View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 6 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

gerontius grumpus
62769.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:58 am Reply with quote

Tas wrote:
Quote:
It seems ironic to me that the religious right, like the Bush brothers, claim to be so Christian and yet they are so keen on the death penalty.
Have they forgotten about the importance of forgiveness and "Thou shalt not kill" and all that stuff?


Aren't the looking at it from the "Eye For An Eye" perspective, though?

:-)

Tas


That's pre Christian.
Jesus replaced it with turn the other cheek.

Oh no I'm sounding like an evangelist!

 
djgordy
62777.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:33 am Reply with quote

Sigh! The purpose of the 'eye for an eye' thing is to ensure that there is an appropriate response to any incident. In the Old Testament days there was a tendency for the smallest perceived wrong to escalate into an all war. It was in order to limit these escalating conflicts that the 'eye for an eye' rule was introduced. It means that if someone kills your sheep, then the punishment cannot be greater than the value of another sheep.

 
dr.bob
62778.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:37 am Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
Yes, they have. It seems to me that fundamentalist 'Christians' just twist Christianity to what they already think, rather than tailoring their opinions to the ideas of Christianity.


No, they're just picking and choosing which bits they want to believe and ignoring the rest.

Mind you, the ideas of christianity (as laid out in the bible, lets not even get started on papal doctrines as well) are sufficiently self-contradictory that it's impossible to live your life by all of them. So, in a sense, all christians pick and choose which bits of their faith they're going to follow.

This may well be true for other faiths as well, but I haven't studied them enough to know (before anyone accuses me of being anti-christian. I'm not, I'm just anti-religion).

 
Davini994
62817.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:42 am Reply with quote

But of course everyone has a right to believe in whatever they wish, just as we choose not to follow any organised religion...

Right Dr Bob?

 
Tas
62824.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:49 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Sigh! The purpose of the 'eye for an eye' thing is to ensure that there is an appropriate response to any incident. In the Old Testament days there was a tendency for the smallest perceived wrong to escalate into an all war. It was in order to limit these escalating conflicts that the 'eye for an eye' rule was introduced. It means that if someone kills your sheep, then the punishment cannot be greater than the value of another sheep.


I know this, but people have a tendency to take it at literal value, sometimes.

:-)

Tas

 
dr.bob
62827.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:52 am Reply with quote

I'm not sure. Some beliefs can be harmful.

If someone believes that their cancer will be cured by some loon waving a crystal over them, should we defend their right to believe or try as hard as possible to convince them to go and get some tried and tested treatment?

 
Gray
62841.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:13 am Reply with quote

People who believe things make a nice comfortable niches for charlatans to indulge them. Naughty people.

 
Davini994
62850.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:27 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I'm not sure. Some beliefs can be harmful.

If someone believes that their cancer will be cured by some loon waving a crystal over them, should we defend their right to believe or try as hard as possible to convince them to go and get some tried and tested treatment?

Well thats a very good point. My view:

In the example you cite, I'd say yes, we should try and convince them, as best as we can. But attheendoftheday, if they want a loon and crystals, then they can.

Once unusual beliefs start effecting other people, society should intervene. So, if they wanted a loon waving freshly murdered human entrails, then that should be stopped.

(I'm assuming a loon is some sort of senior doctor here).

So, moving it to religion, if a religion required that all males carry an AK47, then that can't happen. But if a sikh wants to wear a turban on his bike and put himself at risk, then fine.

There is of course lots of grey areas with this (e.g. above would be medical costs). But the point I make is that freedom of beliefs, including freedom of religious beliefs, is very important in a society. We can't dictate to everyone in the society that they have to live their life a certain way, and have the same opinions. It's wrong philosphically and practically.

Banning religious beliefs would have a parallel in the Taliban, who insisted that everyone did follow the taliban's interpretation of islam. And how much would you and I enjoy that?

It's also important for people to discuss these things on a quality forum like this without feeling insulted! Which I'm sure nobody wants. I've seen religious discussions go up in flames before...

 
Woodsman
62947.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:41 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
As an example, all the members of the American Congress are publicly avowed Christians


From the Resident American:

Suze has made a stab at illuminating this. But I have to say that most members of Congress don't go around 'publically avowing' themselves to be Christians. Some elsewhere may, but I have never heard of our two Senators and two Congressmen avowing anything to do with their personal belief in Christ, if indeed they have one. I do know that one of the Senators grew up in a Greek Orthodox family, and that is only because I personally know her.

We still hear that the Kennedys of Massachusetts are Catholics, and that Joe Liberman of Connecticut is Jewish because, for some reason, this is noted in the press. Of the other New England Senators and Representatives I know nothing about their religion. But of course we are a tight lipped bunch.

 
Jenny
62948.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:48 pm Reply with quote

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."

-- Mahatma Gandhi


 
Woodsman
62955.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:12 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Depends on where one lives. We are in a 'Blue State', where essentially one doesn't hear much of this stuff. Now, Texas, on the other hand .....

Quote:
Ok. I presume you mean the people in your communities... but what about the media channels though? Is there much thoughtful news presentation on TV, for example? And the papers?


Please know that TV and newspapers are arranged differently here. We have TV 'networks' which have local affiliates, including public television, plus cable TV. Newspapers are centered on cities, and there is only one real national newspaper - USA Today, although we can get big city newspapers such as the NY Times.

I don't know about 'thoughtful', but the local newspaper does attempt to be evenhanded and display alternative sides of an issue in the paper's editorial pages. There is much local news as well as national and world news received from a national wire service and reprinted from other larger newspapers.

With hundreds of channels available, there is a stupedous amount of stupid drivel on cable and network TV. On the other hand, we get local and national news programs, including BBC America news. The only right wingers to infiltrate so far have occured because the local TV affiliate of CBS was bought out by Sinclair 'Communications', which insists on broadcasting its own regressive editorials. I boycott the channel because of this.

Other than that, most of the media is fairly progressive, even if they say things I don't always agree with. They do share the guilt of not standing up to the neocons at a critical time three years ago.

Our two Representatives are Democrats, and our two Senators are Republicans. The present Governor is a Democrat, although there have been two Independent and Republican Governors in the past twenty years. The state legislature has barely a Democratic majority, and there is a nascent Green movement. A local city school board is half Green members that just attempted to keep military recruiters out of high schools.

This commentary is from a true independent voter who votes for anyone who makes sense, a rare commodity I admit.

 
Gray
62960.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:58 am Reply with quote

The oath that all senators take reads as follows:
Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


That seems like rather a public statement. Or is this use of 'God' just meaningless and 'traditional'?

There are an awful lot of references to God in everything federal as far as I can see: "In God We Trust" appears all over the place, in currency, on federal buildings. The exclusion of religion from federal matters seems to be a public one at best.

Quote:
A local city school board is half Green members that just attempted to keep military recruiters out of high schools.

From what little I understand, schools and colleges forfeit their government subsidies if they attempt to keep military recruiters off their premises:
Quote:
The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the military's right to recruit on college campuses, even when the colleges find issue with the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy." The case arose out of a legislated condition for receipt of federal funds by U.S. colleges and universities: the campuses cannot refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. But several colleges challenged the law, saying that the military's stance on gay soldiers violated the colleges' published anti-discrimination policies. The law, known as the Solomon Amendment, requires access or forfeit of federal funds. Such funds total $35 billion per year to all colleges and universities. (6th March 2006)

 
Gray
62998.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:31 am Reply with quote



From http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/03/31/

 
Davini994
63002.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:10 am Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
This commentary is from a true independent voter who votes for anyone who makes sense, a rare commodity I admit.

Interesting commentary from the ground (!) Woodman, thanks.

 
Woodsman
63035.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:02 am Reply with quote

Quote:
So help me God


Believe me ..... I'm not defending it, but it doesn't say 'So help me Christian God'. I think the original assertion was that all Congresspersons avow to be Christians, not that they 'believe' in a generic God.

These oaths were put in by the Christian founding fathers in deference to what they believed to be a 'higher authority', but they still drew the line at linking government and religion relative to the individual's personal practice or belief, or the conduct of government relative to the individual.

In this way, among others, The Shrub and The Dick and their cohorts have a very poor understanding about the rationale for this country.

 

Page 6 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group