politics does
education does ish
literature does
institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?
does religion/God give people a voice?
politics does
education does ish
literature does
institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?
Last edited by cacian; 08-04-2013 at 08:28 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
When you are on high cacianate zolpidem, it might take on a personality and you can hear the voice.
Sure it does. I take lots of inspiration from Liberation Theology. It's one of the main reasons I returned to Catholicism.
Do you remember El Salvador? Certainly one of the most admirable deeds of the Catholic church.
If I remember correctly there once was a man named Gandhi who found his voice through religion.
Very much more the latter than the former.Originally Posted by cacian
That's pretty much why the Roman church is still sexist and homophobic.
I think The Kid is confusing religious people being able to have a voice. Of course they do, as he notes with Gandhi, and I'll throw in MLK as a bonus.
But does religion listen? No.
The litmus test would be how quickly religions change, and going by the Romans and their issues above, the literalists who would have us teach creationism, the outright lunacy of the Westboro church, the insane Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, and sharia law itself, I don't think there could be much argument that religion listens very, very infrequently.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you will need religion.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
I don't think this is true since (in my opinion) religion itself is not a bad thing. It is only religious institutions that sometimes convince people to do bad things, but I think this is true of any large organization, be it political or religious.
Plus there are not really any 'good' or 'bad' people, most are just somewhere in-between where they'll respect and follow their morals until it becomes too difficult.
i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes it also tells the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk. he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind their close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles.why so many men or women congregate together in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky.
i believe religion also encourages the majority to care for no one but one being.
religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking. it is off putting.
religion's primary purpose is to teach people to become lazy intellectually.
Last edited by cacian; 08-23-2013 at 02:34 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
So, if they have no significant impact, what's the point in arguing against them? Cacianate Zolpidem? Don't be ridiculous.
I think The Kid is confusing religious people being able to have a voice. Of course they do, as he notes with Gandhi, and I'll throw in MLK as a bonus.
But does religion listen? No.My friends, there is something that I am saying that you seem to not hear. I am not confused; I have personal experience in this matter.i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes it also tells the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk. he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind their close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles.why so many men or women congregate together in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky.
i believe religion also encourages the majority to care for no one but one being.
religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking. it is off putting.
religion's primary purpose is to teach people to become lazy intellectually.
My parents raised me as a Catholic since a little kid, but as I got older I lost faith in the church because of the institution's stubbornness. Anyone can see there are serious problems with it, and my personal life was directly affected by the Church's viewpoints on homosexuality and its lack of action on many social issues. So for a while I was almost totally detached from my religion because I figured it was stale. I thought there is no place in the Church for a person like me.
Then eventually I realized a great truth. Religion does in fact give voices to people who have none. I mean, there are so many examples, but I always like the quote of the Greatest Commandment: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself". This for me sums up most religions.
Christian religion specifically is based on the worship of Christ, who was in fact a great missionary who himself gave voices to the voiceless. He served the lowest classes of society and advocated for social change. He established a tradition of human brotherhood that is central to Christian beliefs. There is a long line of servants that follows this tradition, not all of them Christian.
More modern examples are as I mentioned the Catholic church in El Salvador during the civil war. The people were suffering, being slaughtered by the thousands, and the world stood by. Some institutions like the pinche United States government even helped the oppressors. Only the Catholic church within El Salvador was brave enough to help the people. As a result the church there was oppressed too, and the Archbishop was even assassinated. But the Church gave the people hope; it wasn't just a church, it was the church of the people.
Catholic religion at least, I don't know about others for certain but I also suspect, does not tell people to "bury their heads in the sand". Rather it calls them to action. The times people do not listen to the calls are the times of misinterpretation, not of bad morals.
As for that man named Gandhi, well, you might know his story. But you seem to treat him as a nonviolent revolutionary who happened to have religion, but whose great accomplishments are not related to religion. No; his great successes were because of religion. His entire philosophy of nonviolence comes from religion, as was his sustaining faith that his people could overcome struggle. I mean, he developed a whole philosophy based on religious principles.
----------->The point I'm trying to make is that religion at its core encourages values that empower people and give them hope and connect them to their fellow humans. People like Dr. King or Gandhi are not just examples of religious people having voices, they are religious people who correctly implemented the basic principles of their religions. In cases where religion leads to oppression, it is the result of people misinterpreting those inherently good principles. Cases where religion leads to freedom, such as Liberation Theology or Civil Rights movements, it is the result of people doing things right. <-------------
Once I realized that there was a place in religion for those who believe in humanity, I returned to the Catholic faith. It is far from perfect, but I am now an active member who advocates for reform based on the basic principles that we believe in - compassion, humanity, and loving your neighbor as yourself, because your neighbor is God.
I know I could explain this clearer, but it's Friday night and I'm damn tired from the week. Sorry for the somewhat haphazard explanation.
Your post is only true when you use the teachings of the bible selectively. It endorses slavery and the oppression of women. The other point to keep in mind is that your moral compass has no relevance if it conflicts with gods. If he asked you to sacrifice your son who cares whether it is morally right or wrong since to do his will as a supreme show of faith is what matters. Where is your voice then?
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
ay I wish not to argue but to value idea for another and since religion does not enquire but reliar then I am simply saying that religion and intellect do not mix.
having to approve of one another is one thing but having to spend time and effort signifying with a being I cannot feel see or even hear does make me ponder where the mind wander. I might as well chase the light. that is all.
Last edited by cacian; 08-24-2013 at 10:37 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Precisely. You don't have to signify with what you can't meet. But any statement is fundamentally begging for further statements, arguments. Valuing is arguing.
Meanwhile, avoiding answering the question.
In what way does the Catholic or Southern Baptist church give voice to gays? And in the case of the RCC, women? They still don't have a single woman priest, let alone voice in the Vatican. You can make up all the assertions you like, but the fact remains that by far the largest christian church is a total and abject failure at giving voice to homosexual or female concerns.
That's one example, sure. But I'll counter it with Ireland, where the Catholic church was not just giving covert support to the IRA terrorists, but also provided actual information channels through church personnel.
For every individual case you can find that the church has helped voice concerns of real worth, I'll give you 10 on the opposite side of the coin.
I will grant that the new pope may change things, because it's blindingly obvious from his own speeches on poverty and forgiveness that he completely accepts the church is nowhere the perfect organisation it sells itself as.
Nobody treated him as anything as far my reading of the thread shows - if I missed something maybe you could point me to it.
It's also irrelevant as it one man, not the church. Do we credit the church with Desmond Tutu's Peace Prize, or the man?
I bet you can type all of that without feeling a bit of the irony in saying it when your own church actively discriminates against homosexuals and females.
The explanation was perfectly coherent; you were just wrong.
Last edited by The Atheist; 08-25-2013 at 12:47 AM.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Religion is multifarious. The church I sometimes attend has a female minister and other churches of its kind have homosexual ministers. It is also one of the very largest church denominations in my country. My extensive reading of Buddhist literature offers no indication that females or homosexuals are discriminated against in that religion, though I won't state that this is universally and categorically the case. The Christians I know most intimately tell me that to them no church is perfect and in fact most of them are corrupt and furthermore that the true reality of their faith is a personal connection between themselves and God, aided by their reading of the scriptures, interpreted by their own reason and conscience.
The individual determines the nature of the religious adherent as often as religious adherence shapes the nature of the individual.
Ignorance is prevalent in monotheistic religion but it isn't prevalent enough in my opinion that we can write those religions off entirely. Through confirmation bias you can find cause to condemn anything. Christians and Muslims can play that game as well and offer much evidence against atheism. Honest objectivity precludes generalizations.
“To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
How do you offer evidence against an experience? If someone says they believe/disbelieve it's impossible to prove. However the claim a god exists requires proof and an atheist is simply someone who doesn't accept that proposition for lack of evidence. When there is evidence to back the claim many will be happy to review their position.
I'm still looking for Purple Unicorns...
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
