Thursday, January 22, 2009

Skimming AOMAP.


Song of the Glob: School by Supertramp

Dear Globlets,

During my exploration of religion, I will most likely say things that you don't agree with, things that might offend you, and so on. All I can say about that is: tough shit. I'm going to be questioning everything I can from a realistic point of view. Again, please feel free to comment on any of my posts to inform me of what I might get wrong, or your interpretation of an aspect of the bible or my post, anything you'd like to share about religion... I want to hear what others have to say, so *enlighten me.*
I might be establishing a battleground here and if that's the case, please try to keep it clean, clear and legible, and read as open-mindedly as possible. I don't want anybody losing friends or anything because of different opinions to do with religion. I'd like it if this discussion remained here, on Gmail or Blogger. (preferably Blogger.) I don't want this to be a negative thing, which is why we're calling it a discussion and not an argument, despite my mentioning of a "battleground."

Thank you.

I guess I'll start a little bit of opinion-posting now.
A quick skim:

First, we're going to start from the beginning. No, not the beginning of the world or of Jesus. (Was there ever a beginning of God? Guess not...)
Kids come first. I don't agree that kids should be subjected to religious beliefs from when they're very little. A child should be given the chance to fully understand a religion before they believe in it. I don't think that kids should be told that there is no god either, though, of course. When a person is mature enough to understand religion, and all religions, after they've asked the questions they need to ask, would then be a good time to make that decision: to believe, or not to believe.
I know that not everyone is indoctrinated from day one, but many are, and I don't think it's fair. You can't tell a person that there is one way and only one way for anything because it's not true. There is always another way. However, people still do tell young people that. They take advantage of their naiveness and make them fear what's outside the box. What kind of love is a love based on fear? Again, this isn't always the case but it still happens - in the name of the lord, in the name of God, in the name of religion.
I don't see how this would be necessary unless it is simply to control the young so they grow up thinking the way the elders want: to never question, to never even want to peak to see what's outside of that box, to never change, grow, or see things differently - to live in fear.

Verse from the song, School by Supertramp:
Don't do this and don't do that | What are they trying to do? | Make a good boy of you | Do they know where it's at? | Don't criticize, | they're old and wise | Do as they tell you to | Don't want the devil to | Come and put out your eyes


Love,
Ori.

18 comments:

Sarah said...

Firstly, awesome blog revamp, love it!
Secondly, on children being "indoctrinated". I can see where you are coming from. It may interest you to know that the idea of infant baptism is not biblical - when Jesus baptized his followers, he baptized only those who were old enough to make the decision, not babies.
But parents have the right and obligation to teach their children moral standards, wouldn't you agree? I've seen children who were not given much in the way of guidelines for life, and they usually seem badly behaved and very unhappy. Many parents base their moral standards on some kind of religion. Personally, my parents belong to the same religion that I do, and raised me according to bible standards.
However, I only decided to become a member of that religion when I was 14. It was my decision alone, and nobody forced me into it. Arguably, I was not completely mature at that age, but I was then (and am now) completely convinced that I made the right decision, and I was aware of the commitment I was making.
:)

Ori. said...

Firstly, Thanks!
Secondly, I think parents have the right to teach their kids about religion but the obligation to teach moral standards has little to do with religion, in my opinion. I know that a lot of people learn about moral standards from the bible and if that's what has to happen for them to be good people, then so be it. However, there are plenty of good people in the world who have not used a bible of any sort to identify right from wrong. I think that also comes from experiences, not just teaching... it's self-teaching.
Cannot a non-religious person be good and ethical too?
And why is it that there are people who devote themselves, wholly or not, to God and the teachings of the bible, yet many still act in a beastly, sick, amoral way - sexually abusing and harrassing women and children and men, killing people because of religion, and so on. The sixth commandment states 'You shall not murder,' but people seem to ignore this one a lot and use their religion to justify their actions.
Sacrifice to me means murder, but that's something for another day.
I also believe there is a point to which a parent or guardian should teach the guidelines to life. A young person has to be given a chance to make mistakes and learn from them. Being taught the ways of life from one or two perspectives will not totally prepare one for the outside world. I think it's important that an older person shares their experiences and advice with a younger one, but there has to be a balance, a bit of room for mistakes, experiences, change, and growth. Life changes from generation to generation and that also has to be taken into account.
I guess this all brings a good topic for me to write about later...
This comment is more of a blog post than a comment, it's so long... oops.

Marcelo said...

Great post, i agree with everything you said, religion is a delicate matter, almost everytime our comments leave somebody pissed but that's okay after all it is between adults, but when people indoctrinate a children who absolutely have no concept of "God" or "Supreme Being", they're making a big, horrible mistake, it is totally unfair to their young minds.

Following your example, i will cite a verse from the song Faithless by Rush:

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
And that's faith enough for me

Anonymous said...

BTW - Jesus never baptized anyone.

Sarah said...

Sorry, my mistake - Jesus did not baptize anyone directly, that is true. I suppose I meant his instructions on baptism, which were:
Matthew 28.19,20 "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you..."
And later accounts of baptism, like at Acts 2:41 show that only those who understood and "embraced his word" were baptized. This would refer to someone old enough to understand the teachings of Jesus.

Ori. said...

Have they ever written the bible in English? They must have... at some point. Right? :/

Sarah said...

The bible has been translated into English, obviously, but it was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It was completed about 96 CE, and ... well, I'm guessing English wasn't in existence then. I'm sure your mom would know, since she has a degree in linguistics. :P

Anonymous said...

Head knowledge of moral standards is easily obtained without religion. The Bible provides compelling reasons to commit to live by them without compromise. It also offers a priceless treasure not available anywhere else...but there's a catch: you must search with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

When beginning to study the Bible, three things make a big difference:
1. The spirit in which you read it (1Cor2:12-14) Critics usually find the Bible just a waste of time.
2. The person guiding your study (Acts 8:30-31, Luke 24:27,32)
3. The English translation used (check yours here http://www.ortingreunion.com/images/stories/Bible_Translations.jpg, NCV is a reasonable starter version at www.biblegateway.com,).

May God bless your search for that which is better than anything this world has to offer. "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened." Luke 11:10

Anonymous said...

That link was:
http://www.ortingreunion.com/images
/stories/Bible_Translations.jpg

Ori. said...

I know it's written in English... but being the stupid, ignorant little girl that I am, it would be easier to read and understand if the English were simplified. There probably is a simplified bible but... I'm not going to look for it. Not yet, anyway - I understand it. :P Just felt like being a pain.

Mommet said...

Oh I just can't wait until I write this in my own blog, I just can't. I commend you, Ori, for taking the time to look at the bible. But please, please remember it is only a book (or rather a collection of "books"). An old book, yes, but a book nonetheless. The words contained in it aren't the words on any god. They are words of men, and, to boot, men who lived a very long time ago and who had a very different world to contend with. Their knowledge was extremely limited - imagine how any one of them would react could they time-travel to today. They would probably go insane as nothing in our reality would fit in theirs. And, just as a side note, none of the books of the bible were written during Jesus's life, nor by anyone who actually was his contemporary.

Ori. said...

Thank you. I will definitely keep that in mind. :)

Anonymous said...

BTW - Most likely every single NT writer was a contemporary of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter and Jude were all not only contemporaries, some were Jesus' brothers. Paul had a profound meeting and conversation with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Luke wrote about 34 years after Jesus' crucification. Since he was a doctor at the time, he would likely have been older than this. So technically he was a contemporary. Though it seems he never met Jesus, he relied on the accounts of eyewitnesses which were contemporaries of Jesus and, being a doctor, was meticulous about detail and accuracy, drawing from a rich vocabulary. Luke 1:2

I'm sure Mommet means well, but you may find that even Luke is a more reliable source for spiritual matters than opinions posted here.

Ori. said...

I don't really understand what you mean. You have to remember that I have not read the bible and references are like jibberish to me. They're just words. I asked my friend to help me understand what you were saying better and I think I almost get it, but... still, not really. (don't take it personally, handsome) It would be appreciated if you could explain exactly what you mean to me. Thanks.

Mommet said...

Oh, I do mean well, but I'm also guided by reason and not a 2000-year-old myth. It really matters little when any of the bible was written and much of who and when exactly did the writing is still very much under debate. Quoting the bible to authenticate it is rather unscientific, don't you think? My point is, this is a book that was written by men. Does anyone dispute that fact? No ... they even name the book's parts after these men. To say that the contents are words of god is simply going too far. First you have to prove the existence of said god, and, other than your belief in one, Anonymous, you can't do. Why? Because the Abrahamic god, just like Zeus, Thor, and Ra of old, is a human construct. Therefore, your god is just like those other ones and has as much relevancy as they do.

Mommet said...

Sorry, forgot to include some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Earliest_known_sources

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inconsistencies

Ori. said...

If my mother were a doctor, would she be a more reliable source?
Not all the comments here are opinions... some have facts too.
Also, men lie. All the time. 2000 years ago, men lied. And men will lie to benefit themselves.
Time for a new post soon.

Mommet said...

Another one ... just because.

PS: I learned how to embed links. Yay me :)