Originally Posted By ecdc "Someone agrees with me? Praise Jesus! It can happen!" Praise Jesus? I declare a jihad on you! Praise Allah! Allah is good!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Mormonism relies on its own very particular interpretation of the Bible as evidence of its truthfulness; Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses - all faiths do the same to one degree or another.<< But the LDS have their own scriptures, so its more than just their interpretation of the Bible. Also, unlike Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura alone, the LDS also has non scriptural sources of dogma as well. I'm not trying to knock the LDS folks, but to imply that LDS is just another form of Protestantism is disingenous at best,
Originally Posted By utahjosh "I'm not trying to knock the LDS folks, but to imply that LDS is just another form of Protestantism is disingenous at best," That's true. Memebers of the LDS church don't claim to be just another form of Protestantism at all. At least this one doesn't.
Originally Posted By jonvn How about a Buddhist Monk? Can a Buddhist Monk be elected President? <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061122/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_thailand_monk" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 61122/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_thailand_monk</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Literally, arguing over which imaginary friend in the sky is better, or how to best make useless gestures towards that imaginary friend.<< That's a gross minimalization of some of the issues in religious debates. A religious tradition is about far more than forms of worship. Religions have fundamental differences in things like individual sovereignty, the source and extent of civil rights, and the roles of different types of people in a society. Western civilization has a pretty unique view of the sovereignty of the individual that stems from Christian and pre-Christian European religious traditions. That view can be seen as Europe's great cultural strength or as an example of the West's arrogance by cultures that don't share it. Even without the differences in ritual, the fundamental philosophies are different. That is why there are conflicts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Actually, he's a Maronite (Lebanese) Christian.<< If he is a Maronite, then he is also a Catholic.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's a gross minimalization of some of the issues in religious debates" No, that's basically what it boils down to, as far as I can tell. "Religions have fundamental differences in things like individual sovereignty, the source and extent of civil rights, and the roles of different types of people in a society." They all do the same things, they all have similar doctrine, and they all behave in similar manners. As someone on the outside looking in, that's how it appears. Now of course, someone involved in one religion or another is going to see it vastly different. Which is why they are a member of a certain sect or cult. And this is why you have Sunni killing Shia in what amounts to basically identical religious beliefs. It's all just disgusting as far as I'm concerned. "Western civilization has a pretty unique view of the sovereignty of the individual that stems from Christian and pre-Christian European religious traditions." Well, no. Not Christian tradition. You would have to look to the Catholic church (inquisition and crusades, anyone?) for Christian tradition in Europe up to the 16th century. Of course, even after that you have religious fueled hatreds of Jews and Moslems continuing to this day. I'm sorry, but I have to not agree with your contention.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Even without the differences in ritual, the fundamental philosophies are different. That is why there are conflicts." But the fundamental philosophy stems from an undertsanding of who the imaginary friend in the sky is and what he/they/it wants (to use jon's rather crass explanation). Now one could certainly debate whether religion is the cause of the us vs. them mentality, or merely a vehicle for what would exist regardless of religious beliefs. I tend to think it's the latter, but religion makes it much easier for people to discriminate and justify violence because they claim that God sanctions such actions.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>As someone on the outside looking in, that's how it appears.<< But that's not how it is. >>Well, no. Not Christian tradition. You would have to look to the Catholic church (inquisition and crusades, anyone?) for Christian tradition in Europe up to the 16th century.<< There was a lot more the Christian tradition in Europe before the 16th Century than the Inquisition and the Crusades. And there was a lot of ancient cultural baggage that took a long time to unload as Christianity took root. >>I'm sorry, but I have to not agree with your contention. << Your deeply held belief that all religions are essentially the same will not allow you to do anything else.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But that's not how it is." Well, you see, that IS how it is. And the only reason you don't see it that way is because you're part of it. I see no differences. "Your deeply held belief that all religions are essentially the same" I see very little here pointing out anything to indicate otherwise. They all involve imaginary friends in the sky, they all involve empty ritual that contain useless gestures to appease this imaginary friend, and they all seem to think they are right, and those that don't agree are to be converted or killed or treated as less than human. They all do that. They are all the same.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But the fundamental philosophy stems from an undertsanding of who the imaginary friend in the sky is and what he/they/it wants << Of course. That means there is far more to the conflicts over religion than merely what the window dressing and gestures are.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, that understanding is just what the imaginary friend is. But what it does come down to is that the friend is IMAGINARY. He ain't there. The gestures made are useless and empty. The ideas extolled regarding it are devoid of meaning. It is all flat out 100% nonsense. And people kill each other, and have killed each other, for centuries over this stuff, and I find any kind of defense of it to be, for lack of a better word, sinful.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But what it does come down to is that the friend is IMAGINARY.<< Assuming the friend is imaginary, then what it comes down to is how the religion teaches us to treat each other.
Originally Posted By jonvn "then what it comes down to is how the religion teaches us to treat each other." And, again, they all say the same things. It's meaningless. People use it as an excuse to kill and abuse other groups. Now, a major flaw in what I am saying is that if we didn't have religion to divide and cause people to hate and kill, we'd just find another reason. We're very good at that sort of thing. But does the religion help at all in any way? Does it solve anything? It doesn't seem to.
Originally Posted By jonvn I've looked into all of them. The major ones, anyway. They do. Basically. Same things.
