Religion

[GTA36362355]

I do not call myself religious but I do appreciate some aspects of my religion, like festivals and lore. I am interested in the hindu mythology. Many ancient utopias and time periods are referenced in the stories. One of the more interesting topics is the yug cycle.

 

Yug in Hindu philosophy is the name of an epoch or era within a four age cycle. According to Hindu cosmology, life in the universe is created and destroyed once every 4.1 to 8.2 billion years, which is one full day (day and night) for Brahma. The lifetime of a Brahma himself may be between 40 billion and 311 trillion years. The cycles are said to repeat like the seasons, waxing and waning within a greater time-cycle of the creation and destruction of our universe. Like Summer, Spring, Winter and Autumn, each yuga involves stages or gradual changes which the earth and the consciousness of mankind goes through as a whole. A complete yuga cycle from a high Golden Age, called the Satya Yuga to a Dark Age, Kali Yuga and back again is said to be caused by the solar system's motion around another star.

 

According to the Laws of Manu, one of the earliest known texts describing the yugas, the length is 4800 years + 3600 years + 2400 years + 1200 years for a total of 12,000 years for one arc, or 24,000 years to complete the cycle (one precession of the equinox). There is no mention of a year of the demigods or any years longer than the solar, which is consistent with description in The Holy Science. However, the one debatable interpretation from the Srimad Bhagavatam states the following: "The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the demigods; the duration of the Dvāpara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Kali millennium is 1,200 years of the demigods... One year of the demigods is equal to 360 years of the human beings. The duration of the Satya-yuga is therefore 4,800 x 360, or 1,728,000 years. The duration of the Tretā-yuga is 3,600 x 360, or 1,296,000 years. The duration of the Dvāpara-yuga is 2,400 x 360, or 864,000 years. And the last, the Kali-yuga, is 1,200 x 360, or 432,000 years in total.". These 4 yugas follow a timeline ratio of (4:3:2:1).

 

The ages see a gradual decline of dharma, wisdom, knowledge, intellectual capability, life span, emotional and physical strength.

 

Satya Yuga:- Virtue reigns supreme. Human stature was 21 cubits. Average human lifespan was 100,000 years.

Treta Yuga: There was 3 quarter virtue & 1 quarter sin. Normal human stature was 14 cubits. Average human lifespan was 10,000 years.

Dvapara Yuga: There was 1 half virtue & 1 half sin. Normal human stature was 7 cubits. Average human lifespan was 1,000 years.

Kali Yuga: There is 1 quarter virtue & 3 quarter sin. Normal human stature is 3.5 cubits. Average human lifespan will be 100 years. Towards the end of the Yuga this will come down to 20 years.

 

While the long yuga count is the most popular it does not correlate to any known celestial motion found in the Astronomical Almanac. The value of 24,000 years is within 7% of the modern astronomical calculation of one full precession of the equinox of 25,772 years. This phenomenon is observed as the stars moving retrograde across the sky at about 50 arc seconds per year and is thought to produce periods of warm ages and ice ages known as the Milankovitch cycle, thus the yuga cycle may have some basis in known terrestrial cycles.

 

Our sun revolves round a grand center called Vishnunabhi, which is the seat of the creative power, Brahma, the universal magnetism. Brahma regulates dharma, the mental virtue of the internal world. The sun, with its planets and their moons, takes some star for its dual and revolves round it in about 24,000 years of our earth.... Essentially, When the sun in its revolution round its dual comes to the place nearest to this grand center, the seat of Brahma...the mental virtue, becomes so much developed that man can easily comprehend all, even the mysteries of Spirit." Further, ...when the sun goes to the place in its orbit which is farthest from Brahma, the grand center...the mental virtue, comes to such a reduced state that man cannot grasp anything beyond the gross material creation. The period of 2400 years during which the sun passes through the 2/20th portion of its orbit is called Dwapara Yuga. Dharma, the mental virtue, is then in the second stage of development and is but half complete; the human intellect can then comprehend the fine matters of electricities and their attributes which are the creating principles of the external world.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

Edited February 20, 2015 by Mister Kay

[Moonshield]

-snip-

 

I know you're joking but remember kids, evangelical thinking is dangerous in any form - whether it's a christian, muslim, atheist, satanist, anti-christian, vegan, communist, nazi punk, mlp fan, juggalo, etc.

[PinkRibbonScars]

I respect all religions, I may not agree with all of them, but I respect them all the same. I used to have a religion, but over the years it didn't make much sense for me to keep it for a variety of reasons. I practice tolerance and I believe in coexistence.

[S0lo]

 

 

 

 

You make a good point, Alien. My point remains, though, that if one gets to pick and choose arbitrarily from a doctrine, it completely loses its value.

 

As doctrine, yes. But... didn't we all play Mass Effect to stop indoctrinations? I joke, but seriously, maybe a bunch of independently minded people who take the best from all of human history while leaving behind the bad is not a terrible way for our species to progress.

 

Absolutely, but humanity won't progress further until religion has literally no impact on society.

 

Brace yourself, dude, apologists will soon be here with their fictional highly inflated claims of killings under predominantly atheistic nations. A dude on Youtube kept bringing up the USSR (to a discussion about the current state of the world) as an example of how "all atheists are evil", but didn't bother to provide a link of causation between Stalin's atheism and his obvious mental disability.

 

 

I think an important point here is also to consider that the declaration of atheism as a part of the political line of a country does not undo 2000 years of religious conditioning. The principles that are culturally imprinted within people still dictate most of their (re-)actions, no matter if the theoretical, ideological construct has been altered. It would take many generations of actual atheist policy and a sh*tton of self-analysis to undo what is so deeply rooted within the core of what we are. I assume that religion has a much deeper effect on how we think than on what we think.

 

i hope i was able to express what i meant here, it is really hard for me to lead these discussions in what isn't my native tongue.

 

Edit: sivi kinda ninja'd me there, in a much more concise way too

Edited February 20, 2015 by King S0lo

[Fonz]

It's basically a myth that Stalinist Russia was Atheist anyway. After the Purges Stalin practically encouraged the effective reestablishment as the Russian orthodox church as a mouthpiece of the state. He basically used the Orthodox church as a to to arose nationalism and patriotism; reestablished the official status of Russian Orthodoxy and hugely increased the number of churches in operation.

 

There are numerous technically secular nations. These are closer to actual atheism than the antitheist and antireligious Soviet bloc and other Marxist-Leninist states.

All very true. I think we ought not to forget that Stalin was, above all, an opportunist and a demagogue. He betrayed his own comrades and, indeed, the Bolshevik Revolution, later defending blatantly anti-Marxist theses like "Socialism in one country", leading to an increasing bureaucratization of the USSR.

His treatment of the Old Bolsheviks as well as his use of anachronistic records of disagreements within the Party to portray his fellow revolutionaries (especially Trotsky) as enemies of Lenin corroborate this. A true vermin.

 

Yes, but ideally all nations, including the ones with predominantly religious demographics, should be secular. Secularism is an essential tool for the progress of mankind. It's not until we free ourselves from the chains of dogma that we can truly start to establish a clear-minded society.

 

@Eris

Your laughably bad attempts at humour are becoming more and more pathetic. Go read a few books.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Black_MiD

[AlienTwo]

 

I think an important point here is also to consider that the declaration of atheism as a part of the political line of a country does not undo 2000 years of religious conditioning. The principles that are culturally imprinted within people still dictate most of their (re-)actions, no matter if the theoretical, ideological construct has been altered. It would take many generations of actual atheist policy and a sh*tton of self-analysis to undo what is so deeply rooted within the core of what we are. I assume that religion has a much deeper effect on how we think than on what we think.

 

i hope i was able to express what i meant here, it is really hard for me to lead these discussions in what isn't my native tongue.

 

 

Agreed 100% and incredibly elegantly stated, especially in your non-native tongue (I would have never guessed). I don't think a time will come where we aren't affected by religion, even if it is in the "distant past" one day.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Alien

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

@Eris

Your laughably bad attempts at humour are becoming more and more pathetic. Go read a few books.

 

Actually, I just got done reading one.

 

[Fonz]

 

 

@Eris

Your laughably bad attempts at humour are becoming more and more pathetic. Go read a few books.

 

Actually, I just got done reading one.

 

-snip-

I meant real literature.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

 

 

@Eris

Your laughably bad attempts at humour are becoming more and more pathetic. Go read a few books.

 

Actually, I just got done reading one.

 

-snip-

I meant real literature.

 

I see the issue here. You believe you're some sort of intellectual because you're an atheist.

[Fonz]

 

 

 

 

@Eris

Your laughably bad attempts at humour are becoming more and more pathetic. Go read a few books.

 

Actually, I just got done reading one.

 

-snip-

I meant real literature.

 

I see the issue here. You believe you're some sort of intellectual because you're an atheist.

 

No, I believe you're an idiot because your only contributions to this thread so far have been unfunny depictions of moronic stereotypes. Those ridiculous assumptions aren't exactly helping your case, either. If you want to discuss like a 13-year-old, you'll be treated as one.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Dingdongs]

I was born Catholic and go to church occasionally, but I'm not too dogmatic about the beliefs. I like religion in general. I think every religion when practiced along with the basic traditions/morals of society enriches the community, helps people when they feel down, gives hope, and is overall a good thing. Belief in your religion's God and taking part in the community an organized religion offers can help you through a lot in life, trust me. Obviously people can take any religion too far and that's a problem, but by and large religion has been a good thing in my life and a good thing in the lives of most people who practice.

 

 

How can there be any sort of a heaven if you go to it in the knowledge that those who didn't believe, or where born through no control of their own in to the "wrong" religion are burning for eternity in hell?

 

I don't think holding that belief is necessary. Any regular, non-insane Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. by and large believes that each religion has their own way of afterlife and processes therein.

 

As for people who keep pulling quotes out of the Bible that make Christianity look barbaric, you can find 20 nice, peaceful things for every violent/intolerant thing you find. Same with the Qu'ran or other religious documents. That doesn't have real bearing on discussing modern religious practice by the majority of people. This isn't a discussion about radical Christianity or radical Islam.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Irviding

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

No, I believe you're an idiot because your only contributions to this thread so far have been unfunny depictions of moronic stereotypes. Those ridiculous assumptions aren't exactly helping your case, either.

 

 

Really? You've been calling religion archaic bullsh*t and evil lies the entire topic and you're criticizing my contributions? You already see yourself intellectually superior to theists, what's the point in seriously engaging you in debate?

[Fonz]

 

 

No, I believe you're an idiot because your only contributions to this thread so far have been unfunny depictions of moronic stereotypes. Those ridiculous assumptions aren't exactly helping your case, either.

 

 

Really? You've been calling religion archaic bullsh*t and evil lies the entire topic and you're criticizing my contributions? You already see yourself intellectually superior to theists, what's the point in seriously engaging you in debate?

 

No idea what you're basing that assumption on. I've been discussing, in a sincere manner, the impact of religion on society and advocating secularism, something you should agree with, regardless of your religious beliefs. Evidently, you had nothing worthwhile to say, but still felt compelled to post something, even if just to disrupt the flow of the conversation. This is otherwise known as "sh*tposting", something you excel at. That piss-poor excuse for an argument won't hold up with me. If you have no counters, just shut up; don't act like a self-righteous douche.

 

As for people who keep pulling quotes out of the Bible that make Christianity look barbaric, you can find 20 nice, peaceful things for every violent/intolerant thing you find. Same with the Qu'ran or other religious documents. That doesn't have real bearing on discussing modern religious practice by the majority of people. This isn't a discussion about radical Christianity or radical Islam.

That's not my point, Irv. I'm merely pointing out the fundamentally dark side of the doctrine's main source material. Surely, a doctrine that advocates such acts cannot be seen as "good". Besides, most of the good Christian teachings can be found on earlier documents, without the added murder, homophobia and racism.

 

Edited February 20, 2015 by Black_MiD

[S0lo]

I was born Catholic and go to church occasionally, but I'm not too dogmatic about the beliefs. I like religion in general. I think every religion when practiced along with the basic traditions/morals of society enriches the community, helps people when they feel down, gives hope, and is overall a good thing. Belief in your religion's God and taking part in the community an organized religion offers can help you through a lot in life, trust me. Obviously people can take any religion too far and that's a problem, but by and large religion has been a good thing in my life and a good thing in the lives of most people who practice.

 

 

How can there be any sort of a heaven if you go to it in the knowledge that those who didn't believe, or where born through no control of their own in to the "wrong" religion are burning for eternity in hell?

 

I don't think holding that belief is necessary. Any regular, non-insane Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. by and large believes that each religion has their own way of afterlife and processes therein.

 

As for people who keep pulling quotes out of the Bible that make Christianity look barbaric, you can find 20 nice, peaceful things for every violent/intolerant thing you find. Same with the Qu'ran or other religious documents. That doesn't have real bearing on discussing modern religious practice by the majority of people. This isn't a discussion about radical Christianity or radical Islam.

 

Funny coincidence you'd lead with Catholicism, as this would be my first issue with your claim re enriching the community. I very much oppose the thought that teaching man that he is inherently evil from the day of conception is in any way enriching. It leads to a self-image that fundamentally blocks the path to accepting yourself, which i believe is the minimum requirement for any kind of inner peace or even happiness.

 

Regarding quotes to prove evil/good in religions: It's one of the defining characteristics of all major religious texts that they are contradictory and inconsistent, as this allows their use for the legitimization of almost anything through those who interpret it. I see these texts as tools of power, and how they are used is solely based on the needs of those interpreting them.

Edited February 21, 2015 by King S0lo

[Dingdongs]

 

 

No idea what you're basing that assumption on. I've been discussing, in a sincere manner, the impact of religion on society and advocating secularism, something you should agree with, regardless of your religious beliefs. Evidently, you had nothing worthwhile to say, but still felt compelled to post something, even if just to disrupt the flow of the conversation. This is otherwise known as "sh*tposting", something you excel at.

 

Advocating secularism, as in trying to advocate that the government shouldn't pursue religious policies? If that's the case then absolutely. I don't support the Ten Commandments being in court houses or any of that stuff. If you're arguing that society is better off when nobody follows a religion, I would vehemently disagree there.

 

 

 

That's not my point, Irv. I'm merely pointing out the fundamentally dark side of the doctrine's main source material. Surely, a doctrine that advocates such acts cannot be seen as "good". Besides, most of the good Christian teachings can be found on earlier documents, without the added murder, homophobia and racism.

You can find that dark side in anything when you look back at history. The founding fathers of the United States were racist, aristocrats who believed that the only people who should be able to vote were propertied white men. But we still look to much of their writings and highly forward thinking ideals on government structure and on power to form our society today, not just in the US but in republics across the world. There's a dark side to all religious documents as well as to all religious history. It's important to know and study but it doesn't take away from the great benefits that organized religion offers to its adherents. As I said, you can find "homophobic" lines in old documents from everybody. Hell, homophobia was an accepted and even encouraged norm up until 15 years ago, at least in the US. The idea that these things totally destroy the benefit to society and to its adherents of religion is just not the case.

 

 

 

 

Funny coincidence you' lead with Catholicism, as this would be my first issue with your claim re enriching the community. I very much oppose the thought that teaching man that he is inherently evil from the day of conception is in any way enriching. It leads to a self-image that fundamentally blocks the path to accepting yourself, which i believe is the minimum requirement for any kind of inner peace or even happiness.

 

Regarding quotes to prove evil/good in religions: It's one of the defining characteristics of all major religious texts that they are contradictory and inconsistent, as this allows their use for the legitimization almost anything through those who interpret it. I see these texts as tools of power, and how they are used is solely based on the needs of those interpreting them.

 

Catholicism doesn't teach that man is inherently evil, you're thinking of certain offshoots of Protestantism that were prevalent in the 19th Century. Catholicism does teach that every man is capable of sin and commits sin.

 

And no, it doesn't block the path to accept yourself. You're just wrong. I practice Catholicism as do a little over 1 billion other people and I think we accept ourselves just fine. Those who practice Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. etc. I'm sure are quite content with themselves too. If anything all religions help you accept yourself. If you've been through horrible event in your life, seeking religious guidance is truly one of the best things you can do to deal with it.

 

How you see them is great. If that's your viewpoint, then just don't practice a religion. It's totally fine. Majority of people who practice religion could give a sh*t what you do or don't do, and that's the truth.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Irviding

[mr quick]

 

 

No, I believe you're an idiot because your only contributions to this thread so far have been unfunny depictions of moronic stereotypes. Those ridiculous assumptions aren't exactly helping your case, either.

 

 

Really? You've been calling religion archaic bullsh*t and evil lies the entire topic and you're criticizing my contributions? You already see yourself intellectually superior to theists, what's the point in seriously engaging you in debate?

 

I do to, come at me. I'm the one who initiated calling it both evil and archaic. I too criticize your contributions because they're sh*tty and beside the point.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Marwin Moody

[S0lo]

 

-snip-

Funny coincidence you' lead with Catholicism, as this would be my first issue with your claim re enriching the community. I very much oppose the thought that teaching man that he is inherently evil from the day of conception is in any way enriching. It leads to a self-image that fundamentally blocks the path to accepting yourself, which i believe is the minimum requirement for any kind of inner peace or even happiness.

 

Regarding quotes to prove evil/good in religions: It's one of the defining characteristics of all major religious texts that they are contradictory and inconsistent, as this allows their use for the legitimization almost anything through those who interpret it. I see these texts as tools of power, and how they are used is solely based on the needs of those interpreting them.

 

Catholicism doesn't teach that man is inherently evil, you're thinking of certain offshoots of Protestantism that were prevalent in the 19th Century. Catholicism does teach that every man is capable of sin and commits sin.

 

And no, it doesn't block the path to accept yourself. You're just wrong. I practice Catholicism as do a little over 1 billion other people and I think we accept ourselves just fine. Those who practice Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. etc. I'm sure are quite content with themselves too. If anything all religions help you accept yourself. If you've been through horrible event in your life, seeking religious guidance is truly one of the best things you can do to deal with it.

 

How you see them is great. If that's your viewpoint, then just don't practice a religion. It's totally fine. Majority of people who practice religion could give a sh*t what you do or don't do, and that's the truth.

 

 

I admire that you found a positive, enriching way to interpret your religion, but a religion is defined by its dogmas. The dogma of sin is a crime against humanity the way i see it, as it takes the responsibility for our negative behavior away from us. Analyzing your very real inner workings, and finally the understanding of those, can, in my opinion, lead to true progress, and the basic concept of sin makes this impossible.

Edited February 21, 2015 by King S0lo

[Dingdongs]

 

 

-snip-

Funny coincidence you' lead with Catholicism, as this would be my first issue with your claim re enriching the community. I very much oppose the thought that teaching man that he is inherently evil from the day of conception is in any way enriching. It leads to a self-image that fundamentally blocks the path to accepting yourself, which i believe is the minimum requirement for any kind of inner peace or even happiness.

 

Regarding quotes to prove evil/good in religions: It's one of the defining characteristics of all major religious texts that they are contradictory and inconsistent, as this allows their use for the legitimization almost anything through those who interpret it. I see these texts as tools of power, and how they are used is solely based on the needs of those interpreting them.

 

Catholicism doesn't teach that man is inherently evil, you're thinking of certain offshoots of Protestantism that were prevalent in the 19th Century. Catholicism does teach that every man is capable of sin and commits sin.

 

And no, it doesn't block the path to accept yourself. You're just wrong. I practice Catholicism as do a little over 1 billion other people and I think we accept ourselves just fine. Those who practice Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. etc. I'm sure are quite content with themselves too. If anything all religions help you accept yourself. If you've been through horrible event in your life, seeking religious guidance is truly one of the best things you can do to deal with it.

 

How you see them is great. If that's your viewpoint, then just don't practice a religion. It's totally fine. Majority of people who practice religion could give a sh*t what you do or don't do, and that's the truth.

 

 

I admire that you found a positive, enriching way to interpret your religion, but a religion is defined by its dogmas. The dogma of sin is a crime against humanity the way i see it, as it takes the responsibility for our negative behavior away from us. Analyzing your very real inner workings, and finally the understanding of those, can, in my opinion, lead to true progress, and the basic concept of sin makes this impossible.

 

It doesn't, though. When you confess a sin you say "Forgive me father for I have sinned". You don't say "Hey father there was a sin and it wasn't me or anything but yeah". Getting forgiven for your sin inherently requires taking responsibility and working to rectify those harmed by it. I understand your viewpoint here, but I think religion helps those who practice it reach that endgame you desire - analyzing inner workings/understanding them. Everybody has different ways of getting there.

[Fonz]

 

 

 

No idea what you're basing that assumption on. I've been discussing, in a sincere manner, the impact of religion on society and advocating secularism, something you should agree with, regardless of your religious beliefs. Evidently, you had nothing worthwhile to say, but still felt compelled to post something, even if just to disrupt the flow of the conversation. This is otherwise known as "sh*tposting", something you excel at.

 

Advocating secularism, as in trying to advocate that the government shouldn't pursue religious policies? If that's the case then absolutely. I don't support the Ten Commandments being in court houses or any of that stuff. If you're arguing that society is better off when nobody follows a religion, I would vehemently disagree there.

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. The severing of all ties between the church and government institutions. I don't know whether society would be better if nobody followed a religion. I do believe it would be almost the same, except without one massive vehicle for discrimination and division. Of course this might lead to a different approach to some fields, particularly science, which would be free to pursue research freely, unrestrained from religious principles.

 

You can find that dark side in anything when you look back at history. The founding fathers of the United States were racist, aristocrats who believed that the only people who should be able to vote were propertied white men. But we still look to much of their writings and highly forward thinking ideals on government structure and on power to form our society today, not just in the US but in republics across the world. There's a dark side to all religious documents as well as to all religious history. It's important to know and study but it doesn't take away from the great benefits that organized religion offers to its adherents. As I said, you can find "homophobic" lines in old documents from everybody. Hell, homophobia was an accepted and even encouraged norm up until 15 years ago, at least in the US. The idea that these things totally destroy the benefit to society and to its adherents of religion is just not the case.

True, we have to look at everything as a whole, but you're mixing up human examples with a religious dogma. The fact that one would have to pick out the beneficial aspects of a certain religion invalidates it as a doctrine. One of the aspects of religion is accepting that your god is all-knowing. If we have to amend His teachings because they are incompatible with our current standards of morality, this means that the god in question is not all-knowing, leads us to the conclusion that the doctrine has failed as the collection of imperatives that it should have been.

Homosexuality was seen as a socially acceptable, normal behaviour in certain societies before Christianity came along. The fact that Christianity failed to discourage homophobia and slavery from the start (i.e. the Church didn't know any better) raises the question of what purpose it really serves if it cannot even reprimand such unjustified prejudices.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. The severing of all ties between the church and government institutions. I don't know whether society would be better if nobody followed a religion. I do believe it would be almost the same, except without one massive vehicle for discrimination and division. Of course this might lead to a different approach to some fields, particularly science, which would be free to pursue research freely, unrestrained from religious principles.

I don't think it would be the same. You're forgetting that most people who practice any religion are by and large kind people who care about others just as anyone else. The Church/Mosque/Temple in communities serve as vehicles for caring for the poor, community togetherness, etc. Mosques are often used as community centers for Muslims who feel ostracized outside of Mosque. In NY many of them have pools, classrooms, etc.

 

 

 

True, we have to look at everything as a whole, but you're mixing up human examples with a religious dogma. The fact that one would have to pick out the beneficial aspects of a certain religion invalidates it as a doctrine. One of the aspects of religion is accepting that your god is all-knowing. If we have to amend His teachings because they are incompatible with our current standards of morality, this means that the god in question is not all-knowing, leads us to the conclusion that the doctrine has failed as the collection of imperatives that it should have been.

I'm not, though. The examples serve the same purpose. You're guilty of exactly what you're saying is wrong with what I'm saying. You are picking out the bad parts of religious texts. I encourage you to take a look at any religious text. 90% of it is all things that are positive, beneficial, and conducive to good relations amongst people.

 

That's your interpretation. That's fine, but not everyone thinks that because the Bible (New/Old testament) or Qu'ran has some evil things in it that the entire religion is garbage. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ and is believed by Catholics to speak for God. It's not just directly interpreting the Bible here. Pope Francis said "who am I to judge?" when asked if it's alright for a homosexual to practice Catholicism. I'll assure that isn't in the Bible, yet 1 billion Catholics as well as followers of all religions revere Pope Francis for his progressive attitudes towards religion. People aren't leaving the Catholic church because Francis said that, they're rejoining it and finding it more welcoming.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2015 by Irviding

[mr quick]

 

I too criticize your contributions because they're sh*tty and beside the point.

 

That is interesting and all, but your disagreement with Eris' points doesn't make them irrelevant or bad. That kind of sweeping generality is what you claim religions are good at doing-- the unbridled dissociation with reality or foresight or logic of any kind, right? Maybe you should practice what you preach and not get so hot under the collar because your seemingly statuesque and imperiously, impenetrable worldview happens to not be the universally held doctrine.

 

Are you defending it? I am positive that if I had posted a similar photo mocking a stereotype representing a religious person, it wouldn't have gone over as well.

 

The posts are not points. They are not rooted in knowledge nor do they add to the debate, they are pure mockery.

[LightningLord]

Every time religion is brought up, a major sh*t storm follows. Fact.

[S0lo]

Not 1 billion catholics revere Francis for that, the more progressive part of western catholics do, a minority within the whole of the catholic community. In Africa, Russia, Latin America and many other places he was heavily criticized for his words. And as long as there is no new Vatican Council that declares it to be a doctrine that homosexuality is not a sin, his words are of no meaning at all. If a gay catholic dies today, he goes to hell for eternity. There is no way to sugarcoat that, no interpretation that would make this horrendous idea acceptable.

[Fonz]

 

 

 

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. The severing of all ties between the church and government institutions. I don't know whether society would be better if nobody followed a religion. I do believe it would be almost the same, except without one massive vehicle for discrimination and division. Of course this might lead to a different approach to some fields, particularly science, which would be free to pursue research freely, unrestrained from religious principles.

I don't think it would be the same. You're forgetting that most people who practice any religion are by and large kind people who care about others just as anyone else. The Church/Mosque/Temple in communities serve as vehicles for caring for the poor, community togetherness, etc. Mosques are often used as community centers for Muslims who feel ostracized outside of Mosque. In NY many of them have pools, classrooms, etc.

 

 

 

True, we have to look at everything as a whole, but you're mixing up human examples with a religious dogma. The fact that one would have to pick out the beneficial aspects of a certain religion invalidates it as a doctrine. One of the aspects of religion is accepting that your god is all-knowing. If we have to amend His teachings because they are incompatible with our current standards of morality, this means that the god in question is not all-knowing, leads us to the conclusion that the doctrine has failed as the collection of imperatives that it should have been.

I'm not, though. The examples serve the same purpose. You're guilty of exactly what you're saying is wrong with what I'm saying. You are picking out the bad parts of religious texts. I encourage you to take a look at any religious text. 90% of it is all things that are positive, beneficial, and conducive to good relations amongst people.

 

That's your interpretation. That's fine, but not everyone thinks that because the Bible (New/Old testament) or Qu'ran has some evil things in it that the entire religion is garbage. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ and is believed by Catholics to speak for God. It's not just directly interpreting the Bible here. Pope Francis said "who am I to judge?" when asked if it's alright for a homosexual to practice Catholicism. I'll assure that isn't in the Bible, yet 1 billion Catholics as well as followers of all religions revere Pope Francis for his progressive attitudes towards religion. People aren't leaving the Catholic church because Francis said that, they're rejoining it and finding it more welcoming.

 

 

 

That just proves that Pope Francis is a good man (something I do believe). His knowledge of the world as a social environment and his personality, even without religion, would most likely lead him to the same attitudes, which many, believers and non-believers alike, agree with. His position just allows for international projection, and therefore he's able to (hopefully) make a difference.

 

This just proves my initial posit that humans or, rather, civilization, as a whole, has evolved from religion, since even the head of the Catholic Church is agreeing with positions that are compatible with our current behavioral standards. This says nothing about religion itself, but rather about the human behind these statements. The doctrine itself is the same it has been for thousands of years. That's what I'm getting at.

 

Furthermore, all of the acts of solidarity that you mentioned could just as well be carried out by non-believers, as they are in many instances. Let's just say that they're being carried out by humans as a means to aid other humans through their troubles. They're not "Christian" acts; they're humanitarian acts.

 

To summarise, I hope you understand that I'm not advocating the eradication of religion (that would be a disgusting act of oppression), but rather, I'm defending the position that religion is not a driving force for good and is, in fact, a setback, since there are still so many people willing to go to great lengths to defend its honour. I also cannot just look away from all the atrocious acts perpetrated in the Bible, which makes it a document of immorality in my eyes.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Black_MiD

[S0lo]

Every time religion is brought up, a major sh*t storm follows. Fact.

 

sh*tstorm? i see one of the best discussions i had here so far. Please add to the topic or don't post, thank you. And i mean that very respectfully.

[Man-Django]

I like this guy, he goes on about the oldest piece of scripture and isn't a religious fellow. It's a long video but features a lot of cool info about various thing including free energy and ancient people.

 

Edited February 21, 2015 by TheMckeever

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

 

 

That just proves that Pope Francis is a good man (something I do believe). His knowledge of the world as a social environment and his personality, even without religion, would most likely lead him to the same attitudes, which many, believers and non-believers alike, agree with. His position just allows for international projection, and therefore he's able to (hopefully) make a difference.

 

This just proves my initial posit that humans or, rather, civilization, as a whole, has evolved from religion, since even the head of the Catholic Church is agreeing with positions that are compatible with our current behavioral standards. This says nothing about religion itself, but rather about the human behind these statements. The doctrine itself is the same it has been for thousands of years. That's what I'm getting at.

But it does, Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and thus what the Pope says is God's will. Remember that by and large, Christianity teaches that God accepts anybody who believes in the religion.

 

Furthermore, all of the acts of solidarity that you mentioned could be just as well be carried out by non-believers, as they are in many instances. Let's just say that they're being carried out by humans as a means to aid other humans through their troubles. They're not "Christian" acts; they're humanitarian acts.

They could. I'm not saying that you wouldn't have all of that without religions. What I'm saying is religion serves as an important vehicle for community benefit, not only in Christianity but Islam and Judaism as well. I'm hard pressed to believe that you'd see the same kind of community betterment without religion. I'm not sure you see the same thing in Europe but in the US, organized religion is an integral part of many communities' welfare, social gatherings, etc. And that's not just in the deep south either.

 

To summarise, I hope you understand that I'm not advocating the eradication of religion (that would be a disgusting act of oppression), but rather, I'm defending the position that religion is not a driving force for good and is, in fact, a setback, since there are still so many people willing to go to great lengths to defend its honour. I also cannot just look away from all the atrocious acts perpetrated in the Bible, which makes it a document of immorality in my eyes.

Sure, but again, in modern day by and large all religions serve as a vehicle for good deeds.

 

 

 

Not 1 billion catholics revere Francis for that, the more progressive part of western catholics do, a minority within the whole of the catholic community. In Africa, Russia, Latin America and many other places he was heavily criticized for his words. And as long as there is no new Vatican Council that declares it to be a doctrine that homosexuality is not a sin, his words are of no meaning at all. If a gay catholic dies today, he goes to hell for eternity. There is no way to sugarcoat that, no interpretation that would make this horrendous idea acceptable.

They can disagree with his remarks all they want, but he's the Pope. What he says is what God says, and they know this. His remarks represent a majorly important step for Catholics moving forward with their views in those areas you discussed. Though not in Russia because Russia does not really have Catholicism.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Irviding

[Fonz]

(Irv, I'm going to address the points without using the quote function, so as to avoid a quote train. I'll try to be as concise as possible)

I don't want to come off as cynical, but I have to point out that, aside from the doctrine, there are other aspects in play within the Catholic Church. When a new Pope is chosen, he's essentially seen as the Vicar of God, as you put it, or God's mouthpiece, so to speak. Of course, besides this, there is also a human dimension to consider. If the Pope deviated radically, let's say even completely, from the established doctrine, I doubt he would have any credibility as the head of the Catholic Church. The believers wouldn't just follow him and change their entire belief system just because the Pope's words encouraged them to do so. I'm fairly sure that if he made a statement asserting that the whole doctrine is wrong, they'd just reject him; or else they would have to accept that God had gone completely nice personoo. This is what I mean by Pope Francis' words reflecting his kind personality rather than the views of the Catholic community.

As for the charity acts, I'd like to at least believe that humans would find common decency and empathy to help one another. Not every atheist is a kind, charitable person with an interest in helping others, just like not every believer is. I always like to think of it as brothers helping one another; the vehicles by which they choose to do so are, or should be, irrelevant.

[MyName'sJeff]

 

Every time religion is brought up, a major sh*t storm follows. Fact.

 

sh*tstorm? i see one of the best discussions i had here so far. Please add to the topic or don't post, thank you. And i mean that very respectfully.

 

Best discussions? Come on, all I see is a few people acting like a bunch of prats about how religion is a bad influence on society which is ironic considering these people have the I-know-it-all attitude. This literally happens in EVERY religion thread or something related to do with religion not only in this forum, but in the whole internet as well as outside of it. I've read your posts and you're the only person writing in a reasonable manner and not forcing your thoughts down everyone else's throats unlike some cretins. I'm guessing they have their dicks all the way up Science and follow anti-religion propaganda videos just to give their miserable lives a meaning.

Edited February 21, 2015 by MyName'sJeff

[Fonz]

 

 

Every time religion is brought up, a major sh*t storm follows. Fact.

 

sh*tstorm? i see one of the best discussions i had here so far. Please add to the topic or don't post, thank you. And i mean that very respectfully.

 

Best discussions? Come on, all I see is a few people acting like a bunch of prats about how religion is a bad influence on society which is ironic considering these people have the I-know-it-all attitude. I've read your posts and you're the only person writing in a reasonable manner and not forcing your thoughts down everyone else's throats unlike some cretins. I'm guessing they have their dicks all the way up Science and follow anti-religion propaganda videos just to give their miserable lives a meaning.

 

Hmm, I fail to see the irony...