Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,901-3,950 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

I would say that calling someone's opinion idiocy or a person, an idiot or implying that by being christian I live in ignorance (and yes, Hazel when you say that religion is ignorance, you mean that a person living by the rules of said religion is ignorant) are instances of going beyond innocent snark remarks.

Gary, yes I also have seen unnecessary or mean comments by people who may be christian, such as the cs person calling all atheist redundant. Of course it's absurd.

Cerberus, I don't think utopia is attainable. People's tendency to do evil is just as strong as to do good. Just as it has been said that we don't need god/gods/religion in order to be good, we also don't need them to be evil. Stalin and his communist regime were responsible for millions of deaths, ethnic cleansing, rapes of women and children, torture, etc.

[Gary]

Callie wrote: "The rabbit is a pagan symbol for fertility. Or so I have heard."

Not so much a symbol as what they are famed for! Which is why I find the whole Easter bunny thing for kids a bit creepy! :-)

Not to mention the thing about Easter Eggs...

[Callie]

I am still working out the kinks in my belief system. I grew up in church. Many contradictions there, for me anyway. I feel I may have been too vague in my first comment. I have seriously been struggling with what I actually believe. Anyway, I too find the Easter Bunny creepy for kids. And bunnies don't lay eggs. What's that about? :) It's just weird.

[Maria]

If this is the case then you could probably throw out most of christianity due to pagan origins/influences.
Also, your definition of "true Christians" seems to rule out many christians on the planet. For many christianity is more than just the text of the bible...you seem to view the majority of christians as heretics"

Exactly. Most of Christianity, as it is practiced by the mainstream churches is so full of pagan influence, that yes, it should be thrown out.

And Christianity may be MORE than just the text of the Bible, but it should at least strive to come close. Christianity has become more of an "anything goes" organization without regard for any Bible principles. In my opinion anyway.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "If they claim to be true Christians, which means that they imitate Christ, then yes. I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus or any of the other apostles celebrated Christ's birthday."

Well to be fair to most Christians, I don't think it's mentioned about Christ visiting the loo.

Maria wrote: "The Bible is usually so horribly detailed in it's instructions"

Which is why secular society has quietly forgotten most of the more inconvenient ones.

The anti-Semitism that resulted in the horror of the holocaust had its birth in the anger at the idea that Jews by remaining Jews were denying Christ's status as Messiah. Yet also the resentment of the fact that Christians used to believe that the lending of money for interest was the sin of Usury, so only the Jews could be relied on for loans. Nowadays that is conveniently forgotten or modern capitalism would be dead in the water.

Maria wrote: "The pagan origin cannot help but taint the ritual. At least as far as the Bible says - do not mix light with darkness... ."

I'd prefer the honesty of most pagan celebrations personally. Easter as celebrating spring, sex and fertility, or Easter celebrating the brutal execution of god in order to be used as a blood sacrifice to himself in order to allow him to absolve the curse he placed and forgive us of the crime that our distant ancestor committed when in a state of innocence and not knowing better.

Small wonder that some early Christian faiths came around to the idea that the God of the Old Testament was actually an evil jealous being called "the Demiurge" that Christ was sent to rescue people from...

Pity most were murdered as heretics...

[Maria]

Callie wrote: "I am still working out the kinks in my belief system. I grew up in church. Many contradictions there, for me anyway. I feel I may have been too vague in my first comment. I have seriously been stru..."

And what about Santa - an overweight scary looking guy that can fit down your chimney and bring gifts to kids all over the world on the same night? I don't believe in (1) LYING to my children and (2) assuming my children are so gullible and half-witted to believe anything as far-out as Santa or the Easter Bunny.

[Maria]

Gary - I prefer the honesty too. Don't celebrate them in a Christian church in the name of God or Jesus. Have the guts to stand up and say, I'm celebrating a pagan ritual.

[Callie]

Maria wrote: "Callie wrote: "I am still working out the kinks in my belief system. I grew up in church. Many contradictions there, for me anyway. I feel I may have been too vague in my first comment. I have seri..."

No Santa either. He is creepy too, I agree. Kids are not stupid. They know when they are being lied to.

[Gary]

Callie wrote: "I am still working out the kinks in my belief system. I grew up in church. Many contradictions there, for me anyway. I feel I may have been too vague in my first comment. I have seriously been struggling with what I actually believe.

Good luck. I was in the same boat years ago and read the Bible cover to cover more than once, which was a major reason why I lost my faith. I could not agree with the ethics and morality (or lack of both) in those scriptures. Sure Jesus said a few things which were morally good. Yet they are in the minority, and they also tend to be the things that most Christians forget to do. ("Judge not", "Love thy Neighbour", "Do not proudly proclaim your faith in public", anything involving 'the meek')

Callie wrote: "Anyway, I too find the Easter Bunny creepy for kids. And bunnies don't lay eggs. What's that about? :) It's just weird.."

Eggs. Fertility. Sex.

One of the problems of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) is the unhealthy attitudes to sex. Part of this is because of the biblical role of women as subservient property to the men, but a big part may be due to a mistranslation.

Apparently in the original Hebrew, Mary was called a 'young woman' while it was translated into Greek as "virgin".

Yet to fulfil Old Testament prophecy they have a genealogy (actually two different ones) that show that Joseph (or Yosef) was of the house of David, fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah would be descended from David. Yet if Mary was a virgin, Joseph was not Jesus's father and therefore not the prophecised Messiah!

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Christianity has become more of an "anything goes" organization without regard for any Bible principles. In my opinion anyway. .."

I agree. A fact I am most grateful for. I do not want to beat my daughter if she talks back to me, I don't want a wife that is my property or servant, I don't want rapists to be forced to marry their victims as punishment, nor do I want rape victims who failed to cry out loudly enough to be stoned to death for adultery.

I am glad that Christians around the world have dropped a lot of biblical practices and I can only hope that they will eventually drop the rest.

[Maria]

Maybe they should drop the rest, but then they should not have the gall to call themselves Christians. The name "Christian" gives a connotation of following the teachings of Christ. If they aren't going to follow them then they should think up another name for their organization.

[Callie]

Hmmm... Do not proclaim faith in public. I haven't read that yet. Not saying it isn't there. Yet at church we learn differently. This is what I mean about contradiction. Like the bible says, God is love, but a preacher will get up on Sunday morning a preach about how God hates this or that. Drives me nuts.

[Drew]

Lila wrote: "I would say that calling someone's opinion idiocy or a person, an idiot or implying that by being christian I live in ignorance (and yes, Hazel when you say that religion is ignorance, you mean tha..."

I'm sorry to offend you Lila but believing in a religion is ignorance. You are believing in something that has absolutely NO proof and whenever one of us makes a great point, the religious say "you must have faith in God", it is their easy out of a conversation they don't like.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Maria wrote: "Maybe they should drop the rest, but then they should not have the gall to call themselves Christians. The name "Christian" gives a connotation of following the teachings of Christ. If they aren't..."

But not everyone will agree on what the teachings of Jesus were, or which ones are relevant.
Enough of my yacking...I think I shall watch The Life Of Brian later...this is way too serious.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I would say that calling someone's opinion idiocy or a person, an idiot or implying that by being christian I live in ignorance"

To be ignorant is to be uninformed; unaware or to deliberately ignore. This is the voluntary state of Faith. If you have 'belief' or 'faith' then by definition you are required to ignore things that are counter to that belief or faith.

Gary, yes I also have seen unnecessary or mean comments by people who may be christian, such as the cs person calling all atheist redundant. Of course it's absurd.

Lila wrote: "Just as it has been said that we don't need god/gods/religion in order to be good, we also don't need them to be evil."

Indeed. However, when someone says that an army won a battle, massacred the prisoners but saved the virgin girls to be raped, (I hope) we can all recognise that as evil. Yet what do you say to a person who has read the bible and says that God told Moses to do exactly that because the enemy was "against god" therefore it is justified?

These are the ways that religion gets good people to do evil because they put their faith in what they are told above what they instinctively know to be right.

Lila wrote: "Stalin and his communist regime were responsible for millions of deaths, ethnic cleansing, rapes of women and children, torture, etc. ."

As stated elsewhere I agreed that you don't need god to have a religion. Communist ideology (and indeed the despotic ideology of a dictator) both have the same features as a religion, requiring unquestioning obedience and faith, but this time in the state instead of a god.

[Gary]

Callie wrote: "Hmmm... Do not proclaim faith in public. I haven't read that yet."

Matthew 6:5-6
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men."

[Maria]

"Hmmm... Do not proclaim faith in public. I haven't read that yet. Not saying it isn't there. Yet at church we learn differently. This is what I mean about contradiction. Like the bible says, God is love, but a preacher will get up on Sunday morning a preach about how God hates this or that. Drives me nuts."

I think the bad thing is PROUDLY proclaiming your faith in public - like praying loudly with one eye open to make sure people are looking at you. Like a televangelist. In the Bible, Jesus did proclaim his faith publicly and from house to house, city to city, as did his apostles at his direction.

And Drew - saying that believing in a religion is ignorance is rude. Even if you think that it's true.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Maybe they should drop the rest, but then they should not have the gall to call themselves Christians. The name "Christian" gives a connotation of following the teachings of Christ."

I agree.

"Humanists" would be my favourite. If people stopped being concerned with god and bible and instead worried about how to best look after each other in this life, well the more we would be acting like the popular conception of Christ, instead of the hatred, homophobia and misogyny.

[Callie]

Gary wrote: "Callie wrote: "Hmmm... Do not proclaim faith in public. I haven't read that yet."

Matthew 6:5-6
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in t..."
Thanks!

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I think the bad thing is PROUDLY proclaiming your faith in public - like praying loudly with one eye open to make sure people are looking at you. Like a televangelist.

Sorry. Not according to the bible.

Matthew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Maria wrote: "In the Bible, Jesus did proclaim his faith publicly and from house to house, city to city, as did his apostles at his direction.

So if you are the Messiah, or one of the appointed apostles then yep you're fine. However, if you are not one of those thirteen people...

Maria wrote: "And Drew - saying that believing in a religion is ignorance is rude. Even if you think that it's true. "

Only if the person thinks that ignorance is a bad thing, and faith proclaims it a virtue.

Read Genesis "Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge." That is paraphrased somewhat but Genesis is quite clear that ignorance is (quite literal) bliss. It's only modern sensibility (and indeed science) that makes us understand that ignorance is a bad thing.

[Gary]

Callie wrote: "Thanks."

No problem. :-)

I have used that quote to great effect on street evangelists who were rudely ranting about how everyone who passed was a sinner. (Forgetting "Judge not" into the bargain.)

Perhaps people will stop saying I am only using science/philosophy to make my points?

[Maria]

I think Drew really means gullible more so than ignorant. Ignorance is a relative term.

I also think that if a someone wants to imitate Christ - i.e. be a "christian" - that would include imitating the way he preached about his faith to anyone that wanted to listen. Notice I say WANTED to listen.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I think Drew really means gullible more so than ignorant. Ignorance is a relative term."

At which point it is your interpretation of his words that has made it rude.

Maria wrote: "I also think that if a someone wants to imitate Christ - i.e. be a "christian" - that would include imitating the way he preached about his faith to anyone that wanted to listen. Notice I say WANTED to listen."

So some people would say that you were the heretic as you were imitating Christ instead of obeying him.

Also I am going to assume that you are female (by your username, apologies if that is wrong).

1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

So that's two biblical edicts you would be violating in order to imitate Christ.

[Maria]

I have never heard that imitating Christ was considered being a heretic. I always heard that Christians were supposed to imitate him - not try to BE him, just try to live in harmony with his teachings - you know, not keeping your light under a basket, that type of thing.

[[deleted user]]

Drew, I never have and never will tell anyone they must have faith in God.

Gary, religion doesn't get good people to do evil. I believe it's just one more justification for their deeds.

Anyway, I see that no matter what is said here or elsewhere, all religious people will be considered ignorant. I suppose if you think that Mother Theresa was ignorant, Dalai Lamas were ignorant, Native Americans are ignorant then I honestly do not know what to tell you, other than I should accept it as a compliment. Thank you.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I have never heard that imitating Christ was considered being a heretic. I always heard that Christians were supposed to imitate him - not try to BE him, just try to live in harmony with his teachings - you know, not keeping your light under a basket, that type of thing."

That is the problem. I have just demonstrated that by trying to live by his teachings you were planning to go against them. The Bible contradicts itself a lot and it says some truly immoral things. Now if you want to live an ethical life there are teachings of Jesus that are good and ones that are bad. When you realise that you are having to choose what to follow using your own ethical intuition you should eventually realise this is fundamentally the same as simply ignoring the Bible altogether and just trying to be a good person.

In my opinion, women should be respected as equals, no one has the right to tell someone who they can or cannot love in a consensual relationship, and that clinging to faith because it gives us a sense of superior morality is dangerous, misguided and ultimately the height of hubris.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Lila wrote: "Like I said already, whatever makes you happy guys. :-) I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussio..."

FYI - you haven't explored all of the clubs yet. Quite a few are debate clubs, not book clubs, definitely polemics abound here. A lot of the book clubs have at least one issue thread. If you look through the discussions, you'll see they go back three years. This is not the only religion discussion thread.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Gary, religion doesn't get good people to do evil. I believe it's just one more justification for their deeds. "

Can you not see that to be "justification" then it needs to have an influence? We may justify our evil to others, but we can also do it to ourselves.

People have killed people in accordance to biblical teachings, have stoned them to death or burned them at stakes. Where they all psychopaths that wanted to kill, or did they just actually believe the words that they were repeatedly told!

Lila wrote: "I suppose if you think that Mother Theresa was ignorant,"

Interesting choice. After her death there was a lot of scandal and rumour about her orphanages and charity work. Allegedly she considered suffering as a way to come to know Christ and was quite happy to let people in her care suffer greatly as it was good for their souls.

Lila wrote: "Dalai Lamas were ignorant, "

Actually I am quite pleasantly surprised by the current Dalai Lama.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Lila wrote: "Native Americans are ignorant

I think it's fairly ignorant to assume that all Native Americans are religious. I am sure some may be irreligious just as some may be Christian.

Lila wrote: "then I honestly do not know what to tell you, other than I should accept it as a compliment. Thank you. ."

Being ignorant is not a compliment, but it is a choice. If you have ever considered, even for a moment, that what you believe is wrong then that is the end of ignorance and the start of wisdom.

I try to question my own opinions as often as I can. Any scientist or philosopher who doesn't is putting their own ego before the truth.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "And Christianity may be MORE than just the text of the Bible, but it should at least strive to come close."
All of it?

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "I don't believe in (1) LYING to my children and (2) assuming my children are so gullible and half-witted to believe anything as far-out as Santa or the Easter Bunny. ."
But you teach your children about god?

[cerebus]

Callie wrote: "They know when they are being lied to...."
Does this include religion?

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "The name "Christian" gives a connotation of following the teachings of Christ. If they aren't going to follow them then they should think up another name for their organization."
Does this mean all the bible's teachings?

[[deleted user]]

Gary, are you then saying that everyone who had a religion is ignoran, because none of us have ever questioned anything? Ignorance is not a choice.

Regardless, the discussion has certainly been stimulating.

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "Ignorance is not a choice...."
Absolutely no reason why it can't be a choice. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs is wilfull ignorance. Not stupidity, but still a desire to remain ignorant of the evidence.

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Maria wrote: "I don't believe in (1) LYING to my children and (2) assuming my children are so gullible and half-witted to believe anything as far-out as Santa or the Easter Bunny. ."
But you teach ..."


This is what I love about religious folk, they spend years taking away all the 'imaginary' being ( Santa, Tooth Fairy etc) from kids and then go 'But the stuff about the angels and god...that bit is all true!'

[Maria]

Cerebus wrote: "Maria wrote: "I don't believe in (1) LYING to my children and (2) assuming my children are so gullible and half-witted to believe anything as far-out as Santa or the Easter Bunny. ."
But you teach your children about god?"

I don't recall saying what I teach my children. You and Travis both assume that I teach them about God, just because I say I don't teach them about Santa and the Easter Bunny?

And as far as ALL the Bible's teachings - I did not say that I agree with ALL of them. But if someone claims to be a Christian, I think they have to accept it as an all-or-nothing thing. I don't think you can claim to be of a certain religion and cherry-pick which of their beliefs you like. For example, someone may say, I'm Catholic, but I do believe in birth control, and oh yeah, the Pope is not necessarily infallible, and whatever else they believe, I can't remember. If you can say all that, then how are you a Catholic?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cherry-pick and weed out the things that do not make sense to you or are offensive. Just don't do it and then claim to be a member of a particular religious group that DOES believe them AS A GROUP.

I guess the question is, can individual members of a named religion NOT believe all the things that the named religion teaches and still call themselves by the name of the religion?

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Gary, are you then saying that everyone who had a religion is ignoran, because none of us have ever questioned anything? Ignorance is not a choice."

Actually I would say that the belief/faith part is the ignorance. If you keep an open mind and are ready to change it based on new information, then that is not ignorance.

Unfortunately this is an anathema to most religions.

Lila wrote: "Regardless, the discussion has certainly been stimulating. ."

Good. :-)

[Hazel]

Lila wrote: "(and yes, Hazel when you say that religion is ignorance, you mean that a person living by the rules of said religion is ignorant"

not at all, there are plenty of very intelligent religious folk, and plenty of very ignorant non-religious folk. But the basis of religion is a stance of ignorance. I'[ve heard religious folk say "love the sinner, but not the sin", well, by the same turn, disrespect the belief and not the believer. I can very easily say religion is a stance of ignorance and in no way mean that religious people are ignorant.

To clarify though, ignorance is not stupidity, its simply not knowing something, and if you accept the religious answer, without question, thats ignorance. I'm ignorant about plenty of things, I'm not that great at chemistry for example, or at law, in these things I am ignorant, however, I don't further this by proclaiming that a pseudoanswer is correct in absence of knowledge of how things really work, and I am keen to learn how things do work. Interestingly, many religious folk who start dealing with their ignorance on many scientific subjects have come to lose their religion, or even to be ostracised, for example I watched a 3 hour documentary on mormonism earlier this week, I learned a lot about mormons, I also learned that the excommunication rate among them has rocketed(I think the figure was a 29% increase, and its mostly women and scientists), and its due to people proclaiming things that are scientific and evidence based that contradict church doctrine, the mormon church actively punish people who try to pull themselves out of their indoctrinated ignorance. They're not the only church to do so.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "And as far as ALL the Bible's teachings - I did not say that I agree with ALL of them. But if someone claims to be a Christian, I think they have to accept it as an all-or-nothing thing."

I would agree that this would be the honest thing to do. The only problem being that the Bible is vague on many points and contradictory on others. Plus the fact that if people did follow Christianity properly they could not function within a modern secular democracy.

Democracy or other rule by man would be proscribed (Numbers 16:1-35, Jeremiah 10:23)

Women would be treated as slaves or property (1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15)

And people would be executed for crimes both severe and ridiculous
For Adultery (Exodus 21:28), Bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15), Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14), Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9), Homosexuality(Leviticus 20:13), Incest (Leviticus 20:11), Murder (Genesis 9:6) Rape Victims who don't cry out loudly enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), Stealing Slaves, not owning them, stealing them (Exodus 21:16), A girl not being a Virgin on the night of the wedding (Deuteronomy 22:13-22)

Maria wrote: "I don't think you can claim to be of a certain religion and cherry-pick which of their beliefs you like. For example, someone may say, I'm Catholic, but I do believe in birth control, and oh yeah, the Pope is not necessarily infallible, and whatever else they believe, I can't remember. If you can say all that, then how are you a Catholic?

Agreed. The fact that even the religious need to apply their ethical intuitions to receive moral guidance from religion makes a mockery of the idea that religion leads to a more moral society.

Maria wrote: "I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cherry-pick and weed out the things that do not make sense to you or are offensive. Just don't do it and then claim to be a member of a particular religious group that DOES believe them AS A GROUP.

Since no two groups agree on the interpretations either this is another good reason for replacing faith with reason and compassion.

Maria wrote: "I guess the question is, can individual members of a named religion NOT believe all the things that the named religion teaches and still call themselves by the name of the religion?

Well they do, and since it is actually impossible to follow the contradictions in the Bible, there are no true Christians. There may be some who claim that their way is the right one, but based on the religions own evidence, they are all wrong.

That's not including the Apocrypha or other teachings that were stripped out of the Bible by deliberate choice.

[[deleted user]]

Just for clarification purposes, even though Christianity has been used here interchangeably with religion and Bible as a point if reference, you do also mean Judaism and Torah, and Islam and Koran? I hope you rebuke all religions indiscriminately.

[Hazel]

of course, we simply relate a lot to christianity as it is generally mostly christians who get involved in the conversation

[Gary]

Venus wrote: "Religion is another way of "knowing about" the natural world. While science bases all statements upon observations, religion bases many of its statements upon faith or divine revelation.

How can religion give knowledge about the natural world? Faith means believing in a particular idea, but where does that idea originate from? Faith comes after the idea, it does not create it.

As for divine revelation, if that was a reliable method to gain knowledge of the world we would have only had one religion, not thousands upon thousands of competing and contradictory ones.

Three of the candidates in the 2012 Republican primaries claimed divine revelation that God had called them to run for office. I believe ultimately none of them that made that claim are running anymore. This means that (1) They were honestly mistaken that god had talked to them (2) They were lying (3) Their god has a warped sense of humour. How then can divine revelation give us knowledge unless we each are given the same revelation and proof that we are not hallucinating or deceiving ourselves?

Religion claims to be a source of knowledge, however their are different religions and different truths they claim. If one is right then most others are wrong, therefore on average religion is an extremely poor path to knowledge.

Venus wrote: "Faith statements are not ultimately based upon the observable, and are not tentative, nor testable nor falsifiable through the scientific method"

Actually according to the Bible, the miracles of Jesus were the observable proof. The Bible itself is an attempt at observable religious proof. Many religious people point to events in their lives that they claim is proof of "divine providence".

Religion pretends to be beyond proof and rationale, but they will rejoice when they seem to find it. Otherwise why did the Turin shroud cause such a stir before it was proved a forgery? Surely religious people should have been indifferent if faith was important?

Venus wrote: "but are believed to be true for reasons that go beyond empirically observable evidence-often because of divine revelation.

And who gets to choose what is genuine Divine revelation and what is lies or self delusion?


Martin Luther King wrote: "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values."

Those values have included across ages and different religions a lot of horrors and atrocities

It is sad that such an otherwise good man laboured under the idea that a book that contained the following was good and divine.

Titus 2:9-10
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

(Please note that the original term "servi" in latin means "slave")

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Just for clarification purposes, even though Christianity has been used here interchangeably with religion and Bible as a point if reference, you do also mean Judaism and Torah, and Islam and Koran? I hope you rebuke all religions indiscriminately."

Indeed.

I personally know more about Christianity because I used to be one, I lost my faith in my attempt to be the best Christian I could be.

I have read the Qu'ran, but not in the Arabic which I believe a lot of Muslims think does not help, I haven't read the Torah completely yet though - hey I have a lot of other stuff to read! :-)

However, most of the Abrahamic religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are all based on the same root and have the equally savage books of law at their core.

If you want to see the eventual face of Christian fundamentalism then you only need to look at Iran where people are butchered in the dirt at half time of soccer games for the crimes as described in Leviticus.

However, there are far more Religions, extant and otherwise, than just those three (and their myriad variations). I respect some of the teachings of some of them, but still regard all with critique and an open mind.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "And as far as ALL the Bible's teachings - I did not say that I agree with ALL of them.. ...."
How do you choose which bits to agree with and which to disagree with?

[cerebus]

Pretty much covers it.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: " Pretty much covers it."

Surely, you are not taking it seriously? Because if you were, then you'd be making a joke out of the whole discussion.

It is however a perfect example of ignorance.

[Xdyj]

Gary wrote: "Communist ideology (and indeed the despotic ideology of a dictator) both have the same features as a religion, requiring unquestioning obedience and faith, but this time in the state instead of a god."

AFAIK there are plenty of Marxist theorists or Communists who are supporters of liberal values and truly believe in democracy, however after every "communist revolution" these people would almost always be purged immediately.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Who was the chap that lived in a barrel? Maniacs the lot of them..."

Didactylos..."

Diogenes

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "Surely, you are not taking it seriously? Because if you were, then you'd be making a joke out of the whole discussion."
At its heart it has a valid point, that we are told god is omniscient, so created adam and eve knowing that they would eat the apple, yet punished them for doing what he effectively created them to do.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Who was the chap that lived in a barrel? Maniacs the lot of them..."

Didactylos..."

Diogenes"

yeah, I know, but pratchetts take on it amuses me more :P