- Joined
- 14 November 2005
- Posts
- 1,319
- Reactions
- 12
Couldn't agree more Julia, but I can't help but feel sorry for that 'Motley Collection' for the other 364 days of the year!
Please tell me your religious friends generosity extends beyond one day a year.
Hi Col
Where some people see religion at work, others just see common decency at work - thats fine, but don't tell me they can't co-exist.
Duckman
Hello Duckman ,
Hope your having fun & being a good boy ?
Did you know there was a pope that sold indulgences , thats religion at work also
– Richard Dawkins, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...s/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html“There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds.”
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p12"A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper reveal that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our [religious] books..."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/war_and_religion.html“Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these 123 wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare.”
Originally posted by Julia
In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread I've been trying to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion.
Can't say it's been easy but I do have a friend who is devoutly religious. Somehow we've managed to remain friends over many years, probably because we agree not to discuss religion.
Every Christmas she looks around her neighbourhood, workplace etc for anyone who might not have someone with whom to spend Christmas Day and invites these people to join her and her family. There are often a quite motley collection of people but she makes them all feel welcome and wanted.
So I reckon that's a plus for religion.
(and even if they have no religion).'Man is Man, religous or not. Being religous doesn't elevate you from being a Man to being something greater than Man that has a different human nature.
Everyone is made the same, religous or not. Great people can do great things, no matter what their religion.
is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see."no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."
It really is a silly thread. If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion...
I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.
Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like [...] is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.
Originally posted by MS Tradeism
"no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."
(1)So is there hope for Ivan Milat? (2)Would you be happy to have him as your neighbour?
Col, I realised your comment re the other 364 days of the year was a bit facetious and understood the point you were trying to make.Julia's comments are interesting. If you note the comments I have bolded, it is fairly obvious that Julia appears not to be a religious person even though we at ASF know she presents as a good person. (although I Don't know what dastardly secrets she has in her closet).
I did say in my reply to Julia that I couldn't agree more with her friends act of kindness being 'a plus for religion'
My contention is that other people perform similar acts of kindness who are not religious. Refer to my post (27) where it highlights the generosity of Bill Gates and others, who whilst not religious are significant contributers to many charities. One might argue that they can afford it but at the same time there are many other wealthy people who wouldn't part with a cent whether they are religious or not.
My comment that I hoped Julia's friend did something more than on just one day a year was a tongue in cheek remark merely implying that I hoped that her act of kindness was not a feel good religious exercise that would carry her conscience for the next 364 days. I suppose it may have come across cynical but it was not my intention.
Brad (Beamstas) sums it up pretty well with these comments:
(and even if they have no religion).
It really is a silly thread. If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion otherwise we may as well have threads like 'The beauty of Daytraders' or 'the beauty of homosexuals' like they're some 'other elitist group'.
I am not religious although I have friends and relo's that are. Like Julia, I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.
Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.
Oh, please no!! Not yet another thread on religion.These are people who have made a difference because of their beliefs. As Gav pointed out, if one can't give credit to religion inspiring good then it is ridiculous to want to debit it just with the bad. No-one has so far as I see, denigrated secular people for humanitarian contributions but that isn't the topic of the thread. This point of this is about balancing the "Religion Gone Crazy" thread. I don't remember you over there telling contributors to separate the individual from the religion and claiming it has no credibility? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Then start a thread and try it.
But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?Despite the fact this is in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category of questions....
The short answers:
(1) Yes
(2) Unrehabilitated and untreated for psychiatric disorders, no.
When victims enjoy the same level of understanding and rights as the perpetrators, then I'll start worrying about the further rights of the criminals.What does it mean to have hope for Milat? Is there hope that he could come to experience genuine remorse and accept responsibility for his actions? Yes. Is there hope that in taking responsibility, he could over time come to a place where he may be able to contribute something back (even while incarcerated) despite what he has destroyed? Yes. Is there hope, however small, that he could ever be completely treated and rehabilitated back into society as a functional participant? Yes, but improbable - for societal, emotional and legal reasons. eg. How does one distinguish a genuinely rehabilitated and treated person from a master deceiver? There is inherent risk. How does one balance justice and the victims' (and their families) rights against the right for one become a functional citizen again? Does the perpetrator have such a right?...and so on.
But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?
Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it? i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.
But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?No, it doesn't. One lived out their potential. The other hasn't, but could still contribute. If I did not consider them to have the same value I would be an advocate for capital punishment, or throwing away the key and letting them rot.
But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?
But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?
Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it? i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.
MS+Tradesim, why not simply address your comments to me, rather than refer to me as though I'm not participating here?Julia says:
Agree. We do not.If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.
Disagree.In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.
Yes, I'd say that's pretty much what I believe. My view is that a person's value can be determined by the contribution they make to those around them, including the wider society.I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.
It seems like you are fishing for the big P, `perception`. I had a fun time with 2020 hindsight about how everything perceived by human consciousness is via agreement. As you typed, value is a concept of mind!Julia says:
If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.
In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.
I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.
If this is the case it might be easier to understand that there is no inconsistency in what I have stated.
But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?
Interesting. Care to tell us more about this? Did you know the people?There are a number of people I wouldn't like to live next door to- it has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. I wouldn't live next door to a bagpipe academy for example. It's not because I hate people who play bagpipes, it's because I would find the noise too invasive! Likewise I wouldn't like to live nextdoor to a family that all smoked cigars and pipes day and night. I think it's okay to use wisdom and common sense to decide what risks you're willing to face, and what you're not. I wouldn't choose to live next door to Ivan Milat because I'd worry about my kids' safety, but let me further explain my view on Ivan-
1. If Ivan Milat asked me to visit him in jail to go through the Bible with him, and there were guards present, I'd go. I have visited people in jail before.
Oh, what a wuss!2. If Ivan Milat asked me to meet him in a dark alley to see his brand new axe, I wouldn't go.
Yep, sensible comment. But the original question was if you were happy to have a murderer next door, and did the murderer have the same value as a saint.Both scenarios involve Ivan, but the decisions are different. I think it's possible to value another human being and still avoid what I consider unnecessary risk. It's a wisdom thing, not a love thing.
My remarks haven't been made in the context of God/religion. Just simply on the basis of the value of the individual regardless of his/her religious beliefs.Julia, I do agree that religious people, like non-religious people, often consider one human being to have a higher inherent value than another. The Bible asks me not to do this. The fact that I do occasionally stuff up and esteem one person over another is a failing of mine, not God's.
Interesting. Care to tell us more about this? Did you know the people?
Was it as part of some religious programme?
Oh, what a wuss!
Yep, sensible comment. But the original question was if you were happy to have a murderer next door, and did the murderer have the same value as a saint.
So presumably you regard all human beings, regardless of atrocities committed, as still of value to our society?
And the saint to have equal value to the murderer?
My remarks haven't been made in the context of God/religion. Just simply on the basis of the value of the individual regardless of his/her religious beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?