[Iago]

Originally Posted by joveblue I'm talking about techniques designed to weaken the brain and put the subject under an altered state of consciousness like hypnosis and low-protein diets (not sure if Scientology uses the latter).

I think I understand... you mean like compulsory meetings? Where everyone reaffirms your articles of faith as fact? And plays music that's been shown to elicit emotional rather than rational reactions? And where propaganda is read for hours on end? And where children are present?

I see what you're saying: there are degrees of "brainwashing", but at the end of the day, don't try and dress up the Church as something it isn't. If you take people out of church they don't stay Christian very long, in my experience.

Originally Posted by joveblue Here I'm referring to: "TALK TO ANYONE ON THE OUTSIDE AND YOU'RE FUCKED!!!!" and, if you leave: "TALK TO ANYONE ON THE INSIDE AND YOU'RE FUCKED!!!!". Most churches don't care who anyone talks to,

A lot do. Not most, but a lot. Equally the Bible encourages people to be careful about who they consort with, in particular non-believers.

Originally Posted by joveblue although yes, if you decide to leave, you are likely to lose a lot of friends. Also, by "YOU'RE FUCKED" I mean blackmail and threats.

All you're doing here is showing that they're both historically bad, but that Scientology is worse by modern standards.

Originally Posted by joveblue Absolutely not. I'm talking full-blown, illegal blackmail and various types of threats systematically made to members.

I wonder how many convicted cases of blackmail or threats there are involving scientology members. I wonder, at the same time, how many there have been for Christianity.

Originally Posted by joveblue although it's rarely more than someone can possibly afford.

For Christians it's always 10%, Biblically.

Originally Posted by joveblue If the religion (e.g. The Bible, Qur'an) actually specifies tithing, it's a relatively affordable percentage of a persons income to be donated to charity.

No, not to charity: to the church. It's worth remembering that a church need only prove itself to be a religious organisation to gain charitable status. An actual charity has to prove that it does charity work.

Originally Posted by joveblue Cults like Scientology have people getting mortgages on their house to pay for compulsory "personal development programs", the profits of which go toward growing the cult.

See also: Christian tithing.

Originally Posted by joveblue Sure, large-scale compulsory tithing happen occasionally in the more cult-like churches for the purpose of growing the church but we're talking about cult-like churches here, not the religion as a whole.

My impression is that tithing happens all the time in Christianity, and that it's up to the church to decide how they spend the money.

Originally Posted by joveblue Is that a systematic part of the entire religion? The surveillance conducted by Scientology is to gather information that can be used to (a) prey on the weaknesses of the individual and (b) more importantly, blackmail and threaten the individuals.

I'm not sure that's an intrinsic part of scientology any more than killing abortion doctors is an intrinsic part of Christianity.

Originally Posted by joveblue But The Catholic Church isn't Christianity. They are not a religion, they are a church/sect/denomination within a religion. If you think that they display systematic cult-like behaviour, feel free to say you think they may be a cult. A cult can exist within a religion.

Agreed, ish.

Originally Posted by joveblue A religion is a relatively uniformly-held set of beliefs.

Nope, that's a philosophy. Religion is the worship of a supernatural deity (note: not just the belief, also the worship), any uniformly-held beliefs are a bonus. Sort of like finding out you have hodgkins and then your dick falling off, too.

Originally Posted by joveblue A cult is closer to a single church than a religion. A church and a religion are obviously (I hope) completely different concepts.

I think you need to expand on what you mean here. For Christians the church is the "body" -- it's the people. The people who are part of the religion. Are you separating them on a semantic level? Religion is worshipping a god, the church are the people who do it. A cult is described very similarly by the dictionary: a system of religious veneration towards a particular figure. Seems like a lot of cults stick around for a few hundred years and become religions.

Originally Posted by joveblue At risk of being repetitive, a cult can exist within a larger religion, and many do. They can also exist outside of religions. In time, the beliefs that Scientology is known for may eventually establish themselves as a religion in their own right, but I seriously doubt it.

It's already a religion. Time doesn't qualify it.

Originally Posted by joveblue I don't think they're even a crucial part of Scientology, to be honest. The only reason the wacky set of beliefs exists is to allow them to pretend they are a religion/church, and thus gain tax exemption and, with any luck, acceptance among society.

You might be right here.

Originally Posted by joveblue New members aren't even allowed to know about the full extent of the "beliefs". They're eased into it gradually. All the tenets of a religion are set out right from the start, not hidden.

I think that would be a reasonable grounds for differentiating under different circumstances. Ultimately though Christians can't just read the Bible. The Bible tells them to go to church and to pay their 10%; to learn from their elders. Just because Scientology is a more sophisticated scam it doesn't mean Christianity is any less of a scam.

[Kickaha]

Iago said pretty much what I would have said, but I'll add a couple of details...

Originally Posted by joveblue This is a malignant organisation using a particular set of techniques to prey on people to grow itself, cleverly disguised as a religion so people like yourself can ignore what is really going on here

Oh no, I see exactly what's going on here with Scientology. What I'm saying, and I don't think you're getting solidly, is that I don't see how, fundamentally it's much different than most churches or religious bodies, other than in the degree to which they apply psychological and sociological games for financial gain.

Are they evil? Yup, absolutely. Are they somehow vastly different than most churches? Not from where I'm standing. They're just a lot more *intense* about it.

They realized that if you call something a religion, you automatically get a free pass for behavior that in any other context would be considered clinically disturbed, if not outright insane. Oh, and illegal. "Why, no, we're not going to pay any taxes. We're a *religion*." Bah.

They just ran with the irrationality demanded of society, by the pre-existing religious institutions, to its rational conclusion.

Don't like that they exist? Great, neither do I. Lets change the rules that let them exist in the first place.

Of course that means no tax exemptions for churches, no waiving of illegal behavior under the guise of religious beliefs, etc, etc. Good luck getting that through.

[Robo]

Why yes, I am re-entering in the thread I unintentionally started! What's this? Do I disagree with chucker?

Originally Posted by chucker If we're going for present-day mainstream Christianity? Nah. It simply doesn't pose any harm. Evangelicals who try to politicize (that would include people who bullshit their way around with "moral majority", fighting gay marriage, etc.) obviously do. Fringe groups like JW and FLDS do. American absurdities like "televangelists" and "megachurches" (ZOMG) arguably do, too.

Sorry, chucker, but that sounds an awful like "Present-day mainstream Christianity simply doesn't pose any harm...except when it does."

Seeking political influence is an inevitable part of any organized religion, that's what groups of people do. A freaky hardcore fringe/"inner circle" is also an inevitable part of any religion, or any sufficiently organized group of people, really. You can't just say "Present-day mainstream Christianity doesn't pose any harm (as long as it doesn't try to influence politics and convert people)," because that's what it's built to do.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman What's this? Do I disagree with chucker?

Well, it's nothing new that my religious views here are widely misunderstood (I don't practice any religion in a meaningful way — not even the Church of Jobs, LOLLERSKATES) and unpopular.

Originally Posted by Roboman Sorry, chucker, but that sounds an awful like "Present-day mainstream Christianity simply doesn't pose any harm...except when it does."

Huh? None of the examples I gave are mainstream. The radical voices are always the loudest.

Originally Posted by Roboman Seeking political influence is an inevitable part of any organized religion, that's what groups of people do.

Protestant Christianity, however, doesn't have to be particularly organized beyond the local level. Heck, a lot of Christians never even go to church.

Originally Posted by Roboman A freaky hardcore fringe/"inner circle" is also an inevitable part of any religion, or any sufficiently organized group of people, really. You can't just say "Present-day mainstream Christianity doesn't pose any harm (as long as it doesn't try to influence politics and convert people)," because that's what it's built to do.

I think you should look outside the American bubble of nutcase-flavored Christianity. Sure, there's creationists in Germany, but they don't really get much of a voice. There's nothing to the scale of televangelism, megachurches, etc. (Before someone points out that Germany is "so much smaller": it does have 82 million people.)

Heck, you'd probably feel an awful lot less threatened if you ignored the fundies. They're like trolls. Don't give them too much of a voice, and the won't really amount to anything. Take that away, and you end up with a bunch (okay, a lot) of folks who simply allow unusually high amounts of their lives to be determined by irrationality. I don't think that in itself is bad — doesn't life get predictable, dull and meaningless if you try to explain everything away with "well, it's really just a bunch of biochemical processes"? Do you tell your significant other "sorry, I'm just not feeling a sufficient genetic craving for reproduction right now"? You don't do things because your dad parent would have wanted it that way; after all, they're already dead, so it doesn't matter any more because they'd never truly know?

I can't blame people for trying to find something beyond ratio, no matter how silly, childish, and wrong it might be. And that's faith to me. And there's absolutely nothing inherently destructive, manipulative and evil about that. It's just that, historically, that's what frequently ends up happening.

[Robo]

I think you missed my point just a little bit (that loud, radical voices are an inevitable by-product of the mainstream belief), but that's okay. I think you'd be surprised at how much I agree with your last two paragraphs (I take issue with some of it -- I think the only reason people think life would be dull or meaningless without religion is because they've been trained to expect it -- but that's neither here nor there).

I think it was Swox (where did he go? ) that asked, in a thread about hobbies, whether religion counted as a hobby. I said that I thought that religion was best as a hobby, something to think about while lying awake at night, and I meant every word. I'm not at all a "religious" person, but I probably think about religion more than most "religious" people. (That's the problem, I think too much. ) I really do think that there's more to the world than we know, and that there will be all sorts of discoveries that will make us look just as silly as the people who thought there were only four elements. Science doesn't have all the answers, and I have a hunch it never will. It's not supposed to. That would make life dull and meaningless, IMO.

I wouldn't want to wipe out religion, because that's a big part of people's culture. Do I think that we aught to collectively give it less and less prominence in our lives? Probably. As you pointed out, things frequently end badly when religion is involved.

[alcimedes]

Equally the Bible encourages people to be careful about who they consort with, in particular non-believers.

That couldn't be any more wrong. Sorry, but for all the wrongs Christianity has, at least the official writings specifically tell you to hang out with non-believers, and the lower on the totem pole the better.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by alcimedes That couldn't be any more wrong. Sorry, but for all the wrongs Christianity has, at least the official writings specifically tell you to hang out with non-believers, and the lower on the totem pole the better.

Absolutely.

Now if only the self-appointed 'Christian' *leaders* would follow that and pass it along to their followers...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman I think you missed my point just a little bit (that loud, radical voices are an inevitable by-product of the mainstream belief),

Every group has its fringes. "Apple fanbois" anyone?

Originally Posted by Roboman I think the only reason people think life would be dull or meaningless without religion

Maybe I expressed that poorly. I mean that if you base your life entirely on that which is scientifically proven, there's not much left in the way of excitement. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Roboman (That's the problem, I think too much. )

Ah, yes. A problem I'm all too familiar with myself. Overanalyzing all the minutiae of possible actions instead of simply taking one of them. </tangent>

Originally Posted by Roboman I really do think that there's more to the world than we know, and that there will be all sorts of discoveries that will make us look just as silly as the people who thought there were only four elements. Science doesn't have all the answers, and I have a hunch it never will. It's not supposed to. That would make life dull and meaningless, IMO.

Yep. That.

Originally Posted by Roboman Do I think that we aught to collectively give it less and less prominence in our lives? Probably. As you pointed out, things frequently end badly when religion is involved.

I definitely agree that, when in opposition to critical thinking, religion plays far too much of a role in todays' lives still.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Maybe I expressed that poorly. I mean that if you base your life entirely on that which is scientifically proven, there's not much left in the way of excitement. Does that make sense?

Well, if you allow for that which is scientifically under investigation, there's a *lot* of excitement to be had.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Well, if you allow for that which is scientifically under investigation, there's a *lot* of excitement to be had.

Let's avoid the mental image of pre-coital "Higgs Boson! YES!" screams.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Let's avoid the mental image of pre-coital "Higgs Boson! YES!" screams.

Awwwww... you take all the fun out of it.

I'm really enjoying this discussion btw...

From my perspective, I see religion as a strange and bizarre set of social constructs that at best can give people a working philosophy with which they find peace and help their fellow human... and at worst have caused genocide and manipulation of entire populations in the name of 'good'. On the one hand, it can bring good to a single person's life, but I can't recall ever seeing or hearing of it bringing good to a multitude en masse.

I think religion is fascinating, in much the same way I find mythology fascinating, or scifi cons fascinating... but I don't think any of those are a reasonable basis on which to run one's entire life, nor on which to demand that others run and live theirs. It's all equally, well, 'silly' to me.

But then, silly is something we humans need, and it adds spice to life and makes life *fun*. It's when silly, in any form, runs up against critical thinking, politics, imposing ones worldview on others, and so on, that I look at it askance.

And when the purveyors of silly insist that they have the only source of actual truth, in whatever form it takes... well... then they've gone right past silly and into willfully delusional.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Absolutely. Now if only the self-appointed 'Christian' *leaders* would follow that and pass it along to their followers...

The pastor of my church growing up refused to enter a bar. Not just refused to drink, refused to enter a bar. If he was "witnessing" to somebody who walked into a bar, he would stop, and I guess they would just have to go to hell or whatever. This wasn't considered at all quirky or unusual, it was considered to be following the Bible, and we were instructed to do the same thing. Nobody questioned it. It was just the way things were. See, if he had entered the bar, a newer, "weaker" Christian might have seen him entering the bar, assumed that he was drinking, and would then become tempted to drink. (The horror.) This was called being a "stumbling-block" to a weaker Christian, and it was taken very seriously.

It was all about keeping up appearances, literally: They interpreted "avoid every appearance of evil" not as "avoid everything that evil appears as," but as "avoid everything that could possibly make it appear like you could possibly be doing something evil." The most "righteous" members of the congregation didn't go to the movies. They weren't saying that all movies were bad (although there were those who refused to let their kids watch Disney), because G-rated films were okay to watch at home. However, if you went to a theater, a weaker Christian might see you and assume that you were going to a very dirty movie, and then become tempted to do so himself. If you were a stumbling-block that caused another Christian to sin, you shared responsibility for his actions. Thus, it wasn't safe to go to a theater, even if you had small children with you holding giant merchandise for whatever family-friendly film you were attending.

One wonders why the church never simply taught people not to assume the absolute worst of everybody they see, as these "weaker Christians" do. You'll note that it's not their inaccurate, judgmental assumptions about people that are viewed as blameworthy, but rather the targets of these assumptions are to blame merely for letting the assumptions happen. I guess judging people was just too much fun to condemn. (This "blame the victim" approach is characteristic of the territory.)

So while Jesus might have told people to go out there and hobnob with the unwashed masses, at least some modern Christians have built their belief systems to be diametrically opposed to that. They've done that concerning lots of things, really. I think if Jesus himself went to my old church, they wouldn't let him in.

[alcimedes]

See, and that's what I really don't get.

Jesus himself, according to the bible, hung out almost exclusively with whores, lepers, tax collectors, fisherman etc. The bottom of the social ladder one way or another.

And he often talked about and talked to the Pharasies (sp?), who were the religious leaders at the time, who thought what he was doing was horrible.

How can so many groups who profess such belief in the bible not see the glaring hypocrisy of their attitudes is beyond me, and part of why I can't stand most Christians. (Sorry real Christians out there)

That was probably the biggest reason by far that I eventually wrote off the church. Entirely too many judgmental people cherry picking bible verses in order to justify their behavior.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I'm really enjoying this discussion btw…

Meh. Let's argue about FTP again, then.

Originally Posted by Kickaha It's all equally, well, 'silly' to me. But then, silly is something we humans need, and it adds spice to life and makes life *fun*. It's when silly, in any form, runs up against critical thinking, politics, imposing ones worldview on others, and so on, that I look at it askance.

That.

Originally Posted by Kickaha And when the purveyors of silly insist that they have the only source of actual truth, in whatever form it takes... well... then they've gone right past silly and into willfully delusional.

And that.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker Maybe I expressed that poorly. I mean that if you base your life entirely on that which is scientifically proven, there's not much left in the way of excitement. Does that make sense?

It does, but "excitement" is what the Arts (and, to the right mind, Sciences that aren't proven) are for. Artistic pursuits and explorations of individuality can give the world "spice" and "silly," with a lot less bloodshed. Fiction can still enrich people's lives without people convincing themselves that it's true.

I don't think superstition will ever go away, not completely. I don't think we'll ever close all the gaps where God lives, and that's not what Science is for anyway. But religion will become far less prominent -- that's the way the world's turning. I don't think there's a biological need for religion, merely a learned one, and someday people will stop learning it. And centuries after God becomes an ornamental figurehead to the universe, people will still live deep, fulfilling, interesting lives.

Unless religious fundamentalists nuke us all first.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Entirely too many judgmental people cherry picking bible verses in order to justify their behavior.

And that right there is the problem with such a vast, internally NON-self-consistent body of writings that gets lumped into a 'religion': anyone can find a verse to justify *THEIR* actions, *THEIR* beliefs, and *THEIR* thoughts, and not only do they have a self-righteousness that comes from 'knowing' that God is on *THEIR* side, but if you try and argue with the on *content* (much less pointing out that they're being hypocritical, noxious asshats), by golly, you're trampling on their religious 'rights'.

Barf.

Anyone has the right to believe in whatever manner of idiocy they want. It would just be better if they didn't have the hubris to believe that their particular brand of illogic is The Unassailable Truth.

And don't for a second believe that particular brand of so-called Truth has, or should have, any meaning or import on my life.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by alcimedes That couldn't be any more wrong. Sorry, but for all the wrongs Christianity has, at least the official writings specifically tell you to hang out with non-believers, and the lower on the totem pole the better.

Originally Posted by alcimedes How can so many groups who profess such belief in the bible not see the glaring hypocrisy of their attitudes is beyond me, and part of why I can't stand most Christians. (Sorry real Christians out there) [...] Entirely too many judgmental people cherry picking bible verses in order to justify their behavior.

To be fair, those "official writings" also talk about human slavery, stoning family members to death, animal sacrifice… but no reasonable person today (one hopes) strictly practices everything those writings teach, not to mention all the self-contradicting lessons. There has to be an interpretation of the material at some level, and that's why religions "need" to have judgmental authorities to tell people which passages should be followed and which should be overlooked. Just as current religion leaders probably don't approve of human slavery, its equally their prerogative to not approve of mingling with nonbelievers.

Nearly any religion that is based in ancient texts and parables is going to be full of hypocrisy. Those old texts were written in societies that followed very different laws and morals that have long fallen out of favor. Unless a religion is willing to give up those seminal texts, it's just going to be continually suffering from reinterpretation and recensoring and reteaching of the material in ways that are completely hypocritical when put in context with the original tenants.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman It does, but "excitement" is what the Arts (and, to the right mind, Sciences that aren't proven) are for.

Wouldn't that require all people to be somewhat creative?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Brad To be fair, those "official writings" also talk about human slavery, stoning family members to death, animal sacrifice… but no reasonable person today (one hopes) strictly practices everything those writings teach, not to mention all the self-contradicting lessons. There has to be an interpretation of the material at some level, and that's why religions "need" to have judgmental authorities to tell people which passages should be followed and which should be overlooked. Just as current religion leaders probably don't approve of human slavery, its equally their prerogative to not approve of mingling with nonbelievers.

A good start would be Christianity recognizing that only the New Testament describes the teachings of Christ. The Old Testament is a warped version of Judaism. If you're going to follow the teachings of the Old Testament over those of the New Testament, you're not Christian, rather by definition.

If modern mainstream Christianity would stand up and kick out the loonies, it'd be a start.

Rather like if modern mainstream Islam would stand up and kick out the loonies, it'd be a start.

Dammit, would all the reasonable people around the world please stand up and kick out the damned loonies?!?

Nearly any religion that is based in ancient texts and parables is going to be full of hypocrisy. Those old texts were written in societies that followed very different laws and morals that have long fallen out of favor. Unless a religion is willing to give up those seminal texts, its just going to continually suffering from reinterpretation and recensoring and reteaching of the material in ways that are completely hypocritical when put in context with the original tenants.

Agreed, but preaching love (from the NT) while exercising hate and anger (from the OT), and crying that one's religion is being 'persecuted' when called out on it, that really needs to stop.

Calling something a religion should not make it exempt from law, reason, rationality, or ethics, in how followers of that belief interact with and act upon others, either within or outside of their belief circles.

[alcimedes]

Yeah, sorry I'm assuming that Christians would be following the NT and not the OT based on the belief that Christ came back and changed the rules. (which to me was the corner stone of Christianity)

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Yeah, sorry I'm assuming that Christians would be following the NT and not the OT based on the belief that Christ came back and changed the rules. (which to me was the corner stone of Christianity)

Agreed. Some damned fine stuff in the NT (oh my, was that wrong? lol), and a lot of excellent advice for living, no doubt.

Folks just need to make up their minds how they want to worship: hellfire, brimstone, judgment and wrath... or love, tolerance, humility and peace. Pick ONE people!

As for Christ changing the rules... yes, absolutely. It still stuns me how many Christians I know that can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the new covenant, by Christ's sacrifice, *replaces* the old one. Ten Commandments? Gone. Obsolete. Irrelevant. With the exception of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"[1] and "No graven images"[2], the remaining eight are superceded nicely and cleanly by "Do unto others as they would have them do unto you." That's it. Follow that, and you will be more Christian in action than most Christians in name. The rest is... irrelevant, IMO. Just things for people to argue over.

[1] Replaced by "There is no path to heaven but through Me."
[2] The vast majority of Christianity ignores this one completely. Crucified Christ? Graven image. Icon of Mary? Graven image. Creepy Jesus light switch plate? Graven image.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Yeah, sorry I'm assuming that Christians would be following the NT and not the OT based on the belief that Christ came back and changed the rules. (which to me was the corner stone of Christianity)

Jesus said many times that men should live also by the old Mosaic code. But then again, he also said that he'd bring about judgement day by the time the disciples were old men, so he clearly can't be trusted

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Iago Jesus said many times that men should live also by the old Mosaic code.

Verses please?

But then again, he also said that he'd bring about judgement day by the time the disciples were old men, so he clearly can't be trusted

SHHHHHHHH!

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Verses please?

There are at least two, but Matthew 5:19 is the only one which springs instantly to mind.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Iago There are at least two, but Matthew 5:19 is the only one which springs instantly to mind.

Danke.

Hmm. Yet just a bit later in Matthew 5:38:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[g] points to Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21:

Exodus 21:22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Leviticus 24:17 If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.

Deuteronomy 19:21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


So he pretty much overrode those, no?



To be brutally honest, I've always seen the OT as the way you teach a child: absolutes. Do this, don't do this, do that... why? Because I *SAID* so. (Frankly, if we saw a parent treat their kids the way JHVH treats humanity in the OT, we'd lock them up and throw away the key.) The NT is how an adult should think: with empathy. "How would it make me feel if someone did this to me? Ah... right. Best not to do it." Jesus's teachings center on empathy and compassion, and how to start thinking more about how one fits in the larger community and world.

Given the folks I see drawn to the two varieties of Christianity, it seems to come down to how far they got in their emotional development before getting stuck.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Frankly, if we saw a parent treat their kids the way JHVH treats humanity in the OT, we'd lock them up and throw away the key

The argument that made me realise this when I was a theist was this: if I imagined myself to be a father, could I ever envisage a situation where I would want to punish my child with infinite punishment for a finite sin? Could they ever wrong me in such a way that I would want them to be punished forever?

To this day I still can't. That's why I don't worry about religion. In the unlikely event that JHVH/Jesus/Allah are real then people are just falling in line between a thug out of fear. Either way I've done the right thing.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker Wouldn't that require all people to be somewhat creative?

Not any more than religion requires people to create their own holy texts.

The best part about being human is that we are a creative species, but to your point, can't people find meaning in the arts without being artists themselves?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman Not any more than religion requires people to create their own holy texts. The best part about being human is that we are a creative species, but to your point, can't people find meaning in the arts without being artists themselves?

So if you weren't talking about creating art so much as simply appreciating it, then I'm curious where you'd draw the line between someone who enjoys art and someone of faith* — don't they both create a little idealized world inside their head based on the works of others?

*) I'm trying to avoid the term "religious" because "religion" to so many implies "organized religion".

[curiousuburb]

Voodoo's role in helping quake victims

Originally Posted by BBC Hostility to voodoo - which blends elements of Christianity with West African animistic beliefs and practices - is indeed rife among some evangelical groups in Haiti and elsewhere. However most mainstream Christians - notably Catholics - have insisted on not marginalising the voodoo faith. Father Reginald Jean-Marie of Notre-Dame, the largest Roman Catholic church in Miami's Little Haiti, insists: "Any system of belief that people cling to especially in a time of crisis can be of help to them." Blaming voodoo for the country's problems, he says, is "theological nonsense". "When the (Asian) tsunami happened it was not because people did wrong," he says. "Things happen because they are natural disasters. If you claim that voodoo is responsible for those things, then is God responsible when bad things happen to good Christians?" ... continues ...

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb Voodoo's role in helping quake victims

Nice job, religion:

Originally Posted by BBC Some argue that voodoo's conspicuous absence in the aftermath of the quake is due to prejudice. Many Christians - especially Protestants - regard voodoo as devil worship. This idea was expressed in its most striking form by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, who said shortly after the quake that Haiti had made a "pact with the devil" when it defeated French colonists two centuries ago. According to Mr Beaubrun, such attitudes have been in evidence during relief operations. "Some Christian communities do not want to give food to voodoo followers," he says. "As soon as they see people wearing peasant clothes or voodoo handkerchiefs, they put them aside and deny them food. "This is something I've seen."