Religion

aguero93:20 said:
Oh I know all this mate, not an adherent to any particular religious doctrine myself but I do have an interest in them. Just thought it was an interesting piece.
Click to expand...
I always find those kind of articles interesting. I find religions interesting n’all, while I don’t believe in any of them.
 
Cassandra said:
www.standard.co.uk

NASA’s theory about the lack of alien visitors is truly depressing

Paper embraces the Great Filter theory of civilisations wiping themselves out before they can leave their planets.
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk

NASA has depressing speculation as to why we haven’t detected any signals from space representing other “intelligent” life forms.

In brief it suggests that as life forms become more technologically advanced but before they can make contact,with others the life form is “filtered out” a euphemism for becomes extinct or self destructs.

There are signs that we may be going the same way, if not through wars then through over exploitation of our natural resources and unchecked population growth. If we, following Psychedelic Canal’s analysis, see central tenets across a lot of the major religions and strip them from a lot of the ritualistic embellishments we could perhaps see a common message - Love God, Love your neighbour. Generalising it further humanists might go along with Love nature/creation, love humanity.

If NASA’s gloomy prognosis is correct perhaps that central message represents salvation for our species, or its successors.

Whether a God concept is necessary to achieve that is a mute point and it must be admitted that most religious organisations are not very good at following their own mantra and are often used by individuals to promote themselves rather than the good of all.
Click to expand...
Interesting take Casssandra. 'Moot' point indeed.
 
Kippaxpete said:
Interesting take Casssandra. 'Moot' point indeed.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I posted that and went for a shower, whilst I was standing in the shower I suddenly thought "I put mute instead of moot!" I'd hoped to correct it before anyone noticed.
 
Blue Mist said:
Orthodox Jews. The women's hair must not be seen, so they can chose to shave of their hair as it is easier.
Click to expand...
Shaving hair is very rare amongst orthodox Jewish women. The vast majority wear a wig covering most of their natural hair. This wig lark is only found in ultra orthodox communities.
 
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
www.standard.co.uk

NASA’s theory about the lack of alien visitors is truly depressing

Paper embraces the Great Filter theory of civilisations wiping themselves out before they can leave their planets.
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk

NASA has depressing speculation as to why we haven’t detected any signals from space representing other “intelligent” life forms.

In brief it suggests that as life forms become more technologically advanced but before they can make contact,with others the life form is “filtered out” a euphemism for becomes extinct or self destructs.

There are signs that we may be going the same way, if not through wars then through over exploitation of our natural resources and unchecked population growth. If we, following Psychedelic Canal’s analysis, see central tenets across a lot of the major religions and strip them from a lot of the ritualistic embellishments we could perhaps see a common message - Love God, Love your neighbour. Generalising it further humanists might go along with Love nature/creation, love humanity.

If NASA’s gloomy prognosis is correct perhaps that central message represents salvation for our species, or its successors.

Whether a God concept is necessary to achieve that is a moot point and it must be admitted that most religious organisations are not very good at following their own mantra and are often used by individuals to promote themselves rather than the good of all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the greens have it right.
Maybe the one true religion is respect the world you live in, and be in balance with your environment, because we’re not as clever as we think we are.
 
Has anyone mentioned access to children?
One aspect of any of the various faiths is a culture of tolerating abuse of kids in all their forms.
The bigger and more powerful they become,the more depraved the act,it's all the more likely it will be covered up.
Huge paedophile rings that have had in some cases thousands of years to perfect the protection of abusers.
Not for a minute suggesting all those involved in religions are abusers,it's that abusers know the power religion has in society although thankfully its being eroded somewhat nowadays.
 
Shadz69 said:
Has anyone mentioned access to children?
One aspect of any of the various faiths is a culture of tolerating abuse of kids in all their forms.
The bigger and more powerful they become,the more depraved the act,it's all the more likely it will be covered up.
Huge paedophile rings that have had in some cases thousands of years to perfect the protection of abusers.
Not for a minute suggesting all those involved in religions are abusers,it's that abusers know the power religion has in society although thankfully its being eroded somewhat nowadays.
Click to expand...

While this undeniably applies to organised religion, it also applies to all power structures. Do you think senior politicians (for example) who fancy kids can't find a way without making use of religion? 'Sir' Cyril Smith, that obnoxious fat shit who was obviously dodgy to anyone with instinct, is a good example. I am sure there are others we know nothing about. You only have to look at some of the MPs to see a potential Savile. The so-called 'colourful' ones.

The problem is power structures and humanity's tendency to unconditional deference. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course, the corruption takes different forms, depending on the individual. Most men don't fancy kids and still wouldn't if they were the King. But there are those who do.

By the way, power structures work even within families. The cases I know about personally were all messed with by their dads/uncles, not by a priest. But often families go into denial mode. They don't want to admit that 'our Arthur' likes messing with his daughter. Because it's not something they want to think about.
 
BrianW said:
While this undeniably applies to organised religion, it also applies to all power structures. Do you think senior politicians (for example) who fancy kids can't find a way without making use of religion? 'Sir' Cyril Smith, that obnoxious fat shit who was obviously dodgy to anyone with instinct, is a good example. I am sure there are others we know nothing about. You only have to look at some of the MPs to see a potential Savile. The so-called 'colourful' ones.

The problem is power structures and humanity's tendency to unconditional deference. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course, the corruption takes different forms, depending on the individual. Most men don't fancy kids and still wouldn't if they were the King. But there are those who do.

By the way, power structures work even within families. The cases I know about personally were all messed with by their dads/uncles, not by a priest. But often families go into denial mode. They don't want to admit that 'our Arthur' likes messing with his daughter. Because it's not something they want to think about.
Click to expand...
This is a religion thread, didn't realise I had to engage in whataboutery to get my point across.
 
Shadz69 said:
Has anyone mentioned access to children?
One aspect of any of the various faiths is a culture of tolerating abuse of kids in all their forms.
The bigger and more powerful they become,the more depraved the act,it's all the more likely it will be covered up.
Huge paedophile rings that have had in some cases thousands of years to perfect the protection of abusers.
Not for a minute suggesting all those involved in religions are abusers,it's that abusers know the power religion has in society although thankfully its being eroded somewhat nowadays.
Click to expand...
Think it was Dawkins who said that forcing religion on kids was in itself a form of abuse. But he’s an arsehole.
 
BobbyJohnstone said:
Think it was Dawkins who said that forcing religion on kids was in itself a form of abuse. But he’s an arsehole.
Click to expand...
He's an arse but that doesn't make him wrong. If you're not old enough to vote, drink or get married you're not old enough to commit to a religious group.
 
BrianW said:
While this undeniably applies to organised religion, it also applies to all power structures. Do you think senior politicians (for example) who fancy kids can't find a way without making use of religion? 'Sir' Cyril Smith, that obnoxious fat shit who was obviously dodgy to anyone with instinct, is a good example. I am sure there are others we know nothing about. You only have to look at some of the MPs to see a potential Savile. The so-called 'colourful' ones.

The problem is power structures and humanity's tendency to unconditional deference. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course, the corruption takes different forms, depending on the individual. Most men don't fancy kids and still wouldn't if they were the King. But there are those who do.

By the way, power structures work even within families. The cases I know about personally were all messed with by their dads/uncles, not by a priest. But often families go into denial mode. They don't want to admit that 'our Arthur' likes messing with his daughter. Because it's not something they want to think about.
Click to expand...
Saved me the bother of writing a lengthy reply.
Add the royal family to the list.
Family structure and absolute power.
 
You could be right. But given the nature of society, it was scarcely necessary to invent religion in order to abuse kids. Until relatively recently in our history, a father had complete power over his family. The state simply did not interfere. That religion added another layer is a strong possibility. We see it even now in certain closed societies where the 'minister' (to use a neutral term) is held to be above suspicion due to his high social status in that society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top