Bitter towards organized religions?

[gluegun]

glue - make a new anti-mormon thread! I grew up catholic and am as a result quite bitter toward most organized religions, esp those that are backwards and induce guilt.

Here you go OuttaDC. Lets see....where to begin. I have so much anger to spew! Well I suppose that I could continue with my orginal tirade regarding the mormon policy on homosexuality. Why is it that it is no longer "appropriate" to make sexist and racist comments, but homophobic comments are fair game? It is completely PC in Utah to degrade and ridicule gays and lesbians. Some bitch at my place of employment told me that this election was the first time that she ever voted Republican because she couldn't stand the Democrats posistion on the issue "of those gay people". She said this to me in the middle of my office because I'm sure that she just assumed that EVERYBODY in Utah agrees with her. I wanted to spit in her face.

Anybody else have any qualms with organized religion? Feel free to vent here.

[wordsmith]

I feel like I'm one of the few twenty-something people who has zero bitterness toward religion... my religion, at least. There are those denominations out there that I would take issue with on their stances, and practices, definitely. But I'd never say I have an issue with organized religion as a whole. It's very individual cases. Personally, I've had overwhelmingly positive experiences with a denomination that's open, tolerant, nondiscriminatory, reflects my personal ideology, and doesn't rely on fear-based tactics. Not everyone has that experience, though, so I guess I'm lucky.

[GetMeOuttaDC]

glue, hee hee, that remark was somewhat in jest, but I am glad to see you started it!

here goes - oh, and before anyone flames me, my mom is catholic, and I was in catholic school until age 21. the religion is totally about control and guilt, religious dogma over science and fact. if you are gay, you are AUTOMATICALLY a bad person, no questions asked, despite scientific evidence that homosexuality has something to do with your body chemistry NOT some evil choice you make. Don't even get me started on what I did NOT learn in sex ed class - let's just say that my boyfriend's sister (an MD in all fairness) has filled me in on all that information - in my 20s.

now that I live somewhere where there are 2 other catholics in the entire state and I only go to mass on Easter and Xmas, you would think I'd be OK. but no, I still have these massive guilt complexes that I have to deal with in therapy, that have actually been traced to the Vatican!

oh, and what I've seen of other Judeo-Christian denominations seems equally flawed. there is a benevolent God, but people just aren't smart enough to explain it!

[paiger81]

I don't know if I have anger, as much as love to point out the ironies of Catholicism. I mean, I wear a St. Benedict medal-Patron Saint against Witchcraft & OJO(for those who know what that means) yet have been bitched out by people when I tell them what he stands for. Good Catholics aren't supposed to believe in witchcraft. My reply-Then why is he a Catholic Saint?!

I'm wierd, I know it. My great grandfather was a curandero (Witchdoctor) and always grew up with a mixture of Christianity and Witchcraft....

[GetMeOuttaDC]

paige - are catholicism and santeria all that different?

[paiger81]

see, you are not supposed to see "ghosts" (a term I hate, btw) because God only gives special people that right. You can not create "miracles" because only God.

[gluegun]

I feel like I'm one of the few twenty-something people who has zero bitterness toward religion... my religion, at least. There are those denominations out there that I would take issue with on their stances, and practices, definitely. But I'd never say I have an issue with organized religion as a whole. It's very individual cases. Personally, I've had overwhelmingly positive experiences with a denomination that's open, tolerant, nondiscriminatory, reflects my personal ideology, and doesn't rely on fear-based tactics. Not everyone has that experience, though, so I guess I'm lucky.

Yes, you are very lucky. I'm afraid that my negative experiences with the mormon church have soured me on all organized religions. I just can't trust them. It is really too bad actually. I suspect that there might be something to gain from certain aspects of religion, but I'm so turned off by the entire institution. It is as if I've trained my ears to not listen to a word of it for fear that some of the negative stuff might creep in.

[bigboom]

im bitter towards organized religion mainly because a lot of it has turned into a money grab. thats why i have my own religion, i call it be nice to people and do the right thing according to your own principles. and im convinced my paretns brought me up right...

[gluegun]

thats why i have my own religion, i call it be nice to people and do the right thing according to your own principles. and im convinced my paretns brought me up right...

That is my religion as well. A good friend of mine recently left the mormon church. One night she called me up half hysterical because she didn't know what to do, how to live her life. She felt like she had no moral compass. She asked me how I know what is ethical since I didn't grow up with religion. I told her "I don't know. I just feel it I guess." She was unable to grasp this concept. She needed strict doctrine and guidelines. It has been several years now and I still think that she feels lost a lot of the time.

[JovanM]

I went to catholic school as a youngster in New York...I moved to the south and my parents started going to Baptist churches

I went through that period of not believing in God when I was in high school...then I started to doubt that belief and translated to a state of just not knowing if God existed or not...finally I've made my peace with spirituality but I still don't trust religion

I really think religion has society screwed up....chrisitans, jews, and muslims all fight over the same God

Catholics scare people into heaven

I personally just wish more people would just become spiritual and give up on the organized belief systems that plague us

I mean, Bush uses christianity like Bin Laden uses Islam

They Both pervert the true meaning and spirit of the religion for their own twisted views on what the world should be like

Excuse me if I went on a tirade but the way people use God for personal gain sickens me.

[gluegun]

I think it might be more correct to say that Bush "believes" Christianity like Bin Laden "believes" Islam ... At least, they both claim that they believe.

Actually I think that he had it right the first time when he said "used".

[JovanM]

Nah, although Bush isn't as extreme as Bin Laden

they both use their respective choice of religions to spew rhetoric that gets their respective constituents very very riled up

A true christian would not condone a war that harms more innocent lives than it does to capture so-called evil-doers

And Allah does not condone the killing of innocents for any cause

they both use religious beliefs to mislead people.

I think I'm going to get off of the Bush thing. Politics is not the greatest subject to bring people together :neutral:

[GetMeOuttaDC]

they both use religious beliefs to mislead people.

bingo! you hit the nail on the head.

hasn't organized religion been a money grab since the middle ages though?

also, i think it does say somewhere in the Koran that it's OK (or less of a sin somehow) to kill non-Muslims since they're less than people. A Muslim friend actually told me this. :mad:

[MetFanL]

also, i think it does say somewhere in the Koran that it's OK (or less of a sin somehow) to kill non-Muslims since they're less than people. A Muslim friend actually told me this.

I'm sure that's more of an interpretation of the Koran than a word-for-word quote. It's like the Bible is interpreted to say any number of ridiculous things.

I don't have a hatred towards the Catholic church. Quite frankly, I still call myself Catholic b/c the rituals and traditions can be really comforting when things get tough. That's why organized religion still works (in part) for me. Like, why I still pray to St. Theresa....

However, I have issues with taught hatred. I was NEVER taught that homosexuals were bad people. In fact, the only "hot issue" I remember ever discussing in religious education was abortion. However, the head of our religious education program was an ex-nun who believed that women should be able to be priests, so I'd have to say it was a more liberal program than most. ;) Anyway, The Church is built on the premise that everyone is loved by God. The dogma of the Catholic Church complicates this issue, yes, but love is at the heart of the religion, so I just accept that piece and pick and choose the dogma that comes after it.

[Kitty]

Anyone read Under the Banner of Heaven?

[wordsmith]

As most of you know, I used to be employed by a Lutheran church.

In defense of the money grab issue, churches ARE reliant on donations. They're not publicly funded, they're not money-making institutions, and they have salaries/insurance for clergy and other employees to pay, and unless they meet outdoors in found space, they have buildings that require upkeep.
I know a lot of people are averse to tithing, and I am COMPLETELY against a proscribed amount that must be given, you give what you can, when you can, IMO. But, yeah, it's like dues, in a way. If you want to be part of a self-sustaining community, you give what you can to support that community, essentially. All the churches I've ever belonged to were small and def. not cash cows.

But I assume people are talking about the inappropriate money gathering, and corruption in funding, which churches have been historically known for, unfortunately. And I'll get behind you on that. There are mega-churches who have HUGE stores of money, and corruption galore...I can't respect churches that rip people off and make parishioners feel as if they can buy their way to salvation or something.

[WeirdBrake]

Wow, gluegun, did you ever start a thread for me!

I'm never been shy about expressing my extreme antipathy towards organized religion. Mainly the monotheistic religions. My biggest problem is that if you believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God, you are believing that God can allow the hideous suffering of this world and still somehow retain the title "all-loving." I cannot stand that idea. I think it's a glaring logical contradiction.

Organized religion is filled with inconsistencies and absurdities. Take the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. Supposedly, Adam and Eve were guilty of disobeying God in eating the fruit. But supposedly, they didn't gain knowledge of good and evil until after they swallowed the fruit, and their decision to disobey God obviously came before that. So how could they be guilty of something they did before they gained knowledge of good and evil? Organized religion often doesn't even make sense according to its own premises.

Then the whole Jesus thing.... don't even get me started on that. That's the most bizarre and twisted tenet in the entirety of religion: the idea that God feels the need to incarnate Himself/His Son/whatever (absurdity #1: Jesus as both the son of God and God Himself when no entity could ever logically be its own son) and allow him to be slowly tortured to death via crucifixion as some sort of "proxy punishment" for Man's sins (absurdity #2a: God needing a "proxy punishment" for Man's sins when he could simply forgive Man's sins without the proxy punishment; absurdity #2b: God allowing someone-- his "own son," no less-- to be tortured to death while remaining "all-loving"), which were the result of Original Sin (absurdity #3: the idea that moral guilt is some inherent quality that taints all human beings from birth on account of what Adam and Eve did) when Adam and Eve ate the fruit (absurdity #4: the idea, as stated in the previous paragraph, that Adam and Eve were guilty of doing something they did before they gained knowledge of good and evil.

Then there's the absurdity of why God put the Tree there in the Garden of Eden in the first place when he had absolutely no reason to do so. And then there's the absurdity of Adam and Eve being the only two "first human beings" when they obviously could not have produced successive generations without A) parent-child incest; and/or; B) brother-sister incest (which would have screwed up the gene pool to such an extent that the human race wouldn't have lasted very long anyway).

Then there are all the other things I hate about organized religion: the Bible quotes that condemn homosexuality and, as gluegun mentioned, have been used by religionists to rationalize their fear and hatred of gay people. The Bible quotes that support hitting children as a method of discipline ("Withhold not correction from the child for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die; thou shalt beat him with the rod and shalt deliver his soul from hell."). Quotes that have gone a long way in providing many truly disturbed parents with a religious justification for smacking the crap out of their kids with belts and other implements.

Most of all I hate the slimy theological defenses and apologies for their worldview. These tortured philosophical counter arguments about how "free will" somehow absolves God of responsibility for permitting suffering (a book could be written on all the flawed reasoning of the so-called "free will defense"). I hate when conservative religionists suggest that religious belief makes you a better person or that atheists automatically have no morals, even though medieval Christians burned heretics at the stake, modern Muslim fundamentalists can't stop killing people, Martin Luther and several Catholic popes were raging anti-Semites, and it's probably safer to leave your children with a Nietzsche-lovin' atheist than with a priest.

[gluegun]

Anyone read Under the Banner of Heaven?

Yeah, I read it. Mormon Fundamentalists aren't a good example of modern day mormons though. They really are a sect all to themselves.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by gluegun


Yeah, I read it. Mormon Fundamentalists aren't a good example of modern day mormons though. They really are a sect all to themselves.

yeah, but the book wasn't ONLY about mormon fundamentalists. It kind of explained a lot about the history of the religion.

[gluegun]

I thought it was a fascinating book. Can you believe how sorted the history of the mormon church is? It is amazing how skillful they've been with just sweeping it under the rug.

I think that Under The Banner of Heaven gives good insight into how patriarchial the LDS church is. Women are property. Men are Gods.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by gluegun
I thought it was a fascinating book. Can you believe how sorted the history of the mormon church is? It is amazing how skillful they've been with just sweeping it under the rug.

I think that Under The Banner of Heaven gives good insight into how patriarchial the LDS church is. Women are property. Men are Gods.

It is a fascinating book. I honestly knew next to nothing about the mormon religion - so, for me it was informative. I also realize that it Krakeur (sp?) is more of a storyteller than anything else and so a lot of what he writes has to be taken skeptically.

[Crimson King II]

As I have said, I am not a particularly religious person. But I DO NOT understand this severe, persistent, vitriolic, animosity and aversion toward any and all things religious.

All of you who rant and rave against all things religious merely seem to cite unspecified dangers or complaints about religion and then suggest alternatives featuring:

1) each individual's ability to define religion for themselves (or the Oprah-like quest for "spirituality"...again...all undefined concepts left to, well....just you to decide), which reeks of your own individual attempts to play god for and unto yourself (a wholly narcissistic and silly notion...but of course one that allows you to a) have ZERO moral culpability for anything and b) feel good about yourself regardless of your actions), or

2) complete disavowance of god or any moral standards apart from the current given society's, ever chosen with each decision upon the winds of change.


It's very cynical. And I think a bit disingenuous. I DO NOT believe those of you who think like this and simultaneously claim you support free religion. What you really believe is that there should be NO religion (with the exception of those standards set by, well, each of you....), and you think that society should foster this notion.

I think it's sad.

[gluegun]

It's very cynical. And I think a bit disingenuous. I DO NOT believe those of you who think like this and simultaneously claim you support free religion. What you really believe is that there should be NO religion

Actually yes. I DO believe the world would be a better place without organized religion. I don't deny it.

[Crimson King II]

And I have no problem with that. If someone is strictly anti-religion, however, they should say so....as you did....that's a positive step...that's honest.


But I have a HUGE problem with people like yourself who are anti-religion or anti-christian, but seek to advance that belief or position by saying "Separation of Church and State!!!!" or "Free Exercise of Religion!!!" and hide behind that battle cry, unwilling to acknowledge their real position, which is, "Religion is bogus, we should not have it, and that includes you!!! Therefore, we should separate church and state because it's a step to a religion-free, hedonistic world where we'll all feel good and live by situational ethics." THAT is highly dishonest.

[gluegun]

Therefore, we should separate church and state because it's a step to a religion-free, hedonistic world where we'll all feel good and live by situational ethics."

Who said anything about wanting a hedonistic world where we're all free and good to live by situational ethics? You don't need religion to be ethical.

[Crimson King II]

I agree you don't. But I explained that concept in my first post on this thread. It's one thing to be ethical. It's another to be ethical according to a system of ethics, etc. wherein the ultimate arbiter of those ethics is only each and every individual. I submit merely that when each person is left to decide ethics according to their personal situation, including each situation they find themselves in, then that is only situational ethics. You're dealing with 3 billion + systems of ethics...not one, or even 5 or 10. Moreover, when the only alternative is an absence of ethics opposed to each person's own definition of ethics, that is not a great step from hedonism.

And I'm not saying that as a judgmental statement, but rather as an assessment of the situational ethics or absence of ethics we are discussing.

[WeirdBrake]

But I DO NOT understand this severe, persistent, vitriolic, animosity and aversion toward any and all things religious.

All of you who rant and rave against all things religious merely seem to cite unspecified dangers or complaints

I believe I was quite specific in my above post regarding what I hold to be the inconsistencies, absurdities, outrages, and harms of organized religion and organized religious doctrine. Feel free to respond to any of my points with counter arguments of your own. But don't pretend I was just going on a vague, mindless rant. It's cowardly; it shows you'd rather dismiss what I said rather than respond to it.

and then suggest alternatives featuring:

I personally never suggested any alternatives. But here's something I'm curious about, CK. You always start off posts on this topic by saying you're "not particularly religious" and then you go on to defend religion vigorously. So what I want to know is this: Do you or do you not believe in organized religion? I'm not asking whether you believe the Left is wrongfully trying to squash religion in society or whether you believe New Age Oprah-fied spirituality/relativism/nihilism is a bunch of crap. I'm asking whether or not you believe in organized religion. You seem to imply very strongly that you believe in God in the more traditional, organized religion way. Do you? And if so, how would you respond to my points in the previous post?

[WeirdBrake]

CK... here's a personal question. You seem to frown upon situation ethics. Yet you've worked in plaintiff litigation in the past, and now you work in defense litigation. Both fields are the very definition of situation ethics. How do you reconcile your moral beliefs with the conduct that the reality of litigation requires?

[Crimson King II]

I have never been involved in any organized religion....I'm Methodist!


Brake...great post....let me explain.


First....I didn't read your post when I posted. I was posting a general observation of what I repeatedly see in these religion discussions. I think many people who want this separation really want no religion and want to not feel bad or guilty when they do things that may not be the best decision for them to have made. I just think they should say, "Look, religion sucks and religious people suck, and I think religion should be disallowed or disavowed everywhere." I think they should NOT hide behind legal arguments and such which are bastardized when they are used cynically to advance a different "real" agenda. Are we talking free religion and no endorsement? Or are we trying to eliminate religion? Many of those people are doing the first, but really trying to do the latter.


As for me personally....I don't know about organized religion. I grew up Methodist, and still have wonderful friends from those interactions, and I never really discuss religion with those people. But I can tell you those people are not bad people and take their faith seriously. I don't find them threatening and I refuse to condemn them or ridicule them as stupid or ignorant or naive.

There ARE numerous conflicts and inconsistencies in religion, but I am NO legal scholar. And I don't feel the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I admire the formality of some religions and the devotion many people have to them. Some religions intrigue me intellectually...the Catholic church and its manifestations in thought provoking histories and biographies....the Roman and Greek gods and their effect on history.....the Protestant role in America. But I've not been to church in 12 years....I don't feel the urge to go....but I sometimes think and wonder about god and life and such.

I don't know if I "believe in organized religion." I mean, I suppose I believe they exist...they clearly do. Regardless, I neither believe the option is between them being good or bad....between them being equally good or bad or them being entirely bad.

And I DO believe many who rant against organized religion would prefer situational ethics, because it allows them more flexibility and less self-awareness or guilt.....fine...but I find that selfish and a little weak in character.

And I just don't feel some huge nasty threat from people who are religious.

[Crimson King II]

I don't cede the premise that the legal profession is a definition of situational ethics. We're not dealing in life or death here....we're not acting in any manner that will hypothetically determine any places in heaven or hell.

I'm a lawyer. We have clear rules of ethics. We have free reign on strategy and tactics within those ethical rules. But the two (ethics and strategy) are not the same.

I think there is a right and there is a wrong. I think others want to whittle away that concept.

[WeirdBrake]

Fair enough. I'd never say that all religious people are bad, stupid, or ignorant. I will say, however, that religious people are no more or less likely than nonreligious people to be kind-hearted and decent. And I think religious doctrine has been used to rationalize a great deal of cruelty throughout the ages.

I'll freely admit to having an emotional bias against religion. Religion often holds itself up as the right-minded standard by which we should all live. So when people do bad things either in the name of religion or in spite of religion while claiming to be living the right way, I tend to find it all the more hypocritical and obnoxious.

As for the inconsistencies in religious tenets, I guess we agree on that.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
I'll freely admit to having an emotional bias against religion. Religion often holds itself up as the right-minded standard by which we should all live.

Relgion doesn't hold itself up as the right-minded standard by which we should all live, people uphold it with their various (and incredibly varied) interpretations. I can understand disrespecting and dismissing individual viewpoints. Disrespecting and dismissing an entire array of philosophies, dogma, and viewpoints part and parcel, without distinction, I don't understand as readily.

I DO undestand that there are people who have been bitten in the ass by their experiences with individual religious communities. I already posted that I feel fortunate that my experiences have been anything but. But it does seem to me like the "religion is bad" camp does a LOT of lumping together.

[Crimson King II]

I agree with you too that there are certainly bad people who are religious and bad things done historically in the name of religion, which is part of my hesitation to embrace it wholly or fear because I have not embraced it...but again, the plain teachings of many religions are often good...both intellectually and for purposes of character.

I don't think the resolution is "Do away with religion." Then you lose the teachings...the ideas. But it's our jobs on both sides of the debate to NOT react viscerally or emotionally to those ideas, either promoting them or debunking them. Enter ration and reason. Look at the whole board.

At a minimum, for instance, Jesus was a teacher with some grand ideas. At most, he was the son of god. Once we narrow the spectrum, we can find the truth along it somewhere...perhaps even at the extremes....which is fine. But the discussion should continue....those against "religion" often do not want the discussion because it challenges them and makes them feel bad emotionally, I believe. And that's what I was attempting to convey earlier.

[gluegun]

But the discussion should continue....those against "religion" often do not want the discussion because it challenges them and makes them feel bad emotionally, I believe.

Why would it make us feel bad emotionally?

[WeirdBrake]

I don't cede the premise that the legal profession is a definition of situational ethics. We're not dealing in life or death here....we're not acting in any manner that will hypothetically determine any places in heaven or hell.

Hmmmm.... we're in interesting philosophical territory. Many people might strongly disagree with you and might say that the normal strategic deceptions in litigation constitutes lying. Many religious believers might argue that litigation-- the fine process of attempting to sabotage the interests of parties with whom you have no prior relationship because "it's your job to do so" and regardless of whether those interests are illegitimate-- is not only a betrayal of one's own conscience but a violation of the mandate, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Many religious believers might argue you CAN go to hell for that.

I know there are rules of ethics in litigation. What is up for debate is whether those rules are compatible with the religious moral worldview.

[Crimson King II]

Gluegun, is guilt not an emotion. Various teachings of religion compel judgment and guilt. Both powerful emotions. I have some dude on the corner ask me every day if my name "has been written in the lamb's book." Yes? No? Maybe? I don't know? But even were I to feel guilty, or even angry at him, he poses no threat or risk to me.

Brake....I think those rules are perfectly compatible. I don't try to deceive or sabotage anyone's interests.....loving thy neighbor says nothing of how much I should pay them to settle a claim against my guy when my guy did nothing wrong....

[WeirdBrake]

I don't try to deceive or sabotage anyone's interests

If you're a plaintiff lawyer, then by definition you are trying to sabotage the interests of the defendant. If you're a civil defense lawyer, you're trying to sabotage the interests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has an interest in getting the defendant to pay as much as possible; the defendant- as little as possible. In that sense, you are trying to sabotage other people's interests.

loving thy neighbor says nothing of how much I should pay them to settle a claim against my guy when my guy did nothing wrong....

But wait. Lawyers don't ask whether or not their client's or the opposing party's interests are good, right, justified, etc. It's not your job to care. And it's not your job to care whether or not your guy did nothing wrong or if your guy DID do something wrong. Your job would only be to zealously assert your client's interests, regardless of the ultimate truth of the matter. If you thought you could win your case through a series of misleading but ethically permitted omissions that would cause an outcome based on something that ultimately wasn't true, you'd do it. Some might argue that's a form of immoral deception.

As for loving thy neighbor having nothing to do with this, let me propose the following hypothetical. Let's say you were defending an employer accused of wrongful termination. As you gather evidence in discovery, you begin to strongly suspect with almost absolute certainty that your client did indeed wrongfully terminate the plaintiff.

However, you find that the plaintiff has a damaging psychiatric history that would pretty much destroy his credibility in the courtroom. Would you prepare to use this as a tactic to destroy his case even though, objectively, he probably deserves to win? Would you do this even though it would cause him embarrassment and suffering? Would you use it to strong-arm the plaintiff into settling for a pittance, knowing he doesn't relish the thought of being cross-examined in the courtroom and doesn't even seem emotionally tough enough to handle the stress of discovery? Would you do all of this even though you've never met the plaintiff before in your life and have no personal grudge against him?

Of course you would! I would, too. It's a lawyer's job to represent the client, right or wrong. But let's face it, that's not exactly "loving your neighbor."

[Sesamebabe]

Whew! Reading this stuff makes me a nervous wreck! But I am here to to just express my own experiences and current turmoil with my own religion - I am a praqcticing Roman Catholic. I am in no way a theologian nor an expert in Catholic apologetics, so I won't be confronting any of your finer points within this post.

I have been raised in a Roman Catholic home (my father I consider conservative - my mother mildly conservative), went to 12 years of Catholic school (which I now realize didn't really teach me much on the depths and doctrines of the religion), fell away from the religion during college, and then once I got married, became fervantly devoted again. I do agree on the guilt factor of religion, but I don't necessarily view it as a bad thing - it helps keep a moral order within society when societal norms change. I can only say that I sense the truth within Catholicism (that is not to say that I do not have questions on certain doctrines, for me mainly homosexuality and contraception), but I do not ignore these questions or write them off as old fashioned doctrines, I am doing as much research as possible to understand why these doctrines are so and I keep hoping that one day I will understand. I like to think that religion will help me be the best I can be in life by challenging me by the moral compass, and that I am here for a reason. I think that the doctrines/bible interpretations of the catholic church have been warped by fanatical sects of the religion, because when i read about these doctrines, they are never hateful and many make sense. As for homosexuality - the church doesn't teach that being homosexual is wrong, they teach that the sexual acts of homosexuality are wrong, just as they preach that abortion is wrong, pre-marital sex is wrong, contraception is wrong etc etc. - Hate the sin, love the sinner, and trust me, we are all sinners, from the murderers in prison to the priests in the pulpit. Now banning people from gay marriage, that is where I have questions, how can 2 people who are so dedicated to eachother for years and years be considered almost as second class citizens? I don't have an answer to that and that is why I delve deeper and deeper into the church doctrines and theological writings to see if I can find one.

I never try to force my religion on others (my husband is a non-practicing jew) and for those who do (i.e. evangelicals) I think they haven't really researched their own faith, true catholicism invites and never forces, it truly relies on free will, but this is where the different interpretations/sectioning of the religions have come into play. I do discuss my experiences and hope that they shed some light on misconceptions that I see on a daily basis. I see myself as still a child in understanding the complexities of my religion, and I can only hope that my actions will be enough to show the true roots of Catholicism and that one day I will come close to understanding what Theologians have been writing about for centuries. With that said - all you non-believers are going to helll.... lol JUST KIDDING! Had to lighten to mood a bit :)

[gia]

Oh boy, I don't know where to start. This is going to be long. I'll try to behave.

You want to be religious great. However, I absolutely cannot stand hypocrites. The majority of religious people I meet are such hypocrites and it makes me sick. If someone is going to be religious they should go all the way, not pull some half assed shit.

I had a homosexual friend who committed suicide a few years ago. He is the second homosexual I have known who was disowned by his supposedly religious family. If someone can't even love their own family members, how can they love their neighbor?

There are many heterosexual couples who have anal sex. I know there are a lot of supposed christians who masturbate, engage in oral sex and positions other than the missionary position. Why are they allowed to marry and not homosexuals? Why do they feel as though they have the right to condemn homsexuals. Many supposed christians have sex outside of marriage. Many religions say all non-procreative sexual acts are a sin. How many members of these religions are having sex strictly for pleasure?

So many parents shove their religion down their children's throats and do not teach their children to think for themselves. Why not teach your children about a bunch of different religions? Let them decide which one is appropriate for them. I had a two hour discussion with a christian friend who's parents had taught her to hate homosexuals. I mentioned so many things she had never even considered because her parents brainwashed her.

One of my friends was dancing at a party. I'll call him Lancelot. Lancelot was just dancing alone on the dance floor. Some guy comes up behind him, picks up a chair, YES A CHAIR, and hits him over the back of the head with the chair. Mind you, Lancelot is very healthy, muscular and has a black belt in karate. Lancelot turns around and procedes to block the continuing blows from the chair with his arms. The attacker gives up after a few tries and goes to run behind his friends. Lancelot walks up to them and asks why he did this. The guy says "You were dancing like a gay person. I thought you were gay." Lancelot asks him and his friends to leave the party. Lancelot then goes to get stiches in the back of his head. Lancelot isn't even gay, he just dances differently. He's one of the straightest people I know. This is the kind of hatred that many supposedly religious people are instilling in thier children.

On a less serious note, people who do not believe in evolution in this day and age, knowing how much genetic code human beings share with chimpanzees and other primates really baffles me. WTF? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Are all of those skeletons fake? All of the dating of the skeletons totally made up? People who want to teach creationism in public schools. Please, unbelievable...

[LyraDora]

i'm bitter. i don't like religion. i don't have the energy to go into it. this post would be 2 days long.

[wordsmith]

Honestly, Lyra, gia, whoever else. I was never taught by church to hate anybody. I hate that that's what everyone thinks of religion. That shouldn't be. I'm not arguing with your opinion. It just makes me beyond sad that so many people have twisted something that's supposed to be about unconditional love, and make it mean something else.

[shimmer728]

Originally posted by GetMeOuttaDC

now that I live somewhere where there are 2 other catholics in the entire state and I only go to mass on Easter and Xmas, you would think I'd be OK. but no, I still have these massive guilt complexes that I have to deal with in therapy, that have actually been traced to the Vatican!



I haven't read the whole thread all the way through, but I could have written this post. I was raised on Catholic guilt. I, too, am a "Chreaster"--Christmas-Easter Christian. Now, I know I'm 24 years old and can surely choose whether I feel the need to attend mass regularly or not. But yet I feel guilty about it, especially around my grandmothers. I can just hear my mom's mom right now. "Jesus died on the cross for you! You can't take one hour out of your weekend to go to church?"

Uh, no, Grandma. I'm too busy canoodling with my non-Catholic boyfriend. :eek:

[WeirdBrake]

Wordsmith has explained to me in the past about how she relates to/views/practices Christianity and how her church does. If only more Christians treated Christianity the way she does and the way her church does, the world would be a very different place. Unfortunately, I don't think her experience is representative of the mainstream. Her faith is extremely liberal and tolerant and progressive-- very liberal even by mainstream standards and extraordinarily liberal by the standards of such institutions as the Catholic Church and other traditional sects.

Gia... my condolences about your friend. It must be horrible to have had a friend commit suicide and even worse to know that his unloving family contributed to it. As for your other friend, did he ever get the name of his attacker? I'm thinking small claims court. Get Judge Judy to book that moron reservations at Hotel Smackdown.
:twisted:

[WeirdBrake]

Jesus died on the cross for you!

But did he get cited for disorderly conduct? ;)

[maxwell78]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake

But did he get cited for disorderly conduct? ;)
LOL! You're going straight to hell for that one. ;)

[WeirdBrake]

LOL! You're going straight to hell for that one.

Then I guess I'll get to see that Bridget Jones movie after all. :D

[maxwell78]

You're going to hell for that too. :twisted:

How dare you speak of Bridget Jones like that! ;)

[Crimson King II]

Brake, I wholly disagree with all the premises about lawyers and sin....it doesn't exactly work that way. Nor does god say that each person's interest should go unchecked or that they should always get their way...were that the case, god himself acts against people's interests at times...


Gia.....I have a real problem with your post. You say....let me tell you why I hate religion....there were these gay people who were treated badly by other people who claimed to be religious! Well....yes....Brake and I have discussed how there are bad people who claim to be religious. Fine. But these are 1) significantly isolated interests (my guess is that less than 1% of 1% of any congregation is behaving in such a manner) and 2) not conducted by the "church" itself (the pope or a deacon was not likely doing this). And evolution? So. Many protestants see evolution as being hand in hand with the bible and see the bible as a metaphorical/historical teaching tool. Those who fight evolution as a concept tend to be fundamentalists. Big deal. There's no reason to eliminate their ideas in favor of your or yours in favor of theirs.

Essentially you've successfully identified that, YES, there are some bad people in religions. And there are some conflicts and contradictions. We've mentioned that. Great. That has NO bearing on the religion or the ideas of the religion. I'm guessing you can find some bad, even homophobic agnostics out there too....

Great. That affects no position taken in previous posts.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
And evolution? So. Many protestants see evolution as being hand in hand with the bible and see the bible as a metaphorical/historical teaching tool.

This is an excellent point.

P.S. Thanks, 'Brake.

[WeirdBrake]

You're welcome, WS.

CK... how about responding to my specific hypothetical. Do you think that doing the lawyerly thing in that scenario is compatible with acting with love, justice, and compassion? You avoided the question.

[Crimson King II]

I didn't avoid the question. My answer is simply that it is and can be consistent with the tenets of religion. If I "love my neighbor" who happens to oppose me in a suit, I am going to seek full and complete factual information and argue it in a favorable, forthright manner.


I don't see any conflict.

[gia]

Originally posted by Crimson King II


Gia.....I have a real problem with your post. You say....let me tell you why I hate religion....there were these gay people who were treated badly by other people who claimed to be religious! Well....yes....Brake and I have discussed how there are bad people who claim to be religious. Fine. But these are 1) significantly isolated interests (my guess is that less than 1% of 1% of any congregation is behaving in such a manner) and 2) not conducted by the "church" itself (the pope or a deacon was not likely doing this). And evolution? So. Many protestants see evolution as being hand in hand with the bible and see the bible as a metaphorical/historical teaching tool. Those who fight evolution as a concept tend to be fundamentalists. Big deal. There's no reason to eliminate their ideas in favor of your or yours in favor of theirs.

Essentially you've successfully identified that, YES, there are some bad people in religions. And there are some conflicts and contradictions. We've mentioned that. Great. That has NO bearing on the religion or the ideas of the religion. I'm guessing you can find some bad, even homophobic agnostics out there too....

Great. That affects no position taken in previous posts.

I have a big problem with your post too. WHERE do I say I HATE religion? Tell me where? Don't put words in my mouth. I said I can not stand HYPOCRITES. There is a big difference. I said the majority of religious people I meet are hypocrites. They don't have to go to the extent of banging a chair over someones head to be a hypocrite. I have no problem with people who are truly religious, who are not hypocrites.

I wasn't talking about protestants when I spoke of evolution. I was talking about people who don't believe in evolution. There are plenty of people who don't believe in evolution. It's a big deal to me, because it doesn't make sense. It's not logical. I'm not saying all religious people don't believe in evolution. I am specfically talking abou the ones who don't.

This is a message board. This is a thread for ranting. I was ranting. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or give anyone some sort of revelation. I was ranting. What is your problem with that?

[WeirdBrake]

LOL..... Oh, CK, CK, CK, CK... what am I gonna do with you? Do you think that if you avoid directly answering my question, I'm going to forget what I originally asked? I asked about the hypothetical. The hypothetical about the wrongful termination suit. I spelled it out for you before. And my question-- again asked very directly-- is "Do you think doing the lawyerly thing in that scenario is compatible with love, justice, and compassion?" Don't answer around the question and suggest an answer. Answer the question directly.

If I "love my neighbor" who happens to oppose me in a suit, I am going to seek full and complete factual information and argue it in a favorable, forthright manner.

Please clarify what you mean here. It's unclear. Are you suggesting that you would seek full and complete factual information? What if seeking full and complete factual information is bad for your client's case? What if your client is better off the less you know? What if you can improve your case by slyly encouraging your client to lie to you or to be less than honest while still staying within the bounds of professional ethics? Are you still going to "seek full and complete factual information"? Or are you going to do whatever you can to help your client?

[gia]

How many religious families teach their children to hate homosexuals? What is that percentage? It's not about teaching people to assault others, it's about teaching hate. That's hypocritical. It doesn't have to come directly from the preacher.

[gluegun]

Gia is right. The message is clear. Homosexuals are subhuman sinners. The violence stems from the hate.

[Crimson King II]

That percentage is very, very small....likely less than 5%. Some 60-75% of Americans identify as Judeo-Christian...that's a conservative estimate. And yet there is not a rash of gay-hate crimes. There is not a rash of gay-hate crimes amongst members of congregations.

The message that you think is "clear" is a generality. I have many friends who are devout Christians....they are not hateful, they do not condemn homosexuals, and they are not teaching hate.

That's what you'd like to believe, because it coincides with your fears and your preconceptions. You see hypocrisy because you've adopted the generality. That's not fair and it's not intellectually honest.

[WeirdBrake]

I'm speaking as the moderator now.

Copying a portion of someone's post and then saying, "You've got to be fucking kidding me" is not civil, and as the moderator I can and will delete such posts, as I did just now.

[gluegun]

Point taken. I apologize CK.

[Crimson King II]

No problem, gluegun...no offense taken at all.

[Crimson King II]

What if someone quoted Brake's post and then said, "You've got to be f'ing kidding me." That would be some irony!!!

[gia]

Did I ever say all Christians hate gays? My co-worker sitting next to me right now hates gays. He's Protestant. He also doesn't believe in evolution. How am I not being intellctually honest? I have Christian friends who don't hate gays too. Both of my best friends are Christians who don't hate gays. I never generalized. I talked about specific instances, with specific people. I never said I hate religion and I never said all Christians hate gays. I've always said I hate generalization and I look at people as individuals. The fact is the majority of Christians I have met in my life were hypocrites. They were not all hypocritical in regards to gays, they were hypcritical in many other facets as well, especially with regard to their own sexual behavior. I do not have fears and preconceptions. You have not lived my life, so do not try to tell me what type of people I have encountered. Your Christian friends don't hate gays. Great, I never said they did.

[Crimson King II]

First, it's nice that you've judged the majority of Christians you've met to be hypocrites. And I'm glad you've taken the authority to so declare that.

I KNOW you didn't condemn all christians. But you're 2-3 anecdotal stories only demonstrate there are bad people who claim to be christians. I'm guessing there are those in any religion, and there are bad agnostics. I ceded that. My only point is that that is in no way supportive on any condemnation of entire religions, organized religions, and it is in no way suggestive that even the majority of Christians are bad people.

You DID ask what the percentage of Christian families was that were teaching hate to their kids. I DID say that percentage is very small. Even if the majority of people YOU know did so, chances are that you know far less than 1% of all Christians. Essentially, I know what you say you've seen, and it is not dispositive or even suggestive of some greater problem with Christians, any religion, or organized religion...which is what this discussion has been about.

[heatherf]

Have any of you seen the movie Saved?

OMG- the funniest movie ever! It reminds me of all the kids I used to go to church with. You know.... the ones that end up knocked up or strung out by the age of 17?

[gluegun]

I just saw that movie last night! LOVED it. That is totally the world that I live in to this day.

[gia]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
My only point is that that is in no way supportive on any condemnation of entire religions, organized religions, and it is in no way suggestive that even the majority of Christians are bad people.

You DID ask what the percentage of Christian families was that were teaching hate to their kids. I DID say that percentage is very small.

I NEVER condemned an entire religion or organized religion. I think Christians who actually love their neighbors are great. I said I think the majority of Christians are hypocrites. There are many non-Christians and non-religious people who are hypocrites as well. Maybe all of your Christian friends are perfect, don't have sex before marriage, love everyone, including their enemies, etc... In my experiences, the religious people I've encountered are not like this. The original poster said this is a thred to vent in. I was venting my frustrations with people who are members of organized religion and are hypocrites.

You said less than 5% teach hate. 5% is one out of twenty. If the number is anywhere near 5%, that's pretty big to me. I think the number is larger. How did you get this number? Did you consider your experiences? Why is it wrong for me to consider my experiences when estimate how big the number is? How do you know your number is accurate?

[Skyblade]

The whole point of Christianity is the fact that we are all hypocrites to an extent. The whole point of Christianity is not to claim that we are without sin ourselves, but to recognize our sin and give it to God. When Christians believe that sex before marriage is sinful, yet they still practice it, are they being hypocrites? By your definition they are, but thats the point of Christianity. The church is full of broken people who do one thing and say another, its all part of growing closer to God and becoming more like Him. The more we grow in Him the more we become like him, but the whole point of Jesus bridging the gap between sinners and God, is that we cannot possibly be without sin, thus we will always be hypocrites.

[cheshrcarol]

I haven't seen Saved, but I thought it looked pretty funny.

I don't think the problem (with a few exceptions) is really organized religion, it's the few hateful people that use their religion as an excuse. You can't condemn an entire religion or you become as bad as the people you're condemning. I know a lot of it has to do with upbringing and the culture, but I really think that if someone's going to be a hateful person, they're going to do it no matter what.

I can't really speak for other religions, but I have a Catholic family, most of my friends are Catholics and I went to a Catholic college. And personally, I've never heard hate or discrimination preached.

[gia]

Hypocrites are people who say one thing and do another. Like someone who smokes and tells another person they shouldn't smoke. How does someone have the right to tell another person not to have sex before marriage if they can't even do this themselves? My problem is with people who tell others to live thier lives by certain rules they can't even follow themselves. If they spent all their time working on themselves, that would be great. Instead, many of the ones I know like tell others how to live thier lives.

[Crimson King II]

What, are we to have a poll that says, "Do you teach your kids hate?" Well....100% will say no.

You think being hypocritical is the same as teaching hate? It's not. You DID say the majority of Christians are hypocrites...fine....but the vast majority, nearly all, will tell you they are not above reproach...they are not free of sin. I think you observe and think they are going around saying, sin is bad, we are perfect, we do not sin, we condemn YOU.

Well...no. The vast, vast, vast bulk say, man sins, we sin, we try not to sin, sin is bad, but god forgives and that's okay for us and for you too. Then they sin. That's not truly hypocritical. As such, while residual experiences result in sin or bad acts or even hate, very very few are sitting kids down going, "You should hate the bad gay man." It just is not happening. 5% is not my number....that was a conservative number giving your position the benefit of the doubt....I believe it's more like, 1/100th of 1%. But I have no empirical data.

Nor does it suggest religion, organized religion, or any variation of it is bad and should be done away with...again which is what was being discussed.

[wordsmith]

Yeah, human imperfection is recognized in Christianity, for sure. I guess not being perfect makes everyone a hypocrite.

Since people are pointing out individual instances where innocent people suffered greatly at the hands of Christians, I feel like I should share a few memories I have, too.

My former employer, a mainstream liberal protestant Christian denomination, had a head pastor whose wife was bisexual. The pastor's wife. It wasn't like it was shouted to the rooftops, but I knew, because I was close to the family at the time when she came out. We also had an organist (well, mainly he played piano, but he was our director of music) who is so flamboyantly flaming he makes Elton John look like a Puritan. In addition, we had a certain amount of space in our church that was available for rental to community groups. We donate space, free of rent, to a spiritually-centerd support group for homosexuals and others living with AIDS who want a secure place to meet and worship if they choose, but haven't felt comfortable in a traditional church setting. Does this sound like a faith community that is rooted in perpetuating hate crimes? This denomination was also the first large mainstream sect to ordain gay people as ministers. And it's not some weird, fringy, oddball group. It's one of the largest protestant denominations in the country. Generalize all you want, but these churches, and these Christians exist. But see only the hypocritical zealots. Whatever.

[Skyblade]

You're right gia, I don't think its right for Christians to judge non-Christians, and force them to live by their world view. But I do recognize that the "rules" are impossible to follow (which is the whole purpose of Christianity), and although Christians preach that its in your best interest to follow the "rules", it cannot and will never be able to be done. So while I may think that lying is wrong and my fellow Christians shouldn't do it, it doesn't mean that I haven't done it myself, all Christians deal with sin and all churches deal with sin, no church and no person is without it.

[gia]

Originally posted by gluegun


Here you go OuttaDC. Lets see....where to begin. I have so much anger to spew! Well I suppose that I could continue with my orginal tirade regarding the mormon policy on homosexuality. Why is it that it is no longer "appropriate" to make sexist and racist comments, but homophobic comments are fair game? It is completely PC in Utah to degrade and ridicule gays and lesbians. Some bitch at my place of employment told me that this election was the first time that she ever voted Republican because she couldn't stand the Democrats posistion on the issue "of those gay people". She said this to me in the middle of my office because I'm sure that she just assumed that EVERYBODY in Utah agrees with her. I wanted to spit in her face.

Anybody else have any qualms with organized religion? Feel free to vent here.

This is the post that started this thread. It says nothing about doing away with organized religion. Organized religion is not perfect. That's no secret. It asks for comments from people having qualms with organized religion. There is an example given, of a specific person in organized religion. I too gave examples of specific peole inorgainzed religion. It does not say all people in orgainized religion is bad. I does not say that nothing good comes out of organized religion.

[Crimson King II]

I am entirely on board with WS on this deal. Your perceptions of "hypocritical Christians" stem directly from your preconceptions of what Christians believe and what they preach, largely based upon an anecdotal experience.

MOST Christians do not preach "follow the rules." The Bible is not even a list of rules...its a story...a morality tale. There is a model...but not a list of rules and punishment. MOST Christians, even fundamentalists, believe we should try to live by the model, but that we cannot, and that we can be forgiven and that is good. They believe man is good, but sins, and that is okay for you, me, or anyone else.

They are not saying, "you should live by the rules, and look at me, I'm living by them," then turning around and not living by them. They fall short of the model and know it....they know you will too.......and they do not hate you for it.

[Crimson King II]

Examples of people in organized religion does not speak anything of the religion. So is your complaint about "the church" or "Larry, who goes to the church." The two are VERY different.

A part of the whole is never the whole. So do you want us to discuss the religion particularly, religion in general, or Larry.

Sure....Larry is a bad guy. Don't hold it against the religion. As such, Larry is an ineffective example of why a particular religion or religion in general is bad. That was my only point.

[gia]

Originally posted by wordsmith

Generalize all you want, but these churches, and these Christians exist. But see only the hypocritical zealots. Whatever.

Whatever? I stated previously my two best friends are Christians who do not hate gays. One of them attends a church that is very accepting of gays. How am I generalizing? I gave specific people examples of people I know. I will say it again, I look at people as individuals. I know a lot of Christians who are not hypocrites. In my original post I said the majority I met were. I did not say all. Where am I generalizing? Please point it out to me.

[wordsmith]

You know, there are a shitload of Christians in this country doing really great humanitarian things, and it upsets me to no end that because of peoples' isolated personal experiences, and whackjobs like "Rev." Fred Phelps and his "www.godhatesfags" bullshit and the like, their efforts are largely ignored, invalidated, and religion as a whole gets assigned some pretty unfair, shitty, generalized labels. That's really crappy for the millions of Christians who are doing good, loving, just things in their lives.

[Crimson King II]

Well said WS.

Two examples of bad christians and the statement that "a majority of the ones I know" do not make an argument against organized religion. Even that "majority" is exactly how many amongst the legions of Christians in the world?

[gia]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Examples of people in organized religion does not speak anything of the religion. So is your complaint about "the church" or "Larry, who goes to the church." The two are VERY different.

A part of the whole is never the whole. So do you want us to discuss the religion particularly, religion in general, or Larry.

Sure....Larry is a bad guy. Don't hold it against the religion. As such, Larry is an ineffective example of why a particular religion or religion in general is bad. That was my only point.

Isn't the whole point of religion to make people do good? Therefore, if there are people in organized religion who aren't doing good, that orgainized religion has failed to serve it's purpose in their case.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by gia


Whatever? I stated previously my two best friends are Christians who do not hate gays. One of them attends a church that is very accepting of gays. How am I generalizing? I gave specific people examples of people I know. I will say it again, I look at people as individuals. I know a lot of Christians who are not hypocrites. In my original post I said the majority I met were. I did not say all. Where am I generalizing? Please point it out to me.

It's stuff like this - The message is clear. Homosexuals are subhuman sinners. (Yes, I know it's not your post, gia, I wasn't specifically addressing you in mine).

This "clear message" is not anthing I was ever taught. Not even close. My message is quite a bit different.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Examples of people in organized religion does not speak anything of the religion. So is your complaint about "the church" or "Larry, who goes to the church." The two are VERY different.

A part of the whole is never the whole. So do you want us to discuss the religion particularly, religion in general, or Larry.

Sure....Larry is a bad guy. Don't hold it against the religion. As such, Larry is an ineffective example of why a particular religion or religion in general is bad. That was my only point. I think hell must've frozen over, because I completely agree with you CK :p .

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by gia


Isn't the whole point of religion to make people do good? Therefore, if there are people in organized religion who aren't doing good, that orgainized religion has failed to serve it's purpose in their case.

See, and I see it as religion succeeding if there are a HANDFUL of people who are doing good. In my experience, the whole point of religion is people knowing and sharing love. You can't make anyone do anything.

[gia]

Originally posted by wordsmith
You know, there are a shitload of Christians in this country doing really great humanitarian things, and it upsets me to no end that because of peoples' isolated personal experiences, and whackjobs like "Rev." Fred Phelps and his "www.godhatesfags" bullshit and the like, their efforts are largely ignored, invalidated, and religion as a whole gets assigned some pretty unfair, shitty, generalized labels. That's really crappy for the millions of Christians who are doing good, loving, just things in their lives.

I never said there weren't Christains doing great things in this country. Perhaps if one of these "isolated experiences" happened to several of your friends you would think differently about it. You haven't lived my life. You don't know what type of people I deal with on a daily basis. I have stated several times that I think people who are truly religious are great.

[gia]

Originally posted by wordsmith


See, and I see it as religion succeeding if there are a HANDFUL of people who are doing good. In my experience, the whole point of religion is people knowing and sharing love. You can't make anyone do anything.

I would think that people who know and share love would go hand in hand with doing good.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by cheshrcarol
I think hell must've frozen over, because I completely agree with you CK :p .

Ha, me, too, and I actually stated kind of same thing he did a million years ago on the thread...it was largely ignored, so I thought I'd repeat it in support of what CK posted.

Originally posted by wordsmith
Religion doesn't hold itself up as the right-minded standard by which we should all live, PEOPLE uphold it with their various (and incredibly varied) interpretations. I can understand disrespecting and dismissing individual viewpoints. Disrespecting and dismissing an entire array of philosophies, dogma, and viewpoints part and parcel, without distinction, I don't understand as readily.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by gia


I would think that people who know and share love would go hand in hand with doing good.

Well, that's the point, obviously. It doesn't mean everyone's going to do so. That doesn't make religion a failure.

Religion doesn't MAKE people hate. People who are going to hate are going to hate. And some will do so under the purported shield of religion, unfortunately. Religion is intended to teach people to love and do right. Some won't, however.

[Crimson King II]

If the measure of the failure of organized religion is whether it makes everyone in the religion do good, then no religion is a success. That is NOT the measure. If someone in the religion fails to do good, then the religion has not failed, the person has failed the religion. But beyond that, again, the bible, and most religious tomes do not set forth "rules to follow" as much as they set a model for behavior.

Religion is not designed to "do good." It is designed to provide salvation to people. It is designed to spread the word of [God, Allah, Jesus, Ishmael, whoever]. Doing good is a byproduct...when you do good, people gravitate to you...they want to listen to you....doing good is not the ends...it is a means.

That's how they go together. The measure of any religion is NOT whether it has all people who do the ultimate good and adhere to all tenets of religion. It's far more corporate...spread the word and represent us well....but beyond that, you needn't be perfect. It's very much the same as an employee of GE is not required to have all GE products and only watch NBC.

[gia]

Originally posted by Crimson King II


Religion is not designed to "do good." It is designed to provide salvation to people. It is designed to spread the word of [God, Allah, Jesus, Ishmael, whoever]. Doing good is a byproduct...when you do good, people gravitate to you...they want to listen to you....doing good is not the ends...it is a means.

That's how they go together. The measure of any religion is NOT whether it has all people who do the ultimate good and adhere to all tenets of religion. It's far more corporate...spread the word and represent us well....but beyond that, you needn't be perfect. It's very much the same as an employee of GE is not required to have all GE products and only watch NBC.

This makes sense.

[wordsmith]

If the measure of the failure of organized religion is whether it makes everyone in the religion do good, then no religion is a success. That is NOT the measure. If someone in the religion fails to do good, then the religion has not failed, the person has failed the religion. But beyond that, again, the bible, and most religious tomes do not set forth "rules to follow" as much as they set a model for behavior.

Religion is not designed to "do good." It is designed to provide salvation to people. It is designed to spread the word of [God, Allah, Jesus, Ishmael, whoever]. Doing good is a byproduct...when you do good, people gravitate to you...they want to listen to you....doing good is not the ends...it is a means.


Right, CK. In fact, there are major religions that will ARGUE with doing good being the purpose of religion. Because they don't want people to think that salvation is dependent upon how many good deeds you do. It's not the freakin' Boy Scouts, you don't get merit badges. You try to live a good life. You try to love and balance out the bad in the world with what good you can do. But that isn't what religion hinges upon. It hinges on a belief in a better life.

[WeirdBrake]

Originally posted by wordsmith

Religion doesn't MAKE people hate. People who are going to hate are going to hate. And some will do so under the purported shield of religion, unfortunately. Religion is intended to teach people to love and do right. Some won't, however.

Maybe I'm being overly contentious and nitpicky, but it could be argued that any religion that believes in hell has the subtle effect of making people less loving because it teaches that certain individuals deserve eternal suffering. The doctrine of eternal torture in the afterlife (courtesy of an "all-loving" Deity) isn't a very compassionate or empathic idea. In this sense, perhaps the core doctrines themselves are somewhat responsible for the behavior of those who claim to be followers.

[Skyblade]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake


Maybe I'm being overly contentious and nitpicky, but it could be argued that any religion that believes in hell has the subtle effect of making people less loving because it teaches that certain individuals deserve eternal suffering. The doctrine of eternal torture in the afterlife (courtesy of an "all-loving" Deity) isn't a very compassionate or empathic idea. In this sense, perhaps the core doctrines themselves are somewhat responsible for the behavior of those who claim to be followers.

True, but the Bible emphasizes that it is not our duty to judge who on earth will go to hell. Moreover, the Bible also emphasizes that we will be suprised at who is in heaven or who is not for that matter.

[WeirdBrake]

But even the very notion that ANYONE-- whoever it is-- "deserves" to suffer for eternity is, in my opinion, a fundamentally heartless belief.

[Desiderata]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake


Maybe I'm being overly contentious and nitpicky, but it could be argued that any religion that believes in hell has the subtle effect of making people less loving because it teaches that certain individuals deserve eternal suffering. The doctrine of eternal torture in the afterlife (courtesy of an "all-loving" Deity) isn't a very compassionate or empathic idea. In this sense, perhaps the core doctrines themselves are somewhat responsible for the behavior of those who claim to be followers.

I absolutely agree with WB. If a person acts and believes and supports their faith out of a fear of going to hell, then they're acting out of a place of fear. Acting with fear often breeds contempt, distrust, and inevitabley anger and hate. Besides all that, if there is an all-loving diety, then shouldn't we all be forgiven after death, as those who would do harm are somehow tragically flawed? (i.e. had a life that led to poor choices made).

[Ireland]

I have a friend that's Mormon, she's one of the most loving people I know, her whole famiy is. I'm part of a religion as well. I knew a person that was atheist, he was the most judgmental person I've ever met, and mean. He was always putting me down. So mean people come in all forms.

[Ireland]

Also consider this, One of Christ's own apostles turned against him, turned him in for 30 pieces of silver. Judas, remember? He walked with Jesus and betrayed him. If that can happen to Christ then it could happen to us. Actually the scriptures warn about being wise, and that there will be wolves that will enter among you. So that shows that congregations may have people in it that are up to know good. Even the first century Christians had to disfellowship people in order to keep the congregations healthy. I think the important thing is to concentrate on what it is youre doing instead of what other people are doing. That's the lesson I've learned. It's easy to point the figure and judge others, but really every person has to examine their own lives and ask themselves if its the life they want to live. Is this the life that I'd want my children to live? Do I feel comfortable looking at myself in the mirror. Its easy to get caught up with the idea of a person being hypocritical. But that's between them and God. Don't worry about what the other person is doing, that's a non-issue , worry about what youre doing and how you can make a difference in other peoples lives. Most importantly , have a little faith that most people are trying to live their lives the best they can, with the knowledge they have. We all have our baggage to reckon with. I think not one of walking this earth , couldn't stand to improve ourselves. Also I'm sure all of us have made mistakes, some small some big.

[Ireland]

Also Not every religion believes in hell

[wordsmith]

WB and Desiderata -

I agree wholeheartedly. I have utterly no use for faith founded in fear. But it bears repeating that there are sects of Christianity that were founded in the premise of grace, or unconditional forgiveness. Christians that believe in this aren't the brand that condemn anyone to eternal damnation and suffering, because their belief is that it won't happen...everyone, even the worst person, is forgiven for their human wrongdoings, even before they do them. Unconditional forgiveness, and the promise of salvation is what was received in exchange for Christ being put to death. I always find it interesting that it's not more widely known that not all Christian denominations preach hellfire, brimstone, punishment, and damnation. Not all Christians believe in hell. I feel like most people don't realize this. I was never taught that anyone suffers for eternity. A punishing and retributive God is not what my religion teaches. I can understand how people would want nothing to do with a brand of Christianity that does. I don't dig that, either.

[Lumburg]

My biggest beef with religion is that it makes it acceptable to shut off your brain, or rather, it actually encourages you to do so.

I don't know about other religions, but Xianity loves to tell people to "be like children," and don't get all uppity with your silly human brain. You should just accept this because that's the way it is.

That sort of closed mindedness, and even worse, shunning of intellectualism, is only harming humanity. We haven't gotten this far by shutting off our brains and maintaining the status quo. I basically see religion as creating legions of unthinking, intellectually inflexible sheeple who are an impediment to progress. For a recent example of how religion and its adherents are stopping progress, check out all of the resistance to stem cell research. I don't see stem cell protestors as any different from those who wanted to kill Da Vinci for 'defiling' corpses to learn about human anatomy or those who stifled gynecology for so many years because it was 'immoral' for a man to see and touch a naked woman.

[Desiderata]

Now we're pulling in the bible Ireland? Treating the bible as the honest truth is like our great-grandchildren using a John Grisham novel as a gospel to live by... sorry, a bit harsh, but just couldn't help myself. The rest of what you said was good, but I just can't swallow bible talk. It's a fun book, but that's all it is.

[Ireland]

I was making a statement and backed it up with one of the greatest sources. If my quoting points from the Bible offends you, then I'm greatly sorry. If you have a different book that you would like to quote from to back up what you say, then be my guess. Being that we are talking about religion , I figured the bible was a great source to talk about. I'm very open to any other books you have in mind, concerning religion.

[Desiderata]

No need for apologies, no offence was taken. I didn't realize there was a need to back our ideas up. They are our own ideas, no further proof is required. Again though, I do agree with alot of what you said.

[Ireland]

Perhaps using the term "backing up" was incorrect. I was making a point, and I felt my point would be more solid if I used an example. I was only responding to the ideas that were expressed concerning the hypocrisy of religious people. I don't disagree that there are hypocrites in this world, my point is ... why act surprise concerning this, why allow these few bad apples to affect you're faith or how you view things. Why should we think our experiences to be soo different, when christ was betrayed by someone that walked by his side. I couldn't think of another better example of hypocrisy then someone who is pretending to love you , but sells you out for 30 pieces of silver. Anyways, even if youre feelings about the stories in the Bible are not real, so be it. But I'll tell you this, if you read the bible, you'll come across people with the same feelings as people today. And seeing the mistakes and accomplishments that these people made and how it affected their lives is definitely worth something. I took an ancient art history class, and it was really cool to see pictures of artifacts from the biblical times. Such as the Babylonian wall, which stands in the Museum in Berlin. Breath taking And artifacts of the Medes and Persians as well as the Egyptians. These world powers are talked about in the Bible. It was great to make that connection.

[Desiderata]

Originally posted by Ireland
But I'll tell you this, if you read the bible, you'll come across people with the same feelings as people today. And seeing the mistakes and accomplishments that these people made and how it affected their lives is definitely worth something.

I have read (some of) the bible actually. The thing I remember is women being subjugated and being treated as property. People being owned as slaves, tortuted and killed. So again, as much as the bible does tout higher values, it is also full of fundamentalist rhederic which by today's social standards are offensive. So yes, the historic significance of the book should not be overlooked, nor the value of the lessons learned. However, those times are hardly ones to be looked on with reverence. The world, atleast some of it, has come a fair way since then. And while the hateful acts committed then still do occur, I like to think with far less frequency.

[Ireland]

I do see you're point. However , the incidents in the bible were lessons for people to follow. Man will dominate man to his injury, the bible says that. I would like to think as a society we've come far, but have we? Technology wise, yes. But It wasn't too long ago when there was mass genocide during WWII, there's genocide going on in Africa right now. Women are being subjugated in many forms even today, whether its being denied that promotion on the job, or to the extreme of being beaten by you're husband and killed in the middle eastern countries and it doesn't mattter. It wasnt too long ago, when women were thought to be feeble and too weak to even go to college. Or medical experiments done on people, not too long ago black men were experimented on in the Tuskegee project/ they were given syphilis and then denied treatment. It was a 32 year medical experiment that began in 1932 and ended in 1972, that wasn't that long ago. president Clinton had to issue an apology on behalf of the govt for that very tragic act. So are you not going to read articles concerning these inhumane acts, either. I believe its important to look in the past and learn from the mistakes and accomplishments of others. Youre refering to the Bible as if its dead , but its living just like our Constitution. If people pay attention to the stories , then perhaps many of them wouldn't be repeated.

[Desiderata]

Originally posted by Ireland
So are you not going to read articles concerning these inhumane acts, either. I believe its important to look in the past and learn from the mistakes and accomplishments of others. Youre refering to the Bible as if its dead , but its living just like our Constitution. If people pay attention to the stories , then perhaps many of them wouldn't be repeated.

You're very right my friend, these types of horrible acts still do happen, but as I said, I do hope there's been some progress. And as with any lesson, the world does slip and forget, with tragic results. I would never say not to read the articles, or the bible for that matter. Knowledge, however biased, is still knowledge and should never be ignored. The bible isn't dead, just very very dated. We should spend more time reading those articles from our recent history to be sure that those lost aren't lost without reason. The only way we can hope to not repeat those events are to TEACH, not PREACH.

P.S. you have a constitution, I have a charter of rights and freedoms

P.P.S. your constitution is dated too, but maybe that's a thread for the political forum

[Ireland]

I agree with you about being preachy, I don't care for people who are preachy either. I hope I don't sound preachy. I think it's important to consider everything in its entirety, the bible is just basically about the human condition. Very similar to our world in many ways, the setting is just different. There's wonderful accounts about women being used in power, to accomplish something important. Queen Esther is a great example of this, she wasn't a weak feeble woman, she was powerful. Just like there's some sad things that have occured in our modern history, yet there's many other positive things that have occurred as well. Its important to look at the whole picture.

[The Stranger]

I'm wary of organized religion, as it seems to breed fundamentalism. (Or maybe fundamentalists seek it out and hijack it, I don't know.) I'm all for freedom of religion--people should be able to believe what they want to believe--but I don't think it should be legally forced on people. If your religion doesn't believe in (fill in the blank), fine, just don't try to outlaw it for those of us who do believe in it.

I have specific qualms about certain religions, as well. I'm all for the Jesus parts in the Bible, but, some of the Old Testament stuff scares me:

There's a part about being punished for intellectual curiousity-- with the Garden of Eden, and the apple that allows you to know the difference between good and evil. Ignorance was bliss, apparently.

In another part, human unity/progress is portrayed as evil. Namely, the Tower of Babel, in which humanity unites, speaks one language, and figures out what they're really capable of. So, God confuses their language and scatters them across the globe, as he doesn't want them getting too organized, apparently.

And, well, I'm not big on genocide. God tells the Israelites to mass-murder their enemies, at one point--yes, that includes women and children. Not to mention God saying, "Screw this, I'm killing everyone off and starting over" and sending the flood.

Don't get me wrong, other religions have comparable passages in their main book. But I get a bit creeped out when people tell me that they take it 100% literally, as there are some things that just don't jive with a reasonable society.

[WeirdBrake]

Don't get me wrong, other religions have comparable passages in their main book. But I get a bit creeped out when people tell me that they take it 100% literally, as there are some things that just don't jive with a reasonable society.

I once heard a quote that went something like, "If you acted as though the Old Testament should be taken literally, you'd be a criminal. If you acted as though the New Testament should be taken literally, you'd be insane."

[Ireland]

In complete fairness, Adam and Eve were told not to partake of the fruit , they were punished for not following the wisdom of god. They were perfect and new better.

The tower of Babel- they were scattered not due to the fact that they were organized. If you believe that God is our creator, look around and you can see the organization just in how our bodies are made and in space. I can't think of better organization than that. They were scattered because , the tower of babel was going to be used as a form of worship to a different god, they were seeking a name for themselves instead of giving credit to God. This tower of Babel, was similar to the ziggurats, remnants still exist. I saw photos of it in my art history class. Amazing.

The people that were destroyed , were given fair warning . They ignored Noah and his family, and ridiculed them. Much like how people today are doing.

[WeirdBrake]

In complete fairness, Adam and Eve were told not to partake of the fruit , they were punished for not following the wisdom of god. They were perfect and new better.

In reference to my earlier post on this thread: Let's assume the Adam and Eve story is true. If Adam and Eve only gained knowledge of good and evil after they already swallowed the fruit, how could they be held accountable for anything they did before that, including disobeying God's orders?

And for that matter, why would an omnipotent God need to punish anyone? In society, we need to punish criminals to keep order; we need to do it to prevent anarchy. God is supposedly all-powerful and has no reason to punish anyone for anything, including disobeying his orders. It's not like God could be harmed by Adam and Eve's disobedience. So if their punishment was purely out of retribution for not obeying him, then the Adam and Eve story conveys a mentality of punitive authoritarianism that I want nothing to do with.

If you believe that God is our creator, look around and you can see the organization just in how our bodies are made and in space. I can't think of better organization than that.

You can't think of a better organization than that? How about bodies that aren't vulnerable to thousands of mental and physical diseases, pains, and injuries, ranging from the mildly uncomfortable to the tragic and excruciating.

They were scattered because , the tower of babel was going to be used as a form of worship to a different god, they were seeking a name for themselves instead of giving credit to God.

Once again, a depiction of God as being so punitive and authoritarian that he punishes people for bruising his divine ego. Makes me think of powerful dictators and kings throughout history who've punished those who offend them or don't give them sufficient praise. God created Man in his image? Or did Man created God in his image?

The people that were destroyed , were given fair warning . They ignored Noah and his family, and ridiculed them.

So because they were given fair warning and ignored them and dissed Noah they deserved to die? You're telling me that an omnipotent God-- who supposedly has complete control over the entire universe and everything in it and who has the power to do anything at all-- had no other option but to destroy people? This sounds like yet another depiction of God as the almighty demonstrator of his own power in cruel, tyrannical, and logically unnecessary ways.

[Ireland]

Hi Wierdbrake : )

Adam was not deceived when he partook of the fruit, when
the serpent told them to eat it, Eve said that they couldn't because God told them not to. They deliberately disobeyed God. They wanted to be like him. They were not deceived. Apostle paul mentions that in Titus, Adam was not deceived.

Actually God is very loving, if the person's heart condition is right. In Sodom and Gomorrah , Lot and his family needed to get out of the city because it was going to be destroyed, due to the profound wickedness. Lot was delaying, moving too slow, the angels had to grab him by the hand to get him out. Then God told them to go to one city, but Lot didin't want to go there , he wanted to go somewhere closer. God conceded. He's very loving. Actually, before God destroyed the city he told Abraham. Abraham was concerned, and asked him a series of questions almost like an argument, in which Abraham questions God if he would destroy the city if there was righteous people there? A bunch of questions that would annoy most people. God was very loving and patient and said he would not destroy any righteous people. I love that dialogue between Abraham and God, because it shows his loving patience, and that he really reads hearts. When he destroys, its because the heart condition is bad and there is no turning around. God destroyed the city but he made sure Lot and his family got out, even when Lot was dragging his feet.

Yes people do get sick and die, but that's due to or imperfect state, unfortunately. However, despite that , the human body is wonderfully made, but eventually it does get old and dies, which is part of being imperfect. However, he sent his son to redeem us of our sins. He allows these things to continue because when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, two issues were raised? Can man really rule themselves without the help of God? And is God sovereign? The tree was a symbol of God's sovereignty to decide what is good and what is bad for man. When they partook of the fruit they instantly questioned this sovereignty. I suppose god could have destroyed them and started over, but then there were the angels that witnessed the even, ( remember the serpent was an angel, who went bad) the question would go unanswered and there would always be doubt. With the passage of time, God is giving us time to answer the question. Can we really live with out him? Is he sovereign? And with the passage of time, man hasn't been able to successfuly rule themselves.

[Ireland]

Actually a dictator would just get rid of you without giving you a chance to prove youre arguements. God is giving us a chance to prove that we can live without him. I don't know about you , but I think as a society we're not doing a very good job.

[WeirdBrake]

Neither one of us is going to convince the other. You've made your thoughts clear; I've made mine clear. We're both entitled to our respective views. Peace. :)

[Ireland]

Peace, wierdbrake. : ) These conversations have been very stimulating, I love discussions. I love hearing other people's views. T

[Ireland]

I feel honored that you feel my thoughts were clear, being that youre a philosophy major, I believe and in Law school. Thank you for the complement. Some people right me off as being dumb, because I smile alot.

[WeirdBrake]

Some people right me off as being dumb, because I smile alot.

That's what they said about my father! lol

[WeirdBrake]

When he was a kid, of course. :p

[Ireland]

Youre hilarious : )

[shimmer728]

When I was in HS, I had a keychain that said "I smile because I have no idea what's going on." :D

[WeirdBrake]

She still smiles, and she still has no idea what's going on.

*braces for ass kicking*

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by shimmer728
When I was in HS, I had a keychain that said "I smile because I have no idea what's going on." :D
Oh my god, me too...

[shimmer728]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
She still smiles, and she still has no idea what's going on.



This from the boy who couldn't find the pile of toilet paper rolls sitting RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOILET. Or properly use a subway ticket. :D

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by shimmer728
Or properly use a subway ticket. :D
No, he could use it properly. He didn't know how to BUY it. LOL

[shimmer728]

Sounds just like him. I don't know how he lives on his own sometimes.

*now I'm bracing for an ass kicking*

[WeirdBrake]

Allison, you mentioned doing well in high school pre-calc at the exact moment you drove on the curb. Take lessons from Jen. See, Jen isn't just blonde. She's blonde AND Polish! :twisted:

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
Allison, you mentioned doing well in high school pre-calc at the exact moment you drove on the curb. Take lessons from Jen. See, Jen isn't just blonde. She's blonde AND Polish! :twisted:
That's right...but two negatives make a positive. So I'm smart. S-M-R-T

[Desiderata]

Ireland, no you weren't being preachy at all. I too have quite enjoyed this thread and all the ensuing conversation. My thanks to everyone who's participated, it's been alot of fun hearing from everyone (well, reading anyway).

"The creator of the universe works in mysterious ways. But he uses a base 10 counting system and likes round numbers."

Cheers

[Ireland]

Hi Desiderata,

Yes I had lots of fun !!

[Ireland]

I enjoyed hearing all youre views!! : )

[Ireland]

Hi Shimmer--

Cool keychain!!! : )

[shimmer728]

Thanks! :D

[Benwa]

I don't think I'm bitter towards religion. But I think it has the potential to (and does) cause alot of damage. It's a tool, like a hammer. you can use it to build a house with, or use it to beat in someones skull. And for some reason people become attatched to their hammer. They find they can't put it down when it isn't necassary to use. And some don't put away their hammer when they should, like if someone sees you weilding your hammer and gets scared by it. They carry their hammer at all times, wear it around their neck for all to see. They take pride in their hammer, compare their hammer to others hammer and determine its better. They reminisce about how their hammer helped them and assume it can help others. Others sometimes already have a hammer or don't have any desire to own a hammer. So some of the hammer weilders look at the hammerless and either feel sorry for them or eventually hate them. I hopw theer will be a time when all the hammer people realise its just a hammer.

As for hate in religion, I think it comes down to a psychological trauma of the individual. Some people are prone to hating because they need to feel superior. Is it because they feel inferior? I don't know, ask freud. And people who need that superiority are drawn to groups and ideas that promote that. So the group grows and feeds on its hate. Safety in numbers they think with this many people here they must be right. So its a cycle. It isn't a coincidence that people who have this mindset simultaneuosly enjoy religions that hate and political ideologies that hate. As long as they're better than somebody they aren't inferior. Its why KKK is almost exclusivly comprised of poor whites. They feel like bottom feeders, unless you start hating blacks, then your superior.

As for christianity, I always get sad that Jesus has been turned into such a weiney. He stirred up all sorts of shit. He was a non comformist, and ironicly being enthralled in christianity is often conformist. Jesus had an aversion to hypocrisy and religious authority. Trhowing out the money changers is one of my favorite stories in the bible. Also his ride into town on a donkey and that whole deal. The jewish prophesy was the messiah would ride into town on a donkey among other things. He purposely did this, not so much to say "Hey look at me I'm the cool messiah." but he did it to intentionally piss of the temple leaders. It would be like going to get your picture taken with Bush wearing an "I'm with Stupid -->" T-shirt. The bible removes his humanness which I think is a huge mistake. It places him on some impossible level. Whenever people start blabbing about how godly he was I like to remind them that Jesus farted. He probably farted alot. He took monster dumps and probably puked off some wine at some point. Its almost certain he had at least an erection and wet dream or two. He laughed, certainly more than most because enlightened folks always seem to be laughing. Look at the dali llama and various sages, those guys have a permanent smile on their face.

He definelty was some sort of enlightend guy. theres a pretty strong theory he traveled to india and China during his years between 13 and 30. Yeah the bible leaves out a whopping 17 years of his life. That time period is sometimes called "The Age of the Sage" because at that time there was a huge boom interest in spiritual truth in India/China. It would be likened to our present obsession with sports. And if you look at buddhist/yogic/hindu theory, you will see what jesus preached and what was being developed at that time in India are nearly identicle. The story of the Buddha and Jesus are so similar that you have to wonder if its the same exact story, just slightly changed.

[Desiderata]

Originally posted by Benwa
I don't know, ask freud.

Freud would just blame someone's mother and recommend getting blasted out on coke, so he's not much help, hehe.


Originally posted by Benwa
The story of the Buddha and Jesus are so similar that you have to wonder if its the same exact story, just slightly changed.

While the guineness and goodness, and even kindness they talked about were similar, there are some significant differences in these stories. Beyond that, Buddha was supposed to be around 2500 years ago, about 500 years before jesus came along. So if anything, perhaps bigJ was influenced by some of his workings... or at the very least, that a diety should cut down on the snack food... after all, no one rubs JC for luck ;)

[shinyleaf]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Desiderata
[B]

Freud would just blame someone's mother and recommend getting blasted out on coke, so he's not much help, hehe.


LOL!
For real tho, Freud would say that devaluing others is a defense mechanism used by the particularly immature. A good defense if you're 7 years old: "you stupid-head dumb-dumb", not so good if you're an adult. Then, of course, Freud would send all the disgruntled KKKers into the future to Timothy Leary so he could mellow them the eff out with some LSD

]:twisted: