Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 2:21 pm

Shiriina, have you ever considered the meaning of reality as opposed to supposition?

Why does reality have to possess meaning? I know it's human nature to bring order to chaos which is why we see shapes in the clouds and the Virgin Mary on a piece of pizza, but that doesn't mean the reality we perceive is actually real. After all, clouds are not bunny rabbits and pepperoni is not the Virgin Mary.

We invent our own meaning, which is why religion is so popular. It is pre-packaged "meaning."

Your way in which to refute the truth is by negative response, at no time do you give an acceptable alternative.

Because there doesn't have to be one. Secular Humanism comes the closest.

To just simply say it is a fairy tail without any means of substantiating your posts is just showing a total lack of understanding.

If simple logic does not substantiate my posts, what would?

by Guest Sat May 25, 2013 6:00 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p840-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41095
It is because of what you do believe that has turned you away from “these barmy Bronze Age stories and superstitions”
Actually, no.

Actually, yes. You have stated a belief; thus, it is because of what you believe that has turned you away from “these barmy Bronze Age stories and superstitions.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t807p750-evidence-for-the-existence-of-god-part-2#40669

Reality is not created through our personal beliefs. It never has, and it never will be.

As you’ve accurately stated, reality is not created through your personal belief.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p840-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41095
you verify the fact that you are a believer.
Okay, sure ... in the same way I believe there is no Santa, no tooth fairy, no Harry Potter, no Superman, and no microscopic purple kitten dancing on the tip of one of my hairs.

Nice replay of Dawkins’ words, with an added feline touch. Since we are replaying Dawkins’ words…

Richard Dawkins at Reason Rally, Washington DC, 24 March 2012 - 4:36-4:47, “Mock them. Ridicule them. In public.” 5:08-5:12, “… if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.”

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/HrC4rdF0KXU?ytsession=GbBs8Isl2nNjWZMOi1l2QSS9ACMuwEcPMugWidAxzRmObNWC05tc6zSJpPrtco6snhmgaYQtpjZCZrNNfLXK4rpsGlQxzHdKOO9PjwB23ExQrgoFCjd1YdaI8yWDB9aZ51VxGsYEaOg6ucQeUC5YFw

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 7:57 pm

As you’ve accurately stated, reality is not created through your personal belief.

Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

by Guest Sat May 25, 2013 9:00 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p870-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41126
As you’ve accurately stated, reality is not created through your personal belief.
Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

by trevorw2539 Sun May 26, 2013 6:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Shiriina, have you ever considered the meaning of reality as opposed to supposition?

Your way in which to refute the truth is by negative response, at no time do you give an acceptable alternative.

To just simply say it is a fairy tail without any means of substantiating your posts is just showing a total lack of understanding.

I think Shirina gives plenty of acceptable alternatives. Just ones you are not prepared to accept. The world around has been created because you choose to believe it.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to the notional or idealistic view of them.

You say Shirina refutes the 'truth'. What 'truth'? Your truth?

If your 'truth' about creation comes from the Bible, then the Bible 'truth' about creation comes from earlier 'truths' about creation. That is reality.

The world is real because we experience it with all our senses. Religion is 'real' because we, as individuals, choose it to be.

by Tosh Sun May 26, 2013 7:58 pm

Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

I believe in common ancestry, common ancestry is deemed to be an evidence based fact by those who determine reality and fact.

I believe you cannot prove God exists, this is the truth.

Stop trying to claim its some kind of tie between reality and mythology, its just illogical.

by oftenwrong Sun May 26, 2013 10:45 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p870-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41126
As you’ve accurately stated, reality is not created through your personal belief.
Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

"you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth"

Whatever any individual believes to be true is quite undeniably true for that person.
Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded.

by Shirina Mon May 27, 2013 12:19 am

Whatever any individual believes to be true is quite undeniably true for that person.

My friend's uncle recently died of a massive stroke, but before he died, he was laying in his hospital bed muttering about hopping the fence of his army base so he could meet up with his girlfriend over the weekend. This man was re-living some memory of his long ago youth. He did not recognize anyone in the hospital room and, in some cases, ignored them altogether.

But does his experiences on his death bed actually constitute truth? If we wheeled this man's hospital bed onto a set of tracks in the path of an oncoming train, would the train pass harmlessly through him because he is existing in some dreamworld that, for him, is the truth? Or would the train turn him into hamburger?

There is objective truth (water is wet) and subjective truth (Picasso is the best artist ever).

Objective is absolute, subjective is not.

Religion is subjective truth because there is no evidence that it is true. Just as you would receive 20 different answers from 20 people if asked what their favorite movie is, you would receive 20 different answers to the question of the specifics of religious belief.

Subjective truth does not trump objective truth.

by trevorw2539 Mon May 27, 2013 10:47 am

Tosh wrote:
Which means you cannot claim any of your beliefs as fact or truth.

I believe in common ancestry, common ancestry is deemed to be an evidence based fact by those who determine reality and fact.

I believe you cannot prove God exists, this is the truth.

Stop trying to claim its some kind of tie between reality and mythology, its just illogical.

So do I. I eat a banana a day, enjoy nuts and dates, but due to age, find it increasingly difficult to climb trees to reach them. Laughing

by Tosh Mon May 27, 2013 1:03 pm

Trevor,

Here is what I don't get about creationist wackos, why do they object to evolution ?
If an omnipotent God can create a universe from nothing then he can orchestrate evolution to produce humans from clay or dust or matter. Why the need to deny a methodology that fits the evidence ?

It is the picking and choosing what is literal, allegorical and metaphorical that baffles me, there are creationists who except the earth is not 6,000 years old and creation didn't literally take 6 days, but they refuse to accept theistic evolution.

Humans who refuse to abandon traditional beliefs for contemporary beliefs must get something out of it, and it must have something to do with status, and I believe it may have its roots in racism.

Whites used to identify blacks as almost part monkey, and accepting evolution links them to both, similarly, blacks used to be identified as part monkey and they simply refuse to believe in anything that confirms this link.

by Shirina Tue May 28, 2013 5:43 am

Here is what I don't get about creationist wackos, why do they object to evolution ?

The problem is when people believe every word of the Bible is literal truth, that Adam and Eve is a history lesson and not just one of a thousand creation myths invented by benighted storytellers.

Religion is often allegorical in nature. I remember when I went to church, the pastor always had some anecdotal story that provided a segue into the day's sermon. When I began doubting Christianity, one of the first things I did was doubt the pastor. After hearing anecdote after anecdote, often taken from his personal life, I began to think, "Gee, how convenient. Either the pastor is full of it or he lives one hell of an exciting life."

I realized that his non-stop anecdotes weren't necessarily truthful in a literal sense, but allegorical or metaphorical, a way to grab your attention before slipping into actual preaching mode. Sometimes it is easier to understand the Bible and its lessons using that approach.

The Bible itself was written for the unsophisticated mind, an explanation given to the masses who could never have hoped to understand evolution. It also provided a convenient and simplistic explanation for why there is suffering in the world - original sin.

Yet the evidence for evolution exists, and it is very strong. The deniers do so only because they cannot come to grips with the allegory of Adam and Eve. They want the Bible to be literal, and, therefore, will continue to believe it is. There is no reason to think that God would create the illusion of evolution just to test our faith, and there is even less of a reason to believe Satan is prancing around sprinkling fossils hither and yon to throw us off.

Fortunately for us all, Biblical literalists are a dying breed with most of them, unfortunately, concentrated in the United States. Our geographic and cultural isolation has insulated us against a more modern and rational approach to religion, a xenophobia that will be our undoing.

by oftenwrong Tue May 28, 2013 11:50 am

A throwaway comment in a weekend newspaper's Arts section caught my eye:

Religion is being replaced by the cult of Personality.

by Guest Tue May 28, 2013 9:32 pm

Shirina’s comments, in their entirety, are here:
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p840-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41168

Thirteen fundamental teachings of Y’shua, to which fundamentalist Christians try to adhere, are here:
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41136

Following are (1) all instances in the above-referenced post of Shirina using the words “religion”, “religious”, “evolution”, or derivatives thereof, and (2) all instances in the above-referenced post of Shirina using the words “religion”, “religious”, or derivatives thereof, and (2) all instances in the above-referenced teachings of Y’shua of Y’shua using the words “religion”, “religious”, “evolution”, or derivatives thereof:

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p840-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#41168

Religion…

… evolution…

… evolution… evolution…

… religion…

Greek Biblehttps://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41136

Matthew 5-7, in part

Shirina – 5, Y’shua – 0.

by trevorw2539 Wed May 29, 2013 3:28 pm

Shirina wrote:
Here is what I don't get about creationist wackos, why do they object to evolution ?

The problem is when people believe every word of the Bible is literal truth, that Adam and Eve is a history lesson and not just one of a thousand creation myths invented by benighted storytellers.

Religion is often allegorical in nature. I remember when I went to church, the pastor always had some anecdotal story that provided a segue into the day's sermon. When I began doubting Christianity, one of the first things I did was doubt the pastor. After hearing anecdote after anecdote, often taken from his personal life, I began to think, "Gee, how convenient. Either the pastor is full of it or he lives one hell of an exciting life."

I realized that his non-stop anecdotes weren't necessarily truthful in a literal sense, but allegorical or metaphorical, a way to grab your attention before slipping into actual preaching mode. Sometimes it is easier to understand the Bible and its lessons using that approach.

The Bible itself was written for the unsophisticated mind, an explanation given to the masses who could never have hoped to understand evolution. It also provided a convenient and simplistic explanation for why there is suffering in the world - original sin.

Yet the evidence for evolution exists, and it is very strong. The deniers do so only because they cannot come to grips with the allegory of Adam and Eve. They want the Bible to be literal, and, therefore, will continue to believe it is. There is no reason to think that God would create the illusion of evolution just to test our faith, and there is even less of a reason to believe Satan is prancing around sprinkling fossils hither and yon to throw us off.

Fortunately for us all, Biblical literalists are a dying breed with most of them, unfortunately, concentrated in the United States. Our geographic and cultural isolation has insulated us against a more modern and rational approach to religion, a xenophobia that will be our undoing.

I agree with a great deal of what you say. However I don't think the compilers of the OT had any intention of writing to any particular group of intellectual/non-intellectual people. They were simply compiling a book which told their history as they saw it, or wanted to believe it, and the fact that their God was Supreme - or in their way of thinking.
I doubt that they themselves had any idea of evolution in the sense we have.

The concept of 'Original sin' did not appear until 2nd century CE. Coined by Iranaeus, Bishop of Lyons. However I take your point that the OT refers often to the fact that sin leads to suffering.

You certainly have Biblical literalists in the USA, less so in this country. They tell me, regardless of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, that ancient civilisations a millenia before the start of events in the Bible foresaw what the Bible would say about creation and 'copied' the Bible. I've read many prophecies IN the Bible, but it's a new one on me that people could predict a millenia ahead WHAT WAS GOING to be in the Bible.

by Tosh Wed May 29, 2013 4:54 pm

I doubt that they themselves had any idea of evolution in the sense we have.

Oh I believe the Sumerians had a fair idea that we were animals, and their codes of conduct in effect defined a human, those living behind the walls and rules were called humans and the savages beyond the walls and rules were considered to be wild animals. God was the difference ergo God created humans, in the beginning was the word, and the word was God.

by trevorw2539 Wed May 29, 2013 7:53 pm

Tosh wrote:
I doubt that they themselves had any idea of evolution in the sense we have.

Oh I believe the Sumerians had a fair idea that we were animals, and their codes of conduct in effect defined a human, those living behind the walls and rules were called humans and the savages beyond the walls and rules were considered to be wild animals. God was the difference ergo God created humans, in the beginning was the word, and the word was God.

I find that strange considering they were an agricultural civilisation.
Because of the skill involved in farming in the Sumerian Mesopotamia, farmers did not depend on slaves to complete farm work for them, but there were some exceptions.
There were 3 castes, the lowest of which was the slaves (but not as we know slaves).

by Tosh Thu May 30, 2013 12:19 am

I find that strange considering they were an agricultural civilisation.

The city of Ur was not a farm, they don't call Mesopotamia the cradle of civilization because they were hunter-gatherers who could farm a bit, those that still lived by the old hunter-gatherer codes of conduct were considered not humans but animals, a farmer is not a hunter-gatherer and his farm was protected by these new codes. The walls were meant as a metaphor for these new codes of conduct.

by ROB Thu May 30, 2013 1:23 am

I hang out with folks who are smarter than am I and whose Hebrew and Greek Biblical knowledge and understanding surpasses my own. Neither to the best of my knowledge nor to the best of these folks’ knowledge does either Bible speak of evolution, whether macro or micro.

Creation of everything from nothing is covered in one Hebrew Bible sentence, Genesis 1:1, the text of which is exactly mirrored by the “who-what-when-where” of Big Bang.

Greek Bible

B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets.

Genesis 1:1

Who: Elohim, immeasurable, incomprehensible power.

What: bara, created from nothing, et hashamayim, the heavens (everything other than the earth), ve’et ha’arets, the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything; thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.

When: B’r’shythe, at the beginning ‘time’, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.

Where: B’r’shythe, at the beginning ‘place’, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”, neither states nor implies anything about evolution, macro or micro. It puzzles me that those who engage in acrimonious debate about macro-evolution reference “the Bible” in their non-productive debates.

From a “creationist” point of view, no support whatsoever for exclusion of macro-evolution as an explanation of “how” the present state of life came to be is found in Genesis 1:1; thus, referencing “the Bible” to “prove” that macro-evolution does not and has not occurred proves nothing whatsoever.

From a “macro-evolutionist” point of view, no support whatsoever for the contention that “the Bible” excludes macro-evolution as an explanation of “how” the present state of life came to be is found in Genesis 1:1; thus, referencing “the Bible” to “prove” that the contention that “the Bible” says that macro-evolution does not and has not occurred proves nothing whatsoever.

Fruitful discussion of, as opposed to fruitless acrimonious debate about, macro-evolution role, if any, regarding “how” the present state of life came to be can only be achieved by total exclusion of “the Bible” from the discussion.

by Tosh Thu May 30, 2013 3:37 pm

Texas,

If you are claiming your objections to " common ancestry " are purely scientific then provide an alternative scientific explanation for the common structure of DNA, remember, no using a creator hypothesis, it is unproven. How did species come into existence if they did not all evolve from a common ancestor ?

by oftenwrong Thu May 30, 2013 5:15 pm

Maybe his friends are cleverer than your friends. Did you think of that?

by trevorw2539 Thu May 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Tosh wrote:
I find that strange considering they were an agricultural civilisation.

The city of Ur was not a farm, they don't call Mesopotamia the cradle of civilization because they were hunter-gatherers who could farm a bit, those that still lived by the old hunter-gatherer codes of conduct were considered not humans but animals, a farmer is not a hunter-gatherer and his farm was protected by these new codes. The walls were meant as a metaphor for these new codes of conduct.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/ur/

by Shirina Thu May 30, 2013 9:54 pm

Genesis 1:1, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”, neither states nor implies anything about evolution, macro or micro. It puzzles me that those who engage in acrimonious debate about macro-evolution reference “the Bible” in their non-productive debates.

Genesis 1:1 is only one sentence in a very large book. From there, it goes into Adam and Eve, talking snakes, forbidden fruits, etc. The debate over evolution occurs when people want to believe that humans were created instantly by the power of God - Adam from dirt and Eve from a rib. Evoluton is opposed because it contradicts "instant" creation and the literal story of Adam and Eve, presumably the first humans (although it is never explained, for instance, who lived in the Kingdom of Nod).

by Tosh Fri May 31, 2013 8:28 am

Trevor,

Your link simply conforms my original comment:

. Between 2030-1980 BCE, Ur was the world's largest city, boasting about 65,000 inhabitants within its walls.

???

by trevorw2539 Fri May 31, 2013 11:02 pm

Tosh wrote:Trevor,

Your link simply conforms my original comment:

. Between 2030-1980 BCE, Ur was the world's largest city, boasting about 65,000 inhabitants within its walls.

???

It confirms also that it began, and always was, reliant on its agriculture. I agree that it also became a great trading city because of its position in Middle East geography.
Being in the 'Fertile Crescent' its land was prized and fruitful. IF you took the Biblical story of Abraham he came from UR but was a herder of various animals. For that reason he chose to go the long way to Canaan. Right round the fertile crescent to keep his animals supplied with food, instead of the short way across the Negev desert.
Ur began to decline, probably due to a change in the Euphrates River course. This also affected the fertile soil which relied on the waters.

by Tosh Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:50 am

It confirms also that it began, and always was, reliant on its agriculture.

Trevor,

I know all these things, the existence of agriculture does not contradict my point, codes of conduct defined sedentary humans as against hunter-gatherer animals, the 65,000 people who lived within the walls were the first humans who separated themselves from the animal kingdom, this suggests they considered themselves as once part of the animal kingdom, in effect an acceptance of common ancestry. Those who still lived outside these rules were considered to be still animals, in other words being human was a behavioral( spiritual) distinction, not a physical one.

The OT extrapolated on this theme, humans were spoken into existence by God and his words, creating humans separate from the animal kingdom, this can be interpreted literally or as I am claiming metaphorically.

It is just one of my ideas, not claiming it is a fact.

by Tosh Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:14 am

The description of the Garden of Eden includes agriculture and domesticated animals, this hints at a harmonious existence where humans behaved in accordance with God's word( codes of conduct). The rewards of both were a paradise compared to the brutal and competitive existence of hunter-gatherers, brains replacing brawn.

Woman and the temptation of sex were considered to be the biggest threat to this harmony, and this was depicted as woman disobeying God and tempting men. The physical attraction( nakedness) that encouraged such behavior was depicted as a return to our animal instincts, against the wishes of God.

by Tosh Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:19 am

In summary, I believe our ancestors had a good idea we were just animals, and we shared behaviors and ancestry, God did not make humans, his words made us INTO humans. In the beginning was the word, and the word WAS God, humanity began with the words of God. As with everything else we believed our thoughts came from an unseen agent of purpose, our thoughts on right and wrong came from God itself, they were divine instructions and we carried them out as God intended.

Therefore the concept of God created and inspired humans, the universal declarations of human rights is a concept that replaces God, and expands upon how a human must behave to not be considered an animal.

by trevorw2539 Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:37 pm

Tosh wrote:The description of the Garden of Eden includes agriculture and domesticated animals, this hints at a harmonious existence where humans behaved in accordance with God's word( codes of conduct). The rewards of both were a paradise compared to the brutal and competitive existence of hunter-gatherers, brains replacing brawn.

Woman and the temptation of sex were considered to be the biggest threat to this harmony, and this was depicted as woman disobeying God and tempting men. The physical attraction( nakedness) that encouraged such behavior was depicted as a return to our animal instincts, against the wishes of God.

What a load of interesting erm... old Tosh Wink

by Tosh Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:28 pm

What a load of interesting erm... old Tosh

I watched a documentary on the hunter-gatherer tribes of the Amazon and Papua New Guinea, in both cases men cited conflicts over women as being the biggest cause of death and injury. There is a gender ratio in all hunter-gatherer cultures that maintains a shortage in the number of available females, it is to do with the number of hunters versus mouths to feed, this led to the culture of first born female infanticide being adopted by subsequent cultures.
The strange thing is the men actually saw women as the cause of these conflicts, as if their behavior not their shortage was the reason behind the violence. It seems to me the origins of misogyny lie not just in the physical dominance of males over females but in the biased thinking process of the dominant males, the same males who created the codes of conduct and the religions.
The demonisation of women is built around sex. and sex is about reproduction and paternity claims, women were blamed for causing infidelity and paternal ambiguity. Men believed their sexual instincts were normal and it was up to the woman to control theirs, it is just cognitive bias passed through thousands of years of primitive culture.

by oftenwrong Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:37 pm

How does such an argument develop from the possibility that women might eventually evolve to have "seasonal" availability, as in the dog world, where Seasons happen, on average, every 6 months although many go longer between seasons? Such a situation might put the girlies firmly in charge of any and all sexual activity.

Whatever one's religious orientation.

by polyglide Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:22 pm

I thought the matter was, does any religion matter today.

Wether it matters or not many religions are causing many problems because they are based on man made, and often for specific purposes of self indulgence, ideas, in an attept to have their idea of life imposed on others.

The only truly based religion is that based on love and understanding as determined by God of the Bible, we need this more now than ever before.

by Tosh Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:47 am

The only truly based religion is that based on love and understanding as determined by God of the Bible, we need this more now than ever before.

Unfortunately all religions claim absolute truth, love and understanding, this is the problem, they cannot all be true and your word is worth diddly squat in these matters.

by Shirina Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:48 am

love and understanding

THAT'S what is important, not a "religion based on it."

by polyglide Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:59 pm

We are slowly getting there Shirina.

You will eventually inderstand the concept that a thing can be made perfect for a particular purpose and ruined by wrongful use.

by methought Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:22 pm

Religion defines the way people think.

If one has no religion then one has a set of principles which work like religion does.

If one thinks in a certain way it is difficult to countenance uncertainty.

Hearts and minds, leadership, and a sense of group identity.

Chuck in an inner enforcer and religion wins out over politics, in general.

by Jsmythe Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:37 pm

Indeed Methought.

Politics in the western world are very much the same by what we understand as democratic, yet by various locations, laws and regulations vary witin jurisdictions. With religions that all procalim the truth;all have the same core but diversify by locations and leadership.

Many group identities,religious and non religious. One could say they are all right but not all are benificial to us at all.

Good to see you BTW (et al)

by Jsmythe Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:09 pm

Perhaps Religion and Politics are in need of new inspirational leaders,you could say a 'new coming' of sorts. I think we have had enough of the last few hundred years set mind model, the old ideas have indeed failed.Oh aye, even today in this so called advanced age.

I am pretty sure some God gave us these tools to know the benificial version of right and wrong.

by polyglide Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:14 pm

There has been many attempts by man to formulate a means of government that will ensure all are treated with respect and all have a better life.

All have failed.

You only have to look around the world including the so called civilised countries to verify the fact that there is no government that can satify the majority of those being governed, all lean towards the benifit of some, to the detriment of others.

The fact is that mankind was given the means and rules he should have adopted from the beginning but of course he knew better.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:49 am

polyglide wrote:There has been many attempts by man to formulate a means of government that will ensure all are treated with respect and all have a better life.

All have failed.

You only have to look around the world including the so called civilised countries to verify the fact that there is no government that can satify the majority of those being governed, all lean towards the benifit of some, to the detriment of others.

The fact is that mankind was given the means and rules he should have adopted from the beginning but of course he knew better.

Well considering no two theists can agree on this marvellous message from an infallible deity that post is rather funny. Perhaps you can explain how an omniscient and omnipotent deity can make such a piss poor attempt at communicating with it's creation, as I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation outside of atheism.

by Sam Hunter Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:03 am

polyglide wrote:There has been many attempts by man to formulate a means of government that will ensure all are treated with respect and all have a better life.

All have failed.

You only have to look around the world including the so called civilised countries to verify the fact that there is no government that can satify the majority of those being governed, all lean towards the benifit of some, to the detriment of others.

The fact is that mankind was given the means and rules he should have adopted from the beginning but of course he knew better.

Yes, we do know better. While it's true that we haven't perfected the art of governing ourselves, we are getting better at it. We improve step by step. By contrast, religion remains fixed. If we followed the standards of the Bible, we'd be killing people people for working on the sabbath, killing people for being gay, killing brides for not being a virgin... We'd be killing a lot of people.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:38 pm

Sam Hunter wrote:
polyglide wrote:There has been many attempts by man to formulate a means of government that will ensure all are treated with respect and all have a better life.

All have failed.

You only have to look around the world including the so called civilised countries to verify the fact that there is no government that can satify the majority of those being governed, all lean towards the benifit of some, to the detriment of others.

The fact is that mankind was given the means and rules he should have adopted from the beginning but of course he knew better.
Yes, we do know better. While it's true that we haven't perfected the art of governing ourselves, we are getting better at it. We improve step by step. By contrast, religion remains fixed. If we followed the standards of the Bible, we'd be killing people people for working on the sabbath, killing people for being gay, killing brides for not being a virgin... We'd be killing a lot of people.

Well I've just watched Stephen Fry's programmes on homophobia around the world, and it's clear that although things have improved many people still do kill, or advocate the killing of, people for being gay. What was striking was that all the homophobes trying to enact anti-gay laws were right wing christians, in Russia, in Mexico, in the USA. As you say biblical law is hardly a moral anchor on which to base any decent society, and luckily most civilised and educated people agree.

by Sponsored content