Twid's spiritual exploration thingie.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

To some people, it's an important part of their identity.  I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.

Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.

But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.

[Doktor Howl]

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times.

I would certainly hope they wouldn't practice it the old way.  That would make the Taliban look like a pack of neophile geeks.

There is no reason that a belief in a deity means you have to behave the way people did in the bronze age.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

To some people, it's an important part of their identity.  I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.

Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.

But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.

Religions also evolve though. Noah was a Jew, but he didn't cut off Mr. Winky's eyelid.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.

They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.

It would only guarantee that they couldn't survive. If there's no appeal to the worshiper, what's the point?

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.

They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.

Religion is a human behavior.  Humans are not constant.

And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.

They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.

Technically the adding and subtracting bit only pertains to Revelation. At the time that it was written, there was no Bible, which is nothing more than an anthology.

I also wouldn't say that all religions fail to recognize evolution within themselves. Say for example, why would Jesus even be necessary if everything was complete in the beginning? If that were the case, as soon as Adam and Eve stepped out of Eden, Jesus would be there with a hammer and nails saying, "Adam, hang me up on that tree. Eve, write this shit down. Blessed are they who...."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.

There is a very popular professor of theology  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk)who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.

One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.

Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.

There is a very popular professor of theology  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk)who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.

One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.

Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.

Ah fair point that. Proto-Jew.

Also, that's pretty interesting, the story about the drinking guys and how Muhammad was cool with it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.

There is a very popular professor of theology  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk)who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.

One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.

Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.

Ah fair point that. Proto-Jew.

Also, that's pretty interesting, the story about the drinking guys and how Muhammad was cool with it.

Yeah, I've learned a lot about Muslims living here... its really interesting to see that they are really as diverse as Christians, minus speaking in tongues and snake handling. Though they have whirling dervishes which is pretty cool.

I showed Eris some videos of speaking in tongues and laying on hands etc and I thought she was gonna die. She said if they had a real beat to their music it would just be a Goa party

[LMNO]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

To some people, it's an important part of their identity.  I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.

Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.

But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.

If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments.  He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing.  When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

To some people, it's an important part of their identity.  I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.

Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.

But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.

If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments.  He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing.  When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.

And, see that argument wouldn't even be so bad if it was to condemn some practice or specific belief still in use. Gay sex is an abomination? How's that lobster taste?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.

Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.

To some people, it's an important part of their identity.  I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.

Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.

Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.

But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.

If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments.  He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing.  When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.

Interestingly, even during the first century there were these kinds of complications. The Pharisees for example believed in an eternal soul, the Saducees did not. The interpretations of the Law covenant also varied wildly. According to some wearing sandals with iron nails was "work" on the Sabbath (due to the additional weight), for other it was not.

/beginoldjwbullshit
The Law covenant, the stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was a covenant between the Jews and God with Moses as the mediator. Those laws were only ever to be applied to the Jews and Jewish converts. Jesus 'fulfilled' the Law covenant and brought about the 'New Covenant' which was between all men and God with Jesus as the mediator. Guys like Dawkins don't understand that and often look foolish to Christians because of it. The Mosaic Law was to allow God to interact with sinners through strict laws and animal sacrifices (the blood specifically) to cover the sins of men. Jesus, being a perfect man, was the first and only person who could follow the Law perfectly. As such, he did not deserve to die (The Wages of sin is death). Because he died as a perfect human, his blood perfectly paid the price of Adam's sin. Through this 'New Covenant', his perfect blood once and for all time, covers the sins of man (the animal blood was insufficient and required regular sacrifices). With the New Covenant, the Mosaic covenant was ended and only the laws that Jesus set forth were required (Love God, Love your neighbor, etc).

/endoldjwbullshit


ETA: Homosexuality, though is condemned in the New Testament by Paul, not by Jesus. (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) Since Paul is considered to have been inspired by God, that allows gays to still be condemned while allowing lobster.

[LMNO]

If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments.  He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing.  When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.

And, see that argument wouldn't even be so bad if it was to condemn some practice or specific belief still in use. Gay sex is an abomination? How's that lobster taste?

Sure, but if you remember upthread, telling someone they "can't be/do X because it's against the rules" is a fairly poor argument when you try to apply it to human belief systems.

Actually, the "I eat shrimp and the gays are a crime against God" is a perfect example of an evolving religion.  Which leads us to the Episcopalians.