Are you religious?

I'm with the People's Front of Judea.

The only people I don't like are the Popular People's Front.

BeerCat said:

Strictly speaking wouldn't Paganism be old age?

Click to expand...

Ancient Druidism would be but nothings known of it so any version practised today is very modern.

Slid said:

I have never thought at all about John being the "beloved disciple". If I was making any sort of point, it is simply that John, the son of Zebedee, is not feasibly the author of John the gospel, or, for that matter, any of the rest of the John-ite writings.

Click to expand...

Not heard that before why can John son of Zebedee not be the same as the beloved disciple?

In any religion, if the priest likes lamb you have to sacrifice a sheep, but if he (and it's always a he) is partial to beef, you must sacrifice a cow.

Fair comment. John was always far and away the most interesting of the canonical gospels and it's a long time since I've read any literature on authorship, his community or the content of the gospel. Looking through by books I see Porter and Evans, Sheffield, 1995 is the most recent. Scholarship may well have moved on since then. Certainly the fourth gospel is a mishmash with bits interpolated and appended. Certainly it is very unlikely that the Johannine corpus is the work of a single hand. And then there's the confusion over the Johns: the evangelist, the beloved disciple, the elder, John of Patmos. But I had always thought John's oral testimony, at least, and the traditions of his community and certainly the need to write in terms his particular audience would appreciate had formed the core of this gospel.
When I was studying this, it was thought that Mark was the author of Mark's Gospel, but that the content actually came from (Simon) Peter. Perhaps it should be called The Gospel according to Peter. Except that there's already a Gnostic gospel by that name.

If all science book and religious texts were destroyed and rewritten, then science would end up exactly the same and intact whilst the religious ones would not. There is some 10,000 religions in the world today, 4,200 of them actively recognised by a state or local government, not including all the religions that have been and gone.

Stephen Fry once said when asked what he'd say at the pearly gates '' I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. “Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say. ” “We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?'' And he is completely right.

When the world was flat and free-thought was prosecuted, of course, you hardly had a choice. But with free-thinking, logic and most people being entitled to the same level of education, how the **** can people still honestly believe in some mystical, mythological, all-being creature. Whilst I have no problem with people having faith in anything, one way or another, I do genuinely consider people who believe in any form of religion to be utterly deluded. Its right to feel insignificant, but be so to the universe, we’re barely a microbe of a spunk stain on the underpants of our galaxy, let alone the entirety of a possible infinite universe. The human race needs to get over itself. We all talk about advancing our race, but how can you honestly do that when a high percentage of human beings are being held back by their own ignorance and stupidity.

A lot of rambling, but ******** to religion. Misguided, thieving bastards who serve nothing but themselves.

Grizzly Notations said:

If all science book and religious texts were destroyed and rewritten, then science would end up exactly the same and intact whilst the religious ones would not.

Click to expand...

So science is dead and static while religion in virile and dynamic, is it?

Only kidding. I agree with much of what you say if I replace "religion" for "organised religion". It's the priests and the mullahs and the rabbis etc, etc who have perverted man's spirituality and innate superstition into a force for exploitation and oppression. Certainly in the Abrahamic religions. I fully and unreservedly agree with your very last sentence.

An Ankoù said:

It's the priests and the mullahs and the rabbis etc, etc who have perverted man's spirituality and innate superstition into a force for exploitation and oppression.

Click to expand...

I agree that there has been influence into ruining spirituality. But if you're going to praise something, do so to the wonder's of nature. If you wish to have faith, save it for yourself, your partner, your kids and friends, the people that really deserve it. That's the way it should be. There's no doubt we should all be grateful, but not to 'the big guy upstairs', but each other, our surroundings and of course... Beer.

Grizzly Notations said:

I agree that there has been influence into ruining spirituality. But if you're going to praise something, do so to the wonder's of nature. If you wish to have faith, save it for yourself, your partner, your kids and friends, the people that really deserve it. That's the way it should be. There's no doubt we should all be grateful, but not to 'the big guy upstairs', but each other, our surroundings and of course... Beer.

Click to expand...

Said like a proper new-age pagan.
Of course the belief that there is no God is itself an act of faith!
Right, just off to dry hop my latest creation with some peyote buttons.

Yep I’m one of only 2 church going practicing Christians but hey ho, it’s good to be different
Quite a bit of hate on this for religion, I also can’t stand what comes with religion but I love God and love my Stainless Steel FV also

simon12 said:

Apologies for not putting more thought into the options. To clarify please consider atheist to be I believe there is no God and Agnostic as I don't believe in God because I have no seen evidence of his existence.

Click to expand...

Yes, put another way: Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what one does not believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what one does not know Be it through ignorance or no desire to care about this issue. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. It is common for people to be both agnostics and atheists.

God’s first all grain ended up infected

An Ankoù said:

Of course the belief that there is no God is itself an act of faith!

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Theologians love to claim that it takes faith to not believe something. Does it take faith to not believe that Pi is actually equal to three?

You cannot be an atheist and an agnostic. It's like being a Liberal and a Communist!

If you don't go to church, you are not really a Christian, are you? It's like being in the Jaguar owners' club when you've never owned a Jaguar, or being a Liverpool supporter when you have no connections with the city. It's better to say, like Dawkins, that you identify as culturally Christian or, like my father who adhered to Christian ethics (when they suited him). Many British Muslims are flexible about the tenets of their religion. The younger Muslims drink alcohol but don't tell their parents. They keep dogs as pets although it is Haram. The majority of Catholics worldwide use contraception even though the Vatican prohibits it. Mankind is becoming more pragmatic.

kelper said:

Nonsense. Theologians love to claim that it takes faith to not believe something. Does it take faith to not believe that Pi is actually equal to three?

Click to expand...

It doesn't take faith to not believe something. that's simply absence of belief.
If I have a stake in pi being approximately equal to 3.142 and I act according to that belief when I might have acted otherwise had I not believed so (or vice-versa) than that is what I understand as "faith".
For some, the existence of not of God may be completely irrelevant, they don't care one way or the other and faith is not involved. It is also the end of debate on the matter.
Presumable the person who declares "There is no God" has a stake in his belief even if it's simply to avoid the embarrassment of being shown to be wrong (if that were possible).

How can anyone take a religion seriously when they name one of their people after a character from a 70's kids show? Zebedee? Seriously?

And here was me thinking that the religious sorts had no sense of humour.

Ain't no atheist on a sinking ship so they say, I bet most people say a prayer in desperation just before they draw the last terminal breath.... But... what really gets me is that people blame God for all the troubles going on in the World where really it is MAN who has messed up the fantastic place that God had created for us in the first place, and we blame God! (Laughs and shakes head in disbelief)

When a school bus goes over a cliff and one child survives, the parents claim it is a miracle. But the parents of the 49 children who died don't see it that way. When a statue 'bleeds' they claim it's a miracle - has god nothing better to do on a weekend?

Pi being 3.14159..... is not a belief, it's a provable fact!

What classifies a religion? Can I start one?