ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

My first favorite thing in the Mormon edition of the King James Bible is a "Joseph Smith translation" adding some extra gore to Matthew 27:6:

6 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he fell down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died.

Bowels gush out of this guy and they hang there . . .

That's what "divinely inspired" looks like, Solomon.

he's like Gus Van Sant. Like, it's understood that Norman Bates is sexually aroused by staring through the peephole watching the chick shower. We don't actually have to hear him jerking off to get it, ya know?

But if you're aware enough to realize that there's a degree of bullshit going on with the church and whatnot, why is it the Christian God that is the Creator and Ultimate Divine Being? How do you reconcile all the other cultures throughout history that never had any exposure to the Christian faith or at least not one that featured as the dominant cultural faith? If you can look at the development of the Christian religion and understand its cycles and variations, can't you see that it's unlikely that it's real? At least as the One True Faith?

I would agree with you except it doesn't work unless you believe in some kind of polytheistic religion of autonomous deities like the cartoon old-man-in-the-sky version of God, all competing against each other like in a political campaign. I think people that are really serious about their organized religion have a far more abstract concept of God. I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

As I recall, the One True Faith bullshit is based on a single offhand remark by Jesus to the effect that no man comes to the father but by me. In the mouth of a teacher who loved parable and metaphor, it isn't hard to interpret this in ways far different and less exclusive than the self-serving ways the church likes to interpet it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms. This is just not as fun or easy as slagging off on fundies.

I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

that still involves crude one-upmanship, though

just playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

but if it's abstract, why have any ties whatsoever to the christian faith? why not just an abstract concept that has no ties to any organized religion?

xpost

I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

Its pretty blatant in the Old Testament that other gods exist but that the god of the Israelites kicks all their asses.

Depends on which section of the OT you're talking about, but yeah -- monotheism developed after most of the OT was probably written

Organized religions seem to be an attempt at describing/investigating the abstract Unknowable Eternal at the root of everything. It's just what they do. If it wasn't truly beyond words and human comprehension, it would be called Science!

And yeah, in India, there are some that do call it a science.

And in America, some call is Scientology!

*it

Forming a church, in the sense of forming a community of shared ideals, is a normal human desire. Within that church it is not necessary that each person share an exact replica of the same beliefs for the church to function correctly, and when churches fall prey to this lockstep mentality they begin to fall away from the rightful purpose of a christian church, by making invidious distinctions between their neighbors and themselves, contrary to Christ's primary commandment.

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms.

Confronting the effect of religion on the cultural and political spheres really has very little to do with individual expressions of faith, but of the organized religions as cultural institutions. Again, I don't care what people believe, I care what they do. Adam's or Karen's or del's or your personal religious faith really has nothing to do with how "religion" shapes cultural and political life in the United States. Your personal faith is how you conduct your life and is your business; the organized churches, and how they attempt to order life for everyone, is my business.

And they don't pay taxes.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual statistics on how many Churches are what you'd consider activist Churches and what percentage of religious institutions overall they constitute.

So, when we discuss religion, you consider that we are ipso facto discussing churches as institutions and their effect on society? But the effects of all the extant personal faiths has still more effect on society, in that they form a larger set of ideas, of which the other is a smaller subset. Some of those effects are decidedly quite positive. by leaving them out of the discussion, you are excluding a valid part of what you say concerns you.

"to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets"

they're not only easy targets but they're the appropriate ones, don't you think? who here has a beef with benign churches who have kept their religion in check and had the courtesy not to impose it upon the public sphere? it's because they are so polite and basically good citizens that they have less influence on radio-christ.

Forming a church, in the sense of forming a community of shared ideals, is a normal human desire. Within that church it is not necessary that each person share an exact replica of the same beliefs for the church to function correctly, and when churches fall prey to this lockstep mentality they begin to fall away from the rightful purpose of a christian church, by making invidious distinctions between their neighbors and themselves, contrary to Christ's primary commandment.

and yet there's a good 1100 years where not only did this happen, the church fought tooth and nail to ensure it was that way.

not to mention from personal experience, where I sent a good amount of time (3+ years) at 4 different denominations, all of which believed their interpretation was the only true interpretation and ran services accordingly.

Churches, like governments, or sodalities, or sewing circles, can become corrupted. With certain twists, most of the arguments made here against "religion" could as easily be made against "politics".

I think that your ideal notion of what a christian church should be happens more as an aberration than a rule in the history of the churches.

I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle.

Gukbe: corrupted governments are far far more numerous than anything even approaching an ideal government, too. (shrugs)

Abbbottt: malicious gossip and backbiting?

1) Maybe you should read the book and see the guy's research before attempting to counter it with "well, I think..." - it's available free to download, very easy to find.

2) The Church of England (where the bulk of my experiences took place) is hardly a "mom and pop indie record shop" - it's a worldwide religion with over 77 million members.

well of course, and often those corrupted governments went hand in hand with the corrupted church. that doesn't make it any better though, does it? xpost

If every church was more like the Church of England, we'd be in a pretty okay place tbh.

Gukbe: corrupted governments are far far more numerous than anything even approaching an ideal government, too. (shrugs)

This is true. Which is why I'd like to limit the corrupting factors as much as possible. Religion is one of them. Not like I'm ever going to get my wish, so can't I just be permitted to be cranky about it?

1) Maybe you should read the book and see the guy's research before attempting to counter it with "well, I think..." - it's available free to download, very easy to find.

That's fine, but still, life is a lot more goddamned complicated than just "change the radio station." For realz.

Make it better? Of course not! We are in complete agreement when it comes to most of your specifics. It is when one generalizes from the corruptions of religion to condemn religion as wholly corrupt and without value that I fall to the other side.

religion is so entrenched in politics, it'd be hard to separate out what is uniquely objectionable about politics. I suppose reasonable polite people disagreeing could lead to inaction, where religious fiat would be more effective governance.

"I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle."
me too! this PBS special on quaker industry painted the sewing activiites as pretty DIY dischord records.

It is kinda funny that in a discussion of things as complicated as human behavior and religion you're resorting to THIS BOOK! PROVEN BY STATISTICS!

xp I do not think "religion" is wholly corrupt nor have I ever said so.

"I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle."

bad thread

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd120/hipsterrunoff/photographs/hro/834af0fc.jpg

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms. This is just not as fun or easy as slagging off on fundies.

So do you think it's unfair to criticize the actions and policies of major political parties because the people who make up those parties have millions of different personal, nuanced political beliefs?

So, when we discuss religion, you consider that we are ipso facto discussing churches as institutions and their effect on society?

I think when I'm talking about churches as institutions and their effect on society, it would be nice if the religious didn't try to change the subject off into the realm of personal belief and assume that invalidates any and all criticism.

But the effects of all the extant personal faiths has still more effect on society, in that they form a larger set of ideas, of which the other is a smaller subset. Some of those effects are decidedly quite positive. by leaving them out of the discussion, you are excluding a valid part of what you say concerns you.

Personally I don't see anything of value in religion that can't be provided in a secular way so that doesn't concern me.

If I had an iPad I would totally read this Authoritarians book.

I do not think "religion" is wholly corrupt nor have I ever said so.

Phil, when a couple of lines ago you identified "religion" as a "corrupting factor" in governance, apparently you misspoke yourself and meant to say something like "corrupted religion". Again, religion is the larger set, and should not be identified solely with one of its subsets. This misstatement of yours is probably just due to a certain habit of speech and thought you can clarify in the future.

Phil D, I give up. It feels really pointless talking to someone who has already made their mind up and will not even read anything that suggests another way.

You use vast over simplifications and I try to tell you "things are more complicated than that..." and you shrug that off.

I try to explain something in a metaphor which is necessarily a simplification, and you resort to "things are more complicated than that."

If you want to read some research and make up your own mind, go ahead. If you just want to decide that you know best, then you are actually starting to sound a *lot* like the people you claim to despise.

Personally I don't see anything of value in religion that can't be provided in a secular way so that doesn't concern me.

If a value comes through the avenue of religion or of secularism, it is still of value. Please consider the idea that for some people, the avenue of religion is more open and accessible than the secular one, and if you were to try to eliminate it, you might fall prey to the law of unintended consequences.

pretty sure Christianity will be dead and gone in 500 years anyway. not sure this conversation really matters.

Thank goodness, we can all rest easy now.

what? where did this 500 years figure come from? not some bible code i hope.

random number. somewhere around then, if not before.

The Church of England (where the bulk of my experiences took place) is hardly a "mom and pop indie record shop" - it's a worldwide religion with over 77 million members.

Well not exactly the indie record store, but we're talking 77 million Anglicans vs. 1.2 billion Catholics. If the Vatican were Walmart with $400 billion a year in revenues, the CofE would make around $27 billion a year which a little more than half of the revenues of #186 on the list of the biggest corporations in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
So maybe it's more like an Apple or something?

i mean why is Xianity going to die out within 500 years. this doesn't have anything to do with singularity, does it?

re: church of england, what exactly is the monarchy's role there besides being the titular head?

DJ

i swear i saw footage of prince charles scratching decks in jamaica. it was obviously for a goof but he seemed pretty natural at it.

So maybe it's more like an Apple or something?

I HATE APPLE?

Prince Charles would make a terrible DJ, he'd spin all early disco and nothing after about '76. I mean, it'd be alright, but that's all he'd do and then he'd keep making sniffy speeches attacking Frankie Knuckles and hip-hop.