|
God
Feb 23, 2006 17:20:51 GMT -4
Post by lordoftherings on Feb 23, 2006 17:20:51 GMT -4
"An old Hindu legend says there was a time when men were gods. But they abused their divine powers so much that Brahma, the master of all gods, decided to take these powers away and hide them in a place where they would be impossible to find. All that remained was to find a suitable hiding place. A number of lesser gods were appointed to a council to deal with the issue. They suggested this: “Why not bury man's powers in the earth?” To which Brahma replied, “ No, that will not do because man would dig deep and find it.” So the gods said, “In that case, we will send their divinity to the deepest depths of the ocean.“ But Brahma replied again, “Sooner or later man will explore the depths of the ocean and it is certain he will find it and bring it to the surface.“ So the lesser gods concluded, “Neither land nor sea is a place where man's divine powers will be safe, so we do not know where to hide it.“ At that moment Brahma exclaimed, “This is what we will do with man's divinity! We will hide it deep within him because that is the only place he will not think to look.“ From then on, according to the legend, man searched the world over; he explored, climbed, dove, and dug in search of something that was inside himself the whole time. (Eric Butterworth, Discover the Power Within Yourself) CHEERS
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 12, 2006 2:53:00 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 12, 2006 2:53:00 GMT -4
Personally, I think God is one of the areas of lesser importance in religion. I believe faith is the most important factor. Faith is strength, faith is unity, faith is confidence. Of course I know that it's (a) God that we are to have faith in, but I think the faith itself is much more important than the diety to which we project it.
One of the many reasons why I find Intelligent Design and Creationism so disgusting is that it turns our back on faith in search for evidence. The people that endorse ID and Creationism do so under the guise of religious guidance but they need to step back and remember that religion is not about proof or evidence but about faith and unity. Science can be (and often is) a stepping stone towards bettering humanity and to turn your back on it so easily is ridiculous.
Creationism at least is honest in its intentions, however misguided. Intelligent Design is a weasel in a rabbit suit, a fundie doppleganger trying to slither its way into public education to denounce science in favor of Creationism.
To be honest, I am an agnostic. Yes, there's a difference. I think religion is very important in a lot of ways but I just don't feel like I could join one and still feel like I'm being honest with myself.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 12, 2006 6:55:57 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 12, 2006 6:55:57 GMT -4
While I agree in some ways, Reynoldbot (love the name!), I have to disagree in others. While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?
The answer really has to do with people justifying belief in one way or the other; because they personally feel it's right (citing any number of silly examples to back up their belief), because they're told it's right, or because the foundation is already there, and you can't really get rid of it outside of a real social shift.
So in the end, it's very unlikely we'll ever get rid of religion. I might as well live with it. I just won't agree that it's entirely necessary for society.
Belief in a god really fascinates me, though. All throughout time the mass of population has believed in things that are pretty insane, and do anything to justify that belief. Euro-Americans in the 1800 really felt that the "white" race was the "true" race; that blacks were animals, more resembling gorilla-men than men (even though there was NO evidence of this), and that they couldn't breed with "white man" (even though there was NO evidence of this).
People believed in the same time period that women were born knowing their trade(NO evidence of this), and that they could not think of or know about sex (yet still do the act -- once again, NO evidence of this).
I could go on and on with examples. Do you all see what I'm saying? Even though there were a great number of people involved in these cases, they all managed to convince themselves they were "right" about something there was no reason to think they were "right". To my perception, religion seems to be a lot like this. One woman (Candy, actually), said that because some people have lifted cars to save children, and because that's so extreme, God must exist -- that's her proof.
And, also, no, religion is not about evidence, but it is a major aspect of how we humans perceive the world. As one person said, "Politics is the man in the suit, and religion is the woman in the dress; and no one wants to hit a lady". That's why religion is practically "untouchable" in society; but that's not necessarily a bad thing in some ways. The idea of Freedom of Religion is a good one, after all; you're free to believe what you believe.
But still, we demand scientific rigor and historical accuracy with everything else. Why should religion get the slip in this modern age? It seems to be that we can't question religion because it's been around for a long time; and we absolutely refuse to budge, even though religious advocates are using their beliefs to push political issues and law. I mean, I hate the idea that I can't buy alcohol on Sunday thanks to religious law. That's not a seperation of church and state. I don't really want the alcohol, but I feel like a majority of Christians are telling me how I should live my life, by their view.
For that matter, how long can you use religion as an excuse? Where's the line?
Can you throw out historical records and substitute what you read in the bible? Can you claim that, of course we're all descended from Adam and Eve? Of course Moses parted the sea thanks to God, and of course God killed all those evil babies; and if a rash of baby deaths happens today, it's obviously God causing another plague?
Of course, they can believe all that. But should they? Should such beliefs be encouraged? And if you believe in the history, you could also easily describe modern disasters as "miracles", or things brought on by God. Maybe Katrina was sent by God to kill a bunch of people?
But such thinking is discouraged in most circles; why? If you can have the belief, why can it only apply to historical record, and not modern incidents?
(This was a bit of a ramble, and lacked some cohesion. Please excuse that.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 12, 2006 17:13:42 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 12, 2006 17:13:42 GMT -4
I'll excuse the rambling aspect. I agree with you in general. Religion is not perfect and never will be.
While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?
You have a point in that there are other ways to promote a strong community and society than religion, but religion again offers the one thing in specific that I find important: faith. Having a strong faith in something is pretty valuable and religion offers it.
I find a lot of the actions that people have promoted in the name of religion to be wrong, including discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference. The people that promote such intolerance take a strong literal interpretation of the bible and I think it's very close-minded. These people need to realize that there is a world outside of the bible and that it has changed considerably since the bible was written. My problem with Christians is that they refuse to update the teachings of the bible to be concurrent with the knowledge of today. Part of religion is answering the unanswerable questions about life. The problem is, since the bible has been written some of the unanswerable questions have become answered and yet Christians refuse to update the bible's teachings. This is where Christian science, creationism and ID come from.
Only a fool refuses to accept new knowledge in favor of old ignorance. If Christianity is unwilling to be open to change then it is dead.
I read a story in the paper recently about the Christian Legal Society. They are suing organizations that do not allow them to discriminate against homosexuals. They say that intolerance towards gays is part of their religion and they have the right to voice it, and that organizations that practice tolerance towards homosexuals (and punish discrimination) are a direct violation of their free speech. The ugliness and hatred that these people preach is disgusting and I think it is an abomination that they claim to represent God's will with their selfish actions.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 12, 2006 18:28:30 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 12, 2006 18:28:30 GMT -4
While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?You have a point in that there are other ways to promote a strong community and society than religion, but religion again offers the one thing in specific that I find important: faith. Having a strong faith in something is pretty valuable and religion offers it. But the question boils down to, do we need religion for this "faith"? Also, people claim that faith is important, but I have yet to understand what is so important about this faith? And why does it necessarily have to be in some invisible higher being? I have to wonder if people would work so hard to justify religion if it wasn't such a mainstream or majority thing. It seems like justifying something after-the-fact instead of really having a good reason for it. And I have to ask: If the bible explicitely continually states how homosexuals are evil and abominations in the eyes of God, then isn't one who advocates not accepting homosexuality (or somesuch) taking their religion more seriously than those who compromise the teachings of the main object of their faith? Yes, they are taking the interpretations of the Bible literally, but how seriously can you take the Bible? Supposedly the Bible is the "word of god" in one way or the other, and it's the main book of tenets for Christians. To be truly devout in something based on the book, you have to take the book seriously. I find it funny how we praise the people who don't take it seriously as opposed to the people that do. Though this is more of just musings on my part. Agreed. Well, if the practitioners of it are unwilling, yes. And this is agreed on my part. But then, I have to wonder: At what point does religion become obselete? Well, here's my question: If a man only picks and chooses what to believe out of the Bible, and proclaims themselves a Christian, then isn't that worse than holding true to the tenets of your faith? Of course, by that argument, almost everyone who proclaims themselves a Christian, even the fundamentalists, aren't really holding true to all that the bible proclaims. I mean, they aren't pushing for polygamy, complete abstinence of everyone, murder and stoning, or slavery... Anyways, those are just my musings. Either way, I don't see what's so "necessary" about faith, or even beneficial.
|
|
|
God
Apr 16, 2006 18:47:51 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Apr 16, 2006 18:47:51 GMT -4
Either way, I don't see what's so "necessary" about faith, or even beneficial. On of the tenants of Christianity is to expect God’s greater reward for doing good works in this life even though it may seem that they are not noticed or valued by our fellow humans. That faith gives many the strength to live a better life than the world calls them too. Another part of Christianity is that the Bible gives us a story, or narrative for life that we can use to help us when we need guidance. As with all such things, the narrative we chose to read and accept can be varied. Others may take a different meaning than I do because the Bible is not just a big instruction manual, it is a varied document that shows a number of ways of life. It is largely up to a given community to find the thread that works within the community. This is a largely human endeavor, which may not always reflect the message of the New Testament. Another, more personal part of Christianity, is there is no other place that I know of where I can go once a week to participate and hear wonderful music, participate in a ceremony whose symbols and rituals were begun nearly 2000 years ago thereby giving me contact with a community that is both ancient and modern. There is also no other place that I know of that weekly teaches and invites the community to live a better life and provides support in that endeavor. The Easter service at my church today was magnificent. No matter what religion anyone holds or no religion at all, I hope everyone has the opportunity to experience a feeling of rebirth and a new start. Christianity does not have any monopoly in dealing with human problems and other types of organizations could meet these needs, but it seems that spiritual communities that hold a common faith seem to be the place that people go to for this type of support.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 3:13:14 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 17, 2006 3:13:14 GMT -4
Echnaton, you described very well what I find important in religion and faith. Being agnostic I have to describe religious faith in more abstract terms since I don't hold a direct personal attachment to it. What you just wrote is everything that religion should be to an individual and his community.
What you said about applying various parts of the bible to situations in life is the double-edged sword that makes religion both magnificent and ugly at the same time. Interpreting various pieces of the bible to help solve problems or issues in life is constructive and effective. Literally interpreting pieces of the bible (while ignoring or liberally interpreting others) to spread hate and intolerance is destructive and also (unfortunately) very effective. Not only are people spreading hatred through the bible but they are passing judgement based on their "sins" and that is wrong. If these people are really sinners in the eyes of God then let God be the one to judge rather than a flock of (for the lack of better words) intolerant hate-mongers.
|
|
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 9:43:55 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Apr 17, 2006 9:43:55 GMT -4
Not only are people spreading hatred through the bible but they are passing judgement based on their "sins" and that is wrong. If these people are really sinners in the eyes of God then let God be the one to judge rather than a flock of (for the lack of better words) intolerant hate-mongers. Amen to that, brother.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 9:56:27 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 17, 2006 9:56:27 GMT -4
So we should keep it because it's pretty, not because it actually has a use?
I mean, having a connection to ancient culture is okay, I guess. But what parts are the ancient culture, and what parts are the new stuff? What part is myth, what part is fact? We use science to learn that, not the Bible nor the faith.
I still don't understand why religion is necessary. It does something that's "pretty" to people, but any number of things can be used to replace that faith, emotion, and cultural learning. There are any number of substitutes, especially in this day and age.
So why is religion necessary?
To me, religion is harmful in more than one way. The fundamentalists are the obvious problems. But they're very obvious. Let's say that society is a castle; when a society has a lot of fundamentalists that act in the name of religion, you see a lot of holes in the castle, and it looks all crumbling and spooky and such.
But even in a society without many fundamentlists, there are cracks, most of them under the surface, some of them on the surface -- they aren't very visible, but sometimes they are... sometimes they don't damage the foundation, sometimes they do. Here in the U.S., laws are passed in the name of religion that people don't look twice at. People inject religious conjecture and reasoning into very important decisions, including voting and decisions as politicians. We want to pass laws thanks to religious morality.
This is a damaged foundation, and it relies on a topic that is, by definition, lack of Scientific Reasoning and, IMO, lack of even critical thinking. Religion is here because it's always been here, and people are trying to justify it after the fact. But that does not make it necessary, or even desirable.
You can have faith without God -- and you can have peace without Heaven.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 14:46:51 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 17, 2006 14:46:51 GMT -4
You make some points Lonewulf but you can only really speak for yourself when it comes to personal importance with religion. You may not find religion to be important to you but many many many people do (to varying degrees). You can get along fine without faith in God but many people need it to remain strong willed.
Yes, there are problems with religion, but there are also problems with everything. The problems are not usually with the religion itself but human interpretation of it. When Pat Robertson says that 9/11 happened because God was punishing us, the problem is not God but Pat Robertson being a loon (and using religion to express his lunacy). Fundamental christians through their intolerant preachings are trying to delay the inevitable shift in social consciousness that happens every few decades (think of the 60's revolution etc) because they like most are afraid of change.
I feel the most important part of being agnostic is to remain open minded about religion even if you don't believe its mythology. Religion has much more to offer than a diety to worship.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 15:19:51 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 17, 2006 15:19:51 GMT -4
You make some points Lonewulf but you can only really speak for yourself when it comes to personal importance with religion. You may not find religion to be important to you but many many many people do (to varying degrees). You can get along fine without faith in God but many people need it to remain strong willed. I'm not sure how this argument really holds up. Many people consider it important; I do not. Yes, this is a subjective judgement call. However, I personally think that advocating religion and being taught religion (especially if you're only taught one way of looking at life), then your critical thinking skills are hampered even moreso than by other means (I have lots of theories on critical thinking skills being hampered at youth). Going by your argument, people are afraid of shunning religion entirely because they are afraid of change and of adopting new ways of looking at life. I mean, seriously. Pat Robertson is actually keeping hold to the tenets of his faith, and directly giving a literal personal translation of the Bible. What makes his methods worse than someone who claims that Bible is proof of God, but then don't go by it at all in their judgement calls? The only reason to believe in God is because of the conversion of great masses of people by Christianity, Catholocism, Islamism, and other various monotheistic faiths. There is no reason to keep hold to such archaic ways of looking at the universe, and there is no reason to encourage such views, nor allow them into politics or in any positions of power. And like I said, they could be replaced by other things. I might add that I'm perfectly open minded, but I entertain the possibility that maybe religion is more detrimental than beneficial. Also, I accept that while "maybe" there might be "something" out there, why should we act like it's fact enough to allow laws to be passed, or to be proselized to? Further, we demand facts, evidence, and scientific reasoning and logic in any other field other than religion and the idea of a "higher power". Why play hypocrite and let that slip behind the whole "faith" shield, when it is a major influence in how humanity as a whole thinks and makes decisions? Even the moderate believers of any faith are influenced by their faith. The majority of the U.S. are against homosexuality, motivated mostly by religious reasons. They ignore reason and logic, and are motivated enough to vote against homosexuality as a majority populace.
|
|
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 16:20:00 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Apr 17, 2006 16:20:00 GMT -4
The only reason to believe in God is because of the conversion of great masses of people by Christianity, Catholocism, Islamism, and other various monotheistic faiths. There is no reason to keep hold to such archaic ways of looking at the universe
This leads me to believe that you have a somewhat limited experience with religion. With no intent to be confrontational, what archaic views do you attribute exclusively to all religions? Are there not also non religious people that also hold unusual or archaic views? How do you separate these?
Even the moderate believers of any faith are influenced by their faith.
People that have no faith are influenced by their own metaphysics too. Or to put it another way, by the principles, ethics, prejudices and preconceptions learned in the formative years. There is no reason to believe that those views are always preferable to those held by people that believe in God. Look at the flakes on GLP, are they all Christians? My guess is that many of them would self identify as atheist-anarchists.
… there is no reason to encourage such views, nor allow them into politics or in any positions of power.
I would be a lot more worried about the decisions made by GLP flakes than by the successful business people and politicians that sit with me at church. That said, I avoid doing business with those that publish religious affiliations in advertising. as I find the use of religion as a secular marketing tool to be seedy.
This is a hot topic and to restate, nothing said is intended to be confrontational or evangelical.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 16:52:46 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 17, 2006 16:52:46 GMT -4
"'m not sure how this argument really holds up. Many people consider it important; I do not. Yes, this is a subjective judgement call.
However, I personally think that advocating religion and being taught religion (especially if you're only taught one way of looking at life), then your critical thinking skills are hampered even moreso than by other means (I have lots of theories on critical thinking skills being hampered at youth)."
It is a subjective judgement call, and I think you underestimate the importance of that statement. No two people learn and interpret the teachings in the same way. I highly doubt that any person is only taught what they know in life from the bible (or any other religious text). The people whose critical thinking skills are hampered by biblical teachings represent a very small minority of the population, and in real life most people use their judgement to decide what teachings are applicable to real situations and what are part of the mythology. You are over-generalizing the religious populace here.
"Going by your argument, people are afraid of shunning religion entirely because they are afraid of change and of adopting new ways of looking at life."
That is not what I am saying. People don't want to shun religion. The people buying into the intolerant preachings are using religion as a crutch so they can refuse change. They are using the religion for their own selfish means.
"I mean, seriously. Pat Robertson is actually keeping hold to the tenets of his faith, and directly giving a literal personal translation of the Bible. What makes his methods worse than someone who claims that Bible is proof of God, but then don't go by it at all in their judgement calls?"
Pat Robertson is not just taking a literal interpretation of the bible. He is taking a literal interpretation of the bible and putting his own lunatic spin on it. He is basically saying things like: "The bible says specifically that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality should be illegal and homosexuals should not be allowed to work."
What you are asking is like asking why an open interpretation of the Constitution is better than a closed interpretation. In an open interpretation, as long as it doesn't say we can't do it, we can do it. In a closed interpretation, if it doesn't say we can do it, we can't do it. As I said earlier: using passages in the bible as guidance for problems in life while believing in the overall message is constructive. Interpreting passages of the bible literally while ignoring others to spread hate is destructive.
"The only reason to believe in God is because of the conversion of great masses of people by Christianity, Catholocism, Islamism, and other various monotheistic faiths. There is no reason to keep hold to such archaic ways of looking at the universe, and there is no reason to encourage such views, nor allow them into politics or in any positions of power."
You are saying that people believe in God or join a religion only because other people do it. You are generalizing again. Every single person on the planet has their own individual reason for believing in God or being a part of a religion or being agnostic or atheist. You are letting your personal belief get in the way of reality. You believe that religion is an archaic way of looking at the universe. You believe that there is no reason to encourage such views. Millions of people however disagree. I do agree that in this nation religion should not directly insinuate itself into politics. Seperation of Church and State is a very important philosophy for this nation and it should be respected. However, in reality religion will always have an influence and all I can say is deal with it.
"And like I said, they could be replaced by other things. I might add that I'm perfectly open minded, but I entertain the possibility that maybe religion is more detrimental than beneficial. Also, I accept that while "maybe" there might be "something" out there, why should we act like it's fact enough to allow laws to be passed, or to be proselized to?"
I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. Sure, religion has some detrimental effects, but as I said earlier those effects are mainly a result of people exploiting religion to achieve selfish and hate-ridden gains. But religion is much more beneficial than I think you realize. Millions of people reap the benefits of religion every day. You don't hear about it because it's not news. Religion has helped far more people than it has hurt.
"Further, we demand facts, evidence, and scientific reasoning and logic in any other field other than religion and the idea of a "higher power". Why play hypocrite and let that slip behind the whole "faith" shield, when it is a major influence in how humanity as a whole thinks and makes decisions?"
Why? Because you are forgetting that the mythology of religion is just that: mythology. Each religion has a story to tell and it is up to the individual to decide how much to believe and what he or she can learn. To interpret the stories as the literal truth is misguided. The people that try to prove the stories as the literal truth are misguided. Science has done a good enough job providing the facts.
"Even the moderate believers of any faith are influenced by their faith. The majority of the U.S. are against homosexuality, motivated mostly by religious reasons. They ignore reason and logic, and are motivated enough to vote against homosexuality as a majority populace."
You are generalizing again in saying that being influenced by your faith is wrong. The homosexuality case is indeed one where the influence is detrimental, but I stress again that it is a result of the misguided and selfish use of the bible to advance personal agendas. I don't know where you get your figures on the populace's view on homosexuality. It is still a new issue and the people that are against it are the same that are afraid of social change. I think it is a temporary issue.
To conclude, I understand your position on religion. Not everyone feels the same way about it of course and I have to respect that. But I feel like you are generalizing too much about how people view religion, express their faith, and interpret the texts. You propose that we create another institution that provides the same benefits but without the idealogical detriments. I find that this is unnecessary, unrealistic and too simplified. I challenge you to tell me how this institution would work, how it would replace religion effectively, how you would convince the people to just drop their beliefs in favor of your institution and how it will prevent the same problems from arising as in religion. If you are unwilling to commit yourself to your solution then you have no right to argue it.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 17, 2006 21:57:51 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 17, 2006 21:57:51 GMT -4
It is a subjective judgement call, and I think you underestimate the importance of that statement. No two people learn and interpret the teachings in the same way. I highly doubt that any person is only taught what they know in life from the bible (or any other religious text). The people whose critical thinking skills are hampered by biblical teachings represent a very small minority of the population, and in real life most people use their judgement to decide what teachings are applicable to real situations and what are part of the mythology. You are over-generalizing the religious populace here. I don't underestimate anything in that. I am over-generalizing, but the effect is general. There is an effect. What makes the world so different a few thousand years ago to today in the cultures where Christianity is now, today, continually practiced? The Native American tribes led a way of life that suited their religious (and cultural) backgrounds. The European Settlers forced them into a different cultural background for mainly religious purposes. This offset changed their way of life, their culture, how they perceived life, and how they perceived "sin" and "evil". This demonstrates that there is a big difference in the thinking process with and without religion, IMO. For instance, yes, everyone translates something a different way (and many ignore different passages and focus on different passages that suit their agenda)... but the overall belief is there. The overwhelming consensus is that God exists, and many in this consensus act like we should act in His wishes. Right there, you take a major step in your perception and how you think. Religion has this effect on you -- and I do not think that it is entirely a minor one. Also, I do know that only extremists truly follow the Bible to it's letter; that is not my argument. I am saying that there is a minor, subtle alteration to one's thinking process, not an overt fundamentalist extremist one. But someone voting against homosexuality and yet being a thoughtful Christian is still acting out of his religious biase, and the polls seems to show that being against homosexuality and homosexual marriage is a majority opinion within the United States. You seem to think that I think that all men and women of religion are bible-thumping evangelists, though, or are all extremists. Nothing could be further from the truth; but I think the assumption comes from the fact that I am speaking about religion negatively, and it's usually referred to negatively when it comes to those that are fundamentalist. Wait, wait, wait. I never said that people want to shun religion. However, why defend religion? It seems to me that the main reason to defend it has to do with the fact that it's already here, and we're trying to justify it's existance, as opposed to truly asking if we need it. And if people use religion just to feel good about themselves and have faith in something, how is that not selfish? Because it has more positive connotations? No, say no more, you have a good point here. I retract my statement. I was well-aware of what Pat Robertson was saying, but I should have thought what I was saying through a bit more. (By the way, I still say that Fred Phelps is a lot scarier than Pat Robertson... *shiver*)
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 18, 2006 2:58:30 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 18, 2006 2:58:30 GMT -4
Wait, wait, wait. I never said that people want to shun religion. However, why defend religion? It seems to me that the main reason to defend it has to do with the fact that it's already here, and we're trying to justify it's existance, as opposed to truly asking if we need it.
And if people use religion just to feel good about themselves and have faith in something, how is that not selfish? Because it has more positive connotations?
This is minor, but I quote "Going by your argument, people are afraid of shunning religion entirely because they are afraid of change and of adopting new ways of looking at life." You said they are afraid to shun religion entirely, which insinuates that they have the desire to shun religion. Again, it's a minor thing. As for the selfish point, you are getting hypercritical. Do you really consider overcoming obstacles and bettering yourself a selfish act? Do you consider a heroin junkie using the bible to motivate him to kick his habit a selfish act? If it's constructive then so be it. Also, the bible teaches for each individual to treat their fellow man kindly and promotes community outreach. These are not selfish acts.
Your point about the morality issue is well taken. I agree with you about morality and it is one of the parts of Christianity that I feel should be subject to change as society progresses. But it should not all be thrown out just because of a few shady topics. You are reluctant to see the good in the Bible and how it is able to help people.
I do feel that Christianity needs to change but I know that the Christian population will never accept it. It's become such a fimly-established part of life that the idea of change would seem sacriligious. The bible hasn't undergone any significant changes since the Middle Ages and I feel that reveals both the problem and the cause. Some of the material is archaic and needs updating, but because the material is so archaic nobody wants to touch it.
As for your point about being pressured towards religion, I think you are correct but I don't feel that it negates my argument. You are correct in that pressure to join christianity (and other religions in other nations) comes from multiple sources ranging from society to the home. But that pressure is not absolute and many people are free to make whatever choice they want. Many people who at one time were not given choices in time find freedom to choose what they want.
Again I remind you that millions of people do not share your personal life experiences or outlook on life. You find religion to be of no benefit to you and that is fine, but do not project this opinion on other people . Again I remind you that religion provides support for people that need it in ways that only religion can provide. Yes, it does teach archaic answers to life's questions, and Christianity should adapt to that, but those archaic teachings are not as important as the societal support that religion provides.
But you still accept the entire Bible as "possible fact, it's up to you"
No I do not. I accept that the Bible has passages which are based on historical events that did happen, and that the mythology is built around them. If you can't have faith that people will be able to identify the historical events amongst the mythological ones in the bible then your problem lies with the people and not the religion. What is "up to you" is your interpretation of that mythology and how you can apply it.
You can't justify your generalization by throwing me large numbers. Generalization is obsolete in a social consciousness where personal experience is so important and it will always lead to a misrepresentation of the indiviudal. Generalization is what people do to promote racism. We both agree that you are generalizing but I disagree that it is applicable. Especially in consideration of the topic of faith.
What I said you have no right to argue for is an institution that you have no desire to fabricate. All you want to do is complain about religion but you have no intention of doing anything to change it or make it better. Your idea of a solution to your problems is nothing short of a cop-out. You don't have any constructive ideas or considerations or anything that could be carried out in the real world, just a rally that a community with the same societal benefits of religion could be easily attained without a faith in God. Perhaps I should have worded it better as to have avoided being incited the wrath of the first amendment: If you are unwilling to commit to your proposed solution then there is no point in arguing it. Happy?
By the way, I can't let you get away with saying that you didn't consider your solution realistic. I quote: "While having unity is good, as well as a sense of community and purpose, it's just as easy to have it without need of a religion. If you can get together the community without need to believe in a God(s), and there's no real reason to believe in that God(s), why bother with it?" (emphasis added) Your backpedaling would work if I couldn't quote you on it.
Let's get down to the skinny here: We are never going to agree on this. You find no benefit in religion, I do (or at least, you find that the detriments outweigh the benefits and I disagree). We are now thoroughly going in circles. I think we both err on the side of science when it comes to most decisions and its safe to say that we agree that Christianity has flaws it needs to correct to be relevant in today's culture. Do you agree that if these issues (morality, creation, etc) were resolved that the benefits would outweigh the detriments and critical thinking would not be hampered by faith?
|
|