I like this picture on the cover of a new newsweek:
You don't need a church to follow the teachings of Christ. And not surprisingly the people who do just this don't usually turn into religious zealots.
-Sab
A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging
by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Band on the Run
I disagree heartily. YOu are condemning all religion for what a small fraction does. Religion is a strong component of all our culture. To be so rabidly against religion is just as bad as Islamic terrorists or the Spanish Inquisition.
-
glenster
We shouldn't be 'centric and intolerant about things that aren't character
determinants (race, age, income, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.).
Being centric and intolerant about any of them, propagandizing against the
others, has caused harm, and making the 'centric stance about any of them the
law has caused injustice.Likewise, faith understood as such is only arbitrary substantiation, not
proven substantiation, for anyone to be hurt or killed over it so no one should
be, and atheism is only rejection of belief in god or gods. Some of either have
been 'centric and intolerant and ended up on lists of abominations and some of
either would be ashamed to have you think they'd ever want to be on such a list.
Making either law of the land is institutionalized 'centric intolerance. A
religion can use that understanding that or not just like an individual can--I'd
recommend progressive/reform.The problem isn't belief, non-belief, race, age, income, gender, sexual
orientation, nationality, etc., but being 'centric and intolerant about any of
them.The believers and non-believers who understand that should agree to be against
the 'centric intolerant harm caused by either.Hitchens reminds me of a couple of matters of belief or non-belief in God
brought up in the song "Imagine", and it bungles both of them: "Heaven"/"Hell"
and "religion."The song asks you to imagine a eutopia on Earth--a hope for an Earth where
everyone gets along beyond what could be expected realistically from the known
things of the world. In the middle of it, and meant in the name of having that
happen, it asks you to not imagine a Heaven, which is a hope for an afterlife
where everyone gets along beyond what could be expected realistically from the
known things of the world. (It's also ironic since some people's idea of a
eutopian afterlife is of a paradise on Earth.)A concept of heaven could be inclusive (Universalism, which some claim was the
most popular concept of heaven in the first 600 years of Christianity) or ex-
clusive (yet hoping others go to heaven and leaving judgment to the Lord), with
pros and cons you could imagine for either one. It's a faith matter about some-
thing beyond the proven things of the world, so you could imagine either one.You can imagine Heaven either way and understand faith as such whichever you
choose. Of the two, Heaven and Earth, the one which would have to be exclusive
to make it work is the Earth--you'd need prisons, etc.Similarly, Hitchen defines heaven by 'centric intolerant Muslims who don't
understand faith as such and decide who can be killed over it instead of criti-
cizing that definition. Likewise, he'd service the topic of people getting
along better be defining faith as such as recommending that people not get
'centric or intolerant about belief or non-belief.The other point the lyric bungles in a ham-handed broadside swing is religion.
Abrahamic monotheistic religion, the kind Hitchens specifies, can be broken down
into Orthodox, Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive/Reform. If you're going to
go Abrahamic, I recommend the latter end of that scale as better regarding faith
understood as such beyond the known things of the world, so wanting separation
of church and state, and keeping up to speed regarding the known things of the
world, so not wanting bigotry against women and homosexuals or making arguments
against evolution, etc., or 'centric propaganda against believers or non-believ-
ers.I think the criticism of John or Hitchens hits the mark aimed at the outmoded
or even harmful ideas more likely to be found in a 'centric intolerant stance of
the former end (Orthodox and Conservative) of that scale. So it's again ironic
that he doesn't show better understanding of what religion can be than the ones
he's criticism is best aimed at and only propagandizes against those different
than him as they would. Likewise, he'd do better to service the topic of people
getting along better by defining faith better, and recommending that people not
get 'centric or intolerant about belief or non-belief, than fighting 'centric
propaganda with 'centric propaganda. -
jay88
Sab: They say that we are just the sum of our parts with no connection to something higher than ourselves.
Are you sure about this statement?
-
thetrueone
As I mentored before there good theological teachings in the majority most common religions but does humanity need these teachings now
in this modern era of social awareness and knowlege. Take for example the WTS/JWS a religious publishing house that lures people into being subservient
slaves to sell Armageddon through literature proliferation, putting forth the insinuation that if you don't do what the WTS corporation says you will
shortly die as a result.
A religion that is the epitome of a morally digressive hoax played upon humanity to subjugate power and money into the hands of a few corrupt men.
The damage of this one particularly religion is quite obvious on the scope of what this religion has done to people .
Each religion could be place on a weigh scale to see where it balances itself toward the good and the bad.
-
designs
As a culture or civilization embraces science religion wanes.
-
cofty
YOu are condemning all religion for what a small fraction does - BOTR
As I said above any belief system that divides humanity into god's buddies and god's enemies is corrosive to relationships.
This is not a problem of extremism its also a problem for the nice little old lady who goes to her nice little conservative church on a Sundy and prays that her nice neighbour might get saved.
Religion is poison.
I speak as somebody who knows christianity from the inside.
-
sabastious
Are you sure about this statement?
Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism" . Encyclopædia Britannica . Retrieved 2011-12-06 . "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."
Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." (page 175 in 1967 edition)
I guess an atheist would believe that driving a car is connecting them to a power higher than themselves. That's the main trick of atheism. It's an endless loop. They demand physical proof of a deity that created the universe which makes their position fundamentally fallacious because such a deity would reside outside of our universe and therefore is not provable. The "power beyond themselves", according them, can only be explained through scientific methodology. They live in a world where explained things happen and unexplained things happen. This is not the real world. In the real world things just happen and there is purpose and direction to all of it connected to a source of creative force. Atheism commandeers God's ship and says it never had any harbor that it sailed out from. There was no captain!
-Sab
-
cofty
Did you post this on the wrong thread Sab or are you just having anti-athiest rants all over the board?
-
thetrueone
To be so rabidly against religion is just as bad as Islamic terrorists or the Spanish Inquisition.
Well unless of course some guy stands beside you on a bus and detonates a bomb killing himself and a dozen people
but before he pulls the trigger yells " In the name of Allah ".