*snores loudly*

*wakes up from snoring, opens one eye*

*picks nose*

*falls back to sleep......................................*

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What constitutes a 'good person'? Undoubtedly Xtian-based criteria... incoming!

"love thy neighbour as yourself." -Mark 12:31... Duh.

While I do ascribe to the above; I would argue that since "good" is not an objective description the criteria upon which one determines whether or not someone is "good" must be determined by each individual seeking to classify others as either "good" or "dirty rat-fink bastard".... the rat-fink bastard thing is also subjective.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard the rat-fink bastard thing is also subjective.

I can think of a few people around here where this isn't quite accurate... myself probably being one of them.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Key words, right? I don't know, I just get tired of the preponderance of religious criticism to substitute the part as the whole, focusing on radical elements in order to make sweeping generalizations about that entire religion. It just comes off as naive, and there's absolutely no incentive to engage such people in discussion, because their fundamental assumption is simply wrong.

Religion is quite often guilty of this exact same thing though - the preponderance of its judgments seem to vilify outsiders and non-believers; those critical of its "truth" in the first place. Sort of a who do you think you are, questioning the authority of GOD? thing. This isn't necessarily a part of any religion though; it's merely human nature poking out.

And besides, how 'radical' an element is, is entirely subjective. Of course there is a relative consensus among some modes of thought, but religion is one of those institutions that incites particular modes of thought in the first place - it is foremost a social dynamic among human beings (though some would of course claim is primarily spiritual... but that's a different argument!) that is known to urge people to groupthink and to react as a larger social organism. When you find yourself outside of this organism and utterly opposed to it, you are merely a meal waiting to happen. This isn't exclusive to religion, however - it's just that religion has one of the strongest tendencies to establish a hegemony of sorts wherever it springs up, and no matter what particular brand of faith it may be. It is a relative taboo to question any hegemony - in fact, it is this taboo quality that defines the resilience of any given society though, the "strength" of a given doctrine supposed in the relative wealth of its opposition. But why are radical beliefs - even those not resulting in direct violence - forbidden to disbelieve? Why is it unfair to criticize both the doctrine as well as the believers, when it comes to things like talking snakes and vengeful deities for which there is no tangible evidence to support? What is it that makes these things so acceptable, so vanilla... but other beliefs, other actions, so radical?

And who is to blame? Are the critics being unfair? Are the followers far too biased? Is it the fault of the religion in question? I am hesitant to blame religion itself, despite the enormous amount of flaws I personally see in it, as people's (mis?)interpretations of it have almost always been the conflict in question. The sad truth about the world however, is that violence is all too often met by the beliefs that people hold; that your life is only yours so far as somebody else allows you to keep living it, and that the beliefs of others - no matter how true or untrue you think them to be - shall always be a form of tyranny, especially when so many are pushed to the point of violence as a means to exact their beliefs upon the inconvertible. And violence is perhaps the supreme force - one always exacted by the hand of one belief or another.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Excellent post below.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Religion is quite often guilty of this exact same thing though - the preponderance of its judgments seem to vilify outsiders and non-believers; those critical of its "truth" in the first place. Sort of a who do you think you are, questioning the authority of GOD? thing. This isn't necessarily a part of any religion though; it's merely human nature poking out.

Agreed; partially... adherents of religions are often guilty of the exact same thing; however, none of the great religions (I'll stick to the great religions because I know them, I cannot speak to what one little tribe in the deep forests of New Guinea believes) flat out vilify outsiders... even Islam despite the celebrated Qu'ranic verses referring to killing the infidels. Sure there are sects full of nuts who do exactly what you say; however, criticism of same must be directed at said sect not the over-riding belief system (as these sects are, generally, at odds with the core values of the religion they claim to be a part of... the "God hates fags" people are a good example of this).

quote:

And besides, how 'radical' an element is, is entirely subjective. Of course there is a relative consensus among some modes of thought, but religion is one of those institutions that incites particular modes of thought in the first place - it is foremost a social dynamic among human beings (though some would of course claim is primarily spiritual... but that's a different argument!)

FYI, the largest religious body in the world agrees with you on this point.

quote:

that is known to urge people to groupthink and to react as a larger social organism. When you find yourself outside of this organism and utterly opposed to it, you are merely a meal waiting to happen. This isn't exclusive to religion, however - it's just that religion has one of the strongest tendencies to establish a hegemony of sorts wherever it springs up, and no matter what particular brand of faith it may be. It is a relative taboo to question any hegemony - in fact, it is this taboo quality that defines the resilience of any given society though, the "strength" of a given doctrine supposed in the relative wealth of its opposition.

While I agree with you for the most part here the fact that questioning hegemony is taboo is a product of human social interaction rather then religious dogma.

quote:

But why are radical beliefs - even those not resulting in direct violence - forbidden to disbelieve? Why is it unfair to criticize both the doctrine as well as the believers, when it comes to things like talking snakes and vengeful deities for which there is no tangible evidence to support? What is it that makes these things so acceptable, so vanilla... but other beliefs, other actions, so radical?

I would submit to you that it is not unfair to question any of those things and that no beliefs are forbidden; however, I would further submit that the radical beliefs are normally born out of an imperfect, perhaps even flawed, understanding of the teachings of a given faith; similarly, criticisms of small insignificant points (a la talking snake) are usually born of the same lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, it should not be expected that everyone fully understand everything; however, the correct approach when faced with something that one does not understand is to seek understanding rather then to write it off is being entirely false or, conversely, to ignore those elements which one does not understand and simply trust that the scripture must be correct and intended exactly as written because you were taught as a child that God is infallible.

quote:

And who is to blame? Are the critics being unfair? Are the followers far too biased?

usually both

quote:

Is it the fault of the religion in question? I am hesitant to blame religion itself, despite the enormous amount of flaws I personally see in it, as people's (mis?)interpretations of it have almost always been the conflict in question. The sad truth about the world however, is that violence is all too often met by the beliefs that people hold; that your life is only yours so far as somebody else allows you to keep living it, and that the beliefs of others - no matter how true or untrue you think them to be - shall always be a form of tyranny, especially when so many are pushed to the point of violence as a means to exact their beliefs upon the inconvertible. And violence is perhaps the supreme force - one always exacted by the hand of one belief or another.

I agree with all the above except your use of the "always."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Excellent post below.

Ah-ah-ah, vanity!

quote:

Agreed; partially... adherents of religions are often guilty of the exact same thing; however, none of the great religions (I'll stick to the great religions because I know them, I cannot speak to what one little tribe in the deep forests of New Guinea believes) flat out vilify outsiders... even Islam despite the celebrated Qu'ranic verses referring to killing the infidels. Sure there are sects full of nuts who do exactly what you say; however, criticism of same must be directed at said sect not the over-riding belief system (as these sects are, generally, at odds with the core values of the religion they claim to be a part of... the "God hates fags" people are a good example of this).

And you are right, the major religions do not "vilify all outsiders", but rather tolerate them or merely see people as a crop to convert. This is of course not true of all scenarios nor every religion, but relgion - as with just about any social phonomenon - has an inherently assimilative nature about it. Philosophy and debate and politics and prime-time television all have this very same nature: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, no? I see this in almost every American machination - the polarization of that fickle agreement we so patently refer to as "morality" being at the forefront of such conversions. Am I saying that it is religion's fault, that this is at the top of every religion's rulebook? Of course not. "Radical sects" are indeed in the minority - their outcries and ammunition beaing heard over all other forms of reason. This is indeed a tragic fault of mankind's nature, not necessarily that of religion, but the fact persists that wherever you have religion, you shall have religious intolerance and fanaticism, no matter how moderate the religion may seem.

quote:

While I agree with you for the most part here the fact that questioning hegemony is taboo is a product of human social interaction rather then religious dogma.

Indeed, religion rarely teaches this explicitly. But it is implied to a point - doubt and sin and disagreement being forms of heresy. Things have no doubt changed with time - your church especially - but still there lingers an alienation, a sort of shelter of wisdom as it were, warding from certain thoughts and speech under penalty of social scrutiny. Once more though, this is no specific fault of religious dogma, but that of any social movement; political affiliations work in much the same way. But just because religion does not tell people to take this action, this thought, doesn't exempt religion from the reality of this dynamic. Christianity is somewhat exclusive in this regard, in that it brought about a revisionist approach - one analagous with rebirth, of course - to accept all into its fold who accept the love of Christ, regardless of social status. It's really the only way the organism has survived for so long. But it seems as though the wealth of modern Christianity is in appealing to the heart-strings so you can hook more believers - pad the flock. And through this, comes that almighty 'control' people like me are always harking about. It's not that religion is merely a tool to control people or milk them for cash, etc; It's just that men use it as such to the effect of quite radical agendas, subtle though they may be.

quote:

I would submit to you that it is not unfair to question any of those things and that no beliefs are forbidden; however, I would further submit that the radical beliefs are normally born out of an imperfect, perhaps even flawed, understanding of the teachings of a given faith; similarly, criticisms of small insignificant points (a la talking snake) are usually born of the same lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, it should not be expected that everyone fully understand everything; however, the correct approach when faced with something that one does not understand is to seek understanding rather then to write it off is being entirely false or, conversely, to ignore those elements which one does not understand and simply trust that the scripture must be correct and intended exactly as written because you were taught as a child that God is infallible.

Whilst I certainly agree there is hypocrisy to be found on either side of the debate, I am not certain that full understanding on everyone's part would alleviate things. True, it's a step in the right direction, and one should always seek to understand as much as one can before commencing with rote and haphazard commentary, but there comes a point of conscience where I, and many others to be sure, believe Christianity (for example) to be utterly incorrect. No study on the subtleties and the structure, no matter how eloquent or interesting they may be to me, shall ever cause me to believe that there is at least one God and that he loves us in any comprehensible way.

quote:

I agree with all the above except your use of the "always."

When I speak of "belief", I do not necessarily mean it in a religious sense. It seems to me that everyone who picks up (much less uses) a weapon does so out of some personal holding - be it the "virtue" of self-defense, the call to defend one's region from would-be occupants, or any other reasoning - no matter how radical - cannot be sifted from the personal belief that what one is doing is right and necessary. People do not kill without their convictions - it's the only way that otherwise sane people can bring themselves to committ some of the atrocities that history reflects. But this is not the fault of religion.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Last edited by Halcyon+On+On on Mar-31-2009 at 19:04

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Can't we all agree that it's not a good idea to teach creationism (or any other theory with no evidence) in a science class?

dude - what are talking about? The bible has been around for almost 2000 years. Evidence of creationism was around way before Darwin was even born.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 dude - what are talking about? The bible has been around for almost 2000 years. Evidence of creationism was around way before Darwin was even born.

I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

of course - maybe i should have made use of a little yellow face thingy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

I was thinking the same thing... that MUST be sarcasm; jerz is a pretty logical thinking dude.


Edit: I knew it! haha

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I was thinking the same thing... that MUST be sarcasm; jerz is a pretty logical thinking dude. Edit: I knew it! haha

i couldn't even recite a verse from the bible. I don't think I've ever willingly read any part of the bible (I say willingly because perhaps I was forced to read the bible in CCD classes).