Which one of these religions is founded on the most absurd premise?

No disagreement with that at all, but why then only question/criticize the followers and not the religion (the man-made construct) itself (as you said in your previous post)?

I would not say that it is the sole initiator. I would also not say that it undoubtedly leads to violence with all or even a majority of people. But it probably leads to violence with a small group of people...is there any religion that has never led to violence with any people? (not saying this means religion is bad in total because of that, as the positives may outweigh the negatives...but it's kind of Murphy's law applied to religion...if it can go wrong (be abused), it will)

 

Fair enough, so here is my respectful take on the OPs question about "Which of these religions is founded on the most absurd premise"?

Clearly, it is Scientology, at least out of the religions I am familiar with, I believe it was founded on a bet between two Science Fiction writers in L. Ron Hubbard, and Robert Heinlen.

However, IMO, it is not much more absurd than Christianity or Islam.

In Christianity, we are asked to believe that Jesus was the son of God, and created miracles, and died for our sins.

However, just taking that premise in it's entirety without considering the politics of the time, the history of the times and the editing of the Bible nearly 400 years after his death makes it all seem very politicized.

Was Mary Magdaline his wife? Why in some of the Gnostic texts were women treated as equals, and those books were left out in the approved version by the Nicene council?

To me, I think Jesus was a great man, a highly peaceful man, sort of like Gandhi, someone to admire, learn from his teaching and aspire to be like, but no more the son of God than anyone else.

The rest of the strories seem to be allegories or compilations of previous mythos, cobbled together to create the mythos of Jesus as the son of God.

As for Islam, I find the premise that God was speaking to one man and having Mohammed be the sole purveyor of information from God to be very difficult to believe.

Not to mention Mohammed's message changes significantly as he grows in power, IMO, God's message would not change based upon someones political station in life.

So, while I believe Scientology is the most absurd, I find both Christianity and Islam founded on absurd principals in their own right.

Now, I don't profess to be a scholar on any religion, and respect that other people make a choice to believe.

Personally, I believe in God, I see lots of wonders in the universe and all around me and the miracle of life.

I see God in everything, but I don't see God in most religions, I find people trying to control others, turn a profit, and grow their business.

And I do realize that a church can be a very good thing, because of it's sense of community, and maybe the thread of religion is what binds those folks together, just as the ancient Druids bound their cultures through their worship of Mother Earth.

I guess at the end of the day, we all want to belong to something and believe in something, we are communal animals after all.

DD

 

I don't need to question or criticize them per say, because I think I have made it abundantly clear on this board that I view the human-manufactured "religion" part of faith as gross relics that produce little but bigotry and ignorance. Accordingly, when I am talking to someone about religion my focus is on what they actually think themselves, and not the dogma their supposed "church" espouses (loaded statement - there is so much variability here that it's cumbersome to be so generalized).

No argument.

 

edit......

 

Max, I am not looking to discuss that, we have had that discussion, and I found a lot of what you wrote very interesting and enlightening. Especially some of the books that were written many years later.

I still find the council editing the text and steering it in the direction of removing women from power in the church, and installing the "son of God" legend, as a major problem for me in believing in Christianity.

I asked no questions, just stated what I thought, and I understand it is frustrating to discuss something with someone that does not accept some of the explanations.

Again, just my .02......and I totally get how important those beliefs are to you, and respect you for them.

DD

 

ATW: I wish I had spent more time on it, but this rapidly written post kind of gets to the point I am trying to make with a more thorough explanation.

 

In defense of atheist, rarely in history have they burned, hanged, beheaded, tested with drowning, tortured, ostracized, or boycotted any religion on an organized basis. So excuse them if they might be a little bit overzealous when given a crack of freedom. Remember, they are up against a history of infallibility and total dominance. Also, you do look insane to them. Yes you do.

(someone will argue The Soviet Union, or Communist China but those are examples of cultural revolutions; economic, political and religious where the persecution of religion was a part of the event, not the reason for the event. Atheism was just a mechanism of change for the tyrants in charge, and in the case of the USSR, the overthrow of the Russian Orthodox Church was part of the political revolution)

 

DD:

Check out the book "The Mystic Christ", by Ethan Hawke. I think you would find it appealing.

 

let's talk about Scientology more, then at least we all agree ONE of them is based on absurdity...

 

I found one from Ethan Walker, is that the one you are talking about? It sounds very interesting indeed.

DD

 

lol, wtf why did I write Hawke? (who is ethan hawke?)

Edit: I am not familiar with him, but I guess I have heard the name...

Sorry about that. Yeah, it's Walker.

Great book.

 

He was in Reality Bites, something he shares with MATTRESS MAC!

 

reading the synopsis, it sounds like a book i'd love. thanks for the suggestion.

 

I'm agnostic myself....I do believe in a Supreme Being. I usually to this being as such.


Have to be honest...Scientology makes me laugh....but hey to each his/her own.

 

Absurdity:



I wonder if this claim was ever true. Maybe the Evangelists just tossed it in.

 

What a shallow representation of my faith.

 

As I said earlier, a woman back then could be considered a Virgin until she gave birth to a son.

So, technically Mary could have been a virgin in their sense, but not in the modern day sense.

DD

 

The thing I don't understand is why it would matter in any way whether she was a virgin or not. What difference does it make?

 

I believe that all the mythical, magical stories in the Christian religion or any other religion are completely unreasonable and flat out stupid. That's point blank how I feel.

Can I respect a person and even respect that person's overall intelligence despite the fact they believe in what I consider unreasonable and stupid concepts? Yes, I can and often do. Whether or not that is enough for them is not really up to me.

 

Scientology might lose some points because it was founded at a time when people should "know better," and didn't "need" religion to form the basis of literature, psychology, history, cultural identity and even political bureaucracy. Despite apparently having been the nicest people in the 19th century; I can't really handle the Amish "no electricity" thing. And Rastafarianism just seems out of the window. I love that their supreme prophet, Haile Salassie, was an actual dude, but they never actually gave him anything, and he just kinda nodded to them in the hallway.