Religious Figures

I don't really see why it matters any way. If you look closely at all the World Religions, you'll notice two things:

1) They are simply giving different names to the same Source/Force.

and

2) They are simply adopting different lifestyles according to how they were told this Source/Force should be honored.

There is no one, true, religion out there. This fact is evident when you observe the lives of people who each follow a different path. An Atheist might lead a pretty good life, just as good of a life as a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. The only REAL difference is in the lifestyle and even then, the only way their lifestyles would be drastically different is if these people are in different regions, apart of different cultures.

In my opinion, a super hero should be ABOVE religion. What kind of person goes out there, saving the lives of good/bad without the belief that we all have the same worth? Definitely not a hero.
 
Yes, for the same reason it would be innappropriate in any other story: deus ex machinas are generally weak, and if God does indeed exist He doesn't interfere like this in the first place, so for the sake of decent storytelling it should be assumed He wouldn't outright interfere in the lives of superheroes either.

I'm Christian but the Thor thing doesn't bother me, because you can assume that the Asgardians are just really powerful beings while not actually being deities, and besides it's just a comic and plenty of other Christian comic fans probably haven't had a problem with it either.

On the other hand Preacher is something I have no desire to read, because it seems overhyped and offensive for the sake of being offensive, which happens too much in comics sometimes IMO.
I've heard of Preacher, I've never heard of it described as offensive though?
 
I've heard of Preacher, I've never heard of it described as offensive though?

It's fairly offensive, although I do think there is more of a point to it than simply wanting to be offensive. There's a crap load of swearing, violence, sexuality, and irreverence. But it's also gota big heart to it, and it does make some worthwhile observations on the human condition, wether you agree with them or not.
 
I don't really see why it matters any way. If you look closely at all the World Religions, you'll notice two things:

1) They are simply giving different names to the same Source/Force.

and

2) They are simply adopting different lifestyles according to how they were told this Source/Force should be honored.

Ah, eh, uh.... I couldn't really agree with you there. Very few religions across time seem to give into the idea that a singular force could bring forth an entire universe. That's...I guess "fairly new" on the scene. Keep in mind, most religions are polythiestic.

The second one is debatable, but mostly true.
 
Ah, eh, uh.... I couldn't really agree with you there. Very few religions across time seem to give into the idea that a singular force could bring forth an entire universe. That's...I guess "fairly new" on the scene. Keep in mind, most religions are polythiestic.

The second one is debatable, but mostly true.

Well, many polytheistic religions recognise a sort of cosmc force, like fate or whatever, that is above even the Gods.
 
But not as a source of creation or empowerment. God would likely be beyond fate, and encompass creation and empowerment. That in itself isn't very common in most religions head dieties. Usually a universe comes into being from some odd event, or from birth, or from conjoined efforts between gods. But not a singular all encompassing perfect source.
 
But not as a source of creation or empowerment. God would likely be beyond fate, and encompass creation and empowerment. That in itself isn't very common in most religions head dieties. Usually a universe comes into being from some odd event, or from birth, or from conjoined efforts between gods. But not a singular all encompassing perfect source.

I never said it was a single source. I just said there was a source that they recognized. Regardless of what happened, there was nothing, then something, then everything. Really, they all follow the same patterns. Haven't you read any Joseph Campbell?
 
The idea that all divinity is a different form of the same source is a preeetty radical one, and I don't mean radical in the awesome way. It's no more correct or incorrect an interpretation than any other interpretation of spirituality throughout the ages, of course, but if you ask most religious people about it, they'd probably just laugh. That's what I did when someone asked me the other day if Jesus could be considered a Buddha.

The fact is that beyond the surface veneer of "betterment of humanity" and "self-help for the ages," their dogmas simply don't support that kind of claim. Same for most religions, new or old. Now, if you want to disregard all but the surface veneer and acknowledge the barest of the essentials as the true heart of the faith, then you might be on to something. But like I said, most devouts would prooobably disagree with you on it. For most people, it's the details that matter.

Now, on the other hand, most religions and mythologies definitely support the existence of other religions and mythologies. The notion that there is only one "pantheon" and all other religions are merely imagined imaginings is a pretty exclusively (LOL) Abrahamic belief. Most cosmologies have room for a wide variety of deities, and some even specifically make room for them.

Xofenroht said:
In my opinion, a super hero should be ABOVE religion. What kind of person goes out there, saving the lives of good/bad without the belief that we all have the same worth? Definitely not a hero.
Buh?
 
The idea that all divinity is a different form of the same source is a preeetty radical one, and I don't mean radical in the awesome way. It's no more correct or incorrect an interpretation than any other interpretation of spirituality throughout the ages, of course, but if you ask most religious people about it, they'd probably just laugh. That's what I did when someone asked me the other day if Jesus could be considered a Buddha.

The fact is that beyond the surface veneer of "betterment of humanity" and "self-help for the ages," their dogmas simply don't support that kind of claim. Same for most religions, new or old. Now, if you want to disregard all but the surface veneer and acknowledge the barest of the essentials as the true heart of the faith, then you might be on to something. But like I said, most devouts would prooobably disagree with you on it. For most people, it's the details that matter.

Now, on the other hand, most religions and mythologies definitely support the existence of other religions and mythologies. The notion that there is only one "pantheon" and all other religions are merely imagined imaginings is a pretty exclusively (LOL) Abrahamic belief. Most cosmologies have room for a wide variety of deities, and some even specifically make room for them.

It's not even that Abrahamic either. Originally, Judaism fully accepted the existence of other Gods besides theirs. They simply believed that theirs was the most important and the only one that should be worshiped. All others were lesser and detracted from the true creator. The idea that he/she/it is the only God that ever was and ever shall be is a relatively new thing.
 
Yeah, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. And I didn't want any Jewish people to stone me.

OH NO YOU DIDN-
OH YES I DID.
emot-nyd.gif
 
I've contemplated praying to Zeus and Hercules one time when I was high.

Seriously though,I'm currently a "non believer" in the closet in a Catholic family.
 
If you feel that way without already reading it, then yeah, you probably shouldn't. But then again, at least you'd have nine books to contribute to the next book burning.

Yes, because I'm a Christian it totally means I'm intolerant to books I don't like.:whatever:

People can read whatever stuff they want. I've read Ennis' stuff before, and it comes off as a little too cynical and nasty for my tastes. IMO that's a trend in comics that is just as bad as the 90's when they were trying to make everyone super badass with huge guns. It's just kind of funny when ultraviolent and vulgar comics are rated "mature", when really it's written like it was done by a teenager who digs vulgarity because it gives him a false sense of feeling mature.
 
You truly have no idea what you're talking about there punchy. It's great to make sweeping generalizations with little to no knowledge on the subject. :up: You are...teh awesome.
 
You truly have no idea what you're talking about there punchy. It's great to make sweeping generalizations with little to no knowledge on the subject. :up: You are...teh awesome.

Then enlighten me on how the rest of Garth Ennis' work isn't as mean spirited and as nasty as his Punisher stuff. From the snippets of Preacher I've seen, it seems to be.

Plus you'd be the expert on sweeping generalizations, seeing as you assumed I must be some book burning fundie.
 
The idea that all divinity is a different form of the same source is a preeetty radical one, and I don't mean radical in the awesome way. It's no more correct or incorrect an interpretation than any other interpretation of spirituality throughout the ages, of course, but if you ask most religious people about it, they'd probably just laugh. That's what I did when someone asked me the other day if Jesus could be considered a Buddha.

The fact is that beyond the surface veneer of "betterment of humanity" and "self-help for the ages," their dogmas simply don't support that kind of claim. Same for most religions, new or old. Now, if you want to disregard all but the surface veneer and acknowledge the barest of the essentials as the true heart of the faith, then you might be on to something. But like I said, most devouts would prooobably disagree with you on it. For most people, it's the details that matter.

Now, on the other hand, most religions and mythologies definitely support the existence of other religions and mythologies. The notion that there is only one "pantheon" and all other religions are merely imagined imaginings is a pretty exclusively (LOL) Abrahamic belief. Most cosmologies have room for a wide variety of deities, and some even specifically make room for them.

Buh?

Before I say anything, asking a devout believer in any religion gets you no where. They're biased from the start. Simply because they're DEVOUT.

Now, I think a lot of people are missing the point I'm trying to make. That point being that no matter what, we're all people. Humans are inspired by what they see/experience in their environment (not just natural, but social, cultural, etc.). A lot of these religions began without the influence of the others. What you have are people interpretting the natural world in many different ways, based on region, culture, etc. (For instance, there only wolves in the myths which originated amongst people who lived in a region where wolves were commonly found in that time period, same goes for crocodiles and other influences)
So, that's why it can be the same SOURCE with the only difference being the differences in interpretation.
Personally, I see a link between religious FANatics and the FANatics who rise out of their loves for various characters or celebrities.

I just got done writing a paper, arguing my own Religious Theory for the "Anthropological Approaches to Religion" course I took this semester. There are about 8 Major Theories concerning the existence and purpose of religion, which includes the theories of Marx, Freud, Durkheim, etc.
 
I've contemplated praying to Zeus and Hercules one time when I was high.

Seriously though,I'm currently a "non believer" in the closet in a Catholic family.


This, children, is why you don't do drugs.

When you're willing to pray to an entity honestly, while not believing they're real in the first place. :o

I'm off to go discover cold fusion. :grin:
 
This, children, is why you don't do drugs.

When you're willing to pray to an entity honestly, while not believing they're real in the first place. :o

I'm off to go discover cold fusion. :grin:
It's in a little plastic container in my fridge.... I saved you some.
 
Before I say anything, asking a devout believer in any religion gets you no where. They're biased from the start. Simply because they're DEVOUT.

Now, I think a lot of people are missing the point I'm trying to make. That point being that no matter what, we're all people. Humans are inspired by what they see/experience in their environment (not just natural, but social, cultural, etc.). A lot of these religions began without the influence of the others. What you have are people interpretting the natural world in many different ways, based on region, culture, etc. (For instance, there only wolves in the myths which originated amongst people who lived in a region where wolves were commonly found in that time period, same goes for crocodiles and other influences)
So, that's why it can be the same SOURCE with the only difference being the differences in interpretation.
Personally, I see a link between religious FANatics and the FANatics who rise out of their loves for various characters or celebrities.

I just got done writing a paper, arguing my own Religious Theory for the "Anthropological Approaches to Religion" course I took this semester. There are about 8 Major Theories concerning the existence and purpose of religion, which includes the theories of Marx, Freud, Durkheim, etc.

It's interesting that you say that asking a devout person about religion will get you nowhere because they are devout. It doesn't make much sense because you skipped a crucial step in the argument against devoutness-- and that is proving that they are devout for reasons that negate that they may be right, or have reasons to be devout. You have us believe that they are devout for devout's sake, as though there is a prize they get at their church or mosque or temple (Xbawks). Actually, they could be devout because they may have had some experience to make them devout (something that to them would prove their religion). They could be devout because after long study of the arguments for and against their faith they believe their faith is the correct stance intellectually. Without that step you just seem to be attempting to silence a believer's ability to talk about their faith.

But I'll take it a step further. Even if one is devout, what does that mean? They are incapable of thinking about their own beliefs? St. Thomas and Martin Luther were devout but I don't think anyone has ever accused them of being stupid or unable to analyze their beliefs and separate good arguments from bad arguments. Also, you can be a devout and still search for the truth, and get a great deal further intellectually than you were before. Look at say, Toni Morrison, she is most likely 100% against slavery and racism and bigotry. But in her writings about history and slavery in the US, she doesn't cover stuff up or lie about her sources or anything like that (not that she has a need to in this particular case) but she doesn't. First you get the facts, the evidence, and then you interpret it.

Then I'll take it a step further. You are writing about the origins of religion. 8 major theories. Well, let me say good luck, as a college student I know what it is like to drop the paper off and think "please don't hate this." But also let me know if you looked at people who had positive religious beliefs. Let me turn your original argument back on you (though I contend the core argument is flawed as I showed earlier) so you can see that the sword can easily cut both ways. Marx and Freud I know were no fans of religion. Actually, many would say they were opponents. So what about Marx and Freud? Can I say, it makes no sense to let them talk about religion because they are devout atheists? Of course their theories on religion will be secular and deny any divine inspiration. If you read the Bible and you have already made up your mind that the miracles and stuff couldn't have happened, then of course it doesn't make sense. So I do want to know what you think about that. Because it doesn't make sense for a devout person to argue their beliefs, but it does make sense for an atheist to argue their atheist beliefs. Maybe I'm corrupting your original argument-- maybe you mean devout to mean a particular type of believer and that it is okay for regular believers to argue their beliefs. I don't think you mean that though.

And let me just say, I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate. This is a comic book message board, but I don't think that this comment was specifically about religion but about the way one goes about interpreting evidence and how holding beliefs influences that interpretation.
 
It's interesting that you say that asking a devout person about religion will get you nowhere because they are devout. It doesn't make much sense because you skipped a crucial step in the argument against devoutness-- and that is proving that they are devout for reasons that negate that they may be right, or have reasons to be devout. You have us believe that they are devout for devout's sake, as though there is a prize they get at their church or mosque or temple (Xbawks). Actually, they could be devout because they may have had some experience to make them devout (something that to them would prove their religion). They could be devout because after long study of the arguments for and against their faith they believe their faith is the correct stance intellectually. Without that step you just seem to be attempting to silence a believer's ability to talk about their faith.

But I'll take it a step further. Even if one is devout, what does that mean? They are incapable of thinking about their own beliefs? St. Thomas and Martin Luther were devout but I don't think anyone has ever accused them of being stupid or unable to analyze their beliefs and separate good arguments from bad arguments. Also, you can be a devout and still search for the truth, and get a great deal further intellectually than you were before. Look at say, Toni Morrison, she is most likely 100% against slavery and racism and bigotry. But in her writings about history and slavery in the US, she doesn't cover stuff up or lie about her sources or anything like that (not that she has a need to in this particular case) but she doesn't. First you get the facts, the evidence, and then you interpret it.

Then I'll take it a step further. You are writing about the origins of religion. 8 major theories. Well, let me say good luck, as a college student I know what it is like to drop the paper off and think "please don't hate this." But also let me know if you looked at people who had positive religious beliefs. Let me turn your original argument back on you (though I contend the core argument is flawed as I showed earlier) so you can see that the sword can easily cut both ways. Marx and Freud I know were no fans of religion. Actually, many would say they were opponents. So what about Marx and Freud? Can I say, it makes no sense to let them talk about religion because they are devout atheists? Of course their theories on religion will be secular and deny any divine inspiration. If you read the Bible and you have already made up your mind that the miracles and stuff couldn't have happened, then of course it doesn't make sense. So I do want to know what you think about that. Because it doesn't make sense for a devout person to argue their beliefs, but it does make sense for an atheist to argue their atheist beliefs. Maybe I'm corrupting your original argument-- maybe you mean devout to mean a particular type of believer and that it is okay for regular believers to argue their beliefs. I don't think you mean that though.

And let me just say, I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate. This is a comic book message board, but I don't think that this comment was specifically about religion but about the way one goes about interpreting evidence and how holding beliefs influences that interpretation.

Well, you're certainly putting words in my mouth as I never said whether religion was true or not. I simply stated where it came from to argue my point that NO religion is SUPERIOR to the other. The DEVOUT follower of one particular faith is likely not to admit that the alternative faiths to their own are just as significant. Whereas someone taking a more objective stance, removing their personal religious feelings out of it (as I have, since I never stated my own "religious" views) would be a better source. It's like asking a racist what they think the solution is to hate.

Besides, I mentioned 3 of the 8 people included in a single book. You left out Durkheim (who was the third), because (I assume) you don't know what his religious beliefs are. So yes, you did corrupt my argument (once again). You also assume that those were the only theories we/I studied, when I clearly mentioned having also read Joseph Campbell's work on the study of religion and mythology. I didn't even talk about C.S. Lewis or Tolkien or Paals or McKinley.

Everyone has a reason for believing as they do. I have a reason for believing that God=Nature. Just because I think God=Nature doesn't mean that I believe that your perception of a "supreme force" is inferior to my own. People can believe whatever they want, but when they start speaking as if their religion is THE EXCLUSIVE TRUTH and others are all LIES, then they're missing something. It's plainly obvious that you can be a good person regardless of the faith you claim. All I'm saying is that either ALL religions are TRUE or NO religion is TRUE.

To take it further, it doesn't matter. Especially not in a world with a history of religious violence, or with a history where religion is used as a means of manipulating people into acts of genocide, sexism...purely hateful acts. And I believe that most religions, in particular their "DEVOUT" followers, are guilty of this. Even to this day, it's a problem.

And THAT is the TRUTH.

Edit: And for the record, I didn't just turn my paper in and "hope" I did well. I got a 4.0 in the class and when I turned my paper in, the professor and I had a long awaited chat, since this was my 4th year in college and I'd been taking his classes, and other religious studies classes, since my 1st year. He noticed me jotting notes down for this term paper since the 3rd week of the semester, which is about when he assigned it. So you understand, I had a reputation to protect by not bull****ting this paper.
 
Well, you're certainly putting words in my mouth as I never said whether religion was true or not. I simply stated where it came from to argue my point that NO religion is SUPERIOR to the other. The DEVOUT follower of one particular faith is likely not to admit that the alternative faiths to their own are just as significant. Whereas someone taking a more objective stance, removing their personal religious feelings out of it (as I have, since I never stated my own "religious" views) would be a better source. It's like asking a racist what they think the solution is to hate.

Besides, I mentioned 3 of the 8 people included in a single book. You left out Durkheim (who was the third), because (I assume) you don't know what his religious beliefs are. So yes, you did corrupt my argument (once again). You also assume that those were the only theories we/I studied, when I clearly mentioned having also read Joseph Campbell's work on the study of religion and mythology. I didn't even talk about C.S. Lewis or Tolkien or Paals or McKinley.

Everyone has a reason for believing as they do. I have a reason for believing that God=Nature. Just because I think God=Nature doesn't mean that I believe that your perception of a "supreme force" is inferior to my own. People can believe whatever they want, but when they start speaking as if their religion is THE EXCLUSIVE TRUTH and others are all LIES, then they're missing something. It's plainly obvious that you can be a good person regardless of the faith you claim. All I'm saying is that either ALL religions are TRUE or NO religion is TRUE.

To take it further, it doesn't matter. Especially not in a world with a history of religious violence, or with a history where religion is used as a means of manipulating people into acts of genocide, sexism...purely hateful acts. And I believe that most religions, in particular their "DEVOUT" followers, are guilty of this. Even to this day, it's a problem.

And THAT is the TRUTH.

Well, I hope you're not offended. I wasn't trying to yell at you or anything.

I won't go into the whole "no religion is superior to the other" argument/statement. But I can't just accept that at face value.

The first paragraph of my statement had nothing to do with whether religion was true. Or even your beliefs. I never called you an atheist. The one time I said "if you read the Bible..." I honestly promise you I meant that as a rhetorical "you." As in, "if a person reads the Bible." My first paragraph has to deal with the ability of a person who holds a belief to talk about competing beliefs. In the end it went like this: I said and gave reasons why someone says their religion may say and believe their better. You said no and contend that someone who is objective, and can easily set aside their religious feelings is better. I don't know why I should believe that, especially because I don't think it is so easy to just set aside feelings, that's why people spend so long picking juries on important cases. You are free to argue that objectivity is better, but it does take argument. I don't think it is common sense.

I dunno who Durkheim is, he can be any belief system that he wants. But I don't think it matters much because in my second paragraph, I never accused you of "loading the dice" against religious belief in your paper. And I think you are responding to me as though I did. I was asking you about this-- if in the opening (when I quoted you) you said basically they are devout so you can't ask them. Are you going to hold the two atheists to the same criteria? That's why I said "the sword cuts both ways." I even complained about the hypocrisy (but I didn't complain about the atheism.) Again, when I said "If you read the Bible..." I really meant it rhetorically, to back up the immediately preceding argument. If that was where the confusion comes from then I apologize.

Everyone has a reason for believing as they do. We are in agreement. Sometimes they are good reasons sometimes they are bad reasons (I'd say...). I mean, again, I'm not going to get into debates on religion, not that I'm against it (debating religion) but you're right you can believe what you want. I never once said you or anyone else shouldn't. I don't think caps will make me believe you any more but that's okay.

I've never been a big fan of the "oh religion has been used for violence arguments." I'm pretty sure that we doubt that argument almost immediately in all other forms except religion.

And it's too bad you thought I was trying to be snide about saying good luck. I just meant good luck. I'm about to graduate, and have written many a paper. I know I am always wondering if my teacher will like my papers. I'm glad you got an A though. But I'm pretty sure every student wonders if their teacher will like their paper at some point in time.
 
Well, I hope you're not offended. I wasn't trying to yell at you or anything.

I won't go into the whole "no religion is superior to the other" argument/statement. But I can't just accept that at face value.

The first paragraph of my statement had nothing to do with whether religion was true. Or even your beliefs. I never called you an atheist. The one time I said "if you read the Bible..." I honestly promise you I meant that as a rhetorical "you." As in, "if a person reads the Bible." My first paragraph has to deal with the ability of a person who holds a belief to talk about competing beliefs. In the end it went like this: I said and gave reasons why someone says their religion may say and believe their better. You said no and contend that someone who is objective, and can easily set aside their religious feelings is better. I don't know why I should believe that, especially because I don't think it is so easy to just set aside feelings, that's why people spend so long picking juries on important cases. You are free to argue that objectivity is better, but it does take argument. I don't think it is common sense.

I dunno who Durkheim is, he can be any belief system that he wants. But I don't think it matters much because in my second paragraph, I never accused you of "loading the dice" against religious belief in your paper. And I think you are responding to me as though I did. I was asking you about this-- if in the opening (when I quoted you) you said basically they are devout so you can't ask them. Are you going to hold the two atheists to the same criteria? That's why I said "the sword cuts both ways." I even complained about the hypocrisy (but I didn't complain about the atheism.) Again, when I said "If you read the Bible..." I really meant it rhetorically, to back up the immediately preceding argument. If that was where the confusion comes from then I apologize.

Everyone has a reason for believing as they do. We are in agreement. Sometimes they are good reasons sometimes they are bad reasons (I'd say...). I mean, again, I'm not going to get into debates on religion, not that I'm against it (debating religion) but you're right you can believe what you want. I never once said you or anyone else shouldn't. I don't think caps will make me believe you any more but that's okay.

I've never been a big fan of the "oh religion has been used for violence arguments." I'm pretty sure that we doubt that argument almost immediately in all other forms except religion.

And it's too bad you thought I was trying to be snide about saying good luck. I just meant good luck. I'm about to graduate, and have written many a paper. I know I am always wondering if my teacher will like my papers. I'm glad you got an A though. But I'm pretty sure every student wonders if their teacher will like their paper at some point in time.

I understand.

Speaking on "objectivity", I've just always thought this stance was better given the tendency of people to overlook clear facts simply because (speaking in the context of the discussion) their belief system doesn't support it as a possibility.

I'll always support taking the "objective" approach, simply because I've had to do it so much. I started doing it when I realized my former religion couldn't answer the questions I had about existence and I continued believing in "objectivity" because there is so much more to be seen about a situation when you look at it from more than just your own personal angle. I mean, hell, I'm black and can still admit that Hitler and I probably agreed on some things. And I can only do that because I'm willing to see people for more than what they're remembered for, despite how personal I took their most memorable actions.

And I apologize too. I let my emotions get the best of me, this Bhutto assassination already had me kind of riled up. Thanks for the luck, I wish you the same.

You make some good points. They don't change my mind, but you make a good argument. Of course, you could never beat a Spartan at beer pong. :cwink:
 
No biggy. And I don't get the last joke but I think I get what you're saying. Besides, I'm not that great at beer pong. I figure if I'm gonna drink why play around?!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"