For all the different ways people think and for all the kinds groups of what people are. There is no way the vast majority of people will ever agree upon one Religion. That means the vast majority will fight forever until all religion slow down and shrink to the point where Religion and does not meet the vast majority purposes.
I get this feeling that Religion will not meet the vast majority needs and desires anymore within 20 years from now,
What do you think?
I'm hoping that education will overtake the religions within 20 years.
The Taliban still teach a flat earth in some schools, along with how to kill Americans.
Some broader education may help with that.
America has more enemies within than without.
Their fundy christians may be unteachable, so they could be the biggest problem for the live and let live idea.
if they became live and let live, they would not be a religion....lol
and that would be a good thing
“Could Religions ever Be- Live and let Live?”
I think by asking the question this way you have created the perfect example of an oxymoron.
Religion was never designed to be ‘Live and let Live,’ it was designed as ‘Do as I say in the name of a nonexistent deity whom I have created.
Don’t sweat it, most people prefer to be told what to do and what to think, makes their existence easier when someone else makes all the decision for them, gives them someone else to blame as well.
So don’t expect things to change any time soon.
The word "religion" is much too vague.
There are innocuous religions.
Now, if your boil it down to the 3 major "monotheistic" beliefs, there's not a chance that "CONTEMPORARY" man will overcome its primitively deadly beliefs in this god thing concept which all 3 will kill and die for!
Not even if ya cross all your fingers and toes! :
I agree with Jung who is supposed to have observed that " the problem with organized religion is that it gets in the way of knowing God"
Many people make the mistake of saying "religion" when they mean only the narrow spectrum of religions that currently dominate the population. "Religion" does not necessarily mean only monotheism, does not necessarily mean only Fundamentalism.
Many religions are *already* live and let live, with no interest in proselytizing or dominating.
The true evils are proselytizing, which makes intolerance of other paths a duty, and mixing religion with politics, which gives power to an experience that should be personal.
Live and let live?
Religion is hypocrisy in action, just like the believers who formed the beliefs they presently hold. That creates automatic conflict.
The ideology of "do as I say, not as I do" is the biggest problem with religion and it's followers, who fail to see their own actions.
Live and Let Live requires that religious folks learn to do what they claim to do- they claim to have a personal relationship with their god, then proceed to tell others that they are going to be held to what they claim for themselves.
Now, if those who claim to have a religious view, actually kept their views personal, then "Live and Let Live" might be possible. Until then, religious views will create conflict and disturb the peace.
And that is the reason, after years upon years of bible studies and religious inquisitions I finally came to the conclusion that religion itself is a falisie (sp). I believe in the Golden Rule of 'do unto others as you'd have done unto you' and I have found so many man created religions just do not live up to that basic code.
I know a little religious story that was more live and let live...... somewhere else.
A guy I knew married this really hot girl from a religious family, and although he knew the parents were devout he thought his bride would not remain too religious for long.
Both being keen golfers they were out on the green soon after being married when the subject of religion came up with their golfing partners, one of whom was his boss, a man who said what he thought.
He said something along the lines of "It's a load of rubbish!"
at which this blokes new bride slams her hands over her ears, stomps her feet rapidly screaming at the top of her voice "I can't hear you! over and over while they all stood and watched the show in astonishment.
Before looking for a new job, he discovered that his sweetheart had done this her whole life when confronted with "Blasphemy"
Unfortunately, I believe that relgion will always be with us. And the more science discovers which shows such religious beliefs to be false, the more hardline and fundamentalist will the believers become. Education so far has produced little results. In fact now more and more religions are creating their own schools, which obviously only teach their views of the world. I see religon, especially the fundamentalist kind coming to dominate the future. The atheist had better run for the hills, because it is getting harder to resist the demands of the religious bigots.
You raise a fair point, it does seem the more one part of society evolves towards Reason and Common Sense the more delusional the other part becomes.
I honestly believe in "My King's New Clothes" theory towards the religious.
Of course our Laws and the legal system needs updating, surely it must be very difficult to become the President of the USA without the various God Squads on your side. If we have laws to protect us from Racist, Sexist and Ageist isn't time Religionist was added to the list ?
Why for instance is it still necessary for an oath to be sworn on the Bible, absolutely meaningless as far as many people are concerned.
Isn't it time the Term " In God We Trust " was called in to serious question.... ?
All schools should be non secular, religion should be taught as a subject and no one should be forced towards any religious indoctrination, and they should be allowed to chose their own way at such times as they are of an age and state of mind to comprehend all the facts and reach an independent conclusion.
It seems to me that an individual’s Human Rights and Freedom fall woefully short on these points in many countries.
Interestingly though, when we were at our most educated, ie: the period of enlightenment, with Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson, Johnathon Swift et al, we were also at our most religious.
Religious people are setting up their own schools now to emulate the ones of the past, since modern, secular schools are more and more void of cultural resonance.
If fundementalist religions come to dominate in the future, it will be the fault of secular educated in pushing the idea that belief equals stupidity.
This is complete nonsense. If fundamentalist religion ever dominates as it did in the past - it will be the "fault" of people who believe nonsense.
My what lengths you will go to to defend your ridiculous beliefs.
All monotheistic religions are fundamentalist. You are either with them or against them sez Jesus.
And yet as education goes down hill, (which it has been since the 60s by the way) anti-intellectual religion has been on the rise. Coincidence non?
Nonsense. You are simply lying to defend your beliefs. Please prove to me that "education has gone downhill" since the 60s.
There is no such thing as intellectual religion. Some intellectuals may be religious, but that does not make an irrational belief system intellectual.
All religion is waning in the developed world. Because it is nonsense. The only way you can make it rise is to homeschool your children and keep then indoctrinated.
What beliefs have I professed? I am writing in defense of religion.
When I say anti-intellectual, I mean that a requirement of that belief is that you avoid thinking too deeply. A few religions are anti-intellectual and it's those make the loudest noise.
People like you hate the idea of home school because it takes away your power to indoctrinate them with your nihilism.
You speak nonsense. The bible clearly states you must believe by faith alone. What are you doing defending religion when you do not even know what they promote?
You cannot think about religion too deeply because Then it becomes clear it is nonsense.
You are clearly defending your own religion. Which - judging by your dishonest, political, woe-is-me-I-am-being-persecuted approach - is Protestant Christianity.
When I talk about the anti-intellectual approach to religion, I am talking about American protestantism at its loudest and silliest and which makes a mockery of all religion. Only protestants believe in faith alone. Action is what matters to the rest. You'd be the first to call me one.
Oh - you mean the Catholic variety that uses proof and logic and spent 1,000 years burning people who did not believe is "intellectual" and Catholics believe based on something other than faith? Fear perhaps?
Religion deserves mockery. This nonsensical, divisive belief deserves mockery. You have to earn respect and religion has not done that. It forced adherence and the moment it became possible to speak out against it - it began to wane.
All religion is anti-intellectual. Always has been. It is absolute.
Spoken with truth and logic, the two things that religion abuses to sustain itself.
Anyway, what is woe-is -me about my approach? I'm not feeling miserable about anything.
You have no idea about Catholicism either. It's like trying to talk about football to a person who is prejudiced against all sport.
Of course I do. They spent 1,000 years burning non-believers. You are the one with no idea.
Oh, now would that be history according to protestant text books? You may as well read about slavery from the point of view of plantation owners.
No. It is history books written by scholars of all religious persuasion. Good grief! Are you suggesting the Inquisitions and Crusades are fabricated lies make up by Protestants?
You do have it bad.
I'm not denying that history is full of violence. Christianity began in violence. Hundreds were killed for heresy in the early days. Before that, thousands had been killed by the Romans. Crusaders killed thousands of Muslims. Muslims killed thousands of Christians. Protestants killed thousands of Catholics. Torture and execution reached a peak in the Elizabethan period, however. I blame an authority for wrongs rather than ideology.
America was responsible for terrible things in Vietnam. Is democracy to blame? No, the guy at the top was responsible. Terrible mistakes have been made by Christians in the past. Its what you learn from it that counts.
Speaking of the man at the top Lizzie, you may be aware that according to the bible, god wiped out mankind down to handful.....the madness of religion.
What we learned is that religion is a bad thing. Hundreds of thousand were killed for heresy. Entire regions were murdered. You need to read a few other history books. When we were "most religious" is the time you want back? This ideology is to blame. You are fighting about it today. Now. Superstitious nonsense that always causes a fight.
Distancing the son from his OT dad's psychotic threats has developed in to an art form since the whole book has begun to be challenged by newer more scientific information.
Dozens of well researched doco's are On TV explaining the sources of these myths by showing the myths that came before them.
The BBC runs a show that examines religious beliefs and has enough guts to speak about all religions honestly.
I don't find it easy to separate the two. The fairly sane sometimes christ is a long way different to his father in this fairytale.
It seems to me there are two distinct views from christianity.
The whole book is literal cos goddunnit
The ot should be ignored since god became himself then killed himself, except when you want to use it to bludgeon a "non-believer"
Hey evolution guy, I don't want the enlightenment back; too protestant for me. I was just pointing out that high education coexisted with religion. I think that a high-minded education such as theirs, involving science, philosophy and metaphysical contemplation is excellent for the brain and has been proven so by countless artists and thinkers of the time, regardless if they choose another direction of belief as adults.
Who's fighting about religion? I thought they were all fighting about land and poverty and drugs and expansion: all the things that men never stop fighting about.
Earnest, in the Bible St.Paul himself says that we are no longer Jews, but Christians, and must separate ourselves accordingly.
The Protestant legacy means that people ignore that advice and are ransacking the Bible for literal truths as if it were an encyclopedia, for goodness sake!
Christ was not spending his time arguing, 'No! the world was made in 6 days, and if you don't believe me you're all going to suffer for eternity'.
The OT is relevant historically, but its metaphysical understanding is very limited and we can sometimes only guess what its getting at. Early Jewish Christians were making a radical break from their own religion, and Christians followed suit. Why is that so hard to accept?
Nothing in the OT needs any explanation at all to see the elephant in the room.
It is quite simply psychotic, as is the process it demands.
We know what psychosis is and how it works. The OT is written in such a way as to make that psychosis as plain as the nose on your face, yet you choose to ignore that.
Please don't keep telling me what is in the book....... I studied it, know what it says and also know it is a mishmash of old stories told long before this book was thought of.
Most of the bible is missing, the rest altered beyond recognition by the church elders who "reconstructed" it.
Hardly a good basis on which to live one's life!
Earnest, the church didn't alter the Bible. That is absolute protestant propaganda. No wonder there are so many lost souls on this forum. When they realise they have been worshiping a book as if it were a collection of magic spells and live by a faith that was born through a barberous, murderous, adulterous king, it is no wonder they are angry. I have never come across such vitriol as is on this forum, and the most fury is coming from disenchanted protestants. Every one of you sights the same cause of your fury: you were fed a story that God gave us the Bible, and from that sprung Christianity.
WRONG: Christians practiced Christianity for 50, 60, 70 years or so before compiling the documents we now call the New Testament for posterity. It was the early church that selected, and decided from the many sources, which documents were legitimate and which illegitimate based on the understanding of the faith they already practiced. That is the basis of the Catholic church which has continued, unchanged in its beliefs ever since. It is absolute propaganda that the Catholics turned up after everyone else and started changing things.
The OT is full of violence, yes. Who has ever denied this? Without the OT how can we understand how bad things can get without Christ's wisdom?
Why are you so hung up on the OT? Because you have been miseducated with fraudulent ideas ,which is why now, you as an intelligent man who has been hoodwinked, are so angry.
This is ba`al blended with Judaism wrapped in Immanu El's teachings and Work. Something the present believing and yes, the post believing still are caught up in.
Awesome, lizzie, just awesomely said.
I made no reference to the catholic church, and have studied all the major religions.
Actually if you had read some of my earlier posts you would see that I acknowledge the catholic trinity for it's proximity to a workable psychological concept of individuation.
James, that's incredibly kind and encouraging, thank you.
Absolutely true. Had Europe shaken off it's religious straitjacket, and instead followed say, the Soviet atheist model it could have been a thrusting, dynamic civilisation, like for instance north Korea.
Instead, Europe is just a backwater, where nobody wants to live.
Go for it pal....history's on your side!
I don't quite know what you mean. Do you mean 'had Europe NOT shaken of its straitjacket...'?
Far from being a backwater, where no one wants to live, Europe is attracting many millions of people who want to live here every year, mostly from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. It is only the Europeans who don't want to live here, which is why they are leaving in their millions for Australia, the USA, Canada etc.
Earnest, I must apologise for flying off the handle there.
Wow, I am shocked you are defending 'faith' itself, Marcus. I cannot argue with you on this and openly admit, I agree. Faith IS the Way. [Rational] Faith actually.
towards me? I'm sorry I'm being a bit slow here.
I didn't get it either. At least we found a little common ground.
I see. These blog comments like to be free of irony, satire and occasional sarcasm, so I'll try again.
The subject was religion; and the last few comments espoused the notion that religion had no relevance, and was, if anything, a hindrance.
I happen to disagree, and chose the Christianisation of Europe as the precursor to its dynamism and centre of learning; pretending that atheism would have been the better option, and giving examples. Korea etc.
Perhaps being an Aussie, "we have a lack of communication here".
hey thelonghaul, I'm so sorry. I did think that was what you meant, but I wasn't sure.
You are quite right!
Now I understand. As soon as we started to get rid of religion - we started learning again. Oddly - we went back to Aristotle and went from there. So - your grasp of European history is rather poor. We became dynamic only after we started to question religion. It is called the Renaissance. Look it up.
Perhaps you could try learning how to express yourself more clearly in future? As you are such a fan of learning.
I used the enlightenment as an example because I thought, as a scientific period, it would appeal to you.
The Renaissance was a superior era in terms of art, architecture, radical thought, everything..., but we Brits had to start our education again having had most gems of that era smashed, defaced and lied about for 120 years after the Reformation.
And, since we're on that point, Christianity brought literature to the west and therefore, the beginnings of education.
Aww - so you think it was "Christianity" that bought literature do you? What a slim view of history you have. Total lack of understanding based on a desire to defend your beliefs.
Try reading "A World Lit Only By Fire" by William Manchester.
And while you are at it - try looking up a group of peopel called the "Romans," you may be shocked to discover it was actually them that "Bought literature to the west."
Have you read any actual history books?
To Britain, Britain!! I meant to Britain! Gosh.
A rather major thing I think you'll admit, considering the somewhat major role British literature has had on the west. Christianity brought the beginnings of education to the English-speaking west. Better?
No. Complete nonsense. The Romans bought literature to Britain along with indoor plumbing and road building techniques.
Have you actually read any history books at all? Considering you say you live in the UK, you are woefully misinformed.
What is the matter with you! The Romans brought Christianity here too!!
I think Christopher Columbus was the first to bring Christianity here, along with piracy, Europeans’ slavery and the goal rush
no as long as my way only way remains theme of religion...
I think the answer to that question can be easily ascertained by reading through this thread.
No, because religion breeds a mentality that defends the actions of the church, at whatever the cost. Religionists refuse to look history, or recent events, squarely in the eye. Because they don't, their organizations will always be allowed to abuse everything from the innocence of children to the lives of those that don't adhere to their faith structure.
The problem with religion is that it is a tyranical system with no checks and balances in place. Absolutely anything can be done by that organization and when they invoke the name of God, the faithful bow and either allow it to happen; or enthusiastically participate. And later rewrite history to explain it away.
So, religion = the church does it? I think Sikhs, Muslims and Jews might have something to say about that. Oh wait, you're talking about the Catholic church which you've read about in the papers but have no real knowledge of.
You don't know what you're talking about so just leave it alone.
Ironically, the only hope for religion is treat others the way you wish to be treated, and love your neighbor as yourself. If only a religious leader had taught that message.
I assume you are referring to Yeshua. I don't think he was a religious leader. He was a teacher. The religion of Christianity threw his philosophy out the first chance they got. It was obviously inconvenient.
I don't know how much you study various religions but Buddhism and Hinduism overlap, well Buddhism is in fact derived from many Hindu principles..The Hindu elephant god Ganesh is used to depict a reincarnation of Buddha.
Gandhi pronounced that he was a Muslim, Christian and Hindu to quell feuds between Hindus and Muslims. All religions teach the abandonment of material possessions and it is this philosophy that doesn't integrate well with western society.
I am multi-disciplinal. I also abide by the tenets of Native American thought, along with the teachings of Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and old testament Israelite. I feel none of these conflict with a working understanding of science.
Live and let live sounds great, but we must eliminate greed, jealousy, and desire for power. This ain't going to happen in the next 20 years nor the next thousand years. After all is said and done in any matter, Jesus shall be the man.
The three you mention are misunderstood to begin with. I've written hubs on each.
Not necessarily. Understanding self would be best.
Live and let live sounds great, but we must eliminate greed, jealousy, and desire for power. This ain't going to happen in the next 20 years nor the next thousand years. After
I understand how our own desires can easily empower each person and every one of us towards our own higher energy and happiness.
Yet I do not understand how such a greedy and all powerful. God needs to be jealous to us piss antz humans. We can shrink greed and jealously to the point where human control it rather than it controlling us
The thing about all religions and the thing which often sets them at odds with modern Western liberal ideals is that they have moral absolutes. For believers things are viewed very much in the black and white. Things are either right or they are wrong. There can be no compromise, because to do so would begin a journey for the believer, of questioning every aspect of the foundation upon which their faith is based. Trying to change religious dogma to fit a changing society would be seen as a weakening of the faith upon which the faithful depend for their sense of purpose in life. As Western ideals of democracy and equality are more and more enshrined in law, then conflicts between the religious and the society they find themselves unwittingly in are bound to arise.
Already most the world population is tripling The US economy growth
Like my cat: if I do not feed him well enough, I become Jesus to him
When the USA staves them out, for example 2/3 of Americans cannot afford a house now. They will change their spiritual ways to be fed better like my cat.
The Anglicans compromise all the time. They bend over backwards to fit in with secular world, bless them.
Agreed. But his followers have rarely lived up to this ideal.
I agree. But also many mis-understand toleration for acceptance. And they are not the same. I do not care what one wants to do or live like. but I have the right to raise and teach my children my morals and values, and if they grow up and dis-regard those then that is their choice. it is a tricky balance to maintain.
None of us are pefect... and none of use are right all the time. though many of us seem to think we are. Including myself at times.
And yet we live in Christian countries along side Muslims and Hindus and there doesn't seem to be a war here. Come on people, we live in great free times under Christian law. Even the Queen now has to call herself 'defender of All faiths.' rather than 'defender of The faith'.
Are you kidding???
The right in America use the word "Muslim" as an insult to the President!
It is a simple fact that obama was born a Muslim and has never renounced Islam, or converted to Christianity. And Islam is a viscious babaric religion that is quickly being seen for what it truly is. If Obama was nnot a muslim then that would mean he was an apostate and there would a fatwa on his head for that alone.
thats their rules, islam's, not mine.
Besides we don't have to like him or want him to be one, he has the right to be a muslim if he wants. Or anyhting else for that matter. being in England you should be able to clearly see the danger Islam poses. Britain is surely becoming Islamicized as we speak. I watched the muslims in england spit on british soldiers. Thats nice of them
I am as far from England as you are from reality TM!
I am a Christian and I live by the New Testament, not the Old, E. And there is no hateful threats from the mouth of Christ. The old testament is no more than a historic foundation of my religion. Islam on the other hand is chock full of hate for any non-believer.
Here is an example of Islamic tlerance now...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/egyptia … ex-slaves/
I didn't need convincing TM, I already know quite a few of the thousands of threats and hate coming from the pages of the quoran.
There are only a few less in the bible.
As I have said before, people live by what they select to live by, from killing non believers to just following a few good ideas that they read in a book.
Surely you are not denying the psychosis of the OT god, or father are you?
Is that by law in America, or just free speech by a rather silly minority? Are the Muslims free to make a reply?
I knew a guy in Saudi Arabia who was imprisoned for adultery. An American journalist was sexually assaulted by 200 Muslim men in a similar part of the world as punishment for doing a man's job. I think we've got a long way to go before we don't live and let live.
Live and let live...that is exactly what few christians practice.
TM, I agree with everything you said there. However, do you show your kids all options and allow them to make their mind up or do you simply pass on your version of the world and how it functions? BTW no disresect intended with that remark.
As an example I see the right seeking to rewrite history in an effort to force their version of it on to our children. Rather than give them all the information available and allow them to make up their own minds, they seek to limit the information the children hear based on their beliefs. If the children never learn or hear a differing opinion, are they truly being allowed to make their own decisions?
I have explained it all to them, and my feeling as regards certain actions. If they choose to be other, then that is there choice and I love them still. No matter what.
Just because some people would like to live without any moral restrictions, doe not mean we do not teach children morally correct behaviour. Then it is up to them. Their choices are their own to make, mistakes and all.
I am speaking as regards everythng discussed in some many forums today. So my answer is regarding all choices in life, religion, sexual oreintation, etc...
You list sexual orientation as a choice. May I ask if this has been so for you. Did you ever feel the need in your life to make a choice concerning your sexuality, or have you always taken it for granted that you were straight. I just wonder why some straight people believe being gay is a lifestyle choice, yet do not consider their own sexuality in the same light. Imagine a world, where some government made it illegal to be straight. Do you think you could turn yourself gay, simply because you would be breaking the law if you did not do so?
It is a choice mul.
There is no evidence to support genetic homosexuality.
It is an abomination to God, and an abhoration in nature.
A choice. Not a natural state of being.
Your dog humps your leg, it doesn't mean he was born a person in a dogs body and wants to screw all humans cause he is one, it simply means he cannot control his basest desires. Nothing more.
About 5000 species have been recorded for same sex acts
No animal have been reported for having sex realationship with their young
Does that mean animal have a better moral compass than Clergymen?
Can Clergymen do whatever the hell they want and animal stay the worst sinners?
Yes animals may have a better moral cumpass than the clergy... lol
And because the animals act like that, we should? Okay. Right.
Glad you agree, human are animals too.
Maybe a million other species do get to count to some Christians
I would defend animals over most peple I know, sir. I know that is probrably not to good... but I am an animal lover. Not quite a PETA fanatic... but close.
My God gave us rule over the earth to be custodians, he told us to subdue it, not slaughter everything in site for kix. If you need to eat, you hunt and thank God for your bounty. You do not kill to hang it on your wall and brag about how bad you are. You should respect the earth as a gift to help supprt you... not as a feast to waste within your gluttony
Only 5% of the species live on the planet today, the rest went extinct.
I won’t get get started with Animals vs. City of UR wars.
Organized religion as opposed to personal spirituality is headed for the dust bin. On the spiritual side, man needs to retain those concepts of compassion, acceptance of other's "differences" and beliefs, spirit of cooperation, and all that. We lose certain aspects of the personality of mankind, and we become "de-humanized" because love and empathy are ALL just electro-chemical reactions in the brain. We can boil the civilization right out of us with too much "knowledge". No affection, not even a smile. Go ahead...MAKE MY DAY!
There will never be a live and let live attitude.
Everyone has their bias and opinions
and favorite sports team.
racism is alive and well.
and leaders all want their subjects to adhere to their rules.
People come from all walks of life and each walk of life has its unique outlook... the poor teach their children to dislike the rich and the rich teach their children to dislike the poor.
Whenever peoples ideas collide there will always be division.
Everyone would have to be vegetables with no preferences, dreams or opinions for the world to live peacefully.
no ethnic backgrounds
no individual thoughts.
ANSWER: yes and no!
Civilization is not about "live and let live." No form of government is. A perfect "live and let live" would mean chaos -- kill whoever you want, steal whatever you want... no controls and no sanity. Probably no civilization, either.
Arguably, the purpose of all religion is to awaken the sleeping immortal within. Personally, I think it's great that there are so many opportunities for people. Any religion that doesn't help toward the goal of spiritual awakening is not a "true religion." That's just my own definition. Things like Satan worship, ego worship, phallus worship are not religions, but hobbies or even crimes, in my view (crimes if they do harm).
Too many in each religion get too rowdy. "My religion is best!" they say, but don't realize that such an attitude is a slap at their own religion. Such a statement is full of ego ("I'm right and you're wrong") and is thus counter-productive as far as their religion is concerned. This all comes from ego-centric misinterpretation of their own religion.
Jesus said to spread the good word, but if the person receiving the word does not want to listen, merely dust yourself off and go on your way. Don't try to beat them over the head with it. So, in this respect, there is a bit of live and let live. Jesus said not to judge, but Christians seem to have forgotten this! Why? Ego!
And ego is the antithesis of all religion. So many Christians are the modern-day equivalent of the Pharisees. So, pompous. So, "right." And they are so busy being right, that they forget what it's all about. It's about kindness, compassion, love and other good things.
But it's also about responsibility. You can't very well be responsible and do nothing. For some selfish (egotistical) people, doing nothing is their version of "live and let live." And that ain't gonna fly.
Growing up with a Southern Baptist minister grandfather, I had a lot of so-called Christianity crammed down my throat. I studied other religions before I understood what Christianity was really about. There was one part of the Jesus story I never understood, and it puzzled me sorely. When Jesus whipped the money lenders in the temple, he certainly was not about live and let live, or even turning the other cheek. Wow! What did this mean? Could money lenders in the temple have been jeopardizing his mission to free us from mortal bondage? Could that be the same reason why Noah's Flood happened (if indeed it was a real event)?
Five words destroys the above statement.
Self responsibility and Self awareness.
I can't see how you've destroyed that statement.
by Emile R 4 years ago
We all enjoy sharing our individual philosophies; but, at what point does it turn into pushing them? Where do we draw the line in our mind as to what is personal opinion and what should be viewed as universal truth?I'm asking because it seems to me, when we seek to marginalize the value of another...
by Pauline C Stark 9 months ago
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?When it comes to Atheism, most religious people get angry and even combative when it comes to this subject. I wonder why, especially in this day and age, one would feel anger towards another human being with a different perception/outlook/belief....
by Eric Graudins 8 years ago
It's going to be hard for me to write objectively about this, but I'll try.I've recently seen a documentary about the child witches in Nigeria. I think it's just about the most terrifying and horrendous thing I've ever seen.The diagnosis and labelling of a child as a witch is pretty simple.If...
by Tonya Herald 6 years ago
Just to see what people think from different religions. Please tell me what religion you are If you are okay with that and then answer the simple question of "Do you believe you should PUSH your religion on your children??"Is it or would you be okay with your child NOT following YOUR...
by ankandhk 15 months ago
Why God made too many religions and different beliefs in the world?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
Why IS it so difficult for religionists to live and let live in terms of religious/spiritual/ethicalphilosophy? Why MUST they insist in a homogeneous form of religious belief, oftentimes even going as far to proselytize those whom they contend that because of divergent, even diametrical...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|