Question addressing religion

[aristide1]

I would ask the administrator to close this thread at the first sign of flaming. I am looking for an answer in regards to a paper I need to write for a college class, nothing more or less. If you get emotional then please, please do not post.

OK, I am not overly religious, so I don't understand how those people thing. Also - this is a school related issue that I have to write about, it doesn't concern me all that much.

The question had to do with how laws could impact religious beliefs. In NY there is a no discrimination law on the usual issues, but also on sexual orientation. Some people feel what gays do goes against their religion so they feel that they should not be required to give them housing.

Point of clarification - Nobody can tell you whom you have to live with under your own roof, you can live in your own NYC skyscraper with 300 units, that's your roof and you can do as you please, if you live there.

From a Christianity point of view I don't understand this because because there is a great amount of emphasis put on turning the other cheek, and that's with wrongs commit specifically against you, not just wrongs in general.

There is a also a degree of freedom from persecution that seems to be believed in that one people do that don't impact other people is none of the other people's business. Seems to me if you're gay and some religious busy body (the most accurate term I could think of) gives you a hard time, then isn't that a form a religious persecution for the gay person?

I have no knowledge of other religions, just a general understanding that most religious books have been written by men, who in general continue to behave more homophobic than women, at least in the US. Also the main stance of religious teachings is peace, variations from that are offered and accepted only by extremists.

Another argument I would pose is the point that Bill Maher always makes in regards to the Bible. The Bible does not speak out against slavery, so if somebody today decided slaves are OK and he wanted to buy some the government would stop him. Is that also considered a law that goes against one's religious beliefs?

[tehfire]

I'm a little confused about your first point. What are you asking? If I've read it correctly, are you asking if current laws can affect people's religious beliefs?

As for your second point, you are right in seeing contradictions in what different people preach. Unfortunately, this is quite inevitable in a system that is read and thought about by 95% of the world (talking about religion, not Christianity specifically). You have to understand the idea of prima facie principals. This is a term used greatly in Philosophy, and basically it is the idea that some ideas or ideals can sometimes be overshadowed by more important ideals. Here's a brief example. We are taught that it is wrong to lie, and also that murder is wrong. Say you are sleeping one night and you hear a knock on your door. You open the door to see a frantic woman asking for shelter in your house because her husband is trying to kill her. You let her in and close the door. A few minutes later, you hear the husband pounding on your door and you open it. He asks you where the woman is, and you lead him astray. You have lied, so have you committed a wrong? If you believe in prima facie principals, you can say that although in most circumstances lying is wrong, in this case it was permissible because you were preventing a murder.

This same principle is used all the time in the Bible. There is one story in which some priests are criticizing Jesus for doing work on the Sabbath, which is warned against in the Ten Commandments. Jesus argues that wouldn't one save a drowning man on the Sabbath, even though it is doing work? In this case, Jesus is doing work on the Sabbath, which is normally to be avoided, but saving a man's life overrides the idea that work should not be done on the Sabbath.

The main texts of the religions have been copied, translated, and read billions of times, and of course there will be disagreement on what should be done. That is why governments stress religious toleration - because there will always be a way to justify any action. If we had perfect knowledge, we would be able to rule on all sorts of things, but since we don't we try to keep it simple. Leave the hard questions to God.

And to why it's hard to understand why some people insist on pushing religion onto others, consider this: Most religions believe that they are the true religion, and in some of these religions this means that everybody else will suffer eternal damnation. If you knew that everybody around you was going to die and suffer eternally, I'm pretty sure you'd try to help them out all you can. While I don't agree with this per se and while it can be really annoying to have random people come up to you saying that they have the "truth", it's easy to understand why they're doing it - they're trying to save your soul.

So at the end of the day, just like in so many other things, we are left with these things because we just don't know. We don't know what the right thing is to do, we don't know what the future holds, we don't even really know that God exists, but we try to do the best that we can.

[Flandry]

Very nice post, tehfire.

I have discussions with my Muslim friends (i am christian) all the time about this kind of thing. They come from a country that is struggling to remain secular in spite of a rather zealous party being in power.

We were talking about mandated dress codes recently. They didn't feel that it should be anyone's business what other people wear. Ultimately, i can see their point, but if it ever came to a vote to disallow public nudity, i know how i'd be voting -- what many religious people fear is that in allowing any degree of tolerance for something they don't accept, they are allowing a dangerous precedent to be set (give them an inch and they'll take a mile...).

I think that's especially relevant in regards to homosexuality and how the religious community votes and voices.

[jaganath]

The question had to do with how laws could impact religious beliefs. In NY there is a no discrimination law on the usual issues, but also on sexual orientation. Some people feel what gays do goes against their religion so they feel that they should not be required to give them housing.

this is a religious charity, right? I believe in law this is similar to how doctors do not have to perform abortions if it offends their religious beliefs; it's called conscientious objection (similar to pacifists who refused to fight in the two world wars).

Also the main stance of religious teachings is peace

there are sections of both the Bible and the Koran which are certainly very bellicose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... d_violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_the_Bible

several Biblical prescriptions do not correspond to modern notions of justice; this may concern concepts of divinely sanctioned warfare and genocide, and capital punishment for sexual behaviour such as adultery or "sodomy" (see the Bible and homosexuality), endorsement of slavery. The often drastic and merciless punitive measures taken by God are notably problematized in the Old Testament itself, in the book of Job.

[aristide1]

Wow, these are really excellent responses. Some address aspects of religion I was aware of, but didn't consider. The business about lying was easy as it was presented to me in the past. It's WWII and you're hiding a Jewish family in your house. Germans ask you if you've seen any Jews, you lie and say no. Of course you lie.

My question had to do with how a law would force you to tolerate gay tenants in a building you would own would "violate" your beliefs that what they do is a sin.

The business about adultery and sodomy are great points. I would add many religious fanatics equate being gay with AIDS. But AIDS spreads through promiscuity. While there may or may not be a higher level of promiscuity among gays on a percentage basis, the total number of promiscuous hetereosexuals probably far exceeds promiscuous gays, so who's making the problem more worse?

Here I end up laughing at how people are opposed to gay marriage, that marriage is such a holy thing. If that were the case then every divorced person is a religious problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. How convenient.

This is the first time I've seen the term "prima facie" used in anything outside of law.

And yet we do tolerate and accept other "limitations". We have retirement communities, which accept only old people. Some of them are just apartment complexes. Why is that OK? (I am not saying or suggesting it's not OK, just asking why.)

Thanks, please continue.
Aris

[jaganath]

that marriage is such a holy thing. If that were the case then every divorced person is a religious problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. How convenient.

actually, in very religious countries like Brazil, Ireland and Mexico there is or was until very recently a huge amount of stigma and taboo surrounding divorce. marriage is certainly viewed as a sacrosanct union by the Catholic church.

And yet we do tolerate and accept other "limitations". We have retirement communities, which accept only old people. Some of them are just apartment complexes. Why is that OK? (I am not saying or suggesting it's not OK, just asking why.)

I believe the applicable law in this case is more like how a business has the discretion to refuse entry to any person without needing to say why, although I'm fairly sure if they decided to refuse entry to black old people they would be contravening racial discrimination laws. so you're allowed to discriminate by age, but not by race.

[aristide1]

...actually, in very religious countries like Brazil, Ireland and Mexico there is or was until very recently a huge amount of stigma and taboo surrounding divorce. marriage is certainly viewed as a sacrosanct union by the Catholic church.

Sounds like the US in the 1950's. Of course the Catholic Church still doesn't hand out annulments all that easily. But if you only did a civil ceremony, weren't you living in sin anyway (ie never married in the eyes of the church)?

[LAThierry]

OK, I am not overly religious

Tongue in cheek here... If a fundie is 100% religious and an atheist 0%, where exactly do you "place" yourself? Are you 65% religious? 47%? What do you consider true? What do you consider BS?

The question had to do with how laws could impact religious beliefs

One of my favorite example is the story of how Utah became a state in the late 1,800's. Previously a Mexican territory, then a U.S. territory after the Mexican-American war, it still took 46 years for the U.S federal government to grant Utah statehood. The delay is overwhelmingly explained because the Mormons' practice of polygamy went against the federal government. The U.S. government flexed its muscles with the Edmunds Act of 1882, making polygamy a felony. Eventually, the Mormon Church prophet (leader) blinked and stopped authorizing plural marriages. Upon questioning by his followers, the Church prophet had to make it official with his 1890 Manifesto. In 1896, Utah was granted statehood. Eventually, the 1890 Manifesto was deemed divinely inspired, a relevation of God, and inserted into the official Church texts.
Isn't it fascinatingly ironic that this "revelation of God" abolishing polygamy is in the same exact book as and stands against the earlier "relevation of God" from Joseph Smith establishing polygamy as a foundation of their Church...

[aristide1]

Tongue in cheek here... If a fundie is 100% religious and an atheist 0%, where exactly do you "place" yourself? Are you 65% religious? 47%? What do you consider true? What do you consider BS?

I'd probably would be about 40% religious. Oh man, there better be something more intelligent than the human race out there, or at least something less greedy and emotional. What's B/S? Probably the fact that there are many parts of the Bible should not to be taken literally, it's more symbolic than many people can accept. It also gets twisted around by fanatics, but then so does the Quran.

.....Isn't it fascinatingly ironic that this "revelation of God" abolishing polygamy is in the same exact book as and stands against the earlier "relevation of God" from Joseph Smith establishing polygamy as a foundation of their Church...

That makes perfect sense, though here it most likely is a political decision, that doesn't make it a bad choice. What works in one era doesn't work or is acceptable in another. I would hate to have slavery all around me just because the writers of the Bible didn't feel it was worth addressing. Also - if you look at religious practices regarding foods, they have a good reason for when those rules were created. In those days they didn't have refrigeration or excess food, so food spoilage was a terrible waste. Address that as a divine law, and it's hard to argue with. Did priests notice that men of wealth ate a lot meat, were fatter, and died sooner, so we have all these fasts?

So I see the Mormon change as a way of saying "yes we have this rule, but things are different now and some rules need to be adjusted." If when they wrote the Bible every other person smoked opium then you would see sacred passages forbidding opium. It's perfectly logical, even without knowing why from a scientific viewpoint, which they obviously could not have.

There are also Biblical "Books of xxxxx", that never made it to the formalized version of the Bible. In some wives are not treated or considered property. That would pose a problem to those that thought they are. Is that why those books are missing? Politics is not a new game.

At this point don't ask me where I am going, these are all just passing thoughts.

[Aris]

My question had to do with how a law would force you to tolerate gay tenants in a building you would own would "violate" your beliefs that what they do is a sin.

The law comes first, always.
"Seperation of church and state": theres a reason we have this statement.

I'm not religious at all, although i talk to people about their faith a lot as it really doesnt make sense to me. From what ive been able to determine, about 99% of the worlds population believes i'm going to burn in hell for not believing in any god whatsoever (athiest).

I would like to believe, as it would make my life a lot easier in many ways, it just doesnt make sense to me at all. How can you put so much faith in something you cant prove exists, and everything written about it was created by men. And then if you somehow can overcome that fact, how can you overcome that your book written by some guy a couple thousand years ago is right, and someone else's book written by some other guy is wrong.

From what ive seen, all the major religions all believe in the same god. Muslims, christians, jews, catholics, mormans. They all believe in the same god, the biggest difference with most of them deals with whether or not jesus was a prophit of god or the son of god. Theres other small differences, mostly dealing with how you should interact with god.

God, and the religions about him, are also the single biggest cause of death for people in history. Why would you even want to believe in something that has caused so many people so much death and pain?

On the matter of homosexuality. Why do you even care who someone else loves? How can love be wrong? I'm not personally gay, i dont even know anyone personally who is gay. Not allowing gay people to be married to each other isnt going to make gay people not exist. They will still live with each other. There are a lot of gay people who are religous, who even say they belong to a church who's bible says they will go to hell. They are good people, who for whatever reason want to love someone of the same sex. They have always existed in history, and will likely always exist in the future. I just cant figure out how love from one person to another person can ever be considered wrong, or a sin.

[aristide1]

I guess I believe in God because I can't accept that man is the top of the food chain. Things can't possibly be that stupid in the universe.

Sometimes it seems that if everything that happens has a purpose then 99% of what happens is to keep people from becoming pompous, ie its all a constant reminder of how feeble man is and how trivial his wants and desires are.

[Plissken]

The question had to do with how laws could impact religious beliefs. In NY there is a no discrimination law on the usual issues, but also on sexual orientation. Some people feel what gays do goes against their religion so they feel that they should not be required to give them housing.

I think whoever asked the question was looking in slightly the wrong direction, because it's a question of the basic definition of discrimination, not necessarily involving religion.

Some people think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, just like smoking, drinking, or letting your dog poop all over the carpet. And some of these people aren't religious. Then there are others who are religious, and believe it's genetic, and wouldn't mind the definition of marriage to extend to gay couples. There's a lot of differences of opinion, and it doesn't necessarily fall on religious lines. Is there proof that homosexuality is caused by genetics, or environment? It's not discrimination if it's not genetic, correct? I realize anti-discrimination laws have been extended to include things such as marital status and even homeless status. But the original purpose of the laws is to prevent bias involving human traits that are genetic (race, sex, etc). Some people would like the laws to retain the original purpose.
Note: My opinions do not necessarily represent any or all of the above. It's my opinion of others opinions

[AZBrandon]

Some people feel what gays do goes against their religion so they feel that they should not be required to give them housing.

...

From a Christianity point of view I don't understand this because because there is a great amount of emphasis put on turning the other cheek, and that's with wrongs commit specifically against you, not just wrongs in general.

If you're looking to get questions on Christianity answered, the website GotQuestions.org is a pretty valuable resource. Here's one of their articles about homosexuality, specifically addressing extremists, which seems to be what you're interested in:

Does God hate fags?

Short answer to your question: No, God doesn't hate homosexuals. He hates the sin, not the sinner. Yes, you are correct that a true follower of Christ is to treat others not just well, but better than we are treated, including those who sin because after all, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This is why many churches minister to prisons in fact - regardless of what those men may have done, Christ teaches that forgiveness is for all who come to him since we are all sinners.

Another argument I would pose is the point that Bill Maher always makes in regards to the Bible. The Bible does not speak out against slavery, so if somebody today decided slaves are OK and he wanted to buy some the government would stop him. Is that also considered a law that goes against one's religious beliefs?

From the same source:

Does the bible condone slavery?

Don't overlook the fact it was only after and because of his choice to follow Christ that William Wilberforce led the charge to banish slavery in all the British empire. The recently released movie Amazing Grace is supposed to be a Hollywood version of his story, although I've not seen the movie myself yet.

The problem really stems from extremism and from "religion" as we know it. I am a Christian, but I do not consider myself religious in the slightest. How so? Because religion is created by man, but the bible is a work from God, simply written by 40 human authors over a period of some 2000 years.

I would say 95% of religions are generally created by men for one of the following reasons:

1) To make people feel good about themselves
2) To make money off it (usually by posing as a church leader or prophet)
3) To control other people (especially women) for the love of power

There are so many things that people thing are based in Christianity or some sort of "Christian religion" that honestly have absolutely nothing at all to do with Christ's own teachings.

By all means, feel free to head over to the GotQuestions website and punch in as many questions as you can think of. I can't think of a better way to spend a couple hours if you honestly do want to separate fact from fiction without having to read through 1600 pages of scripture and many more pages of biblical notes on what the 1600 pages means. There's still no complete substitute for studying scripture itself, but the GotQuestions website is probably the most direct path to some answers you're seeking.

[Dutchmm]

The gospels tell us Christ came across a woman caught in adultery, and the crowd who were preparing to stone her. He prevented the stoning, by confronting the crowd with their own imperfections; and all he said to the woman was: "Go, and sin no more".

What would have happened if he had met a gay (assuming that as a traditional Jew, he would have deprecated homosexual acts)? Can we believe that he would have said anything different?

So, if I owned an appartment block, I wouldn't feel obliged to impose my principles on my tenants. There are other forms of persuasion, of which the most effective is example.

[alleycat]

I guess I believe in God because I can't accept that man is the top of the food chain. Things can't possibly be that stupid in the universe.

We are at the top of the food chain in some respects, but in many others we simply don't rate. As we all know, we are totally at the mercy of viruses, the weather, cosmic events - in other words, "Nature". We were also created by Nature and are a part of Nature. So actually, things really are "that stupid in the universe" - it's what we're modelled on. It says in Genesis that the gods made humans in their image. This is just another way of stating the same thing using different language.

I find it useful to think of "God" as a concept, as the "Cause of Causes", rather than the increasingly anthropomorphised entity described in the Bible. However, naming this Cause "the Father", for example, is a useful label for unsophisticated beings to begin to understand their place in the universe. The reality is that us and the universe we observe are a result of an almost infinite chain of cause and effect. Nothing happens randomly; everything is a result of something else, from the largest down to the minutest scale. To illustrate this point, try finding a genuinely random number. It is impossible, there will always be a reason why a particular number was selected.

So what is the "original" cause? A Hindu teaching states that it was a sound. I like to believe it was something even subtler than this. For the purpose of discussion I often tend to call it "God", despite the many warped connotations that particular word brings. It is also worth pondering other Biblical descriptions of God: "I AM", "The Word", "the beginning and the end", etc.

Religions in their origins are usually created to convey important spiritual concepts in a way that can be popularly understood. That is why scriptures are full of stories and allegories, which can be misleading if taken way out of their context, despite this not being intentional. Jesus even said as much when he described why he spoke in parables. By studying cause and effect we can see how things have become so hopelessly misunderstood. There is a lot of wonderfully rich teaching sitting just below the surface of all religious scripture.

[NeilBlanchard]

Greetings,

This is a great thread, that I have not (yet) had enough time to digest, but I'll just through out a bit of where I think my spirituality is (I'm a Quaker, BTW):

God is in each of us.

God is the yearning for spirituality, and God is in the imperfect actions we make as we try to live as we believe.

We do God's work. But we also have the potential for doing bad things, and the choices we make in our actions are the key.

[aristide1]

Interesting thought Neil, but you're wasting your time on that other thread trying to reason with a political extremist/bigot.

[scdr]

From what ive been able to determine, about 99% of the worlds population believes i'm going to burn in hell for not believing in any god whatsoever (athiest).

98% of statistics given without source are made up.

Got some good news for you. Nothing like that large a percentage
even believes in hell. (World population - 2% atheist, 11% non-religious, ... [Encyclopedia Britannica, 2005, via Wikipedia - Religions - Demographics])

From what ive seen, all the major religions all believe in the same god. Muslims, christians, jews, catholics, mormans. They all believe in the same god, the biggest difference with most of them deals with whether or not jesus was a prophit of god or the son of god. Theres other small differences, mostly dealing with how you should interact with god.

Missed out almost half the world's population there. Or do you see some easy way to map the various Indian, Far Eastern and tribal religions into
belief in this same god?
Lot more Hindus or Buddhists than Jews or Mormons, so they should easily qualify as major religions.

God, and the religions about him, are also the single biggest cause of death for people in history. Why would you even want to believe in something that has caused so many people so much death and pain?

Doubtful - through most of history, disease and malnutrition have easily trumped warfare and other human causes of death.

[djkest]

This is an interesting question. The way I have always thought about it is this.

Jesus said to love your enemies. The bible also talks about homosexuality as being wrong. Don't these two conflict?

I believe the meaning is this: you should love and respect your neighbor, even if he is gay. But that doesn't mean you agree with or support his sexual orientation.

I don't believe that to be hypocritical.

How can you love and disagree with someone at the same time? Well, take a family member. If they do something wrong, you may be upset with them for what they did, but you still love them.

Don't forget Islam. Remember in Islamic countries it is a capital offense to be gay. Yes, they KILL you in many Islamic countries for being "out of the closet". So you either hide it, or you die.

[nick705]

Jesus said to love your enemies. The bible also talks about homosexuality as being wrong. Don't these two conflict?

I believe the meaning is this: you should love and respect your neighbor, even if he is gay. But that doesn't mean you agree with or support his sexual orientation.

Isn't the idea of "agreeing with" or "supporting" someone else's sexual orientation rather meaningless? Unless he/she has designs upon you personally, why would he/she require your agreement or support?

Unless of course you believe in the One Commandment common to nearly all organised religions: "Thou shalt live thy life according to my beliefs."

[aristide1]

Isn't the idea of "agreeing with" or "supporting" someone else's sexual orientation rather meaningless? Unless he/she has designs upon you personally, why would he/she require your agreement or support?

Well for the average logical sensible person would answer this question one way, and I think the religious exgtremist would answer it a different way.

Unless of course you believe in the One Commandment common to nearly all organised religions: "Thou shalt live thy life according to my beliefs."

What happens if you believe in only yourself and disregard anything and everyone else?

This was all very useful, I used both the link and comments here in my paper. Thanks, and feel free to continue.

[jaganath]

Unless of course you believe in the One Commandment common to nearly all organised religions: "Thou shalt live thy life according to my beliefs."

The state requires you to live your life according to a set of beliefs as well; they are codified into laws. it's just a different set of beliefs.

[andyb]

Aris, if you take "God", "Prophets" and "Holy Books" out of the equation and look at religions like I have stated below, your answers will become more visible to you and this way of looking at your questions should help you find answers that are not skewed by the religion itself.

Most religions should be looked at from a perspective similar to that of a profit (not Prophet) making organization - a business.

A business just like a religion will stand by a motto or an ethic for years, but suddenly change its "beliefs" overnight to re-promote itself in the modern world. This is sometimes done before it becomes necessary, other times it is done long after popular belief of its followers (loyal customers) has dwindled because of its unpopular stance to a subject (or its goods).

In the past, thousands of people have fought each other during "Holy Wars", take Christians and Muslims as an example. The leaders of both Religions now take a different "official" stance to other religions (more peaceful). Likewise the "official" stance to the question of abortion, divorce, gay-marriage, the shape of the planet, whether the sun revolves around the Earth etc etc.

I am pretty sure that most religions will become more tolerant as time goes on, and some new religions have been tolerant from day one, such as Pastafarianism, you are even allowed to eat Spaghetti and meatballs.

As far as religions / religious beliefs are concerned, Law's, common sense, and morals should always be considered first. So if a Religious belief conflicts with the Law, then the religious belief should be ignored.

However this should only happen via the use of common sense, this should have a very minimal effect on the religion or religous belief at all. Businesses can of course have their own rules, but again the Businesses "Law's" should outweigh the religion in every case so long as the "Law" of that Business makes common sense.


Andy

[djkest]

I don't believe there is a link to religion and profit. Or at least there isn't always. I'll just give you some examples from something I'm familiar with. Okay, so most pastors go to school for a long time. My pastor went to college for 7 years. He had to learn 2 foreign languages. Most people who do that much schooling have a masters or a PHD. And yet, once I graduate with my bachelor's degree I'll immediately make much more money than he does, even considering his 20 years being a pastor. If I can stay in the industry for 20 years, I'll probably make 3 times his salary. Clearly he didn't do that for money.

Another example. My high school physics/calc/chemistry teacher went to the U of South Carolina. Got his bachelor's in Structural Engineering in 7 semesters with a 4.0. Got a job (about 10 years ago) making $60,000 a year straight out of college. After a few years and already 2 raises, he quit his job to become a teacher at the christian school I went to: making $25,000 a year.

Not everyone is in it for the money. And in many many christian churches, there isn't a lot of money going around. Yes the catholic church and the mormons have tons of money, but they aren't everyone.

You say religious people are closed minded and judgemental, but a lot of people are quick to judge religion.

[andyb]

djkest, I think you are on your own talking about a link between religion and money, and that might have to be put aside for another whole debate.


Andy

[aristide1]

Law's, common sense, and morals should always be considered first

We have names for:
People who don't believe in God
People who don't believe in morals
People who don't believe in the law

What do call people that don't believe "common sense"exists? It seems common sense is all but common.

[Trip]

Christianity allows slavery, but it doesn't require slavery. Christianity rejects sodomy.

If you want a possible reason for why sodomy is banned: it is sex without the goal of reproducing. It is perversion. If such logic is correct; then it would seem sex with a condom, oral sex, etc. are each equally bad; but that's just my go at it.

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Well, perhaps homosexual behavior is worse than perversion between male and female because the latter leads to a natural bond between the two. And in a society families are important, and families are headed by male and female, so it is desired that husbands and wives remain bonded so as to raise strong families. What others who are not heads of families do is of little concern provided it doesn't affect those who are at the heads of families. But if homosexuality is prevalent it might corrupt the minds of those who are naturally heterosexual and who might one day (or might currently) be the head of a family; that is to say it might cause them to desire other men even if such is against their nature. Before readers flame me for thinking such thought, allow me to add that a part of marketing is "creating a need" within society. That is to say items can be portrayed in a manner that makes them appealing. And so, perhaps it is possible that someone mistakes a brotherly bond for a romantic one or becomes unnaturally obsessed with the male body due to temptation that is unnaturally created.

I'm not arguing such is clearly possible but rather presenting a possible solution. Though that the Bible says it is wrong is enough, I would prefer to understand the reason behind it as well.

[andyb]

Common sense is not something to believed in or not, its simply something people have or dont have, or indeed have but is over-ridden by their religous beliefs.

Someone mentioned saving someones life on the Sabbath. If common sense were to prevail that life would be saved, but no doubt there is some kind of cult (sect) that wouldnt because they cant "work" on the Sabbath.

I would love to watch (in the metaphorical sense) a JW (Jehovah's Witness) bleed to death because their stupid religion forbids them to take blood, all because common sense is not allowed to prevail over some quote written in a book in the 12th century (or whenever, I dont care) that has been taken literally.

Things like that make me despair about various religions that are so stupid I cant conceive how they ever get any new members that are NOT brainwashed by their own family, they obviously have no common sense, just like many University students - they are inteligent in their own way, but just like "Rain Man" cant actually live and function in the real world without a little common sense to guide them.

If someone created a religion based on fundamental morals (like every other religion) AND common sense it would be a really cool religion as more of it would make sense than not, and the restrictions on what you could do would be self imposed and not forced upon you....... damn, that sounds just like someone who isnt religious....... OK scrub that idea, it already exists, its known as being Athiest.

I have a question for anyone who knows the answer, is Athiesm considered a religion, and if it is not why not (apart from the lack of a God and scripture) it is still a belief, but a belief in the LACK of a God, but not necessarily in science or morals (not all athiests are scientists, or good people).

I am not Athiest, I am not religious, but I do believe that something more inteligent than humans must exist, because we are so damned stupid. The fact that their are Millions of Billions of stars out there it is highly likely that many have life forms, and I would expect that we are some distance from the top of the pecking order. I expect there is a name for my belief, but I have no idea what it is.


Andy

[jaganath]

is Atheism considered a religion, and if it is not why not (apart from the lack of a God and scripture) it is still a belief, but a belief in the LACK of a God

creationists often label atheism a religion, but AIUI a religion at the essential level is just a load of people worshipping a deity/deities, be they a big beard in the sky, their ancestors or even the FSM. Atheism doesn't have a deity, nor does it have worshippers (although again critics would say Richard Dawkins is the high priest of atheism and Darwin is their God; I personally don't worship Darwin, although I do think he was a pretty smart bloke). Religionists have to believe in their God (or Allah or whatever), whereas the defining characteristic of atheism is a lack of belief.

Having a belief doesn't necessarily imply religion; I believe that my local railway company couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, but that doesn't mean I worship them.

their are Millions of Billions of stars out there it is highly likely that many have life forms, and I would expect that we are some distance from the top of the pecking order. I expect there is a name for my belief, but I have no idea what it is.

rather pleasingly, it is called the principle of mediocrity:

The principle of mediocrity maintains that the universe is probably teeming with advanced life: the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in an unexceptional region of a large but conventional barred-spiral galaxy.

[Trip]

Folks who believe strongly in an ideology seem to border on religious zeal.

All religion is is a strong conviction that a faith is correct.

I dunno that atheism or materialist (believing there is no afterlife) ideologies are technically religions, but they're certainly very close to such. The difference being they're certain without having a foundation (revealed truth) for their certainty.