Arguing... again (at least with someone different this time)
Hrrgggghh. I spent entirely too long today arguing with a senior coworker who insisted that gays are unnatural, perverted and sinful and that he doesn’t want them anywhere near him (though he did concede that what they did in the privacy of their own homes was their business)--but refused to admit that he’s homophobic
( Read more... )
How 'bout both? Because if He's really watching over His Children every minute of every day, then He's the most capricious prick ever. "Should I save that sweet little girl over there from the serial child killer? ...Naaah. It's time to test how much her family loves Me. Let's see them forgive what's going to happen next..."
*shakes head* I figure if there really is a God, then he/she/it/xu is watching from way, waaayyyy far away, and letting the world run itself while he/she/it/xu puts together some other planets.
But that doesn't mean that there's no need for morals, or should I say, a system of ethics. The biggest problem with religion that I have is that the various religious leaders all claim that their morals are derived from/commanded by their deities... and that means that besides the 4 Big Rules that I mentioned in my post, they tack on a lot of other shit that's not necessary, and say that anyone who follows the 4 Big Rules but doesn't follow all of their rules is immoral.
And you're too right, religion is too often used to control and manipulate others. "God is on my side, so do as I say or you'll burn in Hell forever!"
Reply
I think that in every tale, in every legend, there is a grain of truth. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there, and stories always, always come from somewhere. And that somewhere is always based on one element of truth.
As time passes, things change, and stories change; sometimes just by one word, which can make the whole difference. What that one element of truth was, I have no idea, but from it came all these religions. I just think that they have been badly, badly passed down - first by word of mouth, then by writing - over the years until they became nothing of what they were back then. And the grain of truth was lost, or buried inside of everything so deeply that no one would recognize it if they saw it.
So, somewhere along the line, the truth became what these people today believe in. God, Heaven, Hell, etc. You really can't say if it's right or wrong, as there is absolutely no proof whatsoever, aside from the Bible - which has been edited, mildly re-written here and there, and had initially been passed on by word of mouth at first... so, really, even then you can't trust that, either, since you STILL can't know if it's the honest truth. And you can't expect it to be, either, because of those facts.
Personally, I think a set of morals is better than having a religion, or religions. With religions, things are subject to interpretation, people use the teachings and morph them to suit their own needs, and oftentimes the actual meaning of the lesson is lost. With a strict, certain set of morals - ones that, as a whole, we ALL pretty much agree on - there is less to be interpreted, less to be skewered to suit people's personal gains and goals, and it doesn't JUST benefit one person. It benefits the population as a whole. There is no gain for one person, or one nation; there is gain for the entire world.
Morals are set, and cannot be interpreted. "Do not kill," for example. It's a commandment, and it's a good one; a great idea. However, since it's associated with a religion, some may feel they don't have to follow that because it's not their belief. With morals, it's for everyone; it's not just a rule for one person or certain people to follow, as it does not include a God or gods - which you may not believe in, or want to follow.
Religion is, these days, used mostly to control the masses. Take for example the Pope: he controls the Church, the Church controls the people, and the people try to control their fellows. The Church is a powerhouse, and the more people it gains, the more control it has over what goes on in the world. They want people to follow what they say, because it is their belief, and their belief is a part of what they want - thus making them WANT to control people, in a sense.
To me, religion is a corporation. Take a look at all the money they are bringing in. Money means power, the Church has a lot of power, and if he wanted to, the Pope could use that money to help third world nations - but he doesn't. Why? Well, I think it's because he doesn't want to relinquish his power. And he's greedy. To my mind, what he should do with that money is to keep enough to care for himself; food, medical bills, etc, and pay the people who care for his home. The rest of that money should go to people in need; third world countries, government funding to aid the homeless in his country, and so on.
But he doesn't, as far as I'm aware. If he does, and I'm wrong, let me know; but based on what little I know, he's not doing that. Plus, all this covering-up of priests who molest children says (to me, anyway) that the Pope and the Church, as a whole, really doesn't give a crap what their followers do, so long as they bring in the money.
Just what I think, though. :P
Reply
In aworld were we are capable of complex thought, ther ewill be tragedy, sorrow, and destruction. There will also be heroism, courage, and honor.
Now I am a believer in natural law which is essentially like the 4 ethics, though there may be more to it or maybe not. I believe that most positive law has a tradition that connects to religion as such is the nature of humanity. I personally think linking positive law to ancient religious tenets is a lot of fun and important to know when re-evaluating laws and determining their true value.
Reply
Leave a comment