Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"fangs"? what you mean is that religion can be used for great good and great evil.
I think you are still missing my point. The features of a religion that comfort, that reassure, that make people feel supported and safe are not necessarily the features that excuse atrocity, that demand blind obedience, that inflame passions against "the other". There are quite a few variants of faith, that to a greater or lesser degree, have voluntarily abandoned the ability and need to control. I don't think it is possible to have a Quaker version of ISIS... That particular religious practice has abandoned the authoritarian, dogmatic features necessary to be be used as that kind of a tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Like dogs. We then have to honestly determine risks vs. benefits. You have properly ruled religion out as the cause war. so that swings the debate a fair amount. You have correctly stated that it is bad people using religion as a weapon to mislead people. yet another swing back. Now we have to investigate the number hurt by and helped by religion. How many house wives that grab onto faith as a way to get through this poop hole will equal the number of abused through "brain washing" by religion? Is it 10'000's help vs. 100's or 1000's hurt? or the other way around?
I think that is the wrong question. If we as a society have a need for some form of spiritual organization, some form of religion, what is the best form in which the religious urge can manifest? This isn't about no-religion vs religion, it is about what shape should we encourage religion to take. If we must have religious belief( and I think it is probably not going away), then I would rather be part of a society that encourages freedom of conscience, individual relationships with the divine, and acceptance of other viewpoints. Religion, when it encourages these sorts of things can be beneficial. Religion, where is encourages demonizing, either literally or figuratively, others, where it tries to back faith with force, where it demands atrocity is, in my estimation not worth the price. Period. And it does not matter how many mothers and widows are comforted by knowing their men have died in glorious martyrdom for the new caliphate, that comfort is not worth the slaughter of innocents.
I posit that we can have one withouth the other, that many of the positive benefits to individuals form their faith can be realized without the bad that comes from religions of blind faith, of domination by religious leaders, and by misplaced zeal being directed by men for their own gain. We do not have to take the bad with the good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
"secular government" works better? you mean have the government run "moral schools? and "indoctrination" for children to enter society? check some of your fiction books on that stance.
Boy, you have an axe to grind. I don't think a secular government has any business doing religious education. I am speaking of society, not government. We as a society can choose to change. It takes time, but we have clearly changed from the days when the KKK was an organization for god-fearing men and women, we have clearly changed from when we believed that even discussing contraception was immoral and illegal. Our attitudes have shifted, perhaps religious attitudes can as well.
what he knows is "trying to do the right thing". Even if I disagree with how he may do it, I see he is doing it. So I think he does know. about doing it, that is. I like doing it too. I think we all like doing it really. srry bout that, mel stuck in me head.
The key word in ozzy's description is "orthodox". I think he has a point there. And you got it right too. Martin was a believer. he was even a good guy.
I think you are still missing my point. The features of a religion that comfort, that reassure, that make people feel supported and safe are not necessarily the features that excuse atrocity, that demand blind obedience, that inflame passions against "the other". There are quite a few variants of faith, that to a greater or lesser degree, have voluntarily abandoned the ability and need to control. I don't think it is possible to have a Quaker version of ISIS... That particular religious practice has abandoned the authoritarian, dogmatic features necessary to be be used as that kind of a tool.
I never said "excuse" atrocities. That a straw man from you. eye-ama kinda disappointed to tell ya truth.
But I agree with your over all statement here. That's why I do not side with many atheists. The devil is in the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I think that is the wrong question. If we as a society have a need for some form of spiritual organization, some form of religion, what is the best form in which the religious urge can manifest? This isn't about no-religion vs religion, it is about what shape should we encourage religion to take. If we must have religious belief( and I think it is probably not going away), then Religion, when it encourages these sorts of things can be beneficial. Religion, where is encourages demonizing, either literally or figuratively, others, where it tries to back faith with force, where it demands atrocity is, in my estimation not worth the price. Period. And it does not matter how many mothers and widows are comforted by knowing their men have died in glorious martyrdom for the new caliphate, that comfort is not worth the slaughter of innocents.
this is not real. Its just not an honest evaluation of the world. 'no mistakes" is not rational. We need to try and limit them and we get to choose a more probable inoceant victim. None justis not a real option. You have to put a number on it. It sure don't feel so good does it. But making fairytales up doesn't change it NoCap.
besides I thought we already agreed that most "slaughters" are not religion. its people doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I posit that we can have one withouth the other, that many of the positive benefits to individuals form their faith can be realized without the bad that comes from religions of blind faith, of domination by religious leaders, and by misplaced zeal being directed by men for their own gain. We do not have to take the bad with the good.
I like the idea. But logistically implementing it gets troublesome. What you call "bad" I call a different kind of good. Not all angles run around wearing sheets with their buttocks hanging out. I claim, with humans, you can't have the good human without the bad human. I mean we could, but if ya wanna talk about how to get that done we probably wouldn't agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Boy, you have an axe to grind. I don't think a secular government has any business doing religious education. I am speaking of society, not government. We as a society can choose to change. It takes time, but we have clearly changed from the days when the KKK was an organization for god-fearing men and women, we have clearly changed from when we believed that even discussing contraception was immoral and illegal. Our attitudes have shifted, perhaps religious attitudes can as well.
yeah, yeah, I know, I have the axe, right back at ya. I have an axe with bull-sit ups really, so let's leave that lay. I turn the heat up to see where people are coming from. I am a jo like that sometimes. but it works.
LGBT and same-sex marriage are one of the last major civil rights issues that Christianity is trying to stop. Like the way they were opposed to rights for women and minorities.
Remember..everywhere Christianity flourishes, women are treated well. We aren't the ones that tell women that they have to wear hoods. And it was also Christians largely responsible for the end of slavery in this country.
Quote:
But there is a slow trend of these right becoming accepted within the churches. Eventually it will become a non-issue the way that black rights and women's rights are now.
It might even become associated with a sort of new "great awakening" in America.
My prediction is this: sometime in the future Christians will begin re-writing history again, and try to take credit for the LGBT rights movement.
Perhaps. I agree--there will always be some liberal Christians that will support causes such as that. We are also seeing those churches becoming irrelevant.
Quote:
The truth is, society has always been waiting for Christianity to catch up with it. This is an ongoing thing.
Why is that a bad thing that Christianity does not lead the culture to accept things that are clearly condemned in Scripture?
Remember..everywhere Christianity flourishes, women are treated well. We aren't the ones that tell women that they have to wear hoods. And it was also Christians largely responsible for the end of slavery in this country.
Perhaps. I agree--there will always be some liberal Christians that will support causes such as that. We are also seeing those churches becoming irrelevant.
Why is that a bad thing that Christianity does not lead the culture to accept things that are clearly condemned in Scripture?
Well, as typical. You are leading the charge by the church to be an anchor retarding the growth of morality. The reason women do better here than in many Muslim countries (Indonesia and Turkey are very notable exceptions), is that none of those nations have a solid, secular Constitution. Christianity over all has been that perpetual anchor.
And that's proof positive of how few real Christians there really are.
The "book" for the rest is more important than people.
Remember..everywhere Christianity flourishes, women are treated well.
I've met an awful lot of women who don't see Christianity treating them well. It is still a patriarchal system. Some churches do not allow women to have a voice in church affairs, for instance. Some discourage careers for women, and until fairly recently, as in, the last century or so, it was dogma that women should not even be educated -- nor should they vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And it was also Christians largely responsible for the end of slavery in this country.
In brief ... for the first 18 centuries of the church, slavery was a given and the church as a whole had no opinion for or against it. The abolition movement that emerged in the 18th century was hampered by the lack of a Biblical stand against slavery. Instead appeals were made to the "sprit of Christ" and textual argumentation. In the 18th and 19th centuries, though, Biblical texts were used by both anti- and pro-slavery Christians. Which of course points out that there were Christians on both sides of the issue.
Remember..everywhere Christianity flourishes, women are treated well. We aren't the ones that tell women that they have to wear hoods. And it was also Christians largely responsible for the end of slavery in this country.
Why is that a bad thing that Christianity does not lead the culture to accept things that are clearly condemned in Scripture?
In answer, Vizio . . . Bertrand Russell's criticism of organized churches is damning,
. . . You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward diminution of war, . . . every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.
In answer, Vizio . . . Bertrand Russell's criticism of organized churches is damning,
. . . You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward diminution of war, . . . every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.
Not only is this well said, research studies show that the most religious states (bible south) are the most politically conservative, they incarcerate their citizens at a higher rate and for a longer period of time, they execute them more frequently, they have the worst health care, the greatest income inequality---and the most gun violence. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Well, as typical. You are leading the charge by the church to be an anchor retarding the growth of morality. The reason women do better here than in many Muslim countries (Indonesia and Turkey are very notable exceptions), is that none of those nations have a solid, secular Constitution.
Precisely. A reasonable comparison to the natural consequence of what the previous poster advocates would be a Christian theocracy. Incidentally, the only one that my research raised is the Vatican, and women are indeed barred from leadership positions there.
And that's proof positive of how few real Christians there really are.
No True Christian would disagree with your views.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
