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

Advertisement

Viewed 3449 times

    M thetrueone posted Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:21:00 GMT(4/7/2012)

    Post 5733 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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

    cofty posted Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:29:00 GMT(4/7/2012)

    Post 3112 of 13805
    Joined 12/19/2009

    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.

    Flat_Accent posted Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:34:00 GMT(4/7/2012)

    Post 276 of 440
    Joined 11/28/2011

    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.

    M thetrueone posted Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:44:00 GMT(4/7/2012)

    Post 5734 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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.

    M yadda yadda 2 posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 02:40:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 1038 of 2967
    Joined 4/22/2008

    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.

    M thetrueone posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:03:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 5750 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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.

    ziddina posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:21:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 8910 of 10450
    Joined 4/8/2009

    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...

    M thetrueone posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:48:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 5751 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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.

    sabastious posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:00:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 7445 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    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

    sabastious posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:03:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 7446 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010

    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

    sabastious posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:11:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 7447 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010

    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

    Band on the Run posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:35:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 4808 of 9802
    Joined 12/18/2010

    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.

    M glenster posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:05:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 1747 of 2810
    Joined 1/26/2007

    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.

    jay88 posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:17:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 836 of 797
    Joined 10/11/2010

    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?

    M thetrueone posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:20:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 5752 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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.

    designs posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:24:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 9990 of 19086
    Joined 6/17/2009

    As a culture or civilization embraces science religion wanes.

    cofty posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:27:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 3122 of 13805
    Joined 12/19/2009

    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.

    sabastious posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:29:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 7452 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    Are you sure about this statement?

    Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism" . Encyclopædia Britannica . Retrieved 2011-12-06 . "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

    Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." (page 175 in 1967 edition)

    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

    cofty posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:32:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 3124 of 13805
    Joined 12/19/2009

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

    M thetrueone posted Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:33:00 GMT(4/8/2012)

    Post 5753 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    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 ".

      Close

      Confirm ...