Views on Christianity

[Bert|Evil]

5. I was really still curious if any of you feel conflict between what you do in your "real" life as opposed to what your faith dictates. For example, are any Christians out there torn about whether or not to listen to Slayer, Iron Maiden, or other bands who use Satanic imagery?

Keep the conversation coming, friends!

Kent

Most of the satanic imagery in it's truest meaning has nothing to with satan at all. Alot of it stems from paganism and other religious happenings.

Interestingly enough, the language and chants used by Satanists is in Arabic. You’ll also find that white and black magic(k), as well as the occult and legends of the Dginn (or Gennie), derive from Arabic. The Christian Satan must have become the default representation of these things, and perhaps Ba’al was on vacation.

[bassist_25]

Most of the satanic imagery in it's truest meaning has nothing to with satan at all. Alot of it stems from paganism and other religious happenings. The upside down cross is not truthfully anti-religious. St. Peter was crucified on an upside down cross because of the way he felt after denying Christ. And I really think that alot of the "satanic" imagery that belongs to Paganism has more to do with the Catholic war against the Pagans. Sort of a propaganda "it's not our side, thus it's against our God, thus it is the work of satan" type of teaching. IMO that is a possible way that pentagrams went from having your belief in the air for an upward one and in the earth for a downward one to the satanic symbols of today.

All good points!!! Many Christain holidays were actually derived from Pagan holidays (Yule/Christmas for example).

Satanism is somewhat a misnomer of the religion itself. The name leads one to believe that those who are Satanist worship Satan, when in fact a Satanist worships himself as a primal being. Anton LaVey created a lot of controversey and miscommunication when he decided to name his philosophy (which is somewhat an extreme form of Rand's Objectivism).

Most of the metal bands with Satanic imagery are using it the same way that Brittney Spears uses scantily fitting clothes: To sell records. Well, maybe Deicide and Mayhem are legit. Tom Araya, a devout Christian, plays in one of the bands most asssociated with Satanism: Slayer.

Really, to me, any symbol is up to my ideals and beliefs about it.

The Swastika is the symbol of one of the most hate-filled groups that ever emerged in history. Before it was the crooked cross, it was actually a Buddhist symbol. Funny how people can take symbols and twist them into something there not. But I guess that's a discussion for a symbolic-interactionist.

[bassist_25]

1. Saw "What the Bleep Do We Know?" this weekend....a sort of documentary about religion in quantum physics. It's really wild how science is bringing many of its stewards back to religion. Basically, if you dig deep enough on the molecular level, you'll find a place where "the rules" no longer apply. Particles disappear and reappear as if on their own volition...where do they go? No-one seems to know.....

I've been hearing a lot about "...Bleep..." but I haven't had a chance to see it. Does it feature legit theories backed by actualy research or is it more psuedo/proto-science? I really don't know a lot about physics, so would it be better to have some knowledge on the subject before viewing it? Either way, the movie's been creating a stir, so it must have something important to say.

3. I wish I could remember the author, but someone once said that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than a believer, because of the sheer beauty of the world around us....I mean ABSOLUTELY no respect to our Atheist friends out there...but it is definitely a stance that one does not take lightly. I think it's probably easier to be a Christian than an Atheist for a number of reasons.

I like that observation. It kind of reminds me of the William Paley Watch Argument, only the basis of its rationale is derived from the asthetic of the world rather than the scientific complexity.

5. I was really still curious if any of you feel conflict between what you do in your "real" life as opposed to what your faith dictates. For example, are any Christians out there torn about whether or not to listen to Slayer, Iron Maiden, or other bands who use Satanic imagery?

Actually, sometimes I find a contridiction between my personal philosophy and what career I'm preparing for. I'm entering a scientific field, but I'm an existentialist/border-line nihilist (remember what I said about even being skeptical of the skeptics). I believe that all knowledge/information is purely an internal experience and meaning is designated by the agent experiencing the knowledge. I don't believe in universals (especially morals) and believe that empiricism, not rationalism, is the only true test of knowledge. I'm skeptical of the existence of things (though I'm still a theist. Like I said, I'm a border-line nihilist).

The career I'm going for requires me to objectively look at data and determine if reliable predictions can be made. It's difficult to try and talk about predictions of events when you don't believe in universals.

I forgot to mention in my previous posts - I saw an TV ad the other night in which a preist was hawking holy water. I'm not lying. The guy claimed that buying the water would produce financial rewards for your family.

I'd rather take the money for the holy water and invest it in a stock. I think my chances of financial reward would be a lot greater that way.

[EmptyInside]

I believe that it was best summed up in Dogma when Chris Rock's Character Said " I believe that Christianity messed up by taking a good idea and building a Belief system out of it." Ideas can be changed but peoples beliefs are hard if not impossible to change... I dont go to church regularly But I do believe in a higher power, be it God, Allah, or whoever.... Punkinhead I believe was right in what he said about being a good person...If you are a good person in this life i believe you will be rewarded with a Good Afterlife..

[jet_king]

As Nietzsche once said, "God is dead." Christianity (as well as the other world religions) are simply left over pacifications for the fear of the unknown (which many of us still suffer from). Man fears death; therefore, he clings to the afterlife. But, when the proverbial rug is yanked out (God is dead), he must stare into the Abyss (which is empty, naturally). Then he must find his own way in a seemingly absurd world (or so Existentialists say).

Bottom line in my view: God simply pacifies us. It provides us with a psychological safety net. Without it, life is tougher (but dare I suggest more rewarding?)

Find the Abyss and give it a good hard look!


Boy! The philosophy courses are really paying off!

[FatVin]

jet_king Wrote:

Bottom line in my view: God simply pacifies us. It provides us with a psychological safety net. Without it, life is tougher (but dare I suggest more rewarding?)

I couldn't disagree more. Yes Fred said "God is dead" and then God said Fred is dead and that's the last we've heard of Fred.

You could argue that God speaks to us all in a hundred little ways everyday, but we go blithley on, unaware.

Marx (That would be Groucho's brother Karl) famously pointed out that "religion is the opiate of the mases". Ya gotta remember that when Karl wrote that Opium was the new cure all wonder drug given away littlerally like aspirin. What Marx meant IMO is that religion attempts to deal with the symptom with little concern for the underlying cause, one of the very few things Marx got right IMO, a modern equivilant to that famous Marxist tidbit would be "religion is the tylenol of the masses". But I digress.

What Marx missed and you too apparantly is that most, if not all, societies have some form of sprituality, many of which do not neccessarily center upon an afterlife. No matter what region of the globe you talking about there is some native belief in a power greater than ourselves, you could argue that to be human, to be sentientant, to be conscious, is not only to be self-aware but to be aware of something greater than ourselves.

The problem is what form does it take? This is a very important question. Does it come in the form of a religion, a dogma, a cult, a sect a division of peoples or does it come in the simple acknowledgement that as human beings we are each connected to one another and therefore to the universe at large. While ritual and ceremony can aid us in the recogition of and reconnection to our own mortality and humanity, these same rituals and ceremonies can be a wedge to divide and conquer us.

The problem isn't GOD, it's the shit they do "in his name".

by rejecting any and all forms of spirituality because the Chirstians or the Muslims or the Jehovah's Witnesses piss you off, is to, in effect, throw the baby out with the bath water. A spiritual life, in what ever form a person chooses, can be THE most rewarding part of existance. It is certainly a part of life that deserves examination.

an unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

[bassist_25]

Then he must find his own way in a seemingly absurd world (or so Existentialists say).

The first existentialists (i.e. Kierkegaard) were Christians. Sartre (obviously the most noteworthy existentialist) was the first one to introduce an athiestic perspective into the philosophy.

Marx (That would be Groucho's brother Karl) famously pointed out that "religion is the opiate of the mases". Ya gotta remember that when Karl wrote that Opium was the new cure all wonder drug given away littlerally like aspirin. What Marx meant IMO is that religion attempts to deal with the symptom with little concern for the underlying cause, one of the very few things Marx got right IMO, a modern equivilant to that famous Marxist tidbit would be "religion is the tylenol of the masses". But I digress.

Marx's main point was that religion was used to pacify the proletariat. Instead of worrying about their reward in Heaven, they should be concentrating on revolting and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. I guess a more modern example would be the Gospel songs sung by black southern cotton pickers.

Or the 21st century wage slave......but as you pointed out, they'd be taking tylenol instead.......or vicodin.

[lonewolf]

jet_king Wrote:

Marx (That would be Groucho's brother Karl) famously pointed out that "religion is the opiate of the mases". Ya gotta remember that when Karl wrote that Opium was the new cure all wonder drug given away littlerally like aspirin. What Marx meant IMO is that religion attempts to deal with the symptom with little concern for the underlying cause, one of the very few things Marx got right IMO, a modern equivilant to that famous Marxist tidbit would be "religion is the tylenol of the masses". But I digress.

You could probably put heroin there, but nobody ever caught a buzz from tylenol. The quality of the opiates has increased, but Marx's statement still means what it did when he wrote it. The analogous definition of opiate is "Anything which induces rest or inaction; that which quiets uneasiness."

Opiates have the effect of making one passive, content and in a stupor. Religion has the effect of making large numbers of people passive and content, like a mass stupor. Of course, there are exceptions, like al quaida, et. al.

[Bert|Evil]

Opiates have the effect of making one passive, content and in a stupor. Religion has the effect of making large numbers of people passive and content, like a mass stupor. Of course, there are exceptions, like al quaida, et. al.

They may not be calm, but they are in a mass stupor in the name of Allah. They’re convinced that they’re doing the right thing, and examples from any point of the history of Islam give them all the reason that they need. So, it is indeed their opiate.

[JeffLeeper]

...or....you could just consider organized religion as people with common interests getting together to discuss common interests.

...like this board.

[FatVin]

JeffLeaper wrote:

...or....you could just consider organized religion as people with common interests getting together to discuss common interests.

...like this board.

Have you no knowledge of History?

From the beginning of time men have used religion as an excuse to commit atrocity after atrocity.

from the time of King David, wars were begun to "civilize" the barbarians in foreign lands, Yes, the Armies were after land and power but the excuse was mainly religious

The Romans and Jews tried and executed Christ because the growth of his teachings represented a threat to their power structure.

Later Christians were fed to the lions not only for entertainment but because The new religion was seen as a threat to Roman power,

When the Christians came to power, they were no different, From the The Crusades to the Spanish inquisition to the extermination of 6 million Jews during the 20th century, (or are we going to dispute the reality of the holocaust now?)

Since the beginning of Time, warriors, despots, and madmen have always used religion as a way to keep their own people in line, aquire power and wealth and as a rallying point to send the faithful out to do their dirty work. This is what Marx was talking about. This has been going on long before there was a proletariat and a bourgeoisie.

You think those radical Mullah's in Iraq really give a rat's ass about the spiritual well being of the children they strap dynamite to and send out to kill US Soldiers, One of the reasons they hate us is that our ideals of freedom and equality represent a threat to the power that these guys hold.

The Bush administration does the same thing, they squawk about gay marriage and abortion and other issues to distract the public from their economic plight and the fact that their sons are dying in Iraq for God knows what.

religion as an institution has always been a perversion of true spirituality and a weapon of those who hold power or wish to and that's a little more sinister than "people with common interests getting together to discuss common interests."

I sincerely doubt anyone is going to blow themselves up in the name of Rockpage.

[Bert|Evil]

...or....you could just consider organized religion as people with common interests getting together to discuss common interests.

...like this board.

Can we get non-profit status?? There are a few accountants who post here.

[RAM Z]

What about the people who try to use mediums to contact their loved ones
after they have passed? Isn't that going against God's wishes? I would say that most of the people who do this are fairly religious and if they really belived in God there would be no need for idiots like John Edwards!

He is such a douche!!

[FatVin]

I Hear ya, John Edwards is a huge douche. "Contact with those who have passed" is the world's 2nd oldest profession, these people are right up there with snake oil salesman and pyramid schemers. Didn't South Park do a whole episode declaing John Edwards the biggest Douche in the Universe? To me that says it all.

[bassist_25]

Mediums? Don't get me started on that bitch Sylvia Browne. I want to hurl a brick through the TV screen everytime I see her ugly mug on Montell Williams. I can't believe that people are so gulliable to fall for her scthick.

[JeffLeeper]

Vinnie said , "men have used religion"....men use guns , too...but most men don't use them to murder other people.

You hit on it , Vin. Men use.

[RobTheDrummer]

The only reason that mediums are still around, because they can keep re-inventing the same old act. Constantly changing methods and such to keep it seemingly real. People will keep falling for it as well because there is no way to prove it real or fake. The worst ones are the "mediums" that can talk to lost pets....geez....Snake oil is snake oil, no way to change it, therefore people find out it's fake and it's done.

[SavageHeart]

FatVin Posted: Wednesday Aug 17, 2005 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the beginning of time men have used religion as an excuse to commit atrocity after atrocity.

Religion has also been the catalyst in creating some great organizations such as...

• -The Salvation Army-began by an ordained methodist minister and his wife...
  -Big Brothers/Big Sisters-began when a court clerk in New York organizes a childrens court and the Ladies of Charity, later known as Catholic Big Sisters of New York start to befriend girls who come before the court
  -Habitat for Humanity-A non-profit, ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide...
  -Catholic Charities-have numerous projects such as Children's Health Matters, Adoption Awareness, and have raised over $31 million for Sept. 11 recovery efforts.
  -Feed the Children-International non-profit Christian organization providing food, clothing, educational supplis, medical equipment, and other necessities to needy individuals.
  
  The list goes on and on. Many HORRIBLE things have been done in the name of religion, BUT so have many GREAT things. This is true of many things, not just religion.
  
  As I said in an earlier post, you can't lump together people who have one thing in common....such as their religious affiliation. There are people who think of religious practices as people getting together with a common interest.
  
  I once read...
  Survival, life itself, even in the most horrifying circumstances, depends as much on maintaining purpose and meaning as it does on taking in food and water. According to many theorists, religion is the primary expression of humanity's need for purpose and meaning.

[FatVin]

Savageheart wrote:

. . . .Many HORRIBLE things have been done in the name of religion, BUT so have many GREAT things. This is true of many things, not just religion.

That is a very valid point. and Charity and good works are far from unique to Christianity. In fact, giving to the poor is one of The Five Pillars of Islam. (I'm talking about true Islam here, not what is being taught to maniacs who strap dynamite to themselves)

My point here is that true understanding and true practice of a spiritual way of life is IMO essential to growth as a human being and to humanity at large. But that doesn't mean one has to surrender to some arcane earthly authority or give up one's identity. I'm not saying that your local Clergyman is a bad guy or anything anywhere near that, he's probably not but the system that he or she serves has a lot to answer for IMO.

What I am saying is that DOGMA is bad.

The idea that this group is superior to that group and in order to belong to this group you must hear your chest hair a certain way or whatever and the idea of a power structure and authority that is direct from God Himself is a BAD THING and historically it is IMO the chief cause of human sufferring since the beginning of time.


If your spiritual practices in whatever form they may take bring you peace comfort and joy, then that's a good thing, and I'm the last person to ask anyone to change them but if they cause guilt and shame and pain then they maybee you should re-think your spritual life.

Let me make this really simple: In my Opinion:

Peace and brotherhood between all the world's peoples: GOOD

Us or them: BAD

Ceremonies and rituals that reconnect you to your fellow human: GOOD

practices designed to separate us from them and make us feel superior:BAD

Spiritual practices that bring comfort and aid to those in need: GOOD

Religious ideas that give an excuse for killing and torture:BAD

I believe and I've experienced this in my own life that finding that purpose and meaning can be extremely important and IMO should not be shrugged of as a common interest as if deciding whether or not to attend a Star Trek Convention, I also believe from my own life experience that purpose and meaning can be found without having to swallow a lot of Dogma.

The form your spirituality takes should have meaning to you, and anyone who claims to have all the answers or tells you that you don't need to explore it, is trying to sell you something.

[SavageHeart]

I agree, 100%

[lonewolf]

When the Christians came to power, they were no different, From the The Crusades to the Spanish inquisition to the extermination of 6 million Jews during the 20th century, (or are we going to dispute the reality of the holocaust now?)

I would never dispute the holocaust, but this is the 1st time I have ever seen Hitler's Nazi Germany referred to as "the Christians".

[BDR]

Yeah, I'm with 'wolf on this one ...

r:>)

[FatVin]

Lonewolf Wrote:

I would never dispute the holocaust, but this is the 1st time I have ever seen Hitler's Nazi Germany referred to as "the Christians".

OY VEY!!! What are you? Mashugana? Ya gotta admit, those Nazi guys just weren't kosher.

I certainly wasn't trying to equate Christianity with Nazism.
You missed the point.

The point was: in 1930's Germany, Christian doctrine was manipulated in order to justify, at first, the ostracision, then the captivity, mass torture and death of people who were different from themselves. We agree on this as historical fact, yes?

I do think it's fair to say that The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, British Soldiers giving smallpox laced blankets to Native Americans and finally the Holocaust, all belong in the same box, all were sanctioned, if only with silence, by some so-called "Christian Authority."

I must also point out that such behavior is far from unique to Christianity. "Ethnic Cleansing" is usually done on religious grounds, Religious "Cleansing" has been going on since the idea of organized faith began and will probably always be with us.

I say again, my ultimate point: Dogma is bad

[jet_king]

I fear my point was overlooked too, and that was that religion is as problematic as spirituality: it is all rooted in man's fear of the unknown. (Perhaps I should have suggested that they are one and the same from my vantage point.)

And while bassist_25 makes a good point about Kierkegaard being a Christian, Existentialism doesn't have its roots in Christianity, nor is Kierkegaard the primal Existential figure (nor is Christianity common among Existentialists). Furthermore, Kierkegaard's Existential Christian tendencies place him squarely at odds with spirituality; in fact, Heidegger later criticized Kierkegaard for being an Existential "pussy” of sorts (for lack of a better term) due to his inability to break completely with religion (i.e. spirituality) and face the cold hard truth: we are mortal, there is no after life, and making meaning out of existence is all about what we do while we're here, not about what is to come in the make-believe word of the Heavens.

For those who are interested, William Blake's epic poem, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell," is an interesting read. Blake purposively makes the case that Christ is restrictive while Satan simply wants us to LIVE. It was one of the first pieces that began to help me realize the spiritual trap.

I digress.

By the way Bassist_25, why do you feel Sartre was/is "obviously" the most significant of Existentialists?

[bassist_25]

By the way Bassist_25, why do you feel Sartre was/is "obviously" the most significant of Existentialists?

He's the philosopher most associated with the school of thought (though many people consider his teachings hackeyned when compared to other existentialists). Camus would probaly be the second most notable existentialist, though I consider Camus more of a novelist rather than an academic philosopher. Nietzsche and Heidegger helped lay the seeds of existentialism, but Nietzsche was a nihilist and Heidegger was a phenomonologist.