Invading other forums. Is there ever a good reason?

[Professor Smooth]

If you're gonna crusade to destroy one religion, it's only fair that you crusade to destroy them all.

[Jetfire]

Or non at all.

Just get rid of the fascist millitants, everywhere, and we'd all be happier and more at peace.

[Kaylee]

Or non at all.

Just get rid of the fascist millitants, everywhere, and we'd all be happier and more at peace.

I wasn't aware the terms were mutually exclusive...

[Professor Smooth]

Or non at all.

Just get rid of the fascist millitants, everywhere, and we'd all be happier and more at peace.

I wasn't aware the terms were mutually exclusive...

facists and millitants or happier and at peace?

[Kaylee]

Or non at all.

Just get rid of the fascist millitants, everywhere, and we'd all be happier and more at peace.

I wasn't aware the terms were mutually exclusive...

facists and millitants or happier and at peace?

{throws hedgehog}

fascist militants and religious association.

In fact I might argue that in terms of its controlling nature and will to dictate to the majority the two are different shades of the same colour.

[Autobloke]

(ducks head around topic door)
Crikey! This is STILL going? Blimey!
(ducks back out. To the pub or something)

[Bouncelot]

I wasn't aware the terms were mutually exclusive...

facists and millitants or happier and at peace?

{throws hedgehog}

fascist militants and religious association.

In fact I might argue that in terms of its controlling nature and will to dictate to the majority the two are different shades of the same colour.

You'd be wrong, then. There are certainly types of religious association that are similar to fascist militantism (Al Quaeda, US Bible-Belt Fundamentalists, The Klu Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam all come to mind), but there are equally lots of types that come nowhere near. To tar all relgious groups with the same brush is rather harsh and unfair. If there is a controlling nature and will to dictate in all religious groups, then it's something that's inherent to human nature, and not specific to religion.

[Kaylee]

I don't see how religion is blameless for a desire to get everyone to do as 'commanded' because it is (in your view) part of human nature?

I'm making the distinction between spirituality and religion, the former being a personal concept of what the universe is all about (colloquially) and the second being an organised group of people with similar motivations, normally to spread the good word or some such.

Does the desire to alter people's behaviour, a manner of control, not constitute a part of organised religion?

Fascism/militarism and several other political systems may have different motives and different methods but it is still about control of the many by the few AFAIK which im-jaded-o puts them in exactly the same category as religion.

Furthermore I see no reason in the slightest (a definite window into my mindset) to not be harsh to religion, as far as I'm concerned it has it coming. The ridiculous notion that humans are able to inflict manipulation, both mental and physical, based on what essentially boils down to 'I said so' with no rational reasoning whatsoever is something that seems to dog great tracts of our history. Even to this day: including but not limited to continuing masacres in Africa, terrorism in Iraq and homophobic beatings by militant Islamics in the Netherlands.

I see no reason to go easy on philosophies which in the end run on exactly the same level of reasoning as the KKK, now people of my mindset have finally been allowed such protests without being whipped as heretics or devil worshippers.

If you have a personal experience of God or the Creator great. Run with it. Hope it works out. This business about lets all band together and try and 'help' people is based on the rather shaky premise that one is 'right' to begin with.

[Best First]

i'd quite like to frame that post.

[Bouncelot]

I probably would have replied to this sooner if I hadn't had all sorts of stuff going on in the last week (including starting a new job with *gasp* sociable hours).

Anyway, what Karl seems to be saying is that there's a sharp dividing line between spirituality (which is individual) and religion (which is controlling). Although there are examples which are clearly both, the dividing line, assuming it exists is actually quite fuzzy. Religion at its simplest is simply a community of people getting together to help each other live out their faith.

Take the example of my church. We don't exist in order to impose anything on anybody. We exist as a community to help each other live out our faith, and to give others the chance to hear the Christian message. Although we have a clear leadership structure, leaders are not there to lord it over others, but to equip and enable others to live out their faith effectively, and to helo the community to all be pulling in the same direction. When there is teaching on evangelism, it is always stressed that the Christian's job is to preach the message, and that it is God's part to make the message sink in. If you ever encounter any of us doing any kind of evangelism, we won't be trying to shove the Gospel down your throat, we'll be sharing our experience of God, correcting any misperceptions you have about Christianity, and basically explaining what we believe. We may ask you questions about your beliefs as well, but certainly won't be trying to argue or control you out of them.