|
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
The very nature of faith and religion makes the whole question of truth moot. Hilariously so, though in a depressing fashion given the amount of ignorance that religion spawns and perpetuates in the world.
Truth is a thing sought, not created in the mind of someone who today would be relegated (even if wrongly) to a psychiatric institution. The more specific someone or group is regarding what they be to the answers to the kind of ultimate questions that philosophers largely agree are outside our epistemological limits (what we can know).
The success or failure of a religion depends not on its degree of truth, but rather on how successful it is at perpetuating itself. Religions are viruses, memes that, like genes, just try to spread. Look up the term 'jack-mormon' and the rules of who counts as technically Jewish and you will see.
*Correction- should read: " the more specific... the kind of answers... the less likely they are to be true. A=A is true, and irrefutably so (even a god could not change that) but you cannot build much from there without making other axioms (math and logic require a few of these). Leibniz tried to build from A=A to a full system of philosophy and theology and failed.
Forgive my dual posts.
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
Conversation and common ground are not possible with anyone (religious or not) who claim a monopoly on truth. There would be no difficulties and certainly no benefits to such a conversation.
There *is* common ground, and it will be pragmatism that guides us to it. As an example, some believe that abortion is murder, and some believe that it is the reproductive right of the potential mother. These two views of the "truth" are irreconcilable, and yet, overwhelmingly, both sides would agree that it's desirable to drastically reduce the number of abortions that are performed. We mistakenly see abortion rights as being the proper battleground, when both sides would be better served by seeking ways to reduce abortion without bringing the question of "truth" into it.
"Monopoly on truth" is a mischaracterization of the way most religious believers think. One key question is whether objective truth, that is the same for everyone, exists (this is, fundamentally, the same as asking if there is an objective reality that is the same for everyone). While some modern philosphers have questioned this, it seems a matter of common sense and common experience for most people. (e.g., if a jet airplane successfully flies to Los Angeles for me, it successfully flies to Los Angeles for you also; if gravity obeys an inverse square law for you, it obeys an inverse square law for me also; if the earth is round when you look out the space shuttle window, it is round when I look out the space shuttle window also). Of course, we are limited in our ability to study and comprehend truth, but the fact that the ancient Sumerians may not have discovered that the earth is round did not make it flat.
The next step is to ask whether objective "metaphysical" truth exists. In other words, is objective truth limited to the physical sciences - gravity, planetary shapes and orbits, etc. - or can statements such as "God (given a suitably careful definition of God) does not exist" or "God does exist" be objectively true or false? Again, we may be limited in our ability to determine their truth or falsity at any given point in time (e.g., string theory is still a work in progress), but if God does not in fact exist, is that true regardless of who you are (ignoring for the moment whether you understand or are willing to accept that fact). Other similar questions might be "does a non-physical, self-aware human soul exist?"
Most deeply religious people believe that these questions - and many others addressed by their faith - are meaningful and address issues of objective truth. Most (at least the honest ones) will also admit that there is much that they, personally, do not know. But, they will claim that if "God exists" is true, or "adultery is morally wrong" is true, its true for everyone, whether or not they understand and acknowledge it.
In their minds, this is no different than a scientist claiming that gravity obeys an inverse square law (or that there is no non-physical human soul, or that God does not exist) - the scientist may or may not have misread his data, but if the statement is true, it is objectively true for everyone.
Does that leave room for dialogue? Of course - scientific dialogue goes on all the time, as does theological dialogue within faith communities. But for the dialogue to be fruitful, there must be a basic ground of agreement. At a minimum, it's going to be difficult to have a useful dialogue if the parties do not agree that the questions are meaningful, and that they deal with objective truth. (Otherwise it's like a bunch of frat boys arguing about whether Tina Turner is hotter then Cher.)
Believers generally accept that members of other religions are:
1) Sincere
2) Want to know the truth.
They do, however, disagree about what is true (e.g., divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, inspiration of the Koran, whether serving in the armed forces is morally wrong). They also use arguments that would be more familiar to a classical philosopher than to a modern physicist (because the questions they are dealing with would be more familiar to the philosopher).
Because they are convinced that they are dealing with objective truth, they will not agree simply to get along - any more than a scientist would change his equations for planetary movement just for sake of academic comity.
So, "monopoly on truth" - is that because they believe that the truth they see is objectively true for everyone? Because they will argue that contradictory claims are false - unless they are convinced that they were mistaken in their original belief?
Applying the same criteria to physicists, you could say that they believe they have a "monopoly on truth." To have a meaningful dialogue with a believer, you have to take their religious beliefs seriously, understand why they believe what they believe, and take the time to understand and appreciate the evidence and reasoning involved.
The question is not one of two views of "truth". The question pertains to, "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth". . . If someone believe's they have a monopoly on truth, they are not functioning rationally; and if that's the case, who cares what their "truth" might be? Neither of the examples you use above are "truth". Abortion is not murder (legally), and a person's reproductive right, is a right, not a truth. Neither of the two are affected or better served by reducing or increasing abortions.
Religion, it's evolution through pre-history and history via faith in what cannot be seen seems to have had it's ultimate end product in scientific thought and discovery. Science forever poses theories of what cannot be seen and is not understood on human terms. Rather than blindly adhere to these beliefs the scientist then goes on to prove, using fact and experiment, the truth of their theory. The initial step for science relies on the ability to believe in what cannot be grasped by the mind but is felt intuitively and or sensed to be possible. This initial step of science that the human mind takes has it's origin in religion and it's painstaking development. We will forever rely, as a foundation, on this ability that humans cultivated and should give due credit and thanks to this fact. So when we see our religious play out the ritual of belief without proof, remember that is how all science begins, one cannot pursue something that is not known without first imagining it exists. This one simple truth should be the basis for the common ground that may be found in a human psychic power that can be used for different purposes. I believe that we should see the deeply faithful as offering a very valuable service to humanity, by sustaining in symbol the memory of our beginnings and the origins of our eventual mental capabilities that we now enjoy. On the other hand we should honor science that takes this beginning and leads us even further down the path of our growth and learning. One simply came before the other, and the other could not arrive without the beginning in that one.
So thank you Sam for pointing out that belief without proof does not satisfy our time but proof for belief could not be satisfied without a time past in which belief was the beginning.
Thank You
The Mother
"There *is* common ground, and it will be pragmatism that guides us to it"
I don't think what you're talking about is pragmatism. I agree that the way we're all going to find our way out of these ProChoice-ProLife (or ProWar-AntiWar, ProGay Marraige AntiGay Marraige, etc.) debates is to take a step back from the debate, find a common ground and try to move on from there, but I don't see how this related to pragmatism. Being pragmatic might be a way that a person whose views on abortion are guided by dogmas could justify changing their stance, but I think anyone with a point of view based on a combination of factual information and honest intuitions will only be influenced by new scientific information.
Someone who believes that abortion is wrong because the soul enters the zygote at the time of conception believes it because they were told that and believed it without demanding the same amount of proof that they would demand for other claims about the nature of the universe. It seems as though this person's beliefs are not necessarily attached to scientific information, meaning that new scientific information might not mean much to them at all.
I can't imagine from your statement that you would agree that the religious people in the abortion debate should shed their dogmatic beliefs before coming to the table, so for what reason do you think they would just decide to look at the common ground instead of the ground on which they so firmly believe they correctly stand?
I do not believe it possible for two individuals from different faiths to have a truly honest dialog with each other. To believe in a one faith is by definition to believe that the other is inferior or incorrect. Since neither has any hard evidence for their believe, one is left with a hard faith, which is therefore not subject to debate, at least not a truly honest one. I would argue that the only true practitioners of religious tolerance are atheist. A truly religious person knows in his heart that their religion is the only true path to God and therefore tolerance of another is but a mere condensation, much as one might with a child, whose feelings one does not want to hurt.
"The question is not one of two views of "truth". The question pertains to, "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth"."
I strongly disagree. Religious believers - even those that are tarred with the "religious right" brush - do not claim to have a "monopoly on truth." They believe certain things to be objectively (and demonstrably) true. They believe that others can weigh the same evidence that convinced them, and come to the same conclusions.
You say that "Neither of the examples you use above are "truth"" - that's in fact at the heart of the disagreement. You do not accept that the statements deal with objective truth. [As a thought experiement, how would you classify the statement that "murder (excluding any consideration of abortion) is morally wrong" - is that a question of "truth"?] Many religious people do believe that they deal with objective truth.
More to the point, they believe that statements concerning a) the existance and nature of a supreme being, b) the existance and nature of the human soul, and c) moral "right & wrong" are matters of objective truth or falsity - in other words, they are questions of fact. Just as in the physical world we may have opinions about questions of fact, but at bottom, they deal with objective truth.
You would appear to disagree - at least when it comes to certain moral questions. But don't fall into the fallacy of assuming that people who strongly disagree with you are "irrational" - they may understand everything you say, and still think you're mistaken. (And seriously - haven't will all been mistaken, sometimes ludicrously, from time to time?)
If one is unshakebly convinced they know the truth, and all other positions are lies, then there are few reasons to engage in dialogue. The dialectic process is risky; if your opponent is more practiced he may make the more convincing arguement and endanger your faith. Running this risk is done only to aid the other seeing the truth, or to gain satisfaction by reveling in one's own superior knowledge.
What is required before two parties can join in meaningful conversation is a fragment of humility: the acknowledgement of the possibility they have erred and the willingness to evaluate one's own beliefs. It is also required that both parties are willing and able to speak without hinderance of a repressive dogma or strictures on items of faith. For instance, a Jehovah's Witness may be reluctant to examine articles of their faith because of the risk of being disfellowshiped for heretical beliefs (similar to excommunication).
Without these shared values between parties, conversation is possible, but only at a superficial level. One may be interested in a historical sense to catalogue the errors of the heathens to aid in evangelism, but this is not the type of meaningful exchange that is sought.
Dialogue with mutual respect between parties are rare because of these requirements. One of the benefits of religion is a sense of security, or of one's place in the universe. The provision of solid answers to people who live in an uncertain world is another. These aspects hold tremendous psychological appeal and often claim people's faith and belief even in the light of cogent, well reasoned and supported arguements. Religion is often an ingrained part of personal identity and many people are not willing to jepordize that sense of self by dissecting its component parts.
Politics further complicates the process of coming to dialogue by introducing emotional issues of loss of land, the death of kinsmen, restriction of movement, and all manner of assaults on the autonomy of the people. Lack of education or training in reason and logical thought also gives rise to thoughtless adherents of all creeds and faiths and these followers tarnish the reputation of the greater faith through violence, through hate, and other means.
Conversation is possible, it is worthwhile, but it is not a pursuit that will spread to the majority of the population. Those who can engage in dialogue are not the problem, it is those who will not that kill, maim, and burn and spread suffering in the name of God or the Gods.
Bob:
If a person believes that he has a monopoly on truth, and that one of those truths is that abortion is murder, it does not preclude him from thinking rationally about how to reduce the number of abortions that occur. Reducing the number of abortions *does* serve that person, because he is - in his own view - helping to prevent murders from occurring.
I hope that clarifies my point.
"A truly religious person knows in his heart that their religion is the only true path to God and therefore tolerance of another is but a mere condensation, much as one might with a child, whose feelings one does not want to hurt."
That's incredibly arrogant. There are many examples of religious conversion by individuals who were deeply invested in their first religion. Of course, there has to be something that makes them question their first beliefs - just as a scientist must find something that makes the question whether their current theories are adequate before they consider changing them. Martin Luther might be a good example here. He was deeply invested in the Catholocism of his day, but saw a number of things in scripture and the life of the church that did not fit with his beliefs. As he sorted through them, he became convinced that what he had believed was wrong, and accepted a new - and very different - set of religious beliefs. Just the same pattern you might see in a string theorist who comes to decide that a new approach is needed.
No disrespect intended, but have you ever considered how much peace and harmony, how little strife and bloodshed there would be without religions?
Or if religions lived up to their moral, ethical, and spiritual tenets and teachings?
Today, religion is used as a political tool, to justify and sanctify the most heinous acts of brutality.
I find little to recommend religions and alot of reasons to avoid them.
Faith is an antidote for the Truth. Both Muslim and Christian faiths fly in the face of a world where divinity, spirit or if you want to name it such allah/gawd are present as a force. Rumi, St. Francis, RamaKrisna, as saints share the same territory. The layity, the non mystic, from their actions makes up a story, that becomes a religion, or view of religion....religion is by definition a dogma. IF the members of a group are not open to self examination and an examination of their beliefs in the face of honesty, truth and reality as the true book of Allah........not some misinterpreted words of a prophet, then we are all doomed, and might as well agree with Bush........and that seems like a hopeless excuse for giving up on life and just rolling over and letting them steal my job, my future and my country..... Sufism is completely different than what passes for ISLAM....and actually has a heart. The cleric heart of Islam is dead and cold and offers no connection to gawd, it is another level of control over society.
"Dialogue with mutual respect between parties are rare because of these requirements."
In all honesty, it's easier for a deeply committed Catholic, Muslim, Jew and Protestant to talk about religion and morals than it is for any of them to talk to an atheist - they all accept that the questions are meaningful, and have a general consensus on the type of evidence and reasoning that should be brought to bear.
"Or if religions lived up to their moral, ethical, and spiritual tenets and teachings?"
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Much harm has been done by people using religion as a front - just as much good has been done be people who take religion seriously, and try to live up to the high standards it supplies.
"Today, religion is used as a political tool, to justify and sanctify the most heinous acts of brutality."
As are many other things, from nationalism to socialism to pure old greed and lust. There are very few things in life that politics and human brutality cannot corrupt. That says more about people than it does about religion.
"If one is unshakebly convinced they know the truth, and all other positions are lies, then there are few reasons to engage in dialogue. The dialectic process is risky; if your opponent is more practiced he may make the more convincing arguement and endanger your faith. Running this risk is done only to aid the other seeing the truth, or to gain satisfaction by reveling in one's own superior knowledge."
Yes, and that's true about political ideologies (communism, socialism, captitalism, libertarianism), personal moral beliefs (vegatarianism, animal rights, "right to choose") and, more often than we would like to think, academic, philosophical and scientific beliefs (post-modernism, cold fusion). People are people - and always have been. The problem is in us, not the religions that try to address existential and moral questions.
"I can't imagine from your statement that you would agree that the religious people in the abortion debate should shed their dogmatic beliefs before coming to the table, so for what reason do you think they would just decide to look at the common ground instead of the ground on which they so firmly believe they correctly stand?"
What I'm saying is that they don't need to shed their dogmatic beliefs, as long as they come to the right table. Finding a way to reduce the number of abortions without requiring that abortion be made illegal is pragmatic (I think) in that it recognizes that people are probably not going to change their minds about the "truth" of the abortion issue, and focuses instead on an aspect of the problem that almost everyone can agree about -- that there are way too many abortions.
“That's incredibly arrogant. There are many examples of religious conversion by individuals who were deeply invested in their first religion”
Perhaps it was arrogant, although not intended to be. But on to your main point about conversion. The many examples you point are actually the exception that proves the rule. In fact the vast, vast majority of individuals are invested into a religion by virtue of family, and they carry that believe system to the end. The string theorist is driven by some incompatibility with our explanation of the world and empirical evidence and tries to rationalize the two. Not being religious myself I cannot speak to what might drive someone to convert from one religion to another. I would guess it must be a deep level of personal comfort derived from one religious view over another. Its rare and does not necessarily mean that the convert is necessarily truly tolerant of his prior faith in any case.
organized religion =`s organized crime.
I'm going to have to sign off, guys. I'm seeing much more interest in slinging insults and one-line jokes at the expense of religious individuals (e.g., "organized religion =`s organized crime"; "Faith is an antidote for the Truth"; "they are not functioning rationally") than in trying to understand how believers think, and how best to foster communication with and between them. I would suggest, however, that if this group can't bring a bit more respect and humility to the question, it's not the one to be part of the solution.
Of course, the link to Elie Wiesel's comments "doesn't work" - I can only wonder why. Could it be because Elie Wiesel brings up challenging issues that Newsweek / WP does not agree with?
In response to your question, there can only be peace when we learn to accept everbody. When we do that, we are able to see others as equal and understand their point of view. God or no god, we as humans have the power to solve all of our problems. Religion is a internal process that only needs to be practiced rather than talking about it.
"Not being religious myself I cannot speak to what might drive someone to convert from one religion to another. "
I am, and I can. My father changed religions, and my beliefs have evolved pretty significantly over the last 30 years (although I am still associated with the same general religious community).
"I would guess it must be a deep level of personal comfort derived from one religious view over another."
Basically, it generally happens either because you become convinced that your prior beliefs were incorrect or incomplete in some way, or because you find that your religion does not satisfactorily answer the questions of life that you're facing. In my father's case it was primarily the former (and that's generally been my case as well).
You learn (for example) that Christianity or Judaism or Islam, as taught at your local house of worship, is inconsistent with the principles and ideals laid out by the founder and early believers. Or, you gradually realize that your understanding was simplistic - you didn't recognize an allegory (e.g., "would be better off if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea" was for dramatic emphasis - not a prescription). Or perhaps you take certain scientific findings - dealing, perhaps, with the age of the earth - and revisit the creation accounts and decide that they were never intended to address a scientific question (e.g., the seven days of creation make a great deal of sense when viewed in the context of a polytheistic society - if you think of all everything that has been worshipped in a pagan temple, such as sun, moon and stars, it systematically goes through and says, "yep, God made that . . . and that . . . uhuh, and that too . . .").
It can also happen if what you've been taught about evil, suffering or life in general just doesn't add up with what you see around you. Martin Luther is a good example, because his conversion happened over time, and was based on both what he saw in the Catholic church of the day, and on what he saw in the Bible.
"Its rare and does not necessarily mean that the convert is necessarily truly tolerant of his prior faith in any case."
It's more common than you think. If you say "Christian" or "Muslim" and have done with it, you won't see the huge evolution of, say, a Martin Luther (or, my dad). You won't see the man who moves from violent Wahhabism to moderate sunni.
I'd ask what you mean by "truly tolerant of his prior faith." If you mean that he thinks it is equally valid & correct, the answer has to be "no" - otherwise he wouldn't have changed. (And I need to point out, here, that people who take their religion seriously generally don't convert for "stylistic" reasons, such as the type of music used, order of worship, vestments, architecture, etc. - when they do, that's really more a matter of choosing a new place of worship than a real religious conversion). They do generally understand and relate to adherants of their old faith - and often bring a unique point of view to their new faith. I think of my dad, who was deeply committed to his new church, but never had any patience for the intramural squabbling - he knew just how pointless and dumb it appeared from the outside (if you see what's truly valuable and attractive about a religious tradition, you tend to have little patience for the "angels dancing on a head of a pin" sideshows).
i believe it is high time that liberal Christians make their voices heard. i read this article about how th new evangelicals are moving away from the radical religious right and want to now be focused on world human suffering and yet people like Jerry Falwell advocate the geoncide of the Arab nation and on national television he invoked Jesus to do it. Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of a head of state. they spout all these platitudes about lovind their neighbors and wanting to take care of the poor, yet they vote to curtail the rights of anyone who doesn't align with their agenda.
i believe in God and Jesus. i pray every day. i believe God communicates with me as much as he does any evangelical. i don't believe we should shun people just because we don't like the color of their skin, their country of origin or who they sleep with.
they talk about following what the Bible says. they give lip service to the single most important statement that Jesus made and then go home from churh, fornicate with their secretaries, or some little boys or steal from their constituents and advocate hatred. Jesus said that there are two great laws: to love God and to love one another...without prejudice. you can't love your neighbor while you're fighting to take away his rights because he's gay. you can't love your neighbor while you fight to take away his right because he's not a Christian. my parents are Buddhists and they are better Christians than most i know.
God loves everyone. if you believe, truly that God is the Creator of the universe, that He is Omnipotent, then we have to believe that God doesn't make mistakes. maybe the test for us is to find true love for one another by giving up our incessant obession for control. the parabal of the good samaritan seems to be lost on us. he did not ask the man lying on the ground if he was Hebrew. he didn't ask him is he was gay, or a muslim, or any other thing. he simply helped him.
let us not forget that we live in a FREE nation, not to be run by, or dictated by any religious sect. we will cease to be a democracy and become a theocracy if we do. if you truly believe in God, then you must concede that He created all people exactly the way they are: white, black, asian, arab, fat, thin, straight and gay.
the answer is right in front of us and yet we are so blinded by our own abitions that we cannot see it. the Golden Rule is the most perfect sentence ever written, yet so impossible to achieve because of our gluttony for power over others. it is written in a dozen different ways in all the major religions and the equisite beauty of it, is that you don't even have to believe in any god to see its worth. imagine, for a moment, in your wildest dreams that we did actually live by the Golden Rule. could there be abject poverty, famine, geoncide?
but, i am told that i am a fool for advocating such an idea that people have so much faith in God and themselves that they don't need to dictate to others how they should live. really, have you all so little faith in God's wisdom to think the He needs your help for one second to judge even the lowliest bum living in an alley in New York, or an untouchable in India?
and for all those radicals out there, Christian, Muslim or other, don't you see your headlong obession is doomed to fail because you can only dictate the body and not the soul. no matter how many laws you pass, no matter how many people you kill, you cannot rule peoples' hearts and souls without their permission. you may take away my right what i can do with my own body, but that will NOT make me embrace your beliefs, rather it will make me hate them. God is Love, and God is Freedom. and when i die, my sins will addressed by Him alone and i doubt He will take into account anything that any of you have to say. i would start looking in the mirror and considering what you are doing every day, not to corral everyone in the world to your faith, but how you've made an example of your life as one who is loving without prejudice. that's what God wants.
"i am told that i am a fool for advocating such an idea that people have so much faith in God and themselves that they don't need to dictate to others how they should live"
Aren't you telling us what we should do? Nicely, passionately - but pretty clearly?
We must love. Remember, though, that Jesus had a great deal to say about how people should live - including all aspects of life (not just what we think of as "social justice). Personal morality was part of it. We are not true to the message of Jesus if we don't talk about all of it - social justice (which conservative Christians often shortchange) AND personal morality (which liberal Christians generally shortchange).
Balance is tough, isn't it?
;-)
A conversation between those posessed by a notion of absolute truth and those otherwise inclined is clearly possible- but not in the the democratic sense of a deliberation that might lead to a consensus, or at least an accomodation. The great danger the faith represents is that it is at its very heart an anti-democratic model of understanding.
Democracies flourish because they adapt- it is not a stretch to draw an analogy between democratic adaptation and survival, and genetic variation and survival. In the latter it is the diversity of genetic possibility that ensures survival- and it is that same diversity of idea and opinion that makes democracy strong. The very purpose of belief is to extinguish doubt, establish an absolute, and thus end the deliberations. All theocracies tend to the authoritarian, to political paralysis.
Science, like a healthy democracy, is dynamic. It holds challenge and revision as a virtue. Religions hold them as damning heresies.
While religions might provide some perverse comfort to the insecure and frightened on a personal level, to the extent they reject the very precepts of democracy they deserve no formal place in democratic institutions. You can't sit down and plan a menu with cannibals.
"You can't sit down and plan a menu with cannibals."
Lovely analogy. Do you include Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama in the "cannibal" contingent?
"Democracies flourish because they adapt"
Lot's of things adapt. What defines a democracy is decision making through broad-based voting. Science does indeed adapt - but not through the democratic mechanism of majority rule. (I would note, as an aside, that many modern Christian churches are in fact governed through a democratic structure where members elect leaders, who then in turn vote on the positions to be taken by the group.) In science, it doesn't matter how many researchers would raise their hand and say "X" - "Y" may in fact be correct, and may be proven so by a lone dissenter.
Religions do in fact adapt and change over time. We can debate whether that's on balance good or bad, but it is in fact true. (The Congregationalist church of today is not that of the early colonies, nor is the Catholic church of today that of the Spanish Inquisition, and where the heck did the Pentacostalists come from if religions don't adapt and survive?)
"While religions might provide some perverse comfort to the insecure and frightened on a personal level, to the extent they reject the very precepts of democracy they deserve no formal place in democratic institutions."
If you're even beginning to hint that this means religious people - including those who take it seriously - do not deserve a formal place in democratic institutions, you've become profoundly undemocratic yourself. And if you want them to leave their moral beliefs at the voting booth door, you'd better be willing to do the same with yours.
I agree that for any useful dialogue to take place, it must begin with a degree of humility. One must be able to accept the facts that present themselves, to be led where the evidence points. When it comes to religion, there is abundant evidence to indicate that many religious groups have betrayed the principles that they claim to uphold. When religion is used to promote war, terrorism and hatred, or when religion is used to bilk money from the poor only to line the pockets of corporate-style "pastors," that religious group must be held to account, and its adherents -- however sincere -- need to come to grips with whether their group is worthy of allegiance. On the other hand, claiming that truth does not exist is inherently arrogant and misguided. Such an approach gives all the power to the questioner, and can be misused much like the priniciple of "reasonable doubt" is abused by an unscrupulous attorney.
For unity to exist on any level, people must be able to submit themselves to some unifying principles. That is where the difficulty lies. Why give in if you can make up your own rules?
Alessa makes a good point about the Golden Rule -- imagine the effects if properly applied. For instance, you would have people who conscientiously refuse to take up arms for any country, and who are willing to face any penalties that result. You would have Hutus & Tutsis who protected one another in the midst of that horrible slaughter. You would have Arabs & Israelis who would freely embrace one another, blacks & browns & whites in South Africa who view each other as brothers. Sound farfetched? It isn't. Find people who are willing to submit themselves to unifying principles, even at personal cost, and you will have found something remarkable. They may, in fact, be trying to find you.
"When religion is used to promote war, terrorism and hatred, or when religion is used to bilk money from the poor only to line the pockets of corporate-style "pastors," that religious group must be held to account, and its adherents -- however sincere -- need to come to grips with whether their group is worthy of allegiance."
And, as a believer, I can absolutely get behind any effort to misuse religion. Where I suspect we may part company, at times, is in distinguishing between leaders who are abusing their position and "the group" - you may be quicker than I to tar a faith with the sins of its practicianers - and in identifying "misuse" - bilking the poor and preaching violence are evil; calling for a high standard of sexual ethics or opposing the destruction of innocent life would not, in my mind, be misuse (easy to say, in general - but where will we be when we come to apply those rules to hot-button issues like abortion or gay marriage? Just because we disagree and each argue strongly for what we believe to be moral does not mean that either of us is "misusing" religion.).
Ooops!
"And, as a believer, I can absolutely get behind any effort to COMBAT misuse OF religion"
My fingers got ahead of my thoughts - sorry!
Shake free from your brainwashing and except there is no divine beings of ANY type or persuasion. No evidence = no superbeings. Religion is a terrible lie and outdated form of population control. Think for yourselves people.
Religion is delusion, and the root of most of the evil in the world.
On Faith: Can There Be Common Ground?
Nearly all Faiths will agree there is one supreme God. In the history of most cultures, over time, the Spiritually experienced and knowledgeable experts who had known God and experienced his presence did their best to explain to their people their knowledge and experience by building a religion so they also could know God. Naturally they had to do this using the language and culture of the same people. Thus we ended up with a religion built to suit each culture or civilization.
As a country, culture, civilization grows and develops it naturally makes many changes in thinking and working and the religion has to adjust to fulfill its role. For example Christianity in the Middle Ages was quite different from the Victorian Times and today it must change to suit a post-modern world. As the world grows into One World all the religions will have to adjust to serve God adequately. Those that do not adjust will perish. Once they realize this the ones that start to change in the right way will prosper accordingly.
Here is common ground.
Growing-up I did not believe in god. My father did as did his two brothers. My dad is a Mormon one uncle is a Jehovah Witness the other Presbyterian. My dad is 85, his oldest brother died last year at 96 the other is 93. These god fearing men have not talked to each other in over forty years because of their religious differences. My uncle that passed on threw me out of his house in front of my son who was seven at the time because I said I do not believe in god. He got irate, his eyes bulged, the veins in his neck and face exploded. My son asked what was wrong with uncle Gil. I told him it is not his fault it is the way he was raised. Two years later he called me to his house and apologized. We never spoke of religion again and had a wonderful relationship. When he passed I was at his bed in the hospital. He became conscience saw me there and began to cry. He told me he was so afraid to die and asked me to take care of his wife. He took his last breath and left. I helped him in his later years as much as needed because it was the right thing to do.
One my way to work I drive a road in my town that has the highest property value in the county. In the middle of the K houses they are building a super church taking up enough land to build twenty K houses. I have to shake my head and wonder about the hypocrisy of all the Churches, synagogues, Masques, and temples where good peoples of faith worship and the misery that fills the world with children dieing each minute of starvation.
The other day I received my shipment from Amazon. As I was reading Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation someone knocked on my door. Even though I have a sign that says "NO SOLICITING" posted on my door some young missionaries thought it would be OK because of the message they had to share. I agreed as long as I could read them something I was now reading and they agreed. I was on page 48 so that is where I began. They stood there nervously as I read the next three pages. I then asked them what there message was and they handed me a flier and left.
Most of my thoughts about religion have resulted from my day to day interactions with other people, it is not based on anything that I have read or been told. Here are some of my experiences. When I was about 8 years old, a friend of mine ask me to go to church with him. I said okay. When the collection dish was past around, he acted like he was putting money into the dish, but actually took money out as he winked to me. When I was in the seventh grade, I told my teacher that I was an atheist. She told me that I was not. She said that God did exist and that an atheist was one that knew that God did not exist. Since one could not know something that was not so, there could be no atheists and that I was never again to say that I was an atheist. When I got out of the army, I was working in a factory and people who worked there would put church letters on the lunch bench for people to read. At that time I belonged to Americans United for Separation of Church and State and brought one of their magazines in and left it on the lunch table. The general foreman saw it picked it up and read it and was outraged. He called me into his office and his face was beet red. He said he wanted to beat me up. He said that what that magazine was about was against everthing he believed as a Catholic. He knew that I was going to quit that fall to go to college and he said that he would make sure that I was never hired there again. I did quit and I did later try to get rehired but the foreman kept telling me that for some reason he couldn't get personnel to agree to rehire me. On another occasion I had a disagreement with a minister. The minister assaulted me. I charged him with assult and battery. It went to court and when the judge found out that I was an atheist, he fined the minister $10 for assaulting me. I guess if you want to beat up an atheist you can do so for $10. On another occasion, I was living in a neighborhood where the mayor of the city had a disagreement with several of the apartment building owners. He had police cadets come into the neighborhood to harrass the residents. I asked one of the cadets what he was doing and he stated that he was measuring the distance from the cars to the intersection and if they were too close to the intersection he was writing them a ticket. I asked him if he was prepared to write tickets on any cars that were in violation of parking ordinances. He said of course. I asked him to accompany me over to the next block which he did. I showed him cars that were obviously parked illegally. I asked him to ticket them. He asked where were all of the people that were parked there. I said they were attending the church that was next to the places they were parked. He said he couldn't ticket people who were in church. He said that would be wrong. I interviewed for a job and I was hired but only under one condition. The person hiring me was someone that had known me for over two decades and she said that she wanted me to promise never to let anyone at work know that I was an atheist. I agreed in order to get the job. That is only some of the interactions I have had that have caused me to have no respect for religious people. I have found that religious people are very forgiving of themselves and they are always ready to mistreat other people. They do not live by the standards they want to impose on other people. When I have brought up to religious people that they do not walk the walk their response is almost always: "we are only human and we need forgiveness." As I say, they are very forgiving of themselves.
This whole debate and it's endless cycles of rhetoric come down to these basic premises.
Faith = Belief without proof.
Atheism, Humanism, Free-Thinking = the demand for proof before belief.
In a society that bases it's beliefs on faith, the following statements all have the same validity:
1 "This person is evil Because I say so"
2 "1+1=2"
3 "pink unicorns live on Neptune"
"It's time to peel back the foreskin of miscomprehension, and apply the wire-brush of enlightenment"
"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"
Conversation is possible, but common ground is not. The problem as I see it is that the ones who 'believe they have a monopoly on the truth' (or the fundamentalists as I would interpret that), are so wrapped in their dogmatic belief system that it takes a great amount of forced logic to break them out of what I think of as the short-circuit of their brain. I don't say this in any way hateful, or in an attempt to denigrate them (one generally isn't hateful to someone suffering from any other mental disorder), simply as an explanation. My experiences have been mostly with Christians, as I live in the US, but I've had many a conversation, calmly, quietly, with them, and we've talked about where we're coming from.
I cannot understand how a person can fail to contemplate information presented to them which indicates a drastic change in their world-view. They can't seem to understand how I go through life without a 'moral compass' or something of that nature. Sadly, it seems that the only way to find that common ground everyone wants to get to, is to totally abolish the ground upon which the religious stand on.
The debate should not be between religions and about faith but why individuals believe in the absence of any proof. It is mass insanity.
The problem between religions is not truth, understanding, talking, forgiving, assimilation, evangelisation, and so on...
All religions, and not only Islam, talk about love and understanding but kill and terrorise in the name of god. God is used to give good conscience in killing the other axis of evil...
Is Islam responsible of the exterminations of the Jews, the slaves of Africa, the colonisation, the Indians...?
If you want to know where or who is the devil, Count the number of its victims... 3000 thousand in NY, 3000 in Baghdad but 650.000 Iraqis... 6 millions Jews... 100 millions blacks slaves... Indians...
The Devil has created God to kill in his name and the God needs the devil to live...
Man is the creature of the devil... this is why he talks about God, truth, civilisation, religion, human rights... he used it to cause destruction of nature and life... we are now in the edge of chaos... the earth boat is sinking with both the devils and the gods…
The dream of Lenon "imagine there is no country and no religion is gone" ... we have an imperial country with religion... of God ... American people don't deserve the hatred brought by their leader. How is it that the smartest people on earth vote for the most stupid fanatic religious leader on earth?
See you in hell (death) cause paradise (life) is gone … we missed it. We could have used all our energies for killing our real enemy death… we have chosen “not to be” as Hamlet did … he believed his ghosts (devil father) and killed and be killed …
The problem between religions is not truth, understanding, talking, forgiving, assimilation, evangelisation, and so on... God is used to give good conscience in killing the other axis of evil... The Devil has created God to kill in his name and the God needs the devil to live...
If you want to know where or who is the devil, Count the number of its victims... 3000 thousand in NY, 3000 in Baghdad but 650.000 Iraqis... 6 millions Jews... 100 millions blacks slaves... Indians...
Man is the creature of the devil... this is why he talks about God, truth, civilisation, religion, human rights... he used it to cause destruction of nature and life... we are now in the edge of chaos... the earth boat is sinking with both the devils and the gods…
The dream of Lenon "imagine there is no country and no religion is gone" ... we have an imperial country with religion... of God ... American people don't deserve the hatred brought by their leader. How is it that the smartest people on earth vote for the most stupid fanatic religious leader on earth?
See you in hell (death) cause paradise (life) is gone … we missed it. We could have used all our energies for killing our real enemy : natural death…
I think that God's Presence is indivisible, and that we can all learn to respect each person's way to worship. When we try to become faithful witnesses to the love of God as we know it, then we can paraphrase Kahlil Gibran's universal realization, "Think not you can direct the course of love, for love, when it finds you worthy, will direct your course." We could paraphrase it by saying, "Think not you can direct the course of truth,...,", or "Think not you can direct the course of the Holy Spirit...". As we are faithful to our being and the Creator of Being, as we know it, we do find a unity of spirit, and an awareness of a Spirit greater than ourselves, which unites us with other persons, regardless of denomination or religion. Pope Benedict XVI, when asked how many ways there were to God, replied, "As many ways as there are people".
Chesterton said "Compassion is the first sign of God's Presence." Leslie Dewart said, "Truth is the fidelity of consciousness to being.". Contemplating these guideposts in humility and and love, we find that universal truths begin in the recognition of universal dignity.
There is no God.
Mahatma Gandhi has shown a common ground. According to Mahatma Gandhi, belief in one God is the corner-stone of all
religions. ``But I do not foresee a time when there would be only one
religion on earth in practice. In theory, since there is only one God,
there can only be one religion. But in practice, no two persons I have
known have had an identical conception of God. Therefore,
there will perhaps always be different religions answering to different
temperaments and even climactic conditions.''
Mahatma Gandhi said, ``I believe in the fundamental truth
of all great religions of the world. I believe that they are all
God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom
these religions were revealed. And I believe that, if only we could all
of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoint of
the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the
bottom all one and were all helpful to one another.''
Mahatma Gandhi's concept of Hinduism certainly included the Vedas, but it also contained a
broader vista. Without impairing the dignity of Hinduism, he saw no inconsistency in paying equal homage to the best of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Mahatma Gandhi's prayer book, Ashram Bhajanavali, contains Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Zoroastrian and Christian Prayers. All of us approach one God by various names, such as Isvara,Rama, Krishna, Jehovah, Allah, God, and so on.The Allah of Islam is the same as the God of Christians and the Isvara
of Hindus. The God of Gandhi cannot be different from the God of Mother Theresa. The names do not indicate individuality but indicate attributes. The common man has tried in his humble way to describe almighty God by giving Him attributes, though He is above all attributes indescribable, inconceivable and immeasurable.
The only religious truth is that no religion has a monopoly on truth. All religions are created by mankind and as such all are inherently flawed.
As long as people view their religion's teachings as infallible there will be little room for compromise. It will only be when religions are seen for what they are that we as a race will be able to negotiate in "good faith" together.
There is no truth, no god and no devil. All we know about these things are bloody words said by human who quotes other humans ... God is used by Saudi Arabia to govern and decapitate…
In one of his book Khalil Gibran talks about this priest who found the devil lying dead and asking for help. The priest could kill him but the devil remind him that his job would finish if the devil is dead... how many people will loose their jobs... trillions of dollars in the killing of other and you talk about god...
see the history of humans ... we are proud of killings... we have memorials of our deaths but not for our victims… killing is now our new high tech job ... to be proud of. We are not human any more… we have become American, Spanish, black, soldiers, Muslims, humanist, terrorist, Jews, pedophiles … because of ou cultres, civilisations, values ...
All people should abandon religious faith and take up the Buddhist practice of sublimating the ego in an attempt to attain enlightenment. This is not religion. This is true psychotherapy.
Egos "believe", egos feel afraid, egos kill.
I need no god to respect you or to love you... Can you respect me and love me without God?.
So bloody Hell, keep your bloody goodies for you (Allah, Boudha, God, Dieu, Descartes, Socrates, Science, reason, Zarathoustra...). Don't tell me to believe or not believe on what you love and hate... If you believe or not then good for you ... why do you need to convince me?... is it for my love ? So just love me ... this is enough for me ... just you and me and no god, no race, no country, no sex and no language between...
Is love too hard to understand???
What prevents us from coming together is the investment we have made in our belief systems. Were it true that religion was just a matter of belief, this still would be a major obstacle, but religion is a social, financial and political institution. It asks things of us. If we follow, we use much of our being as well as material resources. It seems like betrayal to be asked to reconsider beliefs that have caused us to give much of our being and our resources. Religious disputes are less about ideas than they are about scarifices made that may turn out to be meaningless if we accept that there are alternatives. I wager that the most spiritual among us are those who see no threat from other's beliefs because what they have put forth was genuine and not dependent on being "right".
dont you think that you should know how you think? it's called training, indoctrination. It stands in defense of a hostile world that would have you understand a living gawd not a dead religion, used to control and milk a population to maintain itself....wanna talk or just quote dogma?
bhakti is the yoga of devotion, and as such serves the purpose of allowing one of lower intellectual level to achieve union to the degreee that they are capable of.......
faith is that, it is not the religion of the deep thinker, or the true mystic....
ramakrishna, jesus, rumi, wovoka, and others who have had direct experience do so by using the same methods....
the monastic experience is the same in christianity as it is in sufic orders....it is the money oriented hierarchy of the church and that includes television evangelists that seek to use borrowed authority to milk your credulity.
Direct experience is attainable, and belief is completely unnecessary unless you are under roman rule and still believe that they believe in christianity.........they stole it, like Microsoft buys up it's competitors and then remarkets their works as add ons that you haveta buy.......
that is modern day faith based religon, I don't admire people who live on faith, I want direct connection....
it's ordinary everyday communication with divinity and you don't have to belong to mans religions to be intouch with the divine....unless you wanna pay....then majick beans await you, and you can give them your golden cow....
angels on the head of a pin....you know where that quote comes from doncha? Aquinas, but youve read him right? naw yer a believer.
.
divine, not point at a symbol of it and say, "that's me." Pat Robertson is a believer....in voodoo.
IF I were SATAN, I would go to each group of people and send them energy and good feelings, and then whisper into the ear of each..."you are special to me and I hold you more dear than all of the others," and I would go to each group and repeat those words, them walk away and watch the fun start......the more erudite of you, might want to read "The Screwtape Letters," by the author of Narnia.
Chritian worship the One God, and muslim worship the One God, too. 'the One God' is 'the One God'. They worship the same 'One God'. What is different is their thought about the Only God and the way to worship him. But how men think is not that important to God. Why are they being enemies to each other?
faith is LOVE,love for self,for parents,brothers and sisters, for neighbors, and FOR the human beings.
Kofi A. Annan's the Golden Rule of “do as you would be done by”, reminds me of a chinese traditional proverb"己所不欲,勿施于人",meaning "never do what you don't want to be done to others" or "never treat others the way you don't want to be treated". if everyone on world could go the way as the proverb hints, then there would be no conflicts at all on our globe. yet, it is so badly that that is impossible.
How childish to assume that there is a "Almighty Character" who has such human traits like ego which have to be stoked by praying to him and getting points to go into a good place called heaven.
If this was a tale that was believed by 6 year olds it would be understandable but its amazing that in this age of reason we cling to these stories till the day we die.
Faith is a way for the individual to deal with questions of their existence. Mix in the superiority angle that each faith espouses (otherwise why would you join up with them) and you have a powder keg waiting to be lit again and again and again.
Of course their are common grounds on which inter faith relation ship can be established.
we have to differentiate between religion and religious people.
religion or faith irrespective of we are believers or non believers is a way of life which bond the humans on moral and ethical values. these are common in all religions and even for those people who preach love as way of life.
religious persons are different story. they are marketing people selling religion. just to attract the people they have to add more spices in the curry.
today the religion become a commodity and being commercialised. so different faith and even sects have their own marketing strategy and hence fighting for market share.
so sincere people who have a dream of coexistance of human race definately find a common ground where they can negotiate each other
Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura had it about right when he said "organized regligion is a crutch for weak minded individuals." We can only hope that mankind is wise enough to eventually overcome its superstitious tendencies.
If God lays a turd, what should we, as concerned humans, do about it?
Earth is a Spaceship with All the Resources aboard, to be Shared Equally with All Life, like the Lifestyle on a man-made spaceship. What will happen in one of our spacsehips if the Crew would live like we do on Earth? It is Time to accept what divided the Crew on Earth, to be a Killer Species of Human, so that they had to be in competition for their daily needs instead of Equal Sharing of all the resources on Spaceship Earth.
With our High Tech Science today, we do have the High Tech Science Knowledge of how to Colonize a planet, and how to reproduce an Asexual Pure-bred Crew, in a High Tech Womb. But instead of proceeding in this endeavor, since the 1970s, we have used our High Tech Science Knowledge to make Nuclear Bombs and weapons of massive destruction, which will cause the Last Days 'Arm'ageddon of religion. One sign of the Last Days: The 'abomination of desolation' does stand in Israel today.
We do some genetic correction of the fetus in a dish, and insert it into the female's womb, but most of the genetic defects are still not corrected. We have progressed to where the sex act is not needed for reproduction, but we still have Body Birth damage to the female and the child.
By dividing Atoms instead of joining Atom together, we have polluted our Home Planet with nuclear waste, and are destroying our Ozone layer that protects us from the ultraviolet rays of our Sun. When this layer is destroyed Life as we know it, cannot continue to exist on Earth.
With the return of High Tech Science, we should translate the Christian Bible and all scriptures and myths with a High Tech Science explanation. Science and relgion/myth are about the same Asexual Human Physical Life on Earth and on planets, and in spaceships in space.
The Supernatural in religion, of Gods that flew in fiery chariots, and sat on thrones up in the air, are our High Tech Ancestors (HTA) from Space, that Colonized Life on Earth. They are the Higher 'Beings', Angels, Gods and Goddesses, etc. of religion and myth, that were seen and did talk to people face to face. They were not Spirit 'Beings'. What is a Spirit 'Being'?
They also reproduce in a High Tech Womb, 'Super'naturally. The Asexual Adam and Eve 'Colony' were reproduced in their Lab in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were not the only two people at the start of Life on Earth. When Asexual Adam and Eve, not reproduced by Body, reproduced Cain and Abel by Mis-bred Genetic Heterosexual Body Birth, the Original Sin of High Tech Pure-bred Humans, Death began on Earth.
Cain did kill Abel, and killing is the Lifestyle of Fallen Man ever since. Cain did marry and go out and start another city. We have the History of the Fallen Lifestyle ever since, in religion, myth, and secular history.
In a High Tech Science Society, they do have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life 'After' Birth, because they can repair any defects that happen, and keep their Physical Bodies Pure-bred. They do Colonize planets with Pure-bred Colonies, and they can also escape their Solar System when their Sun dies, and even their Universe when necessary.
We do know that a Universe can collapse into a Black Hole, and no one can escape this without High Tech Science. The Black Hole of Science is the Hell in the Bible. It does regenerate and in time does explode into a new universe, so Physical Life as we know it can be Everlasting.
The Bible does teach about Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth. Is there Life as we know it After Death? The Bible is a collection of different religions and is the Code Book to understand the History of Life on Earth from the Colonization to the Judgement Day. It is the only Book with all this information. Man's pollution and nuclear bombs will cause the End of our Eco System, and Life as we know it cannot continue on Earth.
Our HTA did 'regenerate' Jesus in the tomb to a Pure-bred Asexual Body, and Jesus did go Alive, up into Space with them, in a physical body, not a Spirit. Maybe other people that had contact with our HTA in the Bible are also with them.
Our HTA and Jesus will return at Judgement Day, and will 'regenerate' the ones left, and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing now. The 8 Days we have had for our Fallen experience gave them the time to Colonize a new planet.
The Saved Ones and Jesus will be the new Colony on a new Planet. The Bible is a 'literal' history of real High Tech Science Asexual Humans that do Colonize planets and do Have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth.
Our HTA do not Kill and the Gods that kill in the Bible were the High Tech Science country of Atlantis at the time of Noah, like the USA is today. The Bible when translated has to decide which Gods were the Killer Gods that flew in the air also. They were the people of Atlantis. Religion and myth are about the same Life on Earth.
There was a Planetary Flood Catastrophe from Atlantis' pollution and weapons of massive destruction, which broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy around Earth, that was set up along with the Ozone Canopy at the Colonization. The Ice is at our poles. The remains of that Civilization is in the new Top Strata that was set down from the tidal wave action of the Flood.
Each Day of the Colonization was 1000 years. A Space Time Day with the Lord/HTA is 1000 years on Earth. It took 6000 years to Colonize Earth and it has taken 6000 years for Fallen Man to destroy their Eco System. Now we are in the Day 7 Millennium and the coming Judgement Day.
Our Pollution will break the Ozone Canopy, and our nuclear waste, all other pollution and oil spills on land and sea, will cause the Planetary Judgement Day Fire.
Man need to return to the most important Commandment of Life, Thou Shalt Not Kill. It is impossible to have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life on a planet with Mis-bred Bodies, that leads to Killing and Inhumanity, Inequality, Greed, Haves, Havenots, Sickness, Disease, War and Death.
The Asexual Agape Love of Pure-bred Humans passes the Understanding of Fallen Mis-bred Humans
Peace and Asexual Agape Love.
My web site: http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Dolores
It is time to understand the Bible is the Code Book from the Creation/Colonization of Human Life on Earth. We again have the High Tech Knowledge of Colonization of a planet and of reproducing Human Life in a High Tech Womb. The Creation/Colonization was by our High Tech Ancestors from Space, called God in religion and myth.
The supernatural in religion is "super"natural High Tech Science and Myth. The Noah/Atlantis Society was a High Tech Science Society that broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy, the water above the firmament at the Creation. This caused the Planetary Flood. The ice is at our poles today.
Then history continued up to where Jesus was 'regenerated' in the tomb, by our HTA, the Man Gods and Angels in the Bible, and was taken up into Space Alive. They will return at the Judgement Day to rescue those Alive and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing like they did Earth.
The Bible is the Code Book to Life on Earth from the Creation/Colonization, to the Fall of High Tech Pure-bred reproduction of Adam and Eve, to Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth of Cain and Abel. To the Flood, and Jesus, and today.
We again have the nuclear bombs and pollution, just as the Atlantis/Noah Society had, and will cause the Judgement Day Fire with all our nuclear waste and other pollutions and oil spills on land and sea.
We will break the Ozone layer that protects us from the Suns ultra-violet rays, and then Life as we know it will end on Earth. Pure-bred Man was supposed to be the Equal Caretakers of Earth, not the Unequal Killers.
Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
My web site:
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Dolores
I was raised in a religion that believes they have a monopoly on the truth, and now I am no longer part of that religion, and conversation is possible, however, very little common ground is with these people. In these types of religions or beliefs a person who believes "different" is as actually felt sorry for (they just won't accept "the truth), so any conversation would be for the purpose of conversion, nothing else. I think it's interesting to learn about religions such as this, and why they believe they have "the truth". We all should respect each other's beliefs and simply treat others the way we wish to be treated.
As long as the belief in a god exists, people will use it to kill, enslave and impoverish others.
Monopolies on truth are always, in time, broken. They can't hold. The prime difficulty is time.
It takes time for a larger truth to become self-evident to a critical mass of a society. The benefits are so huge they cannot be calculated.
Examples abound throughout all of history, in every endeavor of mankind. Progress occurs at the expense of what people used to believe was true.
The reason I have two posting, the first one said submission error occured, so wrote another. Then I checked the comments to see if it was posted and both were on.
Dolores
Forget religion! Discuss what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's evil. You can leave God or gods out of it!
The people who believe they have a monopoly on truth are committed to exploiting their followers.
The unwillingness of the Religious leaders to show any acceptance of other ideas is founded in their need to control the follower’s opinions by exploiting the blind trust required for a follower to believe.
It's funny to me how people would rather accept an easy answer for questions about our existence. I think it's kind of lazy and self-righteous, but more and more these days I see people wanting the easy answers for everything.
I believe in God but I do not try and assume I know what it is. If I DID except a man made version of what God is, then I would feel I am lending myself to ignorance.
Even our holidays like Christmas; our children connect the giving of presents to the birth of Jesus. At a time when their minds are most susceptible to influence, we tell them, the reason they get what they want is because of Jesus. My mom celebrated Christmas every year with tree and lights, but never connected the events to something chimerical. For her, GOD is LOVE and the best she could do was give LOVE to us so when we went out into the world we could understand it and pass it on.
Religions are the political systems of the past.
Just like TIME, GOD is man made.
Deep down in every one of us IS a philosopher. Being philosophers is the source for our humanity. We can predict our own deaths and we hope to predict what happens afterward.
November 15, 2006 1:31 PM