Religion

[ThePlacebo]

@Osymandus - I don't think the hypothesis that Mary Magdalene, being the first witness to the resurrection, was the first Bishop holds any ground. The Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles at Pentecost, making them the first "Bishops" of the church. By my knowledge Mary was not present at Pentecost. She was, however present at the ascension, and has been venerated as a saint. As for the influence of the Roman deity Mithras on the image of Jesus - I'm not sure, I can't say I'm well researched enough to provide an answer to that =P.

@Evasura - I believe this happened mostly because of the consistency of the Gospels. If you disregard that, I guess it's just the courage of my convictions / my faith. There is no doubt that there are plenty of alternative belief systems that are at the very least plausible. I just find that monotheism makes the most sense.

All this being said, I am not trying to incite any heated arguments. Most of my friends are atheists and I get along with them just fine. I also grant that I'm not the most gifted apologetic (in fact I'm probably somewhere near the bottom of the ladder) so if the answer's to your questions are unsatisfactory feel free to inform me.

[Osymandus]

You know that's interesting, as I was told by a couple of well learned theologians (one a Bishop himself though a Gnostic one ) that the passing on (can't remember the term for making the purple pants wearers ) and creation of the Bishops in the Christian tradition stems from Jesus , hence the debate . Something to do with recognition as well as authority .

It's much fun , the interconnection of all these archetypes and solar phallic deities, demi-urges or avatars is fascinating

[Evasura]

@Placebo: don't want an apology from you. You believe what you believe and you have the right to think whatever you want, while you don't harm others and you are consistent between what you believe/you say and the way you live your life, don't you?. I thought here we were just giving our views on religion and I was just giving my view (I don't need to apologize either for being an atheist, do I?). Not sure, however, that the argument of the consistency of the gospels as your inspiration for belief is the most valid. Hesiod's Theogony is as consistent as the gospels. Why don't you believe in them though? What's more, I find Richard Dawkin's "God's Delusion" much more consistent than the gospels and he also has evidence to prove what he says.
@ osymandus: lv spaguetti monster

[Lady Fluff]

Christened C of E, attended a Catholic Church for a while, went to a Baptist youth group, and got fed up of the various demoninations slagging the other ones off (I tended to lean towards the argument that, as the Catholic Church was there first, the other denominations kind of owe their existence to them, as they wouldn't have had anythign to break away from otherwise, and all their stuff goes back to the Bible that was put together by the Catholic Church anyway...).

Anyway, I define as Pagan now, with witchy tendencies (not Wiccan, as there's some Wiccan stuff I don't adhere to).

I had a discussion with work colleagues a few months ago about the best way to find out if one religion is correct will be when we discover life on other planets (or if they discover us!) - if another planet has Jesus, or Buddha or Mohammed or Ceredwen, then chances are they're a pretty powerful presence and that's probably the best faith to go for! In the mean time, I'm happy with my pagan ways (I like ritual - that probably explains why I was more comfortable in the Cathlic church than any others...)

[Osymandus]

@Lady Fluff . That's very mercenary . I see your point but really it wouldn't invalidate the argument as when the first say Christian Missionaries came across the people who say were within the Gnostic christian ethos (ok they burnt them but...) . I personally believe there is no one true way , just as there is no one normal person , much like people who have Dyspraxia .
there's similarities but ultimately everyone is unique but also interconnected

[SciFiBoy]

im an Atheist/Humanist, I used to be Catholic when I was younger (till like 14/15)

[Millie]

Wow, I like all this kinda discussion. Coming across this on the forum is really good-ike this kinda debate. I have to say, I am not sure exactly what form of God I believe in, but I have never understood the tension between science and religion. It seems to have been created as a way to divide people, and believe that God cannot exist with the the belief in scientific explanations. The scientific explanation of how a "kettle boils" for example, talks about all the processes of the molecules etc..energy..SCIENTIFIC FACT. So it proves there is an order behind it. It explains HOW it boils, it does not explain why. What makes science so powerful an amazing in the first place? I have always felt the more clever science is, all the more reasoning there is for there to be a God who we are not in a place to kinda pin down, for this form or energy is beyond our comprehension.

Even looking to the big bang vs the 7 days of creation story. The language originally used literally meant "stage" of creation. We will never know whether one stage represented a million years or a billion years. Therefore, it does not cancel out evolution- for it is another scientific process we cannot begin to truly comprehend its' complexity- even more reason for some power or being behind it, that we cannot even begin to understand. The stories in the bible were tales, the writers themselves did not mean for their readers to take them literally. They were tales to illustrate a point. The divide between faith and science has created such a wide gap, where some christians take their teachings and run with literal meanings, where they were only ever meant to be representations of conveying a deeper meaning or moral. And atheists often use evolution to dismiss the idea of any supernatural entity, but they fail to recognise the shear power that science has and the effects it can produce. Again, it kinda of hints to some "beyond our understanding" explanation. Would be interesting to hear anyone elses' views on this, as I truly believe these science vs religion tensions have been created by humans to seperate beliefs, even further, that has sadly lead to fundementalism and war.

[conor]

"but I have never understood the tension between science and religion" - Science always tries to move forward through rational thinking and testing the limits where as religions are stubborn and dont move forward,at least not in the same sense as science.There is a reason why there is tension and there is alot more too it!!

"The scientific explanation of how a "kettle boils" for example, talks about all the processes of the molecules etc..energy..SCIENTIFIC FACT. So it proves there is an order behind it. It explains HOW it boils, it does not explain why" - There is always a reason why, the kettle boils cause you flipped a switch enabling electricity in to travel through the element inside the kettle thus heating up the water where it evenually boils.Its like saying there is no reason why boiling water comes out of a geyser,there is always a why,but you have to look for it.

"Even looking to the big bang vs the 7 days of creation story. The language originally used literally meant "stage" of creation. We will never know whether one stage represented a million years or a billion years." - As science wasnt so much then as it is now,the writers of the bible most likely didnt have a clue and people where not educated like today so they would believe anything,humans know more now cause science isnt so restricted nor in the boundries of religious views,I.e. most scientist are not religious,so they are not held back by old fasioned opinions and try to look for the awnsers of our universe watch this film and you can learn some things....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

And something from my mind,what annoys me about religion,always you will find that there is excuses,reading about mental health recently I saw someone saying that people who have mental health problems are in the image of jesus on the cross and that they are closer to god and getting in to heaven easier,dont quote me,but I read it,its an excuse and a one up for religion,they only protect the religion,not the people.when a child is born with a horrible problem,religion says god loves them,its never gods fault,but its always our own and it always seems to be like that,one excuse after another.I was sick when I was born,hole in my heart and sick for first 3 year of my life,I was told that when I was still in the hospital that I should get baptised so I can go to heavan and not Purgatory,weeks old and I would go there,bullshit to the highest order,the whole idea is laughable.I know that along time ago there was no choice but to do those things cause people where so afraid.now we can use our minds and explore life while not being afraid,and since most of us here have dyspraxia and other disorders its a little more difficult to do so,and also its unfair to brainwash people who are gullable and obsessive with religion.Ive a hard time dealing with religion cause of how it is and how it threats people,so Im not religious,I dont care if he or she(god) really does or doesnt exsist and I dont see why we have to be afraid of such a thing,If I died tomorrow and If god exsisted I would argue with him/her for all time

[Osymandus]

Before anyone gets into absolutes or scientific facts , epically ironic for us . The brain contains an area called the Thalamus , it services to filter out incoming information , scientific reasoning and religious or philosophical interpretation are down to the information your senses received to the brain and the methodology you used to process it . the advantage of empirical scientific rational is it allows us to repeat said process under and in set condition (the kettle boils are various temperatures and various times in different context . There are no absolutes , there are likely outcomes . There is also scary crap out there that doesn't fit nicely (mind/conciousness) , dark matter , ) etc

Also could i ask you not to lump religion in with Christianity/Abraham religions , not all follow the context you repeat here . Dogma lack of knowledge and unquestioning acceptance lead's to the issues you state and i know plenty of athistis who fit that as well

[Loki]

I've always been a pretty Scientific and logical person ... but when it comes to religion I don't tend to side on the basis of scientific fact.

I know a lot of people who have multiple degree's etc, even know people who work in CERN and again they will favour towards some kind of religion too. Them, like me can't place the responsibility on a specific deity but they acknowledge that there is a force that they cannot explain.

If you want to go on the basis of scientific fact just look at the Higgs Boson. It's nicknamed the "God Particle" for a reason, in other words, no matter how much humanity as a race learns there is always something else, something more waiting to be learned as well. I don't know about anyone else but these seems to have some kind of purpose built to it, as in we have to work and strive for the information and knowledge that we hold so dear, their are trials and journeys involved to get that knowledge.

To me that is some kind of greater purpose?

Putting a specific religion on me is kind of tricky, if pushed I’ll go for Pagan but if you put me next to most other Pagans we wont agree – which is why I love it as a “religion”. There isn’t a set book, religion, well; FAITH to me is something that is deeply personal. I was brought up and taught about many religions, my mother wanted me to choose something that I had a deep connection with and learning about different paths, obtaining that knowledge was how she saw my path for it. I will quote things from the bible, Dead Sea Scrolls have some of my favourite ideals when it comes to how I like to live my life, so eclectic is likely the best way to put it… or the direct interpretation of the meaning of the word catholic which is encompassing can apply too!

[Millie]

Maybe I could have been more clear. What I should have said ws science and christianity. Yes I am categorising it under this "religion" title more generally. However, I was not really meaning to take it to make a sweeping generalisation. It was more an observtion of the christian faith, and given it is also a very dominant faith.

[agsiul]

Sorry am too lazy to read the posts but I thought I'd post this because I found it really interesting. There was a study done on religious people from different religions, i.e. nuns, budist priests, etc. while they were praying/meditating and when they did an MRI scan of the brain the brain had basically gone into sort of resting mode. Only certain areas of the brain were active which they said is why it is very good for you. I'd say us in particular since my brain goes nine to the dozen all the time

[Osymandus]

Meditation . It was first doe (teh MRI scans ) on Buddhist monks . Anyone can learn to do it . Its all about the discipline . The goal of all of it is normally the union with "insert flavour" divinity (either Nirvana, Gnosis , Shiva and Shakti etc)

[Evasura]

Wow! this is turning interesting.
The problem with us atheist getting so stubborn about being atheists and insisting so much on "GOD DOES NOT EXIST! OK?" comes pretty much (at least in my case, can't talk for others) from the bombarding from some religions about how good religion is and how good believing in God is and how it is the only truth. All forms of religions derived from the Jew/Christian tradition (all? correct me if I'm wrong, please) have to gather adepts, which makes it very annoying for us who cannot get themselves to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient super hero who allows all this crap to happen (and contradicts the proven theory of natural selection - though I shouldn't call it theory as it is proven). I don't go around imposing my views on anyone, I don't impose my unproven opinions on the education system, I don't get money from anyone because of my explanations about the meaning of life. I would feel much more comfortable with many religions if they didn't do that. I try to respect all beliefs, while someone doesn't try to force me into believing that white is black or that we can't really see what colour it really is, but because human beings need to have categories and explanations in order to feel safe, we're going to say it's black. Atheism is about not accepting preconceived ideas and trying to find a truth that explains rationally what we don't know and not giving a name to something that you don't know. Religions give an explanation based on what? and that's it? so when you don't know the answer it must be the action of God? then if god is the answer because one can't find a better explanation, why is one trying to impose their views on me? can't you just let me think whatever I want the same as i let you believe whatever you want? Why do the church get so much money for that? Why charity needs to be linked to religion and justify a lot of salaries for people who are not really doing any charity work? Why morals seem to be linked to religion in many cases? what about being good to each other because we are social animals, more similar to bonobos than to chimpanzees and feel the need to trust each other? And yes, this is not all religious people, but this is part of religion. We atheists just not believe in god and that's it!
Said that, I do find the history of religions interesting as a cultural aspect of humanity. Mythology is fun and it teaches us about old cultures and it can help us have some view about some historic facts that we wouldn't know about otherwise (ex the Illiad). I don't think, though, that anyone here believes that Zeus really raped a woman disgused as a bull and had a Minotaur as a son, why is it more credible that Mary conceived from God (without having sex!?) and gave birth to Jesus - demigod-mesiah-god-whatever?
I hope nobody takes this personally. Not talking about anyone in particular here, as the conversation is really interesting and everyone is very respectful with all views. I'm just trying to give a view on why there seems to be such a split between believers and non believers. Extremists are no good for anything, and unfortunately there is a lot of (and very loud) religious extremism, and there I include as well the Pope and all his mates who work in the Vatican City and all the sects who knock on our door and seem upset when you tell them that you actually don't believe in god and have other things to do with your time than talking to them about god and justifying your views about it, or seeing how certain religious groups will discriminate employees for not being religious (which would not be accepted in any non religious firm!, people who kill and start wars in the name of religion. God doesn't seem such a good publicist in this case, then...is God so omniscient? (I say God and not god(s) because it's monotheistic religions the ones who try to impose their views and the ones who get money and power all over the world)

[Osymandus]

Evasura I will correct you yes you are wrong . The Abraham faiths are influence by Zoroastrianism , the Olympic/Greek as well as the Sumerian (God as most people understand it is a title from Babylonian times called El , Babal is also a God or title Ba Bel meaning lord of lords) . Lucifer for instance is a dereviative of Venus/Ishtar Goddesses . And many others that pre date them (including Hinduism , Taoism , Buddhism , Celts Norse etc (we get the word Hell from the Norse ). Our traditional idea of Hell and teh 9 layers comes from Dantes Inferno as well (and original sin was made up by the First Council of Nicaea in 325AD oops no it wasnt it was the 2nd AD but not created by teh council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin )

Btw Zeus impregnated a women as a bull , but it was the wife of King Minos who gave birth to the Minotaur (different myth /hero )also as a swan and a "golden shower " (very similar to the holy spirit impregnation of Mary but no copyright then ) . The bull has always (and is a common theme hence why Moses /Jehovah (german word created in 17th C so people didn't say the holey name of the Old testament god btw )destroyed the golden calf worshippers after coming down from Mount Sion) of fertility and divinity . The Bull is found in Egyptian and Sumerian religions .

It's all symbols really . Symbols spread ideas and concepts better then word's people remember and it activates parts of your mind to see in different ways and think (a good example is the almost nonsense of Zen Koan's).

I believe you can be an agnostic if you wish as well , Christopher Hitchens is