|
| Thread: What is a religion and what is not. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 20, 2009 09:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The monotheistic role model needed to make women from part of man and she was given to him - it's a religion that either completely ignores the way natural creation works or disqualifies it as some kind of penalty for disobeying.
Creational myths involving two creative forces do seem to look a bit more natural, don't you think?
Actually the monotheist religions you speak of teach men and women are equal but have different roles to play. A man is not inferior to a woman just because the woman can bear the child. The man is not superior to the woman just because he is the spiritual leader. I do not think you consider the leader of Germany to be superior to you.
I disagree that monotheism is in opposition to the natural order. In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science by teaching that there are not thousands of nature spirits arbitrarily causing things to happen. Nature is how it is because of the ordered way in which God created things.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science by teaching that there are not thousands of nature spirits arbitrarily causing things to happen.
?
Quote:
Nature is how it is because of the ordered way in which God created things.
?
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 10:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The monotheistic role model needed to make women from part of man and she was given to him - it's a religion that either completely ignores the way natural creation works or disqualifies it as some kind of penalty for disobeying.
Creational myths involving two creative forces do seem to look a bit more natural, don't you think?
Actually the monotheist religions you speak of teach men and women are equal but have different roles to play. A man is not inferior to a woman just because the woman can bear the child. The man is not superior to the woman just because he is the spiritual leader. I do not think you consider the leader of Germany to be superior to you.
I disagree that monotheism is in opposition to the natural order. In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science by teaching that there are not thousands of nature spirits arbitrarily causing things to happen. Nature is how it is because of the ordered way in which God created things.
Genesis 3:16
Quote:
To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."
Which means, the natural order here is that husband rules over wife. Whether rulership constitues superiority or not may be discussed in theory, but in practise history has given the answer over the last couple thousand years.
Moreover I didn'r say that Monotheism is in opposition to the natural order. I just said it IGNORES THE WAY NATURAL CREATION WORKS, especially since God supposedly created humans in his likeness.
Which means, in my personal opinion, that 2 or more creational forces would be more logical than one and only one, and of course you can disagree with that.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 12:14 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:15, 20 May 2009.
|
Bear in mind that the Christian god is represented as the Holy Trinity. Often enough, he refers to himself as "we", such as in the Genesis:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"
implying that he is having a sort of consultation with someone.
The doctrine of trinity states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, but one being.
This often helps to bridge the gap between monotheism and polytheism.
EDIT
I've noticed that this discussion, at least for now, ironically seems as one of the most civilized in the OSM. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 12:19 PM |
|
|
Lets hope it stays that way. We are not cavemen bashing each other with rocks saying "Ugh, you wrong me right."
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 12:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bear in mind that the Christian god is represented as the Holy Trinity. Often enough, he refers to himself as "we", such as in the Genesis:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"
implying that he is having a sort of consultation with someone.
The doctrine of trinity states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, but one being.
This often helps to bridge the gap between monotheism and polytheism.
Not at all. Christianity is only one of the three great monotheistic religions and trinity itself is rather disputed. There are different positions - even though the biggest groups within it seem to agree that it's 3 different persons in one godly being, but the fact is that there is only ONE godly being there.
However, I don't see a gap between monotheism and polytheism. One is one, and the other is the other. I just don't see why a religion having ONE god is supposed to be "better" than or "superior" to a religion having 2, 3, 5 or 20.
Now, before this starts a discussion - it's not exactly on-topic. Queastion is, what is a religion and what not, and for this question we can safely say, I'd say, that it doesn't matter how many gods a pantheon has, the number of gods involved has no relevance for the question whether a belief is a religion or not. 
I'd like to steer this back to the question whether or why a difference between religion and personal spiritual belief would be important.
And my claim was, that if a body of laws makes no difference in rights between religious freedom and every other freedom - if what is allowed is allowed for everyone no matter the religion and what is forbidden is forbidden for everyone no matter the religion - then the difference between "religion" and "personal spiritual belief" becomes irrelevant. Right?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 12:47 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:53, 20 May 2009.
|
Trinity is perhaps disputed in the West, but bear in mind that Eastern Orthodoxy is my specialty and it basically revolves around Trinity. It's not only not disputed but is one of the foundations of that religion.
And while monotheism of Christianity is undoubted, the very idea of three personalities in one divine entity leaves a lot of room for thinking.
Also, I agree that today, the difference between organized religion and personal belief shouldn't be that large. Often they even work well together; in some religions at least.
But organized religion still clings a lot to being a clan. A pedophile which says he has strong personal beliefs will be caught and judged - a pedophile which is a Catholic priest will either be transferred elsewhere or given sanctuary by the Vatican (watched a documentary on it recently; the Vatican is currently giving refuge to about a dozen priests sought for pedophilia only from the United States).
It's quite complicated.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 01:08 PM |
|
|
|
It's the consequence of tha fact that religion HAS HAD a lot of extra rights - it still has, but it's getting less.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 02:02 PM |
|
|
[quoteGenesis 3:16
Quote:
To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."
Which means, the natural order here is that husband rules over wife. Whether rulership constitues superiority or not may be discussed in theory, but in practise history has given the answer over the last couple thousand years.
You are surely not saying your Chancellor and other government officials are superior to you? Every organization and social group has to have a leader. The leader is not superior to the other members of the group. But if you view your Chancellor as superior to you that is your business.
The Bible states that a ruler is to rule in the fear of God and is to serve those over whom he has responsibility.
Quote:
2Sa 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
Quote:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
God created male and females as equals. Both male and female were made in the image of God. God is genderless as a Spirit though he did manifest himself as the male Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
After the fall man and woman were no longer in harmony and the man's leadership role would sometimes be found to be burdensome to the woman. Although I have found that many women desire to be in the submissive role and want their husband to be a strong leader. Of course I did not say all women desire this.
Quote:
And my claim was, that if a body of laws makes no difference in rights between religious freedom and every other freedom - if what is allowed is allowed for everyone no matter the religion and what is forbidden is forbidden for everyone no matter the religion - then the difference between "religion" and "personal spiritual belief" becomes irrelevant. Right?
The US Constitution does make a differnce. Freedom of religion is the firt right listed in the Bill of Rights. In order not to trample this freedom the laws in the US have made exemptions for religion in certain areas.
For example, a minior can't drink alcohol ordinarily. But the child has the freedom to take communion wine because or his right to practice his religion.
Personal spiritual belief would fall into relion catagory.
Quote:
the Vatican (watched a documentary on it recently; the Vatican is currently giving refuge to about a dozen priests sought for pedophilia only from the United States).
Harboring criminals is wrong. The Bible clearly says it is the duty of the state to be a terror to evil doers. Pedophiles are clearly evil doers.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 02:59 PM |
|
|
To keep this on topic I'm not going into the gender role discussion - for the topic at hand this is irrelevant.
Quote:
Quote:
And my claim was, that if a body of laws makes no difference in rights between religious freedom and every other freedom - if what is allowed is allowed for everyone no matter the religion and what is forbidden is forbidden for everyone no matter the religion - then the difference between "religion" and "personal spiritual belief" becomes irrelevant. Right?
The US Constitution does make a differnce. Freedom of religion is the firt right listed in the Bill of Rights. In order not to trample this freedom the laws in the US have made exemptions for religion in certain areas.
For example, a minior can't drink alcohol ordinarily. But the child has the freedom to take communion wine because or his right to practice his religion.
Personal spiritual belief would fall into relion catagory.
Which is the reason why it is necessary to define what religion is, and to have amendments and acts for clearification.
If there were no extra rights no clarification and definition was necessary.
Another point is, even if communion is indeed something that happened that way (which is not undisputed either; there is the opinion that ths part was introduced later, when Christianity became official Roman religion, to make it acceptable for the soldiery, since the Mithras-Cult has something like that which was very popular with the soldiery): I don't think that children at that time were allowed to drink wine, which would mean that Jesus either wanted communion to be for adults only or not to be made with wine.
Likewise, if Jesus didn't intend this at all, and maybe the Church did introduce it as a ritual, the same question has to be applied. Why take wine for children or why make communion for children at all.
Extra rights for in favor of religion are the reason for a lot of problems. Moreover they are illogical.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 03:21 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:22, 20 May 2009.
|
Quote:
In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science ...
I think Galileo would disagree.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:31, 20 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Another point is, even if communion is indeed something that happened that way (which is not undisputed either; there is the opinion that ths part was introduced later, when Christianity became official Roman religion, to make it acceptable for the soldiery, since the Mithras-Cult has something like that which was very popular with the soldiery): I don't think that children at that time were allowed to drink wine, which would mean that Jesus either wanted communion to be for adults only or not to be made with wine.
Likewise, if Jesus didn't intend this at all, and maybe the Church did introduce it as a ritual, the same question has to be applied. Why take wine for children or why make communion for children at all.
Extra rights for in favor of religion are the reason for a lot of problems. Moreover they are illogical.
No serious scholar disputes that bread and wine were used in a last supper. We have many thousands of New Testament manuscripts. Textual criticism ensures that we have the original words of the New Testament to 99.9% accuracy.
Christianity is Judaism that is under the New Covenant. If you read the Old Covenant writings you will see there are quite a few sacrifices mentioned. In all but the burnt offering at least a portion of the sacrifice was eaten.
Jesus was the final sacrifice of the Old Covenant system. His sacrifice fulfilled the Old Covenant. The communion is a remebrance of this sacrifice as well as an "eating" of the sacrificial meal.
The communion is a commandment for ALL believers to do. Adult and child. Every believer is to participate.
And yes, the wine was wine. When Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast the people said it was the best wine of the feast. If it had not been actual wine they would not have said this.
Quote:
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Quote:
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
What is illogical and oppressive is to try to prevent someone from practicing his religion. Oppression of religion is the cause of quite a few problems and deaths.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No serious scholar disputes that bread and wine were used in a last supper. We have many thousands of New Testament manuscripts. Textual criticism ensures that we have the original words of the New Testament to 99.9% accuracy.
Forget it. We had that discussion already. You can believe what you want, but I can as well. Note, that this was just a footnote of mine, the real point is a different one:
Quote:
The communion is a commandment for ALL believers to do. Adult and child. Every believer is to participate.
Nope. Not for children. Show me where children are involved. Look at your own quote (and the bold print):
Quote:
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
The real problem here is the fact that children - people who are not considered able to sign contracts and so on - are included into rituals that should be for adults only. Becoming a full member of a religion should be the decision of a full grown-up. See below.
Quote:
What is illogical and oppressive is to try to prevent someone from practicing his religion. Oppression of religion is the cause of quite a few problems and deaths.
.
Illogical and oppressive is to force children into full membership of a religion.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 04:05 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:06, 20 May 2009.
|
Children are something else. Parents will always impose their thoughts and behaviour codes on their children - that's what parenting is about. When the child grows up, it decides its path, but until then it follows the path of its parents.
Of course parents need to be as open minded as possible. That's the important bit; that when the child grows up, it realizes that it has its own choice to make. Unfortunately this is often not the case; a child of two members of a political party will usually be indoctrinated with the political system its parents believe in, etc. Religion is not too different.
But during growing up, it's only natural that its parents, if they believe something is right, will try to teach that to their child - much like you will teach them that it's their duty to go to school, religious parents will teach him that it's their duty to go to church. No one asks the child whether it wants to go to school; it just has to.
That's how parenting works. You make the child do something cause you know it's good for him and he doesn't. Freedom of religion also includes freedom of parents to teach their child about their religion (or lack thereof). To them, that's one of the cornerstones of raising their child.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 04:12 PM |
|
|
You are beside the point. One reason for the US to exist at all is the fact that there was disagreement with Christianity. One point of the Protestants - or Lutherians - was that they thought children would be too young to receive communion with 10 years.
(Christening is the same - in the early times there was no Christening of children. It was strictly adults!)
That's why they changed this from 10 years age to 14 years age (which 500 years ago was deemed old enough - children would be no children anymore at that age in those times, but busy working).
The problem is not SHOWING children things - the problem is MAKING THEM PART OF IT.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 04:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nope. Not for children. Show me where children are involved. Look at your own quote (and the bold print):
Jesus told his church to do this. He dis not say. You who are adults do this. A child who is a believer is a member of the church and is to partake of communion. The bread and wine is for ALL Christians.
Communion was held on the very first day the church was born. The day of Pentecost. "Breaking of bread" is a phrase used of communion.
Quote:
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Please notice this does not say only adult believers continued to take communion. It says the 3000 people who believed the gospel partook of communion.
Furthur, Jesus said children are not to be forbidden to come to him.
Quote:
Quote:
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
The real problem here is the fact that children - people who are not considered able to sign contracts and so on - are included into rituals that should be for adults only. Becoming a full member of a religion should be the decision of a full grown-up. See below.
Your highlighting of the word "man" shows your lack of understanding of the verse. The word "man" in the Bible refers to mankind unless gender is the context. Furthur, women and children certainly have partaken of communion throughout church history.
You think children don't have a right to obey the gospel of Christ. God disagrees with you. I disagree with you.
My spiritual awakening began when I was about a child. How dare you say a child does not have the right to worship God and has to wait for you to approve his obedience to Christ.
Quote:
Illogical and oppressive is to force children into full membership of a religion.
It is impossible to force any child to become a Christian. And of course oppressive socialist states have historicly indoctrinated children into the state religion of atheism.
Chrstianity is a matter of the heart. You have to submit yourself willingly to obedience of the gospel of Christ.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
You show a lack of understanding of what brought the split into Christianity - read my answer to Baklava.
Children were never meant to be full members of any religion, nowhere and never.
Finding god or the gods have always been something to be done when child becomes adult.
It makes no sense to introduce a child FULLY into any religion, with all rituals and so on, when the child hasn't full rights.
In fact this is religious indoctrination. It should simply be forbidden. I would certainly forbid it. Call it "test membership" as a child, but being a full member of a religion should involve the conscious positive act of a grown-up person.
And whatever you say, Elodin, the people fleeing Europe into the new world did it in part because of that: Catholics made first communion with 10 and earlier. Protestants thought it was too early and made it age 14. They agree with me, in fact.
Of course they Christened their children, but that was only because they had been told for such a long time that only Christened people would have a chance to come to God.
Another fairy tale without any foundation in the Bible.
Religion is not meant to be indoctrinated. Religion is meant to be the decision of a free and adult person.
And before you start: I don't mean that parents should not be able to teach children their religion, that's something else. But children shouldn't become official members with adult ritual rights only when they are grown-up. No Christening. No Communion. No wine. Take marriage as a yardstick. If you are old enough to marry, you are old enough to be called an adult and vice versa. If not, something is obviously wrong.
Edit: And spare us the polemics: Quote:
My spiritual awakening began when I was about a child. How dare you say a child does not have the right to worship God and has to wait for you to approve his obedience to Christ.
I never said you couldn't worship god, if you wanted to - after all it's not forbidden to adore a girl or a woman (or a boy or a man, if you are a girl), when you are a child. But you cannot marry.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted May 20, 2009 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science by teaching that there are not thousands of nature spirits arbitrarily causing things to happen.
?
Quote:
Nature is how it is because of the ordered way in which God created things.
?
Quote:
God is genderless as a Spirit though he did manifest himself as the male Jesus Christ.
Who was also praying to his "Father" ...
Quote:
What is illogical and oppressive is to try to prevent someone from practicing his religion. Oppression of religion is the cause of quite a few problems and deaths.
All hooray Jihad!
____________
The empty set
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Children were never meant to be full members of any religion, nowhere and never.
That is your desire for religion. But you don't have a right to impose your religious ideas on others.
The prophet Samuel began to serve in the temple when he was about 4 years old and God spoke to him at that age.
Quote:
Finding god or the gods have always been something to be done when child becomes adult.
Sorry, but many people find God as a child. Jesus said don't forbid the little ones to come to him.
Quote:
It makes no sense to introduce a child FULLY into any religion, with all rituals and so on, when the child hasn't full rights.
Religion is not a social club JJ. When the Spirit of God moves in someone's heart God is drawing that person to him. Fortunately you can't command God to stop. And you don't have the right to command the child not to follow God.
Quote:
In fact this is religious indoctrination.
No, but socialists indoctrinate children into atheism in oppressive states in the school system. When a child is drawn to God that is not indoctrination.
Quote:
It should simply be forbidden.
No, you don'thave the right to forbid a child to follow Christ.
Quote:
Catholics made first communion with 10 and earlier. Protestants thought it was too early and made it age 14. They agree with me, in fact.
Sorry. I am a protestant and young children were never forbiden to obey the gospel in my church. So no, protestants don't agree with you.
Quote:
Of course they Christened their children, but that was only because they had been told for such a long time that only Christened people would have a chance to come to God.
Another fairy tale without any foundation in the Bible.
Oh, I agree that christening is not in the Bible. Baptism is for a person submitting to the gospel of Christ, not for an infant.
Quote:
Religion is not meant to be indoctrinated. Religion is meant to be the decision of a free and adult person.
God does not agree with you. He has worked through many children.
Quote:
But children shouldn't become official members with adult ritual rights only when they are grown-up. No Christening. No Communion. No wine.
I'm glad you don't have the power to impose your beliefs on others.
Quote:
I never said you couldn't worship god, if you wanted to
Yes you did. Worshiping God involves obedience to God. You said children are to be forbidden to take communion or to be baptised. So you are forbidding them from obeying the gospel of Christ. Christ commanded all people to be repent, to be baptised, to receive the Spirit, and to take communion when they become believers.
Quote:
Who was also praying to his "Father" ...
Jesus is God existing as a man. God did not stop existing as the Spirit who fills and transcends all of space and time when he began to exist as Jesus. Jesus is another way God exists, not a separate divine person.
The human manifestation of God prayed as a man.
Quote:
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Quote:
All hooray Jihad!
I am not Muslim. Remember Lenin, Stalin, .... (insert your favorite atheist tyrant.)
Quote:
In fact Christianity is in many ways responsible for modern science by teaching that there are not thousands of nature spirits arbitrarily causing things to happen
Chrisitnas believe God created a world where things operate on certain principles (natural laws) as opposed to pagan nature spirits/gods causing everything to happen. This lead to an attmept to find those natural principles by which nature operates. This concept was necessary for modern science.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2009 05:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Catholics made first communion with 10 and earlier. Protestants thought it was too early and made it age 14. They agree with me, in fact.
Sorry. I am a protestant and young children were never forbiden to obey the gospel in my church. So no, protestants don't agree with you.
You claim, that you are protestant and young children are allowed to eat the body of Christ?
|
| |
|
|
