Faggots are the scum of the earth... OBAMAnation!!! | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
It's obvious to me that (none / 0)

Erauprcwa and all those who have authored replies to this thread, know far more about the Bible (and other biblical-type texts) than I ever wish to know. But that isn't to say I have never read the Bible. Or at least, I have read parts of the Old and New Testiments and a Paraphrased Bible.

But what I can tell you from what I have learned during the course of my life, and that which I have come to firmly believe, is that while many (but not all) of the stories held within the Bible are useful to illsutrate "the golden rule(s)" and/or other similar Civilized Morals, these writings should not be used for anything but that (if to be used at all). Especially when so many translations and mis-interpretations have been developed over the millenia.

It is my opinion that Religions are the Scourge of the Earth. Too many people have died and continue to die or otherwise be wronged, in the name of some faith/religion or another. And none of those who have quoted "their" religion as justification for ANY death or wrong-doing, ever really understood the decent morals that were surely the intended of their religion. Lets not forget that there were many civilizations that existed long before any bible was ever written (that we know of). Christianity and the Catholic Church forced "their beliefs" down the throats of Millions of people over thousands of years, and were used to eliminate and erase all those beliefs before their's. This was done solely for Political Power.

Furthermore, I refuse to lead my life in "the fear of God or Allah" (let alone believe in him/her/it/them etc). Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can live their life based on a bunch of Fairy Tales that were written 2000 years ago (give or take a few hundred years). Especially, when historical studies have proven all present-day religions to be decendents or modifications (or both) of beliefs that were held by those probably as early as 5000 years before Christ (if even he existed).

To live in peace with respect for all other men, women and children of the world and for the world itself, should be the only goal in any one's life. Anything else is simply arrogance and ignorance. Furthermore, it shouldn't take any moldy book to understand or enforce humanitarion rights.

The day the earth has any chance for peace and global cooperation, will be the day that ALL Religions are Forever Banned.

by SnowTiger on 07/06/2009 04:02:29 PM EST

nicely stated... (none / 0)
The purpose of life or "God's will" mind you, in my eyes, is for us to live life and enjoy it.  He would never have created life and the environment that we live in if he didn't want us to see it and enjoy it.

I've always said (if he exist) that God created us all unequal to live in this world equally.  God made whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, homosexuals, heterosexuals, handicapped, etc... for us to know what it's like to be "different" and to live in a world where being "different" is okay.  Nobody can come up with a REAL definition of what "normal" means because there is no such thing as "normal" or "natural" because everything on this Earth is normal and natural.

People can quote what they want from the bible to condemn people but they forget the verse at which Jesus tells us not to judge and not to be hypocrites (Matthews 7:1-5) and to treat your neighbors like brothers and sisters.  People forget that.

When all is said and done, what we all should do from our first breathes to our last, is to be a good person, help those in need, be a mentor, live life, love thy neighbor and always have hope.  I'm agnostic myself because people just don't seem to live up to what they preach and if God happens to be what the radical religious people preach, then I don't want to go to heaven with a God that wants me to persecute people for being themselves.

You can be a good person without religion.  

by Erauprcwa on 07/06/2009 07:58:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Living in peace is the goal of many religions (none / 0)

I got most of my knowledge of the Bible growing up as a fundamentalist Christian (the kind of idiot who would have voted for Sarah Palin without thinking twice).  I grew out of that belief system, but I've come to realize that the thought that religion is the scourge of the earth is a religious view in and of itself (Mao Tse Tung made a very similar statement to the Dalai Lama when China annexed Tibet).  

Living in peace with respect for all others includes respecting their religious choices.  I feel that it also means pointing out inconsistencies between a person's beliefs and their holy texts in an effort to bring about reformation (after all, Martin Luther's split from the Catholic Church eventually lead to drastic reforms in Catholic theology), but that's me.

 It is easy to blame religion for life's problems, but religion is just an excuse.  As I said, Chairman Mao decided he needed to PURGE Tibet of religion, making enforced atheism a religion to itself, and the eradication of other beliefs a holy crusade.  No, these things are all just excuses for the truth - humans hold within them both the power of great good and the power of great evil, and they may use their religion as an excuse for their evil or an explanation for their good, but they are ultimately simply acting upon their own nature (or nurture, as the case may be).

by thain1982 on 07/06/2009 11:49:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Religious peace is just a coincidence (none / 0)
I would argue that living in peace is either just necessity or a truce of some sort when different religions are on the scene (if they are all still powerful). Look anywhere on the planet and then tell me where religion succesfully promoted sustainable peace.

When you say Tibet was purged of religion be aware that the Dalai Lama Buddism, also called "rock hard penis Buddism" (paraphrasing) or officially yellow-hat sect is one of the most belligerent and oppressive kinds of Buddism that has ever ermerged. Some might say China has occupied Tibet, but I think (and many Tibetians who remember the cruel rule of the Lamas might agree) Tibet was relieved of that harsh theocracy of the yellow hats. As an example: in the 700 year history of the Lamas the monks managed to completely obliterate the word for woman in the Tibetian language, the word they now use translates to "of lower provenience" and that is how they treat women. And did I mention that they also forbid (among other things) oral sex, gay sex and masturbation? Never trust people with funny hats!

Next time you see the Dalai Lama please keep in mind that he used his "divine" power to rid one of the poorest people on Earth of their limited ressources and now uses the money he robbed from the treasury (or just took, as he was the autocrat it belonged to him, right?) to travel around the world to spread his hateful religion in neat fortune cookie scroll pieces of wisdom. [/rant]. Buddism may be considered by many as the most peaceful religion there is but that is not the case with the Tibetian variety. I do not know if the Dalai Lama is genuinely influenced by Western (read democratic and secular) culture or if he just kisses up to the power structures and those organizations in the West who may help him to regain power. But given that China has made substantial progress towards democracy and civil liberty, I would say, reinstalling the theocracy is the wrong direction for the Tibetian people.

 No, these things are all just excuses for the truth - humans hold within them both the power of great good and the power of great evil, and they may use their religion as an excuse for their evil or an explanation for their good, but they are ultimately simply acting upon their own nature (or nurture, as the case may be).

Even if I firmly believe that good and evil are only human constructs (religious themes to be more specific) you are right that religion is just a means to achieve and maintain power structures, but it is a very vicious and sanguinary one. And to strip religion of its power and influence is to disestablish a potent agent to exploit, channel and divert human (=aggressive) nature.

Also, I like to disagree with you that the viewpoint that "religion is the scourge of the Earth" was a religion in itself. First of all, if you think religion is something good, wouldn't it then be also considered good? No, religion is in and of itself a very dangerous thing. Secondly, I think you can (and arguably must) reach that position if you thoroughly study human history. Every atrocious act was divinely vindicated. So the anti-religious stance can be attained by reason and empirical evidence and does not need blind faith - in contrast to religion. IMHO, you can even have a personal religion and still be anti-religion in the grand scheme.

And don't mix the apparent atheism displayed by so called communist regimes with genuine philosophical atheism. What all totalitarian systems did was to replace religion with state worship or (even worse:) personal idolatry and as such tried to extinguish religion as a competitor. They used the religious mechanisms that proved of value for utilizing gullible humans for a greater goal.

by eborujion on 07/07/2009 07:40:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 0)
Granted, you gave yourself some wiggle room by calling communism state worship, but I would hardly call the Tiananmen Square massacre something done with divine vindication, and recusing philosophical atheism from state-enforced atheism is the same kind of argument that moderate Christians use when people mention the Crusades to them.  Of course they are different, but they are largely different sects of the same thing.

Granted, that's just one example.  We can point to so many religious excuses for atrocities because the idea of atheism is still relatively new in the scheme of things, and it is considered threatening by most major religions because they have grown accustomed to exercising control over people, but I find it very unlikely that oppression and atrocities would cease or even decrease if religion vanished from the world (and banning religion would be a form of oppression in and of itself).

by thain1982 on 07/07/2009 12:40:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 0)
good conversation...

by Erauprcwa on 07/07/2009 05:47:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Showing religion the respect it deserves... (none / 0)

When I said every atrocity can be retraced to divine vindication I excluded those perpetrated by pseudo-religious systems like Maoism or Kim-Jong-Illness. But the mechanisms are basically the same. Like in religion there is (mostly economic but also social) rigid dogma that overrules rationalism and pragmatism to perpetuate the power structures.

There is a major difference between totalitarian atheism which is just an instrument to supplant the strong religious bonds by putting the state or a dear (divine) leader in their place, often even potentiating them and personal (philosophical) atheism which is just a lack of belief in gods and has not an agenda in itself and is not automatically replaced by something else.

I will not take a bet, but I doubt that there were many crimes committed in the name of atheism where it was not an excuse (apart from lone mad men). You can say that for religion to some extent but there were clearly many instances where the religious memes are not just used as subterfuges but are themselves responsible for the (then often more gruesome) atrocities, e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, Muslim honor killings, many other quarrels over minor dogmatic discrepancies (the Crusades, maybe, too). They often added to or even induced the cruelty in warfare because all they had to do is to attach spiritual or moral evil to an adversary: all psychological restrictions fell and the enemies could be treated as non-human.

I can't say for certain that oppression or atrocities would decrease if religion suddenly vanishes, but I firmly believe that would be the case. Just look at the stats concerning religiosity and crime, like the religious affiliation of the prison population. And the crime rates in generally less religious countries. Of course those correlations are counteracted by superseding nationalistic, chauvinistic, racial and other tendencies which are IMHO partly responsible for the belligerence of the U.S. as of lately.

I am a little torn on banning religion. Of course I don't advocate dictating what people think and interfering what people do in their homes or even congregations (that latter can be argued about though) but I am certainly against any religous influence in politics and in public in general as well as any kind of special treatment or pleading of religion like tax-exempt status, priests as moral authorities, public repression of women and other groups etc.

I would not call that oppression or infringement of any basic laws or human laws, but assigning to religion the role it deserves: as a petty sideshow.

by eborujion on 07/07/2009 08:25:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Faggots are the scum of the earth... OBAMAnation!!! | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)