Why I, and Others, Constantly Rail Against Religion

Many of you are refusing to distinguish between religion and religious fanaticism. Relgion does not advocate evil deeds, it condemns them. However, many take it upon themselves to "defend" their religion by contradicting it; or act completely contrary to their faith for their own reasons.

"?It is true that these absurd horrors do not stain the face of the earth every day; but they are frequent, and they could easily fill a volume greater than the gospels which condemn them.?
-- Voltaire - Treatise on Religious Toleration

Religious fanaticism is to blame, not religion. Please clearly define your opponent here - and attack the right one. Religion does not advocate evil deeds.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Many of you are refusing to distinguish between religion and religious fanaticism. Relgion does not advocate evil deeds, it condemns them. However, many take it upon themselves to "defend" their religion by contradicting it; or act completely contrary to their faith for their own reasons.

"?It is true that these absurd horrors do not stain the face of the earth every day; but they are frequent, and they could easily fill a volume greater than the gospels which condemn them.?
-- Voltaire - Treatise on Religious Toleration

Religious fanaticism is to blame, not religion. Please clearly define your opponent here - and attack the right one. Religion does not advocate evil deeds.

If you are speaking of Christian religions then the textbook is the Bible. By my reading that book is a great deal about advocating evil deeds.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

It is worth noting, I think, that religious fervour, political conservatism, and blind patriotism often go hand in hand. Coincidence? I think not.

Excellent point, Iron. A case in point was the insertion of the phrase "under god" in the "pledge of Allegiance" in the fifties. This was the politicizing of religion. The phase was inserted to contrast godly Americans with "godless Russians." It was merely fuel for the cold war.

0 Replies

I made a calibrated little post separating religion from wild zeal here earlier, and there is another whole thread on the pledge of allegiance on a2k, which could use some posters, to liven things up.. Sorry, no link right this minute.

0 Replies

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion over the last three or four millenia and many atrocities have been committed by the avowed godless as well. It is as convoluted to assume that the rank and file religious will approve or instigate evil deeds as it is to assume that the rank and file athiest would approve of the Holocaust or pograms in Russia or any other mass murder. Both camps have had their villains and both camps have had their noteworthy champions of virtue.

In defense of the athiests, no athiest or agnostic has ever told me I'm going to hell while fellow Christians have from time to time. (I've always wondered how many people are attracted to Christianity by being told they are going to hell?)

In defense of the Christians and Jews, I don't know any athiests who volunteer at the Salvation Army, who have started homeless shelters or soup kitchens or thrift shops or who go to distant lands to distribute food or vaccines or provide medical help or build houses for poor families.

Please do not infer from this that I think athiests are unconcerned about others as I know from experience that is not the case. But when it comes to doing hands on work to help people other than friends, neighbors, and family, the religious are far more likely to put their time and treasure on the line than are the athiests.

"Though seldom discussed, the Founders, for all the variety of their religious views and practices, were largely unified in their belief in the necessity for religion to provide America's moral order."--Edmund Morgan 1916.

0 Replies

Quote:

In defense of the Christians and Jews, I don't know any athiests who volunteer at the Salvation Army, who have started homeless shelters or soup kitchens or thrift shops or who go to distant lands to distribute food or vaccines or provide medical help or build houses for poor families.

Theists, atheists, and agnostics may be counted serving in many capacities in charitable organizations. Of course most theists would not want to volunteer at the Salvation Army. It is a faith based charity.

0 Replies

Phoenix writes:

Quote:

Theists, atheists, and agnostics may be counted serving in many capacities in charitable organizations. Of course most theists would not want to volunteer at the Salvation Army. It is a faith based charity.

Agreed. I have run across wide diversity in such not-for-profit groups as the YMCA, Girl Scouts, PETA, Friends of the Zoo, etc.

It is in that hands-on, get down and get dirty, direct assistance work that I see mostly or all people of faith to be involved. I am limited to my own experience of course, and if your experience is different, that is a good thing.

My thesis in this observation is all people have value. But I think if all people of faith suddenly became athiests this week, the world would be a much harsher and difficult place to be.

0 Replies

Quote:

My thesis in this observation is all people have value. But I think if all people of faith suddenly became athiests this week, the world would be a much harsher and difficult place to be.

Where did you arrive at the concept that atheists are any harsher than the devout? In my travels, I have found that it is sometimes the opposite. I have known many religious people who will make sure that they dot every "i", and cross every "t" when it comes to adhering to the tenets of their faith. But when it comes to dealing with their fellow human beings............whoa!

People are people. IMO being religious does not necessarily follow that you are a "good" person. Being non-religious does not necessarily follow the opposite.

0 Replies

Phoenix writes:

Quote:

"People are people. IMO being religious does not necessarily follow that you are a "good" person. Being non-religious does not necessarily follow the opposite."

Oh I agree completely. Being religious does not make one 'good' any more than being athiest makes one 'bad'. And I have a very good grasp of 4000 years of religious history and most of it wasn't pretty at all.

This is not directed at you at all Phoenix, but it is my observation that the non-religious, especially the avowed athiests, are usually just as defensive about being athiest and are adovcates of athiesm as strenuously as the religious are defensive about their religion and vigorous advocates for it. And each side believes it is the side with 'the light'.

All I am saying on this one issue is that, at least in my experience, those who are most drawn to do hands on assistance to help people who need help are usually people of faith. And, the world I live in would be a harsher and less humane world without them.

0 Replies

Where does the Bible advocate doing evil deeds?

0 Replies

Foxfyre- You may have a point about helping the needy. But I do believe that many of the religious folk who work with the truly needy, are not necessarily doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Their agenda is to spread "the word" of their religion. Any help that the people receive is merely a side benefit. What the religious are doing is holding out a "carrot", in order to expose people to their religious indoctrination.

I don't have a link, but some time ago I read a story about Mother Theresa that really angered me. It seems that a reporter was interviewing her. The reporter questioned as to why, if the people that she served were so poor, she didn't provide birth control information to them so as to free them from a miserable life of endless reproduction, and grinding poverty. The reporter postulated that controlling pregnancies would do more to uplift these people than anything else that she was doing.

Mother Theresa's answer floored me. She stated that her job was to spread the word of God, and that she was a missionary, not a social worker. My respect for Mother Theresa plummeted the day that I read that story.

0 Replies

Thalium writes:

Quote:

Where does the Bible advocate doing evil deeds?

From the perspective of those who wrote it, it doesn't. From the perspective of non-believers, some people of other than the Judeo-Christian faith, and even from the perspective of most Christians, there are portions of the Bible that must be interpreted within the context of its time and would not be taught as the way to do it now. For instance I don't know any Christians these days who think God would still send his army to wipe out every living thing in another country and stoning somebody to death is pretty darn rare these days. I think just about everybody would agree that would be evil.

0 Replies

That's because the Bible is read only from the perspective of the Old Testament by those who want to criticize it as "fairy tales." We are not all Creationists. The Old Testament is not taken literally, or even considered much at all. The New Testament refutes many of the Laws of the OT. Read John, Chapter 8. The woman is NOT stoned, she is forgiven, as we should forgive others.

(Matthew 5:38-42) "Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, let him strike you on the left cheek too. If anyone takes your shirt, let him have your coat also."

The bible tells us to do neither of the actions that you mentioned.

0 Replies

The Old Testament (particularly Leviticus) seems to come in pretty handy for "Christians" when they choose to rant against homosexuality. The New Testament isn't very valuable for that purpose.

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

Quote:

"Mother Theresa's answer floored me. She stated that her job was to spread the word of God, and that she was a missionary, not a social worker. My respect for Mother Theresa plummeted the day that I read that story."

Having read extensively about Mother Theresa and listening to her every chance I got while she was still alive, I can assure you she did not see herself as one here to 'spread the word of God apart from doing the work of God according to his direction'. I have to believe she was grossly misrepresented and/or misquoted by that reporter. She was an amazing lady who gave tirelessly and wholly of herself asking nothing in return. And no, I am not Catholic Smile

And....speaking gently here and from my own experience....it is often the athiest's response to question the motives of those of faith who are doing good work with the poor. It is almost like they have to discredit those of faith in order to justify themselves. I have seen very few instances of people being pressured to believe anything but I have seen some heroic sacrifices by those doing the hands on ministry. But if the workers believe compassion includes sharing a faith that gives them a great deal of comfort and encouragement, how can that be seen as an unkind thing?

Where I draw the line and object is when help is withheld if the poor do not accept a religious tenet. I have only seen that happen once however and that was a very shortlived ministry.

0 Replies

If you read the Bible with the purpose of finding contradictions, contradictions is what you will find. If you are set out to find factual errors, that's what you will find. In order for the Bible to be truly valuable, one should approach it as a truth seeker looking for spiritual wisdom by studying the Bible from a spiritual context, and not from a factual one. Factual meanings in all books eventually become obsolote and perhaps even useless, but the spiritual meaning in the Bible is eternal and will last forever.

0 Replies

in other word--you can't believe the bible, ergo, you should believe the bible?
very interesting

0 Replies

Derevon, Your english is excellent, but I did not understand one word of it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

in other word--you can't believe the bible, ergo, you should believe the bible?
very interesting

My point is that the Bible shouldn't be seen as the divine law in literal form, whose literal interpretation is eternal and infallible. It's in its spiritual sense its true value lies. So in order to make the most of it, one should approach it trying to truly comprehend what it means in the spiritual sense, rather than trying to find factual contradictions or errors.

0 Replies

Derevon,

Many faith-based organizations provide innumerable good services to communities worldwide. There is no doubt about this.

My question is:

If they are only concerned about doing good, and not propogating an agenda, why does the faith need to play a role in the good?

I liken it to corporate sponsorship of charities. Which also do innumerable good things for communities worldwide.

0 Replies

Why I, and Others, Constantly Rail Against Religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know