Organized Religion, Good or Bad?

[mkemse]

My experience with Street Preachers is simple, whenever I see them, i have asked by they stand on Street Coners and Preach and not do so in a Church, they're reply to me is always the same, and this comes from 5-6 different ones "I Preacher on the corner because I get more "Donations" this way and I have found any churchs in my area that wants me to preacher for them"
Gee I can't imagine why, you stand on the street corner, do not let people walk by, you tend to block traffic when you can and wear a $350 3 piece suit
that alone would turn someone off
Why not donate your donations to a local food pantry or a local charity, my guess is if you are wearing what appears to be a $350 dollar suit, you certainly do not need the money, or help a homeless person you see, there are many down here, you walk by them everyday day

Intersting if nothing else

[Ozme52]

Insofar as that goes, I much prefer a forthright professional mendicant.

[cariad]

"So are you saying that a homosexual can be a part of your group and not feel pressured to become hetero? "

Yes


"Okay I can get that you want to share something good, but you said that if you had a magic wand you would convert everyone because you believe what you have is great and right. That's a bit different than sharing something you love with a friend. That's force and that doesn't go with your freewill statement."

If I had a magic wand I would also turn all white chocolate into zero calorie dark chocolate. As I had hoped I had made clear, the freewill statement over-rides my magic wand statement (except in the case of chocolate).


"Death and taxes? lol Actually believe it or not, no I don't believe in any absolutes so I have a very difficult time understanding how someone can believe in an absolute."

This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. It took me a while to acknowledge to myself that I did believe in some absolutes, still in denial about taxes, although the tax man refuses to be convinced. The greyer values become the easier they are everyone to accept, the more inclusive they are. So it is tempting to add nullifying caveats to every statement. But taken to its logical conclusion society will sink to a level where anything and everything is of equal value. Sounds good until you think that it means that a deliberate and hurtful word would be of equal worth as a kind and loving one. That in a court of law a lie would be considered equal to the truth…..


"I used the term church because you used it when you said your friend introduced you to it. There seems to be a fine line between what you see as encouragement and what you see as manipulation, but then I don't know which group you belong to so I can only judge so much."

In the case of encouragement / manipulation not only is it a case of degree, but is primarily a matter of the underlying motivation of the person encouraging or manipulating. There is also a fine line between abuse and between having my arse made so tender that for days I flinch when I sit down. The bruises and other outcomes may be the same, but I have no difficulty knowing where that line is.

cariad

[Aesop]

A thoughtful reply and one I hope to respond to when I have the time.

[cariad]

(fun with emoticons time)

[Tojo]

Some nice posts there cariad, very nice.

As for me I stand by what I said earlier in the thread.


Tojo

[cariad]

Some nice posts there cariad, very nice.

As for me I stand by what I said earlier in the thread.


Tojo

Smiles, thank you for your encouraging words and support of a sub new to posting here, although moderately experienced in some other areas of life.

[Ozme52]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

[cariad]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "slow-speak." It's not like the chatrooms but can be just as invigorating.

Come out and talk elsewhere as well, cari.

I just don't do the religious and political conversations.

Wow - warm welcomes here, as well as in the chat room. Think it is time I bought a season ticket to the library! Thank you Ozme. Off to read some more threads.

[ColinClout(c)]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

The second is that some of the things that are being posited as worthy of belief would have major consequences, and surely any thinking human being wants to know if they are true. If you want to build an aeroplane, it matters whether gravity is real. We cannot change the way things are by being ignorant of them or not believing in them.

WEll, that's all for now - I'm sure you can all do better than that...

CC

[Tojo]

Hi & welcome Colin- actually I think many of us could do a lot worse!

Good point about the difference between one's actions & beliefs, but that's what makes us human I guess?

As to whether I believe in absolutes myself, well can't say I ever thought about it. Something to ponder I guess.

Post away Colin, you make plenty of sense- more than I do somedays!

Tojo

[Aesop]

Okay finally have some time.

"So are you saying that a homosexual can be a part of your group and not feel pressured to become hetero? "

Yes

How does that work exactly? I'm very curious because I've never known a group to be able to believe in something strongly enough to think it's wrong who can really accept the thing they think is wrong. There has always been (in my experience) subtle pushings and pressures to 'join up' with the normals.

If I had a magic wand I would also turn all white chocolate into zero calorie dark chocolate. As I had hoped I had made clear, the freewill statement over-rides my magic wand statement (except in the case of chocolate).

This one is going to be a sticking point for me I think because I'm having trouble seeing how your free will statement can over-ride the previous statement, but don't let that bother you.

This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. It took me a while to acknowledge to myself that I did believe in some absolutes, still in denial about taxes, although the tax man refuses to be convinced. The greyer values become the easier they are everyone to accept, the more inclusive they are. So it is tempting to add nullifying caveats to every statement. But taken to its logical conclusion society will sink to a level where anything and everything is of equal value. Sounds good until you think that it means that a deliberate and hurtful word would be of equal worth as a kind and loving one. That in a court of law a lie would be considered equal to the truth…..

I don't believe that knowing there are exceptions to everything leads to anarchy. Or openmindedness to outright stupidity. Sometimes a deliberate and hurtful word is of equal worth. Have you ever had to snap someone out of a dangerous situation by being deliberately hurtful? I have. Same with a lie in court. I can see dozens of situations where a lie will serve justice.

In the case of encouragement / manipulation not only is it a case of degree, but is primarily a matter of the underlying motivation of the person encouraging or manipulating. There is also a fine line between abuse and between having my arse made so tender that for days I flinch when I sit down. The bruises and other outcomes may be the same, but I have no difficulty knowing where that line is.

cariad

That's good. I personally would. I would have trouble knowing whether or not I am encouraging this religion on someone for their reasons or mine. Put in a BDSM context I encourage people with budding desire, but I always do my best to be careful and back off if those desires seem half-hearted or based on abuse or other reasons. Again not knowing which group you are a part of limits my judgement, but it has always seemed to me that religion only pushes harder if the interest is only half-hearted.

This is very enjoyable. Like Oz says, come play with us in the other forums too.

[Aesop]

Very nervous about posting - my faults and the gap between my beliefs and my actions are well known to all who know me, but for what it is worth, here goes...

Welcome Colin! Don't be nervous. We're a good bunch.

So many things I could respond to, but two immediately spring to mind, closely related to each other. The first is about absolutes. If you argue that there are no absolutes, you end up with a statement along the lines of 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. The obvious problem here is, does that statement apply to itself? Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And to answer yes or no to that statement is equally absurd. Whether we realise it or not, we accept some things as being absolutely true.

Yes I expected somebody to bring that up. The answer for me is no. The statement does not apply to itself. The reason is that I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If someone shows me a situation where there are absolutely no exceptions I'm not going to stand there and stomp my foot and say, "No, no. This can't be true." I'll say, "Guess I was wrong." No one has shown me one yet.

The other line of thought that interested me was about whether it matters what you believe. Without writing a book in reply, I think it *does* matter, and for two reasons. The first is that what we believe affects how we act - you can't on the one hand say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, and at the same time condemn people whose beliefs lead them to kill, or suppress the beliefs of others.

Well...I dunno about that. Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.

Again welcome to the forums.

[fantassy]

Can a belief lead someone to kill? Is it really that close of a relationship? I believe in this God so I will kill the believers of that God? No major religion I know of outright advocates destruction of non-believers regardless of what the poplular media would have us believe. I think people take belief and shape and warp it to their personal needs. I think it gives them an honorable excuse to do what they would have done anyway.

Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Ok, I can't keep my opinionated self out of this. I'd say yes, of course a belief can lead someone to kill. Soldiers kill because of their belief in serving their country or following their leader. Crusaders killed because of their religious beliefs. Now you may say their leaders took belief and warped it, but the followers probably are merely killing out of belief.

But, as I see it, that is the problem with most religion. It comes to us after it has been warped by man. Man may claim he is relaying the word of god, but nevertheless, the message is man's interpretation of whatever divine inspiration he may have received. And man is flawed and biased. No better evidence than the Bible. It is a work of literature, and every scholar knows how many different interpretations there are for a single work or phrase. With the Bible, not only do we have the problem of interpretation of any written word, but we're dealing with a book which has been translated through several different languages. Moreover, a book which was written well after the events occurred. Yet preachers want us to base our lives and beliefs on one possible interpretation of a tiny passage from that book.

fantassy

Glad you didn't keep yourself out.

I think we see things mostly the same, with only a minor difference. I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. They would have gone to war anyway because there isn't a country I know of in the world that just says, "Oh okay, well you don't have to fight." so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

The Crusaders...well we could open up a new thread about the Crusaders and what they fought for and how they fought, but again I don't think they were fighting for a belief.

The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.

[fantassy]

You're right we do mostly agree.

I don't see the footsoldiers as killing for a belief, but for a lie. I know it's almost splitting hairs, but I really think the distinction is important. so the lie of belief keeps them in line, but it's still a lie and a tool. Not a belief.

You say its a lie, not a belief; I say they believe in a lie. Therefore they fight for a false belief.

The Bible. I agree that man has warped the hell out of the message, but the basic beliefs of the Bible aren't anything I have a problem with. Be nice, don't steal...these are things I can live with so again I don't think it's the belief that's the problem, but what we as a race decide to do with it.

The problem, as I see it, is we don't know/agree on what the basic "beliefs" of the Bible are. "Thou shalt not kill" means what exactly? I cannot kill ever? I can only kill in self defense? I cannot have an abortion? I can only kill doctors who perform abortions? Each of these is a "belief" someone derives from those four simple words.

Personally, I only have one guiding "belief" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

fantassy

See, if you encourage me, I'll never shut up.

[Aesop]

You're right we do mostly agree.


You say its a lie, not a belief; I say they believe in a lie. Therefore they fight for a false belief.

Well I don't think we'll reach an agreement here, but that's okay.

The problem, as I see it, is we don't know/agree on what the basic "beliefs" of the Bible are. "Thou shalt not kill" means what exactly? I cannot kill ever? I can only kill in self defense? I cannot have an abortion? I can only kill doctors who perform abortions? Each of these is a "belief" someone derives from those four simple words.

You're right, it's ambiguous, but the overall message of the Bible - (especially the New Testament) is one of forgiveness and peace. Those that use Thou shalt not kill as a tool for violence or to repress other's freedoms are twisting the ideal into something they can use.

Personally, I only have one guiding "belief" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me.

See, if you encourage me, I'll never shut up.

Great!

[fantassy]

[QUOTE=Aesop]I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me. /QUOTE]


Actually, I thought about that when I was typing, but I decided the rule still works because you wouldn't take the whip to your sub if she didn't want you to. (or at least so I assume) Thus you only have to look at it at a higher level of abstraction. You want your sub to do things to you which you enjoy; therefore you do things to your sub which your sub enjoys.

fantassy

[Aesop]

[QUOTE=fantassy]

I believe in that myself. Well...mostly anyway. After all I don't want my sub taking the whip to me. /QUOTE]


Actually, I thought about that when I was typing, but I decided the rule still works because you wouldn't take the whip to your sub if she didn't want you to. (or at least so I assume) Thus you only have to look at it at a higher level of abstraction. You want your sub to do things to you which you enjoy; therefore you do things to your sub which your sub enjoys.

fantassy

Lol. Yes I agree. I was being my foolish ol' self.

[cariad]

How does that work exactly? I'm very curious because I've never known a group to be able to believe in something strongly enough to think it's wrong who can really accept the thing they think is wrong. There has always been (in my experience) subtle pushings and pressures to 'join up' with the normals.

My turn to lie silent for a few days as I was busy with other matters.

I accept that people often feel a pressure to conform to any group they belong to – but in most cases, as in this that is self imposed, and is simply a fact of life which responsible groups do their best to negate rather then exploit. But to address your question, we meet as a group of people who love God – not as a group of people who wish to behave as God wants. So why should we pressurized people into certain behaviour patterns. Sometimes, as people develop in their relationship with God they will decide for themselves that there are elements of their lifestyle that they wish to change – but that is a personal issue. Is there a danger of me coming under pressure to become ‘normal’??? Help!

This one is going to be a sticking point for me I think because I'm having trouble seeing how your free will statement can over-ride the previous statement, but don't let that bother you.

Is that an order Sir?

I will leave Colin to debate absolutes with you – since you know what I think, and will be interested to hear him express his views on the matter. (Can also be unwise to debate with the man whose collar you wear when he thinks he is right, and I know I am absolutely right – giggles and ducks.)

....Again not knowing which group you are a part of limits my judgement, but it has always seemed to me that religion only pushes harder if the interest is only half-hearted.

That is spiritual abuse and is wrong, wrong, wrong – although not as wrong as going for the jugular when someone is really low. Oh whoops – there I go using absolutes again.

Wonder if I dare ask when you would think abuse was acceptable - no bad idea.......

This is very enjoyable. Like Oz says, come play with us in the other forums too.

Am slowly putting my toes into other threads, if only as an excuse to use more emoticons.....wondering what today's will be.

cariad

[ColinClout(c)]

Oh goody, I get to handle this one further. Let me see what I can do...

OK - do you think there is such a thing as absolute truth?

Yes? Then we agree and all we have to debate is what form it takes (perhaps it is limited to only one statement)

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

[Uncle_Ed]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

[ColinClout(c)]

Colin me old mucker,

Define truth, please.

Once we have that we can proceed.

That which is the case.

[Aesop]

No? But it cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, so either there IS absolute truth, or it is only partially true, or only true in some cases, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If that is so, then there must be other cases where there IS absolute truth. But it cannot be partial and absolute. All the possible answers of the No or even Maybe kinds to the question involve us in paradox and absurdity.

So, rationally, there must be some absolute truth.

Now it is certainly acceptable to argue that 'This statement is the only absolute truth', but once you have done that you have to justify why there can be no other absolute truths, and on that note I invite my fellow kinks to do just that.

'Colin'

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

[cariad]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad

[Ozme52]

hmmmmm, now is that an invitation for someone start an 'is Aesop wrong' thread - and does it have to be limited to when he is absolutely wrong, or can it include times when he has only been a little bit wrong?

...or perhaps it should be a more general thread - can Doms ever be wrong?

cariad

That's a trick question.

[Tojo]

Definitely a trick question.


Tojo

[Uncle_Ed]

To answer cariad "Can Poms ever be wrong" Of couse not.*Shakes head* silly question...Surprised Tojo didn't answer.

[fantassy]

can Doms ever be wrong?cariad

Recently read that doms even sleep on the right side of the bed so that they're right even when they're asleep. Is that true?

fantassy

[DungeonMaster6]

Getting back to the original subject, organized religion can be a positive thing or a destructive thing.

A lot of people use religion as a way of feeling good about themselves, or a way to worship their God so that He or She will allow them salvation. This is a good thing. I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Organized religion can either be our salvation or our demise.