mac1
Well-Known Member
Is there anyone else here who disagrees with me. Anyone feel that there is nothing inherently niave with blindly believing in something?
Fundamentalist Christianity
- Thread starter mac1
- Start date
Susma Rio Sep
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Bible and religion by manual
The Bible is a manual for the proper operation and use of a piece of machinery, religion, for mankind or the Jews and Christians who adopted and continued it, and to some extent the Muslims.
Now this is a manual written some millennia back by backward people of a backward God for a piece of backward machinery that worked very badly for everyone, with a lot of flesh shredding and blood spilling.
We are now millennia from the time of the Biblical manual and the piece of machinery it is intended for the very crude minded peoples of those times.
Time for an upgrade to the contemporary ideals of human rights and universal education and women’s emancipation and equality, and democracy.
Calling all peoples of religiosity: write new manuals for the inexorably appearing new machines of human religions, work on the hardware and the software that should help people to direct themselves in their religiosity, in real time.
What was that about “When I was a babe I thought as a babe, spoke like a babe, acted like one...?”
Susma Rio Sep
The Bible is a manual for the proper operation and use of a piece of machinery, religion, for mankind or the Jews and Christians who adopted and continued it, and to some extent the Muslims.
Now this is a manual written some millennia back by backward people of a backward God for a piece of backward machinery that worked very badly for everyone, with a lot of flesh shredding and blood spilling.
We are now millennia from the time of the Biblical manual and the piece of machinery it is intended for the very crude minded peoples of those times.
Time for an upgrade to the contemporary ideals of human rights and universal education and women’s emancipation and equality, and democracy.
Calling all peoples of religiosity: write new manuals for the inexorably appearing new machines of human religions, work on the hardware and the software that should help people to direct themselves in their religiosity, in real time.
What was that about “When I was a babe I thought as a babe, spoke like a babe, acted like one...?”
Susma Rio Sep
veritasamat
Member
Susma Rio Sep said:
That's from the Bible...1Corinthians13, a poetic description of the eternal nature of divine love.
"Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they shall end, if there are tongues, they shall cease, if there is any knowledge, it will vanish away. For now we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is partial shall be finished. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things. For now, we see as through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Now, I know in part, but then shall I know, even as I am also known. And now these three things endure: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
He is comparing the limited and transient nature of this life to the fulfillment of the life to come, and reminding us that only love will pass with us through the veil of death.
Sorry...I know this doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but that was a favorite verse of mine and I couldn't help it.
mac1
Well-Known Member
veritasamat said:
FROM RED DWARF
Rimmer said:
Lister said:
Rimmer said:
Lister said:
Rimmer said:
Susma Rio Sep
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Mexican jumping beans
When I was very young, maybe four or five years old. Someone gave me a supposedly Mexican dancing bean, which would stand on one end, and shake from the end it’s resting on; as long as the surface -- for example your open palm -- it is placed on is moving however slightly. The bean seems to execute bizarre dance movements.
I opened up the bean and learned to make my own dancing beans.
Roll a piece of tinfoil into a tube some one inch long, and wide enough to insert inside a small ball bearing -- a BB pellet will do. Pinch both ends; and put this simple contrivance in a matchbox. This is your dancing bean after you have shaken the matchbox, gently knocking it about on the sides of the box. Take out your dancing bean and place it on your palm, and see what it does.
For the tinfoil tube the typical medicine capsule pod will also serve very well; but there is no craftsmanship involved here. Craftsmanship, that’s the challenge and the fun.
Now, if you have a number of these dancing or jumping beans in your palm or on a piece of cardboard, you will have some bunch of Adventist beanies doing their routine Sunday mass worshipful hopping.
Susma Rio Sep
When I was very young, maybe four or five years old. Someone gave me a supposedly Mexican dancing bean, which would stand on one end, and shake from the end it’s resting on; as long as the surface -- for example your open palm -- it is placed on is moving however slightly. The bean seems to execute bizarre dance movements.
I opened up the bean and learned to make my own dancing beans.
Roll a piece of tinfoil into a tube some one inch long, and wide enough to insert inside a small ball bearing -- a BB pellet will do. Pinch both ends; and put this simple contrivance in a matchbox. This is your dancing bean after you have shaken the matchbox, gently knocking it about on the sides of the box. Take out your dancing bean and place it on your palm, and see what it does.
For the tinfoil tube the typical medicine capsule pod will also serve very well; but there is no craftsmanship involved here. Craftsmanship, that’s the challenge and the fun.
Now, if you have a number of these dancing or jumping beans in your palm or on a piece of cardboard, you will have some bunch of Adventist beanies doing their routine Sunday mass worshipful hopping.
Susma Rio Sep
arthra
Baha'i
Susma Rio Sep said:
JJM
Well-Known Member
I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. [size=-1]Socrates[/size]
I feel that this quote best describes my interprtaion on God. I think that what is written in the bible is in magority devinly inspired. However I think one has to remember that it was written by human beings, and human beings arn't perfect. Thus, it is not impossible to think that one may have f*cked up. Humans have personal biasts and ajendas even if they don't truely want to. two people may hear one thing and interpret it two different ways. The new testament isn't written by jesus but rather his freinds. Many things where never meant to be literal but saddly the athors of these writtings are long dead and there is no true was to determan what is fact and was isn't. You also need to remeber that it has been translated at least three times before you read it, and not all languges translate into each other perfectly. Even if they do the meanings of words change over the course of thousands of years. What was meant by one word may have been broudend to mean other things in this day and age. It hink it is a matter of understanding for yourself what is written. You need tot fill in the wholes and in many ways mix two differing stories. If you have an open mind to what is written but still belive that it is in fact in at least some way true and meant to teach us. I don't however think that organized religion is in any way bad. I my self being Roman Catholic. While I believe that everyone should have and understanding of the bible and know what they are ebing taught. Many peopel don't want to or just don't take the time to do it. Which I do feel isn't wrong yet inconplete and the reason many don't feel a connection with God.
"Without knowledge even zeal is no good, and he who acts hastily blunders." Proverbs 19:2
While that quote can be interpeted as being about not planning somthing I feal that it can also be read as religious zeal. I give the other interpitation because I do not want to use the scripture in a way it was not meant which is something that Really bugs me. You can interpret the quote ans way you would like. Also if this writting is in the Proverbs of Solomon who was a genius and could have a biast agianst unintellegence. I don't think that blind following is good but most organized faiths have built their traditions around these scriptures and their rigged ways of sticking to their beleifs has kept many of them alive that would have "died" had they not. Such as the therory of Purgitory. Before anyone starts bashing on me about what I said of following blindly. I'd like to say that through my readinds of the bible I have not seen any sign that this truley agsists but I do think that It is in many ways valad. Because if all people sin and sin is not aloud in heaven and God will not take away our power of free choice than no peopel could possibley be in heaven. That is why I think that rather than samll punishments for trivial things we had done it is more of a way of getting us into a state where we choose not to sin. A spiritual rehab if you will and an answer to:
Quote "disbelievers will burn in the firey chasms of hell"
Which I belive is a missunderstanding of "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church" while this does state that the Catholic church is the true church it doesn't in my opnion sugjest that all other people are unholy, bad, or in anyway deseerving of buring in fiery chasms.
As for why I dismiss is all the other gods we go back to humans noit being perfect. I think that besides a few really wacky cults thoughout history. Most religions are simply missunderstandings of a message that God was trying to send them (Even Judaism thus the need for Christ). That is why their are so many simularities. We also in looking at these ancient religions don't seperate their Gosples from their "Touched by an angel"s. Which is a problem because many such stories are only meant for intertainment and where never meant to be real. I think that in the past even the people practicing these religionsdidn't differenciate the two which is where they went wrong. I think that God appreciates any devotion to him no matter how wrong.
As for knowing if I would have the same spirtualiy if I was raised differently I truely don't know. I think I would at least I hope I would. My personal experinces and atempts at learing all I possibly can have lead me to belive that I'm not just following blindly and I still am choosing my beleifs and agree with them for my own reasons not because I was told to. Un fortunatly I was "cursed" with being born Christian so I'll never truly know
In short while I do beleive that the Bible is a Good road map for our lives and everything in it is in some way or another true. It is very likly that some of the things have been distorted, changed, misinturprited or evan writen wrong. I do however continue to belive that THe bible is the inspired work of God evan if it isn't entirly right and it is possible to keep an open mind and still hold the idea that the writings are true. i do also think that it isn't impossible for there to be something not written in Bible that is true because even it's works where put together by humans that excluded things. So the thought that something not in the Bible couldn't possibly be true is bogus., and while organized religion is important and can help people spiritualy it is also important for people to find out things on their own.
In closing I state that all I truely know is that I know nothing. I have Ideas but they may be wrong and all I ask is that you look at them with a open mind and decide for yourself what is ture and not.
P.S. sorry if I slightly wne toff topic but so did most of the other ones slightyly and the dicusion has even changed since the begining.
I feel that this quote best describes my interprtaion on God. I think that what is written in the bible is in magority devinly inspired. However I think one has to remember that it was written by human beings, and human beings arn't perfect. Thus, it is not impossible to think that one may have f*cked up. Humans have personal biasts and ajendas even if they don't truely want to. two people may hear one thing and interpret it two different ways. The new testament isn't written by jesus but rather his freinds. Many things where never meant to be literal but saddly the athors of these writtings are long dead and there is no true was to determan what is fact and was isn't. You also need to remeber that it has been translated at least three times before you read it, and not all languges translate into each other perfectly. Even if they do the meanings of words change over the course of thousands of years. What was meant by one word may have been broudend to mean other things in this day and age. It hink it is a matter of understanding for yourself what is written. You need tot fill in the wholes and in many ways mix two differing stories. If you have an open mind to what is written but still belive that it is in fact in at least some way true and meant to teach us. I don't however think that organized religion is in any way bad. I my self being Roman Catholic. While I believe that everyone should have and understanding of the bible and know what they are ebing taught. Many peopel don't want to or just don't take the time to do it. Which I do feel isn't wrong yet inconplete and the reason many don't feel a connection with God.
"Without knowledge even zeal is no good, and he who acts hastily blunders." Proverbs 19:2
While that quote can be interpeted as being about not planning somthing I feal that it can also be read as religious zeal. I give the other interpitation because I do not want to use the scripture in a way it was not meant which is something that Really bugs me. You can interpret the quote ans way you would like. Also if this writting is in the Proverbs of Solomon who was a genius and could have a biast agianst unintellegence. I don't think that blind following is good but most organized faiths have built their traditions around these scriptures and their rigged ways of sticking to their beleifs has kept many of them alive that would have "died" had they not. Such as the therory of Purgitory. Before anyone starts bashing on me about what I said of following blindly. I'd like to say that through my readinds of the bible I have not seen any sign that this truley agsists but I do think that It is in many ways valad. Because if all people sin and sin is not aloud in heaven and God will not take away our power of free choice than no peopel could possibley be in heaven. That is why I think that rather than samll punishments for trivial things we had done it is more of a way of getting us into a state where we choose not to sin. A spiritual rehab if you will and an answer to:
Quote "disbelievers will burn in the firey chasms of hell"
Which I belive is a missunderstanding of "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church" while this does state that the Catholic church is the true church it doesn't in my opnion sugjest that all other people are unholy, bad, or in anyway deseerving of buring in fiery chasms.
As for why I dismiss is all the other gods we go back to humans noit being perfect. I think that besides a few really wacky cults thoughout history. Most religions are simply missunderstandings of a message that God was trying to send them (Even Judaism thus the need for Christ). That is why their are so many simularities. We also in looking at these ancient religions don't seperate their Gosples from their "Touched by an angel"s. Which is a problem because many such stories are only meant for intertainment and where never meant to be real. I think that in the past even the people practicing these religionsdidn't differenciate the two which is where they went wrong. I think that God appreciates any devotion to him no matter how wrong.
As for knowing if I would have the same spirtualiy if I was raised differently I truely don't know. I think I would at least I hope I would. My personal experinces and atempts at learing all I possibly can have lead me to belive that I'm not just following blindly and I still am choosing my beleifs and agree with them for my own reasons not because I was told to. Un fortunatly I was "cursed" with being born Christian so I'll never truly know
In short while I do beleive that the Bible is a Good road map for our lives and everything in it is in some way or another true. It is very likly that some of the things have been distorted, changed, misinturprited or evan writen wrong. I do however continue to belive that THe bible is the inspired work of God evan if it isn't entirly right and it is possible to keep an open mind and still hold the idea that the writings are true. i do also think that it isn't impossible for there to be something not written in Bible that is true because even it's works where put together by humans that excluded things. So the thought that something not in the Bible couldn't possibly be true is bogus., and while organized religion is important and can help people spiritualy it is also important for people to find out things on their own.
In closing I state that all I truely know is that I know nothing. I have Ideas but they may be wrong and all I ask is that you look at them with a open mind and decide for yourself what is ture and not.
P.S. sorry if I slightly wne toff topic but so did most of the other ones slightyly and the dicusion has even changed since the begining.
mac1
Well-Known Member
JJM said:
That perfectly sums it up. How can we really prove anything? At the end of the day can you really; with absolute certainty; prove anything past the fact that you exist and have thoughts? The answer is clearly no.
I would never say, dont follow the teachings of a book, on the contrary, it is in our literature that we gain most knowledge. As a moral guide, the bible is a superb piece of ethical literature. But this is only from one perspective, for example, I can't say that I would be happy to base my spiritual beliefs on the book of revelations, but this is more a result of my perception of it than its content. Take for example Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". This book has now been taken by many as a philosophical and moral guide to living a spiritual life. That in itself is fair enough, people may read Sun Tzu as they please. But the reality of it is, Sun Tzu was one of the most brutal and unforgiving generals in history, and the book is, at its most basic, simply a guide to winning battles during the Ch`in and Han dynasties. I guess what I am saying is, reading many texts can lead to a good moral code regardless of their content and origin, like beauty, perception is in the eye of the beholder. Surely if we are attempting to gain a greater level of spirituality it makes more sense to try and read into a source, than take it at face value. But in my opinion as a former history student, we should never ever take any source as primary evidence without first assessing and scutinising it. No source is completely objective, biases come into play everywhere, the differences between the four gospels of the New Testament surely prove this. I just dont think it to be good scientific practice to take a text over two-thousand years old, rewritten and retranslated hundreds of times as a primary source of evidence. If we cannot scrutinise everything, we cannot form our own opinions properly, if we cannot prove anything past the fact that we exist, surely true enlightement must come from within, not from a book.
Bigmacscanlan said:
I was brought up to understand the difference between fact and opinion and learned to keep my intellectual life to myself and out of the hands of the education system and employers. Nothing about God or religion.
I sought to understand fundamentalism because "fundamentalist Christians" literally made me feel unwell when they spoke. I was younger and more into design and mechanical engineering than religion and feared this physical reaction might mean I was evil. So I swallowed the bile and sought to understand it.
The first thing I noticed was that they were Old Testament. Seldom do they even speak of Christ (except to condemn anyone who criticizes them), let alone quote Him. And everything they say and want seems to be exactly ANTI-Christ, anti-mild/gentle and geared to getting them something for themselves.
Any and all criticism of them is magically turned into criticism and ridicule of God which, in itself, must test a God's patience to no end.
I think they are like any other "religious" oppressor, looking toward controlling their environment (quite anti-omnipotence). Using religion as a prop or tool. I do not believe they are the "believers" they claim to be. And I think that many of the younger among them are extremely confused by the behaviour of the older. Some feeling they must discard all belief in an omnipotent Creator, just to keep the peace.
"Fundamentalism", as fundamentalist Christians practice it, is extremely ugly. Politically, socially, psychologically and especially spiritually. And that is their defense. Every human being that finds them "disagreeable" is declared evil and proves they are "right". That's what religious fundamentalism is. No one to answer to but a conveniently invisible God.
It's strange how their antics create an animosity toward all belief and magically keeps the mild, non-fighting, truly spiritual Christian -- their only real threat -- silent. As if by design. Coincidence?
"Religious" oppression couldn't exist without its fight with the anti-religious who rail against it and keep non-oppressive, non-fighting believers from speaking.
And after that long-winded opinion, I will say that I agree with you.
arthra
Baha'i
CSharp.... welcome to the forum!
While I think you have some very valid points regarding "fundamentalism" ...
I also think it's important to understand what motivates people who would describe themselves as fundamentalists or sympathise perhaps with a similar agenda...
To me it is "fear"... Fear of change... Fear of multiculturalism... Fear of the unknown.. At base is the desire to return to the "way it used to be"..which might mean to an earlier state of presumed innocence when life was "easier" and not so complex.
This is why I think many people flock to sanctuaries that present a world view that is like this.
So in this sense fundamentalism could be a reaction to the stresses of the times and a fear of losing control ...maybe dominance as well.
Unfortuantely, reacting to this mind-set and raising a hue and cry against them will only confirm in their minds that they are indeed correct, that what their "seers" and pastors have told them is true...
They see themselves as "victims" of the modern ways.
Further Polarization in society will likely result from this fear and rallying about to different camps and a further hardening and resistence to change.
The same is true i think in many Moslem nations as in the US where change and multiculturalism is feared by a groups that had dominance in the past.
Groups and societies all have conservatives and liberals among them...those willing to risk more and open themselves to change feel usually more self assured and less fearful...while those who are less willing to risk change are looking at preserving what they "have"....probably both orientations are needed... The conservative to offer their views for consideration can balance and temper the more liberal or radical element, while the liberals can suggest needed adaptation and innovation. When you separate these two camps into warring factions both can suffer i think.
- Art
While I think you have some very valid points regarding "fundamentalism" ...
I also think it's important to understand what motivates people who would describe themselves as fundamentalists or sympathise perhaps with a similar agenda...
To me it is "fear"... Fear of change... Fear of multiculturalism... Fear of the unknown.. At base is the desire to return to the "way it used to be"..which might mean to an earlier state of presumed innocence when life was "easier" and not so complex.
This is why I think many people flock to sanctuaries that present a world view that is like this.
So in this sense fundamentalism could be a reaction to the stresses of the times and a fear of losing control ...maybe dominance as well.
Unfortuantely, reacting to this mind-set and raising a hue and cry against them will only confirm in their minds that they are indeed correct, that what their "seers" and pastors have told them is true...
They see themselves as "victims" of the modern ways.
Further Polarization in society will likely result from this fear and rallying about to different camps and a further hardening and resistence to change.
The same is true i think in many Moslem nations as in the US where change and multiculturalism is feared by a groups that had dominance in the past.
Groups and societies all have conservatives and liberals among them...those willing to risk more and open themselves to change feel usually more self assured and less fearful...while those who are less willing to risk change are looking at preserving what they "have"....probably both orientations are needed... The conservative to offer their views for consideration can balance and temper the more liberal or radical element, while the liberals can suggest needed adaptation and innovation. When you separate these two camps into warring factions both can suffer i think.
- Art
Susma Rio Sep
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Fundamentalism and inventions
Ant, you do engage in a lot of observation and thinking on religion, withal you are a religionist yourself.
I must commend you for your open mind and your active curiosity, in addition your balanced views of religious matters.
There is this suspicion I am toying in my mind, namely, that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive in terms of ideas and objects to make human life better: more comfortable, more healthy, more enjoyable, more lasting, more sociable, and also nowadays favorable for the rest of life forms and the bios environment. What do you think?
Thanks for your very instructive contribution about the real Mexican jumping beans.
Susma Rio Sep
Ant, you do engage in a lot of observation and thinking on religion, withal you are a religionist yourself.
I must commend you for your open mind and your active curiosity, in addition your balanced views of religious matters.
There is this suspicion I am toying in my mind, namely, that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive in terms of ideas and objects to make human life better: more comfortable, more healthy, more enjoyable, more lasting, more sociable, and also nowadays favorable for the rest of life forms and the bios environment. What do you think?
Thanks for your very instructive contribution about the real Mexican jumping beans.
Susma Rio Sep
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Regards to all!
I must say, I am perplexed and disappointed by this thread. Is this not contrary to the express spirit this forum is supposed to be dedicated to?
I might only wonder, if in a spirit of equal opportunity, similar "bashing" threads might be opened on the other specific segments; perhaps one bashing wiccans and pagans in that segment, one bashing eastern religions in that segment, one bashing atheists in, well, open a new segment.
I have been participating here because I understood it to be a place of free and open and respectful exchange. The spirit behind so much of what I have read here (I couldn't bear to finish) is so contrary to what I have come to expect, that I am flabbergasted. Is respect then to be considered mere lip service? Or is respect merely situational?
It is one thing to question, for the sake of understanding. It is quite another to ridicule. I have to ask, would you truly welcome the input of a fundamentalist Christian, or would you bait him/her in simply to ambush? A thread like this one only serves to further a fundamentalist's resolve, and gives ammunition to prove "that" side, "if everyone else is against us, then we must be on to something." How could a thread like this make a fundamentalist feel welcome?
I love this forum, and its spirit of intent. But it is threads like this, and the latent prejudice promoted within, that makes me ashamed. The question then is, to each and every one of you, "are you truly as open-minded and accomodating as you claim, or are you deceiving yourselves?"
Do you really need a scapegoat? Do any of you require an "other" to hate? And for me personally, do you view me in such a manner? Am I to eventually be a victim of such viciousness levelled here, perhaps the next sacrifice on the alter of your individual egos?
I must say, I am perplexed and disappointed by this thread. Is this not contrary to the express spirit this forum is supposed to be dedicated to?
I might only wonder, if in a spirit of equal opportunity, similar "bashing" threads might be opened on the other specific segments; perhaps one bashing wiccans and pagans in that segment, one bashing eastern religions in that segment, one bashing atheists in, well, open a new segment.
I have been participating here because I understood it to be a place of free and open and respectful exchange. The spirit behind so much of what I have read here (I couldn't bear to finish) is so contrary to what I have come to expect, that I am flabbergasted. Is respect then to be considered mere lip service? Or is respect merely situational?
It is one thing to question, for the sake of understanding. It is quite another to ridicule. I have to ask, would you truly welcome the input of a fundamentalist Christian, or would you bait him/her in simply to ambush? A thread like this one only serves to further a fundamentalist's resolve, and gives ammunition to prove "that" side, "if everyone else is against us, then we must be on to something." How could a thread like this make a fundamentalist feel welcome?
I love this forum, and its spirit of intent. But it is threads like this, and the latent prejudice promoted within, that makes me ashamed. The question then is, to each and every one of you, "are you truly as open-minded and accomodating as you claim, or are you deceiving yourselves?"
Do you really need a scapegoat? Do any of you require an "other" to hate? And for me personally, do you view me in such a manner? Am I to eventually be a victim of such viciousness levelled here, perhaps the next sacrifice on the alter of your individual egos?
arthra
Baha'i
Well thanks Susma...
I don't think I'm really deserving of that much praise.... maybe it comes from being around awhile and having some good friends!
Susma Rio Sep wrote:
There is this suspicion I am toying in my mind, namely, that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive in terms of ideas and objects to make human life better: more comfortable, more healthy, more enjoyable, more lasting, more sociable, and also nowadays favorable for the rest of life forms and the bios environment. What do you think?
Reply:
Concerning your statement
"...that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive..."
I would be careful here not to generalize because some religious people support progressive change and can be "radical" such as in the case of the Catholic Worker Movement or the Delano Farm Workers movement under Cesar Chavez or the Southern Christain Leadership Conference of the civil rights era.
It is hard to assess large groups of people these days.
Those who are somewhat myopic about their own comforts though are willing to have the "improvements" when it impacts them personally such as lowering their taxes, and are therefore less willing to sacrifice for the common good, such as voting for a bond issue to improve the local High School.
As long as they can easily afford premiums for health care and are themselves healthy why they ask themselves should they lend support for a National Health Care Service?
They oppose government regulations to control smog because that may mean driving more efficient cars with fewer amenities or having to share rides to work. The car is after all for them a right of self expression and self-aggrandisement... for the same reason a greater premium is placed on more freeways and concrete multiple storey parking garages than mass transit systems.
They are sociable with their own circle of acquaintences....
Even though the population is aging, a premium is placed on being "young" thus devaluing the aged as a source of wisdom.
They are concerned about a "more lasting" weekend pill to extend their "potency" than for say finding a cure for a disease in the third world.
But I think many of these things are commercially driven by powerful companies and interests that derive hugh profits and have powerful lobbyists.
In a way those who totally "buy into" the values of larger is better are themselves the victims as they've been sorely duped and exploited.
Sometimes, social change in a society is difficult to assess... It may be we're seeing a kind of "last gasp" of "mefirstism", a kind of desparate individualism that will give way in the near future to generations who will have a better grasp of world issues, a coming unitive world consciousness as say Buckminster Fuller talked about, coupled with a sensitivity and awareness of how humanity is suffering and this world view will in time repudiate and replace the older, more limited views.
Enlightened religion can i think promote a healthier world.
- Art
I don't think I'm really deserving of that much praise.... maybe it comes from being around awhile and having some good friends!
Susma Rio Sep wrote:
There is this suspicion I am toying in my mind, namely, that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive in terms of ideas and objects to make human life better: more comfortable, more healthy, more enjoyable, more lasting, more sociable, and also nowadays favorable for the rest of life forms and the bios environment. What do you think?
Reply:
Concerning your statement
"...that fundamentalists or generally religionists or people with a gasping grasp of their religion seem to be the least inventive..."
I would be careful here not to generalize because some religious people support progressive change and can be "radical" such as in the case of the Catholic Worker Movement or the Delano Farm Workers movement under Cesar Chavez or the Southern Christain Leadership Conference of the civil rights era.
It is hard to assess large groups of people these days.
Those who are somewhat myopic about their own comforts though are willing to have the "improvements" when it impacts them personally such as lowering their taxes, and are therefore less willing to sacrifice for the common good, such as voting for a bond issue to improve the local High School.
As long as they can easily afford premiums for health care and are themselves healthy why they ask themselves should they lend support for a National Health Care Service?
They oppose government regulations to control smog because that may mean driving more efficient cars with fewer amenities or having to share rides to work. The car is after all for them a right of self expression and self-aggrandisement... for the same reason a greater premium is placed on more freeways and concrete multiple storey parking garages than mass transit systems.
They are sociable with their own circle of acquaintences....
Even though the population is aging, a premium is placed on being "young" thus devaluing the aged as a source of wisdom.
They are concerned about a "more lasting" weekend pill to extend their "potency" than for say finding a cure for a disease in the third world.
But I think many of these things are commercially driven by powerful companies and interests that derive hugh profits and have powerful lobbyists.
In a way those who totally "buy into" the values of larger is better are themselves the victims as they've been sorely duped and exploited.
Sometimes, social change in a society is difficult to assess... It may be we're seeing a kind of "last gasp" of "mefirstism", a kind of desparate individualism that will give way in the near future to generations who will have a better grasp of world issues, a coming unitive world consciousness as say Buckminster Fuller talked about, coupled with a sensitivity and awareness of how humanity is suffering and this world view will in time repudiate and replace the older, more limited views.
Enlightened religion can i think promote a healthier world.
- Art
arthra
Baha'i
juantoo3...as a Fundamenatlist Christian your comments would be most valued here and offer a perspective that should be noted... Please feel free to offer them.
- Art
- Art
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Ah, what makes you believe I am fundamentalist? I have openly claimed Christianity, but not fundamentalism. What I am is respectfully accomodating, and that is my point.arthra said:
And by being respectfully accomodating, this thread makes me feel as though I am the odd bird, the next to become attacked.
I would have, and will, stand up against such attacks against anyone in this forum, including those I spiritually disagree with.
arthra
Baha'i
Sorry I misunderstood you...
juantoo3 wrote:
And by being respectfully accomodating, this thread makes me feel as though I am the odd bird, the next to become attacked.
I would have, and will, stand up against such attacks against anyone in this forum, including those I spiritually disagree with.
Reply:
I am not looking to attack you... Be friends!
- Art
juantoo3 wrote:
And by being respectfully accomodating, this thread makes me feel as though I am the odd bird, the next to become attacked.
I would have, and will, stand up against such attacks against anyone in this forum, including those I spiritually disagree with.
Reply:
I am not looking to attack you... Be friends!
- Art
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Arthra,
I am not angry, I am hurt. And I apologize to you and the small handful of others who made an honest attempt to be passively accomodating. My response was an active attempt at being accomodating, something I have made a point of doing in the time I have participated here. My only regret is that you bore the brunt of my indignation, it was not aimed at you specifically. My response was directed at those who began this thread, many of whom I had counted as professing a credo of tolerance, yet seem to have set that credo aside in order to pounce upon a perceived other. Where does it end? When this "other" is defeated, does the pack move on to the next? Perhaps fundamentalist Islam, or maybe fundamentalist Atheism? For a group that claims to promote peaceful interaction and exchange of ideas, this very thread proves to me that old prejudices are not laid aside, despite the lofty ideals and haughty attitudes.
An exercise in psychology? Take a long hard look, the psychology I see is the animal nature revealed behind the facade of enlightenment.
I am not angry, I am hurt. And I apologize to you and the small handful of others who made an honest attempt to be passively accomodating. My response was an active attempt at being accomodating, something I have made a point of doing in the time I have participated here. My only regret is that you bore the brunt of my indignation, it was not aimed at you specifically. My response was directed at those who began this thread, many of whom I had counted as professing a credo of tolerance, yet seem to have set that credo aside in order to pounce upon a perceived other. Where does it end? When this "other" is defeated, does the pack move on to the next? Perhaps fundamentalist Islam, or maybe fundamentalist Atheism? For a group that claims to promote peaceful interaction and exchange of ideas, this very thread proves to me that old prejudices are not laid aside, despite the lofty ideals and haughty attitudes.
An exercise in psychology? Take a long hard look, the psychology I see is the animal nature revealed behind the facade of enlightenment.
outsider
From Louis...
I would like to hear some of your questions because they
may be similar to my own.
First let me point out that I am just an impartial observer -
an ousider who has never practised ANY form of religion. Although I grew up among Christians ( mostly Roman Catholics ), none of their ideas made any sense to me.
Especially the stories about Jesus - everything written
about him is HEARSAY - folktales collected and dramatised
by writers who never actualy WITNESSED any of the
events the described. So far, no one has ever discovered
anything written by Jesus' own hand.
How can anyone of this century judge the accuracy
of such writings ?
Bigmacscanlan said:
From Louis...
I would like to hear some of your questions because they
may be similar to my own.
First let me point out that I am just an impartial observer -
an ousider who has never practised ANY form of religion. Although I grew up among Christians ( mostly Roman Catholics ), none of their ideas made any sense to me.
Especially the stories about Jesus - everything written
about him is HEARSAY - folktales collected and dramatised
by writers who never actualy WITNESSED any of the
events the described. So far, no one has ever discovered
anything written by Jesus' own hand.
How can anyone of this century judge the accuracy
of such writings ?