False Religions

[Quiddity]

I believe in "All False Religions"

Poor thing. I'm guessing you are terribly confused? :biglaugh:
Sorry, couldnt resist on that one.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Maybe not condemning, but certainly convinced he was right and they were wrong. That can be just as offensive as flat-out condemning other religions.

You don't need to be religious for this. Not unless most atheist think they are wrong..

~Victor

 

[lilithu]

As for 'defining religion' as 'ultimate concern,' that's not the definition of religion.

Well, to each his own, but I personally find that definition to be very useful. I suppose you would prefer to maintain the definition of religion as something that you can be against?

There is very little room for serious comparison between worshipping a deity and loving a baseball team.

Um... perhaps you've never been around a true baseball fan? Or someone obsessed with a celebrity? Or someone who has devoted his or her entire life to making money? Or fame? Or prestige? We all make "idols" of things. The only question is how worthwhile the thing is.

 

[Kowalski]

Something Melody wrote in the Devil Plan thread made me start thinking about this. "False Religions" is a funny term to me, one who doesn't believe in any religion. I'm curious about what people think of other religions. Does anyone believe that they are right (One True Religion) and everyone else is wrong (False Religions). Or are there simply some religions that you don't give an once of respect to. The funny thing to me is, what if I started a religion right now. How could this be any less of a True Religion than Christianity or Islam? I'd have less followers but I'd still be using the original formula for inventing a religion. "God inspired/talked to me and told me to do it!"

All religions are bunkum, I defy One believer to gave us some empirical proof og their God;
No ? relying on some old scripture ? or some later day fabrications, it's all the same, come now show us your God, if you can.

K

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you truly were inspired, yes. Paul Tillich, arguably the greatest theologian of the 20th centrury, defined religion as "ultimate concern."

Do you distinguish between religion as "ultimate concern" and faith as "the sate of being ultimatelly concerned"?

 

[Darkdale]

Dangerous? I'd be interested in hearing you out and going deeper into why you think this.

~Victor

Certainly.

1. It is the "one true religions" which have instigated the most violence in the world, historically.

2. It is the "one true religions" which, supposing themselves to be elite, or elect, believe themselves to be righteous in violent acts, historically.

3. The idea of belonging to a "one true religion" is bred of arrogance and therefore is prone to violence.

4. The "one true religions" have created vast religious institutions for the purpose of establishing power, thus putting themselves in a position to do violence.

5. The "one true religions", being the only "real" religions, believe all others to be evil, or sinners, or enemies, thus placing them in a position to want to do violence to others.

Believing that you have the one true religion is arrogance and evil and these religions are dangerous, in general or for the most part.

 

[Fluffy]

What other people consider their religion, I consider a set of beliefs which I hold with regards to my moral, spiritual, political and social outlook on life. Obviously I consider certain beliefs better than others eg the moral "You shouldn't murder" is better, and more practical, than the moral "you should always murder". Since I am unlikely to hold a belief when I can think of a better one, you could say that what I believe is, to me, the One True Religion given the limitations of the knowledge that I have gained so far. However, I am constantly on the look out for somebody who may have come across an idea that I have not yet considered or someone who, through constant debate and redebate can further refine my ideas and understanding of the world.

I fully believe that there is value in everything, especially in everything that people say. And I use the term everything literally here, not as an exaggeration. So whilst I believe that my belief set has the potential for being the best (otherwise why believe in it?), I will analyse as much as possible in the hopes that it can become even better.

 

[Darkdale]

I fully believe that there is value in everything, especially in everything that people say. And I use the term everything literally here, not as an exaggeration.

Spoon silly nut flower over whipped creme and barbed wire.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe not condemning, but certainly convinced he was right and they were wrong. That can be just as offensive as flat-out condemning other religions.

People often villify passionate beliefs. They ascribe a host of epithets and negative qualities, not realizing that they are just as guilty of the intolerance they accuse others of. Go figure!

 

[Scuba Pete]

All religions are bunkum, I defy One believer to gave us some empirical proof og their God;

You demand evidence even as it envelopes you and still you do not see. We both see the same earth and draw different conclusions as to what it is evidence of. That is no one's fault but your own. Not believing in God is the ultimate "bunkum".

 

[Fluffy]

Spoon silly nut flower over whipped creme and barbed wire.

lol . My belief comes from something my history teacher once said with regards to historical sources. We were studying bias and how it affects how a source is interpreted. One student called a source worthless but my teacher said this was only because he was asking it the wrong questions. For example it is stupid to ask a piece of Nazi propaganda for a fair assessment of Jewish people. It is much more worthwhile to ask it for an example of an effective way of manipulating the masses.

Your sentence would be most useful at gaining a valuable insight into your personality or for conducting a detailed analysis of 21st century humour .

 

[jonny]

I believe that there is truth in all religion. The hard part is sifting what is true from what isn't true.

 

[Quiddity]

Certainly.

1. It is the "one true religions" which have instigated the most violence in the world, historically.

2. It is the "one true religions" which, supposing themselves to be elite, or elect, believe themselves to be righteous in violent acts, historically.

3. The idea of belonging to a "one true religion" is bred of arrogance and therefore is prone to violence.

4. The "one true religions" have created vast religious institutions for the purpose of establishing power, thus putting themselves in a position to do violence.

5. The "one true religions", being the only "real" religions, believe all others to be evil, or sinners, or enemies, thus placing them in a position to want to do violence to others.

Believing that you have the one true religion is arrogance and evil and these religions are dangerous, in general or for the most part.

Nothing new here. Actions of an institution don't justify or unjustify whatever truth they teach. Although I think you are looking at it from bottled glasses, nonetheless I see your point but since Christ never promised the actions of His Church, rather it's teachings, it does nothing in my eyes.

~Victor

 

[nutshell]

Nothing new here. Actions of an institution don't justify or unjustify whatever truth they teach. Although I think you are looking at it from bottled glasses, nonetheless I see your point but since Christ never promised the actions of His Church, rather it's teachings, it does nothing in my eyes.

~Victor

I agree with you to a point, Victor, but what about Matthew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

It seems the post above is speaking to these thorns and thistles.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree with you to a point, Victor, but what about Matthew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

It seems the post above is speaking to these thorns and thistles.

What should be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15). Topic for another day.

~Victor

 

[Ormiston]

Can anyone think of a specific example of a False Religion? Perhaps one that actively teaches hate (I don't know of any myself). I'm not even claiming that one exists (False Religion that is), but maybe someone thinks one does.

 

[Fatmop]

Offhand, I would say that Greek and Roman mythology are false. Does anyone in the universe believe those old stories anymore?
Still, if your definition of how false they are is whether or not they teach you any lessons, then Greco-Roman mythology isn't completely false. Hubris - excessive pride - was a major abomination in their eyes, one that always warranted divine punishment.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The religion of "self" is false.

 

[Fatmop]

Vergil says as much in the Aeneid. Mezzentius, an opponent of Aeneas, is a man who 'scorns the gods' and at one point even prays to his right arm to give him victory. Guess who kills him - the pious Aeneas.

 

[Darkdale]

Nothing new here. Actions of an institution don't justify or unjustify whatever truth they teach. Although I think you are looking at it from bottled glasses, nonetheless I see your point but since Christ never promised the actions of His Church, rather it's teachings, it does nothing in my eyes.

~Victor

Well, if you can't defend that actions of your church, I can't talk to you. I don't care what you believe... only what you do.