The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Hey, we only do it the most spectacularly. You're UK, right? You guys still have it on the books that placing a postage stamp bearing the image of royalty upside-down is potentially an act of treason.

Woot. And, when was the last time the Crown Prosecution Service got itself laughed at trying to enforce that under Human Rights Law, let alone anything else that's cropped up since?

Britain: where stupid Laws quietly shrivel up to die, unused and unloved... though technically, still on the books. If it's not been modified, tweaked or referenced (except as a joke) in 100 years during which time other statues have rendered it pointless, it's rather unlikely to ever be held valid.

Heck, you are legally required to enter the Houses of Parliament in armour (one of my favourite chestnuts, that one). For some reason, that one's... no longer enforced, either.

edited 30th Jun '13 4:31:10 PM by Euodiachloris

Actually, the armor thing is illegal (one of the crazy 1300's ones — also the time period when your most ridiculous treason laws cropped up). Which is still silly, of course.

Also illegal — dying in the House of Parliament.

edited 30th Jun '13 4:37:39 PM by Pykrete

Meh — did it in History over 20 years ago... memory must have twisted it. <_< (Mental note: Google it next time, doofus.)

Ooooh — I forgot that one was still on the books! Mince pies: illegal on Christmas Day — thank you, Cromwell, you old killjoy. Now, if we're talking the ones still made with actual minced beef (or, red meat of your choice/ that you're not told about), we're still golden! They can't touch me! Bwhahahahaha!

edited 30th Jun '13 4:46:33 PM by Euodiachloris

My point for that derail being...there's rather few issues in religion — least of all the ones brought up in the previous page — that are in any way unique to religion, unusually local to religion, or even done the worst by religion. It's a political entity. Extremes, stupidity, and intolerance of dissent happen on a local scale for varying reasons, but the problems all ultimately come from the same grab bag and are all pretty normal for political entities.

I mean if you want to talk about illogical laws, for every weird or extreme thing in Deuteronomy (a lot of which actually make pragmatic sense for the time period even if they're anywhere from pointless to abhorrent today) there's probably ten more on the books where any given reader lives (a lot of which also are at least understandable in the context of why they were written, usually a recent rebellion or as an excuse to nail someone they didn't like).

edited 30th Jun '13 4:48:24 PM by Pykrete

Any of you know much about ancient off-shoots of the Indo-European religion? Scythian, Hittite, all that poorly known stuff. Although I'm gonna admit Hittite is a hard case with so much Semitic and Caucasian and who-knows-what-else admixture.

Thank you for that informative post which was in no way inflammatory and significantly contributed to the discussion

I'm not talking talking about specific doctrines but the basic idea that's at the heart of our conception of religion. All religions, not just Christianity. The idea that there are certain fundamental assumptions that should not and cannot be questioned. It's why sociologists refer to more dogmatic political ideologies as political religion.

(Also, if we want to talk about selective quoting, that quote from Isaiah is nice on the front but looses a lot of its lustre when you include what comes next.

• 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
• 1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
• 1:20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Which is pretty harsh version of the old carrot and the stick)

Oh really? There are two problems with this.

The first is that I was raised Catholic. I have participated in passion plays and I assure you that it's quite traditional to play Jesus as royally hacked off when driving the moneylenders from the temple. Also the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11 and Matthew 21) is pretty easy to read as a fit of pique, especially since the text or Mark specifically said that figs were out of season at the time.

The second also assumes that it means anything to me. To you they may be history, but to me they're just stories. Even if they were based off a real person (and that's a big if), the oldest of the gospels is still dated to some 30 to 40 years after the fact which is plenty of time for word of mouth to add embellishment.

1) You're confusing atheism and antitheism. The first is pre-condition for the latter but does not automatically follow from it.

2) And it's true other, non-religious ideologies can cause the same effect. But the point I'm trying to make is that the power of 'because God said so' makes religion especially likely to cause such an effect. Marx (for one such example) was just a man and as fallible as any other. But Jesus was God. Or Moses was getting directions directly from God. Or Buddha was one who achieved enlightenment and thus more wise than we mere mortals. For a few examples.

That may be your reading, but that the author chose to put the denial of God first makes it seem as a causative effect, which is tangental to my original point about it insulting the idea of atheism (or apostasy which many atheists wind up being due to the ubiquity of religion, though that is changing).

Actually Maxima your analogy falls apart rather shockingly for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is that while the US Constitution still has an original copy (minus amendments) that can be looked at as reference. The Bible on the other hand... well there are several different versions of it. And I'm not talking about translations, I'm talking about which books they include.

Some Protestant groups reject what they call the Apocrypha and Catholics call the Deuterocanon, completely. Catholics on the other hand include it as part of the Old Testament. Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc) on the other hand include several additional books, not only include all the books that the Catholic Church uses but add several more and a different, longer version, of Psalms. While the Ethiopian Church adds several more on top of those used by the Eastern Orthodox, including the rather trippy Book of Enoch.

Because there is no one true Bible, there can be no one true way of reading it.

And that's before you get on between the differences of interpretation between Christianity and Judaism in their shared texts. At the very least, you have to admit that the sections of the Old Testament that Christian's interpret as predicting the coming of Jesus mean something very different to Jewish readers. And even a cursory examination holds that even one of the Ten Commandments (Keep the Sabbath Holy) is interpreted differently and rather more strictly by Orthodox Judaism than almost every version of Christianity. And both Judaism and Islam widely interpret Christianity breaking another commandment (Though shall have no gods before me) in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Which actually does parallel the US Constitution since, while the text may be more specific, there are multiple ways of interpreting it such as Originalism, Responsive Interpretation, and Textulism. (Also the fact there are differences in how to read and interpret the US Constitution to the point where the different schools of thought are distinct enough to be named leaves your analogy dead in water and sinking fast).

So no, there is no one true way to read the Bible and to say otherwise... well the kindest thing I can say is that your engaging in some seriously wishful thinking. Heck, there's not even one true version of the Bible, let alone one true way of reading it.

And I'm afraid Maxima, from where I'm sitting, you're so blinded by your Bibliophilia, you're incapable of actually approaching analysis of it with an objective view.

On the UK law thing, didn't we scrap all the old silly laws? You know, the things like it being legal to kill a Welshmen with a crossbow at night as long as you're in the city centre. I remember seeing somewhere that they were all done away with.

Edit: Found it, to quote our British Laws section

Though the fact that it took us to the 90s to do it does say something, we're still better than the US state of only-just-removed-slavery-laws-in-2013.

edited 1st Jul '13 2:55:07 AM by Silasw

Then again, fanaticism (and downright Determinator-ism) has got us to where we are — and anyway, what are your views on Buddhism, Shinto and other animistic Faiths?

edited 1st Jul '13 3:30:43 AM by Greenmantle

The common myth that Eastern religions are more peaceful than Abrahamic is false. Buddhism, for instance, has its height of barbaric violence during 1930s and 1940s when Nichiren's brand of Buddhism, centered around worship of Emperor, incited Japanese soldiers into imperialistic expansion. Likewise, Shinto did so.

Other good example on how batshit insane can be zealots of Eastern religions is ongoing religious conflict in Ceylon. Kind of Indian "Israel vs Palestine" expy. Some of them even started suicide bombings before Muslim zealots picked up that idea.

edited 1st Jul '13 4:01:58 AM by CaptainKatsura

The Tamil Tigers lost in Sri Lanka in 2009, by the way^note  And it hasn't been called Ceylon since 1972 . And yes, they did adopt suicide bombing first^note  Even though the idea of suicide bombing was actually invented in Lebanon.

Then again, you'd find the same with anything that people feel loyalty towards, whatever it is.

edited 1st Jul '13 4:21:49 AM by Greenmantle

I doubt that it is the end of conflict. Religious conflicts are not easy to root out.

I prefer Ceylon because Sri Lanka is name adopted by one of warring religious factions and thus offensive. Ceylon out of three proposed names is the most neutral.

But still extremely offensive to some, let alone old fashioned. Mention Ceylon here and most younger people won't know where you mean.

To me, that name reminds me of The British Empire and a load of ex-London buses...

Always?

edited 1st Jul '13 9:04:17 AM by Ringsea

Y'know Couchpotato, you'd be surprised to learn just how much Christianity agrees with you. You are not God, and you can either accept or deny that, but it is what it is. You are indeed made in the image of God and thus you can accomplish a lot of God-like wonders, if just on a greatly reduced scale.

Many people think Christianity is all about going around in slack-jawed comatose slavery and nodding to anything on the whim of some pie in the sky. The ultimate goal of Chrstianity is freedom. Freedom in it's purest and most distilled essence. Many think it's about suspending your ability to think. No. It's about expanding your mind to greater parameters than the limits of our mere physical senses.

It's not about self-flagellation and denial. It's about learning to ignore the fleeting and fickle pleasures of the human flesh to attain greatness. That is the goal of Christianity. That so many alleged Christians don't display such peace and joy begs the question of just what Christianity they're following.

Now, of course, you are free to believe this or to dismiss this as some Christian trying to sell you. But do let me correct your assumptions. I'm not here to sell you. I'm not here to convince you. You claim that we'll "always have to defend our religion"?? I had to stifle the giggles. I don't have to defend anything to you. Like many, you mistake us Christians wishing to be sociable and amiable for us fulfilling some sort of obligation.

My priorities is to be at peace with my Maker. Someone's opinion on some website, especially one of suspect factual basis, is far down the ladder of things I worry about. Further, we Christians have nothing to fear from you. You don't dominate us, no matter how good it feels to say so. People in the present and in the past tried to dominate, discredit, and outright exterminate us. We outlasted them. All of them. And you don't approach their level in any way.

And I am going to tell you why. Christianity works. Yes, I know, I can't come up with a rationale for that statement that will meet with your liking. Nor am I going to try. But the fact is, many of us were lonely, angry, bitter, despairing. We hated ourselves and the world around us. We tried money and sex and cars and booze, and it all left us unfulfilled. And like you, the last thing we were going to do was place our belief in some nonexistent God who seemed to be all thunderbolts and doomsday proclamations.

But some of us.....like me.....were at the bottom of the ocean. There was literally nothing more to lose. And even though it wasn't easy, even though it was painful, the clouds finally gave way. We finally saw the sun again, some of us for the first time.

After that kind of life altering event, you think some post on some website is going to sway us? You think listing some myths that have a tangential connection to the Bible is going to prove your point? No, it won't.

We may all be insane. I grant that. But this....insanity....saved our lives. And we will keep with it until the day it ceases to work for us. So, you go your way, and we will go ours. But we're never going to go away.

That is just... No words.

That sounds very Buddhist to me. Have you had a look at their philosophies?

Whatever Couchpotato posted that got thumped, was his approach the reason that the General Atheism thread being proposed got deleted instead of opened? I was hoping that would open even though I suspected there wouldn't be all that much conversation. I supposed bumping one of these would have been fine instead.

To get on topic though, I've avoided this thread because I didn't feel I'd be able to contribute much to the discussion. I am curious about the history of mythology though, and would like to know if anyone here is familiar with the pre-European mythology and practices of the Arawak-speaking Caribbean.

What can I say? Great minds think alike.

I think it might mostly be that any debates on atheism fit in here well enough. I do agree that he needs to chill the fuck out though.

edited 1st Jul '13 9:43:05 AM by Elfive

@Counch Potato 20: The phenomenon Ship speaks of is far from exclusive to Christianity or even religion for that matter. Many of us could not find solace in it in our darkest hours, and perhaps through a combination of what influences many believers of Christ or the values we dislike about the religion caused us to have to find a different way maybe find peace in the idea there was no God. Not the truth for everyone who doesn't believe in religion of course, many just believe there could not logically be a god the way he is described in the fait but for many that can be true.

Essentially what I'm saying is Christianity is in and of itself not a harmful practice and in fact can provide solace for many people. Just like Agnosticism or Atheism.

edited 1st Jul '13 9:53:43 AM by Wildcard

Interesting. I wonder how much contact between Buddhism and Christianity there was in the early days of Christianity?

I know Christian Missionaries made it to China, and probably India. I wonder if anything came back the other way. I've got a bit of an interest in Early Christianity^note  And some of the odd...divergences in Christian belief, myself. If the un-obscured message of Christianity is there, it's there at the beginning.

edited 1st Jul '13 9:48:04 AM by Greenmantle