Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: jsimpleton

corruption and internal strife led to the fall of the Roman Empire

and incompetence (almost forgot that one)

Incompetence? To which leader are you referring?

That would be hard to say... near the end, they had four different emperors simultaneously. Add Bureaucracy and self-aggrandizement to the list.

are we considering the fall of rome to be from the final collapse or at the height of their empire?

I still want to put in bureaucracy and self-aggrandizement.

Here is another religion question:

Do you feel that the religion that you have "adopted" is the correct one and not a result of your upbringing? My reasoning behind this question is that from my understanding most people in the world blindly accept whatever religion that is presented before them (usually by their state or parents) with very little question. I am a born and raised Catholic because that is what my parents taught me at a young age. Now if i were born elsewhere or to different parents, I would most likely be a different religion, and be somewhat required to accept it for my parents sake. Now what I am trying to say is; is it wrong to think that every religion may have it slightly wrong and that God just wants us to be kind to everyone regardless of their religion?

So actually two questions in one, and by the way I am a long time lurker, first time poster.

That's a common theory, soccerstr, and one that, on its face, looks to be very true. Also, people who tend to turn their back on their parents' religion tend to turn away from all religions, and then return to something... often the first one (as my ex-wife did).

I find it extremely difficult to participate or believe in any organized religion.. it seems that those in the hierarchy of these religions tend to act in ways demonstrating their lack of belief. If they don't believe, why the hell should I?
Yet, I'm not against the wisdom contained within the teachers of each religion. It's unlikely that people have followed these leaders without good reason. So, I basically take what each has said, roll it around in my mind, and decide whether or not I like it. Each thing I add to my belief system must have some accompanying logical premise. In short, I'm a ethically-focused agnostic.

i was raised without a religion. it has its up's and downs
isn't taoism less of a religion and more a moral theory of living much like confucius' teachings?

are you the one that follows gods and rituals?

i always wondered how eastern philosophy can be applied in western culture. how does taoism fit in with the capitalistic society of western nations? do they conflict with each other?

Although, having said that, all philosophies may conflict science.

Posted By: Udoboy

Posted By: Trance

Although, having said that, all philosophies may conflict science.

A philosophy to not kill other people, treat them with respect, love your family, and in general not be a douchebag does not conflict with science.

I'm just sayin'

True, True...

What I meant was more like philosophies like Christianity...

i agree. religion can be a set of philosophy strung together. To me the important question is whether a philosophical stance can be the cornerstone of social interaction or society as a whole, but this crosses into moral theory of philosophy.
from a darwinian standpoint do you think taoism can survive against the individualistic nature of capitalism?

LOL, Trance, come to my place for English tutoring.
whsiper for address.

hao's place.... spooky

there could be many reasons. Since this is written communication, tone can be lost or mistranslated depending on your mood when you read the post. That and because there are many personalities to jsimpleton.

That's where the smilies kick in, damn it:

I found a good article (rant?) on religion

(Did I remember how to insert a link??)

Here's a part I particularly like:

I asked what about all those in history and even now who have never heard of Jesus. He said they all are saved in their ignorance, though another minister I asked said they all go to hell of some sort. So depending on who you ask, the ignorant either get an automatic free pass for their trouble or go to hell, having no awareness of what they did to deserve that! Hmmmm. Something ain't right here!

I did respond by asking him why then we should send missionaries and put the ignorant at risk, when if we just leave them alone, they can make it in their ignorance of never having heard the only name under heaven by which a man can be saved. I got the look again.

Posted By: Fact totum

I did respond by asking him why then we should send missionaries and put the ignorant at risk, when if we just leave them alone, they can make it in their ignorance of never having heard the only name under heaven by which a man can be saved. I got the look again.

That's kinda like my point of view. If people are generally good, regardless of whether or not if they call God Bob, they can make it to heaven.

I'd like to respond to the question of whether science and religion can co-exist.

I think it's possible, for someone who has the right mindset. That is, science is nothing but philosophy that has been shown to be somewhat provable (i.e. you can repeat outcomes in experiments). Everything that is a science today was once merely philosophy. So, too, is religion. Theology is nothing but a branch of philosophy.

The problem arises because religions tend to require dogmas and, as such, are resistant to change. Philosophers and scientists must be willing to change their views in light of new evidence. A religious person cannot change with ease because of claims that x, y, or z are morally unacceptable (be it to a god or to society) and must remain firm on that point of view even if society has changed around it.

I was raised as a Catholic (12 years of C. school) by a Catholic family. I always questioned my faith, ever since I can remember. I did not like the answers that I was given to my questions and I refused to accept "because that's how God wants it" as an answer. I can understand the "we are just humans and our reason doesn't fully understand the greatness of god" statements, but I refuse to believe that any god would create a race of animals that is to his image and then not give them the intellectual power to understand where they come from and why (unless that god is just using them for entertainment value).

No, sir, I cannot understand that at all. For that reason I remain an agnostic and do not deny the existence of a god or gods (be it the Judeo-Christian God, Zeus, Thor, or Ra) since I do not have proof either way. What I refuse to believe is that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing deity.

I think people should do the right thing because it is itself the Right thing to do, not because if they don't they might burn in hell. Thats nothing but being controlled by a threat. I don't see someone who always does the right thing for fear of hell as a "Good" person, he's doing it because he's afraid of the consequences. In that sense I see someone that doesn't have any solid religious belief but still does the right thing as the "Good" person. If God gave us Free Will, then I don't think Heaven and Hell can exist. It's like bowling with bumpers, guiding you a specific way (Edit: Or like a parent trying to get you to do something, with a candy bar at one end or a spanking at the other). Yeah you can just call it consequence to your actions, but then your not really free to do as you will, because no matter how remove the whole heaven hell thing is, it's still nothing more then control over our will. People should do the right thing because it is the Right thing, not because they may be rewarded by heaven, or for fear of hell.

On another note, if Jesus sacrificed himself for all our sins (past and future), do you think the church would really let that be publicly known? No, thats like releasing the bonds of control. Then again, in all honesty I don't think the humans on this planet would majority to the good without bonds of religion, real or false. Which is probably what the church decided if Jesus' sacrifice was all encompassing as far as our sins. Just another theoretical possibility :0p.

Anyway hope I didn't repeat myself too much, it's late and time for bed :0).

Morality is a set of actions that are based upon somebody else's philosophical understanding. Most of the arguments eventually boil down to "Do it because [entity] told you to do it." This is important for those who don't have a rigorous logical understanding, like perhaps children. "Don't cross the road unless you're holding my hand."

Ethics is a set of actions that are based upon logical thinking. "Don't cross the road without looking for traffic that could strike you." Moste of an ethical guideset comes from a person's own understanding of the world.

Morals typically are easier to break than ethics. If one tells oneself to refrain from some action, that tends to mean more than if one is supposed to refrain from some action merely to please some other entity.

Posted By: Trance

But does it really make that much of a difference?
If I raise $100 to feed starving children because my parents told me to, what would be the difference, then, if I raised it out of my own ethics?
Keeping the future out the discussion, that is.

I think it makes all the difference in the world.

Doing something that will help others because God told you to, means that you are merely a tool of God. Doing so because your parents tell you to only means you are a tool of your parents. While you, personally, are taking the action, it is not your will that is the prime mover.

Doing so because you, personally, feel that it is best, demonstrates your character.

Yes, and those can be virtues as well. And you still get credit for the actual donation of money. You just don't get credit for the will to donate the money, merely the action.

It's like seeing an old lady having trouble walking across the street, a good person should automatically help and refuse any reward given. On the other hand if the lady has to ask, and you help, I just see that as so much less. Keep in mind this is just a loose example, with uncountable variations.

Someone doing something good with no incentive, no reward, no benefit to that person other than the act of doing something good because it is Right. To me that is where we all should be.

Ask Spike Lee