Religion and 'bad' things - why do we see it in others religions only?

1. 77

   jlparkposted 9 years ago

   Religion and 'bad' things - why do we see it in others religions only?
   
   Reading a few questions lately, this jumped out at me. Many are quick to point out the bad things in another's religion, yet when confronted with the same from their own, are quick to point out the difference between the two - but not to realise that there isn't really a difference at all.
   I'm looking for your thoughts on why this is? But from why you think you don't see the bad in yr faith/belief  as the same as the bad in others?

   replyreport
2. 48

   Ericdierkerposted 9 years ago

   Really Jacqui, you do not see the contentions within Christianity? You don't see the church vs no church arguments and the universalizism vs Only one way, and you don't see New Testament love vs traditionalisitic fire and brimstone? There are huge differences within just Christianity. I met someone the other day that was insistent that Buddha transcended this world and became a God.
   If you think there is not difference in religions how do you explain the difference within religions?
   You think that a Christian does not see the hypocrites? The real arguments exist within religions not between them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So true, Erik.  Is it not back to the old problem of fear?

      replyreport
   2. 77

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree - within not between. Yet, today I read a comment where it was being denied that Christianity was dif to Islam in that Christians look down on the killers, bt Muslims just say they are a real Muslim. Yet I see both sides doing same thing.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

   Ethnocentric behaviour sees one's own culture as superior to others. There are many large religions such as Hinduism and it's offshoot Buddhism that eschew all ideas of superiority between the various religions. Currently there is a growing trend in all religions of greater mutual acceptance.
   Feelings of superiority can be very destructive in any area of life. It can lead to violent racism.
   We also see New Atheism regarding itself as totally superior which has led to it's own uniquely hypocritical  gross religious intolerance and bigotry dressed as mock intellectualism.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agreed. Until you did just what you were talking about New Atheism. Can't you see it? Your comment is then trying to sound superior to them by bagging them. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm saying its true for all - not just 'others'

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am scientifically  pointing out drastic ethical inconsistencies not "bagging".If these bizarre inconsistencies didn't exist there would be no ethical basis to criticize them. Unfortunately their inconsistencies exist.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Source please if it's a scientific study.
      You took great pains to point out New Atheism in such a way, though. Hindu etc much 'softer' way. Not saying it's not true, just saying it's true of everyone, even if 1 thinks 1 doesn't do it. me inclu

      replyreport
4. 55

   peter565posted 9 years ago

   There are 2 type of people in the world passive thinker and active thinker. Usually people who are better educated are active thinker and ill educated are more likely to be passive thinker, although not always the case. Passive thinker passively follow what they are taught to believe in, without question, active thinker are more critical in what they are taught to believe in. Take Chistianity for example, the bible it self teach
   John 2:22 [Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.] So, for example scientist who say the earth is over 5000 years old are anti christs. Those who follow the bible passively and blindly, would simply believe scientists are evil and liar, because of this bible teaching, those who are active thinker, would dare to question the bible and it was those people who initiate the age of enlightenment and why the west today don't follow problematic bible teaching, such as
   Deuteronomy 22:20 [But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.]
   
   There is this paper published in Colombia university in the US that talk in great detail about this
   
   http://www.learn.columbia.edu/nanxuntu/ … /ideas.pdf
   
   Of course Eastern idea like Confucius isn't 100% perfect either, only Confucius admit he isn't a perfect, unlike the bible who say god is perfect and is always right. E.g. Although Confucius speak highly of human right, his idea of been humane is limited to human and his idea of animal right is horrible, for example, one of his student, was a famous animal right activist of his time, trying to end the ritual of sacrifice a cow to honor foreign ambassadors, because he think it is not humane, Confucius said, to his student, been polite is more important than animal right.
   
   But Asia traditionally been better educated (the west pretty much just caught up with Asia, after the age of enlightment) , agree with Confucius idea on human right and education, don't agree with his view on animal right and is more in alliance with Buddhism view on it

   replyreport
5. 77

   lawrence01posted 9 years ago

   My Old Testament professor used to say "If you have two Jews, you'll get three opinions!" Now before you criticize he was of Russian Jewish extraction! I think the point is people will always find things to disagree on! We tend to think we're right and in arguments just don't like 'backing down'. Eric and Oz are right with their points.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I meant to add that JC got it right with the 'splinter and log' I might see the splinter in my brother's eye, but what about the log in my own?

      replyreport
   2. 77

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The log/splinter thing is what I'm getting at. Not disagreements but the way that 1 person can say 'Muslims are bad but Christians have a reason/difference to do same thing' + not see what they r doing (only an example). It was interesting 2 me is al

      replyreport
6. 86

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   
   
   Unfortunately, there are religionists who strongly critique the wrongs in other religions but are in complete denial when someone put out the wrongs in their religion.  Many religionists believe or want to believe that their religion is perfect.  After all, their religion is their emotional, psychological, & even psychic security blanket &/or womb which they can retreat from when the world becomes too complex & daunting for them.  If they see the wrongs in their religion, they may start to question this religion, even leave it.  They don't want their religious comfort zone to be disturbed for if this paradigm is disturbed, what WOULD they DO & HOW would they LIVE!

   replyreport
   1. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Nice try and completely pop psychology debunked. A world view according to one. No proof and no evidence to back this up. Just a thought by an atheist,

      replyreport
   2. 77

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Eric - GM has offered an opinion, you have offered yours. No one is proving anything - yet if you want proof, it may pay to provide your own (to the debunking) as well. Please, I wanted opinions, not people getting at each other.

      replyreport