http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html
The link is from the English Telegraph Sunday 4.50 pm our time.
It tells Britain is fighting AGAINST the rights of two women to wear the Christian cross at work.
Why.
I a nonbeliever can not believe this, we see other faiths openly wearing what they wish.
We see Christmas decorations changed to make it a neutral appearance.
I do not wish to introduce anti any one or faith diatribes.
As a nonbeliever think no harm is done to me by such open show of faith, why would any one think so.
One point, if health and safety is involved even wedding rings should be removed or safely covered.
Why would a Government in the western world take this stand?

name names belly
these things are raised..to collect numbers
and many other things..[like redirect news]

its not new
thus isnt news

of course the issue is bullshhhhh
but still those taking the air in the debait
appriciate..the extra publicity

its a numbers thing for them
see haters...numericly..are less than 13%..of the readership

so for every 100 who read this
13 will think that is just fine

one in 100 will take it further
[too far]..see you give publicity
re hassling re the cross..

unheard is the other bad fruits from bad law

I was shocked too, Belly, so I checked the article:

With much relief I found that it is not a case of government forbidding people to wear a cross, nor does it involve the public service, but only that government refuses to intervene when private employers forbid their employees to wear one.

Shame on those employers, also they are fools because they will lose their best and most dedicated and honest workers, but it is their right: so long as working conditions are mutually and freely agreed in advance, they may just as well require their employees to come to work topless.

While the Cross has been widely used over the past few thousand years as a symbol of Christianity, the cross has a history stretching further back than the death of Jesus on a cross.

There is much archeological evidence of people using the Cross as a symbol in ancient times, for example -its four arms are interpreted as the four elements, the four directions of the compass, or the four parts of man , in various cultures and traditions.

Thus, in actual fact, Christians cannot call the symbol of the cross their very own.

Therefore, I fail to see why the British Government should ban people from wearing it at work for 'religious' reasons etc, unless it is a safety issue.

The Cross is an ancient pagan symbol that is probably a part of all of our history, in one way or another.

Suseonline,

Yes, all of that is true...but in our contemporary world if you meet someone wearing a crucifix, you don't think to yourself 'now here's a person wearing an ancient pagan symbol' - of course you connect the symbol with with its contemporary symbolism of Christianity and,therefore, presume that the person taking the trouble to adorn themselves with it is of Christian faith.

Dear Suseonline,

"Therefore, I fail to see why the British Government should ban people from wearing it at work for 'religious' reasons etc, unless it is a safety issue."

The British, or any other government, should not ban people from wearing any symbol whatsoever, so the history of the cross is simply irrelevant.

(I should add here that a government has no right to ban people from wearing whatever they want EVEN if it is a safety issue, but that would be the subject of another discussion)

However, if you read the original article that Belly presented, the British government DOES NOT ban people from wearing a cross, thus it is a storm in a tea-cup.

Don't you get it Belly.Divide and conquer.Set Christians against Muslims,Jews and aethiests, while the likes of the Rothschilds screw us with debt.

They already own Greece and Italy.Who is next?

It is a valid point about the pagan origins of the cross - I wonder why christians want to wear it...
There are some valid safety issues as well - you wouldn't want to be strangled by machinery by a neckchain getting caught up.
People who work in public service need to be accessible to everyone - a huge ostentatious cross would be a little offputting in a healthcare setting such as a family planning clinic. These issues need to be sorted out reasonably but a little sensible guidance would help more than a blanket ban.

I came to this thread after reading comments on Muslim women wearing face veils. There are parallels in these 2 issues. The question is 'Does the item actually prevent the person from doing a proper job?'

You can't really argue that either a face veil or a symbolic crucifix make any difference to a person's ability. There is one essential difference however - some people (like me) have to cover their face at times. I have an allergic reaction to perfume in the air and often find I have to breathe through a filter in public places like meetings, council offices and on public transport. (I've also had a big problem when I was being held in a police cell and then photographed. Having no choice but to breathe perfume there left me ill for about a month.)

There are also situations where people with disfigurements cover their face to avoid distress. This actually improves communication effectiveness. We should all be standing together against ridiculous state interference in matters like these.

OUG name names? read the link bloke.
Arjay! not sure anything you and I talk about can be civil.
Mate this may well be a CONSPIRACY! but tip the bucket over and look under it.
Why would a part of the world that is Christian, want this?
Suseonline I can not buy the pagan thing,as you know all religion has those roots.
I think a look at the link is called for,It seems this fight in the Human rights court, is seeing governments take a stand,against the cross.
Is the intention to remove all religious links at work, what next.
As a nonbeliever how am I harmed by open support for any belief.
I truly, think, some true effort at planning our [humanity's] future is underway.
I think some group/power/ maybe the UN, is trying to breed, and it would only take 50 years, a new humanity.
Taking first the things that hold us together.
I am on record and think,religion is too controlling and basically a fraud.
But it is our fraud and if we are to give up simple freedoms then we are less for it.

I can't see a problem with Christians being nailed to a cross at their work place. Seriously, as a non believer wearing a cross falls into the same category as smiley faces and scout badges. Once a year I buy a Legacy badge and wear it at work. At Xmas my partner does the Christian thing and wears reindeer antlers (which flash on and off) tee shirts, funny hats, and little Santa's etc. Come this Friday she is doing more of the Christian stuff at work, wearing a bright green felt hat and badges,a regular St Patrick.
We should not be so worried about cross wearing but far more concerned about the dangerous distorted nonsense so called Christians and others peddle in society. The power they exert over people. The criminality of religion.

I apologize in advance that I have nothing to add to the discussion on crucifixes at work, except to point out once again that the government's action is a valid approach to addressing a weakness in the law, not an attack on Christianity.

But I was intrigued by this throwaway line, offered up by farfromtheland.

>>I've also had a big problem when I was being held in a police cell and then photographed. Having no choice but to breathe perfume there left me ill for about a month<<

Where could these highly-perfumed cells be, I wondered. Newtown, perhaps, or Paddington? Or could it be that our boys in blue these days smother themselves in Bulgari for Men, filling the lock-up with the subtle aromas of juniper berries, sandalwood, cedar and galanga?

It's like overhearing that odd sentence of the bus, that you spend the rest of the day pondering...

paul raises a good point
imagine not allowing a pink ribbon

these items of dress..is a choice
what now govt can order us what we can or cannot wear?

sure alp/liberal basdges is ok
but heck anyother....thats against the 2 party line

oh and pericules wonder no more
go talk to some of them female [police men sometime]

it must be that so much they are required to do stinks really bad
they cover it over with perfume[as you do when you cant go and wash the scum of life away]

and if they tackle ya
the stink clings on..[i can still smell it on one tshirt]
contanimated on a rainy day[it seems water fixes it into the material]

not being able to breath that stinky perfume
is the main reason i resumed smoking

how do you non smokers
stand the stink?

ability to smell [in public]
is an over rated gift

The courts have apparently upheld the right of the
employers of these two women - who were told they
were not to wear crosses to work because according
to the law - wearing crosses is not a requirement of
their religion. The women are fighting this ban as
a "human rights" issue. It will be interesting to
see how far they get.

The photo of one of the women - published online -
shows her wearing a tiny cross - and seeing as the
woman is a nurse - what possible harm - can it do
to wear this small trinket? It may even bring some
comfort to some people in her line of work. The other
woman - works for an airline - and again - what's
the harm? Neither women's safety is at risk, nor that
of the people they serve.

There is speculation that this is a political decision
on behalf of the current government - who is
having problems with the Catholic Church about same-sex
marriage legislation in the UK. So who knows what's
driving this stand - and where it will all end up.
As another poster pointed out - it does seem a bit like
a storm in a teacup.

As some know, it was once my job to protect the rights of workers at work.
Let us never forget that movement,the union one, had very brave and needed birth.
Safety? well every thing from hair nets to gloves even high visibility clothing are ok.
Such crosses can be worn and with safety.
During Work choices I handed out caps, with the southern cross on them.
I put stickers on lunch room tables and blokes put them on lunch boxes and the walls.
Work choices forbid them on walls and hats.
And a once proud Australian owned Construction giant, barred the blokes wearing the southern cross hats!
Paul and others are being simplistic here.
I suspect some will, like me be offended that stickers and hats got that treatment.
But it is the heart of this issue that concerns me!
What harm can being a Christian do to the employer?
Are the employers of another faith.
Why is a government involved in other than protecting the rights of freedom of religion.
That is a basic in western country's.
Show me a valid reason for this action.
What next?

Christian cross come defend it runner and all those others.
It is not the usual for me but just what is so very wrong about showing your faith, any faith.

"Christian cross come defend it runner and all those others."

I would indeed defend it with tooth and nail if government ever threatened our freedom to wear crosses, but at this stage I would have to be Don Quixote to try and defend something that is not under attack: please read the article again, Belly.

What about christian fundamentalist who want to wear a crown of thorns to work and those that wish to scourge each other during tea breaks, wear a hair shirt for penance. Display pictures of the holy father and all the saints on their desk, the possibilities are endless.
Its my firm belief any employer with 3 or more employees should be made provide the following: Lord's house, abbey, basilica, bethel, cathedral, chancel, chantry, chapel, fold, house of God, house of prayer, house of worship, mission, mosque, oratory,sacellum, sanctuary, shrine, synagogue, tabernacle and temple, hope I haven't missed anyone out. And for the non believers a tea room.

Dear Paul,

We had one guy who came to work carrying a wooden cross.
He would lean it up against the back fence - near the back
door of the building. Because he chose not to bring it into
the building or prop it up against his work desk - nobody
objected. (Like leaving his bicycle outside - it was fair
enough). We later found out that he did this as a practice -
for the Passion Play he was in - in the coming Easter break.

Anyway, that's by the bye. In this particular case under
discussion of the two women and their little crosses -
this is a slightly different matter. They did not select
to wear a crown of thorns, of dress inappropriately for
work. They simple decided to wear a piece of commonly
acceptable jewellery - a little gold cross (for whatever
reason) that under any normal circumstances would not offend
anyone of sound mind. It's a different scenario, in my
opinion. And why this has stirred such a fuss is beyond me.

Still we'll have to wait and see what the courts do end up
deciding. Hopefully some common sense will prevail.
I would have thought that as long as it's not hurting
anyone - what's the harm.

A discrete cross is inherently no different from a badge of any philosophical kind - if the christians can wear them fine, but we must then be able to wear CND badges for example, or little flags, or a hijab. As long as freedoms are universal no problem.

Interesting enough pagans are allowed display their tatoos.

Unless they work in starbucks....

I have re read it, and it changes nothing.
Lets look at this *because wearing a cross is not part of the faith*
Then are RSL badges one day to be threatened.
Are bangles badges rings to be next.
Why
Why the Christian cross, in what way will wearing it harm the workplace.
If it must go how about, every thing based on belief, will those head covers the Sikhs have go?
Why.

Lexi, Are you telling me your employer didn't provide parking spaces for crosses? I'll get shop steward Belly to add that one to our next log of claims. Did you have a crucifixion on Friday afternoon in the car park? Nothing like a bit of realism to distract the troops.

Dear Belly,

"I have re read it, and it changes nothing."

The article does not say that crosses were banned by the British government.
All it says is that certain employers banned their employees from wearing crosses and the government decided not to intervene.

The difference is that it was the EMPLOYERS who banned the crosses, not the GOVERNMENT.

Now I say shame on such employers, and as a union representative you will be very right to take industrial action against them (and similarly if they banned RSL badges, bangles, rings or turbans), also you would inform consumers about that stupid employer and urge them to boycot the employer's business. At the end of the day, however, if an employer and their employee are not in agreement then they should not be working for each other.

The subject of dress-code would have come within the employment contract: if there was nothing in that contract to forbid the employee from wearing a cross, yet the employer wants to forbid crosses, then they should either try to re-negotiate about it or fire the employee WITH FULL COMPENSATION. If on the other hand the original employment contract included a clause forbidding crosses, then the employee has no right to complain.

In any case, this is a contractual matter and the British government was right to not intervene.

[Deleted. Completely off topic.]

I concede the employers acted that way, still want to know why.
And in not acting for the human rights of freedom of religion the government in my view took an action.
I ask this, what if it was other faiths.
From within a faith SOME wanted to kill others for publishing cartoons.
Why provoke a problem, in relation to any belief, UNLESS IT IS FOR EVERY belief, even then why.
Why in the work place, what is the work place? if it is another faiths worshiping place then I with draw.
I question, and will forever, benefits faiths get, but can find nothing to stop my question needing an answer why.

Dear Belly,

"And in not acting for the human rights of freedom of religion the government in my view took an action."

I once loved someone who broke my heart telling me: "Although I like you, I will not go out with you and never marry you unless you convert to Christianity" (an act that I, sadly at the time, could not possibly fake).

Are you suggesting that the government should have forced her to marry me in order to protect my freedom of religion?

- Employment is no different: if both sides are not in agreement FOR WHATEVER REASON, then it's NO-DEAL.

As for the "why", the most likely reason is that the employers in question are fools, just as that lady was a fool in refusing to marry me unless I became Christian. In the end, it's her loss!

Bit simplistic mate.
A law in place as far as I know freedom of religion still exists.
Now why the no cross ruling.
Was it workplace safety, then why was it not mentioned?
Was it so as to not offend others in the workplace, then who and how?
Was it the boss who would be offended, why.
What if it was a head scarf? or hat.
Would we be offended if it was said we could not wear something showing what football team we followed?
Any one know if we could look at the hearing online to find more information?

Dear Belly,

"A law in place as far as I know freedom of religion still exists."

Certainly, what this law means is that the state cannot persecute or prosecute you for your religion (or even for its absence), nor will it allow others to persecute you for your religion. That's very important!

But the state should not force relationships between people:
It should not force you to marry someone you don't want,
it should not force you to be friends with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to trade with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to work for someone you don't want,
and it should not force you to employ someone you don't want.

We could go all day suggesting different reasons why person A does not want to marry/befriend/trade-with/work-for/employ person B. We will probably find that a few reasons are valid but most are stupid, yet at the bottom line, it's people's free choice, including the choice to be stupid.

I am not differentiating between head-scarves, hats, football-caps, a cross, a yarmulke, a turban, bikini, etc. etc.
SO LONG AS THE EMPLOYER INCLUDED THE CONDITION OF NOT WEARING IT IN ADVANCE, AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND THE EMPLOYEE AGREED TO THAT CONTRACT.

If however, the item was not banned in the employment contract, then the employer has no right to forbid the employee to wear it - and yes, that includes religious items as well as football caps and all the rest.

Freedom of religion must be part and parcel of freedom in general - otherwise you would allow secular, biased and unqualified governments to judge what is religious and what isn't, running into a dangerous slippery-slope that can end in taking away all our freedom of religion on the pretext that "it has nothing to do with religion".

Sorry not able to agree.
A persons personal belief, showing them in a not offensive way, should be protected.
I still and forever ask why, why is the Cross unwelcome?

Belly, the logic behind the government's decision not to intervene in the dispute between the lady and her employer is based on this determination, from the article you linked us to:

"The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a 'requirement of the faith' and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9"

It suggests that if the display of a cross were a strict condition - a requirement, as they put it - of being a Christian, then they may well have reached a different decision.

Here is Article 9, to help us along.

"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Does this help understand the position they were in? As I mentioned earlier, they have effectively hand-balled the question of whether a crucifix is a requirement, or an option.

In other words, whether a Christian can only "manifest" his religion through the display a crucifix, or whether is it simply a matter of personal choice that he displays one.

Dear Belly,

"A persons personal belief, showing them in a not offensive way, should be protected."

Absolutely so, but it IS protected. The employee did not have to sign a contract that goes against their religion, where it is written "no crosses may be worn at work". If she freely chose to sign something stupid as that, then she only has herself to blame. If she is represented by a union, then it should have been the union's duty to refuse such a terrible clause in the employment-contract.

"I still and forever ask why, why is the Cross unwelcome?"

In most places the cross IS welcome. It is only unwelcome by a small minority of employers, whom I deem to be stupid.

Dear Pericles,

"The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a 'requirement of the faith' and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9"

That's exactly the dangerous slippery-slope that I mentioned above: allowing a secular government of the humanistic persuasion to determine what's religious and what isn't, is exactly like allowing the cat to guard the cream. Why should we trust the government in matters of the spirit where it is utterly ignorant and unqualified?

The only way to protect religious freedom is to protect ALL FREEDOMS, otherwise the government can excuse itself by saying "oh, but your actions are not religious", or else it can collude with just a few major churches (as it did in the middle-ages and still does in many Muslim countries today), recognizing only their practices as religious and denying freedom of religion from others that are not in its clique of favourites.

To be "granted" religious freedom, one should not have to name an established religious-order to which they supposedly belong. One should not have to claim "I am Christian" for example. Regardless of what the bishops say, if one's personal religion, or religious variation, includes wearing a cross, then they should have the right to wear it.

(of course, if they signed a contract to the contrary, then they have created a problem for themselves)

Yuyutsu, you said,

But the state should not force relationships between people:
It should not force you to marry someone you don't want,
it should not force you to be friends with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to trade with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to work for someone you don't want,

*and it should not force you to employ someone you don't want.

The last one would allow political, racial and religious blacklisting - bit dodgy there. Not that I'm in favour of state interference per se, I'd rather the unions stood up against this sort of thing.

Delia Smith, the television chef and practising Roman Catholic, who will issue a Lent appeal on behalf the Church’s charity, Cafod, accusing “militant neo-atheists and devout secularists” of “busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us that we hardly exist”.
You got it Delia, the faster all religion gets driven of the radar and goes extinct the better society will be.

Dear Farfromtheland,

"The last one would allow political, racial and religious blacklisting - bit dodgy there. Not that I'm in favour of state interference per se, I'd rather the unions stood up against this sort of thing."

Good idea - the unions can blacklist the blacklisters.

It is never right to force people to employ someone they don't want, whatever their reason: assuming that their business is totally private, it's their own property and their own money, which they can do what they like with. However, if an employer discriminates immorally then there is nothing wrong with naming-and-shaming them.

----

Dear Paul,

"You got it Delia,"

So by your own admission you acknowledge the violence of militant neo-atheists and devout secularists.

"the faster all religion gets driven of the radar and goes extinct the better society will be"

While I do not agree, for the sake of balance I hope you remember to include in your statement the most harmful of all, the pseudo-religion of humanism.

Paul you gain nothing for that post.
I believe in no God.
I think we may well unite faster without belief.
And Pericles yes thank you, I understand.
Haveing said all the above, a time existed that Christianity gave us a more civilized world.
Rules to live by.
I have no doubt all, or very many, faiths did the same.
I could launch, without effort or pain, in the negative about religions.
But come with me here, a basic truth, Christianity is marked in every Church.
By the cross Christ died on.
Surely if not demanded, wearing it is a right.
Why did employers say no?
Why did courts and governments seem to agree?
Paul, some who I forever miss and value, dislike my views, but in selling a product, as you try, raving and ranting will not do it.
Every issue, like it or not has both positive and negative.
We must understand them both or forever please only a few.

Actually that's not true, Belly. Most of my family are christians and don't display a cross precisely because it is a symbol of pagan origin. It's also a bit perverse, surely? However I have no problem with perversity.

On a more serious point, Yuyutsu, there is widespread systematic blacklisting of union activists in the UK contruction industry. This is illegal on paper and not widely publicised, even by union bosses. The firms involved are big, eg Balfour Beatty, and frequently used for big government contract work. This is known as corruption and you seem to be supporting it. Get real!

Dear Farfromtheland,

I was discussing the rights of individuals to refrain from employing another which they don't want to employ, for whatever reason, stupid as it may be, or even for no reason at all, ASSUMING THAT THEIR BUSINESS IS TOTALLY PRIVATE.

When government contracts are involved, then obviously the business is no longer private.

Farfromtheland, as my words above said I am an ex union official.
It has not been very long from those days, and a construction one, in Australia's greatest union.
Not therefore the CFMEU.
We can, if we wish, waffle on about that, but it is not the subject.
IF you truly think paganism, is in any way in the mind of most people confronted with the cross you miss lead your self.
Feeble, indeed to even think Christians even know about the link, if one exists.
I have read extensively ,and know, ALL FAITHS come down from paganism, or science fiction authors.
But, WHY.
At each point in this decision did people oppose or not support wearing the Christian cross?
I could list a hundred things that if denied to those who want them, would start riots.
WHY a harmless sign of belief.

Thanks, Yuyutsu, glad to hear that1

Well Belly, now we're getting to the crux of the matter (forgive the pun...)

My christian family have a lot to say about icons, of which the cross is a prime example. I'll try to summarize their arguments.

The teachings of Jesus were subversive of the status quo, but eventually were adopted to some extent by the Roman civilisation (after the empire had begun to decline) and this is when the cross replaced the fish as a symbol of identification. Christmas (Saturnalia) was definitely a pagan festival, and there is no evidence that Jesus was born at this time of year, or that he asked for his birth to be commemorated as a festival, particularly with giving of gifts, trees, santa and so on. The point of christianity was the the manner of Jesus' persecution and eventual death. Therefore there is a much better case for commemorating Easter - without the eggs and the bunny and all that, which are also pagan features.

Christmas and the cross were grafted onto the christian philosophy by the Catholic church, a part of the establishment. Much of what has become traditional has little to do with Jesus and much more to do with conformity and commercialism - a trivialisation of the issues, in my opinion. Jesus ejected the moneylenders from the temple. The Catholics didn't and don't. Jesus argued for a separation of church and state - 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesars', to paraphrase. It is ironic in the extreme that the symbols have become more of an issue than the practice of a genuine phiosophy with regard to all kinds of religion - eg wearing of the hijab OR the cross are seen as more important than exercising tolerance and compassion.

I believe concentrating on the symbols is contradictory to the practice of religion - it is idolatry. All Abrahamic religions condemn idolatry. The celebration of Christmas is rife with it. By all means wear a cross, but don't imagine that this in itself makes you a christian.

Farfromtheland I thank you, and know what you say is true.
Christmas is indeed a pagan time, the Celebration at this time is just a continuation.
And we share the ideas on how we came to have at least 3 Gods, from the one source.
Further how Control came for some, power as well, by those believers.
Christmas, modern , rides too in the hearts and minds of those who build it to sell us stuff.
However, if Christians, who do not share our views.
Who do not know or care about Paganism and its links to the Cross.
Took to wearing the Fish Symbol around their necks.
It too would have faced this ban would it not?
WHY?
Would that impact on your view?

[salty]seaman..[farfromtheland]..quote:""The point of christianity was the the manner of Jesus' persecution and eventual death.""

yes his return and SURVIVAL..indicatye[refute]..judgment and reserction days

""Therefore there is a much better case for commemorating Easter - without the eggs and the bunny and all that, which are also pagan features.""

sure its a good point
his birth [promise]..isnt as important
as what his death resolved[works]...

""Christmas and the cross..*were grafted onto the christian philosophy..by the Catholic church,..a part of the establishment.""

i blame paul[saul;s revisionisms
after the actual witness testiment's

""Jesus ejected the moneylenders..from the temple.
The Catholics didn't and don't.""

to be fair very few do
[in any belief]

""Jesus argued..for a separation of church and state
'Give unto Caesar..what is Caesars',..to paraphrase.""'

and give to god
that which is gods
[good unto other]..for the life sustaining good
within all life..sustaining their living...[you shall call him emmaunuel[god with[in]..us[all]

""It is ironic..in the extreme
that the symbols...ruites/tythes..and 'just wars'

""have become..more of an issue
than the practice of a genuine philosophy...
with regard to all kinds of religion""...

yes
ahhhhh men

""hijab OR the cross..are seen as more important
than exercising tolerance and compassion.""..service and charity

""concentrating..on the symbols
is contradictory to the practice of religion..it is idolatry"".

yes but so too having priests/churches
but imagry..is clearly not allowed...[they honour..his laws with their blapheming/money changer lore

its all just so impure/..unclean

""All Abrahamic religions condemn idolatry.""

there is one good [god]
who made all of nature..to love god..love his creation
not the stools of fools..:..imagry/rite/ritual/tythe/self agrandisments

""The celebration of Christmas is rife with it.""
so is the sabbath day..in this 24/7..work to pay tax cycle

'"By all means..wear a cross,
but don't imagine""..[for even one second].."""that this
in itself..makes you a christian....""

let me add in that prayers
only for self..aint prayer

charity to your own
aint charity

Its not the symbols of religion such as crosses, fish, even the wearing a table cloth over your head that are the problems with religion. Although many of the symbols and practices show the absurdity of the 'converted' the real danger lies in the perversion of humanity that the religious seek. Throughout history religion has been the tool by which people have been controlled, using fear and ignorance the power of religion has worked to the determent of the vast majority of the human race. Today there are those that still seek that control of humanity through superstition and fear, using hatred to set one against another, these religious foster intolerance and loathing of those that dare to be different. One very tiny, tiny example, the Katter anti-homosexual add in the Queensland state election, a prime example where a religious Katter sets out to use division in society to gain political control. There are far greater examples than Katter where by religion is doing untold damage to humanity throughout the world.

Dear Paul,

The fact that people call themselves "religious" doesn't make them religious in fact.

Religion is not about controlling others - I can't see how possibly controlling others through fear and hatred can get one closer to God.

In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on religion because your idea of religion has nothing to do with religion and much to do with humans abusing the name of religion for their own perverse desires.

Why
Why ban the cross or the series of letters that make up the fish symbol?
Would the head dress of Islamic followers be banned too.
Any one want to tell me?

Yuyutsu, I just do not understand the logic behind what you say. Let me re-write what you said with the word religion replaced with the words national socialism. What is your view on this

In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on national socialism because your idea of national socialism has nothing to do with national socialism and much to do with humans abusing the name of national socialism for their own perverse desires.

I'm the first to admit the basic teachings of some religions can not be seen in any other light that good, that 'love thy neighbor' stuff, any reasonable person would find that acceptable. The vast majority of religious devotes are followers rather than leaders. The leadership of most religions, certainly the main stream ones, use their position to manipulate the minds of the followers. There is never any kind of democracy, no room for free thought or action. Religion is all about control. No matter how we try to divorce church from state, the church continually tries to pervert the state, and there in the secular thinking of its citizens.

Dear Paul,

"Religion is all about control."

No. Religion, by definition, from the Latin "Re-ligare", to re-bind [with God], is anything that brings us closer to God. What brings us closer to God is religion and what doesn't is not. I fail to see a case where controlling others can bring one closer to God.

You (and unfortunately many others) are mixing up organizations that were found for the purpose of promoting religion (such as churches) with religion itself.

Religion itself has no teachings, no organization and no leaders - but there are teachings, organizations and leaders that inspire religion. I am not here to defend such teachings, organizations and leaders that claim to do so, but do not.

Now the next sentence I find so funny:

"the church continually tries to pervert the state"

Well good luck, they can try, but if anyone is able to pervert the state any more than it already is, then they deserve a nobel-prize for their ingenuity!

No sir - it is the state which continually tries to pervert the church!

I am also in favour of total separation between church and state, at least as you are - because I hate seeing the churches being polluted and infected by the filth of the state. Any true church should serve God alone and that is not possible when one is indebted to the state even in subtle ways.

"Any true church should serve God alone and that is not possible when one is indebted to the state even in subtle ways."
Yuyutsu can you point out any mainstream church that "serves god alone" regardless of being indebted to the state or not or have they all failed? We can see the results of attempts to form a state based totally on religion, Iran and Jamestown.
You say "Religion, by definition,is anything that brings us closer to God." How can one tell they are doing something that god approves of, or disapproves of, how does god communicate his approval or disapproval?
Do you support the notion that believers (those that believe in god) should bond themselves to a church, or should they worship in total isolation. As soon as two believers come together to worship there will be an exchange of beliefs and there and then a church is formed.
If two homosexual christian men were to bring up a child in a loving family environment, their notion of family, would that not qualify as a religious act, that is by definition an act that is brings them closer to god. Why do so many so called Christians oppose such an act, are they being misguide?

Dear Paul,

You asked me some heavy questions which I will not be able to answer fully within this time and space, but I will try to answer briefly:

Every church may and does fail to serve God alone at this time or another. We do hope to maximize the times when we serve God and minimize the time we don't.

Iran/Jamestown? If people follow religion, if they are close to God, then what do they need a state for? Only the selfish, the evil control-freak, the ignorant and the irresponsible need a state to restrain them. States are based on fear, but when one follows God what is there to fear of?

God isn't a power-seeking dictator which approves or disapproves of what we do (and none of what we do affects Him anyway). Also, you cannot "communicate" with God, because for communication to take place you need at least two parties, whereas in essence you and God are not separate. To know God, you should listen within.

There are no fixed, mechanical rules to tell us what specific acts may bring us closer to God and what acts take us further away: much depends on personal circumstances and spiritual evolution, but over the ages there were sages who collected statistical observations on what works for the "average person" under the "average circumstances", so if unsure, if you know not otherwise by what Christians for example call the Holy Spirit, if you don't have an unshakable inner conviction that you should do something different, then it is a good idea to listen to their teachings and wisdom, it's better than having to repeat all the experimentation yourself.

I can certainly see circumstances when two homosexual men bringing up a child in a loving family environment are doing a religious act. That doesn't mean however, that I should start a church that preaches homosexuality based on their example.

Are Christians misguided? Yes and no. The Christian teachings on how to live are good for most people under most circumstances. It is misguided however to believe that one size fits all.

Interesting aside there - I don't think 'National Socialism' was an appropriate comparison at all though, it being inherently nationalist. 'Socialism' can cover a multitude of sins though... much as religion.

The danger is in the culture of following rather than making up your own mind from evidence. Whoever you follow you run the risk of being led astray. It may be that 'it's a good idea to listen to their teachings and wisdom' but that isn't necessarily 'better than having to repeat all the experimentation yourself.' I think your argument is verging on the contradictory here, Yuyutsu. SOME at least of the experimentation will always need reviewing in the light of changing circumstances and challenges. As you say, there's no universal formula.

If I were god, for the sake of the argument, I'd probably enjoy the company of people who pushed the limits of science and discovery, agonised over the possible consequences of political actions and tried to find imaginative ways to make a better world more tangible. Isn't this the point of the human story? Growing out of Eden must be inevitable for us to 'be as god' - unfortunately the state would seem to pushing against human development in favour of mindless materialism. Any true religion must strive for better.

Paul like me, inhabits the left side of the fence.
I graze near the middle, afraid of the other side of the paddock.
Paul is on the very far left side, lonely but apparently likes the view.
In defense of Paul, surely, he emerging from the meeting hall of his fellows, one of those old red phone boxes.
He saw the word Socialism, and sprang mop in hand to its defense.
Paul I do hope, you did not intend to say NAZI, [National Socialism, is other than evil.
Question,take England out of the thread.
If today, an Australian business, not being Muslim or Jewish, any set faith.
Stopped ANY ONE wearing the Christian Cross at work.
Would other than those off us willing to defend ANYONES rights be offended and act

From the beginning I said its not a couple of old ladies wearing a cross around their necks that is the problem, that kind of thing is totally unimportant, they are followers not leaders. The real problem lies in those with a religious belief claiming legitimacy from god, the belief in his existence is a very big assumption in the first place. These religious use the so called 'word of god' to impose controls and restraints on society in general The religious continually try and dictate what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. My prime example that we can all relate to in Australia, is America, where the religious have control of the political will of the country. A society that believes god is on their side, believes they can do no wrong, such a society is a very dangerous society.
"Paul like me, inhabits the left side of the fence." Belly when did you jump the fence?
"Paul I do hope, you did not intend to say NAZI, [National Socialism), is other than evil". Belly I chose national socialism to show how absurd that line of argument is "religion is okay, just the people got in the way." That kind of logic could be applied to anything you like. The Manson cult was okay, just a few individuals messed it up, stupid logic on my part.
Belly on another note looking forward to your vigorous defense of the ALP after next weeks Queensland state election when it will be a another case of "Oh! what went wrong." p/s Couldn't use that old red phone box (do like the colour) of yours the NSW ALP were holding a caucus meeting in it.

not-in/commerce..quote..""If I were god,
for the sake of the argument,

I'd probably enjoy the company of people
who pushed the limits of science and discovery,
agonised over the possible consequences of political actions and tried to find imaginative ways to make a better world more tangible.""

that is certainly
what many would think god is doing
[its a shame that its more simple...than that]

lets not overly complicate god..[wholly spirit]
think of the word atonement..[at one meant]

god life sustaining spirit
lives withion each living thing
god communes not only with the great
direct[one to one]..but equally the least

being the living spirit
that sustains all living[from within..that ye do to the least..ye do to him]

''Isn't this the point of the human story?""

what?...;that the foolish
confound the wise[in their own eyes]

the joke is that there are those teaching about god
who dont know..he lives within..[his key sign is life/love/logic light]..where they are he art

""Growing out of Ede.. must be inevitable
for us to 'be as god'""

returning back into it is the promise

'''unfortunately the stat.. would seem to pushing against human development..in favour of mindless materialism.""

lol
so too the materialist's churches
lol..to many messengers...[not their..message re god]

""Any true religion must strive for better.""

yes if ceaser..can get what is his
why cant..the long suffering omnipresent good..*god

I used to have arguments with christians about stuff like this, but i'd be quite happy to take on god too if you can give me his number.

If he lives within me that's a problem 'cos it makes me some sort of transexual which apparently isn't in his image, so they tell me. Also too many internal dialogues get you the wrong kind of attention from the psychiatric profession. Forgive me for a certain degree of flippancy, but I'm having enough trouble getting my own garden sorted - hardly even have time to listen to Joni Mitchell these days.

Goodonya! Paul 1405!
Using my jab against me, another way of getting your own back is peeing in to the wind.
I am on record time and again, saying my party must never stop improving or it dies.
Not a Queenslander I truly do not know just how things are up their.
I apart from an intense dislike of Newman, have little faith in our leader.
We appear to be in for a bashing.
Do you know that was the out come in my state, and that I held/hold the view it was a needed out come.
From good kicking comes healing.
Some times only defeat leads to change.
I refrain from counter punching your greens, in debate if your opponent is better at defaming his.her side stand back and watch.
Tell me why you pick NAZI before Christian.

Belly, The vast majority of the faithful are followers, their only sin is they are blinked and easily led, such people are not free thinkers but rely on a small dominant clique within the religion to preach the word of god to them. As for the use of national socialism, Yuyutsu was trying to make a point that whilst religion was good it was individuals within religion that were bad this is what Yuyutau wrote:
"In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on religion because your idea of religion has nothing to do with religion and much to do with humans abusing the name of religion for their own perverse desires."
My argument is regardless of any underlying good that may be perceived to exist within religion if the individuals that make up religion are bad then religion itself is bad. Humanity can exist without religion, but religion can not exist without humanity. I said that line of argument was nonsense. I wrote:
"In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on national socialism because your idea of national socialism has nothing to do with national socialism and much to do with humans abusing the name of national socialism for their own perverse desires.
My point being you can justify any ideology be it religion, national socialism etc as being good by divorcing the actions of those contained within the ideology from the ideology itself. Of course I do not support national socialism, I believe any ideology is only as good as its devotees. In most religions those that control the religion are perceived by me as being bad, that is not say all their actions are bad or all devotees are bad, that in itself makes religion bad for me.

Paul 1405 I think I always understood what you wanted to say.
But would never use an evil such as Nazi for a prop.
Largely the terms you use can be put to any political party by its opponents.
Communism and what ever form in slave nations like North Korea for sure.
While you are free to say as you wish, no one yet has told me why this threads subject took place.
It has nothing to do with liking or hating beleiving in religion.
Is this single act to become the norm? will it include one day belief in political party's?
Why and what next.

Belly as one opposed to religions per se I did not see those women wearing a cross as being the problem I believe the problems the world faces from religions goes much deeper than cross wearing by a couple of old women.
It is interesting to me that we will attack and kill the 'innocent' within a ideology or state on the grounds they are part of the ideology even if they have no say or input of any kind in the determining action of the ideology. We felt fully justified in killing innocent Iraqi's because of the actions of the Iraq leadership. The average Iraqi had no control or say in opposing Saddam Hussein, yet we felt fully justified in making them pay as well. It would seem retribution is allowed even on the benign members of an ideology.

In a post above Paul you asked me when I became left of center.
Mate that last post reminds me of your lefts true position, stuck up to your bottom in a mud that will not let you see.
This thread is about personal freedom.
It is about the right to free speech, freedom to believe, anything.
I am a nonbeliever, you know that.
But too I do not believe in rich mens clubs bending to Royalty, Communism.
I do not believe in extremist right wing politics not in your lost tribes view Socialism is good and we should have it forced down out throats even if we do not want it.
I understand religions, I oppose the power they generate and that is it.
But too know the good within every one of them.
Paul I will question forever ANY human rights being taken away.
Yes Iraq Against and, maybe soon Iran, North Korea , are bad , but you highlight in the blindest way, Americas bad out comes.
And let the murders of the other side slip away.
The very left has forgotten its birth, it reason to exist, long ago.
About the time London wharf workers went on go slows as they thought Russia was being ignored in ww2.

The very left hasn't forgotton its origins Belly. A lot of afficionados of the parody of the left that has joined in collaboration with oppression have forgotton the origins of socialism, much as the afficionados of christianity have lost touch with the teachings of Jesus.

The Russian revolution died with the massacre of the Kronstadt sailors by Trotsky's forces. The Kronstadt revolutionaries were upholding the ideas of genuine workers' and peasants' control of their lives and means, against the growing repression of the Bolsheviks. The spanish revolution was crushed by the communist party's presentation of the anarchists as counter-revolutionary because they didn't support putting aside the growing new society to please russia's international agenda.

The first socialist international in 1844 began as a revolutionary alliance for overthrowing capitalism through workers' struggle, and included both Marxists and Anarchists. It was the Marxists who chose to pursue their aims through state mechanisms, and so gradually became subject to these mechanisms. There are huge parallels between the dilution of the aims of organisations of christians and those of socialists, as soon as they accepted the rules of states rather than sticking to their principles.

Dear Farfromtheleand,

"The danger is in the culture of following rather than making up your own mind from evidence. Whoever you follow you run the risk of being led astray. It may be that 'it's a good idea to listen to their teachings and wisdom' but that isn't necessarily 'better than having to repeat all the experimentation yourself.' I think your argument is verging on the contradictory here, Yuyutsu. SOME at least of the experimentation will always need reviewing in the light of changing circumstances and challenges. As you say, there's no universal formula"

I agree. There's a time to experiment and a time to follow. It's proper to sample the ancient experiments, but there's simply not enough time and opportunity in a lifetime for everyone to repeat all the 1000's of years worth of experimentation.

"If I were god, for the sake of the argument,"

Actually you ARE God. There's nothing but God!

"I'd probably enjoy the company of people who pushed the limits of science and discovery, agonised over the possible consequences of political actions and tried to find imaginative ways to make a better world more tangible. Isn't this the point of the human story?"

...and then go complaining that God was created in the image of man... You assume that the world has an objective, that it's not already the best it can be, and that humanity has a point. I don't accept either of those premises -the world is a workshop where we learn and grow, it has no long-term purpose by itself.

"unfortunately the state would seem to pushing against human development in favour of mindless materialism."

Let alone human development, the real danger is that the state stifles spiritual development.

"Any true religion must strive for better."

Religion should only be concerned with the betterment of the world insofar as it's used as a technique for coming closer to God. The object of religion is God, not a better world. While bettering the world may be used as a technique to combat selfishness, it's a grave mistake to consider it an independent goal.

Belly my post was in support of the cross wearers. They are the innocent made to pay at the hands of those with power. I see no good purpose being served in attacking a couple of benign members of the ideology. As a society I'm saying we are quick to attack the innocent from the perceived evil doers, they tend to be a soft target. Afterwards we justify our actions.
I no longer use the terminology of right and left, to simplistic, I much prefer the terms progressive and conservative, with no person being totally progressive or totally conservative. A person overall may generally be seen as one or the other, but it comes down to the individuals particular stance on a particular issue.

I am not God, Yuyutsu. Part of godness maybe. We were talking of christian notions of god, hence my tongue in cheek reference to cross-sexuality if god was 'inside me'. And I wasn't assuming anything - I said 'for the sake of the argument.' It's a good argument though and I'd like to continue it.

You have a different view of god. I find your assertions odd in a couple of ways - while I may or may not have godness I am human, and interested in the human story. I don't presume the world has an objective. This doesn't mean I can't be critical of the way it works from a human perspective. And I think you too are broadly against 'mindless materialism'? A true religion I think must also be against this. How then can genuine religion avoid 'betterment' of the world in this respect? If it's 'a workshop where we learn and grow' (I like this idea) then let's try to make it more learning and growth orientated. Human and spiritual development are intimately related.

I don't think the 'object' of religion can be God - that would imply we are separated from god wouldn't it? (The subject of religion is god, semantically speaking.) I think the biggest danger at present is that the state tends to stifle educational development. This is bad workshop practice!

As for combatting selfishness I don't know. I think suppression of ego carries a degree of peril. Ego is the bit of us that motivates. Without it we might contemplate a lot but are unlikely to create much.
We might not destroy much either, but there are plenty of people willing and able to do that. 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing.'

For the sake of the argument do you intervene in human situations? Where someone is being abused do you try to stop it? I rather hope so! This is not altruism but practical solidarity (or progress if you prefer, Paul) and without that we are poor miserable beings.

pirate/quote..live in me..''a problem 'cos it makes me some sort of transexual which apparently..isn't in his image""

god is beyond sex
but as she sustains all sex's
a transsexual identity must..like any other be visulaising an illusion

god is all
in all...[all life/living..not just one]

""too many internal dialogues
get you the wrong kind of attention..from the psychiatric profession.""

if none but a few nutters can do this
you dont know what your missing

""while I may or may not have godness
I am human,and interested in the human story.

I don't presume the world has an objective.''

yes think of it likegod trying to define himself

asa much as she tries
at her best she is like a human
at worst..[dont go there]

I have enjoyed the thread and every post under my last.
Farfromtheland I am a complex person, an ex born again Christian, and ex Communist/Socialist, in turn.
In all three I looked for the best in man, and a better world.
I found some individuals carried those flags but not the group/organizations.
I can think back to true hardship, hunger and hopelessness in my childhood.
And taunting, no other word say it like it was, from small village Christians.
I know we once stood up for the under dogs but not all and not most in some villages.
I do, it cost me my cash my times my friendships.
But in the real and true teaching of Christianity and I believe other religions,a set of rules to live by exist.
And I live by them.
Socialism failed, it never had a chance once the name was taken by others.
It is but a rag used and thrown away by middle class greens today.
I will till I die stand for the under dog, my Union and my party with pride.
And take the whip to each if I think its needed.
No one will stop me wearing shirts I paid for expressing my pride in them all.
And no one should stop a Christian wearing a Cross.
If my sin is understanding the true very left will never be other than harmful to Labor then so be it.
In the end voters do not want them.

Dear Farfromtheland,

Does God intervene in human situations? Where someone is being abused does God try to stop it?

Some view God as passive. I don't take the Judeo-Christian approach of God acting in person in the world almost as if He had a body: God is not a person, but God's will is done by nature and what it includes, including humans.

Even when you have an ego you do God's work. From divine perspective nothing hinders God's work, but from your small perspective as human, the ego acts like thick gloves and heavily distorting glasses, so whatever good things you try to do come out clumsy and often even reversed (ditto for the national ego, hence the state). People who are closer to God are not necessarily passive or unenergetic, but whatever they do without an ego is more effective. Solidarity too is a very crude instrument and is not necessary for carrying God's will. Those who are closer to God do His work without attachment, but much more effectively.

Religion operates by removing the veils (such as the ego) that delude us as if we were separate from God.

Materialism is one such veil or obstacle, mindless or otherwise. Humans tend to believe that their mind is a great tool, that it works for the better, but they confuse between the mind and the brain and between intelligence and wisdom - the mind is intelligent, but unwise. The mind reminds us of the legend about king Midas, who had his wish fulfilled that everything he touched turned into gold, but later came to regret it: a school made of gold (or marzipan for that matter) does not serve its students very well, most of them anyway - we need all the shades of colour and grey to accommodate for the different lessons which individuals need to learn in this world. Only divine wisdom can do that.

We each of us, judge people and events every day.
It does not say however we are right.
I note, suppose expected it, we are in to the basic of belief.
My question had many answers I do not feel I got any.
Maybe these are the answers who knows?
Shared workplace, multi religions, workplace owned or staffed by another belief.
Maybe Jewish?
Maybe it is a workplace safety issue, swinging chain near moving parts.
Bigotry?

If one is to hold a belief in god then one must also believe in the anti-god, 'Satin'. all very complicated as god is also the creator of the anti-god, who's only purpose is to cause man to sin against god. Wow, the all loving god created the evil of sin! Are we nothing more than the pawns in god's great chess game, played for the amusement of god.
The truth is the 'believers' have so complicated their fabrication of god and the ensuing story, whether by design or accident, this fabrication is to such a degree that they, the 'believers', can no longer explain their own fabrication. Is it all a big mystery or just the greatest lie in history? Having said that I still say "Let the little old ladies wear their crosses around their necks."

Solidarity is the finding of common bonds, and acting together to support them.

Intelligence is closer to wisdom than to cleverness. Wisdom is of little effect without solidarity.

Religion is a red herring, more often used as an excuse for inaction than as an aid to wisdom. We can do without it, and have to if we are to find deeper common bonds than belief in something beyond proof. Whatever your ideal of religion, in practice it tends to separate us from each other, concerning itself with ideas of rightness rather than the realisation of integration and better social relationships.

Whatever god you believe or don't believe in, you still have to decide how to live and shape society with other humans and the environment we inhabit. If we put spirituality above practicality we can miss opportunities to live together in better ways.
Because there is no one simple answer to everything should we avoid looking for better answers to problems we face, and better definitions of these problems? This would seem more like nihilism than spirituality to me.

I love life and freedom and this beautiful planet, music and mathematics and being in sometimes dissonant harmony with my body, my mind and my friends. I would rather be angry than passive, when faced with the forces of destruction. Even more than this I would rather be creative. My heaven on earth is a marvellous moving geometry. This is about as close to religion as I can get, or want to.

As for satan, I can't concede he/she is anti-god. If god is everything then satan has to be in there somewhere. An asker of difficult questions maybe?

Dear Farfromtheland,

It seems from your description that you are called by God to do all sorts of social good actions. I don't know you personally, but assuming this is true, then it is an integral part of your religion to do so and you should undoubtedly follow your calling.

Not everyone is called for the same - it mainly depends on one's particular stage of spiritual development, so those acts that for you are religious are not necessarily religious for others. Some are called primarily for action and others are primarily called for inaction - none is better than the other.

Some are called for practicality and others are called for impracticality - none is better than the other:

There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build...
[Ecclesiastes chapter 3]

It is a mistake to believe that emotions, such as solidarity and anger, are a pre-requisite for right action: God's calling is much stronger and accurate than to be directed by emotions - if you follow your own calling, then emotions are unnecessary, they are only required if you try to follow someone else's:

It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faultily, than another's duties. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.
[Bhagavadgita, 3.35]

The view as if "Religion is a red herring" comes from the ignorant belief that religion requires one to do such-and-such, especially to act unnaturally: Religion is most natural and you embark on it unaware the moment you are born, but it is indeed unnatural and futile to try following someone else's religion.

----
(that silly "satan" thing is not worth a comment - it was Paul who mentioned that red-herring, not me)

(that silly "satan" thing is not worth a comment - it was Paul who mentioned that red-herring, not me)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:13:14 PM

Yuyutau you quote from Ecclesiastes 3. Let me quote:

"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
Revelation 20: 2, 3.

Another case of selective bible reading take what suits you, disregard the rest. Clearly according to the book of truth Satan exists. You can't have it both ways.

Dear Paul,

I was quoting Ecclesiastes, not the bible.

In my view, Ecclesiastes was the wisest philosopher ever in the West.
As his views are so closer to Eastern philosophy, as opposed to the willfulness of the rest of the old-testament (perhaps with the exception of Job and Proverbs), researchers wonder how come his book got into the bible in the first place.

Yuyutsu,

How can you accept the existence of god without accepting the existence of an anti-god. 86% of Americans believe in an anti-god, are they wrong?
Interested in this line from your quote:
"a time to kill and a time to heal." please explain, I don't understand this "time to kill" when is that? can you give me a modern day example of the time to kill.

I didn't make reference to you quote from the Hindu. You called my reference to Satan as "silly". Hinduism, an ignorant ideology that believes in a 1000 gods and sacred cows, who's silly?

The truth to all this is 'we' fashion god and religion to suit ourselves. Religion is all about what makes us feel good, what serves our own particular interests, or the interest of a few. Religion is all about control of society and there is no better way to control than divide and conquer, by its very nature religion must set one person against another, otherwise it serves no purpose in the scheme of things. for the ignorant there is no greater authority to fear than god, those in control are always claiming to speake with the authority of god.. Is it not a case of "kill the infidels" oft quoted line from religion. Lots of references in the 'good book' to killing.

Still looking in and let the thread go as it will.
All threads find other branches of the same tree to explore.
And I often climb every one.
Nothing wrong with that, some interesting stuff comes to light.
But my mind was focused on the in my view extraordinary thought that the Christian cross could be dangerous.
I considered for a while and could, truly think of no real reason, unless ALL RELIGIONS public displays went.
Even then why?
Evolution may see it, humanity's evolution.
Maybe post a war that will be so very awful, and just maybe not far away,it will take place.
Evolution of humanity is not just the length of our fingers and such.
As we dither,yes wander around subjects, we may be letting true insults to our freedoms sneak under our gard.

Dear Paul,

If you bothered to read my posts about religion and God on several threads here, you would have known that I do not accept the existence of God.

Why are you bothering me about the beliefs of Americans? They have the right to believe whatever they like, it's none of my business.

"a modern day example of the time to kill"? Wasn't it the right thing to kill Hitler?

Just as you didn't bother reading my previous posts, you obviously didn't bother to read the Hindu scriptures first-hand either. If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant assumptions and questions. Those 1000 or so deities have nothing to do with God and no Hindu will make that mistake. For lack of English vocabulary, or perhaps due to sloppy translation, these were translated by some in the West from the Sanskrit 'deva' into 'gods' (with a small 'g'). A better translation that is sometimes used would be demi-gods, while a few of those could be roughly translated into 'angels'. In any case, those have nothing to do with God (and in fact do not even resemble the Abrahamic god). I do however have no patience at the moment to start explaining to you what these are all about, except that it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

What you call 'god' has little to do with God.
What you call 'religion' has little to do with religion.
Those humans that purport the actions you refer to ("kill the infidels") probably have no idea themselves about either.
I have tried to explain and clarify, but you keep falling back on your former vulgar ideas, which I never endorsed, and based on these you are quick to pass blind sentence on what you have no clue about, claiming "The truth to all this is..." based on a bunch of lies.

It seems that all you are interested in is to blacken the name of certain people and organizations which seem to hinder your social goals. You are not ready for a serious theological discussion.

Yuyutsu,

"a modern day example of the time to kill"? Wasn't it the right thing to kill Hitler? NO! If legitimacy is given to killing one, in this case that bad bloke Hitler then legitimacy is given to killing Himmler, another bad bloke, then Goring, another bad bloke, before you know it legitimacy is given to killing 20 million bad blokes. I do not condone the waging of war as a 'good act'.
I can see you have a different concept of religion that is not the mainstream concept. Your concept is somewhat abstract but you have put some thought into your belief and came up with your notion of religion. The vast majority of devotees have no thought on the subject but allow their belief to be dictated from on high, aka the holy father speaks, and when he does its mostly "Thou shall not.." this or that. I do not say that all that is contained in todays religions is all bad, there is some good, but on balance I say the bad done by religion (mainstream) far out weighs any good that is being done. Most of the good being done could well take place without the religious input.

"The view as if "Religion is a red herring" comes from the ignorant belief that religion requires one to do such-and-such, especially to act unnaturally: Religion is most natural and you embark on it unaware the moment you are born, but it is indeed unnatural and futile to try following someone else's religion."

Then Yuyutsu, why on earth would I wish to follow yours?

I explained why I believe religion is a red herring - precisely because every person has to decide what to do from moment to moment, whether they are ostensibly religious or not. To be judged ignorant for this is insulting.

What is 'natural' is as difficult to define as religion, and far more tendentious.

religions...by and large have more feet
in the materialism camp
than the spirit realm..

let alone anything truely worthy
of the good god they claim

yet decree's he is to..kill off
lol..those having their revealations of the other messanger

its all about god
not just a single mess/anger's..mess-age

paul said/quote..""Yuyutau you quote from Ecclesiastes 3.
"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old,
who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

[/quote]
ok so satan has been bound..for a 1000 years
or unleased...and about to?

[quote]..and he cast him into the bottomless pit,
and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.[/quote]
25th dec 2012
[quote]..""
on But after these things
he must be released
for a little while.
Revelation 20:2,3...[/quote]

release date=3012..[dec 26th]

[quote]Another case of selective bible reading
take what suits you,..disregard the rest.[/quote]
revelations was a prophecy
clearly 'the goings on cant continue''
so satan..AND HIS MINIONS*

hit the pits soon

[quote]
Clearly according to the book of truth
Satan exists. You can't have it both ways.[/quote]
satan is an embodyment...made up in the minds of men

belief makes his mirage real
seeing sin..is the first step
to keeping the satan delusion alive

With all this contradiction and lack of agreement from the believers themselves, no wonder the vast majority of devotees, like sheep, go along with whatever 'the holy father says'. Its so much more simpler to let the 'holy father' do your thinking for you, after all he does have a direct line to god.
OUG what is this about 26th December 3012 Satan's release date. I can tell you if he is banged up in NSW, with good behavior, he'll be out, by my calculations, about tea time today.

Well it did get a very long way from the threads intent.
But I got something else out of it.
Paul 1405, it was you who gave me that something.
I had always seen you as a relic of days long gone, maybe no older than me, maybe younger.
But stuck firmly in a distant past,the lights on the hill past.
You time and again take to me as class traitor for being the new left, the centrist I proudly am,within the not Conservative left.
I just can not except that old left, its refusal to admit defeat,to evolves to see the lights on that hill shone on hunger and hardship long gone.
That hill has the second home of a working class person on it now, he/she may vote green but Liberal is more likely.
Mate,not once but many times you quote NAZI.
And your hate for religion spills on the thread.
I dislike them both, those who came before you and me may not have, NAZI yes but I feel more comfortable under your verbal whip, after seeing your posts here.

Belly: Hate is is very strong word, I don't hate anyone. I dislike the actions at times of individuals and at times organizations, but I don't hate as such. Hate clouds ones judgement.
As for your references to National Socialism (NAZI). Are you implying I'm pro NAZI? If you are then you are dead wrong! Show me anywhere a post by me that is pro NAZI. if you are taking my post where I substituted the words 'national socialism' for the word 'religion' on quoting another posters own words. then if you are to take that as being pro NAZI then it shows a simple lack of understanding on your part of the conceptual argument I was mounting.
The rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 1920's and 30's came out of the conservative labour movement not the progressive movement of the time.
Again, don't throw stones unless you are equated with the facts.

Dear Paul,

As I wrote earlier, there is no precise/mechanical rule as to what act is religious and what isn't. Though there is an average (which sages, scriptures and organized religious organizations try to teach), there is also plenty of deviation and waging war is no exception. It all depends on the circumstances and on the spiritual development of the doer. It may even vary from one time to another, even for the same person.

In my own estimate, the good done by Christianity outweighs the bad, but that of course is a quantitative observation, not a qualitative argument. Most Christians in my estimate, the silent majority, benefit religiously from belonging to their church, but a minority of them actually lose from it spiritually. The ratios also vary from one denomination to another.

Obviously when we discuss good and bad, we must have an agreement about those. For me, what brings one closer to God (i.e. what is religious) is good and what takes one away from God is bad. Naturally if you replaced this definition with one based on material values, then that would change the numbers. Religious orders, however, should not be measured by worldly achievements: that's not what they are for - or else they have no right to call themselves a 'religion'.

Dear Farfromtheland,

There are a myriad of reasons why one may want to follow someone else's religion. These include ignorance, desire to be accepted, convenience, arrogance, envy, timidity, etc. etc.

I take back the word 'ignorance' and replace it with "confusing between religious-organizations and religion". Perhaps I should also replace 'natural' with 'spontaneous', meaning that religion occurs in nature without necessarily having to call it a name, belong to an organization or undergo an official initiation ceremony.

Yuyutsu,

I understand where you are coming from. Your notion of religion, for want of a better word, the concept of inner spirituality being a persons religion. Taking on a couple of points you made.
"Obviously when we discuss good and bad, we must have an agreement about those. For me, what brings one closer to God (i.e. what is religious) is good and what takes one away from God is bad."
For the vast majority of us something like helping a little old lady across the road would be taken as a good act, therefore bring one closer to god. Performing euthanasia on the same little old lady because she requested it due to her pain and suffering caused by terminal cancer. This is not so clear cut as being a good or bad act, this is where argument leads to division within society. The religious will promote their idea and try to make that idea the accepted social norm. Using everything at their disposal, from the word of god, to the fires of hell to get their belief imposed on all. this is what I can not accept.
"the good done by Christianity outweighs the bad" I do not agree, based of past history. yes, there has been some good come out of christianity, mainly instigated by individuals and their few followers. Some are good, some are misguided and many have been out-rightly bad.
"Most Christians in my estimate, the silent majority, benefit religiously from belonging to their church," conjecture who knows what benefits the silent anything. I will agree ignorance can be a benefit to some, there being no need to think, no need to question, no need to make personal decisions, the 'holy father' does it all for me. My reference to the 'holy father' is not to be confused with the bloke in Rome, there are many 'holy fathers' he is just but one.

http://www.google.com/search?q=religion+for+athiests+big+idea
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/can-atheists-learn-from-religion3f/3869242

What can religion offer to the non believer?

Can it provide instruction on how to live a better life,
be a better person, to help create communities,
better appreciate art, be kinder,

and get more out of
religeons 'good ideas'
without the god

? Alain de Botton thinks so
and he talks about his new book

*Religion for Atheists.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/big-ideas-3rd-march-2012/3869204

Dear Paul,

Helping a little old lady across the road is a good spiritual technique, which more often than not brings us closer to God as it combats the obstacle of our selfishness. Taking the life of a loved one who suffers and whom we wouldn't like to part with, can also be under certain circumstances a good/religious act. Over time, people tend to forget WHY we do those things, why we take old ladies across the road - we come to consider it a good act on its own, forgetting the real purpose. Nevertheless, most of the time it still works!

I find what's left of the original teachings of Jesus a valuable spiritual resource. It is almost impossible to measure the spiritual effect of a movement on its adherents, a bit easier to look at the personal and social effects. Some of those effects which make me estimate that Christianity has done more good than bad are in the areas of charity, music, family, honest dealings and rehabilitation from crime/addictions. Especially in Australia, only a small minority of Christians follow blindly the dictates of church leaders (and I suspect that most of those would not become great and independent thinkers anyway in absence of their 'holy father'): many Christians in fact shower them with criticism and even change denominations when they do not accept their ideas. Most ordinary Christians use their church as a support-group where they can find like-minded friends for inspiring and supporting each other to do good.

Dear OUG,

First let me congratulate you for improving your style of writing and making it shorter - that allowed me to read and understand your ideas, as I usually skip over your posts.

Religion has as much to offer to atheists as it does to those who believe that God exists (a contradictory and blasphemous idea as far as I'm concerned). While religious theory can be a source of intellectual fun, it is the practice which matters, not the theory!

Dear Yuyutsu.

I have enjoyed our debate here. I'm glade we can have such without the need for personal insult as many on here often resort to when others disagree with them. I learned another concept for religion from you. Thanks.
Now down to business LOL. I must agree any fair minder person would say the basic teachings of Christ (I can only comment on Christianity (Catholic) as that is the form of religion I am most familiar with although much of what I say could apply to other mainstream religions as well, forget the minor sects as I don't know where they are coming from) are good, as I said one can not disagree with the 'Love thy neighbor' type stuff.
The good of religion, yes as you say, "in the areas of charity, music, family, honest dealings and rehabilitation from crime/addictions." Other than the practical side as in charitable works, such as feeding the poor, helping the sick etc. There is the spiritual side the personal relationships, in the way people deal with others, family, friends, business, strangers etc. These good aspects of a persons life may be an extension of their spiritual upbringing due to their christian beliefs and influences the 'Love thy neighbor' stuff. There are many 'good' people in this world who are not religious, that is to say the same outcome can be reached by following another path, Maybe the good people of society are inherently good and would be good no matter what path they followed, religious or otherwise.
Continue.

The bad side of religion in our modern world, I will not hark back to the bad old days of an 'eye for an eye' stuff that has been well documented by history. I will not mention the more recent vile acts of the religious, you known what I mean. The biggest sin of today's religious is their failure to speak out, in the face of injustice, the religious say little, their leadership says little or even openly support injustice, other than "be gooood! your reward will come in the next life." This is by far the biggest failure of the modern religious, it is one thing to feed a man, its another thing to fight for his right to be fed. I could add intolerance and hate for others to the list,but they are more or less caused by the ignorance that some religious want to foster in society, and are very successful at doing so.

thats ok paul
i learnt..athiests hate reading

the next athiests
will be the youtube visionaries

as the old men relive their old dreams..of word/work
and the young get their prophesized 'visions'

yet here it is..

[and i wanted debate/robust exchange of opinion]
little realising..we all have got so much truth/faulsity

if only the youth..could believe the wisdoms
but then..they wouldnt be youth..wouldnt-be learning

..as we had to..
in our youth-time...bit of our life-times

it/is as it is...

we can only change..that within
knowing our enbergies radiate energy
that gets fed on..by other yet other entity/energies

[E cannot be created nor destroyed]

the demons
their energy feeds..
hates spell-ing errors
[they are simple...kiss keep it simple for the sinfull]

that one [athiest religeon]..
you were permitted to read

the other stuff is too dark
for the in the light mob

and too light..for them seeking darkness..

my reading of so many book reading/styles
has perverted..my ability to phrase..a concept
into laymans terms..

in seeking to become
knowledge..able..specialist
becomming an untelligable fool..[so be it]

one concept is all many can bear
im replying on too many levels
but know it ..and it is
as it is..

real time/parrable..
parralel..not poem