Flowered, 99 percent of religious affected is really only pertains to level One of the demonstration by Kohlberg. Would You agree? All the other ones are mere backed up reasons for that.
The grand Inquisitor realizes that religion has lost the power to convince of the other conventional and
post conventionalmodes.
Well here is the funny part… Good isn’t objective. It’s just another thing we made up to express ourselves, just like religion…and it doesn’t do that well for us either, it just adds to the typical stereotyping and judging attitudes, people abuse it… just like the abuse nearly everything. Yes, but those things that people do, the rituals… are meaningless, there is no point except to express oneself… it doesn’t have anything to do with what the Buddha actually taught… People after Buddha added that in and made it up… the “agents” just twisted and added things that they wanted or deemed “good”. It defeats the entire purpose of what the Buddha taught if you worship him… he taught to worship yourself, and life in general… not a one man or entity.
Not sure if I will have time to watch the video, but I read the title… and it pretty much sums up “How to get to heaven as a Hutterite.” that’s kind of typical religion as well… making promises/deals in order to have someone act a certain way… that’s a form of manipulation and control. People should ACT good because it’s moral and just… Not because of a deal to get into Heaven… that’s the ENTIRE point of which why religion is flawed and should just be done away with in general, because people don’t need to be comfortable and rely on something in order to survive, they should just survive and do what is best for the society, not what is always in their best interest.
Best interest = Wanting to go to heaven. What has to be done = Be good and just. See how that is wrong or no? There should be no deal or promise in order to be good, people should be regardless.
Religion is contradictory to the core. “Be free! but follow these rules in order to get here.”
A religious society is better for domesticated males. A non-religious society is better for domesticated females. But no society is better for undomesticated males and females.
For undomesticated, more “wild” males and females, religion is not a concern. Mysticism and spiritual can flourish in a wild environment. But it maybe irreligious.
Religion is safer and coincides with civilization…safe areas for temple structures, comforts, study, keeping books and libraries, etc.
Religious lifestyle (introversion, indoors, studying, books) is not suited for wild, untamed environments.
Wild environments demand austerity, physical labor, interacting with severe weather. It’s harder to read and write during a hurricane.
You mean? 
auos: I argue that religions is a force for good. and there are lots of examples.
I’m not going to tell you what I mean. You’ve already discovered it. You just need to remember it.
So take a coin out of your pocket and have a good look at it.
Two sides = chance.
Talking of coins, Jesus showed a coin with Ceasar on one side, …Give unto Ceasar, what is due to him, and to God, what is His due…
Doesen’t this allude to the solvation of the duality of thinking processes? His existence solved it-The Holy Trinity.
It is not that Man has no purpose, he has no
appearing purpose, without God. God is as necessary
to Man,as the air he breathes.
Without God, man does not have a conscience, and
as soon as consciousness follows self awareness, a
need for a conscience follows. A conscience has to be based on an objective, (to do right), and the substantiation of that objective has to be God.
Without God, this whole semiology falls apart.
You mean the hutterites are a good society only due to chance?
Artimas,
I don’t come from the mind of a gambler, Artimas, at least not literally speaking. So “chance” has nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m writing about here,
But of course, a gambler could think in that way,
But, I would suppose that if you stretch your imagination or mind a bit more, one can see the correlation between “chance” and “belief”…even coming from a religious aspect.
above us only sky,
I have no idea who they even are - and it was Artimas who used the word ‘chance’ - not moi.
But I do think that your question might be a good one. What part does chance play in something being good or beneficial? Maybe you can start a new thread.
But that’s not what I was referring to.
But it’s possible that you already understand and observe the coin and perhaps it was only because you left one or two other important words out of your statement that changed the thought - at least for me. So maybe it was me who misunderstood your thinking.
I argue that religions is a force for good. and there are lots of examples.
Faith and belief can be associated with chance, because what one believes may not always be how it turns out. Thus it’s chance to believe it fully.
I don’t gamble either, but I know that chance plays a part in a lot of different things. It has to do with the influencing of which leads to cause.
Then what 's the difference between a Jesus society and a religious society?
I don’t think the goal of any religion is morality but morality is used by religions (or any other social system) to achieve the desired goal.
A Jesus society in my book would be one which governs and lives according to the teachings of Christ - love compassion forgiveness altruism, et cetera. Most so-called religious societies or Orders like the Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, et cetera, would be “Jesus” societies.
Broadly speaking, any group which adheres to Christ’s teachings even if secular could be considered a Jesus society - even if they simply meet in the park and discuss Christ…no special affiliation necessary.
A religious society wouldn’t necessarily have to have Christ as its main focal point. Religious - religare - which means to bind up. Druidism might be a religious society in this sense.
Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Would that be the Jews, or the Palestinians?
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
In other words all the cruelties and bigotry in the OT is good
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
That’s you legal protection out of the window!
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Bodily mutilation!! make sure you don’t commit adultery or fornication!!
8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
8:23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
Either we have zombie undertakers, or the dead are going to make the place a bit untidy and unsanitary.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
That’s family values out of the window.
Shall I go on? I imagine this is going to fall on deaf ears.
PS Sapere Aude back to you. You want to try it sometime.
No, a religious society is not a ‘better’ society. Your argument assumes three fallacies:
i) that a secular society is less moral because there is more dishonesty
ii) a religious society is a ‘better’ society because it is more moral
iii) a divine authority is unchanging and succeeds the bounds of human institutions
i) I have experienced a noticeable difference in morality, trust and honesty between secular and religious societies favoring secularism as more moral, productive and helpful. Your terminology is going to prove to be a great loss to your argument in its entirety. Religious societies are bound to your definition of being distinct, individual societies which are taught at youth that the divine authority is all-powerful, unchanging, succeeds human institutions and always acts in the individual’s favor to benefit society and the individual. This hypocrisy has proved to be and continues to exemplify why secularism is a step in the right direction. When a society is greatly supported and defined by its religion, there tends to be an extreme amount of prejudice feudalism against diverging belief systems or other religious societies. The crusades, The divergence between Avignon and the Vatican, the Lutheran reformation, the troubles in Ireland; all have maintained some weight in realizing religious feudalism. Thousands, perhaps millions of people, have died and been taken advantage of because of religious societies. I’m not stating that secularism has not taken lives and manipulated individuals, I am stating that religious societies have carried out the same atrocities which you assume occur more often, and may only occur, in a secular society.
ii) The idea of a ‘better’ society seems to me completely irrational. In this declaration, you have assumed for yourself a position which tries to measure all of religious vs secular societies from a biased point of view. How can we possibly measure if this or that is better than one another when both positions have obvious and not-so-obvious consequences which have been intended and unintended. Not only is morality a touchy subject in-itself, but measuring the quality of any given society based on its moral standpoint(s) in history always seems to ignore the quality of the contrary.
iii) The numerous religions which have proved negative through feudalism, hypocrisy and repression also tend to devalue the human as an individual. As we have evolved through time, our beliefs diversify, and as they diversify, they become less significant in defining who we are as a whole society and focus more on the individual’s personal beliefs and behaviors. When an individual is forced to ask who she is and what her personal beliefs and behaviors should be, she is given a chance to not only take an objective standpoint within a multitude of possible belief systems but exemplifies the freedom to have individual beliefs which religious societies tend to apprehend and repress. Individuals who wanted an individual perspective and the freedom to hold personal beliefs that may be divergent from popular opinion or the church which represented the society that individual is living in, tended to hold beliefs that were not limiting but liberating for others who wanted to think for themselves. The diversifying of beliefs and the rise of autonomous morality ultimately proved divine authority to not be unchanging. The assumption that a divine authority succeeds human institutions is absurd; in fact, divine authorities have always been sanctified through human institutions (courtrooms, extravagant worship facilities, constitutions of various countries). In theory, religion and a perfectly moral religious society is a fantastical concept which wishes the best for humanity which succeeds to achieve a benevolent eternity. However, in practice, religious societies have maintained feudalism, hypocrisy and repression of the individual’s cognitive need to establish autonomous beliefs.
In conclusion, I wouldn’t have been able to write this reply without being punished if we were living in a religious society.
^ Well said.
There are many possible critiques we can levy against secular (modern, postmodern) societies, but regardless of this it is the case that religious societies are far worse and open to far more criticisms.
Secularism is an expression of a natural evolution in subjectivity, consciousness and thought. Note that each of these three areas captures a slightly different angle on this evolution; and as new forms spring into existence as a consequence of evolution there will also be new problems associated with these forms. The mere fact of this is in no way an argument against these forms or against evolution. And anyway even if you were to argue against evolution it wouldn’t matter, because such an argument would be by definition irrelevant to the reality it aims to critique.
Seeing through religion for what it really is represents progress. Sure there are some good things about religion and some bad things about modernism/secularism, but the point still holds true. Religious people would spend their time better by trying to rescue whatever it is in religion that they like and working on how to successfully import these things into modern secular society.
Lev Muishkin,
I suppose that you do have a point. I might have said “ought to” live by or adhere to. But not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are those who I cited above who do live according to their beliefs, whether or not we believe in Christ or not, there is still a moral and ethical way in which to live.
I am addressing myself with my Sapere Audi. But it is also a wakeup-call to others.
It’s both a reminder and a process to me.
No, I myself do not agree with this. I could say and do say at times that this is the way in which they thought back then…according to their culture and beliefs, but then again, this is still the way that many think today. It’s based on ignorance/a lack of knowledge and not thinking for one’s self.
I’m laughing but you make sense in a way. I wonder sometimes how we can make God into such an egoistical god where all worship belongs to this god. It must stem from the universal unconscious. That’s not to say that from the viewpoint of those who believe in God, God must be placed first is not such an unreasonable belief but when family, especially, children suffer and are abused and neglected as a result of those beliefs, there is something wrong with that type of love and worship.
When I believed in God, I would sometimes contemplate a scenario where God would tell me to prove love by destroying my children, based on the Abrahan and Isaac myth. I used to think that my belief and love was so weak and actually it was though my inner experiences weren’t, which says a lot about inner religious experience, since there is no way I would have chosen God over my children in any true way that mattered or perhaps it was also because I realized in a sense that if there is a God, this God in no way resembles one made in our own image and likeness.
You ought to know I do not care much for god.
Moral society predates god and will proceed without god.
A religious society is one never to be trusted, as inflexible, and demanding of tradition.
Religion has always weighed heavy due to its inertia; naturally conservative and almost incapable of the sort of modification needed to meet the requirements of a modern fast changing society.
Too many scientists have been burned or gaoled for telling the truth. And those societies that mimic the structures of religion such as Stalin’s Russia and modern North Korea are good examples of how dogma can destroy progress and development.
For our own history - it was only since Locke in Britain and the Revolution in France that the West has managed to progress out of the religious medieval period. Locke’s ideas birthed the USA, and brought tolerance to England.
Tolerance is not a natural feature of organised religion, and in a “RELIGIOUS SOCIETY”, it is all about organization.
When you assert that the heirarchy of religion claim to know the mind of God, nothing good can come of it.