Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion Is Not to Blame for Our Beliefs

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 10:27:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

What we have today is an orthodox version of Christianity that is the "father" of all modern Christian sects, but the spiritual movement of early Christians was squashed or disguised in unorthodox circles and possibly even other religions, such as Taoism.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 10:57:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

Religion is a byproduct of social evolution. People believe things because they are useful to them. So religion must serve a useful function or it would have been discarded long. ago. Even Dawkins acknowledges that religion must confer a evolutionary advantage on its believers or it would not be so widespread.

Similar reasons offered by David Salon.

"Today there are two basic explanations offered. One says that religion evolved by natural selection"religion is an adaptation that provides an evolutionary advantage. For example religion may have evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation"it may have helped groups survive. The other explanation claims that religious beliefs and practices arose as byproducts of other adaptive traits. For example, intelligence is an adaptation that aids survival. Yet it also forms causal narratives for natural occurrences and postulates the existence of other minds. Thus the idea of hidden Gods explaining natural events was born."

"The primary reason religion survives is because smart people are good at defending ideas they believed for non-smart reasons. And later discovered they are useful as a mechanism of social control."

In short religion is really a problem created by smart intelligent people to keep the rest of society stupid. But the not so smart like Jesus was himself a casualty of religion.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 2:02:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

The DDO champion of liars has spoken.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 2:25:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 10:57:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

Religion is a byproduct of social evolution. People believe things because they are useful to them. So religion must serve a useful function or it would have been discarded long. ago. Even Dawkins acknowledges that religion must confer a evolutionary advantage on its believers or it would not be so widespread.

I do not believe the focus of religion is usefulness but identification. Like art, I believe the intentions of religion are psychic expressions and followers identify, psychologically, with these expressions. In other words, I believe it's the soul of the past reaching out to touch the soul of the future. It's a metaphysical bridge from one generation to the next. It's not a recounting of our material history but a recounting of the history of the human soul. It doesn't chronicle physical phenomena but psychological phenomena. It doesn't tell us about that which happened; it recounts subjective interpretations of that which happened.


Similar reasons offered by David Salon.

"Today there are two basic explanations offered. One says that religion evolved by natural selection"religion is an adaptation that provides an evolutionary advantage. For example religion may have evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation"it may have helped groups survive. The other explanation claims that religious beliefs and practices arose as byproducts of other adaptive traits. For example, intelligence is an adaptation that aids survival. Yet it also forms causal narratives for natural occurrences and postulates the existence of other minds. Thus the idea of hidden Gods explaining natural events was born."

"The primary reason religion survives is because smart people are good at defending ideas they believed for non-smart reasons. And later discovered they are useful as a mechanism of social control."

In short religion is really a problem created by smart intelligent people to keep the rest of society stupid. But the not so smart like Jesus was himself a casualty of religion.

Religion is not the product of any one person or select group of people. Religion is as common to a people as its folklore. People do not identify with religion because they see in it something they're not but because they see in it something they are.

Christ is not a casualty of religion. Christ is religion. The story of Christ is an ancient motif which predates Christianity, itself. The story is based on archetypes and motifs found in many other mythologies and religions, concepts with many different faces, under many different names. If you see the story of Christ as a literal history of a man named Jesus, I think you've missed the meaning of the story, altogether.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 3:49:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 2:25:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:57:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

Religion is a byproduct of social evolution. People believe things because they are useful to them. So religion must serve a useful function or it would have been discarded long. ago. Even Dawkins acknowledges that religion must confer a evolutionary advantage on its believers or it would not be so widespread.

I do not believe the focus of religion is usefulness but identification. Like art, I believe the intentions of religion are psychic expressions and followers identify, psychologically, with these expressions. In other words, I believe it's the soul of the past reaching out to touch the soul of the future. It's a metaphysical bridge from one generation to the next. It's not a recounting of our material history but a recounting of the history of the human soul. It doesn't chronicle physical phenomena but psychological phenomena. It doesn't tell us about that which happened; it recounts subjective interpretations of that which happened.


Similar reasons offered by David Salon.

"Today there are two basic explanations offered. One says that religion evolved by natural selection"religion is an adaptation that provides an evolutionary advantage. For example religion may have evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation"it may have helped groups survive. The other explanation claims that religious beliefs and practices arose as byproducts of other adaptive traits. For example, intelligence is an adaptation that aids survival. Yet it also forms causal narratives for natural occurrences and postulates the existence of other minds. Thus the idea of hidden Gods explaining natural events was born."

"The primary reason religion survives is because smart people are good at defending ideas they believed for non-smart reasons. And later discovered they are useful as a mechanism of social control."

In short religion is really a problem created by smart intelligent people to keep the rest of society stupid. But the not so smart like Jesus was himself a casualty of religion.

Religion is not the product of any one person or select group of people. Religion is as common to a people as its folklore. People do not identify with religion because they see in it something they're not but because they see in it something they are.

Christ is not a casualty of religion. Christ is religion. The story of Christ is an ancient motif which predates Christianity, itself. The story is based on archetypes and motifs found in many other mythologies and religions, concepts with many different faces, under many different names. If you see the story of Christ as a literal history of a man named Jesus, I think you've missed the meaning of the story, altogether.

The history of Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus is more than an offshoot of ancient mythologies. It has 2 billion modern followers whereas the other mythologies have all but disappeared.
Christ is a causality of religion. He was crucified for his anti-establishment teachings.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 3:59:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

Forced belief is no belief, at all. Can anyone force you to believe something? Here, in the United States, the enslavement of black people existed for over 200 years. Once slavery was abolished, with time, black people began to fight against oppression. However, the overwhelming majority of black people in America, today, continue to identify as Christians. They don't identify as slaves and would be very offended to be called slaves. However, I don't know a single Christian who would take offense at being called a Christian. Black people were slaves because they had no choice; black people are Christians because something about Christianity resonates with them.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 4:13:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

The way it's presented causes people to believe the interpretation they are given by leaders. The books that were chosen for the NT are books that promote leaders and followers. Gnostic Gospels present the idea that individuals are each capable of receiving blessings, independent of leaders confirmation.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 4:14:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 3:49:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 2:25:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:57:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

Religion is a byproduct of social evolution. People believe things because they are useful to them. So religion must serve a useful function or it would have been discarded long. ago. Even Dawkins acknowledges that religion must confer a evolutionary advantage on its believers or it would not be so widespread.

I do not believe the focus of religion is usefulness but identification. Like art, I believe the intentions of religion are psychic expressions and followers identify, psychologically, with these expressions. In other words, I believe it's the soul of the past reaching out to touch the soul of the future. It's a metaphysical bridge from one generation to the next. It's not a recounting of our material history but a recounting of the history of the human soul. It doesn't chronicle physical phenomena but psychological phenomena. It doesn't tell us about that which happened; it recounts subjective interpretations of that which happened.


Similar reasons offered by David Salon.

"Today there are two basic explanations offered. One says that religion evolved by natural selection"religion is an adaptation that provides an evolutionary advantage. For example religion may have evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation"it may have helped groups survive. The other explanation claims that religious beliefs and practices arose as byproducts of other adaptive traits. For example, intelligence is an adaptation that aids survival. Yet it also forms causal narratives for natural occurrences and postulates the existence of other minds. Thus the idea of hidden Gods explaining natural events was born."

"The primary reason religion survives is because smart people are good at defending ideas they believed for non-smart reasons. And later discovered they are useful as a mechanism of social control."

In short religion is really a problem created by smart intelligent people to keep the rest of society stupid. But the not so smart like Jesus was himself a casualty of religion.

Religion is not the product of any one person or select group of people. Religion is as common to a people as its folklore. People do not identify with religion because they see in it something they're not but because they see in it something they are.

Christ is not a casualty of religion. Christ is religion. The story of Christ is an ancient motif which predates Christianity, itself. The story is based on archetypes and motifs found in many other mythologies and religions, concepts with many different faces, under many different names. If you see the story of Christ as a literal history of a man named Jesus, I think you've missed the meaning of the story, altogether.

The history of Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus is more than an offshoot of ancient mythologies. It has 2 billion modern followers whereas the other mythologies have all but disappeared.

For me, whether or not a man named Jesus actually lived is irrelevant to Christianity. The truth is there are distinctive similarities between Christianity and other methodologies and religions. Whoever denies that betrays the fact he, or she, has never done any studies in comparative theology.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 3:59:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

Forced belief is no belief, at all. Can anyone force you to believe something? Here, in the United States, the enslavement of black people existed for over 200 years. Once slavery was abolished, with time, black people began to fight against oppression. However, the overwhelming majority of black people in America, today, continue to identify as Christians. They don't identify as slaves and would be very offended to be called slaves. However, I don't know a single Christian who would take offense at being called a Christian. Black people were slaves because they had no choice; black people are Christians because something about Christianity resonates with them.

You got it backwards. Most people are not comfortable calling people Christians because of the groups hypocrisy and pretentious religiousity. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of bible believing people who reject Christian beliefs and their interpretations of scriptures.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:52:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 2:25:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:57:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/7/2016 10:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The intentions of the sacred writer may be expressed using the medium we call religion. Not unlike art, religion is a means to pass down from one generation to another a psychic heritage shrouded in archetypes and motifs, a psychic heritage which is open to interpretation.

The intentions of religion do not necessarily correspond to the meanings the adherents give them. There is no causation between the religion, itself, and the movement which follows. All over the world and on every corner of the globe, there are religionists who use their beliefs to enrich and promote the lives of others and there are religionists who use their beliefs to the effectuation of death and destruction. To blame religion for death and mayhem, one must also blame religion for all the civility and morality it has afforded our species. I am of the opinion religion has done neither of these things, but rather the fault lies with the heart of each and every man, woman, and child.

For me, religion is only a history of our psychic past; it is a telling and a retelling of the evolution of the human mind. We, ourselves, will add to the rich mosaic of our psychic history; our thoughts and our beliefs will be enshrined for future generations.

To blame the beliefs of those generations which follow us on the religious heritage we leave behind is like blaming the people of ancient civilizations for our misconceptions of who they were.

Religion is a byproduct of social evolution. People believe things because they are useful to them. So religion must serve a useful function or it would have been discarded long. ago. Even Dawkins acknowledges that religion must confer a evolutionary advantage on its believers or it would not be so widespread.

I do not believe the focus of religion is usefulness but identification. Like art, I believe the intentions of religion are psychic expressions and followers identify, psychologically, with these expressions. In other words, I believe it's the soul of the past reaching out to touch the soul of the future. It's a metaphysical bridge from one generation to the next. It's not a recounting of our material history but a recounting of the history of the human soul. It doesn't chronicle physical phenomena but psychological phenomena. It doesn't tell us about that which happened; it recounts subjective interpretations of that which happened.


Similar reasons offered by David Salon.

"Today there are two basic explanations offered. One says that religion evolved by natural selection"religion is an adaptation that provides an evolutionary advantage. For example religion may have evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation"it may have helped groups survive. The other explanation claims that religious beliefs and practices arose as byproducts of other adaptive traits. For example, intelligence is an adaptation that aids survival. Yet it also forms causal narratives for natural occurrences and postulates the existence of other minds. Thus the idea of hidden Gods explaining natural events was born."

"The primary reason religion survives is because smart people are good at defending ideas they believed for non-smart reasons. And later discovered they are useful as a mechanism of social control."

In short religion is really a problem created by smart intelligent people to keep the rest of society stupid. But the not so smart like Jesus was himself a casualty of religion.

Religion is not the product of any one person or select group of people. Religion is as common to a people as its folklore. People do not identify with religion because they see in it something they're not but because they see in it something they are.

Christ is not a casualty of religion. Christ is religion. The story of Christ is an ancient motif which predates Christianity, itself. The story is based on archetypes and motifs found in many other mythologies and religions, concepts with many different faces, under many different names. If you see the story of Christ as a literal history of a man named Jesus, I think you've missed the meaning of the story, altogether.

I completely agree. I wish more people would realize this. That way, we might begin to understand where these archetypes originate in the first place.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:25:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 3:59:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

Forced belief is no belief, at all. Can anyone force you to believe something? Here, in the United States, the enslavement of black people existed for over 200 years. Once slavery was abolished, with time, black people began to fight against oppression. However, the overwhelming majority of black people in America, today, continue to identify as Christians. They don't identify as slaves and would be very offended to be called slaves. However, I don't know a single Christian who would take offense at being called a Christian. Black people were slaves because they had no choice; black people are Christians because something about Christianity resonates with them.

Blacks were allowed to attend church before they were allowed to participate in sports. Christianity offered them some protection against racial discrimination. Many of the civil right leaders were Pastors and Church ministers because it gave them a platform to speak out and protection under the church.
75% of the federal prison population are Christians. The only thing that resonates with Christianity is criminality.

http://www.patheos.com...
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:30:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:25:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 3:59:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

Forced belief is no belief, at all. Can anyone force you to believe something? Here, in the United States, the enslavement of black people existed for over 200 years. Once slavery was abolished, with time, black people began to fight against oppression. However, the overwhelming majority of black people in America, today, continue to identify as Christians. They don't identify as slaves and would be very offended to be called slaves. However, I don't know a single Christian who would take offense at being called a Christian. Black people were slaves because they had no choice; black people are Christians because something about Christianity resonates with them.

Blacks were allowed to attend church before they were allowed to participate in sports. Christianity offered them some protection against racial discrimination. Many of the civil right leaders were Pastors and Church ministers because it gave them a platform to speak out and protection under the church.
75% of the federal prison population are Christians. The only thing that resonates with Christianity is criminality.

http://www.patheos.com...

I wonder what percentage became Christian while in jail? Those who wanted the easy way out, and be given forgiveness for their sins?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:02:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:30:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:25:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 3:59:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/8/2016 1:54:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:29:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The only thing I'd disagree with - is that not blaming previous generations for misrepresenting original teachings of a particular belief system - leaves current generations following a deceptive version of that belief system.

I don't believe any religion belongs to any one generation; I don't believe any religion is the product of a single generation. I believe religion is a psychic heritage, a history of the evolution of our minds as a species. Each generation adds to this history.

I'm specifically referring to the way that the Romans hijacked Christianity under the rule of Constantine and called together religious leaders of that time to agree on an orthodox version, before making it the official religion of Rome.

I don't believe anyone can hijack a religion. I believe it belongs to all of us. Constantine may have forced people to conform to a certain religious form, but Constantine had no power or authority over the hearts of his subjects.

The Council of Nicaea was needed to decide which books to include in an Orthodox religion, so that when Christianity would become the official religion - they could discard beliefs that were not orthodox, but still Christian. In this way Gnostics were called heretics and writings that were not agreed as orthodox were deemed as heretical as well. This was an organized effort to make a religion - and kill a spiritual movement that had been spreading over the previous 3 centuries.

If the Bible did not appeal to the hearts and minds of a great number of people, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many ages ago. No religion forces anyone to believe in it; either you do or you don't.

You are not very bright. The dark ages was a period of religious persecution of the non-believer, heretics and burning of suspect witches. You must have blocked out the crusade wars and massive conversions of natives of conquered territories.

What you believe is a narrow view of the role of religion in society. What you left out was the substantive parts that are often part of intelligent discussions.

Forced belief is no belief, at all. Can anyone force you to believe something? Here, in the United States, the enslavement of black people existed for over 200 years. Once slavery was abolished, with time, black people began to fight against oppression. However, the overwhelming majority of black people in America, today, continue to identify as Christians. They don't identify as slaves and would be very offended to be called slaves. However, I don't know a single Christian who would take offense at being called a Christian. Black people were slaves because they had no choice; black people are Christians because something about Christianity resonates with them.

Blacks were allowed to attend church before they were allowed to participate in sports. Christianity offered them some protection against racial discrimination. Many of the civil right leaders were Pastors and Church ministers because it gave them a platform to speak out and protection under the church.
75% of the federal prison population are Christians. The only thing that resonates with Christianity is criminality.

http://www.patheos.com...

I wonder what percentage became Christian while in jail? Those who wanted the easy way out, and be given forgiveness for their sins?

Recent study finds conversion rates to Islam are highest in prison population. So it appears Christianity was what landed them in prison and conversion to Islam is what prepares them to stay out after release. Another study found 'recidivism rates' highest among Christians which explains why Islam ranks low among the prison population at 7%, once reformed they don't return to criminality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 12:32:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
You got it backwards. Most people are not comfortable calling people Christians because of the groups hypocrisy and pretentious religiousity. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of bible believing people who reject Christian beliefs and their interpretations of scriptures.

Whether or not people are comfortable calling other people Christians is immaterial. Whether or not people think Christians are hypocrites is immaterial. People are Christians because they identify with Christianity. That doesn't mean they identify with everything Christianity has to offer. In fact, the Bible is replete with contradictions; that's the reason I believe Christianity is so popular with so many different people around the world. It's highly possible to disagree with many things in the Bible, but it's extremely improbable for any one person to disagree with everything. In calling a person a hypocrite, it's not he, or she, is not identifying with one's beliefs about something, it's he, or she, is not identifying with yours.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 1:09:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Christ is not a casualty of religion. Christ is religion. The story of Christ is an ancient motif which predates Christianity, itself. The story is based on archetypes and motifs found in many other mythologies and religions, concepts with many different faces, under many different names. If you see the story of Christ as a literal history of a man named Jesus, I think you've missed the meaning of the story, altogether.

I completely agree. I wish more people would realize this. That way, we might begin to understand where these archetypes originate in the first place.

I don't believe this will ever be the case. Most people take the stories in the Bible as literal events. This includes Christian fundamentalists and skeptics who fight with them. Notice I used the word literal and not historical. I don't believe the skeptic believes these are historical events but literal events, and believing they are literal events, therein lies the problem; the skeptic sees contradiction and improbabilities (and rightly so); the Bible is rife with contradiction and improbabilities.

However, I don't believe this is accidental, but intentional. Religion is not about things which are predictable, but about things which are outside of the norm; it's not about that which is natural, but about that which is supernatural. Normal, usual things make sense; miracles don't.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 1:55:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 12:32:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You got it backwards. Most people are not comfortable calling people Christians because of the groups hypocrisy and pretentious religiousity. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of bible believing people who reject Christian beliefs and their interpretations of scriptures.

Whether or not people are comfortable calling other people Christians is immaterial. Whether or not people think Christians are hypocrites is immaterial. People are Christians because they identify with Christianity. That doesn't mean they identify with everything Christianity has to offer. In fact, the Bible is replete with contradictions; that's the reason I believe Christianity is so popular with so many different people around the world. It's highly possible to disagree with many things in the Bible, but it's extremely improbable for any one person to disagree with everything. In calling a person a hypocrite, it's not he, or she, is not identifying with one's beliefs about something, it's he, or she, is not identifying with yours.

All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:45:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

The word that escapes your mind is 'indoctrination' .

"Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant."
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:00:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

In your profile you wrote you are semi illiterate. That would make most members appear smarter to you. And what do you mean by:" and your posts are always good as man."
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:22:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 3:00:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

In your profile you wrote you are semi illiterate. That would make most members appear smarter to you. And what do you mean by:" and your posts are always good as man."

Well what I mean by that is I think s Anthony is, well I consider 1 of the the smartest persons in the forum . Top 2 . Then I commented him on his posts cause I like them.

And most members are smarter then me.

Are we all good here.?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:00:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

In your profile you wrote you are semi illiterate. That would make most members appear smarter to you. And what do you mean by:" and your posts are always good as man."

Well what I mean by that is I think s Anthony is, well I consider 1 of the the smartest persons in the forum . Top 2 . Then I commented him on his posts cause I like them.

And most members are smarter then me.

Are we all good here.?

For a semi illiterate if you knew what smart was you would have improved yourself. Now you are ranking smart members. Isn't that ironic?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:06:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 3:42:18 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:00:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

In your profile you wrote you are semi illiterate. That would make most members appear smarter to you. And what do you mean by:" and your posts are always good as man."

Well what I mean by that is I think s Anthony is, well I consider 1 of the the smartest persons in the forum . Top 2 . Then I commented him on his posts cause I like them.

And most members are smarter then me.

Are we all good here.?

For a semi illiterate if you knew what smart was you would have improved yourself. Now you are ranking smart members. Isn't that ironic?

I to scared 2 . If I learn how to spell better , It might mess with the way I think, and that I can't chance. I'll get by . Thx 4 your concern but big fella.
Do you want a hug?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:14:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:06:48 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:42:18 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:00:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

In your profile you wrote you are semi illiterate. That would make most members appear smarter to you. And what do you mean by:" and your posts are always good as man."

Well what I mean by that is I think s Anthony is, well I consider 1 of the the smartest persons in the forum . Top 2 . Then I commented him on his posts cause I like them.

And most members are smarter then me.

Are we all good here.?

For a semi illiterate if you knew what smart was you would have improved yourself. Now you are ranking smart members. Isn't that ironic?

I to scared 2 . If I learn how to spell better , It might mess with the way I think, and that I can't chance. I'll get by . Thx 4 your concern but big fella.
Do you want a hug?

Is that how semi illiterates find out how smart a person is by hugging them or by their willingness to be hugged by an illiterate? You should know by now I am a Brahmin and Brahmins like to know where your mouth and hands were before you approach.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:48:06 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:21:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All your logic and understanding of what a religion is, what religion does, and how it so called starts. Wich are all pretty , happy, lovely , shiny , bubbly.fun yeah yeah.ways might I add. Are exactly what (1 person) ( or a group) wants you to think. Every religion has to be invented. Has to be. I don't know why back then , we'll I think I know but that's not the point.
Good old L Ron. Harnessed the gullible, and every cult since. It's all the same.

I don't believe beliefs are invented. Either a person believes something or he, or she, doesn't.

I don't believe anyone can force anyone else to believe anything. Of course, people say they believe things for many different reasons; but, whether or not they truly believe those things is an entirely different matter.

Fair enough.
Hey s Anthony, your are or your close to the smartest person in the religion forum I think , and your posts are always good as man.

Thank you, but I doubt I'm the smartest; and, I'm sure there are people who would vehemently disagree with you; but, nonetheless, it's flattering.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2016 1:38:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The word that escapes your mind is 'indoctrination' .

"Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant."

Indoctrination is accomplished through deception and intimidation. The victim is taught something which, for the most part, is not real; and, the perpetrator knows this. The perpetrator is a charlatan, a fraud, and an abuser. The victim does not believe that which is true; the victim believes that which he, or she, believes is true. Once the victim starts to realize one's beliefs do not correspond to reality and starts to question the abuser, the perpetrator begins to control the victim through intimidation. Once the victim realizes one's beliefs no longer correspond to reality, the victim no longer believes those things; but, because of fear and intimidation, the victim plays along. In many cases, the victim never really knows the complete truth; he, or she, is often times very confused. The victim doesn't believe that which one believes is untrue; the victim believes that which one believes is true.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2016 2:40:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/10/2016 1:38:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The word that escapes your mind is 'indoctrination' .

"Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant."

Indoctrination is accomplished through deception and intimidation. The victim is taught something which, for the most part, is not real; and, the perpetrator knows this. The perpetrator is a charlatan, a fraud, and an abuser. The victim does not believe that which is true; the victim believes that which he, or she, believes is true. Once the victim starts to realize one's beliefs do not correspond to reality and starts to question the abuser, the perpetrator begins to control the victim through intimidation. Once the victim realizes one's beliefs no longer correspond to reality, the victim no longer believes those things; but, because of fear and intimidation, the victim plays along. In many cases, the victim never really knows the complete truth; he, or she, is often times very confused. The victim doesn't believe that which one believes is untrue; the victim believes that which one believes is true.

So you accept religious indoctrination is how the average person gets his religious beliefs. You are guilty of circular verbosity. To stick food in your mouth you don't have to go around your neck and back of your head to get to your mouth. There is an easier and direct way.