|
|
|
|
|
| | Can culture advance without religion?Page 2 of 39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | Hey bloke...............
Actually, there are laws specific to rape, I am not sure about pedophelia, as during that time, it was common to take wives who were no older that 13 or so..... That was then, and I don't agree with a lot of what went on then.
When the Bible was being compiled, a lot of words were used that had much more than one meaning, and one of them was covet. You can probably get 3 different answers if you were to ask 3 different very educated biblical scholars, and I am talking about the ones that can read Greek, Aramaic, and translate one to the other.
As far as why YOU would want to live as a pre-christian Hebrew, that is your business, not mine......... and, well, not being either Hebrew or Jewish, I don't want to live as a post-christian Hebrew, which would explain why I don't see a real need to follow all 600 plus laws. I am relatively certain that most Jews today don't follow all 600 laws, and for certain, don't even know all 600 laws.
Paul K
| |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/19/2012 7:02:03 PM | Cruscades, the inquisition, drowning/burning witches, burning catholics, burning protestants, papal supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, paedophilia, white-supremacism, jihad, fatwas, plane hijacking, suicide bombings...
Do you imagine the world would have never discovered these things if religion didn't exist?
All of these are examples of the haves keeping the have nots in their place.
Because religion is frequently hijacked for the cause of state power and authority/money generation/class warfare and generally abused by all authority everywhere doesn't mean that any of these abusers represent the religions they've misappropriated.
That's like saying Jerry Sandusky represents the intent of all college administrators. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/19/2012 8:16:03 PM |
Good post! I think 'religion' has served as something akin to a stabilizer for most cultures for reasons that you cited in that it is perceived to come from a 'higher authority'. Without it, mankind would be left to his own devices, devising his own standards for morality as we saw in the Communist states and Nazi regime.
That's not true at all. Modern society has developed a better sense of morality than the one handed to us by religion. The ideas that we should get rid of slavery and make women equal to men don't come from religion, they come from secular moral philosophy. Accepting gay and transgendered people is also a recent trend that is diametrically opposed to the morals you find in some of the world's major religions. If' we're creating morals based on person freedom and democratic ideals, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I think that's better than keeping up the traditions of inequality. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/19/2012 8:44:40 PM |
If' we're creating morals based on person freedom and democratic ideals, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I think that's better than keeping up the traditions of inequality.
I agree with you with a big BUT. You can't have it now. I think it is a totally natural evolution but it has to come about on its own. Very much like it is. Also it is an irreligious model and not stepping into the full boat absolutism of "God does not exist"
This is why I really like the American model. It does not have a religious god as the granter of rights. They were ahead of us in that thought. The installed rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and that all were created equal are not up for negotiation. It's taken us a few hundred years to even try to live up to that basic model and we are constantly trying to take each of those from ourselves.
Religion exists as a majority in the western world. Western cultures tend to have a knowledge and science base. For the most part western culture has an idealized version of religion. Very much picking out the parts that are liked and blatantly ignoring the rest. It is being ignored because of incompatibility with evolved morality. It also can function as a mirror of things that are wrong so you have a comparison.
It is just more complicated than just saying we should operate “without religion" because that concept is as fundamentally made up as any burning bush. Religion exists and that is reality. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 2:32:14 AM |
The Jewish Old Testament clearly shows that rape murder genocide pillage theft etc etc are all very acceptable. This ^ is as woefully assinine as it can possibly get! Show us where in the above text does it say that all these crimes are "acceptable"!
Here ya go -
Numbers 31-17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31-18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Psalms 137-9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Hosea 13-16 Samaria shall become desolate, for she hath rebelled against her God, they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
2 Chronicles 15-13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
Deuteronomy 22-28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,
22-29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 13-1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder,
13-3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
13-4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
13-5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
13-6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,
13-8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them.
13-9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.
13-10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
13-12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13-13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known),
13-14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,
13-15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
13-16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,
13-17 and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors—
13-18 because you obey the LORD your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
etc etc etc
Google is your friend.
Here in Ireland the land of Saints and Scholars a Roman Catholic Ethos allowed the Christian Brothers to use extreme violence on children together with rape and masturbation on non consenting children. show us where in Catholic doctrine does it allow or condone violence against children as you describe.
Openly promoting abuse of children would be foolish. However... facilitating, covering up, blaming victims, and shielding offenders are all activities the Catholic Church involves itself in. Much like any pedophile organisation really...
Google 'Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops', then Google 'Ratzinger shields pedophile cardinal' or 'catholic pedophiles' if you are genuinely interested in having your eyes opened.
No, the way you see things is the way you WANT to see them; and not as they really are.
Irony ^^^ at its finest.
In fact a case could be made that any state that suppresses religion is doing so for the express purpose of promoting tyranny, I.E. China, Russia, North Korea, Myanmar, etc all vastly reduced in desirability as a place to live in comparison to those places where religion founded and upheld the society.
A strong case could also be made that any state that promotes religion is doing so for the express purpose of promoting tyranny.
Just look around the world at places where evangelical type religions become fused with the state.
Once 'patriotism' becomes nationalism and fuses with 'god given' righteousness all hell breaks loose.
Islamic terrorism is a disputed term for acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political ends.
Some observers have argued that this form of terrorism is also aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
The ruler of Mysore, India - Tipu Sultan
Tipu Sultan is regarded to be anti-Christian by many historians.
The Bakur Manuscript reports him as having said: "All Musalmans should unite together, and considering the annihilation of infidels as a sacred duty, labor to the utmost of their power, to accomplish that subject."
Soon after the Treaty of Mangalore in 1784, Tipu gained control of Canara. He issued orders to seize the Christians in Canara, confiscate their estates, and deport them to Seringapatam, the capital of his empire, through the Jamalabad fort route.
According to Thomas Munro, a Scottish soldier and the first collector of Canara, around 60,000 people, nearly 92 percent of the entire Mangalorean Catholic community, were captured; only 7,000 escaped. They were forced to climb nearly 4,000 feet (1,200 m) through the jungles of the Western Ghat mountain ranges. It was 210 miles (340 km) from Mangalore to Seringapatam, and the journey took six weeks. According to British Government records, 20,000 of them died on the march to Seringapatam.
According to James Scurry, a British officer, who was held captive along with Mangalorean Catholics, 30,000 of them were forcibly converted to Islam. The young women and girls were forcibly made wives of the Muslims living there. The young men who offered resistance were disfigured by cutting their noses, upper lips, and ears.
The captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam, which began on 24 February 1784, ended on 4 May 1799.
The Goa Inquisition of 1857 (Goa was a Portugese colony in India)
The first inquisitors, Aleixo Dias Falcão and Francisco Marques, established themselves in what was formerly the raja of Goa's palace, forcing the Portuguese viceroy to relocate to a smaller residence. The inquisitor's first act was forbidding Hindus from the public practice of their faith through fear of death.
Sephardic Jews living in Goa, many of whom had fled the Iberian Peninsula to escape the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition to begin with, were also persecuted.
During the Goa Inquisition, described as "contrary to humanity" by Voltaire, conversions to Catholicism occurred by force and many native Goans were executed by the Portuguese. The adverse effects of the inquisition were tempered somewhat by the fact that Hindus were able to escape Portuguese hegemony by migrating to other parts of the subcontinent. Though officially repressed in 1774, it was reinstated by Queen Maria I in 1778. The last vestiges of the Goa Inquisition were finally swept away when the British occupied the city in 1812.
But the happy times didn't last...
The Indian Rebellion of 1857
In 1813, The East India Company charter was amended to allow for missionary activity across British India. The missionaries soon spread almost everywhere and started denigrating Hinduism and Islam, besides promoting Christianity, in order to seek converts.
Many officers of the British East India Company openly preached to the Sepoys, and such activities caused a great deal of resentment and fear of forced conversions among Indian soldiers of the Company and civilians alike.
The perception that the company was trying to convert Hindus and Muslims to Christianity is often cited as one of the causes of the revolt.
The revolt is considered by some historians as a semi-national and religious war seeking freedom from English bondage though others question this interpretation. The revolt started, among the Indian soldiers of British East India Company, when the British introduced new rifle cartridges, rumored to be greased with pig and cow fat - an abhorrent concept to Muslim and Hindu soldiers, respectively, for religious reasons.
However, in the aftermath of the revolt, British reprisals were particularly severe with hundreds of thousands being killed. While the death toll is often debated by historians with figures ranging between one hundred thousand and one million, it is usually agreed that several hundred thousands were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India
Most people believe that the Spaniards saved the Maya from their brutal religious practices. Greater study has shown that this was a fiction created by the Conquistadors to justify their impact on the culture of Latin America, and the "rescue" of the souls they had conquered. History goes to the victors, and the Conquistadors brought their interpretations and presentations to the history of Latin America.
The Spanish Conquistadors believed that it was their divine right to "civilize" the natives of Central America. They believed that the ways of the Europeans were the best and most sophisticated. With this belief, it was only natural that they would totally change the lives of the people who populated the area when they arrived. When visiting Central America today, the predominant experience is that of Spanish culture, with that of the Native Americans relegated to a minor role.
http://www.helium.com/items/949603-how-spanish-conquistadors-changed-central-america
Religion is a source of 'morality'? pfft.
Because religion is frequently hijacked for the cause of state power and authority/money generation/class warfare and generally abused by all authority everywhere doesn't mean that any of these abusers represent the religions they've misappropriated.
On the contrary, that's exactly what it means. Organised religion is a corporate body. It's not good enough to claim on the one hand that everything (allegedly) 'good' that flows from religious belief is due to the religion but then disown all the bad stuff as being 'not really connected to the religion at all'.
The religious do the same thing in regard to their 'divinely inspired holy books' too, even though these are supposedly 'ultimate truth' they routinely deny that parts of them 'really' mean what they clearly do mean.
It is just more complicated than just saying we should operate “without religion" because that concept is as fundamentally made up as any burning bush. Religion exists and that is reality.
Religion exists along with many other superstitions, along with phobias, obsessions, psychotic delusions etc etc but that's no reason to give any of them any air-time.
In terms of cultural advance, the sooner the world is free of primitive superstitions and delusions of 'god given' specialness the better. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 2:42:43 AM | western culture exists as it does because it has crept through the cracks in religion.... in other words, in spite of religion.
had it not done so, we might think afghans to be civilised.
we are where we are. our religion has given us some nice buildings and some nice music an art and it has also destroyed much in its path that might have been nice to see still around today.. however we recognise religion now for what it is and so we can move on, using the handrail of codified morality but removing the zealous bits as we go - we are free to pick and choose, much as religion has done, but without the guilt.
we do not need to stone the rape victim anymore, nor do we need to consult the good book to decide how to whip our slaves... and we can welcome gay marriage. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 7:27:06 AM | Religion exists along with many other superstitions, along with phobias, obsessions, psychotic delusions etc etc but that's no reason to give any of them any air-time.
In terms of cultural advance, the sooner the world is free of primitive superstitions and delusions of 'god given' specialness the better.
That doesn't make it any less true that it exists and trying to exercise it from existence will only have the effect of creating a deeper and more delusional fundamentalism. Some aspect of which always survive. You can't legislate belief out of existence. If left to run its course it will run out on it is own. UK is example of that. It is also an example that as it runs out in its own course if you don't reinforce the balance of what is naturally occurring it will be replaced with another such as Islam.
western culture exists as it does because it has crept through the cracks in religion.... in other words, in spite of religion
That may have some truth to it but is kind of missing the point that it isn't as blatantly obvious to everyone from the past their views of the world were so much inferior to yours that they are lucky they didn't burn each other to death for heresy. The real reason is that it occurred because thinking and social morality evolved over time. Western Religion may have slowed its evolution but it did help it and is also helping it to succeed in doing so. The thinking that is evolving out of it is very deep and powerful right. Not all made up and talking trees. Why hasn't that happened with Islam? Why has Islam just again started a rise?
Didn't you read Sam Harris, "The End of Faith." It is pretty much about this denial of Islam as being a problem. He includes all but he does spell out where the danger is.
| |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 7:48:53 AM | which is why it is important to burst the bubble. moderate tea party vicars are tolerable, illiterate imams are not.
when we consider the role of religion in the state, we always think of church of england and roman catholic schools and the good they have done - all true. yet even with that little complexity, we forget that in northern ireland, once a child enters school, he will never play the 'opposition' at sport, teachers do not cross the divide and the bigotry is drummed in early and it stays there.
now widen that out to other religions.....
i regret that for all the good (and forgetting all the harm) religion has done, and it has at least played a part in delivering our societies to this relatively peaceful and prosperous time with a few relatively good values and standards..... it has had its day. it has run its course. it is no longer relevant ... and it is time to gently bury it next to the family goldfish.
to do otherwise exposes us to a bigger nonsense that is no longer over the horizon... all schools must be secular in every respect. religion must be taught, but taught as history where it belongs. nobody should have to learn the bible or the koran or any flakey magic coloured stone nonsense any more. | |
|
| |
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 35 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 8:51:36 AM | Cultures that share a common moral doctrine, advance. Social biology suggests that cultures that would not share such common morality, would not survive long enough to make it into the history books.
One can argue the validity of any particular religion, or what their moral imperative may be, which is beside the point. The issue is the cohesion that such a common belief supports.
And it seems that a necessary moral precept is that the good of the culture is more important than the good of the individual.
A culture that attempts to negate religion as a moral foundation must replace it with some other form of indoctrination.
In the US, this would be the constitution and flag, and other such secular institutions that lend themselves to patriotism. The Nazis was a belief in the Furher and the Third Reich. Again, in such cases, sacrifice for the sake of the nation is fundamental.
What is a culture to do that no longer honours religious morality? Can it advance or even sustain itself on secular morality?
Why should I care about anyone else if I don't get anything out of it? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 9:02:46 AM |
What is a culture to do that no longer honours religious morality? Can it advance or even sustain itself on secular morality?
Why should I care about anyone else if I don't get anything out of it?
Religion must evolve to survive. However, it has defined itself into an irrational box and the only way out of that box is for there to be an admission of... ooops. The Catholic Church has tried to evolve but hinders itself more than it tries to evolve. The biggest oops was to try to define a physical existence of God... He lives here... no here.. no here... no over here... That was done to maintain authority over science and say, “Don't look there."
If the atheists succeed and tear down the church through humiliation and degradation of 'superstations' which they are literally like the laughing jackals and happily take on the mocking role of 'anti-Christ' to do we will have that vacuum created which will be filled with awful things. If religion evolves a little bit further and doesn't try to reclaim a former glory it will naturally evolve into the common moral foundation that could rest as a foundation. What are the chances that people are patient enough to let evolution take its course :)
Funny though... If the next pope turns out to be the last... that would make a propehcy true. But I'm sure that would be dismissed as self fulfilling :) | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 9:02:56 AM | @Coma
That's not true at all. Modern society has developed a better sense of morality than the one handed to us by religion.
Hardly, I already gave examples of (modern)societies that have elected to enact their own set of morals apart from those pre-established by religion.
The ideas that we should get rid of slavery and make women equal to men don't come from religion, they come from secular moral philosophy.
Not at all! In the new testament, it clears shows that Jesus empowered women, and up-lifted those debased by the society/culture of that time, which clearly went against the grain of the religious practioners of that time.
Accepting gay and transgendered people is also a recent trend that is diametrically opposed to the morals you find in some of the world's major religions.
This ^ is a generalization that is steeped in ignorance; there are certain christian denominations that fully accept gay pple in their fold and have reconciled them by way of proper scriptural context. I believe one such group are the episcopalians and there are others. There are religions that regard homsexuality as a perversion; which in the strict definition is not entirely wrong as such sex acts were meant to be conducted between heterosexuals; however, that doesn't necessarily translate into dictum that says that the homosexual is to be persecuted. Many times that happens in the absense of scriptural directives, or directives that have been taken out of context!
If' we're creating morals based on person freedom and democratic ideals, I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Only if the "ideals" that you embrace are counter to the ones that I hold dear, and you try to deny mine in favor of yours!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@Lying Cheat
Let me first preface my response to you by saying that much of your argument (by way of posting scriptural verses indiscriminantly) is fallacious; which shows that you: A) don't know how to formulate based on contextual relevance B)or you are blinded by your own bias!
Here ya go----->as though you think everyone here is that gullible!
What you chose to post is mostly out of context! Let me give some examples
Numbers 31-17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31-18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Psalms 137-9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Hosea 13-16 Samaria shall become desolate, for she hath rebelled against her God, they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
The common theme in these verses is the violence to be committed on children/infants; but what you failed to acknowledge (either through your ignorance or through your deceit) is that this was all conducted under the specter of (ancient) warfare. Its well known that the (ruthless) custom of ancient warfare involved the killing of children, because that served as a major deterent of one society easily waging war over another; much like nuclear weapons serve as a deterent in this day and age among super-powers.
In order to understand No 21--17; you have to see the context that it was put in. The directives that Moses issued in line 15 were towards the Midlanites (whom they were warring against); and the reason for that directive is stated in line 16; but you deceitfully omitted that to make it look like it was ablatant act of evil. Same goes for all the other verses!
Deuteronomy 22-28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,
22-29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Again, in your deceitfulness, you have done your utmost in thaking this out of context! You disingenuously omitted verse 25 which states:
"if it is in the open fields that a man comes on a betrothed maiden, seizes her and has relations (rapes her) with her; THE MAN ALONE SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH! You shall do nothing to the maiden".
Thus in verse 28, when a man rapes an unbethrothed maiden; the penalty is two-fold 1) he has to pay a substantial amount of money to the relatives as their daughter can longer be considered pure and cannot attract a suitor; and 2) he must also marry her (in order to support her for life) and cannot divorce her! This was appropriate justice considering the culture of that time; since killing the man would serve no pupose as the "maiden' would be doomed to solace and destitution for the rest of her life otherwise!
Google is your friend.
apparently Google isn't much of a friend to you since you don't know how to use the information (assume you are genuine in your response--which I doubt); otherwsie a course in reading & comprehension might do you wonders!
Openly promoting abuse of children would be foolish
Open your own eyes first! It is the responsibility of the government in power to protect its citizens against such assaults perpetrated by whatever group has been accused; as far as it is known, the clergy are not above secular law in western countries! Failure to do so reflects poorly on the laws that govern a particular society and those who are in charge of reporting it/prosecuting it. This is regardless of whether the accused (or perperators) are: clergy; officers of the law; medical practitioners; politicians, etc!
A strong case could also be made that any state that promotes religion is doing so for the express purpose of promoting tyranny.
this is merely your opinion; as in the case of Islam(as an example)where religion is often infused with the government; most of its pple don't view it is a "tyrannical" state; that viewpoint is usually taken by an outside observer!
Just look around the world at places where evangelical type religions become fused with the state.
Please gives us the names of countries whose gov't has evangelicalism fused in?
The ruler of Mysore, India - ..............................
The Goa Inquisition of 1857 (Goa was a Portugese colony in India)...........
The Indian Rebellion of 1857......................................
Most people believe that the Spaniards saved the Maya......................
Mankind (of all faiths) have perverted religion as a pretext to attain their stated goals/aganda. If it wasn't the religious pretext; They would have used something else; guaranteed! (example: presence of weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to invade or attack another country).
In Islam, jews & Christians are considered to be pple of "the book" all worthy of "going to heavan" thus are not catagorized as "infidels" unless there is a political inclination to do so as we see with the extremists nowadays! In Christianity (regardless of the denomination) there is nothing in the new testament that commnds the followers to forcibly convert others! Thus your point above IS POINTLESS!
the sooner the world is free of primitive superstitions and delusions of 'god given' specialness the better.
And the sooner you see another Hitlerian or Marxist-like figure trumpetting a new way of life or utopia, be sure sure to jump on the band-wagon, as I'm sure they'll be leading you to a world of better morality! | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 10:24:36 AM |
Cultures that share a common moral doctrine, advance. Social biology suggests that cultures that would not share such common morality, would not survive long enough to make it into the history books.
One can argue the validity of any particular religion, or what their moral imperative may be, which is beside the point. The issue is the cohesion that such a common belief supports.
And it seems that a necessary moral precept is that the good of the culture is more important than the good of the individual.
A culture that attempts to negate religion as a moral foundation must replace it with some other form of indoctrination.
In the US, this would be the constitution and flag, and other such secular institutions that lend themselves to patriotism. The Nazis was a belief in the Furher and the Third Reich. Again, in such cases, sacrifice for the sake of the nation is fundamental.
What is a culture to do that no longer honours religious morality? Can it advance or even sustain itself on secular morality?
Why should I care about anyone else if I don't get anything out of it?
All of that is true enough ... but the premise that religion must be the unifying set of beliefs ... is not a given. Any system of beliefs will do. Again, if the system of beliefs is good or bad, will be defined by the group, hence will necessarily be considered good.
The given is, a unifying set of beliefs MUST exist.
The argument is, what should that set of beliefs be? [religion is NOT a given]
Another given is, several competing set of beliefs MUST also exist.
A cycle of differentiation and convergence in not only inherent but required and preferred.
The totality of religion will certainly not be abandoned, rather just picking out the good parts.
It's the irrational concept of god that is the primary problem. Irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.
The reality is, god didn't do anything, people did it.
Reducing the argument to its' simplest form.
The question is, how will we survive without our gods?
But ... they didn't do anything ... do they even exist? :-)
We're gonna be fine. ... ... or we're not.
But there is no one to blame.
We're exerting control of our own destiny ... ... we're growing up ... ...
Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 10:42:51 AM |
Psalms 137-9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Google may be your friend but a sound bite doesn't provide the context necessary for comprehension, this passage is a warning that Israels errant way have brought them to trial and a warning that their foes would be merciless.
If I Google Lying Cheat will everything I read be attributable to you? And even if you said it, will it all be in context, or will I need to read (and comprehend) all of your essays, to have a clear enough picture to critique you? The Bible, Torah, Koran, the words of the Buddha and the Veda's are not complete in a few words, and to represent them less than fully is misdirection. If you take bites from the Constitution, the Amendments, the U.N. Charter, or any nations state documents as the be all and end all of policy than you'll never run out of controversy. And if you dismiss them all then the only recourse is tyranny (the rule of one) or anarchy (the rule of all)
Openly promoting abuse of children would be foolish. However... facilitating, covering up, blaming victims, and shielding offenders are all activities the Catholic Church involves itself in. Much like any pedophile organisation really...
That would be like state run orphanages, schools, colleges, any of the armed forces.......
A strong case could also be made that any state that promotes religion is doing so for the express purpose of promoting tyranny.
Just look around the world at places where evangelical type religions become fused with the state.
Once 'patriotism' becomes nationalism and fuses with 'god given' righteousness all hell breaks loose.
I agree wholeheartedly both religion and government should stand or fall on their own merit.
But.....non religious outlooks as a source of morality? pfft
.
The only common denominator throughout humanity is greed, and personal convenience, while moral people may develop sans religion they are as rare as snow leopards, off the top of my head I cant think of ONE notable with absolutely NO acquaintance with faith of some kind.
Conversely I can name dozens of despots whom have renounced religion entirely.
Religion is desperately needed by humanity to codify morality, morality has never needed religion for any purpose whatsoever.
But.....codification is necessary because everyone is moral in their own eyes....
Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Bush, Obama, the Queen, Prime Minister Gillard, even you, and I
the sooner the world is free of primitive superstitions and delusions of 'god given' specialness the better.
Horsecrap
This is the path to True Democracy where everyone is equally unimportant and equally meaningless in the eyes of their fellowmen. The only attributes that count will be whom can stockpile the most ammunition or pay the most to eliminate complications... a devils dream. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 11:05:58 AM |
We're exerting control of our own destiny ... ... we're growing up ... ...
I think there is a lot to this. Much more so than we can see because we are the equivalent of young adults that have decided that we know more than our parents.
However, there is also a time after this where you continue growing up and realize why your parents acted like tyrants and that they really were not being tyrants.
This natural space in people to hold religion and beliefs in such a super high degree above self exists and is very powerful. I keep saying "Western Religion" for a reason. Western Religion and Western Governments have developed a type of symbiotic relationship. When Government tries to legislate morality things go horribly wrong. When Religion tries to Legislate at the state things go horribly wrong. Each acknowledge a separation and dance around that separation and continually knock at each other. They are not in direct opposition. This does not exist in Islam!!!!! It really doesn’t.
A simple way to look at how this works:
"The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."
The ideal and concept of God and Government exists within that human function of belief and from the concept of 'want' as meaning “a lacking”. As long as some level of God exists in that context there will not be a lack of and a need of filling with other Gods, or causes, or governments. Expecting it to remain empty for all isn’t realistic.
From the concept of want as in “desire,” you do not want the lord coming in and taking over. He is a shepherd with a stick and he is not afraid to use it and he will be pissed. You are responsible for yourself. Don’t screw it up.
So we are growing up. As people grow up they also grow rebellious. When people grow rebellious they think they are right. People are rarely right in mass. (haha punny) | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 11:09:29 AM | | Religious people are, ipso facto, nuts. It's obvious that giving them any influence over the definition of 'morality' will instantly pervert the concept. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 11:19:19 AM |
Religious people are, ipso facto, nuts. It's obvious that giving them any influence over the definition of 'morality' will instantly pervert the concept.
You don't have to. And yes they will. But you can't make them disappear. It is done every day. It may even be annoying and irksome and really just piss you off and so what. It may take 20, 50, 75, 100 years... It will happen when it happens and it even takes pissed off people demanding its end as part of it. So... even that has a role. It is the responsibility of Government to not allow either side to win. When a significant amount of the governed population has a religious belief it is really foolish to legislate against them and dismiss them as inept.
It is even worse to dismiss your own population and to allow another to take over and replace what you are so against with something much worse. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 1:10:17 PM |
This natural space in people to hold religion and beliefs in such a super high degree above self exists and is very powerful.
Agreed. It has been cited as a distinctly human trait. It has been cited as most probable reason for our continued existence. OP also eluded that this view is common amongst social biologists and others. Some other species do exhibit some level of this trait as well.
It's a basal need to belong, to share, to be part of something bigger then ourselves.
I see the sum of humanity as being god.
It may have been necessary to project this onto an artificial being or entity, at one point, because the construct was beyond many to understand or comprehend. Or to specifically deflect a prevalent view of self importance.
The concept is quite eloquent in it's simplicity.
Easily expressed by two children cooperating to get to the cookie jar on top of the cupboards.
We all in this together.
OR
It's all about us. :-) [a quite dangerous view, if left unchallenged]
---
Religion seems to have run it's course to continue to fulfill it's purpose, assuming it had one, specifically religious. It's more about control then freedom.
It's being stretched to it's limits in both directions ... just to survive. The final death throes of an idea, are clearly evident.
But many of irs' principles will survive, absorbed. It is after all a construct of people, not gods. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 1:16:39 PM | A choice is going to have to be made. You may choose to close your eyes and pretend that those crazy Christians have screwed up beliefs about magical unicorns and are the cause of the world’s problems but they coexist with existing laws and government now. Most people that are free to no longer believe in western religion came from it at some point in a recent past. That should mean something in itself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/sharia-law-explained_n_1292452.html
There are certain words that, if people use them in the Arabic language it becomes a dirty word, but if people take the time to understand what Sharia is about, they would not have a problem," said Magid. "When people talk about criminal law in the Quran, none of the Muslims say they want that legal code in America. What we are saying is that in the private life of a Muslim, nobody should impose on them how to conduct a marriage or preside over a funeral. Instead of using the word Sharia, we should use the words 'Muslim values' or 'Islamic values.'"
I see the sum of humanity as being god.
I have thought that many times. Could also be another gap. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 3:14:03 PM |
Psalms 137-9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Google may be your friend but a sound bite doesn't provide the context necessary for comprehension, this passage is a warning that Israels errant way have brought them to trial and a warning that their foes would be merciless.
No, the passage is NOT warning that Israel's errant ways have brought them to trial and their foes would be merciless. This passage refers to the Babylonian captivity and specifically repaying the captors for their transgressions.
Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
The narrator of the psalm is speaking to the Babylonians. "[. . .] happy is the one who repays you [the "one" would be an Israelite]."
In line 9, the "one" is an Israelite seizing the Babylonian infants and dashing them against the rocks.
It is an eye-for-an-eye situation.
I see the sum of humanity as being god.
The sum of humanity IS god. Humans make gods and goddesses in OUR image and imbue them with traits that depend on culture and time periods. This is why the meek and mild Jesus said not to dash out the brains of infants. It is why Zeus could womanize and not be censured. It is why within my lifetime alone, I have seen mainstream Christianity change, but over the span of centuries, it has changed even more.
Religion exists to control people, but "rules" of religion grew out of sociological needs to insure the perpetuation of the species. Humans are kind yet merciless, bloodthirsty yet magnanimous, generous but greedy--we are carnal creatures who try to makes ourselves appear to be more than our bodies alone. Religion exploits the basic multiplicities of the human psyche/nature, exhorting us to be single faceted yet rationalizing and justifying war and other atrocities when done in the name of a god.
IF humans had never invented god, we would be no kinder and no less cruel, but we would have to face ourselves in a mirror instead of attributing our actions to a deity.
Alas, Babylon: you are us. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 5:12:09 PM | | It is highly unlikely, religion will always exist, Marx thought it could happen, he was wrong. People are going to believe what they want to believe irregardless, of what your feelings may be. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 5:49:55 PM |
it was common to take wives who were no older that 13 or so..... That was then, and I don't agree with a lot of what went on then.
This is getting down to the crux if the matter. As late as the middle ages in Europe, adult men, usually of means, were taking brides as young as 13 or even less. It was acceptable then but (quite rightly) not acceptable now. Moraly, modern nations have made laws stating an age of consent. The OP is pushing a question on biblical morality in to todays age. It doesn't scan.
As far as why YOU would want to live as a pre-christian Hebrew, that is your business, not mine
If you are pushing biblical religion onto me, that is exactly your business. Not just you but anyone that takes umbrage and tuts at my non religious ways.
not being either Hebrew or Jewish, I don't want to live as a post-christian Hebrew, which would explain why I don't see a real need to follow all 600 plus laws. I am relatively certain that most Jews today don't follow all 600 laws, and for certain, don't even know all 600 laws.
So you don't follow the rules of your religion but you expect atheists to? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 5:57:54 PM |
The sum of humanity IS god. Humans make gods and goddesses in OUR image and imbue them with traits that depend on culture and time periods. This is why the meek and mild Jesus said not to dash out the brains of infants. It is why Zeus could womanize and not be censured. It is why within my lifetime alone, I have seen mainstream Christianity change, but over the span of centuries, it has changed even more.
Religion exists to control people, but "rules" of religion grew out of sociological needs to insure the perpetuation of the species. Humans are kind yet merciless, bloodthirsty yet magnanimous, generous but greedy--we are carnal creatures who try to makes ourselves appear to be more than our bodies alone. Religion exploits the basic multiplicities of the human psyche/nature, exhorting us to be single faceted yet rationalizing and justifying war and other atrocities when done in the name of a god.
IF humans had never invented god, we would be no kinder and no less cruel, but we would have to face ourselves in a mirror instead of attributing our actions to a deity.
Alas, Babylon: you are us.
Well said. Well done! | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/20/2012 6:11:44 PM |
I see the sum of humanity as being god. The sum of humanity IS god. Humans make gods and goddesses in OUR image and imbue them with traits that depend on culture and time periods. This is why the meek and mild Jesus said not to dash out the brains of infants. It is why Zeus could womanize and not be censured. It is why within my lifetime alone, I have seen mainstream Christianity change, but over the span of centuries, it has changed even more. Religion exists to control people, but "rules" of religion grew out of sociological needs to insure the perpetuation of the species. Humans are kind yet merciless, bloodthirsty yet magnanimous, generous but greedy--we are carnal creatures who try to makes ourselves appear to be more than our bodies alone. Religion exploits the basic multiplicities of the human psyche/nature, exhorting us to be single faceted yet rationalizing and justifying war and other atrocities when done in the name of a god. IF humans had never invented god, we would be no kinder and no less cruel, but we would have to face ourselves in a mirror instead of attributing our actions to a deity.
------
The sum of humanity IS god.
Yeah, that's not really what I meant. I agree gods are our creation, of course. What I mean is, humanity itself, the sum of us, is what we should hold in high regard. AND certainly, people belonging to a specific religion, do indeed, under the guise, hold themselves in high regard. But that's the problem, it is their group, they hold in high regard ... it's one group saying their more important than another. I'm simply saying ... let's include everyone. AND that the essence of humanity is a quite powerful force.
Religion exists to control people, but "rules" of religion grew out of sociological needs to insure the perpetuation of the species. ... ...
Yep, agree with all that. The few religions I'm aware of all grew out of revolt. Desperate people, needing a solution, willing to follow even questionable leads, in hope. However, once the original problem is conquered, it is very slow to adapt to the changes ... people refusing to release control. But it wasn't to ensure perpetuation of the species ... just their group.
Humans are kind yet merciless, bloodthirsty yet magnanimous, generous but greedy ...
Humans are inherently selfish, self-servicing, there is no such thing as a selfless act. The goal is, to create the scenario(system), whereby, people acting in their own best interest, inherently are acting in the best interest of the group.
As it turns out, left to their own devices, most people end up doing this as they discover it is in their best interest to do so. The problem occurs, when a select group or individual, maneuvers to a position where the actions of the other individuals in the group, or a subset, have limited consensus to them. There are several examples of this ... one is the monetary system. people at the top are completed insulated as you cannot punish or negatively affect them without necessarily affecting the group.
NASH Equilibrium -- is an mathematical expression of this, in many regards.
But at the limits is just the common refrain ... absolute power etc. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/22/2012 7:40:27 AM |
Humans are inherently selfish, self-servicing, there is no such thing as a selfless act. The goal is, to create the scenario(system), whereby, people acting in their own best interest, inherently are acting in the best interest of the group.
Ah, so you agree with the Christians? That humans are imbued with original sin? If we are ONLY selfish, then we are, indeed, "evil" by the definition of most cultures.
We are inherently selfish, but why is this bad? We are also inherently kind and generous. I am a selfish person, I want what is best for me, yet I am also generous and have performed acts that have brought me no more satisfaction than a feeling of good-will (for lack of a better word).
If someone stopping to change a flat tire for me in the middle of the desert means that person is acting in the best interest of the group, so be it. If ANY kindness that people have shown to me or I have shown to others means that we were merely acting in the best interest of the group, so be it.
Religion claims these acts of kindness for themselves and attribute them to the intervention or existence of a deity; religions blame evil acts on the influence of a devil. Christians attribute evil acts to the before mentioned original sin and the influence of a devil.
If there is no selfless act, it doesn't really matter in the end because kindness exists, and it is an inherent human trait. Empathy is what makes us kind, and empathy means that we can put ourselves in the place of another person and know how that person feels; because we suffer, we do not want others to suffer. The sociopath lacks this ability. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
2
of
39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
|
|
Home
login 
