10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Wolfgang, to carry the software analogy a bit further, you can ask yourself, "Am I running this belief, or is this belief running me?"

very cool!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

No, really, atheists are the sole reason our country is in the crapper. Haven't you heard?

I know! I'm just itching to do another top 10 list.

[pianoperformer]

Yeah, like our president...he's an Atheist right?

No? Oops.

[Natsu]

I totally agree with the message of the article except in two details:

1º. Why on Earth did you quote the Jesus-based-in-Horus stuff without checking your facts out? Honestly, that was ridiculous. You can tell me that we don't know much about Jesus, even if he existed. You can tell me that Jesus could have been an invention of the people who wrote the gospels, and that'd be cool and possible. You can tell me that when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity compulsory by law, he applied many pagan details to it, such as the 25th of December birth, which was Mithra's and Elagabalus, and the Invict Sun, too. But you CANNOT tell that Horus is the basis for Jesus Christ, because that's simply NOT TRUE. Geez, Steve, do some research before posting stuff, many people may believe you. Though I guess if they do believe anything you say and is wrong, it's their fault for not checking their facts.

2º. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects. They pretend they’re doing good, MEEEEC. Wrong. Dead wrong. There are fanatics everywhere, and atheists can be just as fanatic as religious people. I know, because I have been insulted and attacked by atheists just because I wrote articles that they disagreed with. No, my articles weren't about religion, I am an agnostic. I happened to check out the claims made in a pseudo-documentary called Zeitgeist the movie, and started finding out an astonishing amount of mistakes. Because I proved "their" movie wrong, they took it on a personal level and attacked me. They refused to discuss my academic sources, or to discuss the mistakes in the sources the movie used: their movie was great and it was and it was and it was because they said so they said so they said so and anyway the movie could not have flaws. When they couldn't provide arguments, those atheists provided insults. They were either unable or incapable of considering me an intelligent human being, they didn't respect me because I didn't agree with them. This is fanatism, the same sort of fanatism that is denounced (and really does exist) in religious people.

So stop selling the crap that it's all religious people. Granted, religion is a social organization with power, and is stronger and creates more fanatism.
But what creates fanatism is the IDEAL. Any ideal can make people fanatic and corrupt, any one of them. We saw it in the USSR, and still see it in North Korea. I have seen it recently, and everyone could see it in that great documentary, Jesus Camp. But whoever thinks that religious fanatism cannot be matched by any other kind of ideal pushed to fanatism is severely mistaken and bound to be greatly disappointed.

As a general rule, any idea imposed by force gets corrupted more easily. Where only the ideas of marxism triumphed, we got welfare state. Where they were imposed by force, they got fascist-communist countries. Fanatism is what is more dangerous... and though religion leads to fanatism, unluckily, many things can do so. As I was proven by some fanatics, recently.


Absolutely agreed on everything else you wrote. The article was great. Just check your facts before using non-proven, non-historical theories as truth, please.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

The article made me think of Occum's Razor for some reason. "All things being equal, the simplist solution is best". Perhaps, Steve needs to make an eleventh reason. Organized religions are just simply unnecessary. Why do we need religions to be good people?

Religions weren't made for people to be good, but for them to be on line. Since the time of Hammurabi, the laws come from "God".

People don't need religion for being good, that's up to them, they can be good and bad with or without religion. People need beliefs to make peace with death, because death sucks. Recently we had to bury a 21 year-old cousin of my husband. And you know what? It sucked. Science can tell about being one with the leaves of grass and the dew drops, but it still sucks. The father was an atheist... but when he was clutching the coffin of his 21-year old daughter, he cursed the god he never believed in with every profanity, blasphemy and foul word that exists in the Spanish language... and us Spaniards have an extremely high tolerance to foul words.

Stop treating believers as idiots. The problem with believers is that during thousands of years, they've been told that a religion, to be true, must be the only one. So they cling to the one they were born in, or if they do some research, to the one that resonates the most to them. It's all to make peace with death, and man, is that something needed! Not for morals, but for enduring some things that are otherwise unendurable.

Religions do not function because of their attachment to ethics. Ethics are the result of reason. Religions work because of the existence of death. Because it sucks. What Steve is saying is that to fight your fear of death, you DO NOT need organized religion. Your own thoughts and research will do. And that's true.

I myself found the most beautiful and resonating description of a god, source or whatever you call it, and the human soul, in the role-playing game Mage: The Ascension. When I think of a God, I think of that description. Tolkien wrote that his elves had beliefs, but they were private, with no churches or cult: I liked the idea, so I defend it. Some people would think that taking ideas from "non-divine" sources is wrong. But point is, every "sacred" book is supposed to be sacred, but all others are not... If you choose any book "officially" sacred to follow, you risk choosing the wrong one and going to whatever hell stored for you. I chose not to believe that. But people with a need for beliefs find it very hard to do such a thing, because they have been conditioned to do so.

[Angela]

I would rather deal with death by being present to the reality of it, rather than believing someone's made-up story about a beautiful place in the sky where we go after we die (if we're lucky, and if we're good.)

The reality of death is enough for me. I'm willing to be present to this big fat beautiful life, and I don't require an imaginary pal or the hope of an afterlife to be infinite joy and abundance now, while I'm alive.

That's very funny to need religion in order to cope with death. It's like putting an imaginary band-aid on an open, gaping chest wound.

well, okay, maybe that isn't the best analogy.

[Liminal Chris]

I am sorry, but I still don't see it.

You concede that religion isn't tied to ethics.


Then you claim that religion is necessary because of the basic yearning for answers. Everyone one asks why questions, its totally natural. Why did your cousin die? Why do bad things happen to good people? Where did everything come from? What's the meaning of life? These are living questions that everybody deals with. They are basic philosophical questions, so why not approach them philosophically? Why does there need to be an organized body attached to it?


That I guess is the question I have, that I really haven't seen anyone address and I know several people have brought it up.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

I am sorry, but I still don't see it.

You concede that religion isn't tied to ethics.

Yes.

Then you claim that religion is necessary because of the basic yearning for answers.

Huh? I didn't say "religion", I said "making peace with death". The flaw in most people's reasoning is that they think they cannot make peace with death, they cannot find spirituality, soul, or a god, without organized religion. Religion is NOT necessary. If any, spirituality is necessary.

And, again, I didn't say spirituality is necessary "because of the basic yearning for answers" The basic yearning for answers is faced by science and art. Spirituality solves the pain and fear of death. And science can´t do that.

Everyone one asks why questions, its totally natural. Why did you cousin die? Why do bad things happen to good people?

My cousin died at a heart operation which science couldn't make work. But what matter is not the why. What matters is that it's painful that she's dead and it's over and there's no second chance. I don't want an answer about why she died... well, I know, I know what was wrong in the operation. But even if I care about the why so it doesn't happen again, I also want the girl to be somewhere else, happily working on personal development for dead people. I want it bad. I can't believe it, but merely thinking it possible makes me feel better because her death hurt. It HURT. BADLY. Yes, she lasted many years with a genetic illness (heart problem), more than she would have without medicine. Medicine did a great work, the greatest. Medicine works, science works. But medicine can't heal her family's broken hearts, and art cannot heal it, and even prozac cannot heal it.

Those are philosophical questions, why not approach them philosophically?

Because we want her to exist, not to know about the facts of her death. Knowing about facts is cool when you can change them. When you can't, spirituality works.

Why does their need to be an organized body attached to that?

No, there is no need of an organized body. People can and should find their spirituality and make peace with death with their own minds, with their own search. That's the only way to do it freely.

What I meant is that religion wasn't born because people needed it to be good. No good person would say "I am going to believe to be good", nor would an evil person think that. But "I will go somewhere better when I die", that's what they thought. They want to be able to face death, not to be able to be good. Ethical behaviour is a result of living by reason, you don't need religion for that. Ethical behaviour, however, doesn't resurrect people (yet) and therefore is not enough for many people's spiritual needs.

It is true, however, that people in power have used religion to keep others in line. That's why Steve makes such an effort at separating it from spirituality. Napoleon himself was an atheist, but made himself be crowned by church figures because he thought religion was good to keep people in line. He thought that without the belief of a life after death, people wouldn't endure the things they endured. And he was right.

The social organization is not needed. The belief to make peace with death is needed by many people, so they can live their lives without fear and pain.

Not all people need spirituality, though. Some can be atheists and not be afraid of death. But they aren't the vast majority. The vast majority would rather have something afterwards. And it's only logical.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Angela

I would rather deal with death by being present to the reality of it, rather than believing someone's made-up story about a beautiful place in the sky where we go after we die (if we're lucky, and if we're good.)

That's very good when your grandmother dies at 81 surrounded of a loving family and having lived a good life. When someone dies at age 21, or 6, or 10, you may believe or not, but the pang of pain makes you certainly understand why other people believe.

However, I agree that believing what others told you to is not the best choice. Steve is saying you should find your own choices.

The reality of death is enough for me. I'm willing to be present to this big fat beautiful life, and I don't require an imaginary pal or the hope of an afterlife to be infinite joy and abundance now, while I'm alive.

Congrats to you. Not everybody is like you. I know someone who had an existential crisis and fainted because of it. After my father died, I was depressed for two months. My partners at the university told me my face was green. I overcame it... but I totally understand that I would have felt better had I believed in something else.

That's very funny to need religion in order to cope with death.

I didn't say religion. Religion was used in the past when there was nothing else. It's the belief that makes people feel better. And it may be funny for you, but for people who have faced the death of young relatives, it's NOT funny. What's your choice when the pain is unbearable? What makes you think you will endure it? You don't think we are talking only about your death here, right? There's also an inmense amount of pain when loved people die.

It's like putting an imaginary band-aid on an open, gaping chest wound.
well, okay, maybe that isn't the best analogy.

The wound isn't in your chest, it's in your mind (not brain, mind), and your mind works with imaginations. So an imaginary band-aid can heal the open, gaping mind wound. You find it funny? I don't want any close relative of yours to die young for you to learn how NOT funny it is. You'll have to take that on my word.

I don't understand why people can't see other's point of view on this subject. A friend of mine died last year in a car accident, just about to marry, 33 years old, one month before my wedding. My best friend is an atheist, and she was his ex-girlfriend. This girl-friend of mine has told me many times that sometimes she envies people who believe because of the comfort for the pain they have. In her own words, "I never had any problem with the prospect of dying myself, but it's horrible when other people die".

Again: the wound is in the mind. People have the power to heal their mind wounds with their mind assets. But if you give that power over your mind to an organized institution, you are mutilating yourself needlessly.

And, of course, that shouldn't stop us from seeing reality as atheists, valuing life more than anything and working hard to make things better. To make science and medicine and life standards better, so we can have better life quality. I like the point of view of the atheist, it gives you strength of mind and purpose. But I very much understand the point of view of the spiritual person. And what Steve is always saying is that you shouldn't limit yourself by using a label, such as "I'm this". You can love life as an atheist, and work every day as if you could die tomorrow. You can be curious about every experience as an agnostic, and you can have the spirituality of a religious person. And you don't need to label yourself or stick to any of those mindsets. You can switch mindsets and use the ones that suit you better.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I would submit that Steve's article is written simplistically because this is a pretty simple issue.

As I mentioned I don't want to get bogged down in details that have been discussed to death before. But a couple of examples to illustrate:

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought."

A number of religions encourage focused, independent thought including Judaism and Paganism.

"religious teachings are invariably mysterious, confusing, and internally incongruent? This is no accident by the way — it’s quite intentional."

There's a massive conspiracy to create incongruity in religion? The incongruity in (for example) the Bible has nothing to do with the fact it was written by dozens of different people over thousands of years?

"When you subscribe to an established religion, you have only two options. You can become an idiot, or you can become a hypocrite."

Or you can go with a religion that's not mired in dogma and has the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.


I think Kent hit the nail on the head when he said this is Steve's rant against Catholicism, not religion.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Are you saying that Steve shouldn't write anything because it may have been discussed better elsewhere? I don't think that's a very well thought out perspective.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Steve's posts are normally intelligent and insightful - at the cutting edge of the topic. This post, on the other hand, is a puerile coverage of the topic.

To quote Steve from here:
"Is your content worthy of being read by millions of people? Remember that the purpose of content is to provide value to others. Do you provide genuine value, and is it the best you’re capable of providing?" [...] Since I write about personal growth, I want my writing to change people for the better. I want to expand people’s thinking, to raise their consciousness, and to help them eliminate fear from their lives."

I would love to see a quality article from Steve on the pros and cons of religion, but this is not it. This is far from the best he's capable of providing - instead, for some reason, he's chosen to write from the point of view of a 13 year old Catholic who's just realised the flaws in their religion and is railing against it.

Steve is capable of a much more insightful and transformative article on the topic.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

What are the merits of religion exactly? Why would people need an intermediary organization in order to act ethically?

To me, the main merits of religions are that they explore the parts of reality that science can't address. "Subjective Reality" for example, is effectively a religion (and one with quite a few adherents).

Note that, as that example demonstrates, intermediaries are not mandatory parts of religion. (Ethics is a bit more complex - there are religions without inherent ethics, but suggested patterns of behaviour do tend to emerge naturally from the cosmology. eg. A 'go with the flow' approach emerges naturally from Daoist principles which are derived from observing nature).

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

You say you challenged the merits of the content, where exactly?

I referred to the blog post as a simplified diatribe. ie. The content is oversimplified and ranty.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Here is your first post on the thread.

Huh, apparently permalinks break if people are using different numbers of posts per page. That's kind of bodgy.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Natsu

That's very good when your grandmother dies at 81 surrounded of a loving family and having lived a good life. When someone dies at age 21, or 6, or 10, you may believe or not, but the pang of pain makes you certainly understand why other people believe.

Yup, I understand why someone would want to believe in a heaven that their little child will live in for eternity. I might even want to believe that, if my child died. But wanting to believe things isn't the reason I believe things.

I overcame it... but I totally understand that I would have felt better had I believed in something else.

Sometimes I feel better telling myself that the ice cream I'm eating has fewer calories if I eat it standing up. That doesn't make it true.
(I'm very sorry for the loss of your father. It hurts so much to lose a parent.)

I didn't say religion. Religion was used in the past when there was nothing else. It's the belief that makes people feel better. And it may be funny for you, but for people who have faced the death of young relatives, it's NOT funny. What's your choice when the pain is unbearable? What makes you think you will endure it? You don't think we are talking only about your death here, right? There's also an inmense amount of pain when loved people die.

Please pardon me, I thought you meant religion, because so often a belief in an afterlife is taught in religious format.

And my thinking it's funny that people think they need religion in order to cope with the fear of death -- it sounds like you think I'm laughing at the pain of the loss of a loved one. I'm not. I'm laughing at the lengths we go to, and the power we have, to generate illusion. When you ask, "what's your choice when the pain is unbearable?" well, that's more illusionary thinking -- if the pain is unbearable, than you won't bear it. Emotional pain doesn't kill people. It's an avenue to expand. And yes, I have endured emotional pain that I had considered unbearable.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Originally Posted by
You say you challenged the merits of the content, where exactly?

Well, I don't know who said this, but I say that the merits of the contents have one huge basic flaw, and another big one.
1. Steve should have checked up the facts before repeating the Jesus-based-in-Horus theory as a parrot. I don't know where he got this one, though I have a strong guess. Just changing "Horus" for "Mithra", the mistake would disappear. But what bothers me of this mistake is that Steve didn't check his facts before writing the article.

2. Religious people are the most fanatic, blablah. Any ideal that gets organized will produce the same fanatism, just as harmful and in new forms. I'll grant Steve that religion has done this during much more time, because before science was developed, religion explained everything, and was therefore an extremely strong force. But the fascist-communist regimes of the 20th century managed to prove, just in one century, that humans kill and torture and hurt with or without religion, just as well and just as fanatically.

In my opinion, fanatism and not religion, is the problem. However, organized religion can be dangerous for free states. Their political power in the USA is way too much. I think that religion is obsolete and disempowering, but I guess every person has a very different experience about it, and in any case, I've known non-fanatic religious people and fanatic atheists, (fanatic religious people and non-fanatic atheists too, of couse), so as long the person is not fanatic I don't care about their beliefs. That said, I think Steve's opinion on spirituality and beliefs is highly empowering and I totally endorse it.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yup, I understand why someone would want to believe in a heaven that their little child will live in for eternity. I might even want to believe that, if my child died. But wanting to believe things isn't the reason I believe things.

Neither do I. I only believe in what I have proof of. If I believe in a god, I WANT the god to exist and have proof, or else I won't believe it. I'm that stubborn

Sometimes I feel better telling myself that the ice cream I'm eating has fewer calories if I eat it standing up. That doesn't make it true.

I see your point. But as I wrote before, there's a difference between the things you can change and the things you can't. Telling yourself the ice cream is good for you is wrong because it is in your power not to eat it. You are deluding yourself needlessly. I guess you think that believing a child of yours is somewhere better after death is the same kind of delusion, but it's not so, because you can't resurrect your child. Again, I totally see your point, I am very much of your opinion. But I want to make you notice the difference: lying to yourself about ice cream not having calories or about tobacco not being harmful to your health is disempowering because you are dealing with this physical world, and closing to yourself the door for not eating ice cream and leaving tobacco. But, if you think some loved one is somewhere else, you are not hurting your chances or closing doors in this physical world because you can't change the fact of death, and because your belief is put somewhere out of your present life.

I don't know if I explained myself properly, I hope it's understandable.

(I'm very sorry for the loss of your father. It hurts so much to lose a parent.)

Thank you. Sorry for yours, too. It hurts and scares, too.

Please pardon me, I thought you meant religion, because so often a belief in an afterlife is taught in religious format.

Don't worry. It's such a common mistake that Steve is constantly fighting it.

I'm laughing at the lengths we go to, and the power we have, to generate illusion.

I see.

Emotional pain doesn't kill people.

But it makes your life miserable. My husband does believe, because he says "I only have one life and I want to live it as happily as possible. Faith makes me happier, so I believe". And, even from an atheist point of view, it does make sense, as long as it is an informed choice, not made out of fear, social conditioning or inherited beliefs, but the conscious choice of a human being adjusting his mind to have a better life... with full knowledge of what he's doing and why.

It's an avenue to expand.

I remember the two months after my father died, and I assure you I didn't expand anything out of it. I guess it's also different from people to people. I really think some people are stronger and can face death directly, others find it harder and others just can't without making their lives hell.

And yes, I have endured emotional pain that I had considered unbearable.

I see your point, but I think for some people, a sort of belief is needed. Some people are so afraid of death that they live in constant fear. Living in fear is one of the most horrible things that can happen to you. A friend of mine told me once that "Unlife is not death, unlife is fear". I totally agree with her. That's why understand people believing.

Still, religion is obsolete. You can learn so much from so many sources if you keep an open mind, that closing it doesn't make sense. I mean, even if religion gives you a ward against fear of death, it would make you think badly, for example, of Ayn Rand's writings. And I like to enjoy Rand's love of life as much as I like to enjoy Buddha's quest for enlightenment, without having to hate or to be opposite the other to do so. It usually creates mind walls.

[Liminal Chris]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how philosophy doesn't address these questions.

There is a philosophy behind each religion. If you find that philosophy comforting, go for it. However the subject of philosophy is much broader than most religions, and answers much more question with a broader scope of perspective. People should examine them and adopt what works and what doesn't. I think its important for people to explore their options and really think about possibilities. Like you said, informed decisions.


I don't understand the need for a physical, intermediary structure, that is all. I think in that sense we may be on the same page.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Natsu

But it makes your life miserable.

I agree with you about most things, but I disagree about this. It's not the pain that makes your life miserable; it's your thoughts about it that make you miserable. And like choosing not to eat ice cream, you are free to choose your thoughts.

[Natsu]

Liminal Chris, I agree in the point that religion is not needed. What I meant is that people don't cling to religion because of morals, but because they think that they need it to make peace with death. And that is so because religions have brainwashed people during years to convince them that every spiritual thought they don't sanction is evil. Steve is trying to fight that brainwashing.

Originally Posted by Angela

I agree with you about most things, but I disagree about this. It's not the pain that makes your life miserable; it's your thoughts about it that make you miserable. And like choosing not to eat ice cream, you are free to choose your thoughts.

My experience tells me this is not true. Harmful thoughts come to me many times and I can't fight them. I endured a two-months depression after the death of my father, and no matter how I tried, it wouldn't go away. I tried to cheer up, I tried hard, because that was the worst period in my life. You are free to choose your thoughts, and many times your thoughts shape your feelings. But there are feelings you can't control, and most of them are the painful ones.

Then again, my husband says "everyone will explain the world as she sees it, everyone will tell you what worked for them... and it doesn't mean it has to work for you".

So I see your point. But it doesn't work for me, which is why I understand both atheists and believers. I see why each of them thinks what they do.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Natsu

I totally agree with the message of the article except in two details:

1º. Why on Earth did you quote the Jesus-based-in-Horus stuff without checking your facts out? Honestly, that was ridiculous. You can tell me that we don't know much about Jesus, even if he existed. You can tell me that Jesus could have been an invention of the people who wrote the gospels, and that'd be cool and possible. You can tell me that when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity compulsory by law, he applied many pagan details to it, such as the 25th of December birth, which was Mithra's and Elagabalus, and the Invict Sun, too. But you CANNOT tell that Horus is the basis for Jesus Christ, because that's simply NOT TRUE. Geez, Steve, do some research before posting stuff, many people may believe you. Though I guess if they do believe anything you say and is wrong, it's their fault for not checking their facts.

YouTube - Horus/Jesus, a Comparison

Check it out - about Jesus & Horus

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Natsu

My experience tells me this is not true. Harmful thoughts come to me many times and I can't fight them. I endured a two-months depression after the death of my father, and no matter how I tried, it wouldn't go away. I tried to cheer up, I tried hard, because that was the worst period in my life. You are free to choose your thoughts, and many times your thoughts shape your feelings. But there are feelings you can't control, and most of them are the painful ones.

My experience has shown me the opposite. I'm not interested in controlling my feelings, but rather, in guiding them with deliberate thought. There is no thought I am incapable of deliberately thinking (except the ones I haven't thought of yet! ) and there are no emotions that are impervious to guidance by deliberate thought.

I think religious people (and plain old believers) sometimes "give it up to god" -- hand their feelings over to a higher power, because some feelings, like the ones we've talked about, are so overwhelming. And... I believe that that surrender itself is deliberate thought.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

YouTube - Horus/Jesus, a Comparison

I checked it out, and what a waste of time. Mythology is a part of history, I wish people didn't warp it to defend their points of view.

Virgin, Isis? That's an aberration, and I only got to the first secons.

Isis is one of the most highly sexual goddesses of Antiquity. The legends say she conceived Horus by copulating with the momified Osiris. There are even engravings about that. First one, wrong.

Isis is NOT known as Isis-Meri. I don't know where this information was got, but Isis is not registered as Meri. Nowhere. Not in Egypt. Next:

Birth location: a cave is not the same as a stable, and I still have to check out where in the Egyptian mythology it is said that Horus was born in a cave. As far as I know, his place of birth isn't stated.

Birth coincidences: ALL five major Egyptian gods had been born in the last five days of the Egyptian calendar, which had 360 days, not only Horus.

The 25th of December really was the date of birth of many Roman sun divinities, and the Roman Christians copied it. Sure. But then, the parallelisms are, as I said, with Mithras. Not with Horus.

The rest does not appear in any Egyptian legend or scripture.

Isis was the one who resurrected Osiris, NOT Horus.

No Egyptian chronicle talks about Horus starting his preaching at age 12. The other miracles do not appear in any Egyptian chronicle either. The main source for this is Gerald Massey. No wonder.

There were no two thieves where Horus died, because in Egyptian mythology, Horus never died: Osiris was killed by Set. Horus was never killed. Therefore, he didn't resurrect, and therefore his resurrection was not announced by women.

About the gods being saviours, that's what all gods are: you can find that comparison with Ahura Mazda and Brahma, too. But Horus did NOT have the title of Saviour. Among all the titles he had, he didn't have that one.

It IS true that there is a common portrayal of Isis with her child Horus. It is also true that when Christians found one of these portrayals, whether painted or sculpted, of a beautiful woman with a child, they thought "It must be the virgin Mary", since it was a woman with a child, though dark-skinned. That is why there are many "black virgin" statues in Europe: they were Isis sculptures, or copies of them. However, and then again: Isis wasn't virgin in Egyptian mythology. It is specified that she had sex with Osiris, that her sister disguised herself as Isis to have sex with Osiris, and that Isis herself conceived Horus by having sex with Osiris. Of all these mistakes, the making a virgin of Isis is the one that bothers me the most. Isis was one of the first kickass female characters of fiction: she was powerful, wise, mastered magic, was a goddess of her own right, and was as loyal as highly sexual. She is a great antithesis to Mary, who is submissive, virginal, and whose only merit was being chosen.

Argh... I don't know why people have to be so ignorant. The fish associated to Jesus is the anagram ichthys, which in Greek letters stands from Jesus's, christ, god's son, saviour. This is frustrating, and all the more because people believe it without checking a damn fact.

Again, this video mentions Zeitgeist (unsurprisingly), and uses the main source of Zeitgeist: Gerald Massey. Wonderful.

Does it take that much effort to check out it's not from Horus, but from Mithra, that early Roman Christians copied and added to the figure of Jesus?

It's not the flaw that bothers me... It's the fact that everyone believes this stuff without checking a single fact out.

[Kent F]

Dan - well, let's see, Steve called me a

1) Snail
2) Sheep
3) Slave merchant and slave
4) Funder of evil
5) Moron
6) Idiot and idiotic

Please direct me to another article in which Steve uses these words to describe a segment of his readers. Thanks.

How does believing in the Bible improve your life?

It amazes me that in this day and age, with six billion people on Earth, more than at any other time, and with easier access to more information than ever before, people still cling so desperately to one of the most inaccurate, confusing, outdated and hateful books ever published.

Is your faith in God so weak that you genuinely believe that nothing written today is just as inspired, if not drastically more so than the Bible?

How does believing a Psychic improve your life?

The Bible improves my life because it gives meaning and insight to my life, and because it's relevant. It does none of these things to you because you don't believe it.

Example - I don't believe in stock equities because I know lots of folks who have bought stocks and lost their life savings in them. To me, stocks are dangerous and evil. Conversely - you do wildly believe in stocks, and you've made a small fortune investing wisely in them. Which of us is correct? We could argue for centuries - and be right or wrong numerous times over.

The Bible is not relevant to you because you don't believe it. Yet, it is relevant to me so I'm a moronic idiot?

My point remains dead on. Steve apparently has no ability to separate religion from a Christ follower from a Catholic. He only has one experience - yet he believes his singular experience is universal and speaks for all of mankind.

That, my friend, is dangerous thinking.

[Liminal Chris]

I'm curious, what parts of the bible are specifically relevant?

The whole thing?
or
Just the parts you pick and choose?


Just seems to play exactly into Steve's "Idiocy or Hypocrisy" point

[Liveformx64]

Considering the overwhelming response to this topic. I am sure this post will get lost in the stack, and is unlikely to be read by its author. But this has been digging at me for a couple days.

I can't help but ask myself the question, if one of Steve's bullet points would have been: "Be a Muslim, Support Terrorism". What type of response that would have garnered?

The satirical spin Steve put on this article is obvious, probably as a way to bolster his site traffic and stir up the waters a little. However, I still can't help but pick up a tone of something that smells of Hatred for the Christian religion.

From what I have learned of Steve's world view I would think that the bigotry and animosity Steve expressed would be incongruent with his beliefs as a humanist.

Being born and raised in a rigid "Religious" Christian framework myself and then shifting to the polar opposite for most of my adult life. I spent hundreds of hours studying all sorts of religions and world views. My conclusion thus far is that there is still a strong argument for the case of the God of the bible.

Steve's "argument" against the Christian religion is based purely on personal experience, and I think harms the validity and otherwise solid reputation of Steve's site. I guess my question is, why sling "$h!t" for $h!ts sake?

[digitman]

Originally Posted by Publius74

I also understand how people (Americans, in particular) would find it difficult to believe that anything other than their own free will can determine one's destiny. I doubt it's as hard for those in other countries to see this because they have so clearly been shown how their own free will did not determine their destiny, but I understand the attractiveness of the belief.

Give me a break. I come from a 3rd world country and my free will determined my destiny. You create your own destiny if your will is strong enough no matter which country you come from.

[Kent F]

Originally Posted by Liveformx64

Considering the overwhelming response to this topic. I am sure this post will get lost in the stack, and is unlikely to be read by its author. But this has been digging at me for a couple days.

I can't help but ask myself the question, if one of Steve's bullet points would have been: "Be a Muslim, Support Terrorism". What type of response that would have garnered?

The satirical spin Steve put on this article is obvious, probably as a way to bolster his site traffic and stir up the waters a little. However, I still can't help but pick up a tone of something that smells of Hatred for the Christian religion.

From what I have learned of Steve's world view I would think that the bigotry and animosity Steve expressed would be incongruent with his beliefs as a humanist.

Being born and raised in a rigid "Religious" Christian framework myself and then shifting to the polar opposite for most of my adult life. I spent hundreds of hours studying all sorts of religions and world views. My conclusion thus far is that there is still a strong argument for the case of the God of the bible.

Steve's "argument" against the Christian religion is based purely on personal experience, and I think harms the validity and otherwise solid reputation of Steve's site. I guess my question is, why sling "$h!t" for $h!ts sake?

Very well written. I certainly have no ill will or resentment towards anyone because of their beliefs or views, nor would I belittle them. Steve's article drips of hypocricy. He is acting in the exact way he despises.

Sad. I agree totally on the traffic issue and stated it myself. Howard Stern has made a vast fortune belittling people - it sells quite well.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

I'm curious, what parts of the bible are specifically relevant?

The whole thing?
or
Just the parts you pick and choose?

Just seems to play exactly into Steve's "Idiocy or Hypocrisy" point

Hey, hey, hey, wait a minute there. Steve's "idiocy or hipocrisy" point is not correct: at least the hipocrisy point is not. And you have an agnostic talking here: I never believed anything the church told me. I left all church ritual and stopped paying attetion to them at age eleven, which is probably why I never had many problems with the church: good fences make good neighbours.

One day, at university, I realized that the Bible had shaped the world I lived in greatly, and thought it would be a good idea to do the unthinkable, what almost no one does: I read the damn book.

Here is what you find if you actually read the book:

The Bible includes A LOT of stuff which is anachronical, insane, or directly criminal, and which is NOT approved by the figure named Jesus (whether he existed as a man or was fully mythical).

If you take the Bible, it's comprised of all the books of the Old Testament, where god is quite a xenofobe, vengeful and criminal, and whose people praise for helping them massacrate their neighbours so they can get their promised land. How sweet

In the New Testament, you have:

The Gospels: That's, in theory, Jesus' preachings, sort of. Very similar. Non-contradictory. Pretty ethical, non-xenofobic, non-racist, non-violent, non-sexist. Quite advanced for the time.

The deeds of the Apostles: addendum with stories about the apostles.

St. Paul's letters: Now, this part is EXTREMELY important, because catholicism and most so-called christian movements are based MORE in St. Paul's letters than in the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. St. Paul was Jew, and he "adapted" the way too revolutionary Christ to the tastes of his time. Where Christ says women are equal to men, St. Paul says "wife, submit to your husband". Where Christ doesn't mention sex, St. Paul says it's impure, if you can't resist it you'd better marry, but you'll never be half as cool as those who remain chaste. And so on and so forth. The funny thing is most people absolutely ignore that they are following St. Paul more than they are following Jesus.

The Apocalypse: an oniric dream, written by another John who was NOT the evangelist, and which offers nothing, except inspiration for very cool Damian movies. Nothing serious.

If any person, after reading the Bible, discards everything but the gospels, on ground of the gospels being Jesus' teachings, and everything else being "addendums" that contradict those teachings, that choice would be logical and properly thought, and would not apply neither as idiocy nor as hipocrisy.

Of course, to do that you have to rebel against most organized so-called christian religions. The catholics don't allow you to have sex, and have given great importance to having everyone frustrated on that point... if you think on your own about that, you are discarding religion.

Not that I believe that Jesus resurrected, that's biologically impossible, as far as I know. Her mother being a virgin could be a copy added to his figure, or what gynecologysts call "elastic hymen". Uncommon, but possible. It is not even sure that Jesus existed, though all historical facts so far point to a pacifist preacher in Israel, as the source of the myth of Christianity. There is no better explanation for the root of the Christian myth than the existence of Jesus... yet. It may appear, but so far it doesn't exist.

Another thing... There is a sentence in the Bible, which says "you are Petrus (stone) and over this stone you will build my church". Well, the original Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia". Which means "assembly", not "organized institution which will claim power over you and to have entrance rights to Heaven". So there is no reason why you should blindly follow any organized institution... unless of course, you find an extremely good-working institution in your neighbourhood, and choose to be close to it because you find there people who make you more spiritually aware. That'd be an "assembly". And I see nothing wrong with that.

As I said, I am an agnostic. But after reading and studying deeply into the roots of christianity and church, it's no wonder that many people find Jesus a good moral figure to follow: his morals are very good... and he didn't forbid sex . He validated all the previous commandments when he said "I leave you a new commandment, love each other as I've loved you". That means that the only thing you should consider from the Old Testament are the commandments, which, if you have a good look upon them, aren't but the basics about not killing, not stealing, not comitting adultery, etc. No, sex is not forbidden: what is forbidden is cheating once you're married. The one with an obsession with virginity was St. Paul. Of course, the catholic church and many evangelist ones do not agree with these conclusions... But frankly, when the catholic high hyerarchy started forgiving pederasts and excomunnicating women who got ordained as priestess, I am only more convinced that they have nothing to do with the message attributed to Christ.

So, if someone chooses the parts of the Bible he or she will believe, it's like if you choose which philosophical theories you will believe. I like Jesus' message and can very well do so without being hypocritical or idiotic, in fact, if I hadn't left the church at so young an age, I might not have been able to look at Jesus with an impartial eye. The same... I love Ayn Rand's work and message in Atlas Shrugged, but I don't like her mercilessness towards non-heroic people. It's a question of thinking deeply about your beliefs and choosing logically.

[AMQ]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

Nice! New do-good handbook.

I was really into Shantideva's Bodhisattva writings as well because of just what the Qur'an is doing here - giving excellent examples on how to help our fellow man!

Which is the best translation out there?

While the text of the original Arabic Qur'an is identical and unchanged since its revelation,
you will find various translations and interpretations.

Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

In the end, the dilemma is to find a translation that is linguistically and spiritually as accurate as possible, yet is readable and flowing. In English, such a translation is difficult to find, though many have tried.

from Huda Qur'an Translation

BTW, this link will direct you to one of the online Quran translations: Click to read English translation of the Holy Quran.

And if you'd linke to have a complete PDF copy: Click here to download a PDF copy of the Holy Quran - 2.4 MB

have a nice time ..

[Liminal Chris]

I totally agree with that. If you take the Bible philosophically, it's great. The teachings of Christ are definately revolutionary for his time. They are also good words to live by.


However, if you have to filter the Divine word of God, are you a true believer at that point (in the institutional sense)? Like Steve said, you are sitting on both sides of the fence as an apologist. Are those people even true believers? If so, how are they not hypocrits? If not, why not abbandon the institution attached to the religon and just adopt a philosophical view of the teachings you choose?

[Dan.Linehan]

Nice analysis Natsu.

That's pretty much what Jefferson did with the Jefferson Bible, isn't it?

Tried to make the Bible into a coherent, Gospel centric version.

Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These "Platonists" had thoroughly muddled Jesus' original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there. The task, as he put it, was one of

"abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill."

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Kent F

Very well written. I certainly have no ill will or resentment towards anyone because of their beliefs or views, nor would I belittle them. Steve's article drips of hypocricy. He is acting in the exact way he despises.

Sad. I agree totally on the traffic issue and stated it myself. Howard Stern has made a vast fortune belittling people - it sells quite well.

Hey, Jefferson said most of the Bible a "Dung Hill."

Calling a spade a spade is not hypocrisy.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Kent F

The Bible improves my life because it gives meaning and insight to my life, and because it's relevant. It does none of these things to you because you don't believe it.

I take issue when people when they say they believe the Bible. I think that's a meaningless statement.

Believe what exactly? Which parts?

The Bible is not relevant to you because you don't believe it. Yet, it is relevant to me so I'm a moronic idiot?

What parts are relevant to you?