Jump to content


What does religion really do?


flasportsfan88
 Share

Recommended Posts

God is good... Religion is bad. Those who use religion to kill, inflict pain or insult others in the name of God are nothing but hipocrits!

 

I can not deny I am a Catholic. I will die a catholic. However, I do accept that my religion has done much more damage than good. Its principles are essentially good, but some people have misused those principles to cause evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people need religion or the world will be chaotic.

 

I think when people are smart enough to have their moral system be independent from what others tell them, they must disregard religion, but quite frankly, I believe too much people are too stupid to handle such a responsibility.

 

And I believe all the killing and hatred isn't founded in religion, its economically based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people need religion or the world will be chaotic.

 

I think when people are smart enough to have their moral system be independent from what others tell them, they must disregard religion, but quite frankly, I believe too much people are too stupid to handle such a responsibility.

i agree with that 100%. organized religion and the desire to please one's god are big reasons why civilization isn't in total chaos (or more chaos, if you will).

 

And I believe all the killing and hatred isn't founded in religion, its economically based.

i disagree there. not all wars are fought for purely economic reasons. a large reason why a ruler with 20 gold palaces decides to conquer the world is for personal pride. another significant motivation for conquest is the desire to please one's god. by building churches and handing bibles to locals in foreign lands, many european rulers sought to spread christianity to all of the world. the same applies for a number of the world's conquerers and religions... i won't get into that.

 

the crusades were the most notable wars that were fought over religion. no ruler in his right mind would sacrifice his entire army just to conquer a landlocked desert town (35 miles inland) for economic gain.

 

there is no question that an unneccessary amount of blood was shed over the conquest of one jerusalem. why? the city is of phenomenal religious significance to two religions. neither side wished to amicably concede that one city... to this day, people continue to fight over that one city, largely for reasons other than economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is the opiate of the people.

 

I never ever agreed with anything the man that said that thought except for that. Organized religion is not necessary to be faithful, quite the contrary. But it is necessary to keep people in check. Because think about it, if a priest tells someone to stop doing something or they are going to Hell, do you really want to risk him being right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to hurt anyone, i knows whats right and whats wrong, my religion is my conscience.

you've touched on what is probably one of the biggest drawbacks of organized religion. too often, people use religion as a surrogate for having a conscience; they don't develop a conscience of their own.

 

while that might not seem like much of a problem at the surface, what would you say of a man whose religious leaders tell him he'll go to heaven if he blows himself up on a tel aviv city bus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i disagree there. not all wars are fought for purely economic reasons. a large reason why a ruler with 20 gold palaces decides to conquer the world is for personal pride. another significant motivation for conquest is the desire to please one's god. by building churches and handing bibles to locals in foreign lands, many european rulers sought to spread christianity to all of the world. the same applies for a number of the world's conquerers and religions... i won't get into that.

 

the crusades were the most notable wars that were fought over religion. no ruler in his right mind would sacrifice his entire army just to conquer a landlocked desert town (35 miles inland) for economic gain.

 

there is no question that an unneccessary amount of blood was shed over the conquest of one jerusalem. why? the city is of phenomenal religious significance to two religions. neither side wished to amicably concede that one city... to this day, people continue to fight over that one city, largely for reasons other than economics.

I must disagree with you. I wish my study of the crusades was better, but it was an excericse of the churche's political might after trade with the middle east was shut down, so they made a holy mission out of conquering the holy land in introduced feudal manors for a little bit. The effects of war, the technology brought back with it, and new trade sounds economic if you ask me.

 

The reconquista in span sounds purly economic and not religious. The portuguese wars against the infadels was a convenient cover for establishing trading posts in Africa.

 

Now what man with 20 golden palaces ever tried to conquer the world? There are rich people who seem to conquer for reasons that aren't economic, but people are never "rich" enough. The Mexica, with their dominance over every city-state in mexico, seemingly fought wars for religious sacrificial reasons, but it was a tribute empire, and it kept its power in this way.

 

Zionism might not be economically based, but the wars fought in israel between jews and muslims, zionist and anti-zionist are economically driven as well. Look at the income disparities, the fact that Yasser Arafat and his cronies perpetuate poorness in order to keep themselves in power, do you believe these things are simply coincidental?

 

I might be no marxist, but fighting never happens unless it costs someone something or there is money to be had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you've touched on what is probably one of the biggest drawbacks of organized religion. too often, people use religion as a surrogate for having a conscience; they don't develop a conscience of their own.

 

while that might not seem like much of a problem at the surface, what would you say of a man whose religious leaders tell him he'll go to heaven if he blows himself up on a tel aviv city bus?

This starts to hit a gray area. Do we consider the mullahs indocterinating lies as "organized religion." Read the bible, Quran, or whatever, it simply doesn't preach those things. Do we consider guys making up lies, molesting altar boys, or ordering men to kill in battle a reflection of organized religion, or soemthing totally different? The mullah who preaches so probably has certain political leanings and aspirations, thhe preist that rapes the altar boy isn't a reflection of the faith but of who he is as a sick man, and the church that orders a crusade is a non-religious institution excercising economic and political might.

 

So can organized religion lead to bad things? Yes, a whole lot of organized things do, like governments, or cultures, or societies. Do you wish to give that up too?

 

This comes from someone who debates that faith at its base is immoral. However, for many faith is needed or more immorality will result, which of course, is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All im saying is we dont need religious to tell us whats right and wrong.

I don't disagree with you, but there are a lot of idiots out there that do need religion and still sin. it scares me.

 

where do you think the 'moralisitc' ideas people follow find their roots from?

Not religion. Kohlberg made a theory of how people develop morality and how it coincides with moral development. Religion is irrelevant. Think about it, why do I not kill people...I would not like to be killed and the law would kill me! Religion doesn't have to shape why I don't kill people.

 

Scary example, but you get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be no marxist, but fighting never happens unless it costs someone something or there is money to be had.

what monetary gain would a group of men get from hopping aboard a plane and flying it into a building, killing 3000 people? none, but what monetary loss are the people of the oil rich nations under from western exploition? is it by mistake they attacked two towers that have much to do with capitalism, a symbolic target?

 

it's all economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's all economics.

You know, I used to think the world was all about money. And in fact, it still really is. But is everyone? I sure as hell am not.

 

Whenever I'm asked what I want to do in the future, I tell people. And people ask me if I think I'm going to be rich and stuff. I always tell them I really don't care, as long as I make enough so I can put my children through a good education, make sure my wife doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to, and I guess live comfortably. But do I want to be rich? Nope.

 

Maybe I'm one of a dying breed. Maybe there aren't many left that don't put money as number 1 on the list. But frankly, it isn't about money. It is about principle. It is about standing up for what you think is right. It is about getting to do what you are good at in life until you are 65 or until you are lucky enough to retire and have fun doing it.

 

And if the world now can't see that, then dammit it needs some reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be no marxist, but fighting never happens unless it costs someone something or there is money to be had.

what monetary gain would a group of men get from hopping aboard a plane and flying it into a building, killing 3000 people? none, but what monetary loss are the people of the oil rich nations under from western exploition? is it by mistake they attacked two towers that have much to do with capitalism, a symbolic target?

 

it's all economics.okay, so are you telling me that in your honest opinion, the people on those planes decided to commit that act because they thought it might help their home countries' economic situation? what do you think was their train of thought before they stepped onto those planes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, so are you telling me that in your honest opinion, the people on those planes decided to commit that act because they thought it might help their home countries' economic situation? what do you think was their train of thought before they stepped onto those planes?

To answer your questions:

 

They were obviously stupid people to be brainwashed into doing that. They knew one thing: America sucks because their country is sucky because of America. They didn't counciouslly consider the totality of the economic situation, but they do know of the disparity, which drove them to such hatred.

 

Their train of thought before getting on the planes? "We're going to do to them what the west has been doing to us for over 100 years."

 

And why has the west exploited the east? Economics.

 

You know, I used to think the world was all about money. And in fact, it still really is. But is everyone? I sure as hell am not.

 

Whenever I'm asked what I want to do in the future, I tell people. And people ask me if I think I'm going to be rich and stuff. I always tell them I really don't care, as long as I make enough so I can put my children through a good education, make sure my wife doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to, and I guess live comfortably. But do I want to be rich? Nope.

 

What you just mentioned, a modest life free of hunger and fear is a life of wealth for many in the world that dream to attain that.

 

Here's my little dream: teach history, own a nice little house and a hybrid car, and enough land to plant some trees and watermelon. That's really all I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and i assume your reasons for owning a hybrid car are entirely economic right?

It would appear not, I want to help the environment because i believe it is immoral to knowlingly pollute more than you need to.

 

However...

Why do I care about the environment?

 

I don't want to die off and I like seeing trees and stuff, so couldn't that be considered economic in a fashion? surivival deals with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but what would owning a hybrid vehicle have to do with oceanic and soil erosion, save for the occassional oil spill.

polluting the air with chemicals that come from fossil fuel gives people asthma and slowly but surely pollutes everything. Tnik about it, do you want to breath in the exhaust coming directly out of your exhuast pipe?

 

 

I don;t know what its like being a teacher in florida, but in NY, you can get by...

 

and i can still grow my watermelon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...