Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 18:21:31 GMT
Mainly because a large portion of society links the many definitions of religion into one big pile. If I'm making a list of what comes first, I'm not going to place some institutionalized set of beliefs ahead of my family. I will not place God behind my family. Are you still scratching your head? Ah, I see. Heaven forbid that someone might associate you with the unwashed masses of those other religions. It could be that the First Commandment encourages an elitism, or, perhaps, it's more like the army where it's easier to get soldiers to shoot if they dehumanize the enemy. I hope that with you it's more like the first. Wow. I was thinking about the order of choices if I were the type of person to place religious practices over my family's needs. Not sure how unwashed masses and elitism figures into that.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 30, 2019 18:58:45 GMT
Ah, I see. Heaven forbid that someone might associate you with the unwashed masses of those other religions. It could be that the First Commandment encourages an elitism, or, perhaps, it's more like the army where it's easier to get soldiers to shoot if they dehumanize the enemy. I hope that with you it's more like the first. Wow. I was thinking about the order of choices if I were the type of person to place religious practices over my family's needs. Not sure how unwashed masses and elitism figures into that. The choice wasn't "religious practices", it was "religion". I'm not saying you necessarily fit this pattern, and I already expressed my hope that you don't, but history is full of religious people that condone or outright commit violence against "nonbelievers". There's plenty of them around today, in the States and elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 19:09:15 GMT
Wow. I was thinking about the order of choices if I were the type of person to place religious practices over my family's needs. Not sure how unwashed masses and elitism figures into that. The choice wasn't "religious practices", it was "religion". I'm not saying you necessarily fit this pattern, and I already expressed my hope that you don't, but history is full of religious people that condone or outright commit violence against "nonbelievers". There's plenty of them around today, in the States and elsewhere. Here's an example of what I'm talking about in practice, maybe it will better illuminate my view here: There is a father and son who belong to a religion that forbids interfaith marriage. The son falls in love with and marries someone outside this religion. The religion states that the father must disown the son in this circumstance. The father wrestles with the situation, prays long and hard about it, and comes to a decision. The father welcomes his new daughter in law and is excommunicated from the religion. I personally believe that the father did not put his son ahead of God in this situation, but he sure put his son ahead of his religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 30, 2019 19:32:01 GMT
I'm having trouble clicking on "A God" and religion combined. They are absolutely 2 different things. In fairness to Arlon, he hasn’t implied that god and religion are the same but rather god or religion. If you compare this to another use of parentheses, Television(videos), it seems obvious to me that it implies TV or film. And in contrast to another use of parentheses, Sport (example footy) the added word lets us know it’s an example rather than an option, in regard to the other uses of parentheses. I read ‘god’(religion) as shorthand for ethical belief system. But Arlon is not as eloquent as me (only kidding Arlon!) I picked family btw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 19:34:58 GMT
I'm having trouble clicking on "A God" and religion combined. They are absolutely 2 different things. In fairness to Arlon, he hasn’t implied that god and religion are the same but rather god or religion. If you compare this to another use of parentheses, Television(videos), it seems obvious to me that it implies TV or film. And in contrast to another use of parentheses, Sport (example footy) the added word lets us know it’s an example rather than an option, in regard to the other uses of parentheses. I read ‘god’(religion) as shorthand for ethical belief system. But Arlon is not as eloquent as me (only kidding Arlon!) I picked family btw. Check out my last post above yours to show what I'm getting at.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 30, 2019 19:42:51 GMT
I personally believe that the father did not put his son ahead of God in this situation, but he sure put his son ahead of his religion. I have no rebuttal to this, I was just merely making a comment about Arlon's word usage that's all. What I will say is that I agree with you that deity doesn't necessarily imply religion but religion may imply deity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 19:46:44 GMT
The choice wasn't "religious practices", it was "religion". I'm not saying you necessarily fit this pattern, and I already expressed my hope that you don't, but history is full of religious people that condone or outright commit violence against "nonbelievers". There's plenty of them around today, in the States and elsewhere. Here's an example of what I'm talking about in practice, maybe it will better illuminate my view here: There is a father and son who belong to a religion that forbids interfaith marriage. The son falls in love with and marries someone outside this religion. The religion states that the father must disown the son in this circumstance. The father wrestles with the situation, prays long and hard about it, and comes to a decision. The father welcomes his new daughter in law and is excommunicated from the religion. I personally believe that the father did not put his son ahead of God in this situation, but he sure put his son ahead of his religion. I think your problem with "religion" is looking for the worst ones and defining them all by that. Whatever your notion of a "god" is I'm sure there's a Facebook group to follow it. I'm not buying the "family first" several people claim here. If their nephew ran a meth lab and murdered his rivals, I think he'd be alone on Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by klandersen on Aug 30, 2019 19:52:53 GMT
I chose "other" because for me it is overall well being aka health both physical and mental. I don't mean working out all day and being "fit" I mean good health overall. No major illnesses or problems that build up to worse more complicated problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 19:57:20 GMT
Here's an example of what I'm talking about in practice, maybe it will better illuminate my view here: There is a father and son who belong to a religion that forbids interfaith marriage. The son falls in love with and marries someone outside this religion. The religion states that the father must disown the son in this circumstance. The father wrestles with the situation, prays long and hard about it, and comes to a decision. The father welcomes his new daughter in law and is excommunicated from the religion. I personally believe that the father did not put his son ahead of God in this situation, but he sure put his son ahead of his religion. I think your problem with "religion" is looking for the worst ones and defining them all by that. Whatever your notion of a "god" is I'm sure there's a Facebook group to follow it. I'm not buying the "family first" several people claim here. If their nephew ran a meth lab and murdered his rivals, I think he'd be alone on Thanksgiving. I don't have a problem with religion, I don't know how much more clear I can be about that. I just see situations where there is conflict between religion, family, and God. That is where the reality of making a decision of one over the other comes into play. I don't know how more clear I can get than that example. Do you not see the point I'm trying to make?
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 30, 2019 19:57:25 GMT
I'm not buying the "family first" several people claim here. If their nephew ran a meth lab and murdered his rivals, I think he'd be alone on Thanksgiving. Not me, I'd even help bury the bodies. I'm not trying to be humorous btw, I'm totally serious. Not everyone has the same ethical stance as you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 20:07:11 GMT
I'm not buying the "family first" several people claim here. If their nephew ran a meth lab and murdered his rivals, I think he'd be alone on Thanksgiving. Not me, I'd even help bury the bodies. I'm not trying to be humorous btw, I'm totally serious. Not everyone has the same ethical stance as you. I suppose the first primitive societies were that way. Whatever their own group does is okay. Whatever any other group does is wrong. The term "tribalism" is often used lately to describe it, but I dislike that usage. "Clanism" might serve as well. Quite many people who call themselves "Christians" are that way, but thanks for your information anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 30, 2019 20:12:32 GMT
...but thanks for your information anyway. No probs, just being honest!
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 30, 2019 20:13:15 GMT
The choice wasn't "religious practices", it was "religion". I'm not saying you necessarily fit this pattern, and I already expressed my hope that you don't, but history is full of religious people that condone or outright commit violence against "nonbelievers". There's plenty of them around today, in the States and elsewhere. Here's an example of what I'm talking about in practice, maybe it will better illuminate my view here: There is a father and son who belong to a religion that forbids interfaith marriage. The son falls in love with and marries someone outside this religion. The religion states that the father must disown the son in this circumstance. The father wrestles with the situation, prays long and hard about it, and comes to a decision. The father welcomes his new daughter in law and is excommunicated from the religion. I personally believe that the father did not put his son ahead of God in this situation, but he sure put his son ahead of his religion. Ok, this makes some sense, if you define religion narrowly, which is often how the term is used (eg. Seventh Day Adventists, a branch of a branch of Christianity). But if you move higher up the hierarchy to Christianity as a whole, I think most Christians would equate a rejection of Christianity to a rejection of God (at least the Christian conception of God). Supposedly, everything we know about the Christian God is in the Bible, which wouldn't exist without the Church, ecumenical councils and prophets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 20:15:48 GMT
...but thanks for your information anyway. No probs, just being honest! Don't get yourself buried.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 30, 2019 20:18:07 GMT
Don't get yourself buried.  At least I'll be in good company!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 20:18:33 GMT
I think your problem with "religion" is looking for the worst ones and defining them all by that. Whatever your notion of a "god" is I'm sure there's a Facebook group to follow it. I'm not buying the "family first" several people claim here. If their nephew ran a meth lab and murdered his rivals, I think he'd be alone on Thanksgiving. I don't have a problem with religion, I don't know how much more clear I can be about that. I just see situations where there is conflict between religion, family, and God. That is where the reality of making a decision of one over the other comes into play. I don't know how more clear I can get than that example. Do you not see the point I'm trying to make? I suppose your way is easier not having to remember all those rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 20:23:41 GMT
I don't have a problem with religion, I don't know how much more clear I can be about that. I just see situations where there is conflict between religion, family, and God. That is where the reality of making a decision of one over the other comes into play. I don't know how more clear I can get than that example. Do you not see the point I'm trying to make? I suppose your way is easier not having to remember all those rules. A great deal of the schisms in religion are based on people trying to differentiate the rules of God from those that man has tacked on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 20:41:34 GMT
I suppose your way is easier not having to remember all those rules. A great deal of the schisms in religion are based on people trying to differentiate the rules of God from those that man has tacked on. I suppose learning and understanding the rules is difficult enough, never mind having to remember and apply them. Have you seen these before ... 1) The greatest good for the greatest number (Bentham's Utilitarianism) 2) It harm none, do what ye will (The Wiccan Rede or the key part of it) 3) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (The Bible and earlier sources) I think most people would agree to those simple formulations. The difficult part can be the details.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 12:54:19 GMT
You can see what happened. At one time the normal order was God first, family second, and country third.
In the early fifties there was a flurry of excitement following the Miller-Urey experiment that the origin of life might be observed without an intelligent designer. Many people lost the art of their faith.
What happens when you do this ...
God
Family
Country
Obviously people depend on family to the exclusion of all else. But they have no moral code at all. Whatever they do is fine, whatever others do is not. You can see that in the political parties. They do the same things but it's fine when their own party does it, totally evil when anyone else does it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 3, 2019 21:26:39 GMT
God and Family as the rest is fleeting. but Money is always a safe bet outside of God/Family since it makes ones quality of life better. that's easily the wisest decision in the long term. only fools would put something temporary over God which lasts forever. with that said... I know since we are human and bound by our five senses in general that sometimes having things etc seems more important but when you pass from this life into the next you can't take those things with you. but in terms of what's on the list I would say pretty much this... 1)God (it's God, whether one realizes it or not, this is THE ONE who gives us lasting happiness as the things of the world pass unlike Him. because at the end of the day... your final destination is either Heaven with God(good) or hell(bad).) 2)Family (when things get rough you can only count on family) 3)Money (which gets you a decent portion of stuff on that list) the rest can be nice but the three I listed above are easiest the safest bets long term. @homergreg That's wrong as God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) is tied to the Catholic church, which is religion. because the Catholic religion is THE church Jesus Christ started with Peter and it went down through the generations til today. it's THE church He(Jesus Christ) guides. you can see the list of Popes traced back to Peter here... www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm ; all other Christian denominations branched off of the Catholic church and they basically left Jesus Christ's church which is unwise to put it mildly.
|
|
At least I'll be in good company!
