YOu obviously know nothing about these 3.
Ghandi was a scatophiliac pedophile,
Mother Theresa a sadistic crook,
And the Dalai lama just want to re-instate is all powerfull theocracy wich make islamic country look like human right champion.

I knew about Theresa's sadistic and frankly immoral practices, but the other two are news to me...

Same. DAmn!

I saw how an Anglican church service on Easter was set up in Botswana, they had a guy do chants for nearly 20 mins, then after that some scripture reading from six people, then the Bishop of Botswana was leading on the message, then after that they were sprinkling holy water (which I thought was a Catholic thing) on everybody. The whole experience was odd to me because it felt like two days instead of 2.5 hours. I'm not used to these rituals in stuff like Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox... Its just looking at the stuff that makes me wonder the ideals of these things....

I am amazed you are in Botswana = how totally cool.

All religions are cults.

I'm actually in South Africa spending the next few days waiting to go back to the States.

How so?

Wikipedia states that
"cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs.[3] Later formulations built on these characteristics while placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture".

I am joining "Other scholars and non-academic researchers who use the word do so from explicitly critical perspectives which focus on the relationship between cult groups and the individual people who join them.

These perspectives share the assumption that some form of ... persuasion ... is used to recruit and maintain members by suppressing their ability to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest."

Religions demand conformity and make up silly little rules to differentiate one from another. Even unitarians and universalist expect you to conform.

Religions are about the religion's best interest; they are self-serving under the sham of being God-serving.

Most are benign, but all have the potential to do harm by demanding conformity: Christianity and Islam currently being the worst, but the old testament Jews (the "chosen people") committed genocide at any communities that got in their way.

What do you call religions?

This post was last modified: 04-24-2012 09:45 PM by awiddershinlife.

I honestly don't know what to call certain religions, most religions that I see that are cults are Scientology, and Rael's UFOland in Alberta Canada.

I question the ideals of the faith I am in, because I for one can't seem to analyze some of the things they are trying to convince, sure its all hopeful and cheerful sermons and all. Its just how things are looked at according to some of them. There was a 1% along time ago that disagreed to a merge, and that part of the 1% came back... (The 1% that was 2 families)

It is an individual's responsibility to determine their own path. I am sure some lives need the structure of a religion. But it is also a socially acceptable way to spiritually 'tread water.'

I am a total cherry picker. I take what works for me from where ever I find it and leave the rest. I mix all sorts of religious traditions. The goal being I will enjoy each moment of my life no matter how terrible it seems. I sing myself into embracing it as a watershed if nothing else.

I strive to be a certain kind of a person: a strong, spirited woman who is compassionate. Educated in the complexities of life and decision making. Discerning without being judgmental. I have also been working on my stand up comedy routine. I will never get there in this lifetime, but that's why I love the idea of reincarnation. I never give up hope of getting there eventually. I choose role models who have embodied the qualities I wish to aspire to.

Individual religions are too constraining for me. Besides, with my presentation of autism I hate joining communities and belonging to groups. I love my solitude!

This post was last modified: 04-24-2012 10:30 PM by awiddershinlife.

Actually, if the mythology is true then the person in that screenshot is being rational.

Another disturbing thought experiment:
All humans are born with original sin - if a baby dies and does not have a chance to accept jesus do they go to heaven? If not, god's an ****.
If newborn babies DO go to heaven, then why do we allow them the chance to grow up and sin, thus condemning them  to hell?

The argument at this point is normally either completely emotional ("oh my god, that's horrible " etc - it is indeed horrible, that's the point), or something referencing "thou shalt not kill".

I would therefore ask this - if you could save the soul of every newborn while damning your own to hell, would that not be a praiseworthy sacrifice? Would it not be a good thing for those babies?


In reality of course you would have to be a seriously disturbed person to do this, even if it would be rational in the context of christian mythology.

According to catholic tradition, unbaptised babies end up in Limbo.


From Wikipedia:

Limbo of InfantsThe Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo.

While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject.

The fundamental importance, in Roman Catholic theology, of the sacrament of water baptism gives rise to the argument that, because original sin excludes from the beatific vision enjoyed by the souls in heaven, those who have not been freed from it either by the sacrament or by baptism of desire or baptism of blood are not eligible for entry into heaven


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

So in the case of catholicism either babies get eternal maximum natural happiness (thus meaning it's good to kill them before they sin), or they get a "minimal punishment". Either way seems quite reprehensible.

Yes, thats seemingly so

Myself I gave up religion, a long time ago, and feel that neither Nirvana or hell, and anything in between, doesnt exist.

The idea of original sin, because some ancestor partook of the Tree of Knowledge is absurd. IMO.

This post was last modified: 06-14-2012 01:50 AM by skyblue1 .