K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
However, was'nt your comment that all religions do is: Give hope, suggest good deed doing, manipulate people, kill people, start wars etc?
I understand your comment now, but there are other things which manipulate, cause war, or indeed as you pointed out capable of giving hope.
But is'int giving hope to the hopeless at least a good merit, even without Religion? I mean, think of the people out there right now who are suffering from injuries, and who have been kicked out of school for being different [Homosexuals, Students with ADD etc.] -- I know you surely see that giving some hope is good ... but is religious hope any better or worse?
I think hope is all the same in the eyes of those who need it. Someone to listen too, or have listening, is indeed hopeful; and wether or not Religion started that or plans to finish it, is of no consequence given that hope and comradiry should be shared amungst everyone, not select groups of people.
Then yes, there is of course the religious hope that wants all the "infidels" to die -- I oppose even my own, "organized" Religions violent intentions; if it was alleged Christians over there in Iraq were beheading people, my bone would still the same. :thumbs:
I agree.
You mean, now onto not answering my questions. That's fine, but I'll try not to answer any of yours either; and dont bother charging me with some crime without charging yourself first.
In many ways, yes. Hope can be stemmed from many products of sociality and coincidence -- it does not require a religious footing. I think that, without example, good living would appeal in the same sense as Religion had.
I hope this does'nt stray from the topic, but some people, religious or not religious, dont like the idea of helping others for the sake of "Natural-Selection", or Fate.
Do you believe in helping others? I do. I think our laws in Natural-Selection are also very different from other species, with or without are social conduit.
See, here's the thing -- Religion, belief; there all choices a man makes personally. I think it would hardly be constitutional to ban a mans personal choice in Religion or Politics. Lets say, out of the two, that you, banned Religion.
Your own Army would fall apart. Your social infrastructure would split. Your commercial economies would fringe on collaspe -- there would be civil war. People would leave your country to live somewhere else, that is, without tearing everything apart or threatening your position in control before going.
The thing is, if your planning on maintaining control over uprisings, or letting the uprisers leave -- it still wont matter, because Control and Dissappearance are both illusions of the human Psyche.
If your fine with the end results of burning cities, hundreds of thousands dead, billions in damage, a collasping stock market, a split military, and a world view that suddenly just narrowed its eyes right at your continent, then so be it.
But banning religion, or removing in, would cause many rifts in your society. I'm not saying your nation would be entirely dependant upon the principles of Religion, but just the people and diversity that comes from within it. The same would occur if you banned Gays and Lesbians -- transgenders; African-Americans etc.
Outside Christianity, there are hundreds of other Religions -- which ones would you choose to ban, or rid of? Society wont ever drop Religion -- just like it cannot drop Science, or diversity. Banning either, would have the same consequences as I've portrayed for you above.
However it is, and we have to learn as a people, differences aside to clean it up and get it done. This is not the time for pointing fingers -- but there will be time later.
Remember the Principle I was explaining to Absinthe? Religion is the shield (its meant to soak up damage), but which is the sword?
The Sword is our real enemy. It does the damage, not soak it up. What did he wield against them, the Pope? Religion is'int the only foreground that can manipulate a populace -- Peace and War, do the same just fine and with much greater results.
Whats the best manipulator besides having been stupid, or nieve?
The people where nieve weak minded individuals who needed immediate gratification given the amount of corruption they lived in. An essence of hope, wether it was a Philosophical belief, or a Fundementalist belief, or a Scientific belief would've done just the same as the crusades, and changed nothing of the outcome.
The threat of death, war -- still the same thing in terms of capabilities. Humans can be manipulated in many ways, and by a lot of principles. Sometimes, they can be manipulated by even their own morals -- so its really quite an interesting thought.
Religion was'nt the only player in this -- hunger drove them. Disease, drove them. It pretty much took the element of, "those people in the Kingdom of David need to die, because they're making you diseased and their taking your food".
Having studied the Crusades myself, the only thing you'd need then is to slap Religion, Propaganda, and the threat of war into the mix, and you'd have your first two crusades right there. Following of course, riches.
No, it just says where all a bunch of idiots that need to grow up.
Well, I'll give you the chance like I've gaven everyone else.
Explain to me what you believe, so I dont assume you believe in nothing.
Here, explain it here [You can quote this, and begin explaining, as I'll understand]:
So you're saying that not believing in a god is common sense? You're also wrong. Were both wrong. There's no way out of this for you, or me, because we as humans are nieve to what exactly started us, and what exactly will finish us.
I hope you explain to me what you believe.
Are you sure ...? It had a chance to do that right at our begining as a lowly monkey like species, yet no element of change or posturing of a possible change existed.
Nothing would've changed.
To survive on our own? Without them, we would be food.
I agree. :thumbs:
He's not simply an avenger, and I dont believe in the principle of a god who smites or kills randomly.
Thats fine. Just dont stop my beliefs, and I wont stop yours.
Behind every bit of sarcasm, there's every bit of truth.
... because without the sword, you could not attack. Is'int it true that religion just soaks up all of this qualitive emotional driven drivel about how bad it is because evil men wield it? Would you complain about a warriors shield, or a warriors sword?
However, before you posted reasonbly, your statement was out of context, so its not much a difference.
Now, going back to a middle question:
Explain to me now, what you believe (It will not come under ridicule or question, I swear it, just tell me what it is):
