|
Inlägg #1: Postat: 2002-06-07 20:38:00
|
|
Frederik |
I personally find it amusing that critics of religion always use fundamentalist believers as an example to prove their point. The analogy I usually use for that is a critic of democracy using the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a case. Pointless, really...
|
| |
|
Inlägg #2: Postat: 2002-06-07 22:37:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
And who said the writer did anything but make fun of the fundamentalist believers instead of the whole religion, hm?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #3: Postat: 2002-06-08 11:00:00
|
|
Frederik |
Good point. : I guess Ive read so many fundamentalist critics/atheists texts by now that Ive grown way too sensitive to them... Many actually use parodies like this to condemn the whole of religion.
Anyway, you know where it came from, so I guess youll also know what the author meant. And what your own intention was by publishing it.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #4: Postat: 2002-06-09 11:19:00
|
|
holk |
"Condemn the whole of religion" sounds like a pretty good idea!!!
|
| |
|
Inlägg #5: Postat: 2002-06-09 19:27:00
|
|
Frederik |
Right. So whats your religion then, holk? for religion read: How do you look at the world as a whole? What are your core values? How do you make sure that you are living according to them? How efficient are you in doing this?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #6: Postat: 2002-06-10 11:46:00
|
|
Anders |
Frederik, I disagree with you. The word "religion" implies that some kind of deity or supreme being or beings is involved. What you are talking about is ethics and morale. Often a religion points out ethical rules, but it makes perfect sense to put up such rules for yourself and live by them without following any particular religion.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #7: Postat: 2002-06-10 13:02:00
|
|
Frederik |
Wrong. The word religion literally translated means re-linking, i.e. re-linking yourself to that source from which you draw the motivation and strength to act morally. If you read the texts of mystics from various religions you will notice that they all point to the same, but use different images to describe something that and all of them are very keen on pointing this out in essence cannot be described. Love, you might call it, though its an overused word by now.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #8: Postat: 2002-06-10 13:03:00
|
|
Frederik |
What most critics rightly point out is that in institutionalised religions the images have frequently developed dynamics of their own, often leading to intolerance and exploitation. While you are right in that one does not need an institutional religion to act morally, my own critique against secular society is that our values are now often unconsciously shaped by other images and institutions especially publicity and the media. Hence my last comment: what is holk linking himself to?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #9: Postat: 2002-06-10 13:04:00
|
|
Frederik |
Those new values more often than not encourage individualism and consumerism rather than the continuous personal growth and service to others that all major religions advocate. And they also only have the single and easily fooled, even by him/herself individual as moral testing stone. While in the end I alone am responsible for my actions before what I call God, I do recognise the immense value of an institutions and community which gives me continuous feedback throughout my growth.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #10: Postat: 2002-06-10 13:09:00
|
|
Kalle G |
Good for you... ;-
|
| |