I was curious to see what people thought of this. Posted link in another thread and got little response so thought I would try again. I'm not an american and this doesn't affect me at all but it's not intended as anti-american. I just find it incredible that in any modern western society something like this is actually an issue. You expect t in the middle east or somewhere like that.
YouTube - Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions
It seems you have those that want to bring back the inquisition and are getting away with it except this time it seems to be a protestant one. Mind you when you look at the history of all the religious wars in europe it's a moot point which was the most viscious.
american inquisition?
american inquisition?
America started off as THE place to be for freedom from religious persecution. Having said that, it, in turn, burned free thinking individuals at the stake along with persecuting anyone who didnt believe as they did. It actually turned into exactly what it was running from. I AM an American, but even I can see America hasnt lived up to the ideals it was first founded upon. Humanity just cant quite achieve utopia by itself. No matter how hard it tries.
As for atheists not running for public office, it's against the constitutional rights of the citizen. I wouldnt put too much store by it. All it will take is a little 'ol trip to the Supreme Court.
As for atheists not running for public office, it's against the constitutional rights of the citizen. I wouldnt put too much store by it. All it will take is a little 'ol trip to the Supreme Court.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
american inquisition?
Atheists Are Banned From Public Office, Ctd - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
It was only after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion could be found to apply to the states. It was on that basis that religious tests for officeholders were found by a unanimous Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in a 1961 decision, Torcaso v. Watkins.
Obsolete constitutional provisions don’t repeal themselves; they live on, useless and ignored, like vestigial organs.
--------------------
Ruling
TORCASO V. WATKINS, 367 U. S. 488 (1961) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
It was only after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion could be found to apply to the states. It was on that basis that religious tests for officeholders were found by a unanimous Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in a 1961 decision, Torcaso v. Watkins.
Obsolete constitutional provisions don’t repeal themselves; they live on, useless and ignored, like vestigial organs.
--------------------
Ruling
TORCASO V. WATKINS, 367 U. S. 488 (1961) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
american inquisition?
I watched the video when you posted it the first time but didn't reply because my thoughts were not clear on the matter. They are still not fully developed yet, but I'm willing to give it a go at this point.
I think if one would want to understand the influence of religion on society one must be willing to entertain the idea of multilevel selection theory along with other theories.
In multilevel selection theory, the idea is that religion is indeed a construct developed through natural selection as opposed to Richard Dawkins idea of memes, which if i understand it correctly, means that religion is simply a construct passed down through generations via traditions but have no evolutionary value. In other words, memes is a parasite within the cultural body that needs to be destroyed.
From an equal rights political perspective, any discrimination is wrong, but we must recognize the fact that atheism is indeed a threat to the survival of the collective body which thrives on religion as its source of cohesion. Think of religion as a beehive and the members as its bees. When viewed like this its relatively easy to see the evolutionary link.
We have to admit that there are an awful lot of highly intelligent people who have strong religious beliefs. Some of those people are here on FG. We're constantly baffled by that fact and wonder how so many smart people do indeed believe in religion. Other than the fact that its simply their right, there must be something more driving their insistence of maintaining religious values. Respect for tradition certainly must drive some, but those are usually those folks that don't practice their religious beliefs, yet defend their (the beliefs) validity - I think that is the group Dawkins refers to. But we're talking about the more hard core believer such as those in the video. I believe these people are survivalists and protectors of what they see as the body, as is indeed referred to often times as "The Body of Christ" by Christians.
Here is a quote worth consideration made by a member of the Hutterite (Christian sect) faith sometime in the 17th century I believe:
True love means growth for the whole organism, whose members are all interdependent and serve each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the body governed by Christ. We see the same thing among the bees, who all work with equal zeal gathering honey. Now, if that doesn't sound intuitively evolutionary long before Darwin's existence, nothing does - I'd bet Darwin would have wanted to say it himself.
While I have made the claim and still maintain for educational and philosophical purposes that evolution and religion are separate subjects, I also believe religion is a by-product of the evolutionary process known as natural selection.
So, I'm not surprised at what the video depicts, in fact, its quite predictable. The question for me is whether or not religion itself has served its purpose of guiding society to where it now is. On that question I find myself in the affirmative. Where religion has shaped cultures through morality, I believe morality as we now see it has evolved to be more destructive than helpful, thus threatening the survival of the species. We need a new vision.
I think if one would want to understand the influence of religion on society one must be willing to entertain the idea of multilevel selection theory along with other theories.
In multilevel selection theory, the idea is that religion is indeed a construct developed through natural selection as opposed to Richard Dawkins idea of memes, which if i understand it correctly, means that religion is simply a construct passed down through generations via traditions but have no evolutionary value. In other words, memes is a parasite within the cultural body that needs to be destroyed.
From an equal rights political perspective, any discrimination is wrong, but we must recognize the fact that atheism is indeed a threat to the survival of the collective body which thrives on religion as its source of cohesion. Think of religion as a beehive and the members as its bees. When viewed like this its relatively easy to see the evolutionary link.
We have to admit that there are an awful lot of highly intelligent people who have strong religious beliefs. Some of those people are here on FG. We're constantly baffled by that fact and wonder how so many smart people do indeed believe in religion. Other than the fact that its simply their right, there must be something more driving their insistence of maintaining religious values. Respect for tradition certainly must drive some, but those are usually those folks that don't practice their religious beliefs, yet defend their (the beliefs) validity - I think that is the group Dawkins refers to. But we're talking about the more hard core believer such as those in the video. I believe these people are survivalists and protectors of what they see as the body, as is indeed referred to often times as "The Body of Christ" by Christians.
Here is a quote worth consideration made by a member of the Hutterite (Christian sect) faith sometime in the 17th century I believe:
True love means growth for the whole organism, whose members are all interdependent and serve each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the body governed by Christ. We see the same thing among the bees, who all work with equal zeal gathering honey. Now, if that doesn't sound intuitively evolutionary long before Darwin's existence, nothing does - I'd bet Darwin would have wanted to say it himself.
While I have made the claim and still maintain for educational and philosophical purposes that evolution and religion are separate subjects, I also believe religion is a by-product of the evolutionary process known as natural selection.
So, I'm not surprised at what the video depicts, in fact, its quite predictable. The question for me is whether or not religion itself has served its purpose of guiding society to where it now is. On that question I find myself in the affirmative. Where religion has shaped cultures through morality, I believe morality as we now see it has evolved to be more destructive than helpful, thus threatening the survival of the species. We need a new vision.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
american inquisition?
Then communism (Stalinism/Maoism ) must be evolutionary.
For anyone to disolve human existence to the product of Bees doesn't sound very evolutionary to me.
For anyone to disolve human existence to the product of Bees doesn't sound very evolutionary to me.
american inquisition?
That's a fascinating post Ahso. Thank you for that.
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
american inquisition?
Religion has no place in politics because when religion is applied to politics it becomes nothing more than a tool.
Sadly, a concept of Divine Righteousness has become skewed by the tarnished brush of religion :yh_sick
It's sickening! :yh_sick
Sadly, a concept of Divine Righteousness has become skewed by the tarnished brush of religion :yh_sick
It's sickening! :yh_sick
american inquisition?
Personally, I don't see this as being anything different from Bill Clinton; Sexual misconduct claims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
american inquisition?
Snowfire;1274916 wrote: That's a fascinating post Ahso. Thank you for that.
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?thank you!:)
I think morality can stand alone at this point. We see it working here in the garden as well as the work place and definitely in families such as my own. Morality will always need to be tweaked I think to suit the times.
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?thank you!:)
I think morality can stand alone at this point. We see it working here in the garden as well as the work place and definitely in families such as my own. Morality will always need to be tweaked I think to suit the times.
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Ahso!;1274936 wrote: thank you!:)
I think morality can stand alone at this point. We see it working here in the garden as well as the work place and definitely in families such as my own. Morality will always need to be tweaked I think to suit the times.I couldn't disagree more
I think you're placing religious connotations behind the word "morality" which obviously is a mistake
Morality is essential in everyday life pertaining to every facet of any deemed "civilized" society and your statement below proves itAhso!;1274936 wrote:
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
I think morality can stand alone at this point. We see it working here in the garden as well as the work place and definitely in families such as my own. Morality will always need to be tweaked I think to suit the times.I couldn't disagree more
I think you're placing religious connotations behind the word "morality" which obviously is a mistake
Morality is essential in everyday life pertaining to every facet of any deemed "civilized" society and your statement below proves itAhso!;1274936 wrote:
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
american inquisition?
Snowfire;1274916 wrote: That's a fascinating post Ahso. Thank you for that.
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?
Morality came first, religion came second and has always been a political tool
It's highly effective and noble against immoral governments but conversely atrocious when applied to a state of peace
Do you not think that morality has evolved to a point where it can stand alone with out the crutch of religion ? The new vision you speak of. Is this a scientific or religious one ?
Morality came first, religion came second and has always been a political tool
It's highly effective and noble against immoral governments but conversely atrocious when applied to a state of peace
american inquisition?
As a American and life long atheist (Secular Humanist) I am not at all surprised. It has only been since I retired that I have come out of the closet. To have done so before I retired and finished raising a family, would have had serious negative business & social implications. It also means that I had to be a hypocrite for many years which I hated. Now, I can let it all hang out cause I don't give a s--t.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16942
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
american inquisition?
Lon;1274973 wrote: As a American and life long atheist (Secular Humanist) I am not at all surprised. It has only been since I retired that I have come out of the closet. To have done so before I retired and finished raising a family, would have had serious negative business & social implications. It also means that I had to be a hypocrite for many years which I hated. Now, I can let it all hang out cause I don't give a s--t.
Wow, Lon, I'm quite shocked, I can't imagine having to live like that at all!
Wow, Lon, I'm quite shocked, I can't imagine having to live like that at all!
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
american inquisition?
Lon;1274973 wrote: As a American and life long atheist (Secular Humanist) I am not at all surprised. It has only been since I retired that I have come out of the closet. To have done so before I retired and finished raising a family, would have had serious negative business & social implications. .
You're kidding? :-2
You're kidding? :-2
american inquisition?
Near as I can tell, this guy's opponents are doomed to failure.
The Supremacy clause, as mentioned, makes the state clause moot.
The article in question in the State Constitution dates back to pre-civil war times.
The Supreme court of North Carolina should kick it back, if it even gets that far, and if not, the US supreme court will reject the suit.
That, unfortunately would take up a lot of time, and keep the guy from serving his term.
His opponents will spend a lot of money and time on foolishness, the ACLU will take another bloody nose from the Religious right, and that's that.
Hopefully the district courts will flush the suit and nip the whole thing in the bud.
BTW, I am a believing Christian, but I am also a firm believer in separation of Church and state.
Render unto Caesar, and all that...
The Supremacy clause, as mentioned, makes the state clause moot.
The article in question in the State Constitution dates back to pre-civil war times.
The Supreme court of North Carolina should kick it back, if it even gets that far, and if not, the US supreme court will reject the suit.
That, unfortunately would take up a lot of time, and keep the guy from serving his term.
His opponents will spend a lot of money and time on foolishness, the ACLU will take another bloody nose from the Religious right, and that's that.
Hopefully the district courts will flush the suit and nip the whole thing in the bud.
BTW, I am a believing Christian, but I am also a firm believer in separation of Church and state.
Render unto Caesar, and all that...
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
american inquisition?
fuzzywuzzy;1274999 wrote: You're kidding? :-2
I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
american inquisition?
Lon;1275011 wrote: I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
So then you'd benefited from religion
So then you'd benefited from religion
american inquisition?
Lon;1275011 wrote: I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
We have lived in many places where one's church affiliation was the most important thing.
In some towns, if you're not a Baptist (or a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon), you ain't even human.
I have often gotten "well, at least you go to church" when answering that question. But that was pretty much the end of the conversation, as I was dismissed as a cultist, or something.
We have lived in many places where one's church affiliation was the most important thing.
In some towns, if you're not a Baptist (or a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon), you ain't even human.
I have often gotten "well, at least you go to church" when answering that question. But that was pretty much the end of the conversation, as I was dismissed as a cultist, or something.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
american inquisition?
K.Snyder;1275012 wrote: So then you'd benefited from religion
Not really---I would have if I had joined the "Christian Business Men's Assoc", but that would have been the epitome of hypocrisy for me. The fact that I never declared any faith was somewhat of a disadvantage if anything.
Not really---I would have if I had joined the "Christian Business Men's Assoc", but that would have been the epitome of hypocrisy for me. The fact that I never declared any faith was somewhat of a disadvantage if anything.
american inquisition?
LarsMac;1275015 wrote: We have lived in many places where one's church affiliation was the most important thing.
In some towns, if you're not a Baptist (or a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon), you ain't even human.
I have often gotten "well, at least you go to church" when answering that question. But that was pretty much the end of the conversation, as I was dismissed as a cultist, or something.
How nauseating
In some towns, if you're not a Baptist (or a Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon), you ain't even human.
I have often gotten "well, at least you go to church" when answering that question. But that was pretty much the end of the conversation, as I was dismissed as a cultist, or something.
How nauseating
american inquisition?
Try this as an experiment.
If you are in sales----put a little sticker on your lapel that says "i am an Atheist
or
wear the fish emblem.
Any doubt on the results??
If you are in sales----put a little sticker on your lapel that says "i am an Atheist
or
wear the fish emblem.
Any doubt on the results??
american inquisition?
Lon;1275024 wrote: Try this as an experiment.
If you are in sales----put a little sticker on your lapel that says "i am an Atheist
or
wear the fish emblem.
Any doubt on the results??
I'd wear a masturbating monkey if I thought it would make me a
load of money!
If you are in sales----put a little sticker on your lapel that says "i am an Atheist
or
wear the fish emblem.
Any doubt on the results??
I'd wear a masturbating monkey if I thought it would make me a
load of money!american inquisition?
K.Snyder;1275030 wrote: I'd wear a masturbating monkey if I thought it would make me a load of money!
I'll just wear one of these dresses
Attached files
load of money!I'll just wear one of these dresses
Attached files
american inquisition?
posted by ahso
From an equal rights political perspective, any discrimination is wrong, but we must recognize the fact that atheism is indeed a threat to the survival of the collective body which thrives on religion as its source of cohesion. Think of religion as a beehive and the members as its bees. When viewed like this its relatively easy to see the evolutionary link.
Religion is also a a very destructive force in society especially the monotheistic ones that claim everything is theirs and all must follow or face the consequences. That blind following of a religion has dreadful consequences for society just take a look at what is happening now. You won't see many atheists committing suicide and killing others because they believe they will go to heaven for what they have done. It's not just Muslims that used to preach it was OK to kill an unbeliever either. Pagans used to call the christian god the selfish god because he would have everything and destroy those who would not believe.
In your sentence there you state discrimination is wrong but then go on to justify it in the name of your religious beliefs. You live in a secular society so culturally you "know" discrimination is wrong and bad for society but religion tells you it is justified to make judgement of some people and deprive them of their civil rights and they are not in fact your equal. Do you seriously suggest that kind of attitude is better for society than one where all are equal? This guy got elected why should those who voted for him have their votes be made as inconsequential?
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
There already is such a concept and it's timeless. Mankind has always fought for and helped those around them and been ready to sacrifice themselves for others of for the notion of something greater than the individual. Ancient tribes fought each other for the benefit of the tribe of which they were a member, the romans for for their republic the greeks and spartans for their state in ww1 soldiers on all sides did their patriotic duty albeit with god on their side. It's not till monotheism comes along that we have the notion of divine rule by kings anointed by god and killing one was a crime against god and you should follow blindly those appointed by god to rule over you. Prior to that elected kingships were surprisingly common. Now such blind patriotism is looked back on with disbelief but in large part because such unquestioning belief is-well-questioned. The age of enlightenment is called that in large part because people started to question religion and the blind assumption that all was well because of it. We have wars going on just now fuelled by religious fervour and yes economic greed as well, things are never as simple as they seem.
We also have such fundamentalists and every now and then they try and exert their will but they are on the fringes. If someone here came out with the notion that atheists or anyone not believing in god be banned from public office people would laugh at them.
The pantheon in rome was built to house all the gods in harmony but the christians would have no other god-maybe they had a point. Or perhaps the problem is not religion but those who want to use it for their own gain and impose their will on others by using it for that end. human nature or religious fervour?
Do a search for a british atheist society and ou'll find there isn't one. It's not a religion so why would there be one-there is no god, I agree end of discussion it's not as if you can fall out over how not to not worship something that isn't there. atheists/ secularists in the US seem to feel they are under attack. I was looking at richard dawkins site which is where the link came from. I just found it amazing that in this day and age in a western country people still think like that.
posted by lon
I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
Did you not find that really repressive? I'm in sales, religion is a non issue that just doesn't come up-unless you are talking to someone of a fundamentalist stamp. They are so rare I can just walk away and do if it's an issue for them. On the other hand we have a serious problem in scotland with sectarianism the roots of which are deep in our past. religion can be and is very divisive in society and creates conflict where none existed before. I have a surname that identifies me as a protestant-in parts of glasgow that is actually an issue. My wife was declined job interviews for teaching jobs in some areas and that, believe it or not seems to have been the reason.
From an equal rights political perspective, any discrimination is wrong, but we must recognize the fact that atheism is indeed a threat to the survival of the collective body which thrives on religion as its source of cohesion. Think of religion as a beehive and the members as its bees. When viewed like this its relatively easy to see the evolutionary link.
Religion is also a a very destructive force in society especially the monotheistic ones that claim everything is theirs and all must follow or face the consequences. That blind following of a religion has dreadful consequences for society just take a look at what is happening now. You won't see many atheists committing suicide and killing others because they believe they will go to heaven for what they have done. It's not just Muslims that used to preach it was OK to kill an unbeliever either. Pagans used to call the christian god the selfish god because he would have everything and destroy those who would not believe.
In your sentence there you state discrimination is wrong but then go on to justify it in the name of your religious beliefs. You live in a secular society so culturally you "know" discrimination is wrong and bad for society but religion tells you it is justified to make judgement of some people and deprive them of their civil rights and they are not in fact your equal. Do you seriously suggest that kind of attitude is better for society than one where all are equal? This guy got elected why should those who voted for him have their votes be made as inconsequential?
As for the vision: I think we need to figure out how we can relax a little. Religions have been able to adapt up to now, but theirs a growing sentiment that its run its course. The question as i see it is whether we can find a non-religious concept that the group is willing to invest themselves in and sacrifice for. There have been many applicants through out time but none have move religion off the mark. Humanities I guess stands a good chance. An interesting group worth watching in my view is the open source community - they're a small group but highly intelligent and very motivated.
There already is such a concept and it's timeless. Mankind has always fought for and helped those around them and been ready to sacrifice themselves for others of for the notion of something greater than the individual. Ancient tribes fought each other for the benefit of the tribe of which they were a member, the romans for for their republic the greeks and spartans for their state in ww1 soldiers on all sides did their patriotic duty albeit with god on their side. It's not till monotheism comes along that we have the notion of divine rule by kings anointed by god and killing one was a crime against god and you should follow blindly those appointed by god to rule over you. Prior to that elected kingships were surprisingly common. Now such blind patriotism is looked back on with disbelief but in large part because such unquestioning belief is-well-questioned. The age of enlightenment is called that in large part because people started to question religion and the blind assumption that all was well because of it. We have wars going on just now fuelled by religious fervour and yes economic greed as well, things are never as simple as they seem.
We also have such fundamentalists and every now and then they try and exert their will but they are on the fringes. If someone here came out with the notion that atheists or anyone not believing in god be banned from public office people would laugh at them.
The pantheon in rome was built to house all the gods in harmony but the christians would have no other god-maybe they had a point. Or perhaps the problem is not religion but those who want to use it for their own gain and impose their will on others by using it for that end. human nature or religious fervour?
Do a search for a british atheist society and ou'll find there isn't one. It's not a religion so why would there be one-there is no god, I agree end of discussion it's not as if you can fall out over how not to not worship something that isn't there. atheists/ secularists in the US seem to feel they are under attack. I was looking at richard dawkins site which is where the link came from. I just found it amazing that in this day and age in a western country people still think like that.
posted by lon
I am not kidding. In the area in which I worked and lived it would not have been wise to openly be an atheist. It was not that big a deal, I just avoided any religious discussions and bowed my head with the rest of them. If asked my religion I would reply that it was a private matter.
Did you not find that really repressive? I'm in sales, religion is a non issue that just doesn't come up-unless you are talking to someone of a fundamentalist stamp. They are so rare I can just walk away and do if it's an issue for them. On the other hand we have a serious problem in scotland with sectarianism the roots of which are deep in our past. religion can be and is very divisive in society and creates conflict where none existed before. I have a surname that identifies me as a protestant-in parts of glasgow that is actually an issue. My wife was declined job interviews for teaching jobs in some areas and that, believe it or not seems to have been the reason.
american inquisition?
gmc;1275073 wrote: posted by ahso
Religion is also a a very destructive force in society especially the monotheistic ones that claim everything is theirs and all must follow or face the consequences. That blind following of a religion has dreadful consequences for society just take a look at what is happening now. You won't see many atheists committing suicide and killing others because they believe they will go to heaven for what they have done. It's not just Muslims that used to preach it was OK to kill an unbeliever either. Pagans used to call the christian god the selfish god because he would have everything and destroy those who would not believe.
In your sentence there you state discrimination is wrong but then go on to justify it in the name of your religious beliefs. You live in a secular society so culturally you "know" discrimination is wrong and bad for society but religion tells you it is justified to make judgement of some people and deprive them of their civil rights and they are not in fact your equal. Do you seriously suggest that kind of attitude is better for society than one where all are equal? This guy got elected why should those who voted for him have their votes be made as inconsequential?
There already is such a concept and it's timeless. Mankind has always fought for and helped those around them and been ready to sacrifice themselves for others of for the notion of something greater than the individual. Ancient tribes fought each other for the benefit of the tribe of which they were a member, the romans for for their republic the greeks and spartans for their state in ww1 soldiers on all sides did their patriotic duty albeit with god on their side. It's not till monotheism comes along that we have the notion of divine rule by kings anointed by god and killing one was a crime against god and you should follow blindly those appointed by god to rule over you. Prior to that elected kingships were surprisingly common. Now such blind patriotism is looked back on with disbelief but in large part because such unquestioning belief is-well-questioned. The age of enlightenment is called that in large part because people started to question religion and the blind assumption that all was well because of it. We have wars going on just now fuelled by religious fervour and yes economic greed as well, things are never as simple as they seem.
We also have such fundamentalists and every now and then they try and exert their will but they are on the fringes. If someone here came out with the notion that atheists or anyone not believing in god be banned from public office people would laugh at them.
The pantheon in rome was built to house all the gods in harmony but the christians would have no other god-maybe they had a point. Or perhaps the problem is not religion but those who want to use it for their own gain and impose their will on others by using it for that end. human nature or religious fervour?
Do a search for a british atheist society and ou'll find there isn't one. It's not a religion so why would there be one-there is no god, I agree end of discussion it's not as if you can fall out over how not to not worship something that isn't there. atheists/ secularists in the US seem to feel they are under attack. I was looking at richard dawkins site which is where the link came from. I just found it amazing that in this day and age in a western country people still think like that.
I think you and I are only using different perspectives. Yours looks to be a historical and political view while mine is anthropological (or my best version of it:)).
I'm not a religious person myself and I'm not justifying anything, however, I am pointing out that when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, the origins of religion as a cultural adaptation fits, and if that is indeed the case, viewing it as say a human body, we can see how that body would see atheism as a kind of cancer.
If multilevel group selection is correct and religion has indeed out lived its ability to enhance survival of its group/species, then we may see a different mutation or adaptation taking a more active roll. i believe that is exactly what we are seeing. Even in pure numbers of the population, religion does not stand a chance of surviving - but that's just my opinion. Its funny that the very thing the religious folk advocate (right to life) is most likely the same process by which religion will meet its demise. An interesting question as far as I'm concerned is: if the members of these religions were aware of what I just said, would they advocate abortion? I don't need an answer to that question as its really a moot point.
Religion is also a a very destructive force in society especially the monotheistic ones that claim everything is theirs and all must follow or face the consequences. That blind following of a religion has dreadful consequences for society just take a look at what is happening now. You won't see many atheists committing suicide and killing others because they believe they will go to heaven for what they have done. It's not just Muslims that used to preach it was OK to kill an unbeliever either. Pagans used to call the christian god the selfish god because he would have everything and destroy those who would not believe.
In your sentence there you state discrimination is wrong but then go on to justify it in the name of your religious beliefs. You live in a secular society so culturally you "know" discrimination is wrong and bad for society but religion tells you it is justified to make judgement of some people and deprive them of their civil rights and they are not in fact your equal. Do you seriously suggest that kind of attitude is better for society than one where all are equal? This guy got elected why should those who voted for him have their votes be made as inconsequential?
There already is such a concept and it's timeless. Mankind has always fought for and helped those around them and been ready to sacrifice themselves for others of for the notion of something greater than the individual. Ancient tribes fought each other for the benefit of the tribe of which they were a member, the romans for for their republic the greeks and spartans for their state in ww1 soldiers on all sides did their patriotic duty albeit with god on their side. It's not till monotheism comes along that we have the notion of divine rule by kings anointed by god and killing one was a crime against god and you should follow blindly those appointed by god to rule over you. Prior to that elected kingships were surprisingly common. Now such blind patriotism is looked back on with disbelief but in large part because such unquestioning belief is-well-questioned. The age of enlightenment is called that in large part because people started to question religion and the blind assumption that all was well because of it. We have wars going on just now fuelled by religious fervour and yes economic greed as well, things are never as simple as they seem.
We also have such fundamentalists and every now and then they try and exert their will but they are on the fringes. If someone here came out with the notion that atheists or anyone not believing in god be banned from public office people would laugh at them.
The pantheon in rome was built to house all the gods in harmony but the christians would have no other god-maybe they had a point. Or perhaps the problem is not religion but those who want to use it for their own gain and impose their will on others by using it for that end. human nature or religious fervour?
Do a search for a british atheist society and ou'll find there isn't one. It's not a religion so why would there be one-there is no god, I agree end of discussion it's not as if you can fall out over how not to not worship something that isn't there. atheists/ secularists in the US seem to feel they are under attack. I was looking at richard dawkins site which is where the link came from. I just found it amazing that in this day and age in a western country people still think like that.
I think you and I are only using different perspectives. Yours looks to be a historical and political view while mine is anthropological (or my best version of it:)).
I'm not a religious person myself and I'm not justifying anything, however, I am pointing out that when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, the origins of religion as a cultural adaptation fits, and if that is indeed the case, viewing it as say a human body, we can see how that body would see atheism as a kind of cancer.
If multilevel group selection is correct and religion has indeed out lived its ability to enhance survival of its group/species, then we may see a different mutation or adaptation taking a more active roll. i believe that is exactly what we are seeing. Even in pure numbers of the population, religion does not stand a chance of surviving - but that's just my opinion. Its funny that the very thing the religious folk advocate (right to life) is most likely the same process by which religion will meet its demise. An interesting question as far as I'm concerned is: if the members of these religions were aware of what I just said, would they advocate abortion? I don't need an answer to that question as its really a moot point.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Did you not find that really repressive? I'm in sales, religion is a non issue that just doesn't come up-unless you are talking to someone of a fundamentalist stamp. They are so rare I can just walk away and do if it's an issue for them. On the other hand we have a serious problem in scotland with sectarianism the roots of which are deep in our past. religion can be and is very divisive in society and creates conflict where none existed before. I have a surname that identifies me as a protestant-in parts of glasgow that is actually an issue. My wife was declined job interviews for teaching jobs in some areas and that, believe it or not seems to have been the reason.
Lon's reply
Annoying yes, repressive no. Certainly if one lives in NYC, Chicago, St. Louis or any other large U.S. city, one's religion or lack there of, becomes less of an issue. It's a regional and suburb thing. We have all heard about the "Bible Belt", well there are a number of "Bible Belts" in the U.S. In addition----just take a look at the number of religious colleges and universities in the U.S.--
Christian Colleges - Universities and Bible Colleges
This is certainly not the education of a "Free Thinker".
Lon's reply
Annoying yes, repressive no. Certainly if one lives in NYC, Chicago, St. Louis or any other large U.S. city, one's religion or lack there of, becomes less of an issue. It's a regional and suburb thing. We have all heard about the "Bible Belt", well there are a number of "Bible Belts" in the U.S. In addition----just take a look at the number of religious colleges and universities in the U.S.--
Christian Colleges - Universities and Bible Colleges
This is certainly not the education of a "Free Thinker".
american inquisition?
Ahso!;1275090 wrote: I think you and I are only using different perspectives. Yours looks to be a historical and political view while mine is anthropological (or my best version of it:)).
I'm not a religious person myself and I'm not justifying anything, however, I am pointing out that when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, the origins of religion as a cultural adaptation fits, and if that is indeed the case, viewing it as say a human body, we can see how that body would see atheism as a kind of cancer.
If multilevel group selection is correct and religion has indeed out lived its ability to enhance survival of its group/species, then we may see a different mutation or adaptation taking a more active roll. i believe that is exactly what we are seeing. Even in pure numbers of the population, religion does not stand a chance of surviving - but that's just my opinion. Its funny that the very thing the religious folk advocate (right to life) is most likely the same process by which religion will meet its demise. An interesting question as far as I'm concerned is: if the members of these religions were aware of what I just said, would they advocate abortion? I don't need an answer to that question as its really a moot point.
I think you are right, I came to the same conclusion half way through my post but thought bugger it I'll finish anyway. IMO unless you can take a historical and political perspective as well an anthropological viewpoint is worthless. Some theorists like the notion that monotheistic religion is an essential part of the evolution in society and even argue that it is from this that our moral principles come and it's part of the evolution of society -an argument that is a load of cobblers quite frankly which an historical perspective would make clear.
Christianity would never perhaps never have got a hold were it not for what else was happening in the 4th 5th and 6th centuries. Monotheism didn't take in the far east who were also suffering the same changes and warfare there too was endemic. The vast majority of the world's population are not christian or Moslem.
Western culture was and is by nature eclectic and inclusive and surprisingly tolerant-it's in our nature. monotheism is exclusive and narrow minded I would argue that it is inimical and has had a baleful effect on our history. Though whether that is the fault of religion or those who are attracted to it and use it for their own ends is moot perhaps. Hereditary monarchies anointed by god are a useful tool for a ruling class and a religious system where each had his place and shouldn't rebel against authority is a useful tool. Looking at the history of the christian church you can see that was the whole point so far as some were concerned. The things that we value most, individual liberty and freedom, democracy and belief in the rights of the individual do not come from religion however much people would like to think it does. The attitude shown by the religious in that link illustrate why. Freedom and religion just cannot co-exist unless the power of the religious is curbed somehow.
I'm not a religious person myself and I'm not justifying anything, however, I am pointing out that when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, the origins of religion as a cultural adaptation fits, and if that is indeed the case, viewing it as say a human body, we can see how that body would see atheism as a kind of cancer.
If multilevel group selection is correct and religion has indeed out lived its ability to enhance survival of its group/species, then we may see a different mutation or adaptation taking a more active roll. i believe that is exactly what we are seeing. Even in pure numbers of the population, religion does not stand a chance of surviving - but that's just my opinion. Its funny that the very thing the religious folk advocate (right to life) is most likely the same process by which religion will meet its demise. An interesting question as far as I'm concerned is: if the members of these religions were aware of what I just said, would they advocate abortion? I don't need an answer to that question as its really a moot point.
I think you are right, I came to the same conclusion half way through my post but thought bugger it I'll finish anyway. IMO unless you can take a historical and political perspective as well an anthropological viewpoint is worthless. Some theorists like the notion that monotheistic religion is an essential part of the evolution in society and even argue that it is from this that our moral principles come and it's part of the evolution of society -an argument that is a load of cobblers quite frankly which an historical perspective would make clear.
Christianity would never perhaps never have got a hold were it not for what else was happening in the 4th 5th and 6th centuries. Monotheism didn't take in the far east who were also suffering the same changes and warfare there too was endemic. The vast majority of the world's population are not christian or Moslem.
Western culture was and is by nature eclectic and inclusive and surprisingly tolerant-it's in our nature. monotheism is exclusive and narrow minded I would argue that it is inimical and has had a baleful effect on our history. Though whether that is the fault of religion or those who are attracted to it and use it for their own ends is moot perhaps. Hereditary monarchies anointed by god are a useful tool for a ruling class and a religious system where each had his place and shouldn't rebel against authority is a useful tool. Looking at the history of the christian church you can see that was the whole point so far as some were concerned. The things that we value most, individual liberty and freedom, democracy and belief in the rights of the individual do not come from religion however much people would like to think it does. The attitude shown by the religious in that link illustrate why. Freedom and religion just cannot co-exist unless the power of the religious is curbed somehow.
american inquisition?
Lon;1275139 wrote: Did you not find that really repressive? I'm in sales, religion is a non issue that just doesn't come up-unless you are talking to someone of a fundamentalist stamp. They are so rare I can just walk away and do if it's an issue for them. On the other hand we have a serious problem in scotland with sectarianism the roots of which are deep in our past. religion can be and is very divisive in society and creates conflict where none existed before. I have a surname that identifies me as a protestant-in parts of glasgow that is actually an issue. My wife was declined job interviews for teaching jobs in some areas and that, believe it or not seems to have been the reason.
Lon's reply
Annoying yes, repressive no. Certainly if one lives in NYC, Chicago, St. Louis or any other large U.S. city, one's religion or lack there of, becomes less of an issue. It's a regional and suburb thing. We have all heard about the "Bible Belt", well there are a number of "Bible Belts" in the U.S. In addition----just take a look at the number of religious colleges and universities in the U.S.--
Christian Colleges - Universities and Bible Colleges
This is certainly not the education of a "Free Thinker".
Despite being one of the crucibles of the enlightenment-or maybe because of it- we still have a requirement that religious education be part of the school curriculum and a seething underbelly of religious bigotry and hatred that makes your christian fundamentalists seem rational. Maybe that's the real reason the UK and europe are secular in comparison to the states we know all too well where religion and bigotry can lead if it gets out of hand and have an instinctive dislike of extremist views.
Don't know who these people are but this is interesting.
YouTube - Rachel Maddow & Frank Schaeffer on creationists
I find myself listening to you tube discussions while I work less distracting, music either annoys me or I want to sit and listen to it.
Lon's reply
Annoying yes, repressive no. Certainly if one lives in NYC, Chicago, St. Louis or any other large U.S. city, one's religion or lack there of, becomes less of an issue. It's a regional and suburb thing. We have all heard about the "Bible Belt", well there are a number of "Bible Belts" in the U.S. In addition----just take a look at the number of religious colleges and universities in the U.S.--
Christian Colleges - Universities and Bible Colleges
This is certainly not the education of a "Free Thinker".
Despite being one of the crucibles of the enlightenment-or maybe because of it- we still have a requirement that religious education be part of the school curriculum and a seething underbelly of religious bigotry and hatred that makes your christian fundamentalists seem rational. Maybe that's the real reason the UK and europe are secular in comparison to the states we know all too well where religion and bigotry can lead if it gets out of hand and have an instinctive dislike of extremist views.
Don't know who these people are but this is interesting.
YouTube - Rachel Maddow & Frank Schaeffer on creationists
I find myself listening to you tube discussions while I work less distracting, music either annoys me or I want to sit and listen to it.
american inquisition?
It is interesting that the basis of all the world's great faiths was justice and compassion. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
To add to that I looked up definitions of religion and surprisingly atheis fundamentalism does fit.
Now I do disagree with that law and find it reprehensible. No one should be deprived of public office because of their faith.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Numbers two and three do fit. The part in italics is only an example and not definitive.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
To add to that I looked up definitions of religion and surprisingly atheis fundamentalism does fit.
Now I do disagree with that law and find it reprehensible. No one should be deprived of public office because of their faith.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Numbers two and three do fit. The part in italics is only an example and not definitive.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275235 wrote: It is interesting that the basis of all the world's great faiths was justice and compassion. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
Shalom
Ted:-6But doesn't the above assume the members are all members of the same 'body?'
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
Shalom
Ted:-6But doesn't the above assume the members are all members of the same 'body?'
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Ahso:-6
I always thought we were, the human race. We may have different members and branches in the family but we are still one body, humanity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I always thought we were, the human race. We may have different members and branches in the family but we are still one body, humanity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
It is truly amazing how the verdicts on religion vary.
Department and Centre for the Study of Religion
> Home
Welcome
In the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion we explore the way religions have grown and developed, how they have been understood and transformed, and how we can think about them with discipline in our religiously plural environment.
Our programs enable students to grasp religion as an essential aspect of the cultures of the world and the interactions among them. We look at the development of religious beliefs, practices, and doctrines as they intersect with the history of peoples and cultures right up to the contemporary world. We explore religion and its connections with social issues, ethics, philosophical questions, and personal psychological considerations. In this way, students at all levels can better understand their own traditions and those of others, in ways that provide insight into the significant impact of religions in contemporary affairs.
University of Toronto no less.
Department and Centre for the Study of Religion
> Home
Welcome
In the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion we explore the way religions have grown and developed, how they have been understood and transformed, and how we can think about them with discipline in our religiously plural environment.
Our programs enable students to grasp religion as an essential aspect of the cultures of the world and the interactions among them. We look at the development of religious beliefs, practices, and doctrines as they intersect with the history of peoples and cultures right up to the contemporary world. We explore religion and its connections with social issues, ethics, philosophical questions, and personal psychological considerations. In this way, students at all levels can better understand their own traditions and those of others, in ways that provide insight into the significant impact of religions in contemporary affairs.
University of Toronto no less.
american inquisition?
As in all groups around the world each spans a whole spectrum from conservative to liberal. There are fundamentalists at both extremes. They are the problem.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275240 wrote: Ahso:-6
I always thought we were, the human race. We may have different members and branches in the family but we are still one body, humanity.
Shalom
Ted:-6I know thats how you think, Ted. I was referring to the perspectives of the doctrine authors you cited.
Jesus, for example, was remarking on how the kingdom of heaven is for believers, wasn't he? Jesus is also quoted as saying that it is better to enter into heaven with one eye if thats what it takes to believe, or belong.
It also stands to reason that all the great faiths meant members of each particular faith, no?
I always thought we were, the human race. We may have different members and branches in the family but we are still one body, humanity.
Shalom
Ted:-6I know thats how you think, Ted. I was referring to the perspectives of the doctrine authors you cited.
Jesus, for example, was remarking on how the kingdom of heaven is for believers, wasn't he? Jesus is also quoted as saying that it is better to enter into heaven with one eye if thats what it takes to believe, or belong.
It also stands to reason that all the great faiths meant members of each particular faith, no?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Ahso:-6
The first question I have to ask is did Jesus say those things? Scholars have now concluded that 80% of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but are the words of the early church put into Jesus mouth.. It is not believed that he ever made any messianic claim whatsoever. If we look at the base teachings of this man they are about looking after the oppressed, the marginalized, the sick, the hungry etc. Jesus himself never instituted doctrine. They are man constructed and I do not hold to any dogma or doctrine. That is the way emerging Christianity is heading. It is not right belief that is of any value but relationships. The Bible speaks of Jesus coming for the whole world not just a special group though one group was singled out to begin the movement. "The Historical Jesus; "A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". J.D Crossan, Marcus Borg and a host of others.
Jesus had no intention of starting a new faith. Like Luther he simply wanted to renew and change the way the Jews did things and behaved.
As far as divisions in religions go. It has always been thus but not just in religion in all human endeavors There is a very strong movement towards ecumenism. Witness the World Counsel of Churches. The hope is that we will have unity in diversity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The first question I have to ask is did Jesus say those things? Scholars have now concluded that 80% of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but are the words of the early church put into Jesus mouth.. It is not believed that he ever made any messianic claim whatsoever. If we look at the base teachings of this man they are about looking after the oppressed, the marginalized, the sick, the hungry etc. Jesus himself never instituted doctrine. They are man constructed and I do not hold to any dogma or doctrine. That is the way emerging Christianity is heading. It is not right belief that is of any value but relationships. The Bible speaks of Jesus coming for the whole world not just a special group though one group was singled out to begin the movement. "The Historical Jesus; "A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". J.D Crossan, Marcus Borg and a host of others.
Jesus had no intention of starting a new faith. Like Luther he simply wanted to renew and change the way the Jews did things and behaved.
As far as divisions in religions go. It has always been thus but not just in religion in all human endeavors There is a very strong movement towards ecumenism. Witness the World Counsel of Churches. The hope is that we will have unity in diversity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275253 wrote: Ahso:-6
The first question I have to ask is did Jesus say those things? Scholars have now concluded that 80% of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but are the words of the early church put into Jesus mouth.. It is not believed that he ever made any messianic claim whatsoever. If we look at the base teachings of this man they are about looking after the oppressed, the marginalized, the sick, the hungry etc. Jesus himself never instituted doctrine. They are man constructed and I do not hold to any dogma or doctrine. That is the way emerging Christianity is heading. It is not right belief that is of any value but relationships. The Bible speaks of Jesus coming for the whole world not just a special group though one group was singled out to begin the movement. "The Historical Jesus; "A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". J.D Crossan, Marcus Borg and a host of others.
Jesus had no intention of starting a new faith. Like Luther he simply wanted to renew and change the way the Jews did things and behaved.
As far as divisions in religions go. It has always been thus but not just in religion in all human endeavors There is a very strong movement towards ecumenism. Witness the World Counsel of Churches. The hope is that we will have unity in diversity.
Shalom
Ted:-6Agreed on the issue of what Jesus said and didn't say, so here forward any reference to Jesus by me is actually a reference to those who created the Jesus myth.
Using Christianity as an example, though all religions are most likely very similar, faiths as you call them, have, as far as I can tell, done a very good job of adapting to the times or region. In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson points out that the four gospels in the new testament varied from time and region for the purposes of tailoring the story to fit conveniently to each authors needs. The change of the old testament to the new was merely an adaptation as well.
The first question I have to ask is did Jesus say those things? Scholars have now concluded that 80% of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but are the words of the early church put into Jesus mouth.. It is not believed that he ever made any messianic claim whatsoever. If we look at the base teachings of this man they are about looking after the oppressed, the marginalized, the sick, the hungry etc. Jesus himself never instituted doctrine. They are man constructed and I do not hold to any dogma or doctrine. That is the way emerging Christianity is heading. It is not right belief that is of any value but relationships. The Bible speaks of Jesus coming for the whole world not just a special group though one group was singled out to begin the movement. "The Historical Jesus; "A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". J.D Crossan, Marcus Borg and a host of others.
Jesus had no intention of starting a new faith. Like Luther he simply wanted to renew and change the way the Jews did things and behaved.
As far as divisions in religions go. It has always been thus but not just in religion in all human endeavors There is a very strong movement towards ecumenism. Witness the World Counsel of Churches. The hope is that we will have unity in diversity.
Shalom
Ted:-6Agreed on the issue of what Jesus said and didn't say, so here forward any reference to Jesus by me is actually a reference to those who created the Jesus myth.
Using Christianity as an example, though all religions are most likely very similar, faiths as you call them, have, as far as I can tell, done a very good job of adapting to the times or region. In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson points out that the four gospels in the new testament varied from time and region for the purposes of tailoring the story to fit conveniently to each authors needs. The change of the old testament to the new was merely an adaptation as well.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Ahso:-6
The gospels are more than just what you have listed. They are a developing tradition. That is the authors, whomever they were, were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus by the time of writing. They were also directed towards a particular audience. None of this is meant to question the truths they are designed to present. For a good part they are midrashic in writing. Ancient midrash had two side to it. It was both a style of writing and interpretation. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi R. Daum in lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.
The gospels are a response to "their" profound experience of this Jesus. They are along with being midrash, history remembered and history metaphorized.
Of course the NT is the writings and letters that continued after Jesus departure. They reflect the experiences of people.
The mistake that many make today is that they think the understandings of the last 60 are still there whereas they began to change some 60 years ago. This was the mistake that Dawkins made. He was complaining about a faith that many Christians no longer hold to. He did not do his research.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The gospels are more than just what you have listed. They are a developing tradition. That is the authors, whomever they were, were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus by the time of writing. They were also directed towards a particular audience. None of this is meant to question the truths they are designed to present. For a good part they are midrashic in writing. Ancient midrash had two side to it. It was both a style of writing and interpretation. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi R. Daum in lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.
The gospels are a response to "their" profound experience of this Jesus. They are along with being midrash, history remembered and history metaphorized.
Of course the NT is the writings and letters that continued after Jesus departure. They reflect the experiences of people.
The mistake that many make today is that they think the understandings of the last 60 are still there whereas they began to change some 60 years ago. This was the mistake that Dawkins made. He was complaining about a faith that many Christians no longer hold to. He did not do his research.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275270 wrote: Ahso:-6
The gospels are more than just what you have listed. They are a developing tradition. That is the authors, whomever they were, were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus by the time of writing. They were also directed towards a particular audience. None of this is meant to question the truths they are designed to present. For a good part they are midrashic in writing. Ancient midrash had two side to it. It was both a style of writing and interpretation. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi R. Daum in lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.
The gospels are a response to "their" profound experience of this Jesus. They are along with being midrash, history remembered and history metaphorized.
Of course the NT is the writings and letters that continued after Jesus departure. They reflect the experiences of people.
The mistake that many make today is that they think the understandings of the last 60 are still there whereas they began to change some 60 years ago. This was the mistake that Dawkins made. He was complaining about a faith that many Christians no longer hold to. He did not do his research.
Shalom
Ted:-6I understand what it is you're saying about the NT, we are looking at it from different views.
I am curious though what it is Dawkins has said that you're referring to. I haven't read his book 'The God Delusion,' but I have read certain references to it.
The gospels are more than just what you have listed. They are a developing tradition. That is the authors, whomever they were, were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus by the time of writing. They were also directed towards a particular audience. None of this is meant to question the truths they are designed to present. For a good part they are midrashic in writing. Ancient midrash had two side to it. It was both a style of writing and interpretation. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi R. Daum in lectures at the Vancouver School of Theology.
The gospels are a response to "their" profound experience of this Jesus. They are along with being midrash, history remembered and history metaphorized.
Of course the NT is the writings and letters that continued after Jesus departure. They reflect the experiences of people.
The mistake that many make today is that they think the understandings of the last 60 are still there whereas they began to change some 60 years ago. This was the mistake that Dawkins made. He was complaining about a faith that many Christians no longer hold to. He did not do his research.
Shalom
Ted:-6I understand what it is you're saying about the NT, we are looking at it from different views.
I am curious though what it is Dawkins has said that you're referring to. I haven't read his book 'The God Delusion,' but I have read certain references to it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Ahso:-6
I was tempted to buy and read the book until I skimmed several section. He speaks about the watchmaker and implies that all Christians believe that. He writes of a God that is basically an old man with a while beard on a throne somewhere out there. I know there are still Christians who think that way but many have given that concept up entirely.
As far as I could see Dawkins was trying to paint all Christians with the same brush. This is a not a valid approach. That he should write in that manner would indicate to me that a man who is supposed to be a good, thorouogh and honest researcher he leat that all go to the wind in this book. Not bright for a scientist. He read more like a ranting man. I've watched him or TV and got the same impression.
Scientist Allistair McGrath and his wife wrote a book entitled "The Dawkins Delusion". Their opening comment was that it would not be a long book as that was the only value they saw in the "God Delusion"
It is interesting that Dr. Francis Collins head of the world genome project feels exactly the same way.
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I was tempted to buy and read the book until I skimmed several section. He speaks about the watchmaker and implies that all Christians believe that. He writes of a God that is basically an old man with a while beard on a throne somewhere out there. I know there are still Christians who think that way but many have given that concept up entirely.
As far as I could see Dawkins was trying to paint all Christians with the same brush. This is a not a valid approach. That he should write in that manner would indicate to me that a man who is supposed to be a good, thorouogh and honest researcher he leat that all go to the wind in this book. Not bright for a scientist. He read more like a ranting man. I've watched him or TV and got the same impression.
Scientist Allistair McGrath and his wife wrote a book entitled "The Dawkins Delusion". Their opening comment was that it would not be a long book as that was the only value they saw in the "God Delusion"
It is interesting that Dr. Francis Collins head of the world genome project feels exactly the same way.
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275290 wrote: Ahso:-6
I was tempted to buy and read the book until I skimmed several section. He speaks about the watchmaker and implies that all Christians believe that. He writes of a God that is basically an old man with a while beard on a throne somewhere out there. I know there are still Christians who think that way but many have given that concept up entirely.
As far as I could see Dawkins was trying to paint all Christians with the same brush. This is a not a valid approach. That he should write in that manner would indicate to me that a man who is supposed to be a good, thorouogh and honest researcher he leat that all go to the wind in this book. Not bright for a scientist. He read more like a ranting man. I've watched him or TV and got the same impression.
Scientist Allistair McGrath and his wife wrote a book entitled "The Dawkins Delusion". Their opening comment was that it would not be a long book as that was the only value they saw in the "God Delusion"
It is interesting that Dr. Francis Collins head of the world genome project feels exactly the same way.
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6I understand what you mean about Dawkins, he seems to be an in-your-face type of non believer and many in the field of evolution are equally disappointed by his approach.
Have you read any of Elaine Pagels' work? Elaine Pagels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was tempted to buy and read the book until I skimmed several section. He speaks about the watchmaker and implies that all Christians believe that. He writes of a God that is basically an old man with a while beard on a throne somewhere out there. I know there are still Christians who think that way but many have given that concept up entirely.
As far as I could see Dawkins was trying to paint all Christians with the same brush. This is a not a valid approach. That he should write in that manner would indicate to me that a man who is supposed to be a good, thorouogh and honest researcher he leat that all go to the wind in this book. Not bright for a scientist. He read more like a ranting man. I've watched him or TV and got the same impression.
Scientist Allistair McGrath and his wife wrote a book entitled "The Dawkins Delusion". Their opening comment was that it would not be a long book as that was the only value they saw in the "God Delusion"
It is interesting that Dr. Francis Collins head of the world genome project feels exactly the same way.
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6I understand what you mean about Dawkins, he seems to be an in-your-face type of non believer and many in the field of evolution are equally disappointed by his approach.
Have you read any of Elaine Pagels' work? Elaine Pagels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Just finished reading Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth". Not really in your face like his other works.
american inquisition?
Ahso:-6
No I haven't read any of her books though I have had theologians recommend her to me. Will do that some day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No I haven't read any of her books though I have had theologians recommend her to me. Will do that some day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Lon:-6
Unfortunately he lost any credibility in my view to write anything beyond his field in science. He is so angry he let his emotions get in the way of solid academic work.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Unfortunately he lost any credibility in my view to write anything beyond his field in science. He is so angry he let his emotions get in the way of solid academic work.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275290 wrote:
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted :-6
You are right. As an Atheist, it's refreshing to hear that. I have no desire to deny anyone their belief. I CANT deny anyone their own faith. Just as faith cannot be forced upon anyone
I have just watched an interview on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow who said that in a recent Public Policy Poling pole that revealed that 18% of residents of the state of New Jersey believed that President Obama was the Anti-Christ, while 17% weren't sure. With extreme fundamentalist attitudes such as that prevailing, we have little chance of the tolerance required to "follow our own path "
As Frank Scheaffer said in the interview....."Can Christianity be rescued from the Christians ?"
Personally I have no problems with what anyone wants to believe or not believe. We must each follow our own path as we feel necessary or appropriate. While I continue to study at VST I do not go about proselytizing. Though do engage in some forum. I'm not there to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted :-6
You are right. As an Atheist, it's refreshing to hear that. I have no desire to deny anyone their belief. I CANT deny anyone their own faith. Just as faith cannot be forced upon anyone
I have just watched an interview on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow who said that in a recent Public Policy Poling pole that revealed that 18% of residents of the state of New Jersey believed that President Obama was the Anti-Christ, while 17% weren't sure. With extreme fundamentalist attitudes such as that prevailing, we have little chance of the tolerance required to "follow our own path "
As Frank Scheaffer said in the interview....."Can Christianity be rescued from the Christians ?"
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
american inquisition?
I haven't read any of Dawkin's books. I did read "American Fascists." Living in the Bible Belt, it was a fairly good depiction of what religion is doing to politics in the U.S.. It's hijacking the entire political system.
I suspect a lot of the religious views Dawkin's addresses (which might be considered ridiculous characterizations of what Christians "really" think) are more dominant beliefs than might be desired. Look at the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., Southern Baptists. They split from general Baptists, because the Northern church wasn't racist enough. And now, since outright bigotry towards blacks is frowned upon, they've just made gay people "the new black." As much as I'd prefer the opposite to be true, the fear-and-hate-based churches are really posting the highest growth, over more moderate ones. Because these are the churches that manage to scare people out of the most money, then invest this money back into growth. But fortunately it's not keeping up with the overall population growth.
I suspect a lot of the religious views Dawkin's addresses (which might be considered ridiculous characterizations of what Christians "really" think) are more dominant beliefs than might be desired. Look at the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., Southern Baptists. They split from general Baptists, because the Northern church wasn't racist enough. And now, since outright bigotry towards blacks is frowned upon, they've just made gay people "the new black." As much as I'd prefer the opposite to be true, the fear-and-hate-based churches are really posting the highest growth, over more moderate ones. Because these are the churches that manage to scare people out of the most money, then invest this money back into growth. But fortunately it's not keeping up with the overall population growth.
american inquisition?
yaaarrrgg;1275313 wrote: I haven't read any of Dawkin's books. I did read "American Fascists." Living in the Bible Belt, it was a fairly good depiction of what religion is doing to politics in the U.S.. It's hijacking the entire political system.
I suspect a lot of the religious views Dawkin's addresses (which might be considered ridiculous characterizations of what Christians "really" think) are more dominant beliefs than might be desired. Look at the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., Southern Baptists. They split from general Baptists, because the Northern church wasn't racist enough. And now, since outright bigotry towards blacks is frowned upon, they've just made gay people "the new black." As much as I'd prefer the opposite to be true, the fear-and-hate-based churches are really posting the highest growth, over more moderate ones. Because these are the churches that manages to scare people out of the most money, then invest this money back into growth. But fortunately it's not keeping up with the overall population growth.It can't outrun natural selection - nothing can! Natural selection is the real deal, its everything religious people project as "God."
I suspect a lot of the religious views Dawkin's addresses (which might be considered ridiculous characterizations of what Christians "really" think) are more dominant beliefs than might be desired. Look at the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., Southern Baptists. They split from general Baptists, because the Northern church wasn't racist enough. And now, since outright bigotry towards blacks is frowned upon, they've just made gay people "the new black." As much as I'd prefer the opposite to be true, the fear-and-hate-based churches are really posting the highest growth, over more moderate ones. Because these are the churches that manages to scare people out of the most money, then invest this money back into growth. But fortunately it's not keeping up with the overall population growth.It can't outrun natural selection - nothing can! Natural selection is the real deal, its everything religious people project as "God."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
Snowfire;1275308 wrote: Ted :-6
You are right. As an Atheist, it's refreshing to hear that. I have no desire to deny anyone their belief. I CANT deny anyone their own faith. Just as faith cannot be forced upon anyone
I have just watched an interview on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow who said that in a recent Public Policy Poling pole that revealed that 18% of residents of the state of New Jersey believed that President Obama was the Anti-Christ, while 17% weren't sure. With extreme fundamentalist attitudes such as that prevailing, we have little chance of the tolerance required to "follow our own path "
As Frank Scheaffer said in the interview....."Can Christianity be rescued from the Christians ?"I believe the extreme religious right is fighting Armageddon. There are two problems for them though; a) they actually embody the evil they seek to destroy, and b) the ending is going to be a real disappointment for them.
You are right. As an Atheist, it's refreshing to hear that. I have no desire to deny anyone their belief. I CANT deny anyone their own faith. Just as faith cannot be forced upon anyone
I have just watched an interview on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow who said that in a recent Public Policy Poling pole that revealed that 18% of residents of the state of New Jersey believed that President Obama was the Anti-Christ, while 17% weren't sure. With extreme fundamentalist attitudes such as that prevailing, we have little chance of the tolerance required to "follow our own path "
As Frank Scheaffer said in the interview....."Can Christianity be rescued from the Christians ?"I believe the extreme religious right is fighting Armageddon. There are two problems for them though; a) they actually embody the evil they seek to destroy, and b) the ending is going to be a real disappointment for them.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
american inquisition?
snowfire:-6
We have a new female Anglican priest. She is living in a same sex, married relationship. That is an aside.
Susan also has a book entitled, "Saving Jesus from the Church". I must get a hold of a copy and read it. Spong also has a good book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". I have that one.
Shalom
Ted:-6
We have a new female Anglican priest. She is living in a same sex, married relationship. That is an aside.
Susan also has a book entitled, "Saving Jesus from the Church". I must get a hold of a copy and read it. Spong also has a good book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". I have that one.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275235 wrote: It is interesting that the basis of all the world's great faiths was justice and compassion. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
To add to that I looked up definitions of religion and surprisingly atheis fundamentalism does fit.
Now I do disagree with that law and find it reprehensible. No one should be deprived of public office because of their faith.
Religion Definition | Definition of Religion at Dictionary.com
Numbers two and three do fit. The part in italics is only an example and not definitive.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would suggest that since they do not share 1 esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.then 2 & 3 don't really apply either. Religious people tend to get hung up on the idea that you need religious belief to give you moral values which is a load of cobblers. The fact that most of them live in societies where the principle laws have a secular origin should really be a clue for them.
Where on earth do you get atheist fundamentalists from? I assume you mean those who would ban religion altogether. I actually find them just as annoying as fundamentalists christians. They are perhaps a mainly american response to the fundamentalist christians in the states. There is no british atheist society for instance but there is a humanist society which i just looked up.
The British Humanist Association
We do have the same kind of mutters here but it hasn't caught on the same way.- god TV is british based and spouts the same end of times rapture nonsense It's fascinating to watch sometimes in that I have real difficulty believing people actually take such nonsense seriously.
I haven't actually read any of dawkins books-the god delusion seemed to offer nothing I hadn't already worked out for myself and I found his style of writing unappealing on glancing through it. Same with karen Armstrong she strikes me as being one of those writers who sets out to prove her pet theory and ignores anything that might suggest otherwise. Although perhaps prejudice is not a good reason for not reading any of her books.
Speaking from a historical and political perspective an upsurge in religious belief is not something to be welcomed as inevitably it will lead to conflict as they try and impose their will on people by gaining political power-just look at the middle east or indeed the states. I think in europe and the UK there is little chance of them getting anywhere but the states is different. In some ways you are years behind in terms of political development. Perhaps dodging all the religious conflict of europe was not such a good thing as you haven't learned the lessons. worse I think we exported all our extremists to the US where they have been festering. The pilgrim fathers are a classic example yes they were persecuted because they were so annoying but the religious freedom they wanted for themselves they had no intention of letting anyone else have. Half way across they had so antagonised their fellow passengers they wanted to throw them overboard. The histories always gloss over that bit.
What's happening with this councilman is an indication of what a fundamentalist government would be like. If you want a truly repressive society go for a religious one.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus' concept of the kingdom of God was one where justice, compassion and egalitarianism were supreme.
To add to that I looked up definitions of religion and surprisingly atheis fundamentalism does fit.
Now I do disagree with that law and find it reprehensible. No one should be deprived of public office because of their faith.
Religion Definition | Definition of Religion at Dictionary.com
Numbers two and three do fit. The part in italics is only an example and not definitive.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would suggest that since they do not share 1 esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.then 2 & 3 don't really apply either. Religious people tend to get hung up on the idea that you need religious belief to give you moral values which is a load of cobblers. The fact that most of them live in societies where the principle laws have a secular origin should really be a clue for them.
Where on earth do you get atheist fundamentalists from? I assume you mean those who would ban religion altogether. I actually find them just as annoying as fundamentalists christians. They are perhaps a mainly american response to the fundamentalist christians in the states. There is no british atheist society for instance but there is a humanist society which i just looked up.
The British Humanist Association
We do have the same kind of mutters here but it hasn't caught on the same way.- god TV is british based and spouts the same end of times rapture nonsense It's fascinating to watch sometimes in that I have real difficulty believing people actually take such nonsense seriously.
I haven't actually read any of dawkins books-the god delusion seemed to offer nothing I hadn't already worked out for myself and I found his style of writing unappealing on glancing through it. Same with karen Armstrong she strikes me as being one of those writers who sets out to prove her pet theory and ignores anything that might suggest otherwise. Although perhaps prejudice is not a good reason for not reading any of her books.
Speaking from a historical and political perspective an upsurge in religious belief is not something to be welcomed as inevitably it will lead to conflict as they try and impose their will on people by gaining political power-just look at the middle east or indeed the states. I think in europe and the UK there is little chance of them getting anywhere but the states is different. In some ways you are years behind in terms of political development. Perhaps dodging all the religious conflict of europe was not such a good thing as you haven't learned the lessons. worse I think we exported all our extremists to the US where they have been festering. The pilgrim fathers are a classic example yes they were persecuted because they were so annoying but the religious freedom they wanted for themselves they had no intention of letting anyone else have. Half way across they had so antagonised their fellow passengers they wanted to throw them overboard. The histories always gloss over that bit.
What's happening with this councilman is an indication of what a fundamentalist government would be like. If you want a truly repressive society go for a religious one.