Religion

So as not to sidetrack the thread bout the creationist text, im starting a general purpose thread for religion. I am not a religious person, but i must admit i do enjoy reading everyones interpretations and insights of religion. any and all religion.

i also like to ask questions from time to time about religious ideas/ideals/practices.

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1099311]The problem is, most of the major religions exclude the others in practice, and abhor the idea of not caring about their mythos any more than I should care about the Greek mythos or the Norse ones, which I find every bit as beautiful, and imminently more practical and useful.
[/QUOTE]

this is something ive always been curious about. for those with faith, what do you think about other religions? do you think they are just wrong? or is it not that strict of a line? what about religions that are so different from your own, do you or your church condemn them? i assume that changes from person to person. and is this generally apersonal thing or a thing that your faith teaches you to believe?

All religions stem from the same source ( well, almost all) and they are simply different expressions of that source ( that source being God).
Most religions will have very similar cores ( golden rule for example).
The only religions that are wrong are religions that advocate hate and violence, indifference and no compassion.

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1099342]All religions stem from the same source ( well, almost all) and they are simply different expressions of that source ( that source being God).
Most religions will have very similar cores ( golden rule for example).
The only religions that are wrong are religions that advocate hate and violence, indifference and no compassion.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking religions came from people…

I was seeing more differences than “similar cores”…

I was thinking that hate, violence and indifference are the basis of some religions that many people follow whether they are “good” or “bad” as defined by my opinions or fears/desires…

I don’t think it is very easy to nutshell and dismiss - but I won’t be back until tomorrow to hear how wrong that is…

[QUOTE=curenado;1099347]I was thinking religions came from people…

I was seeing more differences than “similar cores”…

I was thinking that hate, violence and indifference are the basis of some religions that many people follow whether they are “good” or “bad” as defined by my opinions or fears/desires…

I don’t think it is very easy to nutshell and dismiss - but I won’t be back until tomorrow to hear how wrong that is…[/QUOTE]

Where did people come up with these things? (religion)
Any religion that makes hate and violence their basis is wrong and not a subjective wrong either because what are the fruits of a religion that advocates hate and violence?
Simple- hate and violence, so unless the ultimate goal of that religion is to have their followers being hated and killed, they are wrong in their teachings.

Of course if the point is THAT then they are right, LOL !:smiley:

Generally those of my flock feel its the same path just different routes to the source

so this will seem like a strange question but:

does an ‘evil’ religion lose validity because its not ‘pure’? im going to use satanism as an extreme. i understand the extremity in difference of morality but does that necessarily invalidate them as a religion, isnt their belief based off of them feeling that their faith or that of another is true or false?

because they worship the other side, doesnt that make them just as valid since its from the same ‘source’ so to speak???

im just curious about this, and no i am not satanic.

its still a religion right?

[QUOTE=Lucas;1099358]so this will seem like a strange question but:

does an ‘evil’ religion lose validity because its not ‘pure’? im going to use satanism as an extreme. i understand the extremity in difference of morality but does that necessarily invalidate them as a religion, isnt their belief based off of them feeling that their faith or that of another is true or false?

because they worship the other side, doesnt that make them just as valid since its from the same ‘source’ so to speak???

im just curious about this, and no i am not satanic.

its still a religion right?[/QUOTE]

re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Yes, because you asked. Satanism is a religion.

Mind you, the Anton LaVey flavour of satanism is just hedonism pretending to be religion. lol

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1099372]Yes, because you asked. Satanism is a religion.

Mind you, the Anton LaVey flavour of satanism is just hedonism pretending to be religion. lol[/QUOTE]
There really isn’t a genuine version of satanism in the other sense

it all basically goes back to that crack pot lavey lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogon_people
Supposedly had advanced knowledge of astronomy; the existence of Sirius B, which they worshiped. These claims have some controversy among anthropologists.

Maya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_mythology
http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/popolvuh.html

Aztec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_mythology

Inca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_mythology

Zoroastrian creation myth

The Sikhs are really interesting for their seemingly progressive egalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_beliefs

Lets not forget the ancient rituals of festive cruelty; human and animal sacrifice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough

This one is my favorite.

Text of The Golden Bough
In this sacred grove there grew a certain tree round which at any time of the day, and probably far into the night, a grim figure might be seen to prowl. In his hand he carried a drawn sword, and he kept peering warily about him as if at every instant he expected to be set upon by an enemy. He was a priest and a murderer; and the man for whom he looked was sooner or later to murder him and hold the priesthood in his stead. Such was the rule of the sanctuary. A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he was himself slain by a stronger or a craftier.

The post which he held by this precarious tenure carried with it the title of king; but surely no crowned head ever lay uneasier, or was visited by more evil dreams, than his. For year in, year out, in summer and winter, in fair weather and in foul, he had to keep his lonely watch, and whenever he snatched a troubled slumber it was at the peril of his life. The least relaxation of his vigilance, the smallest abatement of his strength of limb or skill of fence, put him in jeopardy; grey hairs might seal his death-warrant. To gentle and pious pilgrims at the shrine the sight of him might well seem to darken the fair landscape, as when a cloud suddenly blots the sun on a bright day. The dreamy blue of Italian skies, the dappled shade of summer woods, and the sparkle of waves in the sun, can have accorded but ill with that stern and sinister figure. Rather we picture to ourselves the scene as it may have been witnessed by a belated wayfarer on one of those wild autumn nights when the dead leaves are falling thick, and the winds seem to sing the dirge of the dying year. It is a sombre picture, set to melancholy music—the background of forest showing black and jagged against a lowering and stormy sky, the sighing of the wind in the branches, the rustle of the withered leaves under foot, the lapping of the cold water on the shore, and in the foreground, pacing to and fro, now in twilight and now in gloom, a dark figure with a glitter of steel at the shoulder whenever the pale moon, riding clear of the cloud-rack, peers down at him through the matted boughs.

The strange rule of this priesthood has no parallel in classical antiquity, and cannot be explained from it. To find an explanation we must go f*rther afield. No one will probably deny that such a custom savours of a barbarous age, and, surviving into imperial times, stands out in striking isolation from the polished Italian society of the day, like a primaeval rock rising from a smooth-shaven lawn. It is the very rudeness and barbarity of the custom which allow us a hope of explaining it. For recent researches into the early history of man have revealed the essential similarity with which, under many superficial differences, the human mind has elaborated its first crude philosophy of life. Accordingly, if we can show that a barbarous custom, like that of the priesthood of Nemi, has existed elsewhere; if we can detect the motives which led to its institution; if we can prove that these motives have operated widely, perhaps universally, in human society, producing in varied circumstances a variety of institutions specifically different but generically alike; if we can show, lastly, that these very motives, with some of their derivative institutions, were actually at work in classical antiquity; then we may fairly infer that at a remoter age the same motives gave birth to the priesthood of Nemi. Such an inference, in default of direct evidence as to how the priesthood did actually arise, can never amount to demonstration. But it will be more or less probable according to the degree of completeness with which it fulfils the conditions I have indicated. The object of this book is, by meeting these conditions, to offer a fairly probable explanation of the priesthood of Nemi.

I’m a Christian, but I have absolutely no problems with other religions. In fact, I think there is a lot that can be learned from other religions.

I’ve always considered other religions just a different route to the same destination.

Religion is inherently personal. I think that is something that a lot of Christians don’t pick up on, unfortunately. What others believe or do has no effect on my own.

I don’t understand how someone can even begin to think that someone else’s views or set of beliefs is wrong just because they aren’t the same as their own. Just makes no sense…

[QUOTE=JamesC;1099393]I’m a Christian, but I have absolutely no problems with other religions. In fact, I think there is a lot that can be learned from other religions.

I’ve always considered other religions just a different route to the same destination.

Religion is inherently personal. I think that is something that a lot of Christians don’t pick up on, unfortunately. What others believe or do has no effect on my own.

I don’t understand how someone can even begin to think that someone else’s views or set of beliefs is wrong just because they aren’t the same as their own. Just makes no sense…[/QUOTE]

When a set views is harmful to people, be it others or the adherents to said belief, then it can be viewed as wrong.
All religions advocate a “right” and a “wrong”.

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1099348]Any religion that makes hate and violence their basis is wrong and not a subjective wrong either because what are the fruits of a religion that advocates hate and violence?
Simple- hate and violence, so unless the ultimate goal of that religion is to have their followers being hated and killed, they are wrong in their teachings.[/QUOTE]

Which is one reason I’m Baptist. We don’t have a history of doing that.

Throughout history many religions have advocated killing non-believers and/or those of a different religion. Muslims still do it, for example. Catholics have done it many times (Crusades, Spanish Armada, the Inquisition), Mormons have a history of violence, and the Puritans burned those they deemed witches are all good examples. The Baptists have never done this, and I could not be part of a religion that called for violence in the name of their religion. Of course Hindus and Buddhists for example have not done it either, but those are not Christian religions, and I am a Christian.

[QUOTE=JamesC;1099393]I’m a Christian, but I have absolutely no problems with other religions. In fact, I think there is a lot that can be learned from other religions.

I’ve always considered other religions just a different route to the same destination.

Religion is inherently personal. I think that is something that a lot of Christians don’t pick up on, unfortunately. What others believe or do has no effect on my own.

I don’t understand how someone can even begin to think that someone else’s views or set of beliefs is wrong just because they aren’t the same as their own. Just makes no sense…[/QUOTE]

Have you read any of LaVey’s stuff? lol I’m pretty sure you’d understand how someone can have a problem with those views because they advocate doing harm to others as part of their ritual and worship practices.

It makes perfect sense to reject the views of others that involve the need to do harm to others or the innocent. I am repulsed by those who wilfully harm others for no defensible reason.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1099398]Which is one reason I’m Baptist. We don’t have a history of doing that.

Throughout history many religions have advocated killing non-believers and/or those of a different religion. Muslims still do it, for example. Catholics have done it many times (Crusades, Spanish Armada, the Inquisition), Mormons have a history of violence, and the Puritans burned those they deemed witches are all good examples. The Baptists have never done this, and I could not be part of a religion that called for violence in the name of their religion. Of course Hindus and Buddhists for example have not done it either, but those are not Christian religions, and I am a Christian.[/QUOTE]

Westboro mean anything to you?

One thing though, the inquisition was aimed at christians ( or those that professed to be christian but someone said they weren’t) and not at non-believers.
The Spanish Armada had NOTHING to do with religion and the crusades were, as you know, a direct response to Islamic expansion.
BUT indeed, the official position of the Pope was that “killing was permissible”.
That *******.

Hindus and Buddhists HAVE commited acts of violence in the name of their religion.

Again, what people do is what PEOPLE do.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1099399]Have you read any of LaVey’s stuff? lol I’m pretty sure you’d understand how someone can have a problem with those views because they advocate doing harm to others as part of their ritual and worship practices.

It makes perfect sense to reject the views of others that involve the need to do harm to others or the innocent. I am repulsed by those who wilfully harm others for no defensible reason.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you there.

I was being much more general in my statement. I.E. Major world religions.

I don’t advocate harming innocents or anything of the like.

ok now this is going to be really stupid sounding i think to most people but why do a lot of the christians (i assume they are christians maybe not ) ‘bless me’ or tell me they are ‘blessed’? i honestly dont get it. i just want to know what thats all about. is that from a certain type of christianity?

sorry if i disrespect anyone with that question.

just so you know as they come up i’ll put all my stupid questions here, as long as people respond i’ll keep being stupid. :smiley:

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1099403]Westboro mean anything to you?[/QUOTE]

I know who they are. And no Baptist church accepts them. As you know, the Baptist religion is not one where every church/pastor has to be approved by a Pope, council, etc. Anyone can call themselves a Baptist. And Phelps is not calling for violence. He is celebrating deaths, yes, but not calling for his followers to actually kill anyone. And Phelps doesn’t use violence to achieve his goals, he uses the court system.

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1099403]The Spanish Armada had NOTHING to do with religion[/QUOTE]

Yes it did. The Catholic nation of Spain was trying to conquer the Protestant nation of England in the name of religion. The Catholic Church did not recognize Elizabeth I as the rightful monarch of England and they were furious she basically banned saying Mass. Also England supported the Protestants in the Netherlands who were hostile to Spain. Phillip II, the spanish king, openly championed Catholocism and that religion greatly influenced his policies.

Spain also murdered and enslaved the natives of the Americas in the name of the Catholic religion.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1099450]

Spain also murdered and enslaved the natives of the Americas in the name of the Catholic religion.[/QUOTE]

Actually they did it in the name of gold:D: Religion was merely used as an excuse to do it.

[QUOTE=Lucas;1099420]ok now this is going to be really stupid sounding i think to most people but why do a lot of the christians (i assume they are christians maybe not ) ‘bless me’ or tell me they are ‘blessed’? i honestly dont get it. i just want to know what thats all about. is that from a certain type of christianity?

sorry if i disrespect anyone with that question.

just so you know as they come up i’ll put all my stupid questions here, as long as people respond i’ll keep being stupid. :D[/QUOTE]

It just depends really.

Generally it is only meant with good intentions. Kind of like saying, “I wish you the best.”

However, it does tend to make people uncomfortable, especially if they aren’t Christians themselves. Just take it as a compliment as that’s what it is most of the time.

I have heard older people use it frequently right after insulting someone though. Sometimes they think that if they add that little “God Bless Her” it makes it less offensive. For example, “She’s as dumb as a bag of hammer, God Bless her.” It’s still rude, lol. Usually funny though…