![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertom(I have edited the original subject of this thread in an attempt to soften any unnecessary hurt I may have inflicted with it. And got rid of the first line of the post, associated with that subject. Other than that, it's all here.)
By way of the most excellent Jesus' General, we learn about a diocese revoking a little girl's first Communion.
She can't digest wheat, you see, so she had a wheat-free host... and the diocese said the host must have some unleavened wheat in it.
Now I know what they mean by "glutenous mass".
By way of the most excellent Jesus' General, we learn about a diocese revoking a little girl's first Communion.
She can't digest wheat, you see, so she had a wheat-free host... and the diocese said the host must have some unleavened wheat in it.
Now I know what they mean by "glutenous mass".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 03:07 am (UTC)This digestive disability surely counts as a handicap by the standards outlined in Leviticus. A handicapped person is barred from approaching the sanctuary. She shouldn't even be in the church in the first place, right? (sighs)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 03:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 09:13 am (UTC)Which isn't what she was doing.
(I hasten to say that I think the church is dead wrong in this, but not being a Catholic (or indeed, any sort of Christian), I'm not sure what their justification is. Judaism would laugh at that, but we're much less centralized.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 05:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 05:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 07:39 am (UTC)Religion doesn't make you stupid. Blind adherence to religious dogma is merely a good indicator that one is so.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 08:17 am (UTC)Religion is based on blind adherence to religious dogma.
Just the other day, archaeologists found a cave (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/16/israel.johnthebaptist.ap/index.html) that was apparently used for baptisms, and has the story of John the Baptist on the walls. From this, some of them deduce that this was the cave used by the John the Baptist.
By the same logic, a thousand years from now an archaeologist will find some teenage girl's room with pictures and articles of Justin Timberlake all over the walls, and assume he lived there.
To accept the basic tenets of any religion, you have to shut down some reasoning process that might otherwise make you say "whoa, wait a minute". For what it's worth, I'll grant that this is certainly not always a bad thing. But there it is. That's why they call it believing rather than proving.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 08:30 am (UTC)Give his viewpoint, I say this:
I am thankful that G. Gordon Liddy is religious.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 12:02 pm (UTC)Originally found at
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/radio/atheism.ram
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/realaudi.htm
but those links appear to be dead, and I can't be bothered to chase down a proper citation just now.
(PS: Fancy meeting you here.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 09:14 am (UTC)The pre-Christian indigenous European faiths were verbally-transmitted faiths. The neo-pagan reconstruction thereof certainly can also attract its share of fruits, nuts, and flakes, but at least the tradition I follow requires that we examine every tenet of faith with the rationality and mind we were given.
As for shutting down my reasoning processes, I can accept that some things must be taken on "faith", if one presumes to call subjective experience "faith." I do not have to "believe" in my gods. I feel that I've met them, up close and personal, through meditation and evidentiary actions that have occurred when their assistance has been requested. I do not require that anyone else accept this.
I can understand that, apparently from your words, you have had a negative experience with the Christian faith. I also agree that the bishop demanding that the gluten-intolerant little girl receive communion with a wheaten wafer is way over the line.
I cannot except your generalizations with regard to other faiths.
Jonathan Kirsch has a wonderful book out right now called _God Against the Gods_ about the conflict between monotheism and polytheism. I highly recommend it.
As for Justin Timberlake? Naaah, he's going to be the chief acolyte of the one true teat of the goddess. . .
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 09:23 am (UTC)I will admit that the archaeologists are not being terribly bright. Almost on the order of the guy who claims Ireland is Atlantis (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/06/ireland.atlantis.reut/index.html). Gibson lacks academic rigor. However, since these archaeologists are not blindly following a religious dogma of which I'm aware, I don't see how they support your case.
Religion is based on blind adherence to religious dogma.
Organized religion is based upon acceptance of certain beliefs, but perhaps you ought to talk to Martin Luther and a large number of less-conservative Jews about whether that acceptance needs to be blind.
It is entirely possible to approach organized religion with one's eyes open, and to think about what one chooses to believe. It is then possible to keep one's brain in gear when applying doctrine, especially doctrine that was written in ignorance of facts that have since become available.
Remember, also, that we only get news reports about things that are newsworthy. We aren't going to see reports about calm, reasonable, rational religious people, because they are boring. We hear about a small number of vocal yahoos. Not what you'd call a representative sample of the billions of religious people on the planet. The human brain has a tendency to weigh sensational reports heavily, whether or not they represent the real world.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 10:03 am (UTC)It's not religion's fault...
Date: 2004-08-18 08:27 am (UTC)Stupid people will find any excuse to be stupid. This just happens to be one guy's excuse.
Some pretty smart people I know happen to be Christian. They dont agree with this guy.
I think we'd all like to see religions get smarter. Heck, I think most practicioners of the religions would want them to be smarter in their methods of observance. But when the people who are fed up with the dumb practioners make arguments like "religion makes you stupid", it gets in the way of everyone else...
While I understand the sentiment, and get damned frustrated by the bozos too, comments like that give a pretty good argument to the bad guys that it's our ilk who are actually stupid and gives them the opportunity to hold it up as an example of why they are actually the smart ones.
I love your music, but if you can't help, please don't hinder.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 08:45 am (UTC)For the record: I am sorry I implied -- no, came right out and said -- that those who believe are stupid. Particularly, I am sorry for causing unnecessary pain to my friends who believe. It was childish and Just Plain Wrong.
If you'd like, I will even delete this thread.
But I will not do so just because I'm getting spanked, even though the evidence here does make me look like a nit.
Reason being? There is more pain, grief, and evil being done in the world for the sake of religious beliefs than for any and everything else. Iraq. Sudan. Israel and Palestine. September 11, and every other action performed by al-Qaida. The fight for and against same-sex marriages. The anti-abortion movement. (Alan Keyes just yesterday repeated the line (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen17.html) spouted by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell right after 9/11, that the terrorist attack was God giving America a wake-up call to stop abortion.)
Dubya saying God speaks to him.
If we, who are at least nominally friends, cannot discuss this stuff, how can anybody?
I regret only wording it so poorly.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 09:23 am (UTC)As for wording it poorly, how would you have worded it in a song? I submit that it's not following a god/dess that makes one stupid. It's following a person, who claims to be interpreting for a god.
For every bit of "pain, grief, and evil" being cause, I would suggest that they are all being caused by religions of the "Children of Abraham." Until Jews, Christians and Muslims can settle their differences about the ways they worship putatively the same God, I believe no one will have peace. Monotheism may have been the worst thing ever to happen to Western Civilization (such as it is) because it promotes paranoia and state religions, and an exclusivity that refuses to admit someone else may have a point.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 10:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 11:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 12:56 pm (UTC)More specifically look up 'eta' or 'burakumin' in Japan and you'll see a whole side to self-imposed xenophobia in Japan you'd never have thought possible.
Add into the mix that Buddhist and Shinto groups in Japan support abortion (Euphemism: refusing the delivery of an unwanted soul) and not coincidentally own abortion clinics on one hand, and have special ceremonies for apologising to the aborted baby (which is why stone statues at temples & shrines are wearing baby bibs) and you've got a whole other kettle of worms...
And me...a jew whom people think is an agnostic is saying this..
Date: 2004-08-18 01:24 pm (UTC)Speaking of which, I find your logic a bit specious here.
The religions are supposed to be different. That why they aren't the same religion. The problem is some followers of one take exception to those of another. Heck, Saddam Hussein and the Shiites supposedly all were Muslims, and I don't think their disagreements were civil.
It's not the religion that causes the problem. It's the followers who pervert the teachings into whatever viewpoint they want to justify. What's the expression? "I like God just fine. It's his fanclubs I can't stand". If it wasn't for religion's existance, they'd find another method. Their brand of religion is just a radical viewpoint. Eradicating organized religion wouldnt have prevented Ted Kacynzski or Tim McVeigh. Their viewpoints and willingness to kill got them. The only difference between them and Osama is that Osama wouldnt get followers like he does without invoking the almighty's name. That's not a reason to make the name illegal to utter.
Find me a Unitarian Universalist jihad/crusade/holy war/terrorist and you might convince me otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 10:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 10:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 11:12 am (UTC)Which one of them is more twisted is open to interpretation .
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 11:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 05:12 pm (UTC)*grin*
Gessi
No worries, mate
Date: 2004-08-18 01:14 pm (UTC)About the only thing you could do to make you lose any respect for you WOULD be to delete this thread. If youre getting bitchslapped, you should take your medicine. Let no one say you don't have cojones to say how you feel or let the other guy do the same.
Religion is an edged blade. You can use it for many harmful and helpful purposes. It's a damn shame that the bad guys get the press.
A rebuttal to Falwell and Robertson
Date: 2004-08-18 01:38 pm (UTC)Their logic was that the almighty wasn't protecting us. He was angry with us over something, and that must have been it.
My response:
He's angry? He told you that's why??? Well, of course not.
But let's start with your assumption that He is angry with us and didn't protect us for some reason, and that this was His message.
You say He's mad at our tolerance of the soddomites? Strange, but looking at the "evidence", I would have guessed that he was mad at our tolerance of the moneychangers and war-makers.
Surely, you are not saying that He missed????
:-D
Re: A rebuttal to Falwell and Robertson
Date: 2004-08-19 07:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 08:44 am (UTC)Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-18 10:19 am (UTC)-- Oh, Karl.
Re: Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-18 11:01 am (UTC)"Religion is the opiate of the masses." -- Karl Marx.
"I like what Jesus said. It's his disciples that make it all thick for me." -- John Lennon.
Re: Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-18 12:19 pm (UTC)According to Ken Smith in Ken's Guide to the Bible, the most important person in the New Testament is Paul, a Type-A overachiever who used Jesus' teachings as a way to build a church. If it hadn't been for Jesus, he would've chosen someone else (I understand that in those days, you couldn't fling a brick in the streets of Jerusalem without endangering a messiah).
Re: Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-18 12:23 pm (UTC)Re: Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-18 03:18 pm (UTC)To me, religion is the same as history: you pick the story you like the best and go with that. I'm mostly pick'n'mix pagan, but I like the miracles.
Re: Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
Date: 2004-08-19 05:27 am (UTC)Sick and sad
Date: 2004-08-18 11:03 am (UTC)I see this as a case where religious dogma is overriding rational thought.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 11:15 am (UTC)Worse, really. Those crusaders didn't have supercolliders and space telescopes and carbon dating and the human genome project. A rational person in 1100 AD might be expected to take scripture at face value. It takes a maniac or a moron to kill someone over it today.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 11:37 am (UTC)Unthinking obedience to religious dogma and by extension mindless obedience of the orders of those who promulgate and interpret the dogma is stupid. When one person allows another to speak for God, and therefore does not allow himself to question what the second tells him God says, he is being as profoundly stupid as a human being can be.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 12:56 pm (UTC)Faith is like the assumptions in a geometric proof. If certain conditions are assumed to be true, the proof holds. Otherwise, it collapses.
Too many people have died in the name of God already.
Religion is for those who are afraid of Hell. Spirituality is for those who have been there.
And a pox on those who put a one-size-fits-all dogma among the needs of the people. Should a person's faith serve them, or should the person serve the faith?
P.S. Keep this thread.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-18 02:14 pm (UTC)Well, that rather depends upon what you think your relationship with the Divine is, now doesn't it? Is the Divine there to serve you, or do you exist to serve the Divine, or is there some other relationship?
Some folks think of religion as a human construct. If so, then religion should serve human needs. Others think that it is the Word Of God. In this case, we are in no position to dictate terms. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-20 01:04 pm (UTC)For me, it's a little bit of both, and I have a long leash.
I know there is a spark of divinity within myself and every other natural being or creation (people, animals, rocks, trees). I know that it wasn't the Divine's intention for me to be a sheep. (Otherwise I'd think like a sheep, act like a sheep, and be a sheep.) I know the odds are astronomically high against all this stuff happening on earth by pure chance alone. And I believe in "An it harms none, do what ye will" and "Whatever good or bad I do to others will be returned to me three times over".
Some folks think of religion as a human construct. If so, then religion should serve human needs. Others think that it is the Word Of God. In this case, we are in no position to dictate terms. :)
IMO, the Word of God has been edited, mistranslated, and corrupted by Mankind to reflect a particular agenda. And I'd love to see more Christians live and act in a Christ-like manner than reciting Bible verses by rote or judging other people as evil or damned and needing saving.
For me, the difference between spirituality and religion (despite the bumper-sticker quote in my original reply) is that spirituality comes from within; religion comes from without. I'm enough of a free spirit to follow my own core values and do what is right and just, instead of blindly following someone else's rules. Now, if I understand the rationale of those rules, and I agree with the rationale, then yes, I'll follow the rule. But if someone says I gotta follow the rule only because "they say so", then I'm likely to dig my heels in.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-20 01:44 pm (UTC)Well, I was putting it forth more as a general, rhetorical question. But a fair enough response nonetheless.
I know the odds are astronomically high against all this stuff happening on earth by pure chance alone.
It seems to me that between the Anthropic Principle and the statistical Law of Large Numbers, the picture doesn't look so bleak. Simply put - there are a lot of events going on in the world each day. Eventually, you will see some of the less probable ones.
Religion is a human construct
Date: 2004-08-18 01:01 pm (UTC)One thing to recognize is that religion is a human social construct. The Bible can be used to support any viewpoint (I suspect this applies to the Koran as well, and it's practically a built-in feature of the Tao Te Ching). People have used the Bible to support both slavery and abolition, peace and war, hatred and tolerance, flat and round earth, creationism and evolution.
I suspect we can all think of people who obsess over Genesis and Revelation, but forget all of the "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" stuff in between. Conversely, there are teeming millions of Christians who emphasize "love your neighbor" but forget about the divinely-ordained massacres, misogyny, and outright stupidity in the Bible. So it's not just what the Bible says, it's also how a person uses it.
On top of this, organized religion adds a lot of dogmatic baggage on top of that (as in the example you provided). And the problem with dogma is that you're supposed to take it as is and not question it. After all, it comes straight from God, and God knows best, right? Combine absolute rules with a propensity to picking and choosing which rules to follow, and you get a recipe for disaster. In this respect, I guess dogma resembles "zero tolerance" and mandatory sentences: there's no allowance for checking whether the law applies to the situation at hand.
So I guess your subject should say "Dogma makes you do stupid things", but that's not as catchy.
Re: Religion is a human construct
Date: 2004-08-18 01:16 pm (UTC)Re: Religion is a human construct
Date: 2004-08-18 02:57 pm (UTC)Man, I think I just designed my Coat of Arms.
Re: [X] makes you do stupid things
Date: 2004-08-18 03:25 pm (UTC)