Does Religion Alter or Destroy the Human Spirit?

[Alla Prima]

No. :sarcastic Blaming human bad behavior on bad religion solves something.

(I love how you inserted that crucial word, to which I agreed, and then deleted it as if I was agreeing to something that I wasn't. Was that intentional?)

I should not have used the word 'bad' to qualify religion the first time. It's only religion. Please list the 'bad' religions for me.

 

[Sunstone]

I've already addressed post #99. If you are dissatisfied with my response, you can point out explicitly the way in which you believe it fails to address your point. Merely telling me that you think I have not addressed the point is not helpful, because obviously I think I have.

I'm at a loss to make it any clearer than I have. Obviously I believe you failed to address my point in #99 or I would not have referred you to it. This seems to be another point, Lilithu, on which we shall simply need to disagree.

First of all, I suspect that we don't view guns the same way. While I think there should be some regulation for safety's sake, I also think that blaming guns for people shooting each other is myopic. If someone picks up a stick and hits you with it, you don't blame the stick. Or at least I don't. It's true that a gun can cause a lot more damage than a stick, but that still doesn't make it the gun's "fault." Honestly, how can an object with no volition or intent be at fault?

And what volition or intent do you ascribe to religion that is not actually in the humans who are practicing it?

It seems to me you are looking at this in moral terms. Hence, you wonder what moral fault or blame a stick or gun has. I am looking at it in causal terms. Hence, I see that a stick or gun is part of what causes the damage rendered to someone. In the same sense, you seem to be wondering what moral fault or blame religion might have in facilitating good or evil. On the other hand, I am not even asking that question. Instead, I am looking at whether or not religion is a factor in causing good or evil.

Secondly, I don't think you addressed my previous point. I will endeavor to spell out what I mean by that. I was asking, if you concede that religion is a powerful enabler of both good and evil, if you concede that religion also plays a role in "helping, enabling, or facilitating" people to do good, then again I ask, what is the problem?

It's obvious that a gun can play a roll in both helping or harming someone. In the same way, it is obvious that religions can play rolls in both helping and harming people. Moreover, it is only slightly less obvious that some religions are less likely than other religions to encourage people to do certain kinds of evil. Not all religions are equal in that regard. So, given that religions facilitate both good and evil, and given that some religions, at least, facilitate more evil than others, I think we should be concerned to learn why those religions facilitate more evil than others and how they can be improved.

 

[lilithu]

I should not have used the word 'bad' to qualify religion the first time. It's only religion.

That is your problem.

Please list the 'bad' religions for me.

Not bad religions, bad religion, singular. Man, you really did not know what you were saying before, did you?

I'm not talking about one religious denomination verses another. I'm talking about religion that inspires good as opposed to religion that justifies evil. Both can happen in most denominations.

 

[lilithu]

It seems to me you are looking at this in moral terms. Hence, you wonder what moral fault or blame a stick or gun has. I am looking at it in causal terms. Hence, I see that a stick or gun is part of what causes the damage rendered to someone. In the same sense, you seem to be wondering what moral fault or blame religion might have in facilitating good or evil. On the other hand, I am not even asking that question. Instead, I am looking at whether or not religion is a factor in causing good or evil.

Ok. So then would it make sense to you to create a thread asking "Do Guns Alter or Destroy the Human Spirit?" To me that question has a moral component to it. If it doesn't to you, that's just something else we'll have to disagree on.

It's obvious that a gun can play a roll in both helping or harming someone. In the same way, it is obvious that religions can play rolls in both helping and harming people. Moreover, it is only slightly less obvious that some religions are less likely than other religions to encourage people to do certain kinds of evil. Not all religions are equal in that regard. So, given that religions facilitate both good and evil, and given that some religions, at least, facilitate more evil than others, I think we should be concerned to learn why those religions facilitate more evil than others and how they can be improved.

That's a completely different statement than asking if Religion destroys the human spirit. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that you were talking about religion in general, as opposed to some forms of religion over others.

 

[Alla Prima]

That is you problem.

No it's not a problem.

I'm not talking about one religious denomination verses another. I'm talking about religion that inspires good as opposed to religion that justifies evil. Both can happen in most denominations.

When I say 'religion' I mean that within the religion which inspires the bad behavior. Some religions inspire more bad behavior than others but religions inspire bad behavior. Blaming human bad behavior on religion (that within the religion which inspires bad behavior) does solve something.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that you were talking about religion in general, as opposed to some forms of religion over others.

Why do those who habitually do a lot of assuming always believe they are being the most reasonable people on earth?

 

[lilithu]

Why do those who habitually do a lot of assuming always believe they are being the most reasonable people on earth?

Cute. Are you seriously saying that you think it was unreasonable to take you at your word when you wrote "Religion" without any qualifications? Was I supposed to ask, What do you mean by that word, Sunstone? You say "Religion" but is it possible that you actually mean "some forms of religion" instead?


Alla Prima just said that there is no good or bad religion, "It's only religion." Are you saying that you disagree with that?

 

[lilithu]

Some religions inspire more bad behavior than others but religions inspire bad behavior.

They also inspire good behavior.

Blaming human bad behavior on religion (that within the religion which inspires bad behavior) does solve something.

It is absolutely nonsensical to equate religion with that within the religion that inspires bad behavior.

That's like saying that within my body are the cells that can become cancerous, therefore I blame my body for causing cancer. :areyoucra

 

[Sunstone]

Cute. Are you seriously saying that you think it was unreasonable to take you at your word when you wrote "Religion" without any qualifications? Was I supposed to ask, What do you mean by that word, Sunstone? You say "Religion" but is it possible that you actually mean "some forms of religion" instead?

I don't even begin to understand why you would make the assumptions you do. I knew a computer programmer once who thought every word in English only had one definition -- the one he most liked. Curious.

Alla Prima just said that there is no good or bad religion, "It's only religion." Are you saying that you disagree with that?

How can something as complex as a religion be summed up as good or bad? This or that aspect of a religion might be good for one thing and bad for another, but how can you sum up a whole religion as simply good or bad? Besides, a more interesting line of inquiry than whether something is good or bad is "What is this", or "How does this work", or "What causes this"?

 

[lilithu]

I don't even begin to understand why you would make the assumptions you do. I knew a computer programmer once who thought every word in English only had one definition -- the one he most liked. Curious.

And I can't begin to understand why you don't say what you mean. Actually I can, but that would just make you even more indignant.

How can something as complex as a religion be summed up as good or bad? This or that aspect of a religion might be good for one thing and bad for another, but how can you sum up a whole religion as simply good or bad? Besides, a more interesting line of inquiry than whether something is good or bad is "What is this", or "How does this work", or "What causes this"?

I'm not summing up a whole religions as good or bad, as I clearly said in post #123. The point of my question was to ask whether or not you agree with the statement that "It's only religion." (ie - cannot be further categorized into various aspects)

I know that religion is complex. That's why I don't ask questions like whether Religion Destroys the Human Spirit.

 

[Alla Prima]

They also inspire good behavior.

So what? This is to excuse religion inspired bad behavior?

It is absolutely nonsensical to equate religion with that within the religion that inspires bad behavior.

That's like saying that within my body are the cells that can become cancerous, therefore I blame my body for causing cancer. :areyoucra

I see you aren't big on responsibility. A more appropriate anology would be a police department having a few bad apples within it's ranks. I blame that department for it's corruption. The heads of any religion can choose to do something about that which inspires bad behavior. But they don't unless forced to.

 

[Scott C.]

The problem with that is there are so many truths. People seem to get upset about that.

Yes, some people do get upset about that. My point is that to whatever extent a religion teaches truth, that religion is good. To whatever extent it teaches error, that religion is bad. The key is to search for the truth. When we find it, it helps our spirits and it helps mankind.

 

[Alla Prima]

And I can't begin to understand why you don't say what you mean. Actually I can, but that would just make you even more indignant.



I'm not summing up a whole religions as good or bad, as I clearly said in post #123. The point of my question was to ask whether or not you agree with the statement that "It's only religion." (ie - cannot be further categorized into various aspects)

I know that religion is complex. That's why I don't ask questions like whether Religion Destroys the Human Spirit.

I don't have a problem with the question and I think most of us know what he meant. The responder can qualify it any way they wish. The problem I have is how to answer it. I'm really not sure. It would seem if you're in the right religion for you then your spirit can be lifted. Wrong religion - spirit dies. But I don't know. It's a hard one.

 

[Alla Prima]

Yes, some people do get upset about that. My point is that to whatever extent a religion teaches truth, that religion is good. To whatever extent it teaches error, that religion is bad. The key is to search for the truth. When we find it, it helps our spirits and it helps mankind.

Then that begs the question what is truth?

 

[Scott C.]

Then that begs the question what is truth?

Yes, it does beg the question what is truth? And also begs the question can truth be found in religion?

For me, the quest for truth is not like a quest to see what restaurants, sports, or hobbies seem to give me the most satisfaction or suit me best. I want to know absolute religious truth, the kind of truth that applies to everyone and is important for everyone to know.

 

[Alla Prima]

Yes, it does beg the question what is truth? And also begs the question can truth be found in religion?

For me, the quest for truth is not like a quest to see what restaurants, sports, or hobbies seem to give me the most satisfaction or suit me best. I want to know absolute religious truth, the kind of truth that applies to everyone and is important for everyone to know.

I suppose I'm fortunate to have found the Truth. I cannot (and won't) however tell others that it is their truth as well.

 

[frg001]

Cute. Are you seriously saying that you think it was unreasonable to take you at your word when you wrote "Religion" without any qualifications? Was I supposed to ask, What do you mean by that word, Sunstone? You say "Religion" but is it possible that you actually mean "some forms of religion" instead?

My god you are pedantic. Strange I read it and understood what it meant. Just because it may not be literally 100% accurate doesn't mean it's blindingly obvious what was meant.

 

[Prominence]

Your just like the fanatics and the fundamentalists. Your no better than a bully. Ive seen your type come and go. Usually it takes a while to go.

Your idea of god being in all of us...is rooted in falsehood. You can just as well tell a little girl raped by her uncle or a boy sodomised by his father that god is in their abuser.

You need help. And it aint going to come from a tree.

I AM...is not you. And you are not I AM. You are on the wrong side of the fence my dear ..... i think you are bordering on the rediculous. In fact i think you are rediculous.

So while you are trenscending and having your spiritual experiences and cutting god out of this story...dont expect everybody to fall over and play dead.

Have a nice day. :seesaw:

Ignorance often speaks from a point of laziness, doubtfulness and poorly founded conclusions. And it refuses to face itself in the mirror for as soon as it does it transcends itself.
You even go as far as to deny the name Life gave you? I AM, the supreme acknowledgement of existence. It is the means by which YOU CAN PROVE the existence of the life beyond the physical body.
You have proven to be the fanatic. I have pursued the truth without bias and have only ever sought to prove the existence or inexistence of the life of which we all know I speak. You may clearly be hopelessly biased. You probably have many negative associations with "Religions" and whatever it is that you think "God" is or isn't. I find it likely that you also have negative associations any "Religious" followers. Why?
I bring "Soap and Water" and all you do is doubt that it can clean you and splash it in my face without realizing that it just makes me all the more clean. You don't even give the "Soap and Water" a chance so that you could experience the reality. If you ever do try it, don't just dip your hands in then pull them out to notice the dirt remaining; actually scrub those things down. But you are too biased anyways, so I don't think you would.
You talk about people as though their brains weren't wet wired computers. You blame the life for faulty programming and not the faulty programming itself along with the virus' that started it all. You just want to be angry at people for the things they do, you care nothing about helping them remove the conditions that induce the horrible actions. You make yourself out to be a condemner who cares nothing about rehabilitation, but focus' on punishment and maybe wants the punished to miraculously change their ways because it gets them condemned. Punishment just leaves the accused resentful of the system and those who enforce it, but only on occasions does punishment lead to redemption. Help and Forgiveness is the best means of getting someone to rewire themselves. Imprisonment should be a means of protection not punishment.

Namaste

 

[Scott C.]

I suppose I'm fortunate to have found the Truth. I cannot (and won't) however tell others that it is their truth as well.

What is the truth you have found? Do you believe it is also my truth? If so, why would you not offer to help me to also find this truth?

 

[doppelganger]

If so, why would you not offer to help me to also find this truth?

Why don't you want to find it for yourself? Do you really think someone else can tell you what is true to you?

Or do you judge things you consider as true or not for yourself, and just pretend you didn't make the call?