Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Why not appreciate the life we are all currently living as opposed to hoping for something better. If you are not happy with the life you are living....do something about it dont hope for something better after you die.

People don't do it because it's so hard.

You think Christians aren't actively working for the improvement of mankind now?
Politically, socially. Clothing the poor, digging wells for those in drought regions?
LOTS of other stuff, or are we just hiding and 'waiting till it's over'?

On the other hand, all you need to do is to believe and give $5 or $10 a week to the church and the place in happiest eternity ever is guaranteed. Any dweeb on the planet (even a caveman) can do that.

No.
You have to be born-again by the Spirit, no church necessarily needed!

Sad thing is that, actually, religion is good thing for many, keeps them in line, otherwise they would self-destruct.

'Religion' can be bad, too. Putting burdens on others the leaders wouldn't even TRY to carry! False doctrine messing up people's minds,...
Without God, ALL is futile!

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Alien, there is nothing wrong to apsire for man to love his fekllow man but if religion has to play a part then it should start by changing itself. A vacum has been created and out of that we have no interest in religion on one side and blind fanatical belief on the other. Religion today is still two full of prejudice and ignorance. Right now my daughter has mormons calling to the house and I am always asking her why do the women of the faith take all the crap they do from the men, why are they always subservient to them.

Well where is hell, heaven and purgatory I'll tell you where they are they are in the minds of religeous fanatics who want us all to be gibbering lunatics scared of their own shadows. As far as I'm concerned if modern religion had not happened humans would be far more evolved than we are now, it is because of religeous dogma that we have not advanced, to this very day people die for their religion and why, for no good reason what so ever.

I live in Idaho so I know what you mean about the Mormons. Sometimes I wonder if it is a religion and more of a cult... but either way I know what you mean. Again its my whole contention that religion needs to change its basics. Stop shoving it down our throats and start living the ideals that we have set for ourselves.
I don't know... without religion we may more anarchist in nature too. Depends on your point of view I guess. As far as dying for no good reasons... I doubt the martyrs would agree with you, however the ones that died because they wouldn't conform might agree with you.
No easy answers here except that we keep trying to do good. Maybe if enough of us do it others will follow suit. I know... I know... wishful thinking. Maybe we just need better religious leaders and a law that prevents Mormons from knocking on your door.

Re: the topic of this thread, in order for mankind to survive, organized religion must E N D .

The institution between you and your god is the reason the world is in turmoil.

Cut out the middlemen. Speak directly to your god. H/H ear is like a good diner - OPEN 24/7.

Obsrvr

Originally posted by Obsrvr
Re: the topic of this thread, in order for mankind to survive, organized religion must E N D .

The institution between you and your god is the reason the world is in turmoil.

Cut out the middlemen. Speak directly to your god. H/H ear is like a good diner - OPEN 24/7.

Obsrvr

The world is not in turmoil just because of the institutions of Religion. It is just a part of it. Also, I'm not sure what middlemen you are speaking of. The clergy? If that is so then rest assured that we don't use the clergy to speak to God. We use his intercessor Jesus Christ as we were taught to in the Bible. At least we Christians do.
Can you clarify a bit more on what you are trying to say here? I appreciate it and thanks for your post brother.

Originally posted by Alienmojo

I get where your coming from on this one Pure. I quite agree, for the most part. Obviously the institutions out there are scared of the Wiccans. But let me ask you a question and really think on this one. What if it had been the Klu Klux Klan or that radical Baptist church that likes to picket funerals of dead soldiers? At first I was with you... what does it matter who gave the benefit IF it benefits someone. If it does, where do you draw the line? Should we allow benefits to come from the studies the Nazi's did on concentration camp victims? I'm just asking... I'm not sure. Who should decide? Religious institutions? Government? Local stores? I don't know.

Oops I meant toochaos... sorry about that.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Alienmojo]

Why should it appear anywhere whom is giving? If the KKK wants to do a good deed and feed the needy so be it. If Westboro Baptist donated 1000 cans of corn to a homeless shelter, more power to them because it shows they do have some kindness in their black hearts. I would still shake Shirley Phelps hand and thank her for the donation. The hungry can still live another day off that food. As long as nobody is proselytizing it doesn't matter whom eats. Other than record keeping in the background what does it matter?

For that matter why did the President of our company take the day off work and shake hands with the United Way and brag that he and the company orchestrated donations of 1,000,000 for them when it was the workers themselves that donated that money and time?

Originally posted by toochaos4u

Originally posted by Alienmojo

I get where your coming from on this one Pure. I quite agree, for the most part. Obviously the institutions out there are scared of the Wiccans. But let me ask you a question and really think on this one. What if it had been the Klu Klux Klan or that radical Baptist church that likes to picket funerals of dead soldiers? At first I was with you... what does it matter who gave the benefit IF it benefits someone. If it does, where do you draw the line? Should we allow benefits to come from the studies the Nazi's did on concentration camp victims? I'm just asking... I'm not sure. Who should decide? Religious institutions? Government? Local stores? I don't know.

Oops I meant toochaos... sorry about that.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Alienmojo]

Why should it appear anywhere whom is giving? If the KKK wants to do a good deed and feed the needy so be it. If Westboro Baptist donated 1000 cans of corn to a homeless shelter, more power to them because it shows they do have some kindness in their black hearts. I would still shake Shirley Phelps hand and thank her for the donation. The hungry can still live another day off that food. As long as nobody is proselytizing it doesn't matter whom eats. Other than record keeping in the background what does it matter?

For that matter why did the President of our company take the day off work and shake hands with the United Way and brag that he and the company orchestrated donations of 1,000,000 for them when it was the workers themselves that donated that money and time?

Lets make this easier. Let's say Hitler was going to give clothes to a homeless shelter. Two different scenarios. First, just normal clothes. Second, they are the clothes he took from the victims he killed. Does it make a difference?
Bare with me here for a second. If we go by what you said it should not matter in either scenario because the end result is to the good since the clothes would have been destroyed otherwise.
I think we don't take the charity from some if their beliefs are evil. We don't use good information from evil people. Why? I think it would be socially unacceptable. By accepting something from them we are in a way saying that we accept their behavior... at least that is why I think Walmart said no. I'm not sure...what is your take on this Toochaos?

Originally posted by Alienmojo

Lets make this easier. Let's say Hitler was going to give clothes to a homeless shelter. Two different scenarios. First, just normal clothes. Second, they are the clothes he took from the victims he killed. Does it make a difference?
Bare with me here for a second. If we go by what you said it should not matter in either scenario because the end result is to the good since the clothes would have been destroyed otherwise.
I think we don't take the charity from some if their beliefs are evil. We don't use good information from evil people. Why? I think it would be socially unacceptable. By accepting something from them we are in a way saying that we accept their behavior... at least that is why I think Walmart said no. I'm not sure...what is your take on this Toochaos?

Wow you have given me a very far fetched scenario.

It isn't charity if you take from someone else to give to someone else. If you kill them here you are guilty of murder and those clothes should be confiscated as evidence. Of course it makes a difference silly they actually killed someone. But, at the same time do you think Hitler would donate things to people, Westboro or the KKK actually? There are factions of the KKK here and I haven't ever seen them be generous but, they should maybe it will grow on them and they can abandon their primitive hate.

Should I begrudge my uncle because he hates gays and is racist but, did help my mother when she had a double knee replacement. In no way does it excuse his behavior but, should I despise him for the good he has done in his life? It is his choice to be ignorant and live with the consequences of his actions both good and bad like the KKK and Westboro.

The consequence for him are that he rarely gets invited to family functions because gays and blacks are there. He through his life missed out on friendships with the same people he despises. He will die a lonely man more than likely as he designed his own punishment. I can always say though that he helped out my mom and think fondly of that.

That in no way means he is allowed to prattle on with his ignorant self in our homes.








[edit on 25/12/2008 by toochaos4u] -edited ( I know that the KKK did kill in the past but, today they are mostly a bunch of ignorant blowhards with little power).


[edit on 25/12/2008 by toochaos4u]

Originally posted by toochaos4u

Originally posted by Alienmojo

Lets make this easier. Let's say Hitler was going to give clothes to a homeless shelter. Two different scenarios. First, just normal clothes. Second, they are the clothes he took from the victims he killed. Does it make a difference?

Wow you have given me a very far fetched scenario.
Should I begrudge my uncle because he hates gays and is racist but, did help my mother when she had a double knee replacement. In no way does it excuse his behavior but, should I despise him for the good he has done in his life? It is his choice to be ignorant and live with the consequences of his actions both good and bad like the KKK and Westboro.



That in no way means he is allowed to prattle on with his ignorant self in our homes.


[edit on 25/12/2008 by toochaos4u] -edited ( I know that the KKK did kill in the past but, today they are mostly a bunch of ignorant blowhards with little power).

[edit on 25/12/2008 by toochaos4u]

Wow... I have an Aunt just like that! LOL Yeah, I know it was a way out there scenario... I was just curious.

True religion is freedom, but without discipline
there can be no true religion. The key is knowing
that freedom is the product of personal integrity
and personal integrity is a discipline that only
the individual can impose one's self. Correctly
understood, freedom is self-discipline.

According wath i'm thinking religion has had its purpose:

When i read this book " A history of the Arab peoples" by Albert Houran
It actually showed me that there are many purposses for religion

1)It makes people bound with eachother When u have something in commun it's like easier to start a conversation
-a believe that preaches tolerance, sharing with people, etc... it speakes to the commun sense that we need to take care of eachother but on a global scale we still want to stay in control of things
Mankind is a social animal, witch by the mind keeps fighting its nature of

2) I don't actually believe that a non-orgenized or a badly- organized religion can keep it's credibilty and its influence on its believers.
In general people need to be told wath to do it makes them feel seccure

3)Religion is allso a medium of social control

4)I don't believe Empires like rome, america, england etc. could have raised to level of damination of a that high powerlevel without an organized religeion

(And after all i think the greed for power is a total natural thing afterall we need to be the strongest for having more chance to give our DNA to the next generation and giving our children a. If you're do not want to keep control of power than u allow others to take your spot (and i'm thinking global) Like if Africa could change its position and take the position over of america than we would probably starve from hunger cose their are nowadays to much people on this planet.)

5) Its easier to make people like the ideas of war because their identity is treatned ,

6) The institution eg Church needs to keep its credibility if more and more people starting to raize their voice against that institution it will cirtainly declain in its power
-So i believe its a tool that controls power and on its turn religion is power

I feel their is a need of religion (from wath i've read in the forum) that preaches tolerance, sharing, etc... but without the greed and control of power.