He calls himself a "slave to Christ."That "he" is a "she" and she calls herself a slave OF Christ, not TO Christ. Get to know AGuest, Shech. She'll give you a run for your money.
Another question, if I may...
See the difference? He calls himself a "slave to Christ."
What dear JO (peace, chile!) wrote, dear Shec (again, peace to you!).
Nobody has ever killed in the name of a fast food company.
Perhaps not, but I don't think we can say the same of junk food, dear Mr. F (peace to you, as well!)... given what was supposedly behind the murder of Harvey Milk (Twinkies)... which the jury apparently bought...
Even so, tens of thousands have been killed in the name of big oil... and certainly big tobacco... and millions in war, etc., so... I mean, if we really are concerned about life...
But thank you both for your comments and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who wants to make it clear that she does not condone religion... but just can't quite wrap her head around why those who don't even believe in God have SUCH a problem with it... much more so than other industries that engage in like conduct...
marking to read later...thanks
Aguest: Since you wrote that religions are into tricking people, i am not sure why you take issues by me writing religions are simply wrong. Perhaps i need to be more specific: The religions/superficial claims i have come in contact with all make superficial claims which in my oppinion fail to meet the burden of evidence and are thus most likely wrong.
Bohm: scams scam people. religion and scams are a bit alike in promising something false.
Aguest: How so? Sure, some promise eternal life, but not all. Some focus people's attention on the future, but not all. Even so, don't the others I mentioned promise something false, as well?
some of those you mentioned promise something false, most do not. for instance the alcohol industry promise beer, which it delivers. that is why i used the word "scam" on purpose.
on the other hand i dont think there is a lot of apples-and-oranges on your list. for instance, i would definately not put the pharmaceudial industry on the list given how it is required to produce evidence for its claims.
I think the problem about this topic is the pretend one can use a completely objective definition of religion to discuss a subjective thing like which things a given person choose to engage himself in.
I dont give a rats ass about what a buddhist monk do. If he like to sit in a forrest and meditate, by all means, let him meditate! I would even go to great lengths to protect his right to mediate. Cant say i would do the same for the tobacco industry, for which i wouldnt lift a finger!
So what about a religion which is harmfull to people one love? Does one even need to justify why one would speak out against such a thing? does ones unbelief make it "strange" or "problematic" why one speak out against such an organization? is it interlectual dishonest to choose to speak out more against such an organization than non-religious organizations which does not affect ones life? Does being religious alter that answer in any way?
i think not. And inbetween the two extremes above are all religion or delusions, and it is up to any person to pick the delusions, scams or other harmfull activities and so on he wish to engage or not.
In light of the discussion (peace to you all!), may I ask:
Shouldn't the call be for EVERYTHING that causes harm... that we don't literally NEED to live... GO... and not just one thing? Or, alternatively, shouldn't EVERYTHING that people want and choose... but doesn't cause any more physical harm than others... be acceptable? I get that children are at risk... but surely, religion isn't the only thing that presents risks to children, even emotionally. It may not even be the worse thing (depends on who you ask, doesn't it?).
Note, I am just ASKING... to try and "see" how others think on these things. No other motive, truly. Just trying to understand because, as I stated, I tend to think differently than most.
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
Shouldn't the call be for EVERYTHING that causes harm... that we don't literally NEED to live... GO... and not just one thing?
no, because that would be a harm in itself.
some forms of religion arguably cause more harm than smoking... nobody argue that we cannot speak out against smoking.
I have never said that religion was worse than those other industries. They are apples and oranges though. I was quite clear that they are not my windmills.
Let's remember, it's ALL JUST EXPERIENCE.
All the deceit and all the controls, the manipulations, the fables & myths ... it's a play of interweaving GAME-theories.
Our job is to find a straight path through it all--so that we are wise, so that we understand Causes-and-Effects-in-Time.
We are here to learn how to NOT BE DECEIVED, especially by our own egos.
In that light, all the Games and Players can become rather silly, who buy into it, doncha think?
My point is... if there is NO God... why isn't religion just another "service" that some provide for those who WANT it? You may not LIKE what they provide... any more than I like, say, designer drugs, etc. But if people WANT them... and they're LEGAL... why place more blame on "them" for selling their "product"... which, admittedly, can be quite harmful... than the others?
That's a remarkably good point, Shelby. It's legal. So was cocaine 100 years ago, and having sex with minors. Why not allow, say, prostitution to go on unabated? (no skin off my nose, btw). Why not make heroine legal? Heck, the wise US gov't made alcohol illegal not that long ago and then all hell broke loose and then it made it legal again, of course taxing the hell out of it. It's a remarkably good point but it is still irrelevant. What is legal but what a certain powerful segment of human society allows?
ALLreligion, dear one? What if a religion DOESN'T do such things, but do "good" works, as some have suggested? If there is no God/god... would it be "okay" for such institutions to exist? I'm thinking that it would... so long as "GOD" is not involved. Yes? And so, I'm asking... if there IS no God/god... what is the big deal?
Yes. All religion. 99.9% good all of the time is not good enough, just like the 99.9% of the time a priest does "good" for his congregation doesn't erase the 0.1% of the time he's raping their children behind the curtain in the vestry. Is it not a big deal that religion horribly exploits people some of the time in payment for giving them something positive in their lives the rest of the time? Eventually the cost/benefit model breaks down.