean it doesn't satisfy the needs religion does (other that the one need I just mentioned, which both athiesm and theism have in common).
Look forward to your reply!

 

[Jenyar]

Jesus was crucified because he said he was the messiah. Then it became dark for three days, so that the people who thought he was a fraud began to doubt.

His life is undeniable. And he wouldn't have died if He hadn't maintained that there was a God (or that He was the son of that God). Even Pilate wanted to pardon him. So if you recognise that Jesus existed, but lied every step of the way, how would he have been able to lead such a believable life? Judaism, Islam also recognises Jesus as who he said he was, a prophet. Christianity is the only religion that says He died for exactly the reason he said was going to die.

 

[Xev]

Jenyer:

Judaism, Islam also recognises Jesus as who he said he was, a prophet. Christianity is the only religion that says He died for exactly the reason he said was going to die.

Judaism is a single branch? When the fuck did this happen?

Since when were Jews able to agree on a standard for Judaism?

And show me where "Judaism recongises Jesus as who he said he was".

Yet another Christian trying to claim Judaism as its own. As if Judaism has not outstripped your johnnie-come-lately of a religion many times over! As if your parasitism does not prove the structure you parasitize to be more extrordinary than your king of rags and tatters.

Pathetic.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think cave men had a God. I may be wrong.

Notme:

They obviously had supernatural beliefs. They put a great deal of care into burying their dead, and there are talismans and suchlike that have been excavated.

I personally believe religion evolved out of magic, but this is another topic in itself.

 

[Jenyar]

I did generalise, but because it wasn't the point. I mean some Jews recognise Jesus at least as a historical figure (Yeshua), but probably don't particarly like him because he made some scathing remarks about Judaism (although he was a Jew himself).

Jews are still waiting for OT prophesies to become fulfilled, and yes they are scattered. Christians, even in Jesus' time, were drawn mostly from non-Jewish nations (and still are).

Jesus was certainly never accepted within his lifetime as a political or religious leader by any majority of the Israelite nation. Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity did not start until after the death of its principal prophet. So only when Jesus died, did he fulfill his life's work. That means his death is the significant event. Christianity did not succeed or envelop Judaism, it is like Judaism with its prophesies fulfilled.

 

[Jan Ardena]

tiassa....

Frankly, I think science would back me on that to a certain extent, but that's beside the point.

Modern science maybe, but then they would be compelled to prove it, which they cannot and so remains in the corridors of mental speculation.

If humans create their minor deities, then humans also create the perception of the whole.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but you do not know for sure whether these are created, and there is no reason to create God.

"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live",

I am not aware of this, could you tell me where I could find it?

The larger point, though, is that some of the rules are pretty stupid.

Such as?

I do believe that exploring the mystery is a far better option than declaring an idol and falling to my knees.

A mystery is relative, what is a mystery to me, maybe plain and simple to you. By and large a mystery is only a mystery if you don’t know. Intelligent people just don’t declare an idol and fall to their knees, an intelligent person tries and understand how things work, the system of laws, and realise them through self-realisation.
Knowledge is only pure when it becomes a part of our expression, acquiring pure knowledge has a profound effect upon the individual, once it is revealed your life changes, you cannot revert back to your old ways. There are many types of knowledge, information being one, but these only serve to gain pure knowledge, understanding.

I'll talk about what is apparent, what is inferred, what is possible according to what dogma ...

But you say time and time again, that people created God, when you have no real proof or reason (AFAICS), other than one of a more personal nature. Isn’t that a kind of dogma?

Neither one can particularly be argued with because neither one means much of anything.

In a way tiassa, I agree with you, but I’m not sure if I agree with your sentiment.

Does that make sense?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

notme2000.......

Since the beginning of humanity, not since the beginning of time. In my opinion.

When was the beginning of humanity?

The lie being a God, or that Jesus is God's son.

So when Jesus says “you must love the Lord thy God with all your heart” is he lying?
If so then what is the “power” in his message when you said, “I think Jesus preached a very powerful message….?”

But he had the guts to do something about it

Do something about what?

(other that the one need I just mentioned, which both athiesm and theism have in common).

Even though you may be an “atheist” by definition, why do you regard yourself as an “atheist” or if you were a theist by definition, a “theist.” You are a person and when you express yourself, it is actually the “person” that expresses, a pure atheist or theist expression is a fallacy.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

A question

Can anyone tell me why there are no atheist hospitals, universities or charities? I always thought that people didn't need to be Christian to want to do good or help society, and that people who helped didn't have to be labeled Christian... a neutral position. But I have personally never encountered any non-religious organisation that where non-profit oriented.

Of course I can't take that to mean they don't exist. Which is why I ask...