Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

no?

being white doesn't teach racism, christian bigots have been taught to be bigots, do you see the difference? if not its best you leave this to the adults

The problem is that its a generalisation. Perhaps for the first time ever, Cnvrt made perfect sense. Your comment is as much an unfair generalisation as his.

Christians are not taught to be bigoted.
The Bible/God don't teach bigotedness.

Certain supposed "Christian" leaders have taught their people to be bigoted.

To say that all Christians are bigoted is an unfair generalisation, and as I've said before, frankly insulting to people like myself who are not, and who strive to make sure that bigotedness doesn't happen in the church.

[Ngati_Grim]

The Bigot in your brain


I found this quite an interesting article. I thought about posting one about the bigotry of christianity (1st in the google search) but I realise that bigotry is not the sole domain of the religious,and in fact we all are victim of it (if one reads the linked article) and there are also examples of scientific bigotry.

It's a human condition.

The question then arises: If we are all bigotted in some way, and we were made in the image of god (imago dei) then what is that god like?
a)we have free will?
b)yet so, who would allow such injustice to prevail, and to even be hardwired?
the old testament god comes across as a bigot, the new testament god has tempered this a little, but is still a bigot: "None shall enter the kingdom but through me".


Flea, you mentioned you don't think christianity is a religion because it doesn't need a particular framework. I find that a curious comment. what, then, is the 'framework' that christianity works within?
And, if it's not a religion, what is it?

[robbyx]

The Lion a proud and majestic animal? Only because over the course of history humans, particularly humans from western and eastern cultures, have been programmed to think of them as such. I'm sure the local families in Africa don't think of them as majestic. Lions, and all carnivores for that matter, are a vital part of the ecosystem. Lions cull the herds of the weak and infirm because it is in their nature, but it also helps the herds. It also prevents the planet being overrun with zebras and such. Your argument that Lions kill herbivores therefore God is either non-existent or something you would not hold in high regard is somewhat simplistic. Most creatures on the planet are vital, be they regarded as majestic, cruel or wonderful. I'm sure there is even a reason for fleas (no offence intended there Flea :laff:). That is the nature of nature.

Are you trying to tell me that the God that invented the stars, the planets, indeed the whole universe, couldnt come up with a better idea to deal with the weak and infirm other than to tear it limb from limb and have something else eat it  whos being simplistic now....thats not nature, thats murder.

[dirtyape]

whos being simplistic now....thats not nature, thats murder.

What are you talking about? Lions murdering their prey? They eat it, so it's not murder. It's food.

If it was murder then satan would be making the lions do it. ;-)

[Baltimore]

Are you trying to tell me that the God that invented the stars, the planets, indeed the whole universe, couldnt come up with a better idea to deal with the weak and infirm other than to tear it limb from limb and have something else eat it  whos being simplistic now....thats not nature, thats murder.

No, I'm saying that nature came up with it but using the existence of carnivores as proof of the existence or non-existence of some God is a flawed argument. The "meat is murder" line is not proof of the non-existence of a deity. It is merely a belief of people who do not wish to eat meat. Which actually makes it a religion of sorts as well .

[ThaFleastyler]

Flea, you mentioned you don't think christianity is a religion because it doesn't need a particular framework. I find that a curious comment. what, then, is the 'framework' that christianity works within? And, if it's not a religion, what is it?

Its kind of a technicality, since the accepted definition of religion (that being "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" or "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices") differs from the colloquial way it is used within the Christian church (that being "adherence to a set of man-made rules, as opposed to following God" or "going through the motions rather than genuinely having faith").

The reason for this discrepancy is that there are different groups of Christians, who are all different in their own ways - Apostolic, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Baptist, etc etc. Christian is defined as "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings" - so technically, Catholics are Christians, as are Presbyterians, Anglicans, and so on.

Colloquially speaking, if someone calls me religious I just assume they mean that I'm a Christian. But while other groups are also religious, and believe in the same God and the same Bible, they are quite different.

The framework I meant was kind of the set way of doing things - like, in the Catholic church, the services are run a certain way, there is certain protocols that must be followed, and so on - the problem being that none of that stuff is in the bible. If that makes sense.

[Ngati_Grim]

If that makes sense.

Yep, it does.

Ta


Though this: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" is the accepted opinion and the 'colloquialisms' appear to be ways to circumvent that (unsuccessfully, I must add).
According to people I know who study and teach this sort of thing, it is a religion and is composed of sects and the colloquialisms are just that but have no real meaning in the bigger picture.

[robbyx]

No, I'm saying that nature came up with it but using the existence of carnivores as proof of the existence or non-existence of some God is a flawed argument. The "meat is murder" line is not proof of the non-existence of a deity. It is merely a belief of people who do not wish to eat meat. Which actually makes it a religion of sorts as well .

Who the hell do you think made "nature" what it is ?
We are not talking about people here, we are talking about animals, which have no choice in what they have to eat in order to survive....and no, it is not a flawed arguement, it is the very heart of the problem for me.....
What sort of sick, twisted, sadistic prick would invent an animal that can only survive by tearing another living creature to pieces ?

[Zarkov]

Would have been better if we were all herbivores imo.

[dirtyape]

What sort of sick, twisted, sadistic prick would invent an animal that can only survive by tearing another living creature to pieces ?

You are judging things from a modern, civilised humans perspective. Which is fitting really, as that is what the bible tries to do. Well maybe not modern. Or civilised. But it was at the time of it's compilation. So, this argument does have merit as it highlights the paradoxical nature of a all loving god - but only when viewed from a civilised humans perspective. So is it really a paradox? No.

Funnily enough though, your argument is easily twisted to a Christian perspective. The fact that man does not exist in this way, where man can choose to either tear things apart (figuratively speaking) or not in order to survive could be construed as a difference between man and beast. Hence an affirmation for the belief that we are favoured, and created for a special purpose - the expression of free will.

Obviously, this is not my belief. I'm just highlighting the alternative viewpoint and analysis.

[Ngati_Grim]

The fact that man does not exist in this way, where man can choose to either tear things apart (figuratively speaking) or not in order to survive could be construed as a difference between man and beast. Hence an affirmation for the belief that we are favoured, and created for a special purpose - the expression of free will.

I find, with that argument, that We ARE the most destructive animal on this Planet. That we are conscious, and have constructed a morality around this consciousness of our animal nature rendered should not change this. This is a product of our evolution, both genetic and social.

Of course, we are 'favoured' at the moment, and essentially since our development as the Genus Homo. Our purpose is no more or less special than any other living organism: to ensure the survival of our species.

We are not the End Game. We are part of a continuum, just as all other Life is part of the continuum. There's a long time left yet for life to exist on Earth, most probably beyond the span of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Religion seems as though it's creating justification for certain behaviours by being inventive and preying upon superstition and hope. Under its various guises it has been with us for so long that we are led to believe we can't do without it and just plain led to believe.

[cobra]

......

Christians are not taught to be bigoted.

.....

Certain supposed "Christian" leaders have taught their people to be bigoted.

........

To say that all Christians are bigoted is an unfair generalisation.

first i didn't say all christians are bigots.

second can you read the two first lines - thats my point - you have decided that the christian leaders are 'supposed "Christian" leaders' but they and the people they teach consider them actual christian leaders - and the hateful teachings are more than a small minority of churches, your church might not teach hatred but that is quite a small sample

once again, read krashers hate speech, he was taught to be a bigot

if there was systematic teaching to white people to make them racist then i would be opposed to that, i would find it sickening - but there isn't so they are quite different things imo

[dirtyape]

I find, with that argument, that We ARE the most destructive animal on this Planet. That we are conscious, and have constructed a morality around this consciousness of our animal nature rendered should not change this. This is a product of our evolution, both genetic and social.

Of course, we are 'favoured' at the moment, and essentially since our development as the Genus Homo. Our purpose is no more or less special than any other living organism: to ensure the survival of our species.

We are not the End Game. We are part of a continuum, just as all other Life is part of the continuum. There's a long time left yet for life to exist on Earth, most probably beyond the span of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Religion seems as though it's creating justification for certain behaviours by being inventive and preying upon superstition and hope. Under its various guises it has been with us for so long that we are led to believe we can't do without it and just plain led to believe.

Undoubtedly. My purpose was not to endorse a religious viewpoint, it was to  bring it to the table in lieu of a lack of other offerings.

In the grand scheme of things, Homo Sapiens are only a very small part of this planets biosphere. It is absolutely arrogant to presume we are anything special - from a naturalist perspective.

If a species success is measured in the length of their existence then it would be Cockroaches which are the victors. If it is measured in the length of which a species dominated the food chain then it would be Velociraptors.

But if it is a species cultural and technological advances that are measured then it is obviously homo sapiens who triumph.

To a naturalist, there is no favoured species. Only survival, and all that is mentioned above (even technology and culture) are manifestations thereof. Human morality is also a cultural manifestation. As is religion.

But does everyone realise this? Some wish it not to be true so much that it clouds their judgement. Some wish to ignore our reptilian heritage. Whatever there reasons it usually comes back to, in my opinion, arrogance. A presumption that humans are different, superior, chosen.

But what is this presumption actually based upon? A book? A book derived not through thought and careful analysis - but through mysticism? And this is a basis for a world view of existence? That strikes me as a simple cop out. An unwillingness to decipher existence through your own eyes, and instead have it dictated to you.

Perhaps some lack the faculties to do otherwise...

[Ngati_Grim]

^what he said.

[krasher]

bla bla bla waaa waa waa...
once again, read krashers hate speech, he was taught to be a bigot

Projection
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.........

[Arnifix]

Would have been better if we were all herbivores imo.

I don't believe you, cat. Meat is murderously good.

[ThaFleastyler]

first i didn't say all christians are bigots.

But you did imply that all Christians were comparable to hate groups, did you not?

The fascists and Klansmen will be pleased to hear that.

thats a valid point, you believe these groups should have no barriers to having clubs on campus, flea? - any hate group really doesn't have a place on campus but i wouldn't support them being banned

Oh yeah! There it is! Z-Cat with the assist ...

Go on cobra. Tell me I'm wrong and that you haven't repeatedly compared Christians to hate groups like the KKK and Nazis.

second can you read the two first lines - thats my point - you have decided that the christian leaders are 'supposed "Christian" leaders' but they and the people they teach consider them actual christian leaders - and the hateful teachings are more than a small minority of churches, your church might not teach hatred but that is quite a small sample

I use the term "Christian", with quotation marks, because no real Christian would teach or believe hate - you have to have a totally fucked up view of things, and a vital core misunderstanding of God and the biblical text, to teach hate in any form, from a Christian perspective.

[robbyx]

But does everyone realise this? Some wish it not to be true so much that it clouds their judgement. Some wish to ignore our reptilian heritage. Whatever there reasons it usually comes back to, in my opinion, arrogance. A presumption that humans are different, superior, chosen.

I dont believe thats the case for the vast marjority of christians, i think most christians are christian out of a desire to lead a moral, wholesome, worthwhile life....if there was no such thing as the bible i think most of these people would still lead a good moral life...its a shame that they have to use the bible to justify this moral existence...

I would be much happier about christianity if church leaders said "look, we all know the bible is just a story book, it is not real and is not meant to be taken as such, but the message it teachs is as important and relavent today as it was 2000 years ago, and will be in another 2000 years....love thy neighbour, do unto others etc"

I think this approach would be far more successful and useful for mankind as a whole...hell, i might even join in.

[Dr Woomanchu]

I use the term "Christian", with quotation marks, because no real Christian would teach or believe hate - you have to have a totally fucked up view of things, and a vital core misunderstanding of God and the biblical text, to teach hate in any form, from a Christian perspective.

The problem with this statement, is that there are many people who practice hate, although often thinly veiled with words of gods love, who claim to be the real Christians, and  would state happily that those who don't share their fundamentalist views are not real Christians.

Christian merely means identifying with a belief system that includes the NT, the variations within that are endless.

Extremists of any form, be they Christian, Muslim, or members of Greenpeace, are the problem. It just so happens because of the thread we're in, that the relgious extremists get the attention

[ThaFleastyler]

Good point Doc - extremists are always the problem. In Christianity's case, there are also fundamentalists, such as what were in that discussion on wicca Nick linked to.

The over-riding message of Christianity should be love, first and foremost. Its a shame so many Christian's forget this

[brucewillis2]

I would be much happier about christianity if church leaders said "look, we all know the bible is just a story book, it is not real and is not meant to be taken as such, but the message it teachs is as important and relavent today as it was 2000 years ago, and will be in another 2000 years....love thy neighbour, do unto others etc"

I reckon! all those bullshit stories of water into wine, god, jesus, and all that other make believe stuff is impossible to take seriously. noah, flooding the earth, pairs of animals in a big wooden boat, parting the sea, the 10 commandments carved on to rock. Honestly if I met someone and thought 'this guy is pretty smart' then he told me that he truly believed all that garbage I would immediately drop my initial impression of him and then think of him as a nutcase.

[dirtyape]

I dont believe thats the case for the vast marjority of christians, i think most christians are christian out of a desire to lead a moral, wholesome, worthwhile life....if there was no such thing as the bible i think most of these people would still lead a good moral life...its a shame that they have to use the bible to justify this moral existence...

I would be much happier about christianity if church leaders said "look, we all know the bible is just a story book, it is not real and is not meant to be taken as such, but the message it teachs is as important and relavent today as it was 2000 years ago, and will be in another 2000 years....love thy neighbour, do unto others etc"

I think this approach would be far more successful and useful for mankind as a whole...hell, i might even join in.

What you are describing is not Christian. Christians follow Christ, and that description of Christ comes from the bible - however they interpret it. If they do not believe the bible fundamentals then are they really following Christ? No, they are following their own Christ. And then - are they Christian?

I mean why even call it Christ? What value does the name have if it is not the Christ described in the bible?

[robbyx]

What you are describing is not Christian. Christians follow Christ, and that description of Christ comes from the bible - however they interpret it. If they do not believe the bible fundamentals then are they really following Christ? No, they are following their own Christ. And then - are they Christian?

I mean why even call it Christ? What value does the name have if it is not the Christ described in the bible?

Dont christians follow God ? the bible is Gods word is it not ? maybe someone else can elaborate further there....

Of all the millions of christians on the planet i bet there arent two of them that interprut "gods word" exactly the same way...certainly different churchs teach thier own interprutations of the bible, but i wouldnt count one less christian than the other.

[nick247]

and thus you have the problem

The bible teaches a message that is in parts relevent to today and in many parts completely irrelevent. Any piece of codified guidance will always be going out of date and require updating. Because Christians are too willing to see the bible as a perfect timeless text then they end up preaching and teaching things that in the present day IS CONSIDERED bigotry and it will only get worse and the western world liberalises

women, blacks, people who are different, the mentally ill, sick people, gays, adulterers, sluts all of these were looked at different in the days the bible was created. Not only that but the book is based on one part of the world and its values. And we all know how big the world is

The bible cannot handle the world we live in today and it is not going to get any better. Christianity needs a new game plan or it is going to/ IS GETTING left in the dust

put traditional Christianity in a fucking museum cos its getting OOLLLDD

[nick247]

lol ironically the christianity needs to evolve heheheheh

we all know that survival goes to those who evolve