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 dont waste yourvtime
I know politics, I am quite active in my community, i know the issues, i know how to canvass my reps. to get bills passed. And i watch PBS!! How can I not know politics!!
It is a mistake to think that disagreement is out of ignorance. That kind of thinking only makes oneself ignorant, not just arrogant.
Since this thread is very specifically about religion, a question for practitioners, What do you think Religion is?
Well we are both PBS fans. That's good, but no amount of community work or watching PBS can explain how you don't seem to see the interwoven relationship between religion and politics and/or vice versa. Obvious to me as I follow the news and most certainly as I read the history of both. This is really the issue I was focused upon and I'm still reluctant to even bother explaining further, because that history and those connections are too obvious.
That you focus on this about ignorance tends to push the discussion back into the realm of personal nonsense, so that now I guess I'm supposed to defend myself for thinking what I do or for what you view as arrogant. I'm really not sure how to address a ridiculous argument without expressing some level of disbelief. Though I can't know the source of thinking what you do. Just seems to indicate a lack of knowledge about both religion and politics, at least in terms of how they most certainly do inter-relate.
As for the question "for practitioners," why the question I wonder. If not for the same reason I pointed out before. The need to agree on what religion is if any intelligent discussion about what religion is or is not can be had. In a different thread/discussion about this, you seemed to have your very own definition for example that proved to be an obvious source of disconnect that made the discussion next to impossible.
Religion would be man's best attempt to define the divine. But that largely can't be defined by words, so is rather futile in practice, as we see around us. It's also too infected by human weaknesses and errors - especially when corporate in thought (reflecting mass-thought) - moving us farther from clarifying the divine.
Only spirituality has a chance of collecting and sensing what is out there. But even that can only be conveyed and understood internally and individually. Thankfully it doesn't seek or need any group approval or agreement, so remains pure.
I understand religion mostly clearly from seeing it from the outside, though I once was duped into its inner circle.
Speaking of PBS, I just finished watching an amazing NOVA program about how scientists are finding the use of psychedelic drugs to be very helpful for patients suffering from PTSD, depression and alcoholism among other mental issues. The stories told by patients who were administered these drugs to treat their problems was absolutely amazing, and how these drugs affect the "circuitry" of the brain also fascinating. Very typical among these people was an experience or "trip" that exposed them to realizations and awareness that profoundly affected their lives, for the better. These drugs apparently helping to unblock pathways to what anyone might easily call spirituality. As indigenous people would use these kinds of drugs, like peyote, to get in touch with the spirit world.
What to make of all that, I leave to you and anyone else who is interested in what goes on between the ears, or can go on between the ears if allowed.
Well we are both PBS fans. That's good, but no amount of community work or watching PBS can explain how you don't seem to see the interwoven relationship between religion and politics and/or vice versa. Obvious to me as I follow the news and most certainly as I read the history of both. This is really the issue I was focused upon and I'm still reluctant to even bother explaining further, because that history and those connections are too obvious.
That you focus on this about ignorance tends to push the discussion back into the realm of personal nonsense, so that now I guess I'm supposed to defend myself for thinking what I do or for what you view as arrogant. I'm really not sure how to address a ridiculous argument without expressing some level of disbelief. Though I can't know the source of thinking what you do. Just seems to indicate a lack of knowledge about both religion and politics, at least in terms of how they most certainly do inter-relate.
As for the question "for practitioners," why the question I wonder. If not for the same reason I pointed out before. The need to agree on what religion is if any intelligent discussion about what religion is or is not can be had. In a different thread/discussion about this, you seemed to have your very own definition for example that proved to be an obvious source of disconnect that made the discussion next to impossible.
We cannot continue this discussion for 2 reasons.
You insist on taking this into politics which is not relevant to the topic and violates forum rules.
The arrogance and ignorance you display about what you know - very limited and narrow minded about all subjects of any interest - is too ugly to contend with.
Religion would be man's best attempt to define the divine. But that largely can't be defined by words, so is rather futile in practice, as we see around us. It's also too infected by human weaknesses and errors - especially when corporate in thought (reflecting mass-thought) - moving us farther from clarifying the divine.
Only spirituality has a chance of collecting and sensing what is out there. But even that can only be conveyed and understood internally and individually. Thankfully it doesn't seek or need any group approval or agreement, so remains pure.
I understand religion mostly clearly from seeing it from the outside, though I once was duped into its inner circle.
That is a great definition of Religion. I take it as an essential quality that would define Religion - define Divinity.
We cannot continue this discussion for 2 reasons.
You insist on taking this into politics which is not relevant to the topic and violates forum rules.
The arrogance and ignorance you display about what you know - very limited and narrow minded about all subjects of any interest - is too ugly to contend with.
Cute, and why am I not surprised? What in the name of have mercy is so ugly about pointing out the relationship between religion and politics and/or vice versa?
I'd agree this is yet another discussion between us, common with you and others as well, that is impossible to continue in any reasonable adult manner. Down the sensitive defensive toilet bowl we go yet again. That you always want to be forum sheriff is amusing as well. Always out of your depth either way. All the best to you wherever you can better continue a discussion like an adult.
Cute, and why am I not surprised? What in the name of have mercy is so ugly about pointing out the relationship between religion and politics and/or vice versa?
I'd agree this is yet another discussion between us, common with you and others as well, that is impossible to continue in any reasonable adult manner. Down the sensitive defensive toilet bowl we go yet again. That you always want to be forum sheriff is amusing as well. Always out of your depth either way. All the best to you wherever you can better continue a discussion like an adult.
If a person is incapable of discussing religion without dragging politics into the conversation, then they are not discussing religion.
So in response to the question posed in bold above, the answer is (a) it derails the conversation, (b) it is off topic, (c) the terms of service on this forum ask us not to do that, and (d) it is not a discussion of religion.
If a person is incapable of discussing religion without dragging politics into the conversation, then they are not discussing religion.
So in response to the question posed in bold above, the answer is (a) it derails the conversation, (b) it is off topic, (c) the terms of service on this forum ask us not to do that, and (d) it is not a discussion of religion.
Yay! Welcome back Tzaph! The forum is back in form with some intelligent dialogue.
In some ways the First amendment by its very nature does make religion and state tangle. But that does not mean religion and politics do not exist in their own realms.
Religion is an internal matter that is relevant in the private sphere.
There are very valid reasons why politics is not discussed in this "Religion and Spirituality" section of the forum.
My observation is that those who are unable to discuss religion without dragging politics into the conversation, tend to miss the point of how religion functions in an individual's life. That is, if they can't disentangle politics from religion in their thinking, then they aren't seeing how religion stands on its own, utterly apart from politics or current events.
There are very valid reasons why politics is not discussed in this "Religion and Spirituality" section of the forum.
My observation is that those who are unable to discuss religion without dragging politics into the conversation, tend to miss the point of how religion functions in an individual's life. That is, if they can't disentangle politics from religion in their thinking, then they aren't seeing how religion stands on its own, utterly apart from politics or current events.
Accurate observation.
I like Thoreau424k’s definition of Religion as attempt to define the Divinity. Attempt is the key word as we lack the vocabulary to define what is undefinable, but is only understood. It is a private, inner experience, that is inaccessible to others. Therefore there is only one Truth, that which is within.
Politics is entirely outside of us. It is about laws. US Laws control behavior, not belief. Laws can force behavioral change, but not belief.
There are very valid reasons why politics is not discussed in this "Religion and Spirituality" section of the forum.
My observation is that those who are unable to discuss religion without dragging politics into the conversation, tend to miss the point of how religion functions in an individual's life. That is, if they can't disentangle politics from religion in their thinking, then they aren't seeing how religion stands on its own, utterly apart from politics or current events.
For the love of you both have GOT to be kidding!
I can easily discuss religion in any number of different contexts, including politics or excluding politics. To the question of "what is religion," I am sure that even you two can understand there is well more than one answer that may or may not include the political aspects. Perhaps both of you are not able to understand this or able to accept the relationship, and I certainly don't need to belabor the point. Most certainly not with either of you if it continues to get you both in all kinds of a twist, but really?
I think both of you need to expand your mental band widths more than just a bit and chill. No need to view everything about religion and politics as some sort of assault. It's just a discussion that may or may not suit your fancies. That's all.
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.
