Elton John wants Religion banned r.o

[Indigowaters]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor Well, good job keeping the Sabbath holy. I have to agree with Raerae if you say you or other Christians don't punish others for sin- the democracy we live in makes it virtually impossible not to. Indeed, many churches directly encourage their members to vote certain ways. You don't have to personally throw stones in order to punish someone for sinning. Voting for legislature which entitles the government to punish sin with fines, imprisonment or denial of rights makes you no less guilty. As for Matthew 10:34-37, we face the ubiquitous problem of Biblical interpretation. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" and "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" sound to me like Jesus isn't advocating peaceful coexistance for those who disagree regarding His importance. But who am I (or you?) to know what Matthew's author intended Jesus to mean? Btw- I assume everyone has access to a Bible (online at the least), so they can read as much context as they want as long as they know the verses I refer to.

You know what, it all keeps going back to voting.

So are you trying to persuade my vote, because then you would be worse than those you are accusing (the church). So I should just take everything you do and say at face value? I think not. And have you not heard of righteous anger? You want to paint a picture of Jesus floating on a cloud everywhere He went, but that's not so. He turned over the tables of the people who were making a mockery out of the temple (John 2:13-16). I don't assume anyone knows the Bible or knows how to look it up online, that's why I quoted what I spoke of or gave the reference in context. But right now I'm going to end my side of this discussion and do what Timothy was told - 1 Timothy 6:20(NIV)

 

[Eoraptor]

youbeabitch- After much thinking while at work, I decided that I agree with your position regarding philosophies. Maybe. Even so, discrediting and banning immoral philosophies like Nazism would improve society, no?

Quote:

And I dont care what anybody says everyone can gain knowledge about the creator by going outside and listening. He'll tell ya what he wants to LOL

I completely agree here. In fact, I'd prefer it if no one were taught about any religions, and had to find one themselves by observing and learning about the natural world. I bet the number of atheists and deists would increase, while the number of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus would plummet.

quandolak- The morality of governments' laws is not based on organized religion, at least in the Unites States. If you recall, the US was founded as a secular country. Of the Ten Commendments, only murder and theft are illegal, with lying also being illegal in some circumstances such as perjury. These are basic morals most people have regardless of religion. Of course, sometimes purely religious morals creep into law, especially at the state level (sodomy laws, etc.), but I don't think those could be considered beneficial. And I must remember many other countries are not secular, such as Iran and Isreal. But again I would not consider the existence of such governments beneficial.

Indigowaters- No, I'm not trying to persuade your vote. Nor am I condemning the action of voter persuasion, as I think persuading voters can be good or bad. It all depends on what one uses to persuade them with. Honestly, I don't have a realistic solution to the problem of Christians indirectly punishing others through voting. It would be nice if Christians who claimed to not punish others would consider the issue though.

And of course not everything people do or say should be taken at face value, but it makes it hard to use the Bible as a moral guide when there's so much ambiguity. But that's why there are so many sects in Christianity.

I have no interest in presenting Jesus as a saint or a sinner, I'm just saying what that particular passage sounds like to me. I think he's fictional anyway, and I'm sure his various authors presented him in whatever way served their own interest at the time.

 

[Lady_MAC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Absolutely, for the propogation of species. But because of human nature and the fact that humans could be considered more evolved (and I don't mean that in the sense of the argument of evolution from monkeys, but in the sense that there is a marked difference between a human and say, an inchworm), sex isn't solely about the continuation of the human race. If it were, we'd procreate like animals, but we don't.

Hey, animals are homosexual too, and love them some gay sex

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

Even so, discrediting and banning immoral philosophies like Nazism would improve society, no?

Are you talking about stopping people from following them or the discussion/invention of them? I can't say I agree with either, especially if you mean the latter. It always pains me to say it, but if you want freedom of speech, you have to allow for things like Nazism thought.

 

[Hawkeye]

eora-ideally-yes the banishment of such philosophies of nazism would improve society however the problem lies in the facts that these are ideas. You cannot banish ideas/thoughts. You can try but it just isn't pheasable.

For example-We saw what happened in the past when people tried to banish an idea-and the best example(s) of that off the top of my head are:
1) Nazi Germany. The Germans tried to remove Judism off the map. Sure there were many other factors involved but that was the main one. Funny since the leader, Hitler's, mother was Jewish. They tried to erradicate the idea, the belief but it didn't happen.
2) Prior to that (and no I'm not comparing the two so before you all start whining that I am get over it now), one of the reasons this country (US) was founded was because the king of England didn't like a certain idea or philosophy and tried to wipe it out of his country.

Philosophies and ideas live on. Once they are out there-they cannot be trapped back inside.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady_MAC Hey, animals are homosexual too, and love them some gay sex

Yes, there are. If you look at what I wrote though, I state that animals, like humans, are designed for heterosexual sex to reproduce. So in order to SOLELY continue a species, the ideal is heterosexual relations. But we, as humans, and certain animal species aren't just concerned with reproduction. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that there aren't animals that practice homosexual relations, quite the opposite in fact. And I am CERTAINLY not saying that I think that the ONLY right way, as defined by nature, is heterosexuality. I absolutely do not believe that.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor Shimmer, meanwhile, exemplifies the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I wonder how one distinguishes "True" Christians from "False" Christians, since no Christian I've ever heard of follows the Bible 100%. Shimmer and Ladybug10678- Why is there so much gay sex in the animal kingdom if only heterosexual sex is natural? Other animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons as well, not just humans.

Do you know what argument enders are?
It's when an individual approaches a discussion with his or her mind already made up on certain points and is unwilling to listen to any argument to the contrary.
You, good man, are one of those individuals.
Regardless of what anyone in this thread says you're going to find some fault in it, and refuse to even consider their point of view.

Because I know that, I'm not going to delve into this thread unless it loses sight of the terms of service.


Cheers guys!

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Do you know what argument enders are? It's when an individual approaches a discussion with his or her mind already made up on certain points and is unwilling to listen to any argument to the contrary. You, good man, are one of those individuals. Cheers guys!

Without a doubt he is not the only one. I don't think any of us are going to change anyone's opinion on a topic this personal, considering our religous beliefs, whatever they may be, are too deep rooted to be influenced by a web forum discussion. All we can do is voice our opinions and share our outlooks, and as always, everyone here has done a great job of doing so.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak Raerae im afraid to tell you that practically all religion is oganised. And that is so to benefit the greater community.

Organization takes place on many different levels. There is a marked difference between, "Little Billy's bible study group meets Sundays at 8am-10am" and what we see in Modern Iran. Both of these groups are religious in nature, and organized. However there is a large difference in influence between the Theocracy of Iran, and Billy's bible study group. Billy's group offers mainly spiritual support as the group seeks to better understand their religion. Iran's goverment has control over everything within it's borders, as well as influence on the region and politics.

Both groups "arguably" benefit the greater community, however that's going to varry greatly on who's community your asking. I think many American's would agree that the world would be better off w/out Iran's current government. However I'm sure many (not all I'm sure) Iranians disagree. I also doubt you would find many educated (and i stress educated, because ignorance is rampant in this country) Americans who believe that the idea of Islam is bad. Wheras I'm sure most people woulnd't have an opinion on the bible group that meets only on Sundays, and serves the needs of it's members.



Quote:

You feel terribly threatened by what you dont understand.

I'm hardly threatened by a fictional character.

Your misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying religion is bad. Religion is just an idea, and thus cannot be good or evil. Nor am I blaming religion. I'm arguing against politicising religion, which I believe brings more negative to the world, than positive.

Quote:

Generalisations about the intentions of each religion is not going to get you anywhere. The majority put *gods will*to good use. You are blaming the majority for the minorities actions.

Again to reiterate from above, I'm not arguing against religion. So stop getting defensive (typical reponse from people who have strong beliefs btw). I'm not saying believeing in your God is bad, or wrong. I really dont care what you personally believe in. However I do start to have a problem when people who share a religious belief use their religion to justify their actions. Because they cease to feel personally responsible for their actions.

Quote:

The *me vs you* is a perceived threat.

I dont need to have a degree in religious studies or attend a regular service to understand the negative effects religion has on society once it's influence extends beyond the spiritual, and into the political. The intentions of every religion are the SAME as any organization once they become political: To survive, and gain power/influence. The difference is, organizations that are not theocratic in nature, are accountable for their actions, while theocratic ones claim to be only accountable to God (their god) and need no justification for their actions because it is done in Gods name. An organizations actions dont have to be violent to have negative effects on a segment of the population. Open any history book and you can see the effects of this. Every theocratic organization that has moved beyond catering to just the spiritual needs of it's community eventually harms someone. Eigther directly or indirectly.

Quote:

The theory of god vs laws of man is all fluff. Practially every country in the world has based its founding goverments morals on a *organised* religion , They are the bulding blocks that the worlds laws ,countries,goverments have been built on.

Riiiiiiiiiight :roll:

It doesn't take worshiping a God to have positive morals. I would think that that goes along with being a human being that is capable of rational thought. I didn't need to read the bible to know that stealing is bad, and that killing someone is wrong. It's a sad day indeed when we need to be told those things are wrong, and dont inherently know them.

 

[Eoraptor]

Quote:

Do you know what argument enders are? It's when an individual approaches a discussion with his or her mind already made up on certain points and is unwilling to listen to any argument to the contrary. You, good man, are one of those individuals. Regardless of what anyone in this thread says you're going to find some fault in it, and refuse to even consider their point of view.

And yet youbeabitch's arguments changed my mind (at least for the moment) regarding whether philosophies or the people who follow them are the problem. So obviously I'm willing to listen to counterarguments, and consider other points of view.

I don't expect to radically change anyone's philosophies here, I just want them to think about the questions I raise. For you, that question was about the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. You say no True Christian forces their religion on or hates others. And yet every Christian on this planet, from Catholic to Evangelist to Mormon, considers themselves a True Christian. I have a Biblical literalist friend who claims anyone who doesn't believe in the literal 6 day creation thousands of years ago isn't a True Christian. I'm sure someone blowing up an abortion clinic thinks that he's being a True Christian by actively eliminating sin from this world and expediting God's work. People apply the criteria they themselves like (and possess), then claim those criteria distinguish the True Christians from the self-proclaimed Christians they find deplorable in some way. Then if someone points out a deplorable action done in the name of Christianity, the Christian can simply claim the "immoral" ones aren't True Christians, in an attempt to clear Christianity of any responsibility.

I considered this question once and came to the decision that if anyone would be True Christians, it would be the original followers of Paul, or perhaps some of the earliest sects to exist, such as the Christian Gnostics or Jewish Christians. Certainly not members of any sects which arose later, such as Catholics, Protestants or Mormons. Since any of these later sects would have less exposure to the teachings and times of Jesus, they would necessarily be modified Christianity. Modified through the ideas of Martin Luther, John Smith, all the Popes, etc.. Not to say that any of these modifications are bad (indeed I think many are good), but they aren't original ("true") Christianity.

Of course, that would imply most Christians today are False Christians, and I don't think that's right either. Anybody who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian, no matter how good or bad their other views are. "True Christian" is a term that just doesn't have an objective usage, besides being a real argument ender.

Beauty Mark- I agree with with you. I phrased my statement very poorly. I meant banning ideas like Nazism would improve society in the way that less murder and such would have taken place. Yet I agree with you that freedom of speech is more important, and the suffering caused by immoral ideas is the price we pay for it. I also agree with youbeabitch that banning ideas is futile. Much better to let the superior effects of better ideas naturally persuade people over time so that the immoral ideas are reduced in popularity indirectly.

Ladybug10678- I appreciate you clarifying your views on homosexuality. We have the same morals when it comes to that topic.

Here's something interesting you may not know- homosexual sex in animals sometimes does help to continue the species. For instance, many gay waterbird couples can raise more chicks than straight couples, because the males are more aggressive and able to defend a larger territory. Obviously a female is neccessary to make the eggs in the first place, but some homosexuality helps continue the species better. Pretty cool, no?

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor For instance, many gay waterbird couples can raise more chicks than straight couples, because the males are more aggressive and able to defend a larger territory. Obviously a female is neccessary to make the eggs in the first place, but some homosexuality helps continue the species better. Pretty cool, no?

Sad isn't it? Gay birds understand the benefits of adoption better than humans =( lol

 

[quandolak]

..............

 

[Raerae]

For a start i never claimed that people who arent relgious had no morals. I was talking about the founding goverments, Not the whole of society. So changing the meaning of what i said is a rather poor excuse to gain points.

Many founding governments use religion as a way to legitimize their claim to power. This has nothing to do with religions strong moral cores and good values. It gives the rulers a reason to tell the common people why they have a right to power. Ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Used to legitimize the ruling class in europe? How about ancient Egypt, do you really think that the pharoh was a God? God becomes the ruling classes reason for being in power. Why can't anyone be king? God didn't choose them to be king. It also provides governments with an escuse to wage war on other governments, or hold land hostage because, "it is gods will!"


Quote:

and as for people using religious belief to justify crime. Look for example a murderer who is in a strongly christian/islamic/jewish community may try and blame it on a christian/islamic/jewish teaching. They arent doing that because they belive in the religion. But just to try and buy themselves free time.They may try and attempt to blame their wrongdoings on their supposed belief. But that criminal is just using whatever *valid rescources* he could prey on ,to try and make his murder valid too.

I'm not talking about single people here. But if you want to go into this, your still supporting my point of view. There have been countless murders done in gods name. How many people were put to death duing the inquisitons? Heretics and infedels who were executed because they did not believe in the current ruling classes (who just happened to be the church) way of thinking.

How about our modern crusades? Suicide Bombers or Martyr? Terrorist or holy warrior? The defenition changes depending on who's side of the fence your standing on. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I bet if you could ask a suicide bomber why he blew himself up, he would have a very valid reason, as a follower of his religion, for doing so. The real question is, do the individuals in charge (you know, the ones NOT blowing themselves up) have this same belief. Or are they just using the belief (fear?) others have in their god to their advantage?

Quote:

Its the same with other religions all over the world. And it is the same in non religious criminals. They will try and latch on to whatever they can to validate their behaviour - common misconceptions and predjudiced feed their *reasons*to be above the law.

Religion is different. It allows validation of an action to be not earthly, but spiritual. This doesn't have to be some horrible crime with murder involved. It could be as simple as why a certain group of people are treated better than another group of people in a country. Or allow for the disrespect of another group because they choose to be an non believer. Or it could be why a government can lock you up without reason for speaking out against their "god" when in reality, your speaking out against the political party. It allows the people in control of a religion to become as infallible as the god they say they represent, because they are the interpreters or mouth of that god. And to speak out against the controling party, is blasphemy, because your speaking against God. Following yet?

Quote:

p.s Also why do you think that all religious people are against gays. From what ive seen in this thread they are actually all for allowing rights for all. You seem to want rights for one side and are going about it by attacking otheres beliefs in the hope for rights hah....how childish.

I haven't attacked anyone's beliefs. I'm not discussing the specific teachings of any one religion and if they are good or bad, but rather the misuse of the idea of God as a tool for controling people and influencing them, as well as others. I could make up an imaginary religion and my arguments would remain unchanged. Again, please dont confuse what I'm talking about with attacking someone's beliefs in god. It's two completely seperate things. It's the very reason that the founders of our country attempted to create a seperation of church and state. But ultimateley failed due too the nature of our government being a democracy, and the influence religion has on large masses of people in a majority rules system.

And I didn't say everyone who is a follower of a religion is against gay rights. If anything that was just an example of how people pick and choose what portions of their religion they want to follow, while still maintaining that they are devout followers of X religion. Thats the ironic part about religion. If you dont like what someone is preaching, just start your own.

And if you dont think a large portion of christians/catholics/whatever are against equal gay rights your choosing to be ignorant to the world and country were living in. Anti - gay legeslation and amending constitutions to make it illegal for gays to marry would not be such a common trend in America if it wasn't. It's not as bad as it was, but there is still a very large ignorant segment of the American population who thinks otherwise. And Ignorant people are easily influenced, especially by their religion.

 

[Shimmer]

so having spiritual/religious faith = ignorance?
Having a conviction based in spiritual belief and understanding equals ignorance? Really?
I sincerely hope that is not your implication.

 

[quandolak]

...........

 

[Hawkeye]

shimmer- if it is then i must be the most ignorant bitch in the world if that is her implication.

Especially considering that I am a very spiritual person, not necessarily religious but I did something that not many people actually do-I did my homework to decide what I believe.

There are things that even the most logical person cannot explain-al biet very rare and hard to come by but even the most logical person must make logical guesses. And guesses are not by any means a way to gain actual facts.

And there is still more-that I would rather be called ignorant for my beliefs because it just solidifies to me that people fear what they cannot understand and therefore fail unless they try to figure it out. (EX: Someone taking Calc-if they do not understand it they therefore hate it and do not wish to learn about it rather they would go and study basket weaving instead). Does it make someone any less ignorant should they study a different way? If we are to listen to some of these points of views- the answer is yes.

The more i've watched this conversation the more i have seen it turn from-discuss your point of view on this to a more " I see your opinion on this so let me shread it apart because I don't agree with it"

I started this discussion not as a philisophical debate but more of a "Hey I want to know your opinions on this because I can see both sides".

However, I do see a part of where the statement was coming from and it is correct. However, they are failing to take into account that the word is not ignorant, it is pure stupidity (I will explain further down dont worry) and the stupidity is in mankind itself (With the exception of those who truely have a mental handicap). Stupid people are very easily lead and if you want to you can manipulate them in anyway you want to. Religion is indeed a way, but so is politics (hense why we have so many people leaning on celebrities....), so is the school yard with teenagers, hell its even shown in the every day office.

I had once told a friend of mine never to get into a Christian debate with me because I would chew him up and spit him out before he had a chance to combat me. He tried to and I did just that. People are too stupid/lazy to do their own research and therefore when they are challenged to their beliefs they cannot stand up for themselves or defend themselves and then their beliefs begin to waver. The old bible story of one man building his house on rock and the other on sand comes to mind on this.

Though I do not agree with the way certain posters have approached this I think it is quite necessary if for nothing else for those who do believe in God or a religion will be forced to study up and reaffirm why they believe and the posters who are challenging must accept faith as an answer because that word really is a true answer, I don't care if you like it or not.

I do think however we have gotton to a point where there is no discussion but there is beginning to be a bit of reverse prostelization.

It would be wise to remind everyone-especially those that claim religion may equal to ignorance just remember that closed minds on any topic (regardless if it is faith, literature, science etc) can also lead to ignorance as well. But, because the ignorance was chosen (because the idea presented to you was ignored or brushed off as "fiction" etc) then indeed it also falls into the stupidity category.

So please let us continue to exchange ideas-but let us keep these pointless attacks on religion/faith etc-at bay because it is not productive and is producing nothing but hard feelings when this post was originally intended to share ideas not force them upon other people just because you do not like their point of view.

*gets off soap box*

 

[quandolak]

..........

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer so having spiritual/religious faith = ignorance? Having a conviction based in spiritual belief and understanding equals ignorance? Really? I sincerely hope that is not your implication.

Again just like Quan, your missing the point. The train of thought I have been following since my first post has nothing to do with the values, traditions, morals, beliefs, whatever that a religion is based off of. This isn't about if religion is good or bad. This isnt about if god is real or if he isn't. This isn't about if having faith in something can be positive. Please seperate "God" from the "Church" when attempting to understand the line of thought I'm working with. As they are two completely seperate things. And also, try to not let your faith blind you from reading something objectivly just because it's in reference to something you believe in. Again, this isn't about faith. This is about "insert religion here", INC. the business, government, organization, whatever. Not your personal beliefs.

Back to your quote Shim,

Quote:

so having spiritual/religious faith = ignorance? Having a conviction based in spiritual belief and understanding equals ignorance? Really?

I think anyone who blindly follows doctrine without question is being ignorant, to an extent. Blindly following your conviction to God is wonderful thing and for those who need that, I think it's great. However, blindly following what was obviously written by Man and not God, is ignorant. Galileo anyone? The church is more fickle than the weather regarding it's doctrine.

This isn't limited to religion though. I consider people who vote along Party lines w/out question because they are a Republican or Democrat to be ignorant too.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak Raerae you say that you are not attacking religion. But you yourself have made numerous remarks on your wishes for organised religions to not exists , and have constantly belittled their followers for beliving in a *fictional character* If that is not a *attack* against billions of peoples right to faith i dont know what is.

Your confusing organised religion as a means for political gain, with people getting together to worship and practise their faith. The two are very different. I have clarified which facet of religion I think has a negative impact on society as a whole yet time and time again you confuse it.

 

[Eoraptor]

Now that Raerae's had a chance to answer, I think I'll take things a bit further. First, note I'm using "ignorance" as the opposite of knowledge. It doesn't imply stupidity. I'm almost completely ignorant of string theory or quantum physics, for example. Or microeconomics or automobile design or any one of thousands of topics. I'm not stupid, I just lack knowledge in these areas.

So Shimmer asked-
Quote:

so having spiritual/religious faith = ignorance? Having a conviction based in spiritual belief and understanding equals ignorance?

While having faith is not itself ignorance, I do think that faith can imply and does encourage ignorance. Faith (as I'm using the term) means "belief without sufficient evidence to justify it". I covered that in a much earlier thread.

Most obvioiusly, a person can have faith-based opinion about a topic which ignores the existing evidence (knowledge), and is thus ignorant. This includes people who believe the Earth is several thousand years old, that organisms came into being through special creation, that Noah's flood occured, or for non-religious examples, that Santa Claus delivers presents, that homeopathy works, or that divining rods can locate water. In most cases, such people haven't examined the evidence against their faith-based belief, so are merely ignorant. In some cases, people claim that no matter what evidence is brought to bear against them, their faith-based belief must be correct. I think this is worse than ignorance.

Less obviously, I think the existance of faith-based beliefs encourages ignorance. If people are taught that it's okay (or even good) to believe in something without evidence, they're less likely to demand evidence for other things they are taught. And this lowers their knowledge. Not only will they potentially believe wrong things because they didn't question them, but they'll have less knowledge about why what they believe is true (even if it IS correct).

Here's a question which could take this issue even further. What about faith-based beliefs which don't contradict any known evidence? Such as a belief that an intelligence (a god, if you will) created this universe. Or that everything we know was created with the appearence of old age, yet was really created six thousand years ago or last Tuesday? Or the belief that aliens or pink unicorns visited you on time? Or even believing one scientific hypothesis over another when neither is favored? Is believing in these cases being ignorant? I think the presence of faith necessitates ignorance, because if you had sufficient knowledge of the situation, you wouldn't need faith to believe (you could use evidence). Then again, nobody has sufficient knowledge for these examples, so everyone is equally ignorant regarding them. And in this case, ignorance can't be helped until humanity's knowledge improves. Hmm...