"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

Whatever gives you a rush Tosh, it is entirely up to yourself. ok.

Tosh wrote:I have gambled for 42 years, and hate it when people say I am wasting money, money is only a means to an end, the end being " well being ", gambling enhances my well being.

As someone who doesn't have much money, from my seat, it DOES seem like a waste of money.

I suppose as long as you're not sacrificing necessities in order to gamble, there isn't much anyone has the right to say about it. Yet I cringe when I hear about people losing money at a casino because I can't help but think about how I could really use that money myself, but instead, it went into the pockets of some fatcat casino operator all for the privilege of pulling a lever, some chips, and a few playing cards. Each to his own, I guess, as long as you can afford it.

Shirina wrote: If I'm going to be treated like a child, then I want all the benefits of being a child ... like summer vacations and not having to pay bills.  

..... and not sharing a bed.

I was never Peter Pan either.

Heretic

Whatever gives you a rush Tosh, it is entirely up to yourself. ok.

Each to their own, no harm no foul.

Shirina wrote:I'd have to find quite an oddball were I ever to get married. Things would have to be quite different from a traditional marriage. I don't mind committing - I'm not a "player" and never was. But there are certain things that I couldn't stand, especially not for the rest of my life. Having someone else in my bed while I'm trying to sleep is a real nuisance; I tried it once for awhile when I had a live-in boyfriend (cohabitation before marriage *gasp* I'm doomed to hell!) but it just didn't work. I couldn't sleep a wink. Plus I've seen way too many marriages where couples placed curfews and bedtimes on each other, and having to ask permission to do basic things is a big no-no. If I'm going to be treated like a child, then I want all the benefits of being a child ... like summer vacations and not having to pay bills.  

Most marriages that survive evolve through those kind of conflicts. You also get used to having someone around 24/7, although it that's rarely the case anyway. Sleeping with someone is not a chore, in fact after 8 years of marriage it's more strange now if one of us is away for some reason.

Dr. Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Sleeping with someone is not a chore, in fact after 8 years of marriage it's more strange now if one of us is away for some reason.

It is for me ... for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I'm often plagued by insomnia and I can literally sense a presence in my room unless I'm already in a deep sleep. No matter how quiet a person is, I just know they're there and wake up. And if someone is already there when I'm trying to sleep ... sleep is impossible. Plus, to help me sleep, I often sleep with the television on, or at the very least, a fan or some other white noise generator. For those who like to sleep in quiet, I'm their nemesis. On top of that, to be honest, I want to sleep alone. I just enjoy the peace and solitude of not having to worry about anyone else's wants and needs -- at least for that little bit of time while I'm in bed. Finally, to end this litany of weirdness, I sleep like a mummy. I wrap myself up in the blankets, so I'm one of those annoying people that would cause you to wake up at 3:30am freezing your tail off because I have all the covers.

Shirina wrote:

Tosh wrote:I have gambled for 42 years, and hate it when people say I am wasting money, money is only a means to an end, the end being " well being ", gambling enhances my well being.

As someone who doesn't have much money, from my seat, it DOES seem like a waste of money.

I suppose as long as you're not sacrificing necessities in order to gamble, there isn't much anyone has the right to say about it. Yet I cringe when I hear about people losing money at a casino because I can't help but think about how I could really use that money myself, but instead, it went into the pockets of some fatcat casino operator all for the privilege of pulling a lever, some chips, and a few playing cards. Each to his own, I guess, as long as you can afford it.

Hi Shirina... I do not gamble (actually at my age I can't gambol either but that is another matter). This is not a matter of principle (actually it could be a matter of principal) but simply that I don't find it of interest to fund a bookmaker or casino. I went on a New Years Eve casino night at a hotel a few years ago and my wife and I raided the piggy bank to give my wife a stake to gamble away. She asked me, as a statistician, what was her best strategy to which I replied "Walk in, go to the roulette table, place all your money on red." She looked at me and told me that that would not be much fun. Well the only fun in gambling is the tension as you hope to win and the ability to lose without worry which is why I explained to her that I did not expect her to come back with anything. The money was simply for her to enjoy and lose. We had a great night. We were £200 poorer but she had fun and I enjoyed the nibbles, the drink and the people watching.

I no longer explain to gambling colleagues about re-entrant and non-re-entrant Markov processes and the 'Gamblers Ruin' problem. If people insist on gambling when they cannot afford it then they need professional help and not a maths/stats lesson  

The only way in which you're likely to leave a casino with a small fortune is if you arrive with a large one.

I'm not a poker player (have had the odd game for fun / low stakes) but the 'good' thing about it is that, unlike blackjack, roulette and what have you, the odds aren't stacked against you in favour of 'the house'. You and the other players have the same statistical chance (not allowing for skill, bottle and so on).

Shirina, do you actually know what love is and what the involvement necessary to make any relationship work.

It is certainly not selfishness and the disregard for others needs etc;

Ivan wrote:The only way in which you're likely to leave a casino with a small fortune is if you arrive with a large one.

Very good  Made me chuckle. I shall file that away for later use. I always think that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery...

Dan beautiful song, take it was by foriegner? lovely.

polyglide wrote:Shirina, do you actually know what love is

I do ... which is why I don't bother with it. Like I said earlier, I much prefer the camaraderie and companionship of friends -- relationships built upon common interests, shared histories, and the same trust and respect that one might experience in a romantic relationship. But there are no obligations, no sexual pressure, no nail-biting fear that someone is cheating, no feeling of ownership and territorial claims, and very few fights. Just a comfortable time of doing things together that we all enjoy without having to make tons of concessions and compromises, and the freedom to say "I don't feel like doing anything tonight" without any histrionics, conniptions, silent treatments, and the atmosphere inside the home suddenly getting oppressive.

polyglide wrote:It is certainly not selfishness and the disregard for others needs etc

What I find interesting about this comment is your immediate assumption that I'd be the selfish one inside of a relationship. And for what reason? Because I can't sleep if someone else is in my bed? I can't change that even if I wanted to.

Besides, it would only be selfish if I got into relationships and then demanded that my lover relent to my every whim; staying away from relationships is not being selfish.

Hi Shirina, just replying to your last post. Where polyglide actually asks you "If you know what love is". The answer that you replied with, was hardly a standard reply was it now. You do know what love is, but you have no wish to live with love in your life. You would sooner have the friendship and comraderie of a relationship, than actually have that person in your bed. Which is a deep shame as you would not get involved deeply with a person that way would you?

stu wrote:Hi Shirina, just replying to your last post. Where polyglide actually asks you "If you know what love is". The answer that you replied with, was hardly a standard reply was it now. You do know what love is,  but you have no wish to live with love in your life. You would sooner have the friendship and comraderie of a relationship, than actually have that person in your bed. Which is a deep shame as you would not get involved deeply with a person that way would you?

Romantic/conjugal love is not the only way to experience a really deep relationship. I have a friend that means very much to me, having her in my life enhances it no end but even the idea of a romantic or conjugal side to it would change it beyond recognition and destroy all the meaning it has for each of us. Love comes in many shapes and forms, almost as many ways as there are relationships. To straight-jacket yourself into a societal norm and to behave towards each other not as the heart leads but as others expect is almost a crime. Let relationships develop in their unique ways. To rush into something that one of you doesn't want destroys what you already have.

Heretic

stu wrote:Which is a deep shame as you would not get involved deeply with a person that way would you?

Hopefully I'm not misconstruing your meaning with this answer, but I'll reply according to how I perceived your meaning. Apologies in advance if I was way off the mark.

I never understood the fascination with sex, and I'm not sure if I want to. I see the effects it has on others and this crazy need for sex seems worse than an addiction. I've had sex ... it's pleasurable, sure. But not THAT pleasurable - not so pleasurable that it would be worth destroying your life for, and so many people do. I always think of former president Bill Clinton who threw away his role in history for a cheap blow job. Clinton will always be remembered for Monica Lewinsky and little else, not to mention how it impacted his family, most notably his daughter.

I write this little preamble just to put things into my perspective; to allow for greater understanding of my position. In my opinion, sex or sharing one's bed (euphemistically speaking) is not at all necessary for a deep and meaningful relationship. In truth, I've often been closer to my friends than I was to a lover. I think the reason is because standards are somewhat higher for romantic relationships than for platonic ones and so one must be a little more guarded around someone you're romantically involved with. After all, the person you choose to sleep with is a reflection of yourself, much more so than the people you call "friend."

For me, the concept of romance has gotten too complicated. From what I've gathered from everyone's posts, I'm a fair bit younger than everyone else. I don't think I'm old enough to have grandchildren, and just barely old enough to have children old enough to get pregnant. I've been told that romance is different when you get older, and perhaps then, I'd be comfortable with it. Right now though, at my age when the impulsiveness and insecurity of youth still lingers, I'm more than happy to sit out this phase of romantic relationships.  

I do not relate sex to love.

The act of sex is just a part of a relationship between two people or ani,als etc.

Love can be expressed in many ways and can involve every aspect of life.

The love of an animal can be as great as any love, I would risk my life to save my dog.

Those who have children and grandchildren will know the love felt for them and it is very different from that felt for a partner etc;

You may not believe you feel love Shirina but you do.

The greatest love is God.

polyglide wrote:I do not relate sex to love.

Well whether you relate sex to love or not the bible you believe seems to think it is very important. I suspect most Christians would frown on sex between people that are not in a relationship although they would not have a problem with a couple having a relationship without sex (as they insist homosexuals should live). Sex and love are related to each other, this much is clear when (in people not directly related to each other) feeling one frequently leads to the other.

polyglide wrote:The act of sex is just a part of a relationship between two people or ani,als etc.

It can indeed be just that but it can be other things too such as a part of an encounter on a Saturday night as the culmination of a night of self-indulgence. I'm not saying that it is a very satisfactory or desirable aspect of human behaviour but to deny it is nonsensical.

polyglide wrote:Love can be expressed in many ways and can involve every aspect of life.

Not a problem at all with this although I suspect 'every' is a step too far.

polyglide wrote:The love of an animal can be as great as any love,

The love of a man for an animal is frequently a result of anthropomorphising onto an animal human responses that are just misinterpretations of pack instincts or other animal behaviours. These feelings can seem quite real but to compare them to love a mistake.  

polyglide wrote:I would risk my life to save my dog.

An often enough expressed sentiment but given the others that might rely on you this is foolhardy, perhaps even stupid.

polyglide wrote:Those who have children and grandchildren will know the love felt for them and it is very different from that felt for a partner etc;

The love we have for them is unconditional and complete, where I cannot see me risking my life for a pet I would do it for my children or for their children without a second thought.

polyglide wrote:You may not believe you feel love Shirina but you do.

Whether or not Sharina feels love is a matter for her rather than you. Whether or not she is loved is a different matter and you would need to know her personal circumstances which I suspect you do not, certainly not all of them.

Polyglides initial post (his comments above ) timed at 11:01
Polyglides subsequent post (his comment below ) timed at 11:02

polyglide wrote: The greatest love is God.

I see this was an afterthought

Heretic

polyglide wrote:The greatest love is God.

For you, and other theists maybe, but for me, and for many others there is no god.

polyglide wrote:The greatest love is God.

Is that of or by? Either way you need some justification.

polyglide wrote:You may not believe you feel love Shirina but you do.

Yes, that is true. I love my parents, of course, and my grandmother - the last grandparent still left alive. I suppose I still love those that have already passed.

I just don't seem to feel romantic love anymore. I suppose in most respects that is a blessing rather than a curse.

I just don't seem to feel romantic love anymore. I suppose in most respects that is a blessing rather than a curse.

It is only a temporary blessing, one I am sure you will eventually discard, in the words of Jesus from the gospel of Thomas:

Saying 70:

"If you bring forth what is within you, then what you bring forth will save you. And if you do not bring forth what is within you, what you don't bring forth will destroy you."

Now some believe he is talking about faith, but I believe he is talking about love, love must come from within.

So, "If you bring forth what is within you (love), then what you bring forth (your love) will save you. And if you do not bring forth what is within you, what you don't bring forth will destroy you (your lack of love)."

Love = what folks? I have loved 2 ladies deeply, the first one left me after having twin boys. clearly her love was not as great as my love for her? after 12years together. The second lady that I loved is the mother of my daughter, who left me also but this time after 14years, so each time my love for them has been greater than their love for me. Especially after so much time together? I only love my daughter now,no more women,they hurt too much.

stu, love is something you give. You are very lucky indeed to have loved. There is nothing you can do if someone doesn't love you back. From my experience though, a relationship can chip away at love for many years until there is nothing left. When there is little respect, consideration, kindness, trust....all these things can chip away at what was once very deep love. Both people have to be committed (not to an asylum) but to each other

I've been married twice before to men who I loved very much and who let me down in ways you can't ever imagine. The man I'm married to now is a good friend to me as well as a good husband and partner. We look after each other. We bring out the best in each other.

Shirina, as for sleeping in the same bed. Who says you have to be married or in a relationship and MUST sleep in the same bed? Nothing wrong with separate rooms or separate beds and sneaking off to each other's space for some canoodling.....if our house were bigger my husband would sleep in another bed since I'm a nightmare to sleep with. I wouldn't blame him if he did. The duvet, pillows, alarm clock, my pyjamas regularly find their ways around the room in the most bizarre fashion. It's a wonder he gets any sleep at all. He says I'm a 'violent' sleeper but luckily I don't snore or he'd be off to the couch.

stu,

You will love again IF you meet the right woman.

Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

regards

The eternal optimist.

snowy love is an expression as I seem to know you so well. Got in trouble with my ex today as when she asked my daughter how long she wanted to stay today 1 or 2 hours my daughter said 3 . shocked both mum and myself I assure you? but had such a great time just came back from walking the dog after 31/2 hours and mum was in evil mood. My fault I had added the 3 hours on to the one she normally only stays plus siobhan was enjoying herself so much she only went home cos she saw the mood her mum was in.

Probably right Tosh mate, I do see lots of females that I would like to fall in love with me but alas they don't.ahah.  

How's the no-smoking going, stu?

ask my daughter love,ahah did not want to go home lovely jubbly.

stu wrote:Probably  right Tosh mate, I do see lots of females that I would like to fall in love with me but alas they don't.ahah.  

Before torturing yourself look in the mirror and realise that as you are no longer twentyone but plentyone and that you could only reasonably expect someone as well preserved as yourself. You might think yourself lucky to find a beauty queen that falls for you but it might not really be you she falls for. I'd go for the long haul and see who can get on with you really well, might be a lot more satisfying in the long run.

Heretic

Very true Heretic,I never torture myself in front of any mirror if I can help  ps gave peter a hug from you earlier and told him we were there for him if ever needed ok at his low times.  

stu wrote:Very true Heretic,I never torture myself in front of any mirror if I can help  ps gave peter a hug from you earlier and told him we were there for him if ever needed ok at his low times.  

I said what I could but the whole experience is cracking me up. I refuse to say what I feel deep down that I wish I could take his place. I have children to live for but when they can cope on their own there is nothing keeping me. Things may change in the future I don't know but for now I just plod on.

Sorry for being so pessimistic but I feel like that now and then but on the whole I take life by the horns. I do miss my wife so much and this has felt like going through it all once again.

I don't need a pep talk, I'll of sorted myself out by morning.

Heretic

Hey up Heretic lad, now I'm not going to give you a pep talk or owt daft like that, cos I look to you for those you bugger. Losing someone you love dearly as you did, is not the same as losing them the way I did ie walking out on me to live with someone else she loved and has now married and took our daughter with her. Mine hurt like hell but some of my anger helped overcome that where you didn't have that anger to help you over come your wife being taken, and what anger you do have those left behind always aim at themselves for some reason. thats my psychiatrist bit coming out. Now it's the soonest you can stop doing that that it might help old buddy,gave this a lot of thought before posting it, so if you want help my mate without the rest of the crew knowing ok go straight to my email address as a couple of others have done in the past ok friend,take care.

nowt to say Heretic? best keep it that way lad cos you are that way inclined are you not?personally I reckon you are better off talking about it to you kids cos they have probably thought if you haven't said owt to em before you are a hard nut to crack,just try it one night instead of protecting em all the time they are old enough. I was living on my own at 18 mate.

Every person to be fullfilled needs love, both given and accepted.

In most peoples lifetime they encounter problems and events that test every bone in their body.

I have seen a very much loved parner die through cancer, going from a healthy 9 stone down to 4 stone over a period of months to actually experience such an event defies the means of explaining it in terms another would understand.

When I said to my partner, why you, the answer I received was, Why not me.

polyglide wrote:The greatest love is God.

I thought that it was learning to live to yourself. Something I've been putting into action since I was a teenager.

How do you comment on the love of God when you have never sought to find it, nor experienced it?.

polyglide wrote:How do you comment on the love of God when you have never sought to find it, nor experienced it?.

You're commenting on me when you nothing about me. It's not like I was able to avoid the attempted indoctrination in my youth. I'm just fortunate enough not to have been taken in by it.

As I said, you have never experienced it, nor sought it but dismissed it before having attempted to find it.