Religion vs Homosexuality

[mrswdk]

You can make laws for specific instances of impoliteness. Just like there is no law that says 'no lying', but there are laws against breaking contractual promises, libel/slander, and so on.

I don't think it's practical. Nor do I want Gov't controlling every interaction.

Either way someone else is telling them how to behave. You don't want a government telling people to be respectful and polite, but you're happy to use an imaginary wizard and his never never land of fire for naughty children to boss everyone into being respectful and polite? What's the difference?

Well like I just said, my parents instilled that approach in me without ever arguing religion or religious values.

I never said it was impossible without religion. I said religious communities (as well as other communities) make it easier.

If you can justify to yourself that you are lying to trick your kids into believing something you think is BS, because it's a more convenient way to get them to behave how you want them to.

You obviously have a reason for wanting them to behave that way. Explain that reason to them, rather than making up crap about a god that you appear to not actually believe in.

Because the world is a better place when we treat each other kindly and be polite to each other.

So just tell your kids that.

I never said that you said religion is the only way. I'm just saying that it is perfectly possible to instill that sort of behavior in your child without using religion, so there's no need to resort to religion.

So you want to take religion away from people?

If someone believes in a deity then that's up to them, I don't care. I'm just saying I don't see anyone reason to make up a god, which is what you're proposing.

Religion was created to control the masses. The masses aren't ready to live in a 100% secular world.
Maybe we will evolve there. We need baby steps for these idiots. If you go too fast, you risk causing
all kinds of turmoil.

Kind of an unfortunate argument to make when you've just said that you want to use religion to educate your kids.

[jimboston]

Religion wasn't created ...

No?

So it just happened?

No one thought it up?

No one thought up the idea of the ancient Greek or Roman gods?
That wasn't a religion during its' time?

... if you want to say "no human created religion"... that might be better.

Because even if you say man didn't create religion, then you still have to concede God created it.
Therefore it was created.

[jimboston]

Either way someone else is telling them how to behave. You don't want a government telling people to be respectful and polite, but you're happy to use an imaginary wizard and his never never land of fire for naughty children to boss everyone into being respectful and polite? What's the difference?

... because in the society in which I currently live, I can CHOOSE what my religion is.

If I don't like their rules, I can leave.

If you can justify to yourself that you are lying to trick your kids into believing something you think is BS, because it's a more convenient way to get them to behave how you want them to.

... for now yes.

So just tell your kids that.

I do. It's just nice to have it reinforced.

If someone believes in a deity then that's up to them, I don't care. I'm just saying I don't see anyone reason to make up a god, which is what you're proposing.

Why not. My "Agnostic Humanistic" "God" would be a lot nicer than most of the Gods I see around now.

Religion was created to control the masses. The masses aren't ready to live in a 100% secular world.
Maybe we will evolve there. We need baby steps for these idiots. If you go too fast, you risk causing
all kinds of turmoil.

Kind of an unfortunate argument to make when you've just said that you want to use religion to educate your kids.

Hey. I'm a realist. I certainly hope my kids will be intelligent enough to understand there is no God as they get older and more mature... and that this knowledge won't f*ck up their "compass". I'm realistic enough to accept the possibility that my kids may be as mindless and dull as the rest of humanity... maybe they won't accept reality, or maybe they just won't care. I hope they will be intellectually curious and generally more intelligent than the masses... but you never know.

[mrswdk]

Either way someone else is telling them how to behave. You don't want a government telling people to be respectful and polite, but you're happy to use an imaginary wizard and his never never land of fire for naughty children to boss everyone into being respectful and polite? What's the difference?

... because in the society in which I currently live, I can CHOOSE what my religion is.

If I don't like their rules, I can leave.

If you believe in God, you don't believe you have any choice. You either follow God's rules or you go to Hell.

If you can justify to yourself that you are lying to trick your kids into believing something you think is BS, because it's a more convenient way to get them to behave how you want them to.

... for now yes.

Hooray for knowledge! Hooray for the scientific method! Praise be to the Enlightenment!

So just tell your kids that.

I do. It's just nice to have it reinforced.

Because it's not a good enough reason by itself, so you have to lie?

I mean, we're not talking about a 'the boogey man will come get you if you don't finish your vegetables' kind of lie. We're talking about indoctrinating them into an organized religion. Just because doing so saves you from having to think up actual reasons why your kids should behave themselves?

[jimboston]

If you believe in God, you don't believe you have any choice. You either follow God's rules or you go to Hell.

I don't believe in God.

However, even some of those who do believe in God can change 'religions'. Lots of people here in USA grow up in one religion, say Catholic... and change to some 'easier' Protestant sect.

Hooray for knowledge! Hooray for the scientific method! Praise be to the Enlightenment!

You have no experience with kids.

Because it's not a good enough reason by itself, so you have to lie?

I mean, we're not talking about a 'the boogey man will come get you if you don't finish your vegetables' kind of lie. We're talking about indoctrinating them into an organized religion. Just because doing so saves you from having to think up actual reasons why your kids should behave themselves?

I think that's stretching what I said a bit... don't you?

You know... the simple fact is that we are probably in agreement on 85% of the "religion" debate.
Yet you still want to argue about the last 15%. You're like a hardcore atheist. Like militarily so.

Why don't you argue with the people that you disagree with on 85% of the "religion" debate... and
stop putting words in my mouth.

[mrswdk]

If you believe in God, you don't believe you have any choice. You either follow God's rules or you go to Hell.

I don't believe in God.

I know you don't. But surely your children going along with the Christian way of life will depend on them actually believing in the God they are being taught about when you take them to church?

Hooray for knowledge! Hooray for the scientific method! Praise be to the Enlightenment!

You have no experience with kids.

Yeah, that's right. Anyone who knows anything about kids knows they need to be lied to on occasion.

Because it's not a good enough reason by itself, so you have to lie?

I mean, we're not talking about a 'the boogey man will come get you if you don't finish your vegetables' kind of lie. We're talking about indoctrinating them into an organized religion. Just because doing so saves you from having to think up actual reasons why your kids should behave themselves?

I think that's stretching what I said a bit... don't you?

Not in the slightest. You don't believe in God, but you want to take your kids to church and get them into Christianity as a convenient way of getting them to behave the way you want.

You're like a hardcore atheist. Like militarily so.

So I'm a militant atheist because I don't want to lie to my kids about a God I don't believe in just because it's a convenient way to get them to behave?

Okay!

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.



Oligarchy would kinda suck too, cuz the law-makers would just cozy up with the billionaires and the laws would benefit the rich and not really have much to do with helping the poor and the sick or loving your neighbor or be any help in forgiveness or being a voice against revenge or have anything to do at all with dealing with unimaginable griif from losing loved ones. I really hope I'm not the only one who can imagine such craziness

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

Laws can stop extreme behavior.

They don't make us be kind to one another or respect eachother.

Those are social norms, which are easier to get people to go along with if you have religion.

I think most religions are bunk... but I see their value to society.

You don't need religion anymore. Religion is an old-fashioned method of distribution. The media, the internet and educational systems are much more modern and sophisticated in terms of spreading norms and values.

distribution? When did that become the purpose of religion, or even part of these lines of discussion?? I mean, certainly, religion could simply use the media, use the internet, utilize education, right? Granted I hope we can both agree that religion does in fact use media, internet, and education, therefore religion (your words) also has become and is presently more modern and sophisticated, no? Perhaps you meant to say/mean something else? And are you really speaking for everyone else and to what they need? what you think they need? Or are you just speaking for yourself?

See wdk, I'm not wasting my time at all!

[mrswdk]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.

I don't see your point. If corrupt lawmakers can get away with writing laws that suit themselves but not society, or cozy up with powerful interest groups, then why can't religious authorities do the same? The Catholic Church of medieval Europe allowing rich people to buy their way into heaven by giving the Church huge amounts of money springs to mind.

Do you feel that laws are an ineffective way of getting people to behave in a particular way? Do you feel that writing laws and enforcing them is less effective than trying to get everyone to believe in a god and do as that god commands?

[jimboston]

I don't believe in God.

I know you don't. But surely your children going along with the Christian way of life will depend on them actually believing in the God they are being taught about when you take them to church?

No. I no longer believe, but I still value the Christian Value system.

You have no experience with kids.

Yeah, that's right. Anyone who knows anything about kids knows they need to be lied to on occasion.

No. Anyone who knows anything about kids realizes that you have to simplify things.

I send them to CCD (basically Bible School) once a week. When they ask me about what they learn I say things like;
"Well, some people think that XXX." XXX = being the idea that the Church is presenting.

Depending on the question I may say;
"Well, the Church tells us that XXX, but I think that YYY."

Not in the slightest. You don't believe in God, but you want to take your kids to church and get them into Christianity as a convenient way of getting them to behave the way you want.

Oversimplification.

I don't necessarily want to go into my whole history and family situation.
I think I started this whole line of conversation with some disclaimer about being "torn with this idea now".

In my family, you just go to Church. Your kids get Baptized. Etc.
Yes. I can walk away from it. It would upset people I care about... AND I see some value in it.

There are a lot of moving pieces that I'm not going to get into.

You can also accuse someone of "lying to their kids" if they threaten a spanking or a punishment... even when
they have no intention of delivering that punishment. How is that different?

... oh and I know that's often a bad idea too. I would guess that everyone with kids has done something like
that at some point... if not often.

So I'm a militant atheist because I don't want to lie to my kids about a God I don't believe in just because it's a convenient way to get them to behave?

No. Your a militant atheist because you are arguing so vehemently against the idea of God at all... calling Him "Sky Wizard" etc. I don't believe in God (at least not the Christian God); but I don't "not believe" either. Just as there is no way to prove the existence of God, there is no way to prove the non-existence of some sort of "supernatural" Creator. You're belittling of the idea is so vehement... and that's what makes your responses militant.

My comments are almost exclusively directed towards a "specific" God... i.e. the God of Abraham.
You're are directed towards all "God" ideas.

I can use logical arguments against the idea of the "God of Abraham". I don't think you can do the same with the general idea of a non-specific Creator.

I'm done with you here. You are no just Trolling me. I don't know why I even both.

[mrswdk]

I don't believe in God.

I know you don't. But surely your children going along with the Christian way of life will depend on them actually believing in the God they are being taught about when you take them to church?

No. I no longer believe, but I still value the Christian Value system.

So you are going to take your kids to church and teach them that God is not real but that they should follow Christian values anyway, or are you going to tell them that God is real and those values come from God?

So I'm a militant atheist because I don't want to lie to my kids about a God I don't believe in just because it's a convenient way to get them to behave?

No. Your a militant atheist because you are arguing so vehemently against the idea of God at all... calling Him "Sky Wizard" etc. I don't believe in God (at least not the Christian God); but I don't "not believe" either. Just as there is no way to prove the existence of God, there is no way to prove the non-existence of some sort of "supernatural" Creator. You're belittling of the idea is so vehement... and that's what makes your responses militant.

I'm agnostic. What I'm belittling is your use of something you don't believe in as an easy way of whipping your kids into line. Some people believe in God and live their lives according to what they believe to be God's instructions, and that's fine. I don't believe in any god, and so would never use God, Allah, Yin and Yang, the Sandman or any other supernatural entity to justify the way I raise my kids. It's teaching your kids that it's okay to lie in order to make people do what you want, and it is highlighting the fact that you have no serious case in support of your POV.

I was taught to be polite and respectful without God ever being mentioned, which brings us back to the original point I was making. There is absolutely no need to use religion to teach people how to behave, and I am surprised that you would condone tricking your kids into believing something that you think is not true just because you can't be bothered to give them a proper reason to behave respectfully.

[waauw]

You don't need religion anymore. Religion is an old-fashioned method of distribution. The media, the internet and educational systems are much more modern and sophisticated in terms of spreading norms and values.

distribution? When did that become the purpose of religion, or even part of these lines of discussion?? I mean, certainly, religion could simply use the media, use the internet, utilize education, right? Granted I hope we can both agree that religion does in fact use media, internet, and education, therefore religion (your words) also has become and is presently more modern and sophisticated, no? Perhaps you meant to say/mean something else? And are you really speaking for everyone else and to what they need? what you think they need? Or are you just speaking for yourself?

See wdk, I'm not wasting my time at all!

Religion is a method to spread/distribute ideas, opinions and values amongst populace. I don't see how you can contradict that?
After all did you not yourself argue that religion tried to print information into people through scaring methods?

And yes, religions are trying to use modern methods to spread, obviously the whole topic is more complex. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.



Oligarchy would kinda suck too, cuz the law-makers would just cozy up with the billionaires and the laws would benefit the rich and not really have much to do with helping the poor and the sick or loving your neighbor or be any help in forgiveness or being a voice against revenge or have anything to do at all with dealing with unimaginable griif from losing loved ones. I really hope I'm not the only one who can imagine such craziness

As mrswdk already told you now, the law can be corrupted yes but so can anything else. That's just human nature. Any organization, whether religious or political can be corrupted. History is filled with myriad examples. So stop acting all high and mighty when spouting drivel arguments.

Anyway, as you yourself just pionted out those laws do work. They succesfully keep the sheep in line so the wolves can prey on them. If these egocentrical men can use the law to their advantage, then surely filantropists can do the same if they were in charge. After all doesn't the american constitution still have large influence on the american people, going beyond mere law-abiding.

[waauw]

You don't need religion anymore. Religion is an old-fashioned method of distribution. The media, the internet and educational systems are much more modern and sophisticated in terms of spreading norms and values.

The media - for profit enterprise run by people who want to make money.

I don't think I have to elaborate that the media is much more than that, or else there wouldn't be so much government influence over the media.

The internet - mixed bag. Lots of BS. Lots of people just looking to "get" something. Some groups of online communities that might be helpful in some ways. Not consistent and not reliable.

I agree that the internet is quite varied in content, but that's besides the point. Basically everything can be reduced to data, which is exactly what the internet is filled up with. Any government that can channel public internet attention in a certain direction by whatever means is capable of manipulating those masses. Any internet marketing manager can tell you that.

Educational Systems - In the USA the public system is a joke in many places. We are lucky are kids learn anything. Lots of good dedicated people on the ground... but too many rules, too much BS, too much catering to the lowest common denominator. Kids run amok in many districts and there's little-to-no ability for administration to discipline or control kids who have no values.

The high end private schools are designed entirely to raise the next generation of elites. The high-end private schools around me are also not cheap... you are looking at high schools charging $45K-$50K per year!

The mid-range system (around here anyway) is better. Still not cheap... high schools from $10K-$20K per year. These schools often provide quality education, and teach good values. Because they are private the can have some discipline... and disruptive kids can be ejected. I am looking now at sending my kids to a school in this range. ALL the schools in this area that fit into this category are religious based... i.e. Catholic/Parochial schools, or Jewish. All the "secular" private schools are the high-end kind.

I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make here. I think you agree education plays a very big role on people's mindsets.
Not coincidentally as soon as education went mainstream in the 19th century, governments of various ideologies have used the educational system to enforce their doctrines.

[tzor]

No?

So it just happened?

No one thought it up?

When you say "created" you implied that it was designed with a specific purpose already in mind. "I'm going to sit down here and create this 'religion.'"

In effect it sort of did happen. People would ask each other questions, they would tell each other stories. Some of these were liked by others and passed along. They were passed down and modified by generations (in fact some of the oldest religions were tribal in nature and often reflected around "ancestor" gods). The keepers of the stories became more and more respected and more and more powerful. Suddenly, those keepers started to act in their own self interest. Voila, a "religion" is born.

[PLAYER57832]

The law is not a belief system.

Except, when you made the claim that Christians ignore the Old Testament, that is basically what you did, by claiming that ignoring or changing some portions of the law meant we were rejecting the entire book, entire Jewish religion and traditions.

Laws are rules for humans to follow. They not only can, but I would argue must change as human conditions change.
Rules of dress that applied in the desert made no sense in Nothern Europe, and laws of dress in England made little sense in India or Africa -- though some tried to make them match, using religion and propriety as an excuse. There are other examples.

Some of the rules regarding women and children, for example, can only be understood in the context that these were vast improvements over what other societies, prevailing attitudes of the time, dictated.

[mrswdk]

The law is not a belief system.

Except, when you made the claim that Christians ignore the Old Testament, that is basically what you did, by claiming that ignoring or changing some portions of the law meant we were rejecting the entire book, entire Jewish religion and traditions.

Laws are rules for humans to follow. They not only can, but I would argue must change as human conditions change.
Rules of dress that applied in the desert made no sense in Nothern Europe, and laws of dress in England made little sense in India or Africa -- though some tried to make them match, using religion and propriety as an excuse. There are other examples.

Some of the rules regarding women and children, for example, can only be understood in the context that these were vast improvements over what other societies, prevailing attitudes of the time, dictated.

WHAT THE f*ck AM I READING

[jimboston]

No?

So it just happened?

No one thought it up?

When you say "created" you implied that it was designed with a specific purpose already in mind. "I'm going to sit down here and create this 'religion.'"

In effect it sort of did happen. People would ask each other questions, they would tell each other stories. Some of these were liked by others and passed along. They were passed down and modified by generations (in fact some of the oldest religions were tribal in nature and often reflected around "ancestor" gods). The keepers of the stories became more and more respected and more and more powerful. Suddenly, those keepers started to act in their own self interest. Voila, a "religion" is born.

So it evolved?

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.

I don't see your point. If corrupt lawmakers can get away with writing laws that suit themselves but not society, or cozy up with powerful interest groups, then why can't religious authorities do the same? The Catholic Church of medieval Europe allowing rich people to buy their way into heaven by giving the Church huge amounts of money springs to mind.

Do you feel that laws are an ineffective way of getting people to behave in a particular way? Do you feel that writing laws and enforcing them is less effective than trying to get everyone to believe in a god and do as that god commands?

Sometimes laws work, sometimes laws don't work at all. example: marijuana is illegal, yet potheads can buy it anywhere. And laws can help, sometimes they can hurt. example: laws meant to discourage pedophilia generally help there to be less pedophilia than there otherwise would be, but then the same law can hurt when an 18 year old gets thrown in prison for having sex with a 17 year old.

But my point is meant to be directed at Waawzers and the way he said 'it's called the law' He said it in a way that is absolute, as if having a law STOPS people dead in their tracks, as if having a law means there is no other way that can help a situation. I would opine religion can obviously be a big help in some ways, it can even be a big hurt in other ways. Same way counseling can help/hurt, or strong parenting, or encouraging accountability. But here I am giving all kinds of examples when I realize I asked you for a few examples and you provided none and just repeated a response from another poster.

[Phatscotty]

You don't need religion anymore. Religion is an old-fashioned method of distribution. The media, the internet and educational systems are much more modern and sophisticated in terms of spreading norms and values.

distribution? When did that become the purpose of religion, or even part of these lines of discussion?? I mean, certainly, religion could simply use the media, use the internet, utilize education, right? Granted I hope we can both agree that religion does in fact use media, internet, and education, therefore religion (your words) also has become and is presently more modern and sophisticated, no? Perhaps you meant to say/mean something else? And are you really speaking for everyone else and to what they need? what you think they need? Or are you just speaking for yourself?

See wdk, I'm not wasting my time at all!

Religion is a method to spread/distribute ideas, opinions and values amongst populace. I don't see how you can contradict that?
After all did you not yourself argue that religion tried to print information into people through scaring methods?

And yes, religions are trying to use modern methods to spread, obviously the whole topic is more complex. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Pff, I didn't contradict that at all. Rolling your eyes at yourself methinks. I pointed out a void you left. Religion is not just a method, it's also a creed, a belief system, an organization, a support structure, a care giver, a shelter, and many more things. Religion uses different methods to spread their message, but religion can hardly be defined as a method. You saying 'religion is a method to spread/distribute ideas, opinions and values amongst populace.' is a lot like me saying 'The president of America is the commander of the armed forces' .... the president is/does/runs many more things than just the military, same way religions is/does/runs many more things than exist as a method. And no I did not argue that religion prints info... I don't even talk that way. If I did, I would argue that public education and media visually and emotionally manipulate people using scare tactics.

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.



Oligarchy would kinda suck too, cuz the law-makers would just cozy up with the billionaires and the laws would benefit the rich and not really have much to do with helping the poor and the sick or loving your neighbor or be any help in forgiveness or being a voice against revenge or have anything to do at all with dealing with unimaginable griif from losing loved ones. I really hope I'm not the only one who can imagine such craziness

As mrswdk already told you now, the law can be corrupted yes but so can anything else. That's just human nature. Any organization, whether religious or political can be corrupted. History is filled with myriad examples. So stop acting all high and mighty when spouting drivel arguments.

Anyway, as you yourself just pionted out those laws do work. They succesfully keep the sheep in line so the wolves can prey on them. If these egocentrical men can use the law to their advantage, then surely filantropists can do the same if they were in charge. After all doesn't the american constitution still have large influence on the american people, going beyond mere law-abiding.

high and mighty? LMFAO I asked for some examples. If you are purposefully trying to waste your time and other's time, I get it. I pointed out no such thing. I don't know what the heck you are reading or if you are reading anything at all, but I pointed out the duality of laws, in that they do work and they don't work. It's a matter of degree, not to mention a law itself can simply be refused to be enforced, rendering a law 100% meaningless.

Think about it

[mrswdk]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.

Like? How about some examples.

As waauw said, it's called the law.

As I said to waawuw, I'm glad corruption is just an imaginary concept.

I don't see your point. If corrupt lawmakers can get away with writing laws that suit themselves but not society, or cozy up with powerful interest groups, then why can't religious authorities do the same? The Catholic Church of medieval Europe allowing rich people to buy their way into heaven by giving the Church huge amounts of money springs to mind.

Do you feel that laws are an ineffective way of getting people to behave in a particular way? Do you feel that writing laws and enforcing them is less effective than trying to get everyone to believe in a god and do as that god commands?

Sometimes laws work, sometimes laws don't work at all. example: marijuana is illegal, yet potheads can buy it anywhere. And laws can help, sometimes they can hurt. example: laws meant to discourage pedophilia generally help there to be less pedophilia than there otherwise would be, but then the same law can hurt when an 18 year old gets thrown in prison for having sex with a 17 year old.

But my point is meant to be directed at Waawzers and the way he said 'it's called the law' He said it in a way that is absolute, as if having a law STOPS people dead in their tracks, as if having a law means there is no other way that can help a situation. I would opine religion can obviously be a big help in some ways, it can even be a big hurt in other ways. Same way counseling can help/hurt, or strong parenting, or encouraging accountability. But here I am giving all kinds of examples when I realize I asked you for a few examples and you provided none and just repeated a response from another poster.

You asked for an example of a way to control people's behavior without using religion and I gave the example of the law.

Obviously no system is perfect but there are plenty of alternatives to religion out there.

[jimboston]

I don't see your point. If corrupt lawmakers can get away with writing laws that suit themselves but not society, or cozy up with powerful interest groups, then why can't religious authorities do the same? The Catholic Church of medieval Europe allowing rich people to buy their way into heaven by giving the Church huge amounts of money springs to mind.

Do you feel that laws are an ineffective way of getting people to behave in a particular way? Do you feel that writing laws and enforcing them is less effective than trying to get everyone to believe in a god and do as that god commands?

Sometimes laws work, sometimes laws don't work at all. example: marijuana is illegal, yet potheads can buy it anywhere. And laws can help, sometimes they can hurt. example: laws meant to discourage pedophilia generally help there to be less pedophilia than there otherwise would be, but then the same law can hurt when an 18 year old gets thrown in prison for having sex with a 17 year old.

But my point is meant to be directed at Waawzers and the way he said 'it's called the law' He said it in a way that is absolute, as if having a law STOPS people dead in their tracks, as if having a law means there is no other way that can help a situation. I would opine religion can obviously be a big help in some ways, it can even be a big hurt in other ways. Same way counseling can help/hurt, or strong parenting, or encouraging accountability. But here I am giving all kinds of examples when I realize I asked you for a few examples and you provided none and just repeated a response from another poster.

You asked for an example of a way to control people's behavior without using religion and I gave the example of the law.

Obviously no system is perfect but there are plenty of alternatives to religion out there.[/quote]

... but you ignore the idea that putting ALL the power into one entity is bad.

Communist Gov't use the Law only to "control" behavior, and look at the corruption that's bred in USSR, China, North Korea.

Separating "powers"... separate Church & State... and you have a balance, less chance for corruption.
(Not saying there's no corruption... just less.)

So have the Gov't make the "backstop" laws.
Then have "religions" make "codes" that "guide" behavior.
(Not control behavior... guide it.)

This has (so far) been the best system we humans have come up with.

I'm not opposed to "spirituality"... I'm opposed to highly organized, rigid religions, with lots of levels and bureaucracy.

[mrswdk]

You asked for an example of a way to control people's behavior without using religion and I gave the example of the law.

Obviously no system is perfect but there are plenty of alternatives to religion out there.

... but you ignore the idea that putting ALL the power into one entity is bad.

It's possible to split law-making power across multiple bodies and individuals, as happens in quite a lot of countries (America springs to mind).

Communist Gov't use the Law only to "control" behavior, and look at the corruption that's bred in USSR, China, North Korea.

And yet New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are completely secular countries with the lowest rates of corruption in the world. Likewise, there are plenty of countries in which religion has retained a strong influence where corruption is rife (Afghanistan, Iraq, India, the list goes on). 'Countries X and Y are secular and full of corruption' is not really an argument in favor of church influence.

[jimboston]

And yet New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are completely secular countries with the lowest rates of corruption in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

The Gov't in these countries is secular... they have separation of church and state as I suggest.

Not sure what you mean by "completely secular"... as a majority of citizens in all countries you mention identify with some religious group or another. A few of these countries technically have an "official" religion, but they don't control the gov't. New Zealand has the highest percentage of "non-religious" people... I think it was like 40%. That means a majority is "religious".


Get your facts right and/or explain yourself better.

Likewise, there are plenty of countries in which religion has retained a strong influence where corruption is rife (Afghanistan, Iraq, India, the list goes on).

Religion controls Gov't in these countries.

[mrswdk]

Not sure what you mean by "completely secular"... as a majority of citizens in all countries you mention identify with some religious group or another.

Not true. I checked New Zealand and it says that a majority of people in NZ do not have religious affiliations. Also, just because a lot of Scandinavians are members of their country's church doesn't mean they're religious. As the page about Denmark says, Danes feel they are a secular society and few people go to church. The page about religion in Sweden says that fewer than 17% of Swedes feel religion is an important part of their daily life. These do not sound like religious societies to me.

And all of this still doesn't change the fact that corruption is pretty high in a lot of countries where religion holds significant sway.

Likewise, there are plenty of countries in which religion has retained a strong influence where corruption is rife (Afghanistan, Iraq, India, the list goes on).

Religion controls Gov't in these countries.

India is a secular state. To give another example: Malaysia. Secular government, heavy influence of religion, prime minister currently embroiled in several enormous corruption/abuse of power scandals.

Your 'communist USSR/China/North Korea' (lol) example was off the mark. The issue with corruption in those countries is not because too few people have found the Lord Jesus. It's for the same reason as in any country where corruption is high: because government is not as transparent as it could be, and there exist relatively few checks on use of government power.

Just to take the example of China, there are plenty of people in China who are Buddhist, Muslim, worship their ancestors or who are Christian. Much like NZ, Japan, Sweden etc., China is a secular country where a significant minority of the population is religious in some way. There really isn't an kind of significant correlation between religiosity and corruption, much less any causal relationship.