Here's a bit of a thinkpiece for you guys. [Archive]

Big Swami

08-22-2007, 12:45 PM

Zip - religion is the backbone of our society. Most if not all of our rights are based on some form of religious view. Religion provides a sense of morality to all of our laws.

That's certainly open to debate. Back when the various Christian churches were at the height of their power, most people had no rights at all. Our rights are a product of the weakening of religious institutions.

I understand your frustration with religion. But you need to understand that the handful of people that make Christianity/Judaism/Islam look bad is in the minority.

To someone who decides against religion on a philosophical basis, the only religious people worth respecting are the fundamentalists. We may fear them, but we respect them, because at least they are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Judaism does say that women are unclean. Christianity does say that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't going to go to heaven. Islam does say that non-believers must be conquered, killed, or converted. The liberal believer (the Reform Jew, the Christian who embraces gays, the Muslim who accepts religious pluralism) turns his back on both God and reason.

Unfortunately, a lot of those people hold a lot of power (Bush/Bin Laden). They use religion as the reason to reign terror. However, there would be a different set of morals if religion was completely taken out of every government.

There's no doubt about that. But I think that without the influence of religion on government (and here I'm thinking mostly about Islam and Christianity, which have the most influence on governments in the world), our society would actually be more moral. A man who refrains from killing out of fear of God isn't moral, he's just a coward. Christianity and Islam are quite immoral as it pertains to certain things. To proclaim dogma over the evidence of your senses is immoral. To put someone into the legal system for victimless crimes is immoral. To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral. Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all.

Plato, quoting Socrates, once said: "I know this much through studying philosophy: that I do without being told what other men do only because they are afraid of the law." The formation of good character comes about only by the development of reason. The idea that a transcendent God is a necessary component of behavioral standards is an unconscionable error. In fact, the notion of a transcendent God actually prevents the development of a truly moral character.

I could go on about this forever, but I don't have the time or the energy to type more than I just typed. Obviously this is a much bigger debate than just a few sentences.

I hear you, I get tired of talking about this after a little while. I'm good for short stretches, but it wears me out. No hard feelings. :)

Fool

08-22-2007, 12:56 PM

To someone who decides against religion on a philosophical basis, the only religious people worth respecting are the fundamentalists. We may fear them, but we respect them, because at least they are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Judaism does say that women are unclean. Christianity does say that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't going to go to heaven. Islam does say that non-believers must be conquered, killed, or converted. The liberal believer (the Reform Jew, the Christian who embraces gays, the Muslim who accepts religious pluralism) turns his back on both God and reason.
Wow, that's pretty closed off. Since you used the 3 religions of the book I am assuming you are defining each religion by a certain translation of said book (not that I'm going to argue that the correct translation would negate those statements)? You (and I'm using the plural you here since you pretty much declared all people who have turned against religion philosophically to be of one mind on the issue) hold no leave for those that consider religion to be determined by those who practice it?

Not everyone sees religion as a master to its followers.

There's no doubt about that. But I think that without the influence of religion on government (and here I'm thinking mostly about Islam and Christianity, which have the most influence on governments in the world), our society would actually be more moral. A man who refrains from killing out of fear of God isn't moral, he's just a coward. Christianity and Islam are quite immoral as it pertains to certain things. To proclaim dogma over the evidence of your senses is immoral. To put someone into the legal system for victimless crimes is immoral. To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral. Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all.
That's a pretty bold prediction that I know Zip shares. Certainly you'd think those governments would be without the moral failings of the governments that are easily swayed by those who use religion to corrupt (By the way, it should be stated right out for the audience that you explicitly cutting out entire branchs of moral thought by excluding all ethics based on supreme authority. Not to mention you do this without even mentioning the different reason based methods for arriving at systems of morallity such as consequentialism, deontological ethics, normative ethics and the problems involved in deciding which branch to go with). However, as far as a reason to believe your (and assumedly Zip's) utopic world I think we've had that discussion and I don't recall a reason to believe the past would have been substantially more moral w/o religion.

[Edit: It occurs to me that I might be taking this wrong. That you might be saying the less broad statement that with a more clean cut between religions and the governments of today, that the current world would essentially be without the bad of religion in govenment but still with the most of the good in government. If that's the case, I can't say I dissagree on first blush. If fact, in general I'm very supportive of keeping governments out of religion and vice versa and generally distrust people and messages that try to change one via the other (even on local levels I am often put off by people who want to make "lawfullness = moral". More of a "religion = personal / government = social" approach.

"To proclaim dogmas over the evidence of the senses is immoral" only if the doggmas are immoral and the senses would lead you to morality (another of your main and largely undefended assumptions).

"To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral." I'll let battered women everywhere know.

"Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all." This comes as a shock to me since I both believe the former and have gotten some pretty good grades studying the latter.

Plato, quoting Socrates, once said: "I know this much through studying philosophy: that I do without being told what other men do only because they are afraid of the law." The formation of good character comes about only by the development of reason. The idea that a transcendent God is a necessary component of behavioral standards is an unconscionable error. In fact, the notion of a transcendent God actually prevents the development of a truly moral character (as long as you define moral as based solely on reason).

1) Fixed.
2) Plato wrote.
3) A pitty on all those poor souls who existed prior to the developement of eastern/greek philosophy.
4)How does the quote both fit with your statement after it and not strike you as being the same sort of cowardice, which you claim is displayed by people who don't murder because they are afraid of God?

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 01:36 PM

Motown:
I vehemently disagree that religion is the "backbone" of our society. That says man cannot be moral or establish morals or laws without subscribing to the belief that he will be damned forever if he is "sinful". This so called "backbone" is guilty of so much egregious crime, hate, division of people, and on and on that to define a society by religion says something pretty bad about that society.
I really believe people are "religious" because they don;t know any better. They are mostly afraid of what the afterlife may or may not be. They hedge their bets, at least publicly. The constraints of religion often put up impossible barriers and mountains of shame and guilt (often for things that can be pretty innoccuous).
As for the claim (at least my interpretation of your claim) that the few bad apples (powerful people) spoiling it for the rest, that is completely indefensible a notion. I can say that people are good because people are good. They would not harm each other anyway, God or not, and certainly not harm their loved ones or friends; people have a sense of community that is innate. In religion, there are FAR more people with power than the Pope, Bin Laden, or Jerry Falwell. There are the individual churches who pass on all the dogma, there are individuals who pass on all the dogma, and there is, most of all, this insipid belief in some Fairy in the Sky that will reward you eternally or punish you eternally based on exploits while on this planet, within the context of this life.
Fool says pity the people who lived before the Greeks! Well, pity the people who lived before Jesus walked the Earth; pity the people who weren't relatives of Noah or Abraham. Pity the children of Sosom and Gomorrah. Pity the people who believe a man was swallowed by a whale and lived.
Pity the people who lived before the Catholics abolished Purgatory. Pity the people who were alive during the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. Pity the people who are under the yolk of Islam, or will feel the wrath of a religion which says that all unbelievers or believers of another creed or set of rules sent down from the clouds should be converted, killed, or, as Swami says, will burn in hell forever.
Pity people who believe in a God that created this boogeyman who will torture them for an eternity if they are "bad", especially if "God" takes a young "bad" person from this life before he has a chance to do the christian thing and shout "Oops! I'm SORRY!" on his deathbed.

Fool

08-22-2007, 01:43 PM

Fool says pity the people who lived before the Greeks! Well, pity the people who lived before Jesus walked the Earth; pity the people who weren't relatives of Noah or Abraham. Pity the children of Sosom and Gomorrah. Pity the people who believe a man was swallowed by a whale and lived.
Pity the people who lived before the Catholics abolished Purgatory. Pity the people who were alive during the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. Pity the people who are under the yolk of Islam, or will feel the wrath of a religion which says that all unbelievers or believers of another creed or set of rules sent down from the clouds should be converted, killed, or, as Swami says, will burn in hell forever.
Pity people who believe in a God that created this boogeyman who will torture them for an eternity if they are "bad", especially if "God" takes a young "bad" person from this life before he has a chance to do the christian thing and shout "Oops! I'm SORRY!" on his deathbed.
You are mixing your intentions here. You are going back and forth between using my own statement as a counter-argument to my point (and good on you for the move) and using the pattern of my words to again express your distaste for specifics about religion.

As for the counter-argument portion, most religions already address say the people who lived before Jesus, or aren't Jews, or lived before Muhammad. I can get into that if you want but that's doggma which I know you dislike.

Perhaps Big Swam equally has a system that accounts for those outside the rational minded. I would not assume so however, as it appears he sees morality as a purely rational excercise (which isn't all that bad an idea in the first place).

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 01:52 PM

MoTown

08-22-2007, 02:20 PM

Like I said - I'm not going to spend much time on this because I view it as a debate that is likely to go nowhere. But there are a few points that I would like to bring up:

I really believe people are "religious" because they don;t know any better. They are mostly afraid of what the afterlife may or may not be. They hedge their bets, at least publicly.

Or maybe, there are people out there who truly believe because they actually think that there's a higher being than themselves. There are people who believe that the conscience is more than just a voice in your head, that the mind is something so incredible that there's a good possiblity that it wasn't created by luck. That good people (and in my opinion not just Christians) will be rewarded and bad people will eventually be punished. The idea of the afterlife is something that comforts me, but not due to convincing myself that there's a god just because I'm scared to die.

And back to the bad apples statement:
Yes I believe that there are bad apples killing it for the rest of the world. There are over 400 people in my church, all of them good people (at least that I know of). But I'm sure you haven't heard of any of them. However, if one of the church members goes out and kills a Muslim "for Jesus", your response would be something to the effect of "wow another death at the name of God." What about the rest of the 399 people? One "Godless" serial killer will not make me think "well if he just introduced Jesus into his life he would have been saved." You know as well as I do that the media will always talk about the stories with the most interest, and then pick it apart until they find out answers as to why he/she did what they did, usually making up shit as they go along.

Yes there are good people that don't have religion, and good people that do. There are bad people who don't believe in a religion, and bad people that do. Unfortunately for most of us (religioius people), the bad people that have religion like to translate things that were originally intended for peace into reasons for killing/bigotry/racism/sexism, whereas most of us look at those people and roll our eyes.

I do have one final question Zip (and I ask this in all honesty, no sarcasm whatsoever): Do you find our society more moral or less moral than it was 100 years ago when religion was much more prevalent in our civilization?

Fool

08-22-2007, 02:21 PM

How can religion "address" the people who lived before the Greeks, etc,?
What right do people have to address the eternal salvation or damnation of other people?
It IS dogma, and that's all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. That is all it ever can be because that is all people who look to the sky for salvation will ever be able to understand, or be controlled by.
Do you seriously want me to answer the question of how religions can address the issue of those who came before the current incarnation of their teachings? I would think a soon to be public teacher would understand how items like "the people who came before" are addressed by those who are making rules in the present day.

And once again thank you for your repeated and unneccessary outburst about how much you don't like religion and how much contempt you have for those of us who practice it.

DrRay11

08-22-2007, 02:29 PM

The problem with Christianity today is not in the basic beliefs of the religion, but within the problematic few who overstep the bounds and totally contradict what (I believe) Christianity truly is.

That, I believe, sums up what I think about it without writing too much. I know, I know, there are so many more complexities. But in summation...

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 02:52 PM

Motwon: Good question. 100 years ago, hmmm...Jim Crow, just 30 years removed from christian endorsed slavery, headed for World War I, plenty of bloodshed in Europe, racial and ehtnic violence pretty prevalent here, horrible pollution world wide.
Actually, I bet religion was NOT as prevalent or pervasive or invasive as it is today.

One thing on religion: You say there are 400 "good" people at your church. That is not, again, a defensible or admissible statement into a discussion about religion. Religionists are among the biggest hypocrites the world has seen, so much so that Jesus spent alot of time warning us about them. I'm not talking about "good" people or "bad" people. My argument is that religion is a hoax that has invaded our lives and our societies and deserves NO place in intelligent discussion about where the world should be headed or governed.
If individuals (who I do NOT think need to be threatened with eternal damnation, or promised eternal reward to be good) wish to practice religion, hell, even if they want to do a little recruiting (like the Gay Army does), more power to ya! I think you're crazy, but just don;t try to buddy up to the guys with their fingers on the buttons that release the nuclear bombs.

Here's one question for the religionists: Who's right? Who's wrong? Fool, has religion addressed that? What the fuck made Jesus so high and mighty, because he said he was? Would you believe him TODAY?!

Fool

08-22-2007, 03:16 PM

Has religion addressed who's right and wrong? Seriously?

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 03:18 PM

Yeah, by that I mean whose (who's?) religion is right or wrong.

Big Swami

08-22-2007, 03:24 PM

I do have one final question Zip (and I ask this in all honesty, no sarcasm whatsoever): Do you find our society more moral or less moral than it was 100 years ago when religion was much more prevalent in our civilization?
I don't want to speak on Zip's behalf, but almost everyone in America was Christian back then, almost everyone is Christian now. I don't know how much has really changed in the long run. But I figure it's a mixed bag - today there are more civil rights for blacks and other ethnic minorities; there is now some form of a social safety net for the poor; children have the right to attend school and no longer have to work; countries are far less eager to go to war with one another; we are a little more aware of the environmental impacts of industry and development.

However, some moral conditions have worsened. Greed and indolence have transformed our society in terrible ways. There is less trust among people. Technologists have dreamed up far more violent weapons. And people seem to be disengaging socially from one another.

Like I said, not much has changed in terms of religion in culture, and the results are a predictably mixed bag.

Fool

08-22-2007, 03:31 PM

Yeah, by that I mean whose (who's?) religion is right or wrong.
Yes Boots, religion has addressed whose (the other is the contraction of who is) religion is right and wrong.

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 03:39 PM

Fool:
And what is the answer?

Big Swami: I'm not so sure on the "greed" angle. Big Industry was extremely, well, greedy and monopolistic back then, and later developments included unions, collective bargaining agreements, better working conditions, and liberal programs at least partly based on the re-distribution of wealth.
It is a mixed bag, but again, for those who say we're better off with religion, there's no way to back that up.
And, as we've discussed, our boy Hitchens says that which can be believed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Fool

08-22-2007, 05:20 PM

"The" answer? Zip, religion is a conglomeration of individuals and then organizations all of whom have different opinions on the matter.

Go to any church and ask what they think of Swam's "the religious culture hasn't changed much" statement. Its a matter of perspective. Also, I'd argue against the sloppy use of "almost everyone is Christian". http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=408

Zip Goshboots

08-22-2007, 05:38 PM

How has the "religous culture" changed? Isn;t the guidebook the same as it has been for two thousand years? Isn't the same shit being taught that was taught two thousand years ago?
I mean, aside form the Catholics deciding that God no longer has purgatory, what's so different?

Fool

08-23-2007, 08:19 AM

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BGACETABL._AA240_.jpg
These don't happen anymore. I don't see many Shakers or Quakers around. If you look at the link I posted earlier it says while 79% of Americans believe there is a God (only 66% are certain of it), only 36% go to church as regularly as once a month. That's certainly a change from the days of using the church as the school house and the town hall (or the town hall as the school house and church).

And no the "guidebook" isn't the same as it was 2000 years ago (by the way it didn't exist 2000 years ago). The Geneva Bible (the version the Pilgrims and early European Americans used) isn't even mentioned today and the King James Bible which became popular later centuries has fallen out of favor (even the revised version) in the 20th-21st century. The current standard is the NIV or New International Version I believe. Not to mention that before the protestant revolution the Bible was seen (and still is by much of Catholicism) as a distant second to the dictates of the church leadership (those guys with the funny hats). Catholicism stands on the argument that the church existed before the bible and so its authority is superior to it (I might be coloring that argument poorly or even be out of date on the issue since I am not a Catholic). So your "isn't the guidebook the same" question wouldn't have even been asked in say the 16th century. You would have asked, "Isn't the church the same as it was 2000 years ago?"

I realize you don't practice it and condemn it at every chance you get, but your bluster would hold more weight if you would actually learn something about religion. You could condemn it on a whole new (and much more effective) level. Its hard to believe anyone who thinks about it would believe that millions of people (or any teaching/strain of thought) had remained the same for over 2 millenium.

Glenn

08-23-2007, 08:21 AM

This thread isn't complete until we get a one-off post from geerussell.

He usually sums things up pretty nicely, too.

Timone

08-23-2007, 08:39 AM

Does this mean we're one step closer to finally getting the official religion thread?

Glenn

08-23-2007, 08:45 AM

This is the official religion forum, does that help?

If you want to start the thread, blaze that trail.

Timone

08-23-2007, 08:50 AM

Well, I just think this thread was steering away from the original topic...people who paint their face blue and worship Cthulhu.

Big Swami

08-23-2007, 09:22 AM

Well, I just think this thread was steering away from the original topic...people who paint their face blue and worship Cthulhu.

IA! IA! CTHULHU FHTAGN!

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 09:34 AM

Fool

08-23-2007, 10:11 AM

Let me get this straight, Fool:
The guidebook is different due to new transliterations? Have these transliterations altered the infallible word of God (who supposedly dictated much of this) in such a way as the teachings are different, or the "rules"(for lack of a better term) are different?
And how could the dictates of a church be held above the Bible? How could the teachings of man hold sway over the supposed dictations of the one and only God?

See PM

Now, I'm willing to accept that to a large degree, man has to teach man about God or how to practice worship, and how to interpret the Word. But some of us see that that is where dogma overtakes religion, and men (and church) assume a power over people not necessarily given to them by the divine. And the assumption of this power leads to religion, which is a relationship to man or church, and not God.

So you are saying you define religion as a relationship between power and man? While I wouldn't say that's the most precise definition (it allows too many things like government, technology, and education to be defined as religion) I would certainly agree that when any amount of people get together on any common interest power is a neccessary implied result. People together = power.

I think the fact that only 36% of the people who believe in God attend services speaks volumes. It tells me that even people who profess a belief in a God don't trust the intercession of man, and mistrust organized religion.
Or, it says that people just say they believe because they think it sounds right, and don't practice what they say they believe because they really think it's a crock of shit. They really think it's a tale more fantastical than Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings.

There is a recognized factor in survey research that distorts the collecting of true opinions called "social disirability responses" where people's answers (or non-answers in cases of questions about drug use etc.) are distorted by the natural tendency for people to give the more socially exceptable version of things close to their true opinion (or in some cases flat out say the opposite of what they really think. This is exactly why I mentioned the 66% who said they felt certain about god as opposed to the 79% who said they believed a god exists. No survey researcher in the world however, would agree that the 79% to 36% casm between god believers and church goers is due solely (or even primarily) to this however (its not that powerful a force on anonymous response surveys).

The casm is surely due to many things and I completely admit that some portion is due to people attributing the Bible stories to LOTR-like fantasy, and agree about a definite strain that mistrusts organized religion or even just dislikes it, and there are a number of other factors as well (I myself am not a member of any one particular church for reasons not too far off from some of the one's specifically mentioned). What it definately says however is that the "religion" is not the so uniformly the same throughout time and the religious power-hungry world dominators you like to portray religious believers as are not as overwhelming a force on all things as you tend to claim.

Big Swami

08-23-2007, 10:22 AM

We should also be specific when we refer to religion here. We're talking about Christianity for the most part, aren't we?

I'm not getting the Jewish "tribe-vibe" from anyone here, and I don't think any one of us is sufficiently knowledgeable about the role Islam plays in Islamic countries. I consider myself a Buddhist, and I'm familiar with Hinduism, but those are vastly different religions and they don't have remotely the same ideologies as Christianity does. So let's be direct and honest here and say that we're discussing Christianity.

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 10:31 AM

When discussing religion, I DO mean the Big Three. I think each one is equally guilty of crimes against humanity, the destruction of progressive thought, the hindering of scientific research and medicine, and the equivocation of the concept of God.*
*I do believe that aside from the outright pirating of the concept of God by Judaism (the Jew being the "chosen people", a concept I find most irritating, self glorifying, and downright affrontry to any concept of a loving God), that I can't find evidence, or cause to cast Judaism as a religion bent on using violence or some of the other things I rant about as much as the other two.
And I would not be able to accuse Judaism, as I do the other two, of either hopefully waiting for, if not downright trying to cause, the book of Revelation to become a reality.

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 10:37 AM

Fool:
On your second point, as to how I define "religion": I actually DO think it encompasses government, technology, and education. Education is being increasingly invaded by christianity (the pledge of allegiance has made a comback), and there are (I can personally attest to this) many teachers willing to infuse their christianity into the classroom. As for government, there can be no doubt that from "God bless America" right down to that Hindu we had on our very own forum here being castigated by christians in congress, to George Bush's Holy War, that ours, and many, governments are rife with religious thought. Linking your government to the divine has been a trick used by ruling bodies to justify their power since the beginning of time.

Fool

08-23-2007, 11:21 AM

Yes, I know you think religion is too involved in other areas but you would agree they are not the same thing and so a definition of religion that would allow a secular government to be defined as a religion is a poor definition, would you not?

And I would hope Jews aren't trying to bring about the Book of Revelations since its located in the New Testament.

As for who we are talking about I would concur that its the 3 book religions but not that its strictly "Christians" (especially since its typically the case that anyone that says they believe in God and isn't a practicing Jew or Muslim is termed a Christian, whether practicing or not).

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 12:05 PM

Actually, upon re reading that post, I define religion as a relationship between and individual and church (using church to mean catholic, evangelical, or even religious movement). The power that is given over to the church or movement by and individual leds to religion, which, in my opinion, again, is a relationship between man and church, not a relationship with God.
So no, any government is not a religion, even a religious government, such as the Taliban.

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 12:18 PM

In my opinion, and I think maybe many agree, the New Testament can be interpreted or taken as anti semitic. The Jews sent Jesus to his death. Christianity takes over, and reduces the stature of the Jew.
And you are correct, the Jewish involvement with Bible writing ends with the book of Malachi. So, obviously they would not be directly involved in the book of Revelation. BUT, does that put Christianity at odds with Judaism?Jews stand in opposition to Islam in a fight over some ground deemed holy, and claimed by both Muslims and Jews as their own. The battles (wars) being fought over there, coupled with our involvement as the protector of Israel (which many right wing religious folks deem as our duty), involves all three in a constant powder keg that just might make Revelation, nothing more than an absurd dream at face value, actually happen. Judaism may not be viewed as trying to bring about Armageddon, but they are nevertheless involved.
All of this seems incredibly primitive to me.

Fool

08-23-2007, 12:35 PM

The power that is given over to the church or movement by and individual leds to religion, which, in my opinion, again, is a relationship between man and church, not a relationship with God.

I think you would find that many protestants would be fine with that definition.

Big Swami

08-23-2007, 02:54 PM

Hoo boy, I really didn't mean for this to be that long. Sorry in advance.

Humans have a very strong natural spiritual impulse. By "spiritual" I don't really mean "having to do with souls or spirits" but I do mean "caring about things like good and evil, suffering, justice, and transcendence." Religion is a way to tailor that impulse and take advantage of that impulse. Sometimes it is done in a way that helps people in their spiritual quest and sometimes it is not, and it's no different from any other human endeavor in that regard.

In my opinion, whether or not Jesus was a spiritual master is beyond question. The things he said, the things he taught, those are the words of an incredibly wise and thoughtful person (especially considering that as a Jew, his religious background was the Old Testament - sheesh, what a bloodbath). He's renowned by people of other religions. Muslims call him Issa and regard him as an especially important and compassionate prophet. Mahayana Buddhists regard him as a bodhisattva, a profoundly devoted person who will become a Buddha in a future life. Hindus are very fond of him, and many of them like to pray at Christian churches - some of them even regard Jesus as an incarnation of Krishna.

The "religious" structure around Jesus is Christianity, which is made up of churches and doctrines and Bibles and clergy. Every person must go into this structure open-eyed, knowing that corruption, exploitation, and abuse happen inside those structures just like in any other part of life, and that there's no guarantee that the one they've chosen is going to have even a single wise person in it.

The problem with Christianity is that people are brought into those structures as tiny children, long before they are capable of developing that healthy critical judgment, and many people never fully develop it as a result. But the theology of modern Christianity only contributes to the problem: Jesus is God. You are a sinner, and Jesus is the Savior, who spares you from hell only because of His Grace. You may pray to Him, and furthermore you may hope that you correctly interpret His answer, if He is so inclined to give one. But you are only weak flesh, and the best you can hope for is to experience disappointment and suffering all your life, and find transformative bliss in the afterlife. Rarely does anyone ever stop to think: how is this actually helping?

The Buddhists and Hindus scratch their heads when they see Christianity - Christ was wise and compassionate and transcendent. Why don't they teach you to become a Christ?

Ghandi was asked by a BBC reporter about Christian missionaries in India, and he said something like, "It's not that I dislike the Christ. I like your Christ. But I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But the Christian churches can never teach you to be a Christ. Christ is God. God is the creator and maintainer of the universe. He is infinitely superior to you (even his humility is infinitely superior to yours!), and the wonderful words and deeds attributed to him mean nothing next to that.

The scribes and priests and apostles had a choice. They could have either focused on the teachings of Jesus and crafted a religion of peace, honesty, and compassion, or they could have focused on his uniquely supernatural nature and created a religion of abject self-hatred. But as soon as the reports came in about visions and convulsions and tongues of flame, their decision was made. Really, what choice did they have?

Fool

08-23-2007, 03:02 PM

Christianity does teach people to try and be as "Christ-like" as possible.

That's a terribly limited translation of the "theology of modern Christianity".

Religion does not neccessarily teach people not to think critically but is easily abused to do so.

Big Swami

08-23-2007, 04:04 PM

Christianity does teach people to try and be as "Christ-like" as possible.

Just because something is said and written frequently does not make it the truth. As far as I can tell, Christians are paying churches brazillions of dollars every year to tell them what they want to hear.

That's a terribly limited translation of the "theology of modern Christianity".

Explain. Which Christian denomination disagrees with anything I've said there in italics?

Religion does not neccessarily teach people not to think critically but is easily abused to do so.

Not sure what you mean to say here.

Fool

08-23-2007, 04:15 PM

You said:
The problem with Christianity is that people are brought into those structures as tiny children, long before they are capable of developing that healthy critical judgment, and many people never fully develop it as a result.
As though its the religion that makes them incapable of critical judgment rather than the abuse of the religion.

Just because something is said and written frequently does not make it the truth. As far as I can tell, Christians are paying churches brazillions of dollars every year to tell them what they want to hear.
Perhaps you should do a little more personal research then. I think Zip's tendency to label entire populations is rubbing off on you. There are plenty of Christians trying their best to be (and help others to be) as Christ-like as possible. And its kind of sad and definately unfair to them to dismiss them simply because you don't hang out with them or limit your focus to others.

Explain. Which Christian denomination disagrees with anything I've said there in italics?
I said "limited" as in not the whole story (or theology in this case).

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 07:00 PM

Painting me as painting large populations with a broad brush is unfair. I have had my experiences with catholicism (raised in that, um, church), and many many Sundays spent in many many churches, and have dealt with many many christians. I haven't locked myself in a closet and decided that christians are goofing up the Message.
I have encountered many many christians, as I've said; I find very very few (if any) to be truly spiritual. What I DO find is people with an attachment to their church and their pastor, and actually believing that a talking snake made two people eat an apple, and the rest of the story. Or, at least saying they do (believe that? Fucking stupid!)
Listen, the message that comes down is as Big Swami says: Here's our story, we're sticking to it, give us alot of money (funny how every faction of christianity has its own way of interpreting God's word, but they ALL agree on tithing) and oh, by the way, you'll always fail, there is nothing you can do unless God's grace saves you. Fucking bullshit.
No one is saying that christians aren't, or don't try to be very nice people.
But they ascribe to a primitive culture that needs the affirmation of others telling them that "Jesus loves you", and they ascribe (is ascribe even a word?)
to an outdated, slyly crafted code of rules and regs that quite frankly, if it were writen today would be laughed at.
Now, I haven't had a "bad" or "traumatic" experience with christianity, just the feeling when I'm around them that they just aren't all there, and aren;t really all that sincere. In large part, I get the feeling that this new addiction replaced old ones, or saved them from themselves in alot of cases.
And I do believe that christians and muslims believe they have a coming war, a current war, and as usual, all of humanity will suffer when they really finally decide to go at it.

Big Swami

08-23-2007, 09:07 PM

You said:
As though its the religion that makes them incapable of critical judgment rather than the abuse of the religion.
Or, they could just not go to church at all, neither a good nor an abusive one, and nothing bad would have happened. See where I'm headed with this?

[/quote]Perhaps you should do a little more personal research then. I think Zip's tendency to label entire populations is rubbing off on you. There are plenty of Christians trying their best to be (and help others to be) as Christ-like as possible. And its kind of sad and definately unfair to them to dismiss them simply because you don't hang out with them or limit your focus to others.[/quote]

I actually need to stop and give you some credit here. I have not met every single Christian in the world. There are almost certainly some awesome people out there. But I remain in agreement with Stephen Weinberg, who said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

I said "limited" as in not the whole story (or theology in this case).

Help me out here.

Zip Goshboots

08-23-2007, 09:13 PM

I have a huge problem with the concept of Jesus being God incarnate. With that statement, you have more than intimated that people can NOT be christ-like, or christ, period.
Why did "God" have to come down here? What would he need to prove? Why would he need "miracles" to "prove" he was there?
Jesus weren;t God. He were a main. A great main, who tried to tell us we were just like him. All it takes is faith.
We have no faith. We have religion.

Fool

08-23-2007, 10:22 PM

Or, they could just not go to church at all, neither a good nor an abusive one, and nothing bad would have happened. See where I'm headed with this?

Perhaps you should do a little more personal research then. I think Zip's tendency to label entire populations is rubbing off on you. There are plenty of Christians trying their best to be (and help others to be) as Christ-like as possible. And its kind of sad and definately unfair to them to dismiss them simply because you don't hang out with them or limit your focus to others.

I actually need to stop and give you some credit here. I have not met every single Christian in the world. There are almost certainly some awesome people out there. But I remain in agreement with Stephen Weinberg, who said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

Help me out here.

Keep your credit. And are you kidding me with the implication that all evil people are religious? That's really a reply to both of the first two sections.

Limited as in not the whole story. If you want to cut off Christian theology there and act like its the whole package then you are either consciously portraying the creeds of Christianity in a biased light or you are just seeing what you want to see.

Zip, those questions are basic sunday school lessons. No, no man/woman can be as perfect as Christians are supposed to believe Jesus was. In that way he is always a goal to strive for and a strength to fall back on. As for all the "why did God do what he did". Pick up almost any book in the religious inspirational section and the answers to those questions will be in chapter 1.

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 08:33 AM

Keep your credit. And are you kidding me with the implication that all evil people are religious? That's really a reply to both of the first two sections.

Limited as in not the whole story. If you want to cut off Christian theology there and act like its the whole package then you are either consciously portraying the creeds of Christianity in a biased light or you are just seeing what you want to see.

Zip, those questions are basic sunday school lessons. No, no man/woman can be as perfect as Christians are supposed to believe Jesus was. In that way he is always a goal to strive for and a strength to fall back on. As for all the "why did God do what he did". Pick up almost any book in the religious inspirational section and the answers to those questions will be in chapter 1.

Of COURSE I see it in a biased light, Fool! I think it's total bullshit! The only refernce guides christians have is their made up book of stories and parables, the bible. You want to talk about basics and rudimentaries? Talk about circular reasoning or something like that. That's what christians use to "prove" their points or teachings.
I completely disagree with your point on Jesus: Show me a scripture where he said man couldn't be like him; I think his teachings were that we could. BUT, like I said, that wasn;t good enough for religion, that would take away their control of the masses. Jesus had to be made into god so people would always fail and need to go to church.

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 09:32 AM

Keep your credit. And are you kidding me with the implication that all evil people are religious? That's really a reply to both of the first two sections.

I was not implying anything of the sort, and I really do apologize if it came off that way; I don't think all evil people are religious. I'm religious in my own way. I offer a sincere apology for missing my mark there - I'm not a polemicist, I'm just a sloppy writer who doesn't always say what he means.

What I'm trying to say is that religion isn't necessarily, but can be, a force that causes a person to act against the dictates of his conscience. It isn't a certainty, but it does happen. And it doesn't happen if you choose not to participate in any religion. I hope that's a little clearer.

Limited as in not the whole story. If you want to cut off Christian theology there and act like its the whole package then you are either consciously portraying the creeds of Christianity in a biased light or you are just seeing what you want to see.

There's no doubt that I'm no theologian. I don't try to pretend like I know everything there is to know about Christian theology. In fact, I haven't been in a church in over a year, and even then it was a Unitarian church, so it wasn't a Christian church, strictly speaking. I know I'm missing some information here, and I'm curious to hear more.

Don't think I'm just trying to jump all over you. I've told you that I like Jesus. But I see the nuns on TV, and the politicians trying to tell us that "America is a Christian nation," and the church groups who take over local school boards and shut down the sex education programs, and stories about megachurches with Christian rock concerts and ATMs in the lobby, and that might as well be on a different planet from the Jesus I read about in the Bible.

giffman

08-24-2007, 09:49 AM

The Jesus you read about in the Bible believes there is another plane, another place, another reality beyond that which we can sense here on Earth.

Do you?

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 09:49 AM

I'll take the polemicist baton, Swami, because chrisitanity is hammering away from the other side.
Fool, one thing here: Your keep going back to the "Oh, if you only knew" tack. My questions regarding God that you suggest a look into a "See Dick and Jane Go To Church" book were asked in an ironic sense, as in, "God" don;t need to prove nothin' to no one.
The Greeks had gods who came down here to do a little mingling. The christians and Jews simpy re wrote it to fit their monotheism and to give credence to their authority and mythology.

b-diddy

08-24-2007, 10:17 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

an interesting article on point to some of the topic.

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 10:50 AM

The Jesus you read about in the Bible believes there is another plane, another place, another reality beyond that which we can sense here on Earth.

Do you?

I'm willing to accept that the universe is a very complicated place, but if you're asking me whether or not there is a Heaven where God, the angels, and the saintly dead live forever, I don't know if I can buy something that specific.

I don't want to sound glib, but, since I'm not a Christian, I don't have to believe everything in the Bible. I can pick and choose the stuff that really stands out to me. I can't hide the fact that Matthew 6:28-29 just really makes a huge impression on me every time I read it. But at the same time, I can't hide the fact that Luke 14:26 is really disturbing. I'm willing to deal with the bad if the good stuff is very good.

And Deuteronomy 13:6-10...don't even get me started.

giffman

08-24-2007, 11:04 AM

I'm willing to accept that the universe is a very complicated place, but if you're asking me whether or not there is a Heaven where God, the angels, and the saintly dead live forever, I don't know if I can buy something that specific.

I don't want to sound glib, but, since I'm not a Christian, I don't have to believe everything in the Bible. I can pick and choose the stuff that really stands out to me. I can't hide the fact that Matthew 6:28-29 just really makes a huge impression on me every time I read it. But at the same time, I can't hide the fact that Luke 14:26 is really disturbing. I'm willing to deal with the bad if the good stuff is very good.

And Deuteronomy 13:6-10...don't even get me started.

I wasn't asking you whether there was a Heaven with angels and pearly gates. Rather, I was asking whether you believe that there is a possible alternate reality that we cannot fully comprehend, or whether the only world that is real and true is the rock we are slowly spinning on.

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 11:27 AM

giffman:
I don't believe in an alternate reality. Too fantastical, and what is the purpose of such?
I think we're either completely gone after this life, or we keep coming back here for a re-do. But to me, the concept of an afterlife is one that speaks to the ego of man: We're so damn cool, this can't be all there is!
Not to mention the concept of an afterlife is used to try and get people either to behave, or strap a bomb to your belly and run into a shopping mall so those 72 virgins can welcome you into heaven.

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 11:30 AM

I wasn't asking you whether there was a Heaven with angels and pearly gates. Rather, I was asking whether you believe that there is a possible alternate reality that we cannot fully comprehend, or whether the only world that is real and true is the rock we are slowly spinning on.

I'm a Buddhist, so I think everything can be fully understood. :) But I'm willing to accept the possibility of existences that I currently know nothing about. Without any evidence, though, it would be impossible for me to talk about them in an intelligent way.

giffman

08-24-2007, 12:01 PM

Are you aware of the apparent consensus of quantum physicists about the existence of parallel universes?

b-diddy

08-24-2007, 12:10 PM

i suspected giffman was going there.

m-theory, s-theory, string-theory. 27 dimensions. infinite parrallel universes, etc.

i think it is worth noting that a ton of the bible more accurately explained alot of complex ideas than anything that followed the writings for thousands of years. something to think about.

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 12:25 PM

Are you aware of the apparent consensus of quantum physicists about the existence of parallel universes?

I'm not even a casual follower of quantum physics, so it's a little outside my area of knowledge.

Buddha talked about different planes of existence, though. He was perfectly willing to admit that there were planes where the rules are much different, even if he wasn't willing to admit to the existence of an all-powerful God. I'm certainly familiar with the concept.

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 12:31 PM

Are you sure Buddha didn't mean different planes of existence within THIS life? Different stages of elightenment?

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 01:23 PM

There are lots of different opinions on the topic. The idea that you die and spend eternity somewhere else, never to return, is totally alien to Buddhism. To a Buddhist, all life is impermanent and subject to suffering, whether you're a person, a god, or an insect...and if you never completely understand it, you're going to be on a treadmill, doing the same things over and over again.

I feel like I'm giving a lecture on Buddhism. Not that I mind, I just don't want to derail the thread.

giffman

08-24-2007, 01:35 PM

Perhaps each parallel universe is a different treadmill. Science claims there may be slightly different versions of you in each of them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

Big Swami

08-24-2007, 02:00 PM

Perhaps each parallel universe is a different treadmill. Science claims there may be slightly different versions of you in each of them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

The way I see it, all possible pasts and all possible futures are threads that reach out in different directions and meet at the eye of a needle, which is Now.

Not sure what this has to do with Christianity, but it's a fun topic.

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 03:07 PM

The way I see it, all possible pasts and all possible futures are threads that reach out in different directions and meet at the eye of a needle, which is Now.

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media=MP3S&type=TV_Shows&movie=Star_Trek&quote=beam.txt&file=beam.mp3

b-diddy

08-24-2007, 04:05 PM

Perhaps each parallel universe is a different treadmill. Science claims there may be slightly different versions of you in each of them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

this is all alot of my basis for believing in a higher power. i believe our understading of existence is pretty much hopelessly isnuficcient, and that true understading is far beyond our capabilities. i think we've come along far enough to realize that just because its outside our realm of sensing, or having even a theoretical understanding of, doesnt mean its not there.

basically, the existence is infinite in size, age, complexety, etc. thats some pretty heavy stuff when you think about that. to me, the logical explanation can only be a higher power. or more specifically, a 3-O god.

Zip Goshboots

08-24-2007, 05:09 PM

giffman

08-24-2007, 10:56 PM

The way I see it, all possible pasts and all possible futures are threads that reach out in different directions and meet at the eye of a needle, which is Now.

Not sure what this has to do with Christianity, but it's a fun topic.

It may or may not have anything to do with Christianity. I think it has something to do with spirituality, though.

b-diddy

08-24-2007, 11:26 PM

If it's 3-0 for God, here comes the Grand Slam in the 9th to beat him: Who put him there?
You are going DesCartes on us, and I won't let it get by. Just because you can imagine a god, and nothing bigger, does NOT mean he's there.
Strike One for Textbook Regurgitation.

textbook regurgitation? maybe.

but why would something have to put the 3-O god there? if god exists outside of our own existence, then he also exists outside our dimensions. the 4th dimension being time. therefore your chrological question regarding "who put him there" might be irrelevent.

make sense? no. but even the smartest people in the world really dont get the latest models of our physical universe (which are also beyond our comprehension). and thats to say nothing of how pathetic our understanding will be compared to 20 years from now.

Zip Goshboots

08-25-2007, 12:15 AM

It gets a little tiring, these christian arguments about "Well, God is just smarter than us, and we can never figure him out", but then they act like they got it all figured out come Sunday, especially when it's time to tithe. Or, when it comes time to figure out who to vote for, or when it's time to start condemning a whole bunch of stuff they dissaprove of. Or, when it comes time to fire up a good old fashioned Inquisition. Or when it comes time to shout out the word "Islamofascist".
My chrolololological question is NEVER irrelevant. You offer up a 17th century proof that was probably put out there so the author could avoid persecution by religious authorities; an infantile reasoning that shows incredible lack of imagination and creativity, and of course, no concept whatsoever of any "God" (which I find odd since we were supposedly created in his image). It is a complete equivocation, one worthy of the counterargument about the "can he make a rock so big..." thing.

b-diddy

08-25-2007, 12:53 AM

your chronological question would be irrelevent if you were using it as a way to dismiss god (who put him there?) if there was no before or after with god.

you shouldnt be afraid of an idea just because people you dont like may have a (partially) shared view.

Big Swami

08-25-2007, 11:13 AM

I thought there would be a need for a humorous diversion in the thread, so:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

giffman

08-25-2007, 07:27 PM

Zip - Why is it you issue statements which essentially say: Religion is a sham, God doesn't exist, and the only reality is that which can be perceived by the five senses, and we are expected to accept them, but when others issue statements saying they believe in God or that there may be alternate realities which we can't perceive or explain, we are expected to PROVE them?

You can no more prove that religion, spirituality and God are shams than I can prove that they are real. Why can't you just agree to respectfully disagree without imposing this apparent double-standard?

Or am I missing something here?

Zip Goshboots

08-25-2007, 07:57 PM

giffman:
Great question. I am truly surprised that no one counters with arguments such as "well, democracy is not really a proven thingy, yet you accept that"--which is a pretty good argument if you axe me. I'm going to need some time to think about that.
It's a complicated matter here, and I've got about 7 beers down, with more to come.

giffman

08-25-2007, 08:15 PM

Zip Goshboots

08-25-2007, 08:31 PM

Keep drinking. The answer to most profound questions usually become clear to me after 12 or 13 beers and a couple of shots of whiskey. The problem is I can never remember the damn answers once I sober up . . . . .

No shit! Man, I can;t believe I forgot the whiskey. I'll dribble a bit of tequila in my beer. By the way, I'm drinking Miller Chill tonight. Good stuff.
I foget all the smart shit I conjure up when I'm sloshed too.
That's why I have three kids.

b-diddy

08-25-2007, 08:50 PM

i prefer some cheep wine. 3 buck chuck maybe. w/ all the health benefits associated with red wine, i cant afford not to be drinking it.

Fool

08-25-2007, 10:54 PM

Zip, I don't mean my "those answers are easy to look up" responses to imply I'm simply saying "If you only knew." I mean them to say that since I was voicing the Christian side of this discussion, the Christian answers to questions like "why did God do what he did" are VERY easily found on your own. If you don't want/haven't wanted the bother of finding them (and "find" is really an overstatement here) then I am guessing you don't really care about that version of the answers, meaning its pretty pointless for me to list them.

If you are looking for something other than the Christian answer to "why did God do what he did", the logical answer would seem to be "he chose to but did not have to, since he's God and all" while the philosophical answer (one of them) would be "his nature made it neccessary for as God he can only act in one way and that is in accordance with his nature (otherwise he ceases being God)."

What I don't mean to come off as is a guy who thinks he has all the answers because that guy doesn't exist. I am happy to play the Christian role in this discussion however and give that type of reply to the best of my ability.

Swami, as for the limited nature of your voicing of the Christian creed. To your message I would add the following (yours in the orginial italics, mine in bold): Jesus is God. You are a sinner, and Jesus is the Savior, who spares you from hell only because of His Grace. You may pray to Him, and furthermore you may hope that you correctly interpret His answer, if He is so inclined to give one. But you are only weak flesh, and the best you can hope for is to experience disappointment and suffering all your life, and find transformative bliss in the afterlife. God is love and forgives all things. All are equal in his eyes so be not ashamed of your past deeds nor your future failings. Love thy neighbor as thy self and strive to be as loving as you can be. Make the essence of your life the striving to help others be as loving as they can be. You stated, following your description, "Rarely does anyone ever stop to think: how is this actually helping?" I would reply that maybe there are some (and perhaps even a great deal) who do not critically question the merit of the message they follow, but its extremely arrogant and I believe incredibly wrong to believe that almost none do so (that your are alone or almost alone in your meta-analysis). Such a statement displays an incredibly low opinion of the make up of an awful lot of people.

My brother is a big fan of the idea of all possible universes existing concurrently with each other. Just thinking about that is fun. Think of all the movements you make in a day and all the different ways those movements could have been different in even terribly insignificant ways. Resting a hand on your lap instead of the arm of the chair. Then thinking of the stream of existence from that altered movement going off to colide with a different reality or even the one your experienced (since changing the resting place of your arm doesn't seem like it would effects much other than requiring an entirely knew stream of reality for a time). Then thinking of all those different types of reality weaving in and out of each other and a mind riding through them like a surfer on a wave.

Black Dynamite

03-01-2008, 02:15 AM

Yikes, i walked into the wrong thread. I've had my many discussions with most of the Religion grudge having people here awhile back(not counting the new ones). So I'll step out after I say that being anti religious can be obsessive and extreme in its own right. It also leaves alot of people just as self righteous and religious extremists they strictly use as their justification. seems pretty circular to me.

Darth Thanatos

03-02-2008, 12:17 AM

This thread was a pretty good read. Thanks for sharing your intellect. :)

Darth Thanatos

03-02-2008, 12:18 AM

P.S. Drinking alcohol is one of the worst creations ever.

MoTown

03-02-2008, 12:30 PM

Timone

03-02-2008, 02:00 PM

WTFDetroit: Where debates happen.

Glenn

03-02-2008, 02:10 PM

Nicely stated, MoTown.

Timone

03-02-2008, 02:18 PM

I just can't be around bigoted people, period. I've walked out on my family members a couple times because I heard things that disgusted me.

Zip's not a bigot though, he's the fucking man. I'm just saying, in general.

Black Dynamite

03-02-2008, 10:27 PM

You've stated before that wars start because of religion. I agree and disagree. Wars start because of thick-headed people that want everyone to have their same opinion, and religion just happens to be what they hold on to. If there wasn't religion, it would be something else: politics, food, Cavs fans http://thehype.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/lebron-james.png... Religion isn't the problem, religion is the excuse.

Basically, don't get mad for people believing in something you don't, because you're doing exactly what pisses you off in the first place.
I basically called out someone in another forum who started a "If I ruled the world I'd ban religion" thread saying the "end religion, end wars" rhetoric. Pretty much offended him somehow. But I can't see how persecuting religious people as any different extremist religious people persecuting others. Is as if someone believes their removal of religion makes such extreme stances ok. The issue is human culture not religious culture.

DrRay11

03-02-2008, 11:16 PM

I can't stand the "Christians" and "Muslims" that get angry when you state your opinion and don't agree with theirs. THOSE PEOPLE are the real problem, and even the reason wars exist.

I'm not sure if truer words have been spoken.

Big Swami

03-03-2008, 12:26 AM

With or without religion, you have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that requires religion.

geerussell

03-03-2008, 01:04 AM

The "end religion, end wars" rhetoric is nonsense and I'm a big fan of freedom of religion, if for no other reason than it helps keep the religious people from going to war over it.

Timone

03-03-2008, 03:55 AM

All I know is if you try your evangelical shit on me it's not going to be a religious issue, it's going to be a "Sir Douche Baggins is about to kick your ass" issue.

Black Dynamite

03-03-2008, 08:40 AM

But for good people to do bad things, that requires religion.
yikes, how do you equate that?

Fool

03-03-2008, 09:25 AM

He's equivocating. Swami loves him some equivocation.

MoTown

03-03-2008, 09:58 AM

I think if good people do bad things, that doesn't really make them good people.

Glenn

03-03-2008, 11:33 AM

I think if good people do bad things, that doesn't really make them good people.

I think we need a cogency ruling on this.

I'm leaning towards :cogent:

Big Swami

03-03-2008, 03:57 PM

People who have noble ideals, but who are convinced that the proper expression of those noble ideals is an unconscionably immoral act.

Fool

03-03-2008, 04:00 PM

The ends justify the means defense was invented by religion.

Big Swami

03-03-2008, 04:02 PM

And by the way, I'm not saying that people believing in God is the reason for all the problems in the world. What I mean is that when someone comes to you as a child and says "you may have some very powerful ideas about good and bad, but you don't really know what good and bad are. Let me / Jesus / Chairman Mao / L. Ron Hubbard / The Quran / Great Leader Kim / the Torah / etc. tell you what good and bad really are," we're talking about something very powerful that can cause people to forget their humanity and do horrible things to other people in the name of a great ideal.

Fool

03-03-2008, 04:08 PM

And by the way, I'm not saying that people believing in nationhood is the reason for all the problems in the world. What I mean is that when someone comes to you as a child and says "you may have some very powerful ideas about good and bad, but you don't really know what good and bad are. Let me / Stalin / Bush / Chairman Mao / The Khmer Rouge / Emporer Hirohito / Hitler / etc. tell you what good and bad really are," we're talking about something very powerful that can cause people to forget their humanity and do horrible things to other people in the name of a great ideal.

Yes, religion can be used for terrible things. Yes, pretty much any socially organizing power can be as well.

geerussell

03-03-2008, 04:12 PM

I think we need a cogency ruling on this.

I'm leaning towards :cogent:

Wouldn't that leave us with only two classes of people? Perfect and bad.

Big Swami

03-03-2008, 04:14 PM

I'm not talking about "any socially organizing power" and you know this. I'm talking about orthodoxy. And orthodoxy is present in religion more than in any other field of discussion.

Zip Goshboots

03-03-2008, 04:29 PM

Zip - I suspect you have a problem with the Christians that look down upon people that don't believe in exactly what they do, and you assume that most, if not all Christians do just that (at least that's what I got from you calling me out in the other thread). You think that Christians are as hard headed as they are misguided.

However, I do believe there are a lot of Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews out there who respect whatever opinion you have on religion. Though I believe in certain things, I do not assume everything I believe is the truth. That's why they're beliefs and not facts. I hope I'm correct, and I believe I am, but I don't walk around making sure everyone thinks exactly what I do. I have no problem with your feeling that religion is a sham, that you are angry at people that believe in any religion. The only thing that irritates me from time to time is the fact that you get expressively annoyed that people have other opinions than your own. If you think we're misguided that's fine, but don't get frustrated that we don't see it your way. Doesn't that make you exactly the thing that you hate? I can't stand the "Christians" and "Muslims" that get angry when you state your opinion and don't agree with theirs. THOSE PEOPLE are the real problem, and even the reason wars exist.

You've stated before that wars start because of religion. I agree and disagree. Wars start because of thick-headed people that want everyone to have their same opinion, and religion just happens to be what they hold on to. If there wasn't religion, it would be something else: politics, food, Cavs fans... Religion isn't the problem, religion is the excuse.

Basically, don't get mad for people believing in something you don't, because you're doing exactly what pisses you off in the first place.

I'm better now. It's been awhile since I tortured and killed someone who didn't believe exactly as me, but hell, I still have three more kids anyway.

I do absolutley despise religion and religionists. Religion has wreaked havoc on the world, and likely always will. I also like to spot hypocrisy in religionists. It is ALWAYS there, without fail. A guy says he's religious and moral, and then has Champagne Room access and posts there. I see a problem.

I have no problem with Spirituality. Tell me you are Spiritual, and I'm there. I didn't see JC walking around coming up with denominations and worried about a whole lot of shit with regard to who was right and wrong. I didn't see him talking about strapping a bomb around your balls and walking into a shopping mall. I didn't see him talking about the need for an Inquisition, or the separation of differing sets of beliefs. I saw him telling us we could all be like him with faith.
I do see religionists raping the planet throughout their history. I do see them picking the pockets of their ignorant flock. I do see that when we had no conception of God we created this storybook and said "And God said, let us create man in our image", so's we could elevate ourselves to his position, corrupt his world and turn it into a divided mess.
I see us giving God human emotions: Jelousy, anger, petulant, reactionary; turning him into a mass murderer who, at the drop of a dime decided at various times entire populations needed to be wiped out.

I see leaders of churches suspected of being Nazi underlings. I see leaders of churches being bounced for untidy little doings with homosexuality (that they preach against), drugs, little boys, prostitutes, and profiting beyond reasonable standards for a person with a message "from God". I see all this happening without once OUNCE of proof that any of this suff ever happened, or is true.

We've seen churchy guys stand in the way of medical research and progress; of arresting scientists who proved that their theories were bogus.

And again, all because of some old Jewish mythology that if it were to come out today would be either one of the more hilarious books ever written, or borderline science fiction.

And we see time and time again that people pull this ace of spades out of their pockets when they need to condemn someone else or pat themselves on the back.

Who's right? I don't know. But I DO know that ANY God wouldn;t be out there drowning his creation with a flood, or dropping a nuke on a town for behaving badly. I DO know there's no 70 virgins waiting for people who blow up a schoolbus in Israel. I DO know you can't tithe your way into heaven, or knock on enough doors to get a better room up there. I DO think it funny that his "chosen" people keep fucking Him over whenever he tries to do something nice for them.

I do know no God would sanction slavery, avarice in his name, mass murder, boffing 12 year old boys, or standing up and saying a prayer to a flag. I don't recall him building fences around countries. Oceans, maybe, because he knew people were nuts and would kill everyone they found on some new land they "discovered", so he made it a little harder for them to get there.

I DO know that Spirituality is not frought with dogma, creed, traditionalism, and false prophesy.

And this goes beyond the "people just want to blame religion for anything and everything". It is out there to be seen. People who pretend to speak on behalf of some God have proven to be the most bitter, bloodthirsty, perverted, amoral, perverted hypocrites. Yes, just like those who are not religious can be as well. But for the most part, religion has been a social construct that has been used by governments and religious leaders for the control and subjugation of the masses. It works: It validates their authority, and kind of keeps you behaved so you don't go burn in some lake of fire somewhere.

Do I want religionists to give it up? No, just shut the fuck up. Keep going to church, doing missionary work, praying, trying to behave (and mostly failing like the rest of us), and by all means: Keep the fuck out of politics and governments with your bedtime stories that would make Harry Potter look like a boring creation of some kindergarten student.

MoTown

03-03-2008, 08:02 PM

I 100% agree with you, Zip. Those people that you just spent the good part of an hour writing about are indeed the scum of the universe. People that use religion, something that should be used for happiness and salvation, and twist the words to make whatever point their trying to make are no better than serial killers in my opinion. People that purposely misinterpret sayings in holy books to persuade others are evil. Every one of those 12 paragraphs you just typed are spot on. No god would condone that.

Which brings me to my point. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else. If a priest is molesting a 12 year old boy, he'd do it if he didn't join priesthood. Nazi's blamed everything on Christianity, but it could have been something else. Bad people will always be bad people. Unfortunately, I think out of the 6 billion people in the world, it's about 50/50 out there. That leaves a lot of room for bad people out there, those same bad people you just talked about. But that also leaves a lot of room for good people that you don't hear or talk about. Not as interesting. Don't condemn a huge group of people throughout the world because you hear about the bad ones.

And it looks like you're still on my back about calling myself religious and moral. This was all because I was saying people without a sense of humor who claim jokes are bad because they're "religious" or "moral" people shouldn't use that as an excuse. Somehow, though I've explained it to you, you continue to misinterpret it. I don't know what else I have to do. But I will say this: because someone goes to the champaign room, they cannot be moral or religious? Come on Zip. Now you're stretching. I don't think I said I'm religious, moral and perfect. Everyone wishes they could be like me. I've seen a pair of boobies that belonged to a girl that I haven't married. I've had sex with more than 1 girl in my lifetime. I've smoked pot. I've been drunk. I've gotten in a fight or two. I used the Lord's name in vein. After all that, I still think I'm a pretty good guy. I wish I could say I'm perfect, but I can't. I'm pretty sure God understands everyone has flaws. I'm sorry if you disagree. You can probably judge me for who I am based on what you see in a message board. If you want to base your opinion on my morality based off of things you read on a message board, then I guess I'm fucked.