quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the outward expression of religion is necessary. However, religion itself is, because it allows one to develop an understanding of what things are meaningful, what things are not, and why. Without that, I'd think anyone would either have to be very innocent or very lost.
How interesting. Which of your two alternatives do you think apply to the atheists hereabouts?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if this alien country prospered beyond anything heretofore conceived by humans and slowly began to buy up land, increasing their borders, but never forcing anyone to change their ways within their own communities. They just simply refuse to deal with the "superstitious".
What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
It's something I've often wondered about. If a religious group sets up a theocracy in a previously uninhabited place and enforces religious based rule - must attend church, no work on the holy day, lots of morality laws, etc.?
Everyone originally subject to such laws was a volunteer. But what about people who change their mind later or who are born into the community after its founding. Would it be a "good" government that enforced its established religious rules on such a country, or would it be an oppressive one?
it seems that our culture does not judge such societies favorably. [emphasis added]
Yes, good point.
If the subscription to that society REALLY is voluntary, it will remain voluntary for the next generations too. Meaning that as long as a child cannot decide for oneself, they are simply “in limbo state” (is that a pun? ) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilisation or not. The difficulty arises because of the family bonds (or their lack) in each case. But as long as “emotions” overcome “reason” (i.e. “I love my father too much to leave him, so I’ll accept this society even though I don’t subscribe to its rules”), that person will face the consequences (meaning that the rules still have to be obeyed). Yet, when reason prevails (i.e. “I have chosen not to subscribe to the rules, so I’ll leave this society”) then there is no more complication.
This is kind of why I personally don’t agree to the idea of baptising the newborns according to one given religion, while they have literally NO CHOICE. First education, then choice.
quote:If the subscription to that society REALLY is voluntary, it will remain voluntary for the next generations too. Meaning that as long as a child cannot decide for oneself, they are simply “in limbo state” (is that a pun? ) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilisation or not.
This doesn't sound very practical or realistic to me. Is there any civilization in the world that teaches about all others without at least the implied assumption that "our way is best"? (And don't be mistaken, my theoretical aliens are pretty sure their way is best, and also pretty sure that civilization cannot pass a certain omega point while holding on to "primitive superstitions" (i.e. outwardly displayed religious ritual).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the outward expression of religion is necessary. However, religion itself is, because it allows one to develop an understanding of what things are meaningful, what things are not, and why. Without that, I'd think anyone would either have to be very innocent or very lost.
How interesting. Which of your two alternatives do you think apply to the atheists hereabouts?
Neither. As I said earlier, I think most (if not all) atheists have religion. Their religions just happen to not include God - which is what makes an atheist an atheist.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the subscription to that society REALLY is voluntary, it will remain voluntary for the next generations too. Meaning that as long as a child cannot decide for oneself, they are simply “in limbo state” (is that a pun? ) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilization or not.
This doesn't sound very practical or realistic to me. Is there any civilization in the world that teaches about all others without at least the implied assumption that "our way is best"? (And don't be mistaken, my theoretical aliens are pretty sure their way is best, and also pretty sure that civilization cannot pass a certain omega point while holding on to "primitive superstitions" (i.e. outwardly displayed religious ritual).
KarlEd, I completely agree with you on “our way is best” psychology. I myself wouldn’t follow "a way" if I weren’t convinced it is the best available. And while this might (and therefore probably will) bias the education given to the “unwillingly born into this society”, I don’t see it as inherently immoral to let them make their informed choices, even if their choice is “wrong” according to the … “tradition”. Without variation there is no evolution
While the aliens have passed the omega point, they cannot force all the Earthlings to pass it too. [We are talking about your scenario, in mine they are actually trying to inforce it, and they are “already” seen as oppressive ]
Note: There are (quite a lot of) areas where there is no “universal truth” (accepted as such by all), therefore one has to make a choice. Look at the “political systems”. Different systems work for different people. I say one should be able to choose what kind of life they want to live. Either respect the rules of this land, or go elsewhere.
- - - -
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As I said earlier, I think most (if not all) atheists have religion. Their religions just happen to not include God - which is what makes an atheist an atheist.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I’d personally define atheism as a religious … disbelief.
posted
Sure, I can see the aliens giving a good general education about the history of religious philosophy, but I can't see them really lending much credence to what they believe is incompatible to society. (Nor do I feel they have a moral obligation to). Now, given that, if someone were to spontaneously convert to, say, Catholicism, and want to start practicing it with all its ritual, etc, I think they'd likely show that person the border and say "have at it."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
You don't know anyone who's waiting for the Second Coming when the wicked will be burned and Jesus will reign over the righteous?
'Cause I know I've heard it before, and it seems like what Karl's talking about.
I know people who believe that Jesus will come again - so do I, theoretically, but I can't think of any who are waiting for this event or for whom anticipation of that event is more important than paying attention to the kingdom now. That is a bit tough to explain.* I doubt that I know (in RL) anyone who is waiting for the wicked to be burned. It is possible, of course, that I have an acquaintance that I just don't know well enough to know her thoughts on the matter. It is certainly not an opinion I have ever heard endorsed in any religious meeting I have ever attended.
*For most of the religious folks I know, "Thy Kingdom come" means to do the work of social justice, charity etc. now, rather than waiting for Jesus to return and magically fix everything.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
In my scenario, the aliens are obviously disregarding the First Amendment. They only permit private religious manifestations. And they eliminate all material symbols. So it is “unconstitutional” (i.e. improper act of government) by (most) “human” standards.
For someone who sees ethics independent from religion (e.g. myself), it is as moral as forbidding walking naked on the street. It is a “social rule” (as alien as it might be/sound).
In KarlEd’s scenario, it is a contract. You are accepted into their society if you rid yourself of the "superstitions" of outward religiosity. When you spontaneously convert to, say, Catholicism, and want to start practicing it with all its ritual you break that contract and you have to pay (by leaving that society for example). What is immoral about that?
quote:In KarlEd’s scenario, it is a contract. You are accepted into their society if you rid yourself of the "superstitions" of outward religiosity. When you spontaneously convert to, say, Catholicism, and want to start practicing it with all its ritual you break that contract and you have to pay (by leaving that society for example). What is immoral about that?
People regularly judge the Puritans for much the same activity. Exile from Xenotopia for crossing oneself in public seems as harsh as making someone wear a Scarlet A.
And I've heard pretty harsh judgments about that proposed Catholic town in Florida. Now, doing it within the U.S. would be unconstitutional, but much of the criticisms weren't based on the constitution but on the idea of a "theocracy" being set up.
I'm just curious if the idea of a religious-restrictive government, of either persuasion, where the original settlers all sign on and all non-conforming citizens are banished is something people think would be a moral form of government.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Sure, I can see the aliens giving a good general education about the history of religious philosophy, but I can't see them really lending much credence to what they believe is incompatible to society. (Nor do I feel they have a moral obligation to). [emphasis added]
Wait, in my scenario, the aliens don’t consider religion incompatible with society. They just eradicate public manifestation. And material symbols. But there is, as you say, education about the history of (at least human and why not other) religions. So as long as one becomes “religious” based on that education, and doesn’t manifest it in public, they have the possibility to do it. No harm will come to them.
So, in your scenario, do aliens regard “outward religiosity” as being equivalent to “religion”? I mean, they regard “outward religiosity” as incompatible with a certain level of development, as stated in your “what if scenario”. Now you say the same thing about religion (as part of education). Am I reading you right?
In any case, I am convinced that there are lots and lots of people who see ethics at least dependent of (if not even exclusively included in) religion. I mean, for some ”don’t kill” has (moral) value only as long as (they are told) some given divinity said it first. I have no real problem with that, so in my scenario anyone can be religious if that is the only way for them to answer certain questions (e.g. those related with moral values). But again, the religion (i.e. religiosity) has to be “the arriving point” (after education) and not the “starting” one.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And I've heard pretty harsh judgments about that proposed Catholic town in Florida. Now, doing it within the U.S. would be unconstitutional, but much of the criticisms weren't based on the constitution but on the idea of a "theocracy" being set up.
I'm just curious if the idea of a religious-restrictive government, of either persuasion, where the original settlers all sign on and all non-conforming citizens are banished is something people think would be a moral form of government.
Ok, I can accept that my scenario contains a form of “theocracy”, because of the religious-restrictive rules. [BTW, do you feel the aliens promote atheism ?] You already have my answer regarding the “morality” of that “regime”.
But in KarlEd’s scenario, there is no “oppression”. There is a choice to be made: outward religiosity vs. acceptance into the alien civilization. I don’t see it at all immoral not to be able to “have it all at once”. As long as a society is formed by more than one member (is that its definition ? ), the contract “everybody will have all they want at the same time” is impossible. Is that immoral?
quote:But in KarlEd’s scenario, there is no “oppression”. There is a choice to be made: outward religiosity vs. acceptance into the alien civilization. I don’t see it at all immoral not to be able to “have it all at once”.
I'm not talking the original settlers who agree to the rules. Everyone on the Mayflower agreed to the rules, presumably.
I'm talking about the people born there who convert to religion. There, the choice is abiding by the restrictions on religion or banishment, a choice that has been judged very harshly in other contexts.
quote:the contract “everybody will have all they want at the same time” is impossible. Is that immoral?
Again, that's not what I'm saying. Unless the aliens ban sex, in one generation most of the members will not have ever made this contract.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm not talking the original settlers who agree to the rules. Everyone on the Mayflower agreed to the rules, presumably.
I'm talking about the people born there who convert to religion. There, the choice is abiding by the restrictions on religion or banishment, a choice that has been judged very harshly in other contexts.
[emphasis added]
Why are we judging this from other contexts? This discussion takes place in a special context (i.e. the “what if scenario(s)”). What happened in Mayflower also took place in (its) specific context. [Note, all I know about that is what you said here in this thread.] But I see no point in judging the rules of one society outside their context.
There are immoral “rules” and “ideas” and “propositions” and all that, at any given time (knowing that the definition of “morality” is a function of time AND place i.e. morality = f(time,place) ). But when participation is voluntary and no laws are broken, labeling it “immoral” is irrelevant (especially if you are using a different value for the argument “time” in the function mentioned before). Every adult person has the right to make their choices, even if the “tradition” is against a particular choice. It is immoral (today, in most of the countries) to force someone to walk naked on the street; it is not immoral for that person to choose to live in a land where they may walk naked as they please.
quote:Again, that's not what I'm saying. Unless the aliens ban sex, in one generation most of the members will not have ever made this contract.
I’ve already given my answer on the “people born there who convert to religion”, in both scenarios (see the post above about the REALLY voluntary issue).For his scenario, KarlEd said that it “doesn't sound very practical or realistic” to him. So I’ll wait to see his detailed answer.
But meanwhile please let me develop a bit my answer with a short analysis:
I totally agree that a person that didn't sign a contract cannot be bound by it. So there are two alternatives: 1) The aliens consider that every newborn has automatically signed the contract (unwillingly!) and be educated and given the possibility to “break the contract” at any time, with its consequences. [You might find that immoral.] 2) The aliens don’t accept people in their society that can’t sign for themselves the contract, for whatever reason (early age, mental disabilities etc). So what happens with the newborns? 2a)They are brought up in a special section of the “country” (let’s call it “limbo state” ) where the contract is not applied (meaning that children are educated and “allowed” to spontaneously become “religious” and to express it “publicly”) but they are not part of the alien civilization as yet. If they want to get out of the “limbo state” they have to make their choice about the contract. 2b) The parents to have a child are “(automatically) temporarily exiled”, while their child has not yet made the decision about the contract. So sex is not banned, but when deciding to have a child you take into account that the child has the right (and therefore must have the possibility) not to abide by the same rules that the parents do. 2c) The newborn is automatically exiled (the parents have a choice not to leave) and the aliens will deal with all people exclusively on a voluntary basis.
A.
PS: in my early post I was talking about 2a).
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One particular context for those societies is the lack of immediately available other societies. If someone was exiled, that was that...no place to go to. Involuntary hermitude. Same idea behind excommunication a long time ago. Whereas outcasts from the alien civilization still can go to other countries, where the way of life is very different and more primitive, but still available. If people could only get in by discarding outward religious manifestations, but wouldn't get kicked out for doing so, the solution is simple: discard outward religious manifestations for the time it takes to get into the society, and then start being outwardly religious. Not what the aliens have in mind.
I'm with Tom on the oppression scenario, though; I don't need organized religion at all, or any of the trappings of it, but I'd fight back against anyone who wanted to deny me the right of religious expression. Ornery, stubborn, argumentative, fighting for the sake of fighting; but freedom is that important to me. "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God," right? ;^)
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: [...] Now (for me) this gets to the issue of the relationship between atheism and religion. Namely, whether someone's atheism has an importance unto itself, or if it's merely a reaction to the existence of religion.
Because I'd freak. There wouldn't be anyone to blame, or resist, but the sudden disappearance of religion would create a void in my life that I couldn't understand. I'd probably go around assuming that religious people were playing a joke on me.
You see, I’d also subscribe to the list of people who see “atheism” as a reaction to (existent) religions. As I said before, for me the “atheism” means the negation of “the described deities (of others)”. But, still, my personal view of the Universe doesn’t consist simply in that negation. I mean, that negation was just the start of searching for the alternative (namely the truth, the ideas that I can accept as true, for me). And I am happy with what I have found. That is where the term “egotheist” was born, because “atheist” just isn't describing myself completely.
So the disappearance of (today’s) religions would not startle me one bit, It’d be more like a “confirmation” that maybe my way of seeing the Universe is the TRUE one (not valid only for me, but for all the others too).
A.
PS: As for the paradox:
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God," right? ;^)
Comment: Doesn’t the concept of “fallen angel” (a.k.a. Satan) stand for the “rebellion” of that particular angel, as he saw God as a tyrant?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it would be a completely improper act of our governemnt, but we're founded on priciples specifically designed to forbid such actions. My aliens have no such foundation principle.
I brought up the "2nd Coming" scenario because I see some parallels here. Theoretically, (at least in some Christian religions), Jesus is going to return one day and set up his Kingdom on Earth. (Yes, there are many interpretations of this, but at least some religions teach that it will be a political Kingdom as well as a spiritual one.) Do you think that this theoretical political Kingdom will be a pluralistic one? I guess this is a question mainly for the "one true church" types, since others will probably allow for a Jesus who accepts all kinds of worship, perhaps even worship that doesn't even mention Him - perhaps even "righteous atheism".
But for now, let's hypothesize a "one Church, one Baptism" returned Jesus. He returns to Earth, destroys the wicked, and sets up an Earthly Kingdom of God. It isn't a pluralistic KoG because there is only One True Way to worship Him. You either join, or are "cast out". (I'll leave it up in the air whether this means "into Hell" or just out of his political realm.) Is this a "moral" act, or "proper role of Government"? Would you oppose such a government?
As for my aliens, what if they are an ancient civilization and have known many other civilizations and know that without exception theistic societies either devolve into chaos or blow themselves up. They know scientifically that the only way to get over the hump is to eradicate theistic expression from the culture. Their society is based on technology that, in the hands of a society that hadn't crossed the omega point, would only serve to hasten the cycle and could very well result in the complete destruction of a solar system. Would acts designed to prevent theistic expression within their society be "immoral" or "improper acts of government"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Theoretically, ... Jesus is going to return one day and set up his Kingdom on Earth. ...At least some religions teach that it will be a political Kingdom as well as a spiritual one. Do you think that this theoretical political Kingdom will be a pluralistic one?
As a "one true church" type, I'd have to say yes, it would be pluralistic. At least at first.
"Destroying the wicked" is not synonymous with "destroying everyone who believes differently", in my understanding. And compulsion is not God's way. So my guess would be that the laws governing the land would be based on the morality of the "one true church" - (i.e. don't kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.) but would not require membership in that church or outward adherence to that religion. The governing of the church would still be separate from the governing of the land. Again, my guess.
(But then, you probably know my understanding of it, don't you, KarlEd? )
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the most part, JennaDean, I probably do. However:
quote:So my guess would be that the laws governing the land would be based on the morality of the "one true church" - (i.e. don't kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.)
In your understanding would that "morality" include "no gay marriage"? How about "no homosexual activity"? Fornication? Sabbath breaking? Blasphemy? Will there be no one in that society that indulges in these things? What will happen to them?
But you also have to admit that the Mormon view of the political KoG is hardly representative of that of Christianity in general any more than the Mormon view of heaven/hell is. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [qb] Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it would be a completely improper act of our governemnt, but we're founded on priciples specifically designed to forbid such actions. My aliens have no such foundation principle.
I brought up the "2nd Coming" scenario because I see some parallels here. Theoretically, (at least in some Christian religions), Jesus is going to return one day and set up his Kingdom on Earth. (Yes, there are many interpretations of this, but at least some religions teach that it will be a political Kingdom as well as a spiritual one.) Do you think that this theoretical political Kingdom will be a pluralistic one? I guess this is a question mainly for the "one true church" types, since others will probably allow for a Jesus who accepts all kinds of worship, perhaps even worship that doesn't even mention Him - perhaps even "righteous atheism".
But for now, let's hypothesize a "one Church, one Baptism" returned Jesus. He returns to Earth, destroys the wicked, and sets up an Earthly Kingdom of God. It isn't a pluralistic KoG because there is only One True Way to worship Him. You either join, or are "cast out". (I'll leave it up in the air whether this means "into Hell" or just out of his political realm.) Is this a "moral" act, or "proper role of Government"? Would you oppose such a government?
Your last question made me laugh, if we are taking the diety status of Christ literally what could you possibly do to oppose him?
From my own reading and postulation it seems to me that when Christ comes again the overtly wicked (as in those who desire wickedness) will be wiped out and those who desire to live righteously will continue to exist in the world. Missionaries will be sent to those people who still do not believe in Christ (and there will still be those people on the earth at this time). The intense prosperity that the Christians enjoy coupled with the sheer truth of their beliefs would be the main converting tool.
Some people will still not believe and God will steadily cause the condition of their environment to deteriorate, i.e famine. Eventually using natural disasters if that does not work. Ultimately everyone who does not believe in Christianity will convert of their own free will or eventually die.
I am not sure what people who are subsequentially born and do not believe will be handled. Maybe nobody will be born here at that point.
Again this is all my own speculation/postulation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: […] The intense prosperity that the Christians enjoy coupled with the sheer truth of their beliefs would be the main converting tool.
Some people will still not believe and God will steadily cause the condition of their environment to deteriorate, i.e famine. Eventually using natural disasters if that does not work. Ultimately everyone who does not believe in Christianity will convert of their own free will or eventually die.
I am not sure what people who are subsequentially born and do not believe will be handled. Maybe nobody will be born here at that point. [double emphasis added]
BlackBlade, your paradoxical speculation/postulation made my day (and I say that as a positive thing to happen)!
Is this the way you see “free will”? I mean: “believe this and that, or else X, Y and Z would happen to you, and eventually you’ll die if nothing else works.”?
For me the paradox consists in the fact that the (hypothetical) situation of the “coming of Christ” and seeing him try to “convert people to the true faith” (using missionaries and the like) would actually have a chance to convince me, BUT, seeing his other forms of persuasion (famine, natural disasters, death) - while being nice proofs of his “divine” (i.e. more than human) qualities - would surely convince me NOT to follow him.
Kind of saying a big NO to oppression of thought
- - - KarlEd, I think that your way with words is great.
posted
A super-advanced alien race that studies Earth religious history before sending their emmissary could have an absolute heyday here.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Because we're not talking about hypothetical actions. As I understand it, BB actually believes that this is what will happen when Christ comes back to establish His kingdom -- that God will afflict non-believers with famine to slowly kill them off, or something else in that vein.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't. So can we get a "What a really cool God" for the things I think will happen? Equal "props" and all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I just get embarrassed by extremely religious people. I don't see why you have to do embarrassing things like witness to people. That just makes me uncomfortable to an almost painful degree, whether it's the thought of being the witnesser or the witnessee.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure what you mean by competition. It isn't a case of different gods, it's a case of differing opinions about God.\
c.t.t.n., sorry if I am making you uncomfortable - not sure what I shoudl do about it though. Maybe you shouldn't read the threads about religion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I didn't mean it like that. I'm talking about people walking up to you on the street, or going door-to-door. However, I do find it a little naive to proselytize on internet BBs, although I'm not accusing you specifically.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talking about religion does make people uncomfortable, in some cultures in the USA. Not all of them, by any means. It's like talking about money or sex or your marriage - it seems private.
It is also an incredible way to bond with people, talking about the important things. There's a reason that weather and sports are perrenial topics, but I like it when people can talk about stuff that really matters to them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I'm not telling you what to do. I'm merely sharing my thoughts. And 'uncomfortable' is an understatement. It makes me really tense, really, really, uncomfortably anxious.
I'm not even sure I am all that comfortable with the level of 'closeness' or bonding that comes with regular discussions of religion. That's up to the individual.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't dream for a second of letting you tell me what to do.
I'm saying that I'm not surprised - many people are made uncomfortable. Also, many people are not, and there are benefits that come when some of the barriers we have come down. There are also risks. Whatever you want to do about that is your call, of course.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people who approach you on the street tend to be either mentally unbalanced or easily discouraged with a simple, "no thank you". The unbalanced ones make me uncomfortable, too.
Please don't lump all "extremely religious people" in with crazy people. People on the streets are often crazy for many reasons that have nothing to do with religion. I was followed by a guy recently, who kept asking me to be his friend, but I wouldn't decide that all friendly people made me uncomfortable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb--it just makes me a little sad when the extremely religious either completely cut themselves off from society, like the Amish, or feel the need to go door-to-door. Neither extreme is pretty, or useful, don't you think?
Another reason I don't get too excited about religion is that I have trouble believing that what Yshva did on the cross in Jerusalem about 2000 years ago will be remembered 20 million years from now. However, I think there's an excellent chance that our culture and language will still be around in some slightly recognizable form long after Christianity is. The same goes for Taoist, Buddhist, and Muslim beliefs.
If it gets much more complex than a belief in souls and gods, or maybe a God, I don't think it's got much chance to live as long as our language and culture will. Keeping it simple can't hurt.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be bad when anybody, religious or not cuts themselves off from society - or it can be good. And if they are cutting themselves off from society, how are they bothering you? I think that people who go door to door are doing whatever is exactly opposite from cutting themselves off from society - rather they are somewhat assertively engaging with society.
The Amish do make very pretty quilts. I have no idea of the usefulness of going door to door.
Your lack of excitment about religion is entirely up to you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb--my point is that either one, A. going door-to-door, or B. living completely away from society, is pointlessly extreme.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That statement makes me think you don't know about 1)religions that have people knock on doors, or 2)the Amish.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there are (here) religious people (i.e. theists) that have a very admirable attitude when dealing with others that may or may not share their views. kmbboots is a fine living example/proof of that. Let's be happy (and grateful) that there are not only "negative examples" around us
A.
PS: Please note also that "negative example" is a subjective judgement Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Amish aren't the best example. They seem to have as good a life as the people around them, IMO. A better, though less fair example would be David Koresh/the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones' group, or the Heaven's Gate cult. Those are cheap shots, though. PLEASE don't assume I am comparing anyone here to members of those groups. I'm not.
As far as going door-to-door goes, kat, if you want to do it, I'm not going to try to stop you.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no question that religion can be used by charismatic nuts to exert power over less charismatic, less powerful nuts. Although religion is a powerful tool, it is not the only tool available to such nuts. Patriotism can be used the same way, for example. Don't mistake the uses (rather misuses and abuses) of religion for religion itself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: kmb--it just makes me a little sad when the extremely religious either completely cut themselves off from society, like the Amish, or feel the need to go door-to-door. Neither extreme is pretty, or useful, don't you think? [emphasis added]
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: The Amish aren't the best example. They seem to have as good a life as the people around them, IMO. A better, though less fair example would be David Koresh/the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones' group, or the Heaven's Gate cult. Those are cheap shots, though. PLEASE don't assume I am comparing anyone here to members of those groups. I'm not. [emphasis added]
Let’s not be too hasty. That might lead to futile [i.e. non constructive] (self)contradiction.
A.
[edit: fixed some faulty copy/paste]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilisation or not. The difficulty arises because of the family bonds (or their lack) in each case. But as long as “emotions” overcome “reason” (i.e. “I love my father too much to leave him, so I’ll accept this society even though I don’t subscribe to its rules”), that person will face the consequences (meaning that the rules still have to be obeyed). Yet, when reason prevails (i.e. “I have chosen not to subscribe to the rules, so I’ll leave this society”) then there is no more complication.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) where the contract is not applied (meaning that children are educated and “allowed” to spontaneously become “religious” and to express it “publicly”) but they are not part of the alien civilization as yet. If they want to get out of the “limbo state” they have to make their choice about the contract. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
