Forums > Social Discussion > Pick-and-Mix Religious

Posted: 24th Sep 2006


I like the way you think!!!

*BTW...I see your belly-button! giggle*

"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin

Posted: 25th Sep 2006
To Firetom: Just a humerour observation, but the word so commonly transltaed as virgins, actually means raisons or grapes. so they don't get seventy pure white virgins. They get 70 pure white GRAPES....

Something I found hilarious when it was ponted out to me by a Muslim friend

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

Posted: 25th Sep 2006
A virgin also meant and independant woman!
If that were still the case, we'd have more 'virgins' than you could shake a stick at!

"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin

Posted: 25th Sep 2006
Yeah well it all makes me wonder: Why would God have to offer a reward when someone obeys his rulings? Shouldn't the awareness to follow them be reward enough in the first place??

Furthermore, if for an instant I rule out all other (religious) concepts and reduce everything to the three monotheistic ones, all of which are holding records of Gods will: Are we entitled to freely choose between them, without offending God? You know for me it all boils down to the point where I am getting quite confused. How can one of his interpreters/ messengers claim to be the one and only, who has gotten the point and dismisses the others?

If I'm taking Judaism: I'd say they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, but not the ultimate messiah. Islam acknowledges Mose and Christ to have been prophets (just as Mohammed himself) *please excuse my simplified view and educate me if my facts are erraneous*... all of them derive from Abrahams concept... how can any of the (current) representatives condemn the faith of the other, without standing in the light of struggling for power and domination? (which to me is clearly profane)

IMHO there has to be a clear destinction between the philosophy, the religion and the church/ mosque/ synagogue... already when turning the philosophy into a mass movement something is on a weird trail. Humans are individuals and maybe even clones are not identical - how can anyone reach the exact same state of mind, when following a predecessors steps. Meaning, how can two people eventually reach the exact same level, perceving enlightenment as such?

How can you know? Wouldn't you have to die on the cross, or become a powerful leader in order to fully grasp the experience? Wouldn't you have to repeat every single step of your chosen idols development, in the exact same conditions - which is impossible - to really come to this level?

Or is the fact of the matter, that each and every individual is not only entitled but even obliged to find her/ his unique roadmap? (Which would mean that we have an eternally open range for actions.)

Furthermore I would emphasise that each and ever region has it's individual rites and ceremonies, or way to express the ideology/ philosophy. Compare a roman catholic church in either, Rome and Timbuktu - you certainly will find a difference between them, as well as a Mosque in Mekka, or in regions of Indonesia. And as if this wouldn't be enough, every individual is practicing his faith slightly different.

Being a Muslim in Indonesia means something else than being one in the Middle East.

If we can observe this range of possibilities - which is clearly tolerated by the clerics - within the same faith, we may as well conclude that we're at least entitled to go on, explore deeply and verify the truth for ourselves.

Doesn't it - at the end of the day - simply matter how we choose to live our lives? To me, personally, it doesn't quite matter whether it's a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew who quenches my thirst in the desert - disregarding whatever faith I call my very own.

Greed (for reward) and fear (of punishment) - whoever is basing her/ his teachings on such fundamental (and negative) human motifs is not even remotely touching the essence of what is called "nature of God"... at least IMHO

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 26th Sep 2006

 Written by: FireTom


Being a Muslim in Indonesia means something else than being one in the Middle East.

Just like being a brittish muslim means something else too.

I live in bradford, so-called muli-cultural city. Something i find here, is that some people (not limited to muslims) got confused about the differences between "religion" and "culture".

Yes, a lot of culture is based on religious techings (interpret this how you will) but this is passed down though generation, until people forget the original reason for it.

I was brought up catholic. if we are being pedantic i still am, i was baptised, i made my first holy communim, and chose to be confirmed. So, because i no longer go to church, because i have thought about my faith, and decided that although there are some aspects of the catholic teachings i do agree with there are more that i do not. i had sex before marriage, for example. and i used contraception. there are two major things that catholicism does not condone. But i am now old enough to make the decision for myself about what path i want to take, and to decide what is right for me.

But i am still catholic. because i got baptised etc, then until i renounce my faith, (not sure exactly whats involved in that tbh) i remain catholic in the eyes of the church.

To return to the point. I have never eaten "meat" on fridays. (i have been veggie for some years now, but previously to that....) For a long time i never knew why, i just knew that it was always pizza, or fish fingers for tea on fridays. never meat. (whether or not this includes fish is debatable, but i digress)

I finaly found out, that the reason we never ate meat on fridays was because of "good friday" the day Jesus dies on the cross. This i don't belive was a particulray religous reason, it became habit, cultural. My parents never ate meat on fridays, and so we didn't.

I don't take part in organised religion these days, i go to church over christmas and easter with my family (extended - we're irish) as it isn't just a religous celebration any more. its the only two time of the year the whole family gets together.

The other part i really wanted to mention here (as this is getting quite long) is that any religion, any scriptures or holy writing are open to interpretation, and so no-one will get the same thing out of the same passage. i studied religion as part of my sociology course a couple of years ago, (not in my catholic school however) and the topic of conversation got around to islamic fundametalism and Jihad. One of the muslim girls in my class put forward the point that there is little jihad and big jihad.

Jihad is the war on Sin. Little Jihad is the war against sin within yourself, and never should one embark upon Big Jihad (sin within the world) until you do not sin yourself ("let him without sin cast the first stone" anyone?).

Now i am not swearing that this is right - i never looked into it in that much detail but it seems pretty reasonable to me.The perfect example of how the same thing has been so differently enterpreted by people.


Anyway, i probably went completely off on one there, so apologies if that was just a big ramble!

|x.,x.,x|

Posted: 26th Sep 2006

 Written by: FireTom


Doesn't it - at the end of the day - simply matter how we choose to live our lives? ...Greed (for reward) and fear (of punishment)

I agree with these sentiments wholehartedly and it is in fact one of the (many) issues I personally have with any form of organised religion. Using reward and punishment is a way to coerse people into living thier lives by certain pre-decided rules. I belive it is much more important to encourage people as they grow up to develop their own principles and moral code in relation to the world around them and the everyday interactions they have with other people. If this does not happen it is possible for people to live their lives with no respect for the world they live in or those around them who their thoughts and actions effect, while at the same time beliving that the way they live their lives is righteous and just.

Even so I respect other peoples right to belive in whatever they choose but again, respect for and empathy toward other people is key. If you wish to live your life by a certain set of rules you must realise that the only person you can expect to follow them is you, you are the one who has faith in living your life in this manner.

fire pretty

Posted: 26th Sep 2006

 Written by: FireTom


another religious debate *sigh*...

"Reward and punishment from god" is a concept - nothing more. I'd like to get further and state, that it's bullscrap and the way the three monotheistic religions look to define God is IMHO blasphemy, as God is much greater then they can imagine in their narrowed perception.

Since you pretty much reiterated much of what I said I snipped this down to...

Actually, it's not really a debate going on. It's a *really* nice discussion (thankfully) to which I would like to add 3 monotheistic religions?

I am not sure how many Wiccans you know, but there are *several* forms which are completely monotheistic, however believing in Goddess rather than God. And your statement still applies to them as well.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Posted: 26th Sep 2006
Hey Firetom, sorry, only a quickpost, but just wanted to correct you...Judaism doesn't beleive |Jesus was a prophet, most Jews hold him to be either a heretic, or a pharaseical rabbi who got screwed over because of the Romans.

But not a prophet.
A great Rabbi perhhaps, but not a prophet....

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

Posted: 26th Sep 2006
Thanks for educating me

Gremlin: take a look at this however thanks for filling my educational gap So a Rabbi is much like a Guru (which translates into "teacher") - isn't some kind of religious apprenticeship necessary to become a Rabbi? I can't remember Jesus to ever having received such...

Pele: Sounds interesting and I get curious. But nope, I do not really have experience with "Wiccans" - my dictionary doesn't come up with a result, but google does. Witches and Shamans it seems... Heck I have no idea what they basically fall for, but everyone has her/ his "definition of God" - may it be "the Universe", "a universal lifeforce" or the "old man with a white, long beard".

To me it clearly doesn't matter, each and everyone as s/he pleases - unless I am dragged into their picture...

- to me there is no such thing as heaven and hell, it's a matter of whether one can let go, accept and forgive - or not...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 26th Sep 2006

 Written by: fyrespirit


A virgin also meant and independant woman!
If that were still the case, we'd have more 'virgins' than you could shake a stick at!

I decided to check this, reading all the way back to it's Old French and Latin roots, and I couldn't find anywhere where it means independent.

Now, traditionally it means an unwed woman, which is very different than "independant". Many unwed women were still, culturally based, dependent on the dominant man in their life.
It is believed in many linguistic circles that The Virgin Mary simply referred to her marital status, as Maiden means someone who has never had sex. The concept of the two words melding together didn't come about until about the year 1200 or so, and the word Virgin itself was not a common word until 1150. The term was used from it's latin base in Middle English prior to 1000 to refer to someone born under the sign of Virgo.

In fact Virgin is also used historically as someone who is unlearned and uneffected, which also doesn't lead into your description.

Which also, in my mind, illustrates the ability for the bible to be disected in the Pick-n-Mix religious philosophy.
Words change, their definition, their common usages and as such, it changes the meaning of the book depending on who is reading it.

Someone may read about The Virgin Mary as someone who hadn't had sex. Me, I read about her as someone who didn't get married and quite probably lied about having unwed sex so as to avoid that whole stoning issue.
(patriarch, while I respect you alot, please don't get started on this...it is an example and I really don't care about the passages you can dig up describing that Mary didn't have sex...)

I know people who won't eat meat based on the story of Cain and Able, stating that it begets evil. (yes, I laugh at this often)

It's extremely open to interpretation, and as such picking and choosing.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Posted: 26th Sep 2006
We don;t know about Jesus' early life, so there is evidence that he was rabbi. Most of his teachings were pharisaical, so it never made any sense that he was against them. Jesus' problem was never with the Pharisee's, but with a corrupt high priest - hence the kicking off in the temple.....

Theres a lot more to it than that, but maybe its a discussion for PMing if you really want to know!

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

Posted: 20th Oct 2006
what i find rearly annoying is when people use beliefs to hide behind the bad things they have done or are about to do. though these people mainly had been brainwashed into doing this.

What to do in case of fire??? LET IT BURN!