My friend and I got into a conversation the other day, and he left me with the statement that Religion blinds people. He never explained what that meant, but I still want to know; based on your guys experiences, does Religion blind? And if so, how does it blind? Does it blind you from accepting all reality, or just another reality that you don't want to face?
Avorne and MageGrayWolf, I am a Concordist. My religion is polytheistic, believes that you are entitled to believe what you want, and what you do does not define what happens to you after you die. I would type out all the beliefs and stories, that it had, but I'm too lazy. I am the only person affiliated to this religion, anyway, so I can't blind myself. To convert, you would have to learn the entire religion, practice it every day, and question your world all the time.
Anyway, to rephrase my argument since you did not understand it, I am saying the people blind people by using faith as a weapon. If I tell you Christianity doesn't support gay marriage, something the Bible never mentioned, then I am lying to you. The BIble is not lying to you, I am.
Now, the Bible has stated things I do not approve of, but I and using this as an example. It is how we interpret religion that blind us.
Actually, the bible states that Homosexuality is a sin - so it follows that it wouldn't support gay marriage.
In the book of Leviticus, most Jewish scholars interpret it as saying that **** sex is prohibited by men. I am saying, that the Bible is open to interpretation by people. The book of Leviticus can be interpreted by Christian scholars to mean that homosexuality is a sin, period. No question about it.
Lev.18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev.20:13 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.
Rom.1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
In an attemtpt to get back on topic, instead of talking specifically about homosexuality and how people interpret the bible, I do think that any sort of belief, or non belief, will blind in certain ways. People tend to look for what they want, so if I go out looking for proof that a giant Orange in the sky created the universe, I COULD say that every time I find a random Orange peel on the ground, it is a sign from his oranginess.
Anyways...yes, religion, like any belief, will influence how you view things.
In Leviticus, it says lie with another man. Well, if it is that clear cut, then no man can lay down next to another man but can do whatever the hell they want with that man. Oh no, I have sinned. I used lay down in bed with my dad when I was younger and afraid of thunder storms. I should be put to death.
As for Romans, the book mentions nothing explicitly about "NO GAY MARRIAGE." It could be about petting a dog.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
God stopped petting dogs because they became too affectionate.
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
Since men were petting dogs, the women went against their nature and had stop petting the dogs.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another;
Since men were petting the dog, women couldn't do the things the usually do, so they got their own dogs.
men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Men had parties for dog petting, not noticing that the dogs would soon become too affectionate.
That's my interpretation. I assume you'll disagree it is about homosexuality.
Being skeptical of a claim is to keep an open mind to other possibilities. So holding no belief does not blind.
But if you are too unwilling to believe, then even when you do come across something that may be true, you will ignore it, just as if you believed in something and ignored all others because you are unwilling to listen.
But if you are too unwilling to believe, then even when you do come across something that may be true, you will ignore it, just as if you believed in something and ignored all others because you are unwilling to listen.
If it is true, then it would have evidence to back it up. I fail to see any in ANY religion, not to mention faith is a psychological need.
If it is true, then it would have evidence to back it up. I fail to see any in ANY religion, not to mention faith is a psychological need.
I agree, which is why I do not currently hold a religion, but I think my point still stands, you can be blinded by any beliefs you hold, including beliefs you don't hold. As for having evidence to support claims, you may still doubt something you do not truly wish to believe, or does not fit into your current view of the world.
Avorne and MageGrayWolf, I am a Concordist. [quote]Genesis does not fit with modern scientific theories. For example Genesis places the creation of plants and the Earth before the sun.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with what I said?
[quoteThere is no evidence to indicate the existence of such beings, so believing they exist without evidence is blind.[/quote]
I need evidence to believe in them. That is why it is called a belief.
It is the way people interpret it.
[quote]Making it completely arbitrary and not an accurate reflection of reality.
[/quote]
Exactly. Religion does not blind people. People blind people. People interpret religion the way the want, use that interpretation as a weapon and force it on others.
Oddly, I'm just going to quote from the movie Dogma *cringes a bit*
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the **** that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it. Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good? Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
but I think my point still stands, you can be blinded by any beliefs you hold, including beliefs you don't hold. As for having evidence to support claims, you may still doubt something you do not truly wish to believe, or does not fit into your current view of the world.
What kind of beliefs are we talkin' here? Faith-based, or scientific? It is a scientist's job and duty to be skeptical of his/her findings, much like how it is a citizen's job to question his/her government. Charles Darwin did not want to believe his findings of evolution, due to his Christian beliefs, but the evidence was there, the data correlated enough, so how could he throw it away? When there are breakthoughs, there are chances that it does not fit the current view of society. Again, this points to how scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Question everything, always challenge what you find and what is already there. Science is not believing, it is knowing and thinking.
concordist theory attempts to merge Genesis 1 with modern science.
I need evidence to believe in them. That is why it is called a belief.
This statement makes no sense what so ever. You have no evidence for them yet you still believe, that is the very definition of faith. So your belief is baseless.
Exactly. Religion does not blind people. People blind people. People interpret religion the way the want, use that interpretation as a weapon and force it on others.
religion treats those arbitrary interpretations as facts, just like your belief in multiple gods, thus it is blind. If they were not being blinded they wouldn't hold a religious belief.
