Does religion create unity or conflict?

[Mole]

And ask yourself, why do muslims come out on the streets against a humourous cartoon but remain silent indoors when school children are slaughtered in their beds only the other day in the name of Allah.

The answer is simple, a humourous cartoon is an offence against the humourless Koran, while the slaughter of school children in the name of Allah is not the slightest bit humourous and so not offensive.

 

[Cygnus]

And as I am never tired of pointing out to Americans, sincere begins with sin.

You don't advocate sincerity? You don't care about the clarity or authenticity of what is shared? Elaborate.

 

[Coriolis]

If only every believer stopped boring us and started amusing us.

But the striking thing about sacred texts from the Bible, the Koran, the Analects of Confucius, to the Bagavad Gita, is their lack of a sense of humour.

This is perfectly understandable because these sacred texts were written in a trance and are meant to be read in a trance, where the critical mind is asleep. And as a sense of humour is part of the critical mind, naturally these sacred texts have no sense of humour.

I may not accept the divine origin of these sacred texts, but they are not universally boring. The most beautiful descriptions of god I have ever read come from the Quran, and some of the Hindu stories, e.g. about the young Krishna, show great playfulness and joy. If believers fail to put that across in their discussions, the writings themselves can hardly be blamed.

 

[greenfairy]

Depends on who is using it and for what purposes.

 

[Avocado]

And ask yourself, why do muslims come out on the streets against a humourous cartoon but remain silent indoors when school children are slaughtered in their beds only the other day in the name of Allah.

The answer is simple, a humourous cartoon is an offence against the humourless Koran, while the slaughter of school children in the name of Allah is not the slightest bit humourous and so not offensive.

Religion has it's good parts, but so much of it--most of it--is based on archaic human morals far inferior to what the average educated person has today.


The fundementalist may be sincere and authentic, but I feel the farther one can get from such basal intolorance and rampant irrationality, the better off you'll be.

 

[Avocado]

I may not accept the divine origin of these sacred texts, but they are not universally boring. The most beautiful descriptions of god I have ever read come from the Quran, and some of the Hindu stories, e.g. about the young Krishna, show great playfulness and joy. If believers fail to put that across in their discussions, the writings themselves can hardly be blamed.

could you share your favorites?

 

[Coriolis]

could you share your favorites?

Unfortunately, I don't have any of these excerpts close at hand, nor time to look online. Many of the Quran passages were quoted in a book called The Faith Club, written by a Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew as an exercise in understanding each other's spiritual paths. Most of the Hindu stories I read in in a college seminar. I remember the Krishna ones mostly. He is depicted as a young village boy, playing pranks on everyone and stealing butter from his mother; and later as a teenager, flirting with and teasing the milkmaids. The story of Krishna and his chosen sweetheart Radha is one of the great love stories of Hindu sacred writing. (Just google "Krishna and Radha" or even "Krishna and gopis" for accounts.)

 

[Avocado]

Unfortunately, I don't have any of these excerpts close at hand, nor time to look online. Many of the Quran passages were quoted in a book called The Faith Club, written by a Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew as an exercise in understanding each other's spiritual paths. Most of the Hindu stories I read in in a college seminar. I remember the Krishna ones mostly. He is depicted as a young village boy, playing pranks on everyone and stealing butter from his mother; and later as a teenager, flirting with and teasing the milkmaids. The story of Krishna and his chosen sweetheart Radha is one of the great love stories of Hindu sacred writing. (Just google "Krishna and Radha" or even "Krishna and gopis" for accounts.)

I will tomorrow after study hall.

 

[Mole]

You don't advocate sincerity? You don't care about the clarity or authenticity of what is shared? Elaborate.

It is a matter of perception, for we all perceive by making distinctions, and while Americans make the distinction between sincere and phoney (sincere/phoney), we make the same distinction between amusing and boring (amusing/boring).

So when Americans are being sincere, we think they are being boring; and when we are being amusing, Americans think we are being phoney.

Vive la différence.

 

[Mole]

I may not accept the divine origin of these sacred texts, but they are not universally boring. The most beautiful descriptions of god I have ever read come from the Quran, and some of the Hindu stories, e.g. about the young Krishna, show great playfulness and joy. If believers fail to put that across in their discussions, the writings themselves can hardly be blamed.

They may not be boring but what is striking about all sacred texts is their lack of a sense of humour.

Surely this cries out for an explanation.

And the explanation is that these sacred texts were all written in a religious trance.

And in any trance the critical mind is asleep.

And as humour is a faculty of the critical mind, each of the sacred texts is without a sense of humour.

 

[Mole]

Religion has it's good parts, but so much of it--most of it--is based on archaic human morals far inferior to what the average educated person has today.

The fundementalist may be sincere and authentic, but I feel the farther one can get from such basal intolorance and rampant irrationality, the better off you'll be.

Sincere and authentic, like a good American, but without a sense of humour.

Americans value sincerity and authenticity due to their religious inheritance. Your politicians, for instance, never tire of invoking God.

But there is a disconnect because American keep telling us they have the best sense of humour in the world, yet to us, Americans seem humourless. I know this is hard to believe but it is true.

Americans come across as religious but humourless, and this is just what we would expect from a religious country, deep in a religious trance.

 

[Cygnus]

It is a matter of perception, for we all perceive by making distinctions, and while Americans make the distinction between sincere and phoney (sincere/phoney), we make the same distinction between amusing and boring (amusing/boring).

So when Americans are being sincere, we think they are being boring; and when we are being amusing, Americans think we are being phoney.

Vive la différence.

I've never heard this viewpoint before. From all the sources I heard, Americans thought Europeans were too dignified and "boring," while Europeans saw Americans as loud and annoying.

 

[Avocado]

I've never heard this viewpoint before. From all the sources I heard, Americans thought Europeans were too dignified and "boring," while Europeans saw Americans as loud and annoying.

He's Austrailian.

 

[Avocado]

Sincere and authentic, like a good American, but without a sense of humour.

Americans value sincerity and authenticity due to their religious inheritance. Your politicians, for instance, never tire of invoking God.

But there is a disconnect because American keep telling us they have the best sense of humour in the world, yet to us, Americans seem humourless. I know this is hard to believe but it is true.

Americans come across as religious but humourless, and this is just what we would expect from a religious country, deep in a religious trance.

It's sad it has to be that way...
We are here for such a short time, and we should be enjoying ourselves while preparing for the next generation.

 

[Mole]

He's Australian.

An Aussie Bastard.

 

[Mole]

I've never heard this viewpoint before.

It goes back to World War II when the Americans were over paid, over sexed and over here, and at the same time the black Americans turned their guns on their white officers in Townsville, Queensland, and we were asked to put down the American race rebellion. But we refused to turn our guns against Americans black or white.

However recognising we were dealing with a different culture with different perceptions, we commissioned a study.

In short, the study found we had different child rearing practices leading to different perceptions.

 

[Avocado]

It goes back to World War II when the Americans were over paid, over sexed and over here, and at the same time the black Americans turned their guns on their white officers in Townsville, Queensland, and we were asked to put down the American race rebellion. But we refused to turn our guns against Americans black or white.

However recognising we were dealing with a different culture with different perceptions, we commissioned a study.

In short, the study found we had different child rearing practices leading to different perceptions.

The Austrailians handled that amazingly well, considering the time...

Do you have a link to the study? It sounds interesting.

 

[draon9]

It is never the religion in the conflict, it is always the person that is behind religion thst creates unity or conflict.
The concept of religion is to find fullfillment, but you got people who are trying to force tgeir religion on other people and threaten to kill them, if they do that, yoi should tell people to ignore that person unless hr change his ways, but I doubt that.

 

[Lark]

It is never the religion in the conflict, it is always the person that is behind religion thst creates unity or conflict.
The concept of religion is to find fullfillment, but you got people who are trying to force tgeir religion on other people and threaten to kill them, if they do that, yoi should tell people to ignore that person unless hr change his ways, but I doubt that.

What you're describing is the authoritarian personality, unfortunately religion is a perfect channel for that person, they need subordinates to torture, tyrannise over or kill and superiors to submit to, this is true even of characters like Hitler, he was constantly saying that he was at the service of nation, volk, God, and didnt set himself up as a sole authority unto himself.

Those individuals are always suspiscious of others, even those that comply with them or submit to them or serve them, the subordinate class or caste or person, they always suspect that they are insincere and doubt that they want to be at their service, so their hatred and control freakery mounts in an unsustainable way, either the subject revolts or is destroyed and the sadistic-authoritarian type is then left without an object to manipulate and cant cope either. Its why every sadistic type is really a masochistic type too because they cant do without the person to torture and vent their control anxieties on.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What you're describing is the authoritarian personality, unfortunately religion is a perfect channel for that person, they need subordinates to torture, tyrannise over or kill and superiors to submit to, this is true even of characters like Hitler, he was constantly saying that he was at the service of nation, volk, God, and didnt set himself up as a sole authority unto himself.

Those individuals are always suspiscious of others, even those that comply with them or submit to them or serve them, the subordinate class or caste or person, they always suspect that they are insincere and doubt that they want to be at their service, so their hatred and control freakery mounts in an unsustainable way, either the subject revolts or is destroyed and the sadistic-authoritarian type is then left without an object to manipulate and cant cope either. Its why every sadistic type is really a masochistic type too because they cant do without the person to torture and vent their control anxieties on.

What MBTI types do you think are more prone towards authoritarianism?