I wonder why you don't answer the question?Originally Posted by cafolini
Why did you post if you don't want to discuss it?
petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track.
What makes what you say any more important?
I wonder why you don't answer the question?
Why did you post if you don't want to discuss it?
petty gossipy, spent stuff that no longer applies, and the sea in a small track.
What makes what you say any more important?
What makes it more impoertant? The evidence in USA, all over the place for those who can see it. And those who cannot, considering the amount of evidence they don't see, will not see it anyway and it doesn't matter. We will even defend the right of people to be blind. That's how beautiful the land of the free and the home of the brave are.
I asked you about the globalisation of freedom, and you responded about just talking about the US.
I also suggested that the prescence of religion has been a symptom of economic success, not poverty. Catholocism grew upon the wealth of the European nations. Your own churches are a symptom of an economically successful country.
The point of religion is for people to cope when they don't have other means.
I was interested in your take on globalisation of freedom in light of the Arab Spring perhaps, or the erosion of religion in industrialised countries.
Globalization of freedom is unavoidable no matter how long it takes, not because we will attack, but because we will be attacked and we have the power to defend it, make it stick, reproduce and evolve.
I assume you are referring to recent revolutions in Libya and interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The difficulty with this is that you assume that your point of view is obvious, irrefutable and a good model for any country to follow. It doesn't take account of history, culture, different religious worldviews or the social structures of particular countries.
I'm not sure why you keep spouting on about the brave and the free. That's all very well, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Most likely there is nothing to add to the discussion.
What discussion was that then? I felt it was a bit one sided.
It was that then.
a chestnut hath many points which maketh it hard to swallow.
To the Bhuddist there may be no point at all. To a Judeo-Christian-Muslim the point is usually not even inquired into. No need to question that which has always been there, is truth because those with a deeper knowledge say so.
There is always someone at the top.
When it all began, someone wrote stuff on parchment or plaster walls, but I question not what they wrote, rather how come they had the education it takes to transfer one's thoughts into scripture. While they scribbled and mumbled awesome sounding prayers, the other poor buggers had to work their whip-worn nuts like crazy, feeding the priests and grafting for the great king.
But they had not the learning so someone decided to tell them what they had written. More often than not such scripts contained many threats and warnings and not a small heap of bull. But if it contained some happy stuff, and soapy stuff, then that made the monsters less frightening.
And if the king wanted many lives ended in some mad attempt to wipe out the neighbours, then get the priests to justify it. Hatred rape and murder are dishes best served with the aid of a jealous all powerful god.
But the unlearned were never allowed access to the understanding. Those shaven headed priests and scribes rarely went hungry. Peace was in the kingdom and all was well in the world. Until someone learned to read what was in the magic books, and began to question. Then the burning and the torture started.
The masses need solice. Eternity has a way of causing utter dread in the mind of mankind. Booze is another excellent seditive - ask old Noah.
What you're talking about here is mainly politics. I agree that the state is bad for religion. When there is someone in power who spouts religion for their own ends - it seems as though it is the religion at fault. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone without power to perceive the motives of the powerful because they are the ones who control the information. It is simplistic to merely blame the religion. It can only manifest in the people who represent it.
To the Bhuddist there may be no point at all.
For the Buddhist, the point is to end suffering.
cafolini, out of pure curiosity, how old are you?
Old, very old. I have already changed my hair from brown to white several times.
this is my personal opinion:
Religion is important to me because it teaches me about who I am, my relationship to the universe, to others. It gives me a meaning that atheism could not give (no offense, I really don't want to spark a religious debate here). Also since my Catholic faith teaches me about a greater being than myself, that I should molds myself according to this greater being, religion helps inspire me to becomes greater than myself, to overcomes life's obstacles, to have faith in myself as well as others. Religion also provides a medium to introduces me to philosophy, literature, culture, in fact I could proudly say I would not be interested in learning anything if it wasn't for the inspiration of religion.
That being said, I guess it's all up to you to say what religion really means.
I wish I could write as mysterious as a cat.
Edgar Allan Poe
Religion is mans attempt to make ' verbal sense of himself,his peers and the world'. It exists naturally as man experiences life and should make sense to himself. The problem is we are brought up with unquestionable dogmas or so called 'scientific laws' which can only be rejected with much emotional derision.Another problem is that though the lifes foremost 'values' can be expressed in words,the actual acting and bringing about of these 'values' is known only by experience fully and also demands effort against the obstacles to realising these 'values' practically. Religion is really mans deepest practical values,but they should be personal and not dictated from a book or imposed by other persons. And finally, the words with which people express their 'religion' may sometimes be allegorical or interposed with the concepts most familar to the persons concerned. This is sometimes why confusions arises about the word 'god' and such like.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote