Doubting Thomas

Ghost Buster

!!

mewso

I admire the cleverness of the writer here.

Antbert

I dunno. The concept of Blind Faith is always interesting. I see it's still annoying Christians on the other forum...

Dave!

Great thread !

Ghost Buster

Dave! wrote: »

Great thread !

Sorry folks. Im new to this and was breaking all sorts of rules and annoying folk so i was attempting to get myself into line
Heres the source of this thread and its not very clever at all:
ike many many athiests at one point I was the most devout craw thumping little catholic going. A dedicated altar boy to boot. Then I read The Bible and thought "Hang on a minute. Thats just plain nasty!'. I read it again and spotted even more nasty stuff. I had a quick trawl through the old testement, had a few nightmares and began my journey toward athiesm.
But the most troubling bit of Cathechism i can recall from my catholic school days was the story of Doubting Thomas.
The gist is : A bloke called Jesus dies in a fairly unpleasant, definate and public manner. A few days later he walks into a room full of his friends and they all go 'Ah look. theres yer man. Fair enough!!!"
They meet Thomas a bit later and Thomas, the big thicko has issues with believing that his dead boss is back walking about. Actually has the audacity to want proof, the irrational twit!
Sure enough Jesus pops back into the lads gaff a few days later, Thomas only then believes it and Jesus says "
Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'
I remember as a kid thinking that this is nothing less than a call for blind acceptance of anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is and the villification of common sense and logic. Though in my ten year old mind I probably just said "Thats daft!!"
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/doubting-thomas-faq.htm

Dave!

Ah, makes sense now ! Welcome to the forum !

Yeah Thomas is my kind of disciple, I'm afraid blind faith (as a virtue, no less) doesn't sit well with me

Ghost Buster

Dave! wrote: »

Ah, makes sense now ! Welcome to the forum !

Yeah Thomas is my kind of disciple, I'm afraid blind faith (as a virtue, no less) doesn't sit well with me

Me too. Im with a certain Dawkins chap on this matter. I understand the "trolling' rules in force here but I really dont accept this whole mantra of "You must respect other beliefs". A very dangerous concept if you ask me. If something is blatantly ridiculous and damaging to the greater good why must it automatically dererve respect. Respect must be earned surely?
Very few religions deserve automatic respect from what i can see, theres two that i can think of, and blind faith is a bizzarre concept in my eyes!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Ghost Buster

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well. The one Im most familiar with is Wicca/ celtic paganism as Im married to a witch!
The supernatural element and 'beliefs' are as daft to me as any others but its one of the few benign religions which actually treats folk as adults. It has few rules, well just one = "and it harm no one, do what you will".
It doesnt seek or desire converts , has no leaders or power structure to hold your hand or seek your money, is an equal opportunities employer when it comes to the sexes.
Most critically, as it is nature worship or worship of Mother earth it has something going for it that no other religion has.. wait for it.. THE EARTH DEFINATELY EXISTS!!!. Its definatelt there and is, in a manner of speaking, alive and really does provide for us. All are welcome into its ceremonies regardless of beliefs and boy can they party!!!!
I know paganism has as much of a shady past as any but it seems to have evolved some what!
I suppose strictly speaking its as much of a ethos and mind set as a religion but Im able to life alongside it blissfully.
Dam... The other one. Im going to get mauled here cos im not well informed on this at all but from what i know Buddhism seems quite benign and seems to be leaning toward the pagan ethos. I may be wrong.
can i go back and say that there is one religion I respect?????

Coriolanus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well. The one Im most familiar with is Wicca/ celtic paganism as Im married to a witch!
The supernatural element and 'beliefs' are as daft to me as any others but its one of the few benign religions which actually treats folk as adults. It has few rules, well just one = "and it harm no one, do what you will".
It doesnt seek or desire converts , has no leaders or power structure to hold your hand or seek your money, is an equal opportunities employer when it comes to the sexes.
Most critically, as it is nature worship or worship of Mother earth it has something going for it that no other religion has.. wait for it.. THE EARTH DEFINATELY EXISTS!!!. Its definatelt there and is, in a manner of speaking, alive and really does provide for us. All are welcome into its ceremonies regardless of beliefs and boy can they party!!!!
I know paganism has as much of a shady past as any but it seems to have evolved some what!
I suppose strictly speaking its as much of a ethos and mind set as a religion but Im able to life alongside it blissfully.
Dam... The other one. Im going to get mauled here cos im not well informed on this at all but from what i know Buddhism seems quite benign and seems to be leaning toward the pagan ethos. I may be wrong.
can i go back and say that there is one religion I respect?????

Psh, Pagans worship the devil. Everyone knows that.
And Buddhism?! Well... uh, Buddha was fat! :mad:

All seriousness aside, I don't mind Paganism. It seems to do the least harm, they have that going for them. I flirted somewhat with the idea as a child, but I think given my current philosophy if I were to "find faith" I'd be much more of a Savage Garden-ist (damn Australia for ruining that phrase) than the more.... lovey kind.

Ghost Buster

Nevore wrote: »

Psh, Pagans worship the devil. Everyone knows that.
And Buddhism?! Well... uh, Buddha was fat! :mad:

All seriousness aside, I don't mind Paganism. It seems to do the least harm, they have that going for them. I flirted somewhat with the idea as a child, but I think given my current philosophy if I were to "find faith" I'd be much more of a Savage Garden-ist (damn Australia for ruining that phrase) than the more.... lovey kind.

Nevore wrote: »

Psh, Pagans worship the devil. Everyone knows that.
And Buddhism?! Well... uh, Buddha was fat! :mad:



I should have skipped Buddism and said Pastafarianism.
I will look into it but i have read some claims that buddhism may not have the best track record when it comes to women.
Indeed if the worst you can say about a religion is that it does no harm then it has something going for it!
Did i mention the partys and the hot hippy chicks!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

Ghost Buster wrote: »

A bloke called Jesus dies in a fairly unpleasant, definate and public manner. A few days later he walks into a room full of his friends and they all go 'Ah look. theres yer man. Fair enough!!!"

Haha, this is great.

Ghost Buster

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They no longer carry out human sacrifice and canibalism, actual or ritualised of which The Crucifiction and transubstantiation are examples of.
Paganism was as nasty, primitive and savage and has cleaned up its act. Others have as well by the way.

Ghost Buster

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry there plowman. I missed a bit. My wife and her friends are still very reverential about Newgrange etc and i dont mean to misrepresent them about their beliefs, but hey!!! I like the partys!!!
Im being flippant i know but im allowed and they wont get particularly offend or threaten me with punishment from above. They dont care what i think.

Ghost Buster

Zillah wrote: »

Haha, this is great.

Just incase anyone thinks im being deliberately irreverant there is a reason why i wrote the Doubting Thomas story in that manner. I clearly remember my national school teacher deciding to demystify or dumb down our chaticism tales in this way. Possibly a bad move as i suddenly understood in my pre-teen way that here was a guy acting as any sane person would when faced with the walking dead and being relegated to second place.
It basically rewards blind faith and gives healthy cynicism a slap on the wrist.:rolleyes:

Coriolanus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Just incase anyone thinks im being deliberately irreverant there is a reason why i wrote the Doubting Thomas story in that manner. I clearly remember my national school teacher deciding to demystify or dumb down our chaticism tales in this way. Possibly a bad move as i suddenly understood in my pre-teen way that here was a guy acting as any sane person would when faced with the walking dead and being relegated to second place.
It basically rewards blind faith and gives healthy cynicism a slap on the wrist.:rolleyes:

Well, on this I have to side with PDN as he extrapolated over the other side. Thomas had zero problem with all the other miracles he'd witnessed, so it was a little odd that he balked at this one. After following the geezer around for years, witnessing watersports, wine-on-tap and the resurrection of Lazarus, I'd probably have just nodded and said ok too.

Asiaprod

Nevore wrote: »

And Buddhism?! Well... uh, Buddha was fat! :mad:

old proverb wrote:

He’s fat. He’s jolly. The Laughing Buddha is fell-fed and looking happy. Rub his belly for luck!

The images one normally sees of the Buddha are not really a correct representation of the Buddha. The representation is a copy of a deity called Hotei. He is the deity of contentment and abundance, and his statue is based on a real Chinese Zen monk named Budai who lived in the early 6th century. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the “Laughing Buddha.” Since the original Buddha is renowned for his fasting it is very doubtful that he was fat:)

Coriolanus

Asiaprod wrote: »

The images one normally sees of the Buddha are not really a correct representation of the Buddha.

Yeah, I know, something like the white Jesus conundrum.

Since the original Buddha is renowned for his fasting it is very doubtful that he was fat:)

So they're too different guys? Someone made a statue of Budai, set it down and when the customer asked what it was the annoyed grunt of an answer sounded like Buddha?! O.o
That's kind of funny really.

PDN

Asiaprod wrote: »

Since the original Buddha is renowned for his fasting it is very doubtful that he was fat:)

Actually I understand heard that a regime of fasting makes you fat.

Apparently, during a fast, your body reacts as if you're starving, so your metabolism extracts every scrap of energy from your calorific intake. Then, once you start eating again, the process continues and you pile on the weight Any biologists out there care to confirm or debunk this?

Anyway, that's my excuse for why I'm fat.

Asiaprod

I don't need any excuse to be fat...I love cheese.:)

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote: »

The images one normally sees of the Buddha are not really a correct representation of the Buddha. The representation is a copy of a deity called Hotei. He is the deity of contentment and abundance, and his statue is based on a real Chinese Zen monk named Budai who lived in the early 6th century. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the “Laughing Buddha.” Since the original Buddha is renowned for his fasting it is very doubtful that he was fat:)

Didn't Buddha start with fasting, and the decided to screw that, and went back to eating lots again?

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote: »

Didn't Buddha start with fasting, and the decided to screw that, and went back to eating lots again?

Don't know to be honest. My understanding was that during one of his periods of seeking enlightenment he went on a long fast and got nowhere. So he dumped that approach and adopted a different approach which I assume alowed him to eat again:)

There are 5 principles in Buddhism relating to food:

1) respect the labor of everyone whose work has contributed to the meal.

2) commit good deeds worthy of sharing in the meal.

3) arrive at the table without any negative feelings toward others.

4) eat in order to achieve spiritual and physical well-being.

5) be dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment.

Over indulgence is a no no in Buddhism so I would imaging over eating would definitely go against these principles.

Teutorix

I just read a reference to "paganism" and had to post. The word pagan refers to any non major polytheistic religion. So there is no such thing as pagan-"ism". In fact I believe the original usage was in reference to any non judeo-christian religion.

Dades

Welcome, Ghost Buster.

philologos

Why is Celtic Paganism worthy of any respect? If you are truly an atheist you'd have to call it and all other faiths a deception of the mind surely? Ultimately it would be a falsehood.

Do you think that falsehoods are deserving of respect?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is Celtic Paganism worthy of any respect? If you are truly an atheist you'd have to call it and all other faiths a deception of the mind surely? Ultimately it would be a falsehood.

Do you think that falsehoods are deserving of respect?

I respect the message of Jesus despite not believing that he was the son of god. Things like his moral lessons deserve respect because they make sense, not because of any claims to divine authority

The things that "ring true" for you in the bible ring true because they are true independently of god, for example murder is bad because it harms others and you knew this before you ever heard of the bible. It's not bad just because god says so

rugbyman

i am not sure if flippancy is allowed in such a Hallowed Thread,
but
"The one Im most familiar with is Wicca/ celtic paganism as Im married to a witch!"

Lots of us are in this situation and know nothing of Wicca!

Yes i have dared to post that as i am sure my wife does not read these threads

Happy new year to all.
Rugbyman

Antbert

Ghost Buster wrote: »

They no longer carry out human sacrifice and canibalism, actual or ritualised of which The Crucifiction and transubstantiation are examples of.
Paganism was as nasty, primitive and savage and has cleaned up its act. Others have as well by the way.

It's just... I don't know many Catholics who stone gay people to death or sodomise their servants... So you say 'Others have as well' by which I guess you mean Christianity but I don't understand why you have any respect for paganism and not christianity.

Respect is a bit of a dodgy word in this context. I don't hold either paganism or christianity in high regard.

philologos

Christians don't advocate stonings because of the role of mercy in the Gospel. It would be hypocritical of us to suggest after we have been forgiven our sins that someone else should be punished for theirs. Jesus makes this very clear in the Parables. Christians believe that Jesus' authority, and the New Covenant supercedes the Old Covenant.

Antbert

Yes yes alright Jakkass. That wasn't the point at all. I'm sure if we trawl through the bible we'd eventually find something advocated that the current Christians find unfavourable and no longer practice. (I really hope this is a challenge neither of us want to get involved in).

My point was almost sort of on the side of defending Christianity. Well not really... But almost sort of.

philologos

It's precisely because of the New Testament that we don't stone people to death. The primacy of mercy is what makes the difference. It's not a "challenge" at all, if one looks to Christian theology one will soon find that such penalties for sin aren't too compatible with it.

This is what marks Christianity as being different from Judaism.

If you trawl through the Bible out of context of course you will find (and distort) something to appear a certain way. What the Christian is interested in, is what God is trying to communicate to us through it in context.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

Didn't Buddha start with fasting, and the decided to screw that, and went back to eating lots again?

I think by eating "lots" it was more by comparison. IIRC it was no meals after midday, just one in the morning. Definitely no overindulgence, but staying away from starvation too
taking a quote:

"Avoiding dairy, and following a vegan diet is a personal option and not a requirement. Some Buddhists eat only once per day, before noon. This practice accords with an account in The Sutra In 42 Sections, a Mahayana Scripture, that relates how the Buddha ate one meal a day, before noon"

Antbert

To clarify, my point is that Christianity have done away with practices they used to do, right? So have pagans, according to the OP (I know almost nothing about pagans). So his justification didn't really stand. That was all!

philologos

The point isn't about practices. It's about Christianity as revealed to us by the Scriptures. Even in the first century stoning to death wasn't advocated by the Christian community from what we know from the Apostles.

I wouldn't agree with that point. I personally believe Christianity is the same as when Jesus revealed it. The way we practice it may have differed but the beliefs still remain as they were for the most part.

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

The point isn't about practices. It's about Christianity as revealed to us by the Scriptures. Even in the first century stoning to death wasn't advocated by the Christian community from what we know from the Apostles.

I wouldn't agree with that point. I personally believe Christianity is the same as when Jesus revealed it. The way we practice it may have differed but the beliefs still remain as they were for the most part.

Yes. That.