Semper Fi

Scientology.

Nuff said!

leib10

Whew, thought you were being serious for a second.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

PubFather

An important distinction....

Glad my post made some sort of sense...

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Trajan

And the 'History of Warfare' forum section has hit an all time new low.

__________________
[Wasting Space]

-{SpoonmaN}-

You know, this may be the dumbest, most pointlessly immflammatroy poll I've ever seen.
I'm hereby asking the mods very nicely to delete it.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

-{SpoonmaN}-

True enough but you've got to remember, there is no logical answer or approach to the questions of God, Gods or lack thereof, since you can't provide any real evidence either way and you certainly can't prove it either way. The logical answer is "how the hell should I know?" followed by "why the hell should I care anyway?" but the last part is my tilt on things, minus the swearing (I am Australian after all).

bandwagon

Religion is distinct. Particularly as it provides moral guidance, -even if outsiders do not agree with the moral code of a particular religion.

What's wrong with the poll. Both religions offer moral and life style guidance. Just because there are extremist movements within them it doesn't invalidate the choice. The tension between them is caused by fundamentalists in both religions believe the Palestinian lands were promised to them by God. -It's only a single notion, which does not invalidate the rest of the religion.



Edit:
That doesn't mean I don't think there isn't any point in a poll like this.

It would be more interesting if Muslims and Jews were excluded from voting.

Dreadnought

We will all find out the answer come day of reconing

PubFather

I wouldnt disagree - my own take is that either a) all religions are valid b) no religion is valid. Either way I no longer spend much time worrying about it.

B*ll*cks to it - as we tend to say in Glasgow.

PubFather

Why does the fact that religion has a moral code attached make it "distinct" or any more valid that a non-religion theory of morality? Religion should be treated no differently to any other belief system - and always seems less relevant to me because of its requirement to simply "have faith" that the words of its teachers are correct, rather than to exercise their own critical judgements.

ArmchairGeneral

Although I agree that the poll is moronic, the discussion it has provoked has been interesting and civil. And it's "History and Warfare," not "History of Warfare." So the topic isn't completely out of place.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

ArmchairGeneral

This doesn't seem like a completely accurate description of most religious worldviews that I know of. The subject of "faith" is often misunderstood, it seems to me. I'm sure there may be religions that ask you to take everything on "faith," without any reason at all, but I can't think of one.

Bhuddism looks at the world, and says, "This sucks." Then it asks the question, "Why?" And it gives a reasonable answer, it seems to me. The world sucks because you have desires, which can be thwarted, causing displeasure. It's extremely logical. It's also rather nihilistic, depressing, and unobtainable, which is why I reject it.

Confucianism looks at the world, and recognizes that there's bad, but also recognizes good. It tries to find out the cause of good and bad. Its answer? If I understand correctly, keeping order in life. Keeping proper relations toward everyone and everything keeps the world harmonious, and thus good.

Islam is a bit different, kind of closer perhaps to the kind of religion you refer to, in that it is based on the revelations of God to man, and has a less philosophical bent. However, it also recognizes the misery of man, and has a solution that seems reasonable to me. There is a creator and controller behind the scenes, a God, and he has a definite will for us, which he has revealed over the centuries. The key to happiness in this life and the next is submission to the will of God, pure and simple. Again, much closer to what you describe, but still seems reasonable to me, although I admit I find it less persuasive than the East Asian religions I described earlier.

How 'bout Judaism? Another religion based on revelation, but also, it seems to me, far more philosophical than Islam, although this may be due to my lack of familiarity with Islamic theology/philosophy. A very well developed theory of the nature of reality, based upon the centrality of God. Again, it answers the question of why the world sucks. The world didn't suck, to begin with, but God created beings with the will to choose between him and not him. Some of them chose themselves; thus the first sin in the world was pride. The nature of the world makes this choice very unfortunate, as life apart from God doesn't do very well. Since this time, God has been working to bring his creations back into a relationship with him. The entire Jewish religion is based upon this paradigm.

And finally, my own choice, Christianity. Basically it takes the Jewish metanarrative and extends it, and, to my mind, clarifies and finishes the whole shebang. Same story as Judaism, but according to this story, God's plan for bringing creation back to him did not stop with the daily sacrifices of the Old Testament, nor did it stop with the Jews. The Jews were merely the vanguard of a universal plan, and their temple rituals were foreshadowings, in a way, of God's full plan for making the world not suck.

Sorry for the long wander through comparative religion, but it seemed necessary to look at the major religions to see what their beliefs are based upon. So, yes, many are based upon supposed revelations of God to man. However, all philosophies are based upon revelation, only some of them are man to man. And all of the ones I listed, in their deeper, more theological forms at least, ask you to think about what they have to say (with the possible partial exception of Islam; I am not familiar with Islamic philosophy, to the point of not knowing if it even exists, so I can't say).

They may also depend upon a "religious experience," but then, who am I to say that a religious experience is any less realistic than a non-religious experience. This is not to say that there are those who believe because that's what their daddy believed, but even that's a reasonable belief, in many ways. We all depend on authority for our information, we all trust that information to some extent to form our beliefs. The question is only to what extent do we depend on said authority. Even logic is derived from authority. It's certainly possible to develop a system of pure logic by yourself, but who actually has?

So although there is certainly an appeal to authority inherent in many religions, this is to some extent inevitable in any comprehensive worldview. As far as reason is concerned, as I detailed above, the basic questions and answers of religions are often, on the face of it, completely sensible.

I can only say for certain about Christianity, for I have studied it in far more detail than any other religion, but Christianity by no means discounts reason. In fact it depends upon it. The Gospel of John begins, "In the beginning was the Word..." The word translated as such is logos, which basically means reason, intelligence, logic, etc.

The study of theology has always been an inherently logical one, hence discussions of how many angels can dance upon a pinhead. The answer being that angels have no physical dimensions, and as such, an infinite number could, if one can even describe angels in such terms.

Rather than discard reason, Christians are to use their reason to the fullest. Christianity assumes God is inherently reasonable, so that if something is unreasonable, or I should say anti-reasonable, it should be rejected. Where faith comes in is when doubts come. Sometimes a seemingly reasonable issue comes up which raises doubt. Sometimes a completely irrational doubt arises based on emotions. Either way, it's not wise to give up a belief at the first difficulty, as scientists can tell you. Doubts will always occur, but do not always turn out to be accurate. Perseverance in pursuit of a goal, however reasonable, requires faith.

Wow that's a long post. And I'm going to post it, knowingly taking the great risk that I have screwed up in there somewhere.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Can the mods just lock the poll and let the discussion run free, free as the wind blows, free as the grass grows etc?

bandwagon

I meant (in the context it was put) religion is distinct from political systems and the left-right system, none of which are specifically concerned with moral code, but do involve belief systems.

Of course there are other non-religious systems with a moral code, such as laws, rules of association, ethics, manners etc.

Of course there are also beliefs in intangible notions which are not religion, such as what fairies, ghosts, father christmas, Bach flower remedy, US foreign policy (oh wait maybe that is a religion).

So religion is a belief in a metaphysical being, associated with a moral code which guides value systems, attitudes, life styles, and most importantly behaviour towards others. Whilst on the one hand it can lead to a higher quality of life, on the other hand it is an open door to domination of the masses by a hierarchy through doctrine.

I believe, based on fair evidence, that we have an inherent moral instict which is genetically hardwired. That instinct competes with other instincts and desires (hunger, material comfort/greed, power etc.). A code based on religious beliefs can certainly help the moral instinct to predominate, and who knows how important this may have been in the evolution of mankind as a social animal. But religious doctrine is perfectly capable of contradicting the instinctive moral code.

bandwagon

Which religion is best. Clearly the poll proves Judaism is 50% better than Islam.

But best for whom? Mankind, in a global community? Are you kidding?

But you know, take fundamentalism out of all religions and there may not much between them. I think Buddha and Jesus had it right. But look what they turned it ito.