The Virgin Mary

[ElizabethofYork]

To be fair, this is a thread about the Virgin Mary, who is very much a catholic symbol. It's not really surprising that in a discussion about her, some catholic dogma will be disagreed with.

But in the interest of fairness, I would like to state that all religions are the opiate of the people, in that they attempt to distort reality and numb the pain of the oppressed, giving them the hope of a glorious afterlife or reward of some kind.

It's just a shame that some decent people end up tying themselves up in theological knots desperately trying to make sense of nonsense.

 

[Aladdin]

To be fair, this is a thread about the Virgin Mary, who is very much a catholic symbol. It's not really surprising that in a discussion about her, some catholic dogma will be disagreed with.

But in the interest of fairness, I would like to state that all religions are the opiate of the people, in that they attempt to distort reality and numb the pain of the oppressed, giving them the hope of a glorious afterlife or reward of some kind.

It's just a shame that some decent people end up tying themselves up in theological knots desperately trying to make sense of nonsense.

You see.. this is still an opinion.
And you're allowed express it. And you have a right to hold that non belief. Your non belief is a human right.

But I also have a right to my belief and faith ..without it being trashed...and when it gets personal as has happened here this morning...that's wrong.

Your last few lines are quite condescending again. You say that it's a "shame decent people tie themselves in knots defending and trying to make sense" of what you call "nonsense". Well that is your opinion...and your opinion comes from a rejection oof organised religion quite possibly a rejection of all religions and faiths.

Its probably fair to say that you will never support my beliefs ... but as a mature intelligent fair person you probably should be able to defend my right to my belief system as enshrined in human rights law.

If you can't do that...then you need to examine your own views on rights.

Finally...you quote Marx who claimed religion was the opiate of the people. He made a fair enough comment...
But Jesus was a disruptor of elitism and the power structures of his day. He was an anarchist..in the true sense of the word.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Everyone is entitled to their views. But everyone else is also entitled to trash those views.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Jesus, if he existed, may or may not have challenged the power structures of his day. But the Catholic Church and Catholic Dogma? The phrase 'power structures' springs to mind.

 

[Aladdin]

Everyone is entitled to their views. But everyone else is also entitled to trash those views.

Trash away. Just don't personalise it as happened this morning with ouirdeaux

Try honesty, even if it goes against your Catholic principles. It's oddly refreshing.

I don't think this was ok.
It's sectarian shit
If you grew up knowing what sectarianism felt like..you'd recognise it.

 

[Aladdin]

Jesus, if he existed, may or may not have challenged the power structures of his day. But the Catholic Church and Catholic Dogma? The phrase 'power structures' springs to mind.

Trash power structures.
That's not a problem . The discussion is about Jesus asking followers to choose mercy over sacrifice. It's well accepted that this was what he meant. And that sacrifice was very common...but that he wanted change.

Was Jesus Killed for Opposing Animal Sacrifice?

On Good Friday, a religious scholar reflects on the role animal liberation played in the death of Jesus.

animalpeopleforum.org

 

[PTK]

I agree that the comment about honesty was out of order. It did indeed read like the sort of thing that a member of the Orange Order might say.

 

[PTK]

One of the things that I find puzzling is that it seems that, on the one hand it is claimed that Jesus was from a humble family, but on the other hand it is claimed that he was King of the Jewish people.

 

[Humberto]

By virtue of being the 'messiah'?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

One of the things that I find puzzling is that it seems that, on the one hand it is claimed that Jesus was from a humble family, but on the other hand it is claimed that he was King of the Jewish people.

He was called King of the Jews in a mocking way by the Romans. He personally never claimed to be any such thing.

 

[PTK]

He was called King of the Jews in a mocking way by the Romans. He personally never claimed to be any such thing.

I think that at least one of the Gospels goes to considerable length to establish the royal lineage of Jesus. The reason his birth was located in Bethlehem also has something to do with that claim, I think.

 

[Knotted]

They don’t comprise the complete set of so-called witnesses, though, do they? In many cases they are documenting the words of other witnesses.

It's pretty certain they weren't witnesses. And to be fair they don't claim to be witnesses. They also don't claim to be Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

 

[Knotted]

One of the things that I find puzzling is that it seems that, on the one hand it is claimed that Jesus was from a humble family, but on the other hand it is claimed that he was King of the Jewish people.

Didn't King David also have humble origins? More to the point he never actually became king of anything and was executed, which is very unmessiah like. (Messiah=king of the Jews)

Bart Ehrman (him again) claims it's one of the things the historical Jesus claimed/said as it doesn't really fit in with (early) Christian theology, so it's a bit of an embarrassing hang over.

 

[mojo pixy]

But I also have a right to my belief and faith ..without it being trashed...

You do, and FWIW I don't tend to explain my spiritual beliefs to anyone who isn't already sympathetic, for that reason.

Politics, have at it by all means. Religion, in my view is personal and should 99% remain so. When you publicise what you believe you do kind of open yourself up to having it trod on. I don't do that, but I wouldn't complain about it if I publicly volunteered details among people who didn't share or at least respect my beliefs.

/2p

 

[JimW]

Marx's famous quote is mostly cited incorrectly:

I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people. (Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842.)
It was quite easy to deal with religion by just being against it, but that was not good enough. ‘Everybody knows’ that Marx wrote about religion being the opium of the people, so we shall look at the entire passage from which this comes.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction.)
‘Everybody’ thinks that Marx was saying that religion was dope manufactured by the ruling class to keep the masses happy. The real Marx, however, was concerned with much more weighty problems. Among other things, he was thinking about how an abstract human being could exist. He concludes that one could not. ‘Man is the world of man, state, society’, and the conception of God was a necessary conception in an ‘inverted world’. Once the world was right side up, the idea would not be needed. Meanwhile we should pay attention to it.

Karl Marx and Religion by Cyril Smith

 

[ouirdeaux]

I wouldn't complain about it if I publicly volunteered details among people who didn't share or at least respect my beliefs.

That poster regularly posts on religious threads, invariably takes offence, and flounces. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra. And to her it's all a sectarian attack. She is impervious to reason, and doesn't really listen to anyone. Still, she's welcome to live in her own little world. I doubt anyone wants to share it, whatever religion they are.

 

[Humberto]

Seems a bit nasty that. In the case of the original quibble, it might have been better to just say why you disagreed, rather than call the poster dishonest.

 

[Aladdin]

That poster regularly posts on religious threads, invariably takes offence, and flounces. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra. And to her it's all a sectarian attack. She is impervious to reason, and doesn't really listen to anyone. Still, she's welcome to live in her own little world. I doubt anyone wants to share it, whatever religion they are.

Ha. So much for "caring understanding non judgmental type"...your tagline is not so honest is it?

I've never encountered you before.
You know absolutely nothing about me.

You do, and FWIW I don't tend to explain my spiritual beliefs to anyone who isn't already sympathetic, for that reason.

Politics, have at it by all means. Religion, in my view is personal and should 99% remain so. When you publicise what you believe you do kind of open yourself up to having it trod on. I don't do that, but I wouldn't complain about it if I publicly volunteered details among people who didn't share or at least respect my beliefs.

/2p

Well that's ok for you..
And I respect your own view on your beliefs etc. And your privacy is yours.

But this is actually a thread that someone with a belief system started. And I joined as I hold certain beliefs. I did not expect to be targetted for sectarianism. And I pointed it out.
I don't "complain" I just dealt with the shit from ouirdeaux.

 

[Aladdin]

That poster regularly posts on religious threads, invariably takes offence, and flounces. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra. And to her it's all a sectarian attack. She is impervious to reason, and doesn't really listen to anyone. Still, she's welcome to live in her own little world. I doubt anyone wants to share it, whatever religion they are.

Are you someone who harassed me irl a few years ago? By any chance?

Which doesn't refer to animal sacrifice. Try honesty, even if it goes against your Catholic principles. It's oddly refreshing.

That ^^^^ is sectarian.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

That poster regularly posts on religious threads, invariably takes offence, and flounces. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra. And to her it's all a sectarian attack. She is impervious to reason, and doesn't really listen to anyone. Still, she's welcome to live in her own little world. I doubt anyone wants to share it, whatever religion they are.

That's totally uncalled for.

 

[Santino]

Religion, in my view is personal and should 99% remain so.

If someone sincerely believes that they have knowledge that will keep me from an eternity of hellfire, then I can actually respect that they would try to tell me about it.

 

[mojo pixy]

If someone sincerely believes that they have knowledge that will keep me from an eternity of hellfire, then I can actually respect that they would try to tell me about it.

Yeah fair enough. Still, doing so does open the door for any response and that may not always be comfortable.

 

[Aladdin]

That poster regularly posts on religious threads, invariably takes offence, and flounces. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra. And to her it's all a sectarian attack. She is impervious to reason, and doesn't really listen to anyone. Still, she's welcome to live in her own little world. I doubt anyone wants to share it, whatever religion they are.

No reply to me?
You seem to know a lot about me?

Well.. you mention my "little world"... you're right. It's small. I have liver heart and kidney failure....sounds like a mixed grill... but yes.. my world has become small as a result. I don't go out much. I don't meet people much. I am slowly dying. So is everyone says you.. but I know exactly how it will be. And my faith however disgusting it is to you...gives me something. It helps me in a small way to deal with my tiny little insignificant life. I share my life with people who love me. People that I love. So there are some who are happy to share my life with me.

Your posts on this thread say more about you than me... you've shown yourself to be cruel.

I hope your life is healthy and happy
I hope you have love in it.

 

[Aladdin]

Yeah fair enough. Still, doing so does open the door for any response and that may not always be comfortable.

There's uncomfortable... and then there's personal attacks.
I can cope with discomfort. But I don't understand why anyone would attack me saying that I have a "tiny little life that nobody would want to share"? That's pretty cruel

 

[Santino]

Yeah fair enough. Still, doing so does open the door for any response and that may not always be comfortable.

I think it opens you up to others' opinions on the fundamental nature of being, but not necessarily personal abuse.

 

[bcuster]

Interesting, a mirror image of a few people I know who were raised catholic but at some point, adopted judaism as their faith. IMO God being One, Eternal and Indivisible is an attraction of both judaism and islam over the god-split-in-three, for someone god-oriented.





The character of Jesus in the gospels says nothing that any pious, real-life rabbi wouldn't say, now or then: blessed are the poor, the peacemakers, those who love God and whoever treats their neighbour as kindly and lovingly as they wish for themselves. Rabbi Hillel the Elder (one of several candidates for 'the real jesus') famously quipped to someone who asked him what jews believe, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn."

So all 'Jesus' said was normal Jewish stuff. What that got turned into (and how) as kabbes says, is far more important and interesting.


As far as I can tell, it wasn't the choice of God that made the original jews' beliefs different, it was that they were the first people (that we know of) to make their God "One", all-encompassing, eternal and indivisible. Rather than a human-type creature with other companions, a husband or wife, children etc. Not a pantheon or even a pair, but One. This was novel, at the time, and in a world of "many gods" must have possessed extraordinary power in the mind of a believer.


You know God was invented before Jesus or any of the Saints, right? The ethical and lifestyle rules of the Torah were rules 'jesus' will have lived by, and preached?

This is a good post, but I'm not sure you've presented anything new, novel or particularly controversial

Jesus' message did not conflict with the Torah; he criticized the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, et. al.

 

[bcuster]

It's just a shame that some decent people end up tying themselves up in theological knots desperately trying to make sense of nonsense.

But the theology does make sense

 

[bcuster]

Scientifically it seems quite significant.
Is there even oxygen in heaven?

I don't know anything about this realm. I hope to find out

 

[mojo pixy]

This is a good post, but I'm not sure you've presented anything new, novel or particularly controversial

That wasn't my intention tbh, I was just musing on some of the matters raised.

Jesus' message did not conflict with the Torah; he criticized the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, et al.

No doubt he'd have railed against the brutality and immorality of Rome too if he could have got away with it. As it is, a rabbi criticising other rabbis for hypocrisy isn't and wasnt dangerous, especially if you know how to justify your views with scripture. "Two rabbis, three opinions" as an old saying goes.

 

[8ball]

I don't know anything about this realm. I hope to find out

“Like Narnia, but warmer”, according to one TripAdvisor review.