NationStates Jolt Archive

With the recent influx of threads by various religions, particulary that new one "The Will of Allah", it seems that a lot of religious people on here think that if you don't believe in their religion, then you're an incredibly evil person, no matter how good you are besides. ALSO, if you are say, a westerner *cough*Soviestan*cough* you are automatically immoral as well, simply because of where you hail from. Why are you evil because you're from there? Well, it's not where the main religion is situated, and everyone else besides you who lives there is immoral, and even though you're the most moral person on the planet, you're still immoral because you're a westerner.

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?

EDIT: AND they believe everybody who believes in their religion is righteous, no matter how immoral their religion may be?

Because you touch yourself at night.

With the recent influx of threads by various religions, particulary that new one "The Will of Allah", it seems that a lot of religious people on here think that if you don't believe in their religion, then you're an incredibly evil person, no matter how good you are besides.

It's true.

As it is said, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved." (Mark 16:16)

With the recent influx of threads by various religions, particulary that new one "The Will of Allah", it seems that a lot of religious people on here think that if you don't believe in their religion, then you're an incredibly evil person, no matter how good you are besides. ALSO, if you are say, a westerner *cough*Soviestan*cough* you are automatically immoral as well, simply because of where you hail from. Why are you evil because you're from there? Well, it's not where the main religion is situated, and everyone else besides you who lives there is immoral, and even though you're the most moral person on the planet, you're still immoral because you're a westerner.

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?

EDIT: AND they believe everybody who believes in their religion is righteous, no matter how immoral their religion may be?simple. the same way everyone thinks that their way is the better way.

It don't matter what you experienced, or how smart you are, people always think that their ways of doing things is better. be it baised off of Religion, Personal Beliefs, Experience or the mood they happen to be in, everyone always thinks that their way is the right way.

Anyone who is not a Satanist is coming to Hell.:D

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd?

It's a recruitment tool. Who would practise a particular religion if they thought that they could go to heaven by simply being good and moral?

Meh I tend to believe that religion is just a way for man to connect to God. Everyone has their own path to God. This is a statement that I agree with.

The correct religion is the one that brings you closest to God.

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?

because if the religion in question is true, then you are immoral for not believing in it.

because if the religion in question is true, then you are immoral for not believing in it.

The problem is, no one knows which religion is the correct one, if any.

The problem is, no one knows which religion is the correct one, if any.

i know of several billion people that seem rather convinced that they do

i know of several billion people that seem rather convinced that they do

Yea, but that takes willful ignorance.

Don't worry guys, this is just the death spasms of imperial islam, you didnt expect such a massive empire is go down without screaming did you? Anyways that's what all this extremist business is, so when enough people have been slaughtered eventually islam will have a reformation, and maybe finally an enlightenment. Secularism is the future peoples, some people are just living in the past.

With the recent influx of threads by various religions, particulary that new one "The Will of Allah", it seems that a lot of religious people on here think that if you don't believe in their religion, then you're an incredibly evil person, no matter how good you are besides.
Good observation...
the reason methinks is inherint to the design of religions. The core of most religions is good, but as time went by, people chose to add things to make them coercive. They took honest spirituality and redesigned it as a manifesto for a state/s.
Of course 'you' are evil if you don't believe, how else can 'I' be justified in waging a ruthless war against you?
How else can I cut off trade?
How else can I justify invading, rape of your women, murder of the infant and infirm,and the burning and historical expungement of your unique cultural tools?
Religion is a means to an end...it has the guise of a personal MTAE, but it is mostly a political one, unless you are consious enough to take the wheat from the chaff...

Zappa:

"Whoever we are
Wherever were from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
Its gonna take a lot more
Than tryin to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it the earth
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
cause we behave the same...
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near n far
Dumb all over,
Black n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin the bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Dont believe in the book
We got over here

You cant run a race
Without no feet
n pretty soon
There wont be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religous fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it wont blow up
n disappear
Itll just look ugly
For a thousand years...)

You cant run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

To arms! to arms!
Hooray! thats great
Two legs aint bad
Unless theres a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (get down!)
Not his, not hers, (but what the hey? )
The good book says:
(it gotta be that way!)
But their book says:
Revenge the crusades...
With whips n chains
n hand grenades...
Two arms? two arms?
Have another and another
Our God says:
There aint no other!
Our God says
Its all okay!
Our God says
This is the way!

It says in the book:
Burn n destroy...
n repent, n redeem
n revenge, n deploy
n rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
cause they dont go for whats in the book
n that makes em bad
So verily we must choppeth them up
And stompeth them down
Or rent a nice french bomb
To poof them out of existance
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise our god
(cause he can really take care of business!)

And when his humble tv servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says
Its okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
cause if we dont do it,
We aint gwine up to hebbin!
(depending on which book youre using at the
Time...cant use theirs... it dont work
...its all lies...gotta use mine...)
Aint that right?
Thats what they say
Every night...
Every day...
Hey, we cant really be dumb
If were just following gods orders
Hey, lets get serious...
God knows what hes doin
He wrote this book here
An the book says:
He made us all to be just like him,
So...
If were dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(an maybe even a little ugly on the side)

Catholics don't believe such bunk. Oh well.

I'd say it has something to do with the fact that there's no compelling benefit to any particular religion if it doesn't get you out of some kind of trouble with the ol' deity.

Because people like to be certain they're right in what they're doing. You see the same bullshit with any "ism" no matter whether it is a religion, a political ideology, a philosophical position or whatever.

The only difference is the beliefs involved. Religion, like political views, economic views, philosophies or anything else can be used for good or bad depending on who uses it and through what means.

With the recent influx of threads by various religions, particulary that new one "The Will of Allah", it seems that a lot of religious people on here think that if you don't believe in their religion, then you're an incredibly evil person, no matter how good you are besides. ALSO, if you are say, a westerner *cough*Soviestan*cough* you are automatically immoral as well, simply because of where you hail from. Why are you evil because you're from there? Well, it's not where the main religion is situated, and everyone else besides you who lives there is immoral, and even though you're the most moral person on the planet, you're still immoral because you're a westerner.

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?

EDIT: AND they believe everybody who believes in their religion is righteous, no matter how immoral their religion may be?

I didn't say people are immoral simply because they are westerners. Their actions at times are immoral and society at large is becoming immoral.

As for why I think my faith is right; I believe the Qur'an is the word of God. I have no doubt about this and as such when the Qur'an states Islam is path to Paradise and closeness with God I do not doubt it.

Soviestan I thought you were a good atheist communist, since when have you been brainwashed by 'them'.

Yea, but that takes willful ignorance.

i don't know, maybe some of them have access to some good reasons to believe that they've got the right one

Soviestan I thought you were a good atheist communist, since when have you been brainwashed by 'them'.

I wouldn't really call it brainwashing but it has been a slow journey from who I was to who I am.

i don't know, maybe some of them have access to some good reasons to believe that they've got the right one

How so?

I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism rocks.

As for why I think my faith is right; I believe the Qur'an is the word of God. I have no doubt about this and as such when the Qur'an states Islam is path to Paradise and closeness with God I do not doubt it.


the word of God.....'DEMS BE FIGHTIN' WORDS!!!

If you fucking crazy people would realize that the word 'God' represents a concept which represents aLACK OF CONCEPT/THOUGHTwhich can only be witnessed, or experienced, and not "written down" then maybe you'd go and unfuck yourselves.

I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism rocks.

Indeed it does. I'm not one myself, but I do agree with you.

What it comes down to is the human animal is a pack animal like wolves. If you belong to the pack you are good if you don't you are an outsider therefore bad. The difference is a wolf is born into the pack, a human can choose which pack s/he wishes to belong to and the pack can change. In the case of religion, a person can say they belong to a specific congragation as their pack or they belong to a specific church group as a larger pack. Or, they are Protestant, Christian, religious...etc as larger packs. The same is true in other religions. Which pack you are identifying with depends on who you are with and talking about.

My brother is my enemy unless he is attacked by my cousin. My cousin is my enemy unless he is attacked by a neighbor. My neighbor is my enemy unless he is attacked by an outsider. etc...

This is also the explaination for all sorts of prejudice. If they are outside my pack they are the enemy.

The difference is a wolf is born into the pack, a human can choose which pack s/he wishes to belong to and the pack can change. about.
I disagree. You are born into a pack, if you turn your back on it, you are dishonored.
My brother is my enemy unless he is attacked by my cousin. My cousin is my enemy unless he is attacked by a neighbor. My neighbor is my enemy unless he is attacked by an outsider. etc...
O! man, you got it all wrong. Do you watch television? STOP!
Your Brother is your FRIEND, AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO YOUR COUSIN, COUSIN IS YOUR *FRIEND*AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NEIGHBOR IS YOUR FRIEND, UNTIL HE WRONGS YOUR COUSIN.

The animal rules do apply in petty circumstances, but WE ARE MEN/WOMEN not animals! IT'S CALLED CIVILIZATION!!!.

I disagree. You are born into a pack, if you turn your back on it, you are dishonored.

O! man, you got it all wrong. Do you watch television? STOP!
Your Brother is your FRIEND, AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO YOUR COUSIN, COUSIN IS YOUR *FRIEND*AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NEIGHBOR IS YOUR FRIEND, UNTIL HE WRONGS YOUR COUSIN.

The animal rules do apply in petty circumstances, but WE ARE MEN/WOMEN not animals! IT'S CALLED CIVILIZATION!!!.

Oh, that's too harsh. You are talking about what people should do, while he would likely agree with you he was then talking about what people are doing... Two different things, what they should do vs what they do.

I disagree. You are born into a pack, if you turn your back on it, you are dishonored.That depends on which pack you were born into. For example, Prussian Blue (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prussianblue.net%2F&ei=litxRd_0EKCCqQLe5YjcBQ&usg=__blANa9T9pGhZyVDu9dG-_F1kS_I=&sig2=xj5mUu4EdD8zY0eUPcX3rw) is a good reason why it would not be dishonourable to leave the pack.

O! man, you got it all wrong. Do you watch television? STOP!
Your Brother is your FRIEND, AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO YOUR COUSIN, COUSIN IS YOUR *FRIEND*AS LONG AS HE DOES NO WRONG TO HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NEIGHBOR IS YOUR FRIEND, UNTIL HE WRONGS YOUR COUSIN.

The animal rules do apply in petty circumstances, but WE ARE MEN/WOMEN not animals! IT'S CALLED CIVILIZATION!!!.Cue the middle eastern-lineage people who have never harmed anyone. Do they deserve to be looked upon with suspicion? No. Are they? Yes. Perhaps we're not as civilized as we like to think.

What it comes down to is the human animal is a pack animal like wolves.

not really

Religion = Right? I think not.Religion = Not to think = Right.

So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?
There is a lot of difference of opinion within most religions about the fate of unbelievers. Some Christians think they go to hell, others don't know, and more think they go to purgatory or heaven.

Same is true of Islam and any other religion.

I agree that the apparent ethnocentrism of Judaism and the geocentrism of Islam is a problem, but that may be for reasons we don't know or understand.

Because you touch yourself at night.

First reply, sweet. :cool:

ethnocentrism of JudaismThat's the politically correct term for religiously motivated racism, isn't it? The implementation of which is then Zionism, right?

[QUOTE=New Naliitr;12024225So let me ask you this: Why is it that religions believe that no matter how moral you are, if you don't believe in their religion you are as immoral as the rest of the crowd? And why is it that religions have such discrimination against geographic areas, just because it's not where their religion is situated?[/QUOTE]

by and large, they don't. it's forum-speak. bored people creating issues that most people ignore.

Anyone who is not a Satanist is coming to Hell.:D

Amen!

~Satanic Reverend Medved~

So in other words, it's humanities fault.

Humanity fucks up religion.

Just like humanity fucks up everything else...

New thread time.

The Jewish Afterlife (not the universally-held opinion)

When you die, one of three things happens:
MOST PEOPLE: You go to Gehenna, which is a spiritual and not a physical place. There you suffer spiritual torment for a certain period of time depending on how good/bad you were. Maximum sentence: 12 months. After that, you go to Olam Haba - basically heaven. From what I can tell, this may involve a kind of time warp, as Olam Haba is supposed to be the world after the coming of the Messiah.
REALLY EVIL PEOPLE: Your soul is destroyed, and you cease to exist. Think of it as the divine death sentence. This happens to child molesters, and people who talk in theaters. (A free latke to whoever identifies this quote!)
REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD PEOPLE: Skip Gehenna and go straight to Olam Haba. This happens vary rarely, but there are some people.

Note: Being a Jew helps, if only because you have been told what is right. If you have lived a good and moral life in the eyes of Hashem, you will spend little time in Gehenna. If you were truly self-sacrificing, you go straight to Olam Haba. Actually, being a Jew can also hurt, if only because you have more chances and fewer excuses for screwing up.
And I'm not going to give examples of these kinds of people. True evil can be very obvious, but whether someone is truly good is not possible for a mortal to judge.

As a religious person, I can honestly say that I don't think anyone is going to Hell, period.

I don't think Catholicism (my religion) is any better than anyone else's. I chose it because of the way it speaks to my soul, the way ancient ceremonies make me feel, the personal responsibility espoused by the sacrament of confession, and so on.

However, I don't think that I'm totally right and everyone is wrong. I think if you are true to whatever beliefs you live by, and try to be an honestly good person, then you'll be fine. If you want to go around killing babies, that's your business and you'll get yours.

How so?

don't know, but it is possible in principle that there could be such evidence.

I don't think Catholicism (my religion) is any better than anyone else's.

then you don't really believe in catholicism

That's the politically correct term for religiously motivated racism, isn't it? The implementation of which is then Zionism, right?
I wouldn't go as far as to call Judaism "racist", but it seems to be excessively focused on the Hebrew/Israelite ethnic group.

Zionism is not based on the Jewish holy books. It's a political ideology that was formulated in 19th century France. Judaism had existed for about 5,000 years before Zionism did.

then you don't really believe in catholicism

bullshit.

bullshit.

so catholicism has adopted the idea that catholicism isn't true into its doctrine?

so catholicism has adopted the idea that catholicism isn't true into its doctrine?
Bookislvakia didn't say that Catholicism isn't true. She didn't use the word "true" at all.

Bookislvakia didn't say that Catholicism isn't true. She didn't use the word "true" at all.

ah, so then we've moved on to saying that true things aren't better than false things, yes?

The problem is, no one knows which religion is the correct one, if any.

Orthodoxy is my doxy. heterodoxy is other peoples doxies.:sniper:

not really

In what way are humans not like a pack of wolves? Other than they can pick their pack. It matters not if we are talking religion or national pride or race or school or sports team or any other division you can think of. Plus the pack can expand or contract as we judge how close another pack is to our primary pack.

In what way are humans not like a pack of wolves? Other than they can pick their pack. It matters not if we are talking religion or national pride or race or school or sports team or any other division you can think of. Plus the pack can expand or contract as we judge how close another pack is to our primary pack.

we don't have a pack structure at all, for one thing

In what way are humans not like a pack of wolves? Other than they can pick their pack. It matters not if we are talking religion or national pride or race or school or sports team or any other division you can think of. Plus the pack can expand or contract as we judge how close another pack is to our primary pack.

Well, for one, because humans are capable of forming bonds well outside of their social or political group. I have free choice over who I form relations with that go beyond the social and political entites I am raised with.

Humans have power over memes, not vice versa.

Judaism had existed for about 5,000 years before Zionism did.you wish. no more than 2500 years.

Well, modern Zionism is rather recent - it started in the 1800s. But anyway, 4000 is the accepted age of Judaism. 5000, and you're getting close to the beginnings of civilization.

That said, Zionism has origins and ties to ancient Jewish beliefs. The desire to return to Israel and Jerusalem started with the Diaspora. The organized movement was begun by Theodore Herzl in the 19th century. And while 'Zionist' and 'Jew' are not synonyms, most Jews today (myself included) would consider themselves Zionists. Anti-Zionist Jews are a very small minority.

Judaism SEEMS racist because:
The Torah was, at the start, given to ONE ethnic group - the Hebrew tribes.
Intermarriage was prohibited, so Jews did not easily mingle with other peoples.
The message of the Torah is complex, and conversion is a difficult process (a year spent studying the laws and customs). This made it difficult for others to take the ideas alone - and when they did convert, they assimilated into the Jewish nation.
Judaism itself does not put pressure on its adherents to convert others. Indeed, it is told that the Torah is only incumbent upon born Jews or willing converts. Everyone must follow the Noachide Laws, but you don't convert to become a Noachide, you just start practicing the laws.
Consequently, Judaism has been passed down mostly from mother to child, not spread by missionaries or armies. Therefore, Jews are in many ways a nation of their own.
However, Jews do not hate other peoples - far from it. I'll give you a modern example:

The President of Sudan recently attacked (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076698.stm) the Darfur-awareness movement in the West, saying that it was being pushed by Jewish organizations. Thing is, he wasn't entirely incorrect. Many Darfur-awareness groups have ties to the Jewish community, especially Holocaust memorial groups. At my school (a Jewish high school) we have Darfur-awareness events on Yom Ha-Shoah (Holocaust Memorial Day). This is not about us protecting other Jews - in all probability, the Janjaweed have not killed a single Jew. This is about stopping genocide against others.

then you don't really believe in catholicism

Catholicism, at least the way I've experienced it, has always been a religion interested in having you mind your own business. We're not big into testimony, and while we do have missionaries, I've yet to meet one. I've met many protestant missionaries, and it's hard to like someone you know is fully believing that they're better than everyone and they're the only ones going to Heaven.

I can believe in many tenants of Catholicism without believing in all of them. I've often said that the Bible needs to be updated before I'd be willing to follow it literally. The same goes for the Catholic church. It has many beautiful things, but other parts just aren't proper. It frowns on the use of protection, for instance, and that's a ridiculous idea for our age.

Getting back to the better than other people idea, I've never heard any of the Catholics I know ever say they were better, or that everyone was going to Hell who wasn't a Catholic. It's a stupid idea, either way.

Religion is a personal relationship with God. I'm officially Catholic because I like the ideas behind many of Catholic tradition, but that doesn't mean I like them all. If that makes me not a Catholic, that's fine, but my belief is you can't tell me what I believe in, or who I worship. I believe what I believe and I worship what I revere, and you have no control of that.

EDIT: It's also incredibly arrogant to tell me what I believe, please refrain from doing so in the future.

EDIT: It's also incredibly arrogant to tell me what I believe, please refrain from doing so in the future.

you stated that you didn't really believe in catholicism. that is entailed in what you wrote. it is impossible to really believe in catholicism while at the same time holding that contradictory religions are on par with it. hell, it's actually just sort of a lazy nonsense belief all around.

But anyway, 4000 is the accepted age of Judaism.

It is?

I'd say 2500-2600, and a good case could be made for less.

we don't have a pack structure at all, for one thing

That's exactly what humans do. Right now I'm watching the Nebraska-Oklahoma game. That's two packs fighting it out. I go to the college lunch room and the Black kids are on one table with no liberal whites joining them. The Gays are at another table. The Fine Arts people at another, etc. Members of political parties tend to socialize together. You go to the original question of the thread....people of a denomination tend to run together and defend their position against outsiders.

As I said before, humans aren't locked into their birth pack, but as they go through life they search for a pack that has similarities to them. Then they join that pack and defend it against outsiders.

Notice, when ever there is an insane person committing a crime he's always a "loner". Humans are not naturally "loners" they are pack animals.

That's exactly what humans do. Right now I'm watching the Nebraska-Oklahoma game. That's two packs fighting it out. I go to the college lunch room and the Black kids are on one table with no liberal whites joining them. The Gays are at another table. The Fine Arts people at another, etc. Members of political parties tend to socialize together. You go to the original question of the thread....people of a denomination tend to run together and defend their position against outsiders.

As I said before, humans aren't locked into their birth pack, but as they go through life they search for a pack that has similarities to them. Then they join that pack and defend it against outsiders.

Notice, when ever there is an insane person committing a crime he's always a "loner". Humans are not naturally "loners" they are pack animals.

group ≠ pack

you stated that you didn't really believe in catholicism. that is entailed in what you wrote. it is impossible to really believe in catholicism while at the same time holding that contradictory religions are on par with it. hell, it's actually just sort of a lazy nonsense belief all around.

I stated that I didn't think any religion was better than Catholicism. How is it impossible to have respect for other people?

group ≠ pack

It is when you defend it from outsiders. Or cheer for it as the designated representatives score. Or think of it as superior to other groups.

It is when you defend it from outsiders. Or cheer for it as the designated representatives score. Or think of it as superior to other groups.

no - a pack is a very specific type of social structure. we don't have them.

How is it impossible to have respect for other people?

it isn't about respect - it is about contradictory truth claims.

it isn't about respect - it is about contradictory truth claims.

There can be multiple truths.

My reasoning is that most deities read pretty much the same way. I'm not real worldly, but I know a bit about most religions. Cultures look at things different ways, and God's message might not work in other cultures.

Just because God revealed himself to me/Christians in Jesus, doesn't mean we're the only people who are right. The Bible isn't literal, and there's really no way to tell what's accurate.

Just because the New Testament says Jesus is the only way doesn't make it true. The church could have slipped that in there early on because they had to give some compelling reason for people to join their church.

There can be multiple truths.

not on the same subject. if it is true that there is exactly one god, it cannot be true that there are countless hundreds.

My reasoning is that most deities read pretty much the same way.

not in my experience

no - a pack is a very specific type of social structure. we don't have them.

Look into the study of how wolves became dogs. They moved from one pack to another.

not on the same subject. if it is true that there is exactly one god, it cannot be true that there are countless hundreds.



not in my experience

But, according to Catholic dogma, God is one God, but he has many faces. Thus, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are all one being. Could he not have other faces he has shown to other cultures?

But, according to Catholic dogma, God is one God, but he has many faces. Thus, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are all one being. Could he not have other faces he has shown to other cultures?

Amen, brother!!!

But, according to Catholic dogma, God is one God, but he has many faces. Thus, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are all one being. Could he not have other faces he has shown to other cultures?

i guess. but that also requires him to have told different people completely contradictory things about the nature of god, morality, the world, humans' place in it all, etc.

the religions of the world fundamentally disagree on pretty much everything.

Look into the study of how wolves became dogs. They moved from one pack to another.

that's both wrong and irrelevant

i guess. but that also requires him to have told different people completely contradictory things about the nature of god, morality, the world, humans' place in it all, etc.

the religions of the world fundamentally disagree on pretty much everything.

They disagree on some things sure, but the basic tenants tend to be the same. They stress respect and compassion for yourself and others. At least, the religions I'm familiar seem to emphasize these things. When they are boiled down to the bones, that's what they're about. For the most part.

I'm getting tired so my mind is slipping, so I'll stop replying for tonight, but when I'm fresh tomorrow I'll be posting some more.

They disagree on some things sure, but the basic tenants tend to be the same. They stress respect and compassion for yourself and others.

like the religion of the aztecs, with their bragging claims of sacraficing 84,000 captives to reconsecrate their great pyramd?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Mendoza_HumanSacrifice.jpg

like the religion of the aztecs, with their bragging claims of sacraficing 84,000 captives to reconsecrate their great pyramd?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Mendoza_HumanSacrifice.jpg

Not every religion is one of peace, I understand that, but we could keep in mind they're not likely to be a majority.

The only really connecting thing between religions is that they all think that they are right and the other people are wrong.

the religions of the world fundamentally disagree on pretty much everything.
The Abrahamic religions of course share much in common, and most other religions share the Golden Rule with the Abrahamic ones.

The only really connecting thing between religions is that they all think that they are right and the other people are wrong.

One exception would be Buddhism.

Because you touch yourself at night.

As =POPE= I infallibly declare this post to be composed entirely of pure win.

The Abrahamic religions of course share much in common

superficially, anyways.

it is impossible for them all to be true. they make radically different truth claims on a whole range of points. so one must sort out true and false claims made by these various religions - each of which contains the claim that it is true. on what grounds will that determination be made?

and most other religions share the Golden Rule with the Abrahamic ones.

as long as the others in 'doing unto others' is restricted down to the people of your particular in-group (and even then only under particular circumstances), maybe. but that isn't even really a religious rule, but more of an evolutionarily stable group strategy that one would expect to find in group animals that have survived as long as we have.

Not every religion is one of peace, I understand that, but we could keep in mind they're not likely to be a majority.

actually, the majority of religions that have existed have probably explicitly sanctioned and called for quite a bit of brutality towards others. but even if they only made up a significant minority, your stated position seems to require you to give their truth claims equal weight. and thus to be a good person you must both sacrifice thousands of people every year and not sacrifice anyone.

One exception would be Buddhism.

another three or four-ish would be the african diasporic religions. oh, and hinduism.

like the religion of the aztecs, with their bragging claims of sacraficing 84,000 captives to reconsecrate their great pyramd?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Mendoza_HumanSacrifice.jpg

the aztecs were doing the whole "I once caught a fish THIS BIG" reutene. they were exagerating...not that what they were doing was a good thing, but they were not killing people at the rate they said they were. aztecs lied and said it was more people because they thought it made them sound mighty. spaniards lied and said it was more people because they fealt it gave them moral superiority and thus right of conquest. in general the reports spun massively out of control - they killed alot of people, yes, but only a fraction of these kinds of numbers. until quite recently - even up to now, people will spout random numbers just to indicate "alot". I sincerely doubt 84000 is an accurate number - and unless I'm mistaken, so do most archaeologists and historians.

oh, and as an aside - not all aztec sacrifices were unwilling by any means.

not on the same subject. if it is true that there is exactly one god, it cannot be true that there are countless hundreds.


"Truth is One, though the sages know it variously."
"Whoever resorts to Me in whatever manner, in the same manner do I favour them; men experience Me alone in different ways, O Arjuna."
Whatever may be the form [of the deity] a devotee-whosoever he may be-desires to worship with faith, I assume that form which is firm and is according to [his] faith. Endowed with that faith, he seeks to worship that deity and therefrom receives his desired objects that are ordained by none but Me
O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other deities with faith, they also worship Me, but following non-injunction"

ever heard of pantheism? you probably show a totally difference face at work than at home, are more free with your humor around certain people...why should the way god interacts with us be any different? billions of people throughout history have believed that all gods were a manifestation of one god - true polytheism is very, very rare, when compared with pantheism.

and somewhat on that note: here's some quotes on inclusivenessfrom religious texts - the first is said in context of a pagan coming to jesus for his slave to be healed. while christians tend not to admit it, I think there's a strong case this passage could be taken to mean those of different religions are coming to the christian heaven - particularly when you take it in the context that "Israel" no longer means the nation, but the christian church, in the new testament.

When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."

"The righteous of all peoples have a place in the World-To-Come"

there can only be one factual answer to any given question - but there can be many truthful ones.

At the foundation all of the major religions seem to have the same beliefs. It is how they express them that is different and argued about. Look at the thousands of Protestant Christians--The foundation is the same but they don't get along because of the details. Expand that to religions and you get the same thing on a larger scale. A study of the major religions is amazing in their similarities at the foundation beliefs.

A study of the major religions is amazing in their similarities at the foundation beliefs.

how are you defining foundational belief such that the differences over how many gods there are, what those gods do and did, and humanity's relation to the gods and the universe aren't fundamental?

how are you defining foundational belief such that the differences over how many gods there are, what those gods do and did, and humanity's relation to the gods and the universe aren't fundamental?

Again, the number of gods could be considered irrelevant if they are in fact different facets or interpretations of one deity. The different stories matter very little because their meanings come out to be the same.

The story of Buddha sacrificing himself to a tigress so she could feed her cubs is very similar to the sacrifices Christ made for the good of the people. Different stories, different people, same foundation: sacrifice.

Again, the number of gods could be considered irrelevant if they are in fact different facets or interpretations of one deity.

this already assumes that the vast majority of these religions are wrong. once you grant that, why bother saying anything else about them?

The story of Buddha sacrificing himself to a tigress so she could feed her cubs is very similar to the sacrifices Christ made for the good of the people. Different stories, different people, same foundation: sacrifice.

that's just silly

that's just silly

How?

this already assumes that the vast majority of these religions are wrong. once you grant that, why bother saying anything else about them?

How are they wrong? You could look at a puppy and say both "dog" and "puppy" and be right.

How are they wrong? You could look at a puppy and say both "dog" and "puppy" and be right.

because it isn't a case of looking at the same thing and calling it two different words. these things specify that they are different from each other . in order to say that they aren't, you have to first assume them to be wrong on that point. and then you have to assume all the other differences between them are really just allegories or later additions or whatever - which is to assume an entire new set of ways that they are wrong. all for the sake of some project of universal religious reconciliation that doesn't really have much of a point or an epistemic grounding.

to throw it back in christian terms, god was not the golden calf. your theology claims otherwise.

to throw it back in christian terms, god was not the golden calf. your theology claims otherwise.?? what makes you so sure about that?

because it isn't a case of looking at the same thing and calling it two different words. these things specify that they are different from each other . in order to say that they aren't, you have to first assume them to be wrong on that point. and then you have to assume all the other differences between them are really just allegories or later additions or whatever - which is to assume an entire new set of ways that they are wrong. all for the sake of some project of universal religious reconciliation that doesn't really have much of a point or an epistemic grounding.

to throw it back in christian terms, god was not the golden calf. your theology claims otherwise.

Ah, now I understand your point better.

Well, then maybe they are all wrong, but not in the sense that it's because they believe something else, but some other point that I just lost as I was typing.

Damn brain.

?? what makes you so sure about that?

the fact the the work of fiction in question says so?

the fact the the work of fiction in question says so?

Actually, I think it's more accurately named mythology.

That's kind of a matter of opinion, fiction, mythology, or otherwise.

That's kind of a matter of opinion, fiction, mythology, or otherwise.

Well, the difference is that "fiction" is pejorative compared to "mythology", which is the more correct term.

Most people think that the term myth implies that the material is somehow untrue, but in reality all it means is a story passed down that contains some kind of mystical or ethical truth that exists objectively outside of the content of the story itself.

Well, the difference is that "fiction" is pejorative compared to "mythology", which is the more correct term.

Most people think that the term myth implies that the material is somehow untrue, but in reality all it means is a story passed down that contains some kind of mystical or ethical truth that exists objectively outside of the content of the story itself.

Ah, ok. thanks for clarifying!

Well, the difference is that "fiction" is pejorative compared to "mythology", which is the more correct term.

Most people think that the term myth implies that the material is somehow untrue, but in reality all it means is a story passed down that contains some kind of mystical or ethical truth that exists objectively outside of the content of the story itself.Wouldn't it be called legend then?

Wouldn't it be called legend then?

Mythology is the broader category that legends fall under.

Mythology is the broader category that legends fall under.I had thought that while Legends contain some core of truth Myths are completely made up.

I had thought that while Legends contain some core of truth Myths are completely made up.

Actually, it's usually vice versa. Myths contain truth while legends are made up. However, there are a lot of legends with some truth in them, and some myths that might have been made up.

Of course, most mythology is didactic rather than historical, so the point is to teach ethics and morality rather than history. The truth of the stories isn't as important.

Actually, it's usually vice versa. Myths contain truth while legends are made up. However, there are a lot of legends with some truth in them, and some myths that might have been made up.

Of course, most mythology is didactic rather than historical, so the point is to teach ethics and morality rather than history. The truth of the stories isn't as important.

"A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious stories and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths (see Religion and mythology for more information). This usage is frequently confused with fiction, legend, fairy tale, folklore, fable, and urban legend, each of which has a distinct meaning in academia."

a legend on the other hand is a story set in real history, which means it has a core of truth. hence e.g. Gilgamesh is a legendary figure, a real historical king whose deeds and adventures have been exaggerated and amended. He is no mythical figure.

"A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious stories and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths (see Religion and mythology for more information). This usage is frequently confused with fiction, legend, fairy tale, folklore, fable, and urban legend, each of which has a distinct meaning in academia."

a legend on the other hand is a story set in real history, which means it has a core of truth. hence e.g. Gilgamesh is a legendary figure, a real historical king whose deeds and adventures have been exaggerated and amended. He is no mythical figure.

Where's your source on that?

Where's your source on that?my own understanding and some wikipedia.

my own understanding and some wikipedia.

I mean, do you have a link or something for it?