It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
In its purest form (for the individual), I think religion has many merits. It attempts to help humans (who let's face it, are just ants in a complex, cruel, irrational world - there is no real way to explain rationally to a child who has lost all their loved ones in the 2004 tsunami, shortly after the devastation took place, for instance) find cathartic comfort and calm in the extremely stormy waters of life. It can be a sort of 'light dimmer' for the nerves if exercised and practiced properly. A pacification or stoicism switch.
There is scientific rationale for this. A few examples are below:
For instance, there are numerous studies that show that meditation is good for one's health. If done correctly (and that is a big 'if' because it's not as easy as it seems and takes great concentration and discipline), it can calm nerves, improve physical and mental well being and increase mental clarity. Once I learned more about this, I realized that prayer in its purest sense is a form of meditation. It shouldn't be so much about asking God for help (then it is being done incorrectly imho), but rather about periodically calming one's mind, accepting the inevitable vagaries of life, and looking for peace internally.
Scientific studies have also shown that a communal belonging (whether marriage at the individual level, family at the slightly broader level, or societal at the even broader level) is also very good for health. People live longer and have happier lives if they have more of a sense of community and people to care for them, as well as people to care for. Again, religion can provide this by giving a kind community spirit.
So this is where religion scores massive points as it were imho. Especially for those who are less fortunate in life, and don't have the opportunity to have a good education, so that they can understand what we're discussing here (which is reasonably complex and requires analytical minds that have time to contemplate - some people only have the chance to live life just to survive).
Where it has failed is in the 'organized' and 'dogmatic' (rules based - i.e. do this or else or don't do this and then) element. This is where power comes in, and consequently abuse (in the form of willful misinterpretation and fear mongering). Manipulation also rears its ugly head. The same thing happens with Nationalism (which in its purest form is not a bad thing, and which can also provide that beneficial sense of belonging or community, which is a requirement for human beings).
It's like any set up that confers absolute power, as @jobo said earlier. Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely, as the saying goes - and that is why religion, politics (also abused often, as noted by @SaintMark) and nationalism are such easy targets for exploitation. People generally have to be more aware of this and notice it when it is happening (which is often). It's not difficult to see when you are aware it can happen.
I agree with you. He did not walk on water, I'm quite certain of that.
The doctrine, dogma & rules that have come out of organized religion are problematic and damaging because they are quite likely to close the mind.
The self-healing elements however are positive, and you're correct that they don't have to come from religion. However, practically speaking, in some societies, religion is the only way to provide anything of substance/wisdom (since education, economic opportunity and hope/sustenance are in short supply).
As long as we have a capitalist world order where the few benefit themselves at the expense (including by pillaging the resources) of the underprivileged many, there will be a breeding ground for the wrong form or religion/ideologies to take root.
Lol
So a God just stands by with his hands in the air saying 'nothing I can do about earthquake'? What sort of god is that? Might as well pray to Michael Fish.
Surely those are the very people who should be the least thankful to god?
'Yeah nice one I've been served a shitty deal right from the off being born blind in a slum in Bangladesh. Now my parents have both died and I have to struggle to exist as a beggar. But lucky I've got my faith - thanks God for looking out for me. You really are a kind and benevolent guy who deserves my unwavering adulation because without you watching over me I'd be proper f**ked. Oh shiiiit here comes a tsunami!!! But I'm not worried I'm sure God will take care of me like he has so far.'
Some people who are down on it take to drugs or alcohol, some take to suicide, and others take to religion.
I personally have no problem with the people in Haiti after the earthquake finding solace in religion for inner spiritual healing. They acted with dignity in the face of their unimaginable plight. I'm not going to judge them for that, and quite frankly, I'm happy I'm not in their position, because I don't think I would have acted so stoically if confronted with such horror.
That's the 'faith' basis that gives you an inner calm. They're not thinking about it or analyzing anything (including whether Jesus did in fact walk on water) at that point in their lives. They're just existing from day to day and surviving. Religion gives them inner peace. Its value in that case is priceless and I won't take it away from them.
No one ever said that being a Christian or a person of faith would be an easy ride. Quite the opposite in fact. To think of life in those terms is a fallacy I'm afraid. That's why few stick with religion when the going gets tough. There arises the need to blame God for what has happened. We all have our crosses to bear, just like the founding member of Christianity in fact.
there is so much we do not know as humans and there is so much we do believe in like the WMD in Iraq, we went to flipping war over it remember.
Who God is or what he is does not matter, which religion would be right in that case.
What exactly the power of prayer is I do not know but it must have some power otherwise it would have died out millenniums ago, because people keep doing it.
I said talk to a person that because of his faith has gone to places and really tried to make a difference, like our current pope he is closer to the people because he has lived with them and understands them even if they have different values. Religion is not all about the book but as well about the choices you make in your life and how you implement them.
as for the Westborough chapter they are not religious they are haters, they are everything their holy book does despise they themselves are too blind to see it. I would not mind if Obama would send that whole chapter to the middle east to protest IS, I am sure they will make a difference, it would for us.
I don't think he did either, but that is entirely beside the point: even if he had, even if he did all the miracles the Gospels claim he has done, even if he was born from a Virgin and resurrected... It would not give a bit of credibility to his teaching.
Our current pope is better at PR than the previous one, who was really a despicable man. But our current pope also blamed the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. So as far as I'm concerned... He can clean the feet of people attending mass all he wants, he still talks like a bully and seems to espouse might meets right of religious fanatics, at least to a degree. Oh and he did practice exorcism. So for all his progressist mask, he is pretty much as backward as any other devout Catholic.
And the Westborough baptist Church are religious. Fred Phelps was actually a very good Biblical scholar, he just took the Bible literally... as the word of God! yes they are haters, but both are not mutually exclusive.
I think this is a dig at me, so let me get this clear: there are good people who are religious. I don't hate an hypothetical, non existent God. I don't hate religious people per se. Not even their faith. But I do think one can be morally justified to hate a few things: obscurantism being one of them, fanaticism too.
And I will say something controversial, but I don't care, it is backed up by facts: the good people who are religious have to be at some point good people in spite of the dogmas of their respective faith. They have to cherry pick and thus disrespect the tenants of their faith. This is why the Westborough Baptist Church are "good" Christians: they pretty much accept the Bible in its entirety. They are just more rude about it. Their position on homosexuality, for instance, is essentially no different than the one of the Catholic Church. And it is not being hateful to call Christians on that.
But hate is a sin...
Wait-
:-S
NO dig at you at all, people do hate and it is not necessary to have religion involved. For instance the more I read about the Nazi movement with Hitler the more I see greed, evil and hate for those that are different [gypsies, handicapped, coloured, Jewish, Arab, different political minded], but mostly blind greed. And there seems to be nothing of religion being involved.
Like WWI & the Boer wars in South Africa which were cruel and dirty wars and it all had to do with power & money. There was a lot of hate fuelled by gree involved, and in the case of both blind patriotism. You did know about the concentration camps by the British aimed at a systematic killing of Boer families in Africa, I presume. There has never been a real justification or outcry against that happening.
on a personal note , my wife had a friend who is a passionate Christian and used to live in Nepal. One day, she found a baby left on her doorstep. He had been born with brain damage. Local doctors and NHS doctors all agreed that there was nothing that could be done for the poor chap and he had around 2 years to live. A mass campaign was set up to pray for this guy to live. Letters, blogs, website, special gatherings etc. Thousands of friends, colleagues and churchgoers prayed their hearts out for this guy to recover....sadly, he did pass away after around two years. Why did God not answer the prayers? "it was Gods will", go figure
@patb- Like I often say, if prayers worked, we would know about it. Hospitals would be empty and churches full
1. One can believe that there is a master plan and a higher being looking over all of us and guiding us as a people/world, as Abrahamic religions in particular do to varying degrees (some ridiculously so, including believing they are essentially superior to others and even chosen). In addition though, some religions/philosophies are more broad based and not so dogmatic/doctrinarian, but rather more spiritual in the purest form (e.g. Buddhism)
2. One can believe that life is essentially random and there is no guided plan except what we make for ourselves. However, one realizes still that the world is subject to mathematical truths and probablistic outcomes (e.g. if you walk in front of a car, you're more likely to be hit, but not necessarily so - and certainly not as part of a master plan).
Now, I can understand the uneducated in the world (including in many underprivileged countries with limited opportunity) gravitating to the former ideology, since they can't understand probability and have not had the opportunity for mathematical training.
I have a more difficult time comprehending why educated people in Western countries in particular call themselves religious and believe (subconsciously and consciously) in a higher power. Shouldn't we know better after all the advances we have made as a society?
I have come to the conclusion that it's because we, as humans, really do need to feel that we're special. It's part of the human condition - and the human ego.
If there was no master plan......if there was no one looking out for and over us.......aren't we all then just irrelevant? An interesting existential question.
"If you take a 5p coin and hold it 75 feet away, the space in the sky it would obscure would hold 10,000 galaxies. It's mindblowing." Prof Brain Cox
Its no co-incidence that no one has managed to establish a new religion within modern times when we know about the cosmos. All the main religions concentrate on us and our relationship with God. They were never accountable to the bigger questions concerning all the other stuff that's out there
We "Christian" society are an odd 50 years away from exactly the same behaviour....... lets have some perspective.
Nazism was a ideology based upon greed, the only God they had was Adolf himself, and they used the Jews like many other societies before them as a scapegoat simply because economical they were a very rich group and despised for it. Not an difficult job to blame them after the economic troubles between the two big wars.
The amount of self enrichment that went on under Nazi occupation was incredible and the distance the went to get it is sickening. Pulling gold teeth out of dead peoples mouths has nothing to do with religion but with sickening greed.
Actually, no, Nazi Germany was a Christian society. Priests were blessing the fuhrer at Mass and praying for him, they had "Gott Mitt Uns" written on the buckles of their belts. Hitler never renounced his Catholicism, although it is debatable whether he was religious or not (Himmler on the other hand was a practicing Catholic.) He may have been the object of a god-like cult, the Church in Germany was sycophantic towards him. And Nazi Germany built their antisemitism on centuries of religious hatred for the Jews. It was not solely religiously motivated, a lot of it was downright racism, but there was religious elements to its antisemitism. As there is now in Islamic antisemitism.
Indeed. Just as there is now racism and centuries of religious elements to Islamophobia. History has a funny way of repeating itself.
I encourage everyone to closely read the link that @Ludovico posted and form their own opinions. I am personally in agreement with Andrew Solomon's view in that link.
Also, regarding the authors - it's their right not to participate if they so choose as well. Freedom of expression works both ways and they should not be insulted publicly for it by Rushdie.
Rushdie called a spade a spade. The authors who refused to give the award to Charlie Hebdo are blaming the victims, plain and simple. It is their right, but they can be criticized and call on.
They do, they just think there was an excuse for the terrorists to murder. Like, you know, France failed to accept them and made them feel vulnerable or something. CH had the right to make fun of everyone, but you know, they didn't have to trigger the anger of those poor mocked religious minorities. And I will also add that this woman got raped because she showed too much cleavage.
I disagree. They can be criticized (that is freedom of expression) but not insulted ("pussies"), as he did. That's crossing the line. His tone is not acceptable. They have their reasons and they are entitled to them. The tone of the discourse is critical to getting your point across without offending and he, as a so-called intellectual, should know that.
As I said, I agree with Andrew Solomon's point, but let me post it here so it can be seen clearly:
Solomon said that PEN distinguished between the right of free speech and much of what Charlie Hebdo actually published. “The award does not agree with the content of what they expressed,” he said, “it expressed admiration for that commitment of free speech.”
He compared the controversy to PEN’s inclusion of Pussy Riot at last year’s gala, saying that the Russian activists’ “content is in many instances juvenile, and many people had felt that remove large parts of your clothing in an Orthodox church was offensive, but in standing up to the Putin regime they did something worth admiration.
“If we only endorsed freedom of speech for people whose speech we liked that would be a very limited notion of freedom of speech. It’s a courage award, not a content award.”
It's to be commended imho.
Mainly because they have made the distinction between extreme radical or criminal activity & loyalty to one's religion or faith.
The perpetrators of extremism in this case are also of Islamic faith, as they are, but the mosque is choosing to fight this extremist element and stand up for the moderate side. Truly commendable.
Now, if we can just get politicians, nationalists and other religious people to do the same (eg. call out your own when they are clearly wrong) we'd have a better world. Fraternity style loyalty is overrated.
Yes, and for instance they had to swear to God to enter the Nazi administration and so on, etc. The irony is that you can throw "Stalin" at the face of atheists, but no, it's not enough, the Christians want to have the Nazis too thrown at the face of atheists. I'm really surprised by the number of people who think that Nazi were strongly atheists (actually, atheist groups were forbidden, religion was considered a ground of morality). And then once you live in a parallel world were Nazi are atheists, you've got to jump on the mumbo-jumbo bandwagon that negates the religious antisemitism, and justifies it by "the economy stupid". Yeah, nothing to do with "They killed Jesus", nothing irrational !