Religion IS crazy!

[dutchie]

Islam - religion of peace - not going so well in Syria.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/15/syrias-warring-parties-film-themselves-committing-atrocities


Little bit of cannibalism on the side.

 

[DB008]

Islam - religion of peace - not going so well in Syria.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/15/syrias-warring-parties-film-themselves-committing-atrocities


Little bit of cannibalism on the side.

Hmm.....

 

[Sean K]

So, one man makes a crappy movie about one of the prophets and there are riots around the world including in Australia calling for his head. Literally.

A man gets his head cut off on the streets of London for, um, being on the streets of London. Allah Akbar!

Has humanity really advanced to this?

Still just animals.

 

[bunyip]

From my bible study days I recall that Jesus was supposedly a strong advocate of ‘turning the other cheek’. His message to his followers was that if someone slaps you then rather than retaliate, you should offer him the other cheek to slap as well.
I don’t recall Jesus giving any advice on how far you should take his ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy.
To me it sounds both idealistic and unrealistic. Boys boarding school taught me very quickly that the meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach doesn’t work too well in the real world – there are people who will walk all over you unless you learn to stick up for yourself by giving as good as you get, both verbally and physically.

Last week in London we saw yet another example of religion-based madness when a couple of sub-human animals ran a man down in a car, then hacked him to death with meat cleavers.
Is there any person, Christian or otherwise, who would seriously suggest we ‘turn the other cheek’ to this sort of thing?

Duckman and Tink - as followers and presumably advocates of the teachings of Jesus, your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

[cynic]

From my bible study days I recall that Jesus was supposedly a strong advocate of ‘turning the other cheek’. His message to his followers was that if someone slaps you then rather than retaliate, you should offer him the other cheek to slap as well.
I don’t recall Jesus giving any advice on how far you should take his ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy.
To me it sounds both idealistic and unrealistic. Boys boarding school taught me very quickly that the meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach doesn’t work too well in the real world – there are people who will walk all over you unless you learn to stick up for yourself by giving as good as you get, both verbally and physically.

Last week in London we saw yet another example of religion-based madness when a couple of sub-human animals ran a man down in a car, then hacked him to death with meat cleavers.
Is there any person, Christian or otherwise, who would seriously suggest we ‘turn the other cheek’ to this sort of thing?

Duckman and Tink - as followers and presumably advocates of the teachings of Jesus, your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Would you agree that there would be far fewer atrocities (murders, robberies assaults etc.) if everyone were to follow this sage advice?

P.S. Apologies for not being Duckman or Tink, but I also happen to have some admiration for Jesus teachings.

 

[bellenuit]

The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Would you agree that there would be far fewer atrocities (murders, robberies assaults etc.) if everyone were to follow this sage advice?

P.S. Apologies for not being Duckman or Tink, but I also happen to have some admiration for Jesus teachings.

Agreed. It would be wonderful if everyone followed that teaching. Not only would there be far fewer atrocities, as you say, but there would be no opposition to gay marriage, women priests or a myriad of other "policies" (if that is the right word) that Christians believe are important.

I too think some of the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the New Testament are fundamental to a just and caring society, as opposed to the vindictive and revengeful edicts of the God in the Old Testament, though I believe there is a Jesus quote that orders his followers to obey the rules of the Old Testament God (it's too late for me to go looking for it now). But also, the "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you" (as I learned it in school) command is more likely to be followed by Atheists and humanists today than by many, though not all, Christians.

 

[Tink]

Agree Cynic

Sadly we have this thread blaming religion for human failings, seems to be a passtime, yet if we all lived the way of Jesus, what a perfect world it would be.
Heaven on earth.

Bellenuit going on about gay marraige destroys the family which is exactly what its about, taking away the rights of children loving their mother and father.
Thats a selfish thing to do, dont say its not about the children because children are a part of gay marraige and will be written in law.
How dare we do that to the children?

Bunyip, you know the Church is nothing like that, there is goodness there and helping others. You have seen it for yourself.
The Christian charities, churches, schools, hospitals are all full to the brim helping the community.

 

[pavilion103]

Either you take all of Jesus or none of him. Jesus was not for gay marriage. How absurd that someone would say if people followed Jesus there would be no opposition to gay marriage. Beyond laughable.

The teachings of Jesus are amazing. It's the failings of the church at times that is bad. When they fail it is because they are actually acting against Jesus teachings.

Religion causes problems (man made traditions etc), following Christ doesn't. It leads to life and freedom

 

[pavilion103]

But people do need to look into what Christ taught and no exclude parts.

He made unmistakable claims of his divinity. He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.

Jesus was in his day and is very polarizing because he forces is to make a choice about whether we will accept who he claims to be

 

[boofis]

He made unmistakable claims of his divinity. He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.

I see you're a C.S. Lewis fan.

 

[bunyip]

The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:

Would you agree that there would be far fewer atrocities (murders, robberies assaults etc.) if everyone were to follow this sage advice?

Absolutely – the world would be a great place if everyone treated each other in the same way they themselves would like to be treated.
That’s the basic principle I was brought up with, and still try to live by today. That’s the basic principle that my wife and I have instilled in our children. Perhaps that’s why my family and I live peaceful and contented lives, getting along with people in our community and helping our friends and neighbors (and sometimes complete strangers) wherever we can.

Now that I’ve answered your question, Cynic, perhaps you’ll answer mine – How far do we take this meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach that Jesus advocated?
For example, should we have turned the other cheek in 1942 when the Japanese dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Darwin than they dropped on Pearl Harbor?
A brief history....Japanese military intelligence told them, incorrectly as it turned out, that the US Pacific force was in Darwin. So the Japs decided that the best way to take out the American force supposedly stationed there was to kill all forty thousand Darwin residents by bombing the city into oblivion.
So tell me, Cynic, and Duckman and Tink and anyone else who’d like to comment – what would your Christian perspective have been in this situation? Should we have ‘turned the other cheek’ to the Japs by adopting the meek and mild, non-retaliatory approach that Jesus taught? Or were we right to recognize that the pacifist approach wouldn’t have worked with the Japanese, and the only way to avoid being over-run by the enemy was to fight back?

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip, you know the Church is nothing like that, there is goodness there and helping others. You have seen it for yourself.
The Christian charities, churches, schools, hospitals are all full to the brim helping the community.

Tink, I most definitely agree with you – Christian churches are for the most part comprised of decent, caring people who go out of their way to help others. I’ve seen it for myself and have personally been involved in the caring and kindness many times. I’ve known an odd bad person to be a member of a church, but they’re outnumbered about a hundred to one by the decent caring people.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.

...or a prophet similar to Buddha, Zarathustra, Socrates, Laotse, Ramana, etc.

When you do a bit of deciphering, they all spoke the same way, about the same things. It doesn't diminish Jesus' work to say this.

I tend to agree with Osho, who says that the 'Sermon on the Mount' is very insightful, but probably the only part of the Bible you need to read. There's a lot of rubbish in it that requires sifting through, and the same can be said for a lot of other religious texts. The problem has always been that ordinary men have tried to capture what cannot be captured easily in words. As Laotse said: “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know”.

 

[Sean K]

It's the failings of the church at times that is bad.

Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species.

Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.

Those that adapt to new understanding and discovery will flourish.

There's no flourishing going on in religion right now.

 

[FxTrader]

But people do need to look into what Christ taught and no exclude parts.

Agreed. Once one examines the entirety of the claims of Jesus and his followers and not just select excerpts of wisdom then a clear picture emerges of the genesis of a mythology that has deceived millions into believing extraordinary claims on bad evidence.

He made unmistakable claims of his divinity.

As have many other religious figures before and after Jesus.

He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.

This is fallacious logic based on omission. He could just be mistaken or deluded but his claim to be a God, sent by God or some derivative of God is not unusual in human history.

Jesus was in his day and is very polarizing because he forces is to make a choice about whether we will accept who he claims to be

Whoever and whatever Jesus claimed to be only forces one to examine the extraordinary claims against the extraordinary evidence in support of those claims. Since such evidence does not exist such claims can be dismissed as wishful thinking and we move onto the claims of the next self proclaimed prophet of an imaginary sky God.

 

[McLovin]

Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species.

Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.

Those that adapt to new understanding and discovery will flourish.

There's no flourishing going on in religion right now.

+1

I've got no problem in people believing whatever they want to, regardless of how ridiculous it seems. If a book about sorcery gets you out of bed in the mornings then there's nothing wrong with that, just keep it to yourself. And spare the rest of the lectures.

Sooner or later, religion today will be viewed in the same way as we view the Druids worshiping the Sun.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

No one is getting this.

Time for some Socratic dialogue. Wrote it myself - hope you like it.

Questioner: Who is debating religion? Who asks the questions? (not directed at anyone).

Answerer: I am.

Q: What does 'I' mean?
A: You know ...I. How else can I say it?!!
Q: what is the I? Describe it.
A: just this! (points to the body)
Q: The 'I' is the body?
A: Yes I am THIS (waves hands over the body).
Q: You're telling me that the 'I', the 'me', is the body, that they are the same?
A: Yes.

Q: Now pay attention to your whole body.
A: ok
Q: No... I want you to really do this. Give your attention to your whole body at once.
A: ok I am doing that.
Q: Who is paying attention?
A: I am!! Duh.
Q: You just told me your body is your 'I'. Now you're telling me there is something else you call 'I' that is doing the watching of the body, the thing you called 'I' just a second ago. So is the thing you call 'I', the body or the thing watching the body?
A: I guess it's the thing doing the watching.
Q: So you are not your body
A: No, I am the thing watching
Q: And what is that?
A: My mind...I must be my mind,

Q: What is the mind?
A: the mind is thoughts, mental processes.
Q: ok, I agree. Now pay attention to your thoughts and mental processes for a moment.
A: ok
Q: Now who or what is paying attention to the thoughts and mental processes?
A: I am.
Q: So you're not your mind either. What are you? Who are you? What is this 'I' that you keep referring to?

and so on....

Jesus said "I am that I am". What did he mean? He also said ""Before Abraham was, I AM." What did he mean?

Nissagardatta entitled his book "I Am That". He understood also.

Ramana got it also. “Your duty is to be and not to be this or that. 'I am that I am' sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in the words 'Be still'. What does stillness mean? It means destroy yourself. Because any form or shape is the cause for trouble. Give up the notion that 'I am so and so'. All that is required to realize the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that?”

Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum" - I think therefore I am.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

....In other words, the very moment you know who or what you really are (who the 'I' is), the whole world collapses and you realize that you literally do not exist, and that you never existed. The thought "I exist" is seen for what it is...simply a thought with no inherent truth. Only IT has ever existed (call it God if you want). IT gave rise to time and space, the big bang, evolution, your body and even the illusion of 'me'. 'Me' is not the body, so when 'me' dies, the body goes on as usual. So when Jesus refers to himself as God, there's nothing else he can really say!! He is God, but so am I...and so are you! But this is just explaining the theory. Anyone can do that. Destroying the I-thought is very, very tricky. Million times harder than trading, so they say!

 

[cynic]

Absolutely – the world would be a great place if everyone treated each other in the same way they themselves would like to be treated.
That’s the basic principle I was brought up with, and still try to live by today. That’s the basic principle that my wife and I have instilled in our children. Perhaps that’s why my family and I live peaceful and contented lives, getting along with people in our community and helping our friends and neighbors (and sometimes complete strangers) wherever we can.

Now that I’ve answered your question, Cynic, perhaps you’ll answer mine – How far do we take this meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach that Jesus advocated?
For example, should we have turned the other cheek in 1942 when the Japanese dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Darwin than they dropped on Pearl Harbor?
A brief history....Japanese military intelligence told them, incorrectly as it turned out, that the US Pacific force was in Darwin. So the Japs decided that the best way to take out the American force supposedly stationed there was to kill all forty thousand Darwin residents by bombing the city into oblivion.
So tell me, Cynic, and Duckman and Tink and anyone else who’d like to comment – what would your Christian perspective have been in this situation? Should we have ‘turned the other cheek’ to the Japs by adopting the meek and mild, non-retaliatory approach that Jesus taught? Or were we right to recognize that the pacifist approach wouldn’t have worked with the Japanese, and the only way to avoid being over-run by the enemy was to fight back?

Thanks for your reply Bunyip.Your subscription to the "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" philosophy is exemplified by the courteous and non-judgmental tone of your many posts on this forum.

Before giving my response to your question, I would like to state for the record that I do not claim to be able to reconcile every written account of the actions and words of Christ with my understanding of the key teaching/s that many have come to describe as Christianity. Things like the cursing of a barren tree, bouts of rage at the temple and calling a woman a dog are a few of the things that lead me to wonder whether the masters might be capable of having bad halo days. (It is, of course, entirely possible that there was a higher purpose behind these actions which continues to elude me.)

Having said that, I do not currently subscribe to the view that any of Jesus' teachings require passive submission to the hostile actions of others. I take solace in the fact that items of advice such as "turn the other cheek", and "not forbidding your cloak to those whom take your robe" are given amidst many other items of sage advice (including one of my favourites: "treat others the way you'd like to be treated").

What I do believe is that the advice largely calls on adherents to correct misguided aggressors in the same manner that one would hope to be corrected were one to make a similarly calamitous error.

My current understanding of "...turn the other cheek" and "... do not forbid your cloak" is to maintain one's commitment to a righteous path irrespective of the hostile distractions of others (i.e. not allow the actions of aggressors to tempt descension into the aggressor/victim cycle).

"Sure he slapped your cheek and took your robe!"
"Should one detour from their rightful course only to issue a retaliatory cheekslap and then steal back one's robe?"
"Does one really want to empower misguided thieves and aggressors to entice oneself into becoming the same and thereby granting them an even greater victory?"
"Despite the cheekslap and the stolen robe, one still has another good cheek and a warm cloak also! There's no reason that the show cannot continue!"
"Would this not be preferable to the needless perpetuation of a violent cycle?"


In reference to a few of the other recent posts, I, like GB, have also noticed a number of remarkable similarities between Christ's teachings and those of masters that hail from other religions/philosophies. I like to believe that the value of the message is what's important here. Whilst I agree that questions regarding the origins of various prophets and masters (divine origin/inspiration, virgin birth etc.) are fascinating, they tend to distract from the message that was delivered. Although I lean predominantly towards Christianity and science (with maybe a dash or two of Hinduism and Hermitism thrown in), I do not consider it appropriate for any of the religions that I've encountered to date to claim a monopoly on the truth. Consequently, I prefer not to get too distraught over the political question of which belief system might be the one true and perfect religion.

(Chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, spearmint etc., feel free to choose whichever you find more palatable! Whatever flavour you choose it's still ice cream!)

 

[Tink]

Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species.

Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.

Those that adapt to new understanding and discovery will flourish.

There's no flourishing going on in religion right now.

Thats why the Christian schools are all bursting at the seams with long waiting lists.

Says it all.