Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:But when you hear someone refer to a crucifix as "the cross with the little man on it" - you get a sense that an upswing is not taking place.
can we rely on such anecdotal evidence?
nbcrusader said:But when you hear someone refer to a crucifix as "the cross with the little man on it" - you get a sense that an upswing is not taking place.
nbcrusader said:Besides, anecdotal evidence is often offered to suggest that we have a theocracy in place.
A_Wanderer said:You know I think Khomeni makes a very good point about motiveA religion of peace ; why should Islam be the exception to the rule.
AliEnvy said:
Definitely, I agree. When those that seek power and control over a group of people (to gain or retain it) want to gain support for their position, they need to condemn their opponents. The best way to get mass support to create "us versus them" is to make the opponents' differences evil (be they differences that are ideological, political, religious, cultural, racial, geographical etc etc). The better they are at tapping into the fears and insecurities of the masses and claiming to be their protectors the more powerful they become.
If that was the case they would be hypocrites, they believe in the same invisible friend and would want to see the same end.maycocksean said:
I think there are a lot of Conservative Christians who would agree with you on your conclusions about Islam.
A_Wanderer said:But isn't that the very source of religion, forging a social identity? From the first moon worshipping pagans to the monotheistic faiths. I do not think that a will to power is corrupting any religions, the mindset is part of religions.
In this very thread an argument about what defines a Christian, and both sides put an emphasis to one degree or another on a bloody sacrifice that supposedly absolves people of responsibility or concience, putting humanity down by making it indebted to a higher power in perpetuity upon pain of eternal damnation.
A_Wanderer said:Possible, but I am saying it with more contempt towards religion.
A_Wanderer said:If that was the case they would be hypocrites, they believe in the same invisible friend and would want to see the same end.
A good many believers seem to believe in furthuring their faiths for a good many different resons, they should not be immune from criticism or be excused on the basis of live and let live; I find the concept of this Abrahamic creator abhorent and when people want "his will" carried out no good can come of it. In pointing out the more monstrous results of the faithful does not tell people what to believe.maycocksean said:Indeed.
And I guess I'm wondering what's up with the contempt? So people believe in something that doesn't make sense to you. So what?
All of your cited examples are those of totalitarian governments, where power is consolidated with a sttae - the absence of religion was not the driving factor in those examples. True theocracies though, with clerical dominance and subjegation of the masses are a direct result of religious belief. The religious authorities are given chance to directly control the population, the fact that most major religions have spawned these systems throughout history should not go unnoticed.I suppose you could say "well, look at all the trouble religion has caused" and I would make the argument I made earlier that aetheism is not the cure for the world's ills. I could argue that I have "contempt" for aetheism because of all the "trouble it's caused" but I the fact is I don't have contempt for aethesim or any other beliefs (or "unbeliefs") I don't share.
If anyone is going to insist that one has an inherent need for Christ and that one must surrender themselves then they don't have a clue, it is insulting and of course ridicule is the very best response.I don't see why contempt is necessary.
maycocksean said:
And I guess I'm wondering what's up with the contempt? So people believe in something that doesn't make sense to you. So what?
A_Wanderer said:If anyone is going to insist that one has an inherent need for Christ and that one must surrender themselves then they don't have a clue, it is insulting and of course ridicule is the very best response.
A_Wanderer said:A good many believers seem to believe in furthuring their faiths for a good many different resons, they should not be immune from criticism or be excused on the basis of live and let live; I find the concept of this Abrahamic creator abhorent and when people want "his will" carried out no good can come of it. In pointing out the more monstrous results of the faithful does not tell people what to believe.All of your cited examples are those of totalitarian governments, where power is consolidated with a sttae - the absence of religion was not the driving factor in those examples. True theocracies though, with clerical dominance and subjegation of the masses are a direct result of religious belief. The religious authorities are given chance to directly control the population, the fact that most major religions have spawned these systems throughout history should not go unnoticed.
If anyone is going to insist that one has an inherent need for Christ and that one must surrender themselves then they don't have a clue, it is insulting and of course ridicule is the very best response.
Angela Harlem said:
Contempt perhaps because religion offends?
Perhaps because religion is fundamentally flawed and it pretty much chokes on it's own hypocrisy?
Perhaps there is contempt because it is constantly flouting anyone who is not also a member?
Perhaps because the continual flagellation is seen as ridiculous, if not plain uneccesary and rather negative?
Want more?
No, that is a mistake; it is dangerous to be silent on the basis of that principle, if we can excuse certain behaviour from comment then where does it end? Disavowing that principle is different from violating another persons freedom of concience as that does not extend to freedom of ignorance, which means freedom to not hear criticsm. The most extreme expressions of religiousity stem from the very same principles, a belief in the afterlife and claim to inherent moral good.maycocksean said:First off, I would never claim that faith should be "immune from criticism" though I do think if you wander away from "live and let live" well, then you're headed into very dangerous territory. "Live and let live" needs to be first rule of all people regardless of the their faith (or lack thereof).
Because they invariably seek to spread their ideas around like a memetic virus and expand a sphere of influence; now people following their own crazy philosophies isn't a problem in itself but when it has institutions with goals of furthuring earthly power that expansion may take on as it has many times in the past violent concequences. Islamic fundamentalism today is trying to forge an earthly power that will bring every living human under the sway of their beloved Allah - they are following their faith literally and doing quite a bloody job at wiping out those that deserve to die (e.g. Jews and Hindus) or those that get in the way. They are following Gods will just as much as the charity worker, they have much more negative concequences.Secondly, I don't follow how "no good" MUSTcome of trying to carry out God's will. Doesn't that depend on what God's will is? What if God's will is to "feed the hungry, care for the sick" etc? Can "no good" come from people feeling compelled to do so?
Secular governence grants no sanction for or against faith - it doesn't get involved and will oppose any attempted invocation of religious ideas. By virtue of lacking supposition of the supernatural these lead to laws built on logic and atheistic materialism. I believe in the free state, this is completely incompatible with religious governence because at it's core theocracy (even benevolent theocracy) puts treats the citizen not as the individual supreme but as subservient to God and its scripture or intentI'll grant that my examples of aetheistic governments were all totalitarian in nature and I am also willing to grant your statements about true theocracies. I realize this is shaky ground for me because even my own Scriptural record doesn't provide much support (at least in the Old Testament) for tolerance. I'll grant that I haven't considered secular democratic governments like those in much of Western Europe (though these are secular not specifically aetheistic--there is a difference).
Nonetheless, my third point is this--I've been mulling this over for awhile and I'm not sure I'm ready to put my argument out there yet, but what the heck--religion despite it's many pitfalls ALSO provides one of the best rationales for tolerance, love, standing up for the oppressed, minorities etc. Faiths that teach love can be of inestimable value to our world and they've been the wellspring for some great deeds of goodness in this world.A best rational strikes me as a dubious claim, the motivation for works as a means of emulating you Christ is not being conducted in and of itself for the deed. A good deed in the absence of any concequence in reward or karma for the sake of it is more defining than one justified by some outside force or faith.
Every act of religion is but a magnifying glass of humanity, in the stakes of crimes and benefits it is neutral at best. Furthurmore almost every positive philisophical principle which is incorporated into religious structures can be derived from purely logical bounds built around the preservation and protection of rights and liberties of individuals without any invocation of the divine.I would make a judgement on the idea, having a deity for instance is unneccecary; all of the evidence points towards a naturalistic origin of life on Earth and the solar system without any influence of the supernatural - the introduction of a God for the existence of things is unfounded; there is no evidence for God, to reconcile God with the body of knowledge that we do have we must complicate things - the absence of evidence for and the impossibility of the supernatural are strong strikes against a God existing. The next problem is the concept of God itself, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is to me completely undesirable, one doesn't need a omnipotent and omnicent beingIf you judge religion, and especially Christianity by many of it's "so-called" practicioners through the ages, I can see how you could come to such negative conclusions about faith. But when you look at the teachings of Christ, at the way He intended for His faith to be lived, you get a different picture.
The practicing of faith towards this idea is putting mankind down, a submission to higher power or perhaps more pathetically the idea of a higher power. It holds us back, until humanity can look into the void of existence without fear we will never be able to reach our full potential, that will not happen by force or coercion but by individuals electing their own philosophies.It is insulting in that any needs that I have are a matter between me and my mind and possibly another person, quite simply a God shaped hole that has been posited is not an inherent characteristic of human beings, a good many people have lived and died in complete ignorance of Christianity and even monotheism without so much as a yearning for it, if it was really such a universal trait then surely it would have occured more frequently and been embraced with vigour by all the peoples of the world.Fourthly, my insisting that everyone has an inherent need for Christ and must surrender is not necessarily "insulting."No it seems that your alleged God has all that part figured out.The question is how I go about that "insistence." I have to have an attitude of tolerance and willingness to respect people's choices. I may think they are making the "wrong" decision, but that's between them and God, and it's not for me to judge what the outcome of that decison maybe.I am not forcing acceptentce I am professing that the idea is completely and utterly wrong, there is no need for God inherent in humanity, the many heathens that lived and died rich full lives in the absence of that is evidence enough - any biological need for belief will have completely natural causes that will be wired into our genes; a neurological trait that is adventageous to survival and social interaction and not from an outside and impossible (as in unprovable source; in death there is no creation or destruction of matter or energy and the mass and energy in the system will remain the same - a soul or fundamental essence if it existed in our universe would be quantifiable).You clearly insist that I must NOT believe in a need for Christ, but I'm not offended as long as you treat me with respect and don't start trying to force me into accepting your point of view.
Freedom of religion does not entail respect, it entails dialogue, criticism, mockery, rejection and possibly acceptence. Staying silent in the name of stability or feelings only allows the centre of debate to be defined by other agendas and that is to the disadvantage of whichever agenda one wants to push.There is no prerequisite to apply the idea of respect, the very idea of this omnicient deity is unfounded and undesirable - it is not stooping to ad hominem.Thinking I'm right is not offensive. Thinking you're wrong is not offensive. As long as we maintain an attitude of respect.
A_Wanderer said:[BThe most extreme expressions of religiousity stem from the very same principles, a belief in the afterlife and claim to inherent moral good.Because they invariably seek to spread their ideas [/B]
A_Wanderer said:now people following their own crazy philosophies isn't a problem in itself but when it has institutions with goals of furthuring earthly power that expansion may take on as it has many times in the past violent concequences. [/B]
Originally posted by A_Wanderer Secular governence grants no sanction for or against faith - it doesn't get involved and will oppose any attempted invocation of religious ideas. By virtue of lacking supposition of the supernatural these lead to laws built on logic and atheistic materialism. I believe in the free state, this is completely incompatible with religious governence because at it's core theocracy (even benevolent theocracy) puts treats the citizen not as the individual supreme but as subservient to God and its scripture or intent [/B]
maycocksean said:What is your view on why religion and spirituality (which, at least historically, has been near universal... What is it's purpose, from an evolutionary point of view?
maycocksean said:
I don't see how religion inherently offends.
Religions may or may not be fundamentally flawed (which ones and to what degree--boy is that subject for debate) and people do often choke on their own hypocrisy--but then that's human nature, last I checked.
If all you've observed of religion is constantly flouting anyone who is not a member and continual flagellation, I understand your contempt completely.
I'm suggesting that what you describe is not the sum total of religious faith.
Angela Harlem said:
You dont think religion offends at all? You dont think Christianity is flawed, and rather severely, at that?
I do hope the meek inherit the earth. That'd be funny.
maycocksean said:
I didn't say I don't think religion offends at all. I just questioned whether ALL religion is INHERENTLY offensive. I'd be willing to concede that Christianity could be offensive, especially in today's cultural climate where claiming a monopoly on truth is unacceptable. (But then again, it seems that a staunch athesist also claims a monopoly on truth in a sense too. "There is no God. That's the truth. Anyone who believes otherwise is wrong." How is that different from a Christian saying, "Jesus is Lord. That's the truth. Anyone who believes otherwise is wrong" ?)
maycocksean said:
As to whether or not I feel that Christianity is severely flawed, I think the answer is obvious. Why would I be a Christian if believed that? I believe that Christians are flawed. I believe that Christian institutions are definitely flawed, many severely so, and some are just downright dangerous. But then again, that's true of pretty much everyone. All people are flawed. All human institutions are flawed. Part of Christian theology acknowledges that fundamentally flawed human condition and properly understood, Christian theology does NOT teach that "everyone else if flawed except for Christians." Finally, I'll take it one step further and say that my understanding of Christianity and of God may be flawed as well. While, I do believe in God as the repository of all truth, I'm not God, and so of course while "God is always right", I could be wrong.
maycocksean said:
But, obviously the basic teachings of Christianity don't seem flawed to me, otherwise I wouldn't embrace them. People subscribe to a faith because it "works for them." It may appear ludicrous to those who don't share that faith, but it doesn't appear ludicrous to the believer.
I found your last statement about the meek inheriting the earth intriguing. In what way would it be funny? Are you saying that if the meek inherited the earth, they'd screw it up for sure (course the world's already pretty screwed up with the "non-meek" running it. I'm not sure how the meek could make it worse.) Or are you saying that the meek inheriting the earth, while a charming thought, is ridiculous and it will never happen. Or were you saying something else?
Angela Harlem said:They're not the meek. If this God and Jesus caper is all true, then they will not be inheriting the earth. It will be the meek.
maycocksean said:A couple of key points:
I'm a Christian and I believe women and gays should be treated equally.
I'm a Christian and I do not support the death penalty. You did an excellent job of summarizing why, as a Christian, I have opposed the death penalty.
I'm a Christian and I am STRONGLY in support of STRICT seperation of church and state. (And this isn't me alone, my entire denomination has traditionally opposed any mixing of church and state. We even have a whole department in our church whose job it is to keep an eye on legislation that would bring religion into government and oppose it). I don't believe in this nonsense about America as "Christian nation", I don't support prayer in public schools, or the 10 commandments on the walls of public buildings. It ismy firm belief that governments should be secular.
I'm a Christian but I do not believe that interpretation of scripture is easy or comfortable, nor do I believe that I've got the Bible or Truth "all figured out."
I'm a Christian, but I do not believe in the "big fire" or going to some "horrid place" when you die. I don't believe that a loving God would send people to roast in torment forever. It's sick!(Again this is my whole denomination, not just me).