Religion

just me said:
Oh, I checked the interlinear greek through lexicons and concordances with cross-referencing decades ago before computers. Stick to King James and you'll do well.
Click to expand...


King James is a good version to indoctrinate yourself to obey your rulers over God.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Can someone please explain people to me? How is it possible to disown and kill people over an idea that only exists within the mind?
Click to expand...

Giving a broader answer, watever you may think, you may as well find a way to prove it in the outside world.

This video summarizes my main beef with belief systems. Extending to a lot of things, obviously, not only religion.

[video=youtube;zTLkiJUX05A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTLkiJUX05A[/video]
 
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION] [MENTION=13723]Misadventure[/MENTION]

Ok so, how can a nonreligious person believe that prayer works? It has almost everything to do with focus. Focusing ones mind, or many minds on a desired outcome I believe can actually help make that outcome more of a reality than not. One example would be the person who prays (focuses) on becoming more wealthy and because they are focused on it recognizes potential opportunities to acquire wealth where someone else unconcerned with the same outcome would not. He “prayed”, the other did not and we now have some proof that prayer works. However on a greater level I believe there is good evidence to suggest that mass prayer does in fact affect world events to some capacity. Not because a god exists but more so because focus again is placed on a desired outcome. I could argue further that because no one can give a specific description of God, its possible God exists as a combination and through the connection of human minds. Its been proven that human minds can connect through an induced magnetic field when it mirrors the earths own field. This could account for peoples feeling of connection to something larger than themselves and of which they give credit to “god.” I think NASA should be concerned with this actually because what happens when the first humans ever travel outside of the earth’s magnetic field influence?

I personally lean more toward the idea that seems to be presented best in the quantum world. Something can be affected for no other reason than it is being observed. Observation is a component of focus. Focus can lead to change.

I occasionally play around with the idea of setting out to prove things like this. It ia both mildly amusing and disturbing for me to think that if I were to prove that “prayer” does in fact change things, religious outlets would use it as a way to prove that God exists even though its not proof of that at all.
 
JJJA said:
If I think that Religion does no good for the world, then why do you feel so compelled to demand I praise something to which I find so detestable? This is exactly what religion does: demand constant praise despite its terrible teachings and history.
Click to expand...

I don't demand you praise religion. I thought that you were meaning to demean religion because of your use of the word "poison" (just look at the google synonyms for poison. Most have a negative connotation, and so does the word itself). I don't care if you personally approve or disapprove of religion, but I do care if people are actively attacking religion. I also care if people actively attack the nonreligious unprovoked. Here I am a bit biased, as I don't tend to notice provoked responses of nonreligious people, but I'm working on that. Partially because I am myself at least partially religious (undecided modern deist is probably the closest to my belief), and partially because I see more people who attack religion with science, logic, and philosophy than I see defending it on these grounds. For this reason, many people tend to simply dismiss it without considering ways to reconcile the two. So, I try to defend religion on these grounds.

Now that I know that you are just describing religion as a "contagious" belief (loose sense), then I would actually agree with you. People who encounter religion, and who are empty of a belief system tend to want a belief system. Whether or not that belief system is true or not, and whether or not following (or being indoctrinated as you described it) that belief system is good, are two different points. I'm sorry I thought you were making such claims.
 
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]

Well said. This is akin to my "meditations" so I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the explanation :D
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Your question was addressed to another, but I'm curious about that which you find so detestable.
If you could expand on the object of detestation, it would be interesting... Not a dissection of your detestation, but a more comprehensive elaboration.


I ask because it seems to me that there is a hierarchy of objectives in any Church - or any society vast, or small; some more 'elevated' and some less so. The concept of a purer religion, a less compromised society is of interest to me - insomuch as whether such states are possible/feasible/realistic/achievable/etc. Of course, whenever principles are compromised, or purified for that matter, there are associated costs - and these probably account for some of the inertia in societies. (2nd Amendment discussions, etc.).
Click to expand...

In terms of the Catholic Church, I find exactly what I mentioned in the essay to be detestable. The idea of there being a level of purity which almost nobody else can replicate unless they are prepared to kill for an authority backed by strictly papal and religious doctrine. It's a level of purity which not only looks very sinister, it is impossible to completely achieve to the insane standards which require it. It is a form of self-destructive fascism in-which the warrior classes are being converted into anti-secular knights that fight unbelievers and other enemies of the church. One must be clear when discussing the vast differences between purification and compromise within societies: one of them is practices every day by almost every government, the other is probably being attempted by the North Koreans to a certain degree of success but at the cost of every citizen there (from birth) amounting to nothing but property of the state; all you need to do is think about other regimes that wish to adopt a level of 'pure' ideology onto their state's population in the past as well as the present: Chairman Mao's 'Cultural Revolution': the determination to reassert 'true' Communism in China; Stalin's great purges of the 1930s that attempted to 'cleanse' pretty much everybody that was deemed not fit for such purity of ideology; Hitler's Lebensborn system to adopt a pure ideology based on preserving a pure Aryan race whilst simultaneously exterminating other races. All of these are examples of a society which had attempted to adopt a policy of purity to some extent. The Catholic Church, although not completely successful in its attempt to create a pure society, can certainly be said to have attempted it through religious doctrine.
 
Everyone knows that Catholics aren't real Christians tho. The pure Christian is a baptist.
 
A problem I see with religion. One Christian priest says angels and demons are real, another says they are only terminology for the battle that takes place within the soul. Who is right? Both are Christian priests and yet both believe differently. So in effect people are creating their own religion by choosing who they will listen to tell them about it. And yet, Gods word is everything. There can be no question of Gods word and yet, there is from those who apparently know him best.
If I were a devout Christian, how would I know I am listening to the correct priest? Now, I use Christian in this argument because its in relation to some of my most recent discussions but really it applies to all religions. It is important though because most people are assured that they are to follow what the priests say or be sure of going to hell.

What say ye religious folk?
 
I've pondered this question often...the question of religious interpretation. I believe it is different for everyone and for different denominations, synods, etcet-- the interpretation of God's Word or of God. I believe belief is as personal as any other personal choice and I believe no two people will have the exact same understanding of God or God's Word in the same way no two people will have the same description of the way an ocean looks or a stormy sky.

If you examine any bit of writing, in history or in fiction (or any government document lol) -- you will always find two people who disagree what is or is not the crux or the intended point. the questions are important, but the arguments are not.

Researchers are finding that there have been many mistakes in the translations of the Bible, as well as other religious texts...so I believe we cannot rely solely on the surviving fragments ... it comes down to personal belief. how a thing feels inside...what a soul says. There's just no black and white answer that will suit everyone. You won't know you are listening to the correct priest. it's what is between you and God that is most important. =)
 
Pleiades said:
I've pondered this question often...the question of religious interpretation. I believe it is different for everyone and for different denominations, synods, etcet-- the interpretation of God's Word or of God. I believe belief is as personal as any other personal choice and I believe no two people will have the exact same understanding of God or God's Word in the same way no two people will have the same description of the way an ocean looks or a stormy sky.

If you examine any bit of writing, in history or in fiction (or any government document lol) -- you will always find two people who disagree what is or is not the crux or the intended point. the questions are important, but the arguments are not.

Researchers are finding that there have been many mistakes in the translations of the Bible, as well as other religious texts...so I believe we cannot rely solely on the surviving fragments ... it comes down to personal belief. how a thing feels inside...what a soul says. There's just no black and white answer that will suit everyone. You won't know you are listening to the correct priest. it's what is between you and God that is most important. =)
Click to expand...

:)

Yup. To this day I cannot believe that people do not see the glaring contradictions in all aspects of what it takes to "have faith". I am quite honestly left speechless. And then people act like "what, why do you have an issue with that." My brain is just not configured in any amount to react in a way that it can accept any information without question
 
I was joking earlier what I said about Catholics. I think that they wouldn't be making up a new religion. they'd be following it by following what the priest said even if one would contradict the other. That's the hierarchy they have. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or the other if angels and Demons were real or not? Does it matter?
 
CindyLou said:
I was joking earlier what I said about Catholics. I think that they wouldn't be making up a new religion. they'd be following it by following what the priest said even if one would contradict the other. That's the hierarchy they have. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or the other if angels and Demons were real or not? Does it matter?
Click to expand...

I think it does but its just one example.
 
A few of the actual studies that have been done to support what [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] was saying about the power of prayer.
I have no doubt that it actually helps both you and those you direct it toward.
That doesn’t have to make it something that we eventually cannot scientifically figure out.
And if we scientifically figure it out it doesn’t negate anyone’s religion anyhow, it would only serve to act as proof.
So why not study it more? Especially when we get results that are anomalous and replicable?

Healing at a Distance

Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot

Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.

Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study

Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients

Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda

Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.

Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.

Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence

Physiological correlations at a distance

Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.

Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects

Richards et al (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and
sensory isolated subjects.

Achterberg et al (2005). Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis

Radin (2005). The sense of being stared at: A preliminary meta-analysis.

Radin & Schlitz (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study.

Schlitz et al (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology.

Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate.

Ambach (2008). Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.

Hinterberger (2010). Searching for neuronal markers of psi: A summary of three studies measuring electrophysiology in distant participants.

Schmidt (2012). Can we help just by good intentions? A meta-analysis of experiments on distant intention effects

Jensen & Parker (2012). Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds.

Parker & Jensen (2013). Further possible physiological connectedness between identical twins: The London study.
 
How do you feel about it when someone says they will pray for you? (In a nice way, not as in pray for your sinning soul).
 
PintoBean said:
How do you feel about it when someone says they will pray for you? (In a nice way, not as in pray for your sinning soul).
Click to expand...

I think it would depend a lot on context for me. I've only experienced this in a nice way once. Usually it's the just-found-out-I'm-an-atheist-and-I'm-now-going-to-hell-for-not-believing-so-must-convert-you-now sort of "pray for you". The exact words were, "I know you don't believe in god, but I do. Please allow me to pray for you in hopes that things will turn out alright." I wasn't offended in the slightest. It's more of a "You're in my thoughts" "Wishing you well" "Hoping for the best" and I found it very touching that someone offered such a kindness to me.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Ok so, how can a nonreligious person believe that prayer works? It has almost everything to do with focus. Focusing ones mind, or many minds on a desired outcome I believe can actually help make that outcome more of a reality than not. One example would be the person who prays (focuses) on becoming more wealthy and because they are focused on it recognizes potential opportunities to acquire wealth where someone else unconcerned with the same outcome would not. He “prayed”, the other did not and we now have some proof that prayer works. However on a greater level I believe there is good evidence to suggest that mass prayer does in fact affect world events to some capacity. Not because a god exists but more so because focus again is placed on a desired outcome. I could argue further that because no one can give a specific description of God, its possible God exists as a combination and through the connection of human minds. Its been proven that human minds can connect through an induced magnetic field when it mirrors the earths own field. This could account for peoples feeling of connection to something larger than themselves and of which they give credit to “god.” I think NASA should be concerned with this actually because what happens when the first humans ever travel outside of the earth’s magnetic field influence?

I personally lean more toward the idea that seems to be presented best in the quantum world. Something can be affected for no other reason than it is being observed. Observation is a component of focus. Focus can lead to change.

I occasionally play around with the idea of setting out to prove things like this. It ia both mildly amusing and disturbing for me to think that if I were to prove that “prayer” does in fact change things, religious outlets would use it as a way to prove that God exists even though its not proof of that at all.
Click to expand...

I agree and do think there is something to "the power of prayer/thought/focus/mediation." I think in terms of energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed, yet it can and does change form. Enough focused energy can make amazing things happen.
 
Free said:
I think it would depend a lot on context for me. I've only experienced this in a nice way once. Usually it's the just-found-out-I'm-an-atheist-and-I'm-now-going-to-hell-for-not-believing-so-must-convert-you-now sort of "pray for you". The exact words were, "I know you don't believe in god, but I do. Please allow me to pray for you in hopes that things will turn out alright." I wasn't offended in the slightest. It's more of a "You're in my thoughts" "Wishing you well" "Hoping for the best" and I found it very touching that someone offered such a kindness to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't really bother me. I lived in the Bible Belt for years, and people would just routinely say "I'll pray for you" if I revealed something was sad or difficult in my life. They had no idea I'm not Christian, at best existing somewhere on the far fringes of agnosticism, so I just took it as a caring comment. Also the whole foxhole thing. I figure prayers certainly can't hurt, so what the hell?
 
JJJA said:
In terms of the Catholic Church, I find exactly what I mentioned in the essay to be detestable. The idea of there being a level of purity which almost nobody else can replicate unless they are prepared to kill for an authority backed by strictly papal and religious doctrine. It's a level of purity which not only looks very sinister, it is impossible to completely achieve to the insane standards which require it. It is a form of self-destructive fascism in-which the warrior classes are being converted into anti-secular knights that fight unbelievers and other enemies of the church. One must be clear when discussing the vast differences between purification and compromise within societies: one of them is practices every day by almost every government, the other is probably being attempted by the North Koreans to a certain degree of success but at the cost of every citizen there (from birth) amounting to nothing but property of the state; all you need to do is think about other regimes that wish to adopt a level of 'pure' ideology onto their state's population in the past as well as the present: Chairman Mao's 'Cultural Revolution': the determination to reassert 'true' Communism in China; Stalin's great purges of the 1930s that attempted to 'cleanse' pretty much everybody that was deemed not fit for such purity of ideology; Hitler's Lebensborn system to adopt a pure ideology based on preserving a pure Aryan race whilst simultaneously exterminating other races. All of these are examples of a society which had attempted to adopt a policy of purity to some extent. The Catholic Church, although not completely successful in its attempt to create a pure society, can certainly be said to have attempted it through religious doctrine.
Click to expand...
**As an aside, I read your essay and thoroughly enjoyed how well it is written.**
I think it is anachronistic presentism to assume that medieval secular forces were a viable option for foreign campaigns in the medieval period. Modern states did not exist and effectively every army was sworn to the service of a monarch. Placing mixed armies into foreign campaigns could only transplant conflicting parochial interests (and the individual opportunism of soldiers) into close proximity. Military orders, whose membership was voluntary, became an important aspect of multilateral coordination because religion was able to unite disparate loyalties/agendas, and - without domestic treason - eliminate feudal and personal opportunism from what were effectively remote humanitarian missions. I don't think that it can be argued that military orders were part of a larger agenda to transform secular armies, nor Christians at large into a theocratic empire, because military orders were never effectively stationed outside areas subject to foreign attack(mostly, but not exclusively islamist). By 1500 most of the military orders had been suppressed.

There is a distinction between contemplative and active orders in the Catholic Church - the contemplatives, as the name suggests, are places of intense spiritual/meditative focus, with strong associated activities of scholarship, art, music, etc. The active orders are directed towards particular needs/activities, which could not effectively be addressed by either national, nor personal interests. In the era of the crusades you would have various orders established for the ransom of captives. Religious in these orders would exchange themselves with lay/secular captives (what we would call hostages), until funds could be raised, by the order, to pay the islamists' ransom fee. When particular missions were finished/exhausted many of these orders would be suppressed.

In the present era we have had The League of Nations, NATO, The United Nations, The EU, and other iterations of international military cooperation. Back then such cooperation was coordinated by the Church. Whether it is legitimate for a Church to step into that role is arguable, but within the historical context, it was very necessary. I think it is a very large and ultimately false intuitive leap to claim that strict requirements imposed on soldiers, to attempt to form a more unambiguously humanitarian army, had a broader application, outside the actual function of that army.
 
Free said:
I think it would depend a lot on context for me. I've only experienced this in a nice way once. Usually it's the just-found-out-I'm-an-atheist-and-I'm-now-going-to-hell-for-not-believing-so-must-convert-you-now sort of "pray for you". The exact words were, "I know you don't believe in god, but I do. Please allow me to pray for you in hopes that things will turn out alright." I wasn't offended in the slightest. It's more of a "You're in my thoughts" "Wishing you well" "Hoping for the best" and I found it very touching that someone offered such a kindness to me.
Click to expand...

I'll pray for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top