Re: Religion.

by . Wed 17 Dec 2008, 10:14 am

Sooo I know they've already been answered but I'm a strong supporter of more than one answer for anything ^.^
And I just had a religion final today so I'm in the mood...

Eyelash Wishes wrote:

Where on earth did the bible come from?

The Bible as Catholics (this is all from a Roman Catholic POV btw, mostly because I go to Catholic school...) know it is defined in two parts: Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is also called the Hebrew Scriptures because it tells the story of the Hebrews. I don't know how these texts originated but I know the New Testament was selected at the Council of Nicea in about the third century (that date might be wrong). This was also where the divinity of Jesus Christ was decided. >.>

Eyelash Wishes wrote:But I believe that some of the teachings of the bible are a little, uhm, unfair really.

Of course they are. That's why I personally don't think fundamentalism makes sense. Plus, as a rule book - it contradicts itself with regularity. But reading it in context makes it a bit more sensible.
It was written over 2,000 years ago, some parts of it. It's meant for small agricultural communities.
That's really the only evidence for the rejection of homosexuality - it just wasn't procreative.
And the reason for polygamy - procreation.
And for the no shell fish rule - it wasn't safe.
It was also written by probably hundreds of different authors >.> sooo...

Eyelash Wishes wrote:
Quick question. The bible, has it ever been updated? How come we have the 'Old Testament' and then the 'New Testament.' In my own personal opinion, Religion should change and grow and adapt to our day and age. That's what they did in the past? Christianity came from the Roman Catholics. It was an English King that founded Christianity. He had money, and he had political status, and people converted to Christianity.

In Religion this semester we read an updated version of the Bible, written in Modern English and generalized modern situations. I really liked it.
And actually, Christianity came from the Jews - who considered themselves Jews, not Catholics. In fact, the word Catholic means "universal," and these Jews just thought that this was the natural progression of their faith. The division between the two religions became bigger and bigger over time.

And...it was actually Constantine who brought Christianity to Rome as the main religion. And he didn't do it because he was a Christian, really. He was baptized at a very old age and saw that the Christians were being persecuted yet growing in numbers, and creating a threat to his empire - so he decided to give in and unify Rome under monogamous new-Judaism.
lulz you can find that in the da vinci code. v good part of the movie ^.^

Eyelash Wishes wrote:
And how did religion come about anyway? Where is the proof of Adam and Eve? Because I've never seen any.

There are books and books and books on the origins of religion. But it all comes down to the why are we here question. Where did we come from. Adam and Eve are explanations of that, in a religious way. Evolution is the scientific, logical version.
Your pick >.>

Eyelash Wishes wrote:
The bible teaches us to 'Love thy Neighbour,' so because my neighbours are Indian and have a different religion to mine with different beliefs I shouldn't accept them or their religion?

On the contrary. A man was attacked on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho by robbers who left him half dead on the side of the road. A little later a rabbi came by, but when he saw the man - crossed to the other side of the road and continued on. Later still, a Levite saw the man but again did not stop. Still later, a Samaritan saw the man on the side of the road and stopped to tend to him. He took him to an inn where he paid for his room and board, then continued on his way. Now who is the true neighbor to this man?

In my opinion, the Bible tells us to love each other no matter what. In fact, I think that's really the best parts of the Bible - the parts on love.
The other really good verse that I don't remember well enough to write down is 1 Corinthians 13. It's beautiful. I suggest Google.

Eyelash Wishes wrote:
With the way society has developed and changed and peoples values have changed, wouldn't you think that in some way these changes would also take part in the Church?

For centuries, the church operated on fear in order to gain power. The pope would excommunicate kings, emperors - anyone who didn't give into his demands. It smeared women, homosexuals, so called heretics. It killed, burned, stole. We see several reactions:
1 - more fear
2 - Protestantism in the Refermation
3 - turning a blind eye on this to focus on what good the church does.

So yeah, for me - I'm Catholic...I guess. ish. I go to Catholic school, I read the bible for homework. I wouldn't call myself religious, but I would say I'm spiritual. I don't know. I think it's interesting and useful. But I don't support everything in it, yet I don't think I have to. I don't really believe in hell - I can't see how the Bible would support that. I don't think that Jesus died for our sins and then wants people to burn for all eternity. It just doesn't seem logical to me *shrug*. I believe in a loving God who cares for us no matter what we do.

by belle of the boulevard. Wed 17 Dec 2008, 5:20 pm

kafka. wrote:What makes you think Catholics worship God out of fear, while "other" denominations do it out of love?

I am baptised Catholic, I attended weekly services until I was nearly 13, made my first communion, etc.
The horrors of hell and how one must avoid them by living in the light of God were mentioned so many times- God loves you as long as you are good, and if you are not, you must confess.

As for other denominations, I've seen celebrations there, and from what I've seen, the feeling there is that God will always love us because we are his children, no matter what we do, he will always be there for us.

It's almost as if for Catholics in particular, God is a ruler and higher than we could hope to comprehend, and for other parts of the faith, God is in all of us, and much closer than we think.

by . Wed 17 Dec 2008, 7:28 pm

Polly, I'm baptized Catholic too and we go to mass (or well we haven't lately, but we did a lot more in past years) a lot too, but I've never heard them talk about the horrors of hell. Ever.

And in religion, at school, we're taught that God is always listening *shrug*

I think it probably varies from church to church then?

by proust. Wed 17 Dec 2008, 7:51 pm

I don't think neoprotestant denominations are more "loving" either. They're just as obsessed with saving their souls as Catholic -or Orthodox?- believers. They're just a lot more, dunno scared that they might do anything sinful. The Catholic Church is actually lose in morals and rules -nowadays at least- compared to Lutherans or Jehovah's Witnesses.

On the topic of the Catholic Church, the -Eastern- Orthodox Church calls itself the Catholic Orthodox Church -although it's a different institution. Orthdox merely means "one who worships God correctly". It's almost funny how we're taught that the Orthodox Church is the one who kept the true laws, while Catholic schools teach that Catholicism was the original religion.
hmmmm

Which brings up the question: why do we need to be ruled by a Pope?

by . Thu 18 Dec 2008, 8:29 am

Doesn't the papacy bring up a whole new set of issues? Human values? Couldn't it be argued that it's because we as humans want to either lead or follow?

I don't really know, personally I don't think we need it, or at least I myself don't really care for it - but I think it is an interesting question...

by proust. Thu 18 Dec 2008, 11:37 pm

Brendon Urie wrote:Doesn't the papacy bring up a whole new set of issues? Human values? Couldn't it be argued that it's because we as humans want to either lead or follow?

I don't really know, personally I don't think we need it, or at least I myself don't really care for it - but I think it is an interesting question...

I do think John Paul II did a lot of good to the world, but to think about how much power a single human being has is just scary.

by belle of the boulevard. Fri 19 Dec 2008, 5:18 am

i think the pope generally is not really in tune with what we as a populace want.

we were told in our religion class that in a council of cardinals a while back, under the last pope i think, voted to allow certain types of artificial contraception- ones that didn't act post-fertilisation. however, the pope dictated that it was wrong.
i don't think that's fair, or really practical in our world.
it's at the point where even those who would say they're religious, will go against the ruling because some views of the church are so outdated.
i think it's sad, personally.
i still have sympathy towards the catholic church as it's what i've grown up with and i will always be close to it, but i really do think it needs to grow out of such outdated rules.

by david c Fri 19 Dec 2008, 3:38 pm

hi polly

i don't really understand what you mean by outdated. do you mean outdated as in doesn't apply to modern society, or old as in just old-fashioned thinking?
the way i see things at the moment is like the other way! i agree with the few things in the church that i've taken time to study! (ie. i havent studied much lol) hehe we're opposites!

by Mr. Benzedrine Fri 19 Dec 2008, 4:04 pm

I'm Jewish. But my family is not one of those Jewish families who only talk to other Jews or say a million prayers before each meal,so we cant really be classified as Jewish anymore. although a part of my body begs to differ Rolling Eyes

lol. gross.

by proust. Fri 19 Dec 2008, 6:15 pm

red hot chili polly. wrote:i think the pope generally is not really in tune with what we as a populace want.

we were told in our religion class that in a council of cardinals a while back, under the last pope i think, voted to allow certain types of artificial contraception- ones that didn't act post-fertilisation. however, the pope dictated that it was wrong.
i don't think that's fair, or really practical in our world.
it's at the point where even those who would say they're religious, will go against the ruling because some views of the church are so outdated.
i think it's sad, personally.
i still have sympathy towards the catholic church as it's what i've grown up with and i will always be close to it, but i really do think it needs to grow out of such outdated rules.

Well it depends on how you look at things.
John Paul II did a lot of good and made up for a lot of mistakes of the Catholic Church. Evolution was accepted as valid, Galileo Galilei was rehabilitated, he tried to reconcile the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic one, he visited many non-Catholic religious and politic leaders.

But yes, he was not a supporter of contraception.
Religious dogma doesn't work in terms of "fair" or "practical".

by david c Fri 19 Dec 2008, 9:40 pm

in response to kafka:
has the catholic church ever denied evolution? As a catholic I've never heard it being denied. JPII's words (as are every pope's) simply clarify doctrines or already-held beliefs, not create or change them. doctrines are things which have never been changed.
true about galileo :P

interesting about your note on 'practical', as by definition it refers to being put to use or being useful... the same word cropped up in a discussion i had the other day - when things are not 'practical' they can have the effect of helping us realise the concept of divinity. Just as practical things point toward a 'use' or a material / physical end, things which are non practical will by design point toward an end which is mysterious. Our discussion was regarding churches; cathedrals are not *practically designed*, nor should they be, i believe. When i go into a cathedral, its very design is a tool which helps me to contemplate within myself something spiritual. I find it easier to realise the idea that there is something outside this world, a mystery which is beautiful. my non believing freinds agree with me on these points, they come to churches and feel something different. not because they are churches but because there is a beauty which arises from mystery.

by proust. Sat 20 Dec 2008, 2:07 am

avemaria wrote:in response to kafka:
has the catholic church ever denied evolution? As a catholic I've never heard it being denied. JPII's words (as are every pope's) simply clarify doctrines or already-held beliefs, not create or change them. doctrines are things which have never been changed.
true about galileo :P

Actually Pius IX denied evolution altogether, Pius X declared that the human was a "special creation", and Pius XI kept a neutral attitude. John Paul II was the first pope to say that evolution has been proved to be more than a hypothesis.

avemaria wrote:
interesting about your note on 'practical', as by definition it refers to being put to use or being useful... the same word cropped up in a discussion i had the other day - when things are not 'practical' they can have the effect of helping us realise the concept of divinity. Just as practical things point toward a 'use' or a material / physical end, things which are non practical will by design point toward an end which is mysterious. Our discussion was regarding churches; cathedrals are not *practically designed*, nor should they be, i believe. When i go into a cathedral, its very design is a tool which helps me to contemplate within myself something spiritual. I find it easier to realise the idea that there is something outside this world, a mystery which is beautiful. my non believing freinds agree with me on these points, they come to churches and feel something different. not because they are churches but because there is a beauty which arises from mystery.

But aren't all churches built after a certain pattern? I know the Catholic and Orthodox ones are at least. The Orthodox one has the form of a ship.

But I agree on the mysterious, mythical - they are the essence of religion.

by david c Sat 20 Dec 2008, 12:55 pm

I wont argue about facts (because i am shamefully ignorant hah) and i am clueless about pius IX, but i had a brief look on wiki and didn't find anything amiss. all of the doctrines clarified by the vatical council still hold today but if there was an explicit condemnation of evolution, thats something ive never heard of. anyhow, the church has never claimed infallibility in scientific matters. for good reason too.. hehe

churches have definitely been built after certain traditional patterns... nowadays 'anything goes' as far as modern churches appear. Which is sort of sad in a way. for instance the cathedral in perth (where i live) is being reconstructed at the moment to being, instead of facing east (a traditional thing) to being built in a big circle, facing the altar. it allows for something like double the amount of seating, but i prefer the old design.
meh lol

anyway what are your own beliefs kafka?

by proust. Sat 20 Dec 2008, 3:58 pm

avemaria wrote:I wont argue about facts (because i am shamefully ignorant hah) and i am clueless about pius IX, but i had a brief look on wiki and didn't find anything amiss. all of the doctrines clarified by the vatical council still hold today but if there was an explicit condemnation of evolution, thats something ive never heard of. anyhow, the church has never claimed infallibility in scientific matters. for good reason too.. hehe

wiki page?
whatnow? O_O

I don't want to argue about most facts either, they're rather irrelevant anyway.

avemaria wrote:churches have definitely been built after certain traditional patterns... nowadays 'anything goes' as far as modern churches appear. Which is sort of sad in a way. for instance the cathedral in perth (where i live) is being reconstructed at the moment to being, instead of facing east (a traditional thing) to being built in a big circle, facing the altar. it allows for something like double the amount of seating, but i prefer the old design.
meh lol

anyway what are your own beliefs kafka?

They're really rebuilding it like that?
What kind of cathedral is it? I mean what denomination.
hmmmm

Regarding cathedrals and monasteries? Well, I'd rather tell a story about it.
It's one of the fundamental Romanian myths. A mean cruel Voda - it's a type of ruler like kings but more byzantine, they're not called kings until after 1877 for matters much too complicated to explain in short sentences- wanted to build a monastery like no other - so he hired 9 artists/craftsmen and Manole -the most famous architect of those times. For seven years they tried to build the monastery but everything they build in daytime was demolished -by strange forces- after nightfall. Manole then realized that to be able to finish his work he had to wall in a soul - to keep the monastery's walls together.
They decide to use the first woman/girl who comes on the sight the next morning. The other craftsmen tell their wives/sisters not to come, but Manole doesn't. So, the next morning his wife -who was also pregnant- comes on the site to bring them food, and they have to wall her in -although Manole tries to stop the others. They finish the monastery and it's the most beautiful everyone has ever seen - but the ruler is jealous and fears that Manole might built an other monastery -better than his- for someone else. So he takes the ladder so that Manole can't get down from the roof of the monastery. He tries to make wings shingles, but he falls from the roof and dies.

I think it's important to keep traditions - not only to preserve a sense of mystery- but because tradition is important in itself. When we pray -when we say one of David's psalms for example- it is important to remember that thousands and thousands of people have said the same words hundreds and hundreds of years ago - it gives me, at least, a feeling of belonging. Things become sacred because they have been repeated so many times.

And it's okay if you call me Andy. you have pleased him

Though, Kafka makes me giggle.

by david c Sat 20 Dec 2008, 5:56 pm

LOL i meant religious beliefs but i like the story! are you romanian?
it's not really a full circle, probably not as weird-looking as you're imagining, just that the pews are not your normal 'all facing one direction' but in a circular shape.
It's a catholic church (St Mary's, and it's perth's biggest) and before they started construction I went there every chance i could get.
https://www.stmarysappeal.com.au/tour
i just found some pics of what it's gonna look like. Nothing too dramatic but I still prefer the old one. They're using a lot of glass (to replace the old stained glass) which really sucks.

I'm david, by the way Smile

by proust. Sat 20 Dec 2008, 6:05 pm

avemaria wrote:LOL i meant religious beliefs but i like the story! are you romanian?
it's not really a full circle, probably not as weird-looking as you're imagining, just that the pews are not your normal 'all facing one direction' but in a circular shape.
It's a catholic church (St Mary's, and it's perth's biggest) and before they started construction I went there every chance i could get.
https://www.stmarysappeal.com.au/tour
i just found some pics of what it's gonna look like. Nothing too dramatic but I still prefer the old one. They're using a lot of glass (to replace the old stained glass) which really sucks.

I'm david, by the way

Nice to meet you.
Sorry for the confusion.
And yes.

hmmmm

I'm a nondenominational Christian humanist - in a sense, I follow most Orthodox dogma, I've been raised Orthodox and I go to an Orthodox church - but because I don't agree on certain decisions of the Orthodox church I refuse to affiliate myself with such an institution.

The cathedral looks beautiful. We have a -considerably smaller- gothic cathedral in our town. And the church in my grandmother's village is over 500 years old. But it's really tiny.

by david c Sat 20 Dec 2008, 6:17 pm

500 years old.. shiitttt
perth itself is only like <150 years old.. LOL
nondenominational christian humanist... sounds interesting! lol. what are the problems you have with your church? (as in the orthodox church)

in case you havent already noticed, i'm catholic and happy about it, although i have plenty of unanswered questions. Plenty. hehe.. I guess the difference is that the way i see it presently, I feel that for the many things i don't understand, obedience comes first (rebellion has never worked out for me.. lol) and that after that, for the things i disagree with comes renewal.. or making change within the church rather than (again) rebellion. which basically puts me at intellectual odds with breakaway denominations, but meh lol

by proust. Sat 20 Dec 2008, 7:13 pm

avemaria wrote:500 years old.. shiitttt
perth itself is only like <150 years old.. LOL
nondenominational christian humanist... sounds interesting! lol. what are the problems you have with your church? (as in the orthodox church)

in case you havent already noticed, i'm catholic and happy about it, although i have plenty of unanswered questions. Plenty. hehe.. I guess the difference is that the way i see it presently, I feel that for the many things i don't understand, obedience comes first (rebellion has never worked out for me.. lol) and that after that, for the things i disagree with comes renewal.. or making change within the church rather than (again) rebellion. which basically puts me at intellectual odds with breakaway denominations, but meh lol

Our town dates back to the time of the Roman conquest - around the first and second century AD. gtfo over yourself,

Well mainly it's the fact that there interfere with governmental decisions and such. During the communist regime everything that had to do with religion was forbidden - thus admiration for it flourished- and I am an understanding person, but some things are too much - certain groups in the church put pressure on politicians/the public opinion regarding some views, etc. Then there's the ultranationalitic dimension of it - the Orthodox Church considers it is it's duty to make us overly patriotic and nationalist. Lastly the Orthodox Church supports with our money -partially from donations, but churches/priests receive money from the state- all kinds of radical movements - namely a "youth" group called The New Right -the Old Right were nazi- that, among others, tried to make abortion illegal, homosexual behavior in public a penal offense, eating at McDonald's a sin, and generally they just brainwash kids.
you have pleased him

I hate it when people tell me just to believe when I ask something about religion. I can't believe in something that's not even logical.
Well hopefully we'll both get our questions answered.

by lyrical_mess Sat 20 Dec 2008, 8:55 pm

Isn't blind belief also called faith, Andy? =P

Or at least that's one definition, though I dont agree with it. For example, some people say that if you walk into a certain temple while on your period, you will turn into stone. I say: bullshit. I ask why. I am told to just believe and that these superstitions are for our own good. I still say "bullshit".

by david c Sat 20 Dec 2008, 9:20 pm

most things require faith... even the things we least expect, hehe. Subject most things to scrutiny and they are not as 'easy' as they look.
blind belief is one type of faith, i suppose.. 'blind faith'. Faith does not have to be blind nor bad, although some is. Everything has extremes.

I've always held that humanity is based on faith. We as humans are naturally like that.. love, trust, communication, even science, are not purely reasonable. That's why people I've talked to who reject faith altogether are actually on shaky ground i guess...

furthermore, the consequence of rejecting 'faith' is precisely the cause of rebellion. Not that rebellion is always bad, but people who don't understand the word 'obedience' are in trouble... the whole point is that we come to realise our lack of understanding, and that it's ok to obey those above us. that's why I believe children generally should obey parents, and that's why I obey the church's teaching at the moment. I guess it's also related to humility...

the point is not to always obey, but just the concept of faith, and obedience. There is nothing wrong with them.

by proust. Sat 20 Dec 2008, 10:10 pm

lyrical_mess wrote:Isn't blind belief also called faith, Andy? =P

Or at least that's one definition, though I dont agree with it. For example, some people say that if you walk into a certain temple while on your period, you will turn into stone. I say: bullshit. I ask why. I am told to just believe and that these superstitions are for our own good. I still say "bullshit".

Well, I guess, I have blind belief in reason.
If something is not logic it just cannot be godly - the existence of logic itself and of other universal laws is a proof of divinity?
I don't see how God could be illogic or irrational when He is the creator of reason.
hmmmm

I also have the -extremely- naive belief that I can understand anything as long as it's logic. I mean, I believe in the existence of a Creator -by all means, the this hypothesis seems logic to me, but I can't believe in a rule that seems absolutely illogical just because someone tells me that God wants me to follow it.

by lyrical_mess Sat 27 Dec 2008, 9:21 pm

I think all religious rules and customs have some basis in logic, such as behaving morally or protecting one's family. However, they've morphed so unebelievably and terribly that now they're more ridiculous and restraining than helpful.

Another example from "traditional Hinduism" : a menstruating woman is dirty. Don't let her come to a religious rite of any kind. She must sit in a room separated from everyone else and be ostracized for three days. There's all kinds of crazy shit the uber-strict brahmins did...and some still do. sickos.

by proust. Sun 28 Dec 2008, 5:46 pm

I think most -religious- rules are just the product of society rather than God's will.
you have pleased him

by david c Sun 28 Dec 2008, 8:06 pm

lyrical_mess wrote:I think all religious rules and customs have some basis in logic, such as behaving morally or protecting one's family. However, they've morphed so unebelievably and terribly that now they're more ridiculous and restraining than helpful.

I agree that religious rules are generally based in logic... and that there are terrible religious rules...

a lot of the time, however, I hear some people who take this idea and go on to say, 'religion as a concept is clearly man made and isn't worthy of my respect / consideration.' probably not what you're saying here, but I do hear it a lot. I even read the same argument (put a little nicer) in dawkins' the God delusion.

I don't really get how the argument logically holds up, or even works... I hear it so often though that I can only assume it's a secular attitude that most people end up conforming with only because it's so prevalent.

The way I see it, people nowadays hardly use their intellect... to the extent that most of society's religious beliefs - including non belief - is presently based in ignorance. Wholly due to the secular values and attitudes which saturate society.
There are religions which are awful, but mainstream 'athiest' attitudes don't really get much more reasonable.

by lyrical_mess Tue 06 Jan 2009, 11:43 pm

^

Religion is never awful.

People are awful. People fucking suck. But religion can't be awful. Unless a religion is founded and based upon a recipe for deep-frying small children and serving them as evening snacks.

by Sponsored content