If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Look at her eyes! It's like she's high on Jesus.
Of course everybody believes what they want to believe. I meant an individual who doesn't choose to believe in a highly-followed faith probably wouldn't have the same level of belonging.
Following a particular set of beliefs that happen to be shared by millions of others, and having the free will to choose what you believe, are not mutually exclusive.
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."
Even further proof: in the Fourth Century a group of Christian monks emerged called Pelagianists which, in short, stated that humanity could save itself without the aid of God by being morally correct in everything. They followed every 'rule' to the letter, being very strict. And guess what? The Church considered Pelagianism as heretic, because it opposed precisely what is stated above, ie morals alone will not save you.
So, returning to the original point, religions do not consider themselves to be morally superior to others, it is more about beliefs in after-life, and what they believe will 'save' you. These are not morals. They are related, but it *isn't* them. And btw, if you look at 'moral codes' of different religions, you'll find that generally, they are quite similar in principal values (like compassion and peace). Obviously there are fundamentalists who deviate from the original intention of their religions, but they are a minority. Sadly though, they are the ones who get the attention from the press, so then the rest think they are all like that, and the generalisations begin. And then all the regular followers are tarred with same brush. Imo, this is where the conflicts arise, in the misunderstanding of the other's religion (which is very linked to the misunderstanding of the other's culture, which is a big source for conflict), not in the religions themselves (as not in the cultures themselves).
Well, badly dropped then becuase it isn't true. At least for Christianity, which I think you are alluding to by mentioning the burning in hell bit. Christians believe that any person of good will can be saved if they are willing to be, even non-Christians. This is in the Catholic doctrine. (I'm not sure about the rest of Christian churches, but my bet is that it's also there.) I agree it's what happened in the past, but inter-religious dialogue has advanced a great deal, and now-a-days, it's not like that anymore.
I don't really want to get into the intricacies of any particular religion, but my focus on the moral aspect was really just to illustrate the difference between religion and my other example of science. In your examples, there is still a clear sense of right and wrong (i.e. acts that bring you closer to God). If not, I could commit any act I wanted, and as long as it is was done with love for God and in God's name, I would be 'saved'.
And just as a side note, moral codes for major religions are similar because moral codes for almost all humans are similar, and religions are a by-product of inate human morality.
To put it in other words, moral codes in religion are subordinated to faith. It is on this level that religions differ, not on a moral level.
Well, then there would be no reason for different religions to assume their moral code is the best then, would there (as they're all very similar)? :yeees:
Why not? Is it because when faced upon deeper knowledge of a religion you realise you don't have the ground to debate? If you are making a point then you should be able to back it up (with accurate information). If you are going to talk about religions, get to know them first.
Please enlighten me that they(countries and races) do. Just more organised religion in my eyes.
People always talk about 'organised religion' as if Christian extremism and Muslim extremism are the only forms of religion out there. Baha'i is one of the world's newer religions and believes that all paths to God are right... basically a universal unity of hearts and souls. They do not believe in sexism or racism or sexism and are very active in human rights campaigning and helping those in poverty. Are you goingto tar those with the same brush?
The Quakers? What is your opinion on them? I would hardly say that they believe in moral superiority, in fact (in my opinion) the Quakers are probably the coolest Christiansout there.
Jainism is a religion (from India I think) that believes in the equality of all living creatures and as reguards human beings, the equality of each of us reguardless of sex or race or religion. It is a religion known for its tolerence and non-violence.
I often wonder if people who speak of the evil or intolerence of religion have even heard of the Quakers, of Baha'i, or of Jainism. By making a sweeping statement like the one above you are painting out anybody who adopts a religious lifestyle as evil. The above statement talks about moral superiority... I think the writer should read in to some Buddhism on that one. Again the idea of hell... As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), but very few religions actually believe in hell. A lot of eastern religins have concepts of reincarnation, transmigration and so on...
At least in my opinon by branding all 'organised religion' as unjust or evil, you are doing exactly what a lot of the people you hate are doing. You are saying "I am right and you are wrong", creating an "us and them" ethos. is it not the idea of "us and them" or "right and wrong" that truelly divides people? Rather than religion itself.
Surely you like to spend time with people who share the same opinions as you on certain matters.
You didn't answer all my questions by the way,what do you think of the religions I mentioned and do they fit in with the model of what organised religion is that you proposed.
That's not true.