Religion vs. Religion

[Pyrotex]

No. I'm simply saying (as a possible solution to the question posed by Buffy in the first post) that in order to get mutually exclusive religions to exist side-by-side, certain powers will have to be ceded by religious groups to the central secular state. This have already happened in the West, and the more power ceded, the more peaceful (relatively) the country becomes. ...Churches can go around being all 'religious' if they want, whenever they want. Up to the point of transgressing law...And, yes - the Rule of Law is a higher authority than any church when it comes to civil matters.

You missed the whole point of my post. ...

Well said, Boerseun. Very logical.

 

Burning witches was still practiced in Europe up to the mid 1700's. This didn't stop until a Catholic cleric in a large German city was ordered by a court to kill an old woman accused of causing a horrible storm that killed a neighbor's cattle. He refused. He himself was threatened with religious sanctions and even with death. He took his arguments to the street and nearly caused a riot, as [get this] most normal middle-class people were only marginally aware that this was still going on. They were outraged and the public pressure put a stop to it in that city. Shortly after, Germany passed a law banning the practice.

 

Note, that the Biblical command, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was still on the books, so to speak. IT STILL IS!!!

 

The Law did not remove the verse from the Old Testament. It simply said that accusing people of being "witches" is not an adequate excuse for killing them, and the State will not permit or enable the practice under its civil law.

 

What the fine Catholics and Methodists of the day did was to deal with this new law by RE-INTERPRETING storms and floods and such as "Acts of God" rather than "Acts of Witches". This they did, on their own. The government did not alter their theology. But to be in compliance with their Bibles, they had to do it on their own; they evolved. They had to "reason away" the existence of actual, Satan-powered witches, and relegate the concept to mythology; this allowed them to forget the offending verses with a clean conscience. There WERE NO MORE witches to kill, so there was no disobedience of God's will.

 

If we are to avoid a planet-wide religious war (which has already begun in the Middle East), then all religions, the true religions, the false religions, the semi-religions, the philosophical religions, whatever, are ALL going to have to cede civil power to civil authority. They are all going to have to LEARN how to separate religious activity (prayer, worship) from civil activity (voting, passing civil laws, accepting the conclusions of civil courts on civil matters, etc.)

 

If they don't, then the alternative left to us is the option of Rudyard Kipling: "Get out the guns and kill."

[cwes99_03]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all I hear is that "there is no conflict between religions because where there is conflict it is due to 'false interpretation' of religion," including the notion that any interpretation of incitement to violence in the Koran or Bible or elsewhere is fallacious (and that is only one point of conflict). If that's your point, I get it, but at the same time, it simply ignores the issue to be addressed here which is what to do about very real conflict that is fomented by widely accepted and officially sanctioned religious leaders.

 

I appreciate your notes on this topic here, because I think they are excellent examples of how the conflict is carried out, but it doesn't really help propose anything. It might be helpful to simply replace all occurrences of "religion" with "human philosophy," but regardless of truth/falsity or superiority/inferiority of particular "religious beliefs" the standard definition in this thread of "Religion" is the more generally accepted and more expansive one. I know you believe this distinction has tremendous implications, and I'll suggest that bringing them up here might actually help: although many will disagree with your arguement that the "false beliefs" are "not religion", from your viewpoint, that may help you to contribute ideas that are in the theme of this thread: if they are false beliefs, solutions you propose *will not require* dismissal of the truth, only dismissal of the false religious interpretations. You might want to think about that a bit.

 

So if she floats, she's made of wood, and therefore, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

I have already thought about this, but this is the first time anyone else on this thread has succinctly stated such. I appreciate that now you have considered what I said. However, I have not attempted to end the thread as you think. I did state that there would be no more religion vs religion, as long as someone's holy book doesn't prescribe violence.

 

Thus if the Q'uran states that a Muslim should slaughter all non-muslim people (which many Muslims throughout the world claim it does while others claim it does not) then we still have a problem. To me the only solution to that problem (as far as humans are involved) is then deciding if the holy book (Q'uran) is a valid holy writing, or if it holds no reason to believe that it is actually holy.

I of course cringe when I say this, and even cringe when stating the rest of what I have posted on this thread and a few others about religions vs philosophy. I cringe, because I realize that many will take my words to mean that there is no real religion, it is all false. That has been stated numerous times and leads to nothing but bickering between the religious and the atheistic. This would of course be a misinterpretation of my words. Since you and others have understood that I do not believe that all religions are false, you lump me in with the rest of "religious" people.

(BTW lumping religious people together as a group will never win you their respect, just their ire, for the most part. That's the mistake many of you have made.)

I am pretty unique. I do not hold the views that 99.99% of Hypographers hold when it comes to religion. Perhaps you should find out what I do hold to be true before lumping me in with the rest, which is all I have asked for all along.

I see at least the following groups of people. 1) those who claim to be religious but have no real idea what their religion, the holy writings of their religion, or other religions teach, 2) those who are religious and hold strictly to what their pastor/reverrend/minister/imam/mulah teaches even if that is not in line with the holy writings that are supposed to be the basis for their teachings, and 3) and this is a very small group in today's world, those who strictly hold to the teachings of their holy writing and seek out a similar group that likewise knows their holy writings and understands them.

Of course, many people are of the belief that they are part of the third group, but it can be proven whether or not they are, by their deeds and beliefs, even by an aetheist.

 

My initial thought is to separate out all those who are of the first two groups as they (IMHO) have no real right to fight each other in the name of religion. Instead they fight in the name of human philosophy.

 

Human philosophies come and go, but one thing remains the same in all of them (IMHO) they are all imperfect and all incapable of solving the human dilemma. You ask a question to solve a problem that you yourself cannot solve due to your own imperfection. Thus, you stated earlier that I was copping out. No, I wasn't. I just recognize that only God can solve the issues that you wish to solve. I thus put my faith in it and work towards showing others the same things I have come to know.

I guess that should be all for now.

[InfiniteNow]

So if she floats, she's made of wood, and therefore,

She's a duck? :phones:

 

I feel... happy...

 

 

Buffy, to answer the question...

what we do about it

... education on the importance of flexibility and willingness to change our views. Understanding of difference, and empathy for others.

 

Make impermanence and change your dogma. Anything short of that will eventually fail.

[cwes99_03]

We *all* contribute to defining the Laws. If we can agree to laws by *either* changing the law or changing the religious interpretation, then the law is not "above" God, it is in fact a personification of Her teachings. Those who insist that there is inherent disenfranchisement in agreeing that the Law is the final arbiter in societal decisions are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Us and Them,

Buffy

1) how do i contribute to defining the law? Have I ever voted for a human leader to set the law? Have I ever voted for a law or referendum? Are you saying that I contribute if I don't vote because I allow others to make the decision for me? I do not contribute to defining the laws of men and their goverments.

2) Additionally, you realize that by stating that god is a she you immediately intend to provoke religious people right? I have made every effort when talking in a general sense to cover all religious groups by stating gods and he/she, perhaps you should do the same if you truly want an answer to the question.

[cwes99_03]

Make impermanence and change your dogma. Anything short of that will eventually fail.

 

See, even INow sees the impossibility for a human philosophy to rule over all people. Even if he disagrees with my view that God will eventually fix all things, he is dubious of all being able to follow one person's philosophy of how to fix the issue. He sees that unless every human is willing to give up their religious beliefs (dogma) that this discussion is moot.

[InfiniteNow]

See, even INow sees the impossibility for a human philosophy to rule over all people. Even if he disagrees with my view that God will eventually fix all things, he is dubious of all being able to follow one person's philosophy of how to fix the issue. He sees that unless every human is willing to give up their religious beliefs (dogma) that this discussion is moot.

 

And with your continued style of argument, you continue to fail to offer proposals as requested three pages ago... You're so busy focussing on the faults of others that you've disregarded the purpose of the thread... to propose what we can do about it.

 

Anyway, your quoted text above wasn't my intended point at all, just what you took from it.

[cwes99_03]

I have said that there is nothing I can propose. Why are you harping on me not proposing a solution. You know my solution, come to a true knowledge of the Bible and its teachings, and I have repeatedly stated such. But you have a problem with that because you don't want it to be the solution.

[Spiked Blood]

Human philosophies come and go, but one thing remains the same in all of them (IMHO) they are all imperfect and all incapable of solving the human dilemma. You ask a question to solve a problem that you yourself cannot solve due to your own imperfection. Thus, you stated earlier that I was copping out. No, I wasn't. I just recognize that only God can solve the issues that you wish to solve. I thus put my faith in it and work towards showing others the same things I have come to know.

 

You just don't get it. Religion creates the problem. If there was no religion, there would be no problem. Tell me I'm wrong?

 

 

I have said that there is nothing I can propose. Why are you harping on me not proposing a solution. You know my solution, come to a true knowledge of the Bible and its teachings, and I have repeatedly stated such. But you have a problem with that because you don't want it to be the solution.

 

Solution? I vote the final solution! Fascism baby! I nominate Christianity first.

[Buffy]

how do i contribute to defining the law? Have I ever voted for a human leader to set the law? Have I ever voted for a law or referendum? Are you saying that I contribute if I don't vote because I allow others to make the decision for me? I do not contribute to defining the laws of men and their goverments.

You can, if you don't that's your right. To say that the law prevents religious participation is not supportable, and given the fact that the majority of American's say they are religious, its fairly safe to say that the religious *control* the law in this country.

you realize that by stating that god is a she you immediately intend to provoke religious people right? I have made every effort when talking in a general sense to cover all religious groups by stating gods and he/she, perhaps you should do the same if you truly want an answer to the question.

A quick perusal of my posts would show that I consistently use "She" to refer to God, and your assumption that I am irreligious or at least believe in some mere "human philosophy" has gone from tiresome to downright offensive. If you take personal offense at this reference, I'll apologize, but I'll rightfully continue to use this reference as it is a part of my religious beliefs.

 

and 3) and this is a very small group in today's world, those who strictly hold to the teachings of their holy writing and seek out a similar group that likewise knows their holy writings and understands them.

So here's the thing. Most people--and most religious ones--disagree that this is the only group with any right to call themselves religious. You have every right to do so, but if you're going to make that premise the central argument for insisting that there is no conflict between religions, you're not going to persuade many people, again, even the religious.

I have said that there is nothing I can propose. Why are you harping on me not proposing a solution.

I've said quite explicitly that you don't have to. This is your interpretation. I'll say that continuing to post "there's no solution" is asked and answered: its not germane to this thread (whether your religious, merely a philosopher or an atheist), and you (and *others*) are simply being asked not to keep repeating it. Others who accept a more general definition of Religion are being squeezed out in this side debate, and I'm trying to free up bandwidth.

 

Optimizing Signal-to-Noise,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Wow this thread got ugly quick! That's why I stay out of these types of debates. Religion and society, the ever present reality that somehow we have to reconcile the errors of mankind and create peace. Can you truly serve two masters? Jesus and G W Bush (or Caesar)? One says not to kill and the other asks you to kill for a cause? ....I stay as far away from these arguements.

 

I'm waiting for a riot to start in here.

 

God bless America.

 

By the way Buffy you have every right to call God female. I prefer to see the harmonious non-duality of male and female principles myself, but thats just me.

[Dyothelite]

I have a cheesy quick solution. Think of religion like someones sexual preference. Be who you want behind closed doors just don't hit on me with it (even if I go that way seriously.....you're buggin me hahaha). We can work together, talk politics and religion together, debate sports rivalries, just don't push youre sexuality on me if I don't share your feelings. This way we also can get along and be ourselves.

[Buffy]

Wow this thread got ugly quick! That's why I stay out of these types of debates.

Which is why I'm trying so hard to thwack *all* of those who are refusing to cooperate. The Law can be useful, and requires secular leaders. I am making it my task to quell the agenda-laden provocateurs.

 

See guys? You're scaring away participants! Stop being such wonderful examples of my point!

Religion and society, the ever present reality that somehow we have to reconcile the errors of mankind and create peace. Can you truly serve two masters? Jesus and G W Bush (or Caesar)? One says not to kill and the other asks you to kill for a cause? ....I stay as far away from these arguements.

Right, it is an "ever present reality isn't it? No matter what your answer is to your latter point, isn't it a good thing to try to find actions that can deal with this reality? Isn't that better than "just letting things happen?"

 

Please expound a bit about what you think the meaning of "serving two masters" is. We all serve multiple masters, and we make decisions on how to proceed when any two of them are in conflict. Deciding to follow one's God is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, although that may carry societal consequences (from a Law or a conflicting Religion). Where there are conflicts, the question becomes, how do we decide what to do to change the laws or the religious beliefs to ameliorate or eliminate the conflict? Is it moral not to try? Is it better to be a martyr to bad laws or to try to change those laws? Is it better to respect all religious beliefs, or call Bush on his belief that God told him to invade Iraq?

 

We may be mere humans, but making the world better by understanding and using beliefs and laws to our mutual benefit seems to me to be a moral imperitive. Creating artificial barriers by with false either-or decisions can blind us to the way forward.

 

Do the right thing,

Buffy

[Buffy]

I have a cheesy quick solution. Think of religion like someones sexual preference. Be who you want behind closed doors just don't hit on me with it (even if I go that way seriously.....you're buggin me hahaha). We can work together, talk politics and religion together, debate sports rivalries, just don't push youre sexuality on me if I don't share your feelings. This way we also can get along and be ourselves.

To quote Adam Savage, "That's what I'm talkin about!!!"

 

Great thinking outside the box. Bravo!

 

Kudos in Karma,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Ok I could go on for days about this but I'll start with my serving two masters reference:

 

This can been seen from both sides as ways to validate or invalidate the Christian Church, but I choose to see the historical relevance to today.

 

For the first few centuries of Christianity, Christians were persecuted. They were persecuted for many reasons but one of the greatest reasons that they were seen as trouble makers was because they refused military service and public office. Teachers like Tertullian and Origen taught Christians that they cannot serve two masters: Jesus and Ceasar. Therefore, they refused to kill or serve the government.

 

Then around the turn of the fourth century Constantine made Christianity the state religion. Well, up to this point Christians had the Romans be their army and police for them. The Church was given enormous power but with it came the inevitable reality that politics equals war and crime. During the destruction of Carthage in 425CE (I think) St. Augustine witnessed the destruction of His city. He then proposed the "Christian Just War Theory" which became the basis for the church being able to justify "war in the name of God" (Crusades).

 

Over centuries we finally got to where we are today in America: the separation of church and state, but in the Muslim world there are still schools of thought that teach and practice "Just War" in the name of God. Where we go to war to defend freedom, they go to war because they beleive it is God's will and they are justified by God to do so.

 

So to say this isn't an ever present global problem is a huge understatment. As far as the two masters thing goes, you have three choices: denounce violence and serve peace, embrace war for the sake of peace, or embrace war for the sake of God.

 

You can either go to war because you think God condones it (Holy War) or you can go to war as a solution to a problem and ask to be forgiven by a God who does not advocate Holy War.

[Edella]

 

 

We may be mere humans, but making the world better by understanding and using beliefs and laws to our mutual benefit seems to me to be a moral imperative. Creating artificial barriers by with false either-or decisions can blind us to the way forward.

Beautifully said Buffy. Words of wisdom. I can't see how anyone could disagree.

[Southtown]

6) Conversely, a listing of the conflicts doesn't help, because what I would like to see talked about here are 1) the *nature* of the problems, and 2) what we can *do* about them. You're welcome to use examples--I argue its essential--but again, listing them is not the *point* here.

In my opinion, animosity transcends religion. It's just that simple. "Guns don't kill people..." The religions involved with conflict do not determine the nature of the conflict, the people do. Some Muslims are peaceable, some Christians shoot up abortion clinics. "Generalities are useless."

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: I think very little of life is about enrollment, no matter how loosely defined, and generally the purpose for which people are being enrolled is more significant than the act of enrolling itself. So I dont consider an ability to enroll to necessarily be a personal enhancement or contributive to society beyond the specific group for which further members are being enrolled. This is why such groups, in which enrollment is a prime measure of a member's success, are conspicuous, their members are enrolling merely for enrollment's sake, which I would class as a basically worthless activity. Naturally there are people who benefit from EST or chistianity or any other group, the point relevant to this thread is that these groups indulge in a behaviour that is competitive and socially devisive. I dont see how there can be a solution to religious conflict as religions hold conflicting views.