Is being religious harmless?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do admit it, that is why i am instating all those ifs. the problem is that some people only wish to discuss religion without the ifs: the stiff, mindnumbing, fundamental, self blowing in god's name kind of religion. (the bad kind of religion)

You appear to be simultaneously admitting it while claiming that your particular gun (religion) is perfectly safe (ie not 'the bad kind'😉.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that sola scriptura, or Biblical literalism, is adhered to by a minority of Christians -- most of them in the USA. The Catholic, Greek Orthodox, & Coptic churches, among others, not to mention the very flexible Jewish tradition, sensibly reserve the right to interpret their material in no ...[text shortened]... l aspect of your stance for yourself. Your post that I am replying to now is an example of it.

Don't worry, I fully understand that people use their own innate morality to decide which parts of the bible they want to accept, and which parts they'd rather forget. I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that the bible mandates barbarism. The reality of what people actually do has nothing to do with what their religion actually mandates in its core text.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Don't worry, I fully understand that people use their own innate morality to decide which parts of the bible they want to accept, and which parts they'd rather forget. I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that the bible mandates barbarism. The reality of what people actually do has nothing to do with what their religion actually mandates in its core text.

Basically you're saying that your interpretation is the true interpretation. 🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
You appear to be simultaneously admitting it while claiming that your particular gun (religion) is perfectly safe (ie not 'the bad kind'😉.

with the ifs in place.
EDIT: nothing is perfectly safe. mention baby toys and i will remind you of the lead in them.

if you claim that if the possibility of harm coming from a certain action or object exists we should discard that item, like you advise religious people to do with their faith, then i say again that one should not come out of his appartment, interrupt electricity, gas, running water and maybe then he will be safe. but then again even then there is the possibility he will choke on his dinner.


my claim is that if you dismiss something simply because something bad can come from it without even trying to diminish the bad, you are not left with many choices in life(none at all actually)

Originally posted by Palynka
Basically you're saying that your interpretation is the true interpretation. 🙄

Well, I'm interpreting the words to their standard meaning. Like when it says men who lyeth with other men should be stoned to death, I take that to mean that men who lyeth with other men be stoned to death.

Maybe you have a problem with my interpretation??

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
my claim is that if you dismiss something simply because something bad can come from it without even trying to diminish the bad, you are not left with many choices in life(none at all actually)

I fully agree. My concern was that you appeared to be claiming that nothing bad ever came of your form of religion. I see I was wrong.
I also hoped to show that religion even in the form you practice has some fairly seriously bad side effects, but I see I have not convinced you of that.
I was also hoping that others would be able to come up with a list of other bad side effects besides the ones I mentioned. I think scottishinnz did mention one but apart from that I don't think there has been much response.

What was interesting is how people reacted to my initial argument.

Originally posted by Palynka
Basically you're saying that your interpretation is the true interpretation. 🙄

You have another interpretation? Are you saying that the Bible does not say that adulterers should be stoned to death? Or are you saying that part of the Bible is not really part of your religion? If so why is it still there?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree. My concern was that you appeared to be claiming that nothing bad ever came of your form of religion. I see I was wrong.
I also hoped to show that religion even in the form you practice has some fairly seriously bad side effects, but I see I have not convinced you of that.
I was also hoping that others would be able to come up with a list ...[text shortened]... e has been much response.

What was interesting is how people reacted to my initial argument.

one cannot possibly eliminate all the negative effects of an item. there is always something that go wrong. but as i am practising my religion now i see no side effect. i don't pray to god when i should be getting off my ass to do something(in fact i don't pray at all if by prayer you mean asking for something). i don't go to church when i should be going to work. i don't bomb islam or jewish schools. in fact, i think my only contacts with god is to praise(damn, this word sounds so like what religious fundy would say) him for a beautiful sunset or for a particular fluffy kitten. I talk AT God and he never answered back so i guess i have not driven my self into madness either.

I hold God to be like a lazy landlord. he gave you the apartment and you will never see him again. though anything you break is coming out of your deposit in the afterlife adding to the bill you must pay.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have another interpretation? Are you saying that the Bible does not say that adulterers should be stoned to death? Or are you saying that part of the Bible is not really part of your religion? If so why is it still there?

because the people in vatican are on a different calendar. for them the year is still 1800.(perhaps even less)

how much did it took them to recognize the earth was revolving around the sun? i think they didn't admit the earth was sphere-ish until after magellan.

it will take them sometime to get rid of some dogma. which is true for most religions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one cannot possibly eliminate all the negative effects of an item. there is always something that go wrong. but as i am practising my religion now i see no side effect. i don't pray to god when i should be getting off my ass to do something(in fact i don't pray at all if by prayer you mean asking for something). i don't go to church when i should be going t ...[text shortened]... AT God and he never answered back so i guess i have not driven my self into madness either.

But I am not sure if you have yet answered the question that I brought up at the beginning of the thread. Would you let (or by approving of) one of your children marry an atheist or a Muslim or a member of a different denomination than your own? Are you in any way segregative because of your religion?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it will take them sometime to get rid of some dogma. which is true for most religions.

Its been 2000 years for Christianity and even more for Judaism, and I don't see either of them getting rid of any Dogma. In fact they seem to be acquiring more with time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its been 2000 years for Christianity and even more for Judaism, and I don't see either of them getting rid of any Dogma. In fact they seem to be acquiring more with time.

common they did admit the earth goes around the sun. maybe in 400 years they will let catholics use one condom a year and allow the priests to get married.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have another interpretation? Are you saying that the Bible does not say that adulterers should be stoned to death? Or are you saying that part of the Bible is not really part of your religion? If so why is it still there?

Apparently you guys can't let go of literalism.

Yes, the Bible says that. Are Catholics required to obey every word in the Bible? No. How would you interpret something out of Leviticus? With due regard to historical context.

You are insisting, like certain fundamentalists -- the sort who question whether Catholics are 'true Christians' because they don't seem to have the same hermeneutical approach (i.e. they have one) -- that a Christian must take every word in the Bible as coming straight from God. But in fact as everybody knows it was written at different times by different authors with different intentions. It takes a certain amount of creative interpretation to make the Old & New Testament hang together, to say the least, but creative interpretation is precisely what a living tradition requires. Fundamentalism is a sure sign that a religion is moribund.

I don't see why you can't give religion the same leeway as science: to remain open-ended to some extent, to change as new things come to light. You're about as open-minded as Torquemada.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, I'm interpreting the words to their standard meaning. Like when it says men who lyeth with other men should be stoned to death, I take that to mean that men who lyeth with other men be stoned to death.

Maybe you have a problem with my interpretation??

Gee whiz scottie, it's like you think what you read today would have meant the same thing when it was written thousands of years ago.

If you want to interpret stuff, you have to be creative and above all there has to be some point to your interpretation. Here's an example: http://www.trinitymcc.com/worship/sermon_God_gays3.htm

Not a bad effort. Ask yourself what the point of that interpretation was.

Of course the point of your interpretation is solely to attack something that you don't even understand -- not even from a historical viewpoint. I mean, surely you're aware of the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, which pretty much addresses all the 'stoning' laws?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I am not sure if you have yet answered the question that I brought up at the beginning of the thread. Would you let (or by approving of) one of your children marry an atheist or a Muslim or a member of a different denomination than your own? Are you in any way segregative because of your religion?

no. as long as the muslim doesn't force my daughter to wear that sheet ove her head or the atheist forbidding my daughter to present religion as a valid choice of philosophy to their children.

of course in the latter case, maybe my daughter will be an atheist herself so there won't be any problem anyway 😀

i will also not approve my daughter or my son marrying into some sect i believe is wrong(like scientology).


that being said and done, they make their own choices. my job is to give them as many choices and present them with information that would help them make the right one. if given the choice, i would choose to have a hetero son, but would not love him any less if he would be gay.