www.ditl.org

Eh, it seems to fit better in here than FC, but I've no objection to it being moved if you disagree.

Well, it's not very political, nor is it really a discussion of current events, so it doesn't reall fit here.

I agree that this is one pretty dificult topic to find a location for. Personaly, I'm more inclined to keep it in FC, given that Forum Community is the closest thing we have to a general "other threads" forum. I'll wait and see what the other mods think, though.

I would of left it in the original thread, considering it was called "godless" its remarkably on topic.

That was my thought as well. Can't say that there's really a defining line one way or the other.

Religion isn't good or evil. My faith raised me to believe in free will as God's gift to mankind. Should someone commit evil then it is their choice, not God's. Most religions speak against violence yet people commit such in the name of their religion. I don't see that as the fault or evil of the religion itself but of the person. They feel such horrible guilt about their actions that the only way to make themselves sleep at night is to say "God wills it" instead of "I will it and I'm to much a coward to look myself in the mirror".

Evil like good is in the person, not the book they read or the words they pray. We make those choices and sometimes just like getting caught stealing a cookie, we want someone else to take the fall.

Amen.

Deepcrush wrote:Religion isn't good or evil. My faith raised me to believe in free will as God's gift to mankind. Should someone commit evil then it is their choice, not God's. Most religions speak against violence yet people commit such in the name of their religion. I don't see that as the fault or evil of the religion itself but of the person. They feel such horrible guilt about their actions that the only way to make themselves sleep at night is to say "God wills it" instead of "I will it and I'm to much a coward to look myself in the mirror".

Evil like good is in the person, not the book they read or the words they pray. We make those choices and sometimes just like getting caught stealing a cookie, we want someone else to take the fall.

and if the person committing the evil is the head of the church, ie the pope, with a claimed direct line to god? Given who he is I would argue that their religion is whatever he says it is. Thus if he urges his religion to follow evil then the religion is evil. Take my previous examples, the Spanish inquisition, the crusades and their contribution to the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

To Mikey. Instead of posting replies to the hugh post we have already generated together I'm going to try and reduce the discussion to it's basics. Feel free to correct my summary here and to bring up anything else you feel is important that I have missed out.

Basically, you are arguing that your religion takes a common sense view to interpreting scripture (or other previous writing) and I am saying that in doing that you are not actually following the religion that you claim to be. The points I'm interested in are as follows:

1) If you where to follow the rules of the old testament then you would be considered evil. You call these people fundamentalists, but, I have a slight problem with that word as it has become associated with the likes of al-qaeda in that they are not only traditionalists or orthodox but violent at the same time. There are very orthodox groups, like I believe the Hasidic jews, who are not violent. I'm not keen to lump these people together. I'm interested in seeing where you draw your fundamentalist/orthodox line. Do you, for example, have a problem with the Hasidic or other orthodox Jewish sects?

2) If your religion is built around picking and choosing what is right and what is wrong in the likes of the old testament, who gets to choose what the beliefs are? Is it the 'church/sect', the leaders, the group as a whole or the individuals who are a part of the sect?

3) Where are the lines drawn? What topics are off limits to this feedom? For example what about the existence of god for example, is that fair game for this process. Strangely enough there are Church of England priests who do not believe in god, openly say they don't and yet are still priests. I find this last part (CofE) totally mad, religion with out religion!

4) I'm in no position to say one way or the other about the 'evilness' of your particular breed of religion as I don't know enough about it to decide. Given you are the only instance of the group I have come across I can only go by you and as I've already said you are not evil. However, until I know more about the system and the variability involved I can't really comment for the rest.

IanKennedy wrote:and I am saying that in doing that you are not actually following the religion that you claim to be.

Well, as I tried to express, my sect of Judaism incorporates that value of flexibility and interpretations, so I think I am following it. We still keep certain harmless rules, like that of kosher, which I do not follow, but...
Anyway, I can't speak to whether that spirit or idea is present in all other faiths. However, to go back to my original purpose of debating the earlier point; if my one lone sect of my faith proves not to be evil, then it still denies the claim that "religion is evil." So...

1) Fundamentalism is to me an adherence to all dogma and the letter of Scripture, without regard to trying to interpret its message or intention. While the word "fundamentalism" may have lately picked up a connotation of violence and hatred, that really isn't truly part of the definition. True, the Hassidim can be seen as a fundamentalist sect; however, Judaism is too old to allow for true fundamentalism. A truly fundamentalist Jew would, for example, have to be in Jerusalem every Saturday, burning a ram, a bull, and an omer (an Old Testament unit of dry measure) of cereal. While they do follow certain archaic mitzvot, they still don't do things like leave the corners of their fields unharvested for the poor to come and reap - or some of the more vile "commandments" that have been referred to here. The Hassidim actually have a couple of sects among themselves, some more mainstream than others, and I used to believe that they all considered me as a Conservative Jew fairly contemptible. However, I learned later that my boyhood rabbi was in fact himself a student of the famed Lubavitcher Rebbe.

2) Conservative Judaism in the US has an organization known as United Synagogue, with representatives and decision-makers elected from synagogues across America. This body sets some policy; some has become commonplace or widespread enough to be taught de facto in Conservative seminaries; some policies are set by individual congregations; and while the idea of a synagogue is for a consensus, most encourage study and discussion groups to air and discuss differeing viewpoints.

3) Nothing is off-limits, as it were; again, most members of a particular synagogue seem to consense to a certain way of looking at things. I don't recall ever hearing of a policy against a certain type of belief, but certain things are matter-of-course; while we may freely interpret, even selectively apply Scripture, I can't imagine anyone actively contradicting it (like denying the existence of G-d, or promoting a polytheistic system.) If someone wanted to believe that way, there wouldn't be any reason for them to be part of Judaism.

4) Nor can I. I know my wife's brand of Catholicism is far less hidebound than Roman Catholicism, as are (ironically) the Orthodox churches.

Man, I need to go get some more popcorn for this one.