Printable View
You would probably like pre-christian european mysticism, it basicly says that no religion can be bad because the upperbeing presents itselve in a way that the people can identify with, every saint or god is part of the same being, yet it choses a form to communicate with it's respective followers. So it is not religion that is bad, just the claim on an ultimate form/truth, because it is all part of the same thing.
true, definitly true.
Religion is dangerous, if only for the power that it holds and the fanaticism with which people will follow it. Unlike almost any other concept, group, motive and so on, religion is followed with extreme undying fanaticism. This makes it more dangerous than other powerful institutions and due to its very nature it is likely to discriminate and ignore new ideas.
That sounds like Hinduism to me. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
democracy is pretty dangerous toQuote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
True democracy is dangerous, partly because religion can control it like it is starting to try to in the US and partly because allowing anyone to have power is dangerous. This includes all types of government. But democracy with enough checks and balances, such as the fillibuster to protect the minority parties, is less dangerous. I think religion is the most dangerous abstract idea in today's society because of the fanaticism it inspires.
agreed, i also think religion is dangerous, but i also think gods aren't (god is just a term) i thought i was you that said that i was describing the happies/best thing on earth (or anywhere) but isn't that how all religions describe the one their religion is about. so i call it god, you may call it 666 if you want.
i think there is a comfusion between religion and organized church. Religion are just ideas and generally speaking most of the time are good. Church is the company that exploits those ideas, creates agendas and baptise pure low human urges as divine wishes.
Thank you i rest my case.
Thanks, but I believe your case was dead to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Churches can enable people to better practice, ponder, communicate and strenghten their faith, as well as share and support some of the harsher spiritual and physical consequences of their beliefs. If you study episodes of religious violence in history closely, you will observe that there were always outside, non-Church forces at work as well as forces of, or inside, organised religion, and that there were always forces within organised religion opposed to the violence.
Churches bring ''divine'' values down to earth. There are always people who eventually hijack those higher purposes and use them for their own agendas. How many times ''holy'' wars started from church leaders that presented theiselves as representatives of god? How many violent acts against other churches? How many incidents of perverted or corrupted actions by the ''people of god''. How many billioners bishops or whatever in various religions?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Youre telling me that the crusades were organised by non-church forces? Or by a guy who wanted real power and found the way to succeed it?
Flocks are only good for sheeps.
Yup. Cathare Crusade. French King, supported by Northern French nobility, wanted power and found a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Church was innocent of it? I ve been reading alittle about this subject lately and didnt got the impression that church had no part. How about the first crusade that gave Pope actual power besides cerimonial?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Going for some sleep now unless there is somebody here willing to design the greek version of Ovation Guitars 16page brochure tommorow. God i hate Monday.....
That's right. Like I said, there are always forces in, as well as outside of organised religion working together to promote or provoke religious violence. In this case, the desire of the French King for a power grab in obnoxious, free-thinking Southern France clinched it. The Pope and the bishop of Toulon had been begging him to crusade against the Cathares for a long time, but without the greed of Paris there would have been no crusade against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
He already had real power in 1077 when he forced Emperor Henry IV to his knees. And the First Crusade, as all the others, was led by Lords temporal and not spiritual. If you look closer at each case of religious excess, you will see there were outside forces at work as well. I believe it is fair to say that organised religion has often been a vehicle for crime, but on the other hand organised religion has also been a vehicle for resistance to crime. In WWII for instance, there were religious organisations and institutions involved on all sides of the equation.Quote:
How about the first crusade that gave Pope actual power besides cerimonial?
Churches may help people worship (I certainly wouldn't know) but they are far more dangerous as a whole than unorganised religion because often they can become places where the youth is inducted into a set of beliefs that are not necessarily religious. They also usually suppress new ideas, science and such.
but also other wars than crusades are ordered by the Pope, the invasion of england by William the Conquerer had the popes permission.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
ADRIANII
there indeed also other forces than religion, and maybe the crusades were also partly cuz of the greed of lords. but weren't they catholic and convinced that killing muslims was good. even if they didn't they used religion to gain support of the ignorant.
example would you think that those thousands of children (childcrusade) would go if there was said that they should be sold, or that they would be butchered or that it was against gods will. they wouldn't, but becuz god wanted it, they went (partly also becuz they had no future).
I like mrs Stern, she said that religion makes good people better and bad people worse. Religion is just a tool for those that want to do bad, like osama and his buddies. I am sure Islam is a beautifull religion from what I have read of it, but it can be a weapon in the hands of someone else. It's a 'guns don't kill people thing'. Same with christianity and all the others, just justification for the ambitious.
hmmmm, hmmmm. you i'm miles from where i started, but i agree (again)
it's dying
Religion is a form of power.
So just like electricity you can either use it for cooking dinner for the poor or electrocuting the condemned.
Nice analogy Pape, however, people could just be nice to each other despite religion...
No reason why somone can't be a good person without religion.
Just like you can cook with gas or gas someone.
Use what works for you.
no reason indeed, but most people are selfish from nature. religion is a form of power. but gods aren't gods a thing you can use to get powerQuote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Pape sorry about the typo in your name, I meant Pape but I hit the r key as well.
Well that may be the logical reason behind gods, but if people wished to they could make an effort to do all the good things taught by religion, abandon the bad and just treat other people well because it is the right thing to do.
The best part of that is that without religion, there would be no real outlet for everyone to understand what "the right thing to do" really is. It might be able to work now, but only because religions have put their mark on moralism. Religion, is after, an expression of the beliefs of the society's people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I disagree, however, as I'm sure people of other religions or cultures might. "All the good things taught by religion(sic)" aren't good to everyone, and neither are the bad things.
religion/gods are not only a thing to get power, it also is a life-style. sum people couldn't survive without their believe in god. without the desire to live good and go to heaven alot of people got nothing else to live for. if you take that away, we'll have mass suicideQuote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I respect the founders of many religions (Jesus, Mohhamed, Buddha), as well as more recent religous people (Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi). That said, I don't believe in any sort of religion or God, but I respect many spiritual people, and their overall message. I think that religion has been used by too many power hungry people for it to be "good".
People would kill themselves without a crutch? I'm sure they'd find better ways to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
Sidenote: King Arthur was a terrible movie. Your sig offends me. ~;p
People are already learning to live without it, at least in the West religion is losing ground quickly. Although the religious are getting fewer they seem to be getting louder and more "pious".