Organised Religion was invented by the rich and powerful to control the people by brainwashing and using the fear factor.
Fear Factor 1. If you don't follow our religious rules, when you die, you will go to hell for eternity. It's a place in the bowels of the earth, very hot, the devil lives there and you will be contantly whipped and in pain.
This works a treat. Folks actually believe it, even today.
In that case, indeed. The boat thing was just a story and it was actually illustrating that not all religious preachers are telling their congregation that god will send out a huge hand from the sky or send a miraculous flock of angels to save the faithful.
How exactly? How exactly is it insane for someone to believe that a boat or helicopter showing up to rescue them in a crisis is God answering their prayers? How, exactly, is that dangerous? It's only an opinion. It's only a belief? It gives them comfort and makes them happy? What difference does it make? It doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't make anyone strap a bomb to their body and blow anything up...it's just a point of view.
Some people believe that it was God who made them and provided them with the free will to make their own solutions. What difference does it make to me or you or anyone else if that is their opinion and belief?
Not saying that you can't criticise religion...of course you can. There's a lot to criticise, but bad things are done without religion being the route of it too and, in actual fact, religion does a lot of good for a lot of people. I don't see why you can't acknowledge that.
Most people are not forced to be part of a religion either and are not forced to adhere to the teachings...it's choice.
The contradictions in religious belief are, I conclude, intolerable. The faithful deal with them in a spectrum of ways ranging from not thinking about them CofE) to trying to kill everyone who won't shut up about them (US fundamentalists).
Intolerable? So what do you suggest? How are we to erradicate religion? How should we punish those who refuse to give up their belief in god? How will we make the majority of good, decent people who happen to go to a church pay for the minority of idiots who use religion in an abhorrent, stupid or personally profitable way?
THE DEAD GIRLS PARENTS DID NOT USE NORMAL HUMAN MEANS, LIKE PHONING A DOCTOR TO ADMINISTER MEDICINE.
We have 3 people, Person A, Person B and Person C
Person A believes in God and believes that God can magically intervene in their life through prayer alone. For example, if their home gets flooded, they believe they can ignore physical means of rescue and stay alive magically by prayer alone. If their child becomes ill, they believe they don't have to call a doctor to give her medicine to make her better, they believe they just pray and she will get better by magic. On this thread, we all agree this attitude and behaviour is stupid and dangerous. We do not agree who is ultimately to blame for this girl's death and we do not agree on the wider implications for religion.
Person B believes in God but does not believe God operates by magical intervention in their day to day life. They believe we have to live in the real physical world and God helps those who help themselves. If person B has a sick child, they phone a doctor to get them medicine. If their home gets flooded, they evacuate to stay alive. They may still pray that these normal human interventions have a positive outcome but they do not expect that alone to work.
Person C does not believe in God. They believe we have to live in the real physical world and help ourselves. If Person C has a sick child they phone a doctor to get them medicine. If their home gets flooded, they evacuate to stay alive.
I posted a sermon which advised believers to behave like Person B instead of Person A. (It would be highly foolish of us to expect a priest in a Church to advise people to behave like Person C).
My point is that there is no physical difference between Person B and Person C. Person B is in no extra danger compared to Person C. You have stated that the approach of Person B is as dangerous and insane as that of Person A and I would ask you how you justify that?
When the Red Cross start clubbing baby seals whilst continuing their good work around the world - I'm sure we'll all use that same excuse. You know what, i think if the Red Cross did do that we would be concentrating on the clubbing. Call me strange if you wish
I assume you are joking ? Children grow up with a religion just as they grow up with a language , the choice only happens when you are mature enough to make it. And if you are in the wrong country denouncing religion could be a death sentence.Most people are not forced to be part of a religion either and are not forced to adhere to the teachings...it's choice.
I think a more secular society is a more sensible suggestion than "punishment" People should be free to believe and do what they like - without affecting the lives of others.Intolerable? So what do you suggest? How are we to erradicate religion? How should we punish those who refuse to give up their belief in god? How will we make the majority of good, decent people who happen to go to a church pay for the minority of idiots who use religion in an abhorrent, stupid or personally profitable way?
How do you want to solve that? Without burning all religious leaders and devotees (unless that's the plan?), how do you want to solve this burgeoning crisis which is being caused by the scourge of religion existing, rather than caused by the blatant idiocy of the people directly involved in the extreme examples?
Me? i don't
b) .... and here's you suggesting that Barrys intolerence was somehow strange. Bet you feel a fool now
eh ? praying is not something normal humans do ? but phoning is ? right...i...understand...
This from someone who missed when i said I was joking about not reading the posts Ooh the irony.Not bothering to read the posts again, I see.
And this reply of yours makes no sense - I suggested they thought they were displaying "normal human behaviour", that praying to heal would help and that it was a problem. And you quote back the same post I was replying to, where you agree this is a problem!? "stupid and dangerous." even. Keep off the happy la-la juice.
Of course, if a 'lucky' helicopter is passing it matters not whether the 'man' believes the helicopter was sent by God. If the daughter had been saved, who cares if the parents thought that was by act of God.
The problem is, of course, that's not what the story says. That's not what happened in the case of the daughter either. Your point is completely irrelevent.
The story states that the 'man' waited BECAUSE God would send a helicopter (or rescue him in some way). The man believed he would be saved by God so waited.
The daughters parents believed God would save their daughter so refused medical intervention.
It's not a case of believing after the fact, it's believing before the fact and that belief affecting decisions.
Ahem, again, what's that got to do with the story, or the daughter ?
You and Isis, seemingly having marooned yourselves in a quagmire of contradiction seem to changing the goalposts as fast as you can. *shrug*.
Person C: I accept your definition, tho he doesn't appear in the story.
Person A: I accept your definition, the type who believes God will do outright magic, for example, conjure up an angel to rescue him.
Person B: We have a problem, because your person B seems to survive without any magic, although he may ask for it and attribute a successful outcome to magic, he just evacuates, no magic involved according to you.
But that's wrong.
According to your own story person B doesn't just evacuate like you say, God may not send him an angel, but he arranges a boat. It's in the story!
If I may remind you: "God is pretty exasperated with Barry and replies "I sent you umpteen people, two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
It doesn't matter whether you take the approach of Person A: Wait for God to send an angel, or Person B: Wait for God to arrange a boat to pass by. Both are insane.
The only sane solution is to forget God and leave with the others.
If after that, the 'man' wants to attribute this successful solution to God rather than government funding, centuries of road building and some brave men who led the way, it's arguably delusional, but fine.
*sigh* And why didn't they use normal means ?
Exactly.
You're strange
No, I'm not joking. I think there are far worse abuses of children than them being brought up by religious parents. Religious nutters are the same as any other type of nutter, but it's not the collective fault of religion and the vast majority of us who are brought up by religious parents escape unscathed.
In what way are you not free to do what you like? From where I'm sitting, that luxury is already mine...I choose not to berate other people for their beliefs though.
If it's so irrelevent, I wonder why you took the bother of replying? Although, from your reply, I'm not quite sure that you got my point.
Ahem, I'm saying that even people who follow a religion can accept that they have to make their own solutions and see life itself as the miracle and it does no harm to them, you, me or anyone else in the world. As for the daughter...her parents are completely to blame and their idea that prayer would magically heal the girl was stupid in the extreme and I would be hard pushed to find anyone with a religious background or belief to back up their actions. If you know anyone who goes to church and considers themself to be part of a religion, ask them what they think.
Do you fancy illustating your point here? Where were the goalposts and where have they shifted to and what is the quagmire of contradiction?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks