Religious people are flawed... An example being most people drink and get drink (even religous people I'm sure), yet the Bible says, in Ephesians 5:18: "Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you."
Okay, it states wine, but if they can interpret that being gay is a sin (where it does *not* clearly state anywhere in the Bible), then surely something like that can be "bent" a little to say don't get drunk?
An open quote: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." How many people ruin their lives with smoking, drugs, etc and are religious? Another flaw.
Anyway I whole-heartedly agree with ye, Andy. I have no problems with Religion until it start to try and control everything, which is the problem here. Christianity fighting Islam, etc etc. The government trying to please both sides.
This country as far as I'm aware is about equality (why would we have Equal Opportunities otherwise?). Religious intervention unbalances that equality to favour the religion in question, therefore making it acceptable only to those following that religion. Not on.
I would agree with a march thing, but you would probably get lots of peoples backs up (and sods law says it'll probably hammer down as hard as when I last visited ye when the animal rights protestors were marching). Maybe some other form of political lobbying? A petition or "spamming" some government officer with letters?
Two my two pence... Doubt its worth much :) (Okay that was rather ironic...)
People seem to think that, because it is a "religious belief" or a "religious viewpoint" that it is automatically worth respect and/or listening time out of all proportion of the normal way of deciding things.
Because people believe stuff because a) a historical figure said so b) a book said so (Mein Kampf, anyone?) or c) because the voices in our heads/the heads of our leaders said so - and this makes their views somehow of major importance, and what's more handled with kid gloves?
Any belief that stands up to rigourous discussion and thought gets near-universal respect. The rights of humans, the ideal of charity, the right to freedom of conscience. If some thought needs special measures to keep it propped up, doesn't that say somethign rather damning about the strength of intellect of those who wilfully believe that thought?
Any belief that stands up to rigourous discussion and thought gets near-universal respect. The rights of humans, the ideal of charity, the right to freedom of conscience. If some thought needs special measures to keep it propped up, doesn't that say somethign rather damning about the strength of intellect of those who wilfully believe that thought?
Yikes! First of all I'd say there are plenty of beliefs that do seem to stand up to rigorous discussion and thought which are completely bonkers, such the concept of a man and woman (for example, assuming everyone is either male or female.) I'd go as far as to include "the ideal of charity" in this. As long as charities exist the government can relinquish some responsibility. This can be a good thing, but what happens to vital medical charities when the economy slumps? Finally, and probably most importantly, the ideas of equality and acceptance do need to be propped up. They're unnatural ideas (in the same way as good hygeine is unnatural, or eating healthily) so they must be taught and reinforced, continually propped up by educators, legislation and government actions. To say equality doesn't need propping up is just slightly ludicrous.
Yes, but people discuss them! Religion is surrounded by this little bubble of adamantine that says "thou shalt not even dare suggest this is wrong, or else."
It is not that fact that things like charity are artificial (although anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists might suggest otherwise, seeing as they have clear beneficial aspects in societal cohesion).
Assuming everyone is male or female - not bonkers, just *slightly* wrong. Physically, the vast majority of people are male or female - we've just conveniently ignored the rest (then again, that's not a universal throughout the world; Native Americans had some interesting ideas about homosexuals and trans ppl, and the Thai ppl have long believed in a third gender, making them much more open to non-standard sexualities, explaining partly the whole ladyboy thing).
When you get right down to it, any idea that represents something abstract and intangible (freedom of speech, charity, gender identity, God, faith is completely artificial, in the sense that they are entirely human constructs and not part of the physical world. And yet, we spend almost all of time working within the constraints of those human constructs (money, degrees, relationships, reputation...) - that doesn't make them any less real.
When I said that an idea needs propping up, I was not clear enough. I did not mean that the implentation of the idea needs propping up, I meant that the worthiness of the idea needed propping up; charity needs physical support and help, but the idea can be discussed, its worthiness debated.
Religion - faith, specifically, along with organised religion - seems to recoil in horror and even insult at this idea that it might be wrong.
For what it's worth, I take most "modern" religions (that includes Christianity) with a pinch of salt, simple because they do have (and I believe are) relations to Paganism.
It does seem to be the more modern religions making things akward with government and not respecting others choices.
No offence to religions intended, but they need to learn the same lesson most things need to learn: Coexist without forcing your choices/rights/opinions upon others. I don't know of any religion that does that currently... Would it be such a hard task?
Yes, but people discuss them! Religion is surrounded by this little bubble of adamantine that says "thou shalt not even dare suggest this is wrong, or else."
True to an extent, but at the same time the people who actually know their religious beliefs inside out generally have discussed their ideas a lot and many of them even go through periods of doubt and emotional turmoil over their faith. A religious belief isn't simply "I believe that..." If you want to get a debate going then go to a Christian Union with a reasonably large number of people and ask what the point of being Christian is. They'll be debating about it for hours, with all sorts of answers that include faith, conversion, good deeds, repentence etc, some of which will be mutually exclusive. There's plenty of discussion about religion (ack, read Christianity), even though it's not discussed as much as other issues.
It is not that fact that things like charity are artificial
Yes they are. That's my point. We're raised with the idea of charity and are taught to get a positive emotional response from charities. If someone donates money to a charity that works in Oxfam are they doing it because they're interested in the long term economic growth of the area and the rise in standard of living that accompanies that, or are they doing it because there's a picture of a starving child that they feel sorry for? When you look at charities like Cancer Research and Samaritans do there seem to be a large proportion of people who have had cancer/suicide in the family? And let's not forget that groups such as Life are also charities that many people consider just as noble as the NSPCC.
(although anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists might suggest otherwise, seeing as they have clear beneficial aspects in societal cohesion).
Okay, I'll labour my point! ;) Just because something is good and even provides an immediate benefit to society it doesn't mean it's natural. Education isn't natural. Writing isn't even natural. People find it harder to express ideas in writing than they do in speech. And of course mental arithmetic is completely unnatural, and yet so useful!
Assuming everyone is male or female - not bonkers, just *slightly* wrong. Physically, the vast majority of people are male or female - we've just conveniently ignored the rest
Pretty much my point. We can identify the physical bits of a "man" and the physical bits of a "woman" and some of us are open minded enough to know that there's a grey area there too. But the vast majority of people think that boys wear blue and playfight whereas girls wear pink and play with dolls. It's something that has persisted for thousands of years, and while a lot of people do fall into the traditional roles, a lot also don't. I'd say it's more than slightly wrong, it's positively dangerous.
When you get right down to it, any idea that represents something abstract and intangible (freedom of speech, charity, gender identity, God, faith is completely artificial, in the sense that they are entirely human constructs
No, there are some very natural experiences which are abstract or intangible. Love is natural, anger is natural, wanting be warm at night is natural. Using a toilet isn't natural and is something that has to be taught. Get your average yob drunk, feed him lots of water and give him a tree and you'll see what his natural response is then!
and not part of the physical world. And yet, we spend almost all of time working within the constraints of those human constructs (money, degrees, relationships, reputation...) - that doesn't make them any less real.
Yeah, that lot's real, but it also has to be compatible enough with how we're wired up in our heads. For example, we can't work 14 hours solid 3 days a week, even if that would make everyone more efficient, benefit society and make us happier. When we go shopping we don't just stand at the front of the shop and announce parrot fashion what we want to buy- we look at it, inspect it and take things on impulse. I'd say it's the human nature that's placing the constraints, not the human constructs!
When I said that an idea needs propping up, I was not clear enough. I did not mean that the implentation of the idea needs propping up, I meant that the worthiness of the idea needed propping up; charity needs physical support and help, but the idea can be discussed, its worthiness debated.
I still think that even the ideas of freedom and equal rights are a sort of dogma that needs to be reinforced. No doubt there are some very eloquent arguments to be had, but for the most part people just accept equality because it has such a high profile and it's politically correct, or because they have a vague sense of fairness. All you have to do is think about how open minded you really are to see that it's all a bit arbitrary. I'm fairly liberal, but I draw the line at involuntary circumcision as an acceptable sexual practise, for example.
Religion - faith, specifically, along with organised religion - seems to recoil in horror and even insult at this idea that it might be wrong.
Sort of, but there are other deeply held beliefs that we have that we wouldn't let go of very easily either. I like democraacy and wouldn't want to ever give it up, but it might just be the case that it leads to more problems than it solves. There are parents who remain utterly protective of their children even as they grow into middle age and have families of their own. There are people who have anorexia and just can't eat, no matter how much they know they should. Etc etc etc. People can be just as stubborn with or without religion. Religion gives them more to be stubborn about though. And it's evil.
Okay, it states wine, but if they can interpret that being gay is a sin (where it does *not* clearly state anywhere in the Bible), then surely something like that can be "bent" a little to say don't get drunk?
An open quote: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." How many people ruin their lives with smoking, drugs, etc and are religious? Another flaw.
Anyway I whole-heartedly agree with ye, Andy. I have no problems with Religion until it start to try and control everything, which is the problem here. Christianity fighting Islam, etc etc. The government trying to please both sides.
This country as far as I'm aware is about equality (why would we have Equal Opportunities otherwise?). Religious intervention unbalances that equality to favour the religion in question, therefore making it acceptable only to those following that religion. Not on.
I would agree with a march thing, but you would probably get lots of peoples backs up (and sods law says it'll probably hammer down as hard as when I last visited ye when the animal rights protestors were marching). Maybe some other form of political lobbying? A petition or "spamming" some government officer with letters?
Two my two pence... Doubt its worth much :) (Okay that was rather ironic...)
Reply
~ Tommy
Reply
People seem to think that, because it is a "religious belief" or a "religious viewpoint" that it is automatically worth respect and/or listening time out of all proportion of the normal way of deciding things.
Because people believe stuff because a) a historical figure said so b) a book said so (Mein Kampf, anyone?) or c) because the voices in our heads/the heads of our leaders said so - and this makes their views somehow of major importance, and what's more handled with kid gloves?
Any belief that stands up to rigourous discussion and thought gets near-universal respect. The rights of humans, the ideal of charity, the right to freedom of conscience. If some thought needs special measures to keep it propped up, doesn't that say somethign rather damning about the strength of intellect of those who wilfully believe that thought?
Reply
Yikes! First of all I'd say there are plenty of beliefs that do seem to stand up to rigorous discussion and thought which are completely bonkers, such the concept of a man and woman (for example, assuming everyone is either male or female.) I'd go as far as to include "the ideal of charity" in this. As long as charities exist the government can relinquish some responsibility. This can be a good thing, but what happens to vital medical charities when the economy slumps? Finally, and probably most importantly, the ideas of equality and acceptance do need to be propped up. They're unnatural ideas (in the same way as good hygeine is unnatural, or eating healthily) so they must be taught and reinforced, continually propped up by educators, legislation and government actions. To say equality doesn't need propping up is just slightly ludicrous.
Reply
It is not that fact that things like charity are artificial (although anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists might suggest otherwise, seeing as they have clear beneficial aspects in societal cohesion).
Assuming everyone is male or female - not bonkers, just *slightly* wrong. Physically, the vast majority of people are male or female - we've just conveniently ignored the rest (then again, that's not a universal throughout the world; Native Americans had some interesting ideas about homosexuals and trans ppl, and the Thai ppl have long believed in a third gender, making them much more open to non-standard sexualities, explaining partly the whole ladyboy thing).
When you get right down to it, any idea that represents something abstract and intangible (freedom of speech, charity, gender identity, God, faith is completely artificial, in the sense that they are entirely human constructs and not part of the physical world. And yet, we spend almost all of time working within the constraints of those human constructs (money, degrees, relationships, reputation...) - that doesn't make them any less real.
When I said that an idea needs propping up, I was not clear enough. I did not mean that the implentation of the idea needs propping up, I meant that the worthiness of the idea needed propping up; charity needs physical support and help, but the idea can be discussed, its worthiness debated.
Religion - faith, specifically, along with organised religion - seems to recoil in horror and even insult at this idea that it might be wrong.
Reply
It does seem to be the more modern religions making things akward with government and not respecting others choices.
No offence to religions intended, but they need to learn the same lesson most things need to learn: Coexist without forcing your choices/rights/opinions upon others. I don't know of any religion that does that currently... Would it be such a hard task?
~ Tommy
P.S. Sorry if that was way off :)
Reply
True to an extent, but at the same time the people who actually know their religious beliefs inside out generally have discussed their ideas a lot and many of them even go through periods of doubt and emotional turmoil over their faith. A religious belief isn't simply "I believe that..." If you want to get a debate going then go to a Christian Union with a reasonably large number of people and ask what the point of being Christian is. They'll be debating about it for hours, with all sorts of answers that include faith, conversion, good deeds, repentence etc, some of which will be mutually exclusive. There's plenty of discussion about religion (ack, read Christianity), even though it's not discussed as much as other issues.
It is not that fact that things like charity are artificial
Yes they are. That's my point. We're raised with the idea of charity and are taught to get a positive emotional response from charities. If someone donates money to a charity that works in Oxfam are they doing it because they're interested in the long term economic growth of the area and the rise in standard of living that accompanies that, or are they doing it because there's a picture of a starving child that they feel sorry for? When you look at charities like Cancer Research and Samaritans do there seem to be a large proportion of people who have had cancer/suicide in the family? And let's not forget that groups such as Life are also charities that many people consider just as noble as the NSPCC.
(although anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists might suggest otherwise, seeing as they have clear beneficial aspects in societal cohesion).
Okay, I'll labour my point! ;) Just because something is good and even provides an immediate benefit to society it doesn't mean it's natural. Education isn't natural. Writing isn't even natural. People find it harder to express ideas in writing than they do in speech. And of course mental arithmetic is completely unnatural, and yet so useful!
Assuming everyone is male or female - not bonkers, just *slightly* wrong. Physically, the vast majority of people are male or female - we've just conveniently ignored the rest
Pretty much my point. We can identify the physical bits of a "man" and the physical bits of a "woman" and some of us are open minded enough to know that there's a grey area there too. But the vast majority of people think that boys wear blue and playfight whereas girls wear pink and play with dolls. It's something that has persisted for thousands of years, and while a lot of people do fall into the traditional roles, a lot also don't. I'd say it's more than slightly wrong, it's positively dangerous.
Reply
(Snip nice anthropology bit!)
When you get right down to it, any idea that represents something abstract and intangible (freedom of speech, charity, gender identity, God, faith is completely artificial, in the sense that they are entirely human constructs
No, there are some very natural experiences which are abstract or intangible. Love is natural, anger is natural, wanting be warm at night is natural. Using a toilet isn't natural and is something that has to be taught. Get your average yob drunk, feed him lots of water and give him a tree and you'll see what his natural response is then!
and not part of the physical world. And yet, we spend almost all of time working within the constraints of those human constructs (money, degrees, relationships, reputation...) - that doesn't make them any less real.
Yeah, that lot's real, but it also has to be compatible enough with how we're wired up in our heads. For example, we can't work 14 hours solid 3 days a week, even if that would make everyone more efficient, benefit society and make us happier. When we go shopping we don't just stand at the front of the shop and announce parrot fashion what we want to buy- we look at it, inspect it and take things on impulse. I'd say it's the human nature that's placing the constraints, not the human constructs!
When I said that an idea needs propping up, I was not clear enough. I did not mean that the implentation of the idea needs propping up, I meant that the worthiness of the idea needed propping up; charity needs physical support and help, but the idea can be discussed, its worthiness debated.
I still think that even the ideas of freedom and equal rights are a sort of dogma that needs to be reinforced. No doubt there are some very eloquent arguments to be had, but for the most part people just accept equality because it has such a high profile and it's politically correct, or because they have a vague sense of fairness. All you have to do is think about how open minded you really are to see that it's all a bit arbitrary. I'm fairly liberal, but I draw the line at involuntary circumcision as an acceptable sexual practise, for example.
Religion - faith, specifically, along with organised religion - seems to recoil in horror and even insult at this idea that it might be wrong.
Sort of, but there are other deeply held beliefs that we have that we wouldn't let go of very easily either. I like democraacy and wouldn't want to ever give it up, but it might just be the case that it leads to more problems than it solves. There are parents who remain utterly protective of their children even as they grow into middle age and have families of their own. There are people who have anorexia and just can't eat, no matter how much they know they should. Etc etc etc. People can be just as stubborn with or without religion. Religion gives them more to be stubborn about though. And it's evil.
Reply
People normally say that something is "unnatural" if it is a bad thing, it has negative implications.
Reply
Religion also stalls progress and science and other such stuff, it's just really rubbish to be honest with you.
Some anti-islam/anti-immigration people argue that this country is a christian country etc, this is not actually true. The state is secular in nature.
Anyway, what the fuck am I on about? I have gone off at a bit of a tangent really! ah calculus...
Reply
Leave a comment