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.
Then true Christianity prefers liberty as Christ set people free and to take liberty away is a rejection of Christ Works ...... Where many in the world would like to take away liberty for their power control
First, there is a reason Jesus said his followers were no part of this world. Not in a literal sense but in the sense of avoiding the social and political divisions of the day. It's difficult to discuss the good news of the kingdom with others whether they are believers or non believers when you're actively engaging in issues which some find a threat to their pursuit of happiness.
Second, where church and state collude there is a danger for "believers" if they happen to belong to the church down the street instead of the favored church. Look what's happening in Russia where JWs are considered by the state to be the same threat as ISIS. To a lesser degree other faiths are also persecuted.
However, a secular government can also be a threat depending on what the intent is. The Soviet Union was officially atheist and caused misery for many particular those who were religiously inclined.
Theocratic governments can be brutal but so can atheist governments.
My personal belief is extremists, whether religious or non religious, pose the most danger.
I say it all the time. Anti-religious socialist are as dangerous as fascists' theist. They both claim "We are not [insert down play]" then proceed to be single focused on on their way of thinking and avoid any real challenges to their way of thinking. Unless of course we say things like "You are entitled to that type of thinking." without ever actually unpacking what they are saying.
When we decide to act against only one side (left or right) and accept the other because they are "getting us what we want", thats when the trouble starts.
Rational people can agree very quickly. They are both wrong. The best we can do is between the two. Here, at this site, belief in some thing more is clearly more reliable than anti-god (or just attacking god beliefs all day everyday) and deity.
The basic idea of overly religious group’s desire to seek control over the masses is not a political topic.
It’s a religious one, it stems beyond a man made construct like organized givemeent and deeper into a psychological aspect.
How do you not see that too?
We do see it. We just don't only focus on "them". We focus on all people. Including ourselves.
Over "religious". I say it like "Over bearing". weather anti-god or god doesn't matter.
List the traits of over bearing theist. Then apply those traits to an atheist and ask yourself "How would it sound?"
First, there is a reason Jesus said his followers were no part of this world. Not in a literal sense but in the sense of avoiding the social and political divisions of the day. It's difficult to discuss the good news of the kingdom with others whether they are believers or non believers when you're actively engaging in issues which some find a threat to their pursuit of happiness.
Second, where church and state collude there is a danger for "believers" if they happen to belong to the church down the street instead of the favored church. Look what's happening in Russia where JWs are considered by the state to be the same threat as ISIS. To a lesser degree other faiths are also persecuted.
However, a secular government can also be a threat depending on what the intent is. The Soviet Union was officially atheist and caused misery for many particular those who were religiously inclined.
Theocratic governments can be brutal but so can atheist governments.
My personal belief is extremists, whether religious or non religious, pose the most danger.
The difference to me is that there has been violence committed directly in the name of religion (people being hung for blasphemy for example). While that has rarely happened directly in the name of atheism.
Separately, both theists and atheists can commit crimes and atrocities that are not in the name of religion or atheism I agree.
Yes it does worry me the most especially since I live in an area where sexism is very high and so is the amount of religious people. I fear for my safety in an area where I am not respected or protected in any way.
One time I was out shopping and an acquaintance from work was in the area and asked if we could meet up, I said sure but that I was running errands and wouldn't be out too too long. He tagged along while I shopped, I paid for my own stuff, grabbed a bite to eat in which I paid for my own food and then when I was done with my errands, said my good byes and said I had to run. He later messaged me blaming me for "leading him on". Lol like what bruh are you joking? Like I never expressed any interest and even made art clear I was just out running errands and had to get home shortly after, like in no way did I give him any idea I was interested.
I've had lewd comments made at me during the summer when its hot as balls and I'm just trying to not suffer in the humidity, over outfits that were just fine.
I feel like as a woman I am seen by religious people a certain way and my gender will determine how much respect and freedom I will have in their eyes and that scares the shizz outta me.
I think that these religious people work their ways into positions of influence and they use misinformation and scare tactics to get people to agree with them. Like telling people masturbation will make you go blind or grow hair on your palms.
This dynamic you describe, between men and women, has always fascinated me. In how many ways are men lead to believe that women may be interested in them and not show it? Or that only by "pursuing" a seemingly uninterested woman might the possibility of romance eventually result? That said, I think men should know how to navigate those waters without over-stepping their boundaries. If a woman seemed to be leading a man on but turned out was not, small is the man that would complain about it. Problem is, some men just don't know how to navigate those waters too well.
I'm not sure how all that translates to the bigger picture of politics, or relates to the topic of this thread, because I'm not sure religion is the defining factor here either. One woman's/man's appropriate dress is another woman's/man's sexual invite. No doubt this is another dynamic we're all forced to deal with one way or another. Too bad for those in areas where these sorts of problems are more prevalent than in other areas, but there's no place where these kinds of problems don't exist. Again up to us to deal with them as best we can...
What I have noticed is that a lot of the "war on atheism" (or indeed "war on religion") is politically motivated. Much of it is people starting with their politics, then using religion as a vessel to help them further their politics.
Some might argue that religion IS politics...
Among the countless historical events that suggest the same thing, take Pope Alexander VI for example.
On June 7, 1494, Pope Alexander VI divided the world in half, bestowing the western portion on Spain, and the eastern on Portugal.
I'm trying to explain to you why this may get shut down. You broke one strict rule -- you brought abortion into the discussion. You did that. You also brought politics into the discussion. Either one of those, and particularly both of those, gets most threads shut down quickly. That would be too bad, because your intended topic is a good one. And one further comment about this before getting down to the intended topic at hand: when you start a thread, you have no control over how people are going to discuss it; the discussion takes on a life of its own.
As to why 'they' want everyone to "everyone to abide by their religion", I don't see that as very complicated. They think they are special. They think that they have been chosen by god to spread the word. Some more avidly than others. But that's a pretty powerful motivation. Let me give you an example. Back when I was a vice-principal, we had a teacher who was VERY religious. VERY. And he kept telling girls that their short shorts and somewhat lowcut blouses were going to lead to them to being sent to hell. He had similar comments about a variety of other "sins" (as he saw them) for both boys and girls. The principal warned him verbally more than once. Warned him in writing more than once, including in the final warning, "If you do this again...you will be recommended for dismissal" (or wording to that affect). Of course, he did it again, and he got canned, and although I don't know this for sure (because it was a state matter), he may have lost his teaching license. And he said that his dismissal was alright because it was his mission in life. I don't know how you "cure" people of having a mission in life. Now, set up that 'mission in life' in comparison to you want to buy booze on Sundays, even though you could buy it 6 out of 7 days in the week. That's convenience versus a mission in life. That's the psychological divide. It's like the Grand Canyon as compared to Mud Creek in my home town. And it isn't just in religious matters. Think how people with other missions in life operate as compared to those of us who just believe something to be right or wrong.
Always seems to me the more people comment about how a thread might get shut down, the more likely it will get shut down! Why do so unless you want the thread shut down?!?
Yes but it matters in what capacity they were referenced in, at least to me it does.
I read my first post, lol, I wrote it.
But like I said society and even myself previously saw this issue as a "political divide" but that's not actually the case and in reality religion honestly has very little to do with politics. They can use whatever means necessary to promote their agenda and beliefs to be honest, it all goes back to why they want to and why they try to hard to want to control the lives and choices of other people.
It's truly an interesting topic if we could get away from arguing about my OP.
"hey guys I have an interesting topic that I think people think is a political issue but actually really isn't and goes much deeper into psychology than we previously thought and want to delve deeper into my ideas"
"yOu cAnT tAlK aBoUt PoLitiCs"
"okayyyyyy I didn't want to??"
Lol (fake laugh) anyways....
What drives people to be so passionate about controlling the lives of others with the various means they have today to do so?
Just to be sure, is the reason people want to influence other people the topic you want to discuss?
Always seems to me the more people comment about how a thread might get shut down, the more likely it will get shut down! Why do so unless you want the thread shut down?!?
In this case, the reverse. I think the overall topic is fascinating and wish to see it continue. But if the pattern of the OP continues in the follow-ups, I think it will be a short-lived thread. What's needed is a little self-restraint.
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.
