Sunday, 09 November 2008
-
Stop doing religion wrong, guys, seriously.
Going to an art school, the majority of the students, like me, are agnostic. This is kinda confusing considering the history of art, but I guess creativity only runs in the blood of anarchistic heathens in this day and age. I'm kidding, kinda. but on the subject fo being anarchistic heathens, my friend and I got into a discussion about the innacurate portrayal of agnostics by pretty much everyone.
To be religious, it's assumed that one has to be tied to a religion. This encompasses the foundation of the problem with religion as a whole. The title of a religion is tied strictly to the religion's scripture, and not the ethics, because, for the most part, all religions have almost identical moral codes. So, one has to call themselves a "Christian," "Catholic," or "Muslim," in spite of having the same rules against murder, rape, theft, etc. And naturally, because these religions follow different literature, they have to look down on each other, because being different is just stupid, and you're stupid for being different (that's the code of all mankind right there, folks).
So, I wear the title of agnostic, because we have to have titles for everything, society would panic without a label and system of identification for everything. Because of this label, it's assumed I disregard everything about all religion. Obviously this is bullshit. I have read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, two books on taoism, a book on budhism, and even a book on Krishna that some monk gave me a few months ago. the last three are incredibly more interesting, since rather than telling incredibly ridiculous stories to prove their points, they discuss philosophy. Granted, these are just a few books on a very select few religions. Either way, though, I realized how dramatically similar they all really are.
So, take away the literature and stories of the respective religious texts, because, true or not, they are only in there to reinforce the morals and ideals that the religion is founded on. They are not important, and not ment to be taken literally in any context as they so often are. Suddenly, religion isn't so bad, and something I can totally get into. I'm still not going to accept whether there is or isn't a God, because I can't prove that. But again, diety isn't important in religion, either, and some don't even have one. I mean, what is a God in a religious sense? Someone who may or may not be there who you pray to, who may or may not do what you ask, which is irrelevant because he or she already has your fate pre-determined, so what the fuck are you praying for, anyway? Oh, also it's someone who you can kill in the name of, and it's automatically justified.
I don't hate religion, I just hate where society has placed the focus. That is, everyone is so caught up in literally interpreting the religious texts that they forget the point of religion. Religion is there to set a unified moral code and to give hope to those who need it. Instead, it's being used to give hate an excuse. I know this isn't any sort of new revelation, that the religious are misusing their religion, that's been done since before history. The problem that I've come to realize, though, is that while everything else in society advances, religion doesn't, and in my mind the single-most visible cause of this is the labelling and segregation of religions. But then, what do I know, I'm a anarchistic heathen.
-
recommend
- recs 47
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Post a Comment
- Back to DrugInducedDuck's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in DrugInducedDuck's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (196)
I hate religious institutions! and because I work for the catholic school system I see more and more flaws. they won't hire you if you are not of the christen faith, having no religious affiliation is absurd to them, they believe everything they are doing it right, etc. etc. etc. There is no room for flexibility and other ideas; they would like to believe they do but in reality they don't. So much segregation! There is no peace without tolerance.
I go to church every Sunday because of the community and the teachings about love. I don't think that only Christians go to heaven though, as some Christians do. As Jesus said (when speaking about who goes to heaven), "with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible". He also said we'll be judged based on how we judge others, which is kinda scary for some religious folk. :)
If you are an anarchist heathen then so am I. You just explained my view on religion for me.
Dude it is true. I think more thought is needed when discussing religion as a whole in regard to the fact that there are some many "pre made" or regurgitated explains and answers with not too much thought behind them.
@DrugInducedDuck - "Saving Private Ryan used historical events,
locations, and other true information, too, but that doesn't mean it's
not a work of fiction."
Fair enough. You will be hard put to find hard historical evidence of the authenticity of miracles themselves (though the walls of Jericho did fall from the inside outward, and Gomorrah is known to have been destroyed by fire). You made a claim that there was no archaeological evidence supporting the stories, and I disputed that claim.
It is important to note that though there were plenty of people who were alive at the time who had every reason in the world to dispute the miracles that he performed, none has been found. Also to date there has been absolutely no archaeological evidence found to disprove any claim made in the Bible.
"Also, there is no evidence that Jesus ever
existed, the first claims came about 200 years after he would have
lived."
Most historians and paleontologists do agree that, at the very least, a person named Jesus lived and died under Pilate. Records exist by Josephus, Tacitus and others. These records range from 70 AD to 100 AD. Josephus at least lived within a time to have met first generation Christians. Most historians agree that though at times the authenticity of these sources were questioned, few now maintain that they are not reliable.
That's the hit of the whole fruit right there.
And if you understood what I just wrote then you're a better man than I!
Reality is a matter of perception...so is religion. Each version of any religious doctrine has been written down by humans / mortals that are fallible and tend to manipulate messages to their purposes. Whenever anyone tells me it's "in the Bible"...I immediately ask "Which version?"...there are at least 114 different recognized "versions" of the Bible, and who knows how many version to the Torah, the Koran (قرآن or al-Quran). I was born into an Agnostic household - mother was raised Baptist, father was raised RCJCLD, step-mom was Lutheran and I was sent to Catholic school for my education. We were encouraged to study and learn about all the religions we could so that we could be better informed people as a whole. To each their own, because unless you take the human element out of religion it's going to be a bone of contention for many.
Isn't it amazing how most religions believe in a single god and live basically the same life style (adultry, masterbation, stealing, murder, etc = bad type thing), and yet we still find ourselves trying to prove one religion is better than the next? Quite stupid if you ask me.
((Isn't Catholicism a branch of Christianity??? But then doesn't that prove your point right there on how the religions must LABEL themselves in order to fit into the world? Catholics, Baptists, Evenglics, Lutherans they all teach the same ethics and morals, but they all say there is only one true religion. Confusing!))
@another_rebel_without_a_cause - Can't drink tea? Shouldn't "God" be more concerned with the destructive things we are doing? Like killing each other and starting wars, not banning his followers from ingesting a harmless chai?
I saw a bumper sticker a while back, "My karma ran over your dogma", and I had a bit of a wry grin.
Religions often practice, by rote, various traditions which have their meanings lost in repetition. I'd love to go further than that, but I would cite Catholicism's take on The Last Supper [communion] and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Here is my encouragement to you.Sincerely seek truth.I have found it in Jesus Christ and my life has radically changed.
I still battle lots of issues anger,sexual addictions etc..but I have now found a measure of freedom through the spirit of Jesus Christ.
I am sincerely sorry that your experience with Christianity has been less than ideal. I promise if you have the nerve to seek out the living God,you will find him.
Honestly, I think you've redefined "religion" in a way that would not be recognizable to the vast majority of people.
Most people actually consider those ridiculous stories to be quite literally perfect truths handed down by perfect beings. On this they are of course wrong, deeply wrong; and what you describe, searching for deeper meaning, synthesizing philosophical ideas from various cultures... all of that I agree with. But this is quite simply not what most people mean by the word "religion."
If you ask a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Baptist, "That book isn't really true, right? It's just a bunch of metaphorical stories designed to teach philosophy and morality, right?" they will stare at you blankly, and emphatically deny this. They will say, "No, that's the Word of God; it's 100% true, and I don't appreciate you denigrating it."
What you are calling "religion" is more like "spirituality," or even "philosophy." Philosophy is extremely important, and spirituality can be useful... but my objection is to religion, not in the unusual way you define it, but the far more typical way that people who worship ancient books define it.
@westerntraveler - You are a case in point. Because the author of this post does not subscribe to the literal belief in the particular absurdities of your own particular text, you fear for his soul.
Hence, you are religious in the ordinary sense.
@simply_steffy - Did you really just put masturbation on the same list as murder?
Only the perversion of ethical thought which is Abrahamaic religion could ever lead one to such an absurd conclusion.
In any rationally-sensible ethics, murder is wrong---and masturbation is not merely permissible, but downright good.
(Theft is of course also wrong, and adultery is usually wrong, but more complicated, since the word "adultery" can describe many different things.)
@tigristarlet - Yes, most historians agree there was a guy, named Jesus, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Most historians agree there was a guy, named Muhammad, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Most historians agree there was a guy, named Appolonius of Tyana, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Most historians agree there was a guy, named Siddhartha Gautama, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Most historians agree there was a guy, named Joseph Smith, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Most historians agree there was a guy, named L. Ron Hubbard, who started a religion, had some followers, and died.
Frankly, people start religions all the time. People are convinced they are the savior of the world, people write books about them. Sometimes it catches on, on a massive scale, and millions, even billions, buy into it. Yet there is no more evidence for the failed religions (Appolonius of Tyana) than for the successful ones (Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama).
@pnrj - You're absolutely right, in my mind, religion is philosophy supported by mythology.
Christianity isn't a religion it's a relationship!!
Right, we must free ourselves from these images which each of us have built to define ourselves; which have manifested as what you call 'labels'. They are burdens on humanity. "We can not find God and truth through any organization, any creed, any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique,not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection, but through the understanding of the contents of our own mind, through observation. The content of our consciousness is our Truth, our God"
@DrugInducedDuck - by claiming that God would let us get to Him any way we want, you are suggesting that connecting with God is more about our desires than Him. That is not the case. Heaven is about Him, not what we desire. No law can ever take away our sin. Only God's sacrifice can do that. It is His choice what system to use, not ours. Part of Him being God is that we give Him control, including how to deal wiht sin. He payed a price that must be payed for sin. Even though we do not deserve it.
Also, there is no evidence that the stories from the Bible come from "older" religions. One man (Jesus Christ) fulfilled over 300 prophecies from the Old Testement (prophecies from the same writings you claim to have untrue stories). The odds of that are astronomical.
@DrugInducedDuck - I don't care what you call yourself, really. And I am sorry if you felt I was trying to box you in. I just really do hope you come to know the love God has for you. Don't take offense if I don't think you as good, I don't consider myself or anyone for that matter as absolutly good.
Pax,
Spencer
Religon has nothing to do with serving God.Religon is a man made thing.When your cookies are getting hot you may wish you were some where els
the Bible shouldnt be read as simply a literature or a philosophical text. if you do so, of course you would come out finding that you gained not much for your experience of reading the Bible. The purpose of the Bible isnt just to be philosophical. if you want to know "Christian philosophy" read C. S. Lewis, or Francis S. Schaeffer, Lee Strobel. you might even enjoy the challenge. if you read everything with the attitude "this is all false" then surely even if you read a Biology textbook, you would come to the same conclusion. if you really want to make a good judgement without being biased, or being fully convinced of what you decide, then please, read texts from both sides. I'm a christian, I have read literature like "Why I am not a christian" by a renoun athiest, I have read many other things, and I do make judgement after I have studied thoroughly from other peoples perspectives. I challenge you to study further.
@jei_darkmoon -
I thought I'd go ahead and give a quick response to the things you've asked me, and come back later and address them in more detail at a later time (I'm studying for a test tomorrow, and I'm going to be busy all day tomorrow). But this way, hopefully I can at least answer some of the basic questions, and see if you have any more.
"so what you're saying is that philosophy is just as important as science?"
-- Yes. It's just that the two fields address different issues. If one were to be consistent and intellectually honest, they would first need to construct a philosophy of science before they could even do science.
"what would your philosophical argument for religion be?"
-- Personally, I lean more toward the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Granted, a lot of authors on the topic seem to spend more time discussing the theology of the apologetic method than the actual argument themselves. So if you go buy a book on it, don't be surprised to keep reading and feel like they haven't said much of anything. But knowing the point of conflict in the debate over God is very important (plus, it depends on which god you're speaking of). For a god like that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, you have a being who created the universe. Therefore, the most basic, fundamental premises in your worldview (i.e your ontology and epistemology) are going to be determined/influenced upon your particular belief (or lack thereof) in such a being. Being the most fundamental positions in one's worldview, the point of conflict is much more fundamental than science. So being able to start here is a big improvement over trying to find "evidence" to point one way or the other, when that evidence is just going to be interpreted in light of one's underlying premises (evidence doesn't interpret itself). So it's no surprise when people of different worldviews look at the same evidence and reach radically different conclusions (even if they all used valid reasoning from their respective starting premises).
"can free will exist alongside belief in a
divine being who knows the future and determines it? in other words,
can free will exist if an omniscient and omnipotent god exists?"
-- First off, I would say that the scenarios in these two sentances are a little bit different. But this difference is significant enough to affect my answer. In the first sentence you say "determines it", but in the second you refer to a being as being "omnipotent". I would say the two are not exactly the same. An omnipotent being is all-powerful, and can do anything (within certain logical restraints). But that doesn't mean it will do everything. It's certianly possible that such a being would create a universe but NOT determine its outcome, and give people a free will to make choices.
Also, just because such a being may be aware of the future events doesn't negate free will. It's certainly possible that such a being gave people the choice, but just happened to know what they were going to choose. I could go into some nuances, but I'll keep it brief. As an analogy, just imagine watching a home video from 10 years ago that you've seen before many times and know what happens. Just because you know what people will choose in the video doesn't mean they didn't make a free choice themselves. Knowing the future is a big difference from determining it.
"do u think philosophy can answer these kinds
of questions?"
-- Yes. In fact, I think this is the proper role of philosphy.
"if science cannot defend religion, perhaps philosophy can,
is that what you were saying?"
--- I would agree to that, but my point in my previous comments was merely that certain issues are within the realm of philosophy or pure logic (I just kinda lumped the two together), and outside the realm of science. People today have a tendency to believe that everything we know or could ever know has to be determined via science, which is not true at all. If that were true, then we would not be able to verify that science is a realiable tool (since everyone's philophy of science is built upon logic and philosophy, and not science), and undermine science and thus knowledge altogether.
Creativity belongs to the athiestic heathens these days? I think not. How do you explain musicians like:
Sufjan Stevens, Explosions in the Sky, Half-Handed Cloud, Mogwai, The Album Leaf, As Cities Burn, The Books, The Chariot, Page France, Joanna Newsom, Psalters, Deas Vail, The Fleet Foxes, and Eisley?Bold statement my friend. The Christian Indie-artistic scene is where it's at, I'm telling you.@Filmwarr - Funny, because I never made any such statement. I clearly stated I was kidding. LRN2READ KTHXBYE.