Religion: Blight upon humanity?

[cxt]

Meta

I don't know--seems to me that any viewpoint taken to extreme is as bad as any other.

I'm just as nervous about people in power holding extreme secular viewpoints as I am about extreme relgious ones.

As far as the Christan docrtine is concerned--there are no more "holes" in it than in any other relgion.

Kinda par for the course in anything that old.

You don;t really last 2000 plus years without picking up a lot of baggage over the years.

I think the error though is presenting/treating that baggage as if it central to the message.

Honestly, just because some yokal back in the day belived that the ark was made of gopher wood and was exactly X long by X wide.

Does that mean that "do not commit murder" is somehow invalid?

Sees to me even the most secular of people would think a command NOT to go around murdering people was good advice.

(the Commandmant of Thou shall not kill is better defined as a command not to commit murder in the modern sense)

[-Metablade-]

Meta

I don't know--seems to me that any viewpoint taken to extreme is as bad as any other.

True. Except if the viewpoint is contrary to known reality, and is being fostered upon society as fact, with threat of violence for refusal to bolster it.
That said, there has never been strife in a society which embraces the ways of being reasonable.

I'm just as nervous about people in power holding extreme secular viewpoints as I am about extreme religious ones.

Meta: In my view, faith is a personal issue, and has no business in politics or government, ergo, leaders need to function on a secular basis while they are performing their duties.

As far as the Christian doctrine is concerned--there are no more "holes" in it than in any other religion.

Meta: I disagree in that there are some faiths which are less anchored in reality than others..*cough* Heaven's Gate *Cough*

You don;t really last 2000 plus years without picking up a lot of baggage over the years.

Meta: Or blood on your hands for that matter.

I think the error though is presenting/treating that baggage as if it central to the message.

Meta: True. If people of faith followed the spirit of their faith, then there would be no conflict between the secular world and the religious. I'd say the same about the secular world, except in all honesty we don't generally see secularists trying to ban churches or trample on people's rights to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Does that mean that "do not commit murder" is somehow invalid?

Meta: No, but then again, many people forget that "not killing" unless in war or in some cases, religious sacrifice, has been pretty much a built in moral standard in most cultures.
Such morality has existed before the Bible, and independent of it.

Sees to me even the most secular of people would think a command NOT to go around murdering people was good advice.

(the Commandment of Thou shall not kill is better defined as a command not to commit murder in the modern sense)

Meta: I think what the common ground here is that the enemy is neither religion not secularism.
It's absolutism, from the standpoint of faith, that scripture is reality, and from the standpoint of science, that we have reconciled all that there is.
While it is my belief that the latter is only a matter of time, the former can co-exist as long as it respects the other, which we see overwhelmingly throughout history that this is not the case.

[cxt]

Meta

But Christains--as a group don't use violence as a means of enforceing belief--not anymore, its no longer 1650.

Sure some of the fringe wackos do--but that is EXACTLY why they are fringe wackos.

So you can't realy claim that such viewpoints are being fosted on anyone with "threat of violence" hangin gover those that refuse.

Also worth noting that the 2 most murderous doctrines in history were very much "anti" religious.
Both Communisim and Fascism ie Nazi's were very "secular" in outlook--disdaining any form of relgion.
And they killed tens upon tens upon tens of millions of people

(it is of course argueable, and I freely conceed that Communism ext. were as much "relgions" as the ones they tried to replace--nor were they at all "resonable.")


Show me an actual "reasonable" society.

No but we do see secularists forceing "their" take on things concerning a range of issues.

Your correct on absolutism---its bad no matter where it comes from.

I fully agree!

[-Metablade-]

Meta

But Christians--as a group don't use violence as a means of enforcing belief.

Sure some of the fringe wackos do--but that is EXACTLY why they are fringe wackos.

I wasn't particularly singling out Christians, but while they have not generally used violence in the last few decades, you cannot claim that there still isn't a large majority in the U.S., which is active in pushing religious and faith based political agendas upon the rest of us.
Recent Examples:
1. The Pledge
2. Creationism
3. Posting the Ten commandments outside of government buildings.
4. Attempts to criminalize abortion

So the plain fact is, many Christians are active in attempts to force the non secular portions of society to live under their morality of a faith-based system, by means of legal Government mandates and laws.

So you can't really claim that such viewpoints are being fosted on anyone with "threat of violence" hanging gover those that refuse.

Meta: Tell that to anyone living in India/Pakistan/*whatever-stan/North-Mid Africa/Tibet/China/N.Korea/ ..etc..etc...

This is no longer 1650.

Indeed, and yet still a vast array of the American populace believe that an invisible man in the sky governs over all, ghosts walk the earth, all mankind came from only two people and either a cloud or fire filled existence awaits one after death.
Go figure.

Show me an actual "reasonable" society.

Meta: It's a concept, meant to stir the mind. Of course while I admit that human foibles have always prevented a fully "reasonable" society, there have been some that are more so than other, for example the U.S. is a more reasonable society than say...North Korea.

No but we do see secularists forcing "their" take on things concerning a range of social issues.

Meta: I'd like to hear of an recent American example whereby secularists attempted to force it's will into the domain which strictly and obviously was faith bound.
It's important to discern secularism from cultism, which many fascist and dictatorship regimes are.

By definition, secularism is:
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

I see this as a must for any "reasonable" society to exist.
Otherwise, we have a theocracy, which no matter how well intended, is still a form of oppression.

[fivedragons]

Meta: Tell that to anyone living in India/Pakistan/*whatever-stan/North-Mid Africa/Tibet/China/N.Korea/ ..etc..etc

Tibet was a case of genocide by a secular government against a religion and culture.

China? Lets see, Buddhism, Taoism, Confuscianism, Christianity, Islam. And then you have the "cultural revolution" of the the most venerable Chairman Mao, who decided to wipe the blight of religion of the face of the earth. What a great secular humanitarian. Killed off the masters of China's martial traditions. I bet it had more to do with the spirit than the mind and body.

After all, strong and smart people don't really pose much of a threat to a mechanized human being eating machine, but just think of what faith can accomplish.

Basically if your intention is negative, your actions will be negative.

There is no scapegoat. If you really want to know what is the blight on humanity, you will look at those basic animal traits of human nature that always seem to run amok when there is an imbalance caused by negating the higher aspects of human consciousness. We are animal and we are spiritual. We are logical. Not one of these things taken by itself can approximate an actual living human being.

The whole is (potentially) greater than the sum.

Mind, body and spirit.

[eastcoast_bsc]

Meta

I don't know--seems to me that any viewpoint taken to extreme is as bad as any other.

I'm just as nervous about people in power holding extreme secular viewpoints as I am about extreme relgious ones.

As far as the Christan docrtine is concerned--there are no more "holes" in it than in any other relgion.

Kinda par for the course in anything that old.

You don;t really last 2000 plus years without picking up a lot of baggage over the years.

I think the error though is presenting/treating that baggage as if it central to the message.

Honestly, just because some yokal back in the day belived that the ark was made of gopher wood and was exactly X long by X wide.

Does that mean that "do not commit murder" is somehow invalid?

Sees to me even the most secular of people would think a command NOT to go around murdering people was good advice.

(the Commandmant of Thou shall not kill is better defined as a command not to commit murder in the modern sense)

Meta you seem to have a personal problem with Christianty, I gave you very clear statistics earlier, that showed secular Goverments have created the worst cases of genocide in the history of mankind, but you seem to not let the facts get in the way. Lets hear your severe critiqaque of Islam, or are you not up to that task?

[fivedragons]

By the way, meta.

not to be a spoilsport, but nothing you posted has any bearing on whether the bible and "archealogical evidence" can be reconciled.

It's just a bunch of opinionated b.s.

I don't have any personal investment in the bible, but I have to wonder if you are the type of person that laughs at any history that doesn't fit in with your omniscient world view.:

It's just as easy to laugh at you.

HA HA HA.

[-Metablade-]

Meta you seem to have a personal problem with Christianity, I gave you very clear statistics earlier, that showed secular Governments have created the worst cases of genocide in the history of mankind, but you seem to not let the facts get in the way. Lets hear your severe critiqaque of Islam, or are you not up to that task?

Meta: I don't have a specific problem with Christianity, or any religion for that matter. As I wrote previously, faith is a basic human right that no one should be denied. But I do have an issue when religious beliefs spill over into areas which they have no place, such as government and civic mandates which have nothing to do with religion.

However now that you mention it, if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, Christianity has been far and away linked to some of the worst atrocities ever known.
Example?
Richard the Lion heart.
The Crusades in general.
The inquisition.
The conquering, wholesale exploitation, and slaughter of just about every native population on earth which was not at the same developmental level as they at the time of invasion.
There are others, but I need not go there for now.

On the topic of Islam, historically, The peoples of Islamic nations practiced high degrees of tolerance to other faiths and in fact co-existed with them with few incidents since its inception. The same cannot be said of Christianity's history of extreme intolerance, backed by violence to enforce their will. It is not until times of invasion or the attempts to destroy or erode Islamic culture do we see large amounts of extremists appear.

Take the current war. Why can't America win?
Because while American secularists and Christians may see the issue as one way, (Removing a dictator) the Islamic world sees it as another, (And invasion of the Holy land) which is no different than the 12th century.

We keep hearing islamic extremists saying things like "Infidel" and "Holy Land" and Jihaad.
Hello? What does this tell you? It says that they do not see this a politics, but a Holy War, whether the West likes it or not, AMERICA IS NOW ENGAGED IN HOLY WAR.

Bush is seen as King Richard, and Osama bin Laben is seen as Sal-Adin to many people.

It's strange, really. The west seems to portray just about all Islamists as extremist terrorists, which is backed by the media reports we see on the news. But we need to remember that Islam is the worlds largest religion per members, and it exists in every country.

[-Metablade-]

By the way, meta.

not to be a spoilsport, but nothing you posted has any bearing on whether the bible and "archeological evidence" can be reconciled.

It's just a bunch of opinionated b.s.

I don't have any personal investment in the bible, but I have to wonder if you are the type of person that laughs at any history that doesn't fit in with your omniscient world view.:

It's just as easy to laugh at you.

HA HA HA.

Meta: This from a guy whose nick is related to an esoteric mostly "secret" high-level Gung-fu form which is purported to cultivate, channel and condition your "chi" so greatly that either you will open a portal to another dimension, or you'll go insane. (At least, that's a few of the supposed benefits, there are even more wacky ones.)
If that is what you are relating your name to, I know the type. Martial arts Zealots who believe everything that comes out of the mouth of Chinese people simply because they look wise saying it.

Ah, the folly of the young.

[-Metablade-]

Tibet was a case of genocide by a secular government against a religion and culture.

I think you are not understanding the word "Secularism"
Let me redefine it for you:
By definition, secularism is:
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Nowhere in that definition are there the words "Genocide against a religion and culture." Secularism in itself does not indicate destruction of people or religion or the rights of people, but rather it is only meant to separate matters of faith from the Government.

That is what secularism is.

So, I don't understand your logic when you equate secularism to a government when it commits genocide or religious intolerance. The two acts are mutually exclusive.
The act of separating religion from the government is secularism, the act of genocide or oppression is that of a diseased cult or dictatorship. And yes, whole governments can be cults.

[fivedragons]

Meta: This from a guy whose nick is related to an esoteric mostly "secret" high-level Gung-fu form which is purported to cultivate, channel and condition your "chi" so greatly that either you will open a portal to another dimension, or you'll go insane. (At least, that's a few of the supposed benefits, there are even more wacky ones.)
If that is what you are relating your name to, I know the type. Martial arts Zealots who believe everything that comes out of the mouth of Chinese people simply because they look wise saying it.

Meta, I don't care about martial arts or religion. I just practice them.

[-Metablade-]

Meta, I don't care about martial arts or religion. I just practice them.

Indeed.
For some, the way of Martial Arts can be both.

[dejsis]

Where is the sign-up sheet?

I've been going to hell for years. I acutally plan on renting one of those 15 passenger vans and inviting anyone who would like to join me for the long, warm drive down where it never freezes over.

You want I should save you a spot?

[dejsis]

Though on a serious note; maybe the bible isnt so bad, maybe its the fact that everyone who reads the bible is reading a translation with additions.


Go learn greek and then read the bible.

ANd look at the 'Dead sea scrolls'.

Actually, that would be Arameic.

[AAAhmed46]

Yeah but it's easier learning greeek then it is aramaic, it's cheaper!





Ive had people come to me talking about disreputable versus in the koran. I tell them that so and so word has multiple different meanings in arabic and that in classical arabic(quranic arabic) it was different.

Some christians told me that "Whenever something is wrong with the quran, it's blamed on the translations. That doesnt happen with the bible."

But i think that is EXACTLY the problem.

"Lost in translation"

When most people think of the bible, they think of the content in english "Turn the other cheek" in english, not aramaic, or more accuratly, not in hebrew.

Unfortunatly, no ancient hebrew bible exists anymore from the time of jesus's diciples, and no one was able to copy it in hebrew before they were distroyed, they were copied by the Byzantine, in thier own langauge.

One thing jewish and muslims scholars do that i agree with is that they made sure that any interpretation of the torah or the koran MUST be from the arabic version, a translation is NOT taken seriously.




THAT i think is the problem.






And believe it or not, a friend of mine....a CHRISTIAN friend of mine(egyption coptic) said to someone that jesus WAS NOT WHITE.


That person said she was offended, that it went against her beliefs!


HOW DOES THAT GO AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS?



But at the same time, many muslims are chanting "The koran says death to america"

There is no arabian word for 'america',