Is religion bondage or freedom?

[blazeofglory]

We have discussed much on regions and some discussions have gone extreme to the extent I do not want them to go. I never have the motive of hurting the sentiment of a cohort of faiths or religious followers. Yet in a supposedly free world I often love to raise a series of Questions. At times by questioning we will reach a point at which the question becomes the answers or to put it differently, question and answer side with each other or both are one and the same. This is a philosophical proposition. I want to go into it and beyond through a string of discussions.

I at times feel religion has been a bondage or a fetter to me and I was taught to consider people considering their regions or castes. That was what I was taught by my parents. I was not allowed to marry outside my caste or religion.
Hat there been no religion I would have been free to marry anyone outside my castes. There are too many rituals or rites associated with religions. There are too many dos and don'ts.

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?

[Leland Gaunt]

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?
I suppose it depends on how seriously you take your religion. Religion is quite a domineering concept; it lays down morality, defines the realities of the universe, and may even set a schedule for your day. So, if you do believe, it becomes a fairly large part of who you are. Now, if you don't take all that seriously, why be apart of that religion? In my opinion, if you try to create an identity separate from you religion, you will then experience some degree of conflicting ideals and beliefs.

[.Kafka]

I do not believe the terms 'bondage' and 'freedom' exist in such harmonious distinction. To be free, is to be bound, and to be be bound, is in a way, to be free. Social humans are bound to language - meaning is created through an interaction with language - religion like the term 'freedom' is a meaning. People are cultivated. People have unique finger prints. People disagree on grounds of taste and sensibility. I like lentils. I think you should eat lentils. Am I struggling beneath bondage? People compartmentalize. Zebra's often get along best with other Zebra's. Why? Zebra nature. What is that? Common ground, human nature is. I have encountered radical vegetarians and meek religious fundamentalists, the line that divides is also the line that creates. I hope this answers your question.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

We have discussed much on regions and some discussions have gone extreme to the extent I do not want them to go. I never have the motive of hurting the sentiment of a cohort of faiths or religious followers. Yet in a supposedly free world I often love to raise a series of Questions. At times by questioning we will reach a point at which the question becomes the answers or to put it differently, question and answer side with each other or both are one and the same. This is a philosophical proposition. I want to go into it and beyond through a string of discussions.

I at times feel religion has been a bondage or a fetter to me and I was taught to consider people considering their regions or castes. That was what I was taught by my parents. I was not allowed to marry outside my caste or religion.
Hat there been no religion I would have been free to marry anyone outside my castes. There are too many rituals or rites associated with religions. There are too many dos and don'ts.

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?

Blaze, I can always turn to your thread when I want some good discussions. You always pose the most mind invigorating questions. I never get tired of it and I like it.

Well, whether religion is "bondage" or "freedom" depends on the individual, I believe. Sometimes, just as others do, I feel religion is bondage too. However, most of the time, I feel it is truly freedom.

Imagine a kite flying in the sky. It's beautiful. The string attach to that kite keeps it from flying away and the wind keeps it lifted. Now, imagine that there were no strings attach to that kite. It would still be beautiful and fly for a brief period of time but, without the string, it will eventually fall onto the ground.

The string is there to accompany the kite and so is the wind. The person holding the kite can keep it safe until another day to fly when the weather is right.

That's what I believe.

As for your last question, I actually don't it to be necessary to introduce ourselves through religion. It is our decision whether or not to introduce ourselves through that means.

[romeyblack]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

[BienvenuJDC]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

While there are SOME religions and sects that put their followers under bondage, I think that it is a foolish statement to blanket it. To be without faith is a bondage of itself. No matter what one believes, there is bondage to something...whether it is money (or greed) or even self. Self gratification is a bondage of itself. Since God sent His Son here to establish a standard which is one of the many religions (which some are perversions of the original), then religion is not that which causes bondage, but it is false religion that enslaves.

[Redzeppelin]

Religion is total bondgage and is the sole creation of man. God never created religion and christ never believed that religion was the way to GOD. Man created religion to control the masses. So we must learn to seperate the two. If all of us seperated GOD from Religion, this would be a better world. More wars and murders have been committed in the name of Religion than any other reason.

Most wars are fought over real estate. The largest body counts of the 20th century were generated by atheist regimes (Stalin, China, Pol Pot).

Religion is a necessary evil because people cannot agree on the character of God; as such, they will naturally gather with those who are like minded.

All humans serve something outside themselves: that thing may be God, money, sex, drugs, food, etc. All things we serve that aren't God eventually become life-damaging addictions (and most people would consider addiction "enslavement"). Serving God allows you not feel the need to enslave yourself to something that will eventually kill you or at the least, make your life miserable.

[Buh4Bee]

Why can't people understand that religion is not an easy thing and that it is hard- hence the perception of bondage. At times it feels tight and uncomfortable, but it is the process, the long haul, that one finds freedom.

[Heteronym]

Religion is bondage, so vile and absolute, it's amazing how men invented. Religion, by emphasising the spiritual over the material, has been one of the greatest beacons of misanthropism in the history of Mankind. It has arrested the intellectual development of Mankind and has made men ashamed of being men. Just about every religion can be guilty of this.

The Greek and Roman mythologies are full of poor victims of brutal, merciless punishments. A woman is better than the gods at weaving so she's turned into a spider. A hunter innocently finds a goddess bathing in a strea, is transformed into a deer and eaten by his own dogs. Apollo flays Marsyas still alive. The message is clear: submit, submit, submit, curb your potential.

Christianity, by preaching that the rewards of this world are in the next, has contributed to the paralysis of thinking and development. Why try to improve the world if real paradise is somewhere?

I read somewhere, apologies for not having a source, that the majority of the Koran speaks of war.

And even supposedly noble and peaceful religions like Buddhism and Hinduism are horrifying. Buddhism preaches that man's path to peace is his own anihilation to avoid the cycle of suffering and rebirth. Like Christianity, it shows a complete contempt for the physical world.

And Hinduism, with that deranged concept of the caste of the untouchables, has committed one of the greatest crimes of human dignity by men against other men.

Not to mention all the discord religion has caused over the millennia, all the wars it has inspired, its hold on education, science and knowledge, its treatment of women, its support of slavery, and its usual propensity to side with the ruling classes to function as a social anaesthesia, to stop men, with empty promises of an imaginary better world, of trying to make paradise here, on this planet that is the only place we can call home and should care for.

[Redzeppelin]

Religion is bondage, so vile and absolute, it's amazing how men invented. Religion, by emphasising the spiritual over the material, has been one of the greatest beacons of misanthropism in the history of Mankind. It has arrested the intellectual development of Mankind and has made men ashamed of being men. Just about every religion can be guilty of this.

It is fully illogical for men to "create" that which benefits nobody. What appears "bondage" to some is in actuality freedom. As I posted above, nobody is really "free" - we all seek something to give ourselves to in this life - if what we give ourselves to is not God (God, not religion, mind you) then we will give ourselves to something else - drugs, food, sex, money, power, gambling, relationships, work, and a hundred other self-destructive things.

As far as "arrested intellectual development," that claim is not wholly accurate. There is nothing in Christianity (I can only speak for the religion I know) that suggests that ignorance is good and that intellectual development is bad. Anybody who took the time to read even a portion of CS Lewis's work, for instance, would be quite clear on the level of intellect functioning behind his prose.



The Greek and Roman mythologies are full of poor victims of brutal, merciless punishments. A woman is better than the gods at weaving so she's turned into a spider. A hunter innocently finds a goddess bathing in a strea, is transformed into a deer and eaten by his own dogs. Apollo flays Marsyas still alive. The message is clear: submit, submit, submit, curb your potential.

Comparing Greek and Roman mythology to Christianity is absurd. There are virtually NO correspondences between the two. The Greek/Roman gods were little more than glorified human beings with exactly the same flaws as the humans; such a being is hardly a "god" by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the "submit" part, your use of Greek/Roman mythology creates a convenient straw man for you to knock down; in Christianity that is far more difficult to do. In Christianity we submit our will to one who simply knows better than we do. If I am to survive a trek through the Amazon jungle, I would be a fool to trust my own judgment if I've never been there before; I would need an experienced guide and I'd be a double fool to ignore my guide's instructions; in Christian theology, God created the world, and He created me as well; it makes perfect sense to submit to He who knows better than I how to survive in this world; it makes sense to submit my will to one who knows me far better than I will ever know myself.



Christianity, by preaching that the rewards of this world are in the next, has contributed to the paralysis of thinking and development. Why try to improve the world if real paradise is somewhere?

A handy generalization, but untrue. Christianity does not advocate a withdrawal from this world; we are to be actively involved in it - the emphasis on the next world has to do with the sacrifices that we are required to personally make in this one. Not the same at all. The New Testament makes this quite clear.


And even supposedly noble and peaceful religions like Buddhism and Hinduism are horrifying. Buddhism preaches that man's path to peace is his own anihilation to avoid the cycle of suffering and rebirth. Like Christianity, it shows a complete contempt for the physical world.

Wrong again; Christianity does not show "contempt" for the physical world; the gospels point out the fact that we cannot hold on too tightly to the things of this world because they will pass away; we are not to hoard gold or try to build an empire of possessions because these things will not only distract us from the God who sustains and redeems us, but they will only perish anyway. The Manicheans were the sect that taught contempt for the flesh. But Christ made it clear that the things of the spirit were to take priority in our lives in setting our own priorities - but it does not suggest that the material world is to be rejected at all.


Not to mention all the discord religion has caused over the millennia, all the wars it has inspired, its hold on education, science and knowledge, its treatment of women, its support of slavery, and its usual propensity to side with the ruling classes to function as a social anaesthesia, to stop men, with empty promises of an imaginary better world, of trying to make paradise here, on this planet that is the only place we can call home and should care for.


Human beings have caused the discord with their distorted understandings of God and his will. As well, you are conveniently pulling culture out of the equation - which again is another handy straw-man. Culture is never completely missing out of the picture; ancient texts are also a product of their culture. Fortunately, the Bible (for instance) contains within it the principles that can guide a Christian man such as Wilberforce to advocate the ending of slavery.

Your broad brush strokes sound definitive, but they are neither accurate, nor fair.

As well, would you care to ravel out all the good that atheism has done in this world? How many lives it has changed for the better? How many poor and hungry it has fed? How it has improved the world? And while you're at it, why not calculate the number of people who have been killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone and compare that to the number killed in "Holy wars" and see how they pan out?

[Heteronym]

It is fully illogical for men to "create" that which benefits nobody. What appears "bondage" to some is in actuality freedom. As I posted above, nobody is really "free" - we all seek something to give ourselves to in this life - if what we give ourselves to is not God (God, not religion, mind you) then we will give ourselves to something else - drugs, food, sex, money, power, gambling, relationships, work, and a hundred other self-destructive things.

Of course most of the alternatives are are self-destructive - drus, money, gambling, etc. For who could imagine that people, without the guiding hand of religion, could become good by themselves?


As far as "arrested intellectual development," that claim is not wholly accurate. There is nothing in Christianity (I can only speak for the religion I know) that suggests that ignorance is good and that intellectual development is bad. Anybody who took the time to read even a portion of CS Lewis's work, for instance, would be quite clear on the level of intellect functioning behind his prose.

Oh, I don't doubt of the beauty of Lewis' prose, or Saint Augustine's, or of any other religious scholar. Indeed they've built a vast, beautiful and worthless body of writings over the centuries, extolling the beauty of God, justifying God's ways to men, making complicated theses to prove his existence. And meanwhile science decayed, until the Renaissance.


Comparing Greek and Roman mythology to Christianity is absurd. There are virtually NO correspondences between the two. The Greek/Roman gods were little more than glorified human beings with exactly the same flaws as the humans; such a being is hardly a "god" by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not absurd at all. Following your own reasoning, it's not absurd because the Christian god is also a flawed human being - petty, jealous, vengeful, cruel. And it's not absurd because religions are all born from the same place - the human mind - and tell the same story: man's subjection to higher beings. Change the form and the narrative, but it's all the same.


Christian theology, God created the world, and He created me as well; it makes perfect sense to submit to He who knows better than I how to survive in this world; it makes sense to submit my will to one who knows me far better than I will ever know myself.

Your guide was invented by tent-dwellers who lived in deserts like animals millennia ago. To choose to follow the advice of an experienced man is sensible; to submit to the authority of an immaterial being invented millennia ago for purposes of finding guidance in a completely different world, is nonsensical.



A handy generalization, but untrue. Christianity does not advocate a withdrawal from this world; we are to be actively involved in it - the emphasis on the next world has to do with the sacrifices that we are required to personally make in this one. Not the same at all. The New Testament makes this quite clear.

No. All you have to do is obey the commandments and confess. That's how you enter Heaven. You can be as vile as you want all your life, but if confess all is forgiven. If you die a child, you're even luckier: you just need to be baptised. That's why the very Christian Spanish Conquistadores baptised Indian babies right before smashing their skulls.

Do you know why the Romans hated the Christians? Among other things, because they were a public nuisance. Because whnever a fire broke out, the Roman firemen would fly to the spot and a horde of crazy Christians would try to stop them because it was a sign of the end of the world, the Christian's great obsession! Since the Romans weren't obsessed with the end of the world, they reasonably tried to exterminate these enemies of life. Sadly they didn't succeed.


Wrong again; Christianity does not show "contempt" for the physical world; the gospels point out the fact that we cannot hold on too tightly to the things of this world because they will pass away; we are not to hoard gold or try to build an empire of possessions because these things will not only distract us from the God who sustains and redeems us, but they will only perish anyway. The Manicheans were the sect that taught contempt for the flesh. But Christ made it clear that the things of the spirit were to take priority in our lives in setting our own priorities - but it does not suggest that the material world is to be rejected at all.

"'Inter faeces et urinem nascimur" (we are born between the feces and the urine) - St. Augustine. That's the Christian view of Man: complete and utter scum. Contempt for us, contempt for our flesh, contempt for our world, contempt for our senses.


Human beings have caused the discord with their distorted understandings of God and his will. As well, you are conveniently pulling culture out of the equation - which again is another handy straw-man. Culture is never completely missing out of the picture; ancient texts are also a product of their culture. Fortunately, the Bible (for instance) contains within it the principles that can guide a Christian man such as Wilberforce to advocate the ending of slavery.

If so many people, including very intelligent men, over a long span of time, have debated, distorted and reinterpreted the bible, chances are it's not such a useful thing after all. If A says it means black and B says it means white, the supposed guidance God gives is just a mess from beginning to start and we're better off doing away with it and finding something better.


As well, would you care to ravel out all the good that atheism has done in this world? How many lives it has changed for the better? How many poor and hungry it has fed? How it has improved the world? And while you're at it, why not calculate the number of people who have been killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone and compare that to the number killed in "Holy wars" and see how they pan out?

Suffice to say that, if Christianity hadn't curbed medical research during the middle ages, there probably wouldn't have been the Black Death that nearly wiped out Europe's population. But why bother healing the body when it's just vile matter and it's the soul that needs healing above all? The world can burn and rot so long as the immortal soul is safe.

[Redzeppelin]

Of course most of the alternatives are are self-destructive - drus, money, gambling, etc. For who could imagine that people, without the guiding hand of religion, could become good by themselves?

History bears out the reality that human beings really cannot be "good" on their own. The 20th century - the one where God largely ceased to be a large influence - was the most violent, possessing the highest body count - on record.


Oh, I don't doubt of the beauty of Lewis' prose, or Saint Augustine's, or of any other religious scholar. Indeed they've built a vast, beautiful and worthless body of writings over the centuries, extolling the beauty of God, justifying God's ways to men, making complicated theses to prove his existence. And meanwhile science decayed, until the Renaissance.

I'm not talking about prose styling - I'm talking about the minds behind the prose.

Worthless to those who do not know or understand God.

The church has not always been clear-sighted in its approach. Culture can never be fully extracted from our existence. By your standard, nobody should ever make mistakes, nobody should ever be forgiven. The church may have been anti-science in the medieval era, but that is hardly true now.



It's not absurd at all. Following your own reasoning, it's not absurd because the Christian god is also a flawed human being - petty, jealous, vengeful, cruel. And it's not absurd because religions are all born from the same place - the human mind - and tell the same story: man's subjection to higher beings. Change the form and the narrative, but it's all the same.

Nope. A comparison between Christianity and the Greek/Roman gods suggests some very clear and significant differences - anybody who has read both closely (I have) can see that the God of the Bible is very different; that He experiences human emotions (though without the taint of sin that humans do) doesn't make him the same as the Greek/Roman gods who had no clear moral code whatsoever; God behaves consistently throughout the Bible in terms of his response to right and wrong. It is only "the same" to those who do not care to investigate closely.


Your guide was invented by tent-dwellers who lived in deserts like animals millennia ago. To choose to follow the advice of an experienced man is sensible; to submit to the authority of an immaterial being invented millennia ago for purposes of finding guidance in a completely different world, is nonsensical.

In your opinion; although if you understood the complexity and cohesiveness of the Bible, you might not assert such a point. Such a work as the Bible reveals itself to be suggests a higher driving force than simply some "tent-dwellers"; to assert such is to reveal how unfamiliar you may actually be with the text in mind.
God is only "immaterial" to you because you have chosen not to believe in him; that is your prerogative. However, to suggest that he does not exist requires you to have exhaustive knowledge of the contents of the universe; I doubt you possess that, so your dismissal carries no more weight than my insistence.



No. All you have to do is obey the commandments and confess. That's how you enter Heaven. You can be as vile as you want all your life, but if confess all is forgiven. If you die a child, you're even luckier: you just need to be baptised. That's why the very Christian Spanish Conquistadores baptised Indian babies right before smashing their skulls.

Untrue. Although there will be people who accept God at the last second, unless it is sincere, it won't count - God knows the human heart to its tiniest molecule - he knows if the repentance is sincere; as well, the human heart can reach a point of no return; living a life of lawlessness carries the risk that the person won't want to come back to God - so it's not quite as easy as you say. The person who desires a relationship with God eventually becomes the kind of person who doesn't want to engage in sinful things - though in truth, we never fully escape sin in this life. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation; it is simply a public affirmation of one's choice - God saves on the merit of the human heart; children (who have not had the chance to make the informed choice or to even understand who God is) are saved by virtue of their innocence - not their works or some water sprinkled on their heads.


Do you know why the Romans hated the Christians? Among other things, because they were a public nuisance. Because whnever a fire broke out, the Roman firemen would fly to the spot and a horde of crazy Christians would try to stop them because it was a sign of the end of the world, the Christian's great obsession! Since the Romans weren't obsessed with the end of the world, they reasonably tried to exterminate these enemies of life. Sadly they didn't succeed.

That some misguided people believed in God doesn't invalidate Christianity any more than some bad cops invalidate the value of a police force; some irresponsible doctors do not invalidate the value of medical professionals. Following God doesn't make you perfect; you are still liable to make mistakes, errors in judgment. Being a Christian doesn't change our humanity. As well, that's a straw man argument - there is far more behind the Roman persecution of Christians than being a "nuisance."



"'Inter faeces et urinem nascimur" (we are born between the feces and the urine) - St. Augustine. That's the Christian view of Man: complete and utter scum. Contempt for us, contempt for our flesh, contempt for our world, contempt for our senses.

Do you note that you have to go so far back for your evidence? The medieval era is generally where those who wish to slam Christianity reside; for some reason, critics of Christianity won't come into the modern era - which I find very unfair; if I judged you only on the things you'd done in your youth (because the medieval church was a young church) you might not think that too fair now either.



If so many people, including very intelligent men, over a long span of time, have debated, distorted and reinterpreted the bible, chances are it's not such a useful thing after all. If A says it means black and B says it means white, the supposed guidance God gives is just a mess from beginning to start and we're better off doing away with it and finding something better.

Hamlet has not been made less relevant and powerful simply because it has been debated, distorted and reinterpreted. Language carries a lot of meaning inside it - and anybody who's studied literature and languages can tell you that the flexibility and ambiguities encoded into words can make interpretation a tricky thing. The Bible is quite valuable - that people have struggled over the centuries to understand it points to its continued relevance. As well, you use the example of opposites - I'd be interested in you providing two interpretations of a passage in the Bible that show a complete 180 degree opposition in terms of interpretation; and, even if you could, that argument is not true for the majority of the book. But either way, you're shifting ground - just because people cannot agree on what a very complex work of writing means, does not invalidate Christianity.



Suffice to say that, if Christianity hadn't curbed medical research during the middle ages, there probably wouldn't have been the Black Death that nearly wiped out Europe's population. But why bother healing the body when it's just vile matter and it's the soul that needs healing above all? The world can burn and rot so long as the immortal soul is safe.

OK - so you're bugged about the medieval period - but is that all you've got? Unless you can show that the errors of the young medieval church are consistent throughout history, then what you're really saying is that the 2000 year history of Christianity is completly invalidated by it's first 500 or so years (conveniently ignoring the fact that - even while science may have faltered - the church still did some good). As such, the correct form of your position is "The medieval church curbed science and intellect and did bad things." I might agree with that - but to generalize that out to all of Christian history (with zero examples outside of the medieval era) weakens the force of your argument.

[Heteronym]

Do you note that you have to go so far back for your evidence?

When arguing, one must come up with arguments to back up one's position. If mine are ancient, yours are non-existing. What arguments have you used rather than just saying, "it's not true"?

But do you want to leave the middles age? Do you want to talk about the Inquisition, which lasted until the 19th century? Do you want to talk about the Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and Hitler? The Catholic Church's support of European dictators like Franco and Salazar?

It's great that you have a pretty good relationship with your god, but sadly Christianity doesn't revolved around your caring, enlightened person. Over the centuries the Christian Church has been a well-documented force of evil, prejudice and anti-intellectualism, with one purpose in mind: to retain its power over men by hook or by crook.

[Redzeppelin]

When arguing, one must come up with arguments to back up one's position. If mine are ancient, yours are non-existing. What arguments have you used rather than just saying, "it's not true"?

What kind of "evidence" would you like? Do you need me to go find/document the countless community/charity actions that churches have taken through the years? Do you need me to cite examples of people's lives that were turned around through their involvement in Christianity? Most of the basis for my responses is predicated on my understanding of the Bible and Christian theology. Generally, those arguing from your position are convinced by no "evidence" that I could provide you. I have challenged your assertions by pointing out the flaws in the assumptions. One need not have "evidence" to point out faulty arguments.


But do you want to leave the middles age? Do you want to talk about the Inquisition, which lasted until the 19th century? Do you want to talk about the Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and Hitler? The Catholic Church's support of European dictators like Franco and Salazar?

Well, you won't find me defending Catholicism, so that's a dead end there; I'm well aware of the catalogue of sins you can amasse against Christianity; the only way your argument works is if you can show that men behave better without it; that Christians have behaved in misguided, inappropriate, atrocious ways does not mean that religion overall is a bad thing; nonetheless, I will be the first to admit that terrible things have been done in the name of God - and just as many terrible things have been done over the years in the name of money, real estate, philosophy, and the pursuit of power. The church should be better - yes; but what escapes the critics of religion is the reality that the world contains evil - and the believers are not immune to its influence. It would make sense - if one investigated Christian theology, for instance, that the Devil's primary target IS the church because it is God's earthly manifestation (or at least supposed to be) of his will. As such, the church has always been, and will continue to be, beset by problems - just as will humanity. Again, you pick out the worst, and ignore the best; that is fallacious arguing because it stacks the deck and ignores evidence to the contrary - evidence that shows that churches still do much good in this world.


It's great that you have a pretty good relationship with your god, but sadly Christianity doesn't revolved around your caring, enlightened person. Over the centuries the Christian Church has been a well-documented force of evil, prejudice and anti-intellectualism, with one purpose in mind: to retain its power over men by hook or by crook.

Religion misbehaves because people misbehave - not due to any inherent flaw in religion itself; the problems come from human beings, and removing religion from the equation will not change that one bit - in fact, without the moral code and requirements that we look out for our fellow man, I dare say that the world would be an emptier, more violent place. Atheist societies (post war Russian, China) reveal quite clearly the cost of eliminating religion.

[Redzeppelin]

PS - as well, "evidence" is a tricky thing because what you and I are arguing cannot be factually "proven." You have a list of examples of misbehavior by various religions - but the only way to "prove" your point would be to eliminate all of them and see if humanity was better off; that's not happening; as well, you make the unprovable assumption that humanity would be better off without them - but none of the atheist-based societies in existence today verify the idea that the elimination of religion improves society in any demonstrable way.

I understand the validity of backing up one's position with arguments, but mine are based in the Bible - and anybody knows that debate must take place on an equal field - the Bible only holds authority in a debate if both parties acknowledge its validity. Since you clearly see it as no authority, quoting it will do me no good because you'll simply attack its credibility.

Really, the attack against all religion in general is a flawed tactic that guys like Dawkins and Hitchens use, but it stacks the deck because it allows them to include fanciful "religions" such as Greek/Roman mythology with religions that still exist and currently practice today. There's a difference; really, such a wide attack is hard to refute because there are certain "religions" that are indefensible; by lumping them all together, you make yourself a comfy position - but it gets much harder once you begin to discriminate and have a narrower, more precise focus.

[Heteronym]

You see, that's the thing: if people are what they are with or without religion, why embrace it? You're correct in saying that countries that forced atheism were violent, but we must remember that these countries were trying to get rid of religion because history had shown that it didn't work either.

And how much of these countries failed because of the historical conditions created by a religious world? Yes, atheism has failed too, but atheism has never had a chance to develop autonomously. Atheists can't start from Year Zero - religion is deeply rooted in society, an atheist society would always be burdened with the cultural baggage of religion.

[Paulclem]

And even supposedly noble and peaceful religions like Buddhism and Hinduism are horrifying. Buddhism preaches that man's path to peace is his own anihilation to avoid the cycle of suffering and rebirth.


Buddhism does not teach this - nor does it teach the opposite - eternalism. The Buddha taught the Middle Way.

[Redzeppelin]

You see, that's the thing: if people are what they are with or without religion, why embrace it? You're correct in saying that countries that forced atheism were violent, but we must remember that these countries were trying to get rid of religion because history had shown that it didn't work either.

The point is this: you may contend that people would be better off without religion; I contend that they would be worse without its mitigating influence. Most major religions advocate social responsibility of some sort - to take care of the poor and disadvantaged, to seek justice, to set a moral example. Your examples are of the "corporate church" but that ought not be confused with the members of that church - who do plenty of good on a much smaller scale - taking care of the sick, their neighbors, and setting a positive example at their jobs.

History has shown the misbehavior of people in high places within religions; that you can prove; you cannot prove that the abstract term religion "doesn't work" because there are examples to the contrary.

And, those atheist countries' "violence" is not due to the eradication of religion - if that was all it were, once the country forced atheism on its people (how nice - guess all that 21st century talk of "tolerance" was just a joke, eh?) then the problems should cease, right?


And how much of these countries failed because of the historical conditions created by a religious world? Yes, atheism has failed too, but atheism has never had a chance to develop autonomously. Atheists can't start from Year Zero - religion is deeply rooted in society, an atheist society would always be burdened with the cultural baggage of religion.

That's a clever argument, but it is unprovable. Atheism contains the seeds of its own destruction because it acknowledges no higher authority than human beings - and because we are selfish and self-interested, that is a recipe for the worst of atrocities.

[lichtrausch]

Atheism contains the seeds of its own destruction because it acknowledges no higher authority than human beings - and because we are selfish and self-interested, that is a recipe for the worst of atrocities.
Countries with a large percentage of atheists in the population are often some of the most prosperous and safe countries in the world. You need look no further than Northern Europe. Far from self-destructing, you could say atheism was flourishing there.

[byquist]

One great person of religious persuasion said "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Religion=freedom.

[lichtrausch]

Religion=freedom.
Sure, if you ignore the millions of people who have been suppressed, demonized, incarcerated, and murdered because of stuff written in "holy" books.

[Virgil]

Why can't people understand that religion is not an easy thing and that it is hard- hence the perception of bondage. At times it feels tight and uncomfortable, but it is the process, the long haul, that one finds freedom.

That's because people want the easy route and just do as it feels. That is a bondage in itself. Good comment. My religion is a freedom for me.

[oshima]

I would say "a religion" is bondage, especially if one becomes fixated on the symbols of a religious tradion. When one dedicates one's mind and/or body to one particular worldview, it can often block doors to intellectual and (seemingly) paradoxically, spiritual growth. "Religion" or, rather the idea of religion as the exploration of the numinous and that which cannot be found through empiricism or logic, can be quite freeing indeed. The "religious spirit" is a mode of perception that is necessary to experience if one wants to explore the entire range of human states of consciousness. I found my own existential sense of freedom through the work of Joseph Campbell though his comparisons of history's myths/religions.

[Theunderground]

I think if religion or atheism are 'forced',coerced or bullied into being the 'truth' then of course it is bondage. This is why those regimes which insist on a certain 'grand narrative' of the world end up enforcing,oppressing and sometimes killing. Sometimes regimes use quite subtle methods to enforce their ideas,witness modern politicians with their lies and rhetoric.
Conversely,if a person or even group wants to embrace a particular ideology/religion,as long as they are peaceful,so what.
Most wars are over resources,oppression or ideologies.
Personally,i found religion oppressive,prejudicial and dictatorial. But i like the ideas on immortality,sacrifice,love and devotion. But i will put these ideas into practice myself thanks. And religion is a means to an end,not the end. I expect some results in this life otherwise i might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
If god is love,then i will have some of him. But loving my neighbour???????? You have got to be kidding,i will tolerate treat my neighbour and treat them as they treat me,but woe betide if he takes my parking spot...

[Tolga Kobas]

I hate to be brief, believe me I really do, but I should nonetheless go ahead and say that
they are one and the same,
thus religion cannot but be both at the same time.

[YesNo]

I at times feel religion has been a bondage or a fetter to me and I was taught to consider people considering their regions or castes. That was what I was taught by my parents. I was not allowed to marry outside my caste or religion.
Hat there been no religion I would have been free to marry anyone outside my castes. There are too many rituals or rites associated with religions. There are too many dos and don'ts.


If religion doesn't restrict the people your family permits you to marry, race, nationality, close kinship or even gender might.

Religious people can be quite damaging to others. I'm thinking of the couple whom the Taliban stoned to death in northern Afghanistan recently for adultery.

The question that I think the "Lord", however you understand that idea, would ask of us is not so much what did they do to us. In the end, who cares? The real question we'll all be asked is what did we do to them?

[MarkBastable]

One great person of religious persuasion said "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

[The Comedian]

It seems to me like religion is a lot like a rope -- you can use it to tie yourself (or someone else) up in knots or to pull yourself (or someone else) out of a pit.

[BienvenuJDC]

Countries with a large percentage of atheists in the population are often some of the most prosperous and safe countries in the world. You need look no further than Northern Europe. Far from self-destructing, you could say atheism was flourishing there.

Yes...you can say lots of things, but that doesn't make them true. Unless you can document and substantiate, your comments are merely loose words that are meaningless.


Sure, if you ignore the millions of people who have been suppressed, demonized, incarcerated, and murdered because of stuff written in "holy" books.

Actually, there are millions of people who have been suppressed, demonized, incarcerated, and murdered because of EVIL self-serving people. Stalin did not suppress, demonize, incarcerate, and murder in the name of ANY religion. Russia (the Soviet Union) has been oppressing people for decades under godlessness. Let's stop blaming the "holy" books, and focus the blame where it should go....evil individuals.

[MarkBastable]

. Let's stop blaming the "holy" books, and focus the blame where it should go....evil individuals.

He's right, you know. It weakens the atheist argument - which is my argument, incidentally - to blame inhuman acts on the religions to which the perpetrators subscribe, and it's even shakier to imply that a world free of religion would also be free of that kind of inhumanity. It wouldn't. Nutcases and psychopaths will always find a justification.

Atheists shouldn't suggest that in the absence of religion we'd all be braiding daisies in each other's hair, anymore than theists should suggest that a universal adoption of Presbyterianism would put a stop to genocide.

[BienvenuJDC]

It weakens the atheist argument - which is my argument, incidentally - to blame inhuman acts on the religions to which the perpetrators subscribe,

Argument for what?

[YesNo]

Let's stop blaming the "holy" books, and focus the blame where it should go....evil individuals.

The "holy" books were written by individuals. If one is going to spend time criticizing religion, they would be part of the criticism.

There is no need, however, to blame the "evil individuals" or the "holy" books. Evil punishes the evil doer. Karma does its job. There is only the need for understanding, so we don't continue the evil.

For example, I suspect the Christian canonical books of Revelation and the Gospel of John might be worth examining critically with the goal of rejecting the apocalyptic hatred in Revelation and the anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John.

[MarkBastable]

Argument for what?

The argument in support of atheism. Or, to use the adjectival-noun construction, the atheist argument.



There is no need, however, to blame the "evil individuals" or the "holy" books. Evil punishes the evil doer. Karma does its job. There is only the need for understanding, so we don't continue the evil.


If I were to provide a list of evildoers, could you provide evidence of karma doing its job of punishing them?

[BienvenuJDC]

The argument in support of atheism. Or, to use the adjectival-noun construction, the atheist argument.

Why do you have to have an argument to support a non-belief? Are you trying to convert people to atheism? Is it a religion?

[MarkBastable]

Why do you have to have an argument to support a non-belief? Are you trying to convert people to atheism? Is it a religion?

Argument in the rhetorical sense. As in, the argument for not rising to fatuous provocation..

[BienvenuJDC]

Argument in the rhetorical sense. As in, the argument for not rising to fatuous provocation..

Oh...ok, because it was seeming to me that you were defending a doctrine of atheism. Which it seems that so many atheist have committed to do, showing that it has become as much of a religion as any of the others. In fact, it seems that all that atheists seem to do (especially on this site) is engaging in "fatuous provocation". What is the purpose of telling another that their religion and God is false? What harm does it cause the individual to believe?

[MarkBastable]

Oh...ok, because it was seeming to me that you were defending a doctrine of atheism.


I forgive you for misunderstanding.

[Paulclem]

He's right, you know. It weakens the atheist argument - which is my argument, incidentally - to blame inhuman acts on the religions to which the perpetrators subscribe, and it's even shakier to imply that a world free of religion would also be free of that kind of inhumanity. It wouldn't. Nutcases and psychopaths will always find a justification.

Atheists shouldn't suggest that in the absence of religion we'd all be braiding daisies in each other's hair, anymore than theists should suggest that a universal adoption of Presbyterianism would put a stop to genocide.

I think this is very sensible.

[Scheherazade]

What is the purpose of telling another that their religion and God is false? What harm does it cause the individual to believe?This is a true story involving a friend's brother:

He is a very well educated person with an MA but about 15 years ago, he got involved with a sect, which had many followers like himself: well educated, well paid. They believe humanbeings are put on earth by another alien race, who still come to earth regularly to keep an eye on things. The leader of the sect, a lady, claims to receive direct communications from the aliens, and apparently has proofs of these communications. Interestingly enough, the sect requires them to donate a great portion of their income to their cause as well as their time.

If one of your relatives or friends got involved something like this, would you be able to keep quiet and let them "believe"?

[YesNo]

If I were to provide a list of evildoers, could you provide evidence of karma doing its job of punishing them?

No, I can't provide you with any evidence of that. You've got me! They may actually look like they're getting along quite well. :)

But that doesn't mean karma, whatever it might be called, isn't doing its job. The good thing about this reliance on karma is I don't have to worry about trying to punish them and can get on with my life.

It might mean that I am deluded, but I do get to get on with my life.

By the way, thanks for reading and responding to my comment!

[sports24x]

for some people it may be bondage..for some it may be freedom..it's just ur way of accepting it..

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Bondage.

[Whifflingpin]

Climbing frame or cage - it's just a matter of perspective

[Ecurb]

Equally important, to the masochist is bondage religion or freedom?

[Paulclem]

I think the question is not phrased very well. It can be either, clearly, depending upon individual circumstances. Yet the question looks for a final answer, which can't be supplied. All you essentially get is a yes it is, no it isn't situation.

It's no good saying yes it is bondage and presuming because of your - and my - limited experience that we are right. Some people view religion as a set of strictures that stop people from doing certain things or condemning certain actions. What might be a prohibition to one can just be a cultural norm or a mindset to another. They wouldn't think of doing a certain action, and so it's not a stricture.

A better question would be "what aspects of religion do you think are bondage?" The 10 commandments, for example, contain prohibitions, but no reasonable person would consider thou shalt not kill as a bondage. It would lead to a better debate because just implying that religions are bondage and therefore just bad is neither fair nor accurate. On the other hand, who could claim that every action or idea in a religion is correct?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Some people view religion as a set of strictures that stop people from doing certain things or condemning certain actions.

And religions are more than this how?

[Ecurb]

It's a false dichotomy! Religion is NEITHER bondage nor freedom.

Next question: is religion a worn overcoat, or a new pair of shoes?

[anzki4]

As far as "arrested intellectual development," that claim is not wholly accurate. There is nothing in Christianity (I can only speak for the religion I know) that suggests that ignorance is good and that intellectual development is bad. Anybody who took the time to read even a portion of CS Lewis's work, for instance, would be quite clear on the level of intellect functioning behind his prose.

And yet; what happened to man when he ate an fruit from the tree of Wisdom? Just saying.

[Paulclem]

And religions are more than this how?

I think to answer there has to be specific references. They are not all the same.

Catholocism promotes good works, though in my opinion their views on contraception are misguided.

Jains hold human and animal life as sacred, though you may see the more extreme forms as impractical.

Hinduism's teachings on compassion are positive, though the caste system is oddly uncompassionate.

Buddhism offers a means of self help, though the the extent of the path has been criticised as too difficult.

Christianity offers a supportive sense of help and community, but to some the literal adherence to the Bible is unhelpful.

All the religions have positives and potentially negative aspects. What human activity doesn't

[togre]

Where is the "quest for truth" in all this?

What truly is bondage is to be constrained by false information into a lifestyle or set of rules that doesn't represent reality. To be deceived about what is right and wrong, or good and bad, or desirable and undesirable or what has positive results and what has negative results is a most terrifying thing. To think the world is (that I am) something other that what it truly is is frightening. To be deceived to the point of desiring bondage is the worst part.


What is truly freedom? To understand reality as it is. To call good "good" and evil "evil. To recognize what actions really to bring positive results and what actions do bring negative results. To know what I am and be able to live in reaction to that reality.



Where does religion fit in? Well, religions (at their best) honestly attempt to define reality. Rejection of religion usually is tied in to the same idea. But push comes to shove, reality is what it is. There is only one way to describe it, to define what I am, to define right and wrong/good and evil/desirable and undesirable. To the extent any religious or secular system of thought corresponds to reality it is liberating. To the extent it deviates from reality it is a bondage most perverse.



[As a side note, I am a Christian. I am convinced that the teachings of the Bible describe (and reveal) the actual nature of the world and of me. I think as a logical corollary that any teaching different than these are wrong or incorrect, no matter how well-intentioned, smart or nice the people who originate or embrace them are.]

[Paulclem]

There is considerable contention abut what is truth and reality, and thus what the actual quest for truth is according to religions.

[naphelge]

Why is it necessary to introduce ourselves thru religions? Can we not have our separate and independent identity other than religious?
I think, for my understanding of religion it is like AA, they provide people who share the same fears comfort in numbers. I think it is why the idea of death is so feared, because it involves nobody else except the individual. There is no comfort of sharing the experience with someone else and taking solace in the fact you will have company if it is not the experience you imagine, whatever you image death to be.

I think religions are a crutch for people not yet ready to stand on their own and find that truth resides within, but also resides within all that is nature. Trancendental sort of approach, except I am partial to the Buddhist idea that we need to let go of all attachments, including all ideas of self in order to free ourselves from suffering.

In the end it is not the AA group that stops drinking but the individual; however, until the individual alcoholic is ready to face an alcohol-free life with the support of his peers, the AA group is a necessity in his life. And so it goes with religion, except religions (again in my opinion) unscrupulously prey on people's fears in order to justify their existence. Although not quite the same, it is similar to the fireman who starts fires in order to justify, perhaps more vainly or simply for the rush of being in danger, his existence. I am sure there is a better analogy than that, but that is what comes to me at this moment.

cheers,
nap

[scotta.clark]

Religion is neither bondage nor freedom, it is just to restrict you from doing wrong and save you from sin.

[Propter W.]

For me, definitely bondage. I'm sure that it's the opposite for many.

[ralfyman]

It's both, together with many other types of human thought.

[Buh4Bee]

It is freedom, if you can figure out how the religious system works. The issue is individuals think of freedom incorrectly. When you figure out the religious system, you will experience a sort of freedom that opens you up and allows you to experience inner peace with the world. This allows for good works to happen through you. I don't really understand it myself, but I have experienced moments here and there. It is a better "high" than anything else that keeps the motivated searching for it.

[G L Wilson]

Religion is deceitful, and not a little hateful.

[Paulclem]

Religion is deceitful, and not a little hateful.

That's too broad, bland and unspecific.

In this scientific age, we tend to forget that religions in general have enabled many people to become more compassionate, charitable and understanding of the human condition.

These things are really like the gold of humanity, but it tend to have little currency in popular conception. Small acts of kindness, charity and goodwill pass unnoticed everyday, whilst the big problems and disputes that only touch us intellectually to do with politics, religion and their organisations are what we may base our views on.

Babies and bathwater comes to mind.

[G L Wilson]

That's too broad, bland and unspecific.

In this scientific age, we tend to forget that religions in general have enabled many people to become more compassionate, charitable and understanding of the human condition.

These things are really like the gold of humanity, but it tend to have little currency in popular conception. Small acts of kindness, charity and goodwill pass unnoticed everyday, whilst the big problems and disputes that only touch us intellectually to do with politics, religion and their organisations are what we may base our views on.

Babies and bathwater comes to mind.

I agree that it is unspecific; but once one begins judging things, that sort of thing becomes par for the course. If I may be allowed another try, hopefully a more specific attempt. He who is congenial doesn't really exist. That's all, that's all I've got to relate here. To me, it is a truth. To you, how could it be a truth? It must be a falsehood. To me, the truth comes freely. To you, the truth is a necessity, a trifle to be toyed with. One of us is serious, the other is a child; and never the twain shall meet when there is truth to be told. This is all opinion.

[Paulclem]

He who is congenial doesn't really exist.

This is all opinion.

agreeable, suitable, or pleasing in nature or character: congenial surroundings.

suited or adapted in spirit, feeling, temper, etc.; compatible: a congenial couple.
.
From dictionary.com

I'm not sure why you choose the word congenial except that you perhaps mean that religions and humans don't go together well.

I agree that aspects of the human world - religion and power for example go together very badly, but there are lots of positive examples of charity and compassion from individuals and some organisations.

Perhaps you mean that the religious worldview doesn't sit nicely with the scientific worldview? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you are still too unspecific.

[G L Wilson]

The world is not so bad, it's people that tick me off.

[Paulclem]

The world is not so bad, it's people that tick me off.

My own view is that religion is mainly a personal thing, and that it can offer a different perspective to the usual. If people are stuffing it down your throat then your view is understandable. People like that tick me off too.

[G L Wilson]

My own view is that religion is mainly a personal thing, and that it can offer a different perspective to the usual. If people are stuffing it down your throat then your view is understandable. People like that tick me off too.

I am not trying to shove anything down your throat, I am trying to make you understand how you look to an outsider.

[Paulclem]

I am not trying to shove anything down your throat, I am trying to make you understand how you look to an outsider.

No you misunderstand me. I didn't think you were. I meant religions shoving their teachings down your - or my throat.

I'm intrigued though. How do I look, and why are you an outsider? How do you know I'm not too?

[G L Wilson]

No you misunderstand me. I didn't think you were. I meant religions shoving their teachings down your - or my throat.

I'm intrigued though. How do I look, and why are you an outsider? How do you know I'm not too?

You seem spiritual, that would make you an outsider from the Church. I am a materialist. I'm out in the cold.

[Paulclem]

You seem spiritual, that would make you an outsider from the Church. I am a materialist. I'm out in the cold.

Thanks.

I'm not a Christian - Buddhist in the UK - so I am an outsider from the Christian church. I've never been an insider either, but I can see the positives and negatives of the church and other religions.

Open mindedness is best whatever we are.

[G L Wilson]

Thanks.

I'm not a Christian - Buddhist in the UK - so I am an outsider from the Christian church. I've never been an insider either, but I can see the positives and negatives of the church and other religions.

Open mindedness is best whatever we are.

The Buddha once made a joke about metaphysics, only one bloke got it. It was a very good joke too.

[Paulclem]

The Buddha once made a joke about metaphysics, only one bloke got it. It was a very good joke too.

I'd like to hear it. I'm not saying I'll get it though.

[G L Wilson]

I'd like to hear it. I'm not saying I'll get it though.

It was a joke against Buddhist metaphysics, so you may get it. It is in the scriptures there somewhere.

[Paulclem]

It was a joke against Buddhist metaphysics, so you may get it. It is in the scriptures there somewhere.

Ok. :D

[G L Wilson]

Type 'mahakashyapa' into a search engine, Clem, and see what you get. This might spoil the joke, I hope not, it hit me as funny fast. But then I am a heathen.

[Paulclem]

Type 'mahakashyapa' into a search engine, Clem, and see what you get. This might spoil the joke, I hope not, it hit me as funny fast. But then I am a heathen.

Thanks mate. Of course I didn't get it! It made me smile though.

[G L Wilson]

Religion counts as a 'limited freedom' (Erasmus), and in that respect we've all got religion.

[Atehequa]

The world is not so bad, it's people that tick me off.


Ha ! I've found myself saying that on a few choice occasions.

Not part of mainstream religion as it seems rather binding, especially the Big 3 monotheistic faiths. In their religious text woman is created by man. For me, life on earth all came from the Mother. I really don't know exactly why and when a single male deity became God, but that belief seems to of come from the Middle East an area that has always had terrible problems.

[Calidore]

I tend to see religion as a tool, as people tend to use it to suit their aims, good or bad. Look how many different Christian branches there are, all from the same Bible. And even within the labels, everyone's an individual, and no two people worship or live exactly the same way.

A bandage can be used to heal, to bind, or to strangle. Religion also.

[blithe spirit]

Is religion bondage or freedom?

It depends on which religion. Some religions (like Islam and Jehovahs Witness) believe you must work your way to eternal life through good works and knocking on doors...that's bondage. Romans 11:6
Other religions (like Christianity) only require believing and eternal life is a free gift for the believers...that's freedom.
Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:8

When the devil holds us captive to do his will...that's bondage.
2Timothy 2:26

Anyone who commits the same sin over and over is a slave to sin...that's bondage
John 8:34 and 2Peter 2:19 and Romans 8:34

Fear of death (versus eternal life) is bondage
Hebrews 2:14, 15

Spiritual death is bondage.
Romans 7:24

[G L Wilson]

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
Romans 8: 8

What utter rubbish!

[blithe spirit]

Hi GLWilson, I don't think you understand what "in the flesh" means. It's not referring to our physical body but rather that part of us that is alienated from God. It's the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that refuses correction, and wants nothing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It's that part of us that wants to be the center of the universe and doesn't want to be told what to do. The flesh wants whatever is forbidden.

[G L Wilson]

Hi GLWilson, I don't think you understand what "in the flesh" means. It's not referring to our physical body but rather that part of us that is alienated from God. It's the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that refuses correction, and wants nothing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It's that part of us that wants to be the center of the universe and doesn't want to be told what to do. The flesh wants whatever is forbidden.

I think that it means a bit more than that, it is definitely inhuman.

[Atehequa]

Hi GLWilson, I don't think you understand what "in the flesh" means. It's not referring to our physical body but rather that part of us that is alienated from God. It's the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that refuses correction, and wants nothing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It's that part of us that wants to be the center of the universe and doesn't want to be told what to do. The flesh wants whatever is forbidden.

Ahhh, the surrendering of any wild free will. What's next, a fenced-in pasture and bleating for bland fodder like the rest of the flock ?

Under the ever watchful eye of a shepherd who has a taste for mutton.

[G L Wilson]

"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
Friedrich Nietzsche

The soil is a fit place for a man to rest his fingers.

[Ecurb]

"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
Friedrich Nietzsche
.

“In hell, all the missing people are interesting.” - Me

[G L Wilson]

“In hell, all the missing people are interesting.” - Me

Hell is empty, Ecurb.

[Ecurb]

And all the people that aren't there are interesting.

[G L Wilson]

You really ought to study your own theology, buster.

[Ecurb]

You really ought to study your own theology, buster.

Which theology is that? You are leaping to unwarranted conclusions -- althoug I agree that everyone should study his own theology.

[G L Wilson]

Which theology is that? You are leaping to unwarranted conclusions -- althoug I agree that everyone should study his own theology.

I have no theology, no prophet, and no profit. I am still as innocent as the day that I came into the world.

[blithe spirit]

GL Wilson, I think the Holy Spirit is working on you...just an observation since I keep seeing your name in every relgious thread. You're in the Religious section more than anywhere else in the forum.The fact that you post nothing but negativity regarding religion tells me you actually find it interesting and even love the idea of it...but are trying to fight your attraction because of fears. Why else would you be spending so much time in the religious threads daily? Think about it.

[blithe spirit]

Hi GLWilson, I don't think you understand what "in the flesh" means. It's not referring to our physical body but rather that part of us that is alienated from God. It's the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that refuses correction, and wants nothing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It's that part of us that wants to be the center of the universe and doesn't want to be told what to do. The flesh wants whatever is forbidden.

I think that it means a bit more than that, it is definitely inhuman
How about backing up your comment as it really doesn't say much.
Thank you.

[Ecurb]

I have no theology, no prophet, and no profit. I am still as innocent as the day that I came into the world.

Are you familiar with the concept of original sin?

[G L Wilson]

Are you familiar with the concept of original sin?

I am, and I have no truck with it.