That ole devil called Lucifer

[vetran]

You are most welcome to reject or ridicule any religion you wish to, but talking about "magical sky friends" really just makes you come across like a 12-year-old who has discovered internet forums for the first time and thinks it's a clever put-down. On the level of me saying you think your great-grandad was a monkey...

Bless you my son!

[d000hg]

Bless you my son!

Apology accepted.

[Jog On]

Pretty accurate description of religion in my view. Would a real almighty god make such an awful job of informing mankind about his laws? Sticking odd prophets and messiahs here and there throughout history, all telling us different things and allowing lots of alterations to the "truth" to suit the powerful? Which one of these umpteen different version of his will is the correct one? More likely that none are.

If there is a god, more likely that his laws are contained in our natures. We don't need commandments to know that violence, theft etc. are wrong, our feelings tell us that.

I've been reading up on this a bit lately, especially the Hermetic stuff and how it crosses over to other belief systems that focus on inner work (as opposed to worshipping some separate external entity), raising your consciousness and living in line with natural 'laws' such as cause and effect where if you do wrong you just cause suffering for yourself that you will later have to deal with- ie Karma.

Just about all organised religions have been co opted by power hungry people who have used them to control the general population through fear, guilt, shame and other states that are counter to the original teachings on raising consciousness.

It's surprising how similar the messages of the odd prophets and messiahs are, it's a shame the general population have allowed those in power to abuse them to do the exact opposite of what they were intended for.

The whole concept of giving people sets of rules they must follow (or else...), judging people who don't agree with your beliefs as wrong/evil/damned/heathens/savages etc is just a part of the human condition.

[vetran]

Apology accepted.

Your Great grandad was a monkey!

[Gibbon]

Actually I am happy to credit Religion (especially Abrahamic ones) with being a civilising force for millennia (most religions look for order & prosperity after they gave up human sacrifice) the Commandments wrote down what sensible people were thinking..

Really, there were no previous religions as you would think of them in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim context, i.e. there was no book or law. Law for Romans was secular. The Abrahamic religions have had a massive problem with tolerance, still being played out today. Pagan only means rustic you know, no evil connation's that the Church would have you believe. They were slower on the uptake of Christos because it made no sense, and they had their crops to till, hence the pejorative Pagan. Christos was an urban evil as far as they were concerned. In fact without the peace and transport infrastructure provided by the pagan Romans it would never have took off. Funny thing isn't it that only a non-Abrahamic religious people could provide peace for the majority of its citizens for so long over such a vast area. I mean, yeah, the Dark Ages were massively civilising. There's been much of a counter revolution in this area, but the material and academic decay really betray the truth. At best those monks kept some Latin alive by using it as lessons in correct Latin.


If you look to pagans they were quite happy killing, raping and stealing (Genghis Khan, Romans, Greeks, Mayans) at least the Christians / Muslims tried to dress up their Murder, rape & pillage as they were ashamed of it.

I think you will find Africa in particular wouldn't really agree given that Christians and Muslims enslaved millions of people, I haven't read about the shame but will be be glad to be enlightened. Genghis, Rome, Greece ran in the main multicultural cities way before us. Yes they had slaves too, but not based on race. No idea about Mayans.

The commandments are the base of the laws of many successful countries because they make sense, just as 1984 & Animal Farm do, now people are free to believe they are God given if they want. Moses may have written them himself to manage his people for all we know.[/QUOTE]

Really, now you could have given a subset that would have got some agreement, but they're all either silly or subjective. And Orwell was mediocre, 1984 and Animal Farm are obvious didacticism, even a 10 year old child can decipher them, much like most religious writing apart from Augustine, for whom I have much admiration, his battle to reconcile the old and new world is heroic. His exchange of Letters with the Urban Prefect Volsansius is intelligent and respectful and in beautiful Latin.

The world is changing in many and complex ways and organised religion is not the way to explain it. It gives false comfort and then the obvious attack as in some posts above about why the world is so unfair.

God is no more than Zeus who has left his family (the Olympians)for another young Virgin and to prevent being overthrown was born as himself. (It was prophesied that if he had a child with Thetis he would be overthrown, so he got a mortal to do it and hence came Achilles who he manufactured the Trojan war for to ensure he was killed early, in fact he made sure all the heroes died at or soon after Troy, none came after Odysseus).

Fanciful but no more than the other claptrap.

[Jog On]

Really, there were no previous religions as you would think of them in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim context, i.e. there was no book or law. Law for Romans was secular. The Abrahamic religions have had a massive problem with tolerance, still being played out today. Pagan only means rustic you know, no evil connation's that the Church would have you believe. They were slower on the uptake of Christos because it made no sense, and they had their crops to till, hence the pejorative Pagan. Christos was an urban evil as far as they were concerned. In fact without the peace and transport infrastructure provided by the pagan Romans it would never have took off. Funny thing isn't it that only a non-Abrahamic religious people could provide peace for the majority of its citizens for so long over such a vast area. I mean, yeah, the Dark Ages were massively civilising. There's been much of a counter revolution in this area, but the material and academic decay really betray the truth. At best those monks kept some Latin alive by using it as lessons in correct Latin.

Egypt first produced a fairly solid religion from Thoth or "Hermes Trismegistus" which was taken on by the Greeks and formed what are now considered occult movements like Kaballah. There was lots of 'pagan' spiritual practice that was also scientific in nature studying the human mind and laws of nature that was later squashed by the Christian church with the burning of the Alexandria library and all other subsequent book burnings...

The occult stuff all seems a bit weird and very out there but there must be something to it if they are putting their symbols on the dollar bill among other prominent places.

[vetran]

Really, there were no previous religions as you would think of them in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim context, i.e. there was no book or law. Law for Romans was secular. The Abrahamic religions have had a massive problem with tolerance, still being played out today. Pagan only means rustic you know, no evil connation's that the Church would have you believe. They were slower on the uptake of Christos because it made no sense, and they had their crops to till, hence the pejorative Pagan. Christos was an urban evil as far as they were concerned. In fact without the peace and transport infrastructure provided by the pagan Romans it would never have took off. Funny thing isn't it that only a non-Abrahamic religious people could provide peace for the majority of its citizens for so long over such a vast area. I mean, yeah, the Dark Ages were massively civilising. There's been much of a counter revolution in this area, but the material and academic decay really betray the truth. At best those monks kept some Latin alive by using it as lessons in correct Latin.


If you look to pagans they were quite happy killing, raping and stealing (Genghis Khan, Romans, Greeks, Mayans) at least the Christians / Muslims tried to dress up their Murder, rape & pillage as they were ashamed of it.

I think you will find Africa in particular wouldn't really agree given that Christians and Muslims enslaved millions of people, I haven't read about the shame but will be be glad to be enlightened. Genghis, Rome, Greece ran in the main multicultural cities way before us. Yes they had slaves too, but not based on race. No idea about Mayans.

The commandments are the base of the laws of many successful countries because they make sense, just as 1984 & Animal Farm do, now people are free to believe they are God given if they want. Moses may have written them himself to manage his people for all we know.

Really, now you could have given a subset that would have got some agreement, but they're all either silly or subjective. And Orwell was mediocre, 1984 and Animal Farm are obvious didacticism, even a 10 year old child can decipher them, much like most religious writing apart from Augustine, for whom I have much admiration, his battle to reconcile the old and new world is heroic. His exchange of Letters with the Urban Prefect Volsansius is intelligent and respectful and in beautiful Latin.

The world is changing in many and complex ways and organised religion is not the way to explain it. It gives false comfort and then the obvious attack as in some posts above about why the world is so unfair.

God is no more than Zeus who has left his family (the Olympians)for another young Virgin and to prevent being overthrown was born as himself. (It was prophesied that if he had a child with Thetis he would be overthrown, so he got a mortal to do it and hence came Achilles who he manufactured the Trojan war for to ensure he was killed early, in fact he made sure all the heroes died at or soon after Troy, none came after Odysseus).

Fanciful but no more than the other claptrap.

[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of the equivalent of the 10 commandments in other religions? Do please enlighten me.

I never said I believed the Abrahamic religions didn't murder, enslave rape & pillage I just said they dressed it up in their religion to allow them to believe they were civilising the savages, natives (their descriptions not mine) or unbelievers - Islam for instance neatly removes unbelievers from the protection of God (I imagine Christianity etc did as well in early interpretations). The result is that the western world (the developed countries) is mainly Christian or Muslim and religion has been a big part of that ascension. You may have noticed I'm not big on God or the abuse of religion.

Genghis Khan positively revelled in cruelty as a way to keep order as did the Greeks and sometimes the Romans when selling membership didn't work. Rome fell to religion of course and is the world centre for the Catholic church. By the way all of these were really big on Slavery as was every tribal group since apes came out of the trees.

We of course still practise slavery in so many different ways but we are slowly getting on top of it.

https://support.peta.org/page/15378/...1?locale=en-US

https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-...0much%20higher.

The Mayans were big into abuse & sacrifice of their enemies and their populace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Maya_culture

Slavery was common in the Mayan, Greek, Roman and even Mongol societies, it was big in India as well.

https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec...20own%20slaves.

That was well before the British traded in misery following Arabia, Portugal and Spain's lead of many centuries.

Africa was enslaving its own people well before Islam or Christianity got there. It was just the way things were done. Not sure buying millions of Slaves from the local kings was the work of the church though, I am sure they supported it in some way by excusing it. Religion did eventually stop the trade though so I see that as a positive and the shame of men treating their brothers so badly was deeply motivated by Christianity.

You may not like Mr Blair but his books have started a movement and belief system that has steered and instructed many elements of civilisation so an obvious match to the Bible / Koran then? It is also in popular use now, unlike your probably excellent reading recommendations. Maybe a Bit of Frank Herbert or Asimov is a bit more subtle?

Indeed I don't believe God exists, the legends / religions are just stories to please and pacify the populace, I am not offended by thinking my distant ancestors were simian and life is a crap shoot, that does make sense to me, the idea there is supreme being out there that cares about us doesn't.

I can believe good people who believe in God can be an asset to civilisation because there is evidence to prove that.

[Gibbon]

I can believe good people who believe in God can be an asset to civilisation because there is evidence to prove that.

You believe or think? Are good people good because they believe in God or are bad people bad because they believe in God. Or are there good people of whom a subset believe in God and vice versa. There are plenty of good people in the world that don't believe in god.

Was Wilberforce against slavery because of Religion, or was it his common humanity, to split the two is impossible in a Christian society. St Paul, without whom Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect, had no problem with slavery.

"Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." - Ephesians 6:5-9

"Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." - Colossians 3:2

[d000hg]

You believe or think? Are good people good because they believe in God or are bad people bad because they believe in God. Or are there good people of whom a subset believe in God and vice versa. There are plenty of good people in the world that don't believe in god.

Why would your belief in God make a difference though?

The longer I go on, the less attractive this who argument becomes TBH. When you're young and vitriolic you think you're the first one to have whatever views you have. People who disagree are clearly just ill-educated/stupid. Then you look around and find people like Gibbon who are more widely read than you with the opposing view (whichever it is). Look further and you'll find people more educated than Gibbon who disagree with him... and so on. The Hitchens brothers spring to mind.
The fact there are renowned names who have spent decades studying all this who find no contradiction in the Bible, and others equally distinguished who find lots, makes me realise this isn't something you can reason out. It's fun when you're young but these days seems like mental masturbation to me to be having the same arguments over and over. I could be doing something useful like digging the garden.

[Gibbon]

Why would your belief in God make a difference though?

The longer I go on, the less attractive this who argument becomes TBH. When you're young and vitriolic you think you're the first one to have whatever views you have. People who disagree are clearly just ill-educated/stupid. Then you look around and find people like Gibbon who are more widely read than you with the opposing view (whichever it is). Look further and you'll find people more educated than Gibbon who disagree with him... and so on. The Hitchens brothers spring to mind.
The fact there are renowned names who have spent decades studying all this who find no contradiction in the Bible, and others equally distinguished who find lots, makes me realise this isn't something you can reason out. It's fun when you're young but these days seems like mental masturbation to me to be having the same arguments over and over. I could be doing something useful like digging the garden.

For some people finding a belief in God does help I will happily concede this. My fundamental argument isn't whether there is a god or gods, that is pointless and unprovable as you quite rightly say. My 'axe' so to speak is that the current 'descriptions' of a God don't fit and that is my main contention. The Abrahamic faiths in particular lock humanity into physical and, until recently, mainly intellectual straight jackets and have hampered progress.