The Root of Religion

[Jagermeistered]

The idea of literal truth crept into religion relatively late: it is the invention of lawyers, priests and cheese-mongers. The idea of mystery long preceded it, and at the heart of that idea of mystery was an idea of beauty—that is, an idea that this or that view of the celestial and infernal process presented a satisfying picture of form, rhythm and organization. Once this view was adopted as satisfying, its professional interpreters and their dupes sought to reinforce it by declaring it true. The same flow of reasoning is familiar on lower planes. The average man does not get pleasure out of an idea because he thinks it is true; he thinks it is true because he gets pleasure out of it.

- H.L. Mencken

 

[Carnivore]

Woo, inflammatory content! Thankfully the title is modest enough. And Mencken is such a great ornery bastard. My contribution? Two words: Sky cake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

 

[Adam Tickles]

x

Read 'The Davici code' explains how almost all of Christianity stories are made up and false.
The teachings of jesus are probably real, true and good in nature, and tbh make sense. But the walking on water, water into wine, re-birth from the cave.. all a load of crap created by Constantine to gain political influence on the peoples of the time.

Also the other day a friend made a point that jesus was probs not white, but coming from Jerusalem was probably middle eastern.. makes u think how much the church has changed things. But yr 'the Davici code' revels a lot 😉

(if u cant tell, im not religious at all, and b4 u call me racist, i resent all and any form of religion tbh. Much more a evolutionary minded chap)
🙂:huhwub😛issed:rolleyes

 

[likeasong1]

Seriously? Citing "The DaVinci Code" as your source of research? Nothing against Dan Brown, but it is first and foremost a work of fiction.

 

[Violetta]

Seriously? Citing "The DaVinci Code" as your source of research? Nothing against Dan Brown, but it is first and foremost a work of fiction.

No no no. He's citing "the Davici code." It's a similar book, but with much poorer spelling and grammar. 😉

 

[Mash]

Seriously? Citing "The DaVinci Code" as your source of research? Nothing against Dan Brown, but it is first and foremost a work of fiction.

And the Bible isn't? :stickout

 

[Adam Tickles]

x

Well i wouldnt call it a source as such 😛 but it says all descriptions of buildings, documents and architect are accurate. Tbh the story plot is irrelevant but the suggestions it conveys about certain religions seem to make sense and fit all far too well. But like i said im completely not religious as many are hypercritical of themselves and full of controversy
🙂😢huhwub

 

[Adam Tickles]

x

And the Bible isn't? :stickout

Thank you ! !

How can the human race begin from just one man and one female, when incest (as it rightfully should be) is seen as bad in Christianity ?

Did they fk badgers for 6000 years or wat ?
🙂😢huhwub

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

I've been happier ever since joining the Snugglists. :feather::alucard:

 

[likeasong1]

And the Bible isn't? :stickout

I would say not. Most historical accounts at the very least do verify the existence of Jesus.

Really, you take away the Book Of Genesis, and there isn't much in the Bible that is all that controversial to historians. The resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, Jonah's time in the big fish, and maybe Moses' time up on the mountain are about all that is really held in skepticism by historians.

But The DaVinci Code has the basic disclaimer at the front of it before the story: "This is a work of fiction." Citing The DaVinci Code is even worse than writing a research paper with wikipedia as the bulk of your bibliography.

 

[likeasong1]

Thank you ! !

How can the human race begin from just one man and one female, when incest (as it rightfully should be) is seen as bad in Christianity ?

Did they fk badgers for 6000 years or wat ?
🙂😢huhwub

I don't know, but I do believe it did. And I doubt they were screwing badgers. Just too dangerous with the claws and whatnot.

 

[Mash]

I would say not. Most historical accounts at the very least do verify the existence of Jesus.

Really, you take away the Book Of Genesis, and there isn't much in the Bible that is all that controversial to historians. The resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, Jonah's time in the big fish, and maybe Moses' time up on the mountain are about all that is really held in skepticism by historians.

But The DaVinci Code has the basic disclaimer at the front of it before the story: "This is a work of fiction." Citing The DaVinci Code is even worse than writing a research paper with wikipedia as the bulk of your bibliography.

Bah. I was just pokin' fun. I don't have the mental capacity to argue about global floods or walking on water or any of that bullshit at the moment. For all I care right now, Jesus could have been a 5 legged robo-fuckbunny from the future.

 

[likeasong1]

Bah. I was just pokin' fun. I don't have the mental capacity to argue about global floods or walking on water or any of that bullshit at the moment. For all I care right now, Jesus could have been a 5 legged robo-fuckbunny from the future.

I look forward to the claymation movie of that. That actually sounds pretty awesome as well as, let's face it, more entertaining than "Saved!" in terms of blasting religion.

 

[Adam Tickles]

x

As i said 'The DaVici Code' is note a research article, and i know it is fiction, like i said the story plot of murder etc is made up ofc.

Ha robot fk bunny... now that would be a funny thing to see pegged up to a cross... would be a weird cross ! 😛
🙂😢huhwub

 

[Jagermeistered]

THE ROAD TO DOUBT

The first effect of what used to be called natural philosophy is to fill its devotee with wonder at the marvels of God. This explains why the pursuit of science, so long as it remains superficial, is not incompatible with the most naif sort of religious faith. But the moment the student of the sciences passes this stage of childlike amazement and begins to investigate the inner workings of natural phenomena, he begins to see how ineptly many of them are managed, and so he tends to pass from awe of the Creator to criticism of the Creator, and once he has crossed that bridge he has ceased to be a believer. One finds plenty of neighborhood physicians, amateur botanists, high-school physics teachers and other such quasi-scientists in the pews on Sunday, but one never sees a Huxley there, or a Darwin, or an Ehrlich.

-Yep, more Mencken

 

[sadi]

Curious to see how long 'this' thread will survive as well... 😉

 

[Jagermeistered]

Hey, why not.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Ah, yes, religion...where my 65 year old Sunday school teacher had to endure questions from us kids like "do amoeba go to heaven" and "does trees go to heaven" and also "why isn't Jerusalem a glassed over radioactive wasteland after god smites it for the 123rd time due to the Jews being naughty" and finally "if Adam and Eve didn't have to wear clothes in the garden then WHY DO I HAVE TO".

You know what? Here's the basis for a good religion in a nutshell:

RULE #1: DON'T CAUSE PAIN AND SUFFERING TO OTHERS WHO DO NOT DESERVE IT.

RULE #2: HELP THOSE WHO NEED HELP TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW.

RULE #3: WORK TOGETHER WITH YOUR FELLOW MAN/WOMEN WHEN YOU CAN TO BECOME A BETTER PERSON.

RULE #4: FORGIVENESS MUST BE EARNED BY SERVING THE COMMUNITY WHICH WAS HARMED FOR A PRE-DETERMINED AND HUMANE LENGTH OF TIME.

 

[likeasong1]

I don't think criticism of the Creator necessarily makes one an unbeliever. In the Bible, many had their doubts, questions and criticisms, and most times, they ended up repentant or simply in awe. Now, I realize that if you believe the Bible is purely fictional, this would be no surprise, but even in modern day life, those who question get answers that stun them. Just remember: God's gonna have His rebuttal.

As for Huxley, his motivations were as political as they were atheistic, so quite honestly, there's room to be skeptical of him.

 

[likeasong1]

Ah, yes, religion...where my 65 year old Sunday school teacher had to endure questions from us kids like "do amoeba go to heaven" and "does trees go to heaven" and also "why isn't Jerusalem a glassed over radioactive wasteland after god smites it for the 123rd time due to the Jews being naughty" and finally "if Adam and Eve didn't have to wear clothes in the garden then WHY DO I HAVE TO".

You know what? Here's the basis for a good religion in a nutshell:

RULE #1: DON'T CAUSE PAIN AND SUFFERING TO OTHERS WHO DO NOT DESERVE IT.

RULE #2: HELP THOSE WHO NEED HELP TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW.

RULE #3: WORK TOGETHER WITH YOUR FELLOW MAN/WOMEN WHEN YOU CAN TO BECOME A BETTER PERSON.

RULE #4: FORGIVENESS MUST BE EARNED BY SERVING THE COMMUNITY WHICH WAS HARMED FOR A PRE-DETERMINED AND HUMANE LENGTH OF TIME.

Those are good rules of life regarding a humanistic way of life. Unfortunately, I believe modern theologians would say that in order to qualify as a "religion" it must be a philosophy/ethos/whatever you want to call it that foremost answers the following questions:

1. Who/what is divine?

2. In light of the answer to Question One, who/what then are we?

3. Where are we going?

4. How do we get there?

5. How do we know that?

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

1. Who/what is divine? (It doesn't matter. What's important is the living beings made of flesh and blood that you meet in your life and how you treat them through the choices that you make in everyday life.)

2. In light of the answer to Question One, who/what then are we? (We are living beings made of flesh and blood who are capable of experiencing positive and negative emotions.)

3. Where are we going? (Were we go from here on out depends on the consequences wrought by the choices and actions of every single living being on the planet)

4. How do we get there? (Through the power of choice...hopefully guided by the light of wisdom and the grace of compassion)

5. How do we know that? (We see it every day in our lives...our race's history is a testament to the power of choice and it's ability to shape the future and destiny of our race either positively or negatively)

 

[likeasong1]

Yeah, I don't think your first answer is an acceptable one, and 3-5 actually refer to the concept of the afterlife... again, "irrelevant" not being an acceptable answer.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Bah! Theology needs to loosen up...stop being so old fashioned...learn to relax...maybe have a drink or two...or perhaps slip into something a little more comfortable...<_<...>_>...^_~

 

[jts963]

Most historical accounts at the very least do verify the existence of Jesus.

Quite the opposite. There's not a single shred of evidence to indicate that Jesus was a real person, much less a divine being. Consider that not a single thing was written about Jesus during his alleged lifetime. The earliest account was written over a quarter century after his alleged death by Paul nee Saul, who readily admits he never met Jesus when he was "alive". The whole thing smacks of fiction.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Figured I'll post another one...

THE TEST OF TRUTH

The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few religious dogmas have ever faced it and survived. Huxley laughed the devils out of the Gadarene swine. Dowie's whiskers broke the back of Dowieism. Not the laws of the United States but the mother-in-law joke brought the Mormons to compromise and surrender. Not the horror of it but the absurdity of it killed the doctrine of infant damnation.... But the razor edge of ridicule is turned by the tough hide of truth. How loudly the barber-surgeons laughed at Harvey—and how vainly! What clown ever brought down the house like Galileo? Or Columbus? Or Jenner? Or Lincoln? Or Darwin?... They are laughing at Nietzsche yet....