Next time that they ask you "What can we do?", please tell them to go and educate themselves, and get rid of their stupidities, starting with their religion, whichever it is.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
I know Karen Armstrong doesn't believe in God. In her book, 'A History of God,' she says "men have been creating Gods as soon as they have began creating works of art and music" and "God is just man-made." However, she's a firm believer in the Golden Rule. She believes true religion should be about compassion toward one another rather than the belief in God(s) because it divides us. It hurts my head reading her books, she's so thought-provoking.
She is making my ears hurt. Perhaps she should visit the compationate teleban stoning women. Or the compationate catholic priest raping children. Or the compatoinate Israeli solidiers killing women and children.
The crafters of any charter that has to do with religion has to take into consideration the more occult aspects of each religion, the practises that allow the mind to be more spiritual (meditation, prayer). Please don't make it secular where the crux of religion is lost. Love that she understands the importance of proper interpretation of scripts. Scripts were never written by the geniuses themselves (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad), but by lesser individuals, many centuries after the revelations
@Mrwilwak Armstrong sees religion as a form of art. You could say the same thing about art in general, that it's for "the useless and no good (!)" and "the last refuge of the worthless". I disagree with that.
@Mrwilwak I am pretty sure you don't have many new york times best sellers, or that your book " A History Of God' is compulsory in theological programs and degrees, or that you are one of the most accepted authority on religion, or that you have written multiple books, or that you have inspired and helped million to understand religion.But I am sure that Karen Armstrong is. Right now, you seem to be lame and talent less, my friend
what i love is that i have spent my entire life studying religious studies or comparative religion, much like karen, but one evolutionary biologist has made an entire culture of pseudo-intellectual bullies who misuse logic to fill their empty lives. read more, speak of what you know of, all else is wasted breath.
Augustine's hierarchical church didn't follow his prescription of charity and compassion. Even in Augustine's time the church had succumbed to the powers & principalities of the world. Can the Roman church recover from its 1500 yr. history of dominance, conquest, slaughter, inquistions, torture, molestation, subjugation of women & support of the status quo? Can it embrace the Sermon on the Mount & the compassionate Christ as its absolute foundation? It must end all its compliance with violence.
If you belive in "god",then the god is only in your mind.that means you kan see or understand what you are doing or going to do.That nobody knows.Only you.that why I am saying god is in you.You no that you are doing wrong or right.there is a result today or tomorrow. for ex.hitler,saddam,milosovic,etc.you can see from your own experiences.There is no god in the church, mosque, temple or other such a place.that is only business.drama.some idiots think they are clever to cheat all the time.
when I got my childeren,i left my religion.I know we do not need any religion to live in this world.If you free from all stupid religions then the world become Paradise!
I get the message and I agree that it's present in most religions. However, most religions also carry negative conotations - the fact that "thy neighbour" is usually seen as "thy neighbour of same colour, creed and male sex". The fact that the message can be easily hijacked proves that religion needs to be stripped of a lot. We can still call it faith or religion, if we so choose. Also, why is it so hard to believe that a secular mind can be compassionate, without the instruction of a deity?
I find it interesting in reading these quotes that the spirit of compassion so often fails to reveal itself. As a citizen of this planet on this journey through life I strive to accept my other passengers who each and every one is experiencing their own personal journey. If we focus too much on the stupid things that any one of us or our predecessors has done in the past the less we might be willing to try and do better in the future. Lets at least give ourselves the hope of a better world?
i want to take in all her ideas but im worried not to give in fully. she is working with the alliance of civilizations, on the surface they seem to mean well but they are heavily funded by very shady people :(
@50kT the only thing you have to 'give in' to, is the idea of treating others as you would want to be treated. It's not a global conspiracy - it's natural and beneficial. Power brokers have wanted to benefit from this compassion, but the compassion always comes first - what is done with it is a whole different idea.
Sorry to hear that. What she says is so close to what the Baha'i Faith talks about! Well she has a cool surprise awaiting her when she does find out. The Faith is logical, mystical, and learning about it has really provided key pieces of the Big Puzzle for me. Like Progressive Revelation: the Prophets from God (there is only ONE God, do we agree?) have built upon the foundation of the former ones, like teachers do at school! Same stuff re: capacity of humans thru time. No competition! Check it
irajkhodadoost I totally agree! I didn't say she should become a Baha'i. I think she would find interesting that many of the amazing things she stands so brilliantly for are spoken about in the Writings of the Baha'i Faith. By seeing the same things from numerous worthwhile perspectives I, myself, derive so much deeper an understanding! In fact, that is the first tenet of the Faith, independent investigation of truth. No clergy. You must take responsibility for your own spiritual growth.
@bohemiandeborah Unfortunately, Karen Armstrong, in spite of all her knowledge and scholarship, has no knowledge of the Baha'i Faith and makes unfortunate and inaccurate remarks about the origins of the Baha'i Faith in her book, Battle for God. I hope that she comes across this post and finds it necessary to expand her scholarship on the path to true enlightenment.
Karen Armstrong is the great ambassador for peace of our generation. "Religion should be a cause of love and affection; otherwise, we are better off without it." From the Baha'i Writings
She loves the study of religion and she's found beauty in it. This is her excuse for the drivel that is "the case for god". The truth is she writes well when it's about religion, but then when she tries to protect these topics of her studies... she falls apart and starts walking the path of idiocy
@frid9999 I have read many of Karen Armstrong's books, the History of God, the Battle for God, The Holy War, Buddhism, Islam, etc. and been very much enlightened by it. Am I missing something? I have no connection to this author and love to read different perspectives, but I am curious to know why you think that she "is full of ...." Respectfully, Iraj
@irajkhodadoost It is a fair request you make (asking for evidence is always a fair request). As an example of her harmful lunacy go to 5:00 to 5:30 of the video. There she claims that the ability feel empathy for others is what islam, christianity and judaism all claim brings us into the presence of god. It is a baseless claim. What empathy there is in the quran and hadith is far overshadowed by dogma such as submission, human slavery, suppressing female sexuality, the unchanging literal...
p2 perfection of the quran, and scientific ignorance. When permission is given for men to rape their slave girls in the quran (4.24) where is the empathy? And she is not only lying but she is causing harm in doing so. She goes on to imply that the nonsense of the big cults only makes sense after one takes the leap of faith and "takes action" - she is basically making the case that one has to join the cult first and it will all make sense after. Wouldn't it be tragic if a young person actually...
p3 - ...actually trusted this liar and did as was urged?
And where does she get off implying that empathy comes from religion? I don't need a person claiming to be speaking for an invisible god to tell me to feel for other people. My thoughtful reasoning, which is rooted in sciences such as sociology, medicine, evolution, psychology, education, human wellness, community-building and politics, is the basis for my empathy and fuck her for implying we need to join her in her fantasy world to...
This woman lives in a dream world where religion is inherently good and facts, data and science are meaningless. Any bad in religion is simply an aberration, a hijacking of religion, she claims. A lie. But the source of evil in religion is right there for all to see in black and white in the torah, quran, hadith and bible. It is not a hijacking to see what is right there in front of us all and see religious people putting it into practice. It is a baseless...
p5 ...and harmful lie to pretend the evil is not right there. Facts matter not to her, but they do in the real world.
And what is most disgusting of all, is the fact that she wraps her attempt to behead fact-based thoughtful reasoning in the cloak of compassion. Is it really compassionate to ignore the curious vacuum of evidence for any gods? Is it really compassionate to stay silent while muslims attempt to chase away jinns to make a sick person better? Is it really compassionate to stay...
p6 ...to stay silent while muslims repeat delusional lies such as "islam is peace" or "women have equal rights in islam"? Is it really compassionate to stay silent when muslims claim the savageness of the hadith are examples we are all to emulate?
Is it really compassionate to invite others to share in one's own mental illness where reality is so thoroughly disrespected?
@irajkhodadoost And just 1 more example that this woman and reality rarely coexist in the same room... Listen to 3:53 to 4:16, there she implies that orthodoxy is discouraged in islam as quarrelsome and sectarian. Is she fucking for real?!? Is there any mainstream religion in the world that is not more obsessed with submission to orthodoxy? ...with getting the rules right? Is orthodoxy not the source of all kinds of misery all over the islamic world?
@frid9999 I am neither Christian, Jew, or a Moslem. But it is my understanding that a lot of harsh laws (including stoning of women) comes from the Old Testament. Submission means accepting our fallibility and humbling ourselves before the Creator...All Abrahamic religions have passages that lead you to believe in the biased and worse treatment of women, etc. I have come across many honorable Jews, Christians, and Moslems who practice the essence of their religion and many who don't... More....
@frid9999 The mystic paths in all religions (Kabala's, Gnostics, Vedantas, etc.) have realized the futility of misreading the intent of Scriptures and want to practice the essence of it all: "What is to be done O Moslems? For I do not recognized myself; I am neither Christian, Jew, nor Moslem; I am not of the East or of the West... I am not of India, nor of China....My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless... I have put duality aside. I have seen that the two worlds are one...." Rumi
@aquariumgoldfish Religious truth, my friend, is relative and not absolute. As man advances, new religious truths suitable to our time are manifested to guide man forward. However, the essential truths (oneness of God, compassion, equity, love, harmony, unity, justice, etc.) remain the eternal truths.
Western system will collapse.It is the fact and the truth.Western values create an idea which is that we should work,fight for only this world.If you want to believe a religion no matter if you want relax make sex or believe a god is same meaning in their thinking.Western always need enemy because need slaves and rival should be move down or they upgrade and a strong rival not acceptable for their lookings.They dont interest and dont believe afterlife and judgement day or so how can kill others.
@yigitinebolulu The world is moving, slowly but surely - because of faster and better means of communication including the internet, toward democracy, harmony, and unity. Whether you are from the East or from the West, we are all children of the same God, believe in the same essential truths, and want peace and compassion on earth for all God's children. We need to fight against superstitions, dogmas, prejudices, greed, and injustice first and foremost in our own selves. God bless you.
I think about my old writing.Why I said west really why I said west.This is my EGO.I said west because I am from Turkey and my ego think that Turkey is the center of the earth so Usa is the west according to us.West and east is meaningless in spheric world.I dont have hope about we all find peace in this planet but I want deeply.God bless you,too.
@yigitinebolulu I love Istanbul and Rumi who says, "What is to be done O Moslems? For I do not recognize myself. I am neither Christian, or Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem. I am not from the East or of the West.... I am not of nature's mint, nor of circling heavens. I am not of India, nor of China....My place is the placeless, my trace is the traceless. It is neither body or soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved. I have put duality aside. I have seen that the two worlds are one....PEACE!
Its been more than 2000 years, religion never worked.. this is smooth attempt to religion, but its not going to work!!! We have enough sweet takers in churches, i think its wise to keep them in church..
@ayyawark Fanatical religiosity results in crimes of Crusades, Inquisition, or the current fanaticism of the likes of Al-Qaida and Ben Laden. Aggressive atheism results in the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin who together slaughtered more than 100 million people in the 20th century alone. But compassionate religiosity produces the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Dali Lama. What works and what does not depends on our perspective. Thanks for listening.
Obviously, like most Germans, Hitler came from a Christian backgrounds, but he should have been as much Christian as Mulla Omar, Bin Laden, and Saddam Hossein were Moslems... I have also met many most loving and compassionate atheists. I think the word is inhuman or beasts for such people.
She is remarkably articulate. The religion she describes is wonderful. But it's not being practiced by any of the three monotheistic faiths. Even though I am in complete opposition to religion of any sort, I find her an intelligent and fascinating woman.
@Kaalec Have you looked into the Baha'i Faith. It teaches that as there is one God, there is also one humanity, and all religions are chapters of the same book which have appeared through time based on the needs of the time. While basic truths are the same, the social laws have to change based on man's progress. Religion should be investigated independently; science and religion must be in harmony; and priesthood must be abolished.... and then," there will be peace on earth as it is in heaven".
@fctchk This is pontification by someone who spent a considerable amount of her life buying into a way of thinking which she found empty and useless at the end, and now seeks to try to rescue those wasted years by sewing them into a cloak made up of disparate modes which she proudly wears. She is actually very selfish. Her work is the Emperor's New Clothes defined. You cannot ask people to simultaneously embrace and reject their religion--that IS what she's saying.
The content of her presentation may be laudable, but her delivery is terrible. Half the presentation is filled with "um" and "uh", then peppered with big words that are completely gratuitous. Not to keen on seeing her preach again.
everything she said is in fact written in details in the Holy Quran .. there is no Iliad or Homer tho in the Holy Quran but there are similer ones such as Joseph story or David and Goliath and many more .she is a great great lady i love ideas .
The Christian texts were edited by the Romans for consolidation of power n allegiance of its followers, but that was a primitive society..
Its too late to ask for the holytexts to be cleaned up because its too ingrained in society.
BUT if a new of ALLEGIANCE PLEDGE could be compulsorily taught in ALL public schools about compassion kindness for one another above ALL ELSE, above ALL religions..
..only then can HARMONY reign above THEISTIC EGOTISM..
Geez.! Where did we get off into conversion and how many of you have read the Baha'i Writings? Hmmm...didn't think so... well, I think you'd be surprised.
If you were happy to learn of Karen Armstrong you should seriously check them out. NOT to become a Baha'i but to see the history of these ideas, the larger picture of fitting them in place and the progress already made toward these goals. But reinventing the wheel has much merit too. Have at it! All work along these lines is good work. Peace.
She has great ideas. But why re-invent the wheel? Someone needs to tell her about the Baha'i Faith. All that she wishes for is already happening. It is embodied in the spiritual and social teachings. And Baha'i has been called the only religion that does not deny any of the others because it offers a way to see the progression of the world's great religions as one ongoing story. Once you see that perspective it just makes so much sense.......and hating is just stupid. Peace.
@bohemiandeborah: most people probably don't want conversion. I think it's a very practical standpoint to try to increase the amount of interdialogue and compassion among different religions.
@bohemiandeborah According to Abdu'l-Baha, someone may call himself a Baha'i for 50 years but does not exhibit the necessary attributes and reverse is also true. It takes a lot of good people from all different persuasions to bring about peace and unity on earth. Karen Armstrong is one of those voices and is respected in different parts of the globe because of her genuine compassion for harmony and interfaith dialogue. Thanks for listening.
"Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you."
-> This does not take into account ignorance and self destructive choice brought about by misunderstanding.
'what you put out is what you get back' is as I presently understand the actual reflective nature of interaction between beings expressed in physical reality.
When you take away the miraculuos nature of the Bible, you don't leave much of anything. People believe in miracles because they do not understand. The Bible propagates that ignorance and even seems to make people authoritative on such matters without any real understanding at all. They seem to as you do, think that reality is what you want it to be. Reality is, nothing more. You think creation is all good or not. It would be a direct reflection of the nature of any creator.
Then I must be an anomaly because I both believe and understand. Truth is not threatened by reality and so neither is my belief in God threatened by reality. The 2 are one and the same.
How can you call God and reality one and the same. You just proved how delusional you are. You've never seen evidence of a god, but you claim it to be true. I say Zeus is the true God, there are statues of Zeus, we know what he looks like. They must have been true. You have no such evidence of the ideas of Yahweh, you don't even know what it would look like. And Zeus came first, your idea of God is just copying the old idea of Zeus.
Now we have science. A single scientist is responsible for increasing crop yields which feed over a billion people in the world today. That's the power of truth. He died this year at the age of 95, his name was Norman Borlaug. He will never be celebrated the way the idea of Jesus is. Jesus is a non-verified myth. Norman Borlaug is a scientist. That's why he won't be celebrated the way he should be.
Even if he was a Mason before he became a Witness. The piont that I am making is, He clearly mantained his Mason heritage even up until his death. Infact he even incorperated Mason teaching into the Society. Which can be clearly seen from my video. If a JW can't be a member of the YMCA why should their founder be a Mason?
Hopefully, the perception that I have where material things are not important, a view also shared by many religious will become more pertinent as necessities and even luxury is provided for. We will be able to channel our competive energy in a more positive way.
There's an easier way to ease the problem of material importance. We could rejoice in the joy of one another's successes and mourn one another's losses. We should, at some point, realize that we need to stop being a community of strangers completely identifying the world with ourselves and take on the spirit of neighborly love where we can identify ourselves by the world.
Humanity can be a beautiful thing even more so in the next 1000 years but only if we continue our upward trend away from religion. The thought of heaven is keeping us mired in a real hell. We will end it, it is only a matter of time until religion is sent to the outward fringes like astrology.
I get it, she sees beauty as she travels the world. She ignores the downside of these aged superstitions and can't imagine what the world could be without religion. Imagine if Michaelangelo had painted something beautiful that he actually believed in instead of being coherced into such BS. Imagine if science had ruled instead of religion. We would probably be travelling to nearby stars by now instead of pondering going to Mars. Our lifespans would probably be tenfold and diseases eradicated.
That's a load of crap. You have no idea what went into developing the methodology of science. If we had a 'its a wonderful life' episode involving the complete absence of religion, I think you would be quite surprised over the result.
I believe that science is the best tool we have to understand our universe. It's results are empirically verified, it's strange that I should learn morality without dogma, and that has made me relaize that life is better with it than without it. Simple logic is all that is required when the evidence is gathered. My morality stems from science. In many circumstances my lack of belief in God is what leads to altruism.
Morality doesn't stem from science, science only studies it. Morality stems from the basic human need to communicate and belong to a greater community. Co-operation is what made our species successful. From the scientific point of view, morality gives species an advantage in that immoral species shoot thelselves in the foot, and co-operative or mainly moral species dominate. Even Piranha have a kind of morality, they won't eat their own.
If you're going to suggest that if something like the Catholic church didn't exist, we would have been on the moon 1500 years ago, or that this YT message would be coming from Alpha Centauri if it wasn't for them, you deserve to be openly mocked.
It's as simple as choice A, live morally and spread morality, which allows us to coexist and enjoy our lives or choice B, live immorally and expect rejection,hatred, and immorality in return. Simple choice.
As for the accomplishments of mankind, witchhunts and denial of truth for a prolonged period of time greatly stifled science, I should not be openly mocked for expressing such an opinion as we live in a society which science is prevailing over superstition and we are progressing greatly.
Right, but this is true even when we're talking about secular traditions. Those in power always prefer to maintain that which keeps their position superior to those around them. It's not religion that is the problem, it's power. This is the idea behind Christianity - he who humbles himself will be exalted and he who exalts himself will be humbled.
That happens anyway. Christianity or not, every person reacts this way. No-one appreciates arrogance, but everyone appreciates people trying to help them.The bizarre part for me is that I think we probably agree on a lot more than you realize, I just see no need to invoke the supernatural. I can try to put myself in someone else's shoes. No magic required. I can't understand why society doesn't have meetings like those in church,but without the supernatural. Religion alienates me based on logic.
Humans, whether they are religious or not, most often share morality to an extent. I don't like how religion tries to control people. Ie. Their sex life. When I say, anything goes as long as everyone is comfortable and happy. Same goes for other rules, why ban condom use as the Catholic church does? It causes great harm.
I think that the Catholic position might be well misunderstood by a great deal of people who are involved in the issue. In essence, I believe that the Church's rejection of condom use has less to do with the stigma of sin attached to the act of sex in the western faiths than it does about the much safer alternative of abstinence. Abstinence is really the best policy when trying to stunt the spread of STD's.
Abstinence is great, if you are disciplined enough to maintain it. But condoms are highly effective in preventing STDs. In Catholics, the frequency of anal and oral sex has increased and STDs are still spread, the dogmatic stigmatism of sex and safe sex by religion is an evil dogma that is perpetrated by the church. The pope should only be in control of his own sex life, and the fact that people believe that the stooge knows what's good for them is an abuse of power.
The point is that the message taken is not the one given. The people in Africa are encouraged toward abstinence not unprotected sex. People effectively quote the Church as saying condoms are the problem, but really they're saying that telling people that they can have "safe sex" with the use of a condom is a myth. There is still danger even with the use of condoms
Condoms are banned by the Catholic church, people are still going to have sex. Ergo, disease and unplanned parenthood are going to occur. Medievel beliefs in sex are what cause priests to bugger little boys. Science shows that if you coop up a male without sex, eventually he will take it. The "danger" with the use of condoms in minute when used properly. Statistics prove that people who do not have dogma about condoms are safer, with less teen pregnancy.
The Catholic Church bans premarital sex too because it is sex performed outside the bounds of sanctified union. It also bans unplanned pregnancies because people are supposed to be responsible for their actions. There's no excuse for understanding their ban on condoms and adhering to it when they are dismissing all these other bans. If they want to have sex, they can use condoms since the act itself is a sin unless it is intended for pregnancy.
Does the pope tell people not to have sex? That church would end real quick-like. He does tell them not to use condoms. I never had sex until I was 25, I never got married, I have a child, who we raise in a secure and safe home. Your stereotyping of people is your weakness. You think, because you go to church, that only church goers know how to think and act with intelligence. This is poor, miscalculated judgement on your part. You are showing your prejudice more and more.
As far as I know the Catholic Chruch is anti-premarital sex and anti-sex-for-fun. I'm not Catholic, I'm just saying that this is what Catholics are putting out there. There is a ban on those things that I stated before from the Catholic Church. Also, I'm not saying that one cannot raise a child in a secure and safe home, just that if you are a Catholic, part of that is being married. I'm sure that you have done a very good job with your child so far and will continue to do so.
No, I think you think that only atheists know how to think and act intelligently, because right now you can't comprehend why someone would believe in god other than emotional weakness, indoctrination, ignorance of science + history, or because of a lack of skepticism and rational thinking. I think it's the other way around.
In other words, if you're going to commit the much greater sin of having extra-marital sex, then why even bother follow some condom rule that not even all Catholics follow to begin with?
I'm saying that the whole "they ban condoms" excuse doesn't work in this case because if they are not using condoms for devotional purposes, then surely they would also devote themselves to the other precepts of Catholic teaching with bans extra marital sex.
What is wrong with extramarital sex? What gives the church liscense to say that only they can sanctify who fucks who? Again, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. Why the diversity of opinion? I am an individual, I know what is good for me more than the Church or anyone else does. When I have sex with my common-law wife, using a condom, the church says I am committing an act which is evil. They can go fuck themselves. It is control and imposition of their beliefs which makes it wrong.
Actually, historically sexual limitation made a great deal of sense, but that's besides the point. I think that your language defines precisely what the Church is against, the tendency for one to minimalize an otherwise beautiful act and degrade it to simply "fucking." Aside from that, the emotional exchange between partners and their feeling of self worth is severely compromised by this act especially if the participant is later rejected.
"When I have sex with my common-law wife, using a condom, the church says I am committing an act which is evil." A sin and an act of evil are not the same thing. While evil is always a sin, sin is not alway an act of evil.
"Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22, quoting Jesus)
"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:29, quoting Jesus; see parallel passage in Mark 9:44, which adds, "where the fire never goes out.")
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:40-42, quoting Jesus)
"Throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:30)
"Then he [the King] will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:41)
"The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." (James 3:6)
What sin have I committed. What harm have I done, what immorality have I committed by having sex out of wedlock? My morality again exceeds scripture on marriage as far as I am concerned.
Again, I wonder if the religious ever read the Bible.
A common problem experienced by many. We tend to measure by our own means only. The world is larger than us and we need to acknowledge that. Let's be stoics about this and view the larger picture. What might be good for you is not good for others and vice versa.
Acknowledge a basic fact, as a child I marveled at the size of the universe. I have to be stoic regardless, because there are always going to be people who can be led on a leash by other people who want to rule the world. Being stoic means realizing you are going to die, and still not being afraid, not giving in to false promises of heaven or anything which is too good to be true. Just because you really, really want it, doesn't make it so.
What is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose. Rules imposed which bear no effect on morality but are perceived as such. Ie. Perception of homosexuality, can't be resolved in church because of dogma/doctrine.
As for power, everybody wants that, but what people don't often realize is just how much they have. I think ultimately, institutions will become obsolete as technology progresses to the extent where people can explore their own lives and give their own meaning to it.
Do you read the Bible? Read it, then you won't believe it anymore.
The Bible wrongly condemns homosexuality.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
I've read the bible from cover to cover many times over. The bible is not doctrine though, it is scripture. Doctrine emerges from the interpretation of scripture tempered by the oral tradition. There is no doctrinal rejection of homosexuals.
So how exactly do interpret that scripture to mean that God allows homosexuality. Because this is a big problem in the Bible belt, if you can solve it, you should be speaking to those people.
The bible belt does not adhere to doctrine. It is primarily dominated by people who think that God is out to get them because He got mad at Adam for eating the fruit that He told him not to eat. There is no reasoning with such people.
Yes, they adhere to scripture. Doctrine is the different interpretations by different churches. You lose yourself in this circular somantic bullshit don't you? You figure that your precious Holy Book is the be all and end all of everything. 30000 factions, 30000 doctrines, you can't speak for them all and this is their doctrine. Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people "think" like them, it enables evil. You suffer the same delusion of consensus.
"Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people 'think' like them, it enables evil."
If you were to cheer for some soccer team at some game, would you be enabling the soccer hooligans who are fighting in the parking lot afterwards? Sould you be accused of promoting trouble just because you support the same team as the hooligans?
"Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people 'think' like them, it enables evil."
And Einstein's theories of relativity enable us to make bombs that can destroy whole cites with the push of a button, does that mean we should abandon exploration in that branch of science?
No, but science doesn't claim to be infallible, and it doesn't claim to be absolute, and it doesn;t claim that everyone should live a certain way. Science may create the atomic bomb, but it's going to be some religious wingnut, who, for the glory of God, blows us all up to see the second coming of someone who probably wasn't here in the first place.
If science describes true things, they can not be fallible. I don't see how you don't see the correlation. On the one hand religion can be used improperly and we should get rid of it. On the other hand science can be used improperly but we must preserve it.... I think you're showing bias here.
No, science is never called infallible, or absolute. It is always permeable and malleable. The correlation you fail to make is that science is our best working knowledge, if you come up with a better, more likely explanation, the old science is abandoned, no dogmatism, evn scientists who create a theory that is proven false in time, will study the new science with zest and vigor. Religion just keeps denying. Denial is not healthy, for an individual psyche, or a collective one.
The debate between academics and theologians has gone from how theology works, to "is theology valuable", whether true or not. The problem that many academics have, even atheist academics is whether humanity can handle not having religion, the answer is no. But religion could evolve into something more profound and more meaningful if it abandons dogma and the necessity of a deity. The universe is magnificent, whether created by God or not. But to claim knowledge of God is delusion or deception.
The reason I find the Abrahamic religions incredibly preosterous isn't the fact that what it says false. It the fact that if it were true, the Abrahamic God would be a being that I would fight against, even if hopelessly. I find the ideas contained in the texts, which preach intolerance and offer up sacrifices and punishments, rewards for war and hatred, completely repulsive. This is a tiny little angry God. When I think to myself, in those shoes, I could've done better, I know it's wrong.
I don't think anyone has ever known or even met the Abrahamic God. When people say they have they should be put in the loony bin and told to stop talking to themselves. I have shown you repeated passages that speak of things in the Bible which you deny. You are in denial, that's okay. It's the first step.
I believe that it's possible to know a character in a story well even if they don't exist. Since you believe that the Abrahamic God in that sense, you should at least know that He can be known in some sense from that perspective.
He can be known in the same sense we know fairies, unicorns, leprecauns, and dragons. With our imagination, and no-one's idea is exactly the same. It is silly to allow a figment of your imagination to run your life. The stories are immoral in many cases, not something to teach how to be kind, but how to be intolerant.
Have you ever seen Muslim creationism or Bible belt creationism. In Islam, it's on the rise. Even you will find that level of crazy intolerable, get used to it. You endorse it.
Although a misnomer, the big bang is the best theory we have going, although M-Theory is a more in depth mathematical analysis, branched off of quantum physics. So, believing the universe started this way, what makes you defend God and religion which disagree with this explanation for the universe?
Religions actually don't disagree, they simply don't comment on it. They make a theological connection between mankind and God and a philosophical explanation of what the ultimate source of human failure is, but that's about it. The reason why we in the Orthodox Church and I'm sure those in the modern Roman Catholic Church fight biblical literalism is for this very reason. The literalists are reducing philosophical comentaries to literal claims which causes the narratives to lose their meaning.
Why don't religions comment on the very creation of the universe? Isn't that important to religious people? It is not a question, it is "THE" question for me. As for the narratives, using a 2000 year old book in which much does not apply or needs a convoluted translation to make sense should be updated with current knowledge and relevant anecdotes, don't you think? I can't relate to things that are in the Bible, like ritual sacrifice, incest and war. All are accepted in these stories.
It's important to all people now, but at the time that the creation narratives' writing there would have been a far greater concern in how one could reduce the chances of tribal failure. This is why the narratives point out that the "fall" was actually a fall out of mankind's loving nature into one of selfishness and egoism. The greatest downfall of man is to seek personal benefit at the expense of his fellow human beings - that is really what the narratives are about.
The narratives select certain tribes to benefit, and others to be an example, destroyed, with their virgin girls taken for forced slavery and babies bashed on rocks. It may have worked, but it was and is a testament to the flaws of humankind and an homage to cruelty and barbarism.
I'm confused, I don't remember slavery, babies being bashed on rocks, etc. ever showing up in the creation narratives. Could you please provide where you found these things?
In the Bible is where you find endorsement of slavery and babies bashed on rocks. Not in the creation stories, in the other morality stories. But I forgot, you are one of those who pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infalliable truths and which are metaphorical.
We have to understand the Bible properly. These stories may be compiled together, but that doesn't mean that they flow as though they are different parts to one large story. Each story is different in writer and intent and should be dealt with as a story standing alone prior to it's being understood in the context of the other stories.
It's time to tell a different story. One where humanity ends war. Ends poverty. Explores farther than they ever have before into reliaty. Accepts their place in the universe and tries in ernest to seek truth rather than giving in to political and religious authority.
There is such a story - the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It's here that ignorance, hate, greed, lust for power, and desperation met against the Lord and the Lord did not reciprocate with these evils but with love and forgiveness.
Betrayal and resurrection. Heard that story before, and it came before Jesus. This is what primitive minds dreamt up. These people lived with death and faced it regularly. The superstitions were all they had to ward off evil spirits and sacrifice was the only tool they had to increase their crop yields. If you don't believe this, you haven't read much about history, of humanity or theology.
Also, the Roman Catholic church chooses what is literal and what isn't. Given the church's position which causes great harm in Africa by banning condom use, they are very literal. Having sex for pleasure is natural. Over 500 well documented species do it. If you don't want to have sex for pleasure, fine. Don't tell people it is evil to do so. It isn't.
The Church (prior to schizm) chose the meanings of all the scripture prior to canonizing any of it. If any scripture deviates from those interpretations given at the time of canonization and is used to formulate doctrine upon it's new interpretation, the same is an act of heresy.
How many go through seminary and actually still believe it? Canonizing is only big brother deciding what should be diseminated amongst the common folk. You get the desired effect of religion, a secret society prentending to know something that no-one else does, abusing others and spreading confusion for it's own gain. The idea of God is metaphorical, the bible is metaphorical, except what people decided wasn't metaphorical 2000 years ago. What a stupid thing for people to follow.
"Canonizing is only big brother deciding what should be diseminated amongst the common folk."
-Hardly the case. One can interpret the scriptures as one pleases but cannot thereafter consider himself in communion with the communal intent of those very texts. I think you're complicating the matter further than it should be
So they had a vote amongst the entire community of Christianity. I think that's a great idea, you should do it again and rewrite the Bible again. That first rough draft was a real stinker.
There's more dimensions to every story. The Bible is a fractured gathering of stories. A compilation of myths in the style of allegory that was common of the time.
"These texts [scriptures] that are being abused"? Which part of kill the infidel is abused?
shumbusgumbuli 2 days ago
Next time that they ask you "What can we do?", please tell them to go and educate themselves, and get rid of their stupidities, starting with their religion, whichever it is.
shumbusgumbuli 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 week ago
I know Karen Armstrong doesn't believe in God. In her book, 'A History of God,' she says "men have been creating Gods as soon as they have began creating works of art and music" and "God is just man-made." However, she's a firm believer in the Golden Rule. She believes true religion should be about compassion toward one another rather than the belief in God(s) because it divides us. It hurts my head reading her books, she's so thought-provoking.
joshlazarus 2 weeks ago
She is making my ears hurt. Perhaps she should visit the compationate teleban stoning women. Or the compationate catholic priest raping children. Or the compatoinate Israeli solidiers killing women and children.
neuromatiker 1 month ago
This is "Karen Armstrong: 2008 TED Prize wish: Charter for COMPASSIO?"
DeFaulty101 1 month ago
nice info..
MrCIickHere 2 months ago
The crafters of any charter that has to do with religion has to take into consideration the more occult aspects of each religion, the practises that allow the mind to be more spiritual (meditation, prayer). Please don't make it secular where the crux of religion is lost. Love that she understands the importance of proper interpretation of scripts. Scripts were never written by the geniuses themselves (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad), but by lesser individuals, many centuries after the revelations
crudhousefull 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
theologists are like lawyers.
they are not truth seekers. Lawyers use their sophistic skills to defend people. Theologogists use them to defend religion.
janvandoedelpuk 4 months ago
She is an amazing women =) I read two of her books ; Muhammed, and Islam a short history
Khalid88Nasser 4 months ago
@Mrwilwak Armstrong sees religion as a form of art. You could say the same thing about art in general, that it's for "the useless and no good (!)" and "the last refuge of the worthless". I disagree with that.
Dodec84 4 months ago
bought her book jerusalem recently. very nice, very interesting
KhyberBoy09 4 months ago
@Mrwilwak I am pretty sure you don't have many new york times best sellers, or that your book " A History Of God' is compulsory in theological programs and degrees, or that you are one of the most accepted authority on religion, or that you have written multiple books, or that you have inspired and helped million to understand religion.But I am sure that Karen Armstrong is. Right now, you seem to be lame and talent less, my friend
SarcasmUnleashed 5 months ago
Comment removed
SarcasmUnleashed 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Modern Ecumenical Church supports Karen Armstrong's sensibility and welcomes her books as worthy and considered argument about religion.
The church also invites people to consider that agnostics can have a beneficial spirituality NOT based on myths or superstition.
for more information, we invite people to visit the our website
ModernEcumenicalChur 6 months ago
compassion and religion are incompatible.
I wonder how many cats live at her house...
l337pwnage 7 months ago
what i love is that i have spent my entire life studying religious studies or comparative religion, much like karen, but one evolutionary biologist has made an entire culture of pseudo-intellectual bullies who misuse logic to fill their empty lives. read more, speak of what you know of, all else is wasted breath.
bmbenblog 8 months ago
i just thought deeply of what she said. i loved her way of speech
fridaynightmares 8 months ago
Augustine's hierarchical church didn't follow his prescription of charity and compassion. Even in Augustine's time the church had succumbed to the powers & principalities of the world. Can the Roman church recover from its 1500 yr. history of dominance, conquest, slaughter, inquistions, torture, molestation, subjugation of women & support of the status quo? Can it embrace the Sermon on the Mount & the compassionate Christ as its absolute foundation? It must end all its compliance with violence.
BrotherWoody1 8 months ago
If you belive in "god",then the god is only in your mind.that means you kan see or understand what you are doing or going to do.That nobody knows.Only you.that why I am saying god is in you.You no that you are doing wrong or right.there is a result today or tomorrow. for ex.hitler,saddam,milosovic,etc.you can see from your own experiences.There is no god in the church, mosque, temple or other such a place.that is only business.drama.some idiots think they are clever to cheat all the time.
Monalisa2183 9 months ago
when I got my childeren,i left my religion.I know we do not need any religion to live in this world.If you free from all stupid religions then the world become Paradise!
Monalisa2183 9 months ago
I get the message and I agree that it's present in most religions. However, most religions also carry negative conotations - the fact that "thy neighbour" is usually seen as "thy neighbour of same colour, creed and male sex". The fact that the message can be easily hijacked proves that religion needs to be stripped of a lot. We can still call it faith or religion, if we so choose. Also, why is it so hard to believe that a secular mind can be compassionate, without the instruction of a deity?
ThatBookGirl 9 months ago
I'm watching this again today after having seen it just the other day. It's brilliant.
weegiebam 10 months ago
Armstrong's next book, Church of Hitler, examines all of the good things that Hitler did for humanity.
CharmingLordSausage 10 months ago
I find it interesting in reading these quotes that the spirit of compassion so often fails to reveal itself. As a citizen of this planet on this journey through life I strive to accept my other passengers who each and every one is experiencing their own personal journey. If we focus too much on the stupid things that any one of us or our predecessors has done in the past the less we might be willing to try and do better in the future. Lets at least give ourselves the hope of a better world?
eduvisioncanada 10 months ago
i want to take in all her ideas but im worried not to give in fully. she is working with the alliance of civilizations, on the surface they seem to mean well but they are heavily funded by very shady people :(
50kT 11 months ago
@50kT the only thing you have to 'give in' to, is the idea of treating others as you would want to be treated. It's not a global conspiracy - it's natural and beneficial. Power brokers have wanted to benefit from this compassion, but the compassion always comes first - what is done with it is a whole different idea.
weegiebam 10 months ago
Sorry to hear that. What she says is so close to what the Baha'i Faith talks about! Well she has a cool surprise awaiting her when she does find out. The Faith is logical, mystical, and learning about it has really provided key pieces of the Big Puzzle for me. Like Progressive Revelation: the Prophets from God (there is only ONE God, do we agree?) have built upon the foundation of the former ones, like teachers do at school! Same stuff re: capacity of humans thru time. No competition! Check it
bohemiandeborah 11 months ago
irajkhodadoost I totally agree! I didn't say she should become a Baha'i. I think she would find interesting that many of the amazing things she stands so brilliantly for are spoken about in the Writings of the Baha'i Faith. By seeing the same things from numerous worthwhile perspectives I, myself, derive so much deeper an understanding! In fact, that is the first tenet of the Faith, independent investigation of truth. No clergy. You must take responsibility for your own spiritual growth.
bohemiandeborah 11 months ago
@bohemiandeborah Unfortunately, Karen Armstrong, in spite of all her knowledge and scholarship, has no knowledge of the Baha'i Faith and makes unfortunate and inaccurate remarks about the origins of the Baha'i Faith in her book, Battle for God. I hope that she comes across this post and finds it necessary to expand her scholarship on the path to true enlightenment.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
Karen Armstrong is the great ambassador for peace of our generation. "Religion should be a cause of love and affection; otherwise, we are better off without it." From the Baha'i Writings
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
how can some one not like this video. ???
0515524847 11 months ago
She loves the study of religion and she's found beauty in it. This is her excuse for the drivel that is "the case for god". The truth is she writes well when it's about religion, but then when she tries to protect these topics of her studies... she falls apart and starts walking the path of idiocy
blindside70 1 year ago
That woman is so full of shit it is wholly tragic.
frid9999 1 year ago
@frid9999 I have read many of Karen Armstrong's books, the History of God, the Battle for God, The Holy War, Buddhism, Islam, etc. and been very much enlightened by it. Am I missing something? I have no connection to this author and love to read different perspectives, but I am curious to know why you think that she "is full of ...." Respectfully, Iraj
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
@irajkhodadoost It is a fair request you make (asking for evidence is always a fair request). As an example of her harmful lunacy go to 5:00 to 5:30 of the video. There she claims that the ability feel empathy for others is what islam, christianity and judaism all claim brings us into the presence of god. It is a baseless claim. What empathy there is in the quran and hadith is far overshadowed by dogma such as submission, human slavery, suppressing female sexuality, the unchanging literal...
frid9999 11 months ago
p2 perfection of the quran, and scientific ignorance. When permission is given for men to rape their slave girls in the quran (4.24) where is the empathy? And she is not only lying but she is causing harm in doing so. She goes on to imply that the nonsense of the big cults only makes sense after one takes the leap of faith and "takes action" - she is basically making the case that one has to join the cult first and it will all make sense after. Wouldn't it be tragic if a young person actually...
frid9999 11 months ago
p3 - ...actually trusted this liar and did as was urged?
And where does she get off implying that empathy comes from religion? I don't need a person claiming to be speaking for an invisible god to tell me to feel for other people. My thoughtful reasoning, which is rooted in sciences such as sociology, medicine, evolution, psychology, education, human wellness, community-building and politics, is the basis for my empathy and fuck her for implying we need to join her in her fantasy world to...
frid9999 11 months ago
p4 ...see the benefits of empathy.
This woman lives in a dream world where religion is inherently good and facts, data and science are meaningless. Any bad in religion is simply an aberration, a hijacking of religion, she claims. A lie. But the source of evil in religion is right there for all to see in black and white in the torah, quran, hadith and bible. It is not a hijacking to see what is right there in front of us all and see religious people putting it into practice. It is a baseless...
frid9999 11 months ago
p5 ...and harmful lie to pretend the evil is not right there. Facts matter not to her, but they do in the real world.
And what is most disgusting of all, is the fact that she wraps her attempt to behead fact-based thoughtful reasoning in the cloak of compassion. Is it really compassionate to ignore the curious vacuum of evidence for any gods? Is it really compassionate to stay silent while muslims attempt to chase away jinns to make a sick person better? Is it really compassionate to stay...
frid9999 11 months ago
p6 ...to stay silent while muslims repeat delusional lies such as "islam is peace" or "women have equal rights in islam"? Is it really compassionate to stay silent when muslims claim the savageness of the hadith are examples we are all to emulate?
Is it really compassionate to invite others to share in one's own mental illness where reality is so thoroughly disrespected?
frid9999 11 months ago
@irajkhodadoost And just 1 more example that this woman and reality rarely coexist in the same room... Listen to 3:53 to 4:16, there she implies that orthodoxy is discouraged in islam as quarrelsome and sectarian. Is she fucking for real?!? Is there any mainstream religion in the world that is not more obsessed with submission to orthodoxy? ...with getting the rules right? Is orthodoxy not the source of all kinds of misery all over the islamic world?
Up is down to this kook. Black is white.
frid9999 11 months ago
@frid9999 I am neither Christian, Jew, or a Moslem. But it is my understanding that a lot of harsh laws (including stoning of women) comes from the Old Testament. Submission means accepting our fallibility and humbling ourselves before the Creator...All Abrahamic religions have passages that lead you to believe in the biased and worse treatment of women, etc. I have come across many honorable Jews, Christians, and Moslems who practice the essence of their religion and many who don't... More....
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
@frid9999 The mystic paths in all religions (Kabala's, Gnostics, Vedantas, etc.) have realized the futility of misreading the intent of Scriptures and want to practice the essence of it all: "What is to be done O Moslems? For I do not recognized myself; I am neither Christian, Jew, nor Moslem; I am not of the East or of the West... I am not of India, nor of China....My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless... I have put duality aside. I have seen that the two worlds are one...." Rumi
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
I don't think religions can come together as she said. If the Holy books are the "Absolute Truths" then there is no room for arguments or debates.
aquariumgoldfish 1 year ago
@aquariumgoldfish Religious truth, my friend, is relative and not absolute. As man advances, new religious truths suitable to our time are manifested to guide man forward. However, the essential truths (oneness of God, compassion, equity, love, harmony, unity, justice, etc.) remain the eternal truths.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
Western system will collapse.It is the fact and the truth.Western values create an idea which is that we should work,fight for only this world.If you want to believe a religion no matter if you want relax make sex or believe a god is same meaning in their thinking.Western always need enemy because need slaves and rival should be move down or they upgrade and a strong rival not acceptable for their lookings.They dont interest and dont believe afterlife and judgement day or so how can kill others.
yigitinebolulu 1 year ago
@yigitinebolulu The world is moving, slowly but surely - because of faster and better means of communication including the internet, toward democracy, harmony, and unity. Whether you are from the East or from the West, we are all children of the same God, believe in the same essential truths, and want peace and compassion on earth for all God's children. We need to fight against superstitions, dogmas, prejudices, greed, and injustice first and foremost in our own selves. God bless you.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
@irajkhodadoost
I think about my old writing.Why I said west really why I said west.This is my EGO.I said west because I am from Turkey and my ego think that Turkey is the center of the earth so Usa is the west according to us.West and east is meaningless in spheric world.I dont have hope about we all find peace in this planet but I want deeply.God bless you,too.
yigitinebolulu 11 months ago
@yigitinebolulu I love Istanbul and Rumi who says, "What is to be done O Moslems? For I do not recognize myself. I am neither Christian, or Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem. I am not from the East or of the West.... I am not of nature's mint, nor of circling heavens. I am not of India, nor of China....My place is the placeless, my trace is the traceless. It is neither body or soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved. I have put duality aside. I have seen that the two worlds are one....PEACE!
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
She is definitely an amazingly brilliant mind! Thank you, Karen.
apenaswilson 1 year ago
Comment removed
ITSthe1TonyFernando 1 year ago
wow, it is amazing how so many posters completely missed the point she was making about compassion and religion.
macwoof 1 year ago 13
Its been more than 2000 years, religion never worked.. this is smooth attempt to religion, but its not going to work!!! We have enough sweet takers in churches, i think its wise to keep them in church..
ayyawark 1 year ago
@ayyawark Fanatical religiosity results in crimes of Crusades, Inquisition, or the current fanaticism of the likes of Al-Qaida and Ben Laden. Aggressive atheism results in the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin who together slaughtered more than 100 million people in the 20th century alone. But compassionate religiosity produces the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Dali Lama. What works and what does not depends on our perspective. Thanks for listening.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
@irajkhodadoost You have to check your records before making claims, Hitler wasn't atheist...
ayyawark 9 months ago
@ayyawark
Obviously, like most Germans, Hitler came from a Christian backgrounds, but he should have been as much Christian as Mulla Omar, Bin Laden, and Saddam Hossein were Moslems... I have also met many most loving and compassionate atheists. I think the word is inhuman or beasts for such people.
irajkhodadoost 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey Karen buy a new face.. Bitch this woman I mean creature is trying to make a religous smoothie fuck her!
ponchatoula420 1 year ago
Why did she win this prize?
drandersw 1 year ago
Very interesting interview that talks about a universal humaniy.
laurasay1 1 year ago
She is remarkably articulate. The religion she describes is wonderful. But it's not being practiced by any of the three monotheistic faiths. Even though I am in complete opposition to religion of any sort, I find her an intelligent and fascinating woman.
Kaalec 1 year ago
@Kaalec Have you looked into the Baha'i Faith. It teaches that as there is one God, there is also one humanity, and all religions are chapters of the same book which have appeared through time based on the needs of the time. While basic truths are the same, the social laws have to change based on man's progress. Religion should be investigated independently; science and religion must be in harmony; and priesthood must be abolished.... and then," there will be peace on earth as it is in heaven".
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
Evokes similar emotions as when Kissinger received the Nobel peace prize. Except that that was a criminal outrage and this is a cretinous one.
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk This is pontification by someone who spent a considerable amount of her life buying into a way of thinking which she found empty and useless at the end, and now seeks to try to rescue those wasted years by sewing them into a cloak made up of disparate modes which she proudly wears. She is actually very selfish. Her work is the Emperor's New Clothes defined. You cannot ask people to simultaneously embrace and reject their religion--that IS what she's saying.
jamesharrel 1 year ago
@jamesharrel I think there is an element of truth in what you say - although she has evolved through years with her writing as well.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
The content of her presentation may be laudable, but her delivery is terrible. Half the presentation is filled with "um" and "uh", then peppered with big words that are completely gratuitous. Not to keen on seeing her preach again.
jc1762 1 year ago
OM NAMAH SHIVAYA to you Karen Armstrong
heraldo25 1 year ago
everything she said is in fact written in details in the Holy Quran .. there is no Iliad or Homer tho in the Holy Quran but there are similer ones such as Joseph story or David and Goliath and many more .she is a great great lady i love ideas .
sarshar1 2 years ago 12
@sarshar1 oh but there is .. where the woman is torn in pieces while breast feeding her child and the no goats would lock horns for her....
debgbls323 1 year ago
@sarshar1 You obviously don't love punctuation.
jordaniac89 5 months ago
Comment removed
sokolel 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sarshar1
I read the Quran 2 times, and its crap.
Clearly this 250 pages (a4 format) book is from the mind of Muhammed, who dictated it in 23 years, quite a lot a time to write a novel !!
sokolel 2 weeks ago
To broaden the aspects of this interview for even more understanding, please go to scribd online and read
Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance Cumby.
hannahnikol 2 years ago
Youtube viewers who are arguing about doctrines: watch this. Maybe the Charter will help others see the Buddha nature in all.
statemindful 2 years ago
..
The Christian texts were edited by the Romans for consolidation of power n allegiance of its followers, but that was a primitive society..
Its too late to ask for the holytexts to be cleaned up because its too ingrained in society.
BUT if a new of ALLEGIANCE PLEDGE could be compulsorily taught in ALL public schools about compassion kindness for one another above ALL ELSE, above ALL religions..
..only then can HARMONY reign above THEISTIC EGOTISM..
uuduu7 2 years ago
Geez.! Where did we get off into conversion and how many of you have read the Baha'i Writings? Hmmm...didn't think so... well, I think you'd be surprised.
If you were happy to learn of Karen Armstrong you should seriously check them out. NOT to become a Baha'i but to see the history of these ideas, the larger picture of fitting them in place and the progress already made toward these goals. But reinventing the wheel has much merit too. Have at it! All work along these lines is good work. Peace.
bohemiandeborah 2 years ago
Thank goodness for utube, I would not have the chance to know there is such a person as Karen Armstrong if not for it..
Frankly, the practice of fostering harmony between such egomanical religions seems immpossible given the immovable holybooks they are based upon..
I am uncertain if the harmony will last without the texts recited daily by the followers being edited..
uuduu7 2 years ago 3
She has great ideas. But why re-invent the wheel? Someone needs to tell her about the Baha'i Faith. All that she wishes for is already happening. It is embodied in the spiritual and social teachings. And Baha'i has been called the only religion that does not deny any of the others because it offers a way to see the progression of the world's great religions as one ongoing story. Once you see that perspective it just makes so much sense.......and hating is just stupid. Peace.
bohemiandeborah 2 years ago
@bohemiandeborah: most people probably don't want conversion. I think it's a very practical standpoint to try to increase the amount of interdialogue and compassion among different religions.
Aukikco 2 years ago
@bohemiandeborah According to Abdu'l-Baha, someone may call himself a Baha'i for 50 years but does not exhibit the necessary attributes and reverse is also true. It takes a lot of good people from all different persuasions to bring about peace and unity on earth. Karen Armstrong is one of those voices and is respected in different parts of the globe because of her genuine compassion for harmony and interfaith dialogue. Thanks for listening.
irajkhodadoost 11 months ago
i was lied toooo
snapywrist 2 years ago
"Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you."
-> This does not take into account ignorance and self destructive choice brought about by misunderstanding.
'what you put out is what you get back' is as I presently understand the actual reflective nature of interaction between beings expressed in physical reality.
neekos72 2 years ago
I think that the doctor's oath, "Do no harm", is more effective and direct.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
When you take away the miraculuos nature of the Bible, you don't leave much of anything. People believe in miracles because they do not understand. The Bible propagates that ignorance and even seems to make people authoritative on such matters without any real understanding at all. They seem to as you do, think that reality is what you want it to be. Reality is, nothing more. You think creation is all good or not. It would be a direct reflection of the nature of any creator.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Then I must be an anomaly because I both believe and understand. Truth is not threatened by reality and so neither is my belief in God threatened by reality. The 2 are one and the same.
gambleor 2 years ago
How can you call God and reality one and the same. You just proved how delusional you are. You've never seen evidence of a god, but you claim it to be true. I say Zeus is the true God, there are statues of Zeus, we know what he looks like. They must have been true. You have no such evidence of the ideas of Yahweh, you don't even know what it would look like. And Zeus came first, your idea of God is just copying the old idea of Zeus.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Now we have science. A single scientist is responsible for increasing crop yields which feed over a billion people in the world today. That's the power of truth. He died this year at the age of 95, his name was Norman Borlaug. He will never be celebrated the way the idea of Jesus is. Jesus is a non-verified myth. Norman Borlaug is a scientist. That's why he won't be celebrated the way he should be.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Even if he was a Mason before he became a Witness. The piont that I am making is, He clearly mantained his Mason heritage even up until his death. Infact he even incorperated Mason teaching into the Society. Which can be clearly seen from my video. If a JW can't be a member of the YMCA why should their founder be a Mason?
The video remains.
pretoshohmoofc 2 years ago
This is awesome!! True!!! True!!!
NashvilleJermz 2 years ago
Hopefully, the perception that I have where material things are not important, a view also shared by many religious will become more pertinent as necessities and even luxury is provided for. We will be able to channel our competive energy in a more positive way.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
There's an easier way to ease the problem of material importance. We could rejoice in the joy of one another's successes and mourn one another's losses. We should, at some point, realize that we need to stop being a community of strangers completely identifying the world with ourselves and take on the spirit of neighborly love where we can identify ourselves by the world.
gambleor 2 years ago
Humanity can be a beautiful thing even more so in the next 1000 years but only if we continue our upward trend away from religion. The thought of heaven is keeping us mired in a real hell. We will end it, it is only a matter of time until religion is sent to the outward fringes like astrology.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I get it, she sees beauty as she travels the world. She ignores the downside of these aged superstitions and can't imagine what the world could be without religion. Imagine if Michaelangelo had painted something beautiful that he actually believed in instead of being coherced into such BS. Imagine if science had ruled instead of religion. We would probably be travelling to nearby stars by now instead of pondering going to Mars. Our lifespans would probably be tenfold and diseases eradicated.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
That's a load of crap. You have no idea what went into developing the methodology of science. If we had a 'its a wonderful life' episode involving the complete absence of religion, I think you would be quite surprised over the result.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I believe that science is the best tool we have to understand our universe. It's results are empirically verified, it's strange that I should learn morality without dogma, and that has made me relaize that life is better with it than without it. Simple logic is all that is required when the evidence is gathered. My morality stems from science. In many circumstances my lack of belief in God is what leads to altruism.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"I believe that science is the best tool we have to understand our universe."
So do we.
gambleor 2 years ago
How does your morality stem from science?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Morality doesn't stem from science, science only studies it. Morality stems from the basic human need to communicate and belong to a greater community. Co-operation is what made our species successful. From the scientific point of view, morality gives species an advantage in that immoral species shoot thelselves in the foot, and co-operative or mainly moral species dominate. Even Piranha have a kind of morality, they won't eat their own.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
If you're going to suggest that if something like the Catholic church didn't exist, we would have been on the moon 1500 years ago, or that this YT message would be coming from Alpha Centauri if it wasn't for them, you deserve to be openly mocked.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
It's as simple as choice A, live morally and spread morality, which allows us to coexist and enjoy our lives or choice B, live immorally and expect rejection,hatred, and immorality in return. Simple choice.
As for the accomplishments of mankind, witchhunts and denial of truth for a prolonged period of time greatly stifled science, I should not be openly mocked for expressing such an opinion as we live in a society which science is prevailing over superstition and we are progressing greatly.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Right, but this is true even when we're talking about secular traditions. Those in power always prefer to maintain that which keeps their position superior to those around them. It's not religion that is the problem, it's power. This is the idea behind Christianity - he who humbles himself will be exalted and he who exalts himself will be humbled.
gambleor 2 years ago
That happens anyway. Christianity or not, every person reacts this way. No-one appreciates arrogance, but everyone appreciates people trying to help them.The bizarre part for me is that I think we probably agree on a lot more than you realize, I just see no need to invoke the supernatural. I can try to put myself in someone else's shoes. No magic required. I can't understand why society doesn't have meetings like those in church,but without the supernatural. Religion alienates me based on logic.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Humans, whether they are religious or not, most often share morality to an extent. I don't like how religion tries to control people. Ie. Their sex life. When I say, anything goes as long as everyone is comfortable and happy. Same goes for other rules, why ban condom use as the Catholic church does? It causes great harm.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I think that the Catholic position might be well misunderstood by a great deal of people who are involved in the issue. In essence, I believe that the Church's rejection of condom use has less to do with the stigma of sin attached to the act of sex in the western faiths than it does about the much safer alternative of abstinence. Abstinence is really the best policy when trying to stunt the spread of STD's.
gambleor 2 years ago
Abstinence is great, if you are disciplined enough to maintain it. But condoms are highly effective in preventing STDs. In Catholics, the frequency of anal and oral sex has increased and STDs are still spread, the dogmatic stigmatism of sex and safe sex by religion is an evil dogma that is perpetrated by the church. The pope should only be in control of his own sex life, and the fact that people believe that the stooge knows what's good for them is an abuse of power.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The point is that the message taken is not the one given. The people in Africa are encouraged toward abstinence not unprotected sex. People effectively quote the Church as saying condoms are the problem, but really they're saying that telling people that they can have "safe sex" with the use of a condom is a myth. There is still danger even with the use of condoms
gambleor 2 years ago
Indeed, one of the contentions that the catholic church has is that they want 'safe sex' to be called 'safer sex'.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Condoms are banned by the Catholic church, people are still going to have sex. Ergo, disease and unplanned parenthood are going to occur. Medievel beliefs in sex are what cause priests to bugger little boys. Science shows that if you coop up a male without sex, eventually he will take it. The "danger" with the use of condoms in minute when used properly. Statistics prove that people who do not have dogma about condoms are safer, with less teen pregnancy.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The Catholic Church bans premarital sex too because it is sex performed outside the bounds of sanctified union. It also bans unplanned pregnancies because people are supposed to be responsible for their actions. There's no excuse for understanding their ban on condoms and adhering to it when they are dismissing all these other bans. If they want to have sex, they can use condoms since the act itself is a sin unless it is intended for pregnancy.
gambleor 2 years ago
Does the pope tell people not to have sex? That church would end real quick-like. He does tell them not to use condoms. I never had sex until I was 25, I never got married, I have a child, who we raise in a secure and safe home. Your stereotyping of people is your weakness. You think, because you go to church, that only church goers know how to think and act with intelligence. This is poor, miscalculated judgement on your part. You are showing your prejudice more and more.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
As far as I know the Catholic Chruch is anti-premarital sex and anti-sex-for-fun. I'm not Catholic, I'm just saying that this is what Catholics are putting out there. There is a ban on those things that I stated before from the Catholic Church. Also, I'm not saying that one cannot raise a child in a secure and safe home, just that if you are a Catholic, part of that is being married. I'm sure that you have done a very good job with your child so far and will continue to do so.
gambleor 2 years ago
No, I think you think that only atheists know how to think and act intelligently, because right now you can't comprehend why someone would believe in god other than emotional weakness, indoctrination, ignorance of science + history, or because of a lack of skepticism and rational thinking. I think it's the other way around.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
In other words, if you're going to commit the much greater sin of having extra-marital sex, then why even bother follow some condom rule that not even all Catholics follow to begin with?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I'm saying that the whole "they ban condoms" excuse doesn't work in this case because if they are not using condoms for devotional purposes, then surely they would also devote themselves to the other precepts of Catholic teaching with bans extra marital sex.
gambleor 2 years ago
What is wrong with extramarital sex? What gives the church liscense to say that only they can sanctify who fucks who? Again, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. Why the diversity of opinion? I am an individual, I know what is good for me more than the Church or anyone else does. When I have sex with my common-law wife, using a condom, the church says I am committing an act which is evil. They can go fuck themselves. It is control and imposition of their beliefs which makes it wrong.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Actually, historically sexual limitation made a great deal of sense, but that's besides the point. I think that your language defines precisely what the Church is against, the tendency for one to minimalize an otherwise beautiful act and degrade it to simply "fucking." Aside from that, the emotional exchange between partners and their feeling of self worth is severely compromised by this act especially if the participant is later rejected.
gambleor 2 years ago
"When I have sex with my common-law wife, using a condom, the church says I am committing an act which is evil." A sin and an act of evil are not the same thing. While evil is always a sin, sin is not alway an act of evil.
gambleor 2 years ago
Sin is not evil... WTF!!?! You're crazy. That's the whole premise of the Bible. Do what this crazy shot says or burn in hell.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
No it isn't. Sin is an archery term meaning "missed the mark." Even a virtuous deed done with the wrong intentions can be a sin.
gambleor 2 years ago
The bible does not tell us "do what this book says or burn in hell"... who's been telling you these things?
gambleor 2 years ago
"Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22, quoting Jesus)
"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:29, quoting Jesus; see parallel passage in Mark 9:44, which adds, "where the fire never goes out.")
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:40-42, quoting Jesus)
"Throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:30)
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"Then he [the King] will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:41)
"The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." (James 3:6)
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Do you read the Bible? Or do you just pretend that everything about it is good, because that's what you were told.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
What sin have I committed. What harm have I done, what immorality have I committed by having sex out of wedlock? My morality again exceeds scripture on marriage as far as I am concerned.
Again, I wonder if the religious ever read the Bible.
watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
stevenweir76 2 years ago
A common problem experienced by many. We tend to measure by our own means only. The world is larger than us and we need to acknowledge that. Let's be stoics about this and view the larger picture. What might be good for you is not good for others and vice versa.
gambleor 2 years ago
Acknowledge a basic fact, as a child I marveled at the size of the universe. I have to be stoic regardless, because there are always going to be people who can be led on a leash by other people who want to rule the world. Being stoic means realizing you are going to die, and still not being afraid, not giving in to false promises of heaven or anything which is too good to be true. Just because you really, really want it, doesn't make it so.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Africa is ravaged by the stigmatism of condoms by the Catholic Church and the lies told by it's members.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
What is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose. Rules imposed which bear no effect on morality but are perceived as such. Ie. Perception of homosexuality, can't be resolved in church because of dogma/doctrine.
As for power, everybody wants that, but what people don't often realize is just how much they have. I think ultimately, institutions will become obsolete as technology progresses to the extent where people can explore their own lives and give their own meaning to it.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
We take no issue to homosexual lifestyle. There is no church doctrine against homosexuality.
gambleor 2 years ago
Do you read the Bible? Read it, then you won't believe it anymore.
The Bible wrongly condemns homosexuality.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I've read the bible from cover to cover many times over. The bible is not doctrine though, it is scripture. Doctrine emerges from the interpretation of scripture tempered by the oral tradition. There is no doctrinal rejection of homosexuals.
gambleor 2 years ago
So how exactly do interpret that scripture to mean that God allows homosexuality. Because this is a big problem in the Bible belt, if you can solve it, you should be speaking to those people.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The bible belt does not adhere to doctrine. It is primarily dominated by people who think that God is out to get them because He got mad at Adam for eating the fruit that He told him not to eat. There is no reasoning with such people.
gambleor 2 years ago
Yes, they adhere to scripture. Doctrine is the different interpretations by different churches. You lose yourself in this circular somantic bullshit don't you? You figure that your precious Holy Book is the be all and end all of everything. 30000 factions, 30000 doctrines, you can't speak for them all and this is their doctrine. Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people "think" like them, it enables evil. You suffer the same delusion of consensus.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people 'think' like them, it enables evil."
If you were to cheer for some soccer team at some game, would you be enabling the soccer hooligans who are fighting in the parking lot afterwards? Sould you be accused of promoting trouble just because you support the same team as the hooligans?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
The hooligans as you call them, are the crowd.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"Your doctrine enables their doctrine because when people see how many people 'think' like them, it enables evil."
And Einstein's theories of relativity enable us to make bombs that can destroy whole cites with the push of a button, does that mean we should abandon exploration in that branch of science?
gambleor 2 years ago
No, but science doesn't claim to be infallible, and it doesn't claim to be absolute, and it doesn;t claim that everyone should live a certain way. Science may create the atomic bomb, but it's going to be some religious wingnut, who, for the glory of God, blows us all up to see the second coming of someone who probably wasn't here in the first place.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
If science describes true things, they can not be fallible. I don't see how you don't see the correlation. On the one hand religion can be used improperly and we should get rid of it. On the other hand science can be used improperly but we must preserve it.... I think you're showing bias here.
gambleor 2 years ago
No, science is never called infallible, or absolute. It is always permeable and malleable. The correlation you fail to make is that science is our best working knowledge, if you come up with a better, more likely explanation, the old science is abandoned, no dogmatism, evn scientists who create a theory that is proven false in time, will study the new science with zest and vigor. Religion just keeps denying. Denial is not healthy, for an individual psyche, or a collective one.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"Religion just keeps denying"
You've never delved much into theology have you? If religion just keeps on denying, why does academic debate in theology exist?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
The debate between academics and theologians has gone from how theology works, to "is theology valuable", whether true or not. The problem that many academics have, even atheist academics is whether humanity can handle not having religion, the answer is no. But religion could evolve into something more profound and more meaningful if it abandons dogma and the necessity of a deity. The universe is magnificent, whether created by God or not. But to claim knowledge of God is delusion or deception.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The reason I find the Abrahamic religions incredibly preosterous isn't the fact that what it says false. It the fact that if it were true, the Abrahamic God would be a being that I would fight against, even if hopelessly. I find the ideas contained in the texts, which preach intolerance and offer up sacrifices and punishments, rewards for war and hatred, completely repulsive. This is a tiny little angry God. When I think to myself, in those shoes, I could've done better, I know it's wrong.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I don't think you know the Abrahamic God all that well from this statement.
gambleor 2 years ago
I don't think anyone has ever known or even met the Abrahamic God. When people say they have they should be put in the loony bin and told to stop talking to themselves. I have shown you repeated passages that speak of things in the Bible which you deny. You are in denial, that's okay. It's the first step.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I believe that it's possible to know a character in a story well even if they don't exist. Since you believe that the Abrahamic God in that sense, you should at least know that He can be known in some sense from that perspective.
gambleor 2 years ago
He can be known in the same sense we know fairies, unicorns, leprecauns, and dragons. With our imagination, and no-one's idea is exactly the same. It is silly to allow a figment of your imagination to run your life. The stories are immoral in many cases, not something to teach how to be kind, but how to be intolerant.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Have you ever seen Muslim creationism or Bible belt creationism. In Islam, it's on the rise. Even you will find that level of crazy intolerable, get used to it. You endorse it.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
We endorse Muslim and/or Bible belt creationism as much as the scientific community endorses nuclear warfare.
gambleor 2 years ago
So how do you believe the universe started?
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The Big Bang. At least that's the best explanation so far.
gambleor 2 years ago
Although a misnomer, the big bang is the best theory we have going, although M-Theory is a more in depth mathematical analysis, branched off of quantum physics. So, believing the universe started this way, what makes you defend God and religion which disagree with this explanation for the universe?
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Religions actually don't disagree, they simply don't comment on it. They make a theological connection between mankind and God and a philosophical explanation of what the ultimate source of human failure is, but that's about it. The reason why we in the Orthodox Church and I'm sure those in the modern Roman Catholic Church fight biblical literalism is for this very reason. The literalists are reducing philosophical comentaries to literal claims which causes the narratives to lose their meaning.
gambleor 2 years ago
Why don't religions comment on the very creation of the universe? Isn't that important to religious people? It is not a question, it is "THE" question for me. As for the narratives, using a 2000 year old book in which much does not apply or needs a convoluted translation to make sense should be updated with current knowledge and relevant anecdotes, don't you think? I can't relate to things that are in the Bible, like ritual sacrifice, incest and war. All are accepted in these stories.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
It's important to all people now, but at the time that the creation narratives' writing there would have been a far greater concern in how one could reduce the chances of tribal failure. This is why the narratives point out that the "fall" was actually a fall out of mankind's loving nature into one of selfishness and egoism. The greatest downfall of man is to seek personal benefit at the expense of his fellow human beings - that is really what the narratives are about.
gambleor 2 years ago
The narratives select certain tribes to benefit, and others to be an example, destroyed, with their virgin girls taken for forced slavery and babies bashed on rocks. It may have worked, but it was and is a testament to the flaws of humankind and an homage to cruelty and barbarism.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I'm confused, I don't remember slavery, babies being bashed on rocks, etc. ever showing up in the creation narratives. Could you please provide where you found these things?
gambleor 2 years ago
In the Bible is where you find endorsement of slavery and babies bashed on rocks. Not in the creation stories, in the other morality stories. But I forgot, you are one of those who pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infalliable truths and which are metaphorical.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
We have to understand the Bible properly. These stories may be compiled together, but that doesn't mean that they flow as though they are different parts to one large story. Each story is different in writer and intent and should be dealt with as a story standing alone prior to it's being understood in the context of the other stories.
gambleor 2 years ago
It's time to tell a different story. One where humanity ends war. Ends poverty. Explores farther than they ever have before into reliaty. Accepts their place in the universe and tries in ernest to seek truth rather than giving in to political and religious authority.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
There is such a story - the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It's here that ignorance, hate, greed, lust for power, and desperation met against the Lord and the Lord did not reciprocate with these evils but with love and forgiveness.
gambleor 2 years ago
Betrayal and resurrection. Heard that story before, and it came before Jesus. This is what primitive minds dreamt up. These people lived with death and faced it regularly. The superstitions were all they had to ward off evil spirits and sacrifice was the only tool they had to increase their crop yields. If you don't believe this, you haven't read much about history, of humanity or theology.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Also, the Roman Catholic church chooses what is literal and what isn't. Given the church's position which causes great harm in Africa by banning condom use, they are very literal. Having sex for pleasure is natural. Over 500 well documented species do it. If you don't want to have sex for pleasure, fine. Don't tell people it is evil to do so. It isn't.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The Church (prior to schizm) chose the meanings of all the scripture prior to canonizing any of it. If any scripture deviates from those interpretations given at the time of canonization and is used to formulate doctrine upon it's new interpretation, the same is an act of heresy.
gambleor 2 years ago
How many go through seminary and actually still believe it? Canonizing is only big brother deciding what should be diseminated amongst the common folk. You get the desired effect of religion, a secret society prentending to know something that no-one else does, abusing others and spreading confusion for it's own gain. The idea of God is metaphorical, the bible is metaphorical, except what people decided wasn't metaphorical 2000 years ago. What a stupid thing for people to follow.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
"Canonizing is only big brother deciding what should be diseminated amongst the common folk."
-Hardly the case. One can interpret the scriptures as one pleases but cannot thereafter consider himself in communion with the communal intent of those very texts. I think you're complicating the matter further than it should be
gambleor 2 years ago
So they had a vote amongst the entire community of Christianity. I think that's a great idea, you should do it again and rewrite the Bible again. That first rough draft was a real stinker.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
no one rewrote the Bible. You're just having a hard time understanding that there are more dimensions to the book you so vehemently argue against
gambleor 2 years ago
There's more dimensions to every story. The Bible is a fractured gathering of stories. A compilation of myths in the style of allegory that was common of the time.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I interpret the scriptures as they are. You deny things like the creation stories were never taken literally. Why all the hooplah during Darwin