A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Religion ?
Religion ?  [message #34337] Fri, 11 August 2006 09:47 Go to next message
jhawk is currently offline  jhawk

Getting started
Location: England
Registered: June 2006
Messages: 8



Why is it that no matter what religion you follow you always have the extreme sectors that think that they should force the rest of humanity to follow there distorted views of what should be.
I am talking about people that want to kill in large numbers just because of there belief that they are doing these things in the name of there religion.

If they were told to cut off there hand or leg because a new one would grow I doubt if they would believe it.
So why do they think that to kill including them selves they would be reborn in another let us say dimension.
I remember I recruited a new member of staff, it was some time later that I realised he had some strange views, he was a member of some religious group called christadelphions, I think this is correct, he believed that he would come back to this earth as a king to control huge numbers of people, I asked him how would this happen he said it would be a little bit like star trek.
This chap also had a young baby that would be brain washed in the same way.

I do think that in the civilised world people are free to express there beliefs but don’t kill, the people that helped you or your parents have a better life in good countries
Confused??



what goes up must come down ?
Re: Religion ?  [message #34342 is a reply to message #34337] Fri, 11 August 2006 11:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian1407a is currently offline  Brian1407a

On fire!
Location: USA
Registered: December 2005
Messages: 1104



Religion by its very nature is basicly a way to control others. Some just want greater control than others. My way is right and if you dont go along with that and do as I tell you, Ill just eliminate you. Actually I think fundimentalist are mentaly ill. these suicide bombers are weak minded and ignorant. They are told they will have 70 virgins waitting to serve them in heaven. Sex will get you every time.



I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........

Affirmation........Savage Garden
Re: Religion ?  [message #34343 is a reply to message #34337] Fri, 11 August 2006 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



All religions? Or all Judeo-Christian or Islamic religions? I'm yet to hear of atrocities being committed in the name of Bhuddha. Maybe I'm just uninformed, though.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
the every violent buddhists :-P  [message #34347 is a reply to message #34343] Fri, 11 August 2006 13:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



Not unlike other religions Buddhism also has “skeletons in its’ closet” which it carefully conceals in the Western world. There are dark aspects in this “philosophy of compassion, non-violence and tolerance”. Zen-Buddhism for example influenced the most sophisticated warrior philosophy of the East: the extremely brutal and suicidal Samurai Ethics. In Tibetan Buddhism one can find believes in spirits and demons, in secret sexual practices, in war gods, in occultism. Lamas search to influence their retinue and the world with all sorts of magical rituals. In Sri Lanka Buddhist violence and Buddhist racism are the order of the day.

Came from this website http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/EN/links.htm

How reliable it is is questionable but it is information that I have heard before that not all Buddhists are peaceful people. One of the things I learned in my religion classes is that there is NO religion that does not turn violent in order to protect it's customs and beliefs.

Also many people cannot believe in a religion without the Fundamentalist attitude. For most of them they don't have the capacity to accept that multiple religions could be the true path because that would undermine the authority of there own. In that case they think they are helping people by attacking systems that undermine there own beliefs.

Rather silly but true. i just read a book about the Rise of Christian Nationalism (I think that was the title too) Ah Yes the main title is Kingdom Coming. It was basically showing that Americans are doing the same sort of distruction within there own country (minus the life killing) that fundamental Islamic groups are except that the US groups are trying to work within the Govt to change laws and protocal to reflect the christian agenda.

Thats enough of that though I'm going on vacation see yall



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: Religion ?  [message #34348 is a reply to message #34343] Fri, 11 August 2006 13:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian1407a is currently offline  Brian1407a

On fire!
Location: USA
Registered: December 2005
Messages: 1104



Even of a religion never goes to war, it is still a way to control. Where a few monks and priest control masses of people.



I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........

Affirmation........Savage Garden
Re: Religion ?  [message #34350 is a reply to message #34348] Fri, 11 August 2006 21:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



Any organization which has a hierarchic leadership tends to attract people who seek positions of power, not for the benefit of the organization but more often for their own good.

Baptist churches are basically not under the direct control of a central leadership. Instead they believe in the authority and liberty of each member of a local congregation. In 2000 the American Southern Baptist Convention had been hijacked by fundamentalists, who introduced a strong central leadership demanding absolute loyalty by both local churches and individual members. Their new 'Baptist Faith and Message' violated old principles of local autonomy and religious liberty, which was why former president Jimmy Carter and several other members left the SBC. What we see now is a fierce campaign to mix religion and politics in a way that violates old and important principles of the American constitution.

The creators of the American constitution had many good reasons to keep state and religion apart. Many immigrants had come from Europe, where religious minorities were regarded with suspicion by both kings and bishops, and it was in the interest of both church and state to discourage or prevent their activities. The first immigrants from Norway were quakers, and together with other minority groups they enjoyed their new found freedom in America.

Christ told Pilate that "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If it did, my followers would be fighting to save me.." The way I see it, all the atrocities which have been committed by Christians, the wars they have fought, and the way church and state have been in companionship or fought each other, have been brought about by leaders who have corrupted the original message of love and forgiveness, and have been obsessed with power. They have misused religion for their own purpose, which is also what islamist leaders of terrorist organisations like Hezbollah and Al-Quaeda do, and the christian president George W. Bush does in his fight against the "Axis of Evil".

I'm sorry, Brian, for disproving your image of priests and monks. Christians have a lot to account for, and I personally know a few priest whose butts I'd like to kick hard, but many monks and priests brought literacy, education, health care and science to Europe and beyond.

By blaming "the Church", "Muslims" or "Fundamentalists" I am afraid that we run the risk of making things too easy for ourselves. A major concept of existentialism is that every human has a free will, and that every person is responsible for his and her choices. The abandonment of this principle paved the way for nazism and Hitler. What seems to be typical for many muslims today is their belief in fate, which relieves them of personal responsibility, initiative and creativity. In America many people are apparenty willing to give up essential principles of personal religious, political and intellectual authority. Fortunately, the tide seems to be shifting there.

Sorry, I seem to be repeating myself.
Mm - Sorry, Sailor, but I'm not sure I can go along with you  [message #34355 is a reply to message #34337] Sat, 12 August 2006 02:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cossie is currently offline  cossie

On fire!
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699



My interest in cultural history, over many years, has convinced me that the 'power' accorded to religious leaders, local, national or international, is a significant factor in attracting recruits to the 'priesthood'.

I do not seek to tar all religious figures with the same brush - many important figures have been saintly in the extreme. Who could criticise Mother Theresa? Or Francis of Assisi? Or Richard of Chichester, who wrote the simplest, yet most profound Christian prayer:

"O Lord Jesus Christ, most merciful Friend, Redeemer, Brother -
Of Thee three things we pray:

To know Thee more clearly,
To love Thee more dearly,
To follow Thee more nearly,

Day by day."

Nevertheless, religion is - and has always been - a path to power. It is a path which is exploited by fundamentalist preachers, though perhaps no more so than by medieval Popes. I sincerely believe that this is true of ALL religions. What never ceases to surprise me is the ease with which the charlatans seem to manipulate the 'faithful'.

I do accept that in medieval Europe the Church disseminated learning and literacy - but the learning was severely censored, and the literacy was, in effect, available only to the secular rich and to the servants of the Church.

I don't seek to belittle the many religious figures who genuinely had the interests of humanity at heart - but I think they may have been a minority.

Reading between the lines of the much-edited Gospels, it seems to me that the primary message of Jesus was tolerance and understanding. That, of course, was a revolutionary concept in its day. What worries me is the fact that it is still a revolutionary concept in the American South.

Of course, I don't restrict this concept to Christianity. In medieval (and indeed in more recent times, despite the Quranic verses) the Muslim states displayed remarkable tolerance of other religions. Indeed, in many Sultanates it was safer to be a Christian than a Muslim! But in today's situation I confess that I find it difficult to see a path to lasting peace unless the majority of Muslims refute loudly and in public the belief that killing 'unbelievers' affords an accelerated path to heaven.



For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
Re: Mm - Sorry, Sailor, but I'm not sure I can go along with  [message #34357 is a reply to message #34355] Sat, 12 August 2006 07:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



I don't disagree with anything you say, Cossie. Religion does indeed provide an easy path to individual power, an the damage which has been done during the ages is terrifying, even if we limit our scope to Christianity. One of the best examples is the Catholic Church, whose pope and cardinals have seldom bothered to distinguish between political, economic and spiritual power.

The reason why I mentioned the American baptists in particular was because I have a lot of sympathy for the religious liberty initially granted to each of their members, and because the SBC branch has been hijacked and turned into a fundamentalist political movement, to the dismay of baptists elsewhere.

My main concern was that any movement, religion, political party, can be corrupted and taken over by individuals and groups whose basic aim it is to gain maximum power and influence over other people, and that we are all at risk. History shows that religion is repeatedly used as an excuse for the most barbaric acts. But to what extent is that because of the religion itself? Many moderate Muslims claim that Hezbollah and Al-Quaeda do not represent the ideas of Islam, and that they are criminals and should be treated as such. How well does president George W. Bush represent the basic ideas of Christianity, and the examples set by Christ himself?

As you know, Cossie, there are more reasons than I enjoy being reminded of, which make it difficult to be a staunch defender of religion and religious movements, even my own church.
Well, perhaps we aren't really disagreeing!  [message #34373 is a reply to message #34357] Sun, 13 August 2006 03:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cossie is currently offline  cossie

On fire!
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699



I don't doubt the motives of the American founding fathers who decreed the separation of religion and politics; I don't suppose that they could possibly have envisaged the present situation, in which religion is seeking to influence politics. At the time of the US Constitution, things were the other way around!

As my previous posts will make clear, I have absolutely no regard for GWB; he is a puppet of his administration and his political decisions reflect only two objectives - to maximise the chances of re-election of a Republican candidate and to maximise the profits of the corporations financing the Republican Party.

But surely the concept in the Constitution is two-edged? If it is wrong for the State to interfere in religion, it must be equally wrong for religion to attempt to influence matters of State?

But mostly I objected to the proposition that religion propagated learning; it only ever did so in a self-serving way.



For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
Just my twopenn'rth  [message #34376 is a reply to message #34337] Sun, 13 August 2006 07:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



It has occurred to me that it was monotheism that created religious zealotry. As long as people believed in a plurality of deities general tolerance was an absolute necessity; but once there was only one God religion became absolute with no room for tolerance. Everything became black or white, right or wrong, for or against etc.

Add to this the concept of missionary zealand you have a recipe for religious disaster. Judaism, the religion to which I adhere, has its full share of everything that can go "wrong" with a monotheistic religion - except, thank God, one thing: Judaism is not a missionary religion. On the contrary, admission to the Jewish faith and people (both together) has been made difficult and even deterring, so that only those who really want to get to join.

But monotheism coupled with missionary zeal is a big problem.



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Re: Well, perhaps we aren't really disagreeing!  [message #34387 is a reply to message #34373] Sun, 13 August 2006 13:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



This morning I read a newspaper interview with the German writer, poet and editor Hans Magnus Enzensberger. His words reflect the same basic idea as mine, that 'islamists are not muslims, but are extremists who have hijacked Islam for their own political purpose'. I think that this applies to all religious extremists.

Which was the view I tried to convey about religious fundamentalism, regardless of name and colour. Any creation of a Calvinist 'God's State' is intellectual, cultural and moral suicide. The way fundamentalists want to transform American society is strikingly similar to how Jean Calvin tried to organize the city of Geneva. I'm sorry if my message didn't come through the way I wanted it.

My words were also less than adequately precise about the propagation of learning by the church. There were, and still are, groups and individuals within the church who are genuinely interested in educating and enlightening people on a broader basis than merely using education as a means of teaching the dogmas of the church. However, through the centuries the church, especially churches with a strong and centralized leadership, have mainly been interested in preserving and increasing their religious and political power, and any education should reflect and serve this purpose, instead of encouraging free and individual thinking, investigation and creativity. It astonishes and disturbs me no less than others on this board, to observe the introduction of restrictions into school science curriculums.
The missionary position.  [message #34390 is a reply to message #34376] Sun, 13 August 2006 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560



JFR, I pretty much agree with you about the dangers of monotheism - although there is a strand in many monotheistic religions which asserts that God is not only greater than we know, but greater than we CAN know, so each of us inevitably has a differing (and equally flawed) view of God.

But I'm not sure that I agree at all that it is only proslytising religions/sects that are the problem. Sure, only missionary fervour will lead to people torturing you to make you believe something for your own good. But this may be no worse than the smug self-satisfaction of the ineluctably saved, who regard the majority of "sinners" as in many ways subhuman, and actually are quite prepared to deny them basic human rights on that basis. My own experience of this is having come up against some members of the "Wee Free's" ... but I think that there is a strand of this in most monotheistic religions.



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Re: The missionary position.  [message #34530 is a reply to message #34390] Sat, 19 August 2006 05:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
electroken is currently offline  electroken

Likes it here
Location: USA
Registered: May 2004
Messages: 271




Sorry to make a joke but the missionary position made me think of something else. Hey dont be offended as I often make wise cracks like that.

I agree mainly with what has been said in the thread of posts here on this topic and only want to add a little comment.

I think most of the problem seems to be when we try to force other people to accept our view of God and call it a religion of some sort. Now if we could just believe in God and not worry about how everyone else believes, it would sure be easier.

I happen to believe that Christ was the messiah that was talked about in the Old Testament or Torah but I am not going to say that all that are Jewish are not going to heaven. (Whatever heaven really is I dont think anyone knows) I am getting older now and I guess maybe some wisdom has been able to penetate my skull a bit. I will not give up belief in the existance of God just because some would say that I am just not intellegent enough to realize how dumb that is and that the facts of science tend to prove it all came about without God. I just let that go now and dont try to get all angry about it. It does hurt my feelings when I am chastised in some ways, but the idea is to forgive and be tolerant of others isnt it?

I go to the church I was confirmed in because that is more comfortable, but it doesnt mean I honestly now go along with all that is said in that church in the name of God. I think God and I understand each other now. I am more at peace about myself than at any other time and it is because I have just tried to forgived myself. Like I have said in the past, when I have tried to get people to understand God better is that I think He must cry a lot when He looks down and sees what we do to each other. Yeah and whether in the name of religion or in the name of refusing to accept anything higher than man.



Ken
Re: The missionary position.  [message #34533 is a reply to message #34530] Sat, 19 August 2006 12:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Ken,
>I will not give up belief in the existance of God just because some would say that I am just not intellegent enough to realize how dumb that is and that the facts of science tend to prove it all came about without God. [my emphasis]

They do not, and can not. Science does not require a God, which is an entirely different thing. It cannot prove the non-existence of God, nor can it prove the existence of God.

If anyone is telling you that, he is the one being dumb.

--Your friendly neighbourhood pedant.
Re: The missionary position.  [message #34564 is a reply to message #34533] Sun, 20 August 2006 02:11 Go to previous message
electroken is currently offline  electroken

Likes it here
Location: USA
Registered: May 2004
Messages: 271




I agree



Ken
Previous Topic: Need some Help! about a boy
Next Topic: hello again.
Goto Forum: