Religion Is Not Always Good

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:10 pm

Jester:-6

You simply keep digging the hole deeper. Your words, and notice I say words, simply besmirch the Christianity you proclaim as love and following in the steps of our Lord.

Yes, good night. Sleep tight.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:14 pm

Jester;1030250 wrote: Have you been taking stupid pills? Before I left I dont recall you being so way out, but now everything Ive seen you post is trying to be so above yourself its just nuts

Can you go find the KSnyder we used to chat with and bring him back? Please?

Well this is where we begin to not understand each other because I don't know what the hell it is you're talking about...

I'd told you that I hadn't seen Ted post anything that made me feel he were trying to brainwash anyone.

What's not to understand about that?...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:15 pm

JAB;1030255 wrote: I'm wrong but entitled to my opinion?

He's telling you you were wrong based upon a fact that he's defending not an opinion that your beliefs are wrong...

I'm not trying to take sides here but let's get the facts straight here people.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:17 pm

Jester;1030250 wrote: ...but now everything Ive seen you post is trying to be so above yourself its just nuts

What is above myself by the way?...

I know not but my conviction

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:21 pm

Just a general statement. The previous discussion clearly demonstrates the op. In my view and the view of many Christians the op is right on. Religion can be a force for something less than good, call it what you like.

Calling names and the travesties that have gone on in the name of religion in no way reflect the "Great Commandment" to love and show that love.

I wish no one ill will only that all seek and get the best out of life and ultimately enter into that ultimate union with the divine. I care not what faith or lack thereof. My role is not to judge but to be a servant, a vocation to which I feel I've been called. The parable of the Good Samaritan clearly demonstrates the way we are to go. The hated and despised saved the life of the Jew who hated him. That is a powerful message lost in ridiculous doctrine and dogma.

"Whatsoever you did to the least of these my brothers you did to me." Whatsoever you did not do to the least of these you did not do to me."

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:23 pm

KS:-6:-6

Now that is a good question. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:24 pm

KS:-6

I don't know about you but the ceiling is above me and so are the clouds most of the time. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:48 pm

I despise the role that religion is playing in the current election. It's not always apparent and is couched as something else. Sort of like, no one really makes racist remarks publicly these days, but manage to couch their racisim in another fashion that's more acceptable.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:54 pm

JAB;1030278 wrote: No, Ted's not defending a fact. He's defending his own opinion.

:wah:...

Defending his own opinion is a fact...

Unless of course he has an opinion that he doesn't know about...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:03 pm

JAB;1030277 wrote: Then why didn't you say this in the first place? Trust me, that's not what you said in the quote Jester referenced.

Sure it is...

I said this...

K.Snyder;1030241 wrote: I was responding to your response towards Ted stating that he agreed with wildhorses. Ted hadn't, during that statement, tried to have others conform to his ideology. In fact I haven't read any of Teds posts that illustrated ones need to conform to his ideology...

The rest I'll leave to you both...

Which referenced this post...

Ted;1030143 wrote: I do think wild is correct in the comment re insecurity. It seems to me that what many folks really need to boost their confidence is for others to agree with them. So much for faith.

Shalom

Ted:-6

"I do think wild is correct" -- "wild" being wildhorses...

"It seems to me that what many folks really need to boost their confidence is for others to agree with them." was Ted illustrating an observation not anything that "Ted hadn't, during that statement, tried to have others conform to his ideology." From which led to...

Jester;1030186 wrote: You need to look in the mirror bud, and then remember what you look like when you walk away!...which blatantly states Jester felt Ted "really need to boost their confidence is for others to agree with them." from which I'd said...K.Snyder;1030241 wrote: I was responding to your response towards Ted stating that he agreed with wildhorses. Ted hadn't, during that statement, tried to have others conform to his ideology. In fact I haven't read any of Teds posts that illustrated ones need to conform to his ideology...

The rest I'll leave to you both...

Those are facts...

And what I'd initially said is the exact same thing I said in...K.Snyder;1030256 wrote: [...]I'd told you that I hadn't seen Ted post anything that made me feel he were trying to brainwash anyone.[...]

...

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:08 pm

I have to say that I have always found the mentality of deep religiosity and piety somewhat frightening, in that I tend to feel my relationship with God or the divine, or the spiritual aspect of the world (call it whatever you like) is a deeply personal one, its not really for public displays of piety. Its certainly not a stick to beat others over the head with. Also, my mindset is also just not a particularly religious one, though I am not an atheist. I am a Catholic and although I would hardly call myself a very good one, its the religion I am comfortable as its the one that I was raised in on a cultural level.

I am also a scientist and therefore I tend to see religion as a metaphor for the need in human beings to have a connection with the sacred, the divine aspects of existence, but I certainly don't take things literally like a man making a big boat full of animals, adam and eve, Mohammed's night journey to Jerusalem, or Ganesh and his problems. Unfortunately that form of religion seems to be on the rise as human beings search for meaning in a fast changing world.

Whether we like it or not, religion seems to play an enormous role in human identity and just like nationalism, ethnicity or race that can be a positive force driving people to national achievement, or a very destructive force leading to war, murder and hatred. I would say that of them all; religion is absolutely one of the most powerful ones (perhaps second only after race/ethnicity), and in that respect is quite a dangerous thing to let off the hook, which is why for many years there has been a concensus in the west that religion and state should be seperate.

Unfortunately that is being reversed in some countries; of course the rise in ultra-conservative Islam in the middle east over the past 25 years is remarkable and alarming. While in the West we seems to be in a fairly confused state about our religious belief systems. In the States, religion has become political with right-wing conservatives trying to stamp out arguments using religious authority and where public piety and private licentiousness seems to be the fashion. The opposite trend is in evidence in Europe where cultural cringing and relativism have been brought to a ridiculous level and where politicians are afraid to discuss religion (particularly the encroach of alien Islam) and we seem intent on completely ditching the underlying christianity of our civilization to fulfill some current fad for "cultural and ethical relativism" (which in my mind is sure to ultimately bring back the wars of religion in Europe in the end, as competing religions vie for the vacuum of belief).

What I would like to see (at least in the West) is a general return to the values of the enlightenment, the values that produced free, open, technically advanced, socially tolerant Christian societies in the first place; not a retreat into some imagined religously inspired utopia that doesn't exist based on intolerant dogma whether fundamentalist christianity or a newly-imported (via very, very unwise mass immigration policies) expansionist Islam (which is inherently anti-western whatever people might like to think). Perhaps given human nature and the long tide of history that its inevitable we are slipping into that direction, but for one raised in the scientific tradition of free enquiry, the prospect saddens me.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:09 pm

JAB;1030288 wrote: So everyone's opinion is a fact?

Okay...:rolleyes:

No.

His telling you he knows his intentions behind his own opinion is fact. Which is what he was doing, and not telling you your opinion was wrong. He was defending the fact that your accusations toward were wrong which is a fact. Not an opinion.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:25 pm

It is also interesting, is it not, that by far the most heated debates usually are to be found in the religious discussions part of FG. So much for peace and love.

What that says to me, is that people invest an awful lot of their own identity and their ego in their religious belief system, (which of course involves an awful lot of absolutist positions) so when it gets challenged they tend to react negatively, or even aggressively.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:27 pm

JAB;1030300 wrote: If my accusations are my opinion then they can't be wrong, then can they?

:-5

I'm with Flopstock and Jester. I can't even follow you anymore either.

It's easy...

Your opinion is a fact to "you" and only "you"...

Otherwise you get..."Unless of course he has an opinion that he doesn't know about"...

"Your" own opinion is a fact to "you"-- What you did was made an observation that was wrong in his eyes and being that he knows his own opinion renders his "Defending his opinion" a fact...

You implied your opinion was a fact by questioning his reasoning...

"If my accusations are my opinion then they can't be wrong, then can they?" -- Of course they're not wrong to you...Why else would you say them?...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:29 pm

Galbally;1030306 wrote: It is also interesting, is it not, that by far the most heated debates usually are to be found in the religious discussions part of FG. So much for peace and love.

What that says to me, is that people invest an awful lot of their own identity and their ego in their religious belief system, (which of course involves an awful lot of absolutist positions) so when it gets challenged they tend to react negatively, or even aggressively.

I call it determination!!!!!!!...

:wah:...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:36 pm

Galbally;1030296 wrote: I have to say that I have always found the mentality of deep religiosity and piety somewhat frightening, in that I tend to feel my relationship with God or the divine, or the spiritual aspect of the world (call it whatever you like) is a deeply personal one, its not really for public displays of piety. Its certainly not a stick to beat others over the head with. Also, my mindset is also just not a particularly religious one, though I am not an atheist. I am a Catholic and although I would hardly call myself a very good one, its the religion I am comfortable as its the one that I was raised in on a cultural level.

I am also a scientist and therefore I tend to see religion as a metaphor for the need in human beings to have a connection with the sacred, the divine aspects of existence, but I certainly don't take things literally like a man making a big boat full of animals, adam and eve, Mohammed's night journey to Jerusalem, or Ganesh and his problems. Unfortunately that form of religion seems to be on the rise as human beings search for meaning in a fast changing world.

Whether we like it or not, religion seems to play an enormous role in human identity and just like nationalism, ethnicity or race that can be a positive force driving people to national achievement, or a very destructive force leading to war, murder and hatred. I would say that of them all; religion is absolutely one of the most powerful ones (perhaps second only after race/ethnicity), and in that respect is quite a dangerous thing to let off the hook, which is why for many years there has been a concensus in the west that religion and state should be seperate.

Unfortunately that is being reversed in some countries; of course the rise in ultra-conservative Islam in the middle east over the past 25 years is remarkable and alarming. While in the West we seems to be in a fairly confused state about our religious belief systems. In the States, religion has become political with right-wing conservatives trying to stamp out arguments using religious authority and where public piety and private licentiousness seems to be the fashion. The opposite trend is in evidence in Europe where cultural cringing and relativism have been brought to a ridiculous level and where politicians are afraid to discuss religion (particularly the encroach of alien Islam) and we seem intent on completely ditching the underlying christianity of our civilization to fulfill some current fad for "cultural and ethical relativism" (which in my mind is sure to ultimately bring back the wars of religion in Europe in the end, as competing religions vie for the vacuum of belief).

What I would like to see (at least in the West) is a general return to the values of the enlightenment, the values that produced free, open, technically advanced, socially tolerant Christian societies in the first place; not a retreat into some imagined religously inspired utopia that doesn't exist based on intolerant dogma whether fundamentalist christianity or a newly-imported (via very, very unwise mass immigration policies) expansionist Islam (which is inherently anti-western whatever people might like to think). Perhaps given human nature and the long tide of history that its inevitable we are slipping into that direction, but for one raised in the scientific tradition of free enquiry, the prospect saddens me.

Well in America I wouldn't necessarily say that politics and religion is emphasized openly but I would agree that religion plays a subliminal role in American policies...Sadly it's enough to hint in the general direction of insulting ones religious ideology in America to get them utterly pissed off...

To me, the true religion is a religion that need not speak of itself rather lead by example therefore anyone that says the word "religion" in my presence in an attempt to convince me of anything as opposed to enlightening conversations by virtue of concepts gains no attention from me.

It's simple. Live and let live.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:11 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1029950 wrote: Recently, the legislature in Iran voted a law making apostasy subject to the death penalty. In Afghanistan proselytizing is illegal and this week a 34 year old female aid worker was gunned down by the Taliban who said she was spreading her religion. In India, Hindus are telling Christians to leave their villages or their homes will be burned and they will be killed, Muslims in the Saudi Arabia teach hatred of Jews in school books, so much for the farce of being tolerant..

All this got me to thinking; does religion do more harm than good? Certainly many people find comfort and peace in their religious beliefs, and many good things come from religion, but on the other hand religion can be traced as the root cause for many wars, torture, intolerance and any number of things that one would associate with being counter to goodness, peace and love.

Religion started with the quest to deal with the unknown, like death, the weather, hardships, etc. it then developed into hundreds, if not thousands of variations each believing their view to be the correct one for all mankind. How is that possible?

How can religion be both good and evil? I submit it is the involvement of human beings that distort and pervert any religion and that the unfortunate truth is that organized religion is a tool in the hands of man, sometimes very beneficial but often just the opposite when it suites those in power. If that is true, then whatever religion one embraces is irrelevant as long as it does not seek dominance over other beliefs.

Over the history of man has religion done more harm than good? How is it possible for their to be one “right religion when there are so many religions and our personal religion is more often than not, a happenstance of our birth?

No religion is not always good. At it's worst it causes conflict where none would exist and atrocity carried out in the name of god is still atrocity, even if all it does is send the unbeliever to hell.

posted by galbally

What I would like to see (at least in the West) is a general return to the values of the enlightenment, the values that produced free, open, technically advanced, socially tolerant Christian societies in the first place; not a retreat into some imagined religously inspired utopia that doesn't exist based on intolerant dogma whether fundamentalist christianity or a newly-imported (via very, very unwise mass immigration policies) expansionist Islam (which is inherently anti-western whatever people might like to think). Perhaps given human nature and the long tide of history that its inevitable we are slipping into that direction, but for one raised in the scientific tradition of free enquiry, the prospect saddens me.

The problem with that statement is that the enlightenment challenged the authority of religion. You cannot have freedom and democracy in a society ruled by religion. It's no accident that countries where those values came to the fore were pluralist in nature. We may have socially tolerant religious societies but that is because no one sect had control. The bloodshed and religious conflict to get to that point srill scars both your country and mine to this day. Religious bigotry is learned at your mammy's knee and to stand up to the social pressure to conform often means turning your back on family. Easy in a big mixed up city (race and religion wise ). It's no coincidence that fundamentalism is strongest in backward rural communities and poorly industrialised countries.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:44 am

gmc;1030374 wrote: No religion is not always good. At it's worst it causes conflict where none would exist and atrocity carried out in the name of god is still atrocity, even if all it does is send the unbeliever to hell.

Yes but religion's origination had to have been politically motivated...I don't see how it couldn't have been...

Perhaps just a mutation of inevitable human intolerance...

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:14 am

Lon;1030122 wrote: Religion seems to imbue some with guilt that should feel no guilt and others with fear that should not be fearful. I understand the roots of Self Flagellation, Christians & Muslims, good night!!! I have met so many mentally disturbed people, where their mental state has been brought on by religion. I am one that has less than positive opinions about the whole religious experience. The past three days of visiting my new great grand daughter and family, some 30 people (all Evangelicals) who pray for this poor heathen of a great grand dad on a regular basis. I appreciate that, but really not necessary. Boy---------am I the outsider.

The fundamental problem with any organized religion is that it is organized and run by human beings with all their failings and ability to distort and manipulate for their self interest...no exceptions.

Many, perhaps most, traditions in religion are man made whether it be going to Mecca, revering certain livestock, burning incense or some physical gesture. The simple fact that there are thousands of so-called religions should tell us something about the nature of organized religion...which of course is very different from a personal relationship with a God which on the personal level is essential in my view.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:17 am

This may not go down well with some people, but I see an overzealous relationship with a religion (overly religious people, fanatics, etc.) as an indication of a weak personality unable to cope fully with the realities of life and thus looking for an escape that in many ways provides an excuse for their failings and a crutch that relieves them of responsibility.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:53 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1030714 wrote: This may not go down well with some people, but I see an overzealous relationship with a religion (overly religious people, fanatics, etc.) as an indication of a weak personality unable to cope fully with the realities of life and thus looking for an escape that in many ways provides an excuse for their failings and a crutch that relieves them of responsibility.

That makes sense.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:59 am

JAB;1030752 wrote: At the risk of arguing semantics, I guess that all depends on what you consider "overzealous".

Is it the activities of Westboro Baptist? Or the Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door? Or a poster on a forum with a strong view?

How about Christians that have no compunction about killing doctors that do abortions, or the Muslim that decapitates the infidel?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:29 am

JAB;1030863 wrote: I would agree with you as I would think most would. My examples are less 'overzealous' - hence my point.

JAB, there is no doubt in my mind that there are Christian elements today that if they represented the majority in a given social or political environment

would have those of us non believers discriminated against big time, and try to cram their belief system down our throats by force or legislation, some would no doubt even sanction burning at the stake if they could get away with it.

I lived in the deep south pre civil rights and witnessed acts of the worst violence you can imagine perpetrated by self proclaimed Christians of one kind or another who co-incidentally also belonged to the KKK and tried to use the bible to fortify their actions. I can't think of any organizations of Free Thinkers that would sanction violence in any form against those that do not believe the same.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:13 am

JAB;1030752 wrote: At the risk of arguing semantics, I guess that all depends on what you consider "overzealous".

Is it the activities of Westboro Baptist? Or the Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door? Or a poster on a forum with a strong view?

To some extent I would include that activity, as I would trying to change the teaching in schools or especially what you see on a TV evangelists show.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:26 am

I never liked the Pledge of Allegiance change in 1954 that was lobbied by the Knights of Columbus. One Nation under God Vs. One Nation Indivisible? Somehow, given the present flux in the U.S., One Nation Indivisible seems more appropriate. We don't seemed to have done real well under God.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:45 am

QUINN:-6

Re your comment about "overzealous relationship" I can agree along with Lon.

Shalom

Ted:-6

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:40 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1030714 wrote: This may not go down well with some people, but I see an overzealous relationship with a religion (overly religious people, fanatics, etc.) as an indication of a weak personality unable to cope fully with the realities of life and thus looking for an escape that in many ways provides an excuse for their failings and a crutch that relieves them of responsibility.

Quinn, thanks for saving me the bother of posting that.....!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:09 pm

JAB;1031213 wrote: I would qualify that with not just 'Christian elements' but other religious groups as well.

Agreed.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:24 pm

JAB:-6

I can agree with that as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:32 pm

Thinking about the op one can see the dangers of fanatical religious beliefs.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:35 pm

JAB;1030528 wrote: How so?

The way I see it is that religion was formed out of the direct result of the particular society's in question's inability to sustain equilibrium through their social systems thus the poor needing a way to keep the wealthy, or more relevant in relation to time period, the size of people from bullying the poor or weak from gaining power...

It's no coincidence to me that religion becomes much more popular in times of hardships...And hardships in my own mind is defined by ones wealth and physical power in shielding the poor and weak from taking pennies from the rich's millions...

Quite simply some people are just greedy beyond limit.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:45 pm

KS:-6

Some good points. Today the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It was the same at the time of Jesus and that is what he was protesting against. Here we can look at Philo's definition of justice which calls for a more equitable distribution of the world's resources. It would seem that we have learned nothing in 2000 years. We seem to be doomed to making the same mistakes over and over and over etc.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:58 pm

My definition of wealth is having seen others being equally wealthy.

Don't know how there can be any other ideology.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:46 pm

Jester:-6

You wish.

Of course Philo is not in the Bible but here again that does not change the meanings used in the days of Jesus or is this another contradiction.?

Jesus was a nonviolent resister against the Roman Empire. He was concerned about the poor and the down trodden. Perhaps you should re-read the parables. Who were invited into the wedding feast when the ritzies wouldn't come. Who helped the Jew when he fell among thieves, whom did Jesus sit at table with?

Perhaps a few lessons on the ancient Roman Empire would help.

Shalom

Ted