Tom Sawyer

Ron Singh,

Yes, I think most people who use religion as a tool for violence are taking the path of least resistance. They think they're right and instead of trying to resolve differences like rational people, they kill those who disagree with what they think. It's an easy answer and a simpler solution than trying to convince those people why they're right.

In terms of those who try and convert others and get spat on in the face, some are taking the path of least resistance and trying to save the souls of non-believers because they've been told that's what a good man should do and never questioning why, just blindly obeying ans quoting scripture to heathens. The fact that it may be a noble cause doesn't mean it's not the path of least resistance. Others put a lot of thought and reason into their attempts at conversion and think about their faith and why it's a valid way of life for others. Those people are not taking the path of least resistance, but are working to justify their faith on an intellectual level.

People who devote their lives to something they believe in because they've been told that they should are taking the path of least resistance. People who do so because they've made a serious study of the alternatives, including non-belief, and feel that devoting their lives to their faith is the best solution for them are not taking the path of least resistance, but making what they feel is the best choice given the answers that they've found.

Just because someone makes a deeply devoted commitment to something, be it a commitment for good or evil, doesn't mean he's not taking the path of least resistance. Although it may be physically and emotionally hard for him, or even result in his death, it's the intellectual path of least resistance that is being discussed here.

Also, when you make an argument, please try and back it up with more than 'PuhLEaze'

Jobar

Peteyh, I moving this to the Misc. Religion forum.

philechat

Odemus:

Religious exclusivity is probably the most disgusting aspect of the "Big Three", and is still the source of most of the wars and conflicts on this earth.

Very depressing . "Not to mismate with disbelievers" in this case shows the lack of respect a religious person bestows toward nonbelievers and those of other religions.

Basically, a "those who are not with me are against me" mentality; Xenophobia, antisemitism, racialism, holy wars, etc., all stem from such mentality. Those who are noble and with good character (the ancient Romans and Polynesians, for example) tend to tolerate differences. Close-mindedness is the product of resentment and weakness of character.

In this multi-cultural world, shouldn't we look at things from more than one perspectives?

I do not wish to discredit religions. Let the believers practice what they want, as long as they respect other belief systems. Those who try to dissociate themselves from people of different beliefs are a sorry bunch and I have pity on them.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Odemus

I'm sorry that I disgust you but I can assure you that the Bible in no way encourages religious war.In fact, the Bible expressly teaches humility and respect.

How does following a Scriptural command to marry within the church show a lack of respect to anyone?

I nor anyone in my church, nor any of the believers I have ever known come anywhere near what you are describing.


I do respect everyone. If my intention was to dissociate from people of different beliefs I wouldn't be here.

There is a difference between marriage and association.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

ManM

Hrm... Religion offers a decent explanation for our experience of freedom. I have yet to find a convincing reconciliation between freedom and naturalism.

philechat

Odemus:

I would wonder why the Bible would warn believers to not marry people of other religions? I mean, except for "God says so", are there any other reasons for such kind of exclusivity?

People use the Bible to justify slavery, holy wars, and racialism all the time. Thus I doubt we could cite the Bible as the most authoritative source of morality.

And as far as religious exclusivity goes, I have yet to see a convincing argument without quoting Bible verses.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Dylan

if anyone's read any books by daniel quinn (esp the story of b) he has lots to say on this subject

<a href="http://www.ishmael.org" target="_blank">http://www.ishmael.org</a>

Bree

Exodus, 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Exodus, 17:14-16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi, for he said, because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

People have been quoting verses like this to justify religious wars for a long time.

Let's say I am only allowed to marry people who like the colour pink. Does this law not do a disservice to all the great people out there who happen to not like the colour pink?

Here's an example of a Bible verse that was, in my church, used to justify the "putting away" of a woman, i.e. forcing her out of the church and out of her home (her husband throws her out with no belongingings), and basically putting her in the streets to fend for herself.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid. Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him (skip to verse 20). But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

If you are a Christian, you subscribe to everything your text says. It's kind of automatic that way. And you can't really argue out of it by saying "There are different versions of the Bible" or "There are difficulties in translation" or "Some parts no longer apply to Christians today" because it's there in black and white, as the word of God.

WJ

A belief in God has many benefits; religionism (yes it is a word) by itself not as many. Control, dogma and other negative psychological impacts certainly can be a result of such an approach towards understanding a Deity, creator, supernatural/cosmological/metaphysical concept/Being know as God.

Personally (testimony), 'one' of the obvious benefits I noticed many many years ago was the 'freedom'. This freedom was quite psychological in nature and quite profound in its manifestation to me. The best way I can describe it was that there was no more anxiety and 'spinning of wheels' as it were on the unimportant stuff, as you could say it gave me the 'proper perspective' in life. I became freed from the activities and choices that ultimately provided little meaning and were not psychologically healthy or conducive to personal growth.

The journey of life is simply that. But once you are involved in the proper medium and/or perspective, only then can maximum personal happiness and pleasure be realized. Perhaps this translates into integration of opposites, and being comfotable with them and, actually embracing them without fear.

Does anybody here know what I'm referring to on a psychological level?

Walrus

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Since I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know what you think is going on at a psychological level. Please tell us what you think is going on.