Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[hyena]

I'd have to agree on this one. I've personally seen orders like the Legionaries of Christ and the Opus Dei in action, and yeah, most of what people have heard about them turns out to be true. There are a lot of frightening psychotic fanatics in there (as in almost sociopathic for Christ), and there's a big mafia going on, which benefits a lot from the high conservative classes in Mexico. And yes, about the brainwashing part: their "spiritual retreats" with rich people are quite scheming and they're not subtle about it.

[...]

On the other hand, this has little to do with true religious convictions, and should be taken apart from it. Not everyone in the Church is a mafious bastard. In fact, only a minority is. But that minority is powerful enough.

Hang on a second. I loathe fanatics, not to mention that if said fanatics are also criminals they should be apprehended and convicted. But your recount, which I am taking at face value, does not give any substance to Villain's claim. If a rich person wants to give money to priests, it's still voluntary: if the rich person wants to give money to priests in exchange for political power, it's more than voluntary, it is a strategic move (and possibly a delinquent one depending on your country's law).

But it does not square with the idea of the Church forcing believers to pay money à la Scientology: I repeat that as a regular believer I haven't ever been forced to give money, nor I know of anyone who has been pressured in that direction. Maybe my country is especially lucky and our priests are less insistent for cash than elsewhere, but there is a difference between rich people making offers, and fees being charged for worship.

 

[QRV]

Hang on a second. I loathe fanatics, not to mention that if said fanatics are also criminals they should be apprehended and convicted. But your recount, which I am taking at face value, does not give any substance to Villain's claim. If a rich person wants to give money to priests, it's still voluntary: if the rich person wants to give money to priests in exchange for political power, it's more than voluntary, it is a strategic move (and possibly a delinquent one depending on your country's law).

But it does not square with the idea of the Church forcing believers to pay money à la Scientology: I repeat that as a regular believer I haven't ever been forced to give money, nor I know of anyone who has been pressured in that direction. Maybe my country is especially lucky and our priests are less insistent for cash than elsewhere, but there is a difference between rich people making offers, and fees being charged for worship.

Well, maybe Villain went a bit far with that comparison (in the sense he generalised), but in part it is true. Here the Legion of Christ and the Opus Dei (among others) coerce certain people into giving them money and/or political power, on the basis it is all for the greater good, that it will be used to fight the earthly forces of the big bad metaphysical Enemy and that it will win them a direct ticket towards salvation. It is the very definition of brainwashing. From here, the distinction with Scientology is merely formal, at least on this particular level.

But more generally, it is evident the Church doesn't force people to pay them money like Scientology does, not even as certain protestant sects do (as in, you have to pay 10% of your annual income). But, you have to admit, it does happen on a certain level, with considerable consequences.

 

[Kenneth R.]

As a Christian (rather even, as a human) what makes me weirded out by other religious people, regardless of what kind, is unjustified belief. Blind belief on no basis, made-up religion, fashionable religion, the ignorance of denying investigative inquiry. Scientology as mentioned is a great example. They are all of the above. It's not something I can respect because even its' creator acknowledged that he invented it. I believe that humans should seek truth, whatever that truth may be. When I see people willingly believing lies, I am perplexed.

I am also perplexed by the hypocrisy of religious organizations. If you posess the largest church building in the world, I think you have lost sight of what churches are - their attendents - and what they should be for. All of that gold and marble could feed and clothe the starving and homeless. Likewise I am perplexed by TV evangelists or others who promise viewers something in return for money. People shouldn't want to please the divine for reward, they should want to please the divine to honor it's majesty. Who are we to demand like children that we be compensated for good behavior? It seems so foolish.

 

[Siren]

All of that gold and marble could feed and clothe the starving and homeless.

This has crossed my mind more than once.


@hyena: i was only trying to defend us as a whole.

 

[Villain]

Okay, let's see some proof then. I'll start with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church will have to wait a while (but don't worry Siren, I've plenty to say about your religion as well).

Catholic Church in the past:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_church.htm

Relevant parts:

"They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died."

"People were too scared not to pay tithes despite the difficulties it meant for them."

"You also had to pay for baptisms (if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died), marriages (there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin) and burials - you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven. Whichever way you looked, the Church received money."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/RomanCatholic-Church-in-1500.htm

Relevant parts:

"Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church."

"This gave a priest enormous power at a local level on behalf of the Catholic Church. The local population viewed the local priest as their ‘passport’ to heaven as they knew no different and had been taught this from birth by the local priest. Such a message was constantly being repeated to ignorant people in church service after church service. Hence keeping your priest happy was seen as a prerequisite to going to heaven."

"This relationship between people and church was essentially based on money - hence the huge wealth of the Catholic Church. Rich families could buy high positions for their sons in the Catholic Church and this satisfied their belief that they would go to heaven and attain salvation. However, a peasant had to pay for a child to be christened (this had to be done as a first step to getting to heaven as the people were told that a non-baptised child could not go to heaven); you had to pay to get married and you had to pay to bury someone from your family in holy ground."

"To go with this, you would be expected to give to the church via the collection at the end of each service (as God was omnipresent he would see if anyone cheated on him), you had to pay tithes (a tenth of your annual income had to be paid to the church which could be either in money or in kind such as seed, animals etc.) and you were expected to work on church land for free for a specified number of days per week. The days required varied from region to region but if you were working on church land you could not be working on your own land growing food etc. and this could be more than just an irritant to a peasant as he would not be producing for his family or preparing for the next year."

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1995archive/122_3/35business.html

"The second source of Catholic wealth comes with Pope Gregory the Great (590-604). In the sixth century this pope was the greatest slave and landowner in the world. He announced the "end of the world," at which time slaveowners were told to turn their money and property over to the Church."

"The Inquisition was invented to rob the rich of their possessions. (Missionaries to Hawaii: "They came to do good and they did well.") The Inquisition was itself a scramble for gold divided three ways_the third part went to the Pope. Thus the burning of millions of heretics for their money and properties was the doing of the popes."

"From 1503 to 1600 the conquerors stole from the New World an estimated 225,000 pounds of gold and 15 million pounds of silver. The Church received her share of the loot, plus Indian land, buildings and slave workers (The Conquistadors, 1957, p. 377)."

-Villain (next part coming)

 

[Villain]

Catholic Church today:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2441758,00.html

Relevant parts:

"Germany's 28 million Catholics -- along with other members of state-recognized religions -- are obligated to pay their churches a tax of between 8 percent and 9 percent, depending on where they live."

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1995archive/122_3/35business.html

Relevant parts:

"Churches are not required to file reports with the IRS or any other authority. "The Vatican is the largest financial operation in the world." (Ibid. p. 220.)"

"Today the Catholic Church has over 150 dioceses in the U.S. This includes about 20,000 churches with an estimated 38,000 priests, 13 cardinals, and more than 200 bishops. These all control 58 million Catholics. One can see how the sacrosanctness of religion keeps racking in hundreds of millions each year tax-free. And there is more!"

"Additionally, churches held stock in war contracts, especially Vietnam. Churches are involved in "leaseback" gimmicks when a business owner sells his business to a church and both make money. Then there is the "insurance" scheme, the day care center scheme, the antipoverty Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) scheme and homes for the elderly scheme. Additionally there are wills, gifts, wineries, cheese factories, California Missions and the sale of religious products, including a price for an audience with the pope! There are fund-railings, pilgrimages, bingos, raffles and lotteries. This is to say nothing of the sales of the pope's book, encyclicals and new catechisms, all tax- free."

"The religious financial empire is limitless. Boys Town (Nebraska) for homeless boys is an example. Their $20 million annual income for 700 boys was exposed (attacked) as a phony appeal. Now lately the Catholic Church has been asking for billions to support some 40,000 retired nuns, brothers and priests. Should these receive Social Security when their salaries went to their own churches?"

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/where_the_vatican_wealth_is_stor.htm

Relevant parts:

"Some idea of the real estate and other forms of wealth controlled by the Catholic church may be gathered by the remark of a member of the New York Catholic Conference, namely 'that his church probably ranks second only to the United States Government in total annual purchase.' Another statement, made by a nationally syndicated Catholic priest, perhaps is even more telling. 'The Catholic Church,' he said, 'must be the biggest corporation in the United States. We have a branch office in every neighborhood. Our assets and real estate holdings must exceed those of Standard Oil, A.T.&T., and U.S. Steel combined. And our roster of dues-paying members must be second only to the tax rolls of the United States Government."

"The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment."

"The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars."

And finally, this is just a thread on another forum (and thus not as reliable as the other links), but it sums up very well some of the many evils the Catholic Church causes in developing countries (Philippines in this case) today:

http://www.gov.ph/forum/thread.asp?rootID=63639&catID=11

Relevant parts:

"I agree with the majority of the posters here, the encouragement of the Catholic Church for couples to have as many children as they can aggravates the poverty situation in our country. These families with children they can't afford to feed, cloth and educate become a burden in our society as a whole. These children due to poverty commits crime as they get older. Some parents pimp their own children."

"The Catholic Church is the RICHEST organized religion in the world but they don't spend a dime directly from their coffers to the poor. In fact they EXPLOIT the poor."

"Most of the people here follow what the Catholic church Preaches. If the Catholic church says "have as many kids as you want" Then the people will follow. If the Catholic church says "you can not use condom because it is bad". Then people will follow."

"Look at the population of the Philippines. It is over populated because of what the Catholic church has been preaching. It is not the peoples fault. The people obeys the Church. The Church should be more responsible for what they preach."

-Villain (my summary follows)

 

[Villain]

Finally, to summarise some of the above:

The Catholic Church of today collects vast amounts of money from people both rich and poor. The percentual amount of Church taxes has changed somewhat in the past 1000 years, but they still exist - and people pay them to save their souls. This is especially true in developing countries, where millions of people pay to the Catholic Church simply because they are afraid of going to hell. Catholic Church then uses that money to buy more property and to protect priests who sexually abuse children.

Let's do some math (okay, just basic arithmetics), then. You mentioned that Scientologists force people to pay up to $800 000 - which is multiple times the usual amount I've seen mentioned (in Finland the sums seem to be closer to $200 000, according to the studies I've read) but I'll take it you didn't invent that sum out of nowhere and go with that.

An average German Catholic earns perhaps, what, $100 000 a year? Let's go with that for the sake of simplicity. If he pays 1% of that to the Catholic Church, it's $1 000 per year. To exceed the amount his Scientologist sister is paying for her "salvation" by these taxes alone, he'd need to pay them for 800 years, which makes him the winner. However, he also has to pay large sums for getting married, to get his children babtized, and for his own burial - plus he is supposed to pay some extra every time he goes to the church. How much could all that amount to in his lifetime? $50 000? $100 000?? $200 000??? Less than half of what the Scientologists stole form her sister, anyway.

In the end, they've both paid tens of thousands, one idiot to the Scientists and the other to the Catholic Church. Had either of them spent the money on any actual charity, several lives could've been saved. But no, they wanted to get to "Heaven" or to some other imaginary plane of existence.

Both have been swindled, scammed, cheated, brainwashed, manipulated and plain FUCKED UP IN THE ASS by a group of sick greedy fucks in need of more money to gain more power.

now you're going to tell me that if I make a 50 euro donation to my local parish, then it is akin to brainwashing and blackmail, because i believe that it will help save my soul. first, i wouldn't believe that, and nobody in their right mind could. if i give that money, it's because i believe that it's going to be used to assist the local poor.

Or to cover up cases of sexual harassment. Or to buy some land somewhere. The Catholic Church (not to even mention such extreme offshoots like Opus Dei) receives vast amounts of money each year and spends only a tiniest fraction of it on charity - the rest goes for other purposes, as you can see from above. If you really wanted to give money to "assist the local poor", you'd give them to some actual charity-organisation, not to a fraud like the Catholic Church - otherwise you are more stupid than I ever thought.

And even if you weren't afraid for your soul, the people in Latin America, Africa and Asia certainly are - which is why the Catholic Church has made such effort to brainwash the people there. Educated, intelligent people, after all, stop being superstitious when they grow up.

-Villain

 

[Siren]

Okay, let's see some proof then. I'll start with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church will have to wait a while (but don't worry Siren, I've plenty to say about your religion as well).

Did i mention i belong to the Greek-Orthodox Church?
Just so you don't spend your time with the russian or some other one i'm completely unfamiliar with.

By the way, if it's of any importance to you, i don't support the Church or whatever Church 100%. What i support is the system of beliefs that comes with it (also called religion). That said, i also support other systems of beliefs as well, i just happen to identify with the greek-orthodox one more (maybe because of the way i grew up and the fact that i'm more familiar with it). I do believe that to some extent today's priests are the Pharisees of the past. But, the point of my disagreement with you is not whether the church is a group of saints or not: i know it's not. My point of disagreement is that you see the church as a totally evil thing which is responsible for all the bad in the world, whereas i do recognise and think that they have done good too.

But i'm curious to see what proof you'll give.

 

[hyena]

@villain: i am reading this too late at night to give a proper response, but i will make a few quick points (btw, the 800K figure for Scientology was taken out of Operation Clambake, which is a major anti-Scientology site - I just hope they didn't make it up for the sake of exaggeration, it's supposed to be the total amount of payments you're supposed to make in the USA if you want to get to the end of the "purification bridge". i have no idea how much people pay in my own country, might be less since we don't have celebrity Scientologists).

- you raise a few points that are worth debating, ie the Church not paying taxes, social security for retired priests and nuns, etcetera. i'm not really in favor of having a property tax on actual churches, but i'd gladly have one on other buildings which are the property of priests, religious orders etc. as for social security, in my ideal world it would be 100% private, therefore priests would have to pay their own contributions as much as everyone else, but if you assume a public pension system then i think that the only way to decide whether priests should be exempted is through a popular vote.

- i am entirely against the dismantling of great works of art in order to hit a supposed hypocrisy on the part of religions. as a priest uncle of mine used to say, a poor man can walk into st peter's, and stay there for a while, thinking that it's his home also. i have a feeling of great elation when visiting one of many of the local historical churches, and i'm glad that these are being preserved. works of such beauty are open to the ordinary man, who will never have an original Michelangelo in his house, yet can go there and look at the work every day if he wants. when this is connected with worship, it can be a great experience, but it is a great experience even if you don't believe in God.

- i am under the impression that you're entirely overlooking the welfare-aid role that the Catholic church has in many parts of the world. this is not your fault, in the sense that i assume people in Scandinavia don't get to see a lot of that, but really, ask anyone - you will assume that i am in bad faith here, so try to ask an agnostic or an atheist who lives in a country where the Catholic presence is serious and has a bit of experience with volunteer work, or lives in a poor neighborhood. better yet, if you happen to know someone who is in the same line of youth work as you are in a mediterranean country, or in latin america, ask them what their local parishes do and how. you'll certainly come across the fact that in Southern countries the Catholic Church is a major, major player in social work, and this needs a lot of money. Which also was a part of the story in the Middle Ages. Of course, it wasn't all of the story then, because the Church was also a military power, and it isn't all of the story now, because all organizations have their crooks.

- the Germans: cannot they just avoid paying the money by saying they are not Catholics? what kind of penalty is there if they don't pay and then go to church? this is a real question, not rhetorical, I am just surprised that you'd have a tax on religion. also, and this is the economist not the believer speaking, 8% of what? if it's 8% of gross income, then i am entirely flabbergasted. it's a LOT of money. what sort of mad agreement did the church (and other religious denominations) have with the government?

- here, you still have to pay for baptisms, marriages, and burials, but you're not expected to do so if you're poor. the amount is chosen voluntarily and i'd say that the average for regular people is a donation of about 100-200 euro per event. if you're rich, the amounts are going to be much higher.

 

[Kenneth R.]

While I don't think anyone should ever have to pay the church for anything, I'd rather my money went to them than to a corrupt government that buys bombs with my taxes.

 

[Hatebreeder]

While I don't think anyone should ever have to pay the church for anything, I'd rather my money went to them than to a corrupt government that buys bombs with my taxes.

True, the church is less threatening in a large-scale way, but they have a dangerous amount of influence in society.

 

[firewindraging]

The main aspect of certain religions I despise are their divinely justified "Holy Wars". I was reading an article on sergeants' lives in the Iraq war the other day and in the article one sergeant was talking about how he tells his soldiers that killing is justified when we are on the morally "right" side of the conflict, solely because the Bible says that the Israelites were supposed to be given the Promised Land (I know this sergeant doesn't speak for all of them but it's a good example). Going overseas to kill people for something that can't be seen, heard, and will never be scientifically proven is to me the greatest waste of innocent lives. If one person brings up the Bible in conversation about the Iraq war, suddenly we are not doing it for oil.........it's of course because God wants us to and many Christians in the army are being brainwashed to believe that bullshit. The government exploits the fact that most people in the USA are Christian to the utmost evil.

 

[Malaclypse]

The question is as follows: while talking to a religious person, have you ever thought that what they were saying was just weird in a nutty, way out there way?

Not having read all of these answers in particular, and just dropping by in a
sort-of drunkenly state, my statement on this topic is:
Yeah, believing in heavenly forces without proof (ok, justified, modern, logical, scientific proof) just seems like believing in santa claus or bugs bunny, the only thing different being that your parents didn't stop you from believing in god at the age of 4 or 5, as opposed to bugs bunny. I really try to understand people who believe in god, including members of my own family, but I just can't see what sets them apart from people who are in need of serious medical and psychological treatment. Well, but on the other hand it's just me who doesn't see the point in all of this, and I'm gonna suffer eternally in hell for it, or shed crocodile's tears at the gates of heaven. My mom once said to me: "how dare you abandon the church, what are you gonna do when you get sick?". The statement speaks for itself. Surely religion helps people to get up again, just in the same way as a placebo does.

Oh, and by the way, greetings to all the ones who failed to exit from here, just like me

 

[Volve]

I know a lot of religious people, but I never discuss religion with them. I'm so fedd up with religion discussions.

Guess I do look a bit strange at people who believe in childrens stories ... yes. I am raised in a non-religious family, so I don't really understand how people can believe in a superiour being outside themselves.

 

[hyena]

Now, we don't know yet if this is true, but I certainly hope it is: as far as miracles go, this one would score quite high on the scale of "metal"

​

(the story: a Polish guy apparently took this photo during a prayer assembly conducted las year on the anniversary of JP2's death)

 

[Matse]

What about: Something in the fire ignited, created a little bit bigger fire for a second and this fireball went up in the air due to physical laws producing a fire that is wider at the top than in the middle for a moment.

Or maybe it was god.

 

[rahvin]

What about: Something in the fire ignited, created a little bit bigger fire for a second and this fireball went up in the air due to physical laws producing a fire that is wider at the top than in the middle for a moment.

Something in a fire ignites all the time.

Aside from that, I concur that as far as coincidences go, this one is not exactly out there. I think shapes in the clouds are the only thing more common than shapes in fire.

 

[Siren]

I find it extremely cool. Or hot, depends on the way you see it.

 

[hyena]

i'm bloody tired. this week featured a very good episode, belief-wise, because i found out that someone i used to know left Scientology and this is always a great source of joy, but all the rest was terrible.

i have been engaged in a religious war with an old friend until 5 in the morning today, and what do we find out? that, according to him, i will be a bad mother because i will try to "indoctrinate" my children into catholicism, because i am not "impartial" on the religious issue and therefore won't be able to put all options on the table in a fair way, and because catholics are typically "very strict" with their progeny (i told him that of course, having known me for years, he should have suspected that i am the type of person who will ban metal from the household because it's satanic music ).

on the other hand, my archconservative brother calls me a sloppy secularist because i don't agree with him that children born out of wedlock should be taken away from their parents.

my boss insists that it's weird how i'm simultaneously a smart person and a catholic.

while i understand "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword", i sometimes wish that people will leave me the fuck alone. i'm not cut out to be martyred any more than i was last year and i also have a cold.

 

[Siren]

@hyena: You shouldn't let people bring you down so much. As long as you are fine with what you believe and feel it's the right thing, you shouldn't let other people's opinions make you feel like this. Of course you have to take them into account and evaluate them, just in case they are right in some things they say, but you don't have to agree with everyone and you don't have to convince everyone you are right.

In my opinion and if i understood correctly, your brother is...just out there and should not be taken into account.
Your friend has some good points, but personally i don't believe in the "put all the options on the table and let the kids decide" stance. Why not instill some good values to the kids and let them decide later? They can always change their mind when they're older anyway (and chances are they most probably will). If you don't, someone else might do it for you, before they're actually mature enough to decide for themselves. I do think that giving good values is much much better than giving no values at all. For example, you can't let kids decide if drugs are good for them or not, just for the sake of being liberal and providing them with all the options. The role of parent is to show what he/she thinks is good for them. That said, parents should try to avoid the mistakes their parents did in such issues, and not be overly strict or impose their beliefs or implant guilt in their kids.
As for your boss, it's weird how he can be simultaneously a smart person and fall to generalisations like that.