31 Jan '09 11:57>2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAmen to that.
Christianity will become useless in the next age.
Who needs an "anity" when you have Christ Himself?
As for the money thing, I suggest "In God some of us trust."
Originally posted by BadwaterReligions, in general, are not useless altogether. They can act as a kind of preservative for society. That is to prevent people from running wild. Proverbs says "Without a vision the people run wild." They can add some structure and preservation in times of social disintergration.
Christianity is already useless.
The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, however, have an eternal value to me. I certainly understand if others don't see it that way.
Originally posted by realeyezA spirituality forum (it's not a chat room) is for discussing things pertaining to spirituality, whether that be pro or con. It is not relegated to any particular spiritual viewpoint. The motto is hurting me, as it clearly violates the Constitution and designates me as a second class citizen. The Federal government has no business endorsing any god or gods.
This is the spiritual chat room. You are you even in here. You don't believe in spiritual. As far as the motto goes, if it is not hurting you get over it. If you don't like it give away all your money so that you don't have it on you, then you can't complain about it. Just use credit
Originally posted by dystoniacThe motto only started appearing in 1864. As I said before, it didn't appear on the currency until 1957. Why should I be expected to avert my gaze from a clear violation of the Constitution?
Why should your disbelief in God change the money that has been this way since 1864? Since you disbelieve in a deity, simply avoid gazing at the mesmerizing words In God We Trust as a vampire would avoid sunshine.
Originally posted by jaywillSo you essentially agree with the guy who said "religion is the opium of the people."?
Religions, in general, are not useless altogether. They can act as a kind of preservative for society. That is to prevent people from running wild. Proverbs says [b]"Without a vision the people run wild." They can add some structure and preservation in times of social disintergration.
Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Bahai, Judaism, Confuci ...[text shortened]... to preserve people from social chaos. There are exceptions of tragic contradiction to this.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat i think jaywill was saying is that the application of religious principles should make one a more useful member of society, that is of course if the principles are sound, it is you on the other hand that are steering it towards political ground with Marxist comments, an individual who i hasten to add, neglected his own family in order to give attention to the exposition of his theory! a consequence of which his family would have been spared if he applied certain guiding principles found in religious texts which he seemed so adamant to reject!
So you essentially agree with the guy who said "religion is the opium of the people."?
Do you also support the promotion of drugs to keep people under control?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you believe that Jawill believes that the guiding principles in the following religions are sound: Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Bahai, Judaism, Confucianism?
what i think jaywill was saying is that the application of religious principles should make one a more useful member of society, that is of course if the principles are sound, it is you on the other hand that are steering it towards political ground with Marxist comments, an individual who i hasten to add, neglected his own family in order to give at ...[text shortened]... pplied certain guiding principles found in religious texts which he seemed so adamant to reject!
Originally posted by randolphQuite possibly, I for one certainly do not know the context of the comment. However, nearly everyone knows that its quite true that religion is frequently used to keep people under control, and that people appear to be rather irrationally addicted to religion.
"that guy" was utterly misrepresented when he said that.
Originally posted by twhiteheadim sorry but if they are not following the teachings of Christ, they are not Christian, i don't care what they claim, they are not Christian. in fact Christ himself gave an excellent example in his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Mathew chapter 13.
So you believe that Jawill believes that the guiding principles in the following religions are sound: Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Bahai, Judaism, Confucianism?
As far as I know Buddhists and Confucianists are more or less atheist.
What I don't see is how any discussion of society and methods of making society work can be divorced from pol ...[text shortened]... ly it starts with the pastor keeping it for himself and the congregation not liking that idea.)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't call them Christian, but generally I do call anyone who professes to be Christian a Christian. I find people who use the term to mean 'my kind of Christian' just create confusion as it makes it practically impossible to communicate with anyone who is not your 'kind of Christian'.
im sorry but if they are not following the teachings of Christ, they are not Christian, i don't care what they claim, they are not Christian. in fact Christ himself gave an excellent example in his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Mathew chapter 13.
Originally posted by twhiteheadmmm, no i do not think that there is any evidence, not that i am aware of, on the contrary, for you also are endowed with a natural sense of justice, the capacity to give and receive love, to exercise your free will irrespective of your religious inclinations or otherwise, this principle is also highlighted in scripture, which i produce, not because im preaching at you, that would never do, just to illustrate the point.
I didn't call them Christian, but generally I do call anyone who professes to be Christian a Christian. I find people who use the term to mean 'my kind of Christian' just create confusion as it makes it practically impossible to communicate with anyone who is not your 'kind of Christian'.
Also, in light of your comments, do you then disagree with jawil rs or religions do any better than societies who's members are not members of religions?