Seasons

Everyone has a worldview, whether they think of it as a religion or not. Outlawing worldviews that we call "religion" would not eliminate different worldviews not based on religion. And it would also alienate people who consider themselves religious, likely leading to further conflict.

Consider the cold war. The Communists (publicly at least) were anti-religion. This did not stop them having many many problems. Also, their conflict with the U.S. was based on differences in economic policies more than anything else (though some people did drag religion into it when denigrating communism).

*shrugs* Not looking for a flame war either. But I might suggest reading Harrison Bergeron for a disturbing vision of a conflict-free world. Sure, if there were no differences in opinion, there'd be no conflict (and we wouldn't be able to have this discussion ). But that's not reasonable. It might be more reasonable to teach people tolerance of opinions that don't match their own.

If we all had the same opinions, and thus couldn't start conflicts because of them, we'd all basically be the same person, and what reason would there be to have several billion clones walking around on the earth?

Im not suggesting we have no conflicts and differing views at all due to no religion, of course that would be boring! . However I would love not to see conflicts on such a large scale.

I stand corrected, you are right that conflicts do arise from other places not related to religion. However I still think that religion is one of a few main factors involved.

"It might be more reasonable to teach people tolerance of opinions that don't match their own. " I support this all the way, it is one of the main points of R.E. lessons, just a shame it doesnt always work.

I totally agree about tolerance of other opinions. I love a good discussion/argument/debate/whatever you want to call it (just no 'mass debate' jokes, please) because it's incredibly exhilarating to battle your opinions out against someone, as it were, as long as it doesn't become nasty. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who won't listen to you, accept that you may have a differing opinion that could possibly be right, or someone who just insults you repeatedly to hide the fact that actually they haven't got an argument at all, is frustrating. Agreeing to differ and compromise are very important.

In response to Annakie's comments: A belief that homosezuality is not wrong cannot be reconciled with a belief that the Bible is the Word of God, and such a belief is central to Christianity. Jesus said we should love one another. Does loving someone mean condoning their sin? Jesus said "Judge not lest ye be judged," but look at the context. He appears to be talking about hypocrisy -- judging someone else's minor fault when you have greater faults of your own. Anyway, not judging is different from saying that something is right. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Again, look at the context. He was talking about a woman caught in adultery. Was He saying that what the woman did was not wrong? No, because he told the woman "go and sin no more". I fail to see how any of these verses even address homosexuality, much less say that it is not wrong.

I didn't say it wasn't a sin. I didn't say those verses specifically address homosexuality. I'm saying that my faith tells me that I shouldn't go jumping down people's throats because they sin. I sin too. Somebody's being gay doesn't hurt anybody and it's none of my business. If the person is also religious then it's that person's job to find a way to work that out with God, not mine.

I'm well aware that a lot of Christians would disagree with me. Like I said, I'm not trying to speak for all Christians. I'm just speaking for me.

I've heard the biblical arguments, and it seems to depend on who does the translation. For a good discussion, look here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Eugene: I've noticed that those who claim the Bible is the word of God tend to be very selective about which passages should be interpreted literally and which are metaphorical. Who decides? And how does this reconcile with alternate versions of the texts that are often found (the Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind)? Inspired by God I could see, but it was written by humans, with all their foibles. And it was further altered when whichever Council voted on which books should be included.

Plus, there are several declarations in the Bible that most Christians ignore anyway - the ones condoning slavery, condemning the trimming of beards and so on. So like you say, how do we know which to follow literally, which to take metaphorically and, I suppose, which to ignore altogether? I'm informed (although this could be wrong) that there is a passage in Acts which basically says that you can ignore some of the bits of the early Old Testament.

One of my favorites from the Old Testament is a prohibition against wearing cloth made from two different kinds of fiber. (Polyester/cotton, anyone?)

And then there's something in the New Testament (not present in all scrolls) that says God's chosen people will be able to drink poison and handle poisonous snakes without getting hurt. I guess that's how those snake handling churches got started.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! What are you doing?

My girlfriend and I are about to sit down to a little two-person Thanksgiving, because we both live far from our families. We're cooking cornish hens, because a turkey would have been too much for the two of us. And we're going to watch "Monsters, Inc." (which she hasn't seen) afterwards.

I had T-day dinner at a friend's family's house (his brother, sister-in-law, and their four kids). Unfortunately, the friend had to work security at the local tourist trap until 5:30 tonight, so I didn't see much of HIM. I did do a ridiculous amount of crocheting and also played Halo 2 with the 4-year-old, who is already on his way to a rewarding career as an evil genius set on world domination.