A morning with the Jehova's

[Elliot]

'Ironically in Christian settings the best way to avoid being controlled by people is to read the bible'

Like the tyrant's charter in Romans 13 for example:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

[nfe]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.

Again, very two dimensional, fundie-athiest thinking. "The majority of organised Abrahamic-derived faiths are about control and money in their modern incarnation" would be an appropriate sentence.

Really? How incredibly interesting ....... :roll:

Well your statement was incorrect, mate. Not a matter of opinion or owt, just wrong. I think a more accurate  statement IS more interesting, yes. You can't take the huff because it was pointed out as such any more than if you'd said Les Pauls were first built in 1985 and were told you were wrong.

I think organised religion should be challenged extensively. But with reasoned thinking and debate, not with as all-ecompassing, inaccurate and intolerant views as it itself is often guilty of proposing.

[Johnny Mac]

Intolerance, you hit the nail on the head there. You obviously have more time than most to chit chat about fantasies and lies of the past. People dont need this cr@p, it gets passed down to them and they are brainwashed with it by older generations and steered into their teachings and agendas. Reading just a few of these convoluted posts on this subject just proves to me what a load of cr@p religion is and why human beings would be better off without it.

[Stevepage]

Every time they knock at my door I'm usually in full on slob mode which means shorts, hair not brushed properly, usually some T shirt with skulls or a band name splattered across it and they're usually interupting my morning of game play. It gets rather annoying.

If I'm interested, I'll come see you, untill then don't knock on my door and expect me to listen to you waffle on about something I have 0 desire to be apart of.

 :P

[nfe]

Intolerance, you hit the nail on the head there. You obviously have more time than most to chit chat about fantasies and lies of the past. People dont need this cr@p, it gets passed down to them and they are brainwashed with it by older generations and steered into their teachings and agendas. Reading just a few of these convoluted posts on this subject just proves to me what a load of cr@p religion is and why human beings would be better off without it.

You made a factually incorrect statement, which I pointed out. That's it.

But to respond to that particular post. It's part of my areas of study, so yes, I do spend more time than most studying and discussing it. Rationally. I wouldn't use a phrase like "chit chat" to demean academic study of anthropology, history and archaeology, mind.

It's one of the most important things in the history of our species, if not THE most important, in terms of how we came to arrive at where are and in order to understand our past. Likewise study of Chritianity in particular is essential to understanding our specific western culture.

I don't know what makes reasoned discussion convoluted.

Many people are brainwashed and it often amounts to child abuse, I would agree. Human beings might well be better off without it (though in real terms, it's actually science that has guaranteed the eventual demise of civilisation, ever since the agrarian revolution, to play devil's advocate) but that's really besides the point I was making.

Put simply, I'm an anti-theist, but it's important to understand something you wish to debate, and making incorrect or ill-educated assertions about it serves nobody but those who hold the opposite view to yourself.

[MDV]

What I think youre overlooking, nfe, is that a motivation behind an ideas inception and the mechanism or pragmatic reasons for it proliferation are not one and the same.

Perhaps the intentions behind most major religions were benign spirituality and exploration of the human condition. Perhaps. But they are too laced with behavioural instruction and too fundamentally tribal (and therefore unifying for a single group and adversarial and dehumanising, or always on the brink of it, to others) for them not to be a mechanism of population control. Its intrinsic to them; their centralisation of power and homogenisation of thought, belief and behaviour, not to be. What any original authors intended and what they are and have always been and been used as are not necessarily connected.

Pragmatic example: tithing. You must give the first 10% of your income to the church. What this has to do with any spiritual relationship with their imaginary friend I have no idea, but its right there in jesus' teachings (as a secondary consideration, albeit) and is one of many doctrines that facilitated the hegemony of the church for centuries, from damn near day one.

[nfe]

All of the above is true. But, and the real issue, is that it is not all true of all religion. And that's what Johnny Mac stated and what I said was untrue. Not all religion is organised, for a start. Various religion to this day exist only as origin stories and hope mechanisms, with no real scriptural laws nor requirements.

Who could argue that deism is a control mechanism? Or monetarily motivated?

[MDV]

While any religion has to be a control mechanism to a degree (its inevitable for any set of teachings and behavioural instructions, and there are all that, near-definitionally), not all are as politically and economically charged as the abrahamic religions, no. They in particular, however, are spiritual and belief systems woven into political and financial systems that lead to the dominion of the central religious authority over the people. Not true of, say, buddhism, obviously.

Deism is pretty obviously not a religion at all. Confucianism is more of a religion. Both being philosophical positions, and the latter being instructive on behaviour, the former not, even if desim is the one that has *something* to say about the nature of the universe and out place in it (made by cosmic engineer, we dont really matter) while confucianism is agnostic/apatheistic. Hell, marxism and keynsianism are more religious than deism.

[Elliot]

Surely the purpose of all religion (as opposed to individualistic philospohical paths, including some forms of Buddhism) is to create a community- after all the Latin meaning of the word 'religion' is probably 'to bind together again' or 'to oblige' (if 'religare' is the correct source of the word).  The idea that religion provides an individual with a personal spiritual path is pretty much a modern notion - community obligation was at the centre of Greek and Roman religion as well as the Abrahamic religions.  Religion is essentially about bringing people into conformity with the rest of the community. 

In the case of the Abrahamic religions the added view that God is exclusive in who he chooses to be his People is a pretty powerful force and one that has given rise to a great deal of atrocity - After the God of the Bible is the God of a few (although that 'few' may be in the millions), not of all.  For example, the circumcised descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17) or those, 'not the World', who God has given to Christ to intercede for (e.g John 17). 

If you found a community on such notions you are bound to find that supremacist ideas and political domination to the community's definition of orthodoxy is going to arise - and thus political domination.

[nfe]

Religion comes from religio. Meaning reverence for/bond with gods or along those lines. Of course, Latin derivatives are often quite different from their origins, even our dictator is quite different from their dictator.

I think the most sensible modern working definition would most simply be "theistic belief in the nature of the universe". In which case, deism is certainly a religious belief. You could perhaps change theistic to spiritual in order to include some Eastern belief systems that should probably be considered religious but it's troublesome as it would probably also then have to include some things which are really only philosphies.

[MDV]

Surely the purpose of all religion (as opposed to individualistic philospohical paths, including some forms of Buddhism) is to create a community- after all the Latin meaning of the word 'religion' is probably 'to bind together again' or 'to oblige' (if 'religare' is the correct source of the word).  The idea that religion provides an individual with a personal spiritual path is pretty much a modern notion - community obligation was at the centre of Greek and Roman religion as well as the Abrahamic religions.  Religion is essentially about bringing people into conformity with the rest of the community.  

In the case of the Abrahamic religions the added view that God is exclusive in who he chooses to be his People is a pretty powerful force and one that has given rise to a great deal of atrocity - After the God of the Bible is the God of a few (although that 'few' may be in the millions), not of all.  For example, the circumcised descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17) or those, 'not the World', who God has given to Christ to intercede for (e.g John 17).  

If you found a community on such notions you are bound to find that supremacist ideas and political domination to the community's definition of orthodoxy is going to arise - and thus political domination.

Well put, I quite agree

Deism =/= theism. Theism is the belief in a personal god or gods. Deism isnt, it just says that some intelligence invented the universe, not that it gives a toss about us.

Following from 'personal' gods, a theists god is typically interested in what food we eat, the days we work on, who we have sex with and when, that sort of stuff and so behavioural instructions are derived from divine authority. Deists 'god' couldnt care less.

[nfe]

I would disagree. My take is purely that theism is the belief in a supernatural creator. Their interest in their creation thereafter being besides the point.

I would describe the beliefs of most hunter gatherer communities to be religious, though most are desitic in nature. In that the gods created, then left everyone to get on with it and live in harmony with the planet.

I'm a little disappointed no one took up my assertion that it is scientific (or rather, technological) progress that currently has civilisation, humanity and the rest of life on Earth destined for extinction, or at best ruin, and has done for about ten-thousand years. Purely because I've been reading an interesting book on that theme  (related to the hunter gatherers mentioned above).:lol:

[MDV]

Then its your turn to be factually wrong ;). That is the accepted definition of deism; the 'take' of any of us doesnt matter. Theism being belief in an intervening/active/miracle doing, prayer hearing personal god, and desim being the belief in a cosmic engineer that pushed the 'universe ON' button and has done nothing since.

They are quite mutally exclusive, and all theistic religions require at least an active and best (and mostly) personal god or gods, while deists have usually arrived at their deism through (poor) interpretation of sciences and semi-rational philosophical enquiry and generally agree that if the cosmic engineer is still around then A: it doesnt do anything anymore and B: second guessing its nature, interests, awareness, intentions or even if any of the terms apply is futile; hence no doctrines for deists.

[MDV]

And to the technology will doom us/implication that hunter gatherers had or did it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Complete with evidence (and carefull hypothesising)

If the comment pertains to environmental damage, the video isnt relevant, if it pertains to violence, it is.

[nfe]

To quote my Oxford dictionary (admittedly from the 80's and definition/narrowness of definition changes) which obviously has a few options, one being;

belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Regards the hunter gatherer line, it's nothing to do with violence. Sort of to do with environmental damage. Essentially the case the book I'm reading (Ishmael - Daniel Quinn) makes is that since the agrarian revolution when we removed ourselves from natural selection humans have been actively at war with the planet in that we've systematically destroyed anything that competed with us for food, causing rapid population growth which we then felt compelled to try and sustain and leading to the endless problems we have now.

I don't know how my mind is really made up on the argument, but it's been an interesting read.

I'll watch the video though, I saw an interesting talk previously on the subject of violence through the ages on the TED website (which is FULL of great stuff).