Would you ever resort to using religion?

[FireGarden]

Or any other forms of dishonest manipulation?
Propaganda?

Or would you limit yourself to reasoned argument?

 

[Dancing David]

Well I took like this oath
'to not use the mystic arts to impress foolish people'.

So i am afraid there are certain things I can't/won't do.

But to use religion to give myself certain feelings, sure, create bonds.

Peace

 

[Yahzi]

Would you ever commit an act of immorality?

 

[Man of jade]

Or any other forms of dishonest manipulation?
Propaganda?

Or would you limit yourself to reasoned argument?

Is there any proof that Religon is dishonest or manipulitive?

 

[arcticpenguin]

No,

It's against my religion.

 

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Would you ever resort to using religion?

Is there any proof that Religon is dishonest or manipulitive?

- The Crusades
- The Spanish Inquisiton
- The Middle Ages
- The Holocaust
- Chick Tracts
- Scientology
- Yellow Bamboo
- 9/11

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Re: Re: Would you ever resort to using religion?

You really should have asked is there any proof that all religion is dishonest or manipulative. Otherwise, there's always going to be a dishonest or manipulative religion. I note a couple of examples were already given.

Is there any proof that Religon is dishonest or manipulitive?

 

[woodguard]

How many schools and hospital were build my good christian.
A religion is just a group of people who believe the same thing.

All religion have done evil, they all have one thing in common, they are make of humans. And Human are not perfect.

The more power one group has the more good or evil they can do.

 

[Man of jade]

Re: Re: Re: Would you ever resort to using religion?

- The Crusades
- The Spanish Inquisiton
- The Middle Ages
- The Holocaust
- Chick Tracts
- Scientology
- Yellow Bamboo
- 9/11

One question? Is this religous doctrine itself acting out, or is it people who decide to follow religon the wrong way?

I agree impy... Im going to use a specific example; lets use christianity.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Would you ever resort to using religion?

Interesting point but who creates the religion in the first place - it's humans. Humans create the rituals, the rules and the beliefs and pack it into a religion. Saying religion never told them to act like that is incorrect, because humans are the ones who form the religion.

One question? Is this religous doctrine itself acting out, or is it people who decide to follow religon the wrong way?

I agree impy... Im going to use a specific example; lets use christianity.

 

[Man of jade]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would you ever resort to using religion?

Interesting point but who creates the religion in the first place - it's humans. Humans create the rituals, the rules and the beliefs and pack it into a religion. Saying religion never told them to act like that is incorrect, because humans are the ones who form the religion.

Even if it is created by humans, some rules are set in place. If the people dont follow the rules that were set in by them, then it is only the fault of the follower. Therefore, its still the fault of whoever wasnt following it properly.

 

[Ossai]

c4ts

Yellow Bamboo

Please explain. I did a quick search and didn’t come up with anything ominous.

 

[c4ts]

c4ts
Please explain. I did a quick search and didn’t come up with anything ominous.

http://www.yellowbamboo.com

Not all lies are necessarily ominous.

 

[Ossai]

c4ts
Thanks for the link. I kept finding sites selling bamboo furniture and talking about how bamboo was one of the world's leading renewable resources.

Ossai

 

[Yahzi]

woodguard

How many schools and hospital were build my good christian.
A religion is just a group of people who believe the same thing.

All religion have done evil, they all have one thing in common, they are make of humans. And Human are not perfect.

The more power one group has the more good or evil they can do.

How many schools and hospital were build my Nazis.
A political party is just a group of people who believe the same thing.

All political partys have done evil, they all have one thing in common, they are make of humans. And Human are not perfect.

The more power one group has the more good or evil they can do.

***

When you simplify your analysis to the point at which you cannot distinguish between the Nazis and the USA, then I submit you have made your analysis too simple.

 

[woodguard]

There is a old saying I neard

"Guns don't kill, People do."


Religion never killed a single person, people did.

Religion is a idea and Ideas don't kill, someone may use it to kill someone.

 

[Kally]

I told a whopping lie one time when my parents weren't going to let me come home. I was in the hospital and they were going to send me to a shelter home or something like that. Why I wanted to go back into the abuse I have no idea!!! She said I could come home if I said the words, "I LOVE JESUS" so I said it.

That was the last time I ever repeated something like that. It made my skin crawl. I was just a young teenager. I'll never, ever, parrot something like that again! I'm ashamed.

 

[FireGarden]

Kally,
I'm sorry to hear your story.
I don't know the solution to things like that.



Yahzi,
I see you're talking about the national socialists again.

Unfortunately, there are no societies where everyone is an alpha-male. So a select group has to be in charge. And the rest of us must play a smaller role.

The only way out that I can see is to limit the size of a community so that everyone knows everyone else. So everyone has a voice. But how many groups that small could afford a 300 billion a year miltary budget?

How can a large group function unless there is some way that compels them to act as one. Whether that thing is patriotism or religion makes no difference, only the intent of the leaders decides whether they are good or bad.

 

[FireGarden]

Some examples of the need for faith .....

During the Gulf war, missiles were fired from battle ships by people who could not see the target for themselves. And these were big missiles, that shook the ground even at great distances.

How can you expect a soldier to obey an order like that without being either a blood thirsty killer (and that doesn't sound at all disciplined) or else having complete faith in the chain of command?

I don't think that I could follow an order like that. If I was conducting a war, maybe I could give the order, but I certainly couldn't follow it.

It gets even worse with those soldiers manning the nuclear deterrant. The faith they must have in their leader must be extra-ordinary. I couldn't launch a nuclear missile no matter who told me to do it. (And in this case, I doubt that I could issue the order either)

Should the nuclear detterant be abolished until the system is fully automated? I'd find that even more worrying. At least there is a chance that the orders won't be followed if there are more people in the chain of command.

 

[Yahzi]

woodguard
If you get your arguments off of bumper stickers, I'm afraid you are too stupid for me to actually talk to.


Good Propaganda

Unfortunately, there are no societies where everyone is an alpha-male. So a select group has to be in charge. And the rest of us must play a smaller role.

It is rare that someone so blatantly admits their love of fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed, but currently the sole remaining super-power does not operate according to fascist principles. While it is true that as a republic we assign authority to select individuals to carry out the public's business, the fact that they owe their power to the ballot box strongly implies they aren't "in charge."

The notion that a large society cannot operate off of rational principles is just an excuse you made up to justify abandoning rational principles.

Whether that thing is patriotism or religion makes no difference, only the intent of the leaders decides whether they are good or bad.

You really, really do think the ends justify the means, don't you? Why won't you just come out and say it?

How can you expect a soldier to obey an order like that without being either a blood thirsty killer (and that doesn't sound at all disciplined) or else having complete faith in the chain of command?

As has been pointed out a thousand times before, "faith" in the chain of command - or any other empirically verifiable entity - has nothing at all to do with "faith" in the religious sense. Deciding to accept something as true without applying the empirical tests yourself is entirely different than deciding to accept something as true that has no empirical test.

The idea that people have to trust their public instituitions does nto in any way mean they have to surrender their reason and believe any lie someone makes up.

I am a federalist, and thus as close to a big-government proponent as you can get and still be rational. But your arguments do not make me think I am talking to another federalist, but rather that I am talking to a fascist. Why do you suppose that is?