Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 61 of 531 (514511)
07-08-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 11:42 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Phage0070 writes:
Stile writes:
There are some people who do require a fantasy to be content.
Arguably because of their upbringing giving them unreasonable hopefulness. Oh well, we can just keep them fooled until they die and they will never be disappointed.
Perhaps because of their upbringing. Perhaps not. It doesn't matter why they exist. They do exist. Why would you deny them their happiness?
Are you arguing "Ignorance is bliss,"? If being more ignorant is more blissful, where do we draw the line?
I'm not arguing that at all. I'm only arguing what I said: that people exist where irrational hoplessness is the only beneficial comfort they are capapble of grasping. They can also do so in such a way that no harm is caused to others in embracing such a concept. Why would you deny such a thing?
Why not a world that has the good parts of religion without the need to weed out the harmful stuff?
That is my arguement. I think we should keep "the good parts of religion without the need to weed out the harmful stuff." I'm just still calling whatever's left "religion."
I said that "just for fun" isn't an acceptable justification for something that does harm people.
No one is arguing to the contrary.
Note however that I am not suggesting religion cannot be helpful in certain circumstances, I am arguing that in those circumstances there is a better alternative that does not require religion.
And I'm telling you that this is wrong. It is perhaps true for you (I know it's true for me). But there exists some people who are in certain circumstances where only the irrational hopefulness of religion can help them and it hurts no other people. What is the reason to deny them such help?
I am simply of the position that the merits of religion that cannot be divorced from religion itself are false and have better alternatives.
What does this mean? What is your defintion of "religion" that inherently involves hurting others? If "religion" does not inherently involve hurting others... then what's wrong with keeping the merits of religion that cannot be divorced from "religion itself?"
I agree that there likely are "better alternatives" for you, I know there certainly are better alternatives for myself. But there exist people where no better alternatives exist. Why would you deny them the help they need when they don't hurt any other people? How can you possibly be the judge that there is no "better alternative" (an extremely subjective concept at this point) for no human being?
Right, and going from the initial assumption that there are no gods and religion is false, you have two options: Either you believe the religion and are simply wrong, or you don't believe and are intentionally manipulating people to do what you want them to.
Okay.
What's the issue with someone receiving individual, personal benefits from believing the religion and simply being wrong while not hurting other people? Why would you deny that to someone?
Ultimately that is what religion is; either it is people bumbling around in the dark looking and hoping for things that will never happen, or willfully deceptive participants who may (or may not) have good intentions.
Okay.
What's the issue with someone receiving individual, personal benefits from "bumbling around in the dark looking and hoping for things that will never happen" while not hurting other people? Why would you deny that to someone?
If I threaten someone with death to get them to give to the poor, does it matter if I would actually kill them, or that a good deed was accomplished? Especially compared to the potential of simply cultivating such behaviors in society?
I have already agreed with you many times that the corrupted, manipulative aspects of religion should be condemned.
But if someone can gain individual, personal benefits while not hurting other people from something (including religion) that you mentally find disgusting for whatever reason... why would you deny that to them?
Why ban religion outright? Why not allow those who accept the individual, personal benefits they gain from the irrational hopefullness they receive from religion while not hurting any other people continue to do as they will?
Even if no one happens to exist at all that would fit this definition, why ban it from the future? Why do you feel the need to ban something that doesn't hurt other people, and has the potential for some to gain benefits from? Why would you deny such a thing to anyone?
Would you also like to ban kids from playing baseball without a glove just because there's a better way to get more fun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 11:42 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 2:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 531 (514514)
07-08-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Stile
07-08-2009 1:04 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I view deception of a sentient person with the intent to control them inherently harmful, regardless of the accompanying results. I consider it dehumanizing and an attack on their free will, regardless of if they know about it. (I understand that your agree here)
As an accompanying ethic, I consider withholding release from such deception (including self-deception) as poor behavior.
I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened. If they still continue to follow the religion and derive whatever benefits they get, it is their right. The problem with someone choosing to perpetuate such a deception is that they don't have the right to make such a decision regarding their wellbeing, and they are making a judgment call as to which would be more harmful to the person. Ignorance, all else being equal, is a detriment to that person. I will concede the point that in some circumstances its detriment could be offset by another benefit it provides, but it is hard to ethically justify making that decision for another person.
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 1:04 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2009 2:20 PM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:21 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 63 of 531 (514516)
07-08-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 2:06 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I view deception of a sentient person with the intent to control them inherently harmful, regardless of the accompanying results. I consider it dehumanizing and an attack on their free will, regardless of if they know about it.
As an accompanying ethic, I consider withholding release from such deception (including self-deception) as poor behavior.
I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened. If they still continue to follow the religion and derive whatever benefits they get, it is their right. The problem with someone choosing to perpetuate such a deception is that they don't have the right to make such a decision regarding their wellbeing, and they are making a judgment call as to which would be more harmful to the person. Ignorance, all else being equal, is a detriment to that person. I will concede the point that in some circumstances its detriment could be offset by another benefit it provides, but it is hard to ethically justify making that decision for another person.
Religion is an incredibly sticky subject.
If we accept that people should have the right to believe however they choose (reasonable on its own, particularly since enforcing a restriction on belief would require reading minds), there are significant consequences.
If parents hold a religious belief, should they not have the right to instruct any of their children in that belief? If not, whose beliefs should they raise the child with, and why? If the beliefs of the parents include dire consequences for anyone who does not hold the same belief, or even a simple "divine mandate" to raise their children with the same beliefs, how can a government reasonably ensure that the children will not be indoctrinated while not violating the parents' right to believe or their right to raise a child?
As a person who feels that the first 20-some years of my life were overshadowed by religious brainwashing from my parents and their religious community and who deeply resents the fact that I was essentially fed lies my entire life, I'm extremely conflicted on the matter.
I honestly don't see an equitable way to allow people to believe as their conscience dictates while protecting children from brainwashing and indoctrination long before they're old enough to make their own decisions. The best I can offer is mandatory critical thinking skills education in public school, with strong encouragement to examine everything that one believes to be true (with no emphasis on religious beliefs vs anything else the children may believe to be true). Even outside of religious considerations, I feel that such an emphasis on critical thinking is of paramount importance. I think that everyone deserves the skills and courage to be able to choose their own beliefs honestly, rather than simply believing what their ancestors have believed through social pressure and "comfort."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 2:06 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:42 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 64 of 531 (514517)
07-08-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 2:06 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Phage0070 writes:
I view deception of a sentient person with the intent to control them inherently harmful, regardless of the accompanying results. I consider it dehumanizing and an attack on their free will, regardless of if they know about it.
As an accompanying ethic, I consider withholding release from such deception (including self-deception) as poor behavior.
I completely agree with you.
However, allowing people to gain individual, personal benefit from irrational hopefulness they can gain from religion has nothing to do with what you've said above.
Irrational hopefulness can quite easily come in a consentual, knowledgeable manner.
I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened.
My issue is not with your gripe. My issue is with the presentation of your gripe where you seem to equivocate "religion" with something that must be negative by necessarily including some level of deception or manipulation. This is simply untrue.
The problem with someone choosing to perpetuate such a deception is that they don't have the right to make such a decision regarding their wellbeing, and they are making a judgment call as to which would be more harmful to the person. Ignorance, all else being equal, is a detriment to that person.
Irrational hopefulness, and religion itself, does not necessarily include deception, harm or ignorance. There are good parts of religion that very well may be irrational, yet are not necessarily deceptive or ignorant.
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion. It is not deceptive or ignorant. And it doesn't hurt anyone else as long as it is accompanied by an "...but, nobody knows for sure.. that's just what I believe" type of statement. It is simply an irrational, hopeful belief. Some people gain comfort from such things. Some people can only gain comfort from such things.
That's all I'm talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 2:06 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 3:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 3:04 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 65 of 531 (514520)
07-08-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin
07-08-2009 2:20 PM


Honour thy parents... what the hell??
Rahvin writes:
As a person who feels that the first 20-some years of my life were overshadowed by religious brainwashing from my parents and their religious community and who deeply resents the fact that I was essentially fed lies my entire life, I'm extremely conflicted on the matter.
As a young Catholic boy (I was blessed with a not-so-strict, rather sheltered, general and nice childhood), I was always uncomfortable with the Honour thy Mother and Father commandments.
Now, with some experience and knowledge, those commandments totally creep me the fuck out more than anything else in the Bible. The only reason for demanding obedience to an authority figure "just 'cause you should" is for abusive-manipulative purposes. If it's for any sort of morally good reasons, then making it a "commandment" isn't necessary and actually undermines any deserved respect.
I concede that some amount of manipulation may be necessary when raising a child (I am not a father). But the amount of manipulation granted by an unquestionable, God-given commandment over children is ludicrous and one of the most unethical things I can bare to consider. It frightens me when I think about how many kids have been abused (mentally, physically... sexually) under such a commandment. And my mother and father were worthy of honour. I can't imagine how someone would feel if they should have written their parents off (to whatever degree) years ago yet wouldn't because it's "against the law." The sort of unnecessary mental anguish this would cause is mind-numbingly horrible to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2009 2:20 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2009 3:08 PM Stile has replied
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 07-08-2009 7:59 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 66 of 531 (514523)
07-08-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stile
07-08-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Honour thy parents... what the hell??
The sort of unnecessary mental anguish this would cause is mind-numbingly horrible to me.
My parents would disown me if they found out I'm an atheist. I only keep up the charade because I live 3000 miles away. Childhood indoctrination still causes mental anguish, and not just because of a "do-it-because-I-said-so" rule.
But what can we actually do about it? In my case, my parents would honestly believe that by rejecting their beliefs I will spend an eternity in Hell - they'll disown me as a "punishment" to try to get me to return to the faith so that they'll relent. If their beliefs were true, I can completely understand their reaction and motivations. What can possibly be done about such a dilemma? What law could society set up to prevent it, and truly protect the right to believe as one's conscience dictates when social/familial banishment and childhood indoctrination prevent such an honest choice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:42 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Stile, posted 07-09-2009 12:49 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 531 (514524)
07-08-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
07-08-2009 2:21 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Stile writes:
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion. It is not deceptive or ignorant.
Sure it involves deception and ignorance. It was deception that claimed Jesus would be there in the first place, and that there would be an afterlife. It is ignorance that perpetuates the belief and composes the "god of the gaps" rationalization used to justify it.
You could have an irrational hopefulness with a personally originated belief, such as an imaginary friend "Bob" taking care of you if something bad happens (even death). However, religion involves mass-imaginary-friends in the form of gods/spirits/karma/etc.. and in order to come to such widely held belief it required indoctrination. That indoctrination was performed either with the intent to deceive, or with ignorance to its untruthfulness.
So yes: All religion involves deception and ignorance as core components.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 4:44 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 68 of 531 (514531)
07-08-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 3:30 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ...
Phage0070 writes:
Stile writes:
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion. It is not deceptive or ignorant.
Sure it involves deception and ignorance. It was deception that claimed Jesus would be there in the first place, and that there would be an afterlife. It is ignorance that perpetuates the belief and composes the "god of the gaps" rationalization used to justify it.
You could have an irrational hopefulness with a personally originated belief, such as an imaginary friend "Bob" taking care of you if something bad happens (even death). However, religion involves mass-imaginary-friends in the form of gods/spirits/karma/etc.. and in order to come to such widely held belief it required indoctrination. That indoctrination was performed either with the intent to deceive, or with ignorance to its untruthfulness.
So yes: All religion involves deception and ignorance as core components.
This is not to imply that I am unable to identify with the rigors of Neo-Secular Christianity, as well as other exclusive membership groups, yet ...
It is a fact, perhaps to lil' known, that Indigenous religions indeed summate the majority of the worlds religions. Additionally, there are few indigenous languages which even employ a word equivalent to 'religion', and so, it may prove conclusively unnatural to speak of 'religion' with reference to various cultures. Now, when we allow religions to be thought of as particular ways of seeing and particular ways of living in the world, it becomes quite easy to find religion in the ordinary, everyday lives of many people who do not use the word.
In fact, it's actually unusual for adherents of any tradition to separate their religious beliefs and practices from their everyday lives. It may also be worth noting that religions are not all about seemingly strange ideas and peculiar practices, although these are the things that tend to stand out when we encounter foreign conceptualizations and ideologies. Imho, there is nothing wrong with noticing 'stange things' within a world belief system, as long as we also pay attention to the more everyday ways in which people speak of what makes their lives meaningful and interesting.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 3:30 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 5:20 PM Bailey has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 531 (514535)
07-08-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Bailey
07-08-2009 4:44 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Bailey writes:
This is not to imply that I am unable to identify with the rigors of Neo-Secular Christianity, as well as other exclusive membership groups, yet ...
Quick, quick, muddy the waters! Aoogah, aoogha, dive, dive!
Perhaps if we make it impossible to define what a religion is we can withdraw the topic altogether!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 4:44 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 8:11 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 531 (514551)
07-08-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stile
07-08-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Honour thy parents... what the hell??
Stile,
Remember that The Commandments are the product of a desert dwelling tribe. The stories from the bible not withstanding, the purpose of the commandments was the protection and wellbeing of the tribe.
To honor mom and dad was to ‘learn’ from them the hard lessons of desert living they had learned from their parents and grand-parents so that you stayed alive. A disobedient child in such a harsh ancient environment was one that ate the wrong foods (pork and others — why do you think they called them unclean?), did not learn to tend the flock costing the family not only their sustenance but their survival, and the list goes on.
On the flip side, to honor mom and dad was to keep them safe and tended in their old age, which was the only retirement plan available in them days. In this way their knowledge was kept available to the benefit of the tribe until their death which was certainly delayed from the alternatives of abandonment in the desert.
The first four commandments were meant to entrench the power of the priests to enforce the others, but the remaining 6 were the most basic and all necessary to keep the tribe alive and functioning.
In them days it was easier and more productive to wrap social and personal requirements for the survival of the tribe (society) in the mantel of religious enforcement.
Meatless Friday is a good Christian example. Remember George Carlin: "There are still people doing time in purgatory on a meat rap."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:42 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 07-08-2009 10:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 71 of 531 (514553)
07-08-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 5:20 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Thanks for the exchange Phage0070 ...
Hope things are well in your camp.
Phage writes:
weary writes:
This is not to imply that I am unable to identify with the rigors of Neo-Secular Christianity, as well as other exclusive membership groups, yet ...
It is a fact, perhaps to lil' known, that Indigenous religions indeed summate the majority of the worlds religions. Additionally, there are few indigenous languages which even employ a word equivalent to 'religion', and so, it may prove conclusively unnatural to speak of 'religion' with reference to various cultures. Now, when we allow religions to be thought of as particular ways of seeing and particular ways of living in the world, it becomes quite easy to find religion in the ordinary, everyday lives of many people who do not use the word.
In fact, it's actually unusual for adherents of any tradition to separate their religious beliefs and practices from their everyday lives. It may also be worth noting that religions are not all about seemingly strange ideas and peculiar practices, although these are the things that tend to stand out when we encounter foreign conceptualizations and ideologies. Imho, there is nothing wrong with noticing 'stange things' within a world belief system, as long as we also pay attention to the more everyday ways in which people speak of what makes their lives meaningful and interesting.
Quick, quick, muddy the waters! Aoogah, aoogha, dive, dive!
Perhaps if we make it impossible to define what a religion is we can withdraw the topic altogether!
lol - please, no need to muddy these waters ol' friend!!
Have you tried your hand at explaining to an Imperial christian that Yeshua was not meant to be a Levitical animal sacrifice lately?
Them waters seem, indeed, quite murky already ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : gr.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 5:20 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 9:30 PM Bailey has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 531 (514560)
07-08-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Bailey
07-08-2009 8:11 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Bailey writes:
Have you tried your hand at explaining to an Imperial christian that Yeshua was not meant to be a Levitical animal sacrifice lately?
Completely irrelevant to the point; do they tell people to believe in and obey something that does not exist? Check! Thats all that matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 8:11 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 10:37 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 531 (514562)
07-08-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by AZPaul3
07-08-2009 7:59 PM


origin
Remember that The Commandments are the product of a desert dwelling tribe. The stories from the bible not withstanding, the purpose of the commandments was the protection and wellbeing of the tribe.
That is only if you believe that the commandments originated with the Israelits and in the OT - during the Exodus. And not after the fact, as many historians believe.
Have you heard of the Egyptian "Book of the Dead:"?
quote:
The Book of the Dead was written circa 1800 BCE. 2 The Schofield Reference Bible estimates that the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and the provision of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai occurred in 1491 BCE., some three centuries later. Thus, many religious liberals, historians, and secularists have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's Ten Commandments were based on this earlier document, rather than vice-versa.
There is a similarity:
quote:

It's possible that a form of these types of commandments were normal in all cultures. If that's so, then I'm with Stile when he writes:
"The only reason for demanding obedience to an authority figure "just 'cause you should" is for abusive-manipulative purposes. If it's for any sort of morally good reasons, then making it a "commandment" isn't necessary and actually undermines any deserved respect."
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 07-08-2009 7:59 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 11:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 07-09-2009 11:45 AM onifre has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 74 of 531 (514564)
07-08-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 9:30 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Thans for the exchange Phage ...
Hope thinga are well with you.
Phage writes:
weary writes:
Phage writes:
weary writes:
Phage0070 writes:
Stile writes:
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion. It is not deceptive or ignorant.
Sure it involves deception and ignorance. It was deception that claimed Jesus would be there in the first place, and that there would be an afterlife. It is ignorance that perpetuates the belief and composes the "god of the gaps" rationalization used to justify it.
You could have an irrational hopefulness with a personally originated belief, such as an imaginary friend "Bob" taking care of you if something bad happens (even death). However, religion involves mass-imaginary-friends in the form of gods/spirits/karma/etc.. and in order to come to such widely held belief it required indoctrination. That indoctrination was performed either with the intent to deceive, or with ignorance to its untruthfulness.
So yes: All religion involves deception and ignorance as core components.
This is not to imply that I am unable to identify with the rigors of Neo-Secular Christianity, as well as other exclusive membership groups, yet ...
It is a fact, perhaps to lil' known, that Indigenous religions indeed summate the majority of the worlds religions. Additionally, there are few indigenous languages which even employ a word equivalent to 'religion', and so, it may prove conclusively unnatural to speak of 'religion' with reference to various cultures. Now, when we allow religions to be thought of as particular ways of seeing and particular ways of living in the world, it becomes quite easy to find religion in the ordinary, everyday lives of many people who do not use the word.
In fact, it's actually unusual for adherents of any tradition to separate their religious beliefs and practices from their everyday lives. It may also be worth noting that religions are not all about seemingly strange ideas and peculiar practices, although these are the things that tend to stand out when we encounter foreign conceptualizations and ideologies. Imho, there is nothing wrong with noticing 'stange things' within a world belief system, as long as we also pay attention to the more everyday ways in which people speak of what makes their lives meaningful and interesting.
Quick, quick, muddy the waters! Aoogah, aoogha, dive, dive!
Perhaps if we make it impossible to define what a religion is we can withdraw the topic altogether!
lol - please, no need to muddy these waters ol' friend!!
Have you tried your hand at explaining to an Imperial christian that Yeshua was not meant to be a Levitical animal sacrifice lately?
Them waters seem, indeed, quite murky already ...
Completely irrelevant to the point; do they tell people to believe in and obey something that does not exist? Check! Thats all that matters.
Yes, I suppose I've missed your point - lol
Mine was that various traditions and world belief systems sustain their individual confusions without the aide of outside assistance.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 9:30 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 10:45 PM Bailey has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 531 (514565)
07-08-2009 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bailey
07-08-2009 10:37 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Bailey writes:
Mine was that various traditions and world belief systems sustain their individual confusions without the aide of outside assistance.
And mine is that none of the individuals devoted to those traditions and world beliefs pulled those beliefs out of their rears, they were taught that they were true by others. Assuming what they taught isn't true (and I do), their teacher was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant of the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 10:37 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 11:16 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024