What's on your mind?

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: What's on your mind? I know that I've mentioned it before, but churches have been known to use fear mongering in order to keep converts, which is one of my biggest issues with them. While it is the individual that is initially fearful and clings to the church for a sense of security, the church preys upon this to keep them from going elsewhere by stating that they're the only true church and non-believers will "burn in hell", or otherwise receive a less desirable afterlife. Sure it's wrong, but it's a cycle that both sides perpetuate, and until people possess the courage and wisdom to seek the truth for themselves there won't be a change. However, Eastern religions do not subscribe to this notion. The existence we live in is a fabricated one, and the goal is to escape to the real existence and reunite with God. If you do not, the cycle repeats itself through reincarnation until you do, so you'll find that most followers of these religions won't challenge your life choices as you'll get more chances to do it correctly. There is something about the Western mindset that cannot seem to cope with that much freedom and possibility over your spiritual path, and fear of mortality and eternity seem stronger with us by far. Before the Bible was canonized, there were many other books and stories told in conjunction with the stories it now contains. The works that were withheld are called Apocrypha, and most of them present sides of Christianity that would broaden its perspective and show different sides of the religion that would be detrimental to the organized church structure. For example, in one of the books (can't remember the name offhand) there is an additional conclusion to Revelation. After the souls are judged and the righteous enter heaven and the wicked enter hell, the souls in heaven weep for the souls in hell, and by doing so they are released from their damnation to join them in heaven. Can you see why the church would want to leave that out? There would no longer be a fearful motivator to keep the "flock" in line, attendance and tithing goes down, control diminishes, etc... I can see also that many people are still too ignorant and afraid to handle the non-canonical texts, so leaving them out does make a bit of sense in that way, but I still feel that it would have been better ethically not to withhold them. Then again, the church at large has committed some of the most unethical atrocities in history to retain and recruit members. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[satan 59]

So in simplistic terms religion tries to keeps the masses in line by fear. I have never read the bible and never will, each side can take what they want from it, for and against.

[Iceni]

I know that I've mentioned it before, but churches have been known to use fear mongering in order to keep converts, which is one of my biggest issues with them. While it is the individual that is initially fearful and clings to the church for a sense of security, the church preys upon this to keep them from going elsewhere by stating that they're the only true church and non-believers will "burn in hell", or otherwise receive a less desirable afterlife. Sure it's wrong, but it's a cycle that both sides perpetuate, and until people possess the courage and wisdom to seek the truth for themselves there won't be a change. [...] Before the Bible was canonized, there were many other books and stories told in conjunction with the stories it now contains. The works that were withheld are called Apocrypha, and most of them present sides of Christianity that would broaden its perspective and show different sides of the religion that would be detrimental to the organized church structure. For example, in one of the books (can't remember the name offhand) there is an additional conclusion to Revelation. After the souls are judged and the righteous enter heaven and the wicked enter hell, the souls in heaven weep for the souls in hell, and by doing so they are released from their damnation to join them in heaven. Can you see why the church would want to leave that out? There would no longer be a fearful motivator to keep the "flock" in line, attendance and tithing goes down, control diminishes, etc... I can see also that many people are still too ignorant and afraid to handle the non-canonical texts, so leaving them out does make a bit of sense in that way, but I still feel that it would have been better ethically not to withhold them. Then again, the church at large has committed some of the most unethical atrocities in history to retain and recruit members.

Yeah, sadly both Catholics and Protestants are guilty of this. Ironically, 'non-denominational' churches are often the worst among Protestants, even though they purport to adhere to the basics of Christianity. However, there are some serious doctrinal differences between churches, so denominations aren't always interchangeable. Baptists, for example, believe that unless you're baptized you go to hell. Presbyterians and Methodists don't adhere to such petty standards of salvation. However, I should point out that the books of the Apocrypha weren't always left out because they were dangerous, they were left out because their authorship was dodgy and their doctrine made no sense. The Gospel of Thomas is a ridiculously disjointed tome that communicates in cryptic but meaningless axioms. The Epistle of Barnabas is more of a relevant book, but it was written too late and addresses solely church problems rather than doctrine itself. The Maccabees are just histories, so they would be irrelevant.

I should clarify I have no problem with people of faith provided they aren't complete assholes to the non-faithful. I was having a discussion about faith with a classmate at uni last week and when it was revealed that I don't believe in God he called me sad and pathetic and immediately ended the discussion. I do have a better example though, last week at cycling training one of my friends (the girl who suggested I check out Hour Of Penance actually) was recounting something that happened to her earlier in the week. She was wearing a Slayer shirt and as it had been raining the ground was slippery so she fell over and a passer-by refused to help her up saying that because she liked that "devil music" she didn't deserve to be helped.

Geez. Even I haven't met people this bad. There is a time and a place for severe tirades against godlessness but it sounds like that guy missed the point entirely and resorted to an ad hominem argument. As for the latter example...I really can't wrap my mind around the reasoning. Never mind that Slayer is nowhere near a Satanic band... Still, I have encountered some seriously rank sexism that supposedly rests on Christian auspices. During my last year of speech and debate, a new student was performing a duo with her partner for a speech competition. This was her first year ever competing. They did a phenomenal job, pulling off an excellent performance. As such, they actually won first place at the districts tournament on their very first try, qualifying them to perform the piece at the nationals tournament. BUT... The girl's parents prohibited her from going on to compete in nationals. They thought it was inappropriate for their daughter to go compete because it would not be appropriate for her to do something outside her station. The guy who was performing the duo with her was therefore prevented from going even though he was allowed to! Not even the Old Testament would justify this kind of behavior.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: What's on your mind? While some Apocrypha may have been incoherent and/or largely irrelevant, it still seems wrong to me for most religious leaders to basically disavow knowledge of their existence and/or any wisdom that they may possess. Just another tactic used out of fear I guess, most of the preachers that preach about fear are largely afraid themselves. Afraid of the world around them, afraid of being wrong and/or there being other correct possibilities, afraid of living, it's unhealthy and can have adverse effects on the psyche. Regarding the douche bags in Murph's comment, I have come to expect this kind of behavior out of most of mankind, religious or not. People are willfully ignorant, we all have the ability to think from other points of view and try to understand things from outside of our perspective, but choose not to. People talk about variety being the spice of life and craving something different out of boredom, but anything truly different is then treated with backlash and hostility. Religion may be instrumental in reinforcing these fucked up practices, but people would be that way without religion too. This is one of the many reasons why I have misanthropic tendencies, mankind is perfectly capable of greatness, but the majority choose to avoid that in favor of personal gain and/or laziness. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[RelentlessOblivion]

In my experience though BAN such behaviour is atypical of Australians, by our nature we are helpful to others almost to the point of lunacy at times. We are a little bit different to the rest of the world I think.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: What's on your mind?

In my experience though BAN such behaviour is atypical of Australians' date=' by our nature we are helpful to others almost to the point of lunacy at times. We are a little bit different to the rest of the world I think.[/quote'] I can't argue that, every Australian I've ever met has been cool as hell. I may have to shave some of my body hair down enough to stand the heat and move down there. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

haha, I love Aussies, so awesome, especially Murph (I liked you being called Murph lol)

[RelentlessOblivion]

I have another nickname, JB, on account of my propensity for consuming copious amounts of Jim Beam (not the best bourbon ever I must admit) at family gatherings. That's another cool thing about Aussies we all give each other nicknames, my brother has heaps of them but the best one is Kizzbanger

[Iceni]

While some Apocrypha may have been incoherent and/or largely irrelevant, it still seems wrong to me for most religious leaders to basically disavow knowledge of their existence and/or any wisdom that they may possess. Just another tactic used out of fear I guess, most of the preachers that preach about fear are largely afraid themselves. Afraid of the world around them, afraid of being wrong and/or there being other correct possibilities, afraid of living, it's unhealthy and can have adverse effects on the psyche. [...] Religion may be instrumental in reinforcing these fucked up practices, but people would be that way without religion too. This is one of the many reasons why I have misanthropic tendencies, mankind is perfectly capable of greatness, but the majority choose to avoid that in favor of personal gain and/or laziness.

As I sad before, I think most of the Apocrypha is worthless for a Biblical perspective, but it is worth knowing why. You also give pastors too much credit. They're hardly manipulative; that's something I'd assign to people more interested in politics and society. Instead, I think it may be their own pride working. Fear may be integrated, but I would agree that it's a fear of being wrong. Furthermore, fear may be part of it in that they're scared of losing adherents so they're wont to impose that fear on their congregation in an attempt to make themselves understood. However, these emotions are frequently buried under a thick varnish of pigheadedness in much the same way that most metalcore is a small musket ball of metal caked in excrement. Your last statement is interesting; that's how I understand sin. Man is inherently bad, but it's a predisposition that he can resist; it's just that humanity almost never does. Sloth is definitely an underestimated iniquity.

[RelentlessOblivion]

should I create a thread so we can discuss this point further or would that be a waste of time

[Iceni]

should I create a thread so we can discuss this point further or would that be a waste of time

It's "What's On Your Mind." We can discuss this, and go off on tangents about bad AFL matches, Mormon arsewipes, lousy cafeteria food and boobs if need be. Ah, the wonderful spirit of diversity.

I have another nickname' date=' JB, on account of my propensity for consuming copious amounts of Jim Beam (not the best bourbon ever I must admit) at family gatherings.[/quote'] You do realize that acronym is associated with a sexually ambiguous pop sensation, right?

[RelentlessOblivion]

I had it first, and besides the rules regarding nicknames is that only other people can give them to you

[Iceni]

Well, at least it wasn't BJ or you'd be in serious trouble.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Hahaaha, my second name's Hilton so my mates used to say "aight paris laa hows the hotels"

[Iceni]

"aight paris laa hows the hotels"

Oh, you're bilingual. Spiffing.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

yerra no lad oresumm innit

[Iceni]

Give me a moment while I call Mickey Flanagan to interpret that for me.

[satan 59]

My hockey nickname is unsurprisingly Satan and thats what my tattooist calls me, very odd as I have no religion. It's all to do with ice hockey as I've said before but some names stick. I used to get called "The none conformist" at school, very cool I thought but a bit of a mouthful, among other things. I the UK you generally get the letter O added to your surname as your nickname, I imagine it's the same around the world, those who know me on FB will know my other more common nickname.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: What's on your mind?

As I sad before' date=' I think most of the Apocrypha is worthless for a Biblical perspective, but it is worth knowing why. You also give pastors too much credit. They're hardly [i']manipulative; that's something I'd assign to people more interested in politics and society. Instead, I think it may be their own pride working. Fear may be integrated, but I would agree that it's a fear of being wrong. Furthermore, fear may be part of it in that they're scared of losing adherents so they're wont to impose that fear on their congregation in an attempt to make themselves understood. However, these emotions are frequently buried under a thick varnish of pigheadedness in much the same way that most metalcore is a small musket ball of metal caked in excrement. Your last statement is interesting; that's how I understand sin. Man is inherently bad, but it's a predisposition that he can resist; it's just that humanity almost never does. Sloth is definitely an underestimated iniquity.

Perhaps not manipulative in an intentional way, it's more of a way to mime how they were manipulated by their religious leaders. I don't believe that all people are this way, and again the congregation that cannot live their own lives without trying to be a carbon copy of the priest/pastor/whatever are to blame for putting him there, but that doesn't justify the more typical cases. If a cycle is broken, and both sides are perpetuating its decay, the answer is to break free of that cycle, not add more people to it. Man is by the church's definition imperfect, yet do their best to supersede the God that they are trying to teach about by emphatically stating that their way/the church's way is the only correct way. If we're all so very different, and they maintain that we are made in God's image, then it seems counter-intuitive to try to curb those differences in favor of conformity. And I believe that we differ in that way Iceni, as I believe that man at his core is good, but frequently and intentionally fucks that up in favor of personal gain and sabotage. I believe that this world/existence is what is evil, painful, and disjointed, and man too easily falls victim to its temporary and false ways. Do we have the power to make the better choice? Absolutely, but instead we choose greed, suffering, and ignorance. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Iceni]

[...]Man is by the church's definition imperfect, yet do their best to supersede the God that they are trying to teach about by emphatically stating that their way/the church's way is the only correct way. If we're all so very different, and they maintain that we are made in God's image, then it seems counter-intuitive to try to curb those differences in favor of conformity. And I believe that we differ in that way Iceni, as I believe that man at his core is good, but frequently and intentionally fucks that up in favor of personal gain and sabotage. I believe that this world/existence is what is evil, painful, and disjointed, and man too easily falls victim to its temporary and false ways. Do we have the power to make the better choice? Absolutely, but instead we choose greed, suffering, and ignorance.

I would disagree on the definition of being 'made in God's image'. An image is by definition an imperfect imitation of the real thing. I assume that man's soul is what constitutes his being and existence as an image in the first place; although man technically has the potential to be good he has a predisposition to be bad. And I don't think that's due to the existence of the world inasmuch as the nature of anything other than God. Furthermore, as an image, it is attempting to copy one model (and I think this is where you and I part ways given our differing ideas), that is to say a monotheistic God. Therefore it accomplishes its goal best by imitating its model, not so much by extraneous details. A certain amount of diversity is acceptable but the more it strays from the essential form the more the image becomes a tarnished and impure version. Now I am borrowing from Milton here, this isn't described in as much detail in the Bible, but the story goes that Satan first decided to strike out on his own because he was jealous of God. This took place outside of the earth, meaning that the root of corruption is in the mind, not the body. Besides, people are advised Biblically to be in the world but not of the world, which would imply some measure of worldly involvement is necessary for the believer. Otherwise, we get the kind of limp-wristed, sanctimonious asceticism that tries its darndest to stay out of the world but garners an inflated ego for its trouble.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: What's on your mind?

I would disagree on the definition of being 'made in God's image'. An image is by definition an imperfect imitation of the real thing. I assume that man's soul is what constitutes his being and existence as an image in the first place; although man technically has the potential to be good he has a predisposition to be bad. And I don't think that's due to the existence of the world inasmuch as the nature of anything other than God. Furthermore, as an image, it is attempting to copy one model (and I think this is where you and I part ways given our differing ideas), that is to say a monotheistic God. Therefore it accomplishes its goal best by imitating its model, not so much by extraneous details. A certain amount of diversity is acceptable but the more it strays from the essential form the more the image becomes a tarnished and impure version. Now I am borrowing from Milton here, this isn't described in as much detail in the Bible, but the story goes that Satan first decided to strike out on his own because he was jealous of God. This took place outside of the earth, meaning that the root of corruption is in the mind, not the body. Besides, people are advised Biblically to be in the world but not of the world, which would imply some measure of worldly involvement is necessary for the believer. Otherwise, we get the kind of limp-wristed, sanctimonious asceticism that tries its darndest to stay out of the world but garners an inflated ego for its trouble.

I can agree with some of the points that you present, but even then we do view them very differently. An image is not by definition imperfect, it is merely lacking in that it only represents one side, one view, one moment, and not all other sides/views/times seen by other eyes and from other perspectives. Then, while this may only be one side, it would be by Christian definition one side/view/aspect of perfection, so where does the inherent evil lie in that? It would only make sense that this portion of us would be the portion that is not connected to God, the flesh, which is the weakest and most temporary aspect of man. As those who believe in the afterlife would mostly argue that the soul is what moves on and is reconnected with God in the afterlife (except those crazy Mormons that believe the afterlife will be in flesh with physical bodies), it wouldn't make sense for the soul, which we be the most basic, fundamental, and longest lasting aspect of man, to be where our evil nature lies. In your words, the point of this life is to make good decisions when faced with decisions that are both good and bad, and if this is the case then I would posit that the potential for evil only exists in this world. If you want to argue about Lucifer's fall (not Satan, who may actually be a different and unique entity separate from Lucifer), I don't see a parallel, as angels and men are described by both Biblical and non-Biblical sources as being quite different. Also, I wouldn't have to argue against monotheism to advocate diversity based on my point about image. Just as standing around an object and taking pictures from different sides and angles will produce different images of the very same object, so too can our differences be embraced as merely being representative of different sides and views from which the image was fashioned. Were these differences to vanish, the various pictures would fail to describe in detail the object in question, even from all angles. You state that the Bible advises to be "in the world, but not of the world", and I would indeed interpet this differently than you, which may have something to do with our different world views. Unless we commit suicide, we don't have a choice regarding being in the world (one of my problems with this existence), so I would interpret that advise as to not partake of a world that is by account of nearly every world religion either fallen, evil, sinful, dukha, an illusion, a cruel joke, or at the very least temporary and dying. Viewing the world this way does not give way to asceticism, believing that the flesh is the problem and attempting to destroy it, as opposed to viewing the world as the tempter/manipulator/destroyer/pain bringer unto the flesh, does. It is the decisions that we make based on selfish choices (most typically inspired by the flesh) that bring people suffering, in addition to the suffering brought on by existence itself (sickness, hunger, pain, dying, etc...). This does not mean that I view indulging the flesh or denying the flesh as either good or bad, merely that it is the easiest way to be swayed toward decisions that bring more pain to humanity. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Iceni]

A single image would be unacceptable. For example, judgment is one side of God. But a God without mercy is not a Christian God; he's more of a pagan god. By the same token, a God comprised of nothing but mercy is a teleological joke, as if someone has handed the reins of the world over to Dionysus for the weekend. That's where the inherent evil lies. Each religion has its own 3D spin-around view of God. They don't just see specific aspects, or at least they don't often claim such a limitation. Confucians, Hindus, Mormons and Muslims all see God in very different, mutually exclusive ways. As a result I don't think they're taking different snapshots of God. Each have sculpted their own figure. The problem with trying to embrace these disparate notions is that they tend to clash. Granted, they might each have an essential idea that pertains to God, but it's well near impossible that they're all going to be correct. You could interpret 'God's omnipresent spirit' in the Hindu concept as a metaphor for the fact that God has no spatial existence and instead is understood in each man, but for anyone who literally believes that everything is God in one way or another this will come across as wrong. That's my problem with trying to adopt an all-inclusive view of God. While I will readily admit the corrupting influence of the flesh my main objection is that I don't think it's the root of all evil. (It may be that we agree on this point.) Pride is the fundamental sin that influences all of the others, and what I was trying to say about (Lucifer, I suppose) was that his sin was pride and was not based on the existence of the world and corporeal existence specifically - rather in his own ego.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

wow this convo sounds confuzzling :/

[RelentlessOblivion]

it's only confusing to one not intelligent enough to follow the conversation

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

too much for me haha XD