Twid's spiritual exploration thingie.

[Cain]

The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.

Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).

And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah).  And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).

And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.

I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

True, true.

[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.

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.

There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.

On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Right, I get that your whole point is "Everybody should be Atheist".

[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.

There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.

On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).

Well it depends... for example, the Jewish history (if its at all real) involved genocide of the people living in the land God promised to Abraham. It was considered acceptable because the land had to be holy and pure to protect the lineage where Jesus was going to be born (the 'seed' promised to Abraham). The legal system was the same, sinners were stoned or otherwise killed because it tainted the whole nation (Jews believed in blood guilt by association) and the nation had to be protected so that the Messiah could come.

Muslim history has a slightly different background, but again depending on context and interpretation, it can go either way. There are verses in the Koran that sound like they OK violence, there are other verses that appear to condemn it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh and as for the no pork/lobster etc for Christians:

9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat ; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance ; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat !" 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

- Acts 10: 9-16

Thus did God say to Peter, "Have some lobster and for Gods sake, BACON!!!!!"

[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.

Right, I get that your whole point is "Everybody should be Atheist".

I didn't say that. I said religion makes no sense to me. I didn't say everyone should be an atheist. I didn't even say no one should be religious. Only that to me, it makes no sense. I have no desire to align anyone else to my way of thinking, just adding my point of view. Besides which, it isn't like the only alternative to religion is atheism anyway.

[Doktor Howl]

The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.

Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).

And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah).  And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).

And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.

I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.

And that, right there, is the correct answer.

[Pergamos]

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.

There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.

On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).

You left out a possibility.  The book in question was inspired by God, but written down and translated by a human, who had certain preconceptions about how the world ought to work that God had not bothered to correct.

[EK WAFFLR]

Åsatru?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

You left out a possibility.  The book in question was inspired by God, but written down and translated by a human, who had certain preconceptions about how the world ought to work that God had not bothered to correct.

That is a possibility of course, but it completely invalidates the entire notion of inspired scripture and therefore the divine origin of a faith. If you can point out an individual aspect of a religion, or an entire theological structure in that religion, and say it is the result of short-sighted and fallible human assumptions, then you have no ground to stand on when challenged to defend any aspect of that religion. Everything boils down to "it is this way because some guy a few centuries ago decided it should be this way, based on a faint notion he got from being 'inspired' by God." The underlying "inspiration" may be divine, but all the trappings of the religion surrounding that inspiration, all the details in every ritual and tradition, become entirely manmade and unreliable.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Asatru would let me have both booze and bacon. Thats pretty much the whole thing anyway right?

Also rats post made me laugh. I think its pretty universally accepted that bacon is like the best thing ever.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.

Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).

And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah).  And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).

And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.

I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.

And the Old Testament is meant to be read in Hebrew.
Along with the commentaries, Torah, etc.

Islam sounds a lot like Christianity. 

[Left]

GOD IS WITHIN YOU.

Sure. So's a bunch of organs but you don't really know what they look like without cutting up a cadaver.

Right.
Look, what's worked for me is shutting my really fucking noisy mind down so I don't drown out the voice of god. If you can shut the discursive mind up, you hear...what's been there all along.

...Most ritual systems, meditative systems, spiritual-religious systems, they are all various ways to shut the conscious mind down.
Am I right? 
It's NOT universal, but most religions have that as an important part.

That's the "human bagworm," as I call it...

Theravada Buddhists call it, the "monkey mind, and that's an accurate description too.

One's monkey mind flings shit and does party tricks with equal abandon, but it won't get you to god.  In fact its' din blocks god out.
So you have to learn to "Let your mud settle," in the words of the Tao Te Ching.

This is a personal, interior venture, and everyone's connection to the divine is different.

Islam sounds a lot like Christianity. 

I've been looking as them as worshiping the same god for some time now. 
They are fundamentally different, but it's the same deceptive asshole deity at the bottom.
Only god, my ass.
...He does not do the weather for this continent.
I believe that would be Thunderbird.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I've been looking as them as worshiping the same god for some time now. 
They are fundamentally different, but it's the same deceptive asshole deity at the bottom.
Only god, my ass.
...He does not do the weather for this continent.
I believe that would be Thunderbird.

I suspect that's the way the stories were originally MEANT to be taken.

"God's a dick. He'll wipe out your whole family and cover you with boils because he has a bet going with the devil. The motherfucker's crazy, so we have to look out for each other."

And yeah, Thunderbirds and various other Native concepts that DON'T CARE if people are "going to do something gay".