Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:13 am

Was a discussion that involved Religious conviction ever anything else, boatlady?

In the Officers' Mess, three topics are traditionally not discussed: Sex, Politics and Religion.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:20 pm

Why is it called an Officers Mess? Is the word mess used in the same context as 'your house is a mess'? I would like to know the etiology of this word.

Hello Wikipedia (although the sources are flimsy):

A mess (also called a messdeck aboard ships) is the place where military personnel socialise, eat, and (in some cases) live. In some societies this military usage has extended to other disciplined services eateries such as civilian fire fighting and police forces. The root of mess is the Old French mes, "portion of food" (cf. modern French mets), drawn from the Latin verb mittere, meaning "to send" and "to put" (cf. modern French mettre), the original sense being "a course of a meal put on the table". This sense of mess, which appeared in English in the 13th century, was often used for cooked or liquid dishes in particular, as in the "mess of pottage" (porridge or soup). By the 15th century, a group of people who ate together was also called a mess, and it is this sense that persists in the "mess halls" of the modern military.

And just to make it relevant to this thread, do you think they prayed before they ate in the mess?

by Guest Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:22 pm

In the Navy, my preferred branch of service, whether it be the United States Navy, the Royal Navy (to which the US Navy owes a debt that cannot be repaid), the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy, or the once Royal Canadian Navy, it’s called a galley. From what Navy folks have told me, the Army (whichever one) calls it a mess because that’s what they serve.

by **Ivan** Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:32 pm

There's also such a thing as an 'Eton Mess'. It used to be a dessert, but Cameron and his cronies have re-invented it as a style of government.

by Guest Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:01 pm

I pray before meals when I’m reminded, so given that I’m seldom reminded…

I’m more Jewish about that anyway. There’s a song I once knew in Hebrew that is so humble in its attitude towards that which sustains us that it used to bring tears to my eyes as I sung it driving to work. As I was teaching some of the hardest-headed of hardheads at the time, the song helped me focus on my mission. There were two young men that song helped me reach.

One had failed enough classes to keep him in eighth grade, junior high/middle school, after all of his “boyz” (“mates” to y’all) had moved on to high school on a different campus. I taught the ISS, “In School Suspension”, class, of which he was almost a permanent member. We came to an agreement; he would use his time in ISS to actually study, and I would work one-on-one with him to ensure that he got his six feet three inches of long legs and long arms “up outta here” and into high school where he belonged by making sure he was ready to pass every test he took in every class. It worked.

The other was a young cholo. We started to get along after he told me, a bit bombastically, that I couldn’t come to his neighborhood without getting jacked up, and I replied that he was speaking truth. He looked at mw kind of wide-eyed when I said that. Then I said something like, “Why would I come to your neighborhood anyway? Does Chaka Khan live there now?”

He couldn’t hold it; he almost fell off the chair laughing (which would have been a violation of ISS rules). After that, he told me why he had been assigned to ISS. An eighth grade boy, about five feet nine inches and one hundred ninety pounds, had put his hands on the seventh grade cholo’s sister while the sister and the eighth-grader were on the lawn in front of the school. The young cholo, about five feet five inches and maybe one hundred twenty pounds, tore the much larger eighth-grader up. The young cholo and I came to an agreement; he promised me that, if the eighth-grader laid hands upon his sister again, he would wrap the bully up in a head lock, bounce him along the ground to the assistant principal’s office, and deliver the miscreant to the proper authority. After his stint was over, the young cholo never returned to ISS.

I wish I could find my tape on which that song was recorded.

by Shirina Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:34 pm

Your very quick in telling lies about what you don't do, what you do is to condone the rape mutlation and murder of uo to 504 civilian old women and children at the My Lai Massacre, one if not the worst atrocity commited in modern times. Commited by the brave soldiers of the American Army. So stop being a poxy hypocrite and stop throwing stones when you most definitely are living in a Glass house.

Bobby, I would ask that you rewrite this post so that it doesn't sound as if you're accusing Rock of raping children. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to sound as if you are accusing him of rape and let you rewrite your sentence in a better way. Tomorrow, I'm going to delete your original post and all posts pursuant to it, just as a fair warning.

by trevorw2539 Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:23 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Several religions have been established for the sole purpose of the exploitation of the gullible and others have taken over parts of the established religions for the same purpose.

Christianity is one of them...

I disagree. True Christianity was based on the teachings of Christ. Much of the trappings and teachings of modern 'Christianity' would have even Jesus in tears.

by snowyflake Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:35 pm

True Christianity was based on the teachings of Christ. Much of the trappings and teachings of modern 'Christianity' would have even Jesus in tears.

It's all down to who's interpreting what and to who's advantage. If religion was such a force for good in the world there wouldn't be so many wars, crimes, unwanted children, famine and disease. The fact that the various religions have hornswoggled the masses into believing they do good work with the paltry sums of money (in comparison to their combined wealth and assets) is like Warren Buffet flipping a nickel to homeless person. It's obscene.

And for the few that are good believers in their hearts, it doesn't make up for the many, powerful and greedy ones.

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:55 pm

I make this mistake with the Archbishop of Canterbury, too, who everyone knows is Rowan Atkinson. )

Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 9 _63360430_63360429

Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 9 _63360430_63360429

Justin Welby? Mr. Bean? I am not understanding the joke.

by trevorw2539 Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:31 pm

snowyflake wrote:
True Christianity was based on the teachings of Christ. Much of the trappings and teachings of modern 'Christianity' would have even Jesus in tears.

It's all down to who's interpreting what and to who's advantage. If religion was such a force for good in the world there wouldn't be so many wars, crimes, unwanted children, famine and disease. The fact that the various religions have hornswoggled the masses into believing they do good work with the paltry sums of money (in comparison to their combined wealth and assets) is like Warren Buffet flipping a nickel to homeless person. It's obscene.

And for the few that are good believers in their hearts, it doesn't make up for the many, powerful and greedy ones.

No, it isn't. What Jesus taught is quite clear if you accept the Gospels. . Much of what the Established and RC church practise today has nothing to do with Jesus teaching. It has added its own practices. The same applied to Judaism at the time of Jesus. The 10 Commandments were what God had given the Hebrews. They had added their own practises and when Jesus came he recognised this and commented often upon it. Matthew 23 is a chapter of emphasis on how Jesus saw at the situation. Islam has done the same. It seems everyone knows better than their religions 'creator'.

I can't comment on the wealth of the RC Church - no-one knows. The Anglican Church publishes its annual accounts for all to see. Its assets are, as far as I can work out, £4b. As a World-wide 'organisation' this is small to organisations of comparable size. A lot of its income is used to pay its clergy and workers world-wide and maintain its work, ecumenical and charitable. Most 'free' churches are not rich by any means.
Of the USA based so-called 'religions' I cannot comment. The TV 'evangelists' are another matter. Some I do know use their income for furthering their work, others accumulate a fortune, and that is wrong.

Those who have wealth for wealths sake should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to be 'criticised'. This is one of the cases where Jesus teaching is ignored.

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:57 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
What Jesus taught is quite clear if you accept the Gospels. . Much of what the Established and RC church practise today has nothing to do with Jesus teaching. It has added its own practices.

Those who have wealth for wealths sake should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to be 'criticised'. This is one of the cases where Jesus teaching is ignored.

Amen.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:53 am

Last edited by snowyflake on Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:13 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : It's Warren not William. I make this mistake with the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, too, who everyone knows is Rowan Atkinson. Edited because OW is slow:))

PREVIOUS Archbishop! Klar ersichtlich.
Probably now time to stop digging the hole.

by polyglide Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:53 pm

I am entitled to reply in a like vein to anything regarding my posts and only do so.

If you do not understand the above just look at the replies to my posts.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:29 pm

Is there a sock-puppet in the room?

by snowyflake Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:56 pm

I am entitled to reply in a like vein to anything regarding my posts and only do so.

Are you one of those christians that isn't really a christian because you are not following Jesus' teachings? Some of your posts are quite clearly unkind and petty. I don't see you as a christian turning the other cheek, loving your enemies (or your neighbours for that matter) or even presenting yourself as a loving example of Christ's love.

According to you and Rock, a christian is someone who follows Jesus' teachings. Well, I can provide evidence on at least a couple of occasions right here on this message board where you are clearly not behaving like a christian.

Unfortunately, it's that hypocrisy (amongst other reasons) that puts me off religion, faith and belief. If belief in Christ is meant to make you a better person, I have yet to see evidence of it.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:28 pm

My (admittedly limited) experience of Christian voluntary work suggests that publicity is far from the volunteers' thoughts, so it's hardly surprising that the work they do is not so widely understood as that of, say, Simon Cowell.

Even a slight curiosity about the work of e.g. the Salvation Army reveals a powerful force for good. Whatever your starting point.

by boatlady Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:06 pm

Just to backtrack - not sure I accept the Gospels entirely - mostly written after the event, based on hearsy evidence, written in a variety of languages, which have since been subject to numerous translations, which are often contested - not sure I can get right behind such corrupted texts - certainly wouldn't like to bet my life on their 'truth' or even accuracy as a historical record

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:56 pm

by snowyflake Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:50 pm

My (admittedly limited) experience of Christian voluntary work suggests that publicity is far from the volunteers' thoughts, so it's hardly surprising that the work they do is not so widely understood as that of, say, Simon Cowell.

The Church Charities run the charity game just like any other charitable organisation. It's about making money, most of which is sucked up in administration costs and a bit actually goes to doing some good.

Who's Simon Cowell?

Even a slight curiosity about the work of e.g. the Salvation Army reveals a powerful force for good. Whatever your starting point

The other problem with religious charities is that they are always looking for converts to their particular brand of religion.

by boatlady Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:03 pm

I think my question Rock would be, given the corruption of the texts, how would you know they are the teachings of Jesus? Unless yu have a time machine, that is?

by snowyflake Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:23 pm

Hi boatlady

There is no solid evidence of the real-life existence of Jesus in any case. All documentation occurred decades after the event. The Romans make no mention of him even though, according to the gospels, Jesus was known far and wide. Not one contemporary historian at the time of Jesus mentions him.

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:36 pm

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:47 pm

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:03 pm

What a wonderful book is The Holy Bible. Anyone can take from it what they wish, and ignore the rest.

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:19 pm

Josephus… wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross… on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

Tacitus… said the following:

"… those people… were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate…" (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

by boatlady Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:29 am

Rock - you're simply bringing forward lots of old and probably corrupt texts to 'prove' the purity of another old and probably corrupterd text - not sure what you think you're proving.

Of course, we could consider this thread to be a discussion of the nature of 'evidence', a very complex philosophical concept that I'm sure many here have something to say about - or is that another thread?
Answers on a postcard. please.

study

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:27 am

" .... discussion of the nature of 'evidence', a very complex philosophical concept that I'm sure many here have something to say about - or is that another thread?"

metaphysics
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Yes, boatlady I suspect that the argument on this thread may become somewhat repetitive, so perhaps "the nature of evidence" might well justify somebody opening a new one.

by polyglide Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:18 pm

There is one certainty regarding religion, if there be one God, then any religion that does not acknowledge him as such, is a false religion.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:11 pm

Prayer of a soldier before Battle.

God, preserve my soul.
If there be a God.
If I have a soul.

by Shirina Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:13 pm

How do I know that the accounts of King John signing the Magna Carta are accurate?

Because not all claims are created equal. It's akin to how evidence in a criminal court must be far greater than evidence in small claims court. In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Somone signing a document is pretty ordinary compared to claiming that the Son of God ran around performing miracles.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:37 pm

The regrettable Auto da Fé is known in English as The Spanish Inquisition, and was designed to reinforce Catholic Christianity at a time when the Spanish peninsula was still "home" to Muslims and Jews.

Legend has it that an elderly Moor, when required to explain why he would not acknowledge Christ as the Son of God gave the response, ¡Que abstengan intermediarios!

A crude modern translation might be, "I talk to the organ-grinder, not his monkey!"

by snowyflake Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:37 pm

My copy of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Bible, a compilation of the two entitled the King James Version (KJV), is evidence. I touched it just a moment ago, and it was pretty damned solid.

It's evidence of something, Rock. Not sure it's truth though.

Mathew, one separate historical account, Mark, another separate historical account, Luke, another separate historical account, John, another separate historical account, and Acts, another separate historical account, are contemporary one to another and authored by four different folks.

These texts were attributed to these authors. There is no evidence that these 4 people actually wrote anything.

Wishing for Jesus to “Poof! Disappear!” doesn’t make Jesus teachings from the mount disappear.

For years, I wished he would appear. The sermon on the mount is a nice story but as far as I can tell it is just a story, like Hercules is a story, like Thor is a story and like Harry Potter is just a story. No one knows for a certainty that these events are real and true.

“Extra! Extra! Read all about them!” right there in Matthew 5-7, or, if you prefer, since I have them handily saved in a Microsoft Word document, Jesus’ teachings from the mount can be brought to and viewed upon a Cutting Edge thread near you.

Happy to oblige if so requested. Powerful, life changing stuff, those teachings of Jesus on the mount.

Thank you, Rock but no. I've read it and was impressed that is was a nice story. It isn't anything more than that and you can't make Jesus Poof Appear just because you 'believe' in him any more than I can make someone who never existed disappear.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:38 pm

How do I know that the accounts of King John signing the Magna Carta are accurate?

Because the evidence is much stronger than the evidence for the existence of Jesus.

by Guest Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:19 pm

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:46 pm

But will today's certainties survive two thousand years?

by boatlady Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:23 pm

The study of epistemology - the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. - is an interesting one - maybe some of those insights would be helpful to contributors on this thread.

There are of course many categories of knowledge :-
There is knowledge we have because of personal experience - thus, I know the water in my bath is hot, because I have placed my sensitive person into it and directly experienced the heat of it; Rock knows there is such a thing as the Bible, because he has one on his shelf that he can take down at any time; Shirina knows she experiences frequent pain, because her own nerve endings so inform her.

However, I can have no direct knowledge of Shirina's pain - it is not experienced by my nerve endings - all I can know for certain is that Shirina, of whom I have some knowledge through conversation, tells me she has pain, I have a degree of respect for Shirina's truth-telling, and I can add to that some theoretical knowledge of the condition she tells me she suffers from; as a result of two different kinds of knowledge (personal contact and thoeretical knowledge) I can conclude that it is likely that Shirina does indeed suffer pain - the exact nature of this pain I can never know, as it is a subjective sensation experienced only by Shirina.

Similarly with Rock's Bible - he knows it exists, I believe it exists, because I have no reason to believe he would lie to me, but as to 'believing' what is written therein, I'm not sure I have the time to carry out all the intellectual processes involved in even beginning to consider that proposition.

'Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so' - I think not geek

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:21 pm

RockOnBrother wrote: .... as far as I can testify from personal eyewitness and earwitness evidence, that John is as real as Robin of Locksley.
[/color]

Why don't you list all the other things that only MIGHT have happened, because you weren't there to see them, ROB?

by Guest Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:38 pm

by boatlady Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:16 am

As I say maybe we might find it helpful and illuminating to consider what CATEGORY of knowledge we want to claim when making our assertions?
Might that not be more constructive than bickering and point scoring?- I'm only asking because there seem to be a lot of different 'styles' of communication going on here, and maybe the firrst priority, if we really want to talk to each other, might be to establish a common 'language'

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:53 am

Perhaps a principal improvement might be brevity. Some contributors seem to be trialling their Doctoral Thesis. But to each his own.

by Guest Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:55 am

by Sponsored content