Forums | MacLife

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior.

Steyr AUG wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior.

How is banning religion, or the mass generalization of its followers being violent and paranoid not the pinnacle of simple mindedness and intolerance?

Well its obviously not a valid policy, so I'm not actually advocating it.

[Tycho?] wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior.

How is banning religion, or the mass generalization of its followers being violent and paranoid not the pinnacle of simple mindedness and intolerance?

Well its obviously not a valid policy, so I'm not actually advocating it.

Are you advocating the mass generalization that the followers of religion are violent and paranoid?

[Tycho?] wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior.

Such a generalization.

Let me quote a little something from a religious text:

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Granted - there are many who prescribe to the religion that holds that text to be sacred, and yet they do not do what is says. All of us are guilty of not doing what it says. However, some strive to do what it says, even when taunted because of it. How is that not a good thing?

Lets just hope we grow out of stupid behavior in general.

resedit wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior.

Such a generalization.

Let me quote a little something from a religious text:

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Granted - there are many who prescribe to the religion that holds that text to be sacred, and yet they do not do what is says. All of us are guilty of not doing what it says. However, some strive to do what it says, even when taunted because of it. How is that not a good thing?

If people, and more importantly groups of people actually followed more of the bible there would be less of a problem. The whole "dont kill" and "love thy neighbour" bits are pretty good advice I think. But then you look at the number of religious wars there have been, and the number of people killed in the name of religion. Maybe they were reading a different part, or something.

Steyr AUG wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Are you advocating the mass generalization that the followers of religion are violent and paranoid?

Haha, good tactic. I like how you discretely edited the quote so that the "violent and paranoid" statement the schnick made is no longer present. Do you see me advocating such a thing? No? Talk to schnick about it, he's the one that said it. When I talk about "behaviour" in my post, I was reffering to more general negative things (since paranoid and violent are not the only things he said).

All quotes were as is, no editing was done. You said "Because religion codifies and encourages such behaviour, and discourages change away from that behavior" If you werent talking about the behavior of being violent and paranoid, what were you talking about?

Schnick was talking about how he though religion was a result of a society, and how societies with certain negative traits would result in religions with certain negative traits. He said what difference would a ban make, and thats when I said my statement. Refering to how religion codifies these negative traits. I'm not talking about christianity here, just religion in general, and throughout history. Very general.

PS: Sorry for the quote thing, I didn't know this forum automatically trimmed quote trees, just seemed convientient. Sorry.

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I personally believe that the way religions are practiced reflect the society in which they exist. If a society is eaten alive by poverty and a persecution complex, the religion will be violent and paranoid; if the society is isolated, ignorant  and homogeneous, the religion will be simple-minded and intolerant.

How would banning it change anything?

Maybe we should ban society then?

ANARCHY NOW!

[Tycho?] wrote:

If people, and more importantly groups of people actually followed more of the bible there would be less of a problem. The whole "dont kill" and "love thy neighbour" bits are pretty good advice I think. But then you look at the number of religious wars there have been, and the number of people killed in the name of religion. Maybe they were reading a different part, or something.

Religious wars are almost always the result of greed. Religion is used as an excuse, just as race and creed are used as excuses for wars. Just like you are using idiots as an excuse for your war on religion.

resedit wrote:

btw - I find it very scary that people who claim to love freedom of thought want to ban religion.
That tells me you don't give a rats ass about freedom, you want to impose YOUR thoughts upon others, and are lying through the skin of your teeth when you talk about freedom of thought.

Is anyone here, as opposed to Elton, arguing such?  Most are weighing the pros and cons, but I don't see anyone saying that elton is spot on.

resedit wrote:

btw - I find it very scary that people who claim to love freedom of thought want to ban religion.
That tells me you don't give a rats ass about freedom, you want to impose YOUR thoughts upon others, and are lying through the skin of your teeth when you talk about freedom of thought.

Who is "you?"