GurnBlanston

I see the biggest deraileur on this forum is that people can't get past the notion that religion is an idea existing in the ether. It has no corporeal body. Cannot act or be acted upon. It is a founding philosophy not an institution. It is no different than "Politics", "Economics", etc and it is set apart from such finite studies as Math, Geometry and Chemistry. Studies which have a persistant corporeal existance in our Universe. Studies that verify and prove the Universe.
The Religious, on the other hand, are made up of people who "study" or try to live by the tenets of Religion. These are the factors that drive the crimes of the Religious Institutions such as LDS, RCC, etc. People are the point here. However, to say that Religion makes people somehow act improper is hardly even a sane statement, not to mention just plain obtuse. I always mention Gandhi because he lived by the tenets if the Hindu. No less a philosophy that Christianity, Islam or Judaism. None the less, that Philosophy proved to be a great strength and source of endless beneficence for Mahatma, a British Lawyer, mind you, not someone raised in that oppression.
I suggest, instead of trying to debase and wear down each other, we should strive to open our ears and simply listen. If we don't agree, so be it. But condemnation, ridicule and abuse of people different than you earns no respect for your personal beliefs, diminishes respect for your professed belief and simply hurts, not helps your arguement.
So can't we moderate our discussions and temper them with something more than just mild civility? Didn't we come here to have genuine discussions? If all you are here to do is harrass and get into flame wars then go somewhere where they accomodate that behavior, please. I implore you.
Personally, I think Religion became perverted when Man used it to govern others instead of himself. And that's what Religion was intended for. The act of self spiritual purification. Not a mechanism of control.

DRS112

No different than economics? You mean religion can be measured or it can affect people's well being even if they don't have any interaction with it?

mentor

Certainly certain religious ideas can be evil. Others may be good. All of these will depend upon context.

But belief is important to one's behavior. If a man believes it will rain he may choose to carry an umbrella. If he believes that I may cause his children to stray from salvation and eternity in paradise with him, he will do anything to stop me.

From an anthropological point of view, it appears that religion did evolve to govern people. It provides structure to communities and helps them adapt to their territories better than their rivals. I would argue that religion is a mechanism of control, and that spiritual growth is just a side effect.

I propose a different view of religion than you do. One which many would see as less favorable, perhaps. But I don't see it that way. I believe organized religion (for the purpose of control) no longer has a valid role in society today because we have developed far better institutions of government. Still, religion played a pivotal role of government and control in our path to civilization. Also, the idea of spiritual quest which grew from it is a good one among many good ideas to come from these institutions. But we must remain constantly vigilant against the many, many bad ideas to come out of our religions as well. All ideas are not created equal. And some religious ideas deserve ridicule at the very least. However, your point that to do so at the detriment of your own ideas is well taken.

Despite any differences, you are right that we should try and discuss these things civilly. But we should also practice forgiveness when we digress.

__________________
“I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” Frank Lloyd Wright

GurnBlanston

Economics is an abstract idea. It is strategies and plans put into place. Even currency is an abstract idea. What may be law now (Capitalism) might be out-lawed later. And it is feasible that Economics will complete lose it's use at some point.
In Geometry, a^2+b^2 will always equal c^2. Euclid proved this.
My point is the abstract vs. the physical properties.
Economics can be debated as to which strategies are better than others. You can never debate that there will always be 180 degs in a triangle. We can always improve our understanding of these studies but once it's proven, it is law.

GurnBlanston

That's just absurd. Ideas aren't physical, only the men who interpret them can act malicious.

And thus you prove my point. It is not an idea that acts, it's a man's perception of that idea that leads him to act. And NEVER is it an uncontrollable compulsion to act. It is often quite decisive. Men who behave like this will have behaved this way regardless of Religion. They wrongfully seek permission in their religion instead of using what God actually did give him, his reason, to decide whether or not to act.

The Idea never evolved, it was stolen, perverted and misused. That's my point.

You're still attributing the actions of men to an resident of the ether. If these people didn't have religion to act in the name of, it would've been something else. Patriotism comes to mind. I often meet people whose Patriotism is on par with religious zealotry.


That is a founding principle of Religion.
And I agree.

DRS112

Well in all fairness there are laws in Economics...and it will Always be relevent, no matter what brand is being used or outlawed...but anyways...I won't hijack your thread....carry on...

mentor

I'm not sure that ideas are the realm of the eather. Rather, I believe our ideas are part of who we are, and we are part of them. It is essentially similar to the argument of man being separate from nature. I don't believe he is. We are part of it, and we are made of it. Of course the substrate for ideas is minds, and the substrate for minds is brains.

If you break it down to it's atomic form, memes, then perhaps I agree, they are neither good or evil. That would be like calling letters of the alphabet, or words good or evil. But wouldn't you agree that we can build things out of these which qualify as good or evil? Of course it does still require that one special ingredient: belief.

__________________
“I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” Frank Lloyd Wright

GurnBlanston

I think these things can be used to do good or evil but, you can't build something out of nothing. I guess my point is that regardless of Religion's abstractness, you must accredit the deeds to the people. There is no way to police religion, but we can definately police the religious the way we police any other citizen. We have standards that stand apart from dogma that in a consensus we agree are bad (murder, rape, etc) and we should maintain those according to the harm it creates and not because some book says so. Ultimately, religion can only be a guide. Even in a Theocracy, it's still guide for the men that create and enforce the Law.

Comicsartist

Here's a conundrum...Do you think churches should pay taxes?

__________________

mentor

I would agree that it is individuals we must hold accountable, not the books they read. Though none would doubt that books have serious influence. Certainly we have the notion of the "bad idea", or "good idea"; we do accredit values to ideas. But ultimately it is a synergy between belief and believer that creates the values.

Standards we hold as universal become confused when looked at through the lens of particular belief systems as exemplified by Sharia Law demanding the stoning of rape victims and other such practices.

It is easy to say that such practices are simply a misinterpretation of the book. But we never say it is a misinterpretation when the outcome seems "good".

__________________
“I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” Frank Lloyd Wright