Is it time to return to religion?

[Thants]

-M-vnmejwXo

[Stu Monty]

John Cleese is currently my butler. Not the same without the silly walks though, to be honest. All he does is just meither me when I come back to my home. Doesn't even bring me tea.

[aikido]

Just wanted to make a point here that Jesus did exist. He was a real man and there is documental evidence from census etc that proves he was a real person who hailed from Nazareth.

Whether he existed isn't even up for debate. It's just a fact that he did.

The debate is whether or not you believe he was the son of God or not.

 

All other major religions recognize and ackowledge Jesus as a real man and many regard him as a great prophet (eg. he is highly regarded by muslims) but, unlike Christianity, they don't believe he was the son of God.

 

I just wanted to jump in and say that there's absolutely no documented evidence that Jesus existed based upon any census. None whatsoever.

 

In the first century of his life 0AD to 100AD, absolutely nobody wrote anything about the life and deeds of Jesus, with the exception of his later followers. Not the Jews, not the Romans, nobody. If you want to know anything about Jesus and his teachings, you have to look at The New Testament, and in particular, the four Gospels.

 

There is substantial evidence however, that Caesar Augustus existed. Not only did his own people write about him, but his adversaries wrote about him. It's irrefutable that Caesar Augustus existed.

 

Now, back to Jesus. Biblical scholars do say he existed based on written evidence in the new testament. The Gospels, and the letters of Paul (There's 13 letters attributed to Paul in the new testament, but 6 are know to be forgeries in his name)

 

Scholars believe Jesus to be an itinerant Jewish rabbi, teaching the tanakh throughout Galilee. He caused a ruckus in the Temple at Bethlehem during Passover and was crucified.

 

Now, Paul gets a vision about Jesus, that he's resurrected, and Paul sets up churches throughout the empire, converting people to Christianity. Paul hardly ever says anything in his letters about the life, deeds and teachings of Jesus.

All Paul is concerned about it the the belief that salvation comes from believing in the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

 

The earliest Christian writings in the new testament is Paul's letter to Thessalonians, written around 50AD. Most people think the Gospels are the earliest writings, but the Gospels were written later.

 

Mark around 60AD, Matthew and Luke around 85AD, and John around AD95.

 

The earliest gospel of Mark was written about 30 years after the death of Jesus, with John being written around 60 years after this Death.

 

The Gospels were written in Greek, by highly literate Greek speaking Christians. It's worth thinking about that, because who was Jesus and his followers?

 

They were Aramaic speaking jews who lived in Galilee. Illiterate peasants and fishermen and alike.

The book of Acts describes John as being Illiterate, Acts 4:13.

 

The gospels were written anonymously and later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the second century to give them Apostolic virtue. The hint is in the titles, "According" to Luke, "According" to Mark. Not "By" Mark or "By" Matthew. They are told in the third person. The book of Mark has an account of Jesus meeting Mark, in the third person.

 

The Gospels don't claim to be eye witness accounts, and they don't claim to be written by eye witnesses.

 

So, where then did they Gospel writers get the information? Most historical scholars believe they got their info. from the oral stories handed down through generation to generation by Christians in the decades following the death of Jesus. A missionary would go to a village, tell tales about Jesus and get people to convert. A husband would convert and then convert his wife. She would then convert her sister. The sister would convert a friend, and so on and so forth.

 

What happens when a story is in wide circulation? It changes. What happens when a story is in wide circulation for 30-60 years, through different countries, with different people and agendas? They change dramatically.

 

The evidence for this is in the Gospels themselves.

 

Matthew and Luke are the only two gospels to contain the birth narrative of Jesus. Mark and John have the story begin when Jesus is a grown man.

 

Matthew

 

Angel appears to Joseph says Mary is pregnant, wise men from the east follow a star. King Herod and the slaughter of all kids 2 years and younger. Wise men visit Jesus at his HOME in Bethlehem. Angel tells Joseph to flee to Egypt. Angel then tells Joseph he can leave Egypt when Herod dies, but Joseph knows Herod's son is now ruler so he goes to Nazareth instead.

 

Luke

 

Angel appears to Mary tells her she's pregnant. Caesar Augustus declares world wide census. Joseph takes a pregnant Mary from Galilee to Bethlehem, because he's descended from the house of David, who lived 1000 years. No room at the Inn, Mary has Jesus in the stable/manger. Shepherds watch close by. Mary stays in Bethlehem for 32 days to perform the cleansing rituals as dictated in the Tanakh. They then proceed back to Galilee.

 

 

So, Matthew, no Census, no shepherds, no angel visiting Mary, no Inn/manger, no Mary performing cleansing rituals at the temple.

 

Luke, no wise men, no star, no Herod killing toddlers, no fleeing to Egypt.

 

In Matthews gospel, the wise men visit Jesus at his Home in Bethlehem. Joseph wants to return from Egypt to Bethlehem, but can't due to Herod's son being ruler so that's what forces him to Nazareth.

 

The Gospel writers knew Jesus came from Nazareth, but have to get him born in Bethlehem to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, Micah 5:1-2

 

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel"

 

But the writers make up two completely different stories to make this happen.

 

There's no account anywhere, except in Matthew, that Herod slaughtered children, and there's no record anywhere, except in Luke, that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree for a world wide census of the empire.

 

These events never happened. The Gospel writers are a prime example of how the stories of Jesus' birth changed through Oral stories.

 

The bible is full of differences like this. The Crucifixion of Jesus varies greatly in Mark and Luke. What was said. Mark and John have Jesus crucified on two different days, Who went to see Jesus at his tomb varies depending on what Gospel you read. What they saw varies depending on what Gospel you read, when Jesus tells his disciples to do when he's resurrected, varies depending on what Gospel you read.

 

The bible is full of stories and deeds that vary greatly from Gospel to Gospel. Most people don't see this cause they read Matthew first, then Mark which sounds like Matthew, then Luke which sounds like the other two, then finally John, which sounds slightly different, but along the same lines.

 

If you want to see the differences, read all four stories together and note the difference. They're quite noticeable.

 

So, that's my two cents worth. I got dumped by a girl I dated for close to two years because she did not believe me Christian enough to be a strong spiritual leader for us or our future kids.

 

Me being raised Catholic in Ireland knew fuck all about religion, but decided to get some books and take some lectures in the subject. Now I love the subject.

 

But I definitely don't believe in a Judeo/Christian God. Far too much suffering in the world for that.

 

I don't consider myself an Atheist, but an Agnostic instead. My view is "who am I to say there's no God?"

 

But it makes more scientific sense that evolution is the sensible answer. I can pick the bible apart and it just simply doesn't give me the answers I was hoping to find.

 

BTW, The Koran does mention Jesus as a holy man, but The prophet Muhammad was not born until 570AD and the Koran was not written until the the middle of the 7th century. They already knew the oral handed down stories of Jesus. One does not wash the other.

Edited January 1, 2011 by aikido

[Thants]

I dont believe he exists. They changed the stories around to give him a birth for fucks sake.

[aikido]

I dont believe he exists. They changed the stories around to give him a birth for fucks sake.

 

I believe he existed, the man. They changed the birth story around to make him born in Bethlehem, to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. I've no doubt he existed. The fact he came from Nazareth is kinda proof in itself. It fits into no prophecy of any kid. It's a no name middle of the sticks town that serves no purpose.

 

But I don't believe he was divine.

[a stoner]

I was dragged up R C and had the bible forced down my throat for 16 years.

I don't believe in god, I don't believe in religion and I do believe that religion has caused far more deaths than it has ever saved.

[Trumo]

I was dragged up R C and had the bible forced down my throat for 16 years.

I don't believe in god, I don't believe in religion and I do believe that religion has caused far more deaths than it has ever saved.

 

Is that what he called it?

[a stoner]

Is that what he called it?

 

No he shoved his cock up my arse not down my throat

[Trumo]

No he shoved his cock up my arse not down my throat

 

16 years of that and he still didn't ram home the message?

[Red Phoenix]

page

 

Hahah, just heard the tune again and don't mind it that much actually. Won't resort to the madness of revenge negging because of your neg at the tune though, and nice page moving skills, will rep anyway.

 

edit : and no I won't, gotta spread it. If anyone else can for me, thanks.

 

edit 2 : maybe more of you dudes in this thread should meditate, seriously.

[Guest The Chimp]

I personally think that the line that religion causes many deaths is a fair bit of bollox. Ignorance and intolerance cause persecution and death. Seeing someone as "other" causes persecution and death. People have used religion, the same way that people have used racism and nationalism to persecute and murder, but it's ultimately our own ignorance and intolerance that allows this to happen.

 

If religion ceased to exist tomorrow I'm pretty sure that murder and rape, robbery and beatings would continue unabated. People would eventually think up another reason with which to rationalise their behaviour. There's deffo some mad cunts out there who commit the most heinous crimes in the name of religion but then I reckon (I've not done a study on it) that there are loads of evil fuckers who have no real belief system that we'd categorise as religious. There are some people who have no belief system who are truly good, but then again I'd wager there are also some religious people who are also kind, decent, good people.

 

I have been meaning to speak to a presit for ages about my severe doubts and why I stopped believing. Does being religious mean you have to follow all teachings and interpretation to the letter? Could I square the loving, forgiving God that I was brought up with as the vengeful and cruel God who would place all non believers in Hell? No, not at all, but then again what if along the way someone has veered off from the original message and completely distorted the truth? What if this kind, caring, loving God exists and a bad P.R. campaign has seen him become the fall guy? For me religion wasn't so much about taking everything at face value in the Bible but taking the bits out that helped you and gave guidance to live a good life and treat others well.

 

Blaming religion carte blanche for the worlds ills and for man's inhumanity to man seems a bit too simplistic. Buddhists seem to be pretty mellow after all?

 

For the record, I don't believe in Jesus as the son of God as there's simply too many things that don't add up (evolution for a start). I don't know enough about the Quaran or Talmud or about Buddhims, Shintoism or any other religion to speak with any real degree of conviction but I'm guessing the case would be similar if I was more familiar with them. Paganism - in that we're here to look after the world (if my limited knowledge is even right in that simple desciption of their belief system), and making the world a better place for everyone in it seems pretty cool.

 

I think more spirituality would be something that would do us all a world of good. Taking the time to smell the roses, to appreciate the sunsets, to take stock of what we have rather than being so selfish and ego-driven. I'm not sure that the systems we have in place are the answer. People seem to be richer but poorer for it. We have more than we've ever had but still seem empty. Maybe a bit of an overhaul of our way of thinking would be an idea after all.

[Section_31]

Some top posts on this thread.

 

For me, it's a simple question of asking whether or not your society is better off with religion or not, and I don't mean someone or a group of people trying to hijack religion for their own ends, I mean a proper code of conduct and code of ethics, values and a way of perceiving the world that is drummed into people from an early age.

 

It could be argued that many aspects of Christianity run contrary to human nature. The idea of giving the poor and the sick your time, of shunning material wealth and personal gain, and yet I for one - would not wish to live in a society which exists without these values. And these societies have existed in the past and still exist now, societies where a door is shut to you if you're poor or sick, or where you are not valued because you don't have the material wealth to 'be a man' and look after a potential wife and kids.

 

I'd argue we're slowly reverting to that kind of society though, a colder, harsher society based purely on survival principle and social darwinism. It's not something I relish.

[Stu Monty]

Some top posts on this thread.

 

For me, it's a simple question of asking whether or not your society is better off with religion or not, and I don't mean someone or a group of people trying to hijack religion for their own ends, I mean a proper code of conduct and code of ethics, values and a way of perceiving the world that is drummed into people from an early age.

 

It could be argued that many aspects of Christianity run contrary to human nature. The idea of giving the poor and the sick your time, of shunning material wealth and personal gain, and yet I for one - would not wish to live in a society which exists without these values. And these societies have existed in the past and still exist now, societies where a door is shut to you if you're poor or sick, or where you are not valued because you don't have the material wealth to 'be a man' and look after a potential wife and kids.

 

I'd argue we're slowly reverting to that kind of society though, a colder, harsher society based purely on survival principle and social darwinism. It's not something I relish.

 

I'd really question your definition of religion there, Mark. Having a good structure of ethics in a society is obviously a good thing but I don't see why we would tag it as religion, especially as the word is more accurately referring to a consideration of the cause of life in the universe.

 

I also don't think you can say that anything in Chriatianity runs contrary to human nature as, by definition, it is the creation of humans. Obviously there is a control element to religion, in the sense that heaven and hell will control people's behaviour, but even I would argue that some of religion is the very essence of human nature - that of organising a group of people to best function and survive as a collective. There is nothing more natural to us than survival. I'd also add that the idea that another group would start another religion and try to destroy other religious groups also cuts to the very core of what it is to not just be human, but to be any organism on the planet.

 

Co-operation and competition are the two most fundamental building blocks that everything else is built upon. It's hard not to see most human endeavour through that lens, in my opinion.

[Mendoza]

An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".

 

Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.

 

Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.

 

The Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.

 

The idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point.

 

A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.

 

 

A medical interview established the self-styled 'pastafarian' was mentally fit to drive

The group's website states that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma".

 

In response to pressure for American schools to teach the Christian theory known as intelligent design, as an alternative to natural selection, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the pastafarian version of intelligent design to be taught to schoolchildren, as an alternative to the Christian theory.

 

Straining credulity

In the same spirit, Mr Alm's pastafarian-style application for a driving licence was a response to the Austrian recognition of confessional headgear in official photographs.

 

The licence took three years to come through and, according to Mr Alm, he was asked to submit to a medical interview to check on his mental fitness to drive but - straining credulity - his efforts have finally paid off.

 

It is the police who issue driving licences in Austria, and they have duly issued a laminated card showing Mr Alm in his unorthodox item of religious headgear.

 

The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith.

 

 

 

BBC News - Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity

[PestiRed]

Not religious myself but some atheists drive me mad. They take their own beliefs to the level of fundamentalism and fail to see the irony in it

[Strontium]

Not religious myself but some atheists drive me mad. They take their own beliefs to the level of fundamentalism and fail to see the irony in it

 

 

How can you take non-belief to the level of fundamentalism?

 

Perhaps atheists are flying planes into skyscrapers because Tesco is selling hot cross buns.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Not religious myself but some atheists drive me mad. They take their own beliefs to the level of fundamentalism and fail to see the irony in it

 

Yeah, I agree. Some Atheists piss me off as much as religious nut jobs. It's like they go out of their way to be hurtful. Then, to put some icing on the cake, they say 'yeah, but the religious...', like that makes it okay.

 

I'd sooner be quietly atheistic than a fundamental christian, but this new breed of Dawkins style Atheism, practised by coal mine sized cunts like Pat Condel is fucking dreadful.

[PestiRed]

How can you take non-belief to the level of fundamentalism?

 

Perhaps atheists are flying planes into skyscrapers because Tesco is selling hot cross buns.

 

Maybe semantically incorrect but I'm talking about atheists who become incredibly intolerant of any non-atheist view. People who refuse to accept that any good may come from having a belief in God.

 

They may not be flying planes into Skyscrapers but you could point to Stalin as using atheism as an excuse for murder

[Trumo]

That pastafarian is a bloody rank amateur who failed to spot an opportunity to really make a statement. He should have changed his name to Al Dente.

[Strontium]

Yeah, I agree. Some Atheists piss me off as much as religious nut jobs.

 

 

Really? Those nasty atheists piss you off as much as the women slicing the clitorises off baby girls or the folk executing gay men?

 

It's like they go out of their way to be hurtful.

 

 

Any examples?

 

I'd sooner be quietly atheistic than a fundamental christian, but this new breed of Dawkins style Atheism, practised by coal mine sized cunts like Pat Condel is fucking dreadful.

 

 

I think we'd all prefer to be quiet about our beliefs, if only the religious weren't so intent on shoving theirs down our throats.

 

I think Pat Condell has gone badly down the pan too. Once he was funny, now he's a crotchety old xenophobic twat who wouldn't be out of place in UKIP.

[PestiRed]

Really? Those nasty atheists piss you off as much as the women slicing the clitorises off baby girls or the folk executing gay men?

 

I don't think that you can't justify some atheists being arseholes by saying that religious nutters are worse

[Strontium]

Maybe semantically incorrect but I'm talking about atheists who become incredibly intolerant of any non-atheist view. People who refuse to accept that any good may come from having a belief in God.

 

 

How do you mean intolerant? I don't know any atheists who want to prevent the religious from practising their beliefs.

 

I think when you talk about tolerance, what you mean is acceptance and respect. I'm prepared to put up with people believing whatever bronze age mumbo jumbo they want, but it'll be a cold day on the surface of the sun before I assign those beliefs any value whatsoever.

 

They may not be flying planes into Skyscrapers but you could point to Stalin as using atheism as an excuse for murder

 

 

No, you couldn't. Stalin didn't kill a single person in the name of atheism.

 

Enver Hoxha I will give you, but that's it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Really? Those nasty atheists piss you off as much as the women slicing the clitorises off baby girls or the folk executing gay men?

 

Yes, Stronts. All religious nut jobs do that. Good one.

 

Any examples?

 

Do I really need to? We both know that's not going to be particularly difficult.

 

I think we'd all prefer to be quiet about our beliefs, if only the religious weren't so intent on shoving theirs down our throats.

 

So, basically what I just said in the bit you edited out then? The 'yeah, but the religious...'.

 

You know, I've ever experienced anywhere near the level of 'throat shoving' from the religious as I've have with atheists. It's a whole new level.

 

I think Pat Condell has gone badly down the pan too. Once he was funny, now he's a crotchety old xenophobic twat who wouldn't be out of place in UKIP.

 

He's just a twat. I'd be ashamed of him if I were an atheist. Just the same as I'd be ashamed of people like Terry Jones if I were a Christian, or of Geert Wilders if I were a massive, antagonistic agnostic shit head.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm prepared to put up with people believing whatever bronze age mumbo jumbo they want

 

It's almost as if you don't realise that's offensive.

[PestiRed]

Stalin pretty much wiped out the church in Russia during the 30's, killing hundreds of thousands and used atheism as an excuse.

 

I've worked & lived in Eastern Europe a fair bit over the last 5 years and have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence from friends about communism & atheism. Parents unable to tell their children basic bible stories in case the kids repeated them at school. The threat wasn't usually death - you would be given a shit apartment to live in, you'd get the shittiest jobs, wouldn't be allowed a holiday or a car. Generally they would make your life a misery & the person who grassed you would be rewarded.

 

I'm guessing that you're going to say that it wasn't about atheism, it was about keeping power. However removing a girl's clitoris with a rusty blade has got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with power over women. Not really that different