Muslim extremists won't be the only ones flying planes into buildings... I assume. Not to mention the complete collapse of a crucial aspect of human culture. Besides as long as there is man there will be religion. Its part of what humans as a species are and you really can't destroy it by denouncing it.
...that's your own conclusion... i wouldn't say that, even if i thought it was true... however, most people can't help believing in what they've been taught all their lives... if they were left to figure the matter out on their own, i'm sure there'd be a lot more agnostics and atheists in the world... ...as for the question about death, i will just welcome it with open arms, not liking this human-made world i'm stuck in, happy to be 'released'... if there's any sort of existence beyond life as we know it, i'll find out then... don't have to know in advance...
Many people have pointed out the "damage" that "Religion" has done. I'd like to point out two things. Firstly, while many horrible things have been done in the name of "religion," the religion of one man is not necessarily the religion of another. If someone does something wrong in the name of Islam, does that mean that he was in the right, that all other Muslims believe it, or that it is approved of by Allah? No, not necessarily. As a result, I think it's unfair to group all people in all sects and all sects in each faith and each faith into "religion." The term religion is so vague and vast that one cannot simply blame "religion." The second thing I'd like to point out is that yes, "religion" may have resulted in many conflicts and troubles, but it has also brought much good to the world. There have been countless good things that have resulted from various faiths. I don't think there'd be more agnostics, they'd just be more obvious. There'd be less "fake" Christians (for example). No longer would there be Christians in name only; fakes masquerading like the real thing. What about leading a better life? ... care to elaborate on this point?
Daniel, I agree with pretty much all of what you said there. I think it's ignorant and short minded to blame war on religion. Wars aren't caused by religions, they're caused by people. Religion is an excuse.
I'm talking about an ethically good life. Everyone commits sins and unethical acts; That does not make them bad people. We all strive to be ethically good. We simply have different definitions of what ethical good means.
I agree Dan. We talked about that in my religion class actually. In reference of why Christianity grew so rapidly within the Roman Empire despite a great deal of persecution.
While we all do, some commit more than others. And if it doesn't make them "bad" people, what does? Is there no such thing as good or bad and right or wrong? I know plently of people who don't strive to be ethically good. Some of them actually try to be ethically bad. They believe in God, but they don't like him too much. While we may have different opinions of what makes something ethically good or bad and right or wrong, I would venture to say that there is a universal standard. I think that something is either right or it's wrong; there is no middle ground.
I absolutely agree with that. I hear alot of people tell me good or bad is based on point of view. If you look at history though many cultures have alot of the same things listed as good and bad. Stealing is bad. Giving to those less fortunate is good. Killing in cold blood is bad. Saving a life is good. Cheating on your spouse is bad. Being faithful and devoted to your spouse is good. The only time any culture begins to disagree on things like this is in the fine details and when the idea of exceptions comes up. In a moral sense, I don't believe there are any exceptions to something bad that would make it good. If something is wrong its wrong. Certainly there are times when, its unfair to hold something against someone (A soldier killing enemey combatants in a time of war) but the fact of the matter is that killing is still wrong even if sometimes necessary.
I don't think "good" and "bad" are as simple as that. Is something good in one culture, but bad in another? Right in one situation, but wrong in another? Do the ends ever justify the means? For example, is suicide a mortal sin, as some brands of Christianity claim, or is it an honorable exit from the world, as the Japanese Shinto/Samurai believed, and some Muslim extremists still do? Which is a worse sin: to lie, or to destroy another person's dignity? What if you have to choose between the two? What if you're technically faithful to your wife, but have a predilection for pornography? Is that the same as being unfaithful, or is it ok? (The wives might have very different opinions about this than the husbands.) If there are shades of gray to morality, who gets to decide what's right and what's wrong? Those are all rhetorical questions; I'm not looking for answers. My point is, matters of right and wrong are not always a stark black or white.
I don't agree. I once took a class called Contemporary Moral Issues taught by professor Barush Brody, who asserted that "Every moral issue has a unique solution, that can be determined." I never bought into that thesis, and found it (and him) so rigid and distasteful that I dropped the class (it didn't help that even his screeching voice grated on my nerves) . To begin with, even if some of the key elements of morality are agreed upon by most people, the relative priorities differ by culture. That in itself affects what is regarded as right or wrong in any group of people. Who is to say that one cultures assignment of priority is right, and all others are wrong? Then there is always the question of specific definitions. Nearly all ethical systems oppose the taking of a human life. But apart from whether there are priorities that supercede that, what defines a human life? When you get down to questions of abortion or stem cell research, the disagreements over what makes it a human life and when become critical, and the definitions become arbitrary, while at the same time emotionally loaded. So whether a particular principal applies is not always black and white. A couple decades later, I took another class in Ethics and Critical thinking, and the focus of the course was much more in line with the thinking I have touched upon here.
I would just like to say that I have seen religion save peoples lives before. A guy I met had done some pretty rotten things to some of my close friends and to myself. He really messed his entire life up and the rate he was going he would have ended up laying dead in a gutter some where all on his own. Somehow he ended up going to church with a friend of his and after that day he was a completely different person and made up for everything he had done wrong by others. Now he is married and has two wonderful children. Religion, like everything else has its good and bad points. Nothing is perfect, nothing will ever be perfect. Everything is flawed in some way and we just have to accept that. I don't believe it is so much religion that causes the wars and all that. The only thing that can cause war, etc. is human kind. We all have minds of our own and make our own decisions and need to stop trying to find something or someone else to blame for all of that.
One question springs to mind. Why do you choose to beleive in God. What stems your faith to beleive in the almighty.
That's a tough one. I'd say it definetly halps that I was exposed to Christianity at a young age. What really set into my mind the existence of god though was a few years back with a series of events. At the time I suffered from deep depression and anti-social behavior. I actually found a specific psychological term for it in my psychology class but have since forgottne the word. A series of events however after I started praying for help lead to me having no doubt that there is someone out there looking out for me because after that point everything started turning around. It started with little things and then went on the big things that completely changed my life and made me happy for the first time in about 5 years.
In the 31 years of my life I have seen many things that would tell me there is no god. And secondly I have to wonder why we live for roughly 80 plus years and spend eternity in Heaven damn its got to be pretty crowded. [Disclaimer] This is just my opinion and not meant to offend those that have faith.
I don't know about religion being the greatest weakness but I do think it is one of the greatest dividers. I was raised in the United Church community and now I have no religion at all. I saw too many "good people" treat others with such contempt it turned me off entirely. My husband believes in the native way that nature is the most important thing to a certain extent. But God is non existant. He is considered bad by his christian family but if someone needed something and he was able to give it he would. Treat others as you would like to be treated is sort of a creed of mine. One thing we both try to do is pass it along.
I beleive in the Pay It Forward Syndrome. You do a good deed for someone who in turn feels compelled to do a good deed for another and thus a chain reaction of events unfolds and who knows comes full circle and thus begins again creating good feeling.
my point, dan, is that I don't, as i'm not a christian...one of the many benefits of being an unbeliever... ;-)
I guess it's just me. It justs seems to me that it would be scary thinking that that after you die that there's no more, uh, how would i put this? I guess I mean "no more life". You get what I'm saying...
For me, all roads lead me back to nature or, as I believe it's more accurately called, Creation. I have a bachelor of science degree, and no matter what other theories I investigate, my education and observation always force me back to the conclusion that no way did all of this--the intricacy, majesty, pattern, and scope of nature--happen by accident. I was--reluctantly--convinced of this before I ever really believed in God. I also know I continually experience God's moment-by-moment involvement with me. The reality of that anchors me; centers me; guides me. I am 37 years old: for the first half of my life, I didn't believe in God; lived my life as though He didn't exist. Now, having experienced Him for the latter half, I cannot even imagine going back. I don't want to. So to sum up an answer to your question, Hulls Raven, for me, faith stems from balance of objective observation and subjective experience.
If God created Man in his image and Man is violent, does that mean God is violent? As I've grown older I wonder if God is real, or something made up. Why is it that we have to believe? Why can't we just see? Sounds sorta like Santa Claus. You believe until either someone tells you different or you figure it out on your own. Any way you cut it, you were lied to. Does that apply to God? These are my own thoughts, and in no way do I bash anyone or their believes. Everyone has the right to think and believe what they want without the fear of being attacked verbally or physically.
This is why bibal verses and concepts should always be looked at in groups and in context rather than on their own (No offense Gunslinger but your comment brings up a point I can make). I think that one of the primary reasons why some are so hostile to religion is because too many people take its concepts out of context and spread them around. Then these verses taken out of their context can be turned into meaning something else, either on purpose or completely by mistake. Such action in turn creates misconceptions. Gunslingers reference for example. On its own it certainly seems like it could mean that god is violent but take the whole section from which the verse his comment is based on is taken. "Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them." ~ Genesis Chapter 1, Verses 26-27 (New King James Version) The key words being image and likeness. Rather than saying the men are in the image of god as a whole, it rather states that god created them to his image in the sense of a work of art. God had an image and he created men to fit it, and his image was in his likeness (Which menas similarity rather than a exact copy). The us of the word "our" would seem to empply god was talking to someone, possibly angels, which would in turn suggest angels were also created in gods likeness. I'm sure different denominations of christianity interpret this differently, this is just how I read it. Again though I'd like to point out I'm not attacking Gunslinger, just looking at his post and seeing a point that could be made from it.
In my worldview, it means that man, having been gifted with free will, chose to live differently than God wanted him to live, and continues to reap the consequences. Again, having grappled with these same questions myself, I think the only answer is that you can't own someone else's faith; it will never be enough for you. You have to work through the questions yourself, and own the conclusions you reach. As far as seeing vs. believing [without seeing]... We all believe things without seeing them, in a hundred different ways in our lives. Why is it such a stretch to do it when it comes to the divine?
