Religious inconsistency question

[Retro Rob]

It's also inherently divisive. Again, some vague wishy washy religious belief isn't threatening in the same way as revealed religion.

...but what is religion made of? The most valued resource in the cosmos -- humans.

Without humans, well, bad humans, all of our problems will go away.

Electricity can burn down a building, and can kill a human if not handled correcly, but does that make electricity inherently bad?

Look, I agree with really all of you in principle, but it seems you guys are missing the bigger picture for the sake of having a scapegoat and a repository for all of man's problems.

 

[piasabird]

I think it is pointless for someone who is an athiest to discuss religion if they dont believe in it other than to say they dont believe in God. I would suggest people read the Bible and the Book of Mormon and other good books they may find useful in dealing with life. People still have a need for spiritual development. Whether that comes from philosophers, or socialists, or some code of Ethics, people still have a need for spiritual development. Everyone believes in something whether they admit it or not. Whom do you serve?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think it is pointless for someone who is an athiest to discuss religion if they dont believe in it other than to say they dont believe in God. I would suggest people read the Bible and the Book of Mormon and other good books they may find useful in dealing with life. People still have a need for spiritual development. Whether that comes from philosophers, or socialists, or some code of Ethics, people still have a need for spiritual development. Everyone believes in something whether they admit it or not. Whom do you serve?

I think Atheists are fine to discuss this with, but I'd say it's pointless talking to someone who wants a simple, single reason for the world's problems, and those of whom have their minds firmly set on blaming religion despite the evidence pointing to the human race as a whole.

 

[piasabird]

This idea or concept that religious people dont like science or technology or medicine is silly. Based on the Bible all good things come from God. Things are not good or bad, it is how you use them. Police use guns and so do criminals. You can use a drug to cure a disease or aleviate pain or you can be a drug addict. You can harness the Atom to make electricity, or you can use it as a device of mass destruction.

Dont be so silly.

 

[Retro Rob]

This idea or concept that religious people dont like science or technology or medicine is silly. Based on the Bible all good things come from God. Things are not good or bad, it is how you use them. Police use guns and so do criminals. You can use a drug to cure a disease or aleviate pain or you can be a drug addict. You can harness the Atom to make electricity, or you can use it as a device of mass destruction.

Dont be so silly.

Yep, and I don't see people wanting to outlaw any of those things, despite the fact those things have been used for evil ends, just as religion has been used for evil ends.

I personally don't think any of those things are bad, just misused. Religion is just a tool -- the good and evil things done by religion testifies to the fact that tools can be wielded as the holder sees fit.

 

[Juddog]

I think Atheists are fine to discuss this with, but I'd say it's pointless talking to someone who wants a simple, single reason for the world's problems, and those of whom have their minds firmly set on blaming religion despite the evidence pointing to the human race as a whole.

People have always been the problem.

People created religion to take control over other people. Lo and behold, religion causes problems.

 

[piasabird]

You could look at events like Katrina and ask yourself who did the most good? Was it the Federal Government or was it the churches? Both had a part to play for the welfare of the people caught up in that flood. Churches are often more adept at responding with help to an immediate need. The military is also good at things like the airlift operations and its resources like aircraft carriers and Helicopters to move people, food, and supplies.

Boy Scout Motto: "Be Prepared!"

 

[Retro Rob]

You could look at events like Katrina and ask yourself who did the most good? Was it the Federal Government or was it the churches? Both had a part to play for the welfare of the people caught up in that flood. Churches are often more adept at responding with help to an immediate need. The military is also good at things like the airlift operations and its resources like aircraft carriers and Helicopters to move people, food, and supplies.

Boy Scout Motto: "Be Prepared!"

I'd say caring people, despite their affiliation (or the lack thereof).

Also, Churches have a community responsiblity, so they do have to do things for the community.

 

[kia75]

I think it is pointless for someone who is an athiest to discuss religion if they dont believe in it other than to say they dont believe in God. I would suggest people read the Bible and the Book of Mormon and other good books they may find useful in dealing with life. People still have a need for spiritual development. Whether that comes from philosophers, or socialists, or some code of Ethics, people still have a need for spiritual development. Everyone believes in something whether they admit it or not. Whom do you serve?

You assume Atheists haven't read the Bible, book of Morman or other religious texts when it's been my experience that Atheists are usually the best informed about religious texts, especially Atheists who gave up their faith. Many religious people on their way to becoming Atheists do a reading of all the other religions before settling on Atheism.

I do agree with you, some people need the crutch of Religion. There are lots of people in Alcoholic's Anonymous, in jail, etc that won't give up drugs for themselves but are willing to give up drugs for God. We need to work at increasing the Good that religion does while nullifying it's bad parts, just like everything else.

 

[piasabird]

One man's control is another mans sense of order and compassion. Lawlessness is not freedom it is anarchy.

 

[piasabird]

When I say other good books that does not just mean religious texts. It also includes literature, philosophy, and modern-day works or studies in Math, Medical Science, Physics, The Art of War, Social Studies, Psychology, etc.

For instance in the Book of Mormon it discusses some things we should all look out for in society today like othe way that evil tyrant kings can oppress the people. It discusses things like Secret societies that took over judges. It talks about Priestcraft (Teaching Religion to get gain). Evil societies that rob and steal are also discussed.

I would not leave out the book that Alcoholics anonymous distributes. You can be a slave to Alcohol and Drugs just as easily as being controlled by a religion, a king, or an oppressive government.

 

[piasabird]

I think reading the Bible from the first page to the last has some value in itself. I always her people quote something in the Bible and then they claim it means something. I have a policy that whenever someone makes these claims that I should look it up and see for myself. Too many times things are taken out of context.

President Clinton for instance comared what he did with his intern to the actions of King David. However, if you have never read about King David for yourself you would not know exectly what he was talking about. In the Bible King David fell in lust with the woman that lived next to his palace and sent her husband into battle in such a way as to kill him. Then King david stole the mans wife. When confronted he even gave up his kingdom and left the government. This is the part that President Clinton Failed to do. So he was nothing like King David.

You would not know all of this if you never really read the Bible for yourself. King David was a very complex leader who had plenty of faults but he always went back to his roots and his belief in God.

 

[sandorski]

So, it's tribalistic because you say it is, not because it actually "is".

I think he made a very good point, any exlucsion, by your definition, is "tribalistic". This is a false statement. I don't let strangers into my home, so I guess I am "tribalistic"? :whiste:

So, if a business excludes certain behavior, like work-place romances, that's tribalistic? To me, it just sounds like you're parroting the same unoriginald arguments against religion people have been making for decades. Tribalism is tribalism -- you can't double-talk and say: "this form of tribalism isn't as bad as theirs so that's more acceptable".

That's like saying: "Radical Islam is worse than Radical Christianity because Christians use legislation instead of suicide vests"....no, radical behavior is radical behavior.

To have a decent conversation, you have to remove your anit-religious biases and this is cleary not the case with your extremely narrow defintion of tribalism.

Sure, I am inclined to agree with you with certain religious groups, but saying religion is tribal (which includes all of them) is like saying sports are violent because football and boxing is.

This is simply a fallacy, and one often trotted out.

It separates people into exclusive groups, so Yes, it is tribalistic.

 

[Retro Rob]

It separates people into exclusive groups, so Yes, it is tribalistic.

Are you willing to submit that employers with both IT and Accounting Departments are tribalistic, too?

 

[sandorski]

Are you willing to submit that employers with both IT and Accounting Department are tribalistic, too?

Umm, wut?

 

[kia75]

When I say other good books that does not just mean religious texts. It also includes literature, philosophy, and modern-day works or studies in Math, Medical Science, Physics, The Art of War, Social Studies, Psychology, etc.

Why do you assume atheists don't read these books? I'd venture that the average atheist knows more about Math, Medical Science, Physics, Social studies, etc. Especially since a lot of fundamentalist religions discourage learning about other cultures, societies and gaining knowledge that isn't part of the religious text.

For instance in the Book of Mormon it discusses some things we should all look out for in society today like othe way that evil tyrant kings can oppress the people. It discusses things like Secret societies that took over judges. It talks about Priestcraft (Teaching Religion to get gain). Evil societies that rob and steal are also discussed.

Yes, we all agree that it's a good idea to be well-read. What do you think about bad people having dark skin and good people having light-skin? That the better you became the lighter your skin becomes? That's in the book of Mormon. The nice thing about not holding The Book of Mormon as written by God is that you get to enjoy the cool parts (Jesus showing up in the New World is freaking cool!) while ignoring the bad parts, like people with Dark skin are bad and can never be Mormons.

This entire thread is about exactly this. If you're a Mormon do you not hang out with black people? After all, according to your holy book Black people are bad. If you're a Christian doesn't that mean you can't be a soldier? Jesus says turn the other cheek, and shooting a gun at someone is the opposite of that.

I would not leave out the book that Alcoholics anonymous distributes. You can be a slave to Alcohol and Drugs just as easily as being controlled by a religion, a king, or an oppressive government.

The book that Alcoholics Anonymous unofficially distributes is the bible. You don't have to be a Christian to be in Alcoholics Anonymous, but you do need to believe in a higher power. Most meetings are in churches and unless you're part of another religion already (i.e. you're already a muslim\hindu\buhdist) AA pushes you towards Christianity.

I think reading the Bible from the first page to the last has some value in itself. I always her people quote something in the Bible and then they claim it means something. I have a policy that whenever someone makes these claims that I should look it up and see for myself. Too many times things are taken out of context.

President Clinton for instance comared what he did with his intern to the actions of King David. However, if you have never read about King David for yourself you would not know exectly what he was talking about. In the Bible King David fell in lust with the woman that lived next to his palace and sent her husband into battle in such a way as to kill him. Then King david stole the mans wife. When confronted he even gave up his kingdom and left the government. This is the part that President Clinton Failed to do. So he was nothing like King David.

You would not know all of this if you never really read the Bible for yourself. King David was a very complex leader who had plenty of faults but he always went back to his roots and his belief in God.

I suggest you re-read the bible and get your facts straight. The story you're talking about is in 2 Samuel 11 and 12


But after David wed Bathsheba He didn't resign from being King, he continued to be king for many long years up until his death in Old Age. God gave 3 punishments for the killing of Uriah. The first was that "the sword would never depart from his house" (David would always be surrounded by violence). The 2nd was that in broad daylight someone would sleep with all his wives. (This is figuratively, but I think this meant his son Absalom would lead a very public rebellion against King David), and that his child with Bathsheba would die (only literal punishment as the child died 7 days later).

Bathsheba later on gave birth to Solomon who became King after David.


I highly doubt Clinton ever compared himself with King David, though if you have a link I could be persuaded otherwise. During that time period many preachers, including my own, compared Clinton to King David. Much like King David, Clinton DID ask for forgiveness from God and his church

I do agree that when someone hears someone claim something from the Bible they should double-check it. If they don't double-check the source they might get a completely opposite and faulty reading of it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Umm, wut?

I don't think tribalism means what you think it means. You only define it as separating people into groups...well, then, the IT department is a group separate from accounting. Tribalism?

Mens restrooms are separate from womens restrooms, is that tribalism? There are mens/women/kids departments in shopping malls. Tribalism?

We vote either Republican or Democrat? Tribalism? (well, this may fit the defintion more closely).

 

[Pulsar]

Umm, wut?

Don't worry. He's going to drag you down and start arguing with you about semantics. Just see the 2 dozen other threads where the exact same thing has happened.

It was a nice discussion. I'm checking out while it's still a net-positive. Thanks OP. Up till this point this has been one of the better religious discussions.

 

[sandorski]

Don't worry. He's going to drag you down and start arguing with you about semantics. Just see the 2 dozen other threads where the exact same thing has happened.

It was a nice discussion. I'm checking out while it's still a net-positive. Thanks OP. Up till this point this has been one of the better religious discussions.

Ya, I was involved in many of those.

 

[Retro Rob]

Don't worry. He's going to drag you down and start arguing with you about semantics. Just see the 2 dozen other threads where the exact same thing has happened.

It was a nice discussion. I'm checking out while it's still a net-positive. Thanks OP. Up till this point this has been one of the better religious discussions.

Hey, all I ask for is for some clarity.

All I hear is talking points: "it's dividing, tribal, etc" and none of you present any details or examples of how every religion (since you always put every denominations under the umbrella term "religion") is tribal.

It's time people like myself started calling you all out and making you validate your points.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that believers and deniers generally speaking know nothing at all about God. They either believe or do not believe in a God who is out there someplace as a person or entity. But you can look from the sub atomic to the Macrocosms and never find God. God can be found only in awakening to real consciousness, the ending of dualistic thinking and birth into the now with ones heart awakened. God exists only for the God conscious, a state which has nothing to do with and is beyond faith or denial. One either knows or one does not and that's the end of it. The only aim in life worth anything is to awaken. The ego can do nothing. One awakens by Grace.

When we start to enter the now we experience panic and fear because we used to be and were psychically murdered in that state. To enter that now is to awaken that past. This is why we can learn from knowing what we are feeling. We can peal back the armor we hide behind by remembering. We can tap and bleed off our pain and heal and learn to trust the goodness that hides within. When and if the heart awakens to love, we will understand all about God. Then the love He feels for us becomes the same love we feel for him. There is only unity. God is when the heart fills the universe with love.

It is fine to look for God by thinking so long as you know if you find Him thought will stop. This can happen by Grace at the end of thought's rope.

Everything you long for or reject is hidden within you. Relax and be happy. Let go of all your opinions and die to that pretend knower.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would also argue, as was already pointed out, Jesus taught the complete opposite of tribalism (love your enemies, pray for those persecuting you, preach the good news, love people as yourself, put your sword in its place).

You won't find tribalism in genuine Christianity, and staying loyal to God is far from tribalism.

So its not semantics I want to argue, but of Jesus was a tribalistic person, I'd like to be shown how and why.

 

[smackababy]

I would also argue, as was already pointed out, Jesus taught the complete opposite of tribalism (love your enemies, pray for those persecuting you, preach the good news, love people as yourself, put your sword in its place).

You won't find tribalism in genuine Christianity, and staying loyal to God is far from tribalism.

So its not semantics I want to argue, but of Jesus was a tribalistic person, I'd like to be shown how and why.

"Genuine Christianity" isn't a commonly practiced religion. Most religion segregate themselves and the 'nonbelievers'. Few religions teach real acceptance of other people's beliefs, and instead, teach tolerance at arms length. And your question concerning the IT and Accounting departments is somewhat true; however, it also differs because they are parts of a greater whole (the company).

Also, I'd like to add most people who refer to religion, especially in the negative manner, aren't referring so much to the direct teachings of Jesus, but the organized and practiced Christianity of the church. You, Rob, like to argue what Jesus stood for, but that isn't entirely valid in the arguments about Christianity. I am pretty sure Jesus wouldn't have signed off on any crusade, however, the Church deemed it something 'a good Christian' should do.

 

[sandorski]

I would also argue, as was already pointed out, Jesus taught the complete opposite of tribalism (love your enemies, pray for those persecuting you, preach the good news, love people as yourself, put your sword in its place).

You won't find tribalism in genuine Christianity, and staying loyal to God is far from tribalism.

So its not semantics I want to argue, but of Jesus was a tribalistic person, I'd like to be shown how and why.

Please be honest, for once. I laid out what I meant about Tribalism. Your continued Strawmanning of all sorts of arguments is going to put you on Ignore.

 

[Retro Rob]

"Genuine Christianity" isn't a commonly practiced religion. Most religion segregate themselves and the 'nonbelievers'. Few religions teach real acceptance of other people's beliefs, and instead, teach tolerance at arms length. And your question concerning the IT and Accounting departments is somewhat true; however, it also differs because they are parts of a greater whole (the company).

I agree, but that's more schism than tribalism -- and most schisms are due to doctrinal disputes and quarreling over "leadership".

But, for a religion to function, all members must be harmonious and in peace with regard doctrine and direction, just like anything else in life. This does NOT mean Christianity is inherently tribal -- that's a completely uneducated, and normally parroted rhetoric.

This is the point I am making. Families break up over disputes over rules and practices, and disagreements on the direction of the family's finances and such.

Also, I'd like to add most people who refer to religion, especially in the negative manner, aren't referring so much to the direct teachings of Jesus, but the organized and practiced Christianity of the church. You, Rob, like to argue what Jesus stood for, but that isn't entirely valid in the arguments about Christianity. I am pretty sure Jesus wouldn't have signed off on any crusade, however, the Church deemed it something 'a good Christian' should do.

I 100% agree with this, and I'd like to add that you can't fault Christianity in and of itself (when looking at Jesus) when we see these people doing these things both past and present, no more than you can fault the parents for the decisions adult children make.