[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
No.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Maybe…
Mufasa
Seconded. It’s quite scary how few Americans have actually READ the constitution and it’s amendments.
[/quote]
If people understood and believed in that stuff the first thing you`d hear is the sound of muskets being loaded.
Let’s be real. I don’t think anyone has to read a book to know the difference between right and wrong. Now if you want people to believe they will pay a price in another life for their acts on earth, and reading a bible or whatever will accomplish that, that’s not happening either.
There is a fair amount of priests and others, (Ted Haggart), who are well aware of what they are doing.
There are always going to be the greedy, power seeking people, (politicians), the criminal element, the sexually deviants, and so on.
I think it is wishful thinking that any book or bolt of light from the sky is going to change the world. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be nice, just not practical.
I’m a Christian but fall short at times. Just not as short as others. LOL
[quote]olderguy wrote:
I’m a Christian but fall short at times. Just not as short as others.[/quote]
I’m sure hearing that must thrill your dates.
[quote]orion wrote:
If people understood and believed in that stuff the first thing you`d hear is the sound of muskets being loaded.[/quote]
Muskets? I knew the Austrian military was a joke, but this is ridiculous.
[quote]pookie wrote:
olderguy wrote:
I’m a Christian but fall short at times. Just not as short as others.
I’m sure hearing that must thrill your dates.[/quote]
I always got the impression you could do stand up.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
If people understood and believed in that stuff the first thing you`d hear is the sound of muskets being loaded.
Muskets? I knew the Austrian military was a joke, but this is ridiculous.
[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dragon wrote:
I Wonder…
If the whole world was required to get on a ‘read the BIBLE in one year’ program and actually stick with it & take it serious, would the world be a better place?..
Would crime go down? Would people love one another more, regardless of race? Would people try to better themselves and the ones around them? Would they know there thoughts & actions are always being watched & logged, so they would be more careful about actions & thoughts? Would drug use & obesity be a thing of the past? Would pollution stop? Would species that are endangered flourish? Would wars be less often and maybe even not happen? …etc
Iron Life
Between 1618 and 1648 the Lutherans, Catholics and Calvinists (all people who undoubtedly had read the Bible and took it quite seriously), slaughtered one another across Western Europe, in order to settle the question of whose interpretation of the Bible was the correct one. The Thirty Years War, in addition to thirty years of bloodshed on the battlefield, also caused heavy civilian casualties due to famine and disease.
So no, wars would probably not disappear. As for your environmental concerns, there is nothing in the Bible commanding man to take care of the earth. Quite the opposite, in fact. How could mankind have any choice but to wreak environmental havoc after reading Genesis 1:28 (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.)?
And then in Genesis 2:5 we find the preposterous notion that the earth needs Man to plow the soil in order for the plants to grow. Plowing the soil has, of course, caused more environmental devastation (through erosion and deforestation) than probably even the automobile.
The rest of the Old Testament is a litany of rape, incest, torture, homicide, fratricide, patricide, regicide, genocide, and pesticide (old bald man sending bears off to maul little children).
Have YOU read the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21? Are you a better person because of it? If so, then good for you. But I think you might be disappointed if you expect the same results from the people of the entire world, especially when most of them already have their own holy books (such as the Upanishads and the Qur’an), which they likely read more extensively, know more intimately, and take more seriously, than you do your Bible.
[/quote]
I see you haven’t read it.
There’s no substantial causal relationship between religiosity and rates of violence in my opinion. Mankind is “built” to feel insecurity and find excuses to fight wars. I think the argument by many that certain or all religions lead to an increase in violence/war fails to discern that the same factors which can lead to inter/intra societal wars also tend to increase religiosity. Population and economic pressures within a society increase the feelings of insecurity which produce both.
Remember, lest you imagine that you’re descended from peaceful teddy bears like the folks at fantasyfeeder, we’re all descended from wolves. Our ancestors were the victors of history who swept across vast swaths of inhabited land, killing, conquering and raping along the way. Peace is not an ideology away.
My mental dump of the day.
The problem is not in the Bible, but in the corrupt heart of man, who will do whatever it takes to satisfy his lust and in the process creates “religion” to accomodate and justify his barbarism. Christian is not the one who claims it to be, but the one who shows it with his actions, Gandhi said it better (i’ll paraphrase): “I have no problem with your Christ, it’s the christians I have a problem with…”
[quote]pookie wrote:
mundele wrote:
That’s fair. My point wasn’t so much that Buddhism was dangerous, but that anything can be turned into a tool for violence. People will keep killing each other no matter what philosophy they claim to follow.
It’s a lot harder to find examples of violent Buddhists than it is to find examples of violent anyone else.
[/quote]
There are also a lot fewer Buddhists in the world. I’m sure that if Buddhism had the same range of membership that Christianity or Islam boast, there would be plenty of examples. Situations such as the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka clearly demonstrate that even a non-violent faith like Buddhism can become a factor in violent struggles.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
I see you haven’t read it.[/quote]
Actually, I have.
But if you disagree with what I’ve said, then please, attempt to disprove any point I have made. Use as many Bible verses as you wish.
Great post…
Let me add that all too often Man has used Religion NOT as an instrument to change themselves for the better…
…But as an instrument to “cloak” and justify a Life and set of beliefs they have already accepted as “true”…
Someone said it best (in justifying evil in the name of Religion):
"You can rationally discuss someone’s choice of cloths and cars…but how do you “argue” an evil if someone feels that “God said it…”
“You can’t…”
Mufasa
I have come to the conclusion that most of the so-called religious leaders of the world really suck.
It is all about money and power. Who was it, Oral Roberts who said God was going to take him it he didn’t raise X millions of dollars? He should have shot himself the scumbag. Good old Ted Haggert in charge of 30 million followers, and those old time favorites, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker.
Thank God for Jimmy Swaggert and Jerry Falwell. Oh and Pat Robertson. What a guy. And how come you only see nuns in the cold subways in NYC with the tupperware cups and no priests? Go figure. Don’t you just love the zillion dollar church campuses they are building these days?
I think I would go to a church that told it’s parishoners “hey, we have enough money for now, so keep yours this week”.
I’m not even going to get started on the Islamatics.
In case you didn’t get it from my post, I think organized religon really, REALLY, sucks. And as far as priests go, that could be a literal statement. That was below the belt but fuck it. Said and done. Sorry.
Where have all the Gandhis and Mother Teresas gone?
Forgive me Lord for I have sinned.
It’s a bit sad that people need a book to tell them that they should love and respect their fellow human, that having empathy and showing compassion for others is the right thing to do.
Worse is that they’ll then have wars and kill each other over who’s book is the “correct” one.
[quote]mundele wrote:
pookie wrote:
mundele wrote:
That’s fair. My point wasn’t so much that Buddhism was dangerous, but that anything can be turned into a tool for violence. People will keep killing each other no matter what philosophy they claim to follow.
It’s a lot harder to find examples of violent Buddhists than it is to find examples of violent anyone else.
There are also a lot fewer Buddhists in the world. I’m sure that if Buddhism had the same range of membership that Christianity or Islam boast, there would be plenty of examples. Situations such as the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka clearly demonstrate that even a non-violent faith like Buddhism can become a factor in violent struggles.
I disagree. With 350 million adherents, it’s not that small a number. They’ve had no crusades, no inquisitions; they don’t have doctrines of jihad and martyrdom. It’s very hard to support violent action from the teaching of Buddhism; whereas it’s trivially easy to justify committing atrocities using the Bible or the Quran. Intolerance and prejudice just about drip off the pages of the Old Testament and pretty much the entire Quran.
Depending on how you want to view it, Jesus either established a new covenant, replacing the laws of the OT, or came not to replace them, but to support them and accomplish the prophecies. There’s enough ambiguity to allow you to spin the texts to whatever purpose you want them to support. Just look at the myriads of sects of Christianity; from Catholics to Protestants to Orthodox to Mormons and the myriads of splinter groups. Each has their own interpretation of the Bible (and each are convinced of having “the right one” of course)… Similar splits exist in Islam.
If the various adherents of a religion cannot agree with each other as to the correct interpretation, how can you hope to unite the world by having everyone read one of the holy books? If Shia and Sunni slaughter each other over the Quran, and that Catholics and Protestants war over who’s Bible is right, do you really think that those books are the path to world peace?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
I see you haven’t read it.
Actually, I have.
But if you disagree with what I’ve said, then please, attempt to disprove any point I have made. Use as many Bible verses as you wish.
[/quote]
I was being sarcastic implying that it looks like you’ve read it. I can understand your point of view, the Bible as a whole book is difficult to grasp without some understanding of the historic, prophetic and eschatological.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s a bit sad that people need a book to tell them that they should love and respect their fellow human, that having empathy and showing compassion for others is the right thing to do.
Worse is that they’ll then have wars and kill each other over who’s book is the “correct” one.
[/quote]
So true.
I doubt I could have said it better myself.
Be civil, it’s easy. I like to think I’m a citizen of the world, living in the USA. Aren’t people basically the same all over and get screwed up when you throw religon into the mix.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
I was being sarcastic implying that it looks like you’ve read it. I can understand your point of view, the Bible as a whole book is difficult to grasp without some understanding of the historic, prophetic and eschatological.[/quote]
It’s odd though, that a book purported to be written (or inspired) by an omnipotent and supremely intelligent being would require so much effort to “grasp” correctly.
You’d think that the same Being would also think of “inspiring” the printing press to His creatures before delivering His message to them. Especially when you consider that the old Hebrew scrolls have no vowels and no punctuation. Clarity was apparently not a goal.
Or, simpler explanation, those books aren’t from a Divine Creator, but simply man made myth written down and needlessly revered.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I disagree. With 350 million adherents, it’s not that small a number. They’ve had no crusades, no inquisitions; they don’t have doctrines of jihad and martyrdom. It’s very hard to support violent action from the teaching of Buddhism; whereas it’s trivially easy to justify committing atrocities using the Bible or the Quran.
[/quote]
That’s not entirely true. The history of my adoptive country, Japan, is rife with religious violence perpetrated in the name of Buddhism, from the time of its arrival in the 6th century. Furious civil war erupted when adherents of Buddhism attempted to displace the native pagan religion of Shinto, and later there was another huge conflict between the followers of Mahayana “Pure Land” Buddhism, popular among commoners, and Zen, which was adopted by the warrior class.
You may argue that neither is “real” Buddhism, since both depart considerably from the core teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, but both were definitely used to justify violence.
Today the Buddhist temples wield enormous economic and political power, as they have from the time of the Kamakura period. They own huge real estate holdings, which are exempt from taxes, as are their assorted businesses and investments. They even have their own political party, the Shin Komeito, which typically swings to the right.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
I was being sarcastic implying that it looks like you’ve read it. [/quote]
Oh.
Next time put a smiley or something in there, dammit! 
Whereas many people’s understanding of it seems to be hysteric, pathetic, and scatological.