Religion and Ethics 2.0

[RWS]

I'm 51 now, and still having to argue the same logic.

Let's all be together, and have our faiths. And help each other, and not hurt anybody.

 

[RWS]

You either do it, or be an asshole...

Pick one!

 

[emilynghiem]

Let me ask you a question... Would you shoot somebody at random?

Because that's ethics.

Religion may tell you to shoot people, or kill people, at random. And they have all done so.

The reason your religion exists to this day, is that they did it. Killed and raped and abducted millions of people, in order to keep your religion alive.

So when you pray next time, realize what it took to get you to be borne into your religion. And if it's worth it.

I'd rather just follow my faith, and not hurt anybody. I'll be good. I follow ethics, not religion.

Dear RWS
I would compare "blaming ALL religions" for
things that only SOME do is like
is like "shooting at people at RANDOM"
because on one hand you are saying
A. ALL religions teach this
B. but I am not teaching the things you complain about
(as a Constitutionalist where Constitutionalism is a political religion when applied to ALL)
and I don't see ANYWHERE where Buddhism teaches these EITHER:
1. telling people to kill for fun or rape is justified
2. making money off religion

So if you are "randomly blaming ALL religions" for 1 and 2
yet at the same time acknowledging that only
SOME PEOPLE OF/ABUSING SOME RELIGIONS
are "what you are talking about"
that is LIKE "randomly shooting" at other targets
you acknowledge you are including in a blanket statement

????
Do you understand how you appear to be contradicting
your own ethic?

You SAY you are not causing harm
what you mean is you do not MEAN to cause harm

But to keep REPEATING and teaching
a FALSE PREMISE
is causing harm by making a
FALSE GENERALIZATION

 

[emilynghiem]

Think about what is good about your religion. Keep that stuff in your mind.

But drop all the dogma that judges others. You wanna keep the good, and drop the bad.

And then, that's your faith. Stay true to that, and you'll be a positive member of society. Just never go back to the religion. Because they want you to do, or contribute to, bad things. Don't trust their charities.

Just trust your faith.

^ RE: drop the dogma that judges others
Again RWS you just did this yourself

You keep stating the "religious ethic"
not to hurt others, do bad, or judge others.

While you "religiously believe and claim"
that "ALL religions" teach hurtful things
that AREN'T true of "ALL religions"

If you want to "keep the good and drop the bad"
This means dropping the false GENERALIZED statement
and keep the good/true part by being more
accurate and specific instead of false blaming ALL religions.

Otherwise, isn't it causing harm to preach one thing
yet do something else? How is that not causing harm
if you keep saying the false generalization, and don't correct it to KEEP THE GOOD in what you mean?

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: "But not in the same thread"

Again RWS you are discussing both right now,
in the SAME THREAD and the SAME FORUM.

How is this bad if you are using it to present points?

And that's what i'm trying to say.

Religion and ethics are two different things.

And why can't they be addressed in the same forum?

They can definitely be addressed in the same forum. But not in the same thread.

It should Religion vs Ethics. Not Religion AND Ethics. They're not the same thing. Religions have bypassed ethics for thousands of years, to get where they are now.

RE: "It should [be] Religion vs Ethics"

Are you saying that a discussion on Male and Female
should be Male vs. Female

A discussion on Church and State
should be Church vs. State

A discussion on Solids Liquids and Gases
should be Solids vs. Liquids vs. Gases

A discussion on Animals Vegetables and Minerals
should be Animals vs. Vegetables vs. Minerals

Why must any of these be necessarily in conflict?

 

[emilynghiem]

From Queens, NY. I didn't take no shit from anybody. They would argue their beliefs to me, jewish and catholic and others, and I would give the same argument that I am giving today. I would ask my Jewish friends, why they are Jewish, and it was always because their parents are Jewish. Same with Cathiolics, and Hindu's, and Muslims.

They believe in their religion because they were born into it. That's all they know.

So I converted most of them to being ethical, instead of religion. I did this at like 14 years old.

RWS you might work well with Buddhism which followers will explain is not a religion
for much the same reasons you may cite as well.

You might also look into Unitarian Universalism that takes the best principles
of all traditions, so it keeps the GOOD and gets away from the BAD dogma.

The reason for rejecting the Trinity was to get away from the DOGMA that made it a religious condition of faith. (The Christians I know who identify as either UU or more specifically Unity believe the "Trinity" means to seek Truth Justice and Peace for all people. But their congregations are generally open to people of any faith or no faith tradition including humanists, atheists, agnostics, former followers of other faiths, secularists, nontheists, naturalists, Pagans and Wiccans etc. They basically believe in universal INCLUSION of all people regardless of beliefs and support people in seeking and following their own paths in life, while seeking good, truth, and wisdom in all sources of philosophy and life teaching)

Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism:

1. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

 

[RWS]

Emily, you might work work well with Catholicism.

But you don't work well with ethics. Pick one.

 

[RWS]

Would you shoot somebody on command from your religion?

 

[RWS]

If jesus told you to shoot him, would you do it?

 

[RWS]

That's the difference.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you might work work well with Catholicism.

But you don't work will with ethics. Pick one.

Dear RWS I end up predominantly speaking Constitutionalism
which includes defending the beliefs of all people regardless of affiliation
in order to enforce "equal protection of the laws" without "discrimination by creed."

I believe in the same inclusion of diverse contributions
which the UU and Bahai both emphasize.

I believe the same God and Jesus that Christianity teaches
is the spirit of truth and justice behind natural laws and all other
systems of laws and religions used to represent these same universal laws.

I just happen to favor secular language, so I prefer to express and enforce
Constitutional principles I find to be more universal than Christian language
which doesn't communicate meaning to all people especially secular nontheists.

Whatever language or systems it takes to communicate,
I believe in mediation to resolve conflicts and reach a consensus between people
or between groups through the democratic process to respect free will and informed consent of all people in making decisions and policies that represent them.
The faith in "Restorative Justice" is a common factor I find and support
in Christianity and other approaches and groups that promote the
betterment of society and humanity that way.

For ethics, I find the Code of Ethics for Govt Service to be an equal
addition to complement the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
www.ethics-commission.net

As for working with the Catholic Church, I would love to collaborate on setting up
teaching hospitals along the border, including alternative prisons to death row that
accommodate rehabilitation and restitution through campus jobs and ministry.

I don't understand why you think you can only have one approach,
either religion or ethics, when you can be bilingual or multilingual
and speak as many different languages for the laws as there are
people who respond to that approach.

RWS I think we are talking about two different things.

Science as in physics is not the same but an entirely different
department from art as in painting.

But things like MUSIC and ARCHITECTURE incorporate
both science and art.

Constitutionalism is another system that can be a POLITICAL RELIGION.
But it also includes ETHICS: where you don't deprive people of liberty
without due process. And you don't establish beliefs through govt
unless by fully informed consent of the governed.

Whatever you are referring to by religion and ethics being
mutually exclusive, that doesn't seem to apply to my beliefs as a Constitutionalist
and universalist. I believe in defending both the "good in religions that you want to keep"
and the common sense ethics that come with natural laws, where
faith and reason, morals and ethics, church and state, left and right,
check and balance each other. As necessary complements, any of these
institutions or policies that people use in society function better when
they work together and help correct the weaknesses of one with the strengths of another.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's the difference.

No RWS the difference that matters is whether
people live by Retributive Justice, by judging punishing and rejecting others,
or Restorative Justice, by forgiving correcting and restoring good faith relations with others.

If "Jesus" told me to "shoot him" that would be retributive or destructive
so that would be ANTICHRIST not Christian in motivation.

Can you give me an example where someone like Jesus would ask me to shoot
him or someone else as an act of "Restorative Justice."

The example I could think of, which I don't think you mean,
what if someone held a gun to my head and told me to shoot person x or I will get shot.
But person x would rather take the sacrifice over me, and told me to shoot them,
to save my own life.

Is that what you mean?

Honestly RWS I don't think I'd ever end up in that situation.
If I did, I'd probably wimp out and try to negotiate with the gunman,
or we'd all end up getting shot dead anyway.
That's how that would end, very badly!

I would more likely end up promoting spiritual healing so all such mentally or criminally ill
people would get help with healing to cure them, so we'd end all crime and violence.
And never see such situations at all!

 

[RWS]

The Inquisition and the Crusades

 

[RWS]

Explain those attrocites. I have many more.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Inquisition and the Crusades

^ Antichrist not Christ ^

RWS just like today's parties and govt
are not following the Constitution.

So if you looked at what is happening in politics,
if you thought THAT was the meaning of Constitutional laws
you'd see the exact opposite instead!

 

[emilynghiem]

Explain those attrocites. I have many more.

^ Yes RWS this is what I mean by the DIFFERENCE
between
* Retributive Justice which is Antichrist
* Restorative Justice which is the meaning of Christ Jesus
Different as day and night.
Different as life and death.
One brings peace the other brings war.
One is based on good will the other ill will.
One is based on love the other on fear.
One is based on unity and inclusion
the other on division and exclusion.
One is based on justice, the other injustice.

You can give as many examples as you can think of.
They will likely follow this same distinction between
Retributive Justice vs. Restorative Justice.

Basically RWS if we don't forgive, then we carry ill will
and project control issues externally for conflicts and wars.
That unforgiveness, ill will, and fear is the root cause behind
all atrocities and war. It is the OPPOSITE of Christ Jesus
and the Holy Spirit which is Justice with Mercy to bring
healing, restoration and salvation to relations and to humanity.

So if you want an explanation how could this atrocity be done
in the name of Christianity, that's corruption for you. That's like
explaining how all the mess in govt can be done claiming it's
constitutional when it isn't. It's all fraud and abuse, claiming
authority of church and state, but abusing that power to do the opposite
of law and opposite of justice, so you have lawlessness and injustice or
Antichrist in the name of Christ, like rogue officers claiming to be law enforcement.

 

[RWS]

The Inquisition and the Crusades

^ Antichrist not Christ ^

RWS just like today's parties and govt
are not following the Constitution.

So if you looked at what is happening in politics,
if you thought THAT was the meaning of Constitutional laws
you'd see the exact opposite instead!

No Emily, this is what you believe from birth. It's incorrect. You have to learn a new way about thinking of things.

 

[RWS]

The Inquisition and the Crusades

^ Antichrist not Christ ^

RWS just like today's parties and govt
are not following the Constitution.

So if you looked at what is happening in politics,
if you thought THAT was the meaning of Constitutional laws
you'd see the exact opposite instead!

I see religio9n as being a catalyst of evil Throughout history. It has been used as a means of war, and killing, and rape, and abductions, since the creation of religions.

It's an evil tool. It's the most horrific thing humanity has ever created.

And it's why YOU, are here. They killed everybody else.

And you were born into your religion.

It probably wouldn't have been your religion anyways. You're probably of Jewish descent, and now converted to the master's religion.

 

[RWS]

It's evil, it's mideivel, but it's still evil

You follow a god, that kills everyone that disagrees. Everyone. No mercy. Sine missione.

I'm good with faith.

 

[ding]

It's evil, it's mideivel, but it's still evil

You follow a god, that kills everyone that disagrees. Everyone. No mercy. Sine missione.

I'm good with faith.

"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill." William James