Curious parallel to what has been happening in the Catholic church over the past couple decades as well. Liberal "Western" churches vs. Conservative "Global" churches... and the slowsteady fracturing thereof.
Serves them all right for being part of a dogmatic tradition based on a book written by paternalistic authoritarian humans. :>D
Religion is bad.
Adkinson is a charlatan.
So many people want it there way, right away. Folks like Askinson who do the work of grinding through bureaucracies are vastly under valued in our culture.
@2: Settle down ya weirdo.
@3: You aren't wrong.
The easiest way to know a religion's fake is if they ban or shun people or classify non-believers as infidels or un-saved.
6 so like, Islam?
Somehow, the humans’ invisible friend in the sky didn’t make completely clear what the humans should believe. So, the humans voted (!) on what their invisible friend in the sky really wanted them to believe. Assuming this result of a vote by humans actually coincides with what their invisible friend in the sky really wants, does this mean the smaller group of voting humans needs to go get themselves a new invisible friend in the sky?
so what are some non-fake religions?
All from the musings of a illiterate Bronze Age tribe in a Middle Eastern desert.
I'm pretty sure @6's comment applies to ANY religion that fits the criteria: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, just go down the list.
Buddhism, Wicca, and Quakerism come most immediately to-mind.
Actually the old testamant is an extremely enlightened code of conduct for a bronze age society.
Buddhism had quite an edge to it back in the day.
@13, So, you mean that before the Jews reached My Sinai they were a bunch of lying, thieving, murderous adulterers? Then after this old testament enlightenment that encourages slavery and genocide we should stone to death homosexuals? God gave us so many homosexuals so we could keep our pitching in top condition.
"Assuming this result of a vote by humans actually coincides with what their invisible friend in the sky really wants, does this mean the smaller group of voting humans needs to go get themselves a new invisible friend in the sky?" --tensor
Good question. Lord, no. They get to adopt the other guy's God, too. 'Cause when Your god wins, HE makes The Rules. and HE's (apparently) a pretty fucking Jealous god, so, your choice.
Oh, and women have a Special Place.
Doesn't seem Right to me.
But what do I know.
When a god is forgotten they no longer exist.
@16 ... until their sacred Concrete Tablets
with all HIS Laws (and bylaws) are miraculously found.
@18: And I define religion as “superstition writ large,” so by my definition, I have no religion and therefore am not trying to make it prevail over anything.
(I still think it’s roaringly funny to watch other humans vote on what their gods think, though.)
OK, we'll play...
The OT didn't create or encourage slavery; it proscribed humane regulations for an already existing pervasive practice.
The Canaanites had become so depraved that, from the standpoint of social practices as well as public health they were, literally, toxic; irredeemable as Hillary would say.
Wiping them out, man woman child and animals, was the only way to get rid of the disease that they had become.
In the days before the practice of medicine, condoms, antibiotics, bleach, etc STDs were devastating.
Imagine AIDS in a Bronze Age society.
The OT regulations for sexual public health are the same ones our CDC advocates; abstinence and monogamy.
In fact, 3000 years before AIDS we already knew how to avoid, prevent and contain it; as President Reagan pointed out.
@17, Oh, you mean like when the Mormons unearth the gold tablets of Mr. Smith.
Scholars have tallied, as far as we know now, that there has been about 10,000 gods in human history. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian god, despite your current numbers, that still puts you into the one tenth of one percent.
doesn't the irony of mere humans voting about what god wants occur to these folks? if you disagree about fundamental beliefs it's time to pull a martin luther and move on.
Religions that 'vote' on their doctrine,
or elect those who represent god to them (we're looking at you, Pope) reveal their spiritual bankruptcy.
Secular Humanism is a religion, and The Left is feverishly working to make it the official state religion of this country.
'Secular Humanism has no God!' you cry indignantly.
Of course it does, it's adherents worship their own cleverness.
The ancients manufactured 'gods' of stone or precious metal and prostrated themselves before them;
how ignorant, we smugly observe.
Worshipping something you made with your own hands, what power could such a 'god' have?
Humanists worship a philosophy they make up as they go;
Liberal 'christian' denominations debate and vote on what they will believe;
with their words and whims they fashion a 'god' and decide what he will require of them;
Groucho Marx quipped that he Wouldn’t Want to Belong to Any Club That Would Accept Him as a Member,
who would want to belong to a religion that can offer no more guidance than whatever fad or fancy it's members currently were embracing?
When The Blind Lead The Blind Everyone will End Up In The Ditch.
Atheism is not a religion, if fact it's the opposite. Atheism is the absence of faith, the absence of belief. To say atheism is a religion would be like saying having no diseases is a disease.
@24: “Liberal 'christian' denominations debate and vote on what they will believe...”
All Christian belief relies upon the votes taken at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. It was there the “correct” Scriptures were voted into the canon; the results of this Council were then mandated upon the ancient world with the full force of the Roman Empire.
Then as now, humans voted on what their gods believed. As Thomas Paine sneered in “The Age Of Reason,” the moral authority of such a religion can go no higher than the votes of men.
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
"Practicing homosexuals"? What about homosexuals who are good enough at it that they no longer need to practice? (It becomes reflexive after a while, I understand.)
“Liberal 'christian' denominations debate and vote on what they will believe...”
That's sometimes true, but not always. The essence of theological liberalism (not to be confused with political liberalism -- there are some politically conservative theological liberals and years ago there were more of them) is its non-propositional or non-creedal character. It makes no truth claims regarding who God is or even whether God exists (at least in the traditional sense). In some liberal congregations there is wide agreement on these questions, in others there is robust debate, and in still others there is little or no discussion of spiritual matters at all. Liberal religion is mainly organized around ethical principles, social action and human service projects, not mandated belief in a particular theological system. This is the root of the conflict in the UMC and other mainline Protestant denominations.
@29, Yes, that's true but nevertheless people still vote with their feet. They will seek out a congregation that already agrees with their view. Not every Catholic, Methodist or Episcopal Church will do. People will find one that tells them what they want to hear.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.