ImGod

Putting up the Ten Commandments in the first place offends someone who doesn't belive in the Christian God. Most of the Ten Commnandment monuments are relatively recent additions to our government aimed at revising history to support a "christian nation" slant.

So, while I see your point, you seem to be ignoring the other side of this issue.

dangin

Epitome, just because I said religion is a carrot and stick motivator(I mean what else is heaven and hell, they are synonymous) and said that it was a crutch for the stupid, does not mean I want to destroy it. I'd prefer it die a slow wasting death as mankind outgrows it. But there will always be the masses that need an opiate. There will always be sheep that need a shepherd. There will be a lot of minutes ahead, and a sucker born in each one of them.

I believe in freedom. You're free to believe what you want, and I am free to poke holes in it, and laugh.

Epitome

IMgod:Putting up the Ten Commandments in the first place offends someone who doesn't belive in the Christian God.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to political correctness or legislation based on someone's 'feeling's'.

If you are being compelled through force to worship someone you do not believe in, it's wrong and I would fight for your right for freedom from that.

But everytime our country bows to the fragile emotions of any person who feels slighted we lose another freedom.

dangin:Epitome, just because I said religion is a carrot and stick motivator(I mean what else is heaven and hell, they are synonymous) and said that it was a crutch for the stupid, does not mean I want to destroy it.

Oh how could I ever mistake your implications? *L*

I'd prefer it die a slow wasting death as mankind outgrows it. But.... there will be a lot of minutes ahead, and a sucker born in each one of them.

If this is pretty typical of secular humanists attitudes (and I supsect it is, is it no wonder religious people do not work with you?

The impression you have left me with is that you see yourself as better, smarter and superiorly moral than religious people simply because of your ability to figure out what is moral...

Yet it is quite likely you have picked up the basis of your morality from the religions in the lives of possibly your parents or grandparents and/or your culture...

You can only THEORIZE that you would be able to discover morality without such influences because you're so smart... but you really don't know for sure.

Let me ask you this... Is it in your moral code anywhere to have humility, compassion and grace for those who are desperate for something to help them be moral?

I believe in freedom. You're free to believe what you want, and I am free to poke holes in it, and laugh.

Feel free... I see this type of discussion as a sport... a mental exercise... I never expect conversions and I try very hard not to take myself too seriously in these debates...


Edit, by the way, when you burst into laughter because you manage to poke a hole in one of my arguments, let me know, k?

*heheheh*

Epitome

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Epitome ]</p>

Epitome

brighid:[B]Yes I do and my experience has been the opposite. Perhaps it's a difference in parenting styles. [B]

Can you elaborate and give me an example... I'm curious.

Epitome

Ab_Normal

The legal basis for removing religious displays, such as the Ten Cs, from government space is the First Amendment to the Constitution, not offensiveness.

Starboy

Hi Seb_Maya,

I am no expert on Buddhism but I have asked around and it is not without the stain of violence and the hunger for power. It is an interesting religion in that it does appear to concentrate more on how people should behave rather then how to get the rewards of the hereafter. You may not be unique among Buddhist in your avoidance of literal interpretations of religious writings that refer to ghosts, spirits and such, but I ask you, if the text is to be taken seriously why are there any references there at all? My point about standards is simple, religions are not primarily concerned with immediate social behavior, and this is a byproduct of its main carrot, which is life-ever-after either in heaven or by reincarnation. As long as this is the biggest feature of any religion, to religion people’s behavior in the here and now will not matter. Yet the ability of religion to alter the behavior of people in the here and now is the crux of your argument and the obvious failing of all religion. I think you misunderstand my argument regarding the existence of a central religious authority. I simply point out that the incredible abundance of religions is evidence that no such authority exists. Such evidence makes adopting any kind of religion seem even more ridiculous. If Buddhism was completely free of the turmoil you attribute to other religions you may have a point, but history shows that it is as vulnerable as any other religion. What is the point of adopting a religion for the purposes of living life well when it is fundamentally no better than any of the other failed religions? Lastly, your point that the failure of humans to behave well is not the fault of religion, is silly when compared to your attempts to argue that religion can make people behave well.

My reasons for claiming that only ethos’s that are based on good science can be taken seriously are simple. We are animals, and fundamentally it is social animal behavior that we are talking about. A good clear understanding of our animal behavior, its range, purpose and the conditions which trigger it seems to me a much more likely way of constructing a successful ethos then anything inspired by a spiritual being or some reality challenged philosopher.

Starboy

emur

Let me ask you this... Is it in your moral code anywhere to have humility, compassion and grace for those who think outside of the dogmas of Christianity?

Perhaps for you Epitome, you do. But there are many, many Christians who are more concerned about dogma and rules than about grace. It's definitely not in their moral code.

Statistics about the positives of religion mean little to those who have seen and experienced the broken relationships and crushed spirits brought on in the name of God. It can get very nasty at times.

It seems to me that the gracious Christians have one hell of a job ahead of them - dealing with the intolerant in their midst!

It's kinda hard to preach the virtues of Christian morality to those who have seen the bloody side of it.

Mel

Epitome

Ab_normal:The legal basis for removing religious displays, such as the Ten Cs, from government space is the First Amendment to the Constitution, not offensiveness.

'No religious displays on government space' is not in the constitution.


emur:Let me ask you this... Is it in your moral code anywhere to have humility, compassion and grace for those who think outside of the dogmas of Christianity?

Yes... it is. Not that I can always do it with great ease and not that I always do it.

I was only being slightly fascitious... I have encountered atheists and secular humanists who have no place for humility, compassion or grace even as something to try to be...

So I really do want to know, who thinks it's moral to be humble, compassionate and have grace for others?

Perhaps for you Epitome, you do. But there are many, many Christians who are more concerned about dogma and rules than about grace. It's definitely not in their moral code.

Grace is in their moral code, they are just horrible at it. And quite honestly, it's Christians with no grace that I have the most problem with because they have experienced (or should have experienced) the grace of God.

Jesus tells several parables that describe what happens to such people...

Statistics about the positives of religion mean little to those who have seen and experienced the broken relationships and crushed spirits brought on in the name of God.

And this is why I insist that there is more to being moral than just the intelligence to figure it out. Emotions are powerful things and those who have been hurt struggle against inclinations towards sins that they should know better!

So when someone tells me only the stupid need religion to be moral it's really an ironic tragity... Because I can see right through the statement that this person has been hurt by religion and that hurt is trumping his intelligence.

But it happens to the best of us... it is human nature... which is why we must have grace.

Christians have a saying... but for the grace of God there go I...

It seems to me that the gracious Christians have one hell of a job ahead of them - dealing with the intolerant in their midst!

Yup.

It's kinda hard to preach the virtues of Christian morality to those who have seen the bloody side of it.

Mel

Well, I'm honestly trying not to preach... Just presenting facts and have a discussion... But I know what you're saying.

Epitome

Corona688

Not in those exact words, no. The government *IS* prohibited from supporting the establishment of a particular religion, though.

Of all the religions that are represented in the citizenry of the United States of America - Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Bhuddist, and on and on - they have chosen to give only one of them a direct presence in government buildings. Paid for by taxpayer's money, no less, the same taxpayers that it is NOT representing. The government should either proudly present ALL of them, or none of them.

None of them would make much more sense; religion is a private matter, and none of the government's business.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Corona688 ]</p>

Starboy

HEAR! HEAR! Corona688, well said.