Religous debates and questions

Caroline i killed joffrey onthekingsroad lol :)x

Orwell wrote:Banks are based on the needs of Banks (ask Odo if you doubt me! )

Banks are based on the needs of far too many people, especially now that they are the general scapegoat for everything.

not sure my point on the comparisons is one best done via my phone. Will get on my laptop when im home and see if I can do a better job.

Im so glad your penis doesnt affect me,David, As Im not a religious person.
Imagine an order of monks...The Holy testicular of The divine C**K !
And Nuns ? what name shall we apply to them ? (I might come back to that)

Lancebloke wrote:
Banks are based on the needs of far too many people, especially now that they are the general scapegoat for everything.

I know. Bankers and Priests. It's a bit unfair really.

@Azriel

David... why do I sense an air of sarcasm in your post?

To try and clarify my earlier point (which I will probably fail at)... I suppose it is the way religion is used that I take issue with.

Organisation A says that, in the eyes of God who hath decreed it so thousands of years ago, gays should be stoned to death following having their bits and pieces mangled in full view of onlookers in the square outside the organisations building, whatever that may be.

People decide killing in the name of religion is immoral.

Organisation A decides killing anyone, including gays is now immoral in the eyes of God who hath decreed it so thousands of years ago. Gays as just not allowed to be involved in anything, have jobs, be out in public and will go to hell and burn.

People decide that actually, gays aren't so bad and should be treated equally.

Organisation A decides that actually, gays aren't so bad in the eyes of God who hath decreed it so thousands of years ago. They should be allowed jobs, to get married and have all the same rights as normal people.

I'm not sure how they get away with it!! People still go along to churches or blow up school buses in the name of something that cant even decide which bits of its sacred texts are actually right or wrong and what morals people should be living by.

Like I mentioned, I have issues with religion in general but they are more my own thoughts and feelings on the existence of anything as a deity. And also, I am sure that there are plenty of people who hold strong and firm beliefs and really do live their lives to those exact values.

It's the organised bit of it that does my head in and where I think you cannot draw a comparison is in the fact that banks aren't telling you that your morals and values are incorrect, only to go and change what those morals and values are. There may be small print, but it is always there (just nobody reads it).

David:-

If we're never free if it,
isn't it part of us?
At least some of us?
Sort of like penises?

Umm ? You were the one that egged me on, never a good idea

I'm just picking on you in fun Lance, but the comparisons are way too easy.! The Bible actually makes more sense to me than a standard mortgage contract. I'm good friends with my local bankers, and they confess privately that they're tearing their hair out to try to figure out how to interpret all the rules that come down from corporate in a real world setting. Talk about fine print!

azriel wrote:

Umm ? You were the one that egged me on, never a good idea

I know...you'd think I'd learn [[[ ]]]

I think Im on a par with Lance ? Why do people do an act, (because a "God" says so) and its seen to be the right thing to do. Then, years later, these same people decide..hey, its ok, Ive seen the light & changed my mind.....ooops, better make OUR "God" decree that this change is ok also ! dont wanna be going to hell now ! Yep, "God" says its ok!, until much later when "man" changes his mind AGAIN. I dont really believe in a God of any kind, I have several religious friends who each believe in different Gods & Faiths, & thats great for them ! Im happy they find comfort in something. But, "god" has to be consistant, not fickle. You cant stone someone one day then not the next. So I do see how Lance is saying about changing to please the masses. change brings the masses to rethink & restore back to the religion they may have been questioning, "bums on seats". Whats the next BIG issue on this planet ?....Money, finance,wealth,greed. Bankers play on people to get them to partake with them. Rope people in with agreements, snare them sometimes. All with promises that may revert later on ?

Lancebloke wrote:I meant the principles. Religion is supposed to be based upon the word of god and certain principles that have come from it/him/her. They shouldnt change.

I'm with Lance in theory. In practice upstart religious movements attract followers. But how do they attract followers? By claiming they are tapping into the original intent of various religious movements. Jesus said he was coming to fulfill the prophecies; Mohamet was getting a direct channel to the god of Abraham, Joseph Smith was tapping into a lost branch of the Jews and Christianity; the Buddha was discovering something something fundamental which all his followers would assume was timeless rather than new.

They were all doing something new but claiming it was old.

I'd agree with that Halfy, especially Jesus.
Even major things usually attributed to Jesus, as if he was thinking up ideas for the first time are not in fact new ideas at all- most of the sentiment (and some of the words!) from the Sermon on the Mount for example were being espoused by the prophet Hillel the Elder a generation before Jesus (Hillel died when Jesus was about 13)- the ideas were very much in the air.

""That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."- Hillel, the Glden Rule

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"- Jesus, quoting the Golden Rule (it is a requote, his audience would have recognised it, as Hillel was much, much, more famous in his lifetime than Jesus was in his)

Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish moral law.
The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits—from that proverbial meekness and mildness—as in the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai"
Hillel's gentleness and patience are illustrated in an anecdote that describes how two men made a wager on the question of whether Hillel could be made angry. Though they questioned him and made insulting allusions to his Babylonian origin, they were unsuccessful- wiki

And there was not just Hillel but other similar, but not quite the same, movemtents like Johns.
The ideas Jesus expressed were tapping into things that were very much 'in the air' as he grew up.

In my view, organised religion has always been about control until relatively recently where some of the major religions are just struggling to even be relevant any more. These seem to be ever more accepting in areas that 50 or 100 years ago could have been quite hardcore while the rest stay strong in the same old ways... don't let the masses know anything you don't want them to know.

People generally seem to have some kind of need for things like a God. They want to have some kind explanation for things as the unexplained is scary and that has been something that has been taken advantage of over long years and has become so ingrained in society that, again until recently, you would have been frowned upon for saying you didn't believe.

I think since the world has opened up over the last 10-20 years, ideas have circulated around and given many a perspective they would have never seen before. I imagine that if we don't destroy ourselves before.. mass organised religion wont last another 200 years... 3 or 4 generations of people.

the truth is found outside the gates of orthodoxy if only one remembers that the lantern on top of the gate of orthodoxy is necessary to look over the other side

Well... I really have nothing to say to any of this anymore. I love my religion, I have faith that it is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and he did speak with God and the Son in the Sacred Grove. He translated the Book Of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today.

That's all I have left to say on the matter.

Not saying anyone is wrong in what they believe (although since there are so many contradictions, there must be a lot that are wrong) as there is no actual proof of any of it. I just dont agree with it all!

Generally I'm with Halfy on this. (Fancy Halfy being wise! )


Anyways.... an aside re: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." by Hillel (and others whatever their maxim of choice).

I read or heard something recently (on the radio? can't remember now)... anyhow, not doing something that is hateful to you to someone else may be the last thing someone else might want you to do to them. "I will not give you this apple because I don't like being given apples myself, apples being displeasing to me."

(Wish I could remember the example I read or heard. I remember it being quite enlightening, but I've forgotten it).

Oh now I remember: "Do unto others what you would have done to yourself." Well, I might not want Mormons banging on my door, thank you very much. Though I'm happy for them to believe what they want. What works for one may not work for another. What's good for one may not be good for another, so keep it to yourself.

Lorient your belief is your own. But that doesnt mean you cant also look stuff up yourself, look at the alternative versions of events, and look at the historical record.

"I have faith that it is true."

I have always found such statements contradictory- faith is what you have when you have no facts and no means of distinguishing truth.
Faith exists only in the absence of facts. As, if you have the facts, you dont need faith.

This is why we dont go around believing in tables. We dont have to, tables are a fact. They simply exist and are there.
Invisible talking tables however, they require faith to believe in.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This is why we dont go around believing in tables. We dont have to, tables are a fact. They simply exist and are there. Invisible talking tables however, they require faith to believe in.

Too right. Mind you, I do believe in (f)actual tables, Petty. I have faith in them.

I've just figured out that Lesbians probably don't dream of threesomes with guys! How disgusting is that!

It's selfish Orwell..... selfish!

Is that you?