I was working at a Winter Camp for Boy Scouts and got into an interesting conversation with a man who was raised in the LDS Church and is a pastor there, but he scorns the church and all religions. Well this conversation got into a realm that I was enjoying ahd the rest of the people there couldn't follow, haha. He told me about how he has gone around and asked pastors and other religious leaders about their beliefs. What surprised me was that he said that the majority of the respones were that they leaders strongly disliked religion as a whole but that what they did was only a job, nothing more. Not to say they didn't believe in God, they just refuse to believe in the God of religion.
What does that say for religion? That it is dying. Not a belief in God, but a belief in religion. When religious leaders reject religion yet keep their belief in God it weakens religion. And I for one support these men and women wholeheartedly. I consider myself a freethinker. More or less you can classify me if you must as a agnostic deist.
As I've looked at forums online I am starting to see a large movement among religious leaders and their "flock" back to a natural belief in God...that of deism but with Jesus being the Son of God. I'm sure most people will call me a liar or disbelieve me, but how much do you really know about any of this? So you see the person preach to you...I could do that and you'd not know what I believed because you don't let your personal beliefs influence your job, well usually.
Religion is dying and freethinking is gaining ground. Slowly but surely. America is in need of a revolution, and so are our religions.
And what exactly are the advantages of free thinking??
1. Individual thought
2. The desire to learn about one's beliefs instead of blindly following what's been spoon-fed to them
3. The cultivation of one's own spiritual beliefs, not just a carbon copy of the Church's/parents'/pastor's/[insert highly religiously influential source here]
4. And individual interpretation of one's Holy book(s), if the individual's spirituality has any
5. Hopefully less discrimination due to more variety in schools of thought, even in the same "religion"
And that's just off the top of my head.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Isn't there an assumption in there, then, that no one would ever choose to be a part of a religion?
Not really. They can still choose to group up with people of similar views, but they didn't do so because they were raised a certain way or in a certain church. They did so because they chose to do so.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Right, but if we've gotten rid of religion...... there is no group to group up with.
The point is that you will not get rid of religion, as people really do choose to be a part of their religion.
It is true that many believe as they were taught and never move past that (or quit believing what they were taught out of rebellion and consider it enlightenment)
. . . However, people still choose to believe or not believe. As such, you will never get rid of religion.
Kind of offensive, however, to suggest that religion is somehow the cause of problems, rather than man's choice to use or misuse religion to do whatever he wants.
We're not talking about religion in the terms of one's spiritual beliefs, though. We're talking about organized religion. It's not that there will be no religion whatsoever, it would be that you wouldn't see Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues because you wouldn't have the supergroups of Orthodox Jews, or Roman Catholics, or Protestant Christians. Instead, you would just have Christians or Jews or Wiccans, but they wouldn't classify themselves as anything more specific than that, even if their beliefs vary.
And you would have more varying beliefs because you'd have smaller gatherings of people who already shared similar views, or just individual practitioners.
You can never get rid of spirituality. At least some people will always believe in some higher power, and those who share beliefs will gravitate toward each other. It is possible, however, to get rid of organized religion, though you'll never completely get rid of the groups of people who share views because people naturally group up with others like them. More than anything, then, you're abolishing all but the broadest labels.
It is true that many believe as they were taught and never move past that (or quit believing what they were taught out of rebellion and consider it enlightenment)
It's that exact sentiment that makes people see religion as bad. Knowledge is not rebellion, you should know that. Any "religion" that promotes ignorance is easily twisted and turned evil.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
kind of unrealistic. If you force (I guess with some army?) the organizational heads of the plethora of demoniations of just christianity to break up, the churches will still be there, people will still go. nothing will be different.
Church and Religion is not found in Rome or in a Denomination headquarters, but in the pew.
you suggest getting rid of the Catholic church in Rome and the protestant church heads...
Do you know how many there are? Here's just a small list from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Approximately 38,000 seperate denominations, each with their own set of differing beliefs.
Are you suggesting that these are all, somehow, under some sort of big organizational control? (I've worked in chuches before... they really aren't as 'organized' as the term Organized Religion makes it sound.... kind of like Organized Crime)
Unrealistic, perhaps, but not impossible. And even if "organized" religion isn't as organized as people think, it's still organized enough to cause conflicts between people within even the same umbrella religion.
Think about it, the only difference between Judaism and Christianity is one person and the religion's status of that person. The only difference between Judaism/Christianity and Islam is a book and a couple prophets (ie - the core belief of a father-figure God and so forth). Hell, the Jews and Muslims see the exact same place as holy ground, yet instead of uniting over it, they kill each other over it.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think that is a pretty huge overgeneralization of the differences between Judiasm Christianity and Islam.
There is a plethora of theological issues that make the three religions drastically different.
Ok how bout this...they all spawned from one man and the same God. Abraham being the man and, well, God being the God. The three religions are so much alike that if looked at from a completely unbiased third party it would be difficult to tell the difference.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
As someone who has studied the three religions, I seriously doubt the 'unbiased' nature of anyone who thinks the three are similar.
Yes, they have some siimlar aspects, more so than they may have to bhuddism or atheism, but they are not similar.
So tell me what is fundamentally different about them. As dragonwolf said below, they're made up of the same stuff just the way that it is practiced has become different.
Anyone who looks at the religions from an unbiased view would say they are more similar than different. It's only those who look at it from inside one of the religions that focuses on the differences.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
so you want me to tell you what is different about them from an unbiased view that doesn't focus on the differences?
Once again, I suggest that anyone who says they are the same doesn't know much about any of the three.
They are more similar to one another than to, say, they are to bhuddism... but apart from being monothesitic religions (despite islam's call that christians are polytheists), which look back to Abraham, the core of each religion is radically different from one another.
If they're so different, then name five significant differences other than what I've already covered, since you seem to have a hard time specifying just what is so different other than "they just are."
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
1. Christianity believes in the divinity of Christ. Jews believe that he was a good teacher who was misquoted and then idolized as a God. Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but those who believe he is God are polytheists and therefore need to be regarded as the enemy.
2. Christianity believes that other religions are incorrect and that the only way to salvation is through faith in Christ. The role of the Christian is to not hate those of other religions, but reach out to them and be a witness of christ through daily living, in hopes of helping unbelievers understand. The Jew believes that the non-jew is unclean by default and that they should limit interaction with them (Thankfully, this practice is starting to die out), but that there is no real compulsion to do anything to them. Islam believes that those who are not true muslims are the infidel and should be met with conversion. Jews and Christians are unclean and the 'sons of apes and pigs'. There are calls to never take a christian or jew as a friend, as well as support for Taqiya (sp?) which allows a muslim to lie to a christian or jew in hopes of converting them. There are also calls to fight against christians and jews, some suggest even calls to kill them if they will not convert or pay a special tax for living as a nonmuslim.
3.) If you insult Mohammad by drawing his picture, you will be met with violent protest and possibly lose your life. If you insult Moses by drawing his picture, nothing will happen. If you insult Jesus by drawing his picture, nothing will happen.
4.) Islam teaches that women are inferior to men and it is a crime to go about as 'uncovered meat' (as an islamic Imam once describe a woman walking around without her entire body covered head to toe. Islamic mosques often have (except for the most progressive, often found here in the states) a veil or wall seperating the men from women, believing that it is evil for men and women to comingle. Judiasm had such a seperation in the temple, but otherwise men and women were fairly equal (for the time, anyway). In christianity, there is no value difference between men and women. There are, indeed, some roles that the bible specifically suggests are for men, but that is not a VALUE difference.
5.) The Jewish holy book was written by multiple wise and holy men over the period of many generations, ranging from sages to princes to kings to prophets. The christian holy book includes much of this, but also includes the writings of doctors, teachers, fisherman and tendmakers, all giving up their previous lives to follow a carpenter's son who was more than he appeared to be. Islam's holy book was written by a 'raider' (read: thief) who took many wives, some as young as 9 years old, and set up a class of rules that protected his lifestyle, but limited that of everyone else.
how's that?
Crappy lol. I have about five minutes cuz I'm on the road at a coffee shop with wi-fi but let's see what I can do.
1.Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but those who believe he is God are polytheists and therefore need to be regarded as the enemy.
Wrong Islam do believe Jesus was a prophet, a mortal prophet. However the claims of Christian polytheism comes from those who view the trinity, Father-Son-Holy Spirit, as the Catholic Church does. Muslims say that these is worshpping three Gods and not one, which is understandable if yet mistaken.
2.Islam believes that those who are not true muslims are the infidel and should be met with conversion.
Same things Christians/Jews believe you just stated meaner.
There are also calls to fight against christians and jews, some suggest even calls to kill them if they will not convert or pay a special tax for living as a nonmuslim.
And Christian and Hebrew bibles say the exact same thing. (Not the tax, the killing. How nice of them to just tax us instead of killing us as the bible suggests)
3.If you insult Mohammad by drawing his picture, you will be met with violent protest and possibly lose your life. If you insult Moses by drawing his picture, nothing will happen. If you insult Jesus by drawing his picture, nothing will happen.
Nothing will happen if you don't follow the bible..."You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." 2nd commandment, punishable by death.
4. In christianity, there is no value difference between men and women.
Unless you know, you read the bible..."And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. "
5. who took many wives, some as young as 9 years old, and set up a class of rules that protected his lifestyle, but limited that of everyone else.
Hardly unique on account of many, many Jewish/Christian biblical heroes were polygamists. To name a simple few: Abraham, Jacob, David, Moses, and Solomon. As for set up a class of rules to protect his lifestyle, well that is a matter of interpretation since it could be argued that all the writers of the bible were doing was writing what they felt would best help them and the people like them.
Lance you obviously have a deep seeded resentment for Islam so there is really no point trying to convince you otherwise. However when you remove every part of the bible that says virtually the same passage as the Koran then you can claim the moral high-ground.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
They are not 3 gods, but 1 God. THAT is part of the difference.
Last time I checked, conversion into Christianity or the Jewish religion did not involved paying extra taxes or possible death if you do not convert. (Once again, do not reference what evil people did in the NAME of Christ, but what the religious books teach)
"'Vengence is mine." Sayeth the Lord" is different from "Kill the Infidel who insults Islam." You're not going to win that comparison.
Like many others, you are avoiding the christian covenant but making false equivocations. Paul states that sin came through Adam. The TRUTH is both. Sin came through both Adam AND Eve. which one ate the 'fruit' first is not a value modifier and is in no way the same as forcing a woman to be covered head to toe, or to always have to have a male family member escorting you (Under penalty of severe beating and rape to death) once again, this comparison isn't a comparison, but only highlights the difference.
Nah, I have a deep seeded resentment for people who want to kill me for being a Christian. And I don't think highly of people who suggest that my religion is akin to a religion that wants to kill me for being a Christian.
1. Christianity believes in the divinity of Christ. Jews believe that he was a good teacher who was misquoted and then idolized as a God. Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but those who believe he is God are polytheists and therefore need to be regarded as the enemy.
I've already mentioned that as one of the fundamental differences between the different religions. That brings you down to four.
Also, what T_Time said about the Muslims believing the Christians are actually polytheistic isn't "wrong" because Christianity is monotheist. Even he said that that notion was a mistaken one. If you think about it from the point of view of someone who didn't grow up in a Christian Church, the idea of three separate beings being one deity is actually a rather hard concept to wrap your head around. It's understandable that such a mistake could be made.
2. Christianity believes that other religions are incorrect and that the only way to salvation is through faith in Christ....
And all those boil down to "this religion is the only right one, convert or die." And in all cases "convert or die" has been taken literally, yes, even the Christians took it literally, whether you like it or not.
Also, Islam does offer a chance at forgiveness, just like Christianity. A person can convert to Islam and be saved from Hell. The difference here lies in whether or not Muslims are supposed to interact with the "unclean." In other words, Muslims don't actively reach out to "save" people like Christians do. The Qur'an teaches a concept similar to what the Bible teaches -- those who are "destined" to be "saved" will come of their own will and ask for salvation. If you don't think the Bible teaches this concept, look in Exodus and Revelation, both of which speak of people's hearts being hardened to the Lord, they will never go to him and be saved.
3.) If you insult Mohammad by drawing his picture, ...
Note the "graven images" commandment. Drawing pictures and having statues are technically graven images. And all sins are punishable by death. Just because nothing happens here on earth, it doesn't mean it won't happen in the afterlife. After all, God is the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner.
4.) Islam teaches that women are inferior to men...
That's a notion that is far from new and far from exclusive to Islam. It does, however, rear its head in different ways. Christianity and Judaism teach that women are to obey their husbands, and are often treated as property. Even in "secular" America, women were and still are treated inferior (glass ceiling anyone?). The fact that it shows up in all three religions, as well as secular societies and other smaller religions, tells me this isn't some religious thing, but simply a concept that has come from centuries of man's inferiority complex and has been put into religions to add more weight to them and (either expectedly or unexpectedly) escalate to the extremes that some interpret them as.
Here's a few verses for you:
[4.4] And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.
[4.19] O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them m order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.
Sounds like they're supposed to be treated pretty equal to me. In fact, that whole book says nothing except how women should be treated with respect!
Also, the Hijab isn't in the Qur'an the way it's enforced in Muslim society. Hijab is simply a head covering, such as what nuns wear. It is not a dress code for women. Hijab is mentioned a total of seven times, and none of them refer to any sort of dress code for women.
5.) The Jewish holy book...
Since when did it matter in revelation religions what a person's status is before their god reveals him/her/itself to them? What is it that your holy book says? "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Last I checked, that included priests and kings and princes and prophets (the only exclusion, of course, would be Jesus, and only in the Christian religion). According to Christianity, those that don't accept Jesus as their savior will go to Hell because they are sinful. According to Islam, those that aren't Muslim will go to Hell because they have no faith.
I found this essay, which is pretty interesting in regards to some of the differences and similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible (though I did find the first part slightly biased), in this case, the topic is sin.
One of the sections mentions the greatest of all sins -- unbelief, which is defined as:
a. in the denial of the existence and the activity of God.
b. in the repudiation of Islam
c. in the worship of gods other than Allah. For this reason, Jews and Christians are considered to be guilty of polytheism; the Jews, because they are believed to worship Esra as the son of God (Surat 9:30*), the Christians, because they have declared Jesus to be divine (Surat 5:72**).
Sounds familiar to me. Actually, it sounds exactly like what the Bible says about blasphemy (denying the existence of God) and the Second Commandment ("you shall have no other gods before me").
Surat 5:73, the very next line after saying that Christians disbelieve says, "[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." That to me says pretty much the same thing as the verses in the Bible saying that God is merciful and will forgive sins if people accept Christianity and come to Him through his Son. The difference lies in who you have go to (through Jesus or to God himself).
*[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
**[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.
[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It is, still, their view of Christianity, and a reason they hate and kill us. You are very correct in that it is wrong. But this isn't about what is 'wrong' about the thinking, it is pointing out differences.
Funny, I have pictures of Jesus in my home. There are stories about pictures of mary covered in poo, or a cross soaked in urine.... yet the christians do not kill such people. You can't even make a PICTURE of Mohammad without facing physical harm and or death.
As for 'sin being punishable by death' . . . once again, please show where we christians have 'sin execution' camps. Until you can do that, drop the offensive characterization that christianity is as violent and bloody as islam is across the globe.
I've chosen to ignore the rest of your post as you drag out the same old, tired arguments that show a lack of understanding of christianity, and seek to only demonize it while defending islam.
This shows that you have no ACTUAL desire to discuss them. As such, I have other things to do than defend my religion from someone who compares the second class status punished by forced 'honor rape' and death of women in the middle east with a supposed 'glass ceiling' in a corporation in the united states.
If you can't see the difference between them, there's nothing I can do to help you.
Funny, I have pictures of Jesus in my home.... yet the christians do not kill such people. You can't even make a PICTURE of Mohammad without facing physical harm and or death.
And what Dragonwolf and I are saying is that if you followed the actual laws in the bible you should be killed for having pictures of Jesus. It's funny how you blame them for following what their holy book says and think you are morally superior by ignoring your own.
In my opinion any one who thinks the biblekoran are literal, God-written documents is already a step behind. But I can't blame those people for their beliefs even though I disagree with them.
Every religion goes through what I'm going to call the "literal phase" when they follow their religion to a tee. Then after awhile they begin to tone it down in place of progress, both politically and economically. It can only be my dream that the toning down process will slowly eradicate organized religion from the world...
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
No, the Covenant with Christ doesn't have any call to kill people for having pictures of Him. There isn't any call to kill those who make fun of Jesus. In fact, the only call is to emulate Jesus by living for what is right and speaking out against what is wrong.
Under the previous Covenant, as shown in the Old Testament, there was a call for the Israelites to NOT have idols. One of the first things they did was to make idols. They were punished, but not by man. They were punished by God. There were crimes that the Law of Moses showed to be punishable by death, but these laws and punishments are a part of that Old Covenant, which was fulfilled with Christ.
So, the Ten Commandments, then, are no longer valid? Wow, it seems nearly 20 years of having the Ten Commandments shoved down by throat is all for naught then, eh?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
See below, I hate reading one word per line.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
At the basis of all three religions is pretty much one thing: there is one God and He is the only God, the supreme being, the Alpha and the Omega, the creator of everything.
The main difference between Judaism and Christianity is how Jesus is viewed. To Christians, he's the Savior. To the Jews, he's just another prophet.
The prime difference between Judaism/Christianity and Islam is the Holy book. The books themselves teach roughly the same things, but each religion believes their book was "divinely inspired" and is the one guide book to life.
These differences, especially the second set, have caused wars that last centuries. Yes, there are other differences, but they're about as worthwhile when you look at the whole picture as the differences between Anglican and Baptist denominations. When you get down to that level, most of the differences are ritualistic.
Here's an example, from my experiences growing up in both the Catholic and Protestant churches:
Catholic -- Quiet, very structured weekly sermons, ends with Communion. To partake in Communion, one's supposed to go through Confession (after a series of classes). A lot of emphasis is placed on the Virgin Mary as well as Jesus.
Protestant -- Not quiet by any means. Still somewhat structured, but more impromptu than the Catholic church. They take the term "being filled with the Holy Ghost" quite literally and often encourage being vocal. The ritual of communion isn't practiced nearly as often, if at all. Emphasis is mostly on the Trinity (Mary still plays an important role, but she is still human and no more divine than any other, other than that she was chosen to bear and raise Jesus).
Instead of looking at the nit-picky differences, why not look at what's the same? Catholic or Protestant, you still believe that Jesus is the Son of God and is the only way to heaven. You still believe he died for your sins (though you still have to acknowledge that you have sinned). You even celebrate the same holidays.
God, Allah, Abba, Father, whatever you want to call him, all the Abrahamic religions still worship the same being. It's the prophets, rituals, and texts that make the differences.
When you look close enough, yes, there is a difference between the Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) and the Church of God (Cleveland, Indiana), but until you look and see that the only major difference is that one believes speaking in tongues is or isn't of God, then there is no earth-shattering difference. Go farther out, and you can't tell the difference between the different sections of Christianity (such as pentecostal). Go far enough out and you don't even see the differences between the sects that split off centuries ago, such as Catholicism and Protestantism.
Think of it this way -- it's like looking at water and ethanol. If they're both in jars and the only thing you can do is see them, they look identical. It isn't until you walk up to the jars and open them that you even begin to notice a difference. And even then, it's only the smell. But when you zoom in deep down to the molecules, you see a vast difference. But wait, go down even farther, to the individual atoms that make up the molecules and you have pretty much the same thing making the two up -- hydrogen and oxygen. The difference is in the way the two elements are combined.
It's the same concept with the Abrahamic religions. Zoom in far enough and you get tons of differences, but zoom in farther and you get pretty much the same thing -- the same God.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Don't you find it odd that to show how 'the same' they are, your examples are all of different christian denominations?
Catholic, Protestant, church of God....
One of the three religions refers to the other two as "The sons of apes and pigs"
In truth, the constant calls to compare islam to christianity serves to degrade christianity and to make moderate the radical wing of islam.
After all, if they're just like christians, are they THAT bad?
I used Christian denominations because you mentioned before that there are hundreds of different denominations. I picked two (the Church of God churches) that I know from experience are identical until you've been in each respective church for about a month and you see one practice that is actually a pretty glaring difference to them (speaking in tongues; to one, it's of God and means influence from the Holy Spirit, and to the other, it's not, the other also doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit).
I used Catholic and Protestant because I again know from experience the differences and similarities between the two. It's also these two main denominations that every other Christian denomination stemmed from, and all ultimately came from Catholicism. You can't deny that the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are vast, the whole reason the Protestant church was created was to protest the teachings of the Catholic church (hence Protestant).
The point is, though, they are all Christian. No matter what denomination you want to label them, they all believe the same basic things: Jesus was the Son of God and is ultimately the only way into heaven because he died for our sins, God created us with free will when he created Adam and Eve, man fell after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that the Bible is the God-breathed holy text ("Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth" I've sometimes heard it referred to).
After all, if they're just like christians, are they THAT bad?
No better or worse than Christianity was when it was 1500 years old. Sounds to me like you're more trying to insist that the three are so earth-shatteringly different so you don't have to admit that your religion isn't that much different from one you've (for whatever reason) vilified.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The difference, though, was that those who acted in the name of the "Church" were acting against the teachings of Jesus and the calls in the New Testament. (Though, not all of the Crusades were bad. Remember that alot of the fighting was defending Jerusalem from the Muslims, who were very brutal in their taking of Jerusalem for themselves in an effort to quash Christianity by taking and ruling its "Holy Land"), whereas the violence, today, by Islam is directly taught in their scriptures as how you deal with Jews and Christians who will not submit to you.
Remember that alot of the fighting was defending Jerusalem from the Muslims, who were very brutal in their taking of Jerusalem for themselves in an effort to quash Christianity by taking and ruling its "Holy Land"
See: the creation of modern-day Israel.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don't quite see how the creation of 'modern day' Israel (right where it used to be before it was largely purchased by the Jews there, and turned from a wasteland into a lush country) is related to the collective 'forgetting' that the islamic warriors were the reason why the christians came to fight in Jerusalem. (Yes, many carried it too far and thought that Jews who did not resist the muslims ought to be converted or killed, but they were not acting in accordance with Christianity, despite what they said)
are you suggesting that you oppose the existance of Israel?
I know I do.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Ah.
Let's, then, look at a society that did not have religion: Soviet Russia.
over 100 million people killed in a mere 70 years. But, no religion.
Perhaps, despite religion, people still manage to kill one another as they see fit, and that just because some people may use religion to do evil, it does not mean that the religion itself is automatically evil?
The Christians were killed by the Romans because they believed in Jesus as the Son of God.
The Pagans in general (Celts, Druids, Heathens, etc) were killed by the Christians because they didn't believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
The Persians took over most of Europe and killed anyone who didn't believe the Persian king to be a god.
The Greeks, a mix of agnostics and smaller religions, demoralized the Persians because the Greeks refused to bow to the Persian "god-king" and the Persians attempted to take them over and annihilate them.
Wars and killing in the name of religion happen everywhere and have happened in every time. The concept of religion -- a large group of people sharing the same morals and belief systems -- isn't any more inherently evil than the concept of Communism. It has, however, been used for evil deeds for millenia and has consequently received a rather negative connotation to a large number of people.
And here's a question for you -- why were those people in Soviet Russia killed?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
People want to kill for power, and they are willing to use, misuse and hide under the name of religion to do so.
Why were those in Soviet Russia killed?
many were killed by famine, starved to death by a failed communist system which fed those in power and starved everyone else.
however, the VAST majority were killed for 'crimes against the state' such as having the wrong books in their home, or being turned in for having said something that was found to be unsympathetic to Stalin. Many were killed as spies that were later found out to have just been turned in by someone to gain favor.
Many were slaughtered for liking the freedom of the West. many were killed by the communists upon returning home from the POW camps in the Vietnam and Korean wears, as while in those camps they were 'tainted by the west' (i.e., they realized that being free is good and being a slave to the state bites)
And just b/c Stalin and friends did horrible things to his people and advocated no religion doesn't mean that a lack of religion is inherently evil.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I didn't suggest that it is. I stated that even if you remove religion from the equation, people still slaughter one another for power.
therefore, perhaps doing away with religion will solve nothing.
What about the Spartans? They didn't really have a concrete religion (more agnostics than anything, they believed in higher powers but didn't really worship them, per se), yet they were some of the most respectful people in ancient Greece. And of course, the most famous for their ability to fight unthinkable odds.
It was even noted at an Olympic event that when an old man was searching for a seat in the stands, it was only the Spartans who offered theirs. Everyone in the stadium knew it was the right thing to do, but it was only the Spartans who did it.
Doing away with organized religion may do nothing, or maybe it will do something.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The, uh, Spartans weren't 'agnostic' . . .They followed the same religion as the Greeks before them. Link: http://www.fjkluth.com/sparta.html
Now, as far as doing away with 'organized' religion... there are over 30,000 demominations within christianity alone... do you REALLY believe that it is all that organized? Is there some sinister motive in each church, playing their role in the 'organized' religion's secret agenda?
Or is it a bunch of people who have faith, who get together with other people of similar faith and talk about their faith, with someone up front who is paid to study that faith to guide the rest of them?
*hides secret decoder ring*
First of all, the link you've provided looks like some amateur's work in the days of the dotcom boom. Surely you can do better than that.
Second, Spartan society is actually largely secretive, therefore not that much is known about day-to-day life (at least not compared to other cultures of the time). What is known, is that religion doesn't appear to be a central idea that Spartan culture revolved around, otherwise they would have never gone to war against Xerxes, because battle was forbidden during the Carneia festival.
Spartan society revolved more around being a military state (for lack of a better label), and the emphasis was on fighting and strength, rather than religion and piety. That's not to say the spirituality wasn't there, they just didn't practice it like their fellow Greeks (hence my mentioning that they're more agnostic than gnostic, they have the belief, but not the piousness).
Now, as far as doing away with 'organized' religion... there are over 30,000 demominations within christianity alone... do you REALLY believe that it is all that organized?
I've already covered that. Perhaps you should reread our conversations.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Now now, don't discredit information because it doesn't use flash programming.
I didn't say that they were the most devout people in the history of mankind, but they clearly were not agnostics. Like anyone from any religion, they fight when it suits them.
If a pious nature were the dividing line between gnostic and agnostic, You'd find me to be very agnostic in my words and actions. (I'm not a pious person, despite any reputation I might have by those who would attack christianity)
I place great value on honor and duty, and have no problem with physical fighting in the struggle against what is evil. Especially in protection of what is innocent and good.
but you still hold that getting rid of 'organized' religion would solve many of our problems. I countered that by pointing out that 'organized religion' isn't organized as those who would do away with it which to believe.
Now now, don't discredit information because it doesn't use flash programming.
Not flash programming, basic web design principles and W3C standards. That web site is akin to someone writing an essay with massive issues in grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling.
I place great value on honor and duty
Believe it or not, honor and duty have nothing to do with religion. Morals don't require religion, either.
I countered that by pointing out that 'organized religion' isn't organized as those who would do away with it which to believe.
And again, organized religion, in this conversation/blog, is religion with political agendas. Wicca, for example, does not fall under the term organized religion in this case (yes, they are involved in politics, but only to gain equal rights, such as their religious symbols on gravestones). It doesn't mean, though, that there aren't organizations within it. Many Wiccans are part of covens or other small groups that serve the purpose of communing with their deity(ies) and learning about their religion.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Never trust or distrust a site based on the idea of "Form over Function"
Remember that many books look boring, but the information is what is key.
Eh, Honor and Duty I would possibly agree with, but morals come from your religious views as to the purpose of man and the code by which one must relate to one another. Yes, Atheists have moral codes, but they also have a religion. In their religion, there is no supernatural being. therefore, morals are based on society and change over time, as society sees fit.
Why is it that the religious are not allowed to be politically minded? Shouldn't a person's political stances be shaped by their moral convictions as established by their religious beliefs?
Seems silly to suggest that it is ok for people to have their morals, but they'd better not vote based on them!
Never trust or distrust a site based on the idea of "Form over Function"
Remember that many books look boring, but the information is what is key.
w3c.org
The W3C is the web standard. It's kind of like the APA or MLA standards for essay writing. I could go into an entire critique of the website you linked, but that would require an entry of its own and would be off topic for this thread. Would you consider an essay of good quality if it didn't follow any of the standards of writing and had poor grammar and punctuation? The 20-point font ads don't help, either, as well as the lack of citations (yes, there is a list of "resources" but they are not citations), which, by the way, is considered plagiarism.
Yes, Atheists have moral codes, but they also have a religion. In their religion, there is no supernatural being. therefore, morals are based on society and change over time, as society sees fit.
I think a lot of atheists would disagree with you on that.
Why is it that the religious are not allowed to be politically minded? Shouldn't a person's political stances be shaped by their moral convictions as established by their religious beliefs?
I never said they couldn't, but stupid things like "the war on Christmas," where Christians are so outraged by people saying "happy holidays" doesn't help their cause.
And now, I point you over to my latest blog entry that covers a lot of the things I've seen in this discussion. It's good reading, I assure you.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
*sigh* Mk, there is a difference between religion and belief, am I not right? Just because religion is gone, it doesn't make people immoral. Stalin was also a communist and dictator. The founding fathers were/are considered freethinkers, but they were juris naturalists or anarcho-capitalists, not communists and dictators. Religion is not evil in it's pure form, however religion nowadays is at least corrupt. I never said it was evil and the point was more along the lines of how religious leaders see what they do more as a job and keep their personal beliefs out of the pulpit or whatever.
I didn't suggest that the lack of religion is 'evil' . . . even 'organized' religion... however, I showed that even if you remove religion, you still end up with incredible death.
So, perhaps, it isn't the religion.
I take issue with your idea that religion is corrupt. I'd say that it is much LESS corrupted than it was, say, a thousand years ago, where there was an active battle for power between the pope and the king in Europe.
I was a pastor and that feeling you mention IS there, but has nothing to do with the religion. It has to do with the stress of being a shepard of a flock, who look to you to be the surrogate faith-developer.
As far as keeping personal beliefs out of the pulpit.... I don't know about others, but I never did that nor was I ever asked to. In fact, any issues I've ever had with a church were ALWAYS from the local church itself, and not the denomination.
"Organized" religion is politically motivated religion, and politics for the most part is corrupt because power corrupts. Also how do we know that we won't find out 300 years from now about horrible things that "insert religious leader" has done that was covered up? We don't know, but it's more than likely possible nowadays. It's corrupt, we just can't see it like you used to be able to.
Possibly, but the man I talked to and the pastors I've talked to all say more or less that it's just a job and they don't necessarily believe everything they preach, but they preach that because it's their job.
People who look to the pastors to be surrogate faith developer have no faith whatsoever in their beliefs or they wouldn't hold on so firmly to pastors or priests for guidance. At least in my opinion.
It is a common misconception that there was "no religion" in Soviet Russia. Even at the height of the purges of the 1930's, fully 1/3 of the population self-identified as Russian Orthodox, and there were significant numbers of muslims, jews and buddhists as well. Even within the regime, which was officially atheistic, only about one-half of Russian officials ever actually considered themselves so. Many casual commentators also forget the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church was actually revived during WWII as a "patriotic," pro-government organization that enjoyed a great deal of privelidge after agreeing to throw their hat in with the communist regime.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
There's a relatively new line of thinking that assumes that religion is the cause of mans negative deeds. Another philosophy is that free thinking is the quintessence of positivity which also assumes that man is inherently good. There is also an assumption that free thinking means no guidance.
The problem is that all these thoughts are born out of emotion. Some simple sentiments against religion. Sentiments against religion for not eliminating the evil in the world and some develop the sentiments because the can't stand the idea of a higher being.
But many of these are assumptions and many of these assumptions have not been proved false but have been proved not to be true. An example is Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and tonnes of scientists who are Christians and by many definitions not free thinkers have contributed to the progression of science and tech. Thereby proving non-free thinkers are not necessarily stupid people, but since we can't see what their potentials were, who is to say that they reached their potential. They might have failed to reach their full potentials because they were religious, but we really can't tell. We therefore have to accept these theories by faith. The very thing it seeks to lambaste.
I don't think man is inherently good. If someone believe that they should be dropped off a cliff for their idiocy. These thoughts aren't born out of emotion, their born out of beliefs and using reasoning and experiences. Which could lead to emotions but not necessarily. I can stand the idea of a higher being but I don't know and can't prove if it exists so I don't try to. If it does it does, if it doesn't then it doesnt. The beauty of freethinking is your beliefs are open ended and don't lie with the dogma bullshit.
Issac Newton isn't considered a true Christian, he was a Unitarian, and while Unitarians consider themselves Christians, they are not considered Christians by the rest of the community. But do you even know what a freethinker is? I never said non-freethinkers were stupid so please don't put words in my mouth or imply that they've come from this blog. I'm not lambasting religions, I'm just saying that your pastor or priest might more or less be only doing his/her job and not believe what you think. The only thing bad about religion I said is that it is at least corrupt.
Michael Faraday was a minister. Free thinking can't work if you freely think about it.
Right, having thoughts that aren't strictly Christian can't work....way to go
___CENSORED FOR ADULT CONTENT!____
Nick Aden 3:14 AM 1/06/08
See that red dot on your shoulder? Tempt me again, lol. I don't sit around and pretend to help make these stupid rules to want to watch them be broken...I said no porn and I mean no porn.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
haha, I can't help it. So I assume the moderators all sit in a virtual room with smoke everywhere making up rules. The rules were meant to be broken, Mr. Aden.
The smoke is so we can't been identified should the case of your murder ever go to trial. Seriously.
But, yeah, no more porn. I'm only allowed to warn you once more before kicking you off....
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
How long do I get kicked off for more porn? Cuz you know I'll do it anyway.
It's banishment now. >.< They block the IP address. So, no name calling or porn.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Banishment to the farthest corners of Hell, I will trek their and back and be the biggest BAMF in my own mind.
Hmm, time for a test of the ProU banishment system.
"I fucking hate this system and it stifles my right to be a narcissistic bastard when I'm pissed. Bunch of communist and fascist goosesteppers."
This has been a test of the ProU Banishment System. I will be running these to see how long I can keep this up when I call someone a name on here.
Thank you, and good night.
Lmfao. I should delete the paragraph in quotes, but it was directed at me...so....lmfao
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
There will never be an end to organised religion. Even outlawing it would only push it underground.
The comunications revolution that this site is a part of is great for every form of intelectual progress, from science to religion. More very well educated people is going to increase the number of different views, and allow those views to become more rational and progressive.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
As son_of_disaster so elegantly put it a few posts up: "Organized" religion is politically motivated religion, and politics for the most part is corrupt because power corrupts.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Surely that is true, for many if not most of the organizers, I was talking about the followers.
If the leaders are corrupt, the followers fall victim to the corruption. The problem is, too, that so many people hold even their local pastors on such a high pedestal that the congregation will blindly follow everything the pastor says.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I can tell you that this is the impression the preachers get, but it is REALLY not the truth.
congregations have no problem quickly turning on a preacher if a couple of the 'mother hen' types in the church decide they don't like the preacher.
I can agree to an extent with you. I think it's divided cuz I mean look at people like Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, Hinn and others.
Phelps is not a christian, no matter what he and his 'church' call themselves.
Phelps and his family are a group of lawyers who set out to give a black eye to christianity and to provoke someone into attacking them for the sake of suing the individual and the city.
They are NOT conservative christians. At one point, they held a fundraising dinner for Al Gore.
They at least were Christians and believe themselves to be Christians. They're radical Christians like radical Islam, they're still Christians. So they aren't conservative Christians, political affiliation is bullshit in this area even though politics has taken over religions especially organized religions.
Phelps is as much a Christian as bin Laden is a Muslim.
Take that however you want, but they are both what are called extremists. They take their interpretations of the teachings of their respective religions to an extreme.
Why is it that Christian extremists are always dismissed as "not Christians" but Muslim extremists are always considered the "norm" of Islam by Americans?
The "it'll never happen to me" syndrome strikes again...
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The problem with that argument, though, is that group-think is far more common, and unless those "mother hen" types are really vocal (or the congregation's really, really small), most people who don't like what's going on will simply leave for another church.
That's not to say it doesn't happen, but considering the number of churches my mom left because of the way the church was run (and she's the type who could probably make the President bend to her will), I doubt it's as likely as you're trying to make it seem.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
it is more common than you think. It is, however, very much behind the scenes.
A 'church hopper' wouldn't see it.
It doesn't take long if you are on the other side, as a pastor, to see it.... but from the congregational side, it isn't always easy to see.
ask your pastor friend about congregation members who are not holding any position within the chuch, but still manage to have some sort of power in the church. They are often married to members of hte board. If the church is small enough, they may be the descendant of one of the church founding members or something like that.
I could tell you stories....
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
1.Religion is dead or of you join one you join the living dead.
2.Denominations are the morgues of revival.
3.These 2 statements do not have much to to with God.
I have studied and participated in " Most Every Christian Denomination"
and i think these 3 statements are true.
I've chosen to ignore the rest of your post as you drag out the same old, tired arguments that show a lack of understanding of christianity, and seek to only demonize it while defending islam.
So, quoting straight from the Qur'an is lack of understanding? The only thing I fail to understand is your side of the story, considering you have given me nothing concrete to support your views. And no, you can't say it's all over the news. You know as well as I do that the media reports things that get ratings. Murder, rape, war, those things get ratings.
This shows that you have no ACTUAL desire to discuss them.
Actually, I do, and I've done the research to back up my points. You're the one that's basically been trying to keep me in the dark about your views, since all you've been saying is "there's a world of difference between them and if you don't see that, I'm not going to explain why I think that." I had to pry the information out of you to begin with.
As for 'sin being punishable by death' . . . once again, please show where we christians have 'sin execution' camps. Until you can do that, drop the offensive characterization that christianity is as violent and bloody as islam is across the globe.
Do I really need to go into this one? I mean come on, the main reason Christianity is even as widespread as it is is because people invaded other countries, told the natives to convert, or they killed them. No, they didn't have "sin execution" camps, but that doesn't mean they didn't kill.
I have other things to do than defend my religion from someone who compares the second class status punished by forced 'honor rape' and death of women in the middle east with a supposed 'glass ceiling' in a corporation in the united states.
The interesting thing is, though, is that nowhere in the Qur'an that I found that mentioned women, said that such punishments and treatment were acceptable. It seems to me that such acts and rules and laws are the result of a corrupted government and church system.
Oh, and I know for a fact that such actions are not true for the entire Muslim community because I had a roommate from Kosovo, and the very fact that she was in the United States, studying computers, and was a devout Muslim, is a testament to the fact that the evils you insist are true are simply the result of extremists and corrupted government and religious officials.
And okay, so the glass ceiling thing is off from the treatment that does go on in the Middle East. Let me then, try this again. In the very Bible, women were stoned for adultery. It would not surprise me in the least if such stonings occurred if a woman so much as talked to a man that was not her husband, considering that the Bible clearly states that if a man so much as looks at another woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery in his heart.
You also have the witch hunts of the 1600s, where people (mostly Christians) looked at their own people, many of whom being women and accused and killed them for being witches. How would you like to be burned at the stake, drowned, or tarred and feathered just because you were there?
I've chosen to ignore the rest of your post as you drag out the same old, tired arguments that show a lack of understanding of christianity, and seek to only demonize it while defending islam.
And what tired arguments would that be? The fact that the Qur'an says little to nothing of the things that support what people do in the name of Islam? Sounds to me like what people did to justify lynching and enslaving black people. The Bible says little to nothing to support it, yet people managed to use it as so.
Everyone goes on about how those people aren't real Christians and how they hide behind the religion and use it to their own advantage, yet when someone from another religion does the exact same thing, it's suddenly the norm of that religion.
The only person that's vilifying any religion here is you, Lance.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
your equivocation of christianity's treatment of women versus that within islam is what you don't understand. Your comparison to 'defend' the idea that christianity and islam are the same when it comes to treatment of women is that (as I pointed out) women cannot walk around without a male escourt in many islamic countries, under penalty of law (which is often rape and or beatings, possibly to death). . .. . to that of a glass ceiling in a corporation, in which women don't always earn the same as men (another issue to debate sometime, as I disagree with the assumptions in that statement)
Ok, please list every christian church that practices conversion by the sword. Include details and cases. Please note, to keep the topic relevant, let's stick to events within the last, say, 100 years for both christianity and islam.
No, you didn't pry. You asked for 5 points of difference. I gave them. Stop twisting events.
unlike christianity, which uses only the bible, there is more to the religious framework of Islam than the Qu'ran. If your research is as 'in depth' as you're trying to convince me that it is, you'd already know that and wouldn't have made that point. I suggest that you are not as well read as you might think you are.
So were men.
biased supposition based on everything except facts and examples.
A suggestion by Christ that sin begins in the heart is not the same as "it's ok to stone women who talk to men" . . .. peddle the sexual discrimination of the bible elsewhere.
it'd be horrible. but note that you have to go back 400 years to find this in christianity. And, in fact, it isn't IN christianity, but actions by people who claimed it was done 'in the name of christ' . . . when in fact they were working AGAINST the bible's commands. Compare this to islamic teroror. How far back to we need to go to find an example of that? Oh.... yesterday's bombing in Iraq? The assassination of bhutto a week or so ago? And, those are not examples of 'twisting' the religious teachings of islam. (In fact, the 'twisting' of the teachings of Islam are done by those who are NOT of the mind to kill people for not being muslim.... a mindset I personally support and see among the muslims I come into contact with. I am thankful for that.)
You don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I invite you to read the Hadith and also the various collections of Fatwas by the islamic religous leaders.
From wiki on islam and jihad:
In what way is that like a Christian missionary spreading the gospel through working as a nurse in africa, china or any other country?
Wow, it only took, what? Both me and T_Time challenging you to name things that made Islam and Christianity so much different? Nah, not prying at all. Granted it could have been worse, but you still had to be confronted more than once.
Also, Islam is a young religion compared to Christianity. The 1500 and 1600s puts Christianity at about the same age as Islam is now. The 1500s or so is when Christianity was in what T_Time calls the "literal phase." The witch hunts, the Crusades, and so on all took place during that time. Islam, being about the age that Christianity was during that time, is going through the same phase.
I'd go into more, but I'm at work and am out of time.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I was hesitant at first since I thought that any points I brought up, the two of you would instantly dismiss and equivocate.
Which the two of you did.
Once again, your overgeneralization of Islam and Christianity is rather large.
It is also offensive.
On the other hand, instead of being up front with things and saying 'here is what I know and this is where you can find more information,' you started with an argument that was akin to 'this just is,' which made you lose a significant amount of credibility and did exactly what you were trying to avoid. Not using any sources whatsoever didn't help either.
So, instead of just saying how offensive or wrong people are, make sure to have a concrete argument (with references) to back up what you think. You'll get more respect if you can prove what you believe.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You did prove what you believe, and showed what you know.
Your equivocaion of islam and the teachings as found in the Hadith constrasts sharply with the teachings of Christianity.
THe Divinity of Christ and the concept of Salvation by Grace rather than works contrasts sharply with both the jewish faith and that of islam.
Yet, you continue to insist that the three are the same so that you can continue to believe that the world would be better without 'organized religion'
But I'M the one with the credibility issue? I think not.
I ask you to read again, and this time don't skim, because your reply seems to indicate that you didn't read through what I previously said.
On the other hand, instead of being up front with things and saying 'here is what I know and this is where you can find more information,' you started with an argument that was akin to 'this just is,' which made you lose a significant amount of credibility and did exactly what you were trying to avoid. Not using any sources whatsoever didn't help either.
So, instead of just saying how offensive or wrong people are, make sure to have a concrete argument (with references) to back up what you think. You'll get more respect if you can prove what you believe.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yeah... I'm the one who is unprepared for this discussion.
you suggest that Islam Christianity and Judiasm are all the same, but I'm the one not read well enough to discuss it?
Nah, that's ok. I have better things to do than explain the differences between the three religions to someone who compared arrest, honor rape and/or the stoning of women for showing their ankles or walking around without a male escort to that of the 'corporate glass ceiling'.
(How's that Hadith reading going?)
For someone who accuses people of twisting words and putting words into your mouth, you sure do a lot of it yourself.
I never said you were unprepared, or that you didn't know what you were talking about. I did say, however, that you didn't provide (supply, include) references to your claims. Hell, you didn't even so much as mention (state, say) where you got your information from until the last couple of replies. Then, when I came to you with what? about half a dozen or so links to sources that I found while researching for this discussion, you flat out said you deliberately (intentionally, on purpose) ignored what I had to say.
So, instead of saying in the first place "you're mistaken, here's some things that you might find interest in," you went and decided to go on and on about how wrong we are (and even going to the point of belittling people) for pointing out similarities and without feeling like you have to back up your own claims and then wondered why you got called out on the fact that you didn't even so much as mention sources.
Nah, that's ok. I have better things to do than explain the differences between the three religions to someone who compared arrest, honor rape and/or the stoning of women for showing their ankles or walking around without a male escort to that of the 'corporate glass ceiling'.
You also evidently have "better things to do" than actually reading what people have to say after they say something that hits a nerve with you, otherwise you would have seen that I acknowledged that that particular comparison wasn't accurate and then provided another example. That little "ability" of yours has gotten you into quite a bit of trouble around here, actually, come to think of it.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How's the Hadith reading going?
Haven't had time to read too much, but what I have found looks a lot like the Old Testament and historical records of what was considered acceptable at the time (7th century).
Book 017, Number 4235:
Ubida b. as-Samit reported: While we were in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upoi him) he said: Swear allegiance to me that you will not associate anything with Allah, that you will not commit adultery, that you will not steal, that you will not take any life which it is forbidden by Allah to take but with (legal) justification; and whoever among you fulfils it, his reward is with Allah and he who commits any such thing and is punished for it, that will be all atonement for it And if anyone commits anything and Allah conceals (his faultfls), his matter rests with Allah. He may forgive if He likes, and He may punish him if He likes.
(Source)
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is mainly directed at "lancekates."
If you somehow think that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are not basically the same religion, you must be crazy. Each religion was basically founded by a message of peace, corrupted by power hungry individuals, and is followed devoutly and blindly with an undeniable lust for the persecution and destruction of all other religions. I speak of the opinions of the actual religions and not ALL of the people in them. The person that started this blog is correct in saying that organized religion is in decline. Free thinking is the cornerstone of an individual spirit and the need to organize shows a kind of popularity contest between the followers; ex. "who is the most devout?" In order to free the mind, one must confront the realization that all manner of ideals were told to them and were not actually attained individually. You must question authority and think for yourself, otherwise you are nothing but a mindless pawn being directed by corrupt religious officials (some, not all).
I've also found that many people are starting to abandon a formal religion while retaining a belief in some kind of god. I think it's a good thing. I've seen this a lot with younger Christian people. Many people I know have stopped identifying themselves as Christian or even religious at all because those words can no longer define them. I hope this catches on everywhere. I think there would be more harmony between people if there was one less major difference, unless it was replaced with something else.
Rome didn't fall in a day
Mmm nothing I love more than people taking my blogs out of context and making bitching matches...it really inflated my ego and makes me laugh uncontrollably...thank you.
To quote Napolean (Bonapart, not Dynamite), in regards to religion:
The common man believes it to be true.
The wise man believes it to be false.
The ruler believes it to be useful.
The advantage of thinking freely lies in the fact that it makes it harder for cynical rulers to make you jump through hoops out of loyalty to some made up fantasy figure, while abandoning reason and willfully suspending disbelief regarding the compromising their own freedom of mind.
Lancecrates' comment "Isn't there an assumption in there, then, that no one would ever choose to be a part of a religion?" provokes me to analogize by way of the confidence trick; a confidence trickster is a master at getting people to surrender their critical facaulties and reason to his confidence trick. There is a big difference between freedom of choice and the illusion of freedom of choice. One should be very suspect when they witness countless individuals abandoning reason in large numbers, especially when they exhibit perfectly astute reasoning capabilities in every facet of their life beyond religion. Reason is the enemy of faith and religion, something identified by Luther himself. Reason is also the enemy of the confidence trickster. Correlation anybody?
Many religious people have no problem identifying when somebody is being unreasonable in an everyday situation and recognizing that such unreason is not something to be appluaded, and not something indicative of a strong, stable or desireable state of being. Yet when it comes to their own religious beliefs, suddenly reason becomes superfluous, and in some cases, it is even viewed as allied with arrogance. While religious unreason on the other hand, is suddenly feted as strength and righteousness.
Such a dualistic relationship with reason is evidence that organized religion does indeed compromise freedom of thought; it makes ordinarily reasonable people behave in an unreasonable fashion and actually celebrate their unreason as some kind of righteous movement on their part, as opposed the hobbling of their critical facualities that it actually is.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
It's good to see you back Tuffgong.
Napolean was a smart man, and most people are easily manipulative. I'll take freedom of thought over religion anyday.
Nice one, I was away travelling in South East Asia for the last two months, so I didn't have much time to dedicate to blogging. I'm refreshed now, even if I am also back to work, something which goes hand in hand with finding time to fuck about on the net.
Most leaders are smart men, real leaders anyway, as opposed to puppets. Unfortunately too many smart men are also cynical and twisted men, whose contempt for foolishness leads them to exploit it without sympathy to lead a sheep like following of believers into the role of carrying out orders which defy reason.
Like Adolf Hitler, when he convinced an entire Christian nation that it was in God's interest to wipe out the Jews. That there is a cracking example of the importance of maintaining freedom of mind, and as good a reason as any not to surrender your critical facaulities to belief. Somebody above asked what was the advantage of freedom of thought. Well that there is a glaringly obvious advantage.
Not blowing yourself up in suicide bombings because you've been persuaded that you'll recieve 72 virgins in heaven and a 70 person guestlist in paradise is another shining example of where freedom of thought could be advantageous in preventing violent acts of unreason.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
How was Southeast Asia?
I didn't think of those examples for us of free thought, but they are marvelous examples. Now I've got some more ammo to use.
Asia was great. I want to head back out there again next year. I was in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand this time round, next year I want to get to Indonesia and Vietnam. I'm still readjusting back into work, which is always a lil disorientating after travel.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
In Cambodia, did all the people dress in black? Did you forget to pack a wife?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing