What is the purpose of religion?
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
That is the irony and the impossibility of modern concepts of separation of church and state which really do nothing more than free the state up to assume the inherent responsibilities of the church - achieving just the opposite of what they were originally intended to do.
So, is that an argument in favor of theocracy? ( It certainly looks like it could be used as one). I would argue, instead, that the most valid reason for insisting on a separation of church and state is to deny the state the ability to defend its actions by simple appeal to devine guidance (or worse) devine authority. A state able to defend its every act by citing an unappealable higher authority would be a dangerous beast indead. That said,the principle of separation of church and state should not be mistaken for an excuse for the state to suppress any paricular religion, or religion in general. The state should be relatively neutral with respect to any religion operating within the bounds of its civil laws. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- modified at 13:21 Tuesday 6th December, 2005 (I still can't type)
Rob Graham wrote:
So, is that an argument in favor of theocracy? ( It certainly looks like it could be used as one).
As I clearly stated, the argument is that theocracy, in one form or anothere, is unavoidable. Currently, thanks to modern interpretations of the concept of 'separation of church and state' we live in a secular theocracy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The state should be relatively neutral with respect to any religion operating within the bounds of its civil laws.
The problem, however, is that you cannot point to a single example of the state remaining neutral. Rather, the state, in all known instances, assumes the role of the devine authority. It becomes the very thing that is was supposesd to separated from. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
I will not be generalizing but talking as a Muslim: I think the dictionary definition of religion is known and as such if you ask a Muslim about Islam you might hear it’s ‘a way of life.’ As for the purpose of religion is like asking a Muslim [at least me] for the purpose of the creation of Man. We know from the Quran that that is for worship.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
We know even if mankind musters all of the forces available, we cannot either help or harm Allah in any way.
Ibrahim:07 And remember! your Lord caused to be declared (publicly): "If ye are grateful, I will add more (favours) unto you; But if ye show ingratitude, truly My punishment is terrible indeed." Ibrahim:08 And Musa said: If you are ungrateful, you and those on earth all together, most surely Allah is Self-sufficient, Praised;(Hadith Qudsi Related by Muslim, At-Tirmithi and ibn Majah) "My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and you will not attain benefiting Me so as to benefit Me. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in any way. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in any way. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, anymore than a needle decreased the sea if dipped into it. My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for, so let him who finds good praise Allah and let him who finds other than that blame no one but himself."Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does, and he does what he wills. We might know some of that, but the rest is of the knowledge of the unseen. So in this case we see some of Allah’s attributes are manifested [ie the Most merciful, the Forgiver]A.A. wrote:
Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does
Hey, is that the same Allah dude who keeps having people blown up all over the planet? Sorry, but he kind of seems like an asshole to me. What I'm curous about is where he finds all those virgins. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
For mankind it is probably an excuse to start a fight, but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
What an interesting question. I think I remember being told not to ask such questions when I was a little kid in sunday-school. But I think it is still a great question. Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought. One fun story that took a shot at this question is "American Gods"[^] by Neil Gaimon. If you truly are interested the question I’d recommend it. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
obviously, the deity is terribly insecure and created religion as a way of stroking his tender little ego. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Yeah, they should bring back the greek pantheon. All that squabbling and hot nymph action, now they were gods who's motives you could understand. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
I will not be generalizing but talking as a Muslim: I think the dictionary definition of religion is known and as such if you ask a Muslim about Islam you might hear it’s ‘a way of life.’ As for the purpose of religion is like asking a Muslim [at least me] for the purpose of the creation of Man. We know from the Quran that that is for worship.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
We know even if mankind musters all of the forces available, we cannot either help or harm Allah in any way.
Ibrahim:07 And remember! your Lord caused to be declared (publicly): "If ye are grateful, I will add more (favours) unto you; But if ye show ingratitude, truly My punishment is terrible indeed." Ibrahim:08 And Musa said: If you are ungrateful, you and those on earth all together, most surely Allah is Self-sufficient, Praised;(Hadith Qudsi Related by Muslim, At-Tirmithi and ibn Majah) "My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and you will not attain benefiting Me so as to benefit Me. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in any way. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in any way. My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, anymore than a needle decreased the sea if dipped into it. My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for, so let him who finds good praise Allah and let him who finds other than that blame no one but himself."Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does, and he does what he wills. We might know some of that, but the rest is of the knowledge of the unseen. So in this case we see some of Allah’s attributes are manifested [ie the Most merciful, the Forgiver]A.A. wrote:
As for the purpose of religion is like asking a Muslim [at least me] for the purpose of the creation of Man. We know from the Quran that that is for worship.
Vain son of bitch isn't he? Sounds almost human. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
A.A. wrote:
Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does
Hey, is that the same Allah dude who keeps having people blown up all over the planet? Sorry, but he kind of seems like an asshole to me. What I'm curous about is where he finds all those virgins. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Well said. That pretty much sums up how I feel about that bullshit religion. I am proud to be an infadel. Allah can kiss my ass.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
obviously, the deity is terribly insecure and created religion as a way of stroking his tender little ego. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
obviously, the deity is terribly insecure and created religion as a way of stroking his tender little ego.
:laugh: 5!
-
Rob Graham wrote:
So, is that an argument in favor of theocracy? ( It certainly looks like it could be used as one).
As I clearly stated, the argument is that theocracy, in one form or anothere, is unavoidable. Currently, thanks to modern interpretations of the concept of 'separation of church and state' we live in a secular theocracy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The state should be relatively neutral with respect to any religion operating within the bounds of its civil laws.
The problem, however, is that you cannot point to a single example of the state remaining neutral. Rather, the state, in all known instances, assumes the role of the devine authority. It becomes the very thing that is was supposesd to separated from. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Reverend Satan wrote:
Currently, thanks to modern interpretations of the concept of 'separation of church and state' we live in a secular theocracy
To some extent, I agree with that observation (in spite of the obvious oxymoron). I would, however, describe that as more a case of separation of church and state being used as an excuse to suppress religion in general, which is not neutrality, but rather general opposition. All though there are no perfect examples of separation of church and state, I think that the US has done a reasonable job over its history. We are in a period of conflict between those who would have the state favor a particular religion (Christianity) and those who would have it favor the abscence of religion, so things are a bit distorted at the moment. When I say that the state should be neutral, I would qualify that by insisting that the state is obligated to excercise its neutrality with the same circumspection and respect for custom and precedent that I would insist upon from its judicial system. Some secularists (the more rabid ones) would insist on overturning both custom and precedent in order to achieve a more "perfect" separation. Secularism by definition cannot be a theocracy, since it recognizes no higher authority for moral principles than its own logic. It can however become extremist and totalitarian when it insists on overturning custom and tradition (even if the customs and traditions are those of a minority) for no better reason than to "purify" the state of religious content. When it does that, it is no better than a theocracy that enforces custom and tradition by appeal to some supreme being. The state should not enforce the customs and traditions of the majority, it is however, entitled to respect those traditions and customs of the majority that do not infringe on the rights of any minority. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
What an interesting question. I think I remember being told not to ask such questions when I was a little kid in sunday-school. But I think it is still a great question. Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought. One fun story that took a shot at this question is "American Gods"[^] by Neil Gaimon. If you truly are interested the question I’d recommend it. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Chris Austin wrote:
Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought.
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought.
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions.
They have taught you well young Skywalker.
-
A.A. wrote:
Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does
Hey, is that the same Allah dude who keeps having people blown up all over the planet? Sorry, but he kind of seems like an asshole to me. What I'm curous about is where he finds all those virgins. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Reverend Satan wrote:
same Allah dude
Otherwise known as Yahweh, God , Ahura Mazda , Ra. Guy has been a pain in the ass for millennia. Hopefully he's having problems maintaining the political structure in heaven after the arrival of all those chaps from the 19th century. I can just see Tom Paine flapping about with those 3 sets of wings like a good little angel, singing halelluyah without a care in the world as millions are dammned. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 15:26 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
Currently, thanks to modern interpretations of the concept of 'separation of church and state' we live in a secular theocracy
To some extent, I agree with that observation (in spite of the obvious oxymoron). I would, however, describe that as more a case of separation of church and state being used as an excuse to suppress religion in general, which is not neutrality, but rather general opposition. All though there are no perfect examples of separation of church and state, I think that the US has done a reasonable job over its history. We are in a period of conflict between those who would have the state favor a particular religion (Christianity) and those who would have it favor the abscence of religion, so things are a bit distorted at the moment. When I say that the state should be neutral, I would qualify that by insisting that the state is obligated to excercise its neutrality with the same circumspection and respect for custom and precedent that I would insist upon from its judicial system. Some secularists (the more rabid ones) would insist on overturning both custom and precedent in order to achieve a more "perfect" separation. Secularism by definition cannot be a theocracy, since it recognizes no higher authority for moral principles than its own logic. It can however become extremist and totalitarian when it insists on overturning custom and tradition (even if the customs and traditions are those of a minority) for no better reason than to "purify" the state of religious content. When it does that, it is no better than a theocracy that enforces custom and tradition by appeal to some supreme being. The state should not enforce the customs and traditions of the majority, it is however, entitled to respect those traditions and customs of the majority that do not infringe on the rights of any minority. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
Secularism by definition cannot be a theocracy, since it recognizes no higher authority for moral principles than its own logic.
But I think that is the essence of the problem. If goverenment recognizes no higher moral authority, than it is the moral authority. As I stated, to me, religion is merely any source of moral authority, regardless of whether or not it attributes that authority to superstitious or 'logical' principles. If it provides the basis of authority to which the public appeals for a definition of morality than it most certainly fulfils the role of religion for a society. I see little purpose in splitting hairs regarding whether a devine being is stirred into the mix or not - moral authority is moral authority and that defines the essence of religion. What Separation of Church and state is really supposesd to be about is the separation of legal authority from moral auhority. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 15:22 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought.
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions.
Well, that certainly explains why liberalism keeps failing. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions.
Well, that certainly explains why liberalism keeps failing. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
:-D
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Secularism by definition cannot be a theocracy, since it recognizes no higher authority for moral principles than its own logic.
But I think that is the essence of the problem. If goverenment recognizes no higher moral authority, than it is the moral authority. As I stated, to me, religion is merely any source of moral authority, regardless of whether or not it attributes that authority to superstitious or 'logical' principles. If it provides the basis of authority to which the public appeals for a definition of morality than it most certainly fulfils the role of religion for a society. I see little purpose in splitting hairs regarding whether a devine being is stirred into the mix or not - moral authority is moral authority and that defines the essence of religion. What Separation of Church and state is really supposesd to be about is the separation of legal authority from moral auhority. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 15:22 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
Reverend Satan wrote:
But I think that is the essence of the problem. If goverenment recognizes no higher moral authority, than it is the moral authority.
The state has no need to be a moral authority. It should derive its legal authority from those it governs by some agreed representative mechanism that allows for change. It should reflect the moral sensibilities of those governed rather than specify what is or is not moral. In the end, the moral authority in any civilization is a consensus of its members, although they may sometimes blame their consensus on a supposed higher power. It is still their consesus and their responsibility. If the state or the church tell you to do something immoral, it is still your responsibility to accept or reject the correctness of their opinion.
Reverend Satan wrote:
What Separation of Church and state is really supposesd to be about is the separation of legal authority from moral auhority.
Actually, I don't think separation of church and state has anything at all to do with moral authority. It has to do with preventing any church from becoming the legal authority, rather than forcing the state to be the moral authority. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- modified at 16:21 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
Rob Graham wrote:
So, is that an argument in favor of theocracy? ( It certainly looks like it could be used as one).
As I clearly stated, the argument is that theocracy, in one form or anothere, is unavoidable. Currently, thanks to modern interpretations of the concept of 'separation of church and state' we live in a secular theocracy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The state should be relatively neutral with respect to any religion operating within the bounds of its civil laws.
The problem, however, is that you cannot point to a single example of the state remaining neutral. Rather, the state, in all known instances, assumes the role of the devine authority. It becomes the very thing that is was supposesd to separated from. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
same Allah dude
Otherwise known as Yahweh, God , Ahura Mazda , Ra. Guy has been a pain in the ass for millennia. Hopefully he's having problems maintaining the political structure in heaven after the arrival of all those chaps from the 19th century. I can just see Tom Paine flapping about with those 3 sets of wings like a good little angel, singing halelluyah without a care in the world as millions are dammned. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 15:26 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you start from irrational premises you can't expect to end up with rational conclusions.
Well, that certainly explains why liberalism keeps failing. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
That is the irony and the impossibility of modern concepts of separation of church and state which really do nothing more than free the state up to assume the inherent responsibilities of the church - achieving just the opposite of what they were originally intended to do.
So, is that an argument in favor of theocracy? ( It certainly looks like it could be used as one). I would argue, instead, that the most valid reason for insisting on a separation of church and state is to deny the state the ability to defend its actions by simple appeal to devine guidance (or worse) devine authority. A state able to defend its every act by citing an unappealable higher authority would be a dangerous beast indead. That said,the principle of separation of church and state should not be mistaken for an excuse for the state to suppress any paricular religion, or religion in general. The state should be relatively neutral with respect to any religion operating within the bounds of its civil laws. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- modified at 13:21 Tuesday 6th December, 2005 (I still can't type)
awesome Rob,i wish you were a US president MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
For mankind it is probably an excuse to start a fight, but what could the diety possibly gain from it?