Inconsistencies of religious dogma...

[IamSundog]

If you don't believe in the dogma and rituals of the church, then baptism is a meaningless concept. There's nothing to renounce. All that happened was that some deluded guy sprinkled water on you and mumbled something in a foreign language.

If you have a need to renounce your baptism, then the concept of baptism must have some meaning and power for you.

This is not meant a criticism or a jibe (I guess this is becoming the standard disclaimer on this thread).

My ex-wife went slowly crazy and used to accuse me and others of all sorts of atrocious crimes against her and our children. They hurt me though everyone knew they they were fabrications, and made me feel I had to defend myself. Others have had such experiences. It takes some psychological and spiritual evolution to free yourself from non-truths that others try to shackle you with, and to achieve a state where they have no effect on you at all.*

Religious training in childhood is one such thing to get over.

* and I'll let you know when I get there.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

There is current talk in the church of re-introducing adult baptisms rather than childhood ones. One particular cause of childhood baptism is said to have been high infant mortality rates in ages past - people wanted their children to die 'catholic'.

 

[RealPaZZa]

If you don't believe in the dogma and rituals of the church, then baptism is a meaningless concept. There's nothing to renounce. All that happened was that some deluded guy sprinkled water on you and mumbled something in a foreign language.

If you have a need to renounce your baptism, then the concept of baptism must have some meaning and power for you.

Good point, but i feel i have been "got at" against my will, ive been initiated into something i not only disagree with but dont believe in. Id be a far happier person if i wasnt baptised, like my wife and daughter. I still feel its something thats been done to me against my will, as i said before spiritual assault!

There is current talk in the church of re-introducing adult baptisms rather than childhood ones. One particular cause of childhood baptism is said to have been high infant mortality rates in ages past - people wanted their children to die 'catholic'.

Great news, but i bet it never happens, thay always want more members, not less.

I wish i could die unbaptised, but it will never be. I realise I may sound like im making something out of very little but its a matter of principle to me, and I dont want to be associated with Catholics, Christians or any religion, and if I bottled out and went for a deathbead christening and confession then so be it, i hope i wouldnt though.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I have been brought up a Catholic, but I consider myself a thinking christian and I do not agree entirely with many things the pope says. I was baptised and I think that being indoctrinated into a religion really takes away part of that religious experience. If you look at converts into a religion they seem to have a security and faith that is unmatched by 'lifelong catholics'.

I feel that unless I loose my faith - or change faith - I will never achieve this more complete belief. Maybe it is best I don't experience it, perhaps not.

Again, I wonder if it is the same with other religions?

 

[RealPaZZa]

Establish, and codeify your own belief system, complete with all the trappings that take your fancy, and include your own rite of counter-baptism.

If you don't want to be associated with the holy C, then who cares what they think? Besides, it might make you feel better.

Religious belief is a personal matter after all.

when it comes to religion i suppose my belief is - no gods, no masters, no trappings, no holy days, nothing, i celebrate xmas cos its a nice time for families (and it was just a hijacked from mid winter solstice anyhow). i agree it is a personal matter, but when its forced onto others (like a christening) its wrong.

 

[fluffle9]

The government forced my parents to baptise me. I think that children born in Greece before 1983 couldn't legally have a name or a passport unless they'd been christened, or something like that.

 

[rynner2]

I was baptised (as I mentioned before).

But frankly I couldn't give a t*ss about it - it means nothing to me, certainly not "spiritual assault".

Frankly, I'm more pissed off with the 'Christian name' my parents gave me (and their alleged reasons for it) - I've never felt comfortable with it.
Which is why I like Rynner - it relates to me and my life experiences!

 

[austen27]

Frankly, I'm more pissed off with the 'Christian name' my parents gave me (and their alleged reasons for it) - I've never felt comfortable with it.
Which is why I like Rynner - it relates to me and my life experiences!

They didn't call you "Jesus" did they?

(Not that it would be so unusual in some countries).

 

[RealPaZZa]

They didn't call you "Jesus" did they?

(Not that it would be so unusual in some countries).

now that is a name id object to, or do my best to drag it through the mud with very anti-social behaviour

 

[Anonymous]

Aside from the fact that religion gives me the heebie-jeebies, the whole idea of the "once your in your in-there's no getting out" makes it sound like more of a street gang :shock: My parents did the whole religion bit when I was small, but I do believe because my parents were adamant that I went and pretty well forced me to, I will always have a negative emotion tied to Chrisitanity. I grew older I did start to read other opinions of religion and took my own path that I believe was not tied to that emotion, but was one that made sense to me. What bothers me most about people is when they state "I'm a ____ but don't subscribe to all parts of the Bible/Torah/etc." Sorry kids, if you don't follow the handbook you aren't part of the club. Unless you agree 100% with what your church's religion preaches, you cannot consider yourself a true __ian/ist. Not to say you don't have those tendencies. Religion, IMO cannot truly exist because in it you attempt to get two people to believe the exact same thing and that's never going to happen. If you agree with your interpretation of the Bible then that's great, go with that, but don't subscribe to someone else's partywagon. Too often, and this may not be relevant but it's my soapbox and I'll get down when I'm ready, people confuse religion with faith, and that's kind of what I see some other posters doing, but it's not the same. IMO, challenge religion all you want, because you are SUPPOSED to. Even people that are going with a certain theory are meant to challenge, because if you don't you're sheep. And sheep, whether or not they behave all their lives or not, eventually get hacked up for someone else's dinner. :hmph:

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

What bothers me most about people is when they state "I'm a ____ but don't subscribe to all parts of the Bible/Torah/etc." Sorry kids, if you don't follow the handbook you aren't part of the club. Unless you agree 100% with what your church's religion preaches, you cannot consider yourself a true __ian/ist.

I must disagree on this point, the Bible and other religious books are not 'instructions' they are guides, and as any non-fundamentalist christian teacher SHOULD tell you the bible is MEANT to be interpreted by oneself and meditated on. Sadly this medieval idea that it is some sort of rigid-code still persists among many people and even in parts of the church.

Religion, IMO cannot truly exist because in it you attempt to get two people to believe the exact same thing and that's never going to happen.

By this argument then no human community can exist, - it is a natural tendancy for people to gather together who share a similar world-view.

Too often, and this may not be relevant but it's my soapbox and I'll get down when I'm ready, people confuse religion with faith, and that's kind of what I see some other posters doing, but it's not the same.

I agree the two are not the same, it is possible to have one but not the other - but to many people religion is a pathway which they can use to find faith. George Orwell in his collection of essays: 'Mere Christianity' likened his book to a huge waiting room which many doors, each one a different way to faith.

Would you deny someone faith if they cannot gain it without the help and support of others?

 

[Cult_of_Mana]

I agree the two are not the same, it is possible to have one but not the other - but to many people religion is a pathway which they can use to find faith. George Orwell in his collection of essays: 'Mere Christianity' likened his book to a huge waiting room which many doors, each one a different way to faith.

Minor correction required here. C. S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity.

Carry on.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Ah... that was a spelling mistake.

 

[Anonymous]

What bothers me most about people is when they state "I'm a ____ but don't subscribe to all parts of the Bible/Torah/etc." Sorry kids, if you don't follow the handbook you aren't part of the club. Unless you agree 100% with what your church's religion preaches, you cannot consider yourself a true __ian/ist.

I must disagree on this point, the Bible and other religious books are not 'instructions' they are guides, and as any non-fundamentalist christian teacher SHOULD tell you the bible is MEANT to be interpreted by oneself and meditated on. Sadly this medieval idea that it is some sort of rigid-code still persists among many people and even in parts of the church.

Religion, IMO cannot truly exist because in it you attempt to get two people to believe the exact same thing and that's never going to happen.

By this argument then no human community can exist, - it is a natural tendancy for people to gather together who share a similar world-view.

Too often, and this may not be relevant but it's my soapbox and I'll get down when I'm ready, people confuse religion with faith, and that's kind of what I see some other posters doing, but it's not the same.

I agree the two are not the same, it is possible to have one but not the other - but to many people religion is a pathway which they can use to find faith. George Orwell in his collection of essays: 'Mere Christianity' likened his book to a huge waiting room which many doors, each one a different way to faith.

Would you deny someone faith if they cannot gain it without the help and support of others?

I think I ought to tackle this in two separate groups, the Protestants and the Catholics, the basic two sides of the Christian coin.

1. Protestants- They have three basic ideas, Sola Scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, and Sola Fide. Sola Scripture says flat out that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. They believe that if it ain't in the good book, they want no part of it. They believe whatever that heavy book says goes. If it's there, it's meant to be there because God said so. By saying that part of the Bible is false, you go against what the protestants stand for, the split against the Catholics due to their beliefs that priests presented the Bible and the popes could decree something else to be true as well. Each little sect believes in a certain interpretation. Let me give an example here. The Southern Baptist's don't believe in dancing. A member of the congregation that dances because they believe that rule is silly or out of date isn't going with that creed. They aren't being a good or even a decent Southern Baptist. While they may be Christian, they aren't Southern Baptist once they break away from their interpretation.

Tell me, RJM, just what percent do you have to believe in, in your opinion. If a person may only obey or agree with 75% of their faith. I used the phrase true ____ian. Which I meant as pure, as whole. The question is, are they still a ____ian? A friend of mine phrased this best with: Well, if I died 25% of my hair black, would I still be a redhead?
Dye some of your hair, and you aren't a pure or a true redhead.

2. Catholics- The role of the priest is to interpret the Bible for the laity because they cannot understand without their help. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that “The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity.”. They believe to consider yourself a Catholic you abide by what the pope, the Bible, and the councils. It's not your opinion. You aren't being Catholic if you're not going to follow the rule.

I'm not arguing that interpretation isn't part of an protestant individual, and if your interpretation falls under the big umbrella of Christianity all the way, then you are a Christian. But if it doesn't fall completely under the little umbrellas within Christianity, you aren't part of the little sect. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. If someone were to read the Bible and say "I believe that Jesus was a giant chicken" you wouldn't be so hasty to call them Christian. And if your interpretation believes that you can dance, you aren't Southern Baptist.

And yes, I would deny faith to those not strong enough to have it in them. If you need to be forcefed what to believe, than I don't believe that your opinion is worth considering, because you would have taken it from the Chicken preacher had they come across it first. Faith cannot be taught, faith cannot be forcefed. Look at all the people who's parents tried to choke them with faith. Some of them stay with it, some of them don't. Faith lies on the inside, and someone else can't change your ideas. When it all comes down to it, what you believe happens when you get older you look inside yourself and you come to terms with what you believe. I don't think that it's fitting or fair to apply that to other groups. Musicians are a good example, they play together what is written in front of them, but sometimes we ad lib. We can make it up and it's not a big deal. No one cares when a jazz player improvs something beautiful, or even something horrible. Artists are the same way, you can belong to that group but still believe that art is an inward thing, and all people have their own art. We have communal activities that don't have exclusionary rules.

 

[krobone]

Meh. I'll stick with good old voodoo. :devil:

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Sola Scripture says flat out that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. They believe that if it ain't in the good book, they want no part of it. They believe whatever that heavy book says goes. If it's there, it's meant to be there because God said so. By saying that part of the Bible is false, you go against what the protestants stand for, the split against the Catholics due to their beliefs that priests presented the Bible and the popes could decree something else to be true as well

The main reason for Sola Scriptura was to do away with the Magisterium of the Catholic church - that is, the traditional power of the bishops of the church. It may have well succeeded in this aim, however it itself causes new problems.

If the bible was to be taken as the basis of protestantism, then the problem is - which interpretation is 'right'. The answer - non of them.

"A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says."

Tell me, RJM, just what percent do you have to believe in, in your opinion. If a person may only obey or agree with 75% of their faith. I used the phrase true ____ian. Which I meant as pure, as whole. The question is, are they still a ____ian? A friend of mine phrased this best with: Well, if I died 25% of my hair black, would I still be a redhead?
Dye some of your hair, and you aren't a pure or a true redhead.

I find you reasoning flawed, it would be impossible for anyone to restrict such an abstract concept to simple percentages. It is like saying 'I love her 64.5%' or 'I am 87.2% reoccuring angry at you'. Belief is not a simple matter of numbers and as such a persons adherence to a particular creed is not statistical. I believe it often lies in the person rather than the actions.

Your friend who dies his hair, is a redhead. There is no way around him being a redhead short of genetic manipulation. If he were to restrain from dye his hair would turn back to red. It is a outside force that turns the hair black - the natural course would see it red.

In the same way it may be an outside force that motivates the baptist to dance, but again, at the roots he is essentially a southern baptist. It is like the Sola Scriptura it is not what others tell him he is - it is what he thinks he is.

And yes, I would deny faith to those not strong enough to have it in them. If you need to be forcefed what to believe, than I don't believe that your opinion is worth considering, because you would have taken it from the Chicken preacher had they come across it first.

I never said they did not have it in them. I merely suggested that some people cannot do things without the help of others. I could not speak until someone told me the words to say. I learned those words and then I could speak my own sentences.

*phew* I think i've lost the thread, what were your original points?

 

[Anonymous]

Pah...religion is the curse of the non-thinking classes. Can't cope in this world? Harp on about the next.

 

[Anonymous]

By saying that people decide for themselves, you make my earlier point that religion, as in taking in the Bible in groups, is bullshit. The phrase "I am a ______" implies that you agree with the interpretation of the head of the _______s. When a child is confirmed into a Protestant religion, they take an oath that they believe in the doctrine of the ______ians. When you divert from that, you are not part of that sect, you have voided your pledge of allegiance to that little bit of religion. RJM, if I were to say that my interpretation of the Bible leads me to believe that there is no God, no Christ, and no Satan, but I really believe that there was a man named Jacob who married a woman named Rachel. I could interpret the rest as symbolic. Am I a Christian? I find that the problem with your counter point is you seem to believe that religion is a natural thing. Consider this, children isolated from everyone and everything have been able to acquire their own language and they can fully communicate with one another, but they don't make God. They don't make religion. It's the manifestation of an adult mind, an impure mind. Children are not capable of taking and believing in God in the sense that adults do. God to children is a punisher, he's the big bad guy that's going to set them on fire, well send them to the fire, if they're bad.

By the comparison of love to religion, you seem to be arguing that religion changes in a person. Is religion like emotions, does it ebb and flow. Do you wake up feeling more or less Catholic than you did yesterday? Religion, like hair color, is a set thing. It is a qualifying thing. We group people by hair color, by religion, etc. I'd be very interested in knowing just what you think religion is. What makes someone religious, what makes them part of a religion?

Roots are a very interesting point. Religion is not a founded thing in a person. It isn't completely inherited or is something that can stay with a person. You can drive religion out of a person. When tortured, a person can be rewired in anyway you'd like. But even without horrendous torture, people lose faith and religion all the time. My argument lies in taking a sect and then going of the main path. People don't have roots in a certain religion. If you use it to mean background, then I'm an atheist with strong Catholic roots.

And I love the point about finding words in other people. However, what makes this interesting is that if a psychiatrist were to "help" the person find words, it'd be fraud. To me, giving words of religion to the vulnerable jives with me just about as much as a therapist "finding" repressed memories and then feeding the patient the information.

You're right, this does tire one out.

 

[Anonymous]

Point of interest. Children raised without language do make their own language, but it is far from complete - see any psychology text book. Further, the very notion of religion is entirely in keeping with a childish, and not rational adult, mind. If it gives you solace, then good....but it would be better to find solace within one's own locus of control, rather than relying on something (non-existant) outside.

 

[IamSundog]

Further, the very notion of religion is entirely in keeping with a childish, and not rational adult, mind.

Wrong! Religion is a conceptual framework for spirituality - it is analagous to language being a framework for meaning. And spirituality is as natural an impulse as eating, breathing, and sh**ing, it is why poets write and musicians jam and dogs howl at the moon. It is the drive to connect to the larger whole-shebang on a nonverbal, non-intellectual level and establish a framework within which life has context and meaning. Rationality is terrific but it is not the only tool one needs in the ol' utility belt. There are aspects of life that rationality is impotent to address - and I submit they are by far the most important aspects.
A religion is a set of myths and models that provide the ability to wrestle with and talk about concepts that are otherwise impossible to express. Religions are crude approximations of a deeper thing that we pursue but can never really get to. People can and usually do mistake their particular religion for the absolute truth, which is analagous to mistaking the word "sandwich" for something I can actually eat. And that's a flaw in how people practice and regard religion. But to call the very notion of religion childish is to show disdain for and complete misunderstanding of the subject.

(pant pant...wipes forehead)

 

[Anonymous]

Sad. Re-read your ramblings, study something (anything that gives you a mental framework to work with), re-think your position. Actually, sorry for the rant...let me rephrase...firstly, the precepts of religion are almost exactly the same as a child who believes monsters are under the bed; this is partly due to immature cognitive development. However, the notion of spirituality and organised religion has been studied and argued about by great intelligences. Thus we have theology and exegesis. Yet the underlying core (the concept of the religion itself) is that of immature minds. Allow me to sober up and I will provide a good psychological and philosphical arguement. Further, if religion or spirituality floats your boat then that is fine...however, I have studied religions, physics, psychology, classics and law, and have read stupid amounts forteana over the years. In good faith ( ) I cannot ascribe (due to my reading) any adherence to a religion and sometimes feel as though I should crusade ( ) for the over camp. Sorry for any offence.

 

[Jerry_B]

And spirituality is as natural an impulse as eating, breathing, and sh**ing, it is why poets write and musicians jam and dogs howl at the moon.

'Natural'? What do you mean by that? If you're suggesting that it's 'in-built' in the same way breathing is, you may have to provide evidence to back up such a claim.

 

[RealPaZZa]

Religion is for weak people that for some reason arent able to stand up and understand they are ALONE in the universe, all you have is your friends and family, no-one is guiding you, no-one is looking out for you, all you have is yourself.

Think about this, understand this, start believing that you do have the strength to manage alone (after all you managed believing in a imaginary being).

And after that you can still be a good person, its not a religious act to be a good samaritan, its a human one.

Religion is a crutch (in the same way booze is to an alcoholic) its the Opium of the masses for sure.



/Pazza stands back and waits for the sparks to fly.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey...does the fact that some of us here do not believe in religion make us enlightened? . Maybe we can start a cult

 

[stu neville]

Hey...does the fact that some of us here do not believe in religion make us enlightened? . Maybe we can start a cult

It's been tried: see this thread, though it was less a cult and more a bid for equal rights for atheists .

I was a militant atheist for ages, but am now a born again agnostic. Holding a cardinal viewpoint on an unproven area such as religion is just a tad un-Fortean . Religion undoubtedly exists - whether there's a tangible, discrete cause for it is another matter.

Does God exist? I dunno .

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed, most societal values have their roots in religious dogma...however, Kitto (in the Greeks) points out that a cross between the earnest religiousness of the Jews and the humanity and reasoning of the Greeks formed the intellectual basis for christianity - the crossover point being ecclesiasticus (demonstrating heavy Greek influence). However, the idea of people living together, not killing, stealing etc is not just the preserve of religious thinking, but is indicative of greater cognitive development - nicely explained in Baron-Cohen's (1985?) Theory of Mind, which attempts to demonstrate that by being able to take another person's position we gain empathy.

 

[RealPaZZa]

Hey...does the fact that some of us here do not believe in religion make us enlightened? . Maybe we can start a cult

Shows we think for ourselves. a definition of a cult states its pretty small, i think youll find there are too many people who dont believe in anything, so cult wouldnt be the right word.

 

[RealPaZZa]

I was a militant atheist for ages, but am now a born again agnostic. Holding a cardinal viewpoint on an unproven area such as religion is just a tad un-Fortean . Religion undoubtedly exists - whether there's a tangible, discrete cause for it is another matter.

Does God exist? I dunno .

Some people take being an atheist to such a level it almost becomes their religion. My ex-wifes friends husband downright refused to go inside a church (maybe he had a 666 tattoo on his scalp lol), i cant subscribe to that, its just ignorance (i also believe in knowing your enemy), I like old churches (inside and out), its just a shame they werent used for something more constructive.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that many cathedrals etc are beautifully constructed, and the sentiment re: something more constructive, I endorse fully. Further, on reflection, I also agree that 'cult' is too small...howsabout Society?

For Fumanchu, the neo-pythagorean golden verses also include a germ of a christian style mindset; though with all things Greek, we must be aware that their view of the world was very different from ours (not in a bad way I might add) as was their view of the place of gods etc.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I fail to see how you can claim that religion is the domain of the weak. Mahatmas Ghandi was a Hindu who also derived his world view from Buddhism and Christianity. Was he a weak person?

Many of the great philosophers were christians - Immanuel Kant - fair to say many weren't but I am not defending them, I am defending peoples right to hold religious beliefs (which it often takes considerable intellectual and physical strength, as well as strength of will to follow) and still call themselves 'intellectual' if they wish.