agnosticism: hello

turtle (

turtleheart) wrote in

agnosticism,
@ 2005-03-24 13:41:00

hello
just to spark an interesting discussion, i would like to ask what are your most and least favorite things about christianity/organized religion?

this comes from a question one of my christian friends asked me some time ago.

most favorite thing would have to be the architecture of the old european cathedrals, and the fact that a church congregation is a ready-made organization that could do good in all sorts of ways - it's not limited to one form of charity or community service. i have a great deal of respect for people who honestly have a very strong, True faith, and don't make a big fuss about the fact that they are Christian. while that's something that i cannot be, i can at least respect and admire such a firm belief in one thing. least favorite i would say is how much money the church can command with tithes and donations and all that that just seems to go into the pockets of the priests and into the outfits they wear (the gold thread, the fine cloth) and the gold to decorate the church and that sort of thing rather than redistributing ALL of it to the poorer members of society. i don't claim to know the Bible all that well, but there seems to be a lot of contradictions, and hypocrasy in the way that some people interpret what it says. "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." the whole thing about being stewards of the land, but also go and dominate the land (that one especially angers me). besides, the Bible was written by MEN. it's one interpretation of God's word, it's one take on the way things happen, it's one philosophy about religion, but some people take it as Absolute Truth, the word of God set in stone, and if you interpret it in a different way, you're going to Hell. i hate the way the church makes up sins and tries to tell people how to live. i hate how the church encourages Christians to try to convert everyone to their belief because it's the only one that can be correct. i just can't accept that, and i believe very firmly in "live and let live." i'll live my life as best i can without interfering for the worse in your life. but more than that, i would have to say that my very least favorite thing is the way that people get so uptight about their religion that they go to war, commit acts of violence against people who believe something else. killing in the name of religion is absolutely stupid and pointless as far as i can see. i think that because people are all different, they all have their own points of view on things and they are perfectly entitled to that. you can't force someone to truly believe in something. you can scare him into it, but it's not going to be a lasting, true belief.

i think my thoughts on this have changed somewhat in the year or so since i wrote that, so i will elaborate later. right now though, i have to get ready for work.

(Post a new comment)

quaoar
2005-03-24 11:06 am UTC (link)

I'm going to answer specifically about Christianity.

My favorite thing has to be the teachings of Christ himself, his basic message was just, "Play nice," and I think the world would be a better place if everyone did that, regardless of whether or not there's some omnipotent force living in the sky that will punish you if you don't.

My least favorite thing about Christianity, is that the religion believes that they have the Truth, and aren't capable of debating it or discussing it because they're right and everyone else is wrong.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 11:07 am UTC (link)
	That's a generalization about Christians, not actual Christian tenets. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quaoar 2005-03-24 11:19 am UTC (link)
	The actual Christian tenets are the philosophy, which I like. The Organized Religion is incapable of discussing those tenets and accepts the bible as absolute, literal truth. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 11:22 am UTC (link)

"The Organized Religion is incapable of discussing those tenets and accepts the bible as absolute, literal truth."

Some, not all, members of the "organized religion" do this. You'd find, however, that a majority of Christians don't consider themselves part of an organized religion and go by the doctrine of the scriptures in a more complete way rather than choosing a morality and shoving it down peoples' throats. Christ never did that, Christians were never supposed to do that, and many Christians do not do that. Your comments are generalizations. Nobody is "incapable" by their faith of any sort of discussion. Hell, you're talking to one now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quaoar 2005-03-24 11:29 am UTC (link)
	I never said that individuals were incapable. I said the religion itself was incapable, just like most large organizations. I apologize, I should have begun my first comment "I'm going to answer specifically about Christianity as an Organized Religion". (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 11:30 am UTC (link)
	Then I guess I'm confused as to the difference and what exactly your point is. I don't really see anything about Christianity as a religion that denotes any sort of inability to discuss its own tenets. Perhaps you could clarify this point. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quaoar
2005-03-24 11:59 am UTC (link)

My primary argument is against the mob mentality of an organized religion. An individual is capable of being rational, a mob isn't.

And for some random rambling on the topic:

I'm also differentiating between the philosophy of a religion and the organization of the religion. For example, philosophically Taoism is a very simple and elegant system (in fact the teachings of Laoze and Christ are very similar if you look at just their own words), but religious Taoism is very different, full of hokey rituals that were never mentioned by the founders.

At some point the philosophy went from being good ideas to becoming Truth, at which point not only can no one can dispute or debate it, but the religion has to start coming up with bizarre explanations for other things, to make certain that they mesh with the Truth.

I think you can at least agree that the "group of rabid, right-wing Republican voting rejects" are incapable of reasoned debate. Many won't even consider that other translations of the Bible might be as, or more valid then whatever they currently use.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 01:26 pm UTC (link)

"My primary argument is against the mob mentality of an organized religion. An individual is capable of being rational, a mob isn't."

Argumentative, judge. Would you consider protest marches against the war in Iraq to be irrational?

"I'm also differentiating between the philosophy of a religion and the organization of the religion. For example, philosophically Taoism is a very simple and elegant system (in fact the teachings of Laoze and Christ are very similar if you look at just their own words), but religious Taoism is very different, full of hokey rituals that were never mentioned by the founders."

Okay. Organization has positives and negatives in all aspects of life. The organization of soccer into drills and practice games doesn't degrade the soccer itself, it's merely a way of compartmentalizing the sport into more organized areas for mass consumption. If you have something against that, why ever leave the house?

"At some point the philosophy went from being good ideas to becoming Truth, at which point not only can no one can dispute or debate it, but the religion has to start coming up with bizarre explanations for other things, to make certain that they mesh with the Truth."

I think people like to believe that what they're believing is right and true. Why else would you believe in one thing if there was a million other things that may also be right? That's a psychological argument, for starters. Biblical truth is very debatable, the scripture says it is and encourages discussion of its tenets and philosophies. Now religious and Christian leaders came along and started to make what the Bible teaches far more linear than it actually is, and that became the inherent flaw in Christianity and that's what serves to scare most people away quite nicely, ie. the post below's "hell" doctrination. The philosophy of being a Christian didn't change....the people that selected the philosophy merely started using Christ's life and ideas and reality to mold other portions for themselves that better suited themselves. That's where things like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses come along as well.

"I think you can at least agree that the "group of rabid, right-wing Republican voting rejects" are incapable of reasoned debate. Many won't even consider that other translations of the Bible might be as, or more valid then whatever they currently use."

I'd agree that they're stupid and ignorant. Nobody's incapable given the right knowledge and outlook, though. But maybe I'm too optimistic. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quaoar
2005-03-24 02:23 pm UTC (link)

"Would you consider protest marches against the war in Iraq to be irrational?"

The one's I've seen around here? Yes. To be more general though, a mob is less able to react to change and present a coherent argument then an individual.

"Okay. Organization has positives and negatives in all aspects of life. The organization of soccer into drills and practice games doesn't degrade the soccer itself, it's merely a way of compartmentalizing the sport into more organized areas for mass consumption."

True enough, but the organization of baseball leads to men being paid millions of dollars for being particularly skilled at hitting a ball with a stick, which leads to people thinking they need an edge (steroids or other performance enhancers) to get paid more.

"I think people like to believe that what they're believing is right and true. Why else would you believe in one think if there was a million other things that may also be right?"

Exactly, and that's why I'm agnostic. It's not that I believe Christianity isn't right, it's that I think there a million other things that might also be right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 02:28 pm UTC (link)

"The one's I've seen around here? Yes. To be more general though, a mob is less able to react to change and present a coherent argument then an individual."

So any time a large group of people with the same ideals and philosophies gets together, it's irrational?

"True enough, but the organization of baseball leads to men being paid millions of dollars for being particularly skilled at hitting a ball with a stick, which leads to people thinking they need an edge (steroids or other performance enhancers) to get paid more."

Yeah, especially in those junior leagues and at kid's games....organization just kills and sets people up for 'roid use...interesting logic here, too.

"Exactly, and that's why I'm agnostic. It's not that I believe Christianity isn't right, it's that I think there a million other things that might also be right."

I believe that we don't know to a degree as well, but I'm of the notion that faith is important and I have faith in God and Christ. That's the difference, it's not a "knowing"....it can't ever be a "knowing".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quaoar
2005-03-24 02:41 pm UTC (link)

"So any time a large group of people with the same ideals and philosophies gets together, it's irrational?"

Well, if they actually have the same philosophy and ideals, yes. I mean, what would be the point? They might as well just talk to themselves.

What I really mean, though, is that the people are not irrational, the group, as a collective entity, is.

"...especially in those junior leagues and at kid's games..."

First, allow me to quote Lisa Simpson, "You mean those leagues where parents push their kids into vicious competition to compensate for their own failed dreams of glory?"

But seriously, it's a matter of scale. Organization isn't always bad, but as it progresses from the small scale, to the scale of becoming a faceless monolithic entity, it usually crosses a line.

"I'm of the notion that faith is important and I have faith in God and Christ. That's the difference, it's not a "knowing"....it can't ever be a "knowing"."

That is why you're Christian and I'm agnostic. You're comfortable with just faith. I'm not. It's not in my nature to take anything on faith.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 02:47 pm UTC (link)

"Well, if they actually have the same philosophy and ideals, yes. I mean, what would be the point? They might as well just talk to themselves."

So any "shared belief or ideal" is irrational? That makes no sense.

"What I really mean, though, is that the people are not irrational, the group, as a collective entity, is. "

I know that's what you mean, and I still disagree because it's not logical. See above question.

"First, allow me to quote Lisa Simpson, "You mean those leagues where parents push their kids into vicious competition to compensate for their own failed dreams of glory?""

Funny, but not applicable to this debate.

"But seriously, it's a matter of scale. Organization isn't always bad, but as it progresses from the small scale, to the scale of becoming a faceless monolithic entity, it usually crosses a line."

It's not organization that causes the crossing of a line, it's the leadership and the individual that leads a mob or a group "astray". Most good ideas throughout history, ie. communism, have been thrust totally sideways by the few, not the many. With the RIGHT organization, these ideas and many more would flourish and benefit society greatly.

"That is why you're Christian and I'm agnostic. You're comfortable with just faith. I'm not. It's not in my nature to take anything on faith."

We live in a world where we have to accept things by faith all the time, every day. Read "The World as Will and Idea" by Schopenhauer to start with (or just watch The Matrix and piece it together) and then tell me that you don't take anything on faith. There's no way to rationally, realistically prove that reality is what it is outside of your own will and idea. Likewise, you can't prove emotions or other unseen elements as what they are tangibly. You must take "something" on faith just to exist with some semblance of sanity. I'm not saying that Christian faith is the same as all of that, but I do think that you indeed do use faith as well.

Also, interesting wording: "just faith". My belief isn't based on "just faith", just to clarify.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quaoar
2005-03-24 03:11 pm UTC (link)

"So any "shared belief or ideal" is irrational? That makes no sense."

If an ideal or belief is truly shared, then discussing it is irrational, because you would already be in complete agreement, so there is nothing to discuss. But the odds of any two people having the exact same ideals or beliefs are immense, so the situation would never actually occur.

I'm not saying that having similar beliefs is irrational. I think I may have been unclear before. The existence of the group is not irrational. The behavior of the group, as a discrete entity, is irrational.

"Funny, but not applicable to this debate."

Actually, I think it is. It illustrates that from a certain perspective; even the most inoccuous organization can be seen as "bad".

"It's not organization that causes the crossing of a line, it's the leadership and the individual that leads a mob or a group "astray". Most good ideas throughout history, ie. communism, have been thrust totally sideways by the few, not the many."

That's one theory, but there is at least one theory that places responsibility for history on the zeitgeist (the many) instead of "great men" (the few).

"I'm not saying that Christian faith is the same as all of that, but I do think that you indeed do use faith as well."

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. That's all that I can actually know to be true. Although not constantly, I am aware of the possibility that everything I perceive is a delusion, just like in The Matrix. I don't so much accept the existence of the world on faith, as I don't see any reason not to participate in the world whether or not it is a delusion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 03:15 pm UTC (link)

"If an ideal or belief is truly shared, then discussing it is irrational, because you would already be in complete agreement, so there is nothing to discuss. But the odds of any two people having the exact same ideals or beliefs are immense, so the situation would never actually occur."

Okay...

"I'm not saying that having similar beliefs is irrational. I think I may have been unclear before. The existence of the group is not irrational. The behavior of the group, as a discrete entity, is irrational."

That depends on the behavior of the group. Anything can behave badly. How does that contribute to the point?

"Actually, I think it is. It illustrates that from a certain perspective; even the most inoccuous organization can be seen as "bad"."

Fair enough.

"That's one theory, but there is at least one theory that places responsibility for history on the zeitgeist (the many) instead of "great men" (the few)."

And?

"Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. That's all that I can actually know to be true. Although not constantly, I am aware of the possibility that everything I perceive is a delusion, just like in The Matrix. I don't so much accept the existence of the world on faith, as I don't see any reason not to participate in the world whether or not it is a delusion."

So why can't the same logic apply to God and Christianity? Isn't that dangerous?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quaoar
2005-03-24 03:36 pm UTC (link)

"That depends on the behavior of the group. Anything can behave badly. How does that contribute to the point?"

The point is that I think a group is more likely to behave badly. As are those who perceive themselves as having the protection/support of the group. An individual can be reasoned with, but "group of rabid, right-wing Republican voting rejects" (sorry, but I love that quote) can't be; thus organized religion is worse than personal faith.

"And?"

And, although I'm not a devotee of the theory, my argument is that it isn't always the individual that causes the problem, often the group is the cause.

"So why can't the same logic apply to God and Christianity? Isn't that dangerous?"

Potentially? Yes, it's very dangerous. But the world presents a much better case for its existence than God. I can touch, smell, hear, taste, and see the world. It may be a delusion, but it's a far more compelling delusion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 03:40 pm UTC (link)
	Cool. I respect your thought process and I think we've reached the conclusion of this discussion. Thanks for clarifying some stuff for me. Although we don't agree, I think there's respect. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quaoar 2005-03-24 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	Definitely. =) (Reply to this)(Parent)

laraken
2005-03-24 11:23 am UTC (link)

I really like that organized religion tends to come with a ready-made support group. I also like that the general rule of thumb in a religion is to be a better person. Then again, in Christianity, the only motivation to be a better person is to avoid going to Hell, so I'm not really sure it's all that genuine of a feeling.
Not that I'm really one to criticize... I haven't really thought this out well.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 11:26 am UTC (link)

That's not the "only motivation". The motivation to be a Christian is that you live in a such a way as to be Christ-like, to love people and show mercy, compassion and tolerance. Christ didn't act as he did or think as he did or preach as he did so as to avoid hell, he acted as such because of his love for the people of the world. So many Christians act the same way. Sadly, many also do not. Then again, many people like baseball: some love the Red Sox and some love the Yankees.

Sorry if any of you feel inundated, but I just really don't like these sweeping generalizations based on the actions of the most visible Christians. One group of rabid, right-wing Republican voting rejects does not represent ALL the members of a belief structure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

laraken
2005-03-24 12:08 pm UTC (link)

When I was a Christian, I was TERRIFIED of Hell. I was raised a Lutheran. Sure, there was motivation to be Christ-like, but only because I was scared about what was in store for me when I died. I had it hammered into my head that if I wasn't good and virtuous now that this all-benevolent God would send me to a place of eternal torment, to teach me my lesson forever.

This was taught to everyone else in my church. Can you see where I'm coming from with that statement now?
I guess I should have put the qualifier, "from my experience" or something, hm?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 01:20 pm UTC (link)

"When I was a Christian, I was TERRIFIED of Hell. I was raised a Lutheran. Sure, there was motivation to be Christ-like, but only because I was scared about what was in store for me when I died. I had it hammered into my head that if I wasn't good and virtuous now that this all-benevolent God would send me to a place of eternal torment, to teach me my lesson forever."

Christianity has different facets and groups and sects just like any other philosophical or religious rendering. Your experience is unfortunate but doesn't represent the entire belief of Christians everywhere nor does it represent their attitudes.

"This was taught to everyone else in my church. Can you see where I'm coming from with that statement now? I guess I should have put the qualifier, "from my experience" or something, hm?"

Yeah. A black guy robbed me once.....

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

laraken
2005-03-24 04:02 pm UTC (link)

Christianity has different facets and groups and sects just like any other philosophical or religious rendering. Your experience is unfortunate but doesn't represent the entire belief of Christians everywhere nor does it represent their attitudes.

Um, I believe I said that already.

Yeah. A black guy robbed me once.....

Not funny.

I don't appreciate the lack of respect. The poster asked for my opinion and I gave it. You didn't have to be so abrasive when you told me you didn't agree.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 04:08 pm UTC (link)

Whoa....I thought you'd get what I was getting at with the joke. Why is it okay to make statements like "ALL Christians believe this"? Seems hypocritical...

You said: "in Christianity, the only motivation to be a better person is to avoid going to Hell, so I'm not really sure it's all that genuine of a feeling."

Not what you claimed to have said:

"Christianity has different facets and groups and sects just like any other philosophical or religious rendering. Your experience is unfortunate but doesn't represent the entire belief of Christians everywhere nor does it represent their attitudes.

Um, I believe I said that already"

Unless it was hidden somewhere underneath the generalizations that are okay for you to make when they involve Christians but NOT okay for one to joke about.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

laraken
2005-03-24 04:25 pm UTC (link)

Then again, in Christianity, the only motivation to be a better person is to avoid going to Hell, so I'm not really sure it's all that genuine of a feeling.

We both agree this was the original statement, yes?

I guess I should have put the qualifier, "from my experience" or something, hm?

We both agree this was the amended statement, yes?

How does that not make sense to you? Would it make you happy if I said, "at my specific church during the period that I was attending?"

I realize there was a fault in my logic and wording. You were right. Why the need to insult? You just made me upset and more resistant to what you had to say.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

deeperthou
2005-03-24 02:50 pm UTC (link)

Your experience isn't atypical. Your response is completely understandable, if not completely justified. Keeping an open mind is a good thing, certainly, but being "once bitten, twice shy" is a natural defense mechanism which has managed to keep our species alive so far. If one couldn't make a generalization on "a fire burned me once"...

I think

zootv is correct in stating the differing beliefs of Christians. I also think that 1) you weren't really coming off as precluding other beliefs and 2)

zootv's response was somewhat of a knee-jerk response (ironically).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 02:53 pm UTC (link)
	"2) zootv's response was somewhat of a knee-jerk response (ironically)." Clarify? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

deeperthou
2005-03-24 03:19 pm UTC (link)

Sure. It's obviously clear that the the general statements people are making made you uncomfortable. Your response came off as a little angry and confrontative. It certainly felt to me more like an attack of her beliefs rather than an explanation of yours. "You're wrong." starts your argument and "I'm sick and tired of..." concludes it. Hard to not feel a little ruffled at that.

It's ironic as it's probably the worst approach you could take to having her respectfully consider your opinion. The last thing someone who got filled with "fire and brimstone" needs to hear is more of it. The "black guy" comment didn't help much.

It would have been better to find the common ground and understanding as your leading statement, imho.

I should follow this the fact that I didn't find your response horrible, it just wasn't "good". Does that clarify?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zootv
2005-03-24 03:26 pm UTC (link)

"Sure. It's obviously clear that the the general statements people are making made you uncomfortable. Your response came off as a little angry and confrontative. It certainly felt to me more like an attack of her beliefs rather than an explanation of yours. "You're wrong." starts your argument and "I'm sick and tired of..." concludes it. Hard to not feel a little ruffled at that."

Uncomfortable? No. This is nothing new or revolutionary and nothing I haven't discussed for years with various people. My response may have "come across" that way, but I included a joke and an apology if anyone felt attacked or inundated. I also didn't really attack her personally and just said "here's what Christianity is" in my opinion. If someone makes a very linear, single-minded statement involving the "only" purpose of anything, I think the response would be "you're wrong".

"It's ironic as it's probably the worst approach you could take to having her respectfully consider your opinion. The last thing someone who got filled with "fire and brimstone" needs to hear is more of it. The "black guy" comment didn't help much."

I didn't discuss any doctrine of the sort and I'm not too concerned about respect. I suggest you read the post again and involve context and humor a little bit. You might learn something and, in the future, be able to steer clear of any personal assumptions about people you don't know. The "black guy" comment was a joke.

"It would have been better to find the common ground and understanding as your leading statement, imho."

Your opinion comes across as anything BUT humble, to start with. You come across as a high and mighty know-it-all that's trying to tell other people what I was thinking when I posted and trying to tell ME what I was feeling. I wasn't going for common ground, either. If that was my intent, I may have gone the route you suggested....so humbly.

"I should follow this the fact that I didn't find your response horrible, it just wasn't "good". Does that clarify?"

Next time I'll try and make it "good".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

deeperthou
2005-03-24 04:17 pm UTC (link)

I'm sorry, I thought "Clarify?" meant you wanted my opinion. I don't understand why you're so angry if you truly wanted me to elaborate.

A better word would be "bothered" rather than "uncomfortable" I suppose. It's hard for me to understand how you could be "unbothered" or "comfortable" with what people are saying if you felt compelled to apologize and state how "I just really don't like these...".

I'm confused as to why you say you aren't concerned about respect. What I stated is that you wouldn't get your opinions respect"fully" heard, which to me is a reason why one would post. It's not the only reason one would post, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I used the term "fire and brimstone" because that's clearly the doctrine she was exposed to and you are responding to the effect of that. Given that is the context of the discussion...

Talking about context and humor... did you look at any of her posts or mine before you just attacked me? I actually did look at both of yours before I posted to start with. Your blog appeared to claim to be open to opinion--and that's why I invested in a response to your one word solicitation from me.

The "black guy" comment may have been a joke. It wasn't clear and it has racist overtones so it's hard not to see it as something negative without having an in-depth knowledge of you--if everyone else has such knowledge I'm sorry that I didn't pick up on it.

I respect that you think I was being "high and mighty know-it-all". I don't respect that you've taken to picking abrasive terms to get that point across. Again, I was going off the assumption that you were posting your feelings and I was giving you my interpretation of what you were trying to say as you *did* ask.

The intent of my last sentence was to say that I didn't really have a *huge* problem with what you said and I wasn't agressively trying to attack it. It was mostly nitpicky. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

counterrev
2005-03-24 11:50 am UTC (link)

most favorite thing would have to be the architecture of the old european cathedrals...least favorite i would say is how much money the church can command with tithes and donations and all that that just seems to go into the pockets of the priests and into the outfits they wear (the gold thread, the fine cloth) and the gold to decorate the church and that sort of thing rather than redistributing ALL of it to the poorer members of society.

So, one of your favorite things is the elaborate churches and one of your least favorite things is the elaborate churches. What am I missing here?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	turtleheart 2005-03-24 11:57 am UTC (link)
	yes, i know. i think the churches are very beautiful, and as a photographer, i appreciate beauty for the sake of beauty. i like to look at them. but at the same time, i don't think you need to have a huge, elaborate cathedral to worship in, especially when they cost lots of money that could be spent on better things. i know this is a conflict of ideas. i'm weird like that. (Reply to this)(Parent)

tenmazero
2005-03-24 02:16 pm UTC (link)

I really like the charity work that's performed by religious people and organizations. That's one area in which humanist organizations have seriously dropped the ball. How are we to prove that reason is the best way for humanity to advance when faith is putting so much more food in the mouths of the hungry?

Granted, it would be better if these people were charitable just for the sake of charity, and not because it's what they've been told The Big Man likes to see. But hell, if it's something that can motivate so many people to do good, I refuse to oppose it on a technicality.

Religion brings out the best in some people, and the worst in others. My least favorite thing about organized religion is the tendency to meddle in the affairs of others. It's no secret that fundamentalists want a society based on their own particular opinions of right and wrong, and are growing increasingly intolerant of those who don't share their beliefs. This is not a direction the United States, or any other nation for that matter, needs to be headed.

(Reply to this)

	deeperthou 2005-03-24 02:23 pm UTC (link)
	The best and worst of religion... The shortest answer I can give is that it provides a moral compass for those who cannot form/find their own and the worst is that it often keeps those who can form/find their own from doing so. Hows that for brief? :) (Reply to this)

	hkitsune 2005-03-24 02:34 pm UTC (link)
	Mine. I don't like the doctrination. And the fact that there are people who ABSOLUTELY do not see the flaws in the Bible. And the fact that people cannot understand that Jesus most certainly WASN'T the son of God. And probably wasn't a prophet, either. Angst. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	hkitsune 2005-03-24 02:35 pm UTC (link)
	And my most favorite thing is... Catholics are more liberal than the Protestants here. And they haven't beaten me up yet. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	zootv 2005-03-24 02:39 pm UTC (link)
	"And the fact that people cannot understand that Jesus most certainly WASN'T the son of God." Okay....that's a "fact" now? What makes your opinion on the unknown factual and the Christian/religious opinion not? How is that not doctrination as well? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hkitsune 2005-03-24 02:49 pm UTC (link)
	No, the fact is that people do not understand the inability to get pregnant by something that cannot make sperm :P I was specifically talking about the Baptists vs. Presbyterian type doctrine. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 02:50 pm UTC (link)
	"No, the fact is that people do not understand the inability to get pregnant by something that cannot make sperm :P" So nothing supernatural has ever happened in the history of the world? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hkitsune 2005-03-24 02:51 pm UTC (link)
	Except, obviously, the birth of Jesus. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 02:54 pm UTC (link)
	Wha..? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hkitsune 2005-03-24 02:58 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zootv 2005-03-24 02:59 pm UTC (link)
	wink (Reply to this)(Parent)

	whosfoolru 2005-03-26 08:22 am UTC (link)
	No, the fact is that people do not understand the inability to get pregnant by something that cannot make sperm So...the Creator of the universe and all that is in it, including males who possess sperm, cannot make sperm? If one accepts the reality of a Creator, there is nothing illogical about that. (Reply to this)(Parent)

pxocean3
2005-03-24 05:11 pm UTC (link)

Most favorite: The architecture. The memories of Christmas plays and being a cantor. The truly good and interesting people who go there, that aren't fanatics, but wish to shape themselves to be better people.

Least favorite: The anger inspired in me by a collection of people who believe the divinity of their soul is in a way strictly represented through things taught to them by other people who are equally as unknowledgeable about what's really going on. (This coming from my belief that we can know nothing absolute about god or his/her ways.) The woman who grabbed me when I was on the way to the bathroom the last time I was in Church, telling me that God spoke to her and that from then on, I would be committed to a real relationship with Jesus Christ. People who go to church because it's the respectable thing for people to do, and those who never question otherwise.

(Reply to this)

uminojiyuu
2005-03-24 05:16 pm UTC (link)

I don't know much about Christianity. To be honest, the Christian religion itself isn't that bad, from what little I know. I just wish some people would quit taking their morals from the Bible word-for-word. Isn't there something in there very, very horrible about menstruating women? Around the same passage where they say homosexual is sinful? Yeah. The Bible is outdated. I think that's what I like least about Christianity, really. If nothing else, then perhaps how some Christian zealots are trying to merge state and religion together, but other than that. *shrugs* The Christians I'm friends with are good people, even the ones who are considered the "uber-Christians." They're good people, so long as we don't start discussing religion. :)

So, I don't know. What I like about Christianity? My feelings towards Christianity is much like my feelings towards any religion. If it gives people comfort, by all means, let them worship it. Just so long as they don't try to convert me, I'm okay.

(Reply to this)

	evrythingevil 2005-03-24 11:34 pm UTC (link)
	I love the message of christianity, the message of peace and unity. I love the parabols that show wit overcoming strength and size. The thing i hate about christianity, is mainly christians...They are typically pro-war, pro-rich, and republican...the essence of non peace and non unity. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs