All I know is.....

[Osborn F Enready]

If God is an Elk, Deer or Fish, you will all be bumming.

If God is the Earth, it may be showing signs it tiring of your meddling.

If God is the Sun, he has been trying to kill us for quite some time, damn that pesky atmosphere!

If God is the universe, he probably doesn't know you yet.

If God is an alien, we must make for a hell of an amusing science project.

If God is a giant, and our universe is the dust in a shoebox in his closet, I hope he pays the heating bill.

What is God, why do you think so, and what on earth makes you think you are more right than any other equal persons vision?

Did Pat Robertson talk to your God? Gahndi? Marx? Hitler? Churchill? Bush?

They all looked at the same stars, put on their pants in the same manner, drink and eat like anyone (though much better in most cases) and have self doubt like anyone. Their famillies lived and died, their bodies bled red just like yours, they had to take a piss outside occasionally when nature called.

What level of pompousness, or self righteousness is inherited that you can place your dogma above all elses? To practice a belief for yourself is one thing, and it is a valid option or perogative of right. But at what level of sanity does one justify the preaching to others about where to place their faith, when they themselves only know what they have been TAUGHT, by other people who were also TAUGHT, etc.?

I am boggled at the level of faith some people have, against all odds, regardless of the damage involved to others.... all in the name of cherishing life, of one flavor of bias or another.
:eek:

[SteveA]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ... They all looked at the same stars, put on their pants in the same manner, drink and eat like anyone (though much better in most cases) and have self doubt like anyone. Their famillies lived and died, their bodies bled red just like yours, they had to take a piss outside occasionally when nature called. What level of pompousness, or self righteousness is inherited that you can place your dogma above all elses? To practice a belief for yourself is one thing, and it is a valid option or perogative of right. But at what level of sanity does one justify the preaching to others about where to place their faith, when they themselves only know what they have been TAUGHT, by other people who were also TAUGHT, etc.? I am boggled at the level of faith some people have, against all odds, regardless of the damage involved to others.... all in the name of cherishing life, of one flavor of bias or another. :eek:

People naturally tend to see their own beliefs as being more valid or truthful than differing views, whether it be science, religion and/or political etc. and preaching these as the truth isn't a problem in itself. It's only when someone sees these beliefs as providing some inherent justification for harm or aggression against others that things break down. I know you didn't deny this but I just wanted to emphasis that speech is speech, and knowledge in itself is a tool though as you said, when elevated to a status that discounts unjust treatment of others is where the problem lies.

[Sonart]

.

Conan: "What gods do you pray to?"

Subotai: "I pray to the four winds... and you?"

Conan: "To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen."

Subotai: [chuckles] "What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said."

Conan: "He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!"

Subotai: "Ah, my god is greater."

Conan: [chuckles] "Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain."

Subotai: "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him."

-- Conan the Barbarian, 1982

.

[Clarence]

Ford is better than GM.

Righteousness is Wrong! - my new bumper sticker.

I just don't understand either, Os.

[bishop]

Quote by: osborn I am boggled at the level of faith some people have, against all odds, regardless of the damage involved to others.... all in the name of cherishing life, of one flavor of bias or another.

is having faith the problem, or is the real problem that some choose to impose their views on others?

i definitely have faith, but i can't say that i've ever imposed my views on other people.. well.... this past friday, my girlfriend was forced to eat fish because i observe lent (and i usually do the cooking). but other than that, i can't think of a case where i've imposed my beliefs on others.

[LetThereBe]

Ah, but what when the faith requires the faithful to impose beliefs?

I question the sincerity of those who claim to truly believe, but do not openly share. Especially when the religion orders it (Christianity for instance).

[bishop]

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," and "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father" (John 6:44, 65).

i.e. it is not our place to impose our beliefs onto others. when you say "openly share", what do you mean exactly if not for the faithful to attempt to impose their beliefs? there is so much information out there in today's world that anyone interested can learn. i've never shied away from my faith, i simply don't impose it on others. i also don't vote for people who want to impose their faith on the public.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Let thereBe I question the sincerity of those who claim to truly believe, but do not openly share.

I truly believe. I truly believe that there is no such thing as gods and that all human behavior, and all our rules of moral conduct, have been determined by evolution.

However, I daresay most folks would much prefer I didn't share it.

Here's someone cheerfully sharing...



.

[LetThereBe]

Indeed. And if such displays are an obligation of the faithful, do you then criticize the religion? Or is it the fault of the followers?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: bishop "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," and "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father" (John 6:44, 65). i.e. it is not our place to impose our beliefs onto others. when you say "openly share", what do you mean exactly if not for the faithful to attempt to impose their beliefs? there is so much information out there in today's world that anyone interested can learn. i've never shied away from my faith, i simply don't impose it on others. i also don't vote for people who want to impose their faith on the public.

But what of "Go now and make disciples of all nations"?

Also, since we seem to be using Christianity as an example, what of specific sects of Christianity? My brother has recently become a Jehovah's Witness, and going door to door is expected of him. Would you say this makes his religion inferior in some way? Or should he just ignore parts of his religion that require him to go around witnessing to others? That is where I would question his sincerity.

[Jack]

do you then criticize the religion? Or is it the fault of the followers?

Religion, since without that there wouldn't be followers.

[LetThereBe]

So you do not blame the terrorists who would crash a plane into the twin towers, but rather the radical teachings which led them to commit the act?

If it is the religion which is at fault, how can the individual incur guilt by practicing their faith?

[Jack]

I blame them both. The individual for being so naive as to believe killing others was a just act, and their religion for suggesting such a concept in the first place.
Individuals are responsible for their acts of faith.
Religion provides the motivation for their acts.

[Jack]

I'm currently reading "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and I agree with him when he says,"“Our technical advances in the art of war have finally rendered our religious differences—and hence our religious beliefs—antithetical to our survival. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia—because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world.” (page 13)

[LetThereBe]

Indeed. But how would one go about this? Short of denying freedom of religion it will be impossible. Or is violating the first amendment a small price to pay for the species survival?

[SteveA]

Quote by: LetThereBe Indeed. But how would one go about this? Short of denying freedom of religion it will be impossible. Or is violating the first amendment a small price to pay for the species survival?

LOL

Well, if you seriously think it's a good idea then I assume you have no problem with being arrested for what you just said.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Isherwood “Our technical advances in the art of war have finally rendered our religious differences—and hence our religious beliefs—antithetical to our survival."

that's a little above me. I'll take your word for it, Ish. Reading deep, huh? Sheesh! summary for the blonde guy! Nevermind, I think I get it.

"We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom "

that is bizarre, now that you mention it. I guess I'm proof that millions (?) of people are living both reletively happy and relatively harmlessly without any form of religion. Aren't we all religeous in our own ways? I mean habits and passions. But martyrdom is Dangerous! With a capitol D.see?

"because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world.” (page 13)

True. Damn it it's true. I agree. With these religious fanatics in charge, it's hard to attack the individuals without attacking the religion. Religion may be bunk as a governing policy, but everyone has a right to have religion, everyone knows that, and I happen to agree with that policy. Religion is a personal thing. Not to be forced on others. Suggested? fine. Forced? never. Removing our threat in this country would have to be serious surgery. Many would have to attack the infected tissue without hurting the delicate organ (religion). . Moving on. Yeah, well. Like I said attack the misguided individuals without attack the religion. Whew!

To me, it's plain and simple and the answer was waiting for me at the bottom of the thread.

Let there be. When we get back to where we once belonged, so to speak, lets let there be. All in favor...

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Isherwood Individuals are responsible for their acts of faith. Religion provides the motivation for their acts.

I'm unsure that religion always provides the motivation for acts, but it definitely provides an amount of certainty to the decision. Gott Mit Uns.

Quote by: LetThereBe Indeed. And if such displays are an obligation of the faithful, do you then criticize the religion? Or is it the fault of the followers?

Which followers? Catholics? Baptists? Lutherans, Methodists, Pentacostalists, Quakers, Mormons, etc. etc. One can define their faith based on any number of selected readings of the Bible, and they obviously do.

The fact is that Religion teaches a great number of things, many of which seem to contradict one another, depending on how you look at them. It strikes me that followers are quite adept at picking and choosing what lessons from the Good Book they're heeding.

On this board I constantly hear from good Christians that those other Christians aren't really Christians. Not the way Jesus meant. But then who's to say? When someone selfrighteously holds up the Good Book and justifies their cause with a few well chosen passages, who's to say they're not following the word of God to the best of their belief? After all, believers can quote chapter and verse about how homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. So regardless of how crudely put, isn't "God Hates You" a correct understanding of God's teaching, there in black and white for all to see?

That young lady holding the signs is smiling cheerfully, joyfully confident that she is sharing the truth as God told her through prayer and God's shepherd.. Who is one Christian to tell another they have it wrong?



Or perhaps it's simply that people make their own judgements and then convince themselves of it's correctness by selecting arcane passages from a 2,000 year old collection of chronicles that teach whatever one needs to best suit their circumstances. If someone can show in scripture that God himself advocates their cause -- and almost anyone can -- then how can anyone professing to believe say they're wrong?

When moderate Muslims quote from the Qu'ran to demonstrate that Islam is actually a peaceful, loving religion, they're absolutely correct. But then so are the fanatics quoting from the same Qu'ran to demonstrate that Islam is the Wrath of Allah.

Apologies to John Kenneth Galbraith, "The modern (Believer) is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

.

[another day]

Quote by: Isherwood Religion, since without that there wouldn't be followers.

It's not who invented the gun, it's who fires it.

[Osborn F Enready]

EXACTLY where I wanted this thread to go. Excellent replies so far, and I have little to add or contest so far except to clarify exactly where I stand here.

I believe and respect the idea and action of all men to have their own beliefs to whatever religion they so choose, new or old, popular or rare. I abhor the thought of ANY religion being forced (or even recognized officially) by any tentacle or extension of government.

The word God for instance, should be nowhere in our pledge.

As long as a person does not infringe anothers rights, I don't care what they do. However, when their actions infringe the rights of another, justice must be sought to find the person who was infringed rectified to HIS, or HIS PEERS satisfaction.

This concept is true to me for every single enumerated right, and many not enumerated due to self evidence. (such as I am free to consume what I choose as long as I accept the responsibility of my actions, sober or intoxicated)