Journal broter's Journal: A Question of Philosophy 1
Why is it that every monotheistic person I know always assumes that a normal person must be monotheistic? Why is it that educated people fail to see the logical fallicies inherent in religious questions? It's like watching crack heads justify their usage with circular arguments.
"You need to search for God!" "Just because there doesn't seem to be a God doesn't mean you don't need to search for him." "I know god exists because I BELIEVE he does."
Begging the question. Circular arguments. Following a book that has instructions not to extend it, but has beed extended many many times. Mysterious scrolls found by priests in temples. Followers who assasinate cult members and then claim to know their dead leader better than his brothers. Prophets who claim to have been given the "perfect" version of "The" religion that was perfect and unchangable before, but has nothing to do with the origional Judaism.
Monotheistic herds of people, most likely following an ancient Egyptian sun cult that should have died in the African desert, but somehow limps on. Somehow putting on a new mask for every season in the abyss and claiming this is the way it's always been.
How do they cope with this mess? They do what all their predecessors did. They ignore it.
Quite frankly, I don't care what people believe or do, as long as it doesn't invade my freedom to ignore it. If you need to do drugs to feel alive, ok. Just don't steal from me when you need a fix. If you need to believe in a crackpot religion to feel like your life means something, ok. Just don't ask me to believe in it with you.
I have a great respect for alternative religions. Mainly because they don't hinge on everyone else in the world following them. Don't get me wrong. I still think they're silly. But I have no problem with silly. I think silly is a wonderful way to run the world. What you know to be true today i most definitely going to be proven false tomorrow. Whatever you see is ony part of the system. Don't lose your sense of humour. Life's a joke.
At any rate, a healthy bit of perspective is needed. But what perspective? Is it better to let your peaceful movement die than take up arms an kill it yourself through hypocracy? If a group of people is willing to kill me for not following their beliefs and can't be swayed, is it ethical for me to kill them first? Both sides of this issue have been dealing with these questions for ages.
The Macabees decided that it's okay to murder an innocent man who would rather follow the classical culture than the Hebrew culture. The Christians were the origional hate criminals - destroying temples of the pagans and ultimately getting themselves labelled traitors of the Roman empire. Islam decided it was perfectly justifiable to kill a kindom of peoples... as long as you warned them first.
An old question. How do you integrate mutually exclusive philosophies? I'm an American brought up on the west coast. I was trained to believe in accepting all beliefs... even when I know it can't be done. But then I just ignore that hitch.
The solution is out of band... (Score:2)
Now, as to HOW these communities are put together and what they say to justify themselves, that's where things get dicey. Ultimately, the affirmation needs context. And in the study of theology, people get all sorts of stupid ideas.
Religion has as many shortcomings as any OS might have. It's even reasonable to say that some are worse than oth