Organized Religion, Good or Bad?

[Ozme52]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

[cariad]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

Wow - warm welcomes here, as well as in the chat room. Think it is time I bought a season ticket to the library! Thank you Ozme. Off to read some more threads.

[ColinClout(c)]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

The second is that some of the things that are being posited as worthy of belief would have major consequences, and surely any thinking human being wants to know if they are true. If you want to build an aeroplane, it matters whether gravity is real. We cannot change the way things are by being ignorant of them or not believing in them.

WEll, that's all for now - I'm sure you can all do better than that...

CC

[Tojo]

Hi & welcome Colin- actually I think many of us could do a lot worse!

Good point about the difference between one's actions & beliefs, but that's what makes us human I guess?

As to whether I believe in absolutes myself, well can't say I ever thought about it. Something to ponder I guess.

Post away Colin, you make plenty of sense- more than I do somedays!

Tojo

[Aesop]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

Welcome Colin! Don't be nervous. We're a good bunch.

So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

Yes I expected somebody to bring that up. The answer for me is no. The statement does not apply to itself. The reason is that I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If someone shows me a situation where there are absolutely no exceptions I'm not going to stand there and stomp my foot and say, "No, no. This can't be true." I'll say, "Guess I was wrong." No one has shown me one yet.

The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

Well...I dunno about that. Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.

Again welcome to the forums.

[fantassy]

Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.

Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

Glad you didn't keep yourself out.

I think we see things mostly the same, with only a minor difference. I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. They would have gone to war anyway because there isn't a country I know of in the world that just says, "Oh okay, well you don't have to fight." so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

The Crusaders...well we could open up a new thread about the Crusaders and what they fought for and how they fought, but again I don't think they were fighting for a belief.

The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.

[fantassy]

You're right we do mostly agree.

I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

You say its a lie, not a belief; I say they believe in a lie. Therefore they fight for a false belief.

The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.

The problem, as I see it, is we don't know/agree on what the basic "beliefs" of the Bible are. "Thou shalt not kill" means what exactly? I cannot kill ever? I can only kill in self defense? I cannot have an abortion? I can only kill doctors who perform abortions? Each of these is a "belief" someone derives from those four simple words.

Personally, I only have one guiding "belief" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

fantassy

See, if you encourage me, I'll never shut up.

[ColinClout(c)]

Oh goody, I get to handle this one further. Let me see what I can do...

OK - do you think there is such a thing as absolute truth?

Yes? Then we agree and all we have to debate is what form it takes (perhaps it is limited to only one statement)

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

[Uncle_Ed]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

[ColinClout(c)]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

That which is the case.

[Aesop]

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

[cariad]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad

[Ozme52]

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad

That's a trick question.

[Tojo]

Definitely a trick question.


Tojo

[fantassy]

can Doms ever be wrong?cariad

Recently read that doms even sleep on the right side of the bed so that they're right even when they're asleep. Is that true?

fantassy

[ColinClout(c)]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

[Aesop]

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

[ColinClout(c)]

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

I agree that absolute (that word again) proof cannot be alleged for any faith, including, of course, atheism. What I would assert is that the issues raised by religion are of sufficient importance that each of us would be well advised to look at the evidence and take a position. And I freely accept that having done so different people will come to wildly different conclusions.

Yet whether or not we can prove something does not affect whether or not it is true, at least not on my philosophical understanding of truth. (And I confess I am unequal to the task of debating different understandings of that, although I will try if anyone wants to!) Electrons existed long before we could prove they did. And if a person has been convinced of the truth of a faith, it is entirely logical that they should seek to contest other thought systems that contradict it.

So those who adhere to a religion will always feel that its utility is, on the one hand, supremely important, in that it is how things are and the basis for all other thought and behaviour.

Several cans opened there, but I will stop for fear of going off-thread...

'Colin'

[Uncle_Ed]

To answer cariad "Can Poms ever be wrong" Of couse not.*Shakes head* silly question...Surprised Tojo didn't answer.

[DungeonMaster6]

Getting back to the original subject, organized religion can be a positive thing or a destructive thing.

A lot of people use religion as a way of feeling good about themselves, or a way to worship their God so that He or She will allow them salvation. This is a good thing. I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Organized religion can either be our salvation or our demise.

[fantassy]

I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy

[cariad]

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy

I also agree with you.

[cariad]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad

[Tojo]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad

Exactly my point earlier in the thread.

You're not just a pretty face cariad.

Tojo

[DungeonMaster6]

I agree with you fantassy

[ColinClout(c)]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

[Aesop]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

A quote I particularly like.

"Open-minded people must accept the possibility that being closed-minded is better. Close-minded people can take comfort in knowing that they are right." - no author listed.

[cheeseburger]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

[Ozme52]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

Well, that's the point. The moment religion becomes "organized" it begins imposing on it's followers and making rules beyond the original precepts of the beliefs.