Oh religion, you so crazy

[bigrougabagel]

This this this this.

Seriously, all you have to do to be convinced that Christianity is no more respectable than looking at polaroid pictures of an attic with a 5000x flash and saying that the pieces of dust on the picture are ghosts is to read the Bible. The shit in there is so contradictory and ass-backwards that I've still yet to meet a single person who, by the standards set in the Bible, isn't going to hell.

This is pretty standard for any religious text especially one as redacted as the bible, qur'an or tanakh. There are some people out there who still take a literal interpretation of the bible, and it appears that is wherein the majority of BG beef lies. Yes, you can find anything, in any religious text to support anything. However, much like every other religion in the history of existence, the basis is nearly the same, even though it has been distorted by dogma. It's the same hippy shit you hear all the time, be a good person, treat others with respect, be a good steward of the earth. Those are the basic tenants of any faith, they tend to get lost in the mire of ritual, dogma and literati interpretai (yeah i made up a word, so the fuck what, it looks kind of latiny and it sounds awesome, PM me for phoenetics).

It is this concept of exclucivism that draws lines and divides people and causes the whole "I'm right and your wrong"(the incorrect you're is intentional, as are most of the mistakes you will find here) mindset. Unfortunately this is the nature of the traditions of Abraham that are most common in our western culture. Had we been all raised in an environment that was largely Buddhist, Sikh or even Baha'i, this sentiment may not even exist. I will post a detailed explanation of the tension between the Abrahamic traditions and the reason for such exclucivity at the end of this post, it is far too broad and massive to deal with here. It will also not be my words, but taken from a professor with a masters degree in comparative religion.

This is not the only type of inter-religious view that exists. Pluralism seeks to create a strong dialogue among all faiths or non-faiths. The direct definition is the acceptance of ones own beliefs while listening and understanding that others share very different beliefs. Most of us have not experienced this due to our being planted in uhmuhreeka, but it is a growing movement among the more leftward leaning who also tend to comprehend religious texts in a more metaphorical context.

In short, not every person who claims to follow a particular faith is a religious wack nutjob. They absolutely do exist, but in a much smaller quantity than most perceive. We only hear about the crazies because they make news. You never hear about the guy who wakes up every day and takes a peanut butter and jelly sammich to work for lunch, you only hear about the guy who murders young men with a lead pipe and then sodomizes them with a peanut butter and jelly sammich coated wang. Getting way off topic. The end?


Why Christians, Jews and Muslims tend to not get along so well.

Spoiler: show

It is largely in part because they worship the same God that creates such tension between the religions. First let us start with the initial conflict between Judaism and Islam. Judaism holds that they are from the line of Adam through Seth down to Abraham and that this line represents the Chosen of God. As the Chosen they have certain obligations and rights. The obligation of living by Torah that is God's will and word/law, to be an example to all of humanity of a moral/righteous life and society, and to lead all of humanity to knowledge, understanding and worship of God. In turn their rights are to enjoy God's favor and protection and land that is the Valley of Canaan where they can establish the Kingdom of Israel which will ultimately be the seat, Jerusalem, from which the Chosen come to unite all of humanity. This was the Covenant between God and the line of Abraham. But here comes the issue. Abraham had two sons, the eldest Ishmael by the Egyptian Hagar, and the younger Isaac, by the Jew Sarah. Now Judaism has always held that Isaac was the only rightful heir to be the spiritual and political leader of the Chosen because his mother was Jewish, that God had decread one's mother had to be Jewish to be of the Chosen, that Sarah was Abraham's first wife, and because Hagar was Egyptian and not even Abraham's wife but a concubine. Therefore, from Abraham the line of the Chosen continues through Isaac and it is his descendants that are the Chosen and entitled to the rights of the Covenant, especially the Kingdom of Israel with its spiritual and political center in Jerusalem.

In contrast Islam from the teachings of Muhammad as revealed by Gabriel rejected the claim that the line of Isaac represents God's Chosen. Their position has been that Ishmael was Abraham's rightful spiritual and political heir. Their claim starts with the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's eldest son and by both Arabic and Jewish law position passes to the eldest legitimate son regardless of who the mother is. They also reject the claim of the Jews that Ishmael could not have been a legitimate child because his mother was a concubine because first Hagar who was an Egyptian princess would not likely have been joined to Abraham as concubine but as a wife but even if she was a concubine under both Arabic and Jewish law the children of concubines were legitimate children of the father entitled to inherit. Now we come to the Islamic challenge to the Jewish claim that Isaac was the proper heir because God had decread one's mother had to be Jewish to be Jewish. If this is the case why are the genealogies in the Tanakh/Old Testament stated in terms of patrilineages, the father's line, rather than matrilineages, the mother's line. For example if God had really decread that the mother's line was most important wouldn't have Eve been created before Adam and wouldn't we have a lineage tracing from Eve through her daughters, granddaughters, great granddaughters, etc. No instead we trace a continuous line from Adam through eldest surviving male offspring until we get to Abraham and even after Ishmael is passed over this continues from Isaac to his male heir. Even the New Testament continues this pattern of tracing the lineage of Jesus from Adam through the male line with the exception of his mother Mary. As Islam states it is clear from the sacred texts that the line of the Chosen is through the male not the mother's line and that Hagar was not Jewish is irrelevant. Additionally, as Hagar was Egyptian she was Semetic as well, that is of the line of Adam, therefore of God's Chosen further negating the significance of Isaac's right to lead due to Sarah's lineage. For the Muslim Ishmael was Abraham's eldest legitimate son and therefore his line has God's protection, favor and the right to the land of Israel. The Arab through Ishmael, not the Jew through Isaac, is God's Chosen, and through Ishmael Torah was passed on down and there had always been a core group that had remained loyal to the monotheistic faith of God despite the fact that just like the Jew there were those who strayed. Muhammad was simply a created being of God's sent to return the Arabs who had strayed to their true religion and rejoin those who had remained loyal to the faith of the Chosen.

So the conflict between Jew and Arab starts with basically land, political, spiritual and bragging rights. One is Chosen to lead and one is not. But which is and which isn't? For the Muslim the answer can be found first in the remainder of the Tanakh/Old Testament. Why if the Jews are the Chosen, selected for protection and favor, do the they suffer so much through their recorded history. Why are they never able to establish a Kingdom of Israel and hold it? To the Muslim the answer is simple - because they wrongly broke away from the rightful leader of the Chosen and in their arrogance attempted to circumvent God's will and word. However, because they were of the line of Abraham God still loved them and therefore they could reconcile and rejoin with the Chosen and re-enter God's grace in doing so. Clearly, to the Muslim, God kept attempting to encourage this and bring them back into compliance which is why he kept sending them prophets and ultimately THE MESSIAH. Here we get into the next reason for conflict between Judaism and Islam and start seeing the reason as well for the conflict between Islam and Christianity. THE MESSIAH obviously would be born a Jew so he would have a greater chance of acceptance by them and perform God's will of returning the Jew to the fold of the Jew. Clearly if God's ultimate design was to unite all of humanity God would start with those who were almost but not quite right in their worship of him, that is the descendants of Isaac. Then the job of THE MESSIAH would be to bring in the next closest groups, the non-Semetic descendants of Noah (those from the line of Ham, Hamites, instead of Shem, Semites) and then would proceed further to gather the descendants of Cain (who had lost his position as Adam's heir for slaying Abel resulting in his replacement by Seth as the heir of Adam), the Gentiles. In the Jewish rejection of Christ as THE MESSIAH sent to return them to the proper path they had once again proven their arrogance and willingness to disobey God's will and word. However, in the Islamic view, this arrogance and disobediance in the non-Chosen line is compounded by the Gentile who gave rise to the Christian faith.

According to the teachings of both the Jews and the prophet Muhammad there is clearly only one God, complete and whole, without substance or form. The prophecies regarding THE MESSIAH are also clear to Jew and Muslim that THE MESSIAH while having a special mission to bring all of humanity to the knowledge of God would not be literally the divine son of God. Therefore to the Muslim, while Jesus was THE MESSIAH promised to be born of a Jewish mother for the salvation of humanity (to the Muslim and Jew that phrase means bringer of knowledge and gatherer of humanity to God, not dying so everyone's sins can be forgiven) belief in him as THE MESSIAH does not mean that those who do gain any special favor, protection or rights. That is reserved for the Arab follower of God's will and word, the Chosen. However, the Christian claim is that as the divine son of God, part of the Trinity, faith in Jesus Christ, promotes one to a favored status with God regardless of ancestory. In otherwords the Christians basically take the position that the divine Jesus unites humanity and his followers will be those who lead all of humanity to God's will and word, not some ancient line of Adam. Additionally, this means the Christians the rightful benefactors of the Covenant between God and Abraham. The Muslim takes the position that the Christians knowingly in arrogance and disobediance to God have twisted the words and teachings of Jesus trying to use their false claim of divinity for him to make an illegitimate claim on those rights and position of having a favored status.

So it comes down to this. If the Muslim is right then the Arab is the Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. If the Jew is right then the Jew is the Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. If the Christian is right then the Christian is the new Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. So despite all of them beliefing in the God of Abraham each of them has a different idea of what God's will and word is and the implications of what it means for them and the rest of humanity. Only one of them can be right though and God isn't speaking to all of humanity directly today telling us which is right and that the other two are incorrect. Therefore, the three religions fight, sometimes with words, sadly sometimes with bullets, over which is right, which is the Chosen to lead.
Move to previous message RE: June 9&10 Move to next message

Now that we have established the socio-political reasons for the conflict between the three let us look at the psycho-spiritual ones - primarily fear of eternal damnation. To explain this I will start by showing why this is not a motivator in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. These three religions start with two fundamental principals of core and dogma. First, each soul will be reincarnated to learn what it needs to reach enlightenment. Second, therefore there is no eternal punishment but rather eventual eternal reward for all. As a result the psycho-spiritual motivator of fear of eternal damnation is not present for the individual believer in regards to themselves or others. Without this motivator present why should one concern oneself with another's religious beliefs - they may not be where you are but they will eventually get there so why fear for their soul, even if I'm wrong it doesn't mean I will be punished with eternal damnation it just means it will take me a little longer to get there. Therefore, there is no "threat" of the existence of other belief systems - we all end up in the same place in the end and it is a good place. Why fight about it, I'll eventually get it right and get the reward and so will you.

Now in contrast the Monotheistic Religious Tradition of Abraham start from an very different set of core dogmas and doctrines. First, is the belief that you only get one chance. Second, is the belief that if you don't get it right there is an eternal punishment. Third, is the belief that getting it right is totally dependent on worshipping the correct god. Fourth, is the belief that there will be false gods placed before you that while seemingly correct are not and worshipping them results in eternal damnation regardless of any other thing you do. Fifth, in addition to selecting the right god to follow you must also adhere to rules of that god to get the reward. Finally, most won't get it right and are destinated for eternal damnation. Wow - that is some very heavy ideas and consequences to eternalize and I don't think any of us can do this without at least being a little nervous about the outcome. Especially, if you consider the reality that if you are of the Monotheistic Religious Tradition of Abraham you have to acknowledge that there are two other religions out their which share these core dogmas and doctrines but then diverge into different views of the nature of God and the correct form of worship. Clearly all three can't be right and two are getting it wrong and their followers are eternally damned. Now we start seeing another basis of conflict motivated by psycho-spiritual fear. If "I" don't want to be eternally damned for getting it wrong and I only have one chance II better make sure get it right by proving they are wrong. Of course one way to prove they are wrong is to kill them. Simply put if they are right and I'm wrong then God isn't going to allow this to happen. If he lets it happen then clearly they aren't the Chosen who are enjoying God's protection and favor and "I" must be following the correct, not the false, understanding of the nature of God not them. If I have this proof that I'm right then why do I need to be afraid. It kinda puts Hitler's motivations in a whole new light doesn't it (not saying he was justified but that you can now see the deeper origins of his mental illness leading to his actions in regards to the Jews).

Now we also see the why Christianity has tended to have the most followers prone to violence towards the other two and also why such a high level of collective amnesia in regards to the relationship between the three exists among Christians. When one looks at it from a purely logical, rational perspective, as a judge would when hearing a civil case, you have to acknowledge that the Christian case is the most tenuous lacking the least credible evidence to support it. While the modern Christian may not be aware of this be assured the ancient Christians were keenly aware of this reality. Let us look at the case and you can see what I mean. First, if one is a Gentile, a person not of Semetic descent, it means that your ancestors were the villans of the Tanakh/Old Testament, individual's such as Adam's son Cain and Noah's son Ham. Now clearly the Tanakh/Old Testament states that the descendants of these cast out individuals were no longer of the line of the Chosen. Additionally, it was clear in the Tanakh/Old Testament that the line of Chosen was to unite and lead all of humanity to the worship of God through and with THE MESSIAH, not that THE MESSIAH would create a new Chosen race that would replace the line of Adam, Seth, etc. to Noah, to Shem, etc. to Abraham. Thus Jew and Arab are Semetic as descendants of Noah's son Shem and of the Chosen line whose ancestry is traced in both the Tanakh/Old Testament and the New Testament right to Jesus. Therefore, in terms of a civil case one would have to determine that the Semetic peoples are the Chosen of God and the inheritors of the favor, protection and land promised to that line. Now I dealt with the case between Ishmael and Isaac as Abraham's rightful heir in my last post so I won't go back through it here, but clearly the Gentile is not going to win against either Jew or Muslim on precedent set in the Tanakh/Old Testament in a secular court of law. If you are Jew or Muslim you are either the biological or adopted descendant of the line of Adam and his descendants that God Chose unitl Abraham and even after that it is one or the other - not the Gentile - who inherits.

Then we go to the second issue that is hard to argue away logically and rationally. The Tanakh/Old Testament clearly states that there is one God without substance and form, eternal, complete and whole as one, the creator, and THE supernatural power in the Universe that decides alone the ultimate fate of every human. Now this is the precedent set from the outset and it is continually reinforced from that point forward in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Now neither Jew nor Muslim have disputed this basic precedent and both are in agreement over that stated nature of God. They have never had to intergrate another divine being into the equation, they have never debated the nature of THE MESSIAH and therefore never had to debate the mortal vs. spiritual nature of THE MESSIAH, they have not had to debate the nature of the Trinity so they could make three one, and ultimately their belief about the nature of God was divinely revealed not debated and voted on by humans in a series of councils. They have not had their religion split into different sects over disagreement over the decisions of these councils in regards to debates over the nature of God. They have believed in the divinely revealed nature of God without substance and form, eternal, complete and whole as one, the creator, and THE supernatural power in the Universe that decides alone the ultimate fate of every human as divinely revealed to the patriarchs of the Chosen such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (yes Moses is seen as a patriarch of the Chosen to Islam as well), etc. Thus you cannot reach any other conclusion in a secular court of law except that the concept of the nature of God is the closests to the original among the religions of Judaism and Islam not that of Christianity.

When you look at the case of the Christian basically it rests on one simple statement - Christ was the divine son of God, was THE MESSIAH and as such is the redeemer of all humanity thus uniting all of humanity back into the line of God's Chosen. How do we know this, because even though it contradicts the earlier divinely revealed statements of God, the New Testament, written by Christians who wanted it to be this way so they were right and the other two were wrong, says he was and that this was the result. This is much like contesting a written will by saying I don't care what my parent wrote thirty years ago, twenty years ago, ten years ago, last year and even last month I'm saying this is what he really meant and wanted so take my word for it. I'm not saying that Christianity is a false religion but the reality is that in a court of law their case would be the weakest. Because their case is the weakest it is easy to see why so many early Christians resorted to violence to try and win their case. If you can't beat them through rational and logical debate, eliminate the source of debate however necessary.

What I truly find saddest about the history of Christianity in regards to its attitudes and actions towards Judaism and Islam is that it is so often in such contradiction to what Jesus taught. Jesus taught one to love others, to live a peaceful life, to forgive others - not to kill in his name. The power of Christianity lies in that message not whether they could win a civil case against the Jews or Muslims over rights. As Jesus said faith in him is the only evidence one needs. Sadly though too many Christians lack faith and act out of fear instead trying to prove something that can't be proven. The result has been that the two other religions of Abraham have come to have a certain amount of understandable fear and distrust of Christianity.

[BerenTebogo]

This is pretty standard for any religious text especially one as redacted as the bible, qur'an or tanakh. There are some people out there who still take a literal interpretation of the bible, and it appears that is wherein the majority of BG beef lies. Yes, you can find anything, in any religious text to support anything. However, much like every other religion in the history of existence, the basis is nearly the same, even though it has been distorted by dogma. It's the same hippy shit you hear all the time, be a good person, treat others with respect, be a good steward of the earth. Those are the basic tenants of any faith, they tend to get lost in the mire of ritual, dogma and literati interpretai (yeah i made up a word, so the fuck what, it looks kind of latiny and it sounds awesome, PM me for phoenetics).

It is this concept of exclucivism that draws lines and divides people and causes the whole "I'm right and your wrong"(the incorrect you're is intentional, as are most of the mistakes you will find here) mindset. Unfortunately this is the nature of the traditions of Abraham that are most common in our western culture. Had we been all raised in an environment that was largely Buddhist, Sikh or even Baha'i, this sentiment may not even exist. I will post a detailed explanation of the tension between the Abrahamic traditions and the reason for such exclucivity at the end of this post, it is far too broad and massive to deal with here. It will also not be my words, but taken from a professor with a masters degree in comparative religion.

This is not the only type of inter-religious view that exists. Pluralism seeks to create a strong dialogue among all faiths or non-faiths. The direct definition is the acceptance of ones own beliefs while listening and understanding that others share very different beliefs. Most of us have not experienced this due to our being planted in uhmuhreeka, but it is a growing movement among the more leftward leaning who also tend to comprehend religious texts in a more metaphorical context.

In short, not every person who claims to follow a particular faith is a religious wack nutjob. They absolutely do exist, but in a much smaller quantity than most perceive. We only hear about the crazies because they make news. You never hear about the guy who wakes up every day and takes a peanut butter and jelly sammich to work for lunch, you only hear about the guy who murders young men with a lead pipe and then sodomizes them with a peanut butter and jelly sammich coated wang. Getting way off topic. The end?


Why Christians, Jews and Muslims tend to not get along so well.

Spoiler: show

It is largely in part because they worship the same God that creates such tension between the religions. First let us start with the initial conflict between Judaism and Islam. Judaism holds that they are from the line of Adam through Seth down to Abraham and that this line represents the Chosen of God. As the Chosen they have certain obligations and rights. The obligation of living by Torah that is God's will and word/law, to be an example to all of humanity of a moral/righteous life and society, and to lead all of humanity to knowledge, understanding and worship of God. In turn their rights are to enjoy God's favor and protection and land that is the Valley of Canaan where they can establish the Kingdom of Israel which will ultimately be the seat, Jerusalem, from which the Chosen come to unite all of humanity. This was the Covenant between God and the line of Abraham. But here comes the issue. Abraham had two sons, the eldest Ishmael by the Egyptian Hagar, and the younger Isaac, by the Jew Sarah. Now Judaism has always held that Isaac was the only rightful heir to be the spiritual and political leader of the Chosen because his mother was Jewish, that God had decread one's mother had to be Jewish to be of the Chosen, that Sarah was Abraham's first wife, and because Hagar was Egyptian and not even Abraham's wife but a concubine. Therefore, from Abraham the line of the Chosen continues through Isaac and it is his descendants that are the Chosen and entitled to the rights of the Covenant, especially the Kingdom of Israel with its spiritual and political center in Jerusalem.

In contrast Islam from the teachings of Muhammad as revealed by Gabriel rejected the claim that the line of Isaac represents God's Chosen. Their position has been that Ishmael was Abraham's rightful spiritual and political heir. Their claim starts with the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's eldest son and by both Arabic and Jewish law position passes to the eldest legitimate son regardless of who the mother is. They also reject the claim of the Jews that Ishmael could not have been a legitimate child because his mother was a concubine because first Hagar who was an Egyptian princess would not likely have been joined to Abraham as concubine but as a wife but even if she was a concubine under both Arabic and Jewish law the children of concubines were legitimate children of the father entitled to inherit. Now we come to the Islamic challenge to the Jewish claim that Isaac was the proper heir because God had decread one's mother had to be Jewish to be Jewish. If this is the case why are the genealogies in the Tanakh/Old Testament stated in terms of patrilineages, the father's line, rather than matrilineages, the mother's line. For example if God had really decread that the mother's line was most important wouldn't have Eve been created before Adam and wouldn't we have a lineage tracing from Eve through her daughters, granddaughters, great granddaughters, etc. No instead we trace a continuous line from Adam through eldest surviving male offspring until we get to Abraham and even after Ishmael is passed over this continues from Isaac to his male heir. Even the New Testament continues this pattern of tracing the lineage of Jesus from Adam through the male line with the exception of his mother Mary. As Islam states it is clear from the sacred texts that the line of the Chosen is through the male not the mother's line and that Hagar was not Jewish is irrelevant. Additionally, as Hagar was Egyptian she was Semetic as well, that is of the line of Adam, therefore of God's Chosen further negating the significance of Isaac's right to lead due to Sarah's lineage. For the Muslim Ishmael was Abraham's eldest legitimate son and therefore his line has God's protection, favor and the right to the land of Israel. The Arab through Ishmael, not the Jew through Isaac, is God's Chosen, and through Ishmael Torah was passed on down and there had always been a core group that had remained loyal to the monotheistic faith of God despite the fact that just like the Jew there were those who strayed. Muhammad was simply a created being of God's sent to return the Arabs who had strayed to their true religion and rejoin those who had remained loyal to the faith of the Chosen.

So the conflict between Jew and Arab starts with basically land, political, spiritual and bragging rights. One is Chosen to lead and one is not. But which is and which isn't? For the Muslim the answer can be found first in the remainder of the Tanakh/Old Testament. Why if the Jews are the Chosen, selected for protection and favor, do the they suffer so much through their recorded history. Why are they never able to establish a Kingdom of Israel and hold it? To the Muslim the answer is simple - because they wrongly broke away from the rightful leader of the Chosen and in their arrogance attempted to circumvent God's will and word. However, because they were of the line of Abraham God still loved them and therefore they could reconcile and rejoin with the Chosen and re-enter God's grace in doing so. Clearly, to the Muslim, God kept attempting to encourage this and bring them back into compliance which is why he kept sending them prophets and ultimately THE MESSIAH. Here we get into the next reason for conflict between Judaism and Islam and start seeing the reason as well for the conflict between Islam and Christianity. THE MESSIAH obviously would be born a Jew so he would have a greater chance of acceptance by them and perform God's will of returning the Jew to the fold of the Jew. Clearly if God's ultimate design was to unite all of humanity God would start with those who were almost but not quite right in their worship of him, that is the descendants of Isaac. Then the job of THE MESSIAH would be to bring in the next closest groups, the non-Semetic descendants of Noah (those from the line of Ham, Hamites, instead of Shem, Semites) and then would proceed further to gather the descendants of Cain (who had lost his position as Adam's heir for slaying Abel resulting in his replacement by Seth as the heir of Adam), the Gentiles. In the Jewish rejection of Christ as THE MESSIAH sent to return them to the proper path they had once again proven their arrogance and willingness to disobey God's will and word. However, in the Islamic view, this arrogance and disobediance in the non-Chosen line is compounded by the Gentile who gave rise to the Christian faith.

According to the teachings of both the Jews and the prophet Muhammad there is clearly only one God, complete and whole, without substance or form. The prophecies regarding THE MESSIAH are also clear to Jew and Muslim that THE MESSIAH while having a special mission to bring all of humanity to the knowledge of God would not be literally the divine son of God. Therefore to the Muslim, while Jesus was THE MESSIAH promised to be born of a Jewish mother for the salvation of humanity (to the Muslim and Jew that phrase means bringer of knowledge and gatherer of humanity to God, not dying so everyone's sins can be forgiven) belief in him as THE MESSIAH does not mean that those who do gain any special favor, protection or rights. That is reserved for the Arab follower of God's will and word, the Chosen. However, the Christian claim is that as the divine son of God, part of the Trinity, faith in Jesus Christ, promotes one to a favored status with God regardless of ancestory. In otherwords the Christians basically take the position that the divine Jesus unites humanity and his followers will be those who lead all of humanity to God's will and word, not some ancient line of Adam. Additionally, this means the Christians the rightful benefactors of the Covenant between God and Abraham. The Muslim takes the position that the Christians knowingly in arrogance and disobediance to God have twisted the words and teachings of Jesus trying to use their false claim of divinity for him to make an illegitimate claim on those rights and position of having a favored status.

So it comes down to this. If the Muslim is right then the Arab is the Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. If the Jew is right then the Jew is the Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. If the Christian is right then the Christian is the new Chosen, will unite and lead all of humanity under them through THE MESSIAH to God, and they are the rightful owners of the Holy Land from which they will govern. So despite all of them beliefing in the God of Abraham each of them has a different idea of what God's will and word is and the implications of what it means for them and the rest of humanity. Only one of them can be right though and God isn't speaking to all of humanity directly today telling us which is right and that the other two are incorrect. Therefore, the three religions fight, sometimes with words, sadly sometimes with bullets, over which is right, which is the Chosen to lead.
Move to previous message RE: June 9&10 Move to next message

Now that we have established the socio-political reasons for the conflict between the three let us look at the psycho-spiritual ones - primarily fear of eternal damnation. To explain this I will start by showing why this is not a motivator in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. These three religions start with two fundamental principals of core and dogma. First, each soul will be reincarnated to learn what it needs to reach enlightenment. Second, therefore there is no eternal punishment but rather eventual eternal reward for all. As a result the psycho-spiritual motivator of fear of eternal damnation is not present for the individual believer in regards to themselves or others. Without this motivator present why should one concern oneself with another's religious beliefs - they may not be where you are but they will eventually get there so why fear for their soul, even if I'm wrong it doesn't mean I will be punished with eternal damnation it just means it will take me a little longer to get there. Therefore, there is no "threat" of the existence of other belief systems - we all end up in the same place in the end and it is a good place. Why fight about it, I'll eventually get it right and get the reward and so will you.

Now in contrast the Monotheistic Religious Tradition of Abraham start from an very different set of core dogmas and doctrines. First, is the belief that you only get one chance. Second, is the belief that if you don't get it right there is an eternal punishment. Third, is the belief that getting it right is totally dependent on worshipping the correct god. Fourth, is the belief that there will be false gods placed before you that while seemingly correct are not and worshipping them results in eternal damnation regardless of any other thing you do. Fifth, in addition to selecting the right god to follow you must also adhere to rules of that god to get the reward. Finally, most won't get it right and are destinated for eternal damnation. Wow - that is some very heavy ideas and consequences to eternalize and I don't think any of us can do this without at least being a little nervous about the outcome. Especially, if you consider the reality that if you are of the Monotheistic Religious Tradition of Abraham you have to acknowledge that there are two other religions out their which share these core dogmas and doctrines but then diverge into different views of the nature of God and the correct form of worship. Clearly all three can't be right and two are getting it wrong and their followers are eternally damned. Now we start seeing another basis of conflict motivated by psycho-spiritual fear. If "I" don't want to be eternally damned for getting it wrong and I only have one chance II better make sure get it right by proving they are wrong. Of course one way to prove they are wrong is to kill them. Simply put if they are right and I'm wrong then God isn't going to allow this to happen. If he lets it happen then clearly they aren't the Chosen who are enjoying God's protection and favor and "I" must be following the correct, not the false, understanding of the nature of God not them. If I have this proof that I'm right then why do I need to be afraid. It kinda puts Hitler's motivations in a whole new light doesn't it (not saying he was justified but that you can now see the deeper origins of his mental illness leading to his actions in regards to the Jews).

Now we also see the why Christianity has tended to have the most followers prone to violence towards the other two and also why such a high level of collective amnesia in regards to the relationship between the three exists among Christians. When one looks at it from a purely logical, rational perspective, as a judge would when hearing a civil case, you have to acknowledge that the Christian case is the most tenuous lacking the least credible evidence to support it. While the modern Christian may not be aware of this be assured the ancient Christians were keenly aware of this reality. Let us look at the case and you can see what I mean. First, if one is a Gentile, a person not of Semetic descent, it means that your ancestors were the villans of the Tanakh/Old Testament, individual's such as Adam's son Cain and Noah's son Ham. Now clearly the Tanakh/Old Testament states that the descendants of these cast out individuals were no longer of the line of the Chosen. Additionally, it was clear in the Tanakh/Old Testament that the line of Chosen was to unite and lead all of humanity to the worship of God through and with THE MESSIAH, not that THE MESSIAH would create a new Chosen race that would replace the line of Adam, Seth, etc. to Noah, to Shem, etc. to Abraham. Thus Jew and Arab are Semetic as descendants of Noah's son Shem and of the Chosen line whose ancestry is traced in both the Tanakh/Old Testament and the New Testament right to Jesus. Therefore, in terms of a civil case one would have to determine that the Semetic peoples are the Chosen of God and the inheritors of the favor, protection and land promised to that line. Now I dealt with the case between Ishmael and Isaac as Abraham's rightful heir in my last post so I won't go back through it here, but clearly the Gentile is not going to win against either Jew or Muslim on precedent set in the Tanakh/Old Testament in a secular court of law. If you are Jew or Muslim you are either the biological or adopted descendant of the line of Adam and his descendants that God Chose unitl Abraham and even after that it is one or the other - not the Gentile - who inherits.

Then we go to the second issue that is hard to argue away logically and rationally. The Tanakh/Old Testament clearly states that there is one God without substance and form, eternal, complete and whole as one, the creator, and THE supernatural power in the Universe that decides alone the ultimate fate of every human. Now this is the precedent set from the outset and it is continually reinforced from that point forward in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Now neither Jew nor Muslim have disputed this basic precedent and both are in agreement over that stated nature of God. They have never had to intergrate another divine being into the equation, they have never debated the nature of THE MESSIAH and therefore never had to debate the mortal vs. spiritual nature of THE MESSIAH, they have not had to debate the nature of the Trinity so they could make three one, and ultimately their belief about the nature of God was divinely revealed not debated and voted on by humans in a series of councils. They have not had their religion split into different sects over disagreement over the decisions of these councils in regards to debates over the nature of God. They have believed in the divinely revealed nature of God without substance and form, eternal, complete and whole as one, the creator, and THE supernatural power in the Universe that decides alone the ultimate fate of every human as divinely revealed to the patriarchs of the Chosen such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (yes Moses is seen as a patriarch of the Chosen to Islam as well), etc. Thus you cannot reach any other conclusion in a secular court of law except that the concept of the nature of God is the closests to the original among the religions of Judaism and Islam not that of Christianity.

When you look at the case of the Christian basically it rests on one simple statement - Christ was the divine son of God, was THE MESSIAH and as such is the redeemer of all humanity thus uniting all of humanity back into the line of God's Chosen. How do we know this, because even though it contradicts the earlier divinely revealed statements of God, the New Testament, written by Christians who wanted it to be this way so they were right and the other two were wrong, says he was and that this was the result. This is much like contesting a written will by saying I don't care what my parent wrote thirty years ago, twenty years ago, ten years ago, last year and even last month I'm saying this is what he really meant and wanted so take my word for it. I'm not saying that Christianity is a false religion but the reality is that in a court of law their case would be the weakest. Because their case is the weakest it is easy to see why so many early Christians resorted to violence to try and win their case. If you can't beat them through rational and logical debate, eliminate the source of debate however necessary.

What I truly find saddest about the history of Christianity in regards to its attitudes and actions towards Judaism and Islam is that it is so often in such contradiction to what Jesus taught. Jesus taught one to love others, to live a peaceful life, to forgive others - not to kill in his name. The power of Christianity lies in that message not whether they could win a civil case against the Jews or Muslims over rights. As Jesus said faith in him is the only evidence one needs. Sadly though too many Christians lack faith and act out of fear instead trying to prove something that can't be proven. The result has been that the two other religions of Abraham have come to have a certain amount of understandable fear and distrust of Christianity.

I think, and many people will agree with me and many will disagree, that believing in some magical omnipotent sky god who watches over some hundreds of trillions of planetary systems at once with an earnest care for every individual life form on every planet is the definition of a "wack nutjob".

Contrarily, believing that there is a God who created the universe just for us (we are the only intelligent life that will exist in the combined 35ish billion years before the "big chill" is estimated to happen) is equally the definition of a "wack nutjob".

Or believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you think Young Earth Creationists are some 20 guys in a basement in Texas, you're dead fucking wrong. They're in our fucking senate. This, too, makes you a "wack nutjob".

Honestly, I am all for the principles that religions are founded upon, but they are not what is taught by parents or pastors. Once you pass judgment on another human being, whether for being gay, or having an abortion, or worshiping a false idol, or making a billboard that says "One nation indivisible" you have tossed out the entire foundation of your religious beliefs as a whole and are now using the full weight of your massive religion as a tool for hate and discrimination.

So yeah, don't offer up the "religion is a misunderstood tool for good" in this topic. Morality and societal responsibility exist outside of the boundaries of religion. If you are such a proponent of humanism then you most certainly do not need the extra crazy fluff provided by religion.

[bigrougabagel]

Every time religion is brought up, eleventy merzillion ideas get caught up in the shit mix. That being said, I refuse to get into a quote war where every point made is lost in the next post, which of your concerns would you care to discuss? I would prefer to agree on one point to discuss, lest we be forced into wall of text after wall of text with little actual discussion going on.

[Kuya]

What's the name of this professor you quoted?

[bigrougabagel]

I will conceal his name for now, as I have not personally asked him to share his information, though, that is a bit late now I guess. The basic grievances contained in that quote are pretty standard, and they form the basis of the aggression between the traditions of Abraham, whether the practitioners believe it or not.

[BerenTebogo]

Every time religion is brought up, eleventy merzillion ideas get caught up in the shit mix. That being said, I refuse to get into a quote war where every point made is lost in the next post, which of your concerns would you care to discuss? I would prefer to agree on one point to discuss, lest we be forced into wall of text after wall of text with little actual discussion going on.

You said religion is responsible for being perpetuating morality in society (more or less) which is just factually untrue. Whether people choose to base their morals off of religion is a personal opinion (and a bad one) so that's that.

Many people say that morality can't exist without religion. Many people are also fucking idiots. Going to spoiler that part because it's not what I want to focus on.

Spoiler: show

http://www.americanhumanist.org

We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action - positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.
Religion

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

Ethics

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind's sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics.

The Individual

FIFTH: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

Democratic Society

SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

EIGHTH: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels - social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.

TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.

We believe in the right to universal education. Everyone has a right to the cultural opportunity to fulfill his or her unique capacities and talents. The schools should foster satisfying and productive living. They should be open at all levels to any and all; the achievement of excellence should be encouraged. Innovative and experimental forms of education are to be welcomed. The energy and idealism of the young deserve to be appreciated and channeled to constructive purposes.

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.

We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism - male or female. We believe in equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.

World Community

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

Humanity As a Whole

IN CLOSING: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world. We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want - a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be. Let us work together for a humane world by means commensurate with humane ends. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome. Let us call for an end to terror and hatred. We will survive and prosper only in a world of shared humane values. We can initiate new directions for humankind; ancient rivalries can be superseded by broad-based cooperative efforts. The commitment to tolerance, understanding, and peaceful negotiation does not necessitate acquiescence to the status quo nor the damming up of dynamic and revolutionary forces. The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless nonviolent adjustments. But this entails the willingness to step forward onto new and expanding plateaus. At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. It is a classical vision; we can now give it new vitality. Humanism thus interpreted is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

We, the undersigned, while not necessarily endorsing every detail of the above, pledge our general support to Humanist Manifesto II for the future of humankind. These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith. We invite others in all lands to join us in further developing and working for these goals.

Specifically, I'll focus on your assertion that people who believe in religion aren't crazy. I responded above, now you know what mindset to apply to the previous post.

tl;dr of it is that believing in some magical omnipotence either requires a mental instability or a lack of understanding regarding the true scope of the universe.

[Kuya]

Sath, you want to get rid of religion, correct? What do you propose needs to be done to get rid of it?

[BerenTebogo]

Sath, you want to get rid of religion, correct? What do you propose needs to be done to get rid of it?

I don't want to abolish religion. No person has the right to prohibit (peaceful) organizations from meeting and existing, etc. Whether certain religious people believe they have that right or not, likewise with some of the more radical extremists (a small, small minority of 15 year olds) it just doesn't make it so.

I want to see the decline of the religious way of thought that denies the reality of nature, of the world and universe around us, in favor of mysticism and exclusionary elitist practices.

Inhibiting progress because of outdated myths that may have been a necessity for primitive societies is a blight upon us all.

[Rhinox]

No Demo and no Plow makes this thread incomplete.


obligatory religions are for mindless sheeple who feel the need to justify their existence to fill the hole in their imaginary soul.

[Kuya]

I don't want to abolish religion. No person has the right to prohibit (peaceful) organizations from meeting and existing, etc. Whether certain religious people believe they have that right or not, likewise with some of the more radical extremists (a small, small minority of 15 year olds) it just doesn't make it so.

I want to see the decline of the religious way of thought that denies the reality of nature, of the world and universe around us, in favor of mysticism and exclusionary elitist practices.

Inhibiting progress because of outdated myths that may have been a necessity for primitive societies is a blight upon us all.

That's not what i asked. You just restated your goal, but i wanted you to tell me what you think should be done or is being done to lead to your stated goal.

[bigrougabagel]

You said religion is responsible for being perpetuating morality in society (more or less) which is just factually untrue. Whether people choose to base their morals off of religion is a personal opinion (and a bad one) so that's that.

Many people say that morality can't exist without religion. Many people are also fucking idiots. Going to spoiler that part because it's not what I want to focus on.

Specifically, I'll focus on your assertion that people who believe in religion aren't crazy. I responded above, now you know what mindset to apply to the previous post.

tl;dr of it is that believing in some magical omnipotence either requires a mental instability or a lack of understanding regarding the true scope of the universe.

You are all over the place. One topic is more than plenty when discussing religion. I will discuss your first assertion. Your first sentence is not something I said. You are correct, religion is not necessary for morality. Religion, is not entirely responsible for the perpetuation of morality. In fact, most recently, it has been the exact opposite, in some situations. Now, there are many reasons anthropologists believe that religion exists. The materialistic approach claims that religion was created as a construct of man in order to necessitate social order. (see also, patton oswalt, sky cake). Throughout history there are examples of peoples who practiced apostasy and still were entirely capable of development of a secular morality. Basically, religion is not a prerequisite of morality. It is ingrained in humanity. Now, it is entirely possible that religion is something that humanity can grow out of, much like our appendix. It was an entirely necessary organ for humanity to progress to a point at which it was not necessary.

[BerenTebogo]

@Kuya

But to answer your question:

One of the concepts I am a proponent of far more so than others is education in scientific thinking, or critical thinking.

It's the basis of general skepticism. I think our children should be taught the scientific method before we start teaching them history. Information should be naturally held up to reasonable scrutiny instead of being accepted because of the source (authority sources, teacher or parents, whatever).

One of the most popular logical fallacies is the Argument from Authority, which implies that "Fact Y" is proposed by Person A. Person A is an authority on X. Therefor "Fact Y" must be true.

It is most pronounced with the education and indoctrination of children. By the time children are taught philosophy or real science, in their late teenage years, the fallacies instilled on them by their community or authority figures early in life have become an intrinsic part of their view of the "self" and therefor become protected from any amount of logic.

In short, because education is always following so far behind religion and culture, by the time we get to have a say, such that the child can decide for themselves what to believe, the idea has already become an inextricably bonded value. Regardless of whether the child originally had any say in the matter.

This, of course, is horrendous in my opinion.

[BerenTebogo]

You are all over the place. One topic is more than plenty when discussing religion. I will discuss your first assertion. Your first sentence is not something I said. You are correct, religion is not necessary for morality. Religion, is not entirely responsible for the perpetuation of morality. In fact, most recently, it has been the exact opposite, in some situations. Now, there are many reasons anthropologists believe that religion exists. The materialistic approach claims that religion was created as a construct of man in order to necessitate social order. (see also, patton oswalt, sky cake). Throughout history there are examples of peoples who practiced apostasy and still were entirely capable of development of a secular morality. Basically, religion is not a prerequisite of morality. It is ingrained in humanity. Now, it is entirely possible that religion is something that humanity can grow out of, much like our appendix. It was an entirely necessary organ for humanity to progress to a point at which it was not necessary.

I reread your OP, and I did unintentionally interpret what you said as something that wasn't there. My bad.

Point stands on being crazy though.

[bigrougabagel]

I want to see the decline of the religious way of thought that denies the reality of nature, of the world and universe around us, in favor of mysticism and exclusionary elitist practices.

Inhibiting progress because of outdated myths that may have been a necessity for primitive societies is a blight upon us all.

Very good point, even though it is a bit ethnocentric. Yes, certain beliefs are counterproductive, and in general, yes in general, not entirely, they are based on dogma, not the true fundamental beliefs of any particular faith. I think everyones beef with religion can be placed on radical interpretations of religious texts. Taking a metaphorical interpretation of a text can help most of everyone out. Too many people are focusing on what the "bible" says and not what its saying.

[BerenTebogo]

Very good point, even though it is a bit ethnocentric. Yes, certain beliefs are counterproductive, and in general, yes in general, not entirely, they are based on dogma, not the true fundamental beliefs of any particular faith. I think everyones beef with religion can be placed on radical interpretations of religious texts. Taking a metaphorical interpretation of a text can help most of everyone out. Too many people are focusing on what the "bible" says and not what its saying.

Here, since my first point was a misinterpretation, is where we can segue on that one of my larger beefs with religion implies a disjointed relationship with reality and the world around us.

Sure extremism is retarded, but it only exists because the belief exists. Cut off the head, etc.

[Kuya]

@Kuya

But to answer your question:

One of the concepts I am a proponent of far more so than others is education in scientific thinking, or critical thinking.

It's the basis of general skepticism. I think our children should be taught the scientific method before we start teaching them history. Information should be naturally held up to reasonable scrutiny instead of being accepted because of the source (authority sources, teacher or parents, whatever).

One of the most popular logical fallacies is the Argument from Authority, which implies that "Fact Y" is proposed by Person A. Person A is an authority on X. Therefor "Fact Y" must be true.

It is most pronounced with the education and indoctrination of children. By the time children are taught philosophy or real science, in their late teenage years, the fallacies instilled on them by their community or authority figures early in life have become an intrinsic part of their view of the "self" and therefor become protected from any amount of logic.

In short, because education is always following so far behind religion and culture, by the time we get to have a say, such that the child can decide for themselves what to believe, the idea has already become an inextricably bonded value. Regardless of whether the child originally had any say in the matter.

This, of course, is horrendous in my opinion.

I think you should put more emphasis and discuss this more. You want education reform that emphasis the scientific method, presumably your intention is to instill logic as the primordial value. Sounds very Enlightment philosophe. What kinds of curriculi would you have implemented? Specific clases, for what grades, or maybe even get rid of grades completely. What methods you would use to go about this education reform.

I think it would be pretty productive if you elaborated more on your ideas/plans for phasing out religion.

[BerenTebogo]

I think you should put more emphasis and discuss this more. You want education reform that emphasis the scientific method, presumably your intention is to instill logic as the primordial value. Sounds very Enlightment philosophe. What kinds of curriculi would you have implemented? Specific clases, for what grades, or maybe even get rid of grades completely. What methods you would use to go about this education reform.

I think it would be pretty productive if you elaborated more on your ideas/plans for phasing out religion.

Honestly, the most succinct views on this subject coming from me would be in essence a parroting of ideas presented in the past few decades at international conferences on scientific education. I don't want to pass off ideas popularized by others on an area as important as this as my own.

If you'd like I can reference some of the more appropriate discussion from Professor Neil Tyson, Richard Dawkins (some don't like his aethism, that's fine, but his views about science education and education in comparative religion are A+) and others.

I just don't feel comfortable taking ideas (which I hold as incredibly important) that were proposed by others and passing them off as mine. Undermines the credibility of the exercise as a whole.

Edit: Also, I don't want to get youtube or link happy without being asked to. I hate being exposed to it so it would be hypocritical to just start spamming.

[bigrougabagel]

I reread your OP, and I did unintentionally interpret what you said as something that wasn't there. My bad.

Point stands on being crazy though.

Thanks for seeing my point. I hope I don't offend or misinterpret something you say. It is easy to do over text, especially as I am prone to sarcasm, though I am trying to avoid it.

Now, for the concept of crazy. Which particular definition are you applying? I would assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is the denial of scientific fact for a literal interpretation of a religious text. Yes, directly denying what is logically presented in front of one is delusion. And you are correct, some religious people are completely insane, (see anyone who has a television show and says jesus other than when they stub their toe on the interview desk.) This is not a rule. It is however what we get to see each day in the newspaper or an internet clip. Which, due to the nature of our democracy, we cannot control.

Accepting these points, as they exist in our society means they could and eventually will be tackled in a more public forum....Texas skoole happy hour. That however is a whole nother issue, even if one side doesnt perceive it as such.


Also, I am Mostly hammered

[Kuya]

Yes, i would like some reference to the information, but i suggest you put some here too.

[bigrougabagel]

Here, since my first point was a misinterpretation, is where we can segue on that one of my larger beefs with religion implies a disjointed relationship with reality and the world around us.

Sure extremism is retarded, but it only exists because the belief exists. Cut off the head, etc.

I really hate to get on an exaggerated metaphorical level here, but it seems so appropriate. This would be like banning the use of cheese.... oh so delicious cheese, because someone murdered someone by rolling them down a hill strapped to a wheel of cheddar.

The cheddar is innocent, I think what you are suggesting promotes a slippery slope.(yes this is grossly simplistic) This may be an over exaggeration of your point, please correct this if so.