Religion Is Not Always Good

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:41 pm

Jester;1031583 wrote: It takes a while for your logic to settle out of the hypathetical is all Snyder, we could get to the jest of your points faster if there was less hypethitical nonsense and ya just stated what you did above. Was that so difficult?

Actually yes, yes it is difficult because what I've said initially not only tells you my logic but explains it. It jumps to step 2 so in actuality understanding the logic alongside the hypothetical saves time.

If I would have said I'm for abortion you would have asked "why" -

Then we would have had to circumnavigate through about 4-5 steps.

But the hypothetical came in to the equation because you specifically asked...Jester;1031486 wrote:

Can you come up with one ligitimate reason for doing that?

...from which I gave you my idea of justifying abortion.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:42 pm

Jester:-6

So war crimes is ok. The murder (execution) of innocent folks is OK. You, it would seem condone such actions. Don't lecture me about murder. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:44 pm

JAB;1031589 wrote: You know Ted, this is beneath you. You seem to find humor in the oddest things. I too have gently hinted on more then one occasion for K to temper his penchant for posting as if he's got an open thesaurus next to him. Others have made the same observation. That he continues to post in that fashion is entirely his option. But it kind of reminds me of the saying, if ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then baffle them with bull****'

Well that's a bit insulting.

Only it's simple all you have to do is read it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:46 pm

KS:-6

Actually I'm used to the insults. The fundamentalists seem to do it well. Somehow it has become part of their religion. Perhaps the reformation . . .?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:48 pm

Jester:-6

I wouldn't complain formally at all. I choose to have the posts remain. They speak more about the poster than the one to whom they are directed.

I will leave others to be the judge. The use of personal attacks is simply pathetic.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:55 pm

Just finished watching a doco on line about "Intelligent Design" (formerly Creationism) vs. Darwinism. It dealt with discrimination of certain professors on the uni level. Nothing new, but interesting none the less.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:57 pm

Jester:-6

Now you are presenting nonsense.

I do have great respect for you and the problems of war.

However torture has been agreed upon as a war crime. The Canadian sent to Syria was innocent yet he was tortured.

The folks in Guantanamo Bay were not threatening any one. Torture is a crime and those who authorize it should be brought to justice. Many are now being released uncharged after years in that American hell hole.

When America and Canada ignore the third world conditions withing their own borders they are committing injustice.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:59 pm

JAB;1031615 wrote: Trust me I've tried.....several times in fact.

Which post and I'll clarify for you?...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:00 pm

JAB:-6

Immaterial. The fundamentalists have learned the art of insulting but not all that well. It has become part of their religion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:06 pm

Jester;1031618 wrote: That is interesting How did they define 'intelligent Design', are they usign a non religious context for it?

Intelligent Design is a ploy by Creationist's to circumvent the ban on religious teaching of creation in the public schools and to attempt to introduce it in science classes at the university level.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:07 pm

Lon:-6

I concur.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:23 pm

Jester:-6

First of all I admire you for your service for your country. No sympathy here except that one should have to do it.

As to your question I have answered it. But I will do so again.

The morality involved in abortion is not cut and dried. It is not black and white. The morality is relative to the situation. Some children at 10 and 11 could conceive a child. If that pregnancy were to continue to full term it could endanger critically the life of the 10 or 11 year old child. It would be a sin to let that situation arise. It would be in the best interests of everyone to terminate that pregnancy the same as it would be in the best interests of every one to terminate a pregnancy of a mother who has 3 other children to look after and whose pregnancy stands a good chance of costing the mother her life.

I agree we should find ways to prevent this from happening but unfortunately none has been devised and is not likely to in the foreseeable future. Would you allow that 10 or 11 year old to suffer and stand a great chance of dying in great pain?

The problem is people want everything cut and dried, black or white that way they can avoid thinking. The law says therefore this is what I do. Sometimes the law is wrong and something the law is an ass. The only absolute in the cosmos is the divine. There are no other absolutes. However, black and white is very convenient for those too lazy to think or who live in uncalled for fear of some god that appears to be more like an ancient Greek monster such as the Minotaur. This is not the God we see manifest in Jesus of Nazareth.

There are no easy answers.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:25 pm

Jester:-6

Is it right to trade the life of a child for the life of the guilty. Is the 10 or 11 year old the guilty or is she simply the one caught in the middle. Would you allow that pregnant child to suffer because of the crime of another?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:28 pm

Jester:-6

Creationism has no place in a science class at any level. It could be taught in a religion class if anyone was interested.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:29 pm

JAB:-6

Go for it but be prepared to back it up with some solid academic evidence.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:31 pm

In my opinion abortion (depending on the circumstances) is no more murder than mercy killing or euthanasia. Of course some will disagree. If I were capable and qualified and it was legal, I could do either and sleep well at night.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Jester;1031641 wrote: Thats what I was wondering, at the higschool level I dont think creationism (callign it anything they want) should be taught at all, but at the university level I dont see why it isnt an elective course or a module in a course thats willing to discuss it scientifically.

Intelligent design can't be discussed scientifically because it has no scientific basis in fact, unlike Darwinism.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:53 pm

Jester:-6

I do not believe for one moment that the Divine intended that we murder people innocent or guilty. Jesus himself in Matt. altered that law "But I say unto you . . ."

BTW it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It is purely a matter of justice, compassion and common sense. Over the past few years some two hundred folks on death row in the US were ultimately exonerated but not because the government went after that exoneration but because those opposed to capital punishment persisted in their search. I they had not done that the US would have executed no murdered some 200 innocent folks.

If you speak of faith and you tell me that God is all knowing and all powerful then leave the judging and executing up to God. Otherwise we are no better than the fundamentalist Muslims who think they must murder someone who makes an untoward comment about Allah.

Is it right to allow that innocent 10 or 11 year old to die for the stupidity of another?

Micah 6:8 is rather clear that God expects us to exercise justice and be compassionate. In the days of that composition justice meant egalitarian it did not mean retribution. It seems to me that the Bible says "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."

The Bible also tells us to return good for evil. Interesting "eh". LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:54 pm

Jester;1031651 wrote: On the contrary, the evidence that refutes darwanism and evolution can be presented as scientific fact.

The proof that Dr Morission and his team of hyrdralacists have on the way the grand canyon was formed rapidly as opposed to over millions of years by a trickle of water is quite scintificly factual and very well presented too.

The forming of the Grand Canyon has not been in dispute. The tests and protocols used to test scientific theories ie: theory of gravity,theory of evolution are not used by those espousing Intelligent Design despite their attempts to skew data to make it appear scientific.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:57 pm

Personally I think creationists are wannabe scientists.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Ted;1031658 wrote: Personally I think creationists are wannabe scientists.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Well, they do have some bonafide scientists in their camp, but they use a different protocol to try and make there case than those age tested protocols used to test other scientific theories.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:51 pm

Jester:-6

So you are telling me that if your young daughter, say 13 was raped and pregnant and the doctor said that such a situation would likely end up in her death you would condemn your daughter to probable death rather than save her. OK but I could never sanction that.

And yes, whether or not folks like it morality is relative. The only absolute is the Divine.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Faith in Doubt · Post by **Faith in Doubt** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:11 am

Please, Jester, explain to me you're definition of life. A child in the womb has not potential for anything. So long as it's in the womb it will not have a life. Once it leaves the womb, then it has the potential for life. Life doesn't begin in the womb, living does. These two words, life and living, are commonly confused as the same thing. It appears to me that you have done this.

Another thing. How can you not live by the situation? It's human to take sides and to change their minds. If you yourself didn't live by this you couldn't call anyone your friend unless everyone was your friend.

I also agree with Tad in the effect that why would you allow even the slightest possibility of a life already in effect to be snuffed out for a life that hasn't even begun yet? It doesn't make much since to me. Say, also, if both the girl and the baby died during the birthing process, would you be willing to stake two lives on the price of one?

I don't know. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I will agree with you on one thing Jester, the guilty should be brought to justice. Either by action of a higher power, or by our own legal system. I have little faith in either one, but that's just my personal opinion. Both you and Ted have excellent viewpoints. But one without the other seems incredibly biased.

Ma Armasta Sind.

DrJ · Post by **DrJ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:06 am

My thoughts on abortion are the same as anyone who has experienced having children, it's as horrible an issue as having children is a wonderful thing to have lived through, and being a father and grandfather for that matter, I'd have to believe the fact that this "choice" in life would be the most dreaded bridge a women must have to cross in her life of many issues, when she is faced with one of the the many imperfect ways this possibility can appear in her life...

With my then wife,,, this was a no brainer,, as in my mind there was no "choice" even tho in her mind the "choice" could possibly had been something other than my version of reality.. When I think back on it, I can see how she could have thought different, as we were 15 and 16 years of age, unmarried and without the first clue of the life about to unfold before us..

The child produced ironically,, grew up to find herself in the same situation and again I felt the "no brainer" feeling,, only this time I was leaning the other way because I wanted something better for my daughter than what her mother and I had to go through,,,,,,,,, and anyone who doesn't seem to understand this I have to believe is closing their eyes to certain areas of life, and using religion to justify it.

This is where I believe religion actually fails everyone involved as it leads some to judgements that truly shouldn't even be considered,, as they involve something other than self.. I sometimes wonder which is the greater sin,, choosing to abort, or sitting in judgement of those who are wearing the shoes of the chooser..

The biggest question in my mind on the abortion issue has always been this:

How do men come to the conclusion that they have the right to take away the right to choose,, on an issue that they will never in their lifetime find themselves in?

I believe if religion truly wanted to influence the political will of America,, why hasn't the church picked up on the Universal Healthcare issue?,, This being something that these "right to life" politicians they choose,, are paid to stop...

It has made me very synical about the hypocracy inside the Christian religion when it comes to effecting the pocket books of those well off corporate donors in the healthcare industry.. It makes it very hard to take the views of religion seriously here in America....

Anybody been denied medical attention lately?

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:23 am

Lon;1030279 wrote: 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.

Hello Lon, I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer a question for me. I hesitate to ask someone else because I might accidentally get hit with the stones they are viciously hucking at each other. The question is, I know what fundamentalism is but what is Hoss? Is this an abbreviation for something or some kind of new religion? I seen the word earlier in this thread but no further reference has been made to it.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:18 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.

Kind of like "God blessed me" or "the Devil made me do it"?

The problem as I see it Quinn is that religions are based on fear. The fear of hell, the fear of god (whatever god) removing blessings, help and assistance, and the fear of being ostracized from family, friends and church. Disfellowship is a threat that is held over the heads of adherents to that belief system by the leaders of the established church or any cult. This is very powerful mental and emotional control that is inserted into the minds of individuals starting from very early childhood. Only two things can remove that fear, enlightenment and knowledge or a 'deprogramming' that is frequently used when one has been in a religion or cult for some time. Considering this then it is not the individuals who are at fault but the religious leaders themselves. So to say that the individuals who fight to defend their religious beliefs are weak personalities is not entirely correct. Mind programming is a very powerful tool especially when used on the young.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:48 pm

Amber Sun;1132350 wrote: Kind of like "God blessed me" or "the Devil made me do it"?

The problem as I see it Quinn is that religions are based on fear. The fear of hell, the fear of god (whatever god) removing blessings, help and assistance, and the fear of being ostracized from family, friends and church. Disfellowship is a threat that is held over the heads of adherents to that belief system by the leaders of the established church or any cult. This is very powerful mental and emotional control that is inserted into the minds of individuals starting from very early childhood. Only two things can remove that fear, enlightenment and knowledge or a 'deprogramming' that is frequently used when one has been in a religion or cult for some time. Considering this then it is not the individuals who are at fault but the religious leaders themselves. So to say that the individuals who fight to defend their religious beliefs are weak personalities is not entirely correct. Mind programming is a very powerful tool especially when used on the young.

The only one that can take responsibility for the decisions you make is yourself. There may be mitigating factors that come in to play that influence your behaviour be it religious belief or peer pressure but at some point you have to take responsibility for the choices you make.

Only two things can remove that fear, enlightenment and knowledge

That's why religions want the right to control the eduction of children or prevent ideas that conflict with religious belief being taught in schools or even worse have an education system where children are taught to think for themselves. the more people think or themselves the less likely they are to question authority and not just follow blindly.

I would defend anyone's right to follow their religion but no religion has the right to claim it should not be criticised or it's beliefs ridiculed. If you are afraid of ridicule it's because there is no real substance to your belief.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:19 pm

gmc;1132455 wrote: The only one that can take responsibility for the decisions you make is yourself. There may be mitigating factors that come in to play that influence your behaviour be it religious belief or peer pressure but at some point you have to take responsibility for the choices you make.

That's why religions want the right to control the eduction of children or prevent ideas that conflict with religious belief being taught in schools or even worse have an education system where children are taught to think for themselves. the more people think or themselves the less likely they are to question authority and not just follow blindly.

I would defend anyone's right to follow their religion but no religion has the right to claim it should not be criticised or it's beliefs ridiculed. If you are afraid of ridicule it's because there is no real substance to your belief.

good poiints

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:50 pm

gmc;1132455 wrote: The only one that can take responsibility for the decisions you make is yourself. There may be mitigating factors that come in to play that influence your behaviour be it religious belief or peer pressure but at some point you have to take responsibility for the choices you make.

That's why religions want the right to control the eduction of children or prevent ideas that conflict with religious belief being taught in schools or even worse have an education system where children are taught to think for themselves. the more people think or themselves the less likely they are to question authority and not just follow blindly.

I would defend anyone's right to follow their religion but no religion has the right to claim it should not be criticised or it's beliefs ridiculed. If you are afraid of ridicule it's because there is no real substance to your belief.

I totally agree with you gmc. But I will take this one step further and state that if a religion is not open to complete investigation analytically and logically, by others not of that belief system, then it has secrets that it prefers to be kept in the dark and undisclosed.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:52 pm

Jester;1132632 wrote: Hoss is a member here, my son in fact.

Oh, thank you Jester. I haven't seen that name anywhere else so didn't know what it referred to.

DrJ · Post by **DrJ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:42 pm

Here's an example of how religion is transformed into political manipulation,,

YouTube - We were warned... Pt 1

The thing that hurts religion the most is this,, "your either with us, or against us" attitude that some bring to it, which exploits the differences within the religion itself,, as it resembles the politics of governments moreso than the spirituality of a belief in a higher power....

You have to wonder if religion is a front for a loving GOD, which shapes itself to match whatever Government or corporate agenda needed in that particular neck of the woods,, this would explain why there are so many..

Knowledge does certainly improve awareness, the problem is the fear is embedded within us from many things which naturally resists all change..

Getting thru it is probably the reason we're here, in a world that is ever changing.

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition

:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:05 am

Jester;1132632 wrote: Hoss is a member here, my son in fact.

Was his father perchance a Bonanza fan and was the name hoss a result of a common american speech defect-they can't pronounce the letter r ?:sneaky:(and you thought it was just the japanese)

posted by amber sun

I totally agree with you gmc. But I will take this one step further and state that if a religion is not open to complete investigation analytically and logically, by others not of that belief system, then it has secrets that it prefers to be kept in the dark and undisclosed.

The thing about religion is if you were to analyse them analytically and logically you would come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable basis for the belief. They are quite literally irrational belief systems. I find that someone deeply religious doesn't mind that you don't believe as they do it has no effect on their own faith.

Thanks to religion being cynically used to control the way people thought and behaved by the ruling classes (you can argue cause and effect till you are blue in the face ) and used to manipulate people to go to war -especially in the two main monotheist religions Questioning faith became synonymous with questioning authority and heresy punishable by death. There is still that kind of mentality around that religion should not be questioned and it's a constant battle to keep the freedom to express dissent openly and freely. There is also a constant need to remind people that concepts of morality and decency and honesty end even honour are not confined to the religious. Indeed you could argue that religion relieves people of the need to make their own decisions-someone else tells them what is right and wrong and when it is OK to kill.

Our concept of individual rights and responsibility, freedom and democracy is a peculiarly western european one and owes nothing to any middle eastern religion-though obviously it has an influence on the way we express it sometimes.

posted by quinns commentary

[QUOTE]All this got me to thinking; does religion do more harm than good?

Like most people posting on this thread I can argue both sides of the issue. I don't think it is possible to come to a definite yes or no to a question like that but it is one that needs to be constantly asked.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:22 pm

Funny How Christian / Red Cross Think They Can Go Around The World A Push Their Religion / Chrisitianity On Other People Country / Culture , But Will Be The First To Get **** When Someone Says Some Thing About ( Ja - Zeus )

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:52 am

Daniyal;1133364 wrote: Funny How Christian / Red Cross Think They Can Go Around The World A Push Their Religion / Chrisitianity On Other People Country / Culture , But Will Be The First To Get **** When Someone Says Some Thing About ( Ja - Zeus )

The red cross isn't a Christian organisation nor does it proselytise any more than the red crescent is a muslim organisation. If it were much of their financial support would disappear.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:58 am

I regard "religion" as a neutral concept. What makes it good or bad is the use made of it.

If the followers of any faith operate basically on the premise of consideration, care and compassion towards others it is good religion; but if it says "Kill the Unbeliever" it is bad religion.

It is important to note that a single faith can be both good and bad religion depending on the behaviour of its adherents.