Vivien wrote:most religions have as their core beliefs no killing, no adultery, don't mistreat people - but then we get bigoted, control freak priests of the various creeds who add lots of extras and the whole thing is twisted and distorted according to the general nastiness inherent in mankind 
Ever read
Battle For God by Karen Armstrong. She seems to show that fundamentalism in many cases is a turning away from the principles that they allege to be protecting.
NeoGuin wrote:Vivien wrote:most religions have as their core beliefs no killing, no adultery, don't mistreat people - but then we get bigoted, control freak priests of the various creeds who add lots of extras and the whole thing is twisted and distorted according to the general nastiness inherent in mankind
Ever read
Battle For God by Karen Armstrong. She seems to show that fundamentalism in many cases is a turning away from the principles that they allege to be protecting.
no i haven't, but she sounds as though she has the right ideas - interesting book?
Frank, maliagar completely ignores my posts, so somebody else must take over the banner.
CI
maliagar is a puff of wind. Why take him/her seriously?
We all know maliagar is a "puff of wind," but he writes pretty good, and many of us enjoy his evasion of the good questions posed to him. c.i.
Have you tried self flaggelating?
edgar, It just fascinates most of us that maliagar "seems" to ignore those good questions posed to him, but in fact must have some effect on him to change some of his ideas of the Catholic religion. I dare say he/she is quite intelligent, and his one tract mind of his postings hides how much influence this forum has on his beliefs. His stance is too one-sided; and a person of lesser intelligence would recognize the futility of it all. We just haven't had his/her admission - yet. I'm not sure he/she's going to ever admit it. c.i.
truth
C.I., why should Maliagar "admit it"? The goal we all pursue is to find/ construct or adopt a system of beliefs that makes us feel good about ourselves, the world and our lives in it. If Catholicism does that for him/her why should she change it in favor of one that serves the same function for us? All I care about is that religion be denied any political role in life. Witness the political dangers of American Christian and Islamic fundamentalism for the world today, a danger that derives from their use of absolutist beliefs and values. It is a new motivation for empiriallist expansionism, one that rivals the economic motives for the same.
I do give Maliagar credit for risking the exposure of his/her worldview to our criticism. I wonder what drives him/her to take such a risk--and Frank's beating.
JLN, How can anyone feel good about themselves living on false premise? How much can one continue to lie to themselves and still feel good about themselves? Doesn't the seeking of truth require that we continue to pursue that goal on facts, and not on some doctrine whether it be religion or science? It's quite evident that some people will never seek truth beyond what they have come to believe, and they continue to rationalize the failings of logic in their thinking. All my siblings and their children are christians, so I can observe it first hand. It boggles my mind. c.i.
The truth has already been neatly arranged for them. It's called dogma.
truth
Right, LW, dogma provides them with the "assurance" that their beliefs are based on facts (often esoteric "facts" to be sure) and they are equally convinced, C.I., that non-believers are the ones who are lying to themselves with "false premises." But I'm sure you know that.
I don't want to break maliagar down. I don't even want alter the beliefs he/she carries. Only the arrogance to dismiss and condemn everyone that disagrees with his/her posts.
truth
Edgar, that's another gripe I have with most believers: the notion that unbelievers (including those who believe in other faiths) are not only wrong but immoral in their error.
If maliagar would cut that out, I would be able to live and let live.
Vivien wrote:most religions have as their core beliefs no killing, no adultery, don't mistreat people - but then we get bigoted, control freak priests of the various creeds who add lots of extras and the whole thing is twisted and distorted according to the general nastiness inherent in mankind
Most supposedly have these values, but when you look at their actions, you find that these are rarely put into play. The Ten Commandments say not to murder, yet God was ordering mass murder all across the Middle East. No adultery? Sure, but why not have your underage daughters raped? God apparently goes in for that kind of thing.
Religion is hypocracy.
Vivien wrote:
"most religions have as their core beliefs no killing, no adultery, don't mistreat people - " The big problem with these edicts is that almost nobody heeds them. What good is religion except to make people feel they belong to some social organization? c.i.
truth
As I see it, C.I. and Vivien, the function of commandments is not to "make" people behave according to social proscriptions completely. It may be to reduce the incidence of their occurrence, but more likely it is to set up some kind of formal rules that justifies a society in punishing transgressors--by defining transgressions. It is the punishment that MIGHT deter transgressings, i.e., the public punishment of transgressors who function as object lessons, as negative role models for others. If there were no rules all would be acceptable. There would be no societal (society level) reaction to behaviors like theft, adultery or murder. The only deterrent would the principle of lex talionis, where the aggrieved or his relatives would have to take revenge on aggressors, not because they have violated some rule (they don't exist) but for violating the aggrieved one's interests.
Interesting, I think I agree with you, JL. Lex talionis, I never heard that phrase before.
