1
   

My opinion on a 'catch fire quick' topic

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 11:59 am
Spirituality is quite different from religion -- they are not bound together irretrievably. What some won't admit that it is possible to be spiritual without an existing religion. The idea that one needs to cling to the collectivism of existing religions is poppycock, pure and simple.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 12:04 pm
EileenM wrote:
Maligar, yes, crutches are wonderful: They are support when you don't have the strength.


Absolutely.

Quote:
However, if one never learns to take a step without the crutch then they weaken themselves. They grow too attached to their unnatural support that they can not walk by themselves.


True. But when we talk about the fundamental questions man faces, what does it mean to "walk on our own"? Who is "on his own"? We are here all together. We "guide" each other. As an old professor once told me: the question is not if we belong to a group or if we don't. The question is: To what group do we belong.

As I said, I think a better metaphor for religion is the very ground we walk on (or the rope, if you will - to me, the umbrella or crutch was not religion, but our personal balance within it).

There's no question that there are more adult and more childish ways of being religious (and sometimes, those who look more adult are the most childish, and vice versa). But beyond these differences, the real question is: What metaphysical role does religion place in our lives? (the psychological question is, in my opinion, secondary)

Quote:
Yes, sprituality can be beautiful for some people.


It's not about a subjective sense of beauty. It is about the objective truth for human nature. It is not about psychology but metaphysics.

Quote:
But religion, organized religion, scares the hell out of me.

Organized religion is better than disorganized religion. As an organized life is better than a disorganized life. People need to exchange their experiences, worship together, learn together, etc. And this requires organization. Society requires organization. Life requires organization. Mankind has not accomplished anything that didn't require organization. Sure, organization has its downsides, and we need to be fully aware of them (especially in religion). But organization is far from being an unqualified "evil". On the contrary.

Quote:
the idea of 'hell' is used to scare me.


Good. Hell scares anybody that understands what it is.

Quote:
There is so much pain in this world and hurt and anger and war, it saddens me that their are people who use 'religion' to provoke it.

I agree. Now, if you think at the worst wars in history, especially since the 18th century up to the 20th century world wars, they were not caused by religion but by the lack of it (nationalism, communism, nazism, secular democratism).

Quote:
If you choose to believe in a higher power, a 'religon', fly at it but do not make attempts to prove it.


Why not?

Quote:
To prove that we all NEED it.


Indeed, we all need it.

---
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 12:33 pm
maliagar where is the train?

You are creating silly arguments again.

Let me illustrate but one:

"Hell scares anybody that understands what it is."

This is a silly loaded statement. You are commenting on fear and hoping to slip past that hell is real.

It's on the intellectual level of "since I'm the best person on earth do you want to kiss my ass or my cheek?"

Ass or cheek isn't the operative word. "best" is.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 12:36 pm
"since I'm the best person on earth do you want to kiss my ass or my cheek?"
I just busted my gut laughing my ass off!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 12:38 pm
time to turn the other cheek maligar?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 12:51 pm
maliagar wrote:
LibertyD wrote:
I was only talking about those who use it as a crutch.

Religion is a crutch that we all need.



Where does this kind of hubris come from?

How the hell can Maliagar assert that he knows I, or anyone else beside himself, needs religion as a crutch? As most of you realize, many of us do not need religion as a crutch.


Eileen wrote:
Quote:
the idea of 'hell' is used to scare me.


To which Maliagar replied:

Quote:
Good. Hell scares anybody that understands what it is.


Incorrect!

Hell scares people who think they understand what it is - and who think it is the place of eternal, excruciating punishment that various religions teach it is.

Hell does not scare people who think they understand what it is - and who think it is an imaginary place that religions invented to keep their sheep in line.

And Hell most assuredly does not scare agnostics - for a bunch of reasons that Maliagar apparently would not understand.


TO EVERYONE: Sorry to make my responses to Maliagar in the third person. Normally that would be considered rude, but he is too chicken to engage me in debate, so I consider it more courteous to him not to address him directly.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 01:09 pm
:wink:

Sorry, EileenM.

As you see, I have quite a pack of followers. They go wherever I go.

That's very revealing of the attitude today's world has when it comes across an openly religious person. They follow. To throw stones at him.

Still, I intend to stick as much as possible to your original topic.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 01:21 pm
He actually said "Hell scares anybody that understands what it is?"

Still stylistically impaired, he forges on into the unknown.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 01:22 pm
Don't worry, Eileen, we are all discussing the ramifications of the issue you raised.

Maliagar doesn't understand how these forums work -- and his ego is out of control. That is why he thinks he has a "following" and that people who engage him in debate are "going where he goes" and "following him."

You'll notice that Maliagar will not address me. I pretty much ripped one of his religious theories to pieces in another thread -- and since then, he pretends he does not read what I write.

He's such a silly little guy -- but cute.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 01:23 pm
(Sour, off key organ music playing in the background. Okay, you bunch of cut ups, off the keyboard, please).
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 01:30 pm
Maliagar, are you trying to start a religious fight with me? Wink

People *do* use religion so they don't have to make up their own minds (again, not all, but a lot). It's true. I will agree with you that those people have made up their mind to let someone else make up their mind, but they don't have their own opinions unless their religious leader says that it's okay. They have to check with someone else to see whether they should be pro-life or pro-choice, whether it's okay to question the validity of certain interpretations of the Bible, whether gay people are the spawn of Satan or not, whether women have the ability to be religious leaders or not -- they have to ask if it's okay to openly listen to the findings of science that may disprove the Bible. That's not exactly making your own mind.


Religion itself is not wrong -- it's the interpretation that makes people go to war or kill abortion doctors or millions of Jews or beat their children in the name of God. But then, that goes back to making up your own mind, and too many people can't or won't do that. It's too scary or difficult for them to sit and consider that their leaders are wrong, or that their own literal interpretation of the Bible or Koran or whatever is wrong.

Thinking closely about moral and ethical decisions and looking at all sides of the situation is not trying to reinvent the wheel -- it's simply what it is, which is looking at all sides and then deciding on your own which side is most moral or ethical.

Your assertion that religion is a crutch that we all need is wrong. Not all people need it. A lot of people do fine and behave quite ethically and morally without religion.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 02:00 pm
LibertyD wrote:
I will agree with you that those people have made up their mind to let someone else make up their mind, but they don't have their own opinions unless their religious leader says that it's okay.

In my opinion, this is an extreme simplification of what really goes on. Religions offer, among other things, moral codes. But how these moral codes are applied to specific circumstances is a different story. Here's where conscience starts playing the key role. Certainly, some religions intend to prescribe even the specific application of general rules, but this is not the case with the wisest, most ancient, more traditional faiths.

Quote:
They have to check with someone else...


We all check with someone else. We all have heroes, authority figures, wise people whose opinion we trust, or whose approach to things we like, preferred authors, etc. We all need some sort of guidance. We all need to read a bit from here, and a bit from there. Of course, some people claim that they don't, and they usually end up with the shallowest of opinions.

Quote:
...to see whether they should be pro-life or pro-choice...


Exactly. That's a general rule. Like the rule "do not kill."

Quote:
...whether it's okay to question the validity of certain interpretations of the Bible...


Of course. Those who claim that they don't need guidance to understand the Bible don't know what they are talking about.

Quote:
...whether gay people are the spawn of Satan or not...


Another useless simplification: Religions don't talk about "gay people" but about homosexuality. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Quote:
...whether women have the ability to be religious leaders or not...

Another mistated issue. Leadership is one thing (ask Mother Teresa); priesthood is another. Ability and calling are two different things as well.

Quote:
they have to ask if it's okay to openly listen to the findings of science that may disprove the Bible.


Again: We all have to ask. The question is to whom do we address our questions. Scientists, experts, theologians? BTW, science does not "disprove" the Bible, for science and the Bible deal with two totally different subjects.

Quote:
That's not exactly making your own mind.


That is making your own mind. With the help of others (as we all do). Unless you claim that you can find your own answers for everything on your own (reinventing the wheel).

Quote:
Thinking closely about moral and ethical decisions and looking at all sides of the situation is not trying to reinvent the wheel...


One thing is to consider hypotheses and another to embrace a path for our lives. We can play with all kinds of hypotheses in our spare time, but when it comes to living our lives, we need all the help and guidance we can get.

Quote:
it's simply what it is, which is looking at all sides and then deciding on your own which side is most moral or ethical.


For that, you have to really believe that you're capable of deciding the best. Yes, yes: The self-confident, self-made man.

Quote:
A lot of people do fine and behave quite ethically and morally without religion.


I agree. And I say that they have an implicit religion.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 02:25 pm
Maliagar, just one question for you:

Why can't the act of considering all sides be seen as something that God has given us? Free will, the power to think and reason, the ability to believe differently from others -- Why does that have to be self-made rather than God-given? Is that not a path in itself -- following a regimen of looking at different views/possibilities? Okay, that's more than one question...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 02:28 pm
Elizabeth Cady Stanton had some very definite opinions on religion, especially as it related to the subjugation of women. Leaving aside the question of women's liberation, as not directly germaine here, there is, none the less, much wisdom to be imbibed from her statements. I feel comfortable in quoting her here, as what i quote is in support of what i have written in this thread, and elsewhere in these fora:

"I can truly say that all the cares and anxieties, the trials and disappointments of my whole life, are light, when balanced with my sufferings in childhood and youth from the theological dogmas which I sincerely believed, and the gloom connected with everything associated with the name of religion."

"The happiest people I have known have been those who gave themselves no concern about their own souls, but did their uttermost to mitigate the miseries of others."

"The clergy of all sects are universally opposed to free thought & free speech, & if they had the power even in our republic today would crush any man who dared to question the popular religion."

"All through the centuries, scholars and scientists have been imprisoned, tortured and burned alive for some discovery which seemed to conflict with a petty text of Scripture. Surely the immutable laws of the universe can teach more impressive and exalted lessons than the holy books of all the religions on earth."

"How anyone, in view of the protracted sufferings of the race, can invest the laws of the universe with a tender loving fatherly intelligence, watching, guiding and protecting humanity, is to me amazing."


I could not find her best remark as a quote on-line, and i don't have all afternoon for this, but it is a statement to the effect that if a belief in god were natural, we would not need to teach it to children, nor send missionaries among "savages" to teach it to them, nor have any need for minister to teach to us.

In the end, i am most amused by Montaigne:

"Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by dozens."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 02:50 pm
maliagar wrote:
LibertyD wrote:
I will agree with you that those people have made up their mind to let someone else make up their mind, but they don't have their own opinions unless their religious leader says that it's okay.

In my opinion, this is an extreme simplification of what really goes on. Religions offer, among other things, moral codes. But how these moral codes are applied to specific circumstances is a different story. Here's where conscience starts playing the key role. Certainly, some religions intend to prescribe even the specific application of general rules, but this is not the case with the wisest, most ancient, more traditional faiths.



Actually, it is most definitely the case with the Catholic Church -- and since that happens to be "the wisest, most ancient, more traditional faith"of which Maliagar speaks, he is full of soup.

That wise, ancient, traditional faith is now telling Ameican politicians how they can and cannot vote -- with very little, if any, regard for the Ameican sensibility of separation of church and state.

It tells people what they can and cannot do in bed. It tells people what they can and cannot do with other consenting adult people.

Maliagar's argument is actually funny it is so wrong.



Quote:
Quote:
...to see whether they should be pro-life or pro-choice...


Exactly. That's a general rule. Like the rule "do not kill."


No it is not!

Pro-choice has a specific meaning -- it references people who advocate a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy with a safe, legal abortion.

There is no "general rule" about abortion in the Bible -- and there is no definition in the Bible that indicates "life" starts at conception.



Quote:
Quote:
...whether it's okay to question the validity of certain interpretations of the Bible...


Of course. Those who claim that they don't need guidance to understand the Bible don't know what they are talking about.


I cannot get over Maliagar even going here! In another thread, I showed he was completely wrong about how his Church deals with interpreting the Bible -- and as far as logic and truth are concerned, personal interpretation of the Bible makes a hell of a lot more sense than depending on Maliagar's church to do it for you.

For people like Maliagar, who apparently cannot think on their own and cannot justify some of the abominations that show up in the Bible, I guess a Church which CAN rationalize and avoid dealing with troublesome issues IS a blessing. Maliagar, and others like him, can hide behind the fact that the Church orders him not to interpret the Bible on his own and that they should do the interpreting.

Gosh, this is so much fun!


Quote:
Quote:
...whether gay people are the spawn of Satan or not...


Another useless simplification: Religions don't talk about "gay people" but about homosexuality. Hate the sin, love the sinner.


Another in a long line of mistakes -- this one probably through his usual carelessness with composition.

The Bible -- or at least the Leviticus passage from the Bible -- speaks about homosexual CONDUCT -- not about homosexuality. And if "gay people" is a description of homosexuals -- it most assuredly does speak about homosexuals. It says that the god of the Bible told Moses that homosexual conduct is an abomination and that people who engage in homosexual conduct -- in other words, homosexuals -- are to be killed.

So the Bible does indeed talk about "gay people." And it most assuredly does not advise people to "love" the sinner if the sinner is engaging in homosexual conduct -- it tell people to kill them.

In any case, religions DO talk about "gay people" and Maliagar's contention that religions do not -- is ludicrous.


Quote:
Quote:
A lot of people do fine and behave quite ethically and morally without religion.


I agree. And I say that they have an implicit religion.


Yes, Maliagar sure does say that. But he has no logical reason for saying that except that he wants to paint everyone as needing, and being into, a religion. I guess that makes him feel better about his own dependency.

Supposing that everyone has a religion is a joke.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 03:05 pm
LibertyD wrote:
Maliagar, just one question for you:

Why can't the act of considering all sides be seen as something that God has given us?


It certainly is a both a collective and an individual blessing. We need to ponder these things in our hearts and minds, and in dialogue with others.

Now, the blessing is not in the act, but in the capacity. And different people have different capacities/interest/commitment to this endeavor.

Moreover, the actual act can be done poorly or seriously; as entertainment or as a life-long commitment.

Hence, a key element in this considering and pondering is the ability to be critical and self-critical, aware of our own strengths and limitations, and therefore open to incorporating the best others have to offer into the equation.

Trust is also part of the equation: When we realize our own limitations and the strenghts of others that might have a more clear mind about what's at stake.

Quote:
Free will, the power to think and reason, the ability to believe differently from others...


Religion is alien to none of these things, as I'm sure you know.

Quote:
Is that not a path in itself -- following a regimen of looking at different views/possibilities?


Absolutely. But not everybody follows this path. And those who don't, still need to guide their lives by something.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 03:08 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:

They got tired of trying to exorcise me and kicked me out when I was 12 or 13. They figured I'd get a taste of the world and want to come back but the opposite was true.


heehee...there's a little validation for the works of the devil!
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 03:22 pm
maliagar wrote:

Now, the blessing is not in the act, but in the capacity. And different people have different capacities/interest/commitment to this endeavor.


Giving the ability to act but expecting no action is kind of cruel, isn't it? And those who don't have a commitment to acting on a "God-given gift" are letting their leaders who tell them not to act on it make their minds up for them, right?

BTW, where's the train you promised Craven? Wink
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 03:33 pm
LibertyD wrote:
maliagar wrote:

Now, the blessing is not in the act, but in the capacity. And different people have different capacities/interest/commitment to this endeavor.

Giving the ability to act but expecting no action is kind of cruel, isn't it?


Expecting? Remember: We are given freedom. We can use our abilities (talents), or not use them at all. Our choice.

Quote:
And those who don't have a commitment to acting on a "God-given gift" are letting their leaders who tell them not to act on it make their minds up for them, right?


You're begging the question. Leaders do not tell them not to act (at least, not in the major religions). But people are free to "seek their own answers" or trust others.

Needless to say, those who seek on their own oftentimes end up as the most committed religious people. See, for example, Jacques Maritain's conversion story... or Paul Claudel's... or Edith Stein's... or Jean Paul Sartre's... or Oscar Wilde's... or...

Quote:
BTW, where's the train you promised Craven? Wink


No train there. Just the whistle.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2003 03:36 pm
Agreed in that you brought no train. Any plans to?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 01:54:52