Is Religion no longer needed?

[madame_zora]

For one it wasn't Barabas. Pontius let him get out of jail free over JC in a passover custom they had of letting a prisoner go.

For two ... read the accounts again.

Aaaagh, you are so right! I will read it again, clearly I need to.

 

[madame_zora]

You want something done right, you do it yourself.

With this in mind, I think if the JC guy had thought a book was going to be a big deal, he would have written it himself. Hell, who better than a carpenter to carve it in stone? (OK a stone mason)

Plato wrote his own stuff - brilliant

Aristotle's pupils wrote most of his stuff - boring as boring can be

JC's pupil's pupils and pupil's pupil's pupils and pupil's pupil's pupil's pupils and even pupil's pupils' pupil's pupil's pupils wrote his story even though he never asked them to.

Buddha could teach truth with a flower, I think JC and others can as well, but oh no, the "fathers" sat down and said, we can't have an oral tradition that effectively would have come to everyone who ever heard it directly via a line to JC himself, what we need is a big fuck off book that will impress people, make us powerfull as the guardians of the word of god. Our own christian works are a bit of a mess and we can't agree on the silly things and besides they make us less important, so let's include the Jewish tradition, that will make it a much bigger book. Size matters even in theology apparently.

What a load of horse manure.

Those who have ears, let them hear.

I don't think even Jesus believed that his appearance on earth would have the impact that it still does today. I have often wondered why he didn't write it down, but I have to accept that he did not want to, or he would have.

What other people said about what he said half a century later is just that- hearsay. Every one of those writers, as well as the men who compiled the final line-up of stories, had a human mind and a human agenda.

As a general code of ethics and a story of Jesus' life on Earth, I think it has great value. As an absolute or infalible epic of Truth- almost useless.

 

[Lordpendragon]

As an absolute or infalible epic of Truth- almost useless.

We are one - less use as a lilly in the field.

Incidentally MZ, there is a Tee Shirt going round in the UK that you need to get.

On the front it says....... No, I don't have Tourettes.

On the back............ You really are a cunt. :biggrin1:

 

[BlackIsKingSize]

In America and a lot of the Western world we have societies that are primarily based on personal freedom, the highest regarded of those being freedom of faith and religion.

But in order to allow individuals to observe whatever religion they choose the society itself has to be very secular. If for instance American laws and customs were based completely in Hinduism it would be impossible to have freedom of religion because even though you could believe a different faith you'd have to practice many tenets of Hinduism by law.

So a society striving for freedom has to pull those religious basis out of its laws and boil them down to the universal needs of the people then allow people to add their own layer of religous law to it. America is moving more toward the non faith based nation it will inevitably become and a lot of people are afraid of that. Many people seem to think godless is akin to lawless and if America moves too far away from being Christian based it will result in anarchy. But no matter how many people oppose it, it will still happen in time and I think America will end up being better for it. The core of the society needs to be free of religion so that the people in the society can be free in their religions.

 

[DC_DEEP]

LeChuck, those are excellent points. Unfortunately, too many of the faithful (not all, but too many) cannot grasp the concept that in order to truly allow its citizens free exercise of religion, the government itself must be secular. They think that free exercise de facto implies that they should be free to demand legislation in conformity with their own dogma; what they fail to consider is that another person, of another main branch or denomination, may have a different view of dogma.

We do have jews of various flavors in our Congress; if they chose to legislate some aspects of their beliefs, the christians and muslims would rebel. We also have some muslims in our Congress; if they attempted to legislate some aspects of their beliefs, the jews and christians would rebel.

While legislative decisions are, of course, influenced by the beliefs of each Representative and Senator, they have to keep the "least common denominator" concept in mind. They don't always, but they should at least try.

 

[Full_Phil]

Excellent post, LeChuck!

 

[B_spiker067]

In America and a lot of the Western world we have societies that are primarily based on personal freedom, the highest regarded of those being freedom of faith and religion.

But in order to allow individuals to observe whatever religion they choose the society itself has to be very secular. If for instance American laws and customs were based completely in Hinduism it would be impossible to have freedom of religion because even though you could believe a different faith you'd have to practice many tenets of Hinduism by law.

So a society striving for freedom has to pull those religious basis out of its laws and boil them down to the universal needs of the people then allow people to add their own layer of religous law to it. America is moving more toward the non faith based nation it will inevitably become and a lot of people are afraid of that. Many people seem to think godless is akin to lawless and if America moves too far away from being Christian based it will result in anarchy. But no matter how many people oppose it, it will still happen in time and I think America will end up being better for it. The core of the society needs to be free of religion so that the people in the society can be free in their religions.

Some right some wrong.

Your end game scenario may in fact be correct but it won't likely happen for the the next 100-200 years.

So you are saying that only a Christian religion would have set up an American nation that would be reasonably tolerant of other religions and peoples?

 

[B_spiker067]

You want something done right, you do it yourself.
...
What a load of horse manure.

Those who have ears, let them hear.

"Show me an atheist and I'll show you a one time Catholic."

 

[DC_DEEP]

Some right some wrong.

Your end game scenario may in fact be correct but it won't likely happen for the the next 100-200 years.

So you are saying that only a Christian religion would have set up an American nation that would be reasonably tolerant of other religions and peoples?

No, he's saying that a secular establishment (not a christian establishment) of a government is the only way to guarantee true religious freedom for its citizens.

 

[B_spiker067]

No, he's saying that a secular establishment (not a christian establishment) of a government is the only way to guarantee true religious freedom for its citizens.

Like Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Really you should learn how to use Christianity against Christians rather than to try and strip it away from them. You'd be better off.

 

[Lordpendragon]

"Show me an atheist and I'll show you a one time Catholic."

Finally proves I am not an atheist - but let's not start that again, I'm not sure JA can take it a third time. :smile:

Incidentally those three would have had you shot for calling them secular.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Like Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Really you should learn how to use Christianity against Christians rather than to try and strip it away from them. You'd be better off.

Like Tomas de Torquemada.

You really should stop using christianity as a weapon against people rather than allowing them to have their own free exercise. You (and they) and christianity would be better off.

Note to your pompous little self: stripping government of religion does not mean stripping people of religion. Regardless of your unpredictable and periodic attacks against me, I actually support your right to free exercise. Can you say the same about yourself? Do you support anyone's free exercise if it differs from your own? I have not seen it.

 

[B_spiker067]

Like Tomas de Torquemada.

You really should stop using christianity as a weapon against people rather than allowing them to have their own free exercise. You (and they) and christianity would be better off.

Note to your pompous little self: stripping government of religion does not mean stripping people of religion. Regardless of your unpredictable and periodic attacks against me, I actually support your right to free exercise. Can you say the same about yourself? Do you support anyone's free exercise if it differs from your own? I have not seen it.

Honestly, I'm trying to carry on a challenging conversation, or think I am. I happen to believe that a secular government is a good thing. I also think that individuals in this secular government probably should themselves not be secular but rather inform their decisions with their beliefs and their scientific understanding.

Really, don't take such great offense or I'll start to censor myself. If you want that I guess you can have that.:tongue:

 

[B_spiker067]

Finally proves I am not an atheist - but let's not start that again, I'm not sure JA can take it a third time. :smile:

doh!

Incidentally those three would have had you shot for calling them secular.

I thouht as much. It isn't my quote, just a provocative one.

[doh! again on the secular reference]

 

[DC_DEEP]

Like Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Really you should learn how to use Christianity against Christians rather than to try and strip it away from them. You'd be better off.

Honestly, I'm trying to carry on a challenging conversation, or think I am. I happen to believe that a secular government is a good thing. I also think that individuals in this secular government probably should themselves not be secular but rather inform their decisions with their beliefs and their scientific understanding.

Really, don't take such great offense or I'll start to censor myself. If you want that I guess you can have that.:tongue:

You know me better than that; I'm not terribly fond of censorship, even if I don't like the message. I think you misread my previous post, but I'll get back to that. First I want to ask you to re-read your response to me, suggesting that I use christianity against christians. Honestly, how did you think that would make me feel? All warm and fuzzy? I don't know where you got that "rather than strip it away from them" comment. Also, how do you think that makes me feel?

Now, back to my post to which you responded in what I perceived as negative and aggressive: I did not say that all leaders in a government should be atheists; I said they should create a secular government, not a theocracy.

You do seem to keep coming back to me from time to time in an aggressive, accusatory manner, and attributing things to me that you should not. Don't try to find stuff between the lines in my posts, I most often choose my wording very carefully, in an attempt to make my posts say exactly what I want them to say. I don't always succeed, but if you try to read more into my words than what is there, you will be doing us both a great disservice.

If I say "a secular establishment of government is the only way to ensure religious freedom for all its citizens", I am not saying religion should be abolished, I am not saying that only atheists should be in the government; I'm saying exactly what I said - that a government must be established as a secular entity in order to ensure that every single citizen has a right to choose how to or how not to worship. A christian establishment of government would likely not ensure such freedom or latitude... nor would a jewish establishment of government or a muslim establishment or an atheist establishment. And please make the distinction between "secular" and "atheist."

 

[BlackIsKingSize]

So you are saying that only a Christian religion would have set up an American nation that would be reasonably tolerant of other religions and peoples?

No. Since I'm an American I wanted to focus my post on America to avoid making any incorrect assumption about other countries and America was founded on Christianity. And when I used Hinduism as a religion based government that wouldn't really be free, well you could put ANY faith in its place, I just picked one that came to mind. I just didn't want to use Christianity there because I didn't want it to seem to anyone like I was bible bashing. I myself am an atheist but I think religion can be a wonderful thing for individual people, their families, their communities, as long as it's their choice. The nation and society as a group has to stay out of religion completely so we can all have the freedom to believe whatever works for us. And I believe the religous divides will eventually go the way that racial, gender, and other discriminations have SLOWLY disappearing in the "melting pot" of America (none of them are gone but definitely far less than they have been in the past). And like you said it'll take centuries, America is still only a couple hundred years old but in terms of sociopolitcal history that's a very short time.

 

[Freddie53]

It is amazing to me the lack of understanding of the United States federal Constitution. The Constitution is not anti-Christian. What it says is that the U. S. government shall not establish a state church. We have prayers at inaugurations. They is prayer at the U S Capitol building. We have paid chaplains in the military. What that Constitution says is that the government shall not decide which religion is correct and which one is not. So prayers are supposed to be given that all citizens can identify with. Even atheists wouldn't oppose a higher authority doing what is in the prayer if they believed in a higher authority. Prayers to "God" without defining "God" for peace, prosperity etc. are done all the time and are usually not controversial. There is no problem even with the government acknowledging that a majority of its citizens believe there is a God. The government can even acknowledge in America's current situation that a majority of its citizens profess to believe in some form of Christianity.

What the government is not supposed to do is support any church or religious institution from tax money. There is not to be a government agency that decides which churches or religious organizations are in and which ones are out.

Within reason, the United States allows its citizens to follow their religious convictions. Adults who are Jehovah's Witness can refuse blood transfusions knowing that it will result in death because they believe that receiving blood transfusions will send them straight to hell in a hand basket.

The problem in America today is that some religious organizations want to take their religious beliefs and make them into laws for everyone to follow. Abortion is an example. To many Christians, at conception the fetus receives a soul and even if that fetus is aborted for any reason, that soul will be in heaven someday. Other Christians and others believe that the soul enters the body when the baby starts breathing. Still, others don't believe in a God and therefore don't believe in a soul.

The US government is not taking a stand on this. At this time, each mother is allowed to follow her own religious convictions. It is an issue between her, her God if she has one, and her doctor. This position is not pro abortion, it is pro choice. I say this because some people want a pro abortion policy where the government can decide to abort fetuses if they have certain diseases or if the mother has had more than a certain number of children.

I use this as an analogy of where the government stays neutral in a religious issue. Passing no laws requiring abortion and no laws banning abortion, but leaves a choice decision to the mother.

Another example is curriculum in schools. Some religious groups want to control the curriculum taught in schools to favor the beliefs of certain religious groups. In reality the government should stay neutral. There is no problem teaching the children what different religious groups believe about a subject as long as the school and/or the teacher doesn't tell the children which views are right and which ones are wrong. Same true with science. Theories need to be taught as theories, not facts. Facts should be taught as facts. Hypotheses need to be taught as hypotheses.

These are examples of how the government stays neutral in society about religion. I could give many more.

I am a devout Christian. Most here know this. But I don't want my religion rammed down anyone's throat. This kind of thing pushes people away from religion, not toward it.

 

[Wave]

With "In God we trust" on our money and the swearing-in of officials using the Bible and the idea of "manifest destiny" leading much of our exploration and colonization over the past several hundred years, not to mention the freedom to worship as they saw fit which led the pilgrims to brave tremendous elemental fury to reach America...it's not really accurate to say we're a secular society, or at least, that we WERE a secular society. The basis of most laws and morals stem from religions, be they confuscian or taoist or hindu or judeo-christian.

also, the ideas of freedom and free will Inherent in judaism and christianity is what enabled our founding fathers to draft the deistic Declaration and Constitution that enables separation of church and state to even exist here. it's all cuz of God.

Jesus was well-hung for us all, LPSGers!

 

[Freddie53]

not to mention the freedom to worship as they saw fit which led the pilgrims to brave tremendous elemental fury to reach America...it's not really accurate to say we're a secular society, or at least, that we WERE a secular society. The basis of most laws and morals stem from religions, be they confuscian or taoist or hindu or judeo-christian.

You are correct we are not a true secular society, but that is the choice of a majority of the people that live in America, not because of a law that requires our society to be religious.

Yes, many of our laws do stem from religious beliefs. However, most of them are the same laws that all religions believe and many of the laws are moral laws that non religious also except. Morality and religiion are connected, but they are not the same.