The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I asked you who that statue is and what the wreath in that photo was made of so in my mind that is one of many examples that openly implies Oldest Goat doesn't think he is the be all end all and doesn't know all of history and all details.

I mean, I wasn't there back in c. 4 BC C. AD 33 but for the reasons I've already mentioned - I personally think it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is a forgery.

Do you want to tell me what the Valerian Persecutions are?

I forgot to answer that question. That statue is presumably (I'm taking a punt here) Louis IX King of France who bought the crown from the Byzantiums in 1238 - n.b., the Fleur-de-lis on his sash, the heraldic symbol of French Monarchy. ''Valerian Persecution'', persecution of Christians by the Emperor Valerian C. 257 AD (Valerian was the same emperor incidentally who was captured by the Persians, Battle of Edessa. The Persian King reportedly used him as a footstool for his horse, before stuffing him!!).

[soon]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Cool, a dead body, is it real?  That ain’t real surely!

Apparently they are real.  I guess the preservation practices make them look ode?  And the gash on neck seems to be embellished.

Even if somehow all these pics happen to be fake, the practice is real.  Those pics are taken form the encyclopedia on preserved saints, which is embraced by the followers of the practice..

But if they are recreations, one still has to question why it would be considered desirable to gaze on these with reverence?

Edited February 20, 2018 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Why did Valerian do that?

Because he was a pagan. 

10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Cool, a dead body, is it real?  That ain’t real surely!

Look up on the internet ''Jeremy Bentham's head''.

[soon]

 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

A lot of Catholic bashing going on here. I have to wonder if a Jew, Muslim, or pretty much ANY other religion was being bashed like this if the MODS would allow it? It seems like it's discrimination to bash other religions, but openly ok to bash Catholism.

What about IF I were black, could my heritage be openly bashed like this? Or if I were a woman??? @downzy would be all over it. 

I'm all for an open discussion, but if I'm honest I'm feeling some HATE towards my religion going on.

Here’s the difference:

No one chooses to be black (or white, Asian, etc.). 

Faith is a choice; a belief structure. It is not a heritage.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

Oh, wow so progressive around here huh??? So I guess it's OK to attack a Jewish person on this forum. If they say "that's anti-Semitic" our fearless leader has proclaimed "that's just a belief system" good to know...

Even though I AM a cradle Catholic. I have been one since birth, not ANY different than a Jew or Muslim. Honestly, I fail to see how it's really ANY different than race or sex, because again I didn't choose to be Catholic. Sure I suppose I could CHOOSE to no longer be one, but so can a female or male apparently. Same goes for race, someone CAN make a decision to NO LONGER identify with a particular race. To be fair though, that's a bit of grey area, but sex on the other hand... Honestly as a Catholic, turning your back on God IS one of the greatest sins you can do. Greater than having a sex change, tbh. But that's just my silly little beliefs thats ok to bash.

Again, I have to say it appears to be OK to bash Catholics around here. But I STILL believe if someone went on an Anti-Semitic rant, I believe @downzy WOULDN'T allow that... I thought you believed in equality for all???

Edited February 20, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 hours ago, soon said:

Apparently they are real.  I guess the preservation practices make them look ode?  And the gash on neck seems to be embellished.

Even if somehow all these pics happen to be fake, the practice is real.  Those pics are taken form the encyclopedia on preserved saints, which is embraced by the followers of the practice..

But if they are recreations, one still has to question why it would be considered desirable to gaze on these with reverence?

Here is where I take offense to a great number of your posts. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, when they are phrased with respect. We DO indeed have reasons for these things, but when you MOCK them, then I take offense. Honestly I could very easily attack your religion, but that's not an act of love. What would Jesus do Soon? You are not acting out of love.

[downzy]

24 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Oh, wow so progressive around here huh??? So I guess it's OK to attack a Jewish person on this forum. If they say "that's anti-Semitic" our fearless leader has proclaimed "that's just a belief system" good to know...

Even though I AM a cradle Catholic. I have been one since birth, not ANY different than a Jew or Muslim. Honestly, I fail to see how it's really ANY different than race or sex, because again I didn't choose to be Catholic. Sure I suppose I could CHOOSE to no longer be one, but so can a female or male apparently. Same goes for race, someone CAN make a decision to NO LONGER identify with a particular race. To be fair though, that's a bit of grey area, but sex on the other hand... Honestly as a Catholic, turning your back on God IS one of the greatest sins you can do. Greater than having a sex change, tbh. But that's just my silly little beliefs thats ok to bash.

Again, I have to say it appears to be OK to bash Catholics around here. But I STILL believe if someone went on an Anti-Semitic rant, I believe @downzy WOULDN'T allow that... I thought you believed in equality for all???

It's okay to attack any belief system, not the person.  

Understand what you're arguing about.   If you want to take issue with someone solely because they're catholic/muslim/Jewish/whatever, then there's an issue.  But that's different than challenging a catholic/muslim/jew on a particular religions tenet, belief, behaviour, or explanation.  

If I take issue with the Catholic religion, it's concerns that religion.  Not you as a person.

A person may choose to identify with a certain race, but good luck with that in today's society.  Not going to happen.  A black person can't tell a cop to stop beating on him because he chooses to identify as a white person.  

You can believe what you want, but anyone who chooses to disparage anyone on the basis of religion (regardless of which religion they practice - save for Scientology) would receive the same reprimand as someone who directed bigotry and hate towards a particular race.  Keep in mind, there's a difference between being critical of religions and insulting towards the person who practices it.  I trust you see this difference.  

[Dazey]

Just for the sake of balance then. Judaism is also REALLY fucking stupid!

“Ultra-Orthodox Jews say London schools should not teach 'lies' that Earth is older than 6,000 years

Rabbis reportedly insistent schools should be allowed to tell children Earth was created on date in Bible”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-creationism-teacher-school-funding-boycott-hackney-london-a8216686.html

 

 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Just for the sake of balance then. Judaism is also REALLY fucking stupid!

“Ultra-Orthodox Jews say London schools should not teach 'lies' that Earth is older than 6,000 years

Rabbis reportedly insistent schools should be allowed to tell children Earth was created on date in Bible”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-creationism-teacher-school-funding-boycott-hackney-london-a8216686.html

 

 

Well since we’re being honest they’re all a load of bollocks really arent they?

[Dazey]

34 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well since we’re being honest they’re all a load of bollocks really arent they?

You could see where I was going next then eh?  

[SoulMonster]

The "it's all bollocks" statement is perfect in its simplicity.

The central core of all these religions are the nonsensical belief in supernatural entities. The difference between them is really just the trappings they add onto that. The rituals and customs and traditions that is heaped on top to make the central nonsense appear less moronic or glaringly obvious. Like an illusionist's trick, "look at these distractions while I fish out a card from my pocket". Catholicism is particularly adept at this, fooling people for centuries with bells and whistles. Some people may see through all the charade, and harbor a strong doubt that it is all built on a delusion, yet they prefer a comfortable lie to the coldness of truth.

As an atheist, reading a discussion where different goddicts argue about aspect of their religion, like when to perform baptism, is like hearing different believers in Santa Clause fight over whether the harness of Rudolph contains studs made out of bronze or iron. That's not the question they should be engaged in discussing

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do think the Crown of Thorns at Notre-Dame could be real. It is attested in Jerusalem as early as 409 AD. 

That early followers of Jesus would somehow get their hands on the crown of thorns used to punish Jesus and managed to preserve it for the first tumultuous 400 years, is unlikely, in my opinion. Of course it could be real, but I find it more plausible that it is just the first out of thousands of forgeries made by unscrupulous christians who wanted to earn money and power out of gullible believers. 

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

A lot of Catholic bashing going on here. I have to wonder if a Jew, Muslim, or pretty much ANY other religion was being bashed like this if the MODS would allow it? 

People have been demonstrating great focus by not bashing you personally, despite how unfair you have been towards @soon in this thread and all the silly things you have claimed, and instead directed their criticism towards the utter ridiculousness of the mind virus that has infected you. If any jew or muslim came here with equally nonsensical claims, I am sure people here would be equally critical of them.

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

The "it's all bollocks" statement is perfect in its simplicity.

The central core of all these religions are the nonsensical belief in supernatural entities. The difference between them is really just the trappings they add onto that. The rituals and customs and traditions that is heaped on top to make the central nonsense appear less moronic or glaringly obvious. Like an illusionist's trick, "look at these distractions while I fish out a card from my pocket". Catholicism is particularly adept at this, fooling people for centuries with bells and whistles. Some people may see through all the charade, and harbor a strong doubt that it is all built on a delusion, yet they prefer a comfortable lie to the coldness of truth.

As an atheist, reading a discussion where different goddicts argue about aspect of their religion, like when to perform baptism, is like hearing different believers in Santa Clause fight over whether the harness of Rudolph contains studs made out of bronze or iron. That's not the question they should be engaged in discussing

Always reminds me of this to be honest. 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Dazey

[Juventino]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why dismiss so freely that the crown at Notre-Dame is a forgery? We have in our possession items that have survived from far earlier periods of human history than c. 4 BC C. AD 33 - which is comparatively recent really. I'm certainly not dismissing the fact that it may be a (very early and Jerusalem based) forgery but equally I cannot dismiss that it is authentic either. Judging the historical context and ideology of the earliest Christians, and human instinct, It seems perfectly plausible that Jesus's apostles and other associates would collect various items associated with Jesus of Nazareth for preservation soon after his death for (emotive/historic) remembrance and veneration, and preserve those items. It would seem less plausible if they had no interest at all, chucking the crown in the bin! It also seems plausible that they were eagerly preserved during the earliest period of the church. We know for instance that St Peter's bones were removed from the Vatican Hill and stored away safely during the Valerian Persecutions (they were later returned). 

I should point out that I believe many relics are forgeries, or at best very suspect. I personally believe the Turin Shroud is bollocks. The Notre-Dame crown however has a history of ownership which can be traced back to a much earlier period than most relics - and to Jerusalem. It also doesn't appear to have any rivals (unlike the various nails say).

I cannot dismiss completely that it is authentic. 

I was in Turin last year and went to go have a look at the Porta Palatina (which I quite liked). I had been walking around for a while so I thought I'd look at one more thing before I sat for a rest. I walk into a church just down the road but didn't even realise it was the church with the Shroud . I had a quick look around and saw a bunch of people in a particular corner so I went to see what it was all about and there it was. Can't say I believe it, but it was interesting to see anyway.

[soon]

 

 

[Whiskey Rose]

Debate is one thing, but mocking or deriding someone for following a particular faith or believing in some of the practices taught, is particularly despicable imo.

 

[Len Cnut]

16 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

Debate is one thing, but mocking or deriding someone for following a particular faith or believing in some of the practices taught, is particularly despicable imo.

 

This is why I try to avoid expressing any personal beliefs regarding religion on here but rather question stuff I find interesting or else just not get involved because if you're asking, really and truly, what I feel about em, it ain't positive.  I just use the term 'a load of bollocks' as a quick and easy way of saying 'I don't think its real'.  But yeah, you're right, I agree with what you say though, its why I've opted out of such discussions in terms of actually expressing what I think of it all because I do think its a load of bollocks, apologies to anyone thats offended by that, if it makes anyone feel better I swear a lot, take it to mean 'i don't think any of its real' cuz thats all I'm really saying, I just have a foul mouth, it amounts to the same thing. 

It'd be nice if we could all be a little less sensitive and you could tell me what I thought or believed, whether it be about religion or music or society, is a load of bollocks and I could do the same without either of our feelings being hurt, cuz its none of it personal really, is it, I mean the Catholic Church is an institution and a very powerful one at that, I don't think anyone or any number of people on forums are powerful enough to make a victim of it.

I feel like theatre, the arts, is as precious to me as anything, McLeod regularly tells me its a load of bollocks    Its alright though innit, funny even  

Edited February 20, 2018 by Len Cnut

[soon]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That early followers of Jesus would somehow get their hands on the crown of thorns used to punish Jesus and managed to preserve it for the first tumultuous 400 years, is unlikely, in my opinion. Of course it could be real, but I find it more plausible that it is just the first out of thousands of forgeries made by unscrupulous christians who wanted to earn money and power out of gullible believers. 

I to dont see how it could be real.  But Im more stuck on the 'why' then the 'how.'  

I agree its likely a forgery made to create power and wealth. But in your phrasing you are calling people liars yet you take them at their word that they are Christians.  Christians dont act in those ways.  Why is that the one claim you choose to believe?

[soon]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

As an atheist, reading a discussion where different goddicts argue about aspect of their religion, like when to perform baptism, is like hearing different believers in Santa Clause fight over whether the harness of Rudolph contains studs made out of bronze or iron. That's not the question they should be engaged in discussing

When to baptize is an incredibly important conversation.  You dont have to care or believe, but thats different then claiming an authority on the subject to say what is or isnt a worthy conversation with in the faiths.

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, soon said:

I to dont see how it could be real.  But Im more stuck on the 'why' then the 'how.'  

I agree its likely a forgery made to create power and wealth. But in your phrasing you are calling people liars yet you take them at their word that they are Christians.  Christians dont act in those ways.  Why is that the one claim you choose to believe?

If someone claims to be christian then, yes, I take them on their word because who am I to define them. 

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

If someone claims to be christian then, yes, I take them on their word because who am I to define them. 

Christian has a definition, youd simply be applying it in an appeal for truth just as you are appealing for truth about the other aspects. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

18 minutes ago, soon said:

I to dont see how it could be real.  But Im more stuck on the 'why' then the 'how.'  

I agree its likely a forgery made to create power and wealth. But in your phrasing you are calling people liars yet you take them at their word that they are Christians.  Christians dont act in those ways.  Why is that the one claim you choose to believe?

Judge not, less ye be judged. 

[Whiskey Rose]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

This is why I try to avoid expressing any personal beliefs regarding religion on here but rather question stuff I find interesting or else just not get involved because if you're asking, really and truly, what I feel about em, it ain't positive.  I just use the term 'a load of bollocks' as a quick and easy way of saying 'I don't think its real'.  But yeah, you're right, I agree with what you say though, its why I've opted out of such discussions in terms of actually expressing what I think of it all because I do think its a load of bollocks, apologies to anyone thats offended by that, if it makes anyone feel better I swear a lot, take it to mean 'i don't think any of its real' cuz thats all I'm really saying, I just have a foul mouth, it amounts to the same thing. 

It'd be nice if we could all be a little less sensitive and you could tell me what I thought or believed, whether it be about religion or music or society, is a load of bollocks and I could do the same without either of our feelings being hurt, cuz its none of it personal really, is it, I mean the Catholic Church is an institution and a very powerful one at that, I don't think anyone or any number of people on forums are powerful enough to make a victim of it.

I feel like theatre, the arts, is as precious to me as anything, McLeod regularly tells me its a load of bollocks    Its alright though innit, funny even  

I get what you're saying, but faith can be so at the core of who someone is, it would be hard to not take it personally, no? Esp if comments are snide. Having said that, i dont think "load of bollocks" in itself is a mocking comment, its just what you believe and thats fine! Im not even religious, i just have tremendous respect for those who are, it impresses and humbles me that they have such faith. 

Ps. Robert Mitchum, and Steve McQueen are a load of bollocks..and so is a good fitting suit 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Whiskey Rose