Meeting Ourselves Going Out While Coming In
Posted: 04 April 2012 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

When I first joined CFI and wrote pieces for the Fora I was loud-mouthed, too quick to come to conclusions, often stupid, and very flat in my views.  But I have changed - I think.

I fell into the bracket of those who thought religion defined the individual who professed a belief which grew from that religion and nothing else.

But all humans (indeed all animals) grow their beliefs from many experiences, learnings and knowledge and are not limited to religious beliefs alone.

However, I am certain that if individuals decide to limit their beliefs and to actively limit their sources of information, knowledge, learning and involvement, they can force themselves and others under their control to build a belief structure which is dangerous to others, poorly structured, and which will not change however hard others who realize their mistakes try to change them.

What, therefore, will continue to keep this type of limited view in its box and keep it without any outlets, root growth in new perspectives, and opportunities to expand its often dangerous outcomes.  Perhaps the most difficult perspective of this type of limited view is how it grows in its limited form to embrace many others who are able to work together, holding to the limited dictum, while others outside the limited viewpoint fight to change the understanding, to stop aligned violence, and to offer the believers, options which are clearly more truthful, more accurate, more enlightening, and more supportive, and may be life-saving.

Can religion be blamed for percentages of beliefs and actions which “cause” the dangerous outcomes or is it an individual (ora small group of individuals) who build the belief structure which supports the growing intention to get followers to do what they want.  Therefore, for example, to say that “Islam causes violence” is wrong, while to say that “Mohammed used selected parts of Islam to cause violence,” is correct (oversimplified, but correct).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 11:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

I agree, it is good to have a philosophical foundation on which to base your life and actions. The problem, as you indicated, lies in the dogmatic religions, all of which have some ‘good” messages about ethics (morals). Unfortunately almost all are “exclusive” in nature and often contain “bad” messages which inevitably lead to conflict. It seems a peculiar egocentric trait of “prophets” that they insist on “their” religion is the only way to achieve peace and harmony. Even Christ taught that “only through me” one would achieve a special status, as did Muhammed, and just about every other old or recent prophet.
I believe the main problem lies in the exclusivity of every dogmatic religion, which views any other belief as evil.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15

Back a long time ago I liked to say
‘Entropy was god’s way of making sure you didn’t bump into yourself on the way out the door.”
cheese

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile