Religion How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?

[Mycernius]

That is right to some extent. I sure have never gone up to someone`s plate in a restaurant and tried to take their meat away. But, I have leafleted and tabled the reason to go vegetarian. Vegetarians are usually involved in a battle of getting the vegetarian lifestyle out and to move society to adopt the vegetarian diet through convincing them that a vegetarian diet is the kinder choice.

From this Thread
Unless I read it wrong, you will not take away their food, but will table your views or give them leaflets. This is exactly what a Jehovahs Witness does to people when they either stop you in the street or knock on your door.

Religion has the baggage of a spiritual realm that is not provable. Republicans want others to become Republicans and their zeal at campaigning to enlargen their party does not turn them into a religion. However, they may campaign "religiously" (i.e. using the adverbial form of the concept). But, that does not make them a religion.

You still seem to be confusing the word religion with spiritual beliefs. Definition 4 doesn't imply that a spiritual belief is needed to make it someones religion, so the comment religious fervor can be applied to any extremist view of a set of beliefs, whether they are spiritual or not. A strong atheist lack of belief in a God is a religion to him/her. They will deny it, the same as you have, because they instantly connect the word religion with the realm of the spiritual, which it isn't. Revenants use of the term religious fervor is relavent because the it is an extremist view of a belief. It doesn't matter whether it is spiritual or not.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Mycernius,

From this Thread
Unless I read it wrong, you will not take away their food, but will table your views or give them leaflets.

Oh, thanks for taking the time to find that Mycernius. Appreciate it.

Now I see what you were referring to. Yes, you were reading it wrong, but I can see how it is confusing.

Animal Rightists/Liberationists use the word "table" as a verb. All it means is setting up a table/booth on a street corner, at a festival, in front of a zoo, or some other venue and we lay literature out on the "table" and have posters hanging up to catch peoples' attention. We are not going up to anyone when we "table." We are at the "table" which we have set up and people who are interested in what we display come up to us.

There is no going up to people' tables in restaurants to convert them. I think it would turn violent. lol.

I hope that clears it up and sorry for the confusion.

This is exactly what a Jehovahs Witness does to people when they either stop you in the street or knock on your door.

We demonstrate and table, but I have never, or I have never seen any vegetarians run up to people on the street like members of religious denominations do inviting them to their churches. Like I said, we usually table or demonstrate.

You still seem to be confusing the word religion with spiritual beliefs. Definition 4 doesn't imply that a spiritual belief is needed to make it someones religion, so the comment religious fervor can be applied to any extremist view of a set of beliefs, whether they are spiritual or not.

You are right, it can. But, like I said previously, it is the more narrow usage of the word and much more vague which could be applied to anything, which I have already given examples of. It is normally used in a spiritual sense.

A strong atheist lack of belief in a God is a religion to him/her. They will deny it, the same as you have, because they instantly connect the word religion with the realm of the spiritual, which it isn't.

You are right, Mycernius. I think we will both agree that there are a number of words with a wide range of use. But, amongst those words there are more popular usages of the words and in general society will associate the meaning of a word or concept with not what is the peripheral meaning, but the one that is most common. Even you didn`t understand/catch the narrow usage of the word "tabling." Fair enough?

Revenants use of the term religious fervor is relavent because the it is an extremist view of a belief. It doesn't matter whether it is spiritual or not.

Sure, I will accept it -- noting though, that it is the least seldom use of the word and that in most instances people associate "religious fervor" with zeal associated with a devotion to a deity and a spriritual belief system. Other than that, I will accept Revenant`s usage of it on a semantical technicality that is seldom used.

I feel like I almost have to say, "uncle."

 

[Mycernius]

I wasn't sure about the phrase I quoted. It wasn't the word table in the quote, but the the way I read it was that you wouldn't take away their food, but would let them know the benefits of a vegetarian diet. I just read it in a different way to the way you had originally meant to say it.

 

[Revenant]

Hi Revenant,
Fine, I understand now. However, even in this para, when you write "same kind of" it is being misleading (though, I don`t think purposefully).

How is it misleading?

They would take strong issue with you on that.

I'm sure some of them would, but coupled with some basic logic, it seems clear to me that they don't understand their own faith well.

That is one of the big problems with the Christian Bible -- it is made to order for whatever part one attracts a particular personality. In Mark it gives orders to "test God." One can drink poison or handle snakes and no harm is to come to them. It is a contradiction. People have to choose which passage they like most, and apparantly this guy chose the "ok to test" passage but decided the poison and snakes were not literal and that a substitute (lion in this case) would do just fine.

Perhaps he had a strange Concordance dictionary or a book on hermaneutics that said a "snake" could be rendered in meaning as a lion. Who knows? The inner workings of a delusional mind are baffling and this guy demonstrated it quite well.

I don't know if the Christian faith really is so flexible, it seems to me that when one studies a lot, and attempts to understand what seem to be contradicting verses, that one can reason it out.

Just for example, one verse says that man cannot earn his way into heaven, but that faith alone can save man, while another says that faith without works is dead. Martin Luther King had John 3 (if I remember correctly) relegated to the back of the Bible because he felt that it went against the message of salvation, however, it can make sense. Faith alone will bring salvation, but it requires a faith strong enough that it naturally manifests itself into good works.

I totally agree with you, Revenant. The Bible however, in places, has examples to the contrary. Again, it comes down to picking and choosing and a book that leads itself open to interpretation any way of a 100 different denominations chooses to their liking.

The sum of the law and the prophets, as well as the law of love reasoned out would give one a good guide as to how one should intepret other verses that appear contrary. Perhaps some contradictions still remain, but a lot of contradictions would disappear given an understanding that all laws are subject to the law of love, and an understanding of what love really is.

Nothing wrong if the guy lives in a vaccume without any others depending on him. But, if he is refusing transfusions and other treatments because he thinks God will heal him, or in a worse case, refusing treatment for his children if they are sick, then there is something wrong.

The Christians who refuse medical treatment are in the minority, and it seems to me that these kind of people aren't solely religious. I know of a Japanese woman who doesn't take antibiotics cause she feels that herbal medicines are the end all be all.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Revenant,

How is it misleading?

"same kind of" is very absolutist. It would not be misleading if it read, "similar to."

I'm sure some of them would, but coupled with some basic logic, it seems clear to me that they don't understand their own faith well.

Whose logic? I think there is only one logic -- but when I applied reasoning to many of the points in the WOG thread that was not accepted. To me that is pretty basic. Why do you think your judgement of what is "basic" going to be given credence over others when I can point out to you some basic things with basic logic that shows the Bible is contradictory.

What one accepts as logic when targeted at their religion will be logic applied prejudiciously -- AND that is how religion harms. It creates prejudices in not only people -- but in logic and applying it as well. The WOG thread shows that quite clearly how people will rationalize logic away.

I don't know if the Christian faith really is so flexible, it seems to me that when one studies a lot, and attempts to understand what seem to be contradicting verses, that one can reason it out.

No, one is rationalizing the contradictions away. There is a difference.

Just for example, one verse says that man cannot earn his way into heaven, but that faith alone can save man, while another says that faith without works is dead. Martin Luther King had John 3 (if I remember correctly) relegated to the back of the Bible because he felt that it went against the message of salvation, however, it can make sense. Faith alone will bring salvation, but it requires a faith strong enough that it naturally manifests itself into good works.

That is assuming. I am sure there have been some aecetics or monks who have had "faith" but had become hermits deep in forests or living in caves, or on a mountain in isolation (perhaps a vow taken) and in that isolation did no good works for their fellow man. In that case, their faith did not manifest itself in good works.

The sum of the law and the prophets, as well as the law of love reasoned out would give one a good guide as to how one should intepret other verses that appear contrary.

Well, it hasn`t happened yet -- for there is no Bible written in a way where contradictions are not to be seen. They are there.

Perhaps some contradictions still remain, but a lot of contradictions would disappear given an understanding that all laws are subject to the law of love, and an understanding of what love really is.

This is just rhettoric and who is to say one`s definition of love is more right than anothers'? Not trying to insult you, Revenant -- just saying that this sentence above is one of those "touchy - feel good" sentences that everyone may agree with but is unusable because it is not workable or offer any insight into how to be workable. How can it be when the mere act of "understanding" what love is and how to apply it universally will be subjective to not only different cultures but different people.

The Christians who refuse medical treatment are in the minority, and it seems to me that these kind of people aren't solely religious.

They will disagree with you and you are being subjective from your perspective. The minority is irrelevant as to whether they are right or wrong. If the minority is to be dismissed simply for being the minority, then Jesus and his 12 should be dismissed, for at their time they were the minority and looked upon as strange, and not only not being "solely religious," but also as blasphemous.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Oppression comes in many ways. Fanatical devotion in things not proven is one of the most harmful. Even the oppressed cheerfully, or ignorantly, cheer their oppression.

Although in recent years, in an effort to combat radical Muslim fundementalism, Saudi Arabia has been attempting to lessen religious restrictions on women, many women there are refusing to crawl out of the black box they had been shoved in. In fact, some are so accustomed to their religious prison that they are encouraging others to stay in the box and lobbying their government to not grant women any more freedoms -- and perhaps roll back the ones they have recently gained.

For example, Saudi women are taking up the issue of the veil professing that it is God`s will that women be hidden under them.

..."Whom do we love?" asked the lecturer, a woman, seated behind a desk on a raised platform.

"God," the women answered in unison.

"Then we must obey Him."

She went on to urge the audience members to dress modestly and raise their daughters to do the same. She explained that, despite what some Saudis are now saying, it is a sin for men and women to mix. "Even if people don't see you sin, God is watching," she warned. "On Judgment Day, your own skin will testify against you."
As she took copious notes, Mashael al-Eissa dabbed at tears, overcome by the extent of her religious responsibilities.​

Which devout religious person of any dogma is not overcome by their religious responsibilities when they believe all their religious scriptures are in fact the very word of God. Man`s gods are just too hard to placate and he has a not too kind place for those whose ?gskin will testify against them.?h

?gOooo, that`s scary!?h -- Spongebobsquarepants, Bikini Bottom​

and...

...the lecturer, Afrah al-Humaydi, are among a group of conservative Saudi women trying to redress what they view as an erosion of traditional values in the kingdom and a dangerous shift in the status of women.

"Saudi women are the luckiest in the world and Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to an ideal and pure Islamic nation," Eissa said. "We don't want imported Western values to destroy that."

Full article here:Saudi Women Rise in Defense of the Veil, By Faiza Saleh Ambah, Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, June 1, 2006; Page A12​

Destroy what? Second class status amongst citizens? Some do define ?gluck?h in odd ways it appears.

 

[Revenant]

"same kind of" is very absolutist. It would not be misleading if it read, "similar to."

Sure, then 'similar to' it is.

Whose logic? I think there is only one logic -- but when I applied reasoning to many of the points in the WOG thread that was not accepted. To me that is pretty basic. Why do you think your judgement of what is "basic" going to be given credence over others when I can point out to you some basic things with basic logic that shows the Bible is contradictory.

What one accepts as logic when targeted at their religion will be logic applied prejudiciously -- AND that is how religion harms. It creates prejudices in not only people -- but in logic and applying it as well. The WOG thread shows that quite clearly how people will rationalize logic away.

No, the Word of God thread shows how people opposed to the Christian faith could also apply logic prejudiciously. Even some people out and out opposed to Christianity felt some of the points were far-fetched.

No, one is rationalizing the contradictions away. There is a difference.

A lot of the contradictions you pointed out (if indeed every one of them is a contradiction) are not things most people would worry about. Most people wouldn't worry or get upset that some Christians refuse to eat pork and lobster now would they?

That is assuming. I am sure there have been some aecetics or monks who have had "faith" but had become hermits deep in forests or living in caves, or on a mountain in isolation (perhaps a vow taken) and in that isolation did no good works for their fellow man. In that case, their faith did not manifest itself in good works.

It's not really that assuming. The main point of all the major religions, even if some practitioners lose the point, is one of compassion. If a person understands their faith well, and absolutely believes that people are suffering, or will suffer, they will take action.

Well, it hasn`t happened yet -- for there is no Bible written in a way where contradictions are not to be seen. They are there.

That wasn't the point. The point was that if one read verses that appeared contrary with the sum of the law and the prophets in mind, that it would make some or a lot of the seeming contradictions easier to interpret.

This is just rhettoric and who is to say one`s definition of love is more right than anothers'? Not trying to insult you, Revenant -- just saying that this sentence above is one of those "touchy - feel good" sentences that everyone may agree with but is unusable because it is not workable or offer any insight into how to be workable. How can it be when the mere act of "understanding" what love is and how to apply it universally will be subjective to not only different cultures but different people.

So is 'suffering' and so many other terms you use also subjective. Love has many different meanings, but when one looks into love, into differing definitions of love, and also into differing ideas of love, one can get an idea of what love really is. It has a lot to do with promoting happiness, now what promotes happiness can differ somewhat from person to person, but the intention of promoting happiness is what we're after. I think most people can truly have a feeling of intending happiness for someone, and therefore can understand something of love. Looking even more at how anger, patience, tolerance, gratitude, forgiveness, and all thise other traits are interconnected will also help in getting one closer to an idea of love.

They will disagree with you and you are being subjective from your perspective. The minority is irrelevant as to whether they are right or wrong. If the minority is to be dismissed simply for being the minority, then Jesus and his 12 should be dismissed, for at their time they were the minority and looked upon as strange, and not only not being "solely religious," but also as blasphemous.

You are attempting to say that religion causes people to refuse medical treatment, and looking at the numbers, whether or not they disagree with me doesn't really matter. They are in the minority. The point is that people who don't accept medical treatments, or do something that the rest of us would find unreasonable are no solely religious. Were religion to disappear, these same people would likely still be doing things we find odd.

 

[Mars Man]

Something just gets into people. Religious fervor does that. Some people are strong enough to use reason or common sense to combat it, but others are not.

So this is where this thread picks up at after a two month rest. Fair enough.

I would point out that it seems, strongvoicesforward san, that your application of the word 'religion' is equivalent with that of 'religion or religiosity inherent in, caused by, or prescibed by a god/mover based belief-system.' That would union the concept involved in the usually first definition of the word 'faith'.

While using the word restricted to such definition is fine, it may be good to keep in mind that others may not. So, it would probably be sensible to attach the defined-by-usage meaning they use to it when they are using it--that may help reduce miscommunication and misunderstandings.

One could define the meaning at the beginning of a thread, or whatever...but that doesn't always seem to help. Anyway. . .

"Whose logic?"..."WOG thread" Let's not open that can of worms again. . .

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The WOG thread is based on reason -- such as, two seperate things cannot occupy the exact same place at the exact same time -- let alone 3. It was/is a very popular thread with many joining in to comment. Admittedly, there were those who derided the thread, but there were also those who enjoyed it. Two camps on the issue. It was/is lively discussion -- and for some -- too lively.

Self proclaimed scholars obviously didn`t like it because it refused to get bogged down in the maze of ancient language translations that can lead to justifying any interpretation without decisiveness. Those persons like to stay within the status quo because they are the ones who have set up the mechanics as to how everything should be studied from. Often it is to protect a certain status they feel they have carved out for themselves. They stifle new ideas, procedures and thoughts on issues -- and in the end discussion, pushing the right to discuss through snobbery out of the range of others who just don`t live up to their mechanics.

It`s refreshing to think outside the box, and ashamed to think that some are always trying to stuff people in it.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for taking the time to post here. . .the concern still stands, I reason, however. "Who's logic?" (although I do think that 'logic' itself may not be the root matter, but rather 'percieved pattern'--humm....I'd have to think over that some more.

Something just gets into people. Religious fervor does that. Some people are strong enough to use reason or common sense to combat it, but others are not.

Since this thread's theme does not really leave room for delving into what I have brought up in that previous post here, nor in yours, strongvoicesforward san, it may be best to let that be, and just look at how the concept plays over the broarder playing field.
The OP surely has matters yet untouched on or unchallenged which will come in their own time.

 

[Revenant]

Accusations of snobbery, justifying any interpretation without decisiveness through the study of original language, stifling new ideas, etc, should have example of such posted along with them. Accusations like those shouldn't simply be flung around without back up.

I guess those who watched the debate can decide for themselves if it was all logical, or if the Word of God thread didn't have it's share of logic stretched thin in places. You know where I stand.