Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Ingrid Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer conj2 conj2 conj2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Kiss Rocks Vegas Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Religion May Become Extinct in Nine Nations


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 976-1000 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 3:27:28 AM PDT
S. Schoby says:
You have an excellent point the enlightenment, the printing press, created an expansion of knowledge, one big step in learning, which enabled people to question and give answers to those questions, allowing more and more questions to be asked.
Information was spread it was no longer just the elite who had excess to knowledge.
If you look carefully at those places in the world that are still in the dark ages of ignorance you will find cruel injustice and a desire to keep people in darkness, just has Christianity did in those dark ages, it is the unethical use of ideas of beliefs that use selective parts in a belief to keep all others in darkness so a few may rule.

When knowledge spreads, the darkness loses its hold, the cure for injustice is knowledge, it is the bigot, the intolerant, the self centered, the greedy that will use whatever it takes to remain in power and it needs to stop the enlightenment or it will lose its power.
In time those places of cruel injustice will end because knowledge is ever expanding, it is the misuse of beliefs to justify cruel injustice that desire the ignorant to remain ignorant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 6:12:34 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Schoby,

You said :"The mask of holy righteousness must be removed from the unethical use of a god belief and the real realities of the human race revealed and learned."

I am against the idea of self-righteousness, especially among us Christians. Our teachings are that we can only trust in Jesus' righteousness, so what right do we have to feel superior? None, as far as I can see.

You said :"If one believes in a god then the reality of human kind is what it is and it is not something to never learn about or understand. If one does not belief in a god those same realities of human kind are still here to learn of."

When you say, "realities of human kind", are you referring to our tendancy to make mistakes in our relationships, what we Christians would call, sin?

If so, then I would disagree with you that a belief in God means that we Christians can't learn from our mistakes. There have been many times when God has pointed out what I have done wrong, and I have had to go to someone to apologize and make it right with them. It seems that when I have to 'eat my words', I am more careful about uttering them again.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:16:06 AM PDT
Sarah says:
>spl: Yeah, Christianity does not have a spotless record, that's for sure! There has been so much pain inflicted by those that profess Christ it's overwhelming. I can even see myself included in that group to a certain extent.

>S: Does the overwhelming, "much pain inflicted by those who profess Christ" ever make you wonder what it is about professing Christ that leads people to act that way?

spl: Do you think Christians are any more cruel than any other religious group?

S You have changed the subject. My question was not a comparative one.

My question was simply a direct response to your comment on the "pain inflicted by those who profess Christ." I'm sure each religion and culture has its problems. My question, in response to your specific comment about "those who profess Christ" is about just the causes for the pain inflicted by this one group, not about all the various factors influencing the conduct of every human group on the planet. So what does the "overwhelming," "much pain inflicted by those who profess Christ" lead you to believe about professing Christ that leads people to act that way?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:54:11 AM PDT
Mens Sana says:
Try answering the question, spl, instead of deflecting it. Run for office much?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 1:12:38 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 1:14:33 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 1:15:52 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 6:21:02 PM PDT
Sarah says:
spl: I don't buy it. I think it's human nature to be cruel.

S Interesting, then, that you did not say "There has been so much pain inflicted by those with human nature that it's overwhelming." Interesting that instead, you said, "There has been so much pain inflicted by those that profess Christ it's overwhelming." You must have had something specifically Christian in mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 6:22:27 PM PDT
Sarah says:
s: So what does the "overwhelming," "much pain inflicted by those who profess Christ" lead you to believe about professing Christ that leads people to act that way?

spl: I think it may be something in the water.

S And yet you chose to differentiate Christ-professing water drinkers from other water drinkers. What did you have in mind?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 6:25:31 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
S Interesting, then, that you did not say "There has been so much pain inflicted by those with human nature that it's overwhelming." Interesting that instead, you said, "There has been so much pain inflicted by those that profess Christ it's overwhelming." You must have had something specifically Christian in mind.
spl: Well, the reason it's shocking is that Christians are commanded to love their neighbor, their enemy, and God. But yet in Christ's name they've promoted slavery, genocide, and rampant greed. Their record is as bad, or worse, than the heathen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 6:26:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 15, 2012 6:26:32 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
S And yet you chose to differentiate Christ-professing water drinkers from other water drinkers. What did you have in mind?

spl: Could be too much inbreeding.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 3:52:59 AM PDT
S. Schoby says:
Vicki says:
Dear Schoby,

You said :"The mask of holy righteousness must be removed from the unethical use of a god belief and the real realities of the human race revealed and learned."

I am against the idea of self-righteousness, especially among us Christians. Our teachings are that we can only trust in Jesus' righteousness, so what right do we have to feel superior? None, as far as I can see.

SS: Vicki where in this sentence:"The mask of holy righteousness must be removed from the unethical use of a god belief and the real realities of the human race revealed and learned."
Where did you get the idea it is saying anything other then what it is about the "Unethical use of a god idea?"
You have already told me of how you would not use a belief as a weapon against another person or hold back help to someone unless they submitted a religion.

Vicki when people do such things they are being self righteous in thinking the other person is less. Vicki that is the "unethical" you seem to be reading more into that sentence then what it is saying.

The realities of human kind is the factual realities of it, there has always been different races, there as always been differing lifestyles, there as always been people of different abilities.
The human race also contains in it and it has always contained within it those people who can not tolerate the existence of people who are different then who they are.

We can learn of each other and acknowledge those factual realties that have always existed or we can excuse actions of injustice against those factual realties.
Does racism, bigotry, sexism exist?
Yes it does, we can admit the truth of it being bigotry, racism, sexism or we can justify and or excuse those actions and never learn to over come it, it needs to be seen for what it really is and not falsely justified behind an "unethical use of a belief."

Vicki how many people have been tortured or murder because of being gay, or because of a mistake in a relationship, or because a woman did not submit, or because of being in some other type of religion or being in no religion?
How much of this was an "unethical immoral" use excused behind a religious use of a god idea?

What are the real realities of the human race can we finally admit them and over come this?

We all have that first love in our life's, how many 15, 16, 18 or so year olds fall into that first love and it ends up being a mistake?
How many young people get into groups, or are peer pressured into doing something then later in life they understand was wrong?

We are not born all wise all knowing; we learn as we age, we learn as we go though life. Mistakes happen they are not sins to be held against a person they are lessons we all either learn to not do or repeat because we never learn.

I have made mistakes and Vicki you know you have as well, we mature, we try to recover, we try to understand and over come or we do not learn and continue the mistakes blaming all others because they are not doing the same thing as you are.

Where did you get this idea from when you say this :Vicki says" If so, then I would disagree with you that a belief in God means that we Christians can't learn from our mistakes."

Vicki we "Christians" it's the unethical use of a god idea found in the institution of religion be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic that have been used wrongfully to justify injustice and is in denial of their "personal bigotry, prejudice, sexist thinking".
Vicki I know you have seen or heard of people like this, the reality of human kind is the factual examples of what human kind does and it also means what it refuses to acknowledge about itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 6:22:25 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Schoby,

I guess that I did read more into your phrase, "The mask of holy righteousness must be removed from the unethical use of a god belief and the real realities of the human race revealed and learned", than you intended to say.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 6:30:44 AM PDT
S. Schoby says:
its okay you are a good person in your heart

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:01:22 AM PDT
Ree Vicki, 6-10 9:36 pm: Thanks for your post. Information is defined as something that lets you predict an outcome with better results than pure chance. Suppose you have a pair of dice; you suspect that they may be loaded. The likelihood of throwing a 2 with good dice is 1/36. If, after a thousand throws, you find that 100 of these came up with a two, you have good reason for your suspicion. If 500 did, it borders on certainty.

Popper emphasized the concept of refutability, and what I did was to prove that he was correct: the theorem is "The information content of any thesis derives exclusively from its refutability." The corollary, "An irrefutable thesis can contain no information" follows immediately. Since no thesis involving a god is refutable (you cannot show, with respect to ANY observation, that no god was involved in it), no such thesis can provide any information.

Your experiences are basically delusional: you have read data into your observations which you have chosen to attribute to the workings of a god -- but, in fact, you have no grounds whatever for doing so. All sorts of phenomena used to be attributed to the workings of gods; as we have learned more about how the world works (including the human brain), the need to attribute such things to the actions of gods has decreased -- and it is now zero. Moreover, since no information can thus be obtained, belief in a god is simply a distraction. One or more gods may actually exist, but since it is impossible to know what (if anything) they actually do or have done, to believe in such is idle.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:06:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 7:16:56 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Schoby,

You said :"How much of this was an "unethical immoral" use excused behind a religious use of a god idea? What are the real realities of the human race can we finally admit them and over come this?"

Human beings, although capable of good and wonderful things, have a problem- we want to promote ourselves even if it means running over others.

I really think that humanity's problem is bigger than the twisted way we can apply religion to the world. Look at the lives lost in wars and in totalitarian regimes during the 20th century. WWI and WWII were not caused by religion. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (sp?) were not religious people-and yet they still managed to find reasons to kill millions.

The problem is not religion. The problem is the human heart.

You said :"We are not born all wise all knowing; we learn as we age, we learn as we go though life. Mistakes happen they are not sins to be held against a person they are lessons we all either learn to not do or repeat because we never learn."

Does humanity really learn, though? The problem is each generation passes away and a new generation comes up and they don't understand the world the previous generation lived in. Sometimes they aren't even interested, so it is hard for the new generation to learn from the mistakes of the previous generations.

I don't think that we can solve humanity's problems by saying that people don't sin- that we just make mistakes. Individually, we learn from our mistakes but our culture seems to be more stubborn when it comes to reflecting those individual changes.

I can understand why you are not interested in the whole idea of sin, since you don't believe in God. If a person doesn't believe in God, then the idea that sin separates us from God is quite irrelevant. I mean, why would you care about separation from God, if God doesn't exist anyway?

But for those of us who believe in Jesus Christ, life is more than just following a list of rules and hoping for the best when we die. I learned this the hard way. I am embarrassed to say that I went around with my list to see how people measured up. I thought that was what Christianity was about, until God showed me my error. I am to let Jesus change my heart and leave everyone else up to God. This comparison stuff and pointing out others' sins is not something that I am supposed to do. It is necessary for me to agree with God about my own sins, and let Him cleanse me and teach me, but I am not to go around to other people and try to do God's job for Him. He doesn't need my help.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:11:40 AM PDT
Re Domenico, 6-12 8:53 AM: "Can any critic look upon Vicky's beliefs (Jesus teachings) and accuse Vicky for struggling to impose a destructive ideology on the others?" Unfortunately, yes. Carried to its "logical" extreme, you wind up with The Discovery Instutute, AnswersinGenesis, and others of that ilk which are trying to do exactly that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:13:54 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Robert,

You said :"Moreover, since no information can thus be obtained, belief in a god is simply a distraction. One or more gods may actually exist, but since it is impossible to know what (if anything) they actually do or have done, to believe in such is idle."

I understand that you have been unsuccessful in obtaining any information about the existence of God, using your criteria.

But, I used a different method than yours. I realize that you are heavily invested in your method since it works for you so well.
It is way too sterile and limited for me to adopt.

Thank-you for explaining your viewpoint. Good luck. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:25:54 AM PDT
Re Vicki, above: There is nothing in my theses that is method-dependent; they are universally valid. Of course, you could, in principle, show me to be wrong, as by providing a counterexample. But such a "counterexample" would need to be demonstrably true, i.e. apparent to anyone who looked at it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:44:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 2:28:35 PM PDT
S. Schoby says:
Take a few moments to ponder over how things have changed over your life time and over human history.
In the past there was slavery, a woman could not get a divorce even if she was in the past forced against her will into a marriage or sold, or beaten daily.

Would the idea of a black president even been dreamed of ever happening in anyone's life times just a few years ago?
Would the idea of same sex marriage of even been talked about just a few years ago?
Would the idea of rule by voting ever of been considered centuries ago, sure it is not perfect in reality nothing is really perfect, but it is possible to discover and learn what is wrong.

Yes there are people who never can see anything beyond them self , To myself something to consider and from the look of what we used to do there those that do at least attempt to understand to do not something to someone else that you would not like done to you.

If you constantly see only the wrongs in the world you will never notice the right in the world.
If you give up then nothing is gained and many times in this history the human race has fallen yet it as also stood back up.

I am reminded of an experiment done with a group of people all having hard to treat illnesses.
They were asked to not watch the television news, if they do try to limit it to the weather and counter the bad news with something good in their life, being around friends and staying away from those negatives in life.

They were all given a complete examination of the immune systems before doing this.
A total of 25 were in this group.
After 2 months they were given the same examination, 22 of the 25 all showed an improvement in their overall health.
3 did not follow this because of various reasons.

Sin is too often a religious word that needs to perhaps be better said as not learning from mistakes in life, mistakes we all do.

Sin is perhaps better defined as not a godly offence but rather an offence done to someone because you did not consider what it would feel like if the same thing were do to you.

Someone may enter into this chat between us and say slavery is still around in places in the world, this view is not considering the history of how it is no longer an accepted practice in the world.

Someone may say women are still mistreated and abused and this is still not considering how it is not an accepted practice throughout the world.

Someone may say there are still dictatorships in the world and never noticing how few they are when in the past there were more of them.

Nations ruled by kings a far fewer then in the past, the murdering of the innocent does still happen but it is now exposed more before the world and at times the world will hold them accountable when in the past it was rare to happen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 8:09:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 10:25:18 AM PDT
S. Schoby says:
Vicki I do understand your need and i do not consider you to be delusional, It is those who impose their single view upon others ,that everyone must be the way they are that are the delusional, you have not shown anything that is like this, you simply found something you personally find a need for in your life.
We all find something the difference is perhaps in ones ablity to understand that one size does not fit all.

that is not meant to mean you do not understand this, it is meant that there are others that do not care to understand it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:31:00 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Nothing is absolute.
Extremes, exceptions, the unusual actually defines the body = the normal = the common.

Vicky represents the common. The inquisition doesn't even represents the extreme (was against Jesus) but something abnormal, an aberration, a thirst for power and politics.

About the Answering Genesis followers.... LOL
If some still insist that the dinosaurs went on Noah's ark... Hey, what can you do ? As long as they don't kill us for stating otherwise, and they mind their business while we mind ours... all is well.

Besides, if you ask me, I think they already lost that battle.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 3:16:41 PM PDT
'probabilist says:
> Would the idea of rule by voting ever have been considered centuries ago?

City-State of Athens, circa 400 BC
Roman Republic, circa 400 BC
Icelandic Althing, circa 1000 AD
Forest Cantons of Switzerland, circa 1200 AD
English Parliament, circa 1640 AD

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 3:38:34 PM PDT
S. Schoby says:
Athens was not an open to all of the public to vote for or against, it was a vote of those in power to share their power.People were used to show support not used as an entire public to vote those in power out of power. Roman republic is the Roman senate not the entire public. It could be over ruled by a powerful emperior with an army in support. Iceland was a common bond of tribes uniting, same in other places.

Posted on Jun 16, 2012 3:52:59 PM PDT
S. Schoby says:
Voting has been used as a feature of democracy since the 6th century BC, when democracy was introduced by the Athenian democracy. However, in Athenian democracy, voting was seen as the least democratic among methods used for selecting public officials, and was little used, because elections were believed to inherently favor the wealthy and well-known over average citizens. Viewed as more democratic were assemblies open to all citizens, and selection by lot (known as sortition), as well as rotation of office. One of the earliest recorded elections in Athens was a plurality vote that it was undesirable to "win": in the process called ostracism, voters chose the citizen they most wanted to exile for ten years. Most elections in the early history of democracy were held using plurality voting or some variant, but as an exception, the state of Venice in the 13th century adopted the system we now know as approval voting to elect their Great Council.[15]
The Venetians' system for electing the Doge was a particularly convoluted process, consisting of five rounds of drawing lots (sortition) and five rounds of approval voting. By drawing lots, a body of 30 electors was chosen, which was further reduced to nine electors by drawing lots again. An electoral college of nine members elected 40 people by approval voting; those 40 were reduced to form a second electoral college of 12 members by drawing lots again. The second electoral college elected 25 people by approval voting, which were reduced to form a third electoral college of nine members by drawing lots. The third electoral college elected 45 people, which were reduced to form a fourth electoral college of 11 by drawing lots. They in turn elected a final electoral body of 41 members, who ultimately elected the Doge. Despite its complexity, the system had certain desirable properties such as being hard to game and ensuring that the winner reflected the opinions of both majority and minority factions.[16] This process, with slight modifications, was central to the politics of the Republic of Venice throughout its remarkable lifespan of over 500 years, from 1268 to 1797.
Early in American history voting was limited to those who held poverty women were not allowed to vote in all states until later in American history.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  83
Total posts:  2002
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions