Religion

Remove all ads!

What someone views to be 'better' quite possibly can be what someone else views as worse. Certain religions demand the sacrifice of animals, for example: cows, whereas other religions would abhor such a thing.

Relgion is simply an interpretation of a holy book. There are different denominations of the major faiths, some are vastly conflicting, others only have subtle differences. Come death, the choice you made here (according to most, if not all, religions) can damn you to an eternity of suffering. I imagine a god will be more angry if you follow the wrong thing than not follow at all and be especially angry if you follow something that is a perversion of that god's ideal. Better to not follow religion, follow your conscience and not what some other guy in a robe/big hat/holding a fancy stick tells you to do.

 

That all depends on how big the fancy stick is, now doesn't it?

 

An oversimplified creation story means that the world is here, what matters more is what we do now that we're here.

Commandments regarding how we relate to God and to others are designed to help us live the best life possible.

Wisdom shared by patriarchs past (David from the Psalms, Solomon from Proverbs, any case of a father councelling his son, the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Epistles of Paul) that give us guidelines for making wise decisions.

But thanks for avoiding my question...

That's where we need to look at what is being taught. You also need to reach out to the spiritual being represented. If what is offered is right, you will know it.

It is not as much on the followers, but upon those that take the position to lead. That which you say or do in God's name is said or done with His full attention. And if you use His name to justify attrocities or lead others astray, He will be very displeased.

But what if what you call your conscience tells you that the speaker of religious doctrine (my faith has no such funny robes, outrageous hats or fancy sticks. I don't feel short changed...) is the truth? What if this internal moral compass actually points you to such teachings? Many religions are falling by the wayside because the teachings don't connect with the "conscience" of those that attend...

 

The problem I find with most religious doctrines is that they're very similar to political parties. I will agree on some of their agendas but disagree on others. The whole 'love thy neighbor', 'don't lie', 'don't steal' etc. is great stuff but there are issues such as contraceptives, homosexuality, consumption of certain substances, the status granted to priests etc. that I disagree with (this isn't just a stab at Christianity, it's against all religions).

When it comes to morality I could never follow something because I support the 'majority' of their ideals. So I'll stick to my own moral compass.

 

I have this same argument with my lady friend who is a fundie christian, and I say to her that things like the 10 commandments is just basically common sense. So too are most religious rules about morality and the like...problem is though that they were formulated thousands of years ago and dont include present issues that we face in the 21st century.

 

Ab:

Here you have earned a great deal of respect from me. I wish everyone did that. While I don't agree with some of the courses you plot with that compass, I do agree that following another human's compass that you don't entirely trust is worse.

 

Fair enough. But the teaching is that sex is sacred, and ought be limites specifically within legal and lawful marriage. This is defined explicitly between a man and a woman. Contraception within marriage is between the man and woman, nobody else. Status of the priesthood within my religion is that we are more accountable than the average member because we are granted more responsibility...

Common sense really hasn't changed. The skill of the sinners to justify their desires has improved. many of those rules you don't like don't change because the reasons for them don't change (regardless of what people will try to claim).

 

There are no sins though, no one is ever a sinner, and the way you talk about sinners is that theyre some sort of evil cult that deviously think of new ways to get around the common-sense morality that you ascribe to the theistic God of Christianity, who, by the way, is the most limited concept of what a God should/could be.

 

A sin is defined as anything contrary to a commandment from God. Any theory of God has got to have some commandments...

Actually, they're just people that don't want to obey these commandments...

Or try to change common sense itself.

Limited? How so? I don't see that as limited. God limits Himself by his own desired laws. Having been before the beginning, He has had sufficient time to perfect these laws before the world began.

 

But if you dont believe in the God that supposedly gave the commandment, how are you acting in a contradictory manner if you dont uphold that Gods command? If someone doesnt believe then they shouldnt have to adhere to something, so how is that a sin? Are you going to say that Christianity is the 'only' true religion?

'Common sense' is contextual. Also, moral conduct does not need a religious pretext for it to be valid. There are millions of upstanding moral people in the world who reject Christianity and religion itself. So these people are still sinners even though they are very good people who work hard and never cause any problems?

If the commandments dont apply to a person because they follow a different religion, then the commandments arent applicable to them. So if they break them or not it doesnt matter, they are still not sinners.

Very much so. The theistic idea of God is limited. Im not saying that God is limited, just the 'God' of theism. There is more to God than theism allows. A higher understanding of the nature of God reveals that God is not theistic, but rather panentheistic. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. The concept of a theistic God cannot comprehend the vast magnitude of the true nature of God.

The LDS concept of God is even more limited. It says that God was once a man and that he has a mortal body, yet God existed before time and has no limitations, God transcends this universe. That in itself is a logical fallacy. For someone to truly understand God, you need to do away with all the things that limit the concept of God. That includes religion in general. You dont need religion to know God. Just sit back and smoke some ganj and take in the reality of existence while entering the Mind of God. God is nothing more than Consciousness. To limit God to a body, or to a place, or to a certain name, that is saying to God 'Im still a spiritual child and I have no respect for who you are'.

 

That explains all I need to know. Your "recreational" treatment of something very personal to myself and others if highly disrespectful. And from personal experience, the stuff I came up with when I used to get stoned sounded really stupid when I sobered up later on...

 

Its not recreational, its like a sacrement. And before you say 'get stoned', remember that the majority of sadhu in India smoke for religious reasons and they are completely fine. Its not about thinking stuff up while smoking, its about pulling the wool of your eyes, so to speak. Sure you will come up with weird stuff, like some of the things Ive come up with are complete madness. Firstly you need to mentally and spiritually prepare yourself, and then while you smoke you need to consciously contemplate reality without 'thinking'.

My personal view of the nature of God comes from a higher understanding of how things work. Im able to put into perspective every and all things. Its hard to explain, but its basically like you need to push back the mental barriers that restrict all of humanity. Being consciously aware of our place in the universe is the first step, that is, being able to look at ourselves exactly the way we are and say 'yes'. Then its understanding that its the very will of God that holds the universe together and that we are nothing more than an extention of his will. God is the universe, but the universe isnt God, God is more than just this universe. This universe is a clear and distinct thought in the mind of God. All consciousness comes from God, and for each person in each different place in the world and in each different cultural environment, God reveals 'his' nature. Everyone sees different aspects of the one God, and all religion is just an attempt to say that the part of God that that particular religion sees is the 'correct' view of God, or the 'entirety' of God. But thats just nonsense. God transcends all human understanding, and we can only ever know a small fraction of the true nature of Gods reality.

Think of it like this, perhaps. There is an infinite ocean of beer, and into that beer people dip their 'vessels' and scoop up a portion of it. The 'vessel' that contains the 'beer' are the religions. Each portion of 'beer' is different to the next, so each religion venerates a slightly different aspect of the infinite nature of the 'beer'. But people forget that its what is contained in the 'vessel' that truly matters, not the 'vessel' itself. They focus on the different 'shape' of each of the 'vessels'. One may be a 'jug', another may be a 'vase', while another may be a 'pot'...but what they all contain is the same...the 'beer'. But rather than drinking of the 'beer' from the 'vessel', you need to access the source directly, and it is possible when you realise that you yourself are simply a 'vessel', that your body is just a 'jug' that is holding the 'beer'. Each of us has a portion of God in us, the 'spark' that gives us life and makes us 'living'. Doesnt matter if its a cat or a dog or a human, we all have that part of God in us. Of course, a cat and a dog have lesser brains than us, so they cannot comprehend God. But they can through our kindness towards them.

That basically sums up what Ive been trying to say in my posts on this thread.

 

I'm skeptical about, Cuchulainn, is the overemphasis upon fundamentalist Christianity. I believe conservative Christianity -- different from fundamentalist Christianity -- matters more than I would really like it to in the USA, but I don't seriously believe someone like Jack Chick is representative of the danger American Christians present. You say that abortion is illegal because of the religious right -- something of which I'm skeptical because it feels too reductive, and because I believe that liberals and atheists can find the idea of abortion objectionable.

One of the reasons that I disagree with a number of atheist arguments is not because of their validity; I was excited to hear that a US Rep. recently declared his atheism to the public. Rather, I find troubling the implication that the world will somehow be a brighter, more peaceful, and more morally acceptable place if religion (or rather, the reasonable rights to practice religion) were taken away from the general public. It's characteristic of the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky -- the figure who believes the common masses are so misguided that their beliefs should be managed dictatorially. I think it's disturbingly unappreciative of the beautiful aspects of faith, and too reductive of religion in general.

[EDIT: felt like I was a little too harsh.]

 

THC, the active ingredient in Marijuana is classed as a halucinogen, which effects brain chemistry, and potentially causing the perception of things that aren't there. I've been there and done that. Even in small doses, the brain is still effected. That lampoons your credibility.

I think it's just the Ganj.

Christianity gives that. We are children of a loving Heavenly father.

Based on the observations and testimonies of those that have seen him (Adam, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, the Apostles in the Bible, Latter day Prophets for my own religion).

But without some personal connection to God, isn't that rather hollow and pointless? If I bought into that, I'd be hitting the Ganj out of boredom or depression...

Democracy translates to "people rule" from the greek. If a majority (perceived or actual) holds to a conservative Christain viewpoint, then having that represented is the actual function of Democracy.

But we need these liberals and aetheists to voice the objections, even if they really aren't too much different from those of the conservative Christians, lest they be written off as bible thumping...

I find it actually rather scary. In any period where social mores are under review, many things that ultimately would be upheld as immoral become more common occurances. As morality erodes, freedom diminishes...

That's my biggest beef with anti-religious spiels. They lump us in as cattle, lacking the intelectual capacity to decide for ourselves, only fed and milked regularly by our spiritual leaders...