Organized Religion, Good or Bad?

[Sklaventreiber]

Religion in my book has done nothing good for society as a whole...

Look at the conflicts through out written history that were caused in the name of religion...

Your thoughts?

[Ozme52]

Certainly not most organized religions. Nothing wrong with a belief in a higher being if it makes you comfortable.

Religion, per se, originally codified most of the ethics that are required for the human animal to flourish as a social animal.

And Judaism set down most of the necessary pre-refrigerant food rules, though they are mostly obsolete now. I, for one, still don't eat mammalian carnivores. Too many parasites in common with us. (I do enjoy a good piece of omnivore though... as Homer would say.... "Mmmmmmmm pork chops!!

[Lina]

While i will agree with the fact that a lot of bad stuff has been done in the name of religon (look at the crusades and the spanish inqisition) I think that everyone needs something to belive in. There is a quote from the movie "Serenity" that says "I don't care what you belive in. Just believe." I agree with this whole heartedly. I am an active Roman Catholic. THat works for me. While I don't agree with some of the things the church says I have found that it is what works best for me. My best friend is wiccan and we have another friend who doesn't belive in a "higher power" but does belive in the intent behind the constitution and is in the Army to keep the freedom that he belives in and holds dear. What isn't imposrtant is what you belive. What is important is that you belive.

[Sklaventreiber]

...we have another friend who doesn't belive in a "higher power" but does belive in the intent behind the constitution and is in the Army to keep the freedom that he belives in and holds dear. What isn't imposrtant is what you belive. What is important is that you belive.

Ahhhh I must agree with the latter part of your posting that he does indeed have a noble cause to believe in as I to believe the intent behind the Constitution...although I feel it is currently being underminded by or friend King George and his administration.

[Aesop]

Religion in my book has done nothing good for society as a whole...

Look at the conflicts through out written history that were caused in the name of religion...

Your thoughts?

I have to disagree here. Religion has done a lot of good for society over the millenia. Religion gave us our soul and a huge motivation for trying to better ourselves. Religion in it's various forms has been responsible for art, moral codes, and education for a long time. I mean we have the pyramids, the Greek sculptures, the Aztec and Myan and Incan artifacts. The Native American culture has stories and traditions that are deeply rooted in their religious beliefs.

Now if you're talking about the men and women involved in the higher ranks of the world's leading major organized religions then I can get on board. They've used the spirituality of people and the good intentions of a few men to rape, pillage, and murder in the name of their various Gods for centuries. But religion in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

[Tojo]

My belief is that religion, like so many organisations is only as good as it's followers or members. The ideals of Christianity (to take one example) if followed by all of us would improve the world no end.

I also believe many forms of government could be effective & desirable if not for the dishonesty & lack of moral fibre of some members.

To make the world a better place to live in, we need to look at ourselves. There's some old saying I seem to remember from somewhere- 'Do unto others.....

If we all lived by that, 'what a wonderful world this could be'.

Tojo

[Sklaventreiber]

I'm sorry, but I'm to cynical to believe that if we were to all follow the precepts of any religion, we would be no better off. I do not dispute the fact that modern law has its basis in religious law but the "radical" side of religion despite what its name is, catholic, islam, etc...always will "create" problems for society.

These are my opinions I don't wish to shove them down anybody's throat but hey, right now it's very dangerous to be a "christian" in Afghanistan which proves my point.

[submissivewife]

I'm sorry, but I'm to cynical to believe that if we were to all follow the precepts of any religion, we would be no better off. I do not dispute the fact that modern law has its basis in religious law but the "radical" side of religion despite what its name is, catholic, islam, etc...always will "create" problems for society.

These are my opinions I don't wish to shove them down anybody's throat but hey, right now it's very dangerous to be a "christian" in Afghanistan which proves my point.

That's the point of these threads, peoples view points. Some are likely to disagree it's getting along while disagreeing that is important. Although I like this topic, I am going to keep my opinions to myself. I just wanted to say "play nice".

[subdude05]

If were talking movies i thing Kevin Smiths Dogma has a good point in fact the whole film and association is proof that "organised" religion is'nt always as good as it sounds, the film was protested against by religious groups before it was even shown, kevin Smith even showed up to the protest and was interviewed by a local mews team condeming his own film, the point being that people who are telling people how to live are not allways well informed. The film its self does not condem religion in fact it is to most intents and purposes a religious film, but with the take, "it is better to have ideas" (Chris Rock), it also points out key factors that its highly probable (if not truth) that parts of the bible are missing, for example Jesus jumps from one age to another (i forget something like 12 - 30, about 18 years i think) because of the his family, brothers and sisters, which is more than likely, we are led to believe Mary and Joseph only had one child, and poor Joseph did not have a part in it, in fact it is more than likely that Joseph had more than one wife even,(but i dont know about that one). There was a news artical i read somewhere that they found a part of the bible that was suposed to be Jesus own account of what happened, like the deciples stories, one part of it said some thing along the likes of, don't worship me in houses of wood or stone, worship me in your heart. basicly Jesus condemed the church, you can see why they hid that one in the vaults of the vatagan. What else is down there?

My theory is that people can believe what thay like if it helps them get through the day, but preach it to me you've gone too far. Plus they should sort their own corruption before telling other people how to live their lives and death.

And besides, what if your wrong, George W Bush is buggered if he gets to the afterlife to be greeted by the words "welcome, my names Alah, hope you enjoy your stay"

[Lina]

I love the movie "Dogma" and i think the line "peopel will do almost anything to defend a belife. It is better to have ideas." now...I know this may sound contradictory to my previouse post but...I say I belive certain things and that is true but I dont presume to think that I have the only correct/valid idea out there. my belifes are just a theory or Idea that helps me contextualize my reality. It just so happens that my thories coincide very well with the primary tenants of the Roman Catholic church.

[Aesop]

My belief is that religion, like so many organisations is only as good as it's followers or members. The ideals of Christianity (to take one example) if followed by all of us would improve the world no end.

I also believe many forms of government could be effective & desirable if not for the dishonesty & lack of moral fibre of some members.

To make the world a better place to live in, we need to look at ourselves. There's some old saying I seem to remember from somewhere- 'Do unto others.....

If we all lived by that, 'what a wonderful world this could be'.

Tojo

Amen.

[Aesop]

I'm sorry, but I'm to cynical to believe that if we were to all follow the precepts of any religion, we would be no better off. I do not dispute the fact that modern law has its basis in religious law but the "radical" side of religion despite what its name is, catholic, islam, etc...always will "create" problems for society.

These are my opinions I don't wish to shove them down anybody's throat but hey, right now it's very dangerous to be a "christian" in Afghanistan which proves my point.

And it's very dangerous to have a Middle-Eastern accent in the United States and that has nothing to do with religion. Prejudice will always have a place with those who are afraid; religious or not.

Besides Tojo didn't say to follow the precepts; he said the ideals. Very different things. If everyone could manage to follow the ideals laid down by various faiths the world couldn't help but get better.

[Aesop]

My theory is that people can believe what thay like if it helps them get through the day, but preach it to me you've gone too far.

Really? What do you mean by preach exactly? Because if you mean the believe as I do or you're damned I'm with you, but if you just mean people who want to share what they belive I'm not. I have no problem with anyone who wants to share with me. I'm probably not going to go along, but it's nice they thought enough of me to want me to share the wealth.

[Aesop]

I say I belive certain things and that is true but I dont presume to think that I have the only correct/valid idea out there. my belifes are just a theory or Idea that helps me contextualize my reality. It just so happens that my thories coincide very well with the primary tenants of the Roman Catholic church.

There you go. As long as you ain't shoving it down somebody else's throat you should enjoy your faith.

[Sklaventreiber]

And it's very dangerous to have a Middle-Eastern accent in the United States and that has nothing to do with religion. Prejudice will always have a place with those who are afraid; religious or not.

Besides Tojo didn't say to follow the precepts; he said the ideals. Very different things. If everyone could manage to follow the ideals laid down by various faiths the world couldn't help but get better.

Maybe, maybe...but I doubt it.

Because it's too big of an IF...

[subdude05]

Really? What do you mean by preach exactly? Because if you mean the believe as I do or you're damned I'm with you, but if you just mean people who want to share what they belive I'm not. I have no problem with anyone who wants to share with me. I'm probably not going to go along, but it's nice they thought enough of me to want me to share the wealth.

I had some, up himself street corner preacher start shouting something about satanists at me, i had not provoced him, i lagught a bit which could hav pissed him off, but i could have been laughing at anyone, the only reason i can see to cause his outburst of predjudice is that i have long hair and i was werering black as i useually do. Another insident was the other day in a pub, me and a couple of friends were chatting adn one of thoes over friendly people came over and sat with us (now dont get me wron i dont mine friendly people who talk to you) and started on about jusus and we had a wonderfull (and colourfull) debate, to which he got all, shove it down our thoughts.

I have also been unfortunate enough (as has Lavender), a street corner preaching "rap" group, with loud amplifiers you could hear all up the road and further, and awfull cover version of a Lauran Hill song but they had chanded the lyrics to preach, this was the most awfull act of ott preaching, since the guy with the mega phone and bike. I think preaching gets out of hand when the inrtoduce something to aid them, like standing on a box so they can look down on you as if they are better than you, a megaphone so people who dont want to listen have to and other peoples songs (to which you can garantee thery havent got permission from the record company or artist) loudly though big amps so you cant even speak to the person next to you.

That sort of thing

[Sklaventreiber]

My experience with these street corner preachers has been, that they are primarily con-artists who are taking advantage of the people who pass by them. Singling you out was a tactic much the same as a illicit street vendor would use to get you, or somebody near by to pay attention to them so that they can take your money.

[Sklaventreiber]

Really? What do you mean by preach exactly? Because if you mean the believe as I do or you're damned I'm with you, but if you just mean people who want to share what they belive I'm not. I have no problem with anyone who wants to share with me. I'm probably not going to go along, but it's nice they thought enough of me to want me to share the wealth.

For me it's the people who get into your face and literally tell you that if you don't believe as they do you are going to hell...(personally I am anyway)...They are as much as saying the same thing as the extremists in Afghanistan who are going to kill a person whom converted to christianity. I personally think that if the US wasn't a country that didn't have freedom of religion you certainly could see where some of these people, particulary the fundamentalists, could condone doing the same kind of thing.

You don't have to go to far back in history especially in Europe to see religious persecution practiced all the time.

But, my personal experience has taught me that organized religion, regardless of the particular faith, sect, etc. is not the way I want to go.

[subdude05]

I agree, but as there was no evidence or even truth behind it, he porbably looked stuped. when i look back on it i wish i had spoken to him about it and showed him up. I will next time.

[Sklaventreiber]

Even if the street corner preacher was sincere, he was wrong for pointing you out because of what you wore. Even though that is a human trait regardless how enlightened we are to base first impressions by what we see. I try very hard to get past the first impression and meet the person and learn who they are before settling on a lasting impression. If they continue to "screw" me over in some way then I will walk away from them, if not then who cares how they dress...

[Texalp]

Shakespear was Right: " Nothing is either good nor bad; but thinking makes it so." That is why p and how religiousity causes so much trouble. Al.

The heathen

[wabusheshe]

The blight of mankind is extremism. Regardless of whether it be religion, politics or ethnics. Individually these elements can be deadly in and of themselves, mixing the three can be catestrophic for any and all who run a-foul. It has been my experience that rarely do any of these elements apply alone, usually they will team up, religion/plolitics, religion/ethnics, politics/ethnics, etc. Organizied religion is most usually the combination of religion and politics. Even within a specific religious group you will find tremedous differences of opinion depending on the location and politics involved. The early drafters of the US Constitution understood this and did their best to ensure a separatation of Church and State. Most democratic countries have followed suit and have this separation of Church and State built into their constitutions as well. Unfortunately, as with all things human, it has been taken to the extreme. The recent out-cry from none Christians and some politicians concerning the use of, "Christmas", for the name of our annual December 25th holiday, is just one excellent example.

As has been mentioned many times in the discussions in this forum thread, Organized Religion is only as good as those that are doing the organizing and those that follow. Belief is a very personal thing with me and I thank God that I was born in a country that, "still," permits me to follow and practice my belief, my way.

Cheers,
Rob Allie

[Sklaventreiber]

"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, this you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motive." Robert Heinlein

[jip]

It is a fact that lot of atrocities in the world and history have been done in the name of "a" God.
Another fact is that several major religions, such as Judaism, Christianism and Islam have found their origin centuries ago. That they a monotheism religions and that they started in an Eastern type of civilisation with interpretation by western rationalism, which leads to disaster in sense as eastern people tend to write more with metaphores. The Islam has to be seen in a dessert type environment, and if you do this you will understand why rules for example such as women to cover themselves with shador etc are in it and where useful or even a must to protect them It does not work anymore within a western non desert culture...
It is also a fact that church structures such as within the Catholic church are really not what Jezus told the people!
It is a fact the some protestant reverends are sometimes abusing the bible to "explain" what they want themselves...

So, we can continue, but isn't the actual "prestige of science" not a NEW type of religion?

I will remember the theory of an Anglican Bisshop Robinson who in the end 60 early 70 years wrote "But that I canot believe!"
He brought the religion back and translated it into very "rational" explanations to the origin. Simplistically told : "If you go back further and further you can explain nearly everything, but one moment you come to a point you cannot explain: the deepest origin of yourself and the origin of the existence: that we do not know, well that we call God!"

[AshesInYourMouth]

While i will agree with the fact that a lot of bad stuff has been done in the name of religon (look at the crusades and the spanish inqisition) I think that everyone needs something to belive in. There is a quote from the movie "Serenity" that says "I don't care what you belive in. Just believe." I agree with this whole heartedly. I am an active Roman Catholic. THat works for me. While I don't agree with some of the things the church says I have found that it is what works best for me. My best friend is wiccan and we have another friend who doesn't belive in a "higher power" but does belive in the intent behind the constitution and is in the Army to keep the freedom that he belives in and holds dear. What isn't imposrtant is what you belive. What is important is that you belive.


With this, I am going to have to disagree...

If there is anything that comes from organized religion or just the act of believing that affects our mind, I think that it most cases it does it in a negative way (granted there is positives=good morals and the such). When someone is 'believing', I think that it gets a little too close to settling, and it puts a working mind at ease (thus slows it).

For example, lets say that I am born into a Christian church, go to a private school that teaches the word of God and Jesus as the Savior, and I accept all of its teachings and become baptized, confirmed, and devout. In the next years of my life I will be likely to mold my customs and decisions around that of this religion. I will not experience, or in most cases even look to experience or grow as an individual when the case is not promoted or is against my religious code. If I believe, there will be cases where I am shutting myself down to opportunity and the possibility of new/different things.

Beliefs (and the organized religions that promote them) can be a great thing for security or a cornerstone for a person's life, but they can be just as dangerous as well.

---------------------------------------------------

By the way, hello to all... 'twas my first post.

[cariad]

My Christian faith is central to my life, I do my utmost to live by the teachings in the bible, although freely admit I regularly fail. So this is not an invitation for those who know me to point out my faults!

I was brought up in part of the established church, and am grateful for its basic teachings. But I grew to hate it, not because of what it taught from the bible, but because of how it tried to use God’s teachings to manipulate and control people. Too often what was preached was condemnation which is contrary to everything Jesus taught. Christianity ultimately has a message of freedom and liberation. I stayed away from the church for a number of years because of the condemnation and control.

In my time away from any church I kept my faith, but it did not grow. I was not able to discuss it with other people, be challenged, test what I believed, or be nurtured.

I was fortunate; a friend introduced me to her church. Its teachings were much less liberal that the ones I grew up with, but it was a church which welcomes people and respects who they are and their individuality. Yes, certain behaviour patterns are discouraged, if they are contrary to biblical teachings, but not if they are contrary to the church elders’ personal preferences.

Do we try and ‘convert’ people – well if we had a magic wand and could convert the world we would. But that is not reality, nor what God would want. Our freewill is a gift from him, and no-one has a right to take that away. We do have an open door, and organise events for people to come and learn more about what we believe, we advertise these sometimes, and tell friends. Why, because not only do we believe what we have is good for people, but, to be very unfashionable, we believe it is right. But that does not give us the right to push our faith onto anyone, all we do is make it easily available for those want to know more.

So is this the organised religion which I so carefully turned my back on, and is it wrong? Unquestionably I think it is right. It is organised to an extent, it helps to have a building to meet in, to agree when we are going to do certain things, to have people who will take on certain tasks, some practical, some spiritual. However using religion to coerce people into a particular form of behaviour, because society or government or even a body of people called the church wants it; in my view, will always be wrong.

cariad :)

[Aesop]

Too often what was preached was condemnation which is contrary to everything Jesus taught. Christianity ultimately has a message of freedom and liberation.

Yes, certain behaviour patterns are discouraged, if they are contrary to biblical teachings, but not if they are contrary to the church elders’ personal preferences.

You say Christianity ultimately has a message of freedom and liberation, but in the same post you say certain behavior patterns are discouraged in your church. I have to infer that (and correct me if I'm wrong) you don't mean violent behavior patterns or you wouldn't have had to mention it. I must assume you mean something like being a homosexual. The last I checked the definitions of freedom and liberation they didn't exlude certain groups, but you say your church does and seem fine with that. I don't understand how you can be. Could you explain?


Do we try and ‘convert’ people – well if we had a magic wand and could convert the world we would.

Why, because not only do we believe what we have is good for people, but, to be very unfashionable, we believe it is right.

Again I have to wonder about what kind of freedom you encourage if your members would "convert the world" because you "believe it is right". The belief that you are right makes the belief that I am wrong inevitable. I will never understand how anyone can be so sure of something that can't be proven that they will go out and tell others it's the one true way. Again perhaps you can help me understand?


However using religion to coerce people into a particular form of behaviour, because society or government or even a body of people called the church wants it; in my view, will always be wrong.

But isn't that exactly what your body of people called a church is trying to do? I'm very confused. :confused:

[cariad]

How lovely to have a considered response, and one to keep me on my toes too!

It is well known that the standards of behaviour which the bible lays down are very high. These cover all areas of life. When I wrote my original post I did not consider which behaviours I was referring to. Yes, we would discourage violence and we would also discourage homosexuality – but we would not discourage either violent people and or homosexual people. There is an acceptance that we all fall a long way short of our goals and if, as and when people wish to address issues in their lives they are supported in doing so, but they are never put under pressure to do so. The God I know does not have a big stick, but does have a big heart.

Smiles. Why would we try to convert people – because we believe that what we have is great. The same way as if you stayed in my home I might share some favourite music with you, because I wanted to share something I thought was good. But I ask you take note of my subsequent sentence; ‘Our freewill is a gift from him, and no-one has a right to take that away’. I hold firmly to that principle.

I am very sure of love as concept and know it comes in many different ways. Why do I have no difficulty in believing that when I have no ‘proof’? Because I have experienced it. If you asked me to give an example of how I know I love someone, or how someone loves me, I could probably pick more holes in my example than you could. Yet in reality I hope you also believe in, and have experienced love. I also firmly believe that it is right for children and adults to be love and be loved. If I come across some who is not experiencing love I will endeavour to take them under my wing and offer them some.

It is the same with my faith, I have experienced God in my life. I can give you examples, some more scientific than others, but all of which could have holes picked in them. In the same way I believe that to give and receive love is right, I believe that to be in a loving relationship with God is right. You are correct in saying that if you disagree with me on that I think you are wrong. That is not a judgemental use of the word. I merely means that I hold an opinion which I believe is an absolute. I would fight tooth and nail for your right to hold to your opinion, but given where I am coming from, I would like the opportunity to share my opinion with you.

Do you believe in any absolutes?

Ever since the Roman’s discovered the power of Christianity governments and society have attempted to us it to manipulate people. The world’s history is riddled with actions taken supposedly in God’s name, but ultimately for man’s glory. You use the term church in your question, which is an ambiguous term. The group I belong to would, I hope never try to manipulate people. They may offer suggestions, but there is no pressure or condemnation if the suggestions are ignored. There is nothing biblical about manipulating or coercing people. Jesus came to offer an alternative, but not to lay down the law.

Have I helped or added to your confusion?

cariad

[tazkill]

with out religion there would be bad people doing bad things and good people doing good things. only with religion do you get good people doing bad things. Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism.... the main three are all reasons for countless human atrocities, comitted by men yes, but done in the name of God. While there is a part in me that would love there to be an all seeing, all loving God, i do not feel you can find him in the stone walls of a church or words written by men in another language many many years ago.

Be the best person you can, don't do it for God, church or respect from others, do it because you know it is right in your soul.

[Aesop]

How lovely to have a considered response, and one to keep me on my toes too!

It is well known that the standards of behaviour which the bible lays down are very high. These cover all areas of life. When I wrote my original post I did not consider which behaviours I was referring to. Yes, we would discourage violence and we would also discourage homosexuality – but we would not discourage either violent people and or homosexual people. There is an acceptance that we all fall a long way short of our goals and if, as and when people wish to address issues in their lives they are supported in doing so, but they are never put under pressure to do so. The God I know does not have a big stick, but does have a big heart.

So are you saying that a homosexual can be a part of your group and not feel pressured to become hetero?


Smiles. Why would we try to convert people – because we believe that what we have is great. The same way as if you stayed in my home I might share some favourite music with you, because I wanted to share something I thought was good. But I ask you take note of my subsequent sentence; ‘Our freewill is a gift from him, and no-one has a right to take that away’. I hold firmly to that principle.

Okay I can get that you want to share something good, but you said that if you had a magic wand you would convert everyone because you believe what you have is great and right. That's a bit different than sharing something you love with a friend. That's force and that doesn't go with your freewill statement.


I am very sure of love as concept and know it comes in many different ways. Why do I have no difficulty in believing that when I have no ‘proof’? Because I have experienced it. If you asked me to give an example of how I know I love someone, or how someone loves me, I could probably pick more holes in my example than you could. Yet in reality I hope you also believe in, and have experienced love. I also firmly believe that it is right for children and adults to be love and be loved. If I come across some who is not experiencing love I will endeavour to take them under my wing and offer them some.

It is the same with my faith, I have experienced God in my life. I can give you examples, some more scientific than others, but all of which could have holes picked in them. In the same way I believe that to give and receive love is right, I believe that to be in a loving relationship with God is right. You are correct in saying that if you disagree with me on that I think you are wrong. That is not a judgemental use of the word. I merely means that I hold an opinion which I believe is an absolute. I would fight tooth and nail for your right to hold to your opinion, but given where I am coming from, I would like the opportunity to share my opinion with you.

Do you believe in any absolutes?

Death and taxes? lol Actually believe it or not, no I don't believe in any absolutes so I have a very difficult time understanding how someone can believe in an absolute.


Ever since the Roman’s discovered the power of Christianity governments and society have attempted to us it to manipulate people. The world’s history is riddled with actions taken supposedly in God’s name, but ultimately for man’s glory. You use the term church in your question, which is an ambiguous term. The group I belong to would, I hope never try to manipulate people. They may offer suggestions, but there is no pressure or condemnation if the suggestions are ignored. There is nothing biblical about manipulating or coercing people. Jesus came to offer an alternative, but not to lay down the law.

I used the term church because you used it when you said your friend introduced you to it. There seems to be a fine line between what you see as encouragement and what you see as manipulation, but then I don't know which group you belong to so I can only judge so much.


Have I helped or added to your confusion?

cariad

lol Well I dunno exactly. I have to say I'm enjoying the exchange so far though. Thanks for not reacting negatively. :)

[mkemse]

My experience with Street Preachers is simple, whenever I see them, i have asked by they stand on Street Coners and Preach and not do so in a Church, they're reply to me is always the same, and this comes from 5-6 different ones "I Preacher on the corner because I get more "Donations" this way and I have found any churchs in my area that wants me to preacher for them"
Gee I can't imagine why, you stand on the street corner, do not let people walk by, you tend to block traffic when you can and wear a $350 3 piece suit
that alone would turn someone off
Why not donate your donations to a local food pantry or a local charity, my guess is if you are wearing what appears to be a $350 dollar suit, you certainly do not need the money, or help a homeless person you see, there are many down here, you walk by them everyday day

Intersting if nothing else

[Ozme52]

Insofar as that goes, I much prefer a forthright professional mendicant.

[cariad]

"So are you saying that a homosexual can be a part of your group and not feel pressured to become hetero? "

Yes


"Okay I can get that you want to share something good, but you said that if you had a magic wand you would convert everyone because you believe what you have is great and right. That's a bit different than sharing something you love with a friend. That's force and that doesn't go with your freewill statement."

If I had a magic wand I would also turn all white chocolate into zero calorie dark chocolate. As I had hoped I had made clear, the freewill statement over-rides my magic wand statement (except in the case of chocolate).


"Death and taxes? lol Actually believe it or not, no I don't believe in any absolutes so I have a very difficult time understanding how someone can believe in an absolute."

This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. It took me a while to acknowledge to myself that I did believe in some absolutes, still in denial about taxes, although the tax man refuses to be convinced. The greyer values become the easier they are everyone to accept, the more inclusive they are. So it is tempting to add nullifying caveats to every statement. But taken to its logical conclusion society will sink to a level where anything and everything is of equal value. Sounds good until you think that it means that a deliberate and hurtful word would be of equal worth as a kind and loving one. That in a court of law a lie would be considered equal to the truth…..


"I used the term church because you used it when you said your friend introduced you to it. There seems to be a fine line between what you see as encouragement and what you see as manipulation, but then I don't know which group you belong to so I can only judge so much."

In the case of encouragement / manipulation not only is it a case of degree, but is primarily a matter of the underlying motivation of the person encouraging or manipulating. There is also a fine line between abuse and between having my arse made so tender that for days I flinch when I sit down. The bruises and other outcomes may be the same, but I have no difficulty knowing where that line is.

cariad

[Aesop]

A thoughtful reply and one I hope to respond to when I have the time.:)

[cariad]

:supercool

(fun with emoticons time)

[Tojo]

Some nice posts there cariad, very nice. :)

As for me I stand by what I said earlier in the thread.


Tojo

[cariad]

Some nice posts there cariad, very nice. :)

As for me I stand by what I said earlier in the thread.


Tojo


Smiles, thank you for your encouraging words and support of a sub new to posting here, although moderately experienced in some other areas of life.

[Ozme52]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

[cariad]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

Wow - warm welcomes here, as well as in the chat room. Think it is time I bought a season ticket to the library! Thank you Ozme. Off to read some more threads.
:ty

[ColinClout(c)]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

The second is that some of the things that are being posited as worthy of belief would have major consequences, and surely any thinking human being wants to know if they are true. If you want to build an aeroplane, it matters whether gravity is real. We cannot change the way things are by being ignorant of them or not believing in them.

WEll, that's all for now - I'm sure you can all do better than that...

CC

[Tojo]

Hi & welcome Colin- actually I think many of us could do a lot worse!

Good point about the difference between one's actions & beliefs, but that's what makes us human I guess?

As to whether I believe in absolutes myself, well can't say I ever thought about it. Something to ponder I guess.

Post away Colin, you make plenty of sense- more than I do somedays! :wel

Tojo

[Aesop]

Okay finally have some time.:)


"So are you saying that a homosexual can be a part of your group and not feel pressured to become hetero? "

Yes

How does that work exactly? I'm very curious because I've never known a group to be able to believe in something strongly enough to think it's wrong who can really accept the thing they think is wrong. There has always been (in my experience) subtle pushings and pressures to 'join up' with the normals.



If I had a magic wand I would also turn all white chocolate into zero calorie dark chocolate. As I had hoped I had made clear, the freewill statement over-rides my magic wand statement (except in the case of chocolate).

This one is going to be a sticking point for me I think because I'm having trouble seeing how your free will statement can over-ride the previous statement, but don't let that bother you. ;)


This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. It took me a while to acknowledge to myself that I did believe in some absolutes, still in denial about taxes, although the tax man refuses to be convinced. The greyer values become the easier they are everyone to accept, the more inclusive they are. So it is tempting to add nullifying caveats to every statement. But taken to its logical conclusion society will sink to a level where anything and everything is of equal value. Sounds good until you think that it means that a deliberate and hurtful word would be of equal worth as a kind and loving one. That in a court of law a lie would be considered equal to the truth…..

I don't believe that knowing there are exceptions to everything leads to anarchy. Or openmindedness to outright stupidity. Sometimes a deliberate and hurtful word is of equal worth. Have you ever had to snap someone out of a dangerous situation by being deliberately hurtful? I have. Same with a lie in court. I can see dozens of situations where a lie will serve justice.


In the case of encouragement / manipulation not only is it a case of degree, but is primarily a matter of the underlying motivation of the person encouraging or manipulating. There is also a fine line between abuse and between having my arse made so tender that for days I flinch when I sit down. The bruises and other outcomes may be the same, but I have no difficulty knowing where that line is.

cariad

That's good. I personally would. I would have trouble knowing whether or not I am encouraging this religion on someone for their reasons or mine. Put in a BDSM context I encourage people with budding desire, but I always do my best to be careful and back off if those desires seem half-hearted or based on abuse or other reasons. Again not knowing which group you are a part of limits my judgement, but it has always seemed to me that religion only pushes harder if the interest is only half-hearted.

This is very enjoyable. Like Oz says, come play with us in the other forums too. :D

[Aesop]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

Welcome Colin! Don't be nervous. We're a good bunch. :)


So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

Yes I expected somebody to bring that up. The answer for me is no. The statement does not apply to itself. The reason is that I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If someone shows me a situation where there are absolutely no exceptions I'm not going to stand there and stomp my foot and say, "No, no. This can't be true." I'll say, "Guess I was wrong." No one has shown me one yet. :)


The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

Well...I dunno about that. Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.

Again welcome to the forums. :D

[fantassy]

Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.


Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

Glad you didn't keep yourself out. :)

I think we see things mostly the same, with only a minor difference. I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. They would have gone to war anyway because there isn't a country I know of in the world that just says, "Oh okay, well you don't have to fight." so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

The Crusaders...well we could open up a new thread about the Crusaders and what they fought for and how they fought, but again I don't think they were fighting for a belief.

The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.

[fantassy]

You're right we do mostly agree.

I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

You say its a lie, not a belief; I say they believe in a lie. Therefore they fight for a false belief.



The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.


The problem, as I see it, is we don't know/agree on what the basic "beliefs" of the Bible are. "Thou shalt not kill" means what exactly? I cannot kill ever? I can only kill in self defense? I cannot have an abortion? I can only kill doctors who perform abortions? Each of these is a "belief" someone derives from those four simple words.

Personally, I only have one guiding "belief" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

fantassy

See, if you encourage me, I'll never shut up.:)

[Aesop]

You're right we do mostly agree.


You say its a lie, not a belief; I say they believe in a lie. Therefore they fight for a false belief.

Well I don't think we'll reach an agreement here, but that's okay. :)



The problem, as I see it, is we don't know/agree on what the basic "beliefs" of the Bible are. "Thou shalt not kill" means what exactly? I cannot kill ever? I can only kill in self defense? I cannot have an abortion? I can only kill doctors who perform abortions? Each of these is a "belief" someone derives from those four simple words.

You're right, it's ambiguous, but the overall message of the Bible - (especially the New Testament) is one of forgiveness and peace. Those that use Thou shalt not kill as a tool for violence or to repress other's freedoms are twisting the ideal into something they can use.


Personally, I only have one guiding "belief" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me. ;)


See, if you encourage me, I'll never shut up.:)

Great! :D

[fantassy]

[QUOTE=Aesop]I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me. ;)/QUOTE]


Actually, I thought about that when I was typing, but I decided the rule still works because you wouldn't take the whip to your sub if she didn't want you to. (or at least so I assume) Thus you only have to look at it at a higher level of abstraction. You want your sub to do things to you which you enjoy; therefore you do things to your sub which your sub enjoys.

fantassy

[Aesop]

[QUOTE=Aesop]I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me. ;)/QUOTE]


Actually, I thought about that when I was typing, but I decided the rule still works because you wouldn't take the whip to your sub if she didn't want you to. (or at least so I assume) Thus you only have to look at it at a higher level of abstraction. You want your sub to do things to you which you enjoy; therefore you do things to your sub which your sub enjoys.

fantassy

Lol. Yes I agree. I was being my foolish ol' self. ;)

[cariad]

How does that work exactly? I'm very curious because I've never known a group to be able to believe in something strongly enough to think it's wrong who can really accept the thing they think is wrong. There has always been (in my experience) subtle pushings and pressures to 'join up' with the normals.


My turn to lie silent for a few days as I was busy with other matters.

I accept that people often feel a pressure to conform to any group they belong to – but in most cases, as in this that is self imposed, and is simply a fact of life which responsible groups do their best to negate rather then exploit. But to address your question, we meet as a group of people who love God – not as a group of people who wish to behave as God wants. So why should we pressurized people into certain behaviour patterns. Sometimes, as people develop in their relationship with God they will decide for themselves that there are elements of their lifestyle that they wish to change – but that is a personal issue. Is there a danger of me coming under pressure to become ‘normal’??? Help!



This one is going to be a sticking point for me I think because I'm having trouble seeing how your free will statement can over-ride the previous statement, but don't let that bother you. ;)

Is that an order Sir?

I will leave Colin to debate absolutes with you – since you know what I think, and will be interested to hear him express his views on the matter. (Can also be unwise to debate with the man whose collar you wear when he thinks he is right, and I know I am absolutely right – giggles and ducks.)



....Again not knowing which group you are a part of limits my judgement, but it has always seemed to me that religion only pushes harder if the interest is only half-hearted.

That is spiritual abuse and is wrong, wrong, wrong – although not as wrong as going for the jugular when someone is really low. Oh whoops – there I go using absolutes again.

Wonder if I dare ask when you would think abuse was acceptable - no bad idea.......


This is very enjoyable. Like Oz says, come play with us in the other forums too. :D

Am slowly putting my toes into other threads, if only as an excuse to use more emoticons.....wondering what today's will be.

cariad :kola:

[ColinClout(c)]

Oh goody, I get to handle this one further. Let me see what I can do...

OK - do you think there is such a thing as absolute truth?

Yes? Then we agree and all we have to debate is what form it takes (perhaps it is limited to only one statement)

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

[Uncle_Ed]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

[ColinClout(c)]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

That which is the case.

[Aesop]

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes. ;)

[cariad]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes. ;)

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad :p

[Ozme52]

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad :p

That's a trick question. :rose:

[Tojo]

Definitely a trick question.


Tojo

[Uncle_Ed]

To answer cariad "Can Poms ever be wrong" Of couse not.*Shakes head* silly question...Surprised Tojo didn't answer.

[fantassy]

can Doms ever be wrong?cariad :p

Recently read that doms even sleep on the right side of the bed so that they're right even when they're asleep.:) Is that true?

fantassy

[DungeonMaster6]

Getting back to the original subject, organized religion can be a positive thing or a destructive thing.

A lot of people use religion as a way of feeling good about themselves, or a way to worship their God so that He or She will allow them salvation. This is a good thing. I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Organized religion can either be our salvation or our demise.

[cariad]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad

[Tojo]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad


Exactly my point earlier in the thread. :ty

You're not just a pretty face cariad.

Tojo

[fantassy]

I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy

[DungeonMaster6]

I agree with you fantassy

[cariad]

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy


I also agree with you.

[ColinClout(c)]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes. ;)

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

[ColinClout(c)]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

[Aesop]

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

[Aesop]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

A quote I particularly like.

"Open-minded people must accept the possibility that being closed-minded is better. Close-minded people can take comfort in knowing that they are right." - no author listed.

[ColinClout(c)]

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

I agree that absolute (that word again) proof cannot be alleged for any faith, including, of course, atheism. What I would assert is that the issues raised by religion are of sufficient importance that each of us would be well advised to look at the evidence and take a position. And I freely accept that having done so different people will come to wildly different conclusions.

Yet whether or not we can prove something does not affect whether or not it is true, at least not on my philosophical understanding of truth. (And I confess I am unequal to the task of debating different understandings of that, although I will try if anyone wants to!) Electrons existed long before we could prove they did. And if a person has been convinced of the truth of a faith, it is entirely logical that they should seek to contest other thought systems that contradict it.

So those who adhere to a religion will always feel that its utility is, on the one hand, supremely important, in that it is how things are and the basis for all other thought and behaviour.

Several cans opened there, but I will stop for fear of going off-thread...

'Colin'

[Aesop]

I agree that absolute (that word again) proof cannot be alleged for any faith, including, of course, atheism. What I would assert is that the issues raised by religion are of sufficient importance that each of us would be well advised to look at the evidence and take a position. And I freely accept that having done so different people will come to wildly different conclusions.

Yet whether or not we can prove something does not affect whether or not it is true, at least not on my philosophical understanding of truth. (And I confess I am unequal to the task of debating different understandings of that, although I will try if anyone wants to!) Electrons existed long before we could prove they did. And if a person has been convinced of the truth of a faith, it is entirely logical that they should seek to contest other thought systems that contradict it.

So those who adhere to a religion will always feel that its utility is, on the one hand, supremely important, in that it is how things are and the basis for all other thought and behaviour.

Several cans opened there, but I will stop for fear of going off-thread...

'Colin'

First of all let me say that it is truly a pleasure to debate with you.

Your understanding of truth is close to my own and I have no arguement with that. Proof doesn't equal truth and lack of proof doesn't make a lie. But...truth without concrete proof seems to me to be a personal truth and not one to be imposed on others. I have found my faith and am at peace with it. I will explain it to anyone who wants to hear it, but otherwise I don't bother people with it. Organized religion is hardly ever content with that. They push and prod and force their "truth" upon others. Even when that truth has been distorted from what evidence there is. Take Christianity for example.

Jesus taught tolerance and peace. He never once wrote anything down regarding rules or exceptions from the Kingdom of Heaven. All were accepted as long as they had faith in Him and His Father. Not 30 years after his death his disciples imposed rules upon the faith exempting certain groups of people and giving them rules to live by. Those rules became the basis of the Christian faith; not the teachings of the Nazarene.

My point in all of this is that taking the truth you can't prove to the extremes of war or persecution seems...silly?...to me. Why waste the time? Chances are just as good that you are wrong as that you are right so why make an issue of it? Learn from one another, share your faith, hold your own truths, but don't stone the guy next door if he worships the lamp-post.

[Malicat]

Just wanted to drop in my opinions here... It seems popular to bash organized religion nowadays, I've been noticing. I'm going to have to sound class-ist here for a moment, but I feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.

It seems like kind of a harsh way of looking at things, but society is based on control. Religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control, because it gives the ability to say 'you must do this or else' and not have to worry about reinforcing the threat with action. Regardless of whether or not any religion is logical or true, it is intrinsically necessary.

Take the Declaration of Independence for example. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. God gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The French tried something similar in 1789, however they forgot something crucial. They left out God. And Napoleon had to restore order.

--Mali

[cheeseburger]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

[Ozme52]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

Well, that's the point. The moment religion becomes "organized" it begins imposing on it's followers and making rules beyond the original precepts of the beliefs.

[fantassy]

JI feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.
--Mali

You certainly express the view held by Thomas Hobbs. He too argued that the moral suasion of ministers and the promise/threat of eternal rewards and punishments could be harnessed to state purposes as an auxiliary form of social control since "men's actions are derived from the opinions they have of good and evil." However, that view was considered and rejected by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and James Madison when drafting the religious liberty clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall mke no law repecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson, especially, saw this clause as "building a wall of separation between Chruch and State." He saw the effects of organized religion on government as largely deleterious, leading to persecution and civil war. (hmm, can we say Iraq?)

Not sure if this stuff adds to the discussion, but your comments made me think of it.:)

fantassy

[Aesop]

Just wanted to drop in my opinions here... It seems popular to bash organized religion nowadays, I've been noticing. I'm going to have to sound class-ist here for a moment, but I feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.

It seems like kind of a harsh way of looking at things, but society is based on control. Religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control, because it gives the ability to say 'you must do this or else' and not have to worry about reinforcing the threat with action. Regardless of whether or not any religion is logical or true, it is intrinsically necessary.

Take the Declaration of Independence for example. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. God gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The French tried something similar in 1789, however they forgot something crucial. They left out God. And Napoleon had to restore order.

--Mali

I completely agree with your statement that religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control of the populace. Do this or go to hell! is a great way to motivate people, yes. It's a (and I apologize for the language) fucking horrible thing to use religion for, but yes it's effective. I don't agree that it's critical to a stable government though. Here in the U.S. we have many different orginizations trying to save our souls and although the majority are Christian, there are large groups of other faiths that take part in the political process. There are also large groups of atheists and agnostics that have an impact. And of course the politically correct army keeping their fingers in the government pie and religion out of our schools. Even with all that going on our lives are as stable as one could expect in a state of an ongoing war. Also you choose to interpret Creator as God. All right. Which God? Jefferson doesn't say YWHW or Allah or even Jesus, just Creator and as Jefferson was himself dubious of organized religon I doubt he was advocating the use of it as a governing tool.

[Malicat]

I completely agree with your statement that religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control of the populace. Do this or go to hell! is a great way to motivate people, yes. It's a (and I apologize for the language) fucking horrible thing to use religion for, but yes it's effective. I don't agree that it's critical to a stable government though. Here in the U.S. we have many different orginizations trying to save our souls and although the majority are Christian, there are large groups of other faiths that take part in the political process. There are also large groups of atheists and agnostics that have an impact. And of course the politically correct army keeping their fingers in the government pie and religion out of our schools. Even with all that going on our lives are as stable as one could expect in a state of an ongoing war. Also you choose to interpret Creator as God. All right. Which God? Jefferson doesn't say YWHW or Allah or even Jesus, just Creator and as Jefferson was himself dubious of organized religon I doubt he was advocating the use of it as a governing tool.

Hmmm, while faith takes place in the political process, I'm not sure the actual religion matters, provided it follows one particular tenent. "Don't be a dick, and you will go to heaven where your every desire will be fulfilled. Be a dick, and go to hell, where the worst thing possible will happen to you constantly." That's the attitude necessary for threats without followup. And let's face it, a majority of religions use that particular party line with just a lot of other stuff thrown in.

Oh, and I really don't choose to interpret creator as anything, honestly. I am not christian, but god is simply less letters to type. If such a being were to actually exist, I honestly don't think he (HA, yes, I used he instead of he or she, politically incorrect, here I come!) will really be so petty as to be pissed off because I used a different word for his name. And if I recall correctly, the majority of the signers of the Declaration were Deists. However, I'm not sure that means that they didn't understand the value of a population kept in control using religion. The Constitution and the laws put into place afterwards were actually based on Hobbes's political philosophies. And while Hobbes certainly wasn't of the most joyful souls, his theories have proven themselves to be sound when it comes to laws and government. Just because a man doesn't believe in something, doesn't mean that he can't believe in the power it holds over others.

[Aesop]

Just because a man doesn't believe in something, doesn't mean that he can't believe in the power it holds over others.

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven. ;)

[Malicat]

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven. ;)

Oh, I have to admit that if I'm wrong and Christianity is the 'one true way', I'm going to hell. Without a doubt. :) I work out at a Christian gym, mainly because there is a full service spa on site that will bill to my gym account, so I can get therapy massage when I need it, and not when I can afford it. I ended up purchasing a few extremly tight tank tops with the gym name on the front because... well, let's face it, they're christian shirts and they make me look kind of slutty. ;) Yeah, definitely going to hell if they're right.

--Mali

[Aesop]

Oh, I have to admit that if I'm wrong and Christianity is the 'one true way', I'm going to hell. Without a doubt. :) I work out at a Christian gym, mainly because there is a full service spa on site that will bill to my gym account, so I can get therapy massage when I need it, and not when I can afford it. I ended up purchasing a few extremly tight tank tops with the gym name on the front because... well, let's face it, they're christian shirts and they make me look kind of slutty. ;) Yeah, definitely going to hell if they're right.

--Mali

Well since I like the kind of slutty look I'll see you there. ;)


Okay back on topic....:)

[cheeseburger]

Well, that's the point. The moment religion becomes "organized" it begins imposing on it's followers and making rules beyond the original precepts of the beliefs.

I would have to disagree. The moment there exist (at least) two people that jointly agree on a set of rules or guidelines that tell you how to live your life, you're talking about organized religion.

In no way does it follow that these people will impose anything on their followers - if you don't follow the rules, you aren't a part of that religion. Simple.

I agree that in the past many such organizations have, brutally, enforced their way of life on others. This has nothing to do with the concept of organized religion.

The only serious objection I have to organized religion (that doesn't participate in any illegal coercion) is that their children are more or less automatically signed on to the religion. They have little say in that (how do you ask a 2 year old what religion he belongs to?), and in some cases it leads to all kinds of stupidity.

But in principle, there's nothing wrong.

[poboy789]

What a deep topic. Because of my beliefs, I'm certainly bias. However, I believe that a belief in God or some other higher force is a good thing. It gives people something to believe in and something to live for. From a personal standpoint, things I have done and experienced in my life have lead me to believe that there is a God. Within the framework of a belief in God, organized religion serves a purpose. Now, organized religion has never done a lot for me personally. Certainly, there have been instances where people, in the name of religion, have done terrible things. However, in a lot of these cases, if you look hard, you will find that religion is not the basis for the action, but some politician's or other leader's personal agenda is the basis for the action. The politiian or leader manipulates and uses religion as a basis so people will follow the agenda. Regardess, focusing on the negative aspects of religion igones the good things that organized religions do. I know of no other organizations that provide more charitable contributions, both on a local, national and global level to our society. That's just how I see it, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

[Guest013109]

Hello. Someone from another topic directed me over here.

I do admit I'm being lazy and did not read the first 6 or 7 pages of this thread. However, kind of nice to see this topic mentioned on a BDSM-influenced site.

Personally, I do not like the term 'religion'. For me, it is more about faith and personal beliefs. I attend a great AOG (assembly of God) church I adore. They focus on the life of Jesus, our current society and how to apply Biblical teachings to our current world. Anyways, I'm not one to bash 'religions' and state Christianity is the 'only' way to go. That is something you should personally pray about and work with God about.

I'll try to follow this topic now and chime in when needed. I will not preach on and on about why you should ask God into your lives. However, I'm always available to talk with if you are curious about learning of Christianity or just for general discussion.

[Sklaventreiber]

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven. ;)

I agree with your statement here Aesop.

I have been away for a while and didn't want to read all that has gone before. I still feel that there is a lot wrong in the world due to religious fanaticism. There are wars and strife brought about by organized religious sects, regardless of the faith they are associated with, Muslim, Christian, buddhist, etc.

But then, when I started this post I made it clear that "organized religion" is not something I adhere to.

[karnautrahl]

I don't like the idea of religious beliefs having influence on my life and the laws that govern it. I can't quite decide if we'd be centuries ahead in terms of science and social maturity if religion hadn't come about or not. There are arguements both side of the fence on that one. However, I'd certainly fight for my right to not subscribe to anyone's belief systems. I do wish the radical muslims and radical christians would stfu and give up because those folks are a great danger to the world-note I'm on about extremists in particular. Those folks views to me are evil and of great danger to the freedom of all.