"Religion stops a thinking mind...it is only another socially acceptable addiction."

[Maelakin]

pritchke,

I agree about politics and religion being alike.

I would go so far as to argue that religious institutions ARE nothing more than a group of politicians.

[Azred]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Azred: That saying is normally attributed to Voltaire, who was French.

While often mistakenly attributed to Voltaire, the quote, which it turns out I paraphrased rather than quoted precisely, is actually from a 1906 work about Voltaire's writings by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

I've always assumed she was American, but i cannot be certain.[/QUOTE]I agree; I remember being a little shocked to find out that he didn't really say that. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Me? Shocked? Only because my literature professor stated categorically that "yes, that is a direct quote from Voltaire". It is amazing what emotions a 19-year-old college student has when he realizes that [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] professors can be wrong. That is one of things that you know, but not until it hits you do you really realize it.
That being said, I think it is safe enough to attribute the quote to Voltaire himself in casual converstaion, but in any scholarly work it would have to be correctly cited. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Maelkin: The above is actually why I took it down. It (Maelkin's former sig) seems to be misinterpreted by many people. I have to think of a way to re-word it so it is non-offensive and actually portrays the complete thought. I just wanted to keep it from being wordy.

I wouldn't worry so much about being non-offensive; if you say "It's raining" you're likely to make someone upset these days (not here on IW, but in the off-line world it is possible).

Originally posted by Maelkin: In truth, most people follow a religious Philosophy , not a religion itself. After all, how many people actually agree 100% with everything a specific religion states, unless of course they have not taken the time to study what they think they are following.

Usually those who are desperately looking for a quick and easy answer to life's problems jump to either religion or New Age philosophy and believe whatever they are told without doing their own homework; the peace they find, even if others don't understand or believe, is highly valuable. However, not every who is religious is looking for an easy answer, though (I'll just nip any comments about that in the bud [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ). That is probably what formed the foundation for your original quote. Good luck in your quest to re-word your thought.

[Night Stalker]

Chewie! You forgot the quote most pertaining to this thread!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl (Groucho ) Marx

Yorick, how was the sig in question any different from this quote? Marx is considdered one of the great modern day philosophers on social theory. Marx was very derissive of religion, but recognized that it is a very useful tool for controling the hearts and minds of sheeple.

As Timber pointed out, some people find overtly pro-religion sigs offensive, but don't call for them to take them down. I myself happen to find Public Displays of Religion tacky and distastful. But that's only because I believe that religion is a private thing. Where as Public Displays of Affection would motivate me to grab popcorn and a chair! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

All I'm suggesting is a tad bit of tollerance, that's all.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Maelakin: pritchke, I agree about politics and religion being alike. I would go so far as to argue that religious institutions ARE nothing more than a group of politicians.

The differences (IMO) between certain religious intitutions and politics are worth noting:

A key difference is that politicians don't neccessarily have to take a stance they believe in, they can say what they think people believe in, to get the vote. Where as certain religious mouth-peices espouse what they beleive in- rather than reflect the beliefs of the people, they seek to mold them in the image of their own. This is where thinking is stunted, when people take the preacher's beleifs as their own without a grain of salt or a nueron of discerning thought.

Also politicians cannot offer any punishment for not following their lead, except perhaps for having to suffer the policies of their political advesaries. Certain religion's offer a choice: Follow our religion or live in suffering and then die and suffer in eternity. While politicians offer temporal reward and punishment, certain religions stretches this scheme into eternity.


Please note: I am going out of my way to qualify my opinions in order to avoid making blanket statement or generalizations. People tend to take such thing quite literally. Any opinion I make about religion that appears to be a generalization, is not. I simply overlooked adding an approriate qualifier.

[ 10-24-2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

A notable similarity to point out between politicians and some religionists is that both tend to paint their respective adversaries beliefs in as negative light as possible to make their views appear better and superior.

The best side of either of these factions is illustrated in the ones that seek common ground or compromise.

[ 10-24-2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

WOW!!! How did this thread show up and get 1.5 pages long before I even saw it? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I gotta start paying closer attention.

OK, where to start...first of all, I agree with Yorick in principle regarding the original wording of Maelakin's sig line. I've seen that particular sentiment expressed before with the basic implication being that all religious beleivers are nothing more than mindless sheep. So, in that respect, I do find the general implication to be somewhat insulting.

HOWEVER

Timber provides a good counter-example regarding my sig. There are many non-Christians here at IW that may well find my sig offensive in some manner. So if I want to keep my sig as is, then it is only fair that I allow Maelekin the same right to keep his. Even though I may disagree with what he says, I don't have to become angry over it. I can always choose NOT to become angry. That's one thing many people don't take into account nowadays. NOBODY can MAKE you get angry over something. You make the choice yourself to become angry about anything.

Would I be willing to change or remove my sig if Timber had been serious? Yes, I would. I may not agree with him not liking it, but the fact that it is considered offensive by another member would be reason enough for me to choose something different.

Originally posted by Maelakin: Seeing as how there are many Christians on this board, I’ll direct this question to them (it can also be applied in various other ways to all religions. The Bible is a book that is left open to interpretation. Have you read it for yourself, and in doing so, have you formed your own foundation for your beliefs? Or, do you blindly accept the interpretation a religious institution has formed without questioning?

My faith is based on a mixture of both elements and I would imagine the same holds true for most Christians. I do read my Bible (although not nearly as often or as thoroughly as I should [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) and I do form my own interpretations of the message to be found therein. However, there are also certain areas I have questions about and certain parts of the Bible I don't understand as well as I would like to - so I look to my preacher and others who have devoted their life to reading and preaching God's Word for some guidance and understanding in that particular area. Think of it as a challenging class in science or math. You may understand the basic principles in the book, but you might also run across a particularly complex theory or formula that just doesn't make sense (who understood what the heck pi was the first time they heard it in Algebra I?) In that case, the student will look to the teacher to provide an explanation of the formula or theory. The big difference - of course - is that the science or math concept will have an absolute and definite explanation whereas Biblical passages will always be subject to individual interpretation.

Once I have the explanation or interpretation of a leader I respect, I then look over the passage, chapter, or verse again myself to see if I draw the same conclusions they did. The fact is that I do not always agree 100% with everything my pastor believes and I have left other churches because I felt that the preachers there were following a personal agenda in their sermons rather than God's Agenda. I don't accept ANYBODY'S interpretation blindly, although I do hold the opinions of some people higher than I do others.

As an example of how differently I think, I'm one of the few Christians I know that is willing to say I believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. Even most Christians will "fudge" a little and say that a lot of the Bible is written metaphorically. I personally don't agree with that. I beleive that God created the Heavens, Earth, and every living creature and plant in 7 days...NOT 7 eons or millenia. I believe Goliath really WAS almost 9ft tall and Noah DID have two of every kind of animal on the Ark (at least two of every kind that couldn't swim ). It is admittedly difficult to defend this literal interpretation, which is why many Christians shy away from it. The beauty is that my faith is not affected one whit if I DO happen to be wrong and the Bible is metaphorical in certain parts.

So the answer is YES, I do question each person's interpretations of the Bible - including my own.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Yorick: "Religion stops a thinking mind...it is only another socially acceptable addiction." Could someone explain to me why this is allowed in Maelakins sig? I am personally offended by this inference that: 1. I am not thinking due to my faith. 2. I am an addict. Maelakin, I for one would appreciate you keeping your insulting opinions about the mental faculties of those with faith to yourself and not reminding us with each and every post you make, that there are people that scorn, hate and deride us simply for holding a particular worldview.

Just out of random curiosity, what ever happened to "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to hom the other also;"(Matthew 5:39)?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Chewie! You forgot the quote most pertaining to this thread!! "Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl (Groucho ) Marx Yorick, how was the sig in question any different from this quote? Marx is considdered one of the great modern day philosophers on social theory. Marx was very derissive of religion, but recognized that it is a very useful tool for controling the hearts and minds of sheeple.

I agree in a certain sense with Karl Marx.

Opiate:
1 : a preparation or derivative of opium; broadly : a narcotic or opioid peptide
2 : something that induces rest or inaction or quiets uneasiness

My faith gives me inner peace and rest. Note MY faith. It is not mind control. My faith is an individual decision. It has nothing to do with controlling sheep, and everything to do with empowerment and and independent relationship with my God.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Seraph: Just out of random curiosity, what ever happened to "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;"(Matthew 5:39)?

1.Maelakin is not evil.
2.He did not strike me on the cheek.

We are having a discussion. Words. Jesus used words to disarm crowds, silent pharisees and critics. Had Jesus not used words to raise points, and create change, where would we be today?

Remember this is the internet. This is a realm of ideas and writing, not physicality. Writing strong ideas is certainly not forcing anyone to do anything, nor forcing an opinion on anyone as has been implied previously. Certainly it is not striking a person that hits you.

In any case

3.I am not perfect, nor sinless.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: WOW!!! How did this thread show up and get 1.5 pages long before I even saw it? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I gotta start paying closer attention. OK, where to start...first of all, I agree with Yorick in principle regarding the original wording of Maelakin's sig line. I've seen that particular sentiment expressed before with the basic implication being that all religious beleivers are nothing more than mindless sheep. So, in that respect, I do find the general implication to be somewhat insulting. HOWEVER Timber provides a good counter-example regarding my sig. There are many non-Christians here at IW that may well find my sig offensive in some manner. So if I want to keep my sig as is, then it is only fair that I allow Maelekin the same right to keep his. Even though I may disagree with what he says, I don't have to become angry over it. I can always choose NOT to become angry. That's one thing many people don't take into account nowadays. NOBODY can MAKE you get angry over something. You make the choice yourself to become angry about anything.

An interesting thing to note, is that your sig was indeed used in defense of Maelakins. Yet YOU did not ask Maelakin to change his sig. That's a Straw Man argument. Whoever it was should have looked at MY sig for comparison, where we find no spiritual reference whatsoever. Positive or negative. I was the one with the offense. I am in fact respectful of peoples anti-religious sentiment and don't put blatant images or quotes in my sig.

Not that I see an issue with your sig, I simply find it interesting that you were dragged into it, despite me having the issue.