|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Some of the greatest persecution in the world is undertaken "in the name of god" (I use lower case on purpose here).
I am looking quietly at the overall Christian faith into which I was baptised, but in which I was never confirmed, by my own choice. I see some major paradoxes.
In all the paintings I have seen, the Christ figure is white, often blond, and very European. But Mary and Joseph were Jewish. I tend to ignore the immaculate conception totally. Jesus, son of Mary, would at least be a man with Jewish features. And among the Jewish peoples, by no means all are "white". It is perfectly possible that Jesus was of African stock. Black.
Same with Adam and Eve, of course. And that set me thinking about incest. We all, allegedly, go back to one man and one woman. So who mated with whom after them? And to complicate matters, when all except the noah family were wiped out in the rain, there was ONE family left, from an already restricted gene pool, and presumably they all mated with each other to create the human race.
Something is very fishy here, too. Incest on a grand scale.
Then we get little tales like Moses. "Honest, dad, I found him in a basket, in the bullrushes!" A likely story to ocver an illegitimate birth. Moses is the Pharoah's grandson!
And people who believe implicitly in such things without question then dare to persecute others in the name of their god
The also evangelise, scoring points by converting others to their beliefs. And during the evangelism are happy to decry others who do not agree with their views. Jehovah's Witnesses condemn homosexuals, for example.
If I carry on with this random thread I will offend all of those who have religion as their backbone. I wonder, though, if I will offend those who have faith as theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is something I have yet to have adequately explained to me.
The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman (and therefore, by inference, the only man and woman on the face of the earth). It further tells us they had two sons (one of which, Abel, was a victim of fratricide). So, if the human race were to continue, the only way that could happen would be for the surviving son (Cain) to have an incestuous liason with Eve (or with an unnamed sister the story may have just failed to mention, which would have been just as incestuous). If incest is a thing to be condemned, then how can those who condemn it explain this? Perhaps some "still-born" holier-than-thou type will stumble upon this message board and clarify this (I'm not holding my breath, however!).
History is rife with atrocities committed in the name of god (like Tim, lower-case on purpose), be that god named Jesus or Yahweh or Mohammed or Buddha or Jehova or whatever; prime examples, of course, being such things as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc. Each religion (indeed each denomination within each religion) claims to have the one and only true and undisputable understanding of god and the world, and woe be to anyone who refuses to accept their particular brand of dogma completely and unquestioningly. As I think I have stated here before (forgive the repetition!), they get so bogged down in their self-righteousness that they forget about the things that truly matter. I'm sure there are those, for example, who would actually condemn smith for helping that "dirty" boy who dared to expose himself in public like that. I'm no Bible scholar (not by a long shot!), but didn't Jesus, when the dogmatics of his day took him to task for consorting with lepers and prostitutes, say something along the lines of "As you do unto the least among you, so you do unto me."? It's such a simple concept, yet why can't these so-called "Christians" see that in condemning their fellow man (for whatever reason) they condemn the very god they claim to worship? That boy in the mall certainly qualified for "least among us" status (through no fault of his own, I hasten to add), and smith chose an act of charity over an act of condemnation. So, which would Jesus have embraced: smith's act of charity, or some "official" church condemnation of it (a rhetorical question, I know; but I thought I'd ask it anyway).
smith, most of these thoughts should perhaps have been posted to your thread (for which I apologize; but this is my first visit to the message board in a few days, and, reading "from the bottom up", this thread was at the top). You could have (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) turned your head and pretended not to see this boy (as so many of these "good God-fearing" people would), but you didn't; and you were rewarded for it by watching him wolf down that food and thereby see how grateful he was for your kindness. Thank you for sharing that story with the rest us here, smith. It teaches a lesson we all (ALL!) need to learn.
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, altho I am victimized by official religion by virtue of being gay, I don't think that many religious bigots can be accused of hypocrisy.
To be a hypocrite, you have to have some awareness of the legitimacy of other points of view. Reigious zealots don't. They simply believe that their beliefs are facts.
Very big difference between "beliefs" and "facts". I spend my days with counselling clients trying to clarify which of their beliefs might be factual and which not. Very tough thing to do, with all people, because of the nature of being human and trying to make sense of our experience in life.
Then there is the whole area of the social construction of "reality". That is, what large groups of people believe become the beliefs of those taught down the line what to beleve. It doesn't even need generations of teaching, necessarily. Look at Jim Jones and the Jonestown suicide/murders in Guyana. They BELIEVED.
All religions teach some very odd things. It's interesting to compare oddities. Mormans believe that after Jesus was resurrected the first time, he went to North America, and that Polynesians are the lost tribe of Israel. Talk about not looking Jewish...!
The founder of the Methodists was an Anglican priest who expressly and specifically told his followers they must never start another church. Did the Methodists all stay Anglican? Nope. They didn't even listen to their own founder. Go figure.
Mainstream Buddhists don't believe in a God. They think of all religions as bicycles that can each be used to help individuals along the journey of life. When one breaks down or isn't useful anymore, there will be another one lying around that will continue to be useful. I like that image a lot. It keeps you from taking yourself too seriously.
I have a good book at my office, can't remember the author, but it's all about this stuff. The title says a lot. "Believed In Imaginings"...
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
Tim, you're thinking of pictures of a Europeanised Jesus done by westerners for westerners. Ethiopian crucifixion scenes show a black Jesus, Chinese nativity scenes show a Chinese holy family. Likewise Greco-Indian Buddhas look quite different from Japanese ones. It was long ago observed that it wasn't a case of God creating Man in his own image, but of Man creating God in his own image.
Most religions are peppered with paradoxes. That's what keeps theologians in business. It seems that most if not all human cultures, as they emerged, had an inbuilt need to explain their own origins. The resulting creation myths are of course nothing but myths, whose literal truth is believed, in these rationalist and materialist days, by relatively few. They differ wildly in detail, but usually start with primordial father and/or mother figures who, in many cases, create and propagate by means of quite startling sexual shenanigans. Even if these First Beings are (to us) inanimate (e.g. the Sun or Moon) they are still endowed with human characteristics. Arthur C. Clarke has a nice passage about mankind being told by an intergalactic messenger of almost infinite knowledge that, of the cultures elsewhere in the universe which are at a level similar to our own and which engage in religious activities, 'all had two-parent reproduction and the young remained in family groups for a large fraction of their lifetime.' Fiction, of course; but one sees exactly what he's getting at. God in Man's image again.
Typically, creation myths insist on a single pair of parents for all mankind, and therefore incest is inevitable to procreate the species. Genesis has two different myths, not even Jewish in origin but derived from Babylonia (Ron: Adam had three named sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, and after Seth 'he begat sons and daughters'). Subsequent theologians had to rationalise the incest. I don't blame them, I sympathise with them for having to explain the awkward raw material of the myth they inherited. Anyway, such incest pales into insignificance compared to what dirty old Zeus got up to, or some of the Egyptian gods. So with later myths that are nowhere near history: Arthur and Excalibur, the Niebelungen, the infant Moses, Jonah and whale. As far as I'm concerned, people are welcome to believe in them, or in fairies, or in UFOs, so long as they don't ram them down my throat.
So I couldn't agree more about the use of religion by blinkered zealots who claim a monopoly on the right interpretation of their holy books. It's nothing new. It seems to be yet another of the many in-built weaknesses of mankind, paralleled these days by fanatical adherence to a particular political party or a particular (say) football club.
Don't forget, though, that there are plenty of tolerant and liberal religious people around too. One doesn't hear so much about them, perhaps, any more than one hears about well-behaved football fans. It's the hooligans and extremists who hit the headlines. Even so, give me a philosophy any day, as opposed to a dogmatic religion: a tolerant and peaceful philosophy such as Buddhism; or even, within Christianity, a tolerant and peaceful and undogmatic sect like the Quakers. A religion rules you, a philosophy guides you.
Blow me, that turned into a sermon, didn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Many religious practices arose as practical solutions to very common problems. It was easier to get people to change their ways by incorporating these solutions into religion. Circumcision for one. In the days when the Jews were wandering through the desert, personal hygiene was quite neglected. This resulted in infection. The Jews figured out that removal of the foreskin greatly reduced the chance of infection. But they were faced with a huge problem. How do you get men to agree to to have their foreskins removed. Answer, make it part of the religion. If god wants it done, then it must be done. Same goes for the ban on eating pork. No one understood that thorough cooking would kill the bacteria that was the real problem, so it became a matter of religion to ban the eating of pork as a public safety precaution. Incest is likely another one of those public safety precautions. It couldn't have been too difficult for people to see that deformities and other problems were far more common when close family members interbred, thus the ban on incest. I'd guess homosexuality was prohibited because of the need to increase populations. Strict homosexuals are not going to reproduce. And in times when hunger, disease, and war were rampant, there certainly was a need to increase populations in order for specific peoples to survive. Because religion had such great control over the masses, it was easier to get people to conform by making such practices a part of the religion. There is no more need for practices like circumcision, and no need for banning the consumption of pork or practice of homosexuality. Unfortunately, most of today's religions have lost that flexibility. They are far too rigid and questioning ancient practices simply can't be done. After all, if god wanted it done then, he can't simply change his mind now. If we change one of our beliefs, doesn't that call into question ALL of our beliefs?
Faith, IMHO, can and should be unwavering, but religious practice should be flexible and therefore far more capable of meeting the needs of the people at the time.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Here's an appropriate oxymoron :
religious tolerance
That is when a wonderful person cannot
enter a church building because his hair
is blue or he has a face piercing. Who
exactly is making these tolerant rules?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
I mean, there is nothing the least bit sacreligious about blue hair or face peircing, so there's not really even anything to be "tolerant" of, from a religion standpoint. The fact that they should be welcoming sinners (or should I say "worse" or more frequent sinners, but don't get me started on THAT!)because they need to be "saved" is a whole 'nother deal altogether.
The one I loved from real life was an openly lesbian manager at my work. She was so disapproving of my buddy's wife's "goth" look - black makeup, etc - that they no longer felt welcome at company functions, even the ones where my manager friend brought her "partner" and introduced her as such to the unsuspecting. I don't have a problem with THAT, but considering she was also the HR manager and supposedly aware of diversity issues was quite ludicrous considering her own biases and anti-diversity attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Please expand on the "sinners" theme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Blue rinses and pierced ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
I said: "The fact that they should be welcoming sinners (or should I say 'worse' or more frequent sinners, but don't get me started on THAT!) because they need to be 'saved' is a whole 'nother deal altogether."
My point being that "good church folks" often claim to want to help sinners - e.g. seek forgiveness/salvation, yet don't actually welcome them to church or befriend them as Jesus did, according to the Bible. [Aside - even though it's a bit trite, this is why I really appreciate the "What Would Jesus Do?" thing.]
I said "don't get me started" because IMHO we're all sinners and especially if all sin (my definition - an act against another or against God) is equal, then many of the "good church folks" are probably sinners just as much as the "worst imaginably sinner" (in their opinion) who could walk through the door - just more hypocritical and in denial. Of course others are just ignorant or uninformed.
Well, I'm sure I could have said this a bit better, but the best my cloudy brain can do at the moment - I hope it's coherent enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
That's very true, Tim. Most women and girls
I know have pierced ears. And yet, because
I have a pierced ear, not done on a whim and
extremely important to me,I catch a lot of flak.
Every Sunday I am asked to take it out and every
Sunday, I do not. Does this make me less important
than them; less worthy? Confusing doctrine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This idea was first debated by Marx and Lennon some 90 or so years ago.... Their beliefs reguarding Communism and the ensuing governmental movement that followed were but a part of his enlightened observation.
Now don't misunderstand, I am by no means a protagonist of the communist movement.... But I find this particular phrase interestingly pertinant here.
Religion basicly at it's most base form seems to come from a need inbred in mankind to explain the virtually unexplainable. By this, what I mean to say is that in all social groups humankind consistantly believes in some greater power, something more than the corporial world as we know it.
As society gradually became more complex, the need for greater control of the general population became evident (look to the rise of Christianity in the dark and middle ages) in order to ensure the survival of the church. This rise in complexity led to the development and fine tuning of many of the ritualistic and traditional values prescribed by many organized religions today.
The concept of sin is basic to religion as it instills the "FEAR OF GOD" in the ignorant masses. As religion teachings progressed the "fear" concept migrated from an individualistic view of "right doing" and "wrong doing" to the base differences between one social group and another.
This broadening of the concept that basic social differences are against the teachings of "whatever" church are the seeds of social prejudices.
It is natural to fear the unknown, therefore fear is the fuel of religion. Fear of going against the church, fear that the church is right in its teachings and equally pertinant is the fear that the church is wrong..... When believers are fased with such a universal delema generally opt for the best case scenario, ergo, God is good and Heaven we are bound....
And to hell with all who say otherwise......
What I believe in, personally, is to try my best (which at times isn't all that good) to live a good life. To help when I can (even when I bitch about being inconvenienced) and to try and leave this small world a little better than when I found it. To care for my friends and have a care for those yet unmet.
In life I think we all try to be family to one another, our lifestyles, being on the edge of mainstreem cause us come together in spirit for shelter such as it is.
.....Hope I didn't bore anyone too much.....The expanded version of this topic was always a sleeper in the lecture hall.... LOL
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Official Hypocrisy 
