"My god is true, your god is false"

[AcrobatMan]

"My God is the only God"
"My God is true,yours one is false"
"Since my God is the only truth, why dont u come over here"


Since after Cold war, we are in the religion-war phase for last 16-17 years ( and I am sure it will continue for another 20 years - the way things are going)

Isnt it about time to BAN all philosphies that subscribe to the above views?

I also dont understand how we can allow public propogation of anything that cant be scientifically proved especially when it adds to the conflict/loss of innocent lives ?

Lets not make this thread into why this religion is correct or why this is wrong or whatever...or religion is good and intepretation is wrong...and all related stuff...

We can argue why philosphies which are the root cause of present conflict shouldnt be banned..and how can we allow propogation of fiction or unproven facts ?

I dont have issues with anything...if it is kept personal ...and inside ur home

 

[A_Wanderer]

These attitudes create static societies that simply can't compete with more open and liberal secular ones in the innovation stakes, I don't think that the future will be written by theocracy.

 

[fly so high!]

I am friends with (she is really a friend of my mum) a JW and she said exactly what you have suggested, AcrobatMan, that the "Dark Angels" that have descended on earth will end up controlling the Earth through Politicians and the media and that there will be a total ban of practiscing religion in all it's forms....this is when the Apocalypse will happen.

*sounds out twilight zone themesong*

Actually, when you look at the likes of Howard and Bush......you do wonder

 

[Ormus]

Actually, these religious nuts are from a larger series of cycles that stretch back to the 19th century, specifically. Even then, though, they are just a modern form of Protestantism that had existed for centuries prior to that.

 

[JanuaryStar]

People should, regardless of what religion they have, create some sort of 'consensus', feelings of peace towards each other. If this involves making some concessions, then so be it. I might be a bit straightforward in this, even though I am aware of the many religious conflicts and differences that exist, but there shouldn't be room for extremists or conflicts over religion, especially when we all feel that 'we' are so progressive and intellectual and capable of creating a better world.

 

[MsPurrl]

Here's my take on religion: every religion has some sort of "supreme being"--despite his/her name, aren't they the "same guy"? Why don't people realize that and get over it? I think Earth is some kind of cosmic experiment, anyway--which makes "the Head Fred" some astral being from 'way out there.

 

[JanuaryStar]

Here's my take on religion: every religion has some sort of "supreme being"--despite his/her name, aren't they the "same guy"? Why don't people realize that and get over it? I think Earth is some kind of cosmic experiment, anyway--which makes "the Head Fred" some astral being from 'way out there.

Exactly, I totally agree with you!

 

[wthrwthoutyu]

Ban religions? You want to ban religions? (You can use the term "philosophies" if you want, but you're talking about religion.)

No. It's a very bad idea to start banning religions. And it wouldn't stop any war, it would only make more war.

As much as the attitude that "My God is the only real God" bothers me, I don't believe in banning religions. And it can't be done in my nation, anyway; there's this thing called the First Amendment...

 

[popsadie]

Not surprisingly, I disagree. What you are asking for is a non passionate existence. I believe that most of the truly great and truly evil things that have occurred in human history have been motivated by some kind of religious belief.

 

[coemgen]

"My God is the only God"
"My God is true,yours one is false"
"Since my God is the only truth, why dont u come over here"


Since after Cold war, we are in the religion-war phase for last 16-17 years ( and I am sure it will continue for another 20 years - the way things are going)

Isnt it about time to BAN all philosphies that subscribe to the above views?

I also dont understand how we can allow public propogation of anything that cant be scientifically proved especially when it adds to the conflict/loss of innocent lives ?

Lets not make this thread into why this religion is correct or why this is wrong or whatever...or religion is good and intepretation is wrong...and all related stuff...

We can argue why philosphies which are the root cause of present conflict shouldnt be banned..and how can we allow propogation of fiction or unproven facts ?

I dont have issues with anything...if it is kept personal ...and inside ur home

I'm all for silencing religious nuts, but banning philosophies?

 

[coemgen]

Here's my take on religion: every religion has some sort of "supreme being"--despite his/her name, aren't they the "same guy"? Why don't people realize that and get over it? I think Earth is some kind of cosmic experiment, anyway--which makes "the Head Fred" some astral being from 'way out there.

They're not the "same guy," that's why many of them believe they have the "right" path. That's the problem.

 

[coemgen]

Not surprisingly, I disagree. What you are asking for is a non passionate existence. I believe that most of the truly great and truly evil things that have occurred in human history have been motivated by some kind of religious belief.

Yes, but how often was this belief actually taught by the religious text? Evil, war, hatred, etc aren't things Christ taught me.

Many of the evils that have occured in history may have religious tones to them or have been done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean they were a carrying out of the religion.

 

[AcrobatMan]

I am not for banning religions... NO WAY..........Believe me I am way too LIBERAL for that..

Only certain PHILOSPHIES with many religions.. and that too NOT ON A PERSONAL level...but on public level... if the philosphies is proven root cause of loss of lives...( most of them innocent)
( may be reform is the way forward).. On the personal level..anything is acceptable...and I am no one to interfere...

I have no problems with anyone who believes in anything or anything they want to...All people are welcome to believe whatever..

Thanks everyone else for their response

As pointed out by A_Wanderer...I am going to believe that OPEN, LIBERAL, SECULAR and SCIENTIFIC society is the way forward....

I am glad we didnt spin off on ...on religions are good..interpretation is bad.... etc etc....

 

[martha]

On the personal level..anything is acceptable...and I am no one to interfere...

How are you going to keep the personal out of the public?

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

To put it plainly and calmly, I really, really don't like it when someone says their religion is the only true one and everyone else is 'infidel' or 'going to burn in hell.' I don't believe the powers of the universe would persecute someone for honestly believing and living by something that disagrees with someone's 'right' or 'only way.' As long as no one uses religion as a reason to hurt someone else (like, say, human sacrifice?) they should all be respected.

 

[coemgen]

I am not for banning religions... NO WAY..........Believe me I am way too LIBERAL for that..

Only certain PHILOSPHIES with many religions.. and that too NOT ON A PERSONAL level...but on public level... if the philosphies is proven root cause of loss of lives...( most of them innocent)
( may be reform is the way forward).. On the personal level..anything is acceptable...and I am no one to interfere...

I have no problems with anyone who believes in anything or anything they want to...All people are welcome to believe whatever..

Thanks everyone else for their response

As pointed out by A_Wanderer...I am going to believe that OPEN, LIBERAL, SECULAR and SCIENTIFIC society is the way forward....

I am glad we didnt spin off on ...on religions are good..interpretation is bad.... etc etc....

I understand your concern, but I think it'd be a stretch to ban anyone's line of thinking. That doesn't sound very liberal to me. Where should the line be drawn? Who makes the call on what should be banned? What's the penalty for crossing the line?
Again, I understand you're concern, but I don't think it's such a black and white issue like that. Plus, like I said before, don't mistake the evil actions carried out by religious nuts as fruit of the actual faith they claim to be living out. Too often good religions get twisted for personal gain. This is when things get ugly.

 

[popsadie]

coemegan...I agree with you. I don't think that actions motivated by religion(unless its black magic or something like that)that is properly understood are evil. I simply was trying to say that religious belief has been a huge motivator behind many of the great things that have happened.

 

[coemgen]

I understand. I just don't think we should ban anything. It's often just nuts making it into their own thing anyway. If we banned a certain philosophy, they'd find something else to be nuts about.

We should ban nuts.

 

[coemgen]

And no, I'm not calling for world wide castration.

 

[diamond]

I understand. I just don't think we should ban anything. It's often just nuts making it into their own thing anyway. If we banned a certain philosophy, they'd find something else to be nuts about.

We should ban nuts.

So you're ok with Mormons then or do you consider The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)"nuts"?

Based on your posts in other threads you suggest that they teach a strange Gospel, and that yours is more correct version than theirs.

dbs

 

[coemgen]

Wow, diamond. Now you're picking fights?

 

[diamond]

Wow, diamond. Now you're picking fights?

Nope, posed a question is all.
So where do you stand?

dbs

 

[coemgen]

Well, my reference to religious nuts earlier was in response to those who commit evil acts, such as murder in the name of religion. That's it. It wasn't a matter of people having differing views than mine being nuts. I'm sure you'd like to think I meant that though.

No, I wouldn't say Mormons in general are religious nuts, just misguided.

Although, Brigham Young certainly fits the earlier description of a religious figure responsible for murder.

 

[phillyfan26]

The only parts of religion that should be banned are those that have to do with specific segregation, like those religions that look at homosexuality (which is not a choice) as a sin. Homosexuality should not be looked upon as sinful, religion or not, when there is proof that they cannot control it.

In those cases, religion should be forced to alter itself.

 

[diamond]

Well, my reference to religious nuts earlier was in response to those who commit evil acts, such as murder in the name of religion. That's it. It wasn't a matter of people having differing views than mine being nuts. I'm sure you'd like to think I meant that though.

No, I wouldn't say Mormons in general are religious nuts, just misguided.

Although, Brigham Young certainly fits the earlier description of a religious figure responsible for murder.

Speculation on your part and others as well as others
And if Bringham were alive today you and those could be sued for libel.

Oh and thanks for not wanting to ban Mormons according to your undestanding of Christ's teachings and His Church.

dbs

 

[martha]

In those cases, religion should be forced to alter itself.

How?

 

[coemgen]

Speculation on your part and others as well as others
And if Bringham were alive today you and those could be sued for libel.

Oh and thanks for not wanting to ban Mormons according to your undestanding of Christ's teachings and His Church.

dbs

Well, a lot of people believe this. It was even mentioned on that Mormon documentary on PBS. Remember the Mormon man who appologized and said it was a dark period for the church?

If Brigham Young were alive today there's no possible way he could sue me for libel. I'm simply mentioning this in a thread, I'm not publishing it in a newspaper.

And you're welcome for me not wanting to ban Mormons - as if it were up to me.

 

[diamond]

And you're welcome for me not wanting to ban Mormons - as if it were up to me.

Exactly my point, I don't think it's anybody's right under the Constitution.

dbs

 

[coemgen]

I fully agree with you. That's what I've been basically saying this whole time.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The only parts of religion that should be banned are those that have to do with specific segregation, like those religions that look at homosexuality (which is not a choice) as a sin. Homosexuality should not be looked upon as sinful, religion or not, when there is proof that they cannot control it.

In those cases, religion should be forced to alter itself.

If homosexuality was a choice would it be a sin?