Religion

only in the hands of somebody
perhaps motivated by something

Firstly I'm against private ownership of firearms.

Secondly, find me a murderer who says that his "Beretta told him to do it", can back that up by referencing the Beretta manual, and further has Beretta International employees coming out to support him aswell as Beretta fan clubs and their members praising his actions.

Geneviève wrote:If science wanted to mutilate children against their will as part of a study it would not be allowed. Not because of religious morality but because of scientific ethics. When, however, religion wants to mutilate children it is allowed to and any criticism of the practise is deflected as bigoted.

"Scientific ethics?" That's the first time I hear of anything like that. I've heard of ethics in science, but not a particular set of ethical rules deduces from the entity of science. I do not think such a thing is possible, except if by scientifc ethics you mean intellectual virtues like intellectual honesty (refraining from commiting fraud) and such. I can see how those things are inherent in good science, but I do not see how anything within the sphere of science is preventing us from mutilating children if it would be benificial for research. I'd say the force preventing us from doing that comes outside of it. But I could be wrong.

Geneviève wrote:
Again I'll stress the difference I make between personal faith and religion, religion being the multinational organisations that seek to dictate and control others faith. Faith can be beneficial to a person as I've stated. But there is no good within religious organisations that cannot be achieved throgh secular means. Whilst religious organisations are allowed to lie to people South of the Equater in ways harmful to their health and contrary to medical knowledge because of the protected status of religion.

This is another confusing passage. To my knowledge, "Secular" means the seperation of Chuch and State, but that cannot be what you mean here. Do you perhaps mean to say the seperation of Church and the faith of the individual?

Geneviève wrote:
I do not intend to prove that faith is wholly bad because it is not. Neither is religion wholly bad. But what good it does can be achieved through secular means, whilst the bad it does can only be justified and indeed is promoted by palming off responsability to their deity. Unquestioning obediance is made a virtue, critical thinking a barrier between you and God.

This I feel is something that can not be said of most sects of Christianity at least (not going to talk at length about the Islam, because I know very little about it). Critical thinking is actually encouraged as a virtue in Protestantism and the reformed Church, the Chuch I am most familiar with because of the enivorment I grew up in (The Netherlands). In fact, Protestantism is one of the if not the major driving force behind the enlightenment and the development of modern science. The idea that it is the individual ought to study the Bible and come to his own conclusion rather than have it dictated to them by the Church was a fairly important idea in the history of intellectual development. Critical thinking is not a barrier between you and God, but rather a means to get closer to him. You could say that yes even for Protestants (in fact even more so) the Bible is accepted as unconditionally true. This is a fact. However, the Bible has always been subject to interpetation and trougough analysis, which Galhalla mentioned is the science of theology.

So yes, this is my strategy: to make safe Protestantism from the corruption of the Vatican. Not a very pretty strategy I admit but it something I feel that needs to be said. I also admit that most sects of Protestantism have in turn fallen to corruption and have slipped into scary dogmatic practises that would give Martin Luther nightmares. Even so, critical thinking and religion do not do be in opposition to eachother. As I said before, there are plenty who would say that any religious belief can be argued for trough logic and reason. Sapere Aude.

Geneviève wrote:
By no means is religion the root of all evil. Or even most evil. But what evil it does cause can be combated effectively by ending religions protected status and demanding people take responsability for their own actions.

This may suprise you, but I actually fullheartedly agree with this. Religious instiutions should not hold a political position (or moral status) that is above responsiblity and critisism. And with all the scandals surrounding the Vatican as of late, I'm hoping the development that has started with the Reformation may soon actually come to a statisfying conclusion. I think we're actually agreeing more than it seems, Genevieve, but it is hard to see that trough the vastly different language we use and the different sides to which we approach the problem.

Thelos wrote:

This I feel is something that can not be said of most sects of Christianity at least (not going to talk at length about the Islam, because I know very little about it). Critical thinking is actually encouraged as a virtue in Protestantism and the reformed Church, the Chuch I am most familiar with because of the enivorment I grew up in (The Netherlands). In fact, Protestantism is one of the if not the major driving force behind the enlightenment and the development of modern science. The idea that it is the individual ought to study the Bible and come to his own conclusion rather than have it dictated to them by the Church was a fairly important idea in the history of intellectual development. Critical thinking is not a barrier between you and God, but rather a means to get closer to him. You could say that yes even for Protestants (in fact even more so) the Bible is accepted as unconditionally true. This is a fact. However, the Bible has always been subject to interpetation and trougough analysis, which Galhalla mentioned is the science of theology.

So yes, this is my strategy: to make safe Protestantism from the corruption of the Vatican. Not a very pretty strategy I admit but it something I feel that needs to be said. I also admit that most sects of Protestantism have in turn fallen to corruption and have slipped into scary dogmatic practises that would give Martin Luther nightmares. Even so, critical thinking and religion do not do be in opposition to eachother. As I said before, there are plenty who would say that any religious belief can be argued for trough logic and reason. Sapere Aude.

My use of secular was incorrect and, hypocritically given my opinion of pop culture defenitions of atheism/agnosticism etc, based upon now common usage. Secular means being, means seperate from religion. Very naughty of me. :S

I appreciate that historically critical thinking in religion was encouraged. Growing up in the Highlands I lived in a world where religious freedom was genuine. Religion did no harm that I'm aware of because it was seperate from state policy and was incredibly rarely spoken of outside of Church and certain traditional celebrations. Politicians are often religious, Blair himself now being a rather devoted Catholic, but never once when they were asked questions on policy did they ever turn to God to justify themselves, they never abused other people's faith. That is how I want the world to be. I imagine that sounds very similar to the old reactionary policy of I want everything the way it was when I was young! But I'm only nineteen years old I want the world the world over the way it is in the Highlands today (and, as far as I'm aware many other places in Europe). Unfortunately critical thinking with regards to religion is suppressed in the countries in which it matters. The Second and Third World nations where religion really does it's harm. The USA being the great exception, a first world nation obsessed with the 3Gs, God, Guns, and Gays. The amount of damage religion does there is immense in scale. More intellectually and emotionally than physically, although the Bible Belt can be a mortifying exception.

The religion I see in Scotland is incredibly private. It more falls under my catagory of personal faith than organised religion. And that is what I want for the world. Personal faith, or lack of it, rather than ministries (businesses) designed to leech off of people's fears and convictions.

We do agree on a great deal, I think we are seperated more by my 'firebrand-ism' than contradictory world views. I often don't care enough for the disctinction between the moderate churches, congregations, and ministers in Europe and the evangelical businesses, flocks, and preachers of the US when I rush myself to present an opinion and argument.

Well that is the first post of yours I can genuinely say I agree with, so I suppose that settles the dispute for now.

[quote="Eowale"]

Mandui wrote:Wat? It's the clear choice! If you die a honourable and brave death in battle, you go to the Halls of Valhalla, where you get to drink, eat, fight and shag all you want! I'd rather do that then sit on a cloud, tbfh!

I merely noted down your wish, so it can be considerated. No reason for you to justify yourself, mortal.