Religion

[dogman6126]

Are you going to actually tell me which points in the essay you disagree with?

Maybe later I'll go into it (if I have time) but right now that wasn't the main point I was addressing.

All you've said is that you'd rather I spent my time talking about charities. The only difference between a religious and non-religious charity is that the religious charity will give you a Bible and tell the families of the Third World not to use condoms because they're sinful; causing the deaths of millions in the process due to an overpowering reproductive cycle and too many mouths to feed. That's just one point I'll make on the issue of charity because Christians always seem to bring it up when somebody criticizes or speaks an uncomfortable truth.

Actually, no. What I said is you don't seem to ever consider the good things of religion. You never grant or deny that religion instills a positive sense of community, that it encourages people to be charitable, that it gives some people a sense of purpose, hope, love, forgiveness. These are all very positive things. Its not that I'd rather you spend your time talking about charities. I'm saying that if you are to judge religion as good or bad, poisonous or not, then you need to not just consider the bad things that religion has done.

What I was actually trying to do was link the essay in order to give my friend [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] some useful insight into the Crusading-era Catholic Church.

I understood it in context of your post here. I took your comment "Religion is poison. I now refer to this article" to mean that this article meant to argue that religion is poison. I'm sorry I skimmed it in that biased context.

However, it seems my hopes of opening the member's mind a bit more has already proved too late. The essay was written by me, by the way, in-case I didn't mention I before. But it seems that despite the essay talking about community and bringing people together (via conflict) you'd rather I'd forgotten about the facts and just say that everyone lived peacefully and there were no conflicts and misery?

Again that is not at all what I am suggesting. Just as I think that only considering the negatives to judge religion is pointless, so to would be to only consider the positives. In all the times that you've talked with me you must realize that I'm not irrational.

I challenge you once again to actually try to argue what I said in the essay; please be reminded that the focused topic is the Military Orders. This is not to say I ignore your reply to my 'poison' remark so let me also explain that. It's a phrase adopted by several key academics including Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion' which I like to paraphrase because, although it is not a literal poison, it has similar effects. Poison floods through your system and by the time it has been fully engraved into a person, it has already done its job of indoctrination.

Appendix: Charity and good deeds of people to others precedes Religion and is practiced completely independent of it.

But to use the term poison is to understand that you are using a term with an inherently negative and inflammatory connotation. I never knew where you pulled the term from, or what you actually meant by it. Using Jargon without defining it...you can't blame people for taking your comments in the standard use of the term. If you only mean that religion is in some sense contagious, but not that it is good or bad (by this term alone), then that's fine. Just expect to explain that difference to every new person you use that term with.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Are you going to actually tell me which points in the essay you disagree with? All you've said is that you'd rather I spent my time talking about charities. The only difference between a religious and non-religious charity is that the religious charity will give you a Bible and tell the families of the Third World not to use condoms because they're sinful; causing the deaths of millions in the process due to an overpowering reproductive cycle and too many mouths to feed. That's just one point I'll make on the issue of charity because Christians always seem to bring it up when somebody criticizes or speaks an uncomfortable truth.

What I was actually trying to do was link the essay in order to give my friend [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] some useful insight into the Crusading-era Catholic Church. However, it seems my hopes of opening the member's mind a bit more has already proved too late. The essay was written by me, by the way, in-case I didn't mention I before. But it seems that despite the essay talking about community and bringing people together (via conflict) you'd rather I'd forgotten about the facts and just say that everyone lived peacefully and there were no conflicts and misery? I challenge you once again to actually try to argue what I said in the essay; please be reminded that the focused topic is the Military Orders. This is not to say I ignore your reply to my 'poison' remark so let me also explain that. It's a phrase adopted by several key academics including Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion' which I like to paraphrase because, although it is not a literal poison, it has similar effects. Poison floods through your system and by the time it has been fully engraved into a person, it has already done its job of indoctrination.



Appendix: Charity and good deeds of people to others precedes Religion and is practiced completely independent of it.

Why are you concerned with "opening my mind"?

As for the second part, I view it differently. I think most people are simply going to conform to something either way. Why not Christianity? Christianity is certainly better than, say, modern American culture. It's not really about "indoctrination." It's about lifestyles. I think a Christian lifestyle is superior to a modern American one.

I think there are many reasons why Christianity is positive, meaningful and essential (to Western culture) and the fact that the lifestyle is a wonderful alternative to a modern American one is simply a bonus.

 

[JJJA]

Maybe later I'll go into it (if I have time) but right now that wasn't the main point I was addressing.


Actually, no. What I said is you don't seem to ever consider the good things of religion. You never grant or deny that religion instills a positive sense of community, that it encourages people to be charitable, that it gives some people a sense of purpose, hope, love, forgiveness. These are all very positive things. Its not that I'd rather you spend your time talking about charities. I'm saying that if you are to judge religion as good or bad, poisonous or not, then you need to not just consider the bad things that religion has done.


I understood it in context of your post here. I took your comment "Religion is poison. I now refer to this article" to mean that this article meant to argue that religion is poison. I'm sorry I skimmed it in that biased context.


Again that is not at all what I am suggesting. Just as I think that only considering the negatives to judge religion is pointless, so to would be to only consider the positives. In all the times that you've talked with me you must realize that I'm not irrational.



But to use the term poison is to understand that you are using a term with an inherently negative and inflammatory connotation. I never knew where you pulled the term from, or what you actually meant by it. Using Jargon without defining it...you can't blame people for taking your comments in the standard use of the term. If you only mean that religion is in some sense contagious, but not that it is good or bad (by this term alone), then that's fine. Just expect to explain that difference to every new person you use that term with.

If I think that Religion does no good for the world, then why do you feel so compelled to demand I praise something to which I find so detestable? This is exactly what religion does: demand constant praise despite its terrible teachings and history.

 

[Wyote]

Why are you concerned with "opening my mind"?

As for the second part, I view it differently. I think most people are simply going to conform to something either way. Why not Christianity? Christianity is certainly better than, say, modern American culture. It's not really about "indoctrination." It's about lifestyles. I think a Christian lifestyle is superior to a modern American one.

I think there are many reasons why Christianity is positive, meaningful and essential (to Western society) and the fact that the lifestyle is a wonderful alternative to a modern American one is simply a bonus.

Religion is not a lifestyle. You either treat it with the respect and diligence it requires for it to have significance and meaning, or you reject it outright.

It's not a hat or a dessert option.

 

[Skarekrow]

I think the distinction between "religion" in the organized sense and a sense of human "spirituality" should be enlightened.
You can take the spirituality out of religion and vice versa, though ultimately they should compliment one another as well as the person following said religious guidelines.
The concept of 'spirituality' is an attempt IMO to find the common ground between a strictly controlled belief system that most religions promote i.e. - follow our teachings and you will not be punished but rewarded.
The backlash of spiritualism began as people began to see the fallacies and hypocrisy of the major religious doctrines.
It has now become associate with 'new age' -ism, which is just as annoying and has their own made us set of "rules" they like to dictate.
There is a middle ground, and that is where I foresee most people heading.

 

[just me]

Many, many things are in the hearts of man, and the extent to which they exist in each person varies greatly.

Just out of curiosity, can you elaborate as to what you are attempting to express here?

It was a reply to something said regarding hatred and religion. Animosity lives in the hearts of mankind. Religion is sometimes used as an excuse. Those not religious thus blame religion. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[just me]

So is it your understanding that only a religion teaches caring, nurturing, and love?

When I was a child I spake as a child; when I became a man, I put away childish things.

As a spiritual person who believes in God, I simply asked a question. Your conjecture is wrong.

 

[just me]

One of my favorite places to read when discussing this in such a way with others regards the cross. I know how people here despise copying the Bible. Therefore, how am I to discuss things? Few will read this, but here it is:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1:18-31&version=KJV

 

[Skarekrow]

A vindictive God (in the sense that people go to Hell for eternal damnation) is unjust if one is to also an adherer to the attributes given to Him.
(BTW the word “Hell” is a Norse word that doesn’t belong in the Bible, there was Gehenna, Tartarus, Sheol, and Hades…two meant the underworld where all the dead went, one was a burning trash-heap outside of Jerusalem ((that is now a park, so you can walk through Hell technically)) that Jesus likened men’s heart’s to, and the other meant “grave”…yet somehow, they were all incorporated into one word from the Norse “Hel” who is the niece of Odin and ruler of the underworld…the word “Hell” became synonymous with a root cellar in the middle ages as it was underground…and all these words with different meanings were made into this place of ETERNAL suffering and torture.)
Clearly unjust if it is eternal…clearly unjust if God is said to be just and sent Jesus to “save the whole world” so by most Religious churches standards - Jesus is a failure.
Does that make sense?

 

[Elegant Winter]

Religion is not a lifestyle. You either treat it with the respect and diligence it requires for it to have significance and meaning, or you reject it outright.

It's not a hat or a dessert option.

Well, I dislike bringing up definitions, but a lifestyle is "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group."

I acknowledge that it's much more than a lifestyle, but "lifestyle" is a word that has considerable scope. Most conform to the lifestyles they observe and I think a Christian lifestyle is superior (morally, etc) to a modern American one. I think this ought to be a consideration for parents raising children in particular. If I have children I'll become a Christian in order to help protect them from the horrors of modern American culture (and many other reasons) and out of sheer respect for Christianity I'll endeavor to develop my spirituality.

I imagine many parents are hesitant about exposing their children to modern American culture and its acceptance and glamorization of drug use, promiscuity, superficiality, etc. It's not a healthy lifestyle. It's actually an incredibly destructive one. I think embracing only the less spiritual aspects of Christianity as an alternative is fine and I don't think it reduces Christianity.

I think a focus on the Ten Commandments and attending Mass would be a couple elements of a less spiritual Christian lifestyle. As well as dressing more conservatively and having an appreciation for abstinence. Also, Christians tend to be more moral and considerate than non-Christians (in my experience). I would want my children to be raised in that kind of environment. I would want my children to be a part of the Christian community and of something greater than themselves. If they became spiritual beings because of that that would be wonderful.

I see a lot of value in Christianity as a social force. I can't help it. I was raised by fairly strict Christians and I think I turned out well in large part because of it. I don't believe in God or miracles, but I know that I benefited greatly from Christianity being a central element of my upbringing.

Lastly, I mean no disrespect to Christianity by advocating a Christian lifestyle without the spirituality. I really do consider Christianity beautiful and essential to Western culture. I'm just not spiritual at this point in my life. I'm at an odd point. I want to be a Christian, but I'm not sure if I'm actually a Christian.

 

[the]

Can we please address the original manuscripts so that I can interpret things the way that sounds best? I mean obviously the people who translated the book didn't know what they were doing, so let me fix it...

 

[just me]

A vindictive God (in the sense that people go to Hell for eternal damnation) is unjust if one is to also an adherer to the attributes given to Him.
(BTW the word “Hell” is a Norse word that doesn’t belong in the Bible, there was Gehenna, Tartarus, Sheol, and Hades…two meant the underworld where all the dead went, one was a burning trash-heap outside of Jerusalem ((that is now a park, so you can walk through Hell technically)) that Jesus likened men’s heart’s to, and the other meant “grave”…yet somehow, they were all incorporated into one word from the Norse “Hel” who is the niece of Odin and ruler of the underworld…the word “Hell” became synonymous with a root cellar in the middle ages as it was underground…and all these words with different meanings were made into this place of ETERNAL suffering and torture.)
Clearly unjust if it is eternal…clearly unjust if God is said to be just and sent Jesus to “save the whole world” so by most Religious churches standards - Jesus is a failure.
Does that make sense?

Sounds out of context.

 

[just me]

Can we please address the original manuscripts so that I can interpret things the way that sounds best? I mean obviously the people who translated the book didn't know what they were doing, so let me fix it...

Oh, I checked the interlinear greek through lexicons and concordances with cross-referencing decades ago before computers. Stick to King James and you'll do well.

 

[Skarekrow]

Can we please address the original manuscripts so that I can interpret things the way that sounds best? I mean obviously the people who translated the book didn't know what they were doing, so let me fix it...

Sounds out of context.

Nothing is out of context…look it up.
Hell just doesn’t belong.
Also, God would have control and dominion over Hell as well, as well has being the creator of such a place. Eternal doesn’t jive with the punishment eventually outweighing the crime - does God then yank them from Hell once their lesson has been learned?
Couldn’t a stern talking to once we are no longer under some spell covering our minds with a “veil” and thus ruining free will work just as well?
I think it probably would…just saying.

 

[the]

Nothing is out of context…look it up.
Hell just doesn’t belong.
Also, God would have control and dominion over Hell as well, as well has being the creator of such a place. Eternal doesn’t jive with the punishment eventually outweighing the crime - does God then yank them from Hell once their lesson has been learned?
Couldn’t a stern talking to once we are no longer under some spell covering our minds with a “veil” and thus ruining free will work just as well?
I think it probably would…just saying.

Nothing like using a graphic image quoting a comedian to prove a point.

 

[Skarekrow]

Nothing like using a graphic image quoting a comedian to prove a point.

Works for five year olds….I figure it will work on the forum.

 

[Wyote]

I acknowledge that it's much more than a lifestyle, but "lifestyle" is a word that has considerable scope.

Agreed

I think embracing only the less spiritual aspects of Christianity is fine and I don't think it reduces Christianity.

I think a focus on the Ten Commandments and attending Mass are a couple examples of a "Christian lifestyle." As well as dressing more conservatively and having an appreciation for abstinence. Also, Christians tend to be more moral and considerate than non-Christians (in my experience).

I take no issue with all of your response really and I am glad you are thinking your way through your life choices rather than moving forward blindly. I only take slight issue with the fact that it's important to note that Christianity, the "lifestyle" thereof, is not necessarily the only religion with such positive merits. Nor is a lack of religion a removal of such things. You have not stated the contrary by any means, but I thought it was worth noting.

 

[Skarekrow]

And you know…modern religion does in fact cause terrible things.
As you may or may not know the Mormon religion (who I might add follows the same 10 commandments the rest do) is a fierce opponent (try saying that with a lisp…funny shit) of gay rights and the right to allow them to marry.
I was raised Mormon *rolls eyes* and though there are many great family-centric teachings this is the current state of affairs -

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38309684&ni...eaths-in-mormon-lgbt-community&s_cid=queue-12

Naturally, my family members who are still active in the church denounce this posting on FB by my cousin…here is what my older brother had to say in comments -

Mathew - Okay, I'll weigh in. I'm a gay male that was raised LDS. From a very young age I was taught that only the LDS church knew what was right, and that if you didn't believe then you were a "bad" person. That included anyone who was different or didn't strictly follow the church's teachings. Black people were looked down upon. So was anyone that looked odd or "other". I even remember my dad being criticized for having a mustache and wearing a funky leather jacket to church instead of a suit coat. Those little whisperings and judgements are all very apparent to children even at a young age, even if they don't understand what might be wrong. The church also teaches that only families that are sealed in a temple can be together forever... thus setting up the idea that somehow people that aren't included are also somehow "bad". I'm not sure how to really describe the way I felt hearing all of this, because so much of it was implied, but it was definitely there. Growing up gay I knew from the very beginning that something was wrong with me, that I was "bad", and a sinner. When I was very young (under 10) I thought about killing myself, or wanting to die. Sometimes suicide felt like the only way to "fix" what was wrong with me. As I got older I had bishops tell us that all gay people were automatically going to hell, because it was "God's plan". I had a Scoutmaster tell me that gay people were "disgusting" and "gross".

And now, ironically, the LDS Church wants us to all know that being gay is okay! Well, as long as you turn off all those pesky feelings. (Like a light switch!) That gay kids are totally fine and don't need to kill themselves, but you have to be celibate your whole life. Also children of gay parents need to denounce their families in order to get baptized. Well... screw that! I believe that the LDS Church's policies are actively destructive to young minds that are struggling with their sexuality, or skin color or anything else that labels them different or bad.

Jesus visited with and washed the feet of every person in society. No judgement on if they were "worthy" or sinners or anything else. That is all. Simple love and help. I just can't get behind any religion that offers so much judgement and hate. I survived growing up LDS, and while I think there are also a lot of positives to the church, because of that judgmental attitude and conditioning I would never raise a child in that environment.

 

[Misadventure]

So is it your understanding that only a religion teaches caring, nurturing, and love?

When I was a child I spake as a child; when I became a man, I put away childish things.

As a spiritual person who believes in God, I simply asked a question. Your conjecture is wrong.

The question you asked implied that non-religious people think it's a delusion, so, you sir, are the one who's forming conjectures. I also asked a question in a very simple format that would require nothing more than a "yes" or a "no" answer. This is typical, however, and I should not have hoped beyond all hope that you would have actually answered it straightforwardly. The answer that you did provide, however, indicates that you would have answered my question with a "yes". So, thanks, I guess, for answering.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If I think that Religion does no good for the world, then why do you feel so compelled to demand I praise something to which I find so detestable? This is exactly what religion does: demand constant praise despite its terrible teachings and history.

Your question was addressed to another, but I'm curious about that which you find so detestable.
If you could expand on the object of detestation, it would be interesting... Not a dissection of your detestation, but a more comprehensive elaboration.


I ask because it seems to me that there is a hierarchy of objectives in any Church - or any society vast, or small; some more 'elevated' and some less so. The concept of a purer religion, a less compromised society is of interest to me - insomuch as whether such states are possible/feasible/realistic/achievable/etc. Of course, whenever principles are compromised, or purified for that matter, there are associated costs - and these probably account for some of the inertia in societies. (2nd Amendment discussions, etc.).