Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[ding]

I mean, think about it...

Some Popes have recently apologized for the evils Christianity committed in order to gain power, and it took well over 1000 years for them to even admit those evils.

But they didn't change the religion and forbid these things in the future. They just said they were past transgressions and should be forgiven. The religion itself remains the same.

So if the religion says to do it again... then there is nothing to stop followers from doing it again...

You mean like we forbid murder and murder still happens? Do you even have a brain?

 

[ding]

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

That is what religion is. A corrupt ruler or tyrant exploiting the beliefs of the people for their own intentions.

The people that still follow that ruler are equally guilty as the ruler/tyrant. They are the religious followers, and the reason the shit still happens today.

I don't understand what part of that you don't get.

The three major OT religions today got here on that premise, and still exploit their people in the same way they have done in the past.

The original "good" intentions are long gone. Unless you want to talk about secret societies. Followers of the modern Judeo/Christian religions are worshiping evil, unmoral, and unethical things. They are a very warped lot.

Man, you sound exactly like Karl Marx. You lack objectivity. Your type always does.

 

[RWS]

I am unsure where you get this notion that people can be blamed for the actions of others who did things long before they existed. It seems like this would be such a simple thing to understand but we see it all the time from certain idiots who think this should be the way things are. I'm not responsible for what happened before I was born. Sorry... nothing I can do about it... I don't feel guilty for it... doesn't change my perspective.

If you are a Neo-Nazi today, you are still following the religion created by Hitler. And equally guilty of promoting all the things Nazism advised and promoted, even if you're not committing those crimes right now.

The same applies to Christians and Jews and Muslims today. They are still following the same religions that allow and promote genocide, even if they're not doing it themselves right now, and they are equally as guilty for promoting it, as the people that did it before for their benefit, if they are aware of it and still don't care. Nothing has changed with modern people that understand this and still follow, except that they haven't done it themselves yet. It's just a matter of time with religions. It will happen again, for certain.They will be commanded to kill again.

And that's the sad truth, no matter how much I argue with you folks. Still have people that ignore the obvious, and are oblivious to reality and history. Because they're stuck on their religion, no matter what...

 

[Boss]

I am unsure where you get this notion that people can be blamed for the actions of others who did things long before they existed. It seems like this would be such a simple thing to understand but we see it all the time from certain idiots who think this should be the way things are. I'm not responsible for what happened before I was born. Sorry... nothing I can do about it... I don't feel guilty for it... doesn't change my perspective.

If you are a Neo-Nazi today, you are still following the religion created by Hitler. And equally guilty of promoting all the things Nazism advised and promoted, even if you're not committing those crimes right now.

The same applies to Christians and Jews and Muslims today. They are still following the same religions that allow and promote genocide, even if they're not doing it themselves right now, and they are equally as guilty for promoting it, as the people that did it before for their benefit, if they are aware of it and still don't care. Nothing has changed with modern people that understand this and still follow, except that they haven't done it themselves yet. It's just a matter of time with religions. It will happen again, for certain.They will be commanded to kill again.

And that's the sad truth, no matter how much I argue with you folks. Still have people that ignore the obvious, and are oblivious to reality and history. Because they're stuck on their religion, no matter what...

Sorry but Nazism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy. Nothing about Nazism applies to Christians or Jews, and I don't even think, Muslims, although you might make an argument for radical fundies.

I am not sure what your deal is with killing but I assure you, the reason humans have any hesitation whatsoever about killing other humans is due to human spirituality. It's not some natural thing... In nature, things kill each other all the time and think nothing of it. Yes, you can cite examples of pack preservation but even in packs there is often killing when it comes to who is leader of the pack. That's nature.

You claimed that religion is created by rulers to control people and get them to kill in return for a promise of eternal salvation. When challenged, the ONLY example you can cite is Nazism which isn't a religion at all. Not to mention, Nazism makes no promise of eternal salvation. So you are just swinging and missing. Then you get all flustered that people are oblivious to what you think is obvious.. but you've not made your argument.

Maybe the problem is, you're wrong? Sometimes, we have to step back from our own rhetoric and examine what we think a little more objectively. That's how humans grow and learn. Sometimes our pride gets in the way of that and we don't like admitting we're wrong.

Let's examine this again more closely....

That is what religion is. A corrupt ruler or tyrant exploiting the beliefs of the people for their own intentions.

These are YOUR words... I've not taken anything out of context, I quoted you verbatim. This statement contradicts itself. The ruler is exploiting something (a belief) that already exists. That's not the fault of the belief, that's the action of the exploiter. The exploiter didn't create the belief, they exploited it. You are blaming the belief and not the exploiter of it. Then you're claiming that defines Religion. This is simply a false premise based on a contradiction.

What you really have a beef with is "Evil" and "Evil" seeks to destroy anything that is spiritual or religious. So it becomes VERY ironic that you attack Religion. I get that you may not like what a lot of religious people stand for, I don't like what a lot of religious people stand for.... but I can objectively evaluate that religion does both good and bad things and the main problem is the exploiting of religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

That is what religion is. A corrupt ruler or tyrant exploiting the beliefs of the people for their own intentions.

The people that still follow that ruler are equally guilty as the ruler/tyrant. They are the religious followers, and the reason the shit still happens today.

I don't understand what part of that you don't get.

The three major OT religions today got here on that premise, and still exploit their people in the same way they have done in the past.

The original "good" intentions are long gone. Unless you want to talk about secret societies. Followers of the modern Judeo/Christian religions are worshiping evil, unmoral, and unethical things. They are a very warped lot.

Dear RWS
1. How has Buddhism been established for abuse or corruption.
Are you not counting that as a world religion, because some people don't. Some teach Buddhism as spiritual education and a mix between science and philosophy.

2. Also my religion is a political religion using Constitutional ethics to check against abuses or oppression, and to redress all grievances and resolve all conflicts by consensus . are you saying my beliefs dont count as a religion because they aren't practiced in an organized collective institution ?
Www.ethics-commission.net

3. ^ do you see anything wrong with my beliefs following and enforcing Constitutional principles and process by free will and consent of the governed, to prevent and correct any complaint of bullying by coercion or exclusion. Do you believe equal protection of the laws can be achieved by voluntary compliance? Because that is what I believe as part of my religion.

Are you saying I should be banned from practicing Constitutional beliefs in equality and inclusion because "all religion is corrupt and should be banned"

If Buddhism and Constitutionalism are allowed to be practiced, what criteria do you use to allow some beliefs but not others?

RWS do you bar secular humanism as a belief system? What about belief in freedom of choice instead of illegalizing abortion? Where do you draw the line between
A. What is an individual belief that a person can practice
B. What is a collective religion you say should be banned

RWS can you explain your criteria for naming which people or practices should be banned as religions and which beliefs dont count as a religion?

Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

I am unsure where you get this notion that people can be blamed for the actions of others who did things long before they existed. It seems like this would be such a simple thing to understand but we see it all the time from certain idiots who think this should be the way things are. I'm not responsible for what happened before I was born. Sorry... nothing I can do about it... I don't feel guilty for it... doesn't change my perspective.

If you are a Neo-Nazi today, you are still following the religion created by Hitler. And equally guilty of promoting all the things Nazism advised and promoted, even if you're not committing those crimes right now.

The same applies to Christians and Jews and Muslims today. They are still following the same religions that allow and promote genocide, even if they're not doing it themselves right now, and they are equally as guilty for promoting it, as the people that did it before for their benefit, if they are aware of it and still don't care. Nothing has changed with modern people that understand this and still follow, except that they haven't done it themselves yet. It's just a matter of time with religions. It will happen again, for certain.They will be commanded to kill again.

And that's the sad truth, no matter how much I argue with you folks. Still have people that ignore the obvious, and are oblivious to reality and history. Because they're stuck on their religion, no matter what...

Yes and no RWS
Because at some point you would point the finger at all humanity from benefitting from genocide of the past.

RWS do you hold all of us who benefit from slave labor accountable for those sins? The electronics we use to communicate were not built by paying every worker minimum living wages.

The food we eat, what suffering and exploitation has gone into producing that for our convenience.

What about the plastic trash, the toxic pollutants and waste of our consumer driven culture and economy.

That's fine if you hold future generations responsible for what we inherit and benefit from.

But RWS where does it end?
Doesnt it make all of us complicit in benefitting either directly or indirectly ?
Dont we all share responsibility for our past and our future?

Thank you RWS I respect your conscientiousness in this pursuit of ethics and believe it will lead to the right conclusions. Keep going, keep posting. We all need to have this conversation and to finish where it leads! Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

I mean, think about it...

Some Popes have recently apologized for the evils Christianity committed in order to gain power, and it took well over 1000 years for them to even admit those evils.

But they didn't change the religion and forbid these things in the future. They just said they were past transgressions and should be forgiven. The religion itself remains the same.

So if the religion says to do it again... then there is nothing to stop followers from doing it again...

Dear RWS
1. Is it fair to define Christian religion based on actions that were political abuses in violation thereof. What about the definition of Christian faith and practices as Grace and Charity?

What criteria are you using to define which is the religious practice of Christianity?

2. As for how to stop abuses from repeating, both Christianity and Constitutionalism have built in systems of DUE PROCESS to address and resolve grievances .

These systems need to be practiced consistently Regardless if abuses are personal political or religious in nature.

Wouldn't it be better to teach all citizens to follow a grievance process to address abuses ?

If that is what is missing, why can't that be taught as part of civics education training and assistance for all citizens.

Thanks RWS you remind me
We need to follow up on our previous discussions and set up a grievance process. Not just for religious and cult abuse, but political legal and judicial abuse. The problem of abusing collective influence resources and authority is greater than just what you point out with religion. It has messed up our mass media and corporatized economy. If we solve the issue in ONE area by setting up a grievance process, the same can be applied to other areas where collective abuses are going on. Look at drug and human trafficking as a multi billion dollar industry. Only way to break that down is district by district. Same with addressing religious abuses one person and case at a time.

 

[RWS]

I am unsure where you get this notion that people can be blamed for the actions of others who did things long before they existed. It seems like this would be such a simple thing to understand but we see it all the time from certain idiots who think this should be the way things are. I'm not responsible for what happened before I was born. Sorry... nothing I can do about it... I don't feel guilty for it... doesn't change my perspective.

If you are a Neo-Nazi today, you are still following the religion created by Hitler. And equally guilty of promoting all the things Nazism advised and promoted, even if you're not committing those crimes right now.

The same applies to Christians and Jews and Muslims today. They are still following the same religions that allow and promote genocide, even if they're not doing it themselves right now, and they are equally as guilty for promoting it, as the people that did it before for their benefit, if they are aware of it and still don't care. Nothing has changed with modern people that understand this and still follow, except that they haven't done it themselves yet. It's just a matter of time with religions. It will happen again, for certain.They will be commanded to kill again.

And that's the sad truth, no matter how much I argue with you folks. Still have people that ignore the obvious, and are oblivious to reality and history. Because they're stuck on their religion, no matter what...

Sorry but Nazism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy. Nothing about Nazism applies to Christians or Jews, and I don't even think, Muslims, although you might make an argument for radical fundies.

I am not sure what your deal is with killing but I assure you, the reason humans have any hesitation whatsoever about killing other humans is due to human spirituality. It's not some natural thing... In nature, things kill each other all the time and think nothing of it. Yes, you can cite examples of pack preservation but even in packs there is often killing when it comes to who is leader of the pack. That's nature.

You claimed that religion is created by rulers to control people and get them to kill in return for a promise of eternal salvation. When challenged, the ONLY example you can cite is Nazism which isn't a religion at all. Not to mention, Nazism makes no promise of eternal salvation. So you are just swinging and missing. Then you get all flustered that people are oblivious to what you think is obvious.. but you've not made your argument.

Maybe the problem is, you're wrong? Sometimes, we have to step back from our own rhetoric and examine what we think a little more objectively. That's how humans grow and learn. Sometimes our pride gets in the way of that and we don't like admitting we're wrong.

Let's examine this again more closely....

That is what religion is. A corrupt ruler or tyrant exploiting the beliefs of the people for their own intentions.

These are YOUR words... I've not taken anything out of context, I quoted you verbatim. This statement contradicts itself. The ruler is exploiting something (a belief) that already exists. That's not the fault of the belief, that's the action of the exploiter. The exploiter didn't create the belief, they exploited it. You are blaming the belief and not the exploiter of it. Then you're claiming that defines Religion. This is simply a false premise based on a contradiction.

What you really have a beef with is "Evil" and "Evil" seeks to destroy anything that is spiritual or religious. So it becomes VERY ironic that you attack Religion. I get that you may not like what a lot of religious people stand for, I don't like what a lot of religious people stand for.... but I can objectively evaluate that religion does both good and bad things and the main problem is the exploiting of religion.

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

 

[Boss]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

 

[Boss]

Once in a blue moon, a current event happens in the middle of a thread that has a bearing on the topic. I always feel like that is a sign that it needs to be shared. The other day, we witnessed true evil by the "facebook killer" who murdered Robert Goodwin live on social media. He was a 70-something year old father of 10... a Christian man who raised Christian children.

I want you (and anyone who has your view of religion) to take just 14 minutes to watch the following video:


These are his children speaking of their dead father before the killer had been located, before he shot himself. The day after their dear father was senselessly gunned down in cold blood. I want you to listen to what they have to say. They have no anger or hate in their heart for the murderer... just forgiveness and love. I believe this is a powerful testament to what religion can do that is good. It's a testament to Mr. Goodwin and the character he instilled in his children. Seriously, take the time to watch the video...then come back and tell me how religion is evil.

 

[Votto]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

 

[cnelsen]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

Right, the OP used the term "imaginary God", which, by definition, exists only in someone's imagination, i.e., doesn't exist in the real world, i.e., doesn't exist. My view is everyone is religious regardless whether they believe in God, just like everyone is scientific regardless whether they believe matter is composed of atoms. I may imagine that God is my pencil, but that doesn't make me religious, it just makes me wrong. Similarly, I may imagine matter is composed of Oprah, but that doesn't make me scientific, it just makes me wrong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

 

[RWS]

Emily, I didn't mean to ignore you on my last post, but only had limited time. But to address Buddhism, I do not include that in my observations, I think that is "good" as far as I have been able to tell. I meant the trinity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the evils they represent. Buddhism is something worth actually following, though there's still no need to put a label on it. Should just be obvious faith, the label just makes it a target for future entrepreneurs. But given that, this thread is about to devolve quickly, as followers of a not-so-nice person have been told to join in. And I'm gonna have some fun with them...

I don't want you in the middle of the poop going forward. So please understand.

 

[RWS]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

 

[xband]

Simple logic is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. Somebody on another forum used the term simple logic to prove his point.

 

[RWS]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

 

[RWS]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

You have waited 16 pages to correct my title?

I made that title on purpose, because people would understand the meaning.

16 pages of people understood what I meant, without the need to ridicule me based on the title. Trust me, nobody here gives a shit about the way the word "oxymoron" was used pertaining to "religion and ethics". They understand what was meant.

What drew you here? You come here, 16 pages later and try to fucking educate me?!? What are you a fucking Catholic School English teacher?!?

Shut the fuck up!

You're a fucking dick, looking to get it wet in the wrong place. Go back to your dinghole.

 

[RWS]

Sorry 'bout that. But I give you all passes on grammar and diction. And always do.

I will not tolerate when someone uses that shit to show me up, because they have no other way.

 

[Votto]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

Wait.....wut?

So the life that exists in the universe can include anything except God. Check. Got it.

So morality is absent in religion. Only those not religious can be moral. Check. Got it.

Do you smoke much reefer?