"more than a little wandering"
I'll leap at the chance to cough to this one (largely because of my sleeping patterns and alcohol diet lately), but I can't really put my hand up to any kind of gross ignorance of the topic. 'n' it's not just a religious thing; I have some pretty strong feelings about institutions in general which really boil down to this - if the status quo worked, there wouldn't be so many miserable people around. You could have the best Church in the world, but it should still never be seen as any kind of sacred cow. Even if it seems harsh of people to be the way they are, it's a conversation that has to happen.
*shrug* I'm not helping to dispel the semblance of wandering, here, but honestly I haven't got the time to get it all out anymore. Hah. I also lack some of the resolve it takes to walk out of a discussion entirely, which is why I keep hovering, dropping a bit, then shaking my head and leaving. And popping back. It's a bit sad of me.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Zebonka12 wrote:
But people, look at the fucking calendar already. We should be past so much of the bullshit that goes along with this stuff. Every time I see a religious leader on the television I want to cry into my soup; they can't (or won't) acknowledge how ridiculous it is for them to be wearing their stupid pyjamas and giving people (frequently) irrelevant advice on how to live. Half the time I feel like I've backed into a time machine and I'm lost in some quaint, idiotic alternate reality where civilisation is stuck in second gear or something.
I mean, that bloody Papal Conclave - I stayed up and watched the announcement, and it took a while for it all to sink in that there's probably a billion people watching this religious event take place, and it has *nothing* to do with God. God didn't cast a vote, he didn't pick anyone - it was a bunch of old codgers in a fuckin' room.
I really am rambling but honestly - enough's enough. I think (and I wouldn't know where to begin as far as making the distinction goes) that there's a way to have your belief and feel that connection to 'whatever', and share that with people - *WITHOUT* all of the bullshit that goes with it. Without sharia law or Mormon doorknockers or a Pope with poisonous attitudes concerning just how much he should be allowed to meddle in the affairs of real people who are going to be influenced by his backwards and nonsensical ideas about contraception. We have enough of that from our elected officials. The only thing the Pope should ever fucking say - the only thing - is "Love each other!".
Any institution that oversteps that mandate, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be bulldozed and turned into a bowling alley. And it's upsetting to me that this notion might be, in turn, upsetting to others - but that's fuckin' life. There are people in the world who think they have a meaningful opinion about my sideburns - I tell them to fuck off and I move on.
I saw so much anti-Zeb/pro-Zeb comments that i trawled back through pages of bickering to find out what he had said.
As people know (and are probably sick of hearing), I'm a committed Christian, i strongly and passionately believe in God and i go to church. For many years, i went to a very harsh, strict church. Some of my friends grew up, left the harsh, strict church and decided that since what they had seen of the church is not right, then obviously it's all bull. I have always believed in God -- for me, it's not so much a 'choice' as just i couldn't not believe. It's not my 'faith,' it's my reality.
I left said harsh, strict church almost two years ago, and i now go to a small, friendly, happy community based church in my town. It's inspiring, positive and helpful to me in life.
But that isn't the point.
Religious systems are made by people. People do stupid things. People do mean things. People do irrational things. We cannot rely on any human system. Governments have systems in place to stop corruption -- it might help, but there's still corruption. Schools have principals and boards to keep things fair and above board - there's still schools where you only get in if you're from a certain background, there's still inequalities in the education system. My country has public medical care systems and social welfare systems - there are huge inequalities; systems are manipulated and some people don't have enough while others get more then their share. Courts have juries, judges, hundreds of years of common law and written law to guide their decisions -- there are still inconsistencies and inequalities. There is still disagreement between judges on the correct action. It's not just the church or religion. All organisations are flawed.
I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God. It's simply an argument for the corruption of humanity.
And (to finally get to my point) -- Zeb, i totally agree. It breaks my heart when i see stuff like that. It's so wrong for people to claim divine authority to push their own ideas, and to use the power of people's belief/tradition/background to influence them to follow the religious person's agenda.
Churches don't have to be like that. My church is amazing, people are loved for who they are. We teach what we believe to be true clearly and uncompromisingly, but it's taught in love. There are people who come regularly who don't agree with some of the major teachings -- they are still welcome and loved. That is how a church is SUPPOSED to be, and it's completely wrong when it's just some pompous guy who doesn't care, talking down to people and telling everyone else how they should live.
That probably makes no sense :/ Not v coherent today...
*shrug* Makes sense to me!
I probably didn't bring it up in this thread but we've had these religious topics on QZ before, and I've said it at least once - I've had some pretty full-on Christians for friends, and our conflicting ideas never stopped us from getting on. One of them knew how I felt about establishments, and was a little touchy about it, but she got it all the same. I mean I could've given her shit for her feelings about evolution, but honestly - why bother?
On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff. You might call it attrition, although I'd be happy if we could go without it. If I haven't made that clear enough yet, then my bad. But for me, the two really are separate discussions, and if I wandered into the wrong one here, then again - my bad.
I probably didn't bring it up in this thread but we've had these religious topics on QZ before, and I've said it at least once - I've had some pretty full-on Christians for friends, and our conflicting ideas never stopped us from getting on. One of them knew how I felt about establishments, and was a little touchy about it, but she got it all the same. I mean I could've given her shit for her feelings about evolution, but honestly - why bother?
On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff. You might call it attrition, although I'd be happy if we could go without it. If I haven't made that clear enough yet, then my bad. But for me, the two really are separate discussions, and if I wandered into the wrong one here, then again - my bad.
catqueen wrote:
And (to finally get to my point) -- Zeb, i totally agree. It breaks my heart when i see stuff like that. It's so wrong for people to claim divine authority to push their own ideas, and to use the power of people's belief/tradition/background to influence them to follow the religious person's agenda.
Churches don't have to be like that. My church is amazing, people are loved for who they are. We teach what we believe to be true clearly and uncompromisingly, but it's taught in love. There are people who come regularly who don't agree with some of the major teachings -- they are still welcome and loved. That is how a church is SUPPOSED to be, and it's completely wrong when it's just some pompous guy who doesn't care, talking down to people and telling everyone else how they should live.
Your description of your church pretty much describes every church I've ever spent enough time in to form an opinion. It's not clear who you're condemning here and where you're drawing the line between religion as a positive force and religion as a negative force. Who are these pompous people who don't care? Doesn't that beg for some specificity or at least some reasonable categorization? Is it televangelists maybe? And is some of your stuff directed to Catholicism and the Catholic Church specifically, as Zebonka's was? Again, its just not clear. Zebonka's comments about crying in his soup over people in their pyjamas were sufficiently broad and encompassing that they certainly didn't exclude your church. Do you think they did?
Zebonka12 wrote:
On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff.
Just so we're clear, your imprudent decision to speak in belittling generalities isn't anybody else's failure to adequately discern.
catqueen wrote:
I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God.
Just to be clear here: I don't think anyone in this discussion apart from the topic starter is talking about whether or not there is a god, and I certainly don't think there are many here who would not allow other people to believe.
I personally don't have any problems with an individual's beliefs - so long as they aren't forced into the public domain and/or onto others. I am strongly opposed to *institutionalized religion*, i.e. the churches/temples/synagogues/mosques/etc. of this world, and to the power wielded by clergy of every denomination over the believers. I might find certain believers more rational, or more deluded, than others, but that is simply my personal opinion - on the fundamental questions religion addresses, nobody has definite answers, so my opinion is no more or less than yours.
However, organized religion is not concerned with beliefs quite so much as with power and money, and it is this part of religion that I do attack, and wholeheartedly so. I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS. I don't like Mullahs saying women have no right to individual freedom. I don't like ministers telling their congregations that no agnostic or atheist can ever be a decent human being. I don't like religious institutions being tax exempt for doing so-called charity work, when that charity work in fact entails evangelization: we will feed the poor, but only those poor who go to our church first. That disgusts me, and I firmly denounce it. But it is a completely separate thing from the faith an individual might or might not have: that is completely free, and rightly so. So long as someone respects my right to my own views on god, I respect theirs. But I certainly don't respect the right of religious leaders to worldly power, whether formal or informal.
GratefulFan wrote:
Zebonka12 wrote:
On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff.
Just so we're clear, your imprudent decision to speak in belittling generalities isn't anybody else's failure to adequately discern.
Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
TQ, to paraphrase Panchgani's comment to GF - don't waste your time arguing. We've been doing that for 16 pages now and the responses have been filled with rage, hysteria, insults, fictitious identities and purposeful twists of perceptions. In other words, anything to get off topic, which is what the personal attacks are about. Distraction. You're better than that. The "unholy trinity" (that is Bob, you and me, apparently) is better than that. So are our points. It's wasted energy to hope the other side will see that.
I'm afraid it seems you're right. Still, it's a shame that GF and Holly are doing this, as there are also people, like catqueen, who do want to have a decent, sensible discussion.
I did have a laugh at the "unholy trinity" bit. Considering that they call me that, and the Dawkins-followers have in the past accused me of being a "religious fanatic", I think I'm succeeding pretty well in holding a moderate position between both extremes. I do find it disturbing that someone like GF, who often, though IMHO far from always, seems quite reasonable outside this discussion, is apparently honest in the belief that she (I think?) holds a moderate position.
Holly, I'm convinced, is really just trolling.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?
I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.
Yeah, I didn't take it as venom. But I think I've already answered to the charge of being vague about all of this - it's a matter of time for me. I want to sit down and get specific and trawl for old links that I found interesting, but I keep getting distracted by other shit I'm supposed to be doing. So there's that. I think I now know how it feels to try and quit smoking.
GratefulFan wrote:
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?
I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.
Do you honestly fail to understand what you yourself write? God, I've had it with you. I'm going to take the above advise and stop wasting time on you.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
I'm afraid it seems you're right. Still, it's a shame that GF and Holly are doing this, as there are also people, like catqueen, who do want to have a decent, sensible discussion.
I did have a laugh at the "unholy trinity" bit. Considering that they call me that, and the Dawkins-followers have in the past accused me of being a "religious fanatic", I think I'm succeeding pretty well in holding a moderate position between both extremes. I do find it disturbing that someone like GF, who often, though IMHO far from always, seems quite reasonable outside this discussion, is apparently honest in the belief that she (I think?) holds a moderate position.
Holly, I'm convinced, is really just trolling.
I do hold the moderate position. And don't be hitching Holly's cart to my horse as we don't speak for each other on this and he certainly deserves the distance from many of my thoughts and certainly some of my more controversial remarks. The fact that you think Holly is trolling is just an unavoidable side affect of your unacknowledged bias.
GratefulFan wrote:
catqueen wrote:
And (to finally get to my point) -- Zeb, i totally agree. It breaks my heart when i see stuff like that. It's so wrong for people to claim divine authority to push their own ideas, and to use the power of people's belief/tradition/background to influence them to follow the religious person's agenda.
Churches don't have to be like that. My church is amazing, people are loved for who they are. We teach what we believe to be true clearly and uncompromisingly, but it's taught in love. There are people who come regularly who don't agree with some of the major teachings -- they are still welcome and loved. That is how a church is SUPPOSED to be, and it's completely wrong when it's just some pompous guy who doesn't care, talking down to people and telling everyone else how they should live.
Your description of your church pretty much describes every church I've ever spent enough time in to form an opinion. It's not clear who you're condemning here and where you're drawing the line between religion as a positive force and religion as a negative force. Who are these pompous people who don't care? Doesn't that beg for some specificity or at least some reasonable categorization? Is it televangelists maybe? And is some of your stuff directed to Catholicism and the Catholic Church specifically, as Zebonka's was? Again, its just not clear. Zebonka's comments about crying in his soup over people in their pyjamas were sufficiently broad and encompassing that they certainly didn't exclude your church. Do you think they did?
My church doesn't typically condone people in pyjamas on tv giving irrelevant advice on how to live, so i assumed he was speaking about churches that support this.
I don't think i said anything at all about religion in itself being a positive OR a negative force. I said that HUMANS corrupt things, including religion. The 'pompous guy' wasn't someone specific, or someone in a specific denomination. It is wrong no matter what denomination it comes from. But i think it's fair enough to say that most of us recognise that level of hypocrisy when we see it, so it doesn't need a name.
The whole point of my post was that religion in itself isn't a force. People are a force. And it's in an atheism topic, so i'm assuming that people typically associate religion with God, and that's what i hate -- that the mistakes and wrong-doing of a flawed organisation are what people use to judge the truth of whether or not there is a God. I don't have a solution, i don't have an alternative criteria, i can't fix it, but i think it's sad.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
catqueen wrote:
I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God.
Just to be clear here: I don't think anyone in this discussion apart from the topic starter is talking about whether or not there is a god, and I certainly don't think there are many here who would not allow other people to believe.
That is fair enough -- and maybe i'm over sensitive. But a lot of people that i've met don't want to consider whether or not they believe in God because they have experienced so much pain at the hands of religious people. And i do think that's sad. So it is important to me to separate the two.