Are you religious?

[Spoonsky]

Henry's post in the books thread made me think, it's not something that's really been discussed here in my memory. We must surely have quite a few members that go to church, and some that actually believe in God as well. And GS. Who's the majority though?

I'm atheist, because my parents were atheists. Not only do I not believe in God, but I strongly believe that there's not a god. (To be honest this belief isn't really different from someone who believes in God because they were raised that way.) That said, I think there are parts of Christianity and especially Buddhism (I don't know anything about Islam other than what Trump tells me) that serve well in the modern world, and that more atheists would do well to learn about rather than dismissing all of religion out of hand.

p.s. phonics I'm posting from a kindle fire and can't see a way to add a poll with the thread

[John]

Harold alias incoming.

I'm not religious but my grandad was in a fairly big way so there have always been bibles around. I've read the bible cover to cover and while it's a top story, it's obviously complete nonsense.

I went through a spell of being extremely hostile towards the idea of religion after seeing some cunt nun type wandering around a high dependency ward blessing people, but I'm far more live and let live now.

[randomlegend]

I'm an atheist.

I don't think there's a god, but I am well aware I can't know for sure.

If other people want to believe in something, I have no problem with that and I wouldn't go picking fights with people over it. I'm generally not a massive fan of 'religion' though.

EDIT:

I like Bo Burnham's song about religion though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA

[Raoul Duke]

It's a gigantic load of horse cock dreamt up by a clan of degenerates.

So, in summary: no.

[Magic]

Inb4ital

[Pen]

I think I'm the first one to resign from church in my family. You get baptised to the same congregation as your mum in here (well usually anyway). Religion hasn't really played any part in my life apart from the usual like weddings, funerals, confirmation (this might be something more Lutheran) and having R.E in school.

All religions are pretty shit and I think the world would be a better place if they wouldn't exist, but at the same time I don't really give two shits is someone wants to believe in a god of their choosing.

[Spoonsky]

Inb4ital

We all know your next self-help book will be the Bible.

[Disco]

Most of the board are one flavour of British or another, I'd be amazed if many were religious, I certainly am not.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Raoul has it right.

I've had 'God' in the Father Christmas, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy etc category since as long as I can remember.

I'm actually a Godfather to three kids because even though I don't agree with all the religious stuff but I do agree with the whole looking after them should anything happen to their parents.

[Dark Soldier]

I see myself as Agnostic, but I don't care for all that bollocks.

[Spoonsky]

Most of you won't help with this, but can someone actually explain to me why Christianity (and the other ones, but Christianity in particular) spread to the extant that it did? It doesn't seem like much more than a cult to me, and without having been raised on it I have a hard time finding any of the scripture very persuasive. So why were so many people persuaded?

[Giggles]

Yes in a lot of ways.

[-james-]

I'm apathetic towards religion.

I can see the appeal though. I can imagine it's dead comforting.

[CJay]

I am a practicing, 52 weeks of the year, Presbyterian. And I love it. :)

[Disco]

Most of you won't help with this, but can someone actually explain to me why Christianity (and the other ones, but Christianity in particular) spread to the extant that it did? It doesn't seem like much more than a cult to me, and without having been raised on it I have a hard time finding any of the scripture very persuasive. So why were so many people persuaded?

Societal indoctrination, habit, a simple explanation presented in the absence of anything else? For a long time it was basically another branch of government (a bit like the civil service but with better hats).

[Giggles]

I am a practicing, 52 weeks of the year, Presbyterian. And I love it. :)

Were you always or did you turn?

[CJay]

Were you always or did you turn?

Always. Are you assuming I was Catholic because I'm from Donegal? :D

[Boydy]

I am a practicing, 52 weeks of the year, Presbyterian. And I love it. :)

Are you a normal Presbyterian now?

[CJay]

Are you a normal Presbyterian now?

No, but figured I wouldn't bore / confuse people with the distinction.

[Boydy]

Don't be tarnishing our good reputation with your crazy sorts!

[Giggles]

Always. Are you assuming I was Catholic because I'm from Donegal? :D

God no, you always came across as a fairly big west Brit and there's also a fair chance that someone from Donegal is. Plus if your Mrs family was one (from what you've mentioned before) then she'd never have been allowed marry a Catholic I just asked because I wasn't sure.

EDIT: jaysus, a free P though?

[Boydy]

Not free, reformed.

[Giggles]

Not free, reformed.

Ah. I don't know what they are. The Frees make the rest of the prods up there seem positively warm.

[Boydy]

I'm not entirely sure of the differences between Reformed Presbyterians and the 'normal' ones other than the Reformed ones seemed a bit more hardcore about it all.

[Giggles]

I'm not entirely sure of the differences between Reformed Presbyterians and the 'normal' ones other than the Reformed ones seemed a bit more hardcore about it all.

Which ones go every Sunday dressed like they're going to a wedding?

[John]

Giggles remembering an obscure detail about a poster's family life might be enough to make me accept Jesus Christ.

[Giggles]

Giggles remembering an obscure detail about a poster's family life might be enough to make me accept Jesus Christ.

I just remember him saying that there was no drink at his wedding because of her parents, which meant they were most likely 'good living'.

[CJay]

Which ones go every Sunday dressed like they're going to a wedding?

Frees. Although a lot of middle-aged and older men in our church wear suits. I think it's ridiculous, but they're never going to change.

Reformed basically = singing only psalms with no instruments. There are other differences but I suppose that's probably what defines us.

[Boydy]

Frees. Although a lot of middle-aged and older men in our church wear suits. I think it's ridiculous, but they're never going to change.

Reformed basically = singing only psalms with no instruments. There are other differences but I suppose that's probably what defines us.

Ah yeah, I remember the Psalms thing now. Why is that? And why no instruments?

Even the regular Presbyterian Church I went to as a kid had people all dressed up in suits for the weekly service. I think that's just a proddy thing in general.

[GS]

Most of you won't help with this, but can someone actually explain to me why Christianity (and the other ones, but Christianity in particular) spread to the extant that it did? It doesn't seem like much more than a cult to me, and without having been raised on it I have a hard time finding any of the scripture very persuasive. So why were so many people persuaded?

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313AD which promised religious toleration for Christians. He didn't actually convert himself until he was on his deathbed, but he did make Christianity the official religion of the Empire. In doing so, he gave it a level of public support (and financing) which enabled it to establish itself properly and move out of the 'underground'. It also led to the construction of various ecclesiastic buildings (e.g. Old St Peters in Rome) which presented it as a much more visible presence in ordinary life. This is the fundamental reason why most of the western world is Christian today. If it had continued to be violently suppressed by the Roman Empire, it may have continued to exist (especially in the East) but in significantly fewer numbers.

The first four major ecumenical councils (Nicaea I in 325AD, Constantinople in 381AD, Ephesus in 431AD and Chalcedon in 451AD) laid out the key theological positions held by almost all Christian churches to this day. It helped to create structure and consistency, and the Bishopric of Rome (under the protection of the Empire) was able to develop a centralised governance structure which imposed discipline on the early church and, therefore, made it possible for it to grow with a fairly consistent theological output. Active steps (e.g. the sending of St Augustine to England by Gregory the Great) taken by the papacy resulted in further proselytising of the faith. None of this would have been possible without the initial support of the Roman Empire (and subsequent to the western half's collapse in 476AD) providing a reasonably secure temporal base. Rome obviously got sacked every so often (e.g. Alaric around 410AD), but it obviously didn't result in any long-term impact.

Before this, it spread because it was a proselytising religion which actively sought converts. Its central messages were well-received and appealed to people from all classes. One of the key sources of tension in the early church was whether they should preach to the Gentiles and to what extent they should be required to follow the Mosaic law. The decision was taken that they should actively preach to the Gentiles (St Paul). The Council of Jerusalem, circa AD50, also took the decision, under James the Just (the 'Brother of the Lord'), not to make things difficult for potential converts in relation to the Mosaic law so it became easier for people to convert.

There will be other factors, of course, like the prevailing social and economic conditions of the time, general superstition etc.

[Boydy]

To answer the question of the thread, I'm not religious, no. Went to Sunday School, Boys Brigade (kinda like a churchy Scouts or Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts or whatever you call them in America, Spoon) and church-based youth clubs when I was younger. Also had plenty of religion at school. Daily assembly was usually about God and we had to do RE and that. I think I was in my early teens when I decided I didn't believe in any of it and by my later teens I was a bit militant about the old atheism.

These days, I still don't believe but I'm not that bothered about those who do* and I can see the appeal of it.



*Except for the mad fundamentalists like the DUP in Northern Ireland who think they can force their own moral code onto other people.

[Kikó]

I'm not religious and haven't been really since I stopped being taken to church on a weekend with the parents. Saying that, I have just had a Catholic wedding so I'm a massive hypocrite.

[Lewis]

I am not religious.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Not one iota. Was raised Christian but that died a death a long time ago.

The world would be a much better place if it didn't exist but I'm all for anyone believing whatever fairy stories they want if it isn't impacting anyone else.

[CJay]

Ah yeah, I remember the Psalms thing now. Why is that? And why no instruments?

Even the regular Presbyterian Church I went to as a kid had people all dressed up in suits for the weekly service. I think that's just a proddy thing in general.

Essentially, the Psalms are an inspired song book given to us by God, so we have no need to sing man-made hymns and other songs. The Psalms also clearly speak about Jesus - although not explicitly, which is a problem some people who want to sing all the lovey-dovey Jesus songs have.

No instruments because they were really only a temporary Old Testament worship practice, that is no longer required under the New Testament.

[Bartholomert]

Most of you won't help with this, but can someone actually explain to me why Christianity (and the other ones, but Christianity in particular) spread to the extant that it did? It doesn't seem like much more than a cult to me, and without having been raised on it I have a hard time finding any of the scripture very persuasive. So why were so many people persuaded?

Because it created a more efficient, harmonious and just society. Evolutionary this allowed Christian societies to prosper, overwhelm and/or convert other groups over the long run.

I would identify as a Theist and I think there is a good philosophical / logical argument in favor of the existence of a Creator. I take pity on your sad souls.

[Ian]

I see myself as Agnostic, but I don't care for all that bollocks.

This is pretty much where I am.

And that's probably because of my family too. I know my mum's mum knew the Bible inside-out but that was an education thing, so far as I'm aware she didn't actually believe in it. By the same token none of them are vocally atheist either. My brother-in-law is a churchgoer and so my nieces have ended up in Sunday school. My sister has always said that as soon as they don't want to go they can stop but really I'm not sure there's a proper compromise to be had on that front.

Most religions and sub-sections of individual religions have their own awful qualities but then there are a lot of religious people who use it as a driver to do good, be it in their community or whatever.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Because it created a more efficient, harmonious and just society. Evolutionary this allowed Christian societies to prosper, overwhelm and/or convert other groups over the long run.

I would identify as a Theist and I think there is a good philosophical / logical argument in favor of the existence of a Creator. I take pity on your sad souls.
You cuck bitch.

[Boydy]

I'm pretty sure I was farmed out to Sunday School so my parents could do a bit of Sunday morning shagging in peace. They never went to church.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

That does make sense. Haven't heard of that before without the parents also being churchgoers.

[ItalAussie]

I think I probably still identify as Christian, but it's been a very long time since I've been any way devout. I do the Christmas, Easter, and When I Visit Family thing, and sometimes I even go independently of that, because I've been raised in churches and feel weird if I spend too long without going to one. The communities tend to be nice as well, which is one of those things they don't tell you on the brochures. I have a number of friends who think I'm more devout than I am.

I think that the world can be largely explained using naturalistic means, and every time in the past we've run into something we didn't think we could explain, we eventually sorted it with science. I know that most of the claims made in scripture about history don't stand up at all to archeological scrutiny. However, at the same time, when it's dark and my mind wanders, the idea of death and oblivion scares the living hell out of me (even though intellectually it shouldn't), and I suspect that means I'll never shake religion completely. So, you know, there's cowardice there.

But whatever gets you through the night, right?




I would identify as a Theist and I think there is a good philosophical / logical argument in favor of the existence of a Creator. I take pity on your sad souls.
Understand this response as a continuation of my previous bit.

If your Theism (or my whatever that is up there) takes us anywhere near the God that is believed by your parents or mine, then we should be the ones worried about our sad souls. Because that God (the Christian version or the Muslim version) is not particularly on board with people who sort of believe(/"identify" as believing) they might exist, but don't really follow them with every fibre of their being. At least atheists can live on without the expectation of impending destruction, whereas my worrying milquetoast Christianity and your "conservatives like the idea of religion" posturing both lead to slightly awkward conclusions if either of us had the gall to be honest with ourselves.

Because "I just try and get by and do my best to be a decent person" hasn't ever been a part of any Holy Writ (at least until the CoE get a hold of it), and "Thou shalt identify as acknowledging the existence of Me or something kind of like Me" has never appeared in any devotional. Faith demands your heart and soul, and accepts nothing less.


“You say that you people don’t burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that’s what true faith would mean, y’see? Sacrificin’ your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin’ the truth of it, workin’ for it, breathin’ the soul of it. That’s religion. Anything else is just . . . is just bein’ nice. And a way of keepin’ in touch with the neighbors.”

-- Carpe Jugulum (Terry Pratchett)


I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

-- Revelations 3:15-16

In the end, if your half-assed belief or my half-assed belief are actually correct in their particular scriptural claims, then both of us are going to burn.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

To an extent I can understand someone believing in a creator of sorts, it's otherwise intelligent people believing things that are clearly insane I have trouble with. Mehdi Hasan and his winged horse being a case in point-

https://youtu.be/bHvxiQbQ37I?t=19

[Queenslander]

The biggest lie in Australia is that we are a Christian country.

[7om]

It's all a load of complete garbage and I don't believe a word of it.

[hfswjyr]

Agnostic. Believe what you like. Very liberal in that way. Which is ironic considering political sides.

[Queenslander]

Has Mert switched his religious team?

[Spikey M]

I'm an Atheist. I used to be one of those annoyingly outspoken ones, now I couldn't really give a fuck.

[Spikey M]

Agnostic. Believe what you like. Very liberal in that way. Which is ironic considering political sides.

Agnostic isn't a position, it just means you don't know. Very few believers or non-believers claim to 'know', they either believe or don't believe. For example - I am an Agnostic Atheist, Ital will be an Agnostic Theist. We both don't know, but we believe differently.

Gnostic Atheists and Theists are out there, mind. The likes of the Westboro Baptists. :drool:

[Bartholomert]

I think I probably still identify as Christian, but it's been a very long time since I've been any way devout. I do the Christmas, Easter, and When I Visit Family thing, and sometimes I even go independently of that, because I've been raised in churches and feel weird if I spend too long without going to one. The communities tend to be nice as well, which is one of those things they don't tell you on the brochures. I have a number of friends who think I'm more devout than I am.

I think that the world can be largely explained using naturalistic means, and every time in the past we've run into something we didn't think we could explain, we eventually sorted it with science. I know that most of the claims made in scripture about history don't stand up at all to archeological scrutiny. However, at the same time, when it's dark and my mind wanders, the idea of death and oblivion scares the living hell out of me (even though intellectually it shouldn't), and I suspect that means I'll never shake religion completely. So, you know, there's cowardice there.

But whatever gets you through the night, right?



Understand this response as a continuation of my previous bit.

If your Theism (or my whatever that is up there) takes us anywhere near the God that is believed by your parents or mine, then we should be the ones worried about our sad souls. Because that God (the Christian version or the Muslim version) is not particularly on board with people who sort of believe(/"identify" as believing) they might exist, but don't really follow them with every fibre of their being. At least atheists can live on without the expectation of impending destruction, whereas my worrying milquetoast Christianity and your "conservatives like the idea of religion" posturing both lead to slightly awkward conclusions if either of us had the gall to be honest with ourselves.

Because "I just try and get by and do my best to be a decent person" hasn't ever been a part of any Holy Writ (at least until the CoE get a hold of it), and "Thou shalt identify as acknowledging the existence of Me or something kind of like Me" has never appeared in any devotional. Faith demands your heart and soul, and accepts nothing less.


In the end, if your half-assed belief or my half-assed belief are actually correct in their particular scriptural claims, then both of us are going to burn.

I took a class on Sufism in undergrad, and one of the main takeaways was that organized religion is understood as simply being the regional manifestation of the Word of God tailored to the particular needs of a given locale / culture, with all of these belief systems ultimately connected on a metaphysical level and revolving around the worship of the same Being. Therefore the day to day worship and doctrine of a given religion is more tailored towards bringing the simple soul closer to God / encouraging morality and social harmony, than representing any spiritually / independently necessary actions. I thought that made sense and also addressed the seeming 'flaws' in the absolutist moral judgments / disagreements within religious texts.

If there is a God, he would be Just and care more about my day to day actions rather than the extent to which I worship Him. I'm convinced of that.

And I recognize that all of this is very conveniently self-serving, but it does mean that I do try and do the 'right' thing on a daily basis and I pray sometimes, especially in periods of great emotional tumult. It helps. However it all shakes out in the end, I would say it plays an unqualified positive role in my life.

I think (enlightened) religious belief in a society is usually a good thing, although I don't know to what extent moderate religious belief is sustainable across generations; I think this is the slow death currently being suffered by Protestant Christianity in particular. I think Islam as it is currently understood and practiced, is absolutely poisonous to individual psyches / world views. I think the Jews generally do a pretty good job of balancing modernity and maintaining their traditions.

[Bartholomert]

I think generally there are three levels of individuals.

Below-average to average intelligence / deeply indoctrinated: Quite religious; the blissful ignorance category
Slightly above average intelligence to above average intelligence / moderate religious influence: Agnostic / Indifferent / Atheist; smart enough to understand that dogmatic religious teachings are severely challenged, on the surface, by rationality / modern scientific developments, but inquiry often does progress further because larger implications of this conclusion are never really considered until later in life
Highly intelligent / level of religious influence varies across the board: Agnostic at worst, more likely practices a very deliberate, educated and enlightened form of religion, regardless of personal views strongly believes in bringing up his children with his religious tradition, believes that the world around us has been organized around some higher cosmic Order; intelligent and introspective enough about his own existence to recognize the inherent limitations of any rationality based world view, greater appreciation and wonder for the incredible nature of our existence

[Boydy]

Ah, the most intelligent group aligns exactly with what you believe. I didn't expect that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Most of you won't help with this, but can someone actually explain to me why Christianity (and the other ones, but Christianity in particular) spread to the extant that it did? It doesn't seem like much more than a cult to me, and without having been raised on it I have a hard time finding any of the scripture very persuasive. So why were so many people persuaded?

Because in those days there was no knowledge base and no way of explaining the world around us. Also, people like to belong to things.

I see myself as a Christian but I don't believe in God, and the usual crashing bores who take me up on this are just going to have to deal with it.

[niko_cee]

Not at all religious.

I find ostensibly intelligent people that I know who are regular church goers to be a bit worrisome. I think the being part of a club bit is often overlooked in this bemusement, but it still baffles and concerns me. It always manifests itself in strange ways as well, like never having heard of the monster mash.

[ItalAussie]

I see myself as a Christian but I don't believe in God, and the usual crashing bores who take me up on this are just going to have to deal with it.
You're not, and I'll argue that point as long as you want to. I've been identifiably Christian for twenty-five years of my life (as noted above, this has waned of late, but I learned plenty along the way), and devoutly so for a solid twenty of those - there aren't many things I'm on board with pulling the expertise card, but this is absolutely one of them.

You just don't like the idea of being an atheist, but it's what you are. Words mean things. The litmus test for Christianity is the divinity of Christ. There's a million variants within that, but without that central plank, it's just "bein' nice and a way of keepin' in touch with the neighbours".

This is nothing to do with politics, by the way. You're just taking a really insulting stance to the people who actually devotedly subscribe to a religious belief; to simply assume you can count yourself as one of them without accepting any of the actual faith itself reduces their belief system to an optional game, which to them it isn't.

[Giggles]

Because in those days there was no knowledge base and no way of explaining the world around us. Also, people like to belong to things.

I see myself as a Christian but I don't believe in God, and the usual crashing bores who take me up on this are just going to have to deal with it.

Exactly. The worst thing is people who take issue with whether someone is or isn't or what they believe. Surely the main point is to be comfortable with your own faith and leave it at that?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I have a friend who's a Muslim but he eats pork, drinks beer, doesn't pray and I'm not entirely certain he believes in God at all. Is he a Muslim?

[ItalAussie]

I have a friend who's a Muslim but he eats pork, drinks beer, doesn't pray and I'm not entirely certain he believes in God at all. Is he a Muslim?

I don't know the essential tenets of Islam, so it's not mine to say. I did spent twenty-five years in and around Christianity. I know what that's all about.

Christianity isn't just being nice, and it's honestly insulting to two thousand years of belief to ignore the actual faith itself. Sure, be nice, and that's great. All for it. But you don't have a ticket to this particular dance.

[GS]

"I would not open windows into men's souls."

I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with Jimmy's stance. It's not for me, or Ital, or anybody else, to judge.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I don't know the essential tenets of Islam, so it's not mine to say. I did spent twenty-five years in and around Christianity. I know what that's all about.

What do I have to do to qualify as a Christian? How much of the scripture do I have to believe is literally true? All of it?

I can roll with Christ's divinity as an idea. He empirically wasn't the son of God, but as an idea, I can sign up to it.

[Boydy]

What caused your faith to wane, Ital?

[ItalAussie]

GS: I wouldn't presume to say what Jimmy believes if he didn't acknowledge it openly.

If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, you're not a Christian. You may be heavily influenced by the culture. You may like some of the ideals. But that's just being nice. To say it makes you a Christian is an insult to the people who have lived and died for their belief, and who have let their faith shape their lives. Christianity, in many respects, is very much the opposite of nice.

[ItalAussie]

What caused your faith to wane, Ital?

Don't know, to be honest. It's one of those things that goes a long way before you ever consciously acknowledge it. I think part of it was the way I started subconsciously thinking of the Bible as a series of folk tales rather than things that happened. A lot of them just seemed too pat and convenient. The other aspect was my worrying (and slow) realisation that so many of the big theological ideas were turtles all the way down. Substitutionary atonement, for example, which is a key idea; that shook me up a bit, I think. But I have to stress that there was no big moment - it was just a trend of creeping doubts about theological points I'd taken for granted, and the lack of clarity I found when I dug into theology proper.

As I said, I'm probably too much of an intellectual coward to abandon it entirely, so I still at least claim to myself that I accept the central plank I've mentioned here. But it's almost more out of hope than anything else, and the rest is pretty much jettisoned to the wind. I certainly couldn't put together a good argument for anyone else to accept the faith as true or valid.

[phonics]

"I'm a Christian that doesn't believe in God" is retarded. Following the ten commandments (the biggies anyway) doesn't make you a Christian.

I think I was purposely removed from the idea of Church and like much of my upbringing was given the opportunity to make my own mind up on the situation. From passing conversations it seems that my Mum believes and is quite CoE when society demands it of her (loves a Christmas mass she does) and on the other side, my Dad who wouldn't trust a man in a collar and blames Islam for the destruction of science across the Middle East. He can't stand the stuff. Loves old churches though because he's an architecture nerd, we both feel very uncomfortable being in them for too long and normally just end of making fun of Catholics stealing poor peoples money.

Hence why I think I was raised the way I was. Only time I've been to a church is for school nativity plays, (I was King 3 in 3 different plays for different schools, consistency is key) funerals and as I mentioned, on holiday in Italy.

I say I'm agnostic partly in case I get to the pearly gates in the hope they don't set me on fire. But I think it's far more likely that we're some kind of simulation / tiny people than an actual god.

[ItalAussie]

What do I have to do to qualify as a Christian? How much of the scripture do I have to believe is literally true? All of it?

I can roll with Christ's divinity as an idea. He empirically wasn't the son of God, but as an idea, I can sign up to it.
You'll have to expand on that, because it's not something you "roll with as an idea". Does that mean you believe it? Because if you don't, then you're not a Christian. If you do, then you are, and you get to play hair-splitting over the rest of the details. It's a game that we've all played, and you get to punch your admission ticket.

Twenty years of grappling with this stuff, keeping me up at night and trying to make sense of it all, and you think you can just wear a badge that says "My name is Jimmy and I'm a Christian" because you think atheists are a bit mean? The Bible has Jesus saying a lot of stuff that isn't "keep your head down and be nice to your neighbours".


34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.The "ideal" you claim to be "rolling with" is Jesus demanding nothing less than everything you have. This idea permeates the gospels throughout. This is not an incidental piece of scripture. It's at the very core of the gospel, and informs every aspect of the text.

[Henry]

I'm not, as is known.

Although I've become a little less aggressively against religion as time has gone on. None of it is epistemologically valid, I'm more interested in understanding it these days.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not, as is known.

Although I've become a little less aggressively against religion as time has gone on. None of it is epistemologically valid, I'm more interested in understanding it these days.

Given our many (excellent) arguments back in the day, it's funny that we'll probably wind up on opposite sides of a very narrow fence in the end. :D

[Jimmy Floyd]

You'll have to expand on that, because it's not something you "roll with as an idea". Does that mean you believe it? Because if you don't, then you're not a Christian. If you do, then you are, and you get to play hair-splitting over the rest of the details.

Twenty years of grappling with this stuff, and you think you can just wear a badge that says "My name is Jimmy and I'm a Christian". The Bible has Jesus saying a lot of stuff that isn't "keep your head down and be nice to your neighbours".

The "ideal" you claim to be "rolling with" is Jesus demanding nothing less than everything you have. This idea permeates the gospels throughout. This is not an incidental piece of scripture. It's at the very core of the gospel.

I can't really carry on with this because you're being far more black and white about this than I ever would be about anything, let alone something that is perhaps the least black and white thing in all of human culture.

Culturally I am Christian, I was brought up both directly and, more so, indirectly on Christian values and I prefer the Christian worldview, which forms the entire basis of western society, to the various nihilistic alternatives, therefore I see myself as a Christian, even though other knowledge I have about the world tells me that logically it is not possible for Christ to have been the son of God. If the bouncers are going to throw me out of the next church I enter for thinking this, then so be it. I don't know why practising Christians would scorn me for vaguely identifying with them.

[ItalAussie]

Religion and Christianity are shades of grey, but there's a barrier to entry, and it's a black and white one. You'd know that too, if you were one. You don't even know what the "Christian worldview" is, because right there in the very centre of it is the Divine Christ. Without that, there simply is no "Christian Worldview", because that's what it all stems from. The idea that Jesus is divine, gave his life, and demanded yours to the exclusion of all else.

I really enjoy books. Love them. I've grown up surrounded by them. Read them and devoured them. I think they've influenced my life and shaped my thinking in many significant ways. But unless I write a book, I'll never be an author. Just a reader who is a fan of authors.

You're not a Christian. You're an atheist who is a dilettante fan of Christianity.


EDIT: Which is fine. I'd argue that you have completely missed the point what it is you're a fan of; but that's getting into shades of grey (not subtle ones yet, but at least arguments could be made).

[Henry]

Not that Jimmy isn't being obtuse, but the earliest Christians probably didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, certainly not in the way that we do, so as a definition that's not a good one.

[ItalAussie]

Not that Jimmy isn't being obtuse, but the earliest Christians probably didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, certainly not in the way that we do, so as a definition that's not a good one.

Early Christianity was certainly a sect within Judaism. Paul hammering home the divinity of Christ what tipped it into eventually splitting off as a different thing, which had to be properly denoted by a different name. Then they got all their creeds and such sorted out, which GS mentioned on the last page.

Hell, Jimmy's as Jewish as he is Christian, strictly speaking. :D

[Henry]

Early Christianity was certainly a sect within Judaism. Paul hammering home the divinity of Christ what tipped it into eventually splitting off as a different thing.

Not sure I agree with that either. It's certainly not clear. You should read some of the books that I've posted about in the book thread.

In summary, I find Paul really strange. He's either been extensively edited by later writers or he originally formed part of a different cult that ended up being meshed in with the Christians.

[ItalAussie]

Either way, once you got past the early teething pains common to the establishment of any religion, Christianity was a term used to emphasise the key point of difference between Christianity and Judaism. Now it's the key plank of the faith.

But yeah, Paul (or whoever authored the epistles we attribute to him) had some stuff going on. Influential though.

EDIT: Oh, that reminds me of another key point which led to some serious weakening of my once devout faith. The realisation that almost nobody wrote the bits we attributed to them. There wasn't any massive shock to the system there, but it just ate away at certainty, bit by bit.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Because in those days there was no knowledge base and no way of explaining the world around us. Also, people like to belong to things.

I see myself as a Christian but I don't believe in God, and the usual crashing bores who take me up on this are just going to have to deal with it.

You sound like Douglas Murray's 'cultural Christian'.

[GS]

EDIT: Oh, that reminds me of another key point which led to some serious weakening of my once devout faith. The realisation that almost nobody wrote the bits we attributed to them. There wasn't any massive shock to the system there, but it just ate away at certainty, bit by bit.

Specifics?

[ItalAussie]

Specifics?

I should clarify: when I say "we", I mean "the Christian tradition in which I was raised", for reference. Scholars have known this stuff for ages. I'm not suggesting there's some massive holes in the scholarship or anything. (I would suggest that about plenty of the other finer points of theology, obviously, but that's a different ballgame).

But what scholars think and what the broader Christian body think aren't always as aligned as many suspect. David wrote the Psalms. Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Paul wrote Hebrews. And so on. Hebrews is actually a critical one, because a lot of modern Christianity is implicitly built around ideas laid out in that particular letter. Which makes it all the more awkward that we have no idea who wrote it.

I mean, it all makes it very interesting from a historical and literary perspective, but having a faith is different to reading about some interesting history.

[Spikey M]

Jimmy is only an 'Atheists for Jusus' t-shirt away from being Richard Dawkins

http://preachinghelp.org/img/atheists.jpg

[ItalAussie]

Jimmy is only an 'Atheists for Jusus' t-shirt away from being Richard Dawkins

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-01/25/19/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-12/sub-buzz-24381-1485391532-1.jpg?no-auto

[Spammer]

My personal opinion is that God doesn’t exist and that if people insist that God is speaking to them then it’s likely to be their own dissociated subconscious reflecting back at them. That's the best explanation I can come up with and I’m always open to a better one, but I am yet to find one. I understand that that's extremely reductive and doesn't do justice to the actual experience itself, but it's not something I insist on when I'm talking to people. I'm just expressing my personal way of understanding it.

I did believe in God when I was a child, but my parents were quite lackadaisical about it and I was able to walk away from it relatively easily at the age of ten or so. There was no existential anguish or any particular struggle within myself as far as I can remember, and I think this is largely to do with my parents never being too bothered about it. If I’d had the impression that it would cause serious problems with them if I stopped believing, then I may still believe today. In practice though I just got older, realised that not everyone believed, realised also that the only reason I believed was because everyone around me did, and began to intuitively suspect that in all likelihood that was probably what most other people were doing.

I was fortunate in that I never got any spiel from my parents about the tortures of hell or the fact that I was born in sin; none of that. If I had then I might have felt too much fear or shame and too much guilt about doubting it to ever be able to get away from it. I got it a bit of it from teachers in school and on a Sunday but I never quite got inundated enough for it to stop me from walking away when I was old enough to think about it properly.

I'm not a dick head about religion though - I've got a lot of very close friends who are Christians and some who I've talked about it with at length, and we've grown a lot of mutual respect as a result of those conversations. Some friends just go all quiet and look at the floor when the subject comes up, and I find that a bit irritating and can't help but wonder how intellectually honest it can be to shy away from such a topic that is so fundamental to their lives. It's their lives though, so whatever.

[Lewis]

Go back to 2007, Dawkins. We've got feminism now.

[Offshore Toon]

I'm not religious. I don't know what's going on and don't care. I do like to think about why we're here beyond the 'we just are!' line of thought and I'm slowly working my way through a philosophy book at the moment, which is helping to make sense of some thoughts I've had for a while.

I understand why religion exists, and I've defended religion in certain cases but only because militant atheists really do think they know it all. When push comes to shove, people can do what they want as long as it doesn't effect others negatively. I've witnessed churches do a lot of good so they're fine by me, and I've never met a muslim that was a wrong'un either. Its very rare that anybody takes a different path to what they were brought up in, so for the most part people are just happy with their routine.

[Offshore Toon]

Also, people are very likely to believe what makes them feel better. If 'God' spoke to them and they feel better for it, they're going to go with that. Its probably comforting to think there's a higher power looking after us when life is an eternal struggle. Light at the end of the tunnel, the will to go on, its all about survival at the most basic level.

[hfswjyr]

Agnostic isn't a position, it just means you don't know. Very few believers or non-believers claim to 'know', they either believe or don't believe. For example - I am an Agnostic Atheist, Ital will be an Agnostic Theist. We both don't know, but we believe differently.

Gnostic Atheists and Theists are out there, mind. The likes of the Westboro Baptists. :drool:

A definition of agnostic from google gives "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I feel like that sums me up (while understanding that puts me on the agnostic atheist side of your definition.)

Sometimes I am a bit envious of the sense of community that religion seems to provide. A shared interest, a common belief to forge stronger bonds. The agnostic and to a lesser extent atheist crowd seem anarchist and wandering in comparison.

With regards to Ital's black or white views on Christianity, I think if you applied it to everyone who labelled themselves as Christian, you'd have to expel most of them from the church.

[John Arne]

Interesting to see that most atheists have taken the attitude of "people can believe what they want", whilst the more religious here have been somewhat butt-hurt by Jimmy's confessions and own personal interpretations of Christianity.

[Spammer]

Interesting to see that most atheists have taken the attitude of "people can believe what they want", whilst the more religious here have been somewhat butt-hurt by Jimmy's confessions and own personal interpretations of Christianity.

I'm not bothered by it, but then why would I be? I do think it's fucking stupid though, and I'm inclined to agree more with Ital's line of thinking on the subject.

[Spikey M]

Interesting to see that most atheists have taken the attitude of "people can believe what they want", whilst the more religious here have been somewhat butt-hurt by Jimmy's confessions and own personal interpretations of Christianity.

Jimmys view on the matter seems ridiculous to me, but then the whole subject does really. None of it makes sense when put under scrutiny.

[Spikey M]

A definition of agnostic from google gives "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I feel like that sums me up (while understanding that puts me on the agnostic atheist side of your definition.)

.

Yeah, but that addresses knowledge, not belief. None of us know. Some still believe, some don't.

https://youtu.be/4_WKlttKRDw

That explains it better.

[John Arne]

Jimmys view on the matter seems ridiculous to me, but then the whole subject does really. None of it makes sense when put under scrutiny.

I'd agree with that. I might not agree with his view at all, but to be lambasted for holding those views and essentially have someone shouting "you're not a Christian" seems a bit unfriendly to me.

[John]

I'm not keen on Floyd's self identification as a non-believing Christian, but I'm even less keen on Ital's stance on same. 'You're not a Christian because that would devalue the devotion of those who really believe' is dangerously close to the same line used to tell gays they can't get married.

[ItalAussie]

That's not the "because" in my stance. He's not a Christian because he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ in any way. As a tangential point the fact that he thinks he can just claim it because he doesn't like Richard Dawkins et al. is insulting to actual members of the faith, but that's not the defining point. Being insulting doesn't make something wrong. But there is a single point of difference between members of the faith and non-members, and that's the question that defines which side of the fence you fall on. I don't even see how this is really debatable; if someone came in and said "I'm definitely an atheist, but I do believe in God", you'd laugh them out of the room. Words mean things.

Jimmy's no more a Christian than he is a midfielder for the Chelsea Football Club. The fact that you like something doesn't make you a part of it.

[Spikey M]

Not a midfielder, a striker.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm defining 'Christian' differently to you. I see it more as are you a proper fan or are you an armchair fan. We're all fans, though. None of us are Christ. Well, not many of us.

[Lewis]

You sound like Phillip Blond.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I prefer to call it 'The Third Way'.

[Lewis]

I saw his book in Oxfam last week and remembered he existed. What sort of pleb is still giving him money?

[Jimmy Floyd]

He'll return as the brains behind a David Miliband comeback.

[ScousePig]

I'm agnostic, but I teach in a Catholic school and my previous school was a Catholic school too, so it's a pretty big part of my work life.

[Clunge]

Apathetic, nihilistic atheist.

I don't believe in the existence of any gods, celestial deities or anything of the sort and nor do I give the remotest shit. It's quite literally something I never, ever, ever think about unless I'm prompted.

And kind of by the same token, if there was a god(s), I equally wouldn't care if the status quo was the same as it is now.

[Shindig]

Agnostic. Grew up Christian and I definitely understand why my folks worship God. I prefer to think of a divine creator in the cosmic sense. I.e. this universe is huge and we are tiny beings that cannot see past a certain point. We could be someone's microscopic experiment in a bell jar.

[Bartholomert]

This thread has been probably the most tolerant / open-minded / respectful I've ever witnessed the members of the board act towards religion. Is it that we're all getting collectively older, or has the cultural pendulum started to swing back a touch?

[John]

More likely your memory of previous discussions is coloured by Harold being the world's biggest arsehole. The board, Henry excepted, has always been fairly tolerant of religion.

[ItalAussie]

I'm defining 'Christian' differently to you. I see it more as are you a proper fan or are you an armchair fan. We're all fans, though. None of us are Christ. Well, not many of us.

The fact that you don't even comprehend that there exists a completely distinct layer between "fan" and "Christ" indicates that you've missed the point of Christianity completely.

[Boydy]

More likely your memory of previous discussions is coloured by Harold being the world's biggest arsehole. The board, Henry excepted, has always been fairly tolerant of religion.

I think we've probably chilled out a bit towards it too. I know I certainly have.

[Lewis]

It's because we're all aggressive atheists, but we don't believe in aggression.

[GS]

I should clarify: when I say "we", I mean "the Christian tradition in which I was raised", for reference. Scholars have known this stuff for ages. I'm not suggesting there's some massive holes in the scholarship or anything. (I would suggest that about plenty of the other finer points of theology, obviously, but that's a different ballgame).

But what scholars think and what the broader Christian body think aren't always as aligned as many suspect. David wrote the Psalms. Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Paul wrote Hebrews. And so on. Hebrews is actually a critical one, because a lot of modern Christianity is implicitly built around ideas laid out in that particular letter. Which makes it all the more awkward that we have no idea who wrote it.

I mean, it all makes it very interesting from a historical and literary perspective, but having a faith is different to reading about some interesting history.

That depends on your view of scripture, I think. If you believe its authors were inspired by the holy spirit, authorship is incidental. If you don't believe that, it becomes a matter of antiquity as to whether the document deserves to be considered as representative of the views of the earliest generations of the church. This could be theological or moral exhortations to the reader. Apostolic authorship obviously carries more 'weight', but it's not, in and of itself, strictly relevant.

Those tasked with compiling the NT did a rather good job of bringing together the books which were most rooted in the first generations after Christ. Only 1 Clement may have merited inclusion in addition to those already there, but even that was somewhat distant from the era of Christ (95AD, or so).


That's not the "because" in my stance. He's not a Christian because he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ in any way. As a tangential point the fact that he thinks he can just claim it because he doesn't like Richard Dawkins et al. is insulting to actual members of the faith, but that's not the defining point. Being insulting doesn't make something wrong. But there is a single point of difference between members of the faith and non-members, and that's the question that defines which side of the fence you fall on. I don't even see how this is really debatable; if someone came in and said "I'm definitely an atheist, but I do believe in God", you'd laugh them out of the room. Words mean things.

Jimmy's no more a Christian than he is a midfielder for the Chelsea Football Club. The fact that you like something doesn't make you a part of it.

Jimmy, I believe, has previously suggested that there may well be a God. Rejecting the divinity of Christ isn't necessarily a deal-breaker in terms of identifying as a Christian. I would suggest that Jimmy should probably be categorised as a 'unitarian' - here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Christology)


Unitarians believe that mainline Christianity does not adhere to strict monotheism but that they do by maintaining that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself.[2] They believe Jesus did not claim to be God and that his teachings did not suggest the existence of a triune God. Unitarians believe in the moral authority but not necessarily the divinity of Jesus. Their theology is thus opposed to the trinitarian theology of other Christian denominations.

It may be your choice to reject the Christian label for this denomination. If you take a look at their website, there's quite an interesting FAQ which rather sums Floyd's position up:


As to whether any Unitarian, or anyone else, is a Christian is really for that person to decide.

From the earliest days of the Church there have been many different ideas about what being a Christian means. Much suffering has been caused by the resultant disputes, persecutions and wars. This sad record has led some Unitarians to regard the term "Christian" with disfavour. For them it is too hung about with unacceptable baggage to be worth retaining.

There are also those who simply do not base their belief system on the Christian tradition. Some of these define their position as religious humanist. Others favour a broader theism, an earth-centred spirituality or a faith that draws principally on religions other than Christianity.

However, Unitarians generally hold Jesus in high regard. We favour a simple and inclusive definition of the word Christian. Thus a Christian is any person who seeks to live in accord with the life and teachings of Jesus, who identifies with what is best in the Christian tradition, and who, perhaps, sees in Jesus a revelation of the God who is immanent in all people. This is the wellspring of love that permeated his nature and his ministry.

In this sense, many Unitarians are Christians. And we also recognise as such all who share the same spirit, whatever their position on the Christian theological spectrum.

I would also note the first line. Telling someone they can't describe themselves as a Christian because they don't adhere to your specific theological view is, in my view, erroneous. It is not the job of man to make windows into men's souls.

[ItalAussie]

That depends on your view of scripture, I think. If you believe its authors were inspired by the holy spirit, authorship is incidental. If you don't believe that, it becomes a matter of antiquity as to whether the document deserves to be considered as representative of the views of the earliest generations of the church. This could be theological or moral exhortations to the reader. Apostolic authorship obviously carries more 'weight', but it's not, in and of itself, strictly relevant.

Those tasked with compiling the NT did a rather good job of bringing together the books which were most rooted in the first generations after Christ. Only 1 Clement may have merited inclusion in addition to those already there, but even that was somewhat distant from the era of Christ (95AD, or so).I don't understand your point. I just said that I'd discovered that an assumption of the faith tradition in which I was raised was almost certainly wrong. I didn't even portray it as a crisis moment or anything like that. Just part of the gradual wearing away of my certainty. This is a personal point, not some dry, empty, academic commentary. I'm relaying part of the experience that led to my waning of faith.

As for the rest, we're not going to agree. For what it's worth, I'd be very interested to hear what Jimmy thinks Jesus' message actually was.

[GS]

I don't understand your point. I just said that I'd discovered that an assumption of the faith tradition in which I was raised was almost certainly wrong. I didn't even portray it as a crisis moment or anything like that. Just part of the gradual wearing away of my certainty. This is not some dry, empty, academic commentary. I'm relaying part of the experience that led to my waning of faith.

As for the rest, we're not going to agree. For what it's worth, I'd be very interested to hear what Jimmy thinks Jesus' message actually was.

Which is fine, but I think misconception of authorship is a somewhat erroneous reason for it. The reason why it's erroneous is because either a) you take a faith-based view that the holy spirit inspired its writers, therefore authorship shouldn't matter or b) you take a logic-based approach, whereby the document's antiquity and sound theology and moral teaching make it of seminal importance regardless.

The latter assumes that you're taking a 'rational' approach to your religion, whereby it shouldn't ultimately be a huge issue that half the Pauline epistles (or those historically or traditionally subscribed to Paul) weren't necessarily authored by him directly.

Your point would be valid if you took a position whereby the document was only valid because of its authorship, and therefore discovering that it wasn't authored by Paul (or Moses or whoever) automatically undermines its entire contents - this doesn't appear to be your view.

On the latter, we're not going to agree but I'm afraid this doesn't stop your position being unsustainable. It's also intolerant, because it's not your right to assign labels to others. It's no better than Harold and his militant atheism.

[Spammer]

I'm gay.

I don't like men or anything, but I like to identify as gay.

[ItalAussie]

Which is fine, but I think misconception of authorship is a somewhat erroneous reason for it. The reason why it's erroneous is because either a) you take a faith-based view that the holy spirit inspired its writers, therefore authorship shouldn't matter or b) you take a logic-based approach, whereby the document's antiquity and sound theology and moral teaching make it of seminal importance regardless.

The latter assumes that you're taking a 'rational' approach to your religion, whereby it shouldn't ultimately be a huge issue that half the Pauline epistles (or those historically or traditionally subscribed to Paul) weren't necessarily authored by him directly.

Your point would be valid if you took a position whereby the document was only valid because of its authorship, and therefore discovering that it wasn't authored by Paul (or Moses or whoever) automatically undermines its entire contents - this doesn't appear to be your view.
I wasn't talking about validity. Boydy asked about the sorts of things that contributed to my long, slow, decline of faith. I was responding to a question about my experience with discussion about my experience. I'm not saying that it should affect anyone else the way it affected me. I just answered a personal question personally. Your opinion on the matter was never solicited.

Also, I'm not a dullard. I've read plenty of church history and theology - especially after I realised my faith was slipping. Plenty of long discussions with people who've dedicated their lives to this sort oh thing. But it's one thing to know a bunch of facts about an idea, and another to have a certainty in a concept that, in a very real sense, defines your life and sense of self. Once that certainty started to erode, it's very hard to replace it - no amount of dusty facts can fill that gap, because it's not replacing like with like.

As for Jim, like I said, I'd like to hear what he thinks the teachings of Jesus actually are. But no big deal. I'm happy for him to ignore me as he wishes. Your thoughts on the matter have been made clear, for what that's worth.

[Spikey M]

On the latter, we're not going to agree but I'm afraid this doesn't stop your position being unsustainable. It's also intolerant, because it's not your right to assign labels to others. It's no better than Harold and his militant atheism.

Oh come on, it's only because it's religion that you're saying that. We all assign labels to people every day.

Black. Man. Disabled. Woman. Gay. Straight. We do so because words have meanings. For that reason, if Michael Barrymore decided to come out as a Stright Black Woman we would all lol ourselves stupid.

Now, I THINK what Jimmy is driving at is that he's a 'Non-practicing Jew' but of a Christian background. I don't think that works without the baggage that Jews have to carry, but there we are. I THINK Ital has slightly missed this point, but can we stop acting as if he's holding an unfathomable position?

[phonics]

It's not unfathomable, just dumb.

[GS]

Your opinion on the matter was never solicited.

That's interesting, because I would say that Jimmy's post on his own view was quite clear. Your opinion on the matter was never solicited, yet you still decided it was appropriate to jump onto it immediately to denounce it as "insulting" on the grounds of your "expertise".

You should probably try and avoid this sort of hypocrisy, even if you dislike being challenged on your own views.

I normally wouldn't bother highlighting it, but you've demonstrated a somewhat intolerant aspect to your character when discussing this.

[Manc]

I can forsee one day Buddhism playing a big role in my life. Mindful and moral.

[Spikey M]

I've never really counted Budhism as a religion. There's fuck all reason for a god in there. The closest you get is Buddha and he was just some lazy bloke.

[ItalAussie]

That's interesting, because I would say that Jimmy's post on his own view was quite clear. Your opinion on the matter was never solicited, yet you still decided it was appropriate to jump onto it immediately to denounce it as "insulting" on the grounds of your "expertise".

You should probably try and avoid this sort of hypocrisy, even if you dislike being challenged on your own views.

I normally wouldn't bother highlighting it, but you've demonstrated a somewhat intolerant aspect to your character when discussing this.
You were challenging me on my own experience, which is a bit weird and anorak-y. I don't mind you challenging me over facts. If I were giving a tedious spiel about historical authorship or something and got my facts wrong, go to town on that. But I wasn't make any fact claims for you to argue with. I was describing the sort of things that prompted my personal beliefs to evolve over time by eroding my core certainty. You can't undo that by writing a history dissertation, nor is it really relevant.

As for the rest, Jim and I have reached an impasse on the matter. We disagree with each other. It's fine. You also made it clear that you disagree.

[Henry]

I've never really counted Budhism as a religion. There's fuck all reason for a god in there. The closest you get is Buddha and he was just some lazy bloke.

I find it very hard to understand. I read about it and the basic ideas seem to make some sense. But then you have people worshipping the king in Thailand. And what are the huge temples for all over the place?

[Spikey M]

I find it very hard to understand. I read about it and the basic ideas seem to make some sense. But then you have people worshipping the king in Thailand. And what are the huge temples for all over the place?

It's a strange one. The followers seem to range from those that just do a bit of meditation to those that would be at home in a cult, but you could say that of most Religions too, I guess. It's possibly stranger than, say, a Christian going full Westboro Baptist, actually, because there is no text that calls for you to worship anyone (or do anything, really), unless there's some kind of Hadith I'm not aware of that only some pay attention to.

[Spoonsky]

The thing about Buddhism is that there's no central text like in the others, so there's a lot more variation between different sects and traditions. Buddhists also have historically practiced religious tolerance in a way the others haven't, which too has allowed for more diversity of beliefs.

There's an intellectual/spiritual side to Buddhism and also a devotional side. Buddhism in the west tends to lead much more towards the intellectual side, making it seem like less of a 'proper' religion, whereas in Asia you still get the massive temples and funny traditions and all the rest that we associate with religion.

Buddhism is awesome. Check out lionsroar.com Manc if you're interested.