F**kin Right Wing Religious Idiots.

[SkynYrd]

Originally Posted by halo

Then your knowledge of european history is very shallow because the Crusades had little to do with religion and in most cases were counter-attacks anyway.

Look, I know the Crusades were not "black and white" historical events, but what I do is that they were sanctioned by the Pope, and in fact Pope Urban (the Second I think) was asked for troops to help defend the Byzantines against recent attacks on coastal strongholds from the Muslims, which blew up from there into the "take back the Holy Lands" message we are all familiar with now. I'm not arguing that the attacks were reactionary or provocational, I am merely stating that the battles were indeed of a religious nature. My basic point is that people who use religion to further their own self-interests (whether it be violence, power, whatever) are the ones at fault. You can't blame a book because someone interprets it in an obscure and obviously counterintuitive way.

I was only using the Crusdades as one example. The same could be said for slavery or women's rights or a boatload of other things. I mean, what would you think today about someone who preached "women shouldn't vote because the Bible says they exist to serve men"? You'd obviously realize they were a fucking moron trying to pass a personal, biased agenda. It doesn't take a genius to assign the moral value system of the Bible to the 21st century. I am not a very religious person... all I am saying is that the blood of these "wars in the name of god" is on the hands of the people who started them, not on a two-thousand year old book that was (in my sincere opinion) intended only as a moral guidline, just like other myths and religious texts.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by SkynYrd

That's a fault of the followers, not the religion itself.

But religion is the blanket that protects them morally. Religion, like media can't be the cause of violence, or evil. These days, however, too many people condemn other's to hell for not sharing their belief structure. Once condemed they are no longer worth being friends with, protecting, helping, sharing, they are no longer living around. Then, why not twist the bible's words to say isolate a race and say it's evil. The bible never said it, and it's not the bible's fault and even without it, the evil would still exist. But removing the bible shows the evil better.

That's just a minor example, certainly not worthy of abolishing religion. I don't' think it's evil at its core. But I do think that it is hindering the development of man kind. Not out of intent, but out of mankind's inability to let go of it for what it is. It is a security blanket that carried us through our infant stages of scientific discovery. It kept us sane and fair. But we're out of the crib now and we're carrying this blanket through dirt and blood around the world. It needs to be washed, folded, and put in the closet where it can be used only when it is needed.

[SkynYrd]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

But I do think that it is hindering the development of man kind. Not out of intent, but out of mankind's inability to let go of it for what it is.

Yes... It boggles my mind when I hear a religious conservative touting a Christian story as the true word of God (lets take Adam and Eve for example), and yet, if you explained to them a different creation story (Native American for example), they would call it "crazy" and "far fetched."

That is seriously a double standard considering there is nothing "more normal" about the Christian story of creation than anyone elses. I have a hard time even believing that the authors of Genesis intended for people to take it so literally. FFS, you could put the story of Adam and Eve within Aesop's Fables and noone would notice. The Bible (and all the rest of them all the way back to Sumerian myths) is all about coping with the unexplainable, moral guidance, and ethical decision making. It is NOT a substitute for logic and reason and that's what pisses me off so much.

[halo]

Originally Posted by SkynYrd

Look, I know the Crusades were not "black and white" historical events, but what I do is that they were sanctioned by the Pope, and in fact Pope Urban (the Second I think) was asked for troops to help defend the Byzantines against recent attacks on coastal strongholds from the Muslims, which blew up from there into the "take back the Holy Lands" message we are all familiar with now. I'm not arguing that the attacks were reactionary or provocational, I am merely stating that the battles were indeed of a religious nature.

Very few people who fought in the crusades did so for the good of their souls. Religion was an excuse. Those wars would have happened without Christianity, just under a different name and probably with even more brutality. There was strong opposition to the crusades by prominent bishops in any case.

I was only using the Crusdades as one example. The same could be said for slavery or women's rights or a boatload of other things.

Women had no rights before Christianity though the church probably did perpetuate the idea of a woman's role. The church had little to do with slavery

From the Dark Ages and right through the Medieval period the church was responsible for all education, charity, welfare, medical care, almost all scientific breakthroughs and for general social cohesion. The church was largely against war, except in the case of the crusades, and even then it wasn't united. It was responsible for almost all literature produced and for a good deal of trade and economic benefits. It produced some of the best people in history.

In any case it's ridiculous to judge the past by the moral standards of the present. Good and evil aren't universal static values, they're defined by consensus. The consensus was different back then, partly because people didn't know as much as they do now.

You can't put forward a valid argument that says the church was totally evil in the past and we would have been better without it because that's simply not true. You could, however, construct quite a strong argument that the world would be a better place now without certain religious denominations.

[SkynYrd]

Originally Posted by halo

Religion was an excuse.

This is what I have been saying all along...

Originally Posted by halo

Those wars would have happened without Christianity, just under a different name and probably with even more brutality.

Which is exactly why I was arguing that blaming the followers instead of the religion itself is not a cop out. It's people who can turn anything into an excuse or a way to power; once again, you can't blame the book alone for that.

I agree 100% with pretty much everything you are saying, I just don't agree with Accrede's apparent perspective of "blame the religion," thats why I came back with the Crusades example and so on.

Things like this occur everyday... people love finding shit to blame their problems on. If you are an asshole that does asshole things to other people, it is YOUR fault; it's not the media's fault, video games' fault, Hollywood's fault, society's fault, or your religion's fault or anything else. Like I said already... if you are an adult and are so easily influenced by these external sources, then you are weak-minded... period.

[Hawk Eye]

Ya know, the Earth is only 6000 years old. And satan caused all those wars.

[Etzell]

Satan... the religious figure? OH SNAP.

[SkynYrd]

Originally Posted by Hawk Eye

...the Earth is only 6000 years old...

Sadly, many of my friends TRULY believe that.

[Hawk Eye]

As do quite a few of the people at my school. It saddens me, deeply.

edit: same people then put on a play using the administration's equipment, and got out of class to prepare, tell everyone in the school that free will is Satan's ploy to make you sin. And that you can only be saved if you let God be your puppet master. This play included grabbing random people in the audience, telling them Satan has power over their souls, and jumping off a building.

[halo]

Is it a 'special' school?

[accrede]

You can't blame a book because someone interprets it in an obscure and obviously counterintuitive way.

I don't know why people are obsessing over the bible, I infered/ meant to infer that religion and religious thinking causes alot of problems, not the bible.

In saying that, the bible has caused alot of problems too.

Here you enter and say wait, wait its the people who do bad destructive things. People should know better, most adults that are influenced by stuff are idiots etc...........

Well for starters most religious people are indoctrinated as children so that doesn't hold, they are already influenced. You are, however, right to say that people are responsible for their own actions.

On the other hand religion encourages extemely strong groupthink and blind obediance and also creates a division between the believer and the other. A division that would not exist in its absence, unlike race, age etc.

[SkynYrd]

Well I didn't mean to imply that I was "obsessing" over the Bible. I also understand that most religious fundamentalists were indoctrinated from birth, and it raises the age old nature vs. nurture question once again. I'm fairly familiar with the behaviorist school of thought (B.F. Skinner), and the ideas he presents about the non-existence of free will are intriguing, but I'm not completely sold. I certainly believe that human behavior is a combination of both nature and nurture, and that trying to completely explain people's actions from a pure cognitive or behaviorist perspective is a mistake. Having said that (and I can never say for sure because I wasn't raised this way), I believe that children raised in extreme religious environments have the "power," if you will, to use reason as an adult to reflect on how right or wrong their parents/guardians were, and possibly change or become more open-minded. Like I mentioned earlier in another thread, to simply throw your hands in the air and say "people can't help the way they are" is to severely underestimate man's capacity to think for himself.

I view the Bible the same way I view the Koran, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, Greco-Roman Mythology, and so on. They are there to provide moral guidance and help those who seek personal growth. It is NOT necessary that the stories be TRUE (that is, they actually took place historically) in order for them to provide a means to that end. I mean, I have read brilliant novels (such as Mary Shelly's Frankenstein) that "changed my life" for lack of better words, and it certainly doesn't matter one fucking bit that Frankenstein doesn't really exist; it's message is no weaker because of that fact. To me, it's just a shame that few others look at religion that way.

[Hawk Eye]

Its a public high school completely dominated by a 90%+ of very christian, middle class, white students.

[accrede]

Like I mentioned earlier in another thread, to simply throw your hands in the air and say "people can't help the way they are" is to severely underestimate man's capacity to think for himself.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm not saying religion prevents it or that people are the way they are and can't change.

I'm just saying that it makes it more difficult.

[SkynYrd]

Originally Posted by accrede

I'm just saying that it makes it more difficult.

Fair enough... I can certainly agree to that.

Originally Posted by Hawk Eye

Its a public high school completely dominated by a 90%+ of very christian, middle class, white students.

Hmm... are you going to my old high school? :P