Your response makes no sense. Look at the statements again... You stated.... I replied....religion could be forced on children I did not say...."children often go awry".
They are simply quoting/citing their source I dont see where citing the source is dishonest? Dont murder and dont steal is just opinion? It seems like that is what your direction is since you have nothing good to say about it. Ok how about this, name 3 'good' things about religion? YOu cannot force someone to believe anything. we have not gotten to the point of mind reading and thought programming yet, though there are several that think they can Religion is your beliefs, how can that not be from within?
I understand your point: you want people to hate & kill each other, not screaming in their targets' faces, "God despises you," but, "I despise you;" not, "God says you must die," but, "I want to kill you." Am I warm? First, this doesn't seem a drastic improvement, in my view. It seems almost as if you are trying to help the violent offenders, by getting them to, mentally, take ownership of their actions, by realizing that no one but themself is responsible for their choices. The logic, here, is not cohesive. As long as people believe a God, any God, exists, there is nothing to stop them from believing they are doing that God's will. Without religion, how will they know that it is God's will? The same way we are so sure of what heaven will be like-- what seems to US the way that any all-powerful, paternal being would think. If we find what some people are doing to be evil, & deserving of punishment, and we are good people, of course GOD will feel the same way! I actually explained this, in the paragraph following the one you quoted. If I haven't, just now, cleared up the miscommunication, maybe a second look at that paragraph will do the trick. People do worship nature, I'm sure you realize (even though these people tend not to be the most closed-minded or judgemental, among us). In the past, people have made blood sacrifices to bulls, and various other animals, as embodiments of the divine. Aztecs sacrificed victims to the sun, and so forth. There is no shortage of props, available to the human mind to equate with the idea of a universal force, whose favor is to be curried, whose approval is to be sought, and whose will is to be obeyed. Since humans have the innate ability to invest even inanimate objects, in our minds, with life-- have you ever owned a "lucky" article of clothing, or perhaps seen just the picture of an attractive woman and imagined her as tangible, & present, with a particular personality which you could just sense she must have? Many children (esp. but not uniquely girls), have stuffed animals that they think of as real-- there is absolutely no reason to think that people who sought, consciously or unconsciously, to deflect responsibility for their acts to a higher power, would be stymied from doing so, without conventional religion, to fall back on. Consider, as well, those numerous incidents in the past in which people have accused another of witchcraft, because just before something terrible had befallen them, they had noted the stare of a neighbor, which they had felt was sinister, the evil eye. Other witches have given themselves away by visiting victims in their dreams, in order to temptingly put evil thoughts into their minds, or beguile them into doing things that they knew were wrong, but to which, they felt compelled. These dream-visitations are something of which a French convent of both senior & novitiate nuns, accused the debonair, local parish priest, leading to his being burned alive, at the stake, in 1619, if memory serves (during Europe's great Renaissance). This is the story of the fascinating book, by Aldous Huxley, The Devils of Loudun, which I've previously recommended. I would guess you would wish for people to not blame their bad deeds on any scape goats, thinking that this might bring guilt, which would limit our atrocities (or at least make those self-righteous monsters suffer with the guilt, heh?) But if one could eliminate the idea of God, as the excuse for evil, one would simultaneously be removing the concept which leads to much of humanity's regret, and fear, about letting our inner beasts, or at least our petty villains, run wild; not necessarily a better situation. But as I have been trying to persuade you, a concept of God, predates the first actual, "religion," so exists independently of it. We can hear God's booming voice, in the thunder, or hear the Divine whisper to us, in the form of fire (remember Moses, and Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul?) The priests of Zeus used to sleep outside, on the ground, under the sacred groves of Dodona, because their God spoke to them, through the sound of the wind, rustling through the leaves, roaring to bend the boughs, in a language that only they could interpret. So, in short, as long as there is a tree, to fall in the forest, there will be someone to hear it tell him to murder his family.
Lol...A short while ago you and Koko were suggesting kids are born with morality... you quoted this... Now you are suggesting "religion" is required.... are you two quite sure that I am the only confused one here?
That's my point too....religions are created by humans...they "think" something is true and so for them it becomes reality. That is why there are so many different "religious" beliefs.... all of them delusions.
I am sure you are interpreting my 1st, tiny snippet, out of context; could you include enough of my quote so it is clear what argument I am making? The second quote is not mine, per se-- it's from an article I excerpted, because I thought you might find it interesting.
Serves two major purposes. 1. Provides guidance to live a civil life. 2. Provides a power higher than man as history shows when man is the pinnacle very bad things happen as mankind can rationalize anything.
Then it is you who is at least speaking in a confusing, unclear manner, if on the one hand you say religions are created by humans, but at the top of the page, you say Do you not see how contradictory your words appear?
I am not asking you to read my mind... just asking you to explain what you wrote. Here is your statement.... Here is my reply.... And then you respond with this.... I can find no context for that statement anywhere in this thread....
No Sir...I see no contradiction at all. You seem to be insisting that..."what is within" is a "religion"...or that a "religion" comes from "what is within". That is not true...that is your own idea....I have not implied such a thing. A "religion" is simply something a human or group "thought" up... then assumed it must be true. Our "essence"....or "our true self" etc.,(there is really no adequate term) has nothing what-so-ever to do with "thoughts" or "thinking" A "religion" is simply a bundle of human "thoughts"... it has nothing to do with "God" or what you are.
Lol...Yes! Good translation! If a so called "Christian" "thinks" someone should be killed... or "thinks" anything at all....then let him alone take responsibility for his attitude... it has nothing to do with "God's will".
I hear it is now proven that alcohol consumption in any amount is harmful.... but I doubt that abolishing it would make any difference...same with religion.... wouldn't make any difference. For me to "name 3 'good' things about religion"... I would first have to be convinced that there are in fact 'good' and 'bad' things. I'm not sure there are such things as those....but there are "needless" things like "religion".
Government is still a religion. It use to be that people believed that the ruling class was divinely appointed and acted as representatives for their deity on Earth. Now, people just believe that government politicians and bureaucrats have authority because the right rituals were conducted.
As I suspected, you are using words and concepts not in their COMMON senses, but in the highly specific, individual way that YOU think of them; that is no way to have even a conversation, less so a discussion, and far less, a debate over a topic, in which it can be presumed, differences of opinion will exist. In other words, what I just quoted from you, the idea that all one's thoughts, biases, urges, and motivations, both conscious & unconscious, are not part of what is, "inside," a person or part of what that person is, should rightly be its own debate topic. Instead, you are not only assuming it to be a given, but presuming (with no reason) that everyone else participating will understand your meaning. Well, we don't. Yours is not the standard way those concepts are understood. If a person paints a picture, for example, we conventionally believe that it is that painter's thought and skill which has produced it; I really have no idea whether or not you will agree with this, or attribute artistic creations to one's inner essence. But if so, it shows a contradiction in your thought, to view the creation of a painting, or a novel, differently than the creation of a religion. From a pragmatic perspective, there is no difference. At the very least, you should have stipulated all this in your OP. Having not done so, you are expecting all readers to be able to read your mind, to understand the non-standard meanings you attribute to words. This makes your arguments very confusing, & seemingly contradictory (to the uninitiated); certainly obscure, which is not the way to communicate your ideas to others. If you do not realize that it is customary for people to conceive of a person's thoughts, wants, desires, tastes, aspirations, habits, loves, and hatreds, all as part of who that person is, that is all the worse for your own ability to be understood. I stand by my contention that you have poorly-explained yourself. You may not have ever said such a thing; you may not have ever meant to imply such a thing; but that is exactly what is implied by the idea that men created a religion, that they used their own thoughts and feelings, in doing so. And these things are considered by humans, in general, as being, "within," a person. If we say that a person is seething with hate, that hate is considered to be within that person; if it is a frequent condition, for this individual, he will commonly be referred to as a hateful person. If you desire to make discriminations which most people do not typically make, the onus is upon you to explain those concepts to the reader, to clarify your meaning. As is always my goal, I hope that I am making my own view clear.
Well that goes to my point that, if men could create these (awful?-- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm really not clear on what point of view you are trying to stake-out for yourself) religions, what reason is there to not assume, in lieu of these institutions-- which you, on the one hand, say it is time to, "bury," while, on the other, maintain that you are not calling to be eliminated-- we* would not simply create some other institutions, or means, through which to employ & exercise all our vice-compelling energies & drives? *Note, that by, "we," I mean whatever capacities, accessed by whatever means, you deem was used in the creation of religion. For this thread to go any further with some intentional direction, IMO, it would be vastly helpful for you to summarize the thesis or opinion of your thread, in plain English and devoid of obscurity, preferably in one sentence. If you believe that you've already done this (somewhere other than the OP, which does not), I would much appreciate a link to that post. Thanks.
Since my last guess connected, I will try another, based on this paragraph. Would it be correct to say that your premise is not meant to try to set out any practically-applicable, incremental plan for progress but, rather, is a hypothetical idealization of what you believe human beings, if we all evolved to the level of Jesus, or Siddhartha (Buddah), or some rough equivalent, would then be capable of achieving, or avoiding, on a societal scale? If so, my friend, forgive me if I point out that, like all the churches you deem worthless and without meaning-- which, nonetheless do give dire support, and dear comfort to billions-- your thread is neither, strictly speaking, "needed." Just keeping things in perspective. No offense meant.
Now this, IMO, is a fascinating subject, though it seemed not to be the focus of your post (which was the current, "religion," of politics). Are you familiar with the theory, though, that the reason human beings, for so long-- worldwide until at least well into the 18th century (A.D.); in major regional & world powers like Japan, until the 20th century; and still existing, even today-- accepted this notion of royal bloodlines unquestioningly, as a given, was that it was a tradition begun deep in human pre-history, when extra-terrestrial visitors to Earth, who naturally appeared as quite miraculous to us, took a leadership role, and sired (or created) half-breed offspring, who also had special abilities that set them apart? As the theory goes, even if there was no genetic tie to these otherworldly gods, earthly kings made show to give the impression that there was a blood blond, so this is what societies believed, adding the power of groupthink, until this idea eventually became part of the human communal unconscious. Personally, I see as a sign of this buried memory, the persistent popularity of stories of superheros who save mankind, not just with kids, but with adults. What major actor under the age of say 40 has not felt compelled, regardless of how serious or out of step w/ this, be their usual roles, to dress up in one of these bizarre costumes? And these films are often blockbusters, even getting good reviews from critics! It is as if we have an ingrained fascination with the idea. Batman, Spiderman (Tobey Maguire), Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), the Hulk (Edward Norton), Daredevil (Ben Affleck), Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), the Green Lantern, Dark Man (Liam Neeson, before he was an action hero), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Ant Man (Paul Rudd), the Green Hornet (Seth Rogen), Wonder Woman, the Fantastic Four, Aqua Man, Super Man. The list goes on, I'm sure. Of course, this must seem way off topic, though I really don't think it is, necessarily, if we were to look deeper into it. But I'll just close by mentioning that there are many quotes from sacred texts, worldwide, including the Bible, which support the theory.
Is this your being facetious? I was thanking you, in advance, for your 1-sentence summation of this thread's posit, or main point (which you didn't provide). It has seemed to me, only to be that religion isn't, "necessary," which one could only surmise by ignoring the current place of religion, in the world today, and throughout most, or all, of known history. If it is not necessary, why has it been so universally omnipresent? I have seen the argument that it is used for exercising control over people which is, of course, true. But this is a result of all the power it gives to religious leaders, not the motivation for the creation of all religion, including tribal & aboriginal ones. If that were all that was to it, how would you explain its mass-appeal? So I think, if that is your thesis, you have it backward. Religion began as explanatory stories, about things that were already revered: animals on which the tribe depended, great heroes, the awesome forces of nature & other natural wonders (the sun, moon, etc.), and, I would contend, mysterious & godlike extra-terrestrials, who visited primitive man, in miraculous crafts since, probably, even before we were modern humans.** Once a religion has been established, as the axiom states, power corrupts. As for all the violence & atrocities you lay at the feet of religion, have not people hurt others, because they were rooting for a different soccer team? Haters, gonna hate. But please don't take my difference of opinion with you as having any animus behind it, or as being meant in an unfriendly manner. Why the Lol, by the way? ** One of these origins, is actually portrayed in the best episode of The Simpsons that I've seen, about Old-Time Religion, with Marge as the church's Answer-Lady, & Homer discovering his double in an image created by a Japanese company, to sell laundry-soap, Mr. Lucky. It was packed with symbolism, including on the creation of the Christian idea. I'd guess it was from about season 3, give or take, & I recommend it. Somehow I'm guessing The Simpsons never appealed to you (I myself, drifted from the fold after about season 5), but if you catch this episode, I'd be happy to discuss some of its hidden meanings.
Eh, Noah, and as soon as they make a movie, Armageddon. Jesus has to show he can out genocide the old, for a more dangerous new. Regards DL
