The Hazards of Belief

Zillah

http://en.rian.ru/society/20050920/41446765.html

While scientists continue their efforts to establish the origin of the mysterious images, theologians and psychics maintain these are messages from God. They say it is no coincidence that inscribed in one of the leaves is the word "pas," which they believe to be a misspelled version of the Portuguese for peace, "paz."

God's Portuguese isn't very good apparently...

SonOfPerdition

Zillah wrote:

http://en.rian.ru/society/20050920/41446765.html



God's Portuguese isn't very good apparently...

he's probably spelling it phonetically!

Scofflaw

To take a slightly less splintered, but still striking example, does Mark 16:18 [“They (Christ’s followers) shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”] mean--as some Appalachian Christian sects insist--that disciples of Jesus won’t be hurt if they handle poisonous snakes? Most Christians seem to interpret this in some other way, which seems very sensible. But the meaning of the words themselves appears clear as a bell, and the Appalachian rattlesnakehandlers could well claim that other Christians are not following the Bible. (One notes however that even the “true believers” here limit themselves to picking up poisonous snakes, not drinking lethal amounts of cyanide or strychnine. And inevitably many of them die of snake bites, the latest being 48-year old Linda Long who died of a bite received during services on November 5, 2006 at the East London Holiness Church in London, Kentucky. See Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Peter C. Hill, and W. Paul Williamson, The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism, 2005, New York: The Guilford Press, Chapter 5.)

From this book - published in its entirety online, describing, from a social scientist's point of view, the characteristics of the fundamentalist/authoritarian follower. I am naturally suspicious of it, because it agrees with me, but there are some very recognisable descriptions!


cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Just something I stumbled upon...

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Just something I stumbled upon...

LOL

Tar.Aldarion

The dark ages weren't stupid!

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

The dark ages weren't stupid!

They aren't in the stupid part, they are in the "religion" and "politics" part

5uspect

Read the fine print.

Dades

At first I was looking at that chart, wondering was it a bit close to the bone charter wise - but now I've got my head around it I like it a lot!

5uspect

Yeah its a bit nasty but the overlaps are quite clever.

robindch

Around easter-time, people get upset about a chocolate Jesus:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6509127.stm

More here:

http://www.cosimocavallaro.com/

Scofflaw

I'd be interested in people's views on this article:

Religious people less likey to spread AIDS

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd be interested in people's views on this article:

One word: Africa.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

One word: Africa.

Not necessary. If you read the article carefully, the sample is rather heavily biased. The majority of the "non-religious" in the sample are gay - the majority of the theists are straight.

Subtle, but indefensible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ciaran500

robindch wrote:

Around easter-time, people get upset about a chocolate Jesus:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6509127.stm

More here:

http://www.cosimocavallaro.com/

I've heard this in a few places and I still can't figure out what they are offended at

5uspect

I suppose its the lumping in of their God your saviour with the commercial chocolate after lent fest that we all know easter is really about.

Scofflaw

Ciaran500 wrote:

I've heard this in a few places and I still can't figure out what they are offended at

It should have been white chocolate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

coffee_cake

Scofflaw wrote:

It should have been white chocolate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lol! That's brilliant!!

robindch

> It should have been white chocolate?

Nope, Jesus was a Palestinian, not a Paddy!

Anyhow, I liked the spin that news outlets put on this. USA Today reported that the sculpture was "anatomically correct", while the excitable catholic league ran it under the title "NAKED JESUS—GENITALS EXPOSED—CRUCIFIED". Meanwhile, the BBC's decorous article above simply reported that Jesus was depicted "without a loincloth"...

Crucifix

Great line about this on the onion:

If I had that sculpture, I would trade it in a heartbeat for thirty chocolate coins

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> It should have been white chocolate?

Nope, Jesus was a Palestinian, not a Paddy!

If you move a good way over to the right, you'll see the joke.

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, I liked the spin that news outlets put on this. USA Today reported that the sculpture was "anatomically correct", while the excitable catholic league ran it under the title "NAKED JESUS—GENITALS EXPOSED—CRUCIFIED".

Hmm. I can see them objecting to the first two points, but I feel they should hardly be surprised by the third.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

growler wrote:

One has to admire his decision to test his faith in a lion's den, very biblical of him.

Matthew 4,7 Jesus answered him(Satan), "It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test". Very UNBIBLICAL of him...

A tragic story indeed, and one can only assume one of two conclusions:

A. The guy had serious mental problems...

B. The guy was fed horse **** by some 'religious' group who brainwashed him into thinking this way...

Whichever it was, the poor guy was deluded and we can only pray (athiests welcome ) God has mercy on his soul. From his words, 'God will save me, if He exits', imo, do not sound like the words of a Christian, But then, who am I to judge?

Splendour

5uspect wrote:

Just something I stumbled upon...

John 15, 18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

Part and parcel of the territory as far as I'm concerned...

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

John 15, 18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

Part and parcel of the territory as far as I'm concerned...

Hmm. Now if only atheists weren't the most hated minority, rather than Christians...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Now if only atheists weren't the most hated minority, rather than Christians...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reckon we're be neck to neck there...


Personally, I've alot more time for atheists, than the likes of Fr. Francis Moloney ( co author of Gospel of Judas ), who claims that some of Jesus miracles didn't actually happen. I don't understand how he and others like him, can claim this and go on to say the rest of the bible is true.


Rev. 3,15-16I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

Reckon we're be neck to neck there...

I had the darned survey somewhere here - we're well out in front, more hated than homosexuals.

Splendour wrote:

Rev. 3,15-16I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Sounds disturbingly like Nietzche...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I had the darned survey somewhere here

It's the first of a series of reports on the diversity of American society published by the University of Minnesota.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp/pub.html

50% more of the population distrust atheists than the next most distrusted group (Muslims; 26% v 39% and 33% v 47%). I suppose it's hardly surprising given the similarity of the questions, but almost half the population would object to a prospective offspring-in-law because he/she doesn't believe the same sky-deity exists? Weird.

Mind you, if nobody wants their kids to marry atheists, and successive generations of kids obey their parents wishes in this, and there is some genetic predisposition to atheism (expressed perhaps as a a lesser tendency to both magical thinking and authoritarianism) then isn't it pretty clear why atheists make up such a tiny percentage of the population?

.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I had the darned survey somewhere here

It's the first of a series of reports on the diversity of American society published by the University of Minnesota.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp/pub.html

50% more of the population distrust atheists than the next most distrusted group (Muslims; 26% v 39% and 33% v 47%). I suppose it's hardly surprising given the similarity of the questions, but almost half the population would object to a prospective offspring-in-law because he/she doesn't believe the same sky-deity exists? Weird.

Mind you, if nobody wants their kids to marry atheists, and successive generations of kids obey their parents wishes in this, and there is some genetic predisposition to atheism (expressed perhaps as a a lesser tendency to both magical thinking and authoritarianism) then isn't it pretty clear why atheists make up such a tiny percentage of the population?

Fortunately, that trend is compensated for by the way the more fundamentalist Christian denominaitons produce atheists. One of the hazards of insisting that the entire Bible is literally true is that the contradictions blow people right out of their faith if they hit them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

robindch wrote:

> I had the darned survey somewhere here

It's the first of a series of reports on the diversity of American society published by the University of Minnesota.

...
then isn't it pretty clear why atheists make up such a tiny percentage of the population?

I don't want to derail this thread - so if there's a discussion here let's move it, but I've been wondering about how religious the US is, really.

I watch quite a bit of US TV, and the image it portrays is not one of a country any more religious than the most secular European country. Factual/Reality programs don't start with a prayer, thanks are rarely given to God and in fictional drama religion is rarely touched on, and when it is - it is just as often portrayed in a negative light - when you see a Catholic priest you can presume ... etc etc.

As in everything there are exceptions (touched by an angel...) and the obvious argument is that this stuff is produced by Godless Californians, but these people above all want to make money and if they thought prime time bible stories would work I'm sure the airwaves would be full of them.

So why if the US is as religious as it is claimed are the TV ratings not filled with programs about Christ, Moses et al. Why doesn't American Idol start and and end with a prayer? Why when you watch desperate housewives are the characters religion and relationship with God not a far more central and important part of the story each week?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, I liked the spin that news outlets put on this. USA Today reported that the sculpture was "anatomically correct", while the excitable catholic league ran it under the title "NAKED JESUS—GENITALS EXPOSED—CRUCIFIED". Meanwhile, the BBC's decorous article above simply reported that Jesus was depicted "without a loincloth"...

I love the idea that if you show Jesus naked as he would have actually been when being crucified by the Romans (assuming he existed and was crucified) you are committing a "hate speech" against Christians