Religion is my life in a way...
For someone to judge my religion, to me is like they are judging my life. I don't feel like anyone has the right to judge anyone's religion until they have the right to judge their life and who they are as a person. I think that all life should have a bases of rationality, and that most certainly should not come from religion, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that religion shouldn't be grown from rationality by any means.
(As is with almost everything I post, this is all my opinion)
What's wrong with religion?
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: Religion is my life in a way...
For someone to judge my religion, to me is like they are judging my life. I don't feel like anyone has the right to judge anyone's religion until they have the right to judge their life and who they are as a person. I think that all life should have a bases of rationality, and that most certainly should not come from religion, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that religion shouldn't be grown from rationality by any means.
(As is with almost everything I post, this is all my opinion)
if only everyone tried to view their religion rationally. :p
For someone to judge my religion, to me is like they are judging my life. I don't feel like anyone has the right to judge anyone's religion until they have the right to judge their life and who they are as a person. I think that all life should have a bases of rationality, and that most certainly should not come from religion, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that religion shouldn't be grown from rationality by any means.
(As is with almost everything I post, this is all my opinion)
if only everyone tried to view their religion rationally. :p
What's wrong with religion?
weber:-6
Some very good posts. I've also heard lots of myth here forget the myths in religion. It would appear that generally folks do not understand the term "myth" as it relates to a religious faith. That something is a myth does not destroy its validity.
Some folks are still operating, in their minds when it comes to religion, on a medieval concept.
Myth; the church gets fat off the collection plate. Fact: Churches here in Canada are required by law to use 80% of their collections beyond operating expenses, for charitable works. They cannot retain that money without specific government permission which is only given in special cases where perhaps a new church is being built.
In anyone thinks the churches are getting fat it is because they know nothing about the financial status of the church. Those who give money do so willingly or they do not give.
Myth: the churches want to control the people. Fact: The church is the people. It is not a building. Buildings are used by organiztions so that they may be about their function. There is no control. People are free to read, discuss, debate, question and disagree.
A belief in some form of higher power has been around since the early caveman. There is ample archaeological evidence of ritual, religious burials. It is interesting that atheism has been around as long. Both are opinions.
My personal experiences, like weber, have convinced me of the reality of a higher power, whether we call he/she/it God, Allah, the Creator etc.
I do enjoy debate and discussion but, I like weber, sometimes wonder why so called atheists are so adamant about their position. If one doesn't believe in something why bother worrying about it? Anyway I do find that a bit amusing but like I say I enjoy the discussion and debate.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Some very good posts. I've also heard lots of myth here forget the myths in religion. It would appear that generally folks do not understand the term "myth" as it relates to a religious faith. That something is a myth does not destroy its validity.
Some folks are still operating, in their minds when it comes to religion, on a medieval concept.
Myth; the church gets fat off the collection plate. Fact: Churches here in Canada are required by law to use 80% of their collections beyond operating expenses, for charitable works. They cannot retain that money without specific government permission which is only given in special cases where perhaps a new church is being built.
In anyone thinks the churches are getting fat it is because they know nothing about the financial status of the church. Those who give money do so willingly or they do not give.
Myth: the churches want to control the people. Fact: The church is the people. It is not a building. Buildings are used by organiztions so that they may be about their function. There is no control. People are free to read, discuss, debate, question and disagree.
A belief in some form of higher power has been around since the early caveman. There is ample archaeological evidence of ritual, religious burials. It is interesting that atheism has been around as long. Both are opinions.
My personal experiences, like weber, have convinced me of the reality of a higher power, whether we call he/she/it God, Allah, the Creator etc.
I do enjoy debate and discussion but, I like weber, sometimes wonder why so called atheists are so adamant about their position. If one doesn't believe in something why bother worrying about it? Anyway I do find that a bit amusing but like I say I enjoy the discussion and debate.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic wrote: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... index.html
This is worth a read.
Interesting link. thanks.
This bit kind of sums up the way I feel about religon.
Fifty years ago, philosophers like Bertrand Russell felt that the religious worldview would fade as science and reason emerged. Why hasn't it?
That trend toward enlightenment has indeed continued in Europe and Britain. It just has not continued in the U.S., and not in the Islamic world. We're seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. They are fighting the same battle: Christian on one side, Muslim on the other. The very large numbers of people in the United States and in Europe who don't subscribe to that worldview are caught in the middle.
Actually, holy alliance would be a better phrase. Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.
Does religion contribute to the violence of Islamic extremists? Christian extremists?
Of course it does. From the cradle, they are brought up to revere martyrs and to believe they have a fast track to heaven. With their mother's milk they imbibe hatred of heretics, apostates and followers of rival faiths.
We have people talking about axis of evil, and evil religons, holy wars, crusades and jihad. christian faith against muslim. It's like something out of the middle ages and thoroughly depressing.
This is worth a read.
Interesting link. thanks.
This bit kind of sums up the way I feel about religon.
Fifty years ago, philosophers like Bertrand Russell felt that the religious worldview would fade as science and reason emerged. Why hasn't it?
That trend toward enlightenment has indeed continued in Europe and Britain. It just has not continued in the U.S., and not in the Islamic world. We're seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. They are fighting the same battle: Christian on one side, Muslim on the other. The very large numbers of people in the United States and in Europe who don't subscribe to that worldview are caught in the middle.
Actually, holy alliance would be a better phrase. Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.
Does religion contribute to the violence of Islamic extremists? Christian extremists?
Of course it does. From the cradle, they are brought up to revere martyrs and to believe they have a fast track to heaven. With their mother's milk they imbibe hatred of heretics, apostates and followers of rival faiths.
We have people talking about axis of evil, and evil religons, holy wars, crusades and jihad. christian faith against muslim. It's like something out of the middle ages and thoroughly depressing.
What's wrong with religion?
Unfortunately for B. Russell he was hardly qualified to speak about religion and further he had absolutely nothing to offer those in deep despair. Even Neitzche called for God during the last few years of his life.
Of course there are feuds based on religion in the world. They are the problem of the people and not the basic message which in most of the great faiths is one of tolerance and peace.
As folks misuse religion so too can they misuse science, and they do. Weapons of mass destruction are a wonderful legacy from science and so is the rape of the earth.
It is so easy to be an armchair critic. Instead folks ought to spend their time trying to make things better. Even one individual can help in some small way but not when they are sitting around and bitching.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Of course there are feuds based on religion in the world. They are the problem of the people and not the basic message which in most of the great faiths is one of tolerance and peace.
As folks misuse religion so too can they misuse science, and they do. Weapons of mass destruction are a wonderful legacy from science and so is the rape of the earth.
It is so easy to be an armchair critic. Instead folks ought to spend their time trying to make things better. Even one individual can help in some small way but not when they are sitting around and bitching.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
BTW I can put a few names of scientists beside the term Christian. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion but he is hardly qualified to make any definitive statement. Its kind of like the parents who think because they've been through school they can tell the teacher how to do things; not qualified.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
ONE MORE TIME...the title of this thread is a question and invites us to give our opinions. The NEED for religion is seemingly buried deep within our primitive brains. (Eradicating it doesn't seem to work...witness what happened in China and the USSR. Religion is making a comeback in Russia today.)
A myth is just that...a myth. And you can explain it until doomsday as something else, but in the end, it's just a myth. You cannot prove it and therefore, it's valid only if you consider it allegorical.
A myth is just that...a myth. And you can explain it until doomsday as something else, but in the end, it's just a myth. You cannot prove it and therefore, it's valid only if you consider it allegorical.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
What's wrong with religion?
Lulu:-6
You are wrong about myth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are wrong about myth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Perhaps...but, as the Russians have shown us, it's seemingly BUILT IN, because we're still afraid to die and we're still afraid of the dark. (Please understand this as a metaphor, people.)
Ted, I didn't ask your opinion. You are so "into" your religion that you seem determined that we all should be. Perhaps you see yourself as prophet or pastor. It's of no interest to me.
Ted, I didn't ask your opinion. You are so "into" your religion that you seem determined that we all should be. Perhaps you see yourself as prophet or pastor. It's of no interest to me.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
What's wrong with religion?
Lulu:-6
I'm not sure what you are calling a metaphor. And if it is, so what?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm not sure what you are calling a metaphor. And if it is, so what?
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
I think it is only natural to fear the unknown. As someone once wrote "I don't mind dying I just don't want to be around when it happens."
A further comment if the only reason one is religious is they are seeking a chance to the afterlife then they do not understand the nature of a religious faith.
To paraphrase Martin Luther: I'll worry about the living and leave God to worry about the afterlife. After all that is his role and not mine.
Shalom
Ted.
I think it is only natural to fear the unknown. As someone once wrote "I don't mind dying I just don't want to be around when it happens."
A further comment if the only reason one is religious is they are seeking a chance to the afterlife then they do not understand the nature of a religious faith.
To paraphrase Martin Luther: I'll worry about the living and leave God to worry about the afterlife. After all that is his role and not mine.
Shalom
Ted.
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic wrote:
I behave in what I think is a "good" way because I've been socialised into understanding the right way to live and because I'm not mentally deficient. I am not religious, I have no want or need for religion.
Thats how everybody has been raised, whether it was from a good social structure or not, but the funny thing is, is some believe in god and some don't. :wah:
I behave in what I think is a "good" way because I've been socialised into understanding the right way to live and because I'm not mentally deficient. I am not religious, I have no want or need for religion.
Thats how everybody has been raised, whether it was from a good social structure or not, but the funny thing is, is some believe in god and some don't. :wah:
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
I don't have a problem with that. People are entitled to their opinions. As I've said before there have been theists and atheists since man began.
Ten doctors can look at a set of data and come up with ten different diagnoses. The same thing happens in science.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't have a problem with that. People are entitled to their opinions. As I've said before there have been theists and atheists since man began.
Ten doctors can look at a set of data and come up with ten different diagnoses. The same thing happens in science.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
It would seem to me that that is primarily the responsibility of the parents and the school and perhaps Sunday School if the children go. If the parents are incapable of doing that than society takes over.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It would seem to me that that is primarily the responsibility of the parents and the school and perhaps Sunday School if the children go. If the parents are incapable of doing that than society takes over.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
Yes ten doctors can arrive at ten different diagnoses. After all in reality it is called the "art of medicine" just as teaching is an "art".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Yes ten doctors can arrive at ten different diagnoses. After all in reality it is called the "art of medicine" just as teaching is an "art".
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
Knowledge is only half of the issue. Art is the other half. This holds true in both areas.
As human beings we are each unique. One size does not fit all in either medicine or education. One medication will work on one person and not on another. A teacher faced with 30 children in front of him/her is faced with 30 different children with probably 30 different learning styles and 30 different skill levels in each of the subjects.
Even the idea that education is about passing on knowledge is questionable.,
Shalom
Ted:-6
Knowledge is only half of the issue. Art is the other half. This holds true in both areas.
As human beings we are each unique. One size does not fit all in either medicine or education. One medication will work on one person and not on another. A teacher faced with 30 children in front of him/her is faced with 30 different children with probably 30 different learning styles and 30 different skill levels in each of the subjects.
Even the idea that education is about passing on knowledge is questionable.,
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Diuretic:-6
Doctors and teachers would that it were that simple. I have mentioned this to doctors and they agreed with my position. As an educator of 30 years I can assure you that "art" is half the battle.
Anyway I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Doctors and teachers would that it were that simple. I have mentioned this to doctors and they agreed with my position. As an educator of 30 years I can assure you that "art" is half the battle.
Anyway I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Galbally wrote: Well southern Irish anyway, as long as he's not from Cork! :wah:
And especially not from the extreme south western corner of Cork.
Magnificent!
And especially not from the extreme south western corner of Cork.
Magnificent!
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Unfortunately for B. Russell he was hardly qualified to speak about religion and further he had absolutely nothing to offer those in deep despair. Even Neitzche called for God during the last few years of his life.
Of course there are feuds based on religion in the world. They are the problem of the people and not the basic message which in most of the great faiths is one of tolerance and peace.
As folks misuse religion so too can they misuse science, and they do. Weapons of mass destruction are a wonderful legacy from science and so is the rape of the earth.
It is so easy to be an armchair critic. Instead folks ought to spend their time trying to make things better. Even one individual can help in some small way but not when they are sitting around and bitching.
Shalom
Ted:-6
He's as qualified as anyone else. Interesting you pick on that rather than on the main text of what the guy was saying.
BTW I can put a few names of scientists beside the term Christian. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion but he is hardly qualified to make any definitive statement. Its kind of like the parents who think because they've been through school they can tell the teacher how to do things; not qualified.
I'm sure you can. Doesn't mean a lot does it? They are not any more qualified to make a definitive statement than he is, are they? It's not as though being christian somehow makes them better scientists. Religon is a matter of faith not science-you either believe it or you don't.
Dawkins is not a christian therefore he should not comment on religon, they are christian so their opinions carry more weight is a pathetic line of reasoning. The fact that you can name christian scientists proves what?
I'm fairly sure you can find christan scientists that beleive the theory of evolution has validity. If they don't believe the earth was made in seven days are they somehow less religious?
I think you highlight one of the problems with religon. You seem to want a definitive source to tell you what to believe. Anyone that does not believe what you do is somehow less intelligent and less able to offer an opinion because, since they don't believe they should not be commenting on it because they are somehow not qualified to do so.
Why can't you look at both objectively rather than dismissing one out of hand as a non christian and therefore irrelevant? Most of all learn to think for yourself and question rather than believing blindly what someone else tells you is true.
I've never actually heard of dawkins before reading that link. What he has to say is interesting and i can make up my own mind about it. I do not dismiss him out of hand because he is not religious any more than i would pooh pooh a scientist because he happens to be christian. I find devout atheists as irritating as the devouty religious and for the same reason. I'm right you're an idiot annoys me whatever the belief or lack of it.
Of course there are feuds based on religion in the world. They are the problem of the people and not the basic message which in most of the great faiths is one of tolerance and peace.
As folks misuse religion so too can they misuse science, and they do. Weapons of mass destruction are a wonderful legacy from science and so is the rape of the earth.
It is so easy to be an armchair critic. Instead folks ought to spend their time trying to make things better. Even one individual can help in some small way but not when they are sitting around and bitching.
Shalom
Ted:-6
He's as qualified as anyone else. Interesting you pick on that rather than on the main text of what the guy was saying.
BTW I can put a few names of scientists beside the term Christian. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion but he is hardly qualified to make any definitive statement. Its kind of like the parents who think because they've been through school they can tell the teacher how to do things; not qualified.
I'm sure you can. Doesn't mean a lot does it? They are not any more qualified to make a definitive statement than he is, are they? It's not as though being christian somehow makes them better scientists. Religon is a matter of faith not science-you either believe it or you don't.
Dawkins is not a christian therefore he should not comment on religon, they are christian so their opinions carry more weight is a pathetic line of reasoning. The fact that you can name christian scientists proves what?
I'm fairly sure you can find christan scientists that beleive the theory of evolution has validity. If they don't believe the earth was made in seven days are they somehow less religious?
I think you highlight one of the problems with religon. You seem to want a definitive source to tell you what to believe. Anyone that does not believe what you do is somehow less intelligent and less able to offer an opinion because, since they don't believe they should not be commenting on it because they are somehow not qualified to do so.
Why can't you look at both objectively rather than dismissing one out of hand as a non christian and therefore irrelevant? Most of all learn to think for yourself and question rather than believing blindly what someone else tells you is true.
I've never actually heard of dawkins before reading that link. What he has to say is interesting and i can make up my own mind about it. I do not dismiss him out of hand because he is not religious any more than i would pooh pooh a scientist because he happens to be christian. I find devout atheists as irritating as the devouty religious and for the same reason. I'm right you're an idiot annoys me whatever the belief or lack of it.
What's wrong with religion?
gmc:-6
You certainly have me wrongly.
I do think the argument about qualification is valid. I am hardly qualified to speak on medical issues, or nuclear science issues and so on because I have not studied those. These men are not as qualified to speak on religion because they have not really studied it in any systematic way. Because someone has been to church a few times hardly qualifies them to speak in any authoritative way on the topic of religion.
I do not dismiss these out of hand. Why in hell do you think I spent 9 years in graduate and post graduate studies--I don't think for myself! LOL.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally. Many Christians today have absolutely no problem with evolution not just as theory but as fact.
Difinitive answer? There are none nor do I seek for what are not there.
I would recomment that you seek out a book or two on "The Emerging Christian Way". It is far from medieval and in fact recognizes the value of science and its limitations as well.
Too many people still live in the dark ages and some mistakenly think that none of a religious bent live in the 21st Cent. It is completely false to think that all Christians live in the dark ages.
With all due respect if you want to make comments on the religious faith and beliefs of folks at least get the facts straight.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You certainly have me wrongly.
I do think the argument about qualification is valid. I am hardly qualified to speak on medical issues, or nuclear science issues and so on because I have not studied those. These men are not as qualified to speak on religion because they have not really studied it in any systematic way. Because someone has been to church a few times hardly qualifies them to speak in any authoritative way on the topic of religion.
I do not dismiss these out of hand. Why in hell do you think I spent 9 years in graduate and post graduate studies--I don't think for myself! LOL.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally. Many Christians today have absolutely no problem with evolution not just as theory but as fact.
Difinitive answer? There are none nor do I seek for what are not there.
I would recomment that you seek out a book or two on "The Emerging Christian Way". It is far from medieval and in fact recognizes the value of science and its limitations as well.
Too many people still live in the dark ages and some mistakenly think that none of a religious bent live in the 21st Cent. It is completely false to think that all Christians live in the dark ages.
With all due respect if you want to make comments on the religious faith and beliefs of folks at least get the facts straight.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: gmc:-6
You certainly have me wrongly.
I do think the argument about qualification is valid. I am hardly qualified to speak on medical issues, or nuclear science issues and so on because I have not studied those. These men are not as qualified to speak on religion because they have not really studied it in any systematic way. Because someone has been to church a few times hardly qualifies them to speak in any authoritative way on the topic of religion.
I do not dismiss these out of hand. Why in hell do you think I spent 9 years in graduate and post graduate studies--I don't think for myself! LOL.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally. Many Christians today have absolutely no problem with evolution not just as theory but as fact.
Difinitive answer? There are none nor do I seek for what are not there.
I would recomment that you seek out a book or two on "The Emerging Christian Way". It is far from medieval and in fact recognizes the value of science and its limitations as well.
Too many people still live in the dark ages and some mistakenly think that none of a religious bent live in the 21st Cent. It is completely false to think that all Christians live in the dark ages.
With all due respect if you want to make comments on the religious faith and beliefs of folks at least get the facts straight.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can't say I agree with you there. With medical and science issues I may not have studied them but if i want to I can and look at the evidenece and assess the validity or otherwise of the experiments and what leads up to the consclusions. Science has it's limitations and pointing them out is hardly a revelation or a major discovery and it having limitations does not somehow render science meaningless or without value. I understand the difference bewteen a theory and a fact.
Not having studied science systematically means I may defer to someones greater knowledge but what they say or propose is still open to question and if they want to convince me about something they had better be prepared to back it up when required to do so.
You are a scientist and you have greater knowledge may be true but it doesn't follow that I am an idiot and don''t have the right to an opinion or to question what you say and should just follow blindly.
Religon is different, you either believe or you don't as nothing can be proved either way. There are people who have studied religon called priests and somehow they are vested with an authority that should be unquestioned and followed blindly and any dissent from that point of view is somehow heretical and therefore not valid because that authority comes from god and is therefore not to be questioned. Those who question are told you just don't understand, those who say that does not make any sense are told god is mysterious and it is not for us to know his reason.
Sorry I was about to go in to rant mode there.]
I will not accept that religious beliefs cannot be questioned by those that do not follow that particular or any religon because they are not qualified priests and are somehow less knowledgeable than it's followers. You can tell they are not qualified, How? because they don't believe it. Such sophistry has been the bane of mankind ever since monotheisim came to the fore.
You make the assumption because I don't share your beliefs I am somehow ignorant and recommend reading material as the path to enlightenment.
In return I would recommend you study history especially the bits about how the early church decided what was and was not going to be in the bible. Have a look at the religious wars in europe that shaped the way we and also the those in the US live their lives. Actually I suspect you probably have but I suggest you widen the study beyond the middle east and christianity.
I don't assume you can't think for yourself and we could probably spend endless hours in conversation about this topic. I suspect we would end up agreeing to differ since religious faith you either have or you don't.
One area we would disagree on is that any religious text or belief system is the definitive authority that should be believed regardless.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally.
You certainly have me wrongly.
I do think the argument about qualification is valid. I am hardly qualified to speak on medical issues, or nuclear science issues and so on because I have not studied those. These men are not as qualified to speak on religion because they have not really studied it in any systematic way. Because someone has been to church a few times hardly qualifies them to speak in any authoritative way on the topic of religion.
I do not dismiss these out of hand. Why in hell do you think I spent 9 years in graduate and post graduate studies--I don't think for myself! LOL.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally. Many Christians today have absolutely no problem with evolution not just as theory but as fact.
Difinitive answer? There are none nor do I seek for what are not there.
I would recomment that you seek out a book or two on "The Emerging Christian Way". It is far from medieval and in fact recognizes the value of science and its limitations as well.
Too many people still live in the dark ages and some mistakenly think that none of a religious bent live in the 21st Cent. It is completely false to think that all Christians live in the dark ages.
With all due respect if you want to make comments on the religious faith and beliefs of folks at least get the facts straight.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can't say I agree with you there. With medical and science issues I may not have studied them but if i want to I can and look at the evidenece and assess the validity or otherwise of the experiments and what leads up to the consclusions. Science has it's limitations and pointing them out is hardly a revelation or a major discovery and it having limitations does not somehow render science meaningless or without value. I understand the difference bewteen a theory and a fact.
Not having studied science systematically means I may defer to someones greater knowledge but what they say or propose is still open to question and if they want to convince me about something they had better be prepared to back it up when required to do so.
You are a scientist and you have greater knowledge may be true but it doesn't follow that I am an idiot and don''t have the right to an opinion or to question what you say and should just follow blindly.
Religon is different, you either believe or you don't as nothing can be proved either way. There are people who have studied religon called priests and somehow they are vested with an authority that should be unquestioned and followed blindly and any dissent from that point of view is somehow heretical and therefore not valid because that authority comes from god and is therefore not to be questioned. Those who question are told you just don't understand, those who say that does not make any sense are told god is mysterious and it is not for us to know his reason.
Sorry I was about to go in to rant mode there.]
I will not accept that religious beliefs cannot be questioned by those that do not follow that particular or any religon because they are not qualified priests and are somehow less knowledgeable than it's followers. You can tell they are not qualified, How? because they don't believe it. Such sophistry has been the bane of mankind ever since monotheisim came to the fore.
You make the assumption because I don't share your beliefs I am somehow ignorant and recommend reading material as the path to enlightenment.
In return I would recommend you study history especially the bits about how the early church decided what was and was not going to be in the bible. Have a look at the religious wars in europe that shaped the way we and also the those in the US live their lives. Actually I suspect you probably have but I suggest you widen the study beyond the middle east and christianity.
I don't assume you can't think for yourself and we could probably spend endless hours in conversation about this topic. I suspect we would end up agreeing to differ since religious faith you either have or you don't.
One area we would disagree on is that any religious text or belief system is the definitive authority that should be believed regardless.
As far as thinking about the Bible goes many of us do not take it literally.
What's wrong with religion?
gmc:-6
Your attempt to put all religious believers into one catagory is simply wrong. You have described experiences that are not mine.
As to whether or not you wish to follow or not any faith is your business. I do not try to convert anyone.
I also happen to believe that all of the great faiths of the world are valid.
As far as the history of the church and the Bible go I've been studying that for some 43Yrs. I am well aware of the history. It is relatively easy to judge anything in hind sight but such does not necessarily give anything that comes close to valid.
As for the point about qualifications I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can only equate it with my experiences as an educator. Some parents, because they have been through the education system, often try to tell a teacher what s/he should be doing and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. The same holds true in the medical field. I suspect it also holds true in many of the other professions.
I would agree that anyone can comment on anything they like. That is the beauty of free speech. It does not necessarily make what they say of any real value other than expressing a point of view. So Russell is entitled to his point of view. I have no problem with that. It would help if he knew what he was talking about.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Your attempt to put all religious believers into one catagory is simply wrong. You have described experiences that are not mine.
As to whether or not you wish to follow or not any faith is your business. I do not try to convert anyone.
I also happen to believe that all of the great faiths of the world are valid.
As far as the history of the church and the Bible go I've been studying that for some 43Yrs. I am well aware of the history. It is relatively easy to judge anything in hind sight but such does not necessarily give anything that comes close to valid.
As for the point about qualifications I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can only equate it with my experiences as an educator. Some parents, because they have been through the education system, often try to tell a teacher what s/he should be doing and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. The same holds true in the medical field. I suspect it also holds true in many of the other professions.
I would agree that anyone can comment on anything they like. That is the beauty of free speech. It does not necessarily make what they say of any real value other than expressing a point of view. So Russell is entitled to his point of view. I have no problem with that. It would help if he knew what he was talking about.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
I do find those Google ads above the thread list rather interesting.
I've just learned that the Bible claims that the next pope will be John Paul II impersonated. Ah! the beauty of textual language. I could probably check out Revelat ion and find out that I was going to be that impersonator . . . oops, sorry but I am not a member of that church. What some people see in their dreams. LOL That has to be where they come up with this stuff.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've just learned that the Bible claims that the next pope will be John Paul II impersonated. Ah! the beauty of textual language. I could probably check out Revelat ion and find out that I was going to be that impersonator . . . oops, sorry but I am not a member of that church. What some people see in their dreams. LOL That has to be where they come up with this stuff.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
posted by Ted
Your attempt to put all religious believers into one catagory is simply wrong. You have described experiences that are not mine.
What category is that?
As for the point about qualifications I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can only equate it with my experiences as an educator. Some parents, because they have been through the education system, often try to tell a teacher what s/he should be doing and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. The same holds true in the medical field. I suspect it also holds true in many of the other professions.
By the same token, that they have chosen to specialise does not make them better or more intelligent than those parents. Some teachers can be guilty of arrogance and judging the ability of pupils on no more rational a basis than someones background or appearance and have a sense of superiority. there are those that take a pupils questions as cheek and act accordinglly. Kids are stupid rather than I am a crap teacher. (altghough you do get it the other way round as well, good teacher thick kids)
A bit of paper with qualifications on it is an indication of ablility not a passport to wisdom. There are many people who do well in the education system because they were lucky where they lived or parents could go privately.
There is such a thing as an educated idiot, all brains and no common sense-how often have you met somebody like that?
Perhaps the biggest problem with religon is that too many followers are prepared to do just that, follow and follow blindly and go on to persuade themselves they have the right to control what others think and believe.
Is an Imam more qualified than a catholic priest? If so perhaps you shoud follow him or how about a wiccan priest-highly qualified no doubt maybe he's got the right of it.
What books should you use? How about the King James version-one written at the behest of a gay scotsman in a language not his own. If you want to believe that is the literal word of god handed down through the ages with no alterations that weren't approved by god guiding thehand of the translator then good luck to you. (I do fully appreciate that you are not one of those in that category, I am generalising to make a point. To me this kind of debate-arguement should be objective not personal so if you think I am being personal please don't). Or how about one written with the intemtion of proving what the writer already believes? Or the Koran
But then again of some highly qualified preacher who has devoted his life to studying it tells you it is so maybe the ordinary punter-or church goer should just listen to those in authority will all the religious qualifications-after all they have studied it sytematically.
We need more free thinkers in the world.
Your attempt to put all religious believers into one catagory is simply wrong. You have described experiences that are not mine.
What category is that?
As for the point about qualifications I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can only equate it with my experiences as an educator. Some parents, because they have been through the education system, often try to tell a teacher what s/he should be doing and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. The same holds true in the medical field. I suspect it also holds true in many of the other professions.
By the same token, that they have chosen to specialise does not make them better or more intelligent than those parents. Some teachers can be guilty of arrogance and judging the ability of pupils on no more rational a basis than someones background or appearance and have a sense of superiority. there are those that take a pupils questions as cheek and act accordinglly. Kids are stupid rather than I am a crap teacher. (altghough you do get it the other way round as well, good teacher thick kids)
A bit of paper with qualifications on it is an indication of ablility not a passport to wisdom. There are many people who do well in the education system because they were lucky where they lived or parents could go privately.
There is such a thing as an educated idiot, all brains and no common sense-how often have you met somebody like that?
Perhaps the biggest problem with religon is that too many followers are prepared to do just that, follow and follow blindly and go on to persuade themselves they have the right to control what others think and believe.
Is an Imam more qualified than a catholic priest? If so perhaps you shoud follow him or how about a wiccan priest-highly qualified no doubt maybe he's got the right of it.
What books should you use? How about the King James version-one written at the behest of a gay scotsman in a language not his own. If you want to believe that is the literal word of god handed down through the ages with no alterations that weren't approved by god guiding thehand of the translator then good luck to you. (I do fully appreciate that you are not one of those in that category, I am generalising to make a point. To me this kind of debate-arguement should be objective not personal so if you think I am being personal please don't). Or how about one written with the intemtion of proving what the writer already believes? Or the Koran
But then again of some highly qualified preacher who has devoted his life to studying it tells you it is so maybe the ordinary punter-or church goer should just listen to those in authority will all the religious qualifications-after all they have studied it sytematically.
We need more free thinkers in the world.
What's wrong with religion?
gmc:-6
I don't take any of it personally.
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
Your view of teachers or for that matter professionals I won't bother commenting on.
Most teachers, those certified, are more then well screened and as in any profession the odd incompetent one gets through; even in the field of medicine.
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
I fail to see that a gay Scotsman has anthing to do with the issue. Perhaps a red herring.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't take any of it personally.
What category? Reread your list or go to your third last paragraph in the current one.
Re specialization. I personally prefer someone trained in the appropriate field. Perhaps you would just prefer to o to a neighbour, who is a common labourer, for medical advice. Nothing wrong with a labourer who is probably good in his field.
Your view of teachers or for that matter professionals I won't bother commenting on.
Most teachers, those certified, are more then well screened and as in any profession the odd incompetent one gets through; even in the field of medicine.
As far as religion goes one can choose to be a follower or a leader; a thinker or a non thinker. That is free choice.
An Imam is at least qualified to comment and talk about Islam but not Christianity any more than Russell was.
The King James Version--here again you are speaking about things you don't know. It is well known there are some 20 000 errors in translation. Some people still prefer it and that is their choice but many choose much better translations.
I fail to see that a gay Scotsman has anthing to do with the issue. Perhaps a red herring.
We do need more free thinkers in the world but hopefully they learn some current facts on topic about which they are pontificating.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
koan wrote: In this poll it is decidedly voted by FG members that religion has failed to make the world a better place.
Why?
What are some potential explanations? What are some proposed solutions?
Just off the top of my head the statement concerning religion making the world a better place might be the wrong question. What I mean is speaking from my own experience religion is a personal journey. Granted people gather in churches and congregate for brotherhood and to share in their joys and sorrows. Sometimes healing requires kindred persons of like nature to be comforted but there are too many religions and even too many variations within one religion, or interpretations of (pick a faith) to ever expect unity or peace based on faith throughout the world.
There are just too many people thinking too many different ways.
That said, the belief in your God or higher power in its essence provides the world with its most precious gifts. Love, fellowship, peace within and the desire to spread that knowledge onto others so that their lives may be enriched.
Walk into a church or synagogue or temple on any given day during worship and hymn and its difficult not to be moved or stirred in some manner.
Many many lives are built on the foundation of the God that teaches love. So my answer would be yes. For all of our shortcomings and horrible travesties life is much better when we search for a higher reason to be.
Why?
What are some potential explanations? What are some proposed solutions?
Just off the top of my head the statement concerning religion making the world a better place might be the wrong question. What I mean is speaking from my own experience religion is a personal journey. Granted people gather in churches and congregate for brotherhood and to share in their joys and sorrows. Sometimes healing requires kindred persons of like nature to be comforted but there are too many religions and even too many variations within one religion, or interpretations of (pick a faith) to ever expect unity or peace based on faith throughout the world.
There are just too many people thinking too many different ways.
That said, the belief in your God or higher power in its essence provides the world with its most precious gifts. Love, fellowship, peace within and the desire to spread that knowledge onto others so that their lives may be enriched.
Walk into a church or synagogue or temple on any given day during worship and hymn and its difficult not to be moved or stirred in some manner.
Many many lives are built on the foundation of the God that teaches love. So my answer would be yes. For all of our shortcomings and horrible travesties life is much better when we search for a higher reason to be.
I AM AWESOME MAN
What's wrong with religion?
Nomad:-6
Excellent post.
There are those who find great comfort withing their particular faith community. How dare anyone try to take that comfort away or ridicule it. That is indeed arrogance. If one thinks they have all the answers or the only way they are living a delusion.
In the same way some think they do not need this kind of comfort. So be it. .
Shalom
Ted:-6
Excellent post.
There are those who find great comfort withing their particular faith community. How dare anyone try to take that comfort away or ridicule it. That is indeed arrogance. If one thinks they have all the answers or the only way they are living a delusion.
In the same way some think they do not need this kind of comfort. So be it. .
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Nomad:-6
Excellent post.
There are those who find great comfort withing their particular faith community. How dare anyone try to take that comfort away or ridicule it. That is indeed arrogance. If one thinks they have all the answers or the only way they are living a delusion.
In the same way some think they do not need this kind of comfort. So be it. .
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't think that the intent of the question was to ridicule of remove the comfort of anyone's faith.
The way I read it was straight historical consequence - over the course of history has the presence of religion improved the lot of humanity or not.
Stated that way I might well change my original answer as the wars and persecution would probably have happened anyway - just with a different justification, but it was the gross effects of religion and not the personal effects that were in question.
Excellent post.
There are those who find great comfort withing their particular faith community. How dare anyone try to take that comfort away or ridicule it. That is indeed arrogance. If one thinks they have all the answers or the only way they are living a delusion.
In the same way some think they do not need this kind of comfort. So be it. .
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't think that the intent of the question was to ridicule of remove the comfort of anyone's faith.
The way I read it was straight historical consequence - over the course of history has the presence of religion improved the lot of humanity or not.
Stated that way I might well change my original answer as the wars and persecution would probably have happened anyway - just with a different justification, but it was the gross effects of religion and not the personal effects that were in question.
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr:-6
Actually I agree with you. All this nonsense would have happened anyway. Another justification would have been invented. Religion was just a convenient one. Why not? Most folks can get very caught up in religious conviction and can easily be aroused to react.
I sometimes wonder if, on that point, anything has changed. Look at the fundamentalists of every faith including Christianity. Somehow or another the central message gets lost in the conflict.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually I agree with you. All this nonsense would have happened anyway. Another justification would have been invented. Religion was just a convenient one. Why not? Most folks can get very caught up in religious conviction and can easily be aroused to react.
I sometimes wonder if, on that point, anything has changed. Look at the fundamentalists of every faith including Christianity. Somehow or another the central message gets lost in the conflict.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
Actually I agree with you. All this nonsense would have happened anyway. Another justification would have been invented. Religion was just a convenient one. Why not? Most folks can get very caught up in religious conviction and can easily be aroused to react.
I sometimes wonder if, on that point, anything has changed. Look at the fundamentalists of every faith including Christianity. Somehow or another the central message gets lost in the conflict.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Turn the other cheek being a prime example?
Actually I agree with you. All this nonsense would have happened anyway. Another justification would have been invented. Religion was just a convenient one. Why not? Most folks can get very caught up in religious conviction and can easily be aroused to react.
I sometimes wonder if, on that point, anything has changed. Look at the fundamentalists of every faith including Christianity. Somehow or another the central message gets lost in the conflict.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Turn the other cheek being a prime example?
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr:-6
Perhaps, but what does one do in the face of possible death? I don't believe for one moment that anyone is not allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, neither should we be imposing our need and greed for oil and other on others. Negotiation is of course another matter altogether.
Then I have to listen to the likes of P. Robertson, a "Christian" fundamentalist, suggesting that we should take out the president of Venezuela. That was disgusting to put it mildly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Perhaps, but what does one do in the face of possible death? I don't believe for one moment that anyone is not allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, neither should we be imposing our need and greed for oil and other on others. Negotiation is of course another matter altogether.
Then I have to listen to the likes of P. Robertson, a "Christian" fundamentalist, suggesting that we should take out the president of Venezuela. That was disgusting to put it mildly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
Perhaps, but what does one do in the face of possible death? I don't believe for one moment that anyone is not allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, neither should we be imposing our need and greed for oil and other on others. Negotiation is of course another matter altogether.
Then I have to listen to the likes of P. Robertson, a "Christian" fundamentalist, suggesting that we should take out the president of Venezuela. That was disgusting to put it mildly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is exactly the example that I was thinking of.
And yes, I am a firm believer that whoever starts the violence puts themself in the wrong.
The concept of a pre-emptive attack is so open to abuse that it should *always* be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
Perhaps, but what does one do in the face of possible death? I don't believe for one moment that anyone is not allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, neither should we be imposing our need and greed for oil and other on others. Negotiation is of course another matter altogether.
Then I have to listen to the likes of P. Robertson, a "Christian" fundamentalist, suggesting that we should take out the president of Venezuela. That was disgusting to put it mildly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is exactly the example that I was thinking of.
And yes, I am a firm believer that whoever starts the violence puts themself in the wrong.
The concept of a pre-emptive attack is so open to abuse that it should *always* be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr:-6
Generally I can go along with your comments. I think a pre-emptive strike should be one of last resort and based on credible knowlege. For instance, where are Iraq's WMDs. None have turned up yet. I feel that Saddam should have been taken out but along with him they have taken over 650 000 or so innocent lives as well.
Saddam was himself an evil tyrant who thought nothing of disposing of thousands just to intrench his own power.
All of this should have been done through the UN. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the UN is viable as an international peace maker/keeper. They, like Nero, keep talking while "Rome" burns.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Generally I can go along with your comments. I think a pre-emptive strike should be one of last resort and based on credible knowlege. For instance, where are Iraq's WMDs. None have turned up yet. I feel that Saddam should have been taken out but along with him they have taken over 650 000 or so innocent lives as well.
Saddam was himself an evil tyrant who thought nothing of disposing of thousands just to intrench his own power.
All of this should have been done through the UN. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the UN is viable as an international peace maker/keeper. They, like Nero, keep talking while "Rome" burns.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: I feel that Saddam should have been taken out but along with him they have taken over 650 000 or so innocent lives as well.
Innocent?
I don't hardly believe all of 650,000 people who have died in Iraq were innocent.
Innocent?
I don't hardly believe all of 650,000 people who have died in Iraq were innocent.
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
I follow the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Who am I to judge those folks or even the few who might not be innocent. Civilians, men, women and children, old and young have been killed.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I follow the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Who am I to judge those folks or even the few who might not be innocent. Civilians, men, women and children, old and young have been killed.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
That some 659 000 are in addition to the combatants. Shrubby has accepted that number. I also notice that he is now saying the whole fiasco can be compared to Viet Nam. I actually said that when it started, that it was just another Viet Nam.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That some 659 000 are in addition to the combatants. Shrubby has accepted that number. I also notice that he is now saying the whole fiasco can be compared to Viet Nam. I actually said that when it started, that it was just another Viet Nam.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
Generally I can go along with your comments. I think a pre-emptive strike should be one of last resort and based on credible knowlege. For instance, where are Iraq's WMDs. None have turned up yet. I feel that Saddam should have been taken out but along with him they have taken over 650 000 or so innocent lives as well.
Saddam was himself an evil tyrant who thought nothing of disposing of thousands just to intrench his own power.
All of this should have been done through the UN. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the UN is viable as an international peace maker/keeper. They, like Nero, keep talking while "Rome" burns.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The reason that the UN are not currently viable is that they have no teeth in the face of a single superpower who is prepared to act purely in its own interest.
When the concept was embodied, there were several powers who could counterballance each other, the format does not work when one entity can act without fear of reprisal. All they have left is talk and bluster.
Generally I can go along with your comments. I think a pre-emptive strike should be one of last resort and based on credible knowlege. For instance, where are Iraq's WMDs. None have turned up yet. I feel that Saddam should have been taken out but along with him they have taken over 650 000 or so innocent lives as well.
Saddam was himself an evil tyrant who thought nothing of disposing of thousands just to intrench his own power.
All of this should have been done through the UN. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the UN is viable as an international peace maker/keeper. They, like Nero, keep talking while "Rome" burns.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The reason that the UN are not currently viable is that they have no teeth in the face of a single superpower who is prepared to act purely in its own interest.
When the concept was embodied, there were several powers who could counterballance each other, the format does not work when one entity can act without fear of reprisal. All they have left is talk and bluster.
What's wrong with religion?
Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6
I follow the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Who am I to judge those folks or even the few who might not be innocent. Civilians, men, women and children, old and young have been killed.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well I'm not prepared to call people innocent when they begin to light up allied forces with AK-47's and constant roadside bombings targeting military vehicles.
I follow the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Who am I to judge those folks or even the few who might not be innocent. Civilians, men, women and children, old and young have been killed.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well I'm not prepared to call people innocent when they begin to light up allied forces with AK-47's and constant roadside bombings targeting military vehicles.
What's wrong with religion?
Bryn Mawr:-6
Is that not how the UN is set up. In the security council all the permanent members must agree or no action can be taken. Thus of course, those of opposing points of view, ie, communists vs democrats will seldom agree and thus it has no teeth.
Then you have the likes of the US who refuses to pay its share just because they disagree with some issue. That is kind of like "If we don't play the game my way I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home." I think they should be looking for consensus rather than unanimity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Is that not how the UN is set up. In the security council all the permanent members must agree or no action can be taken. Thus of course, those of opposing points of view, ie, communists vs democrats will seldom agree and thus it has no teeth.
Then you have the likes of the US who refuses to pay its share just because they disagree with some issue. That is kind of like "If we don't play the game my way I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home." I think they should be looking for consensus rather than unanimity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder:-6
Those are the combatants not the civilians who like Americans and Canadians just want to get on with life and be as happy as they can.
The other point is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachem Begin is a good example. To the Palestinian he was a terrorist and to the Jewish folks he was a freedom fighter. It all depends on where the observer is standing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Those are the combatants not the civilians who like Americans and Canadians just want to get on with life and be as happy as they can.
The other point is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachem Begin is a good example. To the Palestinian he was a terrorist and to the Jewish folks he was a freedom fighter. It all depends on where the observer is standing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's wrong with religion?
I see that you have managed to get away from "what is wrong with religion" to "what is wrong with the UN", interesting, maybe they are linked as I think both problems are related to human diversity, and the facts of human diversity. As well as the way the U.N. is set up, it is pretty sidelined at the minute, but thats the fault of the larger states as they as always have their own plans, that said the smaller countries don't cover themselves in glory either a lot of the time, well at least their is some form of international law in the world, its better than no law anyway in my opinion.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What's wrong with religion?
K.Snyder wrote: Well I'm not prepared to call people innocent when they begin to light up allied forces with AK-47's and constant roadside bombings targeting military vehicles.
If you have 20,000 setting roadside bombs and using AK47s, where do the other 639,000 come in?
If you have 20,000 setting roadside bombs and using AK47s, where do the other 639,000 come in?
What's wrong with religion?
Galbally:-6
I agree on all points.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I agree on all points.
Shalom
Ted:-6