Why Religion Is For Big Infants

[gmc]

Ahso!;1298529 wrote: So I'm curious, Glaswegian, why should people give religion up? Whats in it for them?


Obviously I don't speak for glaswegian but my tuppence worth would be it's up to each individual to find their own reasons for not being religious and if you are looking simply for another set of beliefs to latch on to you will have a long search because you are going to have to think for yourself. Free your mind and stop worrying about whether you have got the right interpretation or relying on someone else to tell you-if indeed that's what you do

Within every human being, then, there is an enduring need to obtain an answer to the mystery of existence. But what is tragic from the point of view of humanity is that throughout the ages Religion has hijacked and perverted this need by falsely claiming to know the answer to the metaphysical mystery. As Schopenhauer notes:




Archaeology and science actually go a long way to explain some of the events in the bible rather than requiring unthinking belief in their veracity, so does cross referencing with the history of other peoples-the middle wasn't the only place civilisation grew up it just happens to be one we know a lot about. The reality is a lot more fascinating than any fairy story in the bible.



Unfortunately, there are many individuals who find submission to Religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to Religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the religious believer the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst). Thus, the religious believer's surrender of his personal autonomy to Religion is an attempt on his part to eliminate the occurrence of this unpleasant affect. However, making Religion (and God) the master and regulator of one's life has a detrimental effect on one's development as a human being for it results in psychological weakness and dependency (among other ills). This becomes clear if we look at how religious mental enslavement works in general. Viz...


Curious you should ask what's in it for them if they give up religion. What are you looking for? As I said earlier if you are looking for an organised body of beliefs imo you misunderstand that being an atheist doesn't mean you follow a differnt kinf of religion.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1298550 wrote: Well, amongst other things, the gains are these. The attainment of intellectual honesty and psychological maturity, a greater focus on this life as opposed to an imaginary one in the 'hereafter', the removal of primitive and superstitious fears about 'sin' and the need to propitiate a vengeful 'God', greater self-respect, safer plane journeys and, of course, a vast improvement in the ability to maintain an erection.
Ahso! wrote: Are you sure you want to stick with this?
Yes.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1298145 wrote: you don't have to look very far to see atrocities committed today in the name of religion. those who carried out the attacks on 911. Both Bush and Blair were very religious and prayed for guidance, so are the taliban.
I'm glad you've mentioned Blair here in the context of 9/11, gmc. In the wake of that massacre Blair, like so many other Western leaders, was too cowardly to speak the truth about Islam and condemn it for the murderous ideology that it is. Instead of denouncing it as a dangerous and demented belief system which repeatedly exhorts its followers to slaughter infidels of every complexion wherever they can be found, the Christian ruminant who led us back then merely bleated: 'Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham'.

Blair was clearly ignorant of the fact that Abraham was an inspirational figure for Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Muslim kamikaze squad which destroyed three thousand human beings in the World Trade Center. In his last will and testament, Atta enjoined future Muslim martyrs thus:

'In remembrance of me, they should act according to the example of Abraham who offered his son to die.'

What was it about Abraham which Atta found so inspiring? It was his submission to the will of God, a submission so complete that he was ready to kill his only son to please this God. For 'true believers' like Atta, Abraham's murderous obedience before God - along with many other examples of such behaviour contained in 'holy books' - provides them with Divine carte blanche to commit every atrocity imaginable.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1298550 wrote: Well, amongst other things, the gains are these. The attainment of intellectual honesty and psychological maturity, a greater focus on this life as opposed to an imaginary one in the 'hereafter', the removal of primitive and superstitious fears about 'sin' and the need to propitiate a vengeful 'God', greater self-respect, safer plane journeys and, of course, a vast improvement in the ability to maintain an erection.All good stuff. But my question is: with all these goodies you have to offer why are you packaging it as;

"Why Religion Is For Big Infants."?

Why not just sell what you've listed as "gains"?

Earlier in the evening I was thinking about your reply and how I wanted to answer it, so I asked my wife to read our exchange. She said it sounds like we two agree (since she knows where I stand on religion). "What is there to debate?" she asked. Shes right! I can't disagree with your philosophical position.

There is one critique I have though, and that is that I see the items you've listed as 'features' rather than 'benefits'. When one is attempting to persuade others, or sell an idea, its best to offer benefits instead of features. Features are those technical things, kind of like hard goods while benefits are what people identify with. The benefits in this case would be altruistic values.

It seems to me that inviting engagement to people on these terms might yield positive results. If your following quote is indeed trueGlaswegian;1298528 wrote: When a religious believer presses you not to challenge or criticise his religion what he is really saying is this:

I know my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know it has no basis in reason or reality. I know that I am foolish and contemptible for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact.

then all religious people are looking for is an alternative that offers the positives of religion without the dogma. Would you agree with that?

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1298758 wrote: I'm glad you've mentioned Blair here in the context of 9/11, gmc. In the wake of that massacre Blair, like so many other Western leaders, was too cowardly to speak the truth about Islam and condemn it for the murderous ideology that it is. Instead of denouncing it as a dangerous and demented belief system which repeatedly exhorts its followers to slaughter infidels of every complexion wherever they can be found, the Christian ruminant who led us back then merely bleated: 'Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham'.

Blair was clearly ignorant of the fact that Abraham was an inspirational figure for Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Muslim kamikaze squad which destroyed three thousand human beings in the World Trade Center. In his last will and testament, Atta enjoined future Muslim martyrs thus:

'In remembrance of me, they should act according to the example of Abraham who offered his son to die.'

What was it about Abraham which Atta found so inspiring? It was his submission to the will of God, a submission so complete that he was ready to kill his only son to please this God. For 'true believers' like Atta, Abraham's murderous obedience before God - along with many other examples of such behaviour contained in 'holy books' - provides them with Divine carte blanche to commit every atrocity imaginable.


Christianity is also a fairly murderous ideology in the right circumstances. You don't have to look very far to find Christians exhorting true believers to slaughters those who don't follow the correct path of righteousness or carrying out the most appalling atrocities in the name of their religion. Christians against muslim is just the half of it.

posted by ahso

then all religious people are looking for is an alternative that offers the positives of religion without the dogma. Would you agree with that?


OK if you'll excuse me putting in my tuppence worth again. What are the positives of religion? Assuming, for the moment, the promise of eternal life after death is the main one it's going to be quite difficult to find a equivalent alternative is it not?

[Bill Sikes]

Glaswegian;1296242 wrote: It is generally agreed by rational individuals that Religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception.


Is it, by God. I don't believe it.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1298838 wrote: OK if you'll excuse me putting in my tuppence worth again. What are the positives of religion? Assuming, for the moment, the promise of eternal life after death is the main one it's going to be quite difficult to find a equivalent alternative is it not?Religion offers a lot of benefits to people. Some would be: fellowship, community, shared sacrifice for the good of the group, commitment to one another, common cause, institutional longevity for future generations - and other benefits.

Most people who have been raised with strong religious ties are willing to share belief in a myth, whether or not that myth seems reasonable, in order to enjoy the group benefits I've just listed.

Atheism is not seen to offer the group benefits of religion. Atheism looks lonely to people who have always been part of a group, and appears to lack community commitment. It doesn't offer an 'us instead of them' alternative. It only suggests, as Glasweigen has said, that switching will make one smarter. But people feel smart enough anyway, and we don't miss what we've never experienced - besides, the 'smart' promise is debatable because we've all met plenty of seemingly dumb, uneducated atheists, haven't we? And attempting to insult religious believers rather than offer a comparable alternative only causes friction and hardens peoples resistance.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1298816 wrote: But my question is: with all these goodies you have to offer why are you packaging it as;

"Why Religion Is For Big Infants."?
The OP was given that title, Ahso!, because one of its primary aims was to draw attention to an effect of Religion which I think is especially harmful: namely, its tendency to infantilize believers.

Ahso! wrote: Why not just sell what you've listed as "gains"?
I don't like this word 'sell'. It's too vulgar. Whenever I post something I don't seek anything in return. All I do is argue a case or point. If you're convinced by the argument, that's fine. If you aren't, that's also fine.

Ahso! wrote: Earlier in the evening I was thinking about your reply and how I wanted to answer it, so I asked my wife to read our exchange. She said it sounds like we two agree (since she knows where I stand on religion). "What is there to debate?" she said. Shes right! I can't disagree with your philosophical position.
I also think your wife's right. The impression I get from our exchanges is that there is much about Religion we agree upon.

Ahso! wrote: If your following quote is indeed true
Glaswegian wrote: When a religious believer presses you not to challenge or criticise his religion what he is really saying is this:

I know my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know it has no basis in reason or reality. I know that I am foolish and contemptible for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact.
Ahso! wrote: then all religious people are looking for is an alternative that offers the positives of religion without the dogma. Would you agree with that?
I don't doubt that there are many religious people who are looking for an alternative to Religion that offers the positives of Religion - which are none - without the dogma. Nor do I doubt that some ex-religionists have found this alternative in, say, Science or the Arts. But there are countless millions more people who do not seek any alternative to Religion whatsoever and are content to remain in thrall to it. The reason why Religion has a great hold over such people is because it penetrates very deeply into their being. Although they might recognise that their religion is indefensible on any grounds, that it has no basis in reason or reality, and that they are foolish and contemptible for believing it - such recognition is not a sufficient condition for their giving it up. For Religion does not operate only at a conscious level within them, at the level of cognition and reason: it also operates very powerfully at an unconscious level. For example, it nourishes and, in turn, feeds off of many irrational and deep-seated fears, needs, wishes, fantasies and yearnings. As I've mentioned to you before, Ahso!, Religion is so deeply entrenched in some believers that they can only leave it behind kicking and screaming.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1298871 wrote:

I don't like this word 'sell'. It's too vulgar. Whenever I post something I don't seek anything in return. All I do is argue a case or point. If you're convinced by the argument, that's fine. If you aren't, that's also fine. If you don't seek anything in return, including even engagement alone, why then put forth the argument? Should I interpret your threads as journal entries or preaching for the purposes of reading only?

Everything we do, we do for a reason, don't we? Perhaps if you're not looking for feedback, agreement, or even to persuade others, maybe you yourself are searching for community?

Are you claiming subscribing to atheism such as you've done brings total and complete consciousness?

[gmc]

Ahso!;1298866 wrote: Religion offers a lot of benefits to people. Some would be: fellowship, community, shared sacrifice for the good of the group, commitment to one another, common cause, institutional longevity for future generations - and other benefits.

Most people who have been raised with strong religious ties are willing to share belief in a myth, whether or not that myth seems reasonable, in order to enjoy the group benefits I've just listed.

Atheism is not seen to offer the group benefits of religion. Atheism looks lonely to people who have always been part of a group, and appears to lack community commitment. It doesn't offer an 'us instead of them' alternative. It only suggests, as Glasweigen has said, that switching will make one smarter. But people feel smart enough anyway, and we don't miss what we've never experienced - besides, the 'smart' promise is debatable because we've all met plenty of seemingly dumb, uneducated atheists, haven't we? And attempting to insult religious believers rather than offer a comparable alternative only causes friction and hardens peoples resistance.


Please see #90 about talking about things objectively and not finding insult where none is intended. If you can't discuss religion without finding offence every time you come across a non believer it's not really my problem. If I want to insult someone I would not be attempting to do so I would just do it. However, I never really feel the need to do so even when faced with unwarranted antagonism like yours. The exception might be in the UK politics threads where discussion is a bit more robust and UK posters generally understand the spirit in which it is made. But I digress.

I'm not trying to offer a comparable alternative to religion I don't know of any non religious person who would make the claim to have one. Nor am I trying to convert you to anything. I'm discussing the matter with people whose views are different from my own preferably without comments getting or being taken personally. Atheism is a non belief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. That's it - there is nothing else to it, no alternative dogma, ideology or anything else. It is not just a different kind of religion. Hence my question, apart from the promise of eternal life monotheism offers what are the positives of religion. Most people who identify themselves as atheists usually do so after much soul searching, consideration and research. Some if them have even studied the bible. (OK I'm being a tad sarcastic there but that's not the same as being insulting) Yes I have met seemingly dumb, uneducated atheists who can't articulate their position well. I have also met a lot of dumb uneducated religious nutters who don't really want to think about it. I've never been punched by an atheist because I disagreed with them but have been in fear for my life when asked if I was protestant or catholic atheist knowing the wrong answer would result in a kicking. Bigots aren't noted for their erudition, especially the knuckle draggers you meet in glasgow. .



Some would be: fellowship, community, shared sacrifice for the good of the group, commitment to one another, common cause, institutional longevity for future generations - and other benefits.


There is nothing you list that can't be found outside of religion as well. Indeed you can make a pretty good case that religion can be an incredibly destructive force in society and religious fervour destroy communities and rip society apart.

Most people who have been raised with strong religious ties are willing to share belief in a myth, whether or not that myth seems reasonable, in order to enjoy the group benefits I've just listed.




If you realise it is a myth but keep up the pretence of believing it is it not ever so slightly hypocritical? Why keep up the pretence? What are you afraid off that you don't want people to know you think the myth unreasonable. Could it be because the sanctions of "coming out" as a non-believer are so high? Religious communities can also be deeply lonely if for any reason you feel you are not part of the group, They can also be very repressive as the pressure to conform can be tremendous.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1298875 wrote: If you don't seek anything in return, including even engagement alone, why then put forth the argument? Should I interpret your threads as journal entries or preaching for the purposes of reading only?

Everything we do, we do for a reason, don't we? Perhaps if you're not looking for feedback, agreement, or even to persuade others, maybe you yourself are searching for community?

Are you claiming subscribing to atheism such as you've done brings total and complete consciousness?
Relax, Ahso! I was simply objecting to your use of the word 'sell' earlier. What I wanted to make clear is that there is nothing mercenary about my posts. For me, the word 'sell' reeks of the marketplace and hustlers, and has no application whatsoever to a man of high moral purpose and good taste like my-sell-f.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1298888 wrote: Please see #90 about talking about things objectively and not finding insult where none is intended. If you can't discuss religion without finding offence every time you come across a non believer it's not really my problem. If I want to insult someone I would not be attempting to do so I would just do it. However, I never really feel the need to do so even when faced with unwarranted antagonism like yours. The exception might be in the UK politics threads where discussion is a bit more robust and UK posters generally understand the spirit in which it is made. But I digress.

I'm not trying to offer a comparable alternative to religion I don't know of any non religious person who would make the claim to have one. Nor am I trying to convert you to anything. I'm discussing the matter with people whose views are different from my own preferably without comments getting or being taken personally. Atheism is a non belief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. That's it - there is nothing else to it, no alternative dogma, ideology or anything else. It is not just a different kind of religion. Hence my question, apart from the promise of eternal life monotheism offers what are the positives of religion. Most people who identify themselves as atheists usually do so after much soul searching, consideration and research. Some if them have even studied the bible. (OK I'm being a tad sarcastic there but that's not the same as being insulting) Yes I have met seemingly dumb, uneducated atheists who can't articulate their position well. I have also met a lot of dumb uneducated religious nutters who don't really want to think about it. I've never been punched by an atheist because I disagreed with them but have been in fear for my life when asked if I was protestant or catholic atheist knowing the wrong answer would result in a kicking. Bigots aren't noted for their erudition, especially the knuckle draggers you meet in glasgow. .





There is nothing you list that can't be found outside of religion as well. Indeed you can make a pretty good case that religion can be an incredibly destructive force in society and religious fervour destroy communities and rip society apart.



If you realise it is a myth but keep up the pretence of believing it is it not ever so slightly hypocritical? Why keep up the pretence? What are you afraid off that you don't want people to know you think the myth unreasonable. Could it be because the sanctions of "coming out" as a non-believer are so high? Religious communities can also be deeply lonely if for any reason you feel you are not part of the group, They can also be very repressive as the pressure to conform can be tremendous.I don't know why you felt attacked by my post. That is not what I did. I think you just took it more personal than it was intended. I'd apologize but I don't think I said anything offensive. I respect you and consider you a friend.

Yes, I agree that all the group benefits of religion which I mentioned can be found outside of religion, but the point is that some people just choose religion, including many evolutionists. Why? we'd have to ask them to know for sure, but I can see people just preferring it over other alternatives for various reasons. I don't see non-belief in God as important as accepting and understanding evolution as a goal. Though I personally prefer the benefits of the group without the God belief.

As for the myth: we all live a myth of some kind, which makes us all hypocrites.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1298891 wrote: Relax, Ahso! I was simply objecting to your use of the word 'sell' earlier. What I wanted to make clear is that there is nothing mercenary about my posts. For me, the word 'sell' reeks of the marketplace and hustlers, and has no application whatsoever to a man of high moral purpose and good taste like my-sell-f.My goodness! I'm obviously not communicating like I think I am. this is the second consecutive reply of which its thought I'm attacking. Believe me, thats far from accurate. Perhaps re-reading my post later will better convey my intended tone.

I'm not upset about anything. In fact, I'm completely enjoying these exchanges. I respect your opinion. My only purpose in my previous post was to challenge your motives?

[K.Snyder]

Being an atheist is one thing but when threads are started that insult religious practitioners as a whole implies the OP has the answer and is completely and utterly wrong.

If the OP can be trimmed to refer to the individuals the creator of the OP has a problem with then it wouldn't be so innately wrong.

The point being that once one aims animosity toward an entire religion and not the individuals themselves they deem their belief system the correct system upon an answer that has of yet to be observed and logically sets them as being no different than those they ridicule.

I don't believe I ever need to read the bible but there are some sayings within it that I know to make logical sense. "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" is one that get's quoted quite alot but what's funny is that when it does 99% of the time it fits

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1298888 wrote: Bigots aren't noted for their erudition, especially the knuckle draggers you meet in glasgow.
I have been to the top of the mountain. But I have never - I repeat, never - heard truer words spoken than those. Are you listening, Ahso?

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1298903 wrote: I don't believe I ever need to read the bible but there are some sayings within it that I know to make logical sense. "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" is one that get's quoted quite alot but what's funny is that when it does 99% of the time it fits
Do you really think that "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" makes logical sense, K? If that saying is meant to exemplify Biblical wisdom then God must have sh*t for brains. A moment's scrutiny shows it to be utterly ludicrous and absurd.

How can any society function if its members are precluded from passing judgement? How are law courts to operate? How are we to obtain justice and rectify wrongs? How are we to deal with terrorists, mass murderers, child-killers, drug-traffickers, people-traffickers, corporate criminals, wife-beaters, rapists, and the Hitlers, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of this world? By not judging them?

K.Snyder wrote: Judge not and ye shall not be judged
Hah! I'm sure paedophile priests would love that one.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1298892 wrote: I don't know why you felt attacked by my post. That is not what I did. I think you just took it more personal than it was intended. I'd apologize but I don't think I said anything offensive. I respect you and consider you a friend.

Yes, I agree that all the group benefits of religion which I mentioned can be found outside of religion, but the point is that some people just choose religion, including many evolutionists. Why? we'd have to ask them to know for sure, but I can see people just preferring it over other alternatives for various reasons. I don't see non-belief in God as important as accepting and understanding evolution as a goal. Though I personally prefer the benefits of the group without the God belief.

As for the myth: we all live a myth of some kind, which makes us all hypocrites.


It was this bit.

And attempting to insult religious believers rather than offer a comparable alternative only causes friction and hardens peoples resistance.




I found it offensive that you would assume I was trying to be insulting.

posted by K snyder

Being an atheist is one thing but when threads are started that insult religious practitioners as a whole implies the OP has the answer and is completely and utterly wrong.


It actually kind of difficult not to insult religious practitioners. They seem to take offence at anybody that does not share their religious belief. Conversation are along the lines of.

Non religious person

I am not religious/ I do not believe there is a god


Religious person

I am offended that you have insulted my religious beliefs.


Non religious person

I consider the creation myth to be just that-a myth




Religious person

How dare you ridicule my religious beliefs


You demand tolerance for your beliefs but are not prepared to tolerate dissenters. That is the point the OP was making.

from the original post

As was noted above, the hijacking and perversion of the metaphysical need by Religion has been tragic for humanity historically. For instead of this need being allowed to express itself naturally - that is, as the fundamental driving force behind every attempt to understand the universe and increase human knowledge - it was channelled by Religion into myriad worthless endeavours (e.g., endless pilgrimages), preposterous theological speculation (e.g., 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?'), and some of the vilest conflicts on record (e.g., the Crusades)...among other lunacies. And this tragedy continues in the present day under new forms (e.g., the rise of the religious Right in America).

The sabotaging of the metaphysical need by Religion has been harmful not just for humanity but, paradoxically, for Religion itself. Thus, Carl Sagan is correct when he writes:


posted by K snyder

If the OP can be trimmed to refer to the individuals the creator of the OP has a problem with then it wouldn't be so innately wrong.


It started out as a general discussion about religion not individuals. Why make it personal?

posted by glaswegian

Do you really think that "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" makes logical sense, K? If that saying is meant to exemplify Biblical wisdom then God must have sh*t for brains. A moment's scrutiny shows it to be utterly ludicrous and absurd.


Actually I think it does. In essence it means don't judge someone's actions till you know all the facts. If, for example you assume everyone around is hostile then your attitude and actions provoke hostility. If someone cuts you up in traffic and you assume it was deliberate (rather than just bad driving) and retaliate then things can escalate as the other driver retaliates to your hostility.

K Snyder assumes hostility and an intent to ridicule his religious belief and it becomes quite hard not to become hostile and ridicule his religious belief because being accused of being deliberately insulting when you weren't is provocative.

posted by ahso

I'm not upset about anything. In fact, I'm completely enjoying these exchanges. I respect your opinion. My only purpose in my previous post was to challenge your motives?


I don't know what Glaswegian's motives were but we're both scots and as such have benefited from one of the best and broadest education systems on the planet. Consequently I suspect it's the love of a good argument-or debate of you want a less aggressive sounding way of putting it. Why would you assume ulterior motive?

posted by glaswegian

Hah! I'm sure paedophile priests would love that one.


God loves a sinner, especially one that repents. No doubt there was a purpose to it all for god moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform. When they get to heaven they can ask god why he made them paedophiles(OK that is talking the **** a bito)

[Ahso!]

gmc;1298965 wrote: I found it offensive that you would assume I was trying to be insulting.But I wasn't talking about you or anyone in particular.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1298923 wrote: Do you really think that "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" makes logical sense, K? If that saying is meant to exemplify Biblical wisdom then God must have sh*t for brains. A moment's scrutiny shows it to be utterly ludicrous and absurd.

How can any society function if its members are precluded from passing judgement? How are law courts to operate? How are we to obtain justice and rectify wrongs? How are we to deal with terrorists, mass murderers, child-killers, drug-traffickers, people-traffickers, corporate criminals, wife-beaters, rapists, and the Hitlers, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of this world? By not judging them?



Hah! I'm sure paedophile priests would love that one.


Well I'm glad you asked...

Simple really

We incarcerate people that are a risk to society without passing judgment. Thanks for making it easy. :wah:

You act off of the premise we have to pass judgment to prevent crime. It's the entire reason why I don't believe in retribution because doing so serves no different than the act the criminal assumed with the difference lying in what group defines "acceptable" which is a moral atrocity

I couldn't think of a better question thanks for asking it :yh_wink

And those pedophiles hid behind religion so as to escape persecution how would they apply to religion? If you want to argue the decisions of individuals I'd be more than happy to extend my time in that regard.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1298965 wrote: It was this bit.



I found it offensive that you would assume I was trying to be insulting.

posted by K snyder



It actually kind of difficult not to insult religious practitioners. They seem to take offence at anybody that does not share their religious belief. Conversation are along the lines of.

Non religious person



Religious person



Non religious person



Religious person



You demand tolerance for your beliefs but are not prepared to tolerate dissenters. That is the point the OP was making.

from the original post



posted by K snyder



It started out as a general discussion about religion not individuals. Why make it personal?

posted by glaswegian



Actually I think it does. In essence it means don't judge someone's actions till you know all the facts. If, for example you assume everyone around is hostile then your attitude and actions provoke hostility. If someone cuts you up in traffic and you assume it was deliberate (rather than just bad driving) and retaliate then things can escalate as the other driver retaliates to your hostility.

K Snyder assumes hostility and an intent to ridicule his religious belief and it becomes quite hard not to become hostile and ridicule his religious belief because being accused of being deliberately insulting when you weren't is provocative.

posted by ahso



I don't know what Glaswegian's motives were but we're both scots and as such have benefited from one of the best and broadest education systems on the planet. Consequently I suspect it's the love of a good argument-or debate of you want a less aggressive sounding way of putting it. Why would you assume ulterior motive?

posted by glaswegian



God loves a sinner, especially one that repents. No doubt there was a purpose to it all for god moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform. When they get to heaven they can ask god why he made them paedophiles(OK that is talking the **** a bito)


It is generally agreed by rational individuals that Religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. Come on gmc the first sentence is the most insulting of it all. How is one automatically diluted from reality simply because they're religious? The sentiment of the OP was equally as patronizing and insulting as the suggestion I'd "need" to read the bible and anyone with an ounce of sophistication knows it.

I don't believe in indoctrinated religion and the suggestion that I should adhere to the bible insults me but I know when to channel my resentment and it doesn't involve the generalization of all those claiming religion because it's a complete and utter waste of time

The very definition of that mentality is "wrong"

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1298838 wrote: Christianity is also a fairly murderous ideology in the right circumstances. You don't have to look very far to find Christians exhorting true believers to slaughters those who don't follow the correct path of righteousness or carrying out the most appalling atrocities in the name of their religion. Christians against muslim is just the half of it.
Christians against Muslims is indeed just the half of it. Christians and Muslims do not only pose a threat to each other. They pose a threat to the survival of the entire human race. This is because their respective religions are death cults. Christianity and Islam are eschatologically driven and, as such, they are obsessed with life in the 'next world' as opposed to this one. This is why their followers are exhorted to view their present life as a measly prequel to a more 'exalted one', and to despise this world as something merely to be put up with - 'a vale of tears' - until 'Heaven' or 'Paradise' is attained. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, could talk about the possibility of a nuclear holocaust in the following terms:

'The very worst it could do would be to sweep a vast number of people at one moment from this world into the other and more vital world, into which anyhow they must pass at one time.'

As for the Islamic death cult - well, everyone saw what nineteen Muslim hijackers drunk on 'Paradise' did to New York City on 9/11. But if you think that was impressive just consider what a Muslim state which comes into possession of nuclear weapons is capable of. Why should it hesitate for a second to use these weapons against any nation of infidels that displeases it? Don't be so naive as to think that the threat of a retaliatory strike which brings about its own destruction would cause it to waver. For what does its own destruction matter when the reward for killing millions upon millions of Islam's enemies is so great? I mean, how could a Muslim leader with nuclear weapons at his disposal resist a guaranteed seat at 'the right hand of God in Paradise' where 'the rivers are of the purest water, wine, milk and honey' and the virgins 'doe-eyed'? Yes, even an entire world in ruins is a small thing compared to that blissful prospect.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1298975 wrote: But I wasn't talking about you or anyone in particular.


#107 you had quoted something I had posted and seemed to answering it and that phrase seemed to suggest you thought i was deliberately trying to wind people up. Maybe it's me looking for offence when none was intended:D

posted by K Snyder

Come on gmc the first sentence is the most insulting of it all. How is one automatically diluted from reality simply because they're religious? The sentiment of the OP was equally as patronizing and insulting as the suggestion I'd "need" to read the bible and anyone with an ounce of sophistication knows it.

I don't believe in indoctrinated religion and the suggestion that I should adhere to the bible insults me but I know when to channel my resentment and it doesn't involve the generalization of all those claiming religion because it's a complete and utter waste of time

The very definition of that mentality is "wrong"


Ah now I see where you are coming from. I hadn't considered it in that light. I tend to make a distinction between religious people - of whom I know many of all stamps. You can dabate with them all night long without tempers fraying and they are well aware of all the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in their particular faith but they have an unshakeable faith you can respect but they don't insist on shoving their views down everybody else's throats and are generally happy to let people decide for themselves.

On the other hand you have religious nutters or fundamentalists are those whose faith is rooted in fear, ignorance and superstition-the kind that run bible camps like this

YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

That's the kind of religion I object to and it's also the kind of religious fervour that caused a lot of the religious wars in europe - catholic fundamentalists against protestant ones with the most appalling atrocities committed on both sides. I can look at my own country's history to see what life in a Christian fundamentalist state would be like.

I find the rise of such fundamentalism disturbing and the "normal" religious people can do little to counteract it. I would argue that such people are not actually christian and seem to have missed the point of his ministry. For them the claim that their religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception is I think a legitimate one.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1299147 wrote: I tend to make a distinction between religious people
I am interested to know how you make this distinction? What criteria are you using to distinguish one type of religious believer from another? It would be good if a taxonomy of believers existed which classified them into categories which everyone agreed upon. But it doesn't. And this is where the problem lies: how does one identify a Christian as a zealot rather than a moderate without being accused of bias? How does one objectively distinguish a 'true believer' from someone who only claims to be a Christian and doesn't really believe the religion?

That said, I would guess that the distinction which you draw between religious believers is in broad agreement with my own - even though we inevitably employ different criteria when categorising them. Let me provide you with a list of nine self-professed Christians and one non-believer in order to see if this is the case. (Think of the non-believer as serving as a benchmark.) I have rated them on a scale of zero to one hundred according to what I perceive to be the strength of their religious belief.

Tony Blair (35)

George W. Bush (50)

Mel Gibson (50)

Billy Graham (75)

Mother Teresa (85)

Pope Benedict XVI (35)

Pat Robertson (90)

Jerry Falwell (90)

spot (0.001)

gmc (0)

Does my assessment of the religious belief of the individuals listed above correspond in any way to your own assessment? Or does it differ greatly?

[Snowfire]

Glaswegian;1299226 wrote: I am interested to know how you make this distinction? What criteria are you using to distinguish one type of religious believer from another? It would be good if a taxonomy of believers existed which classified them into categories which everyone agreed upon. But it doesn't. And this is where the problem lies: how does one identify a Christian as a zealot rather than a moderate without being accused of bias? How does one objectively distinguish a 'true believer' from someone who only claims to be a Christian - say, as a result of peer pressure - and who doesn't really believe the religion?

That said, I would guess that the distinction which you draw between religious believers is in broad agreement with my own - even though we inevitably employ different criteria when categorising them. Let me provide you with a list of nine self-professed Christians and one non-believer in order to see if this is the case. (Think of the non-believer as serving as a benchmark.) I have rated them on a scale of zero to one hundred according to what I perceive to be the strength of their religious belief.

Tony Blair (35)

George W. Bush (50)

Mel Gibson (50)

Billy Graham (75)

Mother Teresa (85)

Pope Benedict XVI (35)

Pat Robertson (90)

Jerry Falwell (90)

spot (0.001)

gmc (0)

Does my assessment of the religious belief of the individuals listed above correspond in any way to your own assessment? Or does it differ greatly?


Mother teresa. What an awful woman. Did little to tend to the poor, believing it to be the will of god to allow them to suffer but took donations from some heinous people and a militant stand against contraception. The poor and suffering need less people like that in the world

[Glaswegian]

Snowfire;1299247 wrote: Mother teresa. What an awful woman. Did little to tend to the poor, believing it to be the will of god to allow them to suffer but took donations from some heinous people and a militant stand against contraception. The poor and suffering need less people like that in the world
You're quite right, Snowfire. Mother Teresa was a sadistic toad who ran hospices for the sick and dying in India which Josef Mengele would have been proud of. She milked millions of dollars from gullible affluent elites - some of them, as you said, heinous - and deposited the money straight into the Vatican bank. The sick and dying got nothing from this loot. Not even pain-killers. 'God wants you to suffer', was the consolation she offered the sick and dying when their pain became unbearable. Christopher Hitchens was correct when he wrote:

'Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.'

Unsurprisingly, the Purple Tarantulas in Rome are going to make the wretch a saint.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1299226 wrote: I am interested to know how you make this distinction? What criteria are you using to distinguish one type of religious believer from another? It would be good if a taxonomy of believers existed which classified them into categories which everyone agreed upon. But it doesn't. And this is where the problem lies: how does one identify a Christian as a zealot rather than a moderate without being accused of bias? How does one objectively distinguish a 'true believer' from someone who only claims to be a Christian and doesn't really believe the religion?

That said, I would guess that the distinction which you draw between religious believers is in broad agreement with my own - even though we inevitably employ different criteria when categorising them. Let me provide you with a list of nine self-professed Christians and one non-believer in order to see if this is the case. (Think of the non-believer as serving as a benchmark.) I have rated them on a scale of zero to one hundred according to what I perceive to be the strength of their religious belief.

Tony Blair (35)

George W. Bush (50)

Mel Gibson (50)

Billy Graham (75)

Mother Teresa (85)

Pope Benedict XVI (35)

Pat Robertson (90)

Jerry Falwell (90)

spot (0.001)

gmc (0)

Does my assessment of the religious belief of the individuals listed above correspond in any way to your own assessment? Or does it differ greatly?


Good question and I'm not sure I could give a definitive answer. I think it's fair to say pat robertson and the like are firmly in the fear and ignorance category. Interesting you should have the pope at 35:-2

I suppose the simplest way is I would distinguish between those secure in their own belief and those who feel they must attack anyone that does not share their religion and are convinced everyone is hostile towards them and would prevent them worshipping. Both islam and christianity would start holy wars given half a chance but not all believers would want to go along with it. there's plenty of opposition to that kind of view in iran and afghanistan, it's kind of ironic the west helped extremists take over both those countries against the wishes of the moderates. On the other hand israel is not exactly helping things. It's a real my bronze age superstition is better than yours, my god is better than yours kind of situation. the irony that they must all believe on the same god never seems to dawn on them.

There's also a category that while not calling for holy war would not be adverse to taking power again if given half a chance. I'm thinking of the catholic chuirch.

In another generation or so the US will be a predominantly catholic country. Maybe it's not islam they should worry about

I'm almost convinced bush and blair thought they had a mission from god but the cynics around bush were just after the oil. blair was surrounded by the biggest bunch of spineless numpties ever to hold office in the UK. the only one I had any time for was robin cook.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1299147 wrote: posted by K Snyder

Ah now I see where you are coming from. I hadn't considered it in that light. I tend to make a distinction between religious people - of whom I know many of all stamps. You can dabate with them all night long without tempers fraying and they are well aware of all the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in their particular faith but they have an unshakeable faith you can respect but they don't insist on shoving their views down everybody else's throats and are generally happy to let people decide for themselves.

On the other hand you have religious nutters or fundamentalists are those whose faith is rooted in fear, ignorance and superstition-the kind that run bible camps like this

YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

That's the kind of religion I object to and it's also the kind of religious fervour that caused a lot of the religious wars in europe - catholic fundamentalists against protestant ones with the most appalling atrocities committed on both sides. I can look at my own country's history to see what life in a Christian fundamentalist state would be like.

I find the rise of such fundamentalism disturbing and the "normal" religious people can do little to counteract it. I would argue that such people are not actually christian and seem to have missed the point of his ministry. For them the claim that their religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception is I think a legitimate one. Well it seems we have the exact same outlook on the matter. What was blatantly evident is that his distinction was not made in the OP which is a very wrong mentality to have. Our differences are irrelevant because we're talking about a specific thread that we seem to have the same views on.

The highlighted portion you'd written is what I mold one of my primary objectives to but the OP has continuously argued against it by generalizing and being myself I couldn't possibly allow it.

Nutters. Yes there are nutters and I equally condemn them regardless of what they claim because my primary point in this thread is that I do not differentiate a religious nutter from an atheist nutter because both of their "answers" were wrong.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1299147 wrote: I find the rise of such fundamentalism disturbing and the "normal" religious people can do little to counteract it. I would argue that such people are not actually christian and seem to have missed the point of his ministry. For them the claim that their religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception is I think a legitimate one.
K.Snyder wrote: What was blatantly evident was that his distinction was not made in the OP which is a very wrong mentality to have.
In my view, the religion of all Christians - whether they be fundamentalist or moderate in persuasion - is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. There is no distinction to be made between Christians in this respect. When Christians debase themselves before the 'Lord' and seek to placate 'Him' with prayers, incantations and strange rituals they are acting no differently from their Palaeolithic ancestors who debased themselves before their 'Lord' and pleaded with 'Him' to protect them from wolves and sabre-toothed tigers, and to send down rain for the crops. The religion of Christians and that of their Palaeolithic ancestors may differ in external appearance. But that is only surface: both forms are rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1299433 wrote: In my view, the religion of all Christians - whether they be fundamentalist or moderate in persuasion - is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. There is no distinction to be made between Christians in this respect. When Christians debase themselves before the 'Lord' and seek to placate 'Him' with prayers, incantations and strange rituals they are acting no differently from their Palaeolithic ancestors who debased themselves before their 'Lord' and pleaded with 'Him' to protect them from wolves and sabre-toothed tigers, and to send down rain for the crops. The religion of Christians and that of their Palaeolithic ancestors may differ in external appearance. But that is only surface: both forms are rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception.


Now sire if I may

It's apparent your generalization extends far greater than the equivocal "Christians" you'd failed to exert by the indication in your desire to place quotation marks around "Him" and "Lord".

I'll address everyone as duly fit...

I do believe spot, AussiePam, Koan, and my own personal beliefs have set the tone in allowing what appears to be myself bringing about a conclusion to this thread all peoples should have an ear for and I'll attempt to do so now...

All Religious Practitioners Listen Up!

It's inherently wrong in the attempt to convert anyone/anything to adhere to your own personal beliefs!

All Atheists Listen Up!

It's inherently wrong in the attempt to convert anyone/anything to adhere to your own personal beliefs!

When an "atheist" attempts to convert anyone/anything to their own personal beliefs they define themselves as no different than a "religious practitioner" attempting the same.

Why? Because everyone's beliefs is self evidently correct for themselves defined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle! I've factual evidence "you've" a personal agenda!

By the mere fact one single person claims to be "Christian" and doesn't share the same beliefs as all else who claim to be "Christian" completely obliterates the idea "all Christians can be generalized". It's that simple

Why the last paragraph wasn't in favor of atheist in response to the defense of "religious people"?

Because the damn thread was started with an atheist overture that blatantly insulted innocent religious practitioners by the shear collection of definitively wrong and misplaced insults. Now there's a level ground and any further expedition within this thread is just that, PERSONAL PLEASURE!

Goodnight

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1299300 wrote: I think it's fair to say pat robertson and the like are firmly in the fear and ignorance category. Interesting you should have the pope at 35:-2


I guaged the strength of the Pope's religious beliefs at 35 because of the personal qualities which I think a man must possess to become leader of the Catholic Church. Such a man must be shrewd and devious to a remarkable degree in order to successfully ascend through all the ranks of that organization of vipers. For example, he must have a great capacity for intrigue; he must be an expert at dissimulation; he must have the ability to make deals and compromise in a thousand ways; and he must be extremely attuned to the crafty chemistry which operates between priests of every rank. I think such a man is too clever by far to take his religion all that seriously. He will necessarily look upon it with a Machiavellian eye. Incidentally, that's why I gave Blair 35 as well.

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder wrote: Goodnight
See you soon.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1299433 wrote: In my view, the religion of all Christians - whether they be fundamentalist or moderate in persuasion - is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. There is no distinction to be made between Christians in this respect. When Christians debase themselves before the 'Lord' and seek to placate 'Him' with prayers, incantations and strange rituals they are acting no differently from their Palaeolithic ancestors who debased themselves before their 'Lord' and pleaded with 'Him' to protect them from wolves and sabre-toothed tigers, and to send down rain for the crops. The religion of Christians and that of their Palaeolithic ancestors may differ in external appearance. But that is only surface: both forms are rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception.


To some extent I would agree with you, certainly in regard to those who love the old testament so much. On the other hand I know many who are perfectly aware of all the contradictions and absurdities but still find much in their belief, they're just not hung up on the trappings. Religious faith is quite literally irrational and reason is it's enemy.

Martin Luther

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.


He also said

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.




Now if only the established religions would take heed of the first and leave people to make their own choices there might be less of the latter.

Perhaps there should be a separation between belief in god and religion.

At the extreme end atheism is rooted in arrogance and an overwhelming belief in their own intellect. All you can say with any certainty is that on the evidence the balance of probability that there is no god is almost 100%.

Personally I am off the opinion that people who think they have all the answers stopped looking too soon and forty two is the answer that makes the most sense of it all.

also posted by glaswegian

I guaged the strength of the Pope's religious beliefs at 35 because of the personal qualities which I think a man must possess to become leader of the Catholic Church. Such a man must be shrewd and devious to a remarkable degree in order to successfully ascend through all the ranks of that organization of vipers. For example, he must have a great capacity for intrigue; he must be an expert at dissimulation; he must have the ability to make deals and compromise in a thousand ways; and he must be extremely attuned to the crafty chemistry which operates between priests of every rank. I think such a man is too clever by far to take his religion all that seriously. He will necessarily look upon it with a Machiavellian eye. Incidentally, that's why I gave Blair 35 as well.


Interesting contrast

Pope John Paul II Appeal to IRA in Drogheda, September 1979

On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace... Let history record that at a difficult moment in the experience of the people of Ireland, the Bishop of Rome set foot in your land, that he was with you and prayed with you for peace and reconciliation, for the victory of justice and love over hatred and violence."




Kirk disputes Pope's view of the past - Scotsman.com News

In a statement issued last week by The Vatican, Pope Benedict, who will visit Scotland in September, described the 16th-century Reformation, which split the two faiths, as a "great rupture" that had led to religious intolerance.




Gorrie, who campaigned for anti-sectarian legislation in the Scottish Parliament, added: "I think these remarks are unhelpful although I'm sure they are well meant."

Observers believe the tone of the Pope's state visit later this year is becoming very different to the more celebratory papal trip undertaken by his predecessor, John Paul, in 1982. Pope Benedict XVI suggested Scotland was a country grappling with sectarianism and struggling against a rising tide of secularism when formally announcing his trip to Edinburgh and Glasgow.


God forbid catholic and protestant should live side by side in peace.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1299442 wrote: God forbid catholic and protestant should live side by side in peace.
A reliable source has informed me, gmc, that Catholics and Protestants in Glasgow will behold a religious extravaganza which is literally 'out of this world' when the Pope visits the city later this year. For several months now - at the behest of the Holy Father himself - an army of priests has been combing monasteries and reliquaries throughout Europe in search of holy relics with which to astound the hundreds of thousands of people who will flock to see the Vicar of Christ in the green pastures of Glasgow's Bellahouston Park. The priests have been unsparing in their efforts to locate these relics and, according to my source, they have already assembled a collection which is unprecedented in the Church's two thousand year history. Among the wondrous objects which will be on display to the Glasgow public during Pope Benedict XVI's visit are the following:

'The Holy Lance which pierced Jesus's side, two vials containing blood and water which spurted from that same side, the head of St Peter, wooden fragments from the Cross of Calvary, leftovers from the Last Supper, Jesus's swaddling clothes, the head of John the Baptist, a lock of the Blessed Virgin's hair, the magical rods of Moses and Aaron which struck water from the rocks in the wilderness, one of the nails which pinned Jesus to the Cross, Jesus's umbilical cord, the Ark of the Covenant, the dining table on which Jesus and his disciples partook the Last Supper, the head of St Paul, Jesus's milk teeth, three fragments of the tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments, a trumpet from the Battle of Jericho, a vial containing tears shed by Jesus, the foreskin of John the Baptist, the Crown of Thorns worn by Jesus, an urn full of manna which God dropped from heaven to feed the children of Israel in the wilderness, Le Saint Prepuce, a bone of Mary Magdalene, a bone of Lazarus, the Sponge which held the vinegar given to Jesus to drink on the Cross, the shirt of John the Baptist, a charred branch of the Burning Bush, a bone of Isaac, Moses's sandals, a wine jar (complete with wine) from the wedding feast of Cana, one of the stones which killed St Stephen, assorted body parts (204 bits) of Bethlehem babies massacred by Herod, two finger bones of St Augustine, four finger bones of St Bernard, another head of St Peter, leftovers from the feeding of the Five Thousand, the skull of John the Baptist...'

According to Professor John Haldane of St Andrews University: 'Anyone who saw all these relics on the correct day will be excused nearly two million years of purgatory.' My source has also told me that 'the correct day' referred to by Haldane is none other than the very day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Therefore, gmc, given the fact that your sins are innumerable, given the more terrible fact that many of them are beyond all decent contemplation, I think you will appreciate the necessity of your seeing these holy relics on the special day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Yes, I think you will understand how vitally important it is for you to let your eyes feast on them.

[Amythest]

Glaswegian;1299480 wrote: A reliable source has informed me, gmc, that Catholics and Protestants in Glasgow will behold a religious extravaganza which is literally 'out of this world' when the Pope visits the city later this year. For several months now - at the behest of the Holy Father himself - an army of priests has been combing monasteries and reliquaries throughout Europe in search of holy relics with which to astound the hundreds of thousands of people who will flock to see the Vicar of Christ in the green pastures of Glasgow's Bellahouston Park. The priests have been unsparing in their efforts to locate these relics and, according to my source, they have already assembled a collection which is unprecedented in the Church's two thousand year history. Among the wondrous objects which will be on display to the Glasgow public during Pope Benedict XVI's visit are the following:

'The Holy Lance which pierced Jesus's side, two vials containing blood and water which spurted from that same side, the head of St Peter, wooden fragments from the Cross of Calvary, leftovers from the Last Supper, Jesus's swaddling clothes, the head of John the Baptist, a lock of the Blessed Virgin's hair, the magical rods of Moses and Aaron which struck water from the rocks in the wilderness, one of the nails which pinned Jesus to the Cross, Jesus's umbilical cord, the Ark of the Covenant, the dining table on which Jesus and his disciples partook the Last Supper, the head of St Paul, Jesus's milk teeth, three fragments of the tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments, a trumpet from the Battle of Jericho, a vial containing tears shed by Jesus, the foreskin of John the Baptist, the Crown of Thorns worn by Jesus, an urn full of manna which God dropped from heaven to feed the children of Israel in the wilderness, Le Saint Prepuce, a bone of Mary Magdalene, a bone of Lazarus, the Sponge which held the vinegar given to Jesus to drink on the Cross, the shirt of John the Baptist, a charred branch of the Burning Bush, a bone of Isaac, Moses's sandals, a wine jar (complete with wine) from the wedding feast of Cana, one of the stones which killed St Stephen, assorted body parts (204 bits) of Bethlehem babies massacred by Herod, two finger bones of St Augustine, four finger bones of St Bernard, another head of St Peter, leftovers from the feeding of the Five Thousand, the skull of John the Baptist...'

According to Professor John Haldane of St Andrews University: 'Anyone who saw all these relics on the correct day will be excused nearly two million years of purgatory.' My source has also told me that 'the correct day' referred to by Haldane is none other than the very day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Therefore, gmc, given the fact that your sins are innumerable, given the more terrible fact that many of them are beyond all decent contemplation, I think you will appreciate the necessity of your seeing these holy relics on the special day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Yes, I think you will understand how vitally important it is for you to let your eyes feast on them.


That sounds about as exciting as the Catholic Eucharist ceremony. (Cannibal ritual of eating Christs body and drinking his blood ):yh_rotfl

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1299480 wrote: A reliable source has informed me, gmc, that Catholics and Protestants in Glasgow will behold a religious extravaganza which is literally 'out of this world' when the Pope visits the city later this year. For several months now - at the behest of the Holy Father himself - an army of priests has been combing monasteries and reliquaries throughout Europe in search of holy relics with which to astound the hundreds of thousands of people who will flock to see the Vicar of Christ in the green pastures of Glasgow's Bellahouston Park. The priests have been unsparing in their efforts to locate these relics and, according to my source, they have already assembled a collection which is unprecedented in the Church's two thousand year history. Among the wondrous objects which will be on display to the Glasgow public during Pope Benedict XVI's visit are the following:

'The Holy Lance which pierced Jesus's side, two vials containing blood and water which spurted from that same side, the head of St Peter, wooden fragments from the Cross of Calvary, leftovers from the Last Supper, Jesus's swaddling clothes, the head of John the Baptist, a lock of the Blessed Virgin's hair, the magical rods of Moses and Aaron which struck water from the rocks in the wilderness, one of the nails which pinned Jesus to the Cross, Jesus's umbilical cord, the Ark of the Covenant, the dining table on which Jesus and his disciples partook the Last Supper, the head of St Paul, Jesus's milk teeth, three fragments of the tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments, a trumpet from the Battle of Jericho, a vial containing tears shed by Jesus, the foreskin of John the Baptist, the Crown of Thorns worn by Jesus, an urn full of manna which God dropped from heaven to feed the children of Israel in the wilderness, Le Saint Prepuce, a bone of Mary Magdalene, a bone of Lazarus, the Sponge which held the vinegar given to Jesus to drink on the Cross, the shirt of John the Baptist, a charred branch of the Burning Bush, a bone of Isaac, Moses's sandals, a wine jar (complete with wine) from the wedding feast of Cana, one of the stones which killed St Stephen, assorted body parts (204 bits) of Bethlehem babies massacred by Herod, two finger bones of St Augustine, four finger bones of St Bernard, another head of St Peter, leftovers from the feeding of the Five Thousand, the skull of John the Baptist...'

According to Professor John Haldane of St Andrews University: 'Anyone who saw all these relics on the correct day will be excused nearly two million years of purgatory.' My source has also told me that 'the correct day' referred to by Haldane is none other than the very day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Therefore, gmc, given the fact that your sins are innumerable, given the more terrible fact that many of them are beyond all decent contemplation, I think you will appreciate the necessity of your seeing these holy relics on the special day of the Pope's visit to Glasgow. Yes, I think you will understand how vitally important it is for you to let your eyes feast on them.


The bigots will have a field day I think. I've heard that irn bru is being withdrawn from in all the shops - the colour considered a provocation.

Joking aside it's a shame we can't just let go of sectarianism. I moved away from Scotland for some years and had forgotten what it was like until I moved back to an area where such things still matter.

[Snowfire]

gmc;1299520 wrote: The bigots will have a field day I think. I've heard that irn bru is being withdrawn from in all the shops - the colour considered a provocation.




Haha :yh_rotfl Thats wonderful

Incidentally, does anyone mind if I dont contribute - via my taxes - to the £20,000,000 that is reputed it will cost to fund the security for God's Rottweiler's visit to the UK. By all means, if the charred branch of the burning bush will draw a crowd, fine, but not at my expense

[hoppy]

I always thought socialism was for big babies.:yh_rotfl

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1299596 wrote: I always thought socialism was for big babies.:yh_rotfl
As someone who is so infantile and backward as to believe in 'Satan', hoppy, do you see socialism as the work of the arch-fiend himself? Or do you see it simply as the work of 'Godless atheists'?

[gmc]

hoppy;1299596 wrote: I always thought socialism was for big babies.:yh_rotfl


Jesus was an early socialist didn't you know? If you go to the roots of socialism you will find a lot of the early proponents were amongst the dissenters. Your own constitution is a socialist document

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


We the people - that's the key phrase that gives the game away.

You've just been brainwashed into thinking that's not the case. Would you like a few pointers in to the socialist origins of the declaration of independence?

AN AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE FOR A firme and present Peace, upon grounds of common-right and freedome;




The originators of that phrase, agreement of the people, were executed by the religious right.

posted by snowfire

Incidentally, does anyone mind if I dont contribute - via my taxes - to the £20,000,000 that is reputed it will cost to fund the security for God's Rottweiler's visit to the UK. By all means, if the charred branch of the burning bush will draw a crowd, fine, but not at my expense


The annoying things is you can't say anything like that without being accused of being anti religious or anti-catholic. But I find it annoying as well.

[hoppy]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quite right. However, when that "perfect union" is eroded by corruption and an unequal system of justice, there goes "domestic tranquility" and the "general welfare". And, I do not believe "general welfare" meant cradle to grave care for those who don't come here legally or those who won't work or contribute to the "union". Remember, back then everyone was expected to look after themselves and their own. Government did the governing, not babysitting, as so many seem to want these days.

[gmc]

hoppy;1299669 wrote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quite right. However, when that "perfect union" is eroded by corruption and an unequal system of justice, there goes "domestic tranquility" and the "general welfare". And, I do not believe "general welfare" meant cradle to grave care for those who don't come here legally or those who won't work or contribute to the "union". Remember, back then everyone was expected to look after themselves and their own. Government did the governing, not babysitting, as so many seem to want these days.


Why don't you sort out your own problems then and stop feeling sorry form yourself all the time and accept that if the will of the people is to have change for the better of all then demented right wing minorities should step aside or get squashed. The people will always win in the end. liberty and it's concomitant liberal values will always win.

So do you think religion is for big infants? Are you in favour of liberty and justice for all or do you prefer rule by a hierarchy with a god given right to rule? That's what all the religious wars were about. Who rules, the church and it's followers or government elected by the people for the people.

[hoppy]

gmc;1299677 wrote: Why don't you sort out your own problems then and stop feeling sorry form yourself all the time and accept that if the will of the people is to have change for the better of all then demented right wing minorities should step aside or get squashed. The people will always win in the end. liberty and it's concomitant liberal values will always win.

So do you think religion is for big infants? Are you in favour of liberty and justice for all or do you prefer rule by a hierarchy with a god given right to rule? That's what all the religious wars were about. Who rules, the church and it's followers or government elected by the people for the people.


Like I said before, I think socialism is for big babies. -1yh_rotfl

[Glaswegian]

Amythest;1297887 wrote: If a religious follower believes i am secondary to men, i am on this planet to serve men, be subordinate to their whims then i see them as wishing or opening the door to harm upon myself and my sisters. Through my own life experience this has actually happened at the hands of religious zealots. I look across the globe and it's disgusting what some girls and women are subjugated to because of their religion. THATS HIENOUS!
I couldn't agree more, Amythest. Monotheistic religion's impact on women has been utterly atrocious. Followers of this type of religion have positively relished slandering, oppressing and destroying women across the centuries.

Misogyny is one of Monotheism's most salient features. With regard to Christianity, many of the early Church Fathers are characterised by an attitude to women which is quite obscene. For example, Tertullian calls woman 'the gate through which the devil enters'; and Jerome the Vulgate declares, 'Woman is the gate of the devil, the way of evil, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous thing.'

There have been many Christians who have sought to rationalise their hatred and contempt for women by finding support for these feelings in Biblical texts. They have not had to look very far. For example, here is how Jesus speaks to his own mother: 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' While Paul writes to the Corinthians: 'Only man, not woman, is the image and glory of God - woman is only the glory of man.' And here is Paul again to Timothy: 'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' Perhaps the most catastrophic Biblical text for women to date is this one: 'You shall not allow a witch to live'. Countless innocent females - women, old and young, and even little girls - were degraded, tortured and burned alive on the basis of this last injunction.

Biblical writings like these were produced by cultural milieus far removed in time and outlook from our own: so removed, in fact, that civilized people now look upon them as crass and embarrassing. But this is not the view of the religious fundamentalist misogynist who is very much alive today. For this individual, such writings are just as binding now as they were long ago. More than this: they are manna from heaven - food and drink, that is, in secular parlance.

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian, I offer that you have a few things bass ackwards.

It is not religion that drives men, so much as men will use religion to justify their actions.

Take your last post, for instance.

Men in much of the world treat women like second class beings. This goes across almost all the regions and religions of the world.

You cannot blame that on God, or Jesus, or Mohammed.

Men wish to subjugate women, and use the their "gods" to support this.

[Glaswegian]

In 1972 the United States Tourist Office issued a film which highlights the dangers which might befall a civilized person who leaves any of America's few Zones of Enlightenment and ventures into one of its many Hayseed Zones, such as the one inhabited by hoppy. The Tourist Office's film is most informative and I strongly recommend it. For those of you who are interested in seeing this film it is called: Deliverance.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1299715 wrote: Glaswegian, I offer that you have a few things bass ackwards.

It is not religion that drives men, so much as men will use religion to justify their actions.
Yes, LarsMac. Men certainly do use religion to justify their actions. And I think the reason why they do this is very obvious. It is because religion itself provides men with every justification they need to commit the most wicked and despicable acts. If you doubt this then just take a look at what religion's 'holy books' command men to do. For example, according to the Bible if our children misbehave then we must beat them with a rod. If they have the audacity to talk back to us then we must kill them. If someone works on the Sabbath then we must kill them too. We must also kill people for adultery, heresy, homosexuality, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide range of other 'transgressions'.

You don't seriously believe that there is nothing evil about religion itself, do you?

[Amythest]

I'm just glad my man isn't religious. None of that conditioning and crazy housewiffery shyte. I don't call him my "husband". I'm not a damn farm animal.:yh_cow

He's ok with that. Doesn't like milking the cow twice a day anyway.:yh_eyerol

I think he has an ancient celtic soul, and respects the divine feminine. The spirits of Prasutagus and Boadicea dwell within our worlds.

Seems everyone has some ancient ancestral spirit guiding them. Mostly those Roman Conquerors morphed into "God". Yes they became "omnipresent", "omnipotent" , their armies spread like a plague, all guided and instructed by one magnificent force ( the Vatican)and used all sorts of divisive measures, torture 'n killing, to force their will upon otherwise prospering peaceful societies. They sure know how to scare people into absolute submission, or yea, just kill them off if they don't comply.

The rest submit to servitude.

They call it Catholicism and xianity now.:rolleyes::yh_bigsmi

[hoppy]

Amythest;1299847 wrote: I'm just glad my man isn't religious. None of that conditioning and crazy housewiffery shyte. I don't call him my "husband". I'm not a damn farm animal.:yh_cow

He's ok with that. Doesn't like milking the cow twice a day anyway.:yh_eyerol

I think he has an ancient celtic soul, and respects the divine feminine. The spirits of Prasutagus and Boadicea dwell within our worlds.

Seems everyone has some ancient ancestral spirit guiding them. Mostly those Roman Conquerors morphed into "God". Yes they became "omnipresent", "omnipotent" , their armies spread like a plague, all guided and instructed by one magnificent force ( the Vatican)and used all sorts of divisive measures, torture 'n killing, to force their will upon otherwise prospering peaceful societies. They sure know how to scare people into absolute submission, or yea, just kill them off if they don't comply.

The rest submit to servitude.

They call it Catholicism and xianity now.:rolleyes::yh_bigsmi


You should be thankful for all the religious wars and persecutions of the past. Had it not been for them, the world may have lapsed into a very long lasting peace that would have destroyed the world many hundreds of years ago.

Think about it. Everybody at peace with everybody, sitting around their fires at night, holding hands and singing "cum-by ya". Pumping out kids in wholesale lots, eventually causing overcrowding, food shortages, starvation, the whole landscape littered with sick, fly covered people.

Atheism is for whiners and crybabies. :p

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1299838 wrote: Yes, LarsMac. Men certainly do use religion to justify their actions. And I think the reason why they do this is very obvious. It is because religion itself provides men with every justification they need to commit the most wicked and despicable acts. If you doubt this then just take a look at what religion's 'holy books' command men to do. For example, according to the Bible if our children misbehave then we must beat them with a rod. If they have the audacity to talk back to us then we must kill them. If someone works on the Sabbath then we must kill them too. We must also kill people for adultery, heresy, homosexuality, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide range of other 'transgressions'.

You don't seriously believe that there is nothing evil about religion itself, do you?


No sir.

Religion is a tool. Just like a hammer or a saw, a car, or a gun.

What you do with it determines whether it is good or evil.

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1299733 wrote: In 1972 the United States Tourist Office issued a film which highlights the dangers which might befall a civilized person who leaves any of America's few Zones of Enlightenment and ventures into one of its many Hayseed Zones, such as the one inhabited by hoppy. The Tourist Office's film is most informative and I strongly recommend it. For those of you who are interested in seeing this film it is called: Deliverance.


:yh_rotfl:wah: