If God, then which faith (if any)?

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

"My quotes are 100% accuract considering that the book sits next to me in my mini-library. Any history book that is written by a non-catholic will most likely use the same type of remarks towards Catholicism. However, so would any book written by Catholics towards protestants or what have you. "

 

Not necessarily, but a book written by bigots would most definately be written that way. History is supposed to be objective, like the news. You simply report what happened, and maybe some quotes of what people of the time said or wrote about. Still, history tends to be written by the establishment, or by rich individuals who want to push their own politics (keep in mind these are kids and young people reading this.. prime candidates for "recruitment" into that way of thinking, for good or for bad). Thus, the history book will support what those in power in that region and time wish you to know and believe. It will present opinions as fact, and report only what supports one point of view. In modern times, many scholars and students have been recognizing this pattern of biased history, and many are trying to write more objectively and many are looking for more balanced sources.

 

You say that you dislike biased sources, well in effect, you are saying that you still accept a biased source that happens to agree with your viewpoint, even if it happens to be wrong.

 

Thus if I believed that all blacks were lazy, and I picked up a history book that told how lazy blacks were, on pages 66, 78, and 159, then I could just say "ah, this is the truth!" even though there was no other evidence to suggest that blacks were indeed lazy. Your logic would then assume that if a black person had written a history book, it would say that whites were lazy, or hispanics, etc. This is utterly ridiculous.

 

You hear only what you want to hear, and read only what you already believe. Is this healthy? If I know in my brain, and in my heart, that these sources are false, then why do I bother accepting them as if they were truth? I would ask the same question of you. It's obvious that you have a major grudge against the RCC and probably organized religion in general, thus anything that claims your belief is true, you accept, and anything that goes against your belief, you reject.

 

Now the point of this is simply, when it comes to matters of fact, you must read objectively, and be critical of what you read. Ask yourself "who wrote it" and "who benefits" and thus come to a better understanding of the source. Put it in context of the time and place it was written and the audience. Now think to yourself "what are my personal viewpoints" and "could I have written this" "do I benefit" if you benefit and you could have written it, then you are probably the intended audience. I suggest that it is healthy to read things that you DON'T agree with, to get a different perspective, and so you can form counter arguments to those who disagree with you, based on information they would use. This is better than simply reading only what agrees with you, thus setting yourself up on a completely one-sided slope.

 

For example, I would read a book written by a KKK leader, or by Adolf Hitler, not because I agreed with them, or thought they would convince me of anything, but so that I could get a glimpse of their point of view. Maybe I could better understand their arguments, and form better counter arguments to denounce them, etc.

 

Another thing some folks tend to do, another fallacy, is to believe something negative about someone or something you don't like, even if the thing is without proof and not true. It's like wartime propaganda.. "oh those serbs have millions of innocent people in mass graves over there!" tell that to the people so they get mad at the Serbs and support the war. When you look at the evidence, if it turns out to be false, then your "support" was only based on emotional

wishful thinking. If you knew it was unfounded, but believed it anyway, since you hated the Serbs, then you'd be doing your mind an injustice. The point is, find out if the rumors or true, before you accept them and let them run your emotional train.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

"Funny that the Bible never once says the words Catholicism or Catholics. Why do you think that is? I think it's obvious."

 

Actually, the bible never mentions any religion that I am aware of, by name.

 

The proto-orthodox Christians (as opposed to the Gnostics, the Adoptionists, and the Mercianites(sp?) were the first Christians and came about at the same time), were the founders of the Catholic Church. It was called the "Christian Church" until the Great Schism in which the Church became the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. Both claim to be "catholic" (which means universal, as Christ's Church is universal, as it says in the NT). Modern scholars think that proto-Orthdox believers like Paul and John (and probably Luke) wrote large portions of the Bible, and their supporters. Mark's gospel appears to have been written by one of the other groups, but was considered valuable enough by the proto-Orthodox to include. This it out of Bart Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Ehrman, I would point out is a secular, critical scholar, not a Catholic or Protestant propagandist.

 

Thus, based on this evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to claim that the NT was written by Catholics. There is only one catholic Church on earth (catholic in the universal sense). There is only one "Catholic" (in the upper case sense, ; )) church, and that is the RCC. This is just a name, designated to show the timelessness of the Church since Christianity began. The Orthodox Church claims to be universal, but they do not use the name "Catholic" to refer to themselves, but they will say the message is "catholic" (universal). The Eastern Rite Catholic Church is not a seperate entity. They broke from the Eastern Orthodox, and swore loyalty to the Bishop of Rome and his authority (the Pope), so they are in full communion and share the same beliefs as the RCC, however, their Churches are decorated differently, and they us other languages (like Greek) in their services. They also are able to ordain married men (as the Orthodox Church does).

 

Many folks bring up the same point you brought up about Catholics "not writing the NT" when they say "Peter wasn't the first pope!" when in fact, to say Peter was the first pope is correct. There was no institutional papacy as we understand it today, but Jesus gave him the first among equals (a title the Pope retains today) status among his chosen Apostles. Many consider Paul to be more of an influence on early Christianity than Peter, but Peter was still the Rock. Just because they didn't have all the fancy clothes, buildings and documents that all said it on them, doesn't mean it didn't exist back then. It had to start somewhere. Many like to claim they are the "original Church" (basically claiming they are uncorrupted and most correct) but the only Churches that really have that claim are the RCC and the Orthodox. They split over basically two theological positions:

 

1) That the Pope had authority over the other clergy of the Church. The Orthdox insisted he did not, as all of the head Bishops were independantly authoritative, however they should always be in general consensus. They have a Patriarch, but he's more of a figure-head for buerocratic and diplomatic purposes. The RCC insisted the Pope was in charge, even over the other bishops, so he had the final say if there was a disagreement.

 

2) In the creeds of each Church you will see where they make a second distinction. That is the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) came from the Father AND the Son (the RCC) or just "the Father" (Orthodox). Based on semantics and interpretation of the NT, the Orthodox say the Father sent Jesus, and the Father sent the HS. The Father is the buerocratic leader of the Holy Trinity of the One True God. RCC views it as pretty much all in the same, since they are all one God, Father sends the Son, and together (since the Son was with the Father) send the HS.

 

There is also some dispute over whether or not it is okay for a member of one church to recieve communion from the other (the RCC and Orthodox). Theologically, it should be okay. However, because of the other differences, it is generally agreed that doing so would politically state they were in communion, which they officially are not (yet).

 

Both churches believe that the Eucharist sacrament ("holy communion") becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ Our Lord, not simply his spirit or a symbol of his body and blood. Thus it is a sacred meal, and something supernatural, not merely a remembrance of the Gospel. It becomes a very serious matter for members of both churches. Other Protestants do not share this view. To them communion is just a remembrance of Christ, out of respect for tradition, or it is the "spirit" of Jesus, a blessing in other words, just as holy water, anointing with oil, or saying "Bless you" to someone is. It is still meaningful, but not nearly on the same level.

 

Kurgan

 

[Guest Conor]

Dropping the substance of what we are discussing for the moment, I would like to elaborate on the study of history.

 

When you say we can never be absolutely sure of something in history, you are of course correct.

 

But, and this is something I don't think you have accepted, is that many historical things can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. History is not like truth and morals. Many people saying something happened does lend weight to the possiblility of it being true. Historians will look at documents and debate the context they were written in, and if there is enough evidence that the writer was honest (as well as other evidence backing up the document in accuracy) the historians will probably conclude the document authentic.

 

Now, statements of yours have absolutely no basis on historical fact, such as the Catholic Church wanting to hide the Bible and keep it from common ears. There is an absolute plethora of evidence against this, evidence I have barely begun to scratch the surface of in my research.

 

Another point. When you say something like 'Wycliff's translation ended the Church's monopoly on religious truth' or the like, that is not an objective statement of historical fact. That is a subjective interpretation of a historical event. A correct, historically accurate, statement would be: 'Wycliff translated the Bible into English, with additions and changes from the Vulgate, and the Catholic Church condemned it'. Your textbook interprets that statement to mean Wycliff undermined the Catholic postion. I would say the RCC rightly condemned an incorrect translation of its own book and saved many people from getting incorrect and potentially soul-endangering material.

 

A word on the Vulgate and the New Testament. The NT books were being written by diverse authors over an extended time after Christ's death, with Revelation being the last book written near the end of John's life. These were almost exclusively written in Greek. These papers, along with many others, were floating around for several hundred years, being used as guides by Christians. Some supported certain books, others supported different ones. Eventually the Church realized that, because the originals were constantly in danger of being destroyed (they were written on fragile papyrus (sp?)) or being lost. Also, no one could seem to decide which writings were acceptable and which weren't. In the 4th century Pope Damasas commanded St. Jerome (accepted as one of the greatest scholars of his day) to translate the Christian and Hebrew writings (the OT) into the universal language of the Roman Empire and Europe, Latin. Latin was alive and well then, and a natural language for the official writings of Christ's Universal Church.

 

The Church then decided they needed to decide once and for all which books were acceptable and which weren't. A council of bishops was held at Carthage in 397 to decide this. After much prayer and discussion they decided to include the exact same books as are now in every New Testament. Many texts were rejected as not inspired by God. Thus the Bible was formed, and the council's judgement was upheld by the Bishop of Rome and made final. This official Bible translated into Latin was called the Vulgate. We know the Vulgate was the same as it is now because we have found copies of it and dated them to no earlier then a little after the Council of Carthage.

 

Now, again, how do you think the Bible came into being?

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Guest TNR_SilentWulf]

hey people I thought I would drop by and check out what mentat was talking about. I see that you got an interesting discussion going on and I would like to throw my 2 cents into this as well. First off I am an athiest and what I am about to say is going to give you an athiest point of view. I feel that the whole discussion of God has gotten so out of wack as years have went by....I mean now a days as I chat with someone about this very subject they don't seem to fit with what a different person of the same religion feels. I mean wouldn't you think that if they were in the same religion....they basically would believe in the same thing? Anywayz...I feel god is just a "figure head" like bill clinton is to the united states.....this being, I feel, was made up 2000 years ago among humaniods who started to fear death. If you think about it....back then there wasn't really anything for them to fear, except for the elements and mean animals.....but death comes to us all....and its the most frightening thing. So as this humanoids started to grow in intelligence religion started to form....so over this period of time religion has come to what we known as it today. I feel that religion in general is "brainwashing" the youth and not letting their imagination run free. I say this because in any normal family setting when a child becomes a certain age the parents start to tell the child of God....so unfortunately the child grows up knowing something about a higher being....but due to the society this doesn't mean it is what the parents told him/her about. For example, my friend grew up in a christian life....but ended up as a jew. With this in mind over many generations God simply becomes true.....even without science to back it up or any tangible evidence. They got it their mind that God is real and that is that nothing else. I feel that when I discuss of something I like to know both sides of the story, ie god or evolution. So I can get the big picture but I feel that no one does this. God is it....no doubt.....so there is no reason to believe in anything otherwise? NO! that is what is wrong with religion today...they go by a 2000 year old book that could of been written by any tom, dick or harry...no tangible evidence to support jesus or god....don't get me wrong some places within the bible has been proven by not god or jesus......but christians would say? But god is spiritual not physical...so there is noway to prove his existence...you see thats where they are wrong....if jesus walked the earth as a child.....where's the records? wheres his tomb? No one has found this sort of evidence and I think they will never....but on the other side of the coin. WE have the evolutionists....which if you think about it...seems more logical because we have evidence to support our theories, not prove (because nothing can be proven) them. You see our morals is based upon a myth that we only have faith in....but when are we going to base our morals on what we believe? For example on the subject of should gays marry? How can some judge or jury deny a gays' rights to marriage just cause a book says its wrong? Its stupidity! We have interracial marriages today, is it wrong? hell no....I feel that since we can't discriminate blacks anymore we have to find something...and homosexuals happen to be it. So what they like the same sex? Are they bothering you? Are they living abnormal lives? Hell no, there are doctors, lawyers, etc who are gay and live normal lives. If we continue to believe in our faith.....then I see death in the future for when a christian says we are free to do what we chose....thats incorrect....we are free to do only god's work and if not....well you know the consquences which is not right. I say be an individual, do what you want and when you want to....as long as its not hurting others....carry on with your life the way you want to....if your father and mother are priests don't follow their ways if you don't want....if god says thou shalt not lie....well go ahead and do it...why? because every one lies....basically what I am trying to say through this jibberish is that we have become too reliant and dependent on god....we need to start living our lifes the way we were suppose to......OUR WAY!!!!!

[Guest Conor]

Go read the 'Does God exist?' thread, and come back when you are more enlightened.

 

You don't even know how the U.S. political system works, and we are supposed to accept your less than rational judgement of God? You have seen what happens when humans go their own way instead of following God. They are called Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Humans tend to evil, and will commit evil if they don't acknowledge rules above and outside of themselves.

 

It is wishful thinking to think humans would live in utopia if we would only just be nice. This will not happen. We are fallen, and only Jesus can save us.

 

I am interested to see what evidence you have for evolution. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, but scientifically and probability-wise Darwinism is a crock. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have looked for scientific evidence for Darwinism, and I haven't found any.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited January 21, 2000).]

[Guest Xx_Mentat_xX]

Kurgan:

 

"Not necessarily, but a book written by bigots would most definately be written that way."

 

If you care to run to your local library, then you can see for yourself, but you would be wasting your time. There is no more bigotry in my sources than in just about anything else anyone here has posted, especially the exerpts posted by Conor.

 

"History is supposed to be objective, like the news. You simply report what happened, and maybe some quotes of what people of the time said or wrote about."

 

Yes, it is suppose to be, but you can never really tell. come on guys, use some sense here. A historian will record what he saw through his own eyes. Does it travel directly through those eyes onto a piece of paper? No, it goes to the brain(brainwashing). History can very easily, and is most likely ALWAYS opinionated, because of the writers views. He/she will most likely not even be aware that they are being anything other than objective. What do I have to do to point this out to people. It is common sense. you guys are just repeating what I have been saying all along, but in your own words.

 

"Still, history tends to be written by the establishment, or by rich individuals who want to push their own politics (keep in mind these are kids and young people reading this.. prime candidates for "recruitment" into that way of thinking, for good or for bad). Thus, the history book will support what those in power in that region and time wish you to know and believe. It will present opinions as fact, and report only what supports one point of view."

 

Exactly why your sources are no better than anyone elses. Exactly why any document written by the Catholic Church is no better than anyone elses. Can you feel the logic? Cha Ching!

 

"In modern times, many scholars and students have been recognizing this pattern of biased history, and many are trying to write more objectively and many are looking for more balanced sources."

 

That is something that although is highly appreciated by me, is long overdue.

 

"You say that you dislike biased sources, well in effect, you are saying that you still accept a biased source that happens to agree with your viewpoint, even if it happens to be wrong."

 

No, I am not saying that I dislike biased sources. There are ONLY biased sources. If I wanted to learn the difference between two seperate cultures, I would learn about both from reading books by both, and then I would read a book by someone who is of neither. Even the outsider who belongs to neither will be inclined to lean towards one more than the other(opinionated).

 

"You hear only what you want to hear, and read only what you already believe. Is this healthy?

 

I don't hear only what I want to hear, or read what I already believe. This is what I am saying about you, and anyone else that belongs to an organized religion. It is very UNHEALTHY.

 

"If I know in my brain, and in my heart, that these sources are false, then why do I bother accepting them as if they were truth? I would ask the same question of you."

 

I don't know, why would you, I don't? Just because something is biased, doesn't mean that it is inaccurate to everyone. The only unbiased piece of history that exists is the Bible. I'm asking you to question your sources, not to believe that they are false, but to believe in the possibility that they just might be false. That is common sense.

 

"It's obvious that you have a major grudge against the RCC and probably organized religion in general, thus anything that claims your belief is true, you accept, and anything that goes against your belief, you reject."

 

I don't have a mojor grudge against the RCC. It is the people that have been brainwashed by them that shoud hold a grudge, that doesn't include me. You don't know my belief, so how could you believe what you have said? You assume too much, as usual. I could say the same about you. Anything that goes against your belief, you reject. I on the other hand, at least consider the possibility that what doesn't fit into my belief could be right.

 

"Now the point of this is simply, when it comes to matters of fact, you must read objectively, and be critical of what you read. Ask yourself "who wrote it" and "who benefits" and thus come to a better understanding of the source. Put it in context of the time and place it was written and the audience. Now think to yourself "what are my personal viewpoints" and "could I have written this" "do I benefit" if you benefit and you could have written it, then you are probably the intended audience. I suggest that it is healthy to read things that you DON'T agree with, to get a different perspective, and so you can form counter arguments to those who disagree with you, based on information they would use. This is better than simply reading only what agrees with you, thus setting yourself up on a completely one-sided slope."

 

Exactly what I've been saying all along, nice to see others finally getting it.

 

"For example, I would read a book written by a KKK leader, or by Adolf Hitler, not because I agreed with them, or thought they would convince me of anything, but so that I could get a glimpse of their point of view. Maybe I could better understand their arguments, and form better counter arguments to denounce them, etc."

 

Exactly, btw I've read a book or so on Adolf Hitler, and I would have to say that he was a very interesting man.

 

"Another thing some folks tend to do, another fallacy, is to believe something negative about someone or something you don't like, even if the thing is without proof and not true. It's like wartime propaganda.. "oh those serbs have millions of innocent people in mass graves over there!" tell that to the people so they get mad at the Serbs and support the war. When you look at the evidence, if it turns out to be false, then your "support" was only based on emotional

wishful thinking. If you knew it was unfounded, but believed it anyway, since you hated the Serbs, then you'd be doing your mind an injustice. The point is, find out if the rumors or true, before you accept them and let them run your emotional train."

 

Exactly, Washington himself warned us not to get involved in foreign affairs. Too bad they didn't take his advice.

 

"Actually, the bible never mentions any religion that I am aware of, by name."

 

Thats exactly what I mean.

 

Oh yes, thanks for the history lesson, I'll admit, some of that is a few steps further than I have bothered to look. I will admit that it is very interesting, and will look into everything that you've said. I do however respect everyone in here for 'taking up for their beliefs,' most christians don't do this.

 

Conor:

 

"Now, statements of yours have absolutely no basis on historical fact, such as the Catholic Church wanting to hide the Bible and keep it from common ears. There is an absolute plethora of evidence against this, evidence I have barely begun to scratch the surface of in my research."

 

It goes both ways. You can compile evidence that the pope is satan himself, but most wouldn't believe it.

 

"Another point. When you say something like 'Wycliff's translation ended the Church's monopoly on religious truth' or the like, that is not an objective statement of historical fact. That is a subjective interpretation of a historical event."

 

Exactly like all of the exerpts you have showed us so far as well. =Þ

 

TNR_Silentwulf:

 

"If you think about it....back then there wasn't really anything for them to fear, except for the elements and mean animals.....but death comes to us all....and its the most frightening thing."

 

Back then people would have had MORE fear, for there were many more Gods, and the world didn't seem to be as civilized. We've all heard stories of Dragons, and other strange creatures. Those things don't exist today, as far as I know. It seems that they possibly had more to fear.

 

"even without science to back it up or any tangible evidence."

 

There is pleny of evidence to support alot of the things in any religion.

 

"How can some judge or jury deny a gays' rights to marriage just cause a book says its wrong?"

 

Because the american government was founded by christians, it is considered to be by many people, judeo/christian.

 

On your comments about homosexuals, we don't really have to get into the biblical verses on this one, cause it will spark another huge debate, well, unless you guys really want to, heh. If we were meant to do the hanky panky with our own sex, then why do only women become inpregnated?

 

You say there is no evidence to back up religion, but what backs up your theory that we should just do whatever we want to? It goes both ways. If you have never really had Faith in God, then religion will be very difficult for you to understand. Read the ENTIRE bible before you mark it as incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Conor]

I notice you didn't bother to respond to hardly any of my points, including the most important one, where do you think the Bible came from?

 

You make it more and more clear that you believe without evidence because you refuse to believe concrete evidence exists. That is awfully convenient. If anyone brings up something you don't like you promptly ignore it and say, 'you're biased, I don't have to listen to you'. It enables you to choose what you believe in because in your own mind no one will be able to prove you wrong. Oh well, ignorance is bliss. Dismiss the study of history if you want. I am sure historians would be offended if they knew you thought the subjects they have devoted their lives to are a waste of time because they will never know anything. Live comfortably in the idea that everything that happened before you were born is an unknowable fog.

 

You said you read a book on Hitler. Do you believe he existed? Why? Do you watch the news? Do you believe what it tells you? Why? Do you believe in Antarctica? Why? You can say you trust your sources, but if all sources are corrupt and too biased to be concrete, why believe anything?

 

My points come from the research of lifetimes of intellectually honest men who wanted nothing more than to shed light on the past so that all may know the truth. Many entered their research in an attempt to verify what they already believed, yet ended up changing their beliefs once the truth became known. Sort of explodes your whole idea, now doesn't it?

 

If you think I am attacking your beliefs, I am. Your views are an insult to any serious historian. Not all sources are biased. All people are opinionated, but most are able to separate their opinions and interpretations of facts from the facts themselves.

 

Actually, I think it's kind of sad that you think so little of humanity that you don't even think anyone can look at things objectively.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited January 21, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

If you actually do believe that we can know concrete historical events, or science (are the scientists all biased and untrustworthy too?), then you have not made this very clear at all.

 

What you have made clear is that you believe everything you haven't seen with your own eyes is untrustworthy and unknowable. Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Personal faith, I would point out, is older than organizied religion, and it can also be younger. So apparently age and establishment of a tradition doesn't matter to most people.

 

I just don't get why so many people can say they are better off inventing their own belief system (or even one based off of picking and choosing from other faiths) rather than trusting any system that's already been around. I'm just curious as to their rationale.

 

Mentat, you said that we had different definitions of fact, I was merely agreeing with you. You basically proved that the truth is whatever one wants to believe (you trust biased sources that happen to agree with your opinion). To you apparently, an opinion is fact. Whereas in the dictionary and in philosophy, truth is one thing, and one thing only.

 

I wonder, if what you said was true: that the only reason anyone is a Catholic is that "they have the oldest Christian religion." Really? I just got through saying the age of a faith doesn't matter to most people. The only reason I can see for someone joining the "oldest X" argument is that they would have to assume the Christian message in its modern context was corrupted, thus they would go after the earliest (and therefore more pure) message. Perhaps this is true, as many people throughout history (many of whom begun their own Christian churches) say that they are trying to get the "original uncorrupted" vision of Christianity.

 

Rationally, I would say that if Christianity were true, and if you knew that some visions of it were corrupt, you would be wise to seek the truth from it. However, if Christianity is wrong to begin with, it doesn't matter which denomination you pick.

 

I'm not saying others are necessarily right or wrong, I don't claim to know the whole truth. I am just curious as to what people think about verious things, but also WHY they think what they think. Anybody can say anything, but not everyone can explain it.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

If you care to run to your local library, then you can see for yourself, but you would be wasting your time. There is no more bigotry in my sources than in just about anything else anyone here has posted, especially the exerpts posted by Conor.

 

Please, show me how your sources are not bigotted. And also show me how the sources we have quoted are. I can say the sky is actually green but can I back it up? Please give me some examples.

 

Definition of bigot, from our late friend Webster's Dictionary:

bigot

one who holds blindly and intolerably to a particular creed, opinion, etc.

 

Now tell me, who is the more bigotted, one who holds to a position zealously without supporting evidence, and with anger and hatred towards those who disagree, or one who considers other opinons and tests facts, then comes to a position that can be changed?

 

Again, Mentat, I ask you, HOW can you accept ANY source on ANY subject, if, like you claim, no source cannot trusted (since they are "brainwashed" or "biased"? If all sources are biased, why do you choose any? If you are after the "truth" why do you only pick sources that attack those you dislike? That, my friend, is what we call "slanted news."

 

As long as we are defining terms here, let's define brainwashed.

brainwashed

To indoctrinate to so thoroughly as to effect a radical change of beliefs

 

Thus to brainwash somebody, you get them to change their convictions based on indoctrination. What is indoctrination?

 

(according to our same lovable Websters)

 

indoctrination

To instruct in, or imdue with, doctrines or theories

 

(imdue means to dye with or to permeat with ideas, emotions, etc)

doctrine

something taught, esp. as the principles of a religion, political party, etc; tenet or tenets; dogma

theory

a speculative plan, a formamulation of underlying principles of certain observed phenomenon which has been verified to some degree, the principles of an art or science rather than its practice, a conjecture, a guess

opinion

a belief based not on certainty, but on what seems true or probable, an evaluation, estimation, etc, forma expert judgement

truth

a being true, specif., a)a sincerity; honesty b) conformity with fact c) reality; actual existence d) correctness; accuracy; that which is true, and established fact -- in truth truly

fact

a deed, esp. a criminal deed [an accessory before (or after) the fact], a thing that has actually happened or is really true, reality; truth, something stated to be true -- as a matter of fact in reality: also in fact

 

There, I think we've been using those words alot, now there's what they mean. ; )

 

===========

 

Mentat, we seem to agree on certain things, and misunderstand about others. Is this just a case of "nyah, nyah, I'm better than you!" or isn't it?

 

I don't hear only what I want to hear, or read what I already believe. This is what I am saying about you, and anyone else that belongs to an organized religion. It is very UNHEALTHY.

 

Anyone who belongs to organized religion is a bigot, you are saying. I am saying you are wrong. I read sources I disagree with, I compare opinions of many sources, and I read critically. I do not accept what I read blindly as fact. Yet, I belong to an organized religion. Seems your logical proof was disproved there, sorry. Your claim that organized religions are false makes me wonder.. how can you, on your own authority, pick and choose beliefs from those (false, as you claim) religions and then be right?

 

Is what you are trying to say that these religions HAVE the truth, but only pieces of it, and thus by picking and choosing what you like from each religion, you can piece together the whole truth? If this is so, how do you know which ones are true, and which ones are false? Not putting aside a counter argument like "well you do the same thing" I would like to ask you honestly, how do you KNOW which ones are true? Or are you just guessing? If you are guessing, then what are you criteria for deciding if something in a religion is true or not?

 

If organized religion is fallible, tell me why personal belief is better. Other than having a problem with authority or the like, why should someone do what you propose?

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 21, 2000).]

[Zoom Rabbit]

Okay. I'm going to take a look at your questions Kurgan, and see if I can help. Although I started my exploration of this God question with opinions very much similar to Mentat's, I have since come to believe that such was not the best approach to truth. Maybe I can introduce a POV from roughly in the middle of this debate.

 

I rejected religion when I had my first real mystic experience. The reality of what had happened to me far outweighed what I considered to be cultural beliefs, so I said: "You guys don't have it right. I won't listen to you." It seemed to me that the bible study groups and evangelists I'd been exposed to were more close-minded than anything else, and often their doctrines were blatantly concerned with controlling what I thought and felt. Being a teenager, my response was utter rebellion. Looking back on those days, I can understand what Mentat is saying. It's a position mostly based on mistrust...in fact, I still mistrust religious authority to a large degree, and it is this mistrust that keeps me from going to church. How can we trust the motives of small-minded, mean little people who are probably more interested in our wallets and worldview than helping us find God? For me, accepting the words of these idiots as truth was out of the question; only God was qualified to tell me who He was, and for humans to attempt to do so was folly.

 

Then, years later, I was lucky enough to find my way to the truth (as I explained earlier, it is something I experienced, but cannot fully understand well enough to put in words.) To my astonishment, the truth I experienced was reflected here and there in other religions...the same things, the same ideas, only phrased differently and set in a different cultural context. Chagrined, I realized that while my reasons for mistrusting other humans were sound, there was also reason to believe that some of them had the very best of intentions. Behind the collection plate, the confession box and the rest of the subtle manipulation was an agenda that really was for helping me find God. I'm not just talking about Catholicism or Christianity in general, but all of them; I'm willing to accept that there might be a religion out there that isn't dedicated to God (or Gods plural, depending on how our little monkey minds choose to interpret Him), but I have yet to find one--not counting cults, or the Church of Satan, which clearly haven't passed the test of time.

 

That's really what I think gives a religion its validity: the test of time. People have been using the same set of beliefs and concept of God for so long that they've already had chance to weed out the ideas which might not be true, and the remaining ideas have been proven to stand up in debate. I mean, I could arbitrarily start my own religion saying that God was a giant woodpecker living on Titan...but that religion would not stand up for long in a culture where people are seeking the truth. If the religion fails to bring people to the truth, they simply won't believe it anymore.

 

Can one pick and choose what beliefs one finds true from different religions? Sure...provided that one is honest enough with oneself to separate what seems to be true and what one wants to be true. This is exactly where so many polyreligious people screw up...and how we wind up with kooks on the Internet who think they're the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and can psychically communicate with dead spirits at will. This is why I say: choose a religion and stick with it, even though it's not what I, myself did.

 

If anyone's still wondering how I can think that all religions are talking about the same truths, go back a page or so to the "Forest and the Tree" metaphor I already set in words. If you still don't get what I'm saying, I can only shrug.

 

Kurgan, I believe that you expressed an interest in "overlaps" amoung religions, areas I once implied could be considered validation for considering the equality of religious doctrines. My best and favorite example is the notion of trinity that I talked about back in the "Does God Exist?" thread. It's basically a common vision that the enlightened receive with the introduction of the Holy Spirit, a revelation of the universe's creation. These folks have all experienced the same thing, and tried their best to put it into words. They each seem different, because they are each from different religions, cultures, etc., but the commonalities are there, and I'm going to use bold-print numbers in parentheses to help us keep track. Here we go...

 

In Christianity we find the idea of Trinity, or the Father (1), the Son (2) and the Holy Ghost (3)...

 

In Taoist/Buddhist philosophy, there is the description of Yin-Yang. The Yin (1) is the 'masculine' creative force and the Yang (2) is the 'feminine.' the squiggly line in between represents their interaction (3.)

 

In the Jewish Kabbalah, the meditator works with three distinct 'energy resonance centers' outside of the body as he approaches his conceptualization of God. The first is Keter, or 'crown' (1), the second is Hokhmah, or 'understanding' (2), and the third is Binah or 'womb' (3.)

 

The native creation myth is a universal theme amoung our world's people. It tends to be one of the first oral traditions that more primitive societies pass on to the next generation. Most describe this creation in a remarkably similar fashion: a father (1) and mother (2) together create the world (3.) Hmmm...

 

I also dealt with this idea as numerical concepts in the other thread, but in the interest of saving my strained eyesight ( ) I will fall back on my signature, which is my own version of this 'creation vision':

 

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary (3) between intersecting domains of high (1) and low (2) energy."

 

[This message has been edited by Zoom Rabbit (edited January 24, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Sounds like a bit more of a stretch to me.

 

I think one could probably say, of the religions today that have been around for "enough time" that about 25% of them agree with another 25%. Every religion will agree with at least ONE other religion out there (this is the concept of syncretism.. that one or more faiths are alike in some manner, at least structurally or conceptually), but not to all ones. You cannot reconcile Christianity with all other faiths, but you could probably do so with at least one other one.

 

Thus you end up still, with many paradoxes, and problems.. UNLESS like I said, you pick and choose only those concepts which "agree" (to put it in a better way than simply "what you want to believe"). Assuming you are honest and being educated, you choose from the religions of the world the similarities. However, you still run the risk of dilutting each faith.

 

Perhaps you have a religion that indictates one is saved when one has riches and is prosperous. Then you have another that says that one gives up everything and is penniless and homeless to be saved. Then you have another faith that says you must not seek to be saved. What do you do? Get rich, then give it all away while not being saved, then become saved? It sounds like an impossibility, as one has to contradict at least ONE of the faiths to make it work.

 

Then perhaps you would suggest that those faiths which could NOT be reconciled would be simply false faiths. This assumes that the majority of people on earth agree and are right. I would suggest that an awful lot of faiths would be "weeded out" this way. But this is perhaps what you were saying.

 

However, I would further suggest, that eventually you would come to a toss up (and this fits into your "everything is equal" belief) which is that you reject basically everything up to one or two faiths.

 

It is possible to have a "pseudo" religious background by using say "Tao Philosophy" and "Zen Meditation" along with Christianity, or something of that sort.

 

The Bahai faith claims to have all religions and their truths rolled into one. However they run into the same difficulties I have mentioned before, which is that they are forced to dilute the beliefs of many of those in favor of the overlaps, plus they introduce their own new beliefs to merge it into a central theme that ends up being alien to each component.

 

So then what one is left with after all that is either:

 

1) All faiths are wrong and so you can just forget it (unless perhaps #4 happens). This is what AhnFahn seems to suggest.

 

2) All faiths are wrong and so you should just make one up, or more "properly" reason and use conscience, etc, to come up with your own principles, perhaps borrowing from those around you. This is what Mentat has suggested.

 

3) Pick a religion, ANY religion and go with it. Or more properly, pick on that best gels with your conscience, reasoning, etc and go with it. ZM appears to be suggesting this.

 

4) Or wait for some cosmic event, sign, vision, or miracle to decide for you (which is what you claim to have done ZM, I think).

 

Or one could go the "I think X faith is correct" route and choose one based on what you think is right. Which I think is what myself and many have done. If I was to find out tomorrow that my whole faith was false, then I would be forced to do much soul searching to find the answer, from above (back to square one). That's how I see it.

 

Kurgan

[Zoom Rabbit]

Don't worry, Kurgan. That won't happen to you...

 

Yes, I agree that conflicting beliefs between the religious systems can make an attempt to integrate them philosophically impossible. If we accept the next logical conclusion from this line of reasoning, one would conclude that not all of the belief systems are correct. This means that whole belief systems are in error, and whole cultures are being misled by erroneous concepts...which is itself stretching reason. Is it possible that religion X has been in error for, say, 2500 years...and in all that time, it has been preserved unquestioned by culture X, and is still considered true despite the influence of other religions which 'do' have the truth? That means implying that an awful lot of people, many of them quite smarter than you, I or even TAF, have been wasting their time over the millenia!

 

So, if we consider Zoom Rabbit's theory that they are all (or at least most of them) correct, why then can't we compare them in detail and find that the details agree? Wouldn't logic insist that what is true in one religion be true in another? After all, reality is reality, and the religions are the malleable concepts which must reflect that reality...

 

I'm going to return to my forest metaphor to help explain my position on this... If we think of each religion as a path, which is directed toward the goal (the magic apple tree), then each path would cover different ground, coming from different directions and converging on the tree in the center of the forest. If overlaid on a map, one could see how the paths wander apart, visiting different features in the landscape, and meet at that all-important goal...but we, being simple villagers, don't have a comprehensible topographical map. The entirety of what we know is what we have seen from the ground, from each of our paths. Some few have climbed a tree here and there ( ) and seen around a little, but still no one has a precise and accurate scale map of the landscape. How could we? We're just village folk.

 

So no, those religions aren't going to agree on the details. Each one will describe a completely different path from the others...that converge together at their common goal. In a way, that goal will be the only thing they must have in common.

 

Call it salvation.

 

Call it moksha.

 

Call it zen.

 

Call it the great spirit.

 

Call it the Amitabha Buddha.

 

Call it God. Whichever term you use, He will know it's you calling...

 

Seriously...it's my reasoning that the end result of most (if not, indeed, all) religions is intended to be union with God. I know Conor just hates hearing that idea ( ), but I still insist that the Christian idea of living with God in heaven and the Buddhist idea of merging with God in heaven are just different cultural interpretations of the same process. If we take this one meter with us in our analysis of other religions ("What is the intended end result of your religion?"), we'll probably have the best luck in objectively weeding out those which might not be headed toward the goal.

 

To return to the forest metaphor yet again: if one of the paths a traveler describes is about a deep land with high boulders, and under the largest boulder is a giant, dark cavity much like a house, in which one can find small, moist food growing in the dirt...well, we can say with at least some certainty that this one is not talking about the magic apple tree. We just have to take with us the understanding that because these paths are all desribed from differing points of view, they will not describe things exactly the same way. A big stick with wet root-food is the same as a bug bush with white meat-food...which is also the same as the big follicle that sprouts the wonderous new food known as fruit.

 

Does this help? Probably not. *Sigh*

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

I know what you are saying. I have never said that other religions are completely wrong. However, they cannot all be completely right. So yes, I would say many very intelligent people have been satisfied with part of the truth, when the full truth is out there. Why they are satisfied is a different story, either because of fear for the complete truth or not knowing of the truth through no fault of their own.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill