Print Page | Close Window

religion is the problem

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29314
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 19:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: religion is the problem
Posted By: Athena
Subject: religion is the problem
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 12:02
In another forum someone made me glaringly aware of two strong Christian movements, that  are part of the Christian opposition to democracy, which is just as bad as any Muslim opposition to democracy.  

The first is the Christian attack on John Rockefeller and John Dewey and the change in education they brought about.  The second is the 1952 ,cold war, Christian inspired opposition to communism (those godless people) and again an attack on the evil Rockefeller Foundation.   These Christian attacks are being picked up the young who do not know the religious motivation behind them,  but think they are attacks on those terrible rich people who are out of oppress and exploit us.  

Sorry I am in a rush and don't have time at the moment to explain more fully.   Just know there is a big problem with both Christianity and Islam and it is really stupid for these groups to think they are opposed to each other.   The same fears that Muslims can't manage democracy are true of Christians.    If we want to defend democracy, we must be aware of organized religious efforts that are harmful to democracy, and be aware of the passing of  harmful arguments by those who are ignorant of the religious bases of them, and mistakeningly think these attacks are on rich industrialist who are out to exploit us.  

Paranoia can be a national problem, and sometimes a nation needs psycho analysis as badly as paranoid individuals.






Replies:
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 12:15
People are always blaming the wrong element, religion. Religion is definitely not the cause of the oppression of democracy. Religion is an ideology that is constantly being twisted around by people in order to gain some form of power and control over others and to lobby for personal causes. Religion never killed anyone and never oppressed anyone. There are greedy and perverse people out there who would use anything if it satisfied their objectives, and does not only include religion.

These movements are nothing but a testament to how religion can be distorted out of context and used for causes that frankly, have nothing to do with faith to begin with. Let alone the fact that there are so many different sects out there. Human corruption, that's all it is.


-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 12:32
    Thank you Christians for opposing the bloody, tyranny of  communism. I thank Islam as well.     


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 14:49
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

People are always blaming the wrong element, religion. Religion is definitely not the cause of the oppression of democracy. Religion is an ideology that is constantly being twisted around by people in order to gain some form of power and control over others and to lobby for personal causes. Religion never killed anyone and never oppressed anyone. There are greedy and perverse people out there who would use anything if it satisfied their objectives, and does not only include religion.

These movements are nothing but a testament to how religion can be distorted out of context and used for causes that frankly, have nothing to do with faith to begin with. Let alone the fact that there are so many different sects out there. Human corruption, that's all it is.
 
Human Corruption viz self interest and then 'supposed' communal interest......religion, ntl has been a handy tool for oppression if not necessarily towards democracy.....and that simply thru forced acceptance and practice....in many cases. But it dealing with that... one must deal contextually as to the root cause why. Probably, because of the power that religion can offer to a leader-base, religious or non, over those who were in no position to confront the authority in the first place and yet all to often see their theological practices as a means of relief from the oppression of the leader. Which then equally might be and usual is challenged by the power base. The record is replete with examples. Secular progressives in the US are a good example.
 
But is it ie. Religion.... perse the 'devil in the deep blue sea' and can one lay the alleged crime at the feet of a specific theology-doctrine or denomination.... as the prime cause and motivator? No. I don't believe I can. But it can be and has been manipulated by many to seek and maintain power. In that as I noted it has been and still is a powerful tool.
 
As noted...by Baal, in the end the concepts of theology and Political identification and expression to include disputes, escalation and violence, coupled with human corruption and individual self-interest while inter-related; are not synonomous.
 
Thanks


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 17:49
I think that this is mainly what ahs driven the separation of the church and state after the medieval era. It is the idea that man can have faith in God and pray to God in the confines of his home. He is not obligated to seek penance or any sort of favour from men of cloth since religion is in man, not the establishment.

-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2011 at 18:41
It's an apt point.... but more specifically... imo... that which drove the division was the 'age of enlightenment' subsequent civil reaction both affirmative and negative.. and the advent of socialist and marxist ideologies. And to a lesser degree the ongoing nationalism by varying states as they reacted to the aforementioned.
 
Just a thought.
 
Thanks


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2011 at 16:12
The reason religion is the problem is it stands in the way of truth.   When people believe a lie, that lie prevents them from knowing truth.  If they question what they believe to be true, than there is a chance they will realize what they believe isn't true, and then will seek truth.  People seriously are not going to do this when the lie gives them great comfort, gives them a sense of security, and a sense of self worth, and may be even a sense of superiority.   This is the case for all religions that are suppose to be God's truth, presented to select people.   To believe these religions are God's truth, we have to believe God gave His special of message of truth to Moses, and whoever else the holy books tell us got a special message from God.   Really?  Does God have favorites?  Is he going speak to some people and not everyone?  I don't think so.  

Most important is our belief about why things happen.   Christian Europe was very resistant to the medicine that was advanced by Arabs and Muslims.  In their belief system it, was demons that made people sick, and those heathens who made it necessary to fight the crusades, so the land could be returned to God's chosen people, were practicing the Black arts.   The Christians with their superstitions even turned on the Jews who had some rudimentary knowledge of healing of herbs, and an understanding that it is unclean things that make us sick.  These Jews often fell victim of the witch hunts, because the superstitious notions of Christianity.   Or worse, the need for sanitation was rejected for a hundred years after science realized the importance, and thousands died because of superstition and ignorance. Let me be very clear on this.  The religion promoted an incorrect reasoning and understanding of illness and medicine, other people, and morals. 

Now let us jump forward to the present, and things like, not taking the oil shortage seriously, but instead griping about those greedy people who keep rising the price of oil, and ignoring why the US has been so militarily involved in the mid east, and has such a  huge national debt.  Disapprove God blessed us with everything, and if there is a problem it is not about us right, not our consumption, or thing like that, but those people who think they know God but do not, or those greedy people, or Satan.   Or if you are the other side of the argument, it is those evil people from the west, etc.  and we all know, the holy books speak of such times, and there is a being of evil, and the will of God.  We still are not being realistic and handling things scientifically and logically.

We have three stories, the the Jewish one, the Christian one, and the Muslim one, and while these folks are arguing and fighting with each other, we are not paying attention to the scientific understanding of reality, and we are not using reason, and virtues like justice, to resolve the problems that we face.   A superstitious lie is standing the place of truth and justice.


Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2011 at 16:48
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

People are always blaming the wrong element, religion. Religion is definitely not the cause of the oppression of democracy. Religion is an ideology that is constantly being twisted around by people in order to gain some form of power and control over others and to lobby for personal causes. Religion never killed anyone and never oppressed anyone. There are greedy and perverse people out there who would use anything if it satisfied their objectives, and does not only include religion.
 
I agree with the notion that religion today is merely a tool used to control the masses. It is truly a shame that most religions began as nonviolence movements but were corrupted to suit the needs of states. For example, Christianity was originally completely opposed to violence. But when Constantine the Great became a Christian and painted the cross on his soldiers' shields, establishing it as the state religion of the Roman empire, violence in the name of killing nonbelievers suddenly became acceptable. Previous to this the symbol of Christianity was a fish, not the cross which symbolizes violence.
 
Originally posted by Athena

Now let us jump forward to the present, and things like, not taking the oil shortage seriously, but instead griping about those greedy people who keep rising the price of oil, and ignoring why the US has been so militarily involved in the mid east, and has such a  huge national debt.  Disapprove God blessed us with everything, and if there is a problem it is not about us right, not our consumption, or thing like that, but those people who think they know God but do not, or those greedy people, or Satan.   Or if you are the other side of the argument, it is those evil people from the west, etc.  and we all know, the holy books speak of such times, and there is a being of evil, and the will of God.  We still are not being realistic and handling things scientifically and logically.
 
True, religion today is basically "if you're on our side you're with God, if you're on their side you're with Satan". Leaders will not hesitate to use religion to their advantage. In my personal opinion religion is an antiquated concept anyway, and is holding us back scientifically to some extent.


-------------
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 02:41
Arab, I like your observation about the Christian symbol going from the fish to the cross, the universal symbol of death.   Christianity became popular in part because of the Christian martyrs, and we make fun of Muslims for believing if the die while fighting for Allah, they will be rewarded.   Religion is good for war and war is good for religion. 

In the mean time, what should we do about our denial of life on a finite planet, and that as the US consumes the lions share of everything, pushing the rest of the world into desperate poverty.   There is no way the whole the world can live at the standard of living the US has enjoyed, and as more countries do gain the ability to compete with the US for resources, well that is what military is all about isn't it?   Is this just?   

Seriously is this the work of God or man made problems that we need to work through?


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 10:38
Originally posted by Athena

    A superstitious lie is standing the place of truth and justice.
 
Pol Pot, Mao Tse Sung, and Joseph Stalin also came to the same conclusion.  What do you propose to replace this "lie" with?  Pol Pot for example, replaced the "lie" with an invented humanisistic ideaology that led to the killing fields.  It appears that that humanism is just as dangerous as religion. For me, I"ll take Abrahamic religion rather than gamble with humanism or undefined appeals to "logic or "justice". 
Originally posted by Athena

  We still are not being realistic and handling things scientifically and logically.
And how does one manage a global economy "realisticaly" and "logically"?   Communism, the last humanistic experiment, did not work.   In the end, I dont think humanistst are any more likely to be "logical" than theists. 
Originally posted by Athena

The first is the Christian attack on John Rockefeller and John Dewey and the change in education they brought about.  The second is the 1952 ,cold war, Christian inspired opposition to communism (those godless people)
I dont see the christian conspiracy here. The exportation of communism, including the policies of enforced or coerced atheism was a communist goal.  Why is it strange that another group who disagreed with this, say Christians, would actively oppose communism?    


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 11:43
How to determine truth?  That is science.  Science does make errors, but it remains open to being corrected.   Science may not have given us immortality, but it has a least doubled our life expectancy.  That means a lot of long lived people and this means a change in our consciousness.  Our awareness of ourselves and others, is definitely different at age 60.  The benefits of this are improved if the culture promotes life long learning.  Maybe the young who want adventure and to test themselves more than anything else, would choose Europe in the Middle ages over science we have today.   In the middle ages, superstition, and the church, very much stood in the way of science. 

Obviously we need something besides religion.   That is where culture comes in.  Liberal education advanced an excellent culture and is essential to liberty.   Christianity, without liberal education, is not so great, but it what Germany had.   You know, those folks we fought we in two world wars.  

While most civilizations have relied on religion for culture, this is not the only factor of culture.  Christianity has changed a lot over time, and is different in different places.  Western Christians even went to war with Orthodox Christians, sacking Amalfi, where they might have picked up the Pandects of Justinian, returning Roman law to Rome, and separating the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) from the church in Rome, restoring the power to the church based in Rome.   The Protestant Reformation Movement, being a refusal to submit the Holy Roman Empire to the base in Rome.   Leaving the Protestant Church even more autocratic and authoritarian than Catholism, because of a shift away from the "wise king", to the "powerful king".   LOL  like anyone is going to pick up this discussion and add anything to it.  I think not, but I am trying.

It may be easier for us to see the difference culture makes by looking at Muslims and Islam.  Yes, they all read the Koran, but they interpret it differently.  Some Muslims are doing well with science and modernization, and others are not, depending on the culture in which the Muslims find themselves.   If we think of Muslims as all camel riding, isolated tribes, and backwards people, prone to being terrorist, we are not well informed.   Bombing Iraq was a big mistake because this has been the door way between the east and west for centuries, and these were not backwards people living in isolated tribes, out of touch with the modern world.  

I think we are under estimating the power of culture, and we have not given adequate thought to what makes a culture as it is.   If we think our religions explain reality, we are not seeing the bigger picture, and that brings us to making bad decisions.   One of those very bad decisions is to replace liberal education with education for technology and leave moral training to the church.  The ramifications of this are really bad.    The Tea Party and the divisions that are tearing our nation apart are one aspect of the problem.  


Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 16:22
Originally posted by Athena

You all argue over the silliest things, like is a Kurd really a Kurd?  What difference does it make if populations are mixed or not, expect for what commerce does our knowledge of the world?   What country has the best fighting men?  Are you kidding me?  Really how meaningful is this?
 
I wholeheartedly agree! We argue over things that really won't help us in the long run or change anything. Why we don't debate over more meaningful things like the betterment of humanity as a whole, I'll never know... I once saw Lebanese and Turkish people, and other near easterners, arguing about whether Tabbouleh is originally a Turkish or Arabic dish. Arguing about food... that's quite pathetic really.
 
Anyway, religion to most people is important because it offers a system of ethics to the common people. But in my personal opinion, morality doesn't really require religion. In fact, you don't have to adhere to any specific belief system to have morality. So yes, religion's role in modern society is not as significant as it once was, and one may argue that it is a hindrance to progress and being tolerant of different beliefs.


-------------
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 16:36
 
''I wholeheartedly agree! We argue over things that really won't help us in the long run or change anything. Why we don't debate over more meaningful things like the betterment of humanity as a whole, I'll never know... I once saw Lebanese and Turkish people, and other near easterners, arguing about whether Tabbouleh is originally a Turkish or Arabic dish. Arguing about food... that's quite pathetic really.
 
Not unles your part Mestizo like me. Then it means everything.....do you really think I'd let a euro take credit for tiswin?Wink
 
Anyway, religion to most people is important because it offers a system of ethics to the common people. But in my personal opinion, morality doesn't really require religion. In fact, you don't have to adhere to any specific belief system to have morality. So yes, religion's role in modern society is not as significant as it once was, and one may argue that it is a hindrance to progress and being tolerant of different beliefs.'' (Arab's original)
 
Well if that's the case... then there's no use in my falling to my knees facing east and promoting my sudden conversion to all things zoroastrianism.
 
Hmmm. My dead Catholic Grandmother thanks you Arab, as do I, for pointing this out.
 
You have probably saved me from more then realize.Wink


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 16:49
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Not unles your part Mestizo like me. Then it means everything.....do you really think I'd let a euro take credit for tiswin?Wink
 
Well, in the case of Tabbouleh, it is a dish widely consumed in the Middle Eastern world. So arguing about it is pointless, since so many different people claim to have made it. But seriously, people who argue about who invented some food are the reason I won't ever visit that certain people's country... it shows a lot about their character Disapprove
 
Well if that's the case... then there's no use in my falling to my knees facing east and promoting my sudden conversion to all things zoroastrianism.
 
No, there isn't.


-------------
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 17:02
Originally posted by Arab

Originally posted by Athena

You all argue over the silliest things, like is a Kurd really a Kurd?  What difference does it make if populations are mixed or not, expect for what commerce does our knowledge of the world?   What country has the best fighting men?  Are you kidding me?  Really how meaningful is this?
 
I wholeheartedly agree! We argue over things that really won't help us in the long run or change anything. Why we don't debate over more meaningful things like the betterment of humanity as a whole, I'll never know... I once saw Lebanese and Turkish people, and other near easterners, arguing about whether Tabbouleh is originally a Turkish or Arabic dish. Arguing about food... that's quite pathetic really.
 
Anyway, religion to most people is important because it offers a system of ethics to the common people. But in my personal opinion, morality doesn't really require religion. In fact, you don't have to adhere to any specific belief system to have morality. So yes, religion's role in modern society is not as significant as it once was, and one may argue that it is a hindrance to progress and being tolerant of different beliefs.


A huge thank you, Arab.  I worded things very badly this morning and then posted too soon, because I had to leave.   I rewrote that very bad post before I realized others had already replied.  I thank you for giving better words to what I was trying to say.    I was praying someone would get my meaning.  

Yes, yes, yes, most of what we debate and argue about is so trivial.  Here we are with this golden opportunity to discuss history with people from all over the world and achieve the full potential of human intelligence, and people are arguing religion or are just completely ignoring the lessons of history.   Seriously, what if we are in the resurrection now?  What if archeologist and geologist and related sciences are doing the work of the resurrection?   What if the Internet is part of God's plan, and we are suppose to be here figuring things out?   What if this is our last change to figure things out, and if we blow it, this is where we stop?    Not because of God's judgments, but because of our own failure to figure things and out and get them right.  


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 17:02
Oh now Arab.... I personally wouldn't go so far as to not visit because you saw a few arguing over something that might be classified as mundane. (to them it obviously wasn't) And then draw a conclusion that it speaks of character...I would submit my friend, that's to early an analysis to have been drawn.....insufficient representation of data if you will.Wink
 
 
But your always welcome on my Llano and we could eat snakes..goats...lizards...rabbitts..(no easter ones tho) grasshoppers  and even beef...we got all that and more scattered around here. You might not drink alcoholic beverages.... but I can make a fine pine herb tea. Or lemonade.
 
So when ya can... come meet us. We can even discuss the perils and or merits of religion and whether it's the world's premier problem... if ya like.
 
Thanks


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 17:10
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

 
''I wholeheartedly agree! We argue over things that really won't help us in the long run or change anything. Why we don't debate over more meaningful things like the betterment of humanity as a whole, I'll never know... I once saw Lebanese and Turkish people, and other near easterners, arguing about whether Tabbouleh is originally a Turkish or Arabic dish. Arguing about food... that's quite pathetic really.
 
Not unles your part Mestizo like me. Then it means everything.....do you really think I'd let a euro take credit for tiswin?Wink
 
Anyway, religion to most people is important because it offers a system of ethics to the common people. But in my personal opinion, morality doesn't really require religion. In fact, you don't have to adhere to any specific belief system to have morality. So yes, religion's role in modern society is not as significant as it once was, and one may argue that it is a hindrance to progress and being tolerant of different beliefs.'' (Arab's original)
 
Well if that's the case... then there's no use in my falling to my knees facing east and promoting my sudden conversion to all things zoroastrianism.
 
Hmmm. My dead Catholic Grandmother thanks you Arab, as do I, for pointing this out.
 
You have probably saved me from more then realize.Wink


I am sorry, but all I see here is trivial and disruptive pot shots that might be an attempt at humor, but add nothing to what could be a meaningful discussion.   Could you please, reword the meaning of your thoughts so the meaningfulness of your contribution is  more obvious? 


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 17:17
Religious and cultural belief mechanisms are intertwined Athena..you don't understand this?
 
hmmmm.
 
 
If you do then your able to understand the post and the one that followed...if not..well I can't be responsible for that.
 
Sorry.
 
Potshot's? No...merely opinion-comment and reaction, as to the subject matter-comments, being presented... in this case by Arab. And last time I checked I was entiled as, a member, to do that.
 
Thanks
 
 


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 17:44
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Religious and cultural belief mechanisms are intertwined Athena..you don't understand this?
 
Not necessarily, especially our modern culture of today. You must understand that culture is always changing, but religion is not. One of the core elements of religion is that it cannot change. Thus, religion is pulling us back. In the future, religion and culture will not have such a close relationship.


-------------
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 18:29
Originally posted by Arab

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Religious and cultural belief mechanisms are intertwined Athena..you don't understand this?
 
Not necessarily, especially our modern culture of today. You must understand that culture is always changing, but religion is not. One of the core elements of religion is that it cannot change. Thus, religion is pulling us back. In the future, religion and culture will not have such a close relationship.
 
Well said Arab... certainly insofar as you point out the ongoing difficulties with culture and religion....but yet you  err.
 
1. The numbers of adherents alone betray your contention and they would in all probabilty disgaree that within their cultural base mechanism and it's changes they can.... ntl... still proscribe to a particular faith...or not as they so choose. One example will suffice....whether I am or am not a practicing Catholic (and I'm not) has little impact on whether I might use an appreciate the worldwide net and the cultural impact it has had on communications. We....you and I... are the exact example of that ongoing at this moment....Glorious don't you think?
 
2. It would be more accurate to say that religion historically... has changed only slowly. Yet as I pointed out in a previous post... certainly since the age of enlightment it has indeed continued to change. Not all faiths certainly not.... but a generalized statement is in sufficient when one considers the following examples.
 
a. The original doctrinal issues that drove the schism between the RCC and the Orthodox branches of Catholism.
 
b. The division that led to the schism between the RCC and the Protestant dvisions that were created. Or even the schismatic divisions within Islam (Sunni vs Shia) whose cutlures are not.. certainly not all synonomous.
 
c. The creation of even latter branchs of quasi-protestanism... the Mormons for example.
 
d. The recent acknowledgement publically... by the RCC... of the potential of Extraterrestrial life....beings and souls (totally unheard of less then 3 years ago and would have gotten us burned quicker then poor Giordano Bruno).
 
e. The main line acceptence of the American Episcopal Church and other Protestant denominations of women and homosexuals as Priests and Pastors. (MY God man.... think of the scandal less then 30 years ago...eh. delicious.Big smile) The still ongoing raging debate within the RCC reference Priests and marriage.
 
There are many more examples my friend and while it might be apt to describe these soley as issues of doctrinal message...that's an incomplete analysis and viewpoint that will not stand scrutiny.
 
As all of them may equally be ascribed to the interwoven relationship between culture and religion with the latter changing slowly to accomodate the former....rightly or wrongly is another matter.
 
But many thanks for your kind and  perspicacious manner....
 
I would be delighted to start the tea boiling.
 
Thanks  


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 18:46
As "atheist" will accept You,former sinners and religious members,but here we do not need member cards!
All that have same opinion with others will be expelled out of community!Free mind,freelancers  united
in disagreement forever!Is it possible this!We are all believers no matter what's the name of God?
  


Posted By: Arab
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 19:03

CV: Hmm, I stand corrected. Yes, you are absolutely right. Now that I think about it, religion can indeed change. But it cannot change completely, and will almost always keep its core beliefs. Usually religion is changed to suit the needs of greedy, corrupt governments. Organized religion is really just a form of government today.

Notice that I said organized religion. There's nothing wrong with spirituality, because that is a personal thing.


-------------
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 19:39
Originally posted by medenaywe

As "atheist" will accept You,former sinners and religious members,but here we do not need member cards!
All that have same opinion with others will be expelled out of community!Free mind,freelancers  united
in disagreement forever!Is it possible this!We are all believers no matter what's the name of God?
  
 
 
Most kind of you to offerBig smile
 
Alas... I will have to pass.... as my spirituality, as Arab aptly points out above, precludes me. For within it/that... there still remains an association with an organized religious philosphy and dogma...altho it has many times tried my patience....it was never the problem that this thread would attempt to portray it.
 
Ntl, friend Medenaywe you too.... as well as any who would promulgate free speech and beliefs....opinons... comments....counter comments and analysis are welcome to tea.
 
Just don't expect me to agree on everything.
 
Because I can guarantee you.... I would not expect you to agree with me on everything.Wink
 
Thanks
 
 


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2011 at 15:17
It is just me or does CV intend to be insulting?  Of course religions influence culture.   That is why this thread is titled "religion is the problem".   Religion is having a bad effect on our understanding of democracy and that is why I opened this thread.   However,  it is also, cultures influence religion.  


Posted By: Michael Collins
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2011 at 16:33
Originally posted by Athena

It is just me or does CV intend to be insulting?  Of course religions influence culture.   That is why this thread is titled "religion is the problem".   Religion is having a bad effect on our understanding of democracy and that is why I opened this thread.   However,  it is also, cultures influence religion.  


It's just you.


Now, I'll offer up my own two cents on "Religion is the Problem".


The Golden Rule of All major world religions is - to do onto your neighbour as you would have done unto yourself. Insofar as blaming religion for anything is far too general in my opinion, different societies, different religions, different cultures, different results. However, being general about it, look at this common element in the major world religions. Is this holding humanity back? Certainly not, for it is still a goal all humanity should aspire to. Have we yet achieved a society where this is done? No. So Religion is still pushing Humanity forward, rather than pulling it back in this respect.


As Regards the use of Religion for unintended purposes, e.g. the Crusades, that is not the fault of religion, but is as has  been pointed out, the fault of humanity. It is Humans who divide and who corrupt to their wills religion. And the alternative of Humanism is even more susceptible to this, for it has no guiding principle, nothing to corrupt other than society, an all too frequent occurrence. 


With Regard science as the driving force of society, I agree, to a certain extent. The advances made by science in areas like medicine are phenomenal. However, it is a mistake to reduce all knowledge to scientific knowledge. That is known as Scientism, and it is a self defeating concept. You see, it is in of itself a philosophical position, as science has never suggested as such. And therein lies the rub. There is another form of knowledge : Philosophical. Art, Justice etc. are not the realm of Science, but of philosophy. So too are religion, and democracy philosophical, rather than scientific concepts. And so religion is far more suited to influencing and inspiring society than science, for the forms of knowledge are agreeable, they reside in the same category. To use science as the driving force would be mismatching it to that to which it is not suited.


The Problem with the philosophy of Humanism driving society has been pointed out.





-------------
Is í labhairt a dteanga an moladh is mó is féidir linn a thabhairt dár namhaid.


Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2011 at 20:24
Very few people, if any, can live up to their ideals. Nevertheless, it is important to have them, it is what keeps us from total ego driven abandon. In the essence of Christianity is the implicit understanding of human weakness and so the gift of grace for the forgiveness of human failure.


Posted By: Michael Collins
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2011 at 20:28

"To Sin is Human,

To Forgive Divine"


- Alexander Pope



-------------
Is í labhairt a dteanga an moladh is mó is féidir linn a thabhairt dár namhaid.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 00:53
I think I will repeat the argument with CV.  How could he so miss the point, and ask:

"Religious and cultural belief mechanisms are intertwined Athena..you don't understand this?"

Yes, I do understand this and that is why I started this tread and titled it "religion is the problem".   We stopped transmitting our culture in 1958, and left moral training to the church.  This was a huge mistake, with terrible ramifications.   Only Christians, and not so wise folks, would have done this, because we can not have liberty without education for good moral judgment.  

It very seriously matters what we think causes things to happen, God, Satan, or bad human decisions.  To believe it is supernatural beings that make things happen is superstition, and this belief is not compatible with democracy, which needs to be based on an understanding of cause and effect.
The Tea Party appears to be Christian.   What we need to cut is military spending, not social spending.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 10:46
Originally posted by Athena

Yes, I do understand this and that is why I started this tread and titled it "religion is the problem".   We stopped transmitting our culture in 1958, and left moral training to the church. 
 
I have a suspiscion that the cultural literary canons that were used pre 1958 also included alot of Christian thinkers as well as a Christian analysis of morality. Post 1958, the public schools continued to teach morality with an increasing emphasis on humanistic morality.  Why do you think that  pre 1958 was a "golden age" for your views? 
Originally posted by Athena

To believe it is supernatural beings that make things happen is superstition, and this belief is not compatible with democracy,
This sounds like a quote from Mao's Little Red Book.  In either case, the line of thinking is identical.   I would much rather be governed under old religious "superstitions"  than by Mao's Red Book.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 12:36
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by Arab

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Religious and cultural belief mechanisms are intertwined Athena..you don't understand this?
 
Not necessarily, especially our modern culture of today. You must understand that culture is always changing, but religion is not. One of the core elements of religion is that it cannot change. Thus, religion is pulling us back. In the future, religion and culture will not have such a close relationship.



Well said Arab... certainly insofar as you point out the ongoing difficulties with culture and religion....but yet you  err.
 
1. The numbers of adherents alone betray your contention and they would in all probabilty disgaree that within their cultural base mechanism and it's changes they can.... ntl... still proscribe to a particular faith...or not as they so choose. One example will suffice....whether I am or am not a practicing Catholic (and I'm not) has little impact on whether I might use an appreciate the worldwide net and the cultural impact it has had on communications. We....you and I... are the exact example of that ongoing at this moment....Glorious don't you think?

2. It would be more accurate to say that religion historically... has changed only slowly. Yet as I pointed out in a previous post... certainly since the age of enlightment it has indeed continued to change. Not all faiths certainly not.... but a generalized statement is in sufficient when one considers the following examples.
  

a. The original doctrinal issues that drove the schism between the RCC and the Orthodox branches of Catholism.
 
b. The division that led to the schism between the RCC and the Protestant dvisions that were created. Or even the schismatic divisions within Islam (Sunni vs Shia) whose cutlures are not.. certainly not all synonomous.
 
c. The creation of even latter branchs of quasi-protestanism... the Mormons for example.
 
d. The recent acknowledgement publically... by the RCC... of the potential of Extraterrestrial life....beings and souls (totally unheard of less then 3 years ago and would have gotten us burned quicker then poor Giordano Bruno).
 
e. The main line acceptence of the American Episcopal Church and other Protestant denominations of women and homosexuals as Priests and Pastors. (MY God man.... think of the scandal less then 30 years ago...eh. delicious.Big smile) The still ongoing raging debate within the RCC reference Priests and marriage.
 
There are many more examples my friend and while it might be apt to describe these soley as issues of doctrinal message...that's an incomplete analysis and viewpoint that will not stand scrutiny.
 
As all of them may equally be ascribed to the interwoven relationship between culture and religion with the latter changing slowly to accomodate the former....rightly or wrongly is another matter.
 
But many thanks for your kind and  perspicacious manner....
 
I would be delighted to start the tea boiling.
 
Thanks  

 
Good, now shall we discuss how Sumer, Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian theology influenced Judaism, and the division of Christianity, and again the division of Islam?   Then the division of Roman Christian that is Protestantism, and all its subdivisions?  What were the conditions of these changes?   How was this changing influenced by concepts of democracy and in turn how did the religion influence democracy in the US?   All this would make interesting discussion. 

However, the fundamental problem as I see it is the difference between believing it is supernatural beings that control what happens on earth, and not believing this.  


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 12:55
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Athena

Yes, I do understand this and that is why I started this tread and titled it "religion is the problem".   We stopped transmitting our culture in 1958, and left moral training to the church. 
 
I have a suspiscion that the cultural literary canons that were used pre 1958 also included alot of Christian thinkers as well as a Christian analysis of morality. Post 1958, the public schools continued to teach morality with an increasing emphasis on humanistic morality.  Why do you think that  pre 1958 was a "golden age" for your views? 
Originally posted by Athena

To believe it is supernatural beings that make things happen is superstition, and this belief is not compatible with democracy,
This sounds like a quote from Mao's Little Red Book.  In either case, the line of thinking is identical.   I would much rather be governed under old religious "superstitions"  than by Mao's Red Book.


I love your reply!  You have opened whole new areas of investigation.   You really make me think and this is best reason to be here. 

Have you read Mao's Red Book?  I have not, but from what I heard of it, it is worth studying, if there is a shared interest in reading it and comparing it to Christianity and discussing what went wrong.  

What is your evidence of increased moral training?  If I understand you correctly, the sporadic efforts have played into the moral breakdown, creating amorality.  Somewhere someone said the problem with democracy is there is nothing equal to a bible.  There is no absolute belief in a God and Satan, but everything is open to reason.   This makes it much harder to have liberty without evolving into anarchy and then back to tyranny.    Especially bankers must not be amoral people, because they can bring down the whole economy.   


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 13:07
Originally posted by unclefred

Very few people, if any, can live up to their ideals. Nevertheless, it is important to have them, it is what keeps us from total ego driven abandon. In the essence of Christianity is the implicit understanding of human weakness and so the gift of grace for the forgiveness of human failure.


What of those who grow up on stories of the gods who are as imperfect as humans?  I don't think we have to believe in these gods to benefit from their lessons, and I think they benefited us when we had liberal education.  For example, there are a few stories of youthful folly, and it went with the idea that youth can act rashly.   Science is proving this out.   It also went with the idea that age 30 is still youth, and we should respect our elders.   This makes a difference in our social behaviors and how we handle matters like justice.

Can we compare that to believing people do not have God and morals, unless they attend the right Church, and there is a Satan who causes evil on earth, and there are good and evil people, and than prosecuting a youth as an adult in a criminal court, and incarcerating a youth with adults in prisons designed intentional or unintentionally (over crowding, lack of opportunity for constructive activity) for suffering and punishment.   I think we have a criminal justice system problem. 


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2011 at 13:29
Originally posted by Michael Collins

Originally posted by Athena

It is just me or does CV intend to be insulting?  Of course religions influence culture.   That is why this thread is titled "religion is the problem".   Religion is having a bad effect on our understanding of democracy and that is why I opened this thread.   However,  it is also, cultures influence religion.  


It's just you.


Now, I'll offer up my own two cents on "Religion is the Problem".


The Golden Rule of All major world religions is - to do onto your neighbour as you would have done unto yourself. Insofar as blaming religion for anything is far too general in my opinion, different societies, different religions, different cultures, different results. However, being general about it, look at this common element in the major world religions. Is this holding humanity back? Certainly not, for it is still a goal all humanity should aspire to. Have we yet achieved a society where this is done? No. So Religion is still pushing Humanity forward, rather than pulling it back in this respect.


As Regards the use of Religion for unintended purposes, e.g. the Crusades, that is not the fault of religion, but is as has  been pointed out, the fault of humanity. It is Humans who divide and who corrupt to their wills religion. And the alternative of Humanism is even more susceptible to this, for it has no guiding principle, nothing to corrupt other than society, an all too frequent occurrence. 


With Regard science as the driving force of society, I agree, to a certain extent. The advances made by science in areas like medicine are phenomenal. However, it is a mistake to reduce all knowledge to scientific knowledge. That is known as Scientism, and it is a self defeating concept. You see, it is in of itself a philosophical position, as science has never suggested as such. And therein lies the rub. There is another form of knowledge : Philosophical. Art, Justice etc. are not the realm of Science, but of philosophy. So too are religion, and democracy philosophical, rather than scientific concepts. And so religion is far more suited to influencing and inspiring society than science, for the forms of knowledge are agreeable, they reside in the same category. To use science as the driving force would be mismatching it to that to which it is not suited.

The Problem with the philosophy of Humanism driving society has been pointed out.



I have to argue your point that religion pushes us forward instead of holds us back.   Christianity has stood the way of science.  We know the church prevented Galileo from talking about what he saw in his telescope.   It prevented Chardin from publishing too.  I forget his name, it prevent the a bishop from working on his genetic studies, using peas.  In general the belief it is demons that make sick, that lead to believing the medicine the Arabs practiced with the Black arts, and lead to witch hunts, and retarded the most basic medical development of sanitation.   

Religion stood in the way of democracy.  John Locke's arguments against the rights of kings are perhaps the best known.   The bible assumes kings and slaves, as the foundation of social order, and was used to defend slavery.   However, by the time slavery was an issue in the US there was also literacy in the Greek and Roman classics and it was those with this literacy who won the struggle against slavery.  

Please, define the problem with humanism?  There is something good and something bad about everything.  Water is essential to life, but if it is polluted, it kills.  The problem with the water or with anything else needs to be defined, in order to deal with it.   

I do not believe religion is better than science for social decisions.  "The Science of Good & Evil" by Michael Shermer offers us much more hope for better decision than holy books.   However, the Hindu holy book, Bhagavad-Gita,  is pretty good.  We are animals and our morality is tied to this fact.  The more realistic we get about our nature, the better our decisions will be.   Our modern child rearing practices and are a huge improvement over trying to beat the devil out of our children.  Our justice system still has a long ways to go, and I hope the Tea Party goes down the boat.  





Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2011 at 10:29
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

It's an apt point.... but more specifically... imo... that which drove the division was the 'age of enlightenment' subsequent civil reaction both affirmative and negative.. and the advent of socialist and marxist ideologies. And to a lesser degree the ongoing nationalism by varying states as they reacted to the aforementioned.
 
Just a thought.
 
Thanks


The enlightenment, following literacy in Greek and Roman classics.   This is looking to nature, not holy books, and brings us to science.  This is the point I want to stress, and is what behind the democracy in the US.  There are no chosen people, and no revelations from God.  There is nature and humans.   Morality is in our genes and we have much to learn by studying animals.   This should not be blocked out with superstition.  


Posted By: Galleon
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2011 at 14:48
Originally posted by William R. Stimson

 
 

The meditation retreat was the first I'd attended since the Islamic terrorists piloted the passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I settled onto the cushion for the morning’s very first meditation. My whole body was a knot of tension. "How to continue writing about the religious when this is what the masses distort religion into?" was my quandary. My writing had ground to a halt since the terrorist attack. As I sat there, I felt at a loss for a way to proceed. Suddenly, out of the blue, something a woman had told me years before sprang to mind — "It takes a long time to settle the body; then, even longer still to settle the mind." I'd seen that woman sit cross-legged through several meditation periods in a row without getting up to stretch in between. When the retreat ended, I'd marveled at her ability to do this. She'd given me that reply. It seemed strange the woman's words would so suddenly pop up now, years later. I realized this was my cue. I resolved to sit through the stretch period and on into the next meditation session.

Immediately I began. I was startled to discover right off that this method didn't call for me to do anything. The doing came from some agency outside myself. I hadn't exactly ever meditated like this before. It didn't feel quite Buddhist, but almost Christian. I had a tightness in my jaw, my throat and my upper chest. I didn't concern myself with remedying the situation. I did nothing. I sat there quiet and immobile feeling like a Teresa of Avila doing her prayer of silence, faithfully awaiting the miracle. Attentively, I followed the patterns of tension in my body as they collapsed and flowed into new and different designs. I watched the tightnesses subside, gradually and of their own accord. I discovered how quickly a blockage can vanish and completely open up so that, moment by moment, I was not in the same condition anymore. A pain in my leg vanished by itself. After a time I was surprised to note the tightness in my chest and throat was gone. The bell rang, signaling the end of the meditation period. I didn't move as the others around me got up to stretch. I sat through into the next meditation period.

Well into the next period, it dawned on me at one point: my whole body was calm and relaxed. I shifted attention to my mind. Hardly a moment passed before I found it overrun with a complicated train of thought about Islamic terrorists and the military operations against them. I didn't try to stop thinking or redirect my attention towards physical sensations or the breath. I did nothing. I sat absolutely still and observed the thinking. The rapid train of thoughts gradually flowed slower and slower. In the end, just one single thought remained in my mind, like a still frame in a reel of film that had stopped moving. Then, that last thought shattered and burst open. An almost hallucinatory aliveness broke through from within it or behind it and flooded me. I sat there totally and completely at peace. An exquisite repose filled the room. I felt at one with everything and everyone all around.

Religious experience is a direct and transformative encounter with the unconditional. Religion is conditional — the opposite. This one here, that one there; this one for us, that one for them; this one believes one thing, that one something else. Every religion undertakes to condition its believers to hold certain things true, not others; to behave in one way, not another.

A religious realization is alive — a creature of the timeless instant. It comes like a lover’s unexpected touch, informs us of something we could not possibly say, and then is gone. Each world religion is a failed attempt to say what cannot be said, understand what cannot be understood. Extending all around us in every direction is a terrain where we might at any moment find ourselves standing in the light. The religions are merely maps, pieces of paper in our hands — ridiculously antique; museum pieces. Useful — yes, but in the way things in a museum are useful: to show us where we can go, what terrain great souls in the past have tread.

As often as religion delivers us into religious experience, it performs the opposite function. This is true of all the religions. Preaching peace, the Christian nations wage war. For divine love, Muslim diehards seethe with virulent hatred. In the name of the law, Jews shamelessly disregard other peoples. To impart wisdom, Zen Buddhists resort to indoctrination during their meditation retreats.

How a religious experience gets distorted into is opposite is not hard to imagine. A lone individual in the distant past is illumined with the religious dimension. He comes away with love, compassion, understanding, tolerance and a fervent desire to help others and protect and serve all living beings on earth. In an attempt to convey to others the inexpressible, he resorts to metaphor, much like a poet does. Those who write down his words and pass them on into history are hardly illumined to the same degree. They reify the metaphor into narrative. In doing so they turn divine truth on its head. The metaphor of a Promised Land, used to convey the way the world all around feels when one leads an enlightened life, is mistaken for a geographic locale. The metaphor of the ?Jihad? or Holy War, used to describe the relentless confrontation with the selfish ego necessary if one is to find his true nature, is mistaken for the butchering of innocent practitioners of a different religious tradition. The metaphor of walking on water, used to illustrate the ease, peace and repose with which the selfless one moves with such a light step, so unburdened of himself, wherever he goes, is taken literally as an example of a supernatural miracle that happened in the historical past.

Religion is all about belief. Yet so much of what we believe, especially about the unfathomable religious dimension, is a mistake — a mistranslation, a reification. In international New York, I see more and more evidence every day that this is being realized by people from all over the world. In America, in Europe — in the East and the West — the old thought constructs of the religions are falling away and out from underneath them is coming the light that gave rise to these traditions in the first place and caused them to touch people's hearts and spread across the globe. This illumination is real, more real than the religions themselves, and it unites all the traditions and all mankind into one single brotherhood.

 
 
Sources: https://www.ahpweb.org/articles/religionproblem.html - https://www.ahpweb.org/articles/religionproblem.html


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2011 at 13:36
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Athena

Yes, I do understand this and that is why I started this tread and titled it "religion is the problem".   We stopped transmitting our culture in 1958, and left moral training to the church. 
 
I have a suspiscion that the cultural literary canons that were used pre 1958 also included alot of Christian thinkers as well as a Christian analysis of morality. Post 1958, the public schools continued to teach morality with an increasing emphasis on humanistic morality.  Why do you think that  pre 1958 was a "golden age" for your views?  [QUOTE=Athena]


Humanism is the intellectual movement that stemmed from the study of Greek and Roman classics classics during the Middle Ages.  This is the church using the classics for education to validate it is the authority on truth.  This became scholasticism and eventual became a rebellion against authority.  I am not sure this was promoted by the 1958 National Defense Education Act, but I will have start looking for text books published during this time to check that out.   The social changes following the 1958 act did lead to social upheaval we and have not worked our through it yet.  Developing humanism, sure is not the result of budget cuts and federal demands of education.  

Christianity without education for democracy is not the same as Christianity with education for democracy.  So yes, Christians strongly influenced public education.   But these were Christians well educated for democracy and the violent history that assured us freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  They no longer exist in the seats of power. 

I came to God through old text books, but this God is free from religious dogma.   It is
God as an Athenian may have contemplated god, and an understanding of morality that is PAGAN  Athenian and Roman considerations of morality that far sure are not longer a part of daily consciousness.   One of the worst problems with Judaism and Christianity is the repeated lie that the world was without morals until the Hebrews got a special message from God about morals.   No, no, no, a moral is a matter of cause and effect and the Athenians studied this intensely, and later the Roman's picked this up.  

Rule by law, is suppose to mean God's law, not man's law.  God did not give man laws, despite what the Jews, Christians and Muslims say about this.  God did not walk around Eden with Adam and Eve and later come to Moses in a burning bush.  No angels came with special messages from God.  This is all mythology.  The mythology has some very positive effects on people, and some negative effects, but it does not give us God's laws, and in a democracy rule by law must mean rule by God's laws.   Here is where you need Athena.  Not me, but the goddess of my name sake.  She taught men how to govern themselves.  This is a different mythology.  

We can know we are made in the image of the Gods, because we can think and we can reason.  This is how we come to know morals.  Moral is to know good manners and the law.  The law being God's law.  How do we know God's law?  Reading holy books gives us much knowledge of the subject, but these books are human reasoning not the word of God.  To know God's laws we must develop our own thinking and reasoning.   Because religion prevents the masses from doing this, it is the problem.   Democracy ideally teaches people how to think.  Religion teaches them what to think, and represses the how to think part.   Education for technology, leaves moral training to the church, and because this depends on superstition, this is a disaster.  

Galleon, your  contribution is important to the point.  If I understand you correctly, it is the difference between the written word and the inner word?   Education for technology prepares to rely on the authority of others, rather doing every experiment for ourselves, we agree to accept the research of others, if it meets the standards for good research.  This makes it possible to advance technology rapidly.  Religion too asks us to rely on the authority of a holy book.  For many years this might religion that controlled people with a fear of God and dependency on His blessings.   But to learn scientific fasts through a book, is not the same as discovering them ourselves.  Religion given to us from a book, is not the same as an inner awakening of spiritual truth.   Shalom


Posted By: ralfy
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 05:36
From what I know, much of the conflict of the twentieth century revolved around secular and not religious issues, particularly nationalism and ethnic strife. One of the reasons for engaging in conflict is the need to "defend democracy," which in various cases often involved realpolitik, e.g., plans to control natural resources in a particular country.



Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 06:28
Originally posted by ralfy

From what I know, much of the conflict of the twentieth century revolved around secular and not religious issues, particularly nationalism and ethnic strife. One of the reasons for engaging in conflict is the need to "defend democracy," which in various cases often involved realpolitik, e.g., plans to control natural resources in a particular country.

 
That has been an issue for thousands of years... intercoupled with conquest and utilization-demand of assets and resources...just to name a few. Which can clearly and finally delineate that religon in and of itself is not the problem as this thread has attempted to identify. But a factor conjoined with varying other aspects of social-cultural developement within an ethnic group or geo-physical region.
 
I can rest easy now.
 
Yes...to quote Bill Shakespeare.... you remind me of this....
 
SHYLOCK:
A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!
 
Clap  -


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 08:53
Originally posted by ralfy

From what I know, much of the conflict of the twentieth century revolved around secular and not religious issues, particularly nationalism and ethnic strife. One of the reasons for engaging in conflict is the need to "defend democracy," which in various cases often involved realpolitik, e.g., plans to control natural resources in a particular country.
Or the attempted exportation of a communism, a humanistic ideology. Ironicaly, even the implementation of the this humanistic ideology (presented as an alternative to religion) led to the avoidable deaths of millions of people in the USSR, China and Cambodia.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 09:51
I sure wish you would name those issues.  What country has worried us that did not practice democracy?  Germany was a Christian Republic.   China is so into democracy, all decisions are made in groups.  The USSR also practiced democracy.   I wish the pressed had not misrepresented communism.  Communism uses a form of democracy, so the issue with communist is not democracy, but private property verses public property.  

Now for defending resources.  I believe it makes a difference if people realize oil is finite and needs to be shared with the world, or if they are really unaware of that, and believe they enjoy the good life because they are Christians and God blesses them.   President Reagan lied to the everyone when he said it was not necessary to conserve oil.  He replaced Carter who told the truth and had began a strong program for converting to alternative energy.  Reagan undid what Carter started and remove solar cells from the roof of the White House, and made the recession worse for economic victims by denying their reality and blaming the poor for the economic problems caused by the oil embargo.   Then he turned all our resources to securing oil in the mid east.  Bush was following through with this, and the Christian right elected Bush and reelected him, and supported the invasion of Iraq based religious reasons!  All they knew of the war is a Muslim was behind 9/11 and we were attacking Muslims.   Being ignorant of oil and why this Muslim attacked, they believed more lies.   Billy Graham did a very moving Christmas show about how God wants young men to serve in Iraq.  War is good for religion and religion is good for war. 

Then their there is the Christian Zionism that supports Israel.  The Israelis are doing to Palestinians what the good Christian country of the US did to native Americans.  Yes this is a competition for resources, but it is done with religious zeal, and in the case of Israel is supported by US citizens for religious reasons.   


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 10:39
Originally posted by Athena

Germany was a Christian Republic.  
Germany was not a Christian Republic.  Germany was a secular state with the majority of the population being Christian (both nominal and devout).  Likewise, Turkey is not an "Islamic Republic", but is also a secular state with an Islamic majority. 
 
 


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 10:51
European countries are secular states.Except Vatican city state:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108136.html - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108136.html  


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 11:16
Cryptic,  a huge thank you for causing me to think about what I think, and motivating me to google for more information.  I wish this would happen more often, because it really makes my day when I have to think about what I think.  Not until I posted did I realize I need to explain things differently.

Here is a good site explaining religious democracy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_democracy

Germany was a religious democracy that turned against Jews.   We all know European Christian countries discriminated against Jews and that this came to justify the UN supporting Israel.   We also know in North America there was prejudice against Native Americans and their heathen beliefs.  This almost doomed us to the complete destruction of our environment, because Christians so totally rejected the concept of the earth being one living organism.  You know, understanding reality form such a pagan point of viewShocked.   Thank heavens, despite the Christian resistance to science, science proved these heathens were right, and we are now making efforts to heal our planet.    

We have progressed, but especially in a history forum where we present history to the world, it is important we present it accurately.    Our democracies are not without their religious prejudices and there is blood on their hands because of religion.   But even worse is the lie that it is Christianity that made us great, instead of understanding the importance of democracy to our success.   The US is political democracy, that lacks an understanding of the ideology of democracy. 

The ideology of democracy comes from Athens and is pagan.  Basic to this ideology is an understanding of cause and effect.  If you cut down the trees, you destroy the habitat of all the animals and plants that depend on the forest, and because our planet is one living organism, what happens to one part effects the rest.  Therefore, it is immoral to destroy the forest, or pollute the waters.  Simply put, our industrial revolution was very immoral, and while we were being very immoral, we were thanking God for our blessings, and assuming He would continue to bless us as long as we worshiped Him and kept his commandments.  That is, the religion is based on superstition, not a good understanding of our planet, so it leads to immorality, and justifies wars that are most immoral.  We were the world's supply of oil.  Exporting oil was one of the biggest contributors to our national wealth, and our uncontrolled, gluttonness consumption of it, threatens the whole world.     

Muslims are having a big problem with the immorality of our Christian nation, and we are arming ourselves to defend against them.   We even invade their countries, and have done so prepared to defend oil fields but not the civilians.  This has evidently set off a lot of violence that is spreading from one country to another, just as feared, when Bush Senior had the wisdom to not invade Iraq.   You know, the principle of cause and effect?  If you do this, that will happen.    Which is a whole lot different from  Bush Junior using the Christian Evangelist, Billy Graham, to do a Christian show and convince us that God wants our young men to serve in Iraq.   The US is religious democracy, because that is what its dominate consciousness is.

The ideology of democracy has a different mythology.  That mythology accepts there is a God, but this is not a God who acts on whims according to if He is pleased or not.  This God, does not have any favorites, and does not have angels and demons.  He doesn't give anyone special messages that are not open and free to all equally, because they are the  manifestation of nature, not words from supernatural beings.    We can not fully manifest democracy, until we drop the superstition of a God who can be pleased or displeased, just like all the other gods, with personalities, likes and dislikes, and chosen people.   The true  God is not going to save us from ourselves, but a democracy free of superstition can.  



Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2011 at 12:47
Originally posted by medenaywe

European countries are secular states.Except Vatican city state:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108136.html - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108136.html  


Some European countries today, are more secular than the US.   I think that is a good thing, and hope the US moves in this direction a little faster.  


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2011 at 10:20
 
Originally posted by Athena

  This almost doomed us to the complete destruction of our environment, because Christians so totally rejected the concept of the earth being one living organism. 
Is this a genuine Native American religous belief, or a new age belief created in the 1970s?     There were hundreds of tribes and hundreds of religions.  Some may or may not of had the earth as our mother belief.  New agers have been tampering with and romanticizing genuine native american beliefs for two generations.
http://www.thetrackingproject.org/writeups/theftofspirit.htm - http://www.thetrackingproject.org/writeups/theftofspirit.htm
And also adding corny eco-wisdom phrases to the speeches of real Native American leaders like Chief Seattle.
http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920221 - http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920221
 
 
Originally posted by Athena

 Thank heavens, despite the Christian resistance to science, science proved these heathens were right, and we are now making efforts to heal our planet.    
Native Americans were no more and no less likely to practice good stewardship than Christians.  The fundamental difference was that Native Americans were far fewer in number and lacked the technology to make truly serious environmental errors. Transporting animal products for economic profit was also harder.  Even still...
 
Native Americans ran entire herds driven over cliffs because it was easy.  This practice involved alot of waste, just like some European practices.  
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section3/montanacities/greatfalls/ulmpishkun/ - http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section3/montanacities/greatfalls/ulmpishkun/
http://www.buffalojump.org/ - http://www.buffalojump.org/
 
Native Americans also over loaded local agricultural systems leading to collapses.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html - http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html
 
And, probalby used technology (clovis spear points) to rapidly hunt certain large animals to extinction.
http://www.geologyclass.org/cambrian_concepts82.htm - http://www.geologyclass.org/cambrian_concepts82.htm
 
 


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2011 at 20:07
I have come across more accounts of native Americans caring for environment since we have become more concerned about accurate explanations of the past.  I am in a hurry or I would google for links to validate this is a newer discovery.  Many native people around the world live with a mythology that a deity told them they are to care for the earth. 

The most impressive explanation of native Americans believing the earth is one living organism, and how resistant we were to this idea, came from a science paper.  I sure wish I could link to that one and put an end to your doubt, which is curious to me.  


Are you suggesting we haven't been darn careless, deforesting the east and pushing the timber industry further and further west, turning areas of rivers, lakes and the ocean into dead zones with our pollution?   Eugene Oregon industry used the Willamette River as a sewage dump, and nothing nice was build along the river.  A good thing is in more recent years we were able to create beautiful parks and there are some nice privately owned areas along what used to be avoid land.   We have a governor who is restoring as much natural habitate as we possible, and we are having an amazing return of birds. 

Perhaps you mean, native Americans who lived closely with the land and nature, didn't become aware of the effect they had in it?   Or is it just the earth as one living organism concept that you don't believe?   I thought someone would argue the bible tells us to be good stewerts of the land.
The idea that we need to care for the earth is not totally foreign to religion.  Muslims may stress it more than Christians? 


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2011 at 21:50
Originally posted by Athena


Perhaps you mean, native Americans who lived closely with the land and nature, didn't become aware of the effect they had in it?  
No, not at all.  I am only saying that Native Americans should neither be stereotyped nor romanticized into new ager, ideal people.  As the sources I have posted links to indicate, Native Americans were no more and no less likely to be good stewards of the land than Christians.
 
The reason why native americans had a far less environmental impact is not because they were all eco wise, just that they had a smaller population base, less technology and transporting animal products for sale was more difficult.
Originally posted by Athena

Are you suggesting we haven't been darn careless, deforesting the east and pushing the timber industry further and further west, turning areas of rivers, lakes and the ocean into dead zones with our pollution?   Eugene Oregon industry used the Willamette River as a sewage dump,
I made no comments either  for or against modern industry anywhere in my post.  Rather, the entire post was illustrating that native american cultures are being turned into new age mush.  This only serves to further damage Native American culture.
 
Originally posted by Athena

Many native people around the world live with a mythology that a deity told them they are to care for the earth. 
And so do Christians, Jews and in all probablility, Muslims.    These groups are no more and no less likely to care for the environment and have the same environmental impact proportion to population and technology as the historical  native americans people (not the new ager version).  
 
 


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2011 at 11:22
Thank you for giving me reason to think on this.   You have really made my day.   Because you pushed the point, I realized at the base of my thinking is a knowing (body, feeling and mind) that animism is what feels right to me, and that the God of Abraham religions do not.

I don't know when human consciousness got cut off from the spirit world, as Judaism and Christianity do, but Rome was materialistic, so I suspect the major change in consciousness happened there.  The God of Abraham is separate from us, and we became separated from the whole of nature.  But since I was a child I responded to the soul of trees, and this was well before New Age thinking.  I am not saying this is a scientifically better understanding of reality, but my feeling about life and death is a lot better when I hold a concept of spirituality that Christianity has opposed.  I perhaps should not have said this consciousness is native American, but so far all my information is about how before Christianity, aboriginal people had a different consciousness.  

Animism is a sense that everything is spiritual in nature.  Quantum physics returns to this thinking of what it is that manifest reality as we experience it.   I am in favor of New Age thinking, because thinking quantum physically is such a different consciousness, bringing the east and west together, and and it comes with the sciences that bring the past into the present.   If we think about this wholistically, our consciousness is completely changed isn't it?   Not that long ago, hurting for sport was considered as natural as rain in Oregon.  Men enjoyed trophies of animal horns and heads on their walls, and women enjoyed their furs.  Older movies glamorized this, and offend today's sensitivities.  At the same time many Christians are demanding more spiritualism in church services.   There is a problem with separating spirit from nature.  There is a problem with separating man from both nature and God!   

 


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2011 at 14:44
Originally posted by Athena

I perhaps should not have said this consciousness is native American, but so far all my information is about how before Christianity, aboriginal people had a different consciousness.    
I think you are 100% right.  Aboriginal people seem to have different concepts of cause and effect and do not seem follow all the "rules" of aristoltelian logic.  Needless to say Aristotle's rules of logic dominate western thinking and the modern day practice of Abrahamic religions. 
 
I wonder if a close study of aboriginal languages would reveal many language structures that violate artistotlian logic.  That would be very interesting.
 
 
Originally posted by Athena

I realized at the base of my thinking is a knowing (body, feeling and mind) that animism is superior to God of Abraham religions, and this makes Christianity a terrible lie, because it prevented us from having the experience of our connectedness with life.   
I disagree with you here.  People identify what is important to their survival and then usually spend alot of thought and recesources caring for that thing regardless of their religion.  Technology is the difference, not amnism verse Christianity
 
For example, an amnist hunter gatherer and a pre industrial Christian subsistance farmer both realize that their survival is closely linked to the environment.  Both obtain and use an incredible amount of cultural knowledge on succesfully living with in the environment.
 
Both can make mistakes, but technology limits how bad those mistakes can be. The amnist hunter gatherer can only run one herd of buffalo off a jump (he cant wipe out all herds with repeating rifles).  Meanwhile the pre industrial Christian subsistance farmer can slash and burn fields ( but he cannot bulldoze the entire Amazon.)  
 
Technology allows both amnists and Christians to think they can live out side the environment (more room for error, not all livliihoods are directly linked to the environment,  food can be imported etc).  Technology also allows for the mistakes of amnists and Christians to be bigger.
 
 


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2011 at 15:30
My gosh, conversation is so enjoyable when people share some agreements and disagree on some points. 

Interestingly more cultures than Judo/Christian/Muslim ones have stories of humans being made from mud.  Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell speak of shared symbolism, because we share being humans in common.  This symbolism will come up in the mythology of quite diverse people, such as humans being made of mud and serpents as spiritual beings.

Now the big difference is do we believe the wolf and the bison are our brothers, or do we believe, humans are not part of the animal world?  What is our nature?   What is the nature of spirit?  Is spirit something internal to all things, or something that is external?   Are we humans who can have a spiritual experience, or spirits having a human experience?  Could we have a wolf or bison experience? 

Do only humans have souls or do all things have souls/spirits?  J/C/M religions tell us we fell and are separated from God, and are born into sin, and need to be born again in Jesus Christ if we are to have eternal life.  Often times Christianity has treated nature as an evil.  Christians have claimed only through Jesus can we know God and morals, and can our souls be saved.  Why?  The need of a deified human to save my soul, is not appealing to me on any level.  What kind of magic is this?   Who has the authority to externalize God from my very being or to deny the spirit of all living things?   When I die, will I be with my loved ones and loving God, or will I be isolated in a dark place of suffering, or will I just return to the Tao, or will I just cease to exist?  Hum, I think my ego "I" will cease to exist when it becomes one with the Tao.    

I really want to get into what you said about technology, but the baby woke up. 


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2011 at 10:10
Originally posted by Athena

 
Do only humans have souls or do all things have souls/spirits?  J/C/M religions tell us we fell and are separated from God, and are born into sin,
 
Christians have claimed only through Jesus can we know God and morals, and can our souls be saved.  Why?   
 
What about the paganism of complex societies such as Greeks, Romans and Egyptians?  Do these also have external gods and external religous / moral codes?   If so, the external God move might mean that society wide religious codes, moral codes and religious experiences are needed for large complex societies.  Shamanism might only work in small societies.
 
It would be interesting to see if the Hopi and Pueblo Indian religions (relaitively large societeis)  are shamanistic or have more in common with external religions.  Neighboring  Navohos traditionaly lived in smaller groups.  Maybe their traditional religion is more shamanstic.  But.... if large societies need external, society wide religious sytems, why did the ancient Israelites become fervently and 100% external while still a small tribal society?   Maybe it was a fluke? 
Originally posted by Athena

 
I really want to get into what you said about technology, but the baby woke up. 
I truly think that technology (or the lack of) is the overwhelming reason why some groups damage the environment more than others rather than an idea that amnists are inherently eco-wise and Abrahamic religions are inherently not.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2011 at 23:49
Cryptic, I am so impressed by your answer! That was a spark of genius, and I hope I never forget your explanation for externalized divine authority.   Your suggestions for further research are excellent.   Perhaps I should stop talking and start reading.   I am not sure if I have the information now needed for this discussion, in my library, but I will look for it, and contemplate what you said  tonight when I retire.   Off the top of my head, I can say for sure the Egyptians had many gods, but did not externalize divine authority.  Confused   Wow you handed me a thinking puzzle that is really going to take some work! 

However, for the Hebrews, Abraham comes from Ur and Ur was a city of Sumer.   At least five biblical stories appear to be translations of Sumerian stories.  These were stories of many gods, that were adjusted to be stories of one God, and this may have occurred after Amenhotep attempted to force monotheism on Egypt, possibly leading to the followers of the new religion fleeing Egypt and traveling to what was once Sumer, and searching the archives of Sumer as they may have searched the archives of Egypt for knowledge of the true God?  Writing!  that is the missing piece of the puzzle you have gave me!   The written word, became the authority of truth, as opposed to the personal experience. 

Thinking that instead of there being many gods there is only God, is not so special.  Native Americans commonly held a concept of a Creator.  When people worshiped the Mother Goddess, there was one God, but in Sumer life had become so complex these people created bureaucracy to manage the complexity of the culture. This is recognizing the need to break things down into different task and delegate responsibility.  Obvious, from this consciousness, one God or Goddess could not do everything alone, so there must be many of them.   The problem with many gods is you have to add one everytime you realize a new concept, and eventually the complexity of gods and goddesses becomes unmanageable. 

But back to Amenhotep.  It was his grandfather who started the search of archives for the true God.  This reduced the number of gods to one, Ra the sun god.  Which may not be so different from the sun god of south America.   As Jung would explain, we share the human experience, so we come up with the same ideas.   Zoroastrianism also tilted towards the worship of one God, and Hebrews were worshiping several gods until they too settled on one God, after God punished them for worshiping several gods, according to their own mythology.   Perhaps this worship of one God, is the result of their contact with Persia, and Cyrus, and Zoroastrianism?  I don't know, the stories are so confusing!  People move around and their names change, and counting the date backwards from 1 BC confuses the heck out of me, so my brain can not figure out what happened when. 

However all these historical events played together, there is that moment when we externalized the spirit, and thanks to you Cryptic, I want to know about that moment.   I am going to search my library now.   Hopefully I stay awake long enough to get some reading done. 

About technology- today it is the low tech people who are doing some of the worst damage to the environment.   This is a critical problem today, as growing populations of low tech people are stressing eco-systems.   If they depend on wood for fuel, they deforest their region.  Then they use animal dung for fuel and this prevents the animal dung from fertilizing the land, adding to the environmental disaster of deforesting the land.  Just think Easter Island, where a growing low tech population devastated the environment so badly, the people were reduced to cannibalism and lost the culture they had developed.   Easter Island is the poster child for what can happen to all of us.   Technology is not our enemy.  Human stupidity is the enemy. 


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 02-May-2011 at 13:15
I have been thinking and reading to better answer your questions, Cryptic.

The subject of Spontaneous Generation is perhaps worthy of a thread, because of how the church used this logical error as arguments for its mythology that is not in agreement with science.  This logical error would be common everywhere and was promoted by some of the best Greek thinkers.
It is the mistaken observation that frogs appear to come from the rain, and things like flies appear to come from rotting flesh.  Last night I watched a show about the biggest wet lands in the world, where during the rainy season, rivers and lakes full of fish appear, where deer were walking across grass lands.  How could a person see this happening and not believe in Spontaneous Generation?  Only with the science we have today, would any reasonably intelligent person not believe in Spontaneous Generation.  

So Cryptic, instead of you and I arguing about a point, perhaps we can try to wrap our heads around a different consciousness?  What would seem true to us, if we could forget everything we know of science?  How does it feel to hold  the idea that a Creator creates with spontaneous generation?  Wouldn't it then be easy to believe in angels and demons, because this creator can create beings and creatures at will, and there are now natural laws, just the will of God.   Christianity carries this line of thinking and that is a big problem!   It prevents fundamentalist from having a accurate understanding of reality, and there the ability to address problems in a scientific way. 

So here we are with this Creator, Father, Mother doing the spontaneous creation thing, and what is our place in all this?   I have notice two distinctly different trains of thought.  Every culture that developed technology, begins with a story of gods who compete for power, and kill each other, and tells the people they are to take dominion of the world.   Those cultures that do not develop technology, have creation stories that do not involve conflict, and are along the line of an earth mother just creating life, and they are to take care of plants and animals, as they take care of each other.  That is, these groups hold different positions in the world, in relations to everything else.   One is warrior kings, and other is servants.  Please, note, I am clearly saying Earth Mother cultures would not advance technology, and I do not believe this would be good thing.  Civilization as we know it today is a combination of a caring goddess and a war like God. 




Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 02-May-2011 at 14:22
Originally posted by Cryptic

Native Americans were no more and no less likely to practice good stewardship than Christians.  The fundamental difference was that Native Americans were far fewer in number and lacked the technology to make truly serious environmental errors. Transporting animal products for economic profit was also harder.  Even still...
 
Native Americans ran entire herds driven over cliffs because it was easy.  This practice involved alot of waste, just like some European practices.  
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section3/montanacities/greatfalls/ulmpishkun/ - http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section3/montanacities/greatfalls/ulmpishkun/
http://www.buffalojump.org/ - http://www.buffalojump.org/
 
Native Americans also over loaded local agricultural systems leading to collapses.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html - http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html
 
And, probalby used technology (clovis spear points) to rapidly hunt certain large animals to extinction.
http://www.geologyclass.org/cambrian_concepts82.htm - http://www.geologyclass.org/cambrian_concepts82.htm
 
 
[/QUOTE]
 
 
Native Americans  were just as reliant on climate as anyone else.  If you examine the Chaco Canyon Civ.  the collapse was due to an extended draught.  The civilisation that terra formed the Amazon basin practiced methods of farming we don't yet fully understand.  They were however capable of feeding as many as 90 million.
The others you mention are hunter/gatherer examples, not good models and the jury is definitly still out on Clovis.
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com