RE: Religion and Religiosity

RE: Religion and Religiosity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 12:38:41 PM)
I'm not sure if you were wrong in the first place. It's too easy for someone to claim that someone else isn't part of their group then they screw up. I think Bush probably does pray every night before bed. Probably several times per day, really. Of course, he's not actually talking to God- just to himself- but how does that make him any different from anyone else? It's the individual's decision if God wants war or peace.

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 12:57:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm not sure if you were wrong in the first place. It's too easy for someone to claim that someone else isn't part of their group then they screw up. I think Bush probably does pray every night before bed. Probably several times per day, really. Of course, he's not actually talking to God- just to himself- but how does that make him any different from anyone else? It's the individual's decision if God wants war or peace. That's assuming war is a decision that one individual can make. Still, whomever Bush prays too, he clearly doesn't practice the tenets of the faith he claims to follow. Hypocrisy in any form (religious or otherwise) is a fundamental flaw that I won't tolerate in a leader. I don't have a problem with the Governor of New York spending time with a call girl; I have a problem that he was clearly doing so against the type of ethics he portrayed himself to having. He's currently under investigation for receiving a 'loan' from his father in pursuit of his political aspirations, and he used the name of a political campaign donor when renting a hotel room for one of the prostitutes. When addressing another scandal, Spitzer said "ethics and accountability must and will remain rigorous in my administration." This is the Hypocrisy I can't stomach. Stephan

kittinSol -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 12:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's the individual's decision if God wants war or peace. Please explain.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 1:07:57 PM)
If Christianity can be interpreted different ways, how is Bush's interpretation invalid? I mean, here on CM, we have Christians, right? But many blantantly ignore just about everything the Bible had to say on the subject of sex. When I said he chose to go to war, I mean that he chose to go in that direction, not that he made the decision for the nation itself. :P

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 1:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's the individual's decision if God wants war or peace. Please explain. People can interpret God to be what they want him to be. Or her to be. He (or she, or it) has the values someone would want him to have. I mean, sure, there's only so far you can stretch it within a particular religion at one time, but it's largely your choice on how you want to intrepret it.

caitlyn -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 1:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I mean, here on CM, we have Christians, right? But many blantantly ignore just about everything the Bible had to say on the subject of sex. Its a valid point, but can perhaps be seen as a matter of degrees. I certainly do ignore the teachings of the church I am a member of, when it comes to contraception ... but seem to avoid breaking thirty percent of the commandments in one fell swoop by not invading Iraq. It might be that one is no better than the other in the eyes of God ... but in the eyes of man, the difference looks reasonably clear.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 2:54:04 PM)
So that means people are interpretting religion as they want. But, you see, there's yet a further point I can make here. It's possible to interpret religion in many different ways; unlike Physics, it's subjective to how it's applied. It works off non-absolutions and contradictions. Someone versed in religion could prove just about any point imaginable with religious justifcation. It should be obvious that anything which contradicts itself isn't true.

luckydog1 -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:05:10 PM)
"But, you see, there's yet a further point I can make here. It's possible to interpret religion in many different ways; unlike Physics, it's subjective to how it's applied. It works off non-absolutions and contradictions. Someone versed in religion could prove just about any point imaginable with religious justifcation" There is also a large amount of scientific disagreement over various methods of finding the Unified Theory. There is Dark Matter because there has to be...the Duality of a photon...String theories, infinite Universes, Membrane theory, quantum physics, ect. None of that is absolute, and it is full of contradictions. And given unproved premises, virtually anything can get proved with math. "It should be obvious that anything which contradicts itself isn't true. " How does that apply to the Dual nature of a Photon? Other than just saying, "<thats the way it is>".

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If Christianity can be interpreted different ways, how is Bush's interpretation invalid? I mean, here on CM, we have Christians, right? But many blantantly ignore just about everything the Bible had to say on the subject of sex. When I said he chose to go to war, I mean that he chose to go in that direction, not that he made the decision for the nation itself. :P Religion isn't physics (as you pointed out); the rules for one person won't always apply to another. If an important leader of a club commits an act that violates what 85% of the members of that club believe in, in direct contravention of the rules, that person usually gets kicked out. He can, (and oftend does) go forth and start a new club, with the same name. People don't need to be well versed in religion, to use religion to justify their actions. This is the essence of this conversation; that committing acts in the name of a religion, doesn't mean all people associated with that religion are guilty by proxy. Yet the perception of leaders a rival religion may, for their own purposes, choose to lump all practitioners of a religion together. It boils down to an "Us verses Them." See my post over HERE for more on that. Stephan

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:16:03 PM)
Of course. Science doesn't say, "There is a photon"; it says, "If you use this model of the photon, you'll typically come to the correct conclusions under these circumstances". :P (It's a misunderstanding of Science to think that it says, "This is the way it is perfectly.")

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:18:18 PM)
Doesn't all of this promote my point that the application of religion (and, through this, religion itself) is a silly thing?

kittinSol -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:18:57 PM)
Curious: go and get a few books on basic theology (!!!); they're like science books, except there's no empirical evidence in them [;)] . As a very easy start, I suggest St. Thomas Aquinas... then you can slowly work your way up. People have been arguing over this for thousands of years; and I don't think that you, even with your enormous genius, will solve this question. For crying out loud.

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:20:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Doesn't all of this promote my point that the application of religion (and, through this, religion itself) is a silly thing? You don't remember the conversation we had on communism, do you? One could say belief in anything is silly, because people will fight using it. What you're really doing is saying that the gun is silly, because people use guns to kill each other. Take away the guns and bullets, and people will find other weapons and vehicles to kill each other with. Stephan

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:22:45 PM)
People can argue about who would've won in a hypothetical war between Chuck Norris and Luke Skywalker for a million of years. They'll never come to an "answer". And mine is simple: They're non-congruent. They come from entirely different worlds which no defined pass between them. It's simply undefined, and to think that it's one or the other is a silly application of geekhood. Why in Karana's name would I read works of silly ficiton by authors too delussional to realize that they're without reason?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann You don't remember the conversation we had on communism, do you? One could say belief in anything is silly, because people will fight using it. What you're really doing is saying that the gun is silly, because people use guns to kill each other. Take away the guns and bullets, and people will find other weapons and vehicles to kill each other with. Oh, I completely disagree here! A gun is a tool. Religion should be reason- an shot at understanding the world. A gun doesn't contradict itself. A single religion, however, does. A gun doesn't say, "Fire me, and I'll make you win this fight." It doesn't say anything, really. It's religion that says, "There -is- this." "This -is- what you should do."

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:33:51 PM)
Here's the crux, though: religion is a tool. Faith is a tool. They can be used to do great things, and terrible things. The tool doesn't contradict itself, it's practitioners do. Religion doesn't say "believe in me, and you'll win this fight." Religion is a tool that people with power use to influence those without, to achieve a purpose. What that purpose is, can result in saving lives, feeding the hungry, and bringing understanding where there was ignorance. Or, it can be used to poison minds, inflict massive casualties, and destroy civilizations. Stephan

RCdc -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol For crying out loud. All I am reading now is Stephann = reasonable Caitlyn = methodical lucky dog = practical CL = .blahblahblah. .blahblah. .blah. the.dark.

domiguy -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:36:18 PM)
I say it is silly....I say it doesn't make sense. Taken for another thread... "I like to fuck ...An orgasm feels good...Describe "good" is that like God? I don't know...We have a path to fulfill it is of a spiritual nature...shallow fucks like myself use the terminology of being "spiritual" to avoid utilizing the terminology of God. Whatever power there is comes from within not some mysterious external force. People don't get it. It's easier to focus on the external because it gives one the allusion of strength....There is strength in numbers. The fact that we are "all alone" just seems so cold, depressing and fills people with a trepidation that everything is meaningless....Quite the contrary. You live for today. The world you leave behind and the actions you take is how you will be remembered. You live like a shithead there is no bedside miracle....No acceptance of the Holy Spirit to bail yourself out. Domiguy and a friend at a funeral...Domiguy's friend.."I hear so-and-so accepted Jesus as his savior upon his death bed....It's nice that he will be going to heaven"....Domiguy, "Fuck him...He had one nice day on this planet...what a fucking waste that it was his last. Jesus can have the asshole." Now I know there is a difference between God and Christianity...But in order to have a belief in God most people empower that God with having relevance and an ability to interact with the world today as well as within their own lives....I just don't see it. " So if you want to believe in God...Then show me God. Not in the abstract but God. Is God the Hurricane that wiped out N'ahlins? Or the baby born...It's a miracle, ya know, especially when born addicted to crack or with the hiv virus. Show me God. Show me the Easter Bunny or Santa...They are after all the samething....It's just that the adults or the mean children on your block didn't have the chance to ruin the illusion before the fear was pounded into you. Go with God.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:37:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Here's the crux, though: religion is a tool. Faith is a tool. They can be used to do great things, and terrible things. The tool doesn't contradict itself, it's practitioners do. Religion doesn't say "believe in me, and you'll win this fight." Religion is a tool that people with power use to influence those without, to achieve a purpose. What that purpose is, can result in saving lives, feeding the hungry, and bringing understanding where there was ignorance. Or, it can be used to poison minds, inflict massive casualties, and destroy civilizations. There's a tool in religion. The ethics- the morality. That much is a tool. But religion isn't just a tool. It's also, "There is a God". "This is that", "such is such". "This is wrong, but this other thing that's the same thing is right." It's not the ethics but the "There's a God", "There's an afterlife" that I contest.

Justme696 -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 3:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Here's the crux, though: religion is a tool. Faith is a tool. They can be used to do great things, and terrible things. The tool doesn't contradict itself, it's practitioners do. Religion doesn't say "believe in me, and you'll win this fight." Religion is a tool that people with power use to influence those without, to achieve a purpose. What that purpose is, can result in saving lives, feeding the hungry, and bringing understanding where there was ignorance. Or, it can be used to poison minds, inflict massive casualties, and destroy civilizations. Stephan partly yes...humans abuse religion. On the other side the bible and the quran have voilent writings in it. SO it is not completely up to the readers

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875