A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging

Just caught this short video of Christopher Hitchens in a debate involving religious theology and I thought

how close it came to the JW theology and its own inherent sociological and psychological damage that it causes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3YgQfR3sEM&feature=related

The problem is not confined to the extreme fundamentalists.

Any belief system that divides humanity into god's buddies and god's enemies is corrosive to human relationships.

I do like a good Hitchslap.

Actually trueone, I thought the same thing a few weeks ago, when I heard it for the first time.

Any belief system that divides humanity into god's buddies and god's enemies is corrosive to human relationships.

Very true Cofty,    Indifference and hatred between structured belief systems breaks down many social cohesive inter-relationships.

We experience that hatred being JWS, in the way all other religions either of Christendom or not were all evil, worthy to be destroyed along

with the people who were associated with those religions.  

The heading of this thread is misleading and is not what Hitchens is saying. You could say the same about political or philosophical ideas. Its not theological teachings that are dangerous in themselves, its religious fanaticism and intolerance and genocide in the name of religion that he is saying is utterly hideous. Any idea can be used and subverted by a fanatic towards evil ends, not just religious. History of replete with examples of them.

The heading of this thread is misleading

You'll notice that I put the word most into the topic thread.

Hitchens may have just brought forward the bad side of theological teachings, there are obviously good teachings

as well, I think he was focusing on the bad singularly alone.  

In my opinion, anytime the human race is indulging in self-delusional behavior, it is dangerous...

Let's look at some other self-delusional behaviors...

A recent "Nova" discussed the tendency of people to act AGAINST their own financial best interests...

This, too, is a form of self-delusional behavior.

Young people who go ahead and start smoking or using drugs are also indulging in self-delusional behavior - it's that "It won't happen to ME - I can HANDLE it..." mentality.

The vast cosmetic surgery industry is also based to a large extent on self-delusion.  "I'll have my chin lifted and my eyes tightened - that'll make me look 18 again..."

I could keep on going, but you get the picture...

In my opinion, anytime the human race is indulging in self-delusional behavior, it is dangerous...

Good point Ziddina, what Hitchens was trying point out is when mankind works in a frame work of delusion

of are god is real, yours is not, therefore I hate you and you must die, pretty much promotes problematic sociological human behavior.

The ancients really didn't have a choice since they were subjugated by their own ignorance of the world they lived in.

Today we have acquired enough knowlege, that we should not be relegating are self toward the gods to solve humanity's problems.

Christopher Hitchens: "If you don't believe that there is to be an end, a separation of the sheeps and the goats, condemnation, a final one, then you are not really a believer."

Hello True, thanks for posting the video. Hitchens is using a prevalent pitfall of religion and is using that to wage war against God. His motivations are just, he wants people to embrace medicine instead of waiting for a rapture. But he seems to be completely ignorant to what the Bible says likely because at one point in his life he started looking at it with a cynical eye and never stopped. Once he entered the cycle he stopped being able to see the people of religion for who they really are. Religion is not the problem just as government is not the problem, it's just people behind the wheels that need to be removed from power.

A don't know enough about the Quran to have a solid opinion, but the Bible doesn't tell people to be bigots and look down on them. The Bible says that a Book of Life exists, but that the names within it are completely secret as well as how to get into it. For anyone to call themselves a Christian and paints a clear picture of who's going to hell and who's going to heaven is not a Christian at all. They just say they are to feel good about themselves. Hitchen's should have attacked dishonesty, not God.

As for the world around us, Hitchens shouldn't blame anyone for having an overtly negative outlook. Such a negative outlook may predispose the person to a religion that teaches most people perish.  The world needs to reclaim faith and put it in it's rightful place, not rub it out of existence.

-Sab

The atheists also have an ideal that is very dangerous. It's the idea that we don't have a choice in the matter. They say that we are just the sum of our parts with no connection to something higher than ourselves. Many people need to feel they have a choice even if philosophy is required to understand the nature of their choices. Many religions preach that you don't have a choice either, but that's just the same problem.

We have a choice, because God made us that way.

-Sab

I like this picture on the cover of a new newsweek:

You don't need a church to follow the teachings of Christ. And not surprisingly the people who do just this don't usually turn into religious zealots.

-Sab

I disagree heartily. YOu are condemning all religion for what a small fraction does. Religion is a strong component of all our culture. To be so rabidly against religion is just as bad as Islamic terrorists or the Spanish Inquisition.

  We shouldn't be 'centric and intolerant about things that aren't character
determinants (race, age, income, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.).
Being centric and intolerant about any of them, propagandizing against the
others, has caused harm, and making the 'centric stance about any of them the
law has caused injustice.

  Likewise, faith understood as such is only arbitrary substantiation, not
proven substantiation, for anyone to be hurt or killed over it so no one should
be, and atheism is only rejection of belief in god or gods.  Some of either have
been 'centric and intolerant and ended up on lists of abominations and some of
either would be ashamed to have you think they'd ever want to be on such a list.
Making either law of the land is institutionalized 'centric intolerance.  A
religion can use that understanding that or not just like an individual can--I'd
recommend progressive/reform.

  The problem isn't belief, non-belief, race, age, income, gender, sexual
orientation, nationality, etc., but being 'centric and intolerant about any of
them.

  The believers and non-believers who understand that should agree to be against
the 'centric intolerant harm caused by either.

  Hitchens reminds me of a couple of matters of belief or non-belief in God
brought up in the song "Imagine", and it bungles both of them: "Heaven"/"Hell"
and "religion."

  The song asks you to imagine a eutopia on Earth--a hope for an Earth where
everyone gets along beyond what could be expected realistically from the known
things of the world.  In the middle of it, and meant in the name of having that
happen, it asks you to not imagine a Heaven, which is a hope for an afterlife
where everyone gets along beyond what could be expected realistically from the
known things of the world.  (It's also ironic since some people's idea of a
eutopian afterlife is of a paradise on Earth.)

  A concept of heaven could be inclusive (Universalism, which some claim was the
most popular concept of heaven in the first 600 years of Christianity) or ex-
clusive (yet hoping others go to heaven and leaving judgment to the Lord), with
pros and cons you could imagine for either one.  It's a faith matter about some-
thing beyond the proven things of the world, so you could imagine either one.

  You can imagine Heaven either way and understand faith as such whichever you
choose.  Of the two, Heaven and Earth, the one which would have to be exclusive
to make it work is the Earth--you'd need prisons, etc.

  Similarly, Hitchen defines heaven by 'centric intolerant Muslims who don't
understand faith as such and decide who can be killed over it instead of criti-
cizing that definition.  Likewise, he'd service the topic of people getting
along better be defining faith as such as recommending that people not get
'centric or intolerant about belief or non-belief.

  The other point the lyric bungles in a ham-handed broadside swing is religion.
Abrahamic monotheistic religion, the kind Hitchens specifies, can be broken down
into Orthodox, Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive/Reform.  If you're going to
go Abrahamic, I recommend the latter end of that scale as better regarding faith
understood as such beyond the known things of the world, so wanting separation
of church and state, and keeping up to speed regarding the known things of the
world, so not wanting bigotry against women and homosexuals or making arguments
against evolution, etc., or 'centric propaganda against believers or non-believ-
ers.

  I think the criticism of John or Hitchens hits the mark aimed at the outmoded
or even harmful ideas more likely to be found in a 'centric intolerant stance of
the former end (Orthodox and Conservative) of that scale.  So it's again ironic
that he doesn't show better understanding of what religion can be than the ones
he's criticism is best aimed at and only propagandizes against those different
than him as they would.  Likewise, he'd do better to service the topic of people
getting along better by defining faith better, and recommending that people not
get 'centric or intolerant about belief or non-belief, than fighting 'centric
propaganda with 'centric propaganda.

Sab: They say that we are just the sum of our parts with no connection to something higher than ourselves.

Are you sure about this statement?

As I mentored before there good theological teachings in the majority most common religions but does humanity need these teachings now

in this modern era of social awareness and knowlege. Take for example the WTS/JWS a religious publishing house that lures people into being subservient

slaves to sell Armageddon through literature proliferation, putting forth the insinuation that if you don't do what the WTS corporation says you will

shortly die as a result.

A religion that is the epitome of a morally digressive hoax played upon humanity to subjugate power and money into the hands of a few corrupt men. 

The damage of this one particularly religion is quite obvious on the scope of what this religion has done to people .

Each religion could be place on a weigh scale to see where it balances itself toward the good and the bad.   

As a culture or civilization embraces science religion wanes.

YOu are condemning all religion for what a small fraction does - BOTR

As I said above any belief system that divides humanity into god's buddies and god's enemies is corrosive to relationships.

This is not a problem of extremism its also a problem for the nice little old lady who goes to her nice little conservative church on a Sundy and prays that her nice neighbour might get saved.

Religion is poison.

I speak as somebody who knows christianity from the inside.

Are you sure about this statement?

I guess an atheist would believe that driving a car is connecting them to a power higher than themselves. That's the main trick of atheism. It's an endless loop. They demand physical proof of a deity that created the universe which makes their position fundamentally fallacious because such a deity would reside outside of our universe and therefore is not provable. The "power beyond themselves", according them, can only be explained through scientific methodology. They live in a world where explained things happen and unexplained things happen. This is not the real world. In the real world things just happen and there is purpose and direction to all of it connected to a source of creative force. Atheism commandeers God's ship and says it never had any harbor that it sailed out from. There was no captain!

-Sab

Did you post this on the wrong thread Sab or are you just having anti-athiest rants all over the board?

To be so rabidly against religion is just as bad as Islamic terrorists or the Spanish Inquisition.

Well unless of course some guy stands beside you on a bus and detonates a bomb killing himself and a dozen people

but before he pulls the trigger yells " In the name of Allah ".