As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

I agree. That doesn't mean though, that nothing but the material world exists.

Volker

There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution

We are spirits in the material world
(Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world)

Our socalled leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it's the rhetoric of failure

We are spirits in the material world
(Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world)

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
If it's something we can't buy
There must be another way

We are spirits in the material world
(Are spirits in the material world)

(Are spirits in the material world...)
[repeat/fade]

Well if you insist on moving the goal posts, there's not much common ground we can find.

So if I was to walk into a Catholic Church and asked does God intervene in this reality, the answer would be no? Really?

Also, whether he is outside of this reality or not is beside the point. The belief in the Christian God still implicitly makes a statement about his existence, regardless of which weak cop out argument you use. Unless, of course, it is merely a hope.

I gather his tantric love making was a bit like his song writing: banging on for hours without really going anywhere.

Faith is not a question of reason. You either feel a permanent counterpart or you don't. It's neither a strengh nor a weakness. The disposition for faith is there or it is not. That gab between believers and non-believers can never be bridged.
Reason may transform your need for faith. Reason tells me there is no beeing like the God of Christian doctrine. That doesn't end my longing to find purpose in the fabrics of being.

Volker

Remember that overly pc talk we had about Muslims the other day ? Well , fuck.http://m.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26404566 and before you get all pc on me again see this first but be warned on the cruel content in this link http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=290_1393687533

Yes tender people they are deep down.

Yes. Because those are very rare. Have you seen the 2nd graphic link I posted ? Here's another act of tenderness from yesterday http://mobile.news.com.au/world/mans-ha … 6842842191

Quite right. Though it should at least give you pause as to where this behaviour stems from. It's certainly not a "sweeping generalisation" to observe the danger that Islam presents to the world, because it doesn't take a particularly extreme reading of the Quran to justify these acts of violence. (Though it does take an extreme mind to act on them.)

"Islamaphobia" seems to be the new anti-semitism, and it's an ironically apt word intended to shame those who dare criticise Islam. We should be scared of Islam, it's a scary practise. In that sense, I freely admit to being an Islamaphobe.

While I won't make sweeping generalizations about the practitioners, I certainly don't think it's out of bounds to question whether a religious ideology can and has had a harmful influence. So while I'd never say "All Muslims are terrorists" or "All Muslims are sexist", I wouldn't hesitate to say that "Islam encourages terrorism" or "Islam demands sexist behavior". Both of those are written into the very core of that belief, and given that, I find it a particularly difficult religion to accept in a modern-day society.

A phobia is defined as an irrational fear though. I'd describe my attitude towards Islam as a rational concern. We should invent a word for that.

Peter

That's not on the other hand, it's on the same hand. Having rational concerns and avoiding sweeping generalizations and fallacious arguments are part of the same thing.

Peter

That's a bit unclear what you say. I think we're treading on rather dangerous ground if we call a religious belief system ideology, as it would be if we called any kind of a philosophical system ideology. eE

Obviously, Islam has a largely political stance, as any religion creating a system of laws does, but still. If we don't look at things like Jihad for what they were in the historical context (as I said, it's originally a defensive war, not offensive, and the concept stems from the fact that Islam believers actually had to defend themselves (and ultimately prevail) from local tribes back in 7th Century.

We also tend to look with contempt at the meaning of the word Islam itself - submission. But that's the element of any religion, the submission to the Will of the deity we choose (happen?) to believe in.

All I am saying here is that we are simplifying a very complex problem, which is true to any debate regarding religion. As long as we stick to our positions, which are clearly defined already, there will be no sensible discussion. No need to getting fortified anymore. That has happened long before us anyway.