Religion Thread

[HotChops]

In short, it's not funny when a comedian does a stand-up bit telling me that I'm some how inferior because I believe in Jesus. He can have his opinions and he can state them but he and the people who laugh at them just make themselves out to be bigots.

 

I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge.

 

I believe you're referring to comedian and political provocateur, Bill Maher; a man I once idolized, but now I only respect.

 

In the last couple of years, he's taken a far more antagonist approach towards openly-religious people (and pretty much anyone else who doesn't agree with him.) The common line that he usually gives is that Christians are "delusional," and then he frequently compares a belief in Jesus to schizophrenia. The justification being that a belief in a non-existent entity is no different than schizophrenic delusions.

 

Ironically, Bill Maher was not always so unkind or rigid in his approach to the topic. He used to discuss religion and politics in a far more humorous and open manner. In fact, it was when I was still a Christian that he said something in his standup a few years ago that struck a very deep cord with me:

 

"Of course there are questions that plague us: 'How did I get here? What happens when we die? Is there a Heaven? Am I on this list? ... but why would you believe some guy -- who's brain is no bigger or better than yours -- when he tells you that he knows what's going to happen to you when you die? ... I just don't understand why otherwise intelligent people could believe something so nonsensical, and spiritually unnecessary."

 

At the time, he wasn't addressing the Jesus-messiah-myth specifically, but rather the other portions of the Bible (i.e. the story of Noah's Ark.) But at the time, that really fit with my own beliefs.

 

Like many progressive Christians, I wasn't a very big fan of the Bible, but I remained a firm believer in the "core" concept, which was God+Jesus+Heaven. Everything else I considered man-made mythology.

 

In retrospect, I think the belief that Jesus was humanity's savior was the last element to go because:

 

1. It's the core tenant of Christianity. In theory, God can forgive you not believing in something like the story of Isaac and Abraham, but once you denounce Jesus, that's it. You're in deep shit.

2. As a liberal guy, I really liked the idea of being a Christian. I liked (and still do) the ideas of loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and foregoing riches and Earthly wealth.

 

But in time, I let go of those parts too. I realized that the anthropomorphism of the Abrahamic God and the story of Jesus (virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection) were all just as nonsensical and man-made as every other concept in religion. This was reinforced when I learned that the main portions of the Jesus story have all been used before in other cultures and religions from hundreds of years earlier. (Jesus Myth Theory) More importantly, I realized that I didn't need the Bible or Christian-specific doctrines to be a compassionate and loving person.

 

I can't defend Bill Maher or any other discourteous atheist in their approach to the topic other than to ask people to remember that Maher and other outspoken atheists have taken a lot of hatred from religious people -- including death threats -- and this was before he started accusing Christians of being "delusional."

 

Myself on the other hand, because I was once a devout Christian, I feel like I understand how many religious people think. I understand that people are frequently objective in many aspects of their lives, but not so much when it comes to sacred cows.

 

Religion is especially a touchy subject because many people started attending church before they attended grade school. Personally, Christianity was the foundation of my beliefs.

 

When someone comes along and tells you that it's all just man-made superstition, it's devastating to even consider it. It means shattering the foundation of everything that you once believed. Take someone who is middle aged, they lost their family in a tragic car accident, and then turned to drinking for the pain. Then after a couple of years, a Christian re-birth helps them to quit drinking and deal with the loss of their family.

 

If you tell them that Jesus was never the messiah and there is no God or afterlife, you're asking that person to do more than just change his mind. You're asking him to embrace a reality that is for many people simply too painful to bear.

 

So I'm not necessarily an in-your-face or "militant" atheist, even though I was an active member of my college's atheist/agnostic club. I understand why most people are religious. As long as they're good people, I don't let it bother me. After all, my family -- despite (and because) of being religious -- is very loving and caring towards me. What kind of fool would I be to reject them simply because I don't believe it anymore?

 

I would strongly recommend that people read (or listen to the audio version) of Christopher Hitchens' book, "God is not Great." Hitchens book is comprehensive, but also down-to-Earth. It's not snobby like Richard Dawkins work. Frankly, I don't see any reason why a religious person wouldn't read it. It'll either test and strengthen your convictions, or you'll change your mind about things. Either way you're a better person for reading it.

 

 

Anywho... TL;DR, right?

 

I could actually go on for pages about religion. So far, I've only really addressed religion and it's role in modern America. Religion and other parts of the world is a very different, and far more disturbing topic. If anyone's interested, read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and make sure not to miss her incredibly cringe-worthy story of her and sisters' genital mutilation.

[WTF]

 

I could actually go on for pages about religion. So far, I've only really addressed religion and it's role in modern America. Religion and other parts of the world is a very different, and far more disturbing topic. If anyone's interested, read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and make sure not to miss her incredibly cringe-worthy story of her and sisters' genital mutilation.

 

The problem for me with Ayaan Hirsi Ali is that she's pretty much a victim who's eventually gone nuts with her own propaganda. What she's experienced is wrong on several counts and is due to the interpretation of Eurasian religions in the African continent. Their interpretation of most religions is something extremely controversial and difficult to understand. This is generally what I mean when I say the problem lies with interpretation of beliefs. There's nothing in Islamic scriptures that would even validate what happened to her. Most of the GCC and Asian countries where Islam is practised do not understand why this exists within the African subculture. It probably has to do with the cultural interpretation of Islam just like how Haiti has a pretty much different interpretation for Christianity.

 

I mean it is weird when the same set of beliefs can be interpreted in so much contrasting ways. For instance contrast the African interpretation of Islam with Sufism and you'll find that it varies in so many departments that you'll see how each deviated from the source and how much it's down to culture.

 

It's the same with every system of belief. It's all down to cultural and personal interpretation.

[HotChops]

I mostly agree. She came to speak at my college a couple years ago, and my brother and I both attended -- but for different reasons. I was interested in her experiences and her feelings toward religion and the mistreatment of women; my brother -- a hardcore neocon -- liked her a as a proponent of aggressive foreign policy.

[Pirandello]

Feel like I'm walking into a minefield, but here I go.

 

I never really grew up religious (my parents weren't religious), save for the time I willingly tagged along with my cousins to Vacation Bible School (to be honest, I only really did it for the sliced apples with caramel dip during snacktime), yet it never really caught on to me. I went three times actually, but it never really caught on to me. The teachings and prayers and all the words from the Bible just sort of went in one ear and came out the other; I guess I never found the appeal to what I assumed to be "talking to yourself" (mind you, that was what prayer seemed like to me during my childhood, I have a better grasp on what it's for now).

 

I don't really hate it all per say, but I find it the subject of much amusement in terms of comedy (I sometimes like to occasionally laud the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise be his noodly appendages), and ponder why both sides (both non-theists and religious folk) have so much hate for each other (could be better spent doing productive things, y'know, like gaming, working, or learning).

 

People are free to believe what they believe; just don't rub it in my face or drag me into it.

 

And also, I have not ever mentioned religion amongst my immediate family. I'm not really sure what I would say to them if the question ever came up. I'm sure they know, though, since my parents are non-religious, and they must have gotten the hint. They're not strict about it, though, and much of our family is comprised of successful people who are pretty well off (though I was concerned when I found a text that was called "A Godless America is a Dead America" at my cousin's house last Christmas).

 

TL;DR: I don't care. Now leave me alone so I can live my life and you can live yours.

 

I think I sort of went off into a digression rampage there.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Pirandello

[staySICK]

I'm a live and let live person myself, I've never seen religion as that big of an issue to get hung up over (obv, considering my wife and in laws). As long as you aren't harming yourself or others with your religious / spiritual beliefs or lack thereof; kudos to you.

 

As others have stated, I just try to focus on being a good human being. Tolerant, open minded, courteous, empathetic, and well, just good. Personally, being spiritual -- even if that means being a "Christian" in the sense of "believing and following in the words of the Bible and teachings of Jesus Christ" is better than following a specific denomination or organised religion.

 

That said...

Seriously, you have no right to insult the religious beliefs of others (except Mormons and Scientologists ) Get over it!

 

 

fuck you, Battra.

 

edit: okay, I feel I should preemptively expand on that.

 

Of all religions, I take most issue with Scientology and WBC (the god hates fags people), because in my mind, they aren't religions at all (in the case of wbc, they aren't a church imo), and I take issue with the fact that you grouped LDS and $cientology together in that statement, in jest or no.

 

Sure there's plenty to rag and joke about with the Mormons, but grouping them with... that is just wrong. Mormons don't leave people penniless and dead.

Edited March 10, 2011 by staySICK

[Thursday Next]

I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge.

 

Declaring that you are 100% sure that there is no god is not a claim to omniscience. I'm 100% sure that I exist. I'm 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can't prove either of these, but it doesn't make me any less sure.

 

With that, I am 100% certain that there is no deity, no after life, no higher power.

 

As for my personal beliefs, I kind of think of existence as a big set of incredibly complex dominoes. When you toss a coin you may consider whether it is heads or tails to be a random event, but in fact it was decided the second the coin left your hand. In fact, it was decided by the neurons firing before that, and the chemical reaction in your brain before that, and so on and so on, all the way back to the big bang.

 

In any belief system, including atheism, there has to be a leap of faith. Mine is that there is no such thing as a truly "random" event. I believe that the things we consider random, like the decay of a radioactive atom, are in fact measurable and predictable. We just don't know how to measure or predict it... yet.

 

That said, I accept that I could be wrong, that the universe could be random. That's why I love to read about new discoveries, new theories, so that I can get closer to understanding how my world actually works.

 

I think that's where I have a big disconnect with Religion. Religion tells us that we have the answers already, or that the answers are unknowable. To be forever looking back at what was said ~2000-6000 years ago and say, that's it, is very depressing for me. The idea of an "Ineffable" god who "moves in mysterious ways" takes all the fun out of the universe.

 

I prefer my outlook, that everything is knowable, it's just waiting for us to discover it.

 

P.S. That comment in the OP about failing the test of faith, and buckling under the pressure was HUGELY patronising. It would be like me saying that you relying on your imaginary friend to help you through hard times is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

EDIT: For those interested, you need to look up "Royal Assent" for the Monarch's powers to refuse to adopt a bill into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent the Queen did it in 1999 though, as noted in the article, it was moot anyway.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Battra92]

I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge.

 

True - to openly claim 100% that there is or isn't a god is just delusional. There is simply no way to verify something like that.

 

Christians openly admit it's a leap of faith, though.

[deanb]

 

I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge.

I'm 99.9% sure there is no god (from any of the religions*), which I'd wager is maybe more than you are sure there is a god. It's a bit of a cop-out that there's this loophole that says god doesn't have to prove his existence. If Atheists were omniscient, well most scientist are atheists, you'd think they wouldn't need to carry on if they knew everything.

On a scale of 1 to a 100 on things I believe in "We are in the matrix" ranks slightly higher than "there is a god".

It's a concept that just doesn't fit with everything I know. For me to change my mind on the matter I'd need a guy to come down from the sky in a beam of light shake my hand declaring himself to be god, then yank one of my ribs out and turn it into a woman before my eyes.

 

 

2. As a liberal guy, I really liked the idea of being a Christian. I liked (and still do) the ideas of loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and foregoing riches and Earthly wealth.

You don't have to be Christian to have those values though. Though from what I've gathered of how atheism is viewed in US it does seem like it's assumed if you're atheism you're all up for a life of sin and wrong doing.

 

 

@WTF: Yeah I think an issue is extremists on both sides. I'm certainly more atheist than anti-theist(religion does have it's place) but I am anti-religion when it's used as a tool for oppression or to rationalize inhuman acts. e.g "God hates fags" (which I'm pretty sure the..6/7th commandment says you're not allowed to say that). Though I'm sure many other christians are against that kind of stuff too.

But that goes to the interpretation stuff. And why even when following the same book you have multiple segments of Christianity. People just kind of adapt it to what suits them. It's why I'm non-religious. I can just go my own route, not having to stick to either some denominations interpretation of the bible or explain why I have my own particular viewpoints on it.

 

 

*I wish the greek religions were still around. They had some kick ass gods.

[MasterDex]

Born to a Roman Catholic family in Ireland, I used to go to church most Sunday's, learned religion(The Catholic bible) in school and made my first communion and my confirmation. I was surrounded by catholicism. In school, I'd hear about Noah, lepers and the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. When I went home, I'd have to say grace before a meal and be quite for the angelus. I believed in a life after death where I'd spend eternity being happy in the clouds (or burning deep beneath the Earth for being a bad boy). By the time I was making my confirmation, I was already growing a dislike of catholicism and it's strict rules and over the next few years, as my beliefs changed, I began looking for other avenues of spiritual enlightenment. I read the writings of LaVey and Crowley, strange men even by strange standards but they led me to where I am today - a firm non-believer in deities and magical miracles and an avid supporter of secular states.

 

Now, as someone who could be described as an Atheist int he most simple of terms, I've presented myself a bit snobby in my views of religion and religious beliefs but that snobbiness, for the most part, has softened. I believe everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe that thetans are stuck to your body or that there's an omnipotent being guiding you through good times and bad then so be it. I don't agree but as long as you don't try and force your beliefs on me, I won't force mine on you. Then there's the set of morals and ethics that reilgions promote and I have a lot more time for them. Regardless on anyone's stance on religion, we should at least acknowledge how it has helped in forming a strong moral compass in many people.

 

The biggest problem I have with religion is with the religious organisations. They start wars, twist the words of their saints and saviours to suit their own ends, entrench people into a life of hardship and take choice out of the equation. Here in Ireland, the school system is run, for the most part, by the cleregy. You want your child to be educated? Chances are you'll be sending them to a catholic or protestant school where they'll be indoctrinated into the religion, regardless of your own beliefs or your own view on how your child should discover and learn about religion. There's a rather new organisation that has been fighting against the tide and setting up secular schools where those of all faiths or none can learn without indoctrination but they're so few and far between that most are still left with the choice of choosing a catholic school or a protestant school. This is just for Primary school (Grade school? In America?). Trying to find a secular school once the child reaches Secondary school (high school) is even harder...unless you want to deny your child educational opportunities by sticking them in a VEC technical school (usually the worst schools in an area).

 

I think everyone is entitled to follow their own beliefs but I think trying to institutionalise entire nations is wrong and needs to stop. Far too many wars have been carried out in the name of gods and religion.

 

P.S. WTF should be banned. His posts are far too good relative to everyone else's.

[WTF]

@dean greek gods and their myths are ancient versions of modern soap opera . I did some research as part of a thesis for one of my degrees.

 

We see that to a lesser extent in idol worship. Or to a similar extent amongst some rural folk in TamilNadu in India. Living actors who played gods on tv become politicians and some even gods. Amusingly their neighbouring state of Kerala are more hardcore communists and marxists since independence.

[Thursday Next]

P.S. I also want to clarify about marriage in the UK.

Technically in the UK all Church of England marriages are 100% recognised by the law and you get a marriage certificate if you get married in a CoE regardless of your beliefs.

 

However every other kind of wedding/marriage requires a civil ceremony and getting married under a house of religion does not make you married. You do need to have a separate civil ceremony apart from whatever traditional way you do get married. So with that regards this constitution is highly tied to the CoE.

Basically any sort of marriage outside of the CoE is civil partnership in the UK and you're not completely 'married' in the eyes of the law unless you either have a CoE marriage or a civil partnership. There are laws however if you are a couple and have been living together for over 2 years or maybe it's 5. I'm not entirely certain what period of time they consider. I know it's 2 for immigration laws but I think for dispute in property it might be 5.

 

Just to correct a couple of details there (trainee solicitor, so this stuff is all pretty fresh in the mind).

 

A civil marriage is still a marriage. You are completely married even if you have never even set foot in a church.

A civil partnership can only be same sex.

Co-habiting couples can apply for certain rights, reliefs and protection, however, these do not automatically vest over a period of time, some form fillage is required.

[Battra92]

I'm 99.9% sure there is no god (from any of the religions*), which I'd wager is maybe more than you are sure there is a god.

 

I'm 99.9% sure your statistic is made up.

 

well most scientist are atheists

That's something I've never seen proven. I did watch part of Ben Stein's excellent documentary on the bigotry against religious people in the scientific world so I'm sure a lot keep it to themselves. As proven with the whole global warming lie, it's very easy for so-called scientists to be sheep to political and personal whims.

 

I had a great professor in college who actually spent part of one physics class where he talked about the way that different things in the universe all seemed to work at this pre-planned way and how the rules of the cosmos all came together and what not. He said that for him that was enough to open the door to the possibility of there being a creator and wanted to stress to us (this was an Intro to Physics class) that religion and science are never contradictory and to not be afraid of science if we were deeply religious.

[deanb]

@dean greek gods and their myths are ancient versions of modern soap opera . I did some research as part of a thesis for one of my degrees.

 

Yeah it's the soap opera element that appeals to me. These guys were gods and revelled in it. Whereas christian god was like all benevolent n shit until he's flooding the world or turning your wife into salt. But it's for your own good.

Zeus n co were asses and made no qualms about it. He'd go down as a white bull and make off with your missus. His daughter started life cleaving an axe through her fathers head, then went on to turn one womans hair into snakes. His wife is probably the origin of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". And his brother reared a three headed dog.

They're the definitive dysfunctional family.

[deanb]

I'm 99.9% sure there is no god (from any of the religions*), which I'd wager is maybe more than you are sure there is a god.

 

I'm 99.9% sure your statistic is made up.

In what aspect? I'm pretty certain of my belief, and you didn't state on the contrary that you're not 99.9% sure on the existence of a god.

 

 

well most scientist are atheists

That's something I've never seen proven.

Well they do surveys on it. If you're lying about being christian then you're either not very sure of it or you're not a very good christian to be lying. (Oh and I'm being very naughty and throwing in agnostics with that there. I should of put both in) Anywho iirc it's about 10% are Christian, then another 10% or so with other religions and the rest are atheist or agnostic.

 

As proven with the whole global warming lie, it's very easy for so-called scientists to be sheep to political and personal whims.

Well this is an entirely different topic but I'm up for discussing at a later date. Maybe at the Maldives.

 

I had a great professor in college who actually spent part of one physics class where he talked about the way that different things in the universe all seemed to work at this pre-planned way and how the rules of the cosmos all came together and what not. He said that for him that was enough to open the door to the possibility of there being a creator and wanted to stress to us (this was an Intro to Physics class) that religion and science are never contradictory and to not be afraid of science if we were deeply religious.

Sensible guy.

 

 

[MasterDex]

..As proven with the whole global warming lie...

 

I don't want to derail the thread but I'm compelled to ask: What lie? Do you believe that global warming and the effects of global warming on Earth are a lie? The evidence is there.

[Mr W Phallus]

Where every system of belief goes wrong is honestly with personal interpretation. Personal interpretation of a system of beliefs clouds its true intention because what I feel a set of words means and what you feel a set of words means need not be the same 100%. That forms the basis of most arguments really. This is because language and communication are ambiguous. This causes one of the bigger issues faced by several youths today in terms of a belief system - 'cognitive dissonance' since there's more than one side to the equation in everyone's head (before they settle down on something).

Whilst I agree with that first statement (in bold), it is for the opposite reason than (I think) you are suggesting.

 

The problem is not that language and literature (and therefore holy texts) are interpretable,it is that religion, by and large, attempts to deny this interpretability.

 

I have a friend who is a devout Muslim, and is also very liberal-minded and by no means an extremist. One day I was discussing with him how a woman had recently been sentenced to death in Pakistan (for adultery I think it was), and he was telling me how he had been shocked to find that other Muslims he had talked to about it, who were our age and also brought up here in England, openly supported this. He pointed out that the law came not from the Quran but another Muslim holy text, and we discussed how because it was written by a man it could not be taken for granted and followed literally without question, because that man has no more authority than any other, he can be wrong. When it came to the Quran, however, he was adamant that it is the word of God; irrefutable, infallible gospel truth.

 

This idea is problematic in so many ways. First off even if we subscribe to the idea that the words originally came from God, it had to be written down by man. The text has then been going through a process of copying, editing and translation for thousands of years since, each of which adds a new possible layer of human error, editorial bias and mistranslation. Translation itself can account for huge variation in interpretation, there are something like 12 different possible translations from the Hebrew of the opening line of Genesis (I'm afraid I can't actually verify this, I was told it a year or two ago). There is then the problem of which source text to use in the first place - which is the 'authoritative' text?

 

Already then, the a holy text's authority is highly questionable, even before we approach the subject of subjectivity in the interpretation of language. As an English Literature student, I've spent most of my course so far debunking the idea that there is a single 'true meaning' to a text. We cannot ever truly know the author's intentions studying a text. Some critics argue we should remove the author from the critical process all together. Two different people may interpret the text in entirely different ways. Basically the idea of a non-interpretable text is laughable.

 

It's ironic, really, considering the emphasis Christianity puts on using parables to teach, that so many Christians fail to realise that the entire Bible is parable. It is irrelevant, really, whether there is truth to the Bible or not, we can still learn from it. If people (both Christians and atheists) stopped looking at the Bible (or whatever your equivalent holy text is) as a historical textbook and instead appreciated it for it's allegorical and literary value, I wouldn't have such a problem with religions.

[staySICK]

@dean greek gods and their myths are ancient versions of modern soap opera . I did some research as part of a thesis for one of my degrees.

 

 

 

but they made everything so interesting!

 

Trojan War. yes, ooh interesting, then you get to the version with the gods involvement (including what ignited the war) and everything is just 100x cooler!

[Mr W Phallus]

..As proven with the whole global warming lie...

 

I don't want to derail the thread but I'm compelled to ask: What lie? Do you believe that global warming and the effects of global warming on Earth are a lie? The evidence is there.

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that we are constantly told that CO₂ causes global warming, despite the fact this is just one of many theories with regards to the cause of our current climate change.

[MasterDex]

..As proven with the whole global warming lie...

 

I don't want to derail the thread but I'm compelled to ask: What lie? Do you believe that global warming and the effects of global warming on Earth are a lie? The evidence is there.

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that we are constantly told that CO₂ causes global warming, despite the fact this is just one of many theories with regards to the cause of our current climate change.

 

Ahh yes, I can understand that.

[Strangelove]

Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin' there in your ghost manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.

[TheMightyEthan]

On a scale of 1 to a 100 on things I believe in "We are in the matrix" ranks slightly higher than "there is a god".

This.

 

It's a concept that just doesn't fit with everything I know. For me to change my mind on the matter I'd need a guy to come down from the sky in a beam of light shake my hand declaring himself to be god, then yank one of my ribs out and turn it into a woman before my eyes.

Even that wouldn't convince me, I would more readily accept that I had had a psychotic break and was hallucinating or that it was aliens with "sufficiently advanced technology" or something else entirely, but in any event that it had a natural explanation.

 

This is not to say, however, that I am 100% sure that there is no god, it's just that the existence of a god is not supported by anything I've ever experienced and in the absence of evidence I'm not going to assume there is a god. There's no leap of faith involved, however. As for the above situation, while it may appear that I am firmly convinced that there is no god based on my reaction, it's just that I can adequately explain the event without requiring the assumption that it is in fact a god.

[WTF]

A civil marriage is still a marriage. You are completely married even if you have never even set foot in a church.

 

 

I think I need to clarify, what I truly meant was. If you are married under another religious body within the UK, it isn't legally accepted unless there's a civil ceremony accompanying it. That's the gist of what I meant really. Like you can either get married in a CoE or you need to get married in a civil ceremony and then you can have it in whatever religious or customary way you have it. That's in this country of course. If you have a certificate where you got married in another country and is valid there, then it's valid here as well.

 

Whilst I agree with that first statement (in bold), it is for the opposite reason than (I think) you are suggesting.

 

 

Actually the first part was the main and primary segment of what I was saying. The second part was exemplifying how religious interpretation can get skewed. Also the language and literature of a lot of these religions are technically largely not interpretable. A good portion of it is. But what has been originally interpreted later as you've yourself explained become deconstructed and reconstructed several times over and used to push an agenda. However, the language used in most religious texts is not language used or spoken today. A good portion of the Quran and the original Old Testament and parts of the New Testament were written down as per languages spoken during that time. I've spoken to Muslim scholars who admit that there are parts of it that can't be easily translated today as the meanings don't make perfect sense so they consider it as the word of God. Mind you these are the same people who like your friend condemn stoning and various aspects of Sharia law (which according to many isn't accurate as they are legal interpretations of interpretations). I blame the establishment of Caliphates and the Shia-Sunni split as part of the reason for the discrepancies. Technically Shias are more extreme as that was the faction that arose as per the Badr war and they believe in martyrs of that war.

The thing is there are Muslims who believe the Quran is the final word, the same who believe that there's aspects of truth in all the books preceding it (but believe in the Quran the most as it came last). I mean technically the Jews and Muslims have more in common than not. Right from similarities between Kosher and Halal, to scripture language, angels (the angel thing is mostly because some of the Angels were adoptions of previous benevolent deities into Angels of God by the cultures), practices, etc.

 

But that's getting into religious topics. Getting into the point. Yes all these words of God were written down by Man and transferred to his followers, who then spread it amongst their followers and so on. Obviously those who sought to gain utilised it to their benefit. There is no current absolute authoritative text because of these translations and not to mention the original sources are either long gone, dead or just not in language spoken currently. I think this is where I was touching at by saying Moral ethicists. Those who first found a religion did it for something beneficial, those who followed it obviously did seek to gain something for themselves and their ethics diluted what originally existed.

 

I think the problem is when something is placed on a very high pedestal it is beyond criticism. That's perfectly understandable. I mean how many times do we write things on a board and it gets misconstrued. Our minds are a sum of our experiences and these translations are a sum of all experiences till first print. They have shaped them for better or for worse. The original words are currently lost or hidden through time. But like you said you can take the good from it. However extending that, it does mean you can take good from every religion. However it's a bit impossible to actually get it working in practice.

 

The Mughul emperor Akbar studied Islam, Hinduism and a third religion (can't remember which one) and tried to form a peaceful new religion for all his subjects. It didn't really work. Andalusia also has similar tales, however the old Andalus was a good place of religious tolerance and people were treated fairly despite whatever belief they had. I think that's what we should really strive for. For people to all just be treated fairly regardless of their belief and to understand that belief system is a key to a collective cultural experience but its interpretation is personal and not to expect someone to share your viewpoint. Understanding the basis of each belief though does help us and that's something that could educate us about why certain systems and practices exist. It is a study into sociology and anthropology I guess more than pure literature.

 

p.s. I'm replying to your whole post btw. I just cut a bit so that it wouldn't turn out huge

 

@Master-Dex You give me too much credit.

[WTF]

This is not to say, however, that I am 100% sure that there is no god, it's just that the existence of a god is not supported by anything I've ever experienced and in the absence of evidence I'm not going to assume there is a god. There's no leap of faith involved, however. As for the above situation, while it may appear that I am firmly convinced that there is no god based on my reaction, it's just that I can adequately explain the event without requiring the assumption that it is in fact a god.

 

You sound like somewhere between an Ignostic and an Agnostic really.

[Strangelove]

Its weird, but I always believed more in extraterrestrials than God. Since I was a kid.

I put God up there with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Not real things, but symbols for good things.

 

Except as I got older I saw Santa Claus as a creepy pedophile, the easter bunny as a creepy mutant, and God as just a....creep.

[TheMightyEthan]

This is not to say, however, that I am 100% sure that there is no god, it's just that the existence of a god is not supported by anything I've ever experienced and in the absence of evidence I'm not going to assume there is a god. There's no leap of faith involved, however. As for the above situation, while it may appear that I am firmly convinced that there is no god based on my reaction, it's just that I can adequately explain the event without requiring the assumption that it is in fact a god.

You sound like somewhere between an Ignostic and an Agnostic really.

Well as I said I'm technically agnostic in that I take no stance on what the actual nature of the universe is (in as much as whether there is any kind of deity or not), but in practice I'm an atheist because my operating assumption is that there is no deity or supernatural of any kind. That is my operating assumption because my core outlook is very scientific: in the absence of evidence supporting the existence of a thing I will assume that thing does not exist.

 

So in practice I'm an atheist but in actuality I'm an agnostic.