Religion vs. Religion

[C1ay]

If you do not like the influence of the church, don’t complain, join it.

 

Good idea but for some churches it's not an option. To join you must conform or you're not welcome there. I've found a few that can be quite hypocritical considering the message they espouse.

[Thunderbird]

A community church should lead by example by being involved in the community in positive way’s

A scholarship fund is the biggest in our church.

Supporting local charities, non profit organizations and outreach programs in the local area.

A place for people to connect with the diversity that exist in the community that they may have been otherwise unaware of .

Providing a support system for the elderly in the community that otherwise would be dependant on government agencies, or be put into nursing homes. {we have many wonderful ladies in the church that are in there 80’s and 90’s and widowed, that are still independent, solely because fellow members of the church are constantly checking on them and helping them remain so. Everybody helps everybody, I am divorced with no children so have time to do chores for my church ladies. which I love very much.

A place to have fun. We are having a pool party this Friday, a calypso band booked, and I'm bringing my squash salad and making the margaritas.

Personally, and most importantly, when I think about all the friends I have made though participating in the local church and the changes it has brought about in me it just makes me very happy.

[gareth]

I'd like to address the polythesim vs. monothesim argument (the original question).

 

It could be argued that the Holy Trinity has an element of polytheism about it.

 

Equally, a religion such as Hinduism, which is widely interpreted to be polytheistic, could in fact be considerd monotheistic (consider all the deities as the many different visual receptors comprising a single compound eye).

 

As for idol worship, I think people do not really worship the idols as such, but use them as a means of focussing attention on God.

 

Christain fundementalism exists in the US because we in Europe managed to eject the more radical elements of the Church and send them over the Atlantic, where they have since thrived. Sorry! :hihi:

[Overdog]

Christain fundementalism exists in the US because we in Europe managed to eject the more radical elements of the Church and send them over the Atlantic, where they have since thrived. Sorry! :hihi:

 

Gosh...thanks, I guess.

[Pyrotex]

A community church should lead by example by being involved in the community in positive way’s

A scholarship fund is the biggest in our church.

Supporting local charities, non profit organizations and outreach programs in the local area....

Gosh, that sounds like MY church. You aren't Unitarian, by any chance are you? :eek:

[Thunderbird]

Presbyterian

[Moontanman]

Metropolitan

[Buffy]

I'd like to address the polythesim vs. monothesim argument (the original question).

 

It could be argued that the Holy Trinity has an element of polytheism about it.

 

Equally, a religion such as Hinduism, which is widely interpreted to be polytheistic, could in fact be considerd monotheistic (consider all the deities as the many different visual receptors comprising a single compound eye).

So...what about this? Do you think that Catholics ought to admit that they believe in many Gods or that Hindus ought to admit that there is only one true God?

 

The question is not really "polytheism vs. monotheism" per se, it is issue perfectly exeplified by your post: the sort of Ecumenicism you are pushing is eschewed in by these religions if you were to propose them as they would be apostasy, yet the *reason* they are proposed is an attempt to claim that the only conflict is between the religious and the irreligious.

 

So the question becomes, do you truly argue that there is no conflict whatsoever between religions? Are you saying that all of them are quite happy to switch doctrine at any time to prove that religions all get along and that the only enemy is the irreligious?

 

Or is it just that you think they *should*?

Christain fundementalism exists in the US because we in Europe managed to eject the more radical elements of the Church and send them over the Atlantic, where they have since thrived. Sorry! :)

Eject? Not sure what you mean. Martin Luther was a radical in his day, and Protestantism thrives in Northern Europe. Protestants are considered radicals by the Catholics. In America, the true followers of those that you claim were "ejected" from Europe are the Episcopals, and Presbyterians, who are considered reactionaries by the Baptists, who are even more backwards to the Mormons, Pentacostals, Charismatics, etc.

 

Should all of these people be condemned for "ejecting" David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, or the real leading light, Charles Manson?

 

Are you claiming that all of these beliefs are not only compatible but equivalent?

 

I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult, :)

Buffy

[nutronjon]

So...what about this? Do you think that Catholics ought to admit that they believe in many Gods or that Hindus ought to admit that there is only one true God?

 

The question is not really "polytheism vs. monotheism" per se, it is issue perfectly exeplified by your post: the sort of Ecumenicism you are pushing is eschewed in by these religions if you were to propose them as they would be apostasy, yet the *reason* they are proposed is an attempt to claim that the only conflict is between the religious and the irreligious.

 

So the question becomes, do you truly argue that there is no conflict whatsoever between religions? Are you saying that all of them are quite happy to switch doctrine at any time to prove that religions all get along and that the only enemy is the irreligious?

 

Or is it just that you think they *should*?

Eject? Not sure what you mean. Martin Luther was a radical in his day, and Protestantism thrives in Northern Europe. Protestants are considered radicals by the Catholics. In America, the true followers of those that you claim were "ejected" from Europe are the Episcopals, and Presbyterians, who are considered reactionaries by the Baptists, who are even more backwards to the Mormons, Pentacostals, Charismatics, etc.

 

Should all of these people be condemned for "ejecting" David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, or the real leading light, Charles Manson?

 

Are you claiming that all of these beliefs are not only compatible but equivalent?

 

I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult, :)

Buffy

 

The Puritans Buffy.

[Buffy]

The Puritans Buffy.

Yes, thank you for correcting me. I had no idea who the Puritans were! But I've now gone and done some research on them, and I've reviewed my post and am at pains to decide how to modify it in order to modify my conclusion.

 

Where do you think the Puritans fall along the continuum of beliefs I presented?

 

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it, :)

Buffy

[gareth]

 

Or is it just that you think they *should*?

Eject? Not sure what you mean. Martin Luther was a radical in his day, and Protestantism thrives in Northern Europe. Protestants are considered radicals by the Catholics. In America, the true followers of those that you claim were "ejected" from Europe are the Episcopals, and Presbyterians, who are considered reactionaries by the Baptists, who are even more backwards to the Mormons, Pentacostals, Charismatics, etc.

 

Should all of these people be condemned for "ejecting" David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, or the real leading light, Charles Manson?

 

:phones:

Buffy

 

You're quite right. This part of my post was based on no factual evidence, I was only being mischievous.

 

ALTHOUGH, when we hear about over half the population of the US believing in the rapture and Armageddon and the like, it makes me wonder why things have got to that stage. Surely some of the seeds for this were sown with the fervant religious beliefs that came to America during its embryonic phase.

 

The effects of Catholicm are more destructively radical than the effects of Protestantism, as people who purport to follow it have left far more bodies in their wake (and any Columbian drugs cartel for that matter, if I may quote Doug Stanhope, one of the greatest living Americans).

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as religious conflict. This conflict, however, is not made by religion, but by the people that purport to follow them.

 

If you take Spain during the time of the Islamic caliphate (711 to 1492), it was actually a very tolerant place, with perhaps the greatest degree of religious tolerance ever demonstrated (Jews, Christians and Muslims living in relative harmony).

 

Hitchens and Dawkins make the mistake of believing that religions somehow spread hatred and bile. On the surface they do. But so does poiltics then. There are many vehicles that are used by people to acheive their own morally dubious ends. Real 'evil' (if that's what you want to call it), does not lie in religion, but within the hearts of men. Its men that spread hatred and bile, not religion.

 

I'm not claiming all religions are equivalent, but they do follow similar lines. For example, I'm sure you could find interpretations of the words: "Know thyself" in every major religion, and probably all the minor ones too.

 

Just for the record, I'm not 'pushing' Ecumenicism, or anything else for that matter.:)

[Boerseun]

Presbyterian

Pentacostatesticle, myself.

[Buffy]

The effects of Catholicm are more destructively radical than the effects of Protestantism, as people who purport to follow it have left far more bodies in their wake...

What do you think that most Catholics would agree with this statement? How do you think they would react to hearing it? Do you possibly see in your own statement the very source of the conflict being discussed here?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as religious conflict. This conflict, however, is not made by religion, but by the people that purport to follow them.

So do you see that even fine individuals like yourself who casually toss off comments like "the effects of Catholicm are more destructively radical than the effects of Protestantism" makes you the target of your own accusation?

 

Separately, if you wish to make this distinction--implying that religions are pure and its the people who sow conflict--would you say that clear statements in source religious texts that advocate shunning or even attacking those that believe differently are somehow simply "misinterpreted?"

 

Why should the Bible say "thou shalt have no other Gods before me?" Or the Koran's "the unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell"?

 

So your claim that:

Real 'evil' (if that's what you want to call it), does not lie in religion, but within the hearts of men. Its men that spread hatred and bile, not religion.

...does not seem to hold up unless you want to make the claim that all religious texts are works of men manipulating others, but then we're circumscribing the vast majority of the world's religions as "not religion," which as we say in America is "moving the goalposts."

 

The point here is *not* to say that religions are inherently evil, but rather that they are hemmed in by their *structural* need to enforce doctrine in order to keep the flock--going back to the source texts, and leaving out the effects of current religious leaders--while removing the conflict that causes such pain and suffering requires that believer's reject much of specific religious doctrines that exist.

 

Unfortunately there are few religions that support the radical notion that "He doesn't care what church or temple or mosque you go to."

 

So either God's own divinely inspired word says that Ecumenicism is apostasy and the road to hell, or those words are not so divinely inspired.

 

Its interesting to see how people resolve this issue of faith versus experience and knowledge.

 

Faith, madam, I have other holy reasons such as they are, :)

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Not wishing to infringe upon Buffy's [and others'] serious conversation, should we split the "R vs R" Game conversation to another thread?

 

Calling Mister Wizard! :singer:

[Moontanman]

Not wishing to infringe upon Buffy's [and others'] serious conversation, should we split the "R vs R" Game conversation to another thread?

 

Calling Mister Wizard! :singer:

 

I say ya on that, Buffy's been pretty nice so far no need to tempt fate and all that:doh: (yet another game move!)

[gareth]

What do you think that most Catholics would agree with this statement? How do you think they would react to hearing it? Do you possibly see in your own statement the very source of the conflict being discussed here?

So do you see that even fine individuals like yourself who casually toss off comments like "the effects of Catholicm are more destructively radical than the effects of Protestantism" makes you the target of your own accusation?

 

Separately, if you wish to make this distinction--implying that religions are pure and its the people who sow conflict--would you say that clear statements in source religious texts that advocate shunning or even attacking those that believe differently are somehow simply "misinterpreted?"

 

Why should the Bible say "thou shalt have no other Gods before me?" Or the Koran's "the unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell"?

 

So your claim that:

 

...does not seem to hold up unless you want to make the claim that all religious texts are works of men manipulating others, but then we're circumscribing the vast majority of the world's religions as "not religion," which as we say in America is "moving the goalposts."

 

The point here is *not* to say that religions are inherently evil, but rather that they are hemmed in by their *structural* need to enforce doctrine in order to keep the flock--going back to the source texts, and leaving out the effects of current religious leaders--while removing the conflict that causes such pain and suffering requires that believer's reject much of specific religious doctrines that exist.

 

Unfortunately there are few religions that support the radical notion that "He doesn't care what church or temple or mosque you go to."

 

So either God's own divinely inspired word says that Ecumenicism is apostasy and the road to hell, or those words are not so divinely inspired.

 

Its interesting to see how people resolve this issue of faith versus experience and knowledge.

 

Faith, madam, I have other holy reasons such as they are, :singer:

Buffy

 

You're assuming that I'm referring to organised religion, and then you're basing your entire reply on that assumption. Of course the whole idea of structure and 'hemming in' comes from organised religion, which I didn't mention. I don't remember referring to any religious texts in my post either.

 

I will refer to religious texts now though:The Bible was written by men so I'm sure there's scope for error. These religious texts were written a long time ago, when the social/political situation was very different. It may be wrong to think all their content still applies today.

 

"the effects of Catholicm are more destructively radical than the effects of Protestantism". An ill-considered comment maybe, but a good Catholic should feel more horrified at the thought that purported members of his or her faith had killed people/sexually abused children rather then some throwaway comment in some internet forum. Anyway its good to be offended now and again.

 

"So do you see that even fine individuals like yourself who casually toss off comments like..."

 

I'm not a fine individual by any stretch of the imagination. I am, however, an expert in casually tossing off.:hihi:

 

p.s. Faith, experience and knowledge are not neccessarily conflicting values that need to be 'resolved'.

[freeztar]

Not wishing to infringe upon Buffy's [and others'] serious conversation, should we split the "R vs R" Game conversation to another thread?

 

Calling Mister Wizard! :singer:

 

I say ya on that, Buffy's been pretty nice so far no need to tempt fate and all that:doh: (yet another game move!)

 

I've moved all the game posts to its own thread in the watercooler. We can continue the discussion there.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/watercooler/15551-religion-vs-religion-game.html