What do you think...?

meknow · (#1 (**permalink**))

How many of you drift through here and do not post for some reason? Would you care to share with us why you won't give an opinion?

You have a philosophy, share it, don't be intimidated. I promise you that I will take the time to read you and will not make fun of your verbage or grammar. Add your voice to the mix...

RLB · (#2 (**permalink**))

I can’t explain what it is that I believe it would take too long and as no one has time to read all that, and there are hostile elements in here just waiting for people to reveal a little too much of themselves – no I’m not taking about white supremacist. It is just easier (and safer) to mention what I don’t’ believe and why.

I am not religions but I am vary spiritual. I don’t believe that I need any ‘go betweens’ to access god. He’s a pretty powerful being, he doesn’t need a secretary acting on his behalf and relaying messages back and forth.
I understand that unfortunately, not everybody is sane enough to ‘go it alone’ as to do so creates ‘David Koreshes or Jim Jones’ and cause a hell of a lot of trouble in the process.
I don’t like the idea of ‘organized’ religion, because we all know power corrupts…

Take Catholicism, when you get to a certain level of power within that religion, young boys backsides seem to become quite interesting.

I don’t believe that any man or group of men should hold that kind of power over a person let alone millions of people. Financial power fair enough, but power over another mans soul???? The way that people look at their priest you would think that the priest was an old drinking buddy of god.

I don’t know how people can follow the information in holy books like the bible, Koran or the Torah. I know when you lack any other sources of information, you have to go with what you’ve got but if you are familiar with the game 'Chinese Whispers' you may understand my reluctance to believe too much of what is written in so called holy books.

(here’s the wiki link if you haven’t’ Chinese Whisper- - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia though the version I have played involves 10 or more and you take the person out of the room and relay a made up passage of around 50 words, then you distract them by talking to them for 30 seconds then you go back into the room and someone else comes out to receive the message and so on)

Think of organised religion as being a huge game of ‘Chinese Whispers’ that began thousands of years ago and have been passed down for millennia by word of mouth and translated by ‘this’ person, with their own allegiances, then it was translated by ‘that’ person, again with their allegiances to someone else. translated into ‘this’ language and into ‘that’ language, interpreted by ‘this’ person then by ‘that’ person, all along picking up cultural influences from the various countries all with varying degrees of understanding of the nature of the world throughout these periods what do you end up with… conflicts, “and eye for an eye”, “turn the other cheek”, all confusing stuff.

What percentage of these books actually contains the word of god? Surely if these are the words of god then the Koran, Bible and Torah , while the have some similarities, would say exactly the same thing.

They don’t because different people took different paths when interpreting the word of god so who is right and who is wrong?

This is a massive subject that require far more of my time than I could actually dedicate but this is a short summery of why I’m not religions. I know that doesn’t directly answer you question, but hey!

meknow · (#3 (**permalink**))

Interesting....

Agu Bu Oji · (#4 (**permalink**))

Quote:

and there are hostile elements in here

Hmmmm... sad to say I've noticed that as well. Not users perhaps but other people as guests or something.

meknow · (#5 (**permalink**))

I wouldn't so much say hostile, but beligerant. Arrogant and the like...

You have to be thick skinned to give an opinion outside of the "norm". There are experts every where who tell you what you said and what you should be saying.