Jump to content

Trump's Spiritual Advisor


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

I remember when the right wing went after a minister Obama was friends with, but this guy is Trump's spiritual advisor and his wife sat on Trump's advisory committee.  This alone should scare the hell out of who Trump takes advice from and surrounds himself with:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-none-business-apos-televangelist-155211760.html

 

Effing corrupt nutjob...Copeland, not Trump!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As the liberals say "he's just living his truth!" ;)

 

 

Now, the guy this Copeland fellow (allegedly) believes in gives quite a different directive than having 3 private jets:

 

"Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

 

That same guy also said "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves".

 

The Inside Edition interview is creepy and funny though. Wild how he goes stone faced to smiling so quickly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an atheist's point of view, think about how much of a delusional, egomaniac, narcissist, and/or sociopath one must be in order to start or lead a religion. It's no wonder these "spiritual leaders" are so crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an atheist's point of view, think about how much of a delusional, egomaniac, narcissist, and/or sociopath one must be in order to start or lead a religion. It's no wonder these "spiritual leaders" are so crazy.

 

Some of*

 

It's called a racket and it's called the prosperity gospel. Joel Olsteen, Benny Hinn, all in the same boat. Would probably put Jerry Falwell and Graham on the list too (to an extent). There are crooks everywhere in every profession in every walk and area of life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an atheist's point of view, think about how much of a delusional, egomaniac, narcissist, and/or sociopath one must be in order to start or lead a religion. It's no wonder these "spiritual leaders" are so crazy.

 

From the same point of view, think about how many of those same qualities someone must have to an opinion of morality at all. We have our moral views due to culture and conscience (which is just based on evolutionary instincts after all). So I don't see the reason to trust either. Do you? ;) Those same instincts tell us to eat junk food and to sell near market bottoms! It's irrational to trust them for morality. Those instincts are driving Copeland to be quite successful and very wealthy (his words on the wealth). Why should I think any of our instincts/morals are superior or better than his? After all, he's richer than most (all?) of us!

 

Like I said, he's living "his truth." It looks like he has a net worth of a few hundred million (not sure if that's true but just searched for it). Hey if atheism is the correct worldview, sign me up for that. I'd love to be super loaded and have 3 private jets! If someone has a problem with "his truth," they are simply bigots. ;)

 

Now if you're referring to Jesus when describing those things, then if the resurrection never happened, then I agree. A pretty terrible life if you ask me. Walked around in poverty, tortured and crucified. Heck, his followers were even killed. What a great friend! Who wants to do that?

 

Kenneth Max Copeland, on the other hand, is someone to aspire to be like! It's much better to have private jets, several homes then get beat up and die for no good reason. Like his middle name, he's living his life to the max!  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if you're referring to Jesus when describing those things, then if the resurrection never happened, then I agree. A pretty terrible life if you ask me. Walked around in poverty, tortured and crucified. Heck, his followers were even killed. What a great friend! Who wants to do that?

 

Well, definitely not Kenneth Copeland! 

 

Why do the right advocate for him, but not someone on social assistance?  What's the difference? 

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if you're referring to Jesus when describing those things, then if the resurrection never happened, then I agree. A pretty terrible life if you ask me. Walked around in poverty, tortured and crucified. Heck, his followers were even killed. What a great friend! Who wants to do that?

 

Well, definitely not Kenneth Copeland! 

 

Why do the right advocate for him, but not someone on social assistance?  What's the difference? 

 

Cheers!

 

Yes, if I'm an atheist, I'd much rather be like Copeland than someone like Jesus. Who wouldn't?  He's overcome the evolutionary tomfoolery or "morality"!:P

 

I'm assuming you meant advocating for Trump? I don't know anyone advocating for Copeland (except those that he preys on).

 

Out of all the folks who I know who voted for Trump (I didn't vote for anyone), almost none of them actually like him. They voted for him due to their dislike of the other candidate.

 

As for social assistance, can you tell me more about what you mean here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if you're referring to Jesus when describing those things, then if the resurrection never happened, then I agree. A pretty terrible life if you ask me. Walked around in poverty, tortured and crucified. Heck, his followers were even killed. What a great friend! Who wants to do that?

 

Well, definitely not Kenneth Copeland! 

 

Why do the right advocate for him, but not someone on social assistance?  What's the difference? 

 

Cheers!

 

Yes, if I'm an atheist, I'd much rather be like Copeland than someone like Jesus. Who wouldn't?  He's overcome the evolutionary tomfoolery or "morality"!:P

 

I'm assuming you meant advocating for Trump? I don't know anyone advocating for Copeland (except those that he preys on).

 

 

I'm an atheist, but I don't want to be like Copeland.  Most animals don't eat their children.  Animals have no sense of "morality".  Copeland is not an atheist!  End of story.

 

Trump advocates for Copeland, and vice-versa.  As well as a number of other right wing leaders who support Graham, Falwell or Copeland.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if you're referring to Jesus when describing those things, then if the resurrection never happened, then I agree. A pretty terrible life if you ask me. Walked around in poverty, tortured and crucified. Heck, his followers were even killed. What a great friend! Who wants to do that?

 

Well, definitely not Kenneth Copeland! 

 

Why do the right advocate for him, but not someone on social assistance?  What's the difference? 

 

Cheers!

 

Yes, if I'm an atheist, I'd much rather be like Copeland than someone like Jesus. Who wouldn't?  He's overcome the evolutionary tomfoolery or "morality"!:P

 

I'm assuming you meant advocating for Trump? I don't know anyone advocating for Copeland (except those that he preys on).

 

 

I'm an atheist, but I don't want to be like Copeland.  Most animals don't eat their children.  Animals have no sense of "morality".  Copeland is not an atheist!  End of story.

 

Trump advocates for Copeland, and vice-versa.  As well as a number of other right wing leaders who support Graham, Falwell or Copeland.  Cheers!

 

lc, as someone said in the other thread "your morality isn't my morality." If we are not tolerant towards his morality then wouldn't we be bigots? After all, his morality is coming from the same source as yours or mine, is it not?

 

Sanj, why are you an atheist?

 

Since you're an atheist, if you had to chose between living the life of Jesus (a poor moral teacher who died in his early 30s in a pretty nasty death) or Ken "living life to the maximum" Copeland, who would you pick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lc, as someone said in the other thread "your morality isn't my morality." If we are not tolerant towards his morality then wouldn't we be bigots? After all, his morality is coming from the same source as yours or mine, is it not?

The subjective morality argument is getting old, nor does it preclude sociopathy or narcissism.

 

Since you're an atheist, if you had to chose between living the life of Jesus (a poor moral teacher who died in his early 30s in a pretty nasty death) or Ken "living life to the maximum" Copeland, who would you pick?

If you're an atheist, you don't believe God exists. So Jesus' main teaching (that one man can die and absolve another man for his wrongdoings) is pure evil. Unless you'd like to die for Trump's sins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanj, why are you an atheist?

 

Because God hasn't spoken to me yet, nor have I been fortunate enough to find him/her anywhere.  And if God is someone who allows 5 year old kids to be molested, murdered and bodies burned, they ain't my God.  That God might as well smite me as well!

 

Since you're an atheist, if you had to chose between living the life of Jesus (a poor moral teacher who died in his early 30s in a pretty nasty death) or Ken "living life to the maximum" Copeland, who would you pick?

 

I wouldn't want to live on the avails of others...so I would rather be poor than con the naive into providing me an existence of wealth and gluttony.  As long as I had my family and friends around me, I would be fine.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lc, as someone said in the other thread "your morality isn't my morality." If we are not tolerant towards his morality then wouldn't we be bigots? After all, his morality is coming from the same source as yours or mine, is it not?

The subjective morality argument is getting old, nor does it preclude sociopathy or narcissism.

 

Since you're an atheist, if you had to chose between living the life of Jesus (a poor moral teacher who died in his early 30s in a pretty nasty death) or Ken "living life to the maximum" Copeland, who would you pick?

If you're an atheist, you don't believe God exists. So Jesus' main teaching (that one man can die and absolve another man for his wrongdoings) is pure evil. Unless you'd like to die for Trump's sins?

 

The argument may be getting old but it's also fair. Mr. Copeland can't change his sociopathy or narcissism anymore than someone can control their race, age or sex.  Do you feel its okay to be intolerant to viewpoints you disagree with? If so, why do you feel your viewpoints are better? If we're looking at materialism, I'm sure he's doing much better than most of us here. There's nothing transcendental about your morals!

 

For the second point, if you're an atheist why call anything evil? Jesus was just some crazy guy, right? How is that evil? I'm serious about this. You're telling me that all morality is subjective but the evidence seems to indicate that you don't actually believe that (which is why you use such harsh words). Something subjective is like "what shirt should I wear today?"

 

If you see someone walking down the street and they're wearing a yellow shirt but you have green, are they "evil" too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanj, why are you an atheist?

 

Because God hasn't spoken to me yet, nor have I been fortunate enough to find him/her anywhere.  And if God is someone who allows 5 year old kids to be molested, murdered and bodies burned, they ain't my God.  That God might as well smite me as well!

 

Since you're an atheist, if you had to chose between living the life of Jesus (a poor moral teacher who died in his early 30s in a pretty nasty death) or Ken "living life to the maximum" Copeland, who would you pick?

 

I wouldn't want to live on the avails of others...so I would rather be poor than con the naive into providing me an existence of wealth and gluttony.  As long as I had my family and friends around me, I would be fine.

 

Cheers!

 

You can't find God anywhere? Don't you do a fair amount of charity work? How is that in your best interest?

 

As for the "problem of evil" argument, I don't really think it's a fair question. Does God allow bad things to happen? Yes, it's bad to us but we all also have a very limited view.

 

Now, I'm not going to act like I can understand what it's like to have a child hurt in a very severe manner or anything terribly bad happen to me. Overall, my life has been pretty easy but hear me out.

 

But the way I look at is like this. My daughter will start crying over the smallest of things - like it's the end of the world sometimes. Now, to me, it's silly to get upset if she skins her knee...but to her, though, it's a huge, huge deal. But, I have a bigger knowledge base and more perspective than her. I'll know the pain is temporary, that the body heals, etc.

 

Now, if a deity exists, I'd argue that the knowledge and perspective gap between us and the deity is far, far bigger than the knowledge gap between a father and child. If a being knows that in the end, all hurt and pain is erased, wouldn't that reduce the hurt? Will my daughter remember her cut next week or 30 years from now? Probably not. If a deity makes the person whole, the bad things done to the flesh is a distant, if a not completely forgotten memory.

 

As far as living morally poor but immorally rich, let's look at this rationally. Your "moral compass" is simply just something you made up by your evolutionary instincts. A person's evolutionary instincts tell them to sit down and eat junk food. However, some people override those evolutionary instincts to get in top level shape and health. Why should one admire the person who overrode his evolutionary instincts to get into shape but not the one who overrode those same instincts to get rich?

 

It certainly seems like you think something more than materialism exists! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Copeland can't change his sociopathy or narcissism anymore than someone can control their race, age or sex.  Do you feel its okay to be intolerant to viewpoints you disagree with?

 

Yes. There's a difference between "viewpoint" and behavior. A serial killer is entitled to whatever "viewpoints" he wants, but once he starts murdering, I'm okay being "intolerant" of that behavior. As to why I think that's better, my subjective morals have been generally agreed-upon by society.

 

Also, personality traits can be changed. Age cannot.

 

Jesus was just some crazy guy, right? How is that evil? I'm serious about this.

You're asking the same question. He was some dude who went around saying, "if you screwed up, you can sacrifice someone else (i.e. murder) and society will forgive your sins/crimes/callitwhatyouwill"

 

So again I have same response. I'm intolerant to murder, and again I have the benefit of (1) agreeing with society on this and (2) there being no evidence that one man's death repairs another man's damage to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Copeland can't change his sociopathy or narcissism anymore than someone can control their race, age or sex.  Do you feel its okay to be intolerant to viewpoints you disagree with?

 

Yes. There's a difference between "viewpoint" and behavior. A serial killer is entitled to whatever "viewpoints" he wants, but once he starts murdering, I'm okay being "intolerant" of that behavior. As to why I think that's better, my subjective morals have been generally agreed-upon by society.

 

Also, personality traits can be changed. Age cannot.

 

Jesus was just some crazy guy, right? How is that evil? I'm serious about this.

You're asking the same question. He was some dude who went around saying, "if you screwed up, you can sacrifice someone else (i.e. murder) and society will forgive your sins/crimes/callitwhatyouwill"

 

So again I have same response. I'm intolerant to murder, and again I have the benefit of (1) agreeing with society on this and (2) there being no evidence that one man's death repairs another man's damage to society.

 

My viewpoint comment was in reference to Copeland. However, let's talk about the serial killer. He is only in the wrong due to the law. If there were no laws, you would be tolerant since all morality is subjective? If evolution teaches us anything, it's that the best/most cunning/strongest survive. If Copeland has broken no laws, shouldn't you be okay with his behavior?

 

Why should Copeland change though? His personality is natural. Why do you want him to be someone else just to appease your admittedly subjective moral standards? Isn't that a bit bigoted? He's happy and successful! We should all aspire to be like him! ;)

 

Taking advantage of others is only your morality - not his. I can't help if he is more rational than you guys. He has overcome those silly stone age evolutionary instincts. There is nothing that transcends himself so it would be foolish to blindly follow those instincts. Good for him!

 

Yes, society agrees with you that murder is "bad." Society also used to think that having a child out of wedlock was "bad." What if society progresses to the point where people are so opened minded that murder is considered okay or that slavery is considered "okay" again? Would you change your views? 

 

I agree there is no evidence that one man's death pays for another's action. There is plenty of evidence that one man can pay another's debt though. Besides, the one man paying off the other's debt/action by death is not paying off the debt to society but a far higher power. ;)

 

Granted, this is part of faith but let's not act like your moral compass is anything but blind faith either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are just an extension of socially agreed-upon behavior guidelines. It's how we all agree to exist together. It changes over time, and it's never 100% correct. And not surprisingly, this is exactly what the evidence (i.e. the history of human societies) has shown.

 

The rest of your post sounds like, I'm sorry to say, a bit of the same mindless arguments against atheism:

 

Why should Copeland change though? Because it's socially agreed-upon that lying and cheating are wrong.

 

There is nothing that transcends himself so it would be foolish to blindly follow those instincts. Again, society has codes of conduct.

 

Besides, the one man paying off the other's debt/action by death is not paying off the debt to society but a far higher power. ;) An extreme form of nonsense. I harmed you but instead of repaying my debt to you I will repay it to my imaginary god instead. Behavior which should be met with a strong "Screw off!" every time, at the very least.

 

Granted, this is part of faith but let's not act like your moral compass is anything but blind faith either. I've got centuries of progressive evolution of human social behavior as evidence. You've got a ramshackle book about a stone-age god who still thinks it's ok to murder, enslave, commit genocide, rape, commit incest, and all other types of nonsense. If the bible was written today it would be laughed about like scientology, as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Copeland can't change his sociopathy or narcissism anymore than someone can control their race, age or sex.  Do you feel its okay to be intolerant to viewpoints you disagree with?

 

Yes. There's a difference between "viewpoint" and behavior. A serial killer is entitled to whatever "viewpoints" he wants, but once he starts murdering, I'm okay being "intolerant" of that behavior. As to why I think that's better, my subjective morals have been generally agreed-upon by society.

 

Also, personality traits can be changed. Age cannot.

 

Jesus was just some crazy guy, right? How is that evil? I'm serious about this.

You're asking the same question. He was some dude who went around saying, "if you screwed up, you can sacrifice someone else (i.e. murder) and society will forgive your sins/crimes/callitwhatyouwill"

 

So again I have same response. I'm intolerant to murder, and again I have the benefit of (1) agreeing with society on this and (2) there being no evidence that one man's death repairs another man's damage to society.

 

Your interpretation of what Jesus preached is quite ignorant...That is not even remotely close...

 

But lets go on your summary of what he preached. "if you screwed up, you can sacrifice someone else (i.e. murder) and society will forgive your sins/crimes/callitwhatyouwill"

 

How does this fit into your abortion argument? Isn't abortion simply murdering an unborn child because you screwed up and had an unwanted pregnancy, but its legal so society will "forgive you" and you can also justify and forgive yourself in your own mind.

 

Sanj, why are you an atheist?

 

Because God hasn't spoken to me yet, nor have I been fortunate enough to find him/her anywhere.  And if God is someone who allows 5 year old kids to be molested, murdered and bodies burned, they ain't my God.  That God might as well smite me as well!

 

Cheers!

 

It sounds as if you've never actually read the Bible or have any understanding of who God is, why bad things happen in the world, etc. This is my issue with a lot of secular views. Nobody ever takes the time to study the Bible to actually have an informed view as to why it's wrong. Yet many Christians (not all) study secular and other teachings in depth and come up with quite convincing arguments. A bit of a double standard no?

 

I remember an interview with Richard Dawkins where he mocked Christians because some couldn't name every book in the Bible (which is inexcusable if you're going to be a Christian). He said they were belligerent idiots. Yet when the interviewer asked him to name the full title of his(RD) "bible" (The Origin of Species) he couldn't name it and sat there flabbergasted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are just an extension of socially agreed-upon behavior guidelines. It's how we all agree to exist together. It changes over time, and it's never 100% correct. And not surprisingly, this is exactly what the evidence (i.e. the history of human societies) has shown.

 

-------So you'd be okay with slavery coming back?

 

The rest of your post sounds like, I'm sorry to say, a bit of the same mindless arguments against atheism:

 

Why should Copeland change though? Because it's socially agreed-upon that lying and cheating are wrong.

 

------Some societies agree that honor killing is good. Do you support this view since you're tolerant of subjective morality?

 

There is nothing that transcends himself so it would be foolish to blindly follow those instincts. Again, society has codes of conduct.

 

------I agree. But one should be able to think independently, right? Why do something society wants if it leaves you worse off?  :o

 

Besides, the one man paying off the other's debt/action by death is not paying off the debt to society but a far higher power. ;) An extreme form of nonsense. I harmed you but instead of repaying my debt to you I will repay it to my imaginary god instead. Behavior which should be met with a strong "Screw off!" every time, at the very least.

 

-----It matters not if someone else is harmed if the person harming that person doesn't care. Why should the harmer care if it puts himself in a better position?

 

Granted, this is part of faith but let's not act like your moral compass is anything but blind faith either. I've got centuries of progressive evolution of human social behavior as evidence. You've got a ramshackle book about a stone-age god who still thinks it's ok to murder, enslave, commit genocide, rape, commit incest, and all other types of nonsense. If the bible was written today it would be laughed about like scientology, as it should be.

 

-----I don't think morality comes from the Bible. As the old stone-age book said:

"They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them". So basically there is a moral law that even atheists follow. Though, if their worldview is accurate, it is irrational to do so when its against their best interests (you know, like not acting like Copeland).

So a rational atheist might say "yes! I understand the rights and wrongs of my conscience are just evolutionary instincts that don't mean anything so....let's do this!"

 

Wouldn't you agree that it probably is okay to commit those things if society deemed it okay? I'm confused here. If morality is subjective - everything is okay. Most of those things that God "thinks is okay" actually aren't commanded by God (though, admittedly, there are some troubling things in there that I don't quite get). So why be against it?

 

How do you know we're "progressing"? The world is richer? People living longer? It's also more polluted and possibly over populated. Will this "progress" lead to the demise of our species?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which view of morality correct? Is it the Christian view, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism... Maybe the map is not the territory?

 

In a lot of ways they are all quite similar as far as morality goes. Like "the golden rule" or something similar is found in almost all of them. Buddhism doesn't really have a deity so I'm not sure if classing it as a religion is fair. Though, it's not one I've studied very much.

 

Now, from a historical perspective, Christianity is pretty impressive. There is a surprising amount of evidence that many of those folks existed, for instance (well, for being 2,000 years old anyway).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds as if you've never actually read the Bible or have any understanding of who God is, why bad things happen in the world, etc. This is my issue with a lot of secular views. Nobody ever takes the time to study the Bible to actually have an informed view as to why it's wrong. Yet many Christians (not all) study secular and other teachings in depth and come up with quite convincing arguments. A bit of a double standard no?

 

Actually I've read the Bible numerous times...studied theology as well at the University level...my grand-uncle was a Catholic priest, my father went to a Catholic school in Australia and I went to Sunday School from age 7-10.  I've also read the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran and a translation of the Tanakh...I was going through a phase in my teens and early 20's after my father died.

 

Have you read the Gita?  Have you read the Koran?  Have you read the Tanakh from which the Old Testament sprouted?  Double standard...you got that right...but the finger is pointed in the wrong direction!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are just an extension of socially agreed-upon behavior guidelines. It's how we all agree to exist together. It changes over time, and it's never 100% correct. And not surprisingly, this is exactly what the evidence (i.e. the history of human societies) has shown.

 

-------So you'd be okay with slavery coming back?

 

The rest of your post sounds like, I'm sorry to say, a bit of the same mindless arguments against atheism:

 

Why should Copeland change though? Because it's socially agreed-upon that lying and cheating are wrong.

 

------Some societies agree that honor killing is good. Do you support this view since you're tolerant of subjective morality?

 

There is nothing that transcends himself so it would be foolish to blindly follow those instincts. Again, society has codes of conduct.

 

------I agree. But one should be able to think independently, right? Why do something society wants if it leaves you worse off?  :o

 

Besides, the one man paying off the other's debt/action by death is not paying off the debt to society but a far higher power. ;) An extreme form of nonsense. I harmed you but instead of repaying my debt to you I will repay it to my imaginary god instead. Behavior which should be met with a strong "Screw off!" every time, at the very least.

 

-----It matters not if someone else is harmed if the person harming that person doesn't care. Why should the harmer care if it puts himself in a better position?

 

Granted, this is part of faith but let's not act like your moral compass is anything but blind faith either. I've got centuries of progressive evolution of human social behavior as evidence. You've got a ramshackle book about a stone-age god who still thinks it's ok to murder, enslave, commit genocide, rape, commit incest, and all other types of nonsense. If the bible was written today it would be laughed about like scientology, as it should be.

 

-----I don't think morality comes from the Bible. As the old stone-age book said:

"They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them". So basically there is a moral law that even atheists follow. Though, if their worldview is accurate, it is irrational to do so when its against their best interests (you know, like not acting like Copeland).

So a rational atheist might say "yes! I understand the rights and wrongs of my conscience are just evolutionary instincts that don't mean anything so....let's do this!"

 

 

Morality may not come from the Bible, but absolutely morality is influenced by the Bible...in fact morality is influenced by most religious texts.  "Jihad" is a religious construct in the Koran...but then seized, utilized and sanctified as the moral code of those that misinterpret it.  The same thing with Christians when they take excerpts from the Old Testament, which may contradict what is written in the New Testament, and then latch on to a ethical or moral dilemma.

 

And then if you consider what Marshall McLuhan said "The medium is the message"...well all modern day religious texts are all translations.  The Bible in particular is translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin.  Can you imagine how much of the message changes between the translations?  Accuracy of what was said or happened, may be so far off the mark, that it would be ridiculous to base a framework on how you live your life around what is written in the Bible.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic part of religion is that people of any specific religion appear convinced that their’s is the true faith.

 

Christians - Protestant, Catholic, - Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc, all believe theirs is the true religion. Yet if the Protestant or Catholic had been born into a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, would they still believe Christian faith was the true religion? If the Muslim had been brought up in a Jewish family in Israel would he still believe in Islam?

 

Then you have the cults that follow these evangelists. They do not think they are right, they know they are.

 

And by the way I watched most of that interview with Copeland. That guy is certifiable. He is completely and utterly NUTS - jeez, just look at the mood swings! He is a scary, scary guy. People like that should not be allowed to be on the loose. And he is a spiritual advisor to Trump?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which view of morality correct? Is it the Christian view, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism... Maybe the map is not the territory?

 

In a lot of ways they are all quite similar as far as morality goes. Like "the golden rule" or something similar is found in almost all of them. Buddhism doesn't really have a deity so I'm not sure if classing it as a religion is fair. Though, it's not one I've studied very much.

 

Now, from a historical perspective, Christianity is pretty impressive. There is a surprising amount of evidence that many of those folks existed, for instance (well, for being 2,000 years old anyway).

 

So maybe the "lot of ways they are all quite similar as far as morality goes" means there is something common between them. Maybe a there is a moral truth that transcends religion? Could different religions just be different constructs to understand the same moral truth and to derive answers of the unknown? Different maps of the same territory...

 

Morality may not come from the Bible, but absolutely morality is influenced by the Bible...in fact morality is influenced by most religious texts.  "Jihad" is a religious construct in the Koran...but then seized, utilized and sanctified as the moral code of those that misinterpret it.  The same thing with Christians when they take excerpts from the Old Testament, which may contradict what is written in the New Testament, and then latch on to a ethical or moral dilemma.

 

And then if you consider what Marshall McLuhan said "The medium is the message"...well all modern day religious texts are all translations.  The Bible in particular is translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin.  Can you imagine how much of the message changes between the translations?  Accuracy of what was said or happened, may be so far off the mark, that it would be ridiculous to base a framework on how you live your life around what is written in the Bible.  Cheers!

 

A religion needs followers to survive and many of the tenants of religion teach "my way is right, your way is wrong" in order to grow. Religious tolerance is a recipe for stagnation, evangelizing or more aggressive tactics are necessary to "spread the word" and grow. Religion is an incredible way to amass wealth and power, something the creators of multiple religions deliberately taught against. Tweaking text or adopting favorable policies is the corruption of religion and is the natural result of individuals acting in their own self interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...