Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Hasn't this discussion gone on before?

I think the question is to open. Obviously for some people religion is important, and that's fine. For others it's not important, and that's also fine.

People can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try and impose their views on others, then that's cool.

Also the points about religion and God being the creations of man - some got offended by - but hey in my opinion, maybe not so far fetched, afterall you're only going on the word of others at the end of the day. But again that argument can go round and round. What would you say to many alienated tribes in far flung places, who've never heard of God or religion?

Anyway, each to their own, I guess, if it works for you go with it, if not, then don't. Simple as.

Chocoholic wrote:Hasn't this discussion gone on before?

I think the question is to open. Obviously for some people religion is important, and that's fine. For others it's not important, and that's also fine.

People can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try and impose their views on others, then that's cool.

Also the points about religion and God being the creations of man - some got offended by - but hey in my opinion, maybe not so far fetched, afterall you're only going on the word of others at the end of the day. But again that argument can go round and round. What would you say to many alienated tribes in far flung places, who've never heard of God or religion?

Anyway, each to their own, I guess, if it works for you go with it, if not, then don't. Simple as.

Chocs sorry didnt know if it was posted before..

Shafique I know this discussion can go on never ending. Lets hope more and more people, who are into distructive mode, take up light views on religion. I found your faith strong but your views very different from publics view. What we need is people to think more rational and realistic.If religion is only viewed as a personal choice and teachings of moral, and if it serves that purpose, it is all ok. But over the time, its doing the opposite.. and above everything it shouldnt teach to separate people on the basis of anything.

Chocoholic wrote:Hasn't this discussion gone on before?

I think the question is to open. Obviously for some people religion is important, and that's fine. For others it's not important, and that's also fine.

People can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try and impose their views on others, then that's cool.

Also the points about religion and God being the creations of man - some got offended by - but hey in my opinion, maybe not so far fetched, afterall you're only going on the word of others at the end of the day. But again that argument can go round and round. What would you say to many alienated tribes in far flung places, who've never heard of God or religion?

Anyway, each to their own, I guess, if it works for you go with it, if not, then don't. Simple as.

Hey Chocs - good post.

Agree with your last sentence.

As for the question
What would you say to many alienated tribes in far flung places, who've never heard of God or religion?

Islam teaches that all people have been sent messengers - and I've cursorily investigated this vis-a-vis 'primitive' tribes of South America, African, Polynesia (sp?) and the Far East - and also australasian aborigines.

Interestingly, all cultures have a sense that there is a more powerful force which cannot be seen to which they supplicate to. The interesting point for me is that the majority of these tribes and cultures do not resort to idolatry, but pray to an unseen god. This is noticeable when you note the lack of 'temples' with idols in which people pray to - and in their folklore/cultures very few will actually pray to the elements or inanimate or animate objects - they will supplicate to a higher being.

I also find it fascinating that all the cultures also have an expectation that someone/something new will be coming bearing a message that they will have to follow. The expectation of a 'messiah' figure to come is so universal, it is hard to conceive this is a chance occurance.

Cheers,
Shafique

St.Lucifer wrote:
Shafique I know this discussion can go on never ending. Lets hope more and more people, who are into distructive mode, take up light views on religion. I found your faith strong but your views very different from publics view. What we need is people to think more rational and realistic.If religion is only viewed as a personal choice and teachings of moral, and if it serves that purpose, it is all ok. But over the time, its doing the opposite.. and above everything it shouldnt teach to separate people on the basis of anything.

Hey, I'm enjoying this thread - livliest discussion we've had in a while (even if it has been discussed before).

Totally agree with live and let live - however I do think religion is getting a rough ride in people's minds and in the media.

You know I like my analogies - but bear with me.

I don't hear a big cry out from people saying that organised sports is a bad thing and that it is best if there weren't sports teams and fans who support them. Fans do not have to justify why they choose to follow a sports team and go through rituals of dressing up, worshipping in the stadia or in front of the tv, or following the actions of their teams. I know it sounds ridiculous - but imagine if I were to start saying because of rioting by some football fans, the killing of a policeman in Italy - the other fighting around the world, it is 'obvious' that sport does more harm than good.

My contention is that similarly, the vast majority of people who follow a religion are going about their lives peaceably and aren't fanatically calling each other names or plotting to kill people.



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Hey Chocs - good post.

Agree with your last sentence.

As for the question
What would you say to many alienated tribes in far flung places, who've never heard of God or religion?

Islam teaches that all people have been sent messengers - and I've cursorily investigated this vis-a-vis 'primitive' tribes of South America, African, Polynesia (sp?) and the Far East - and also australasian aborigines.

Interestingly, all cultures have a sense that there is a more powerful force which cannot be seen to which they supplicate to. The interesting point for me is that the majority of these tribes and cultures do not resort to idolatry, but pray to an unseen god. This is noticeable when you note the lack of 'temples' with idols in which people pray to - and in their folklore/cultures very few will actually pray to the elements or inanimate or animate objects - they will supplicate to a higher being.

I also find it fascinating that all the cultures also have an expectation that someone/something new will be coming bearing a message that they will have to follow. The expectation of a 'messiah' figure to come is so universal, it is hard to conceive this is a chance occurance.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, Idol worship is something that is largely misunderstood. the concept is not worshipping the stine. although it may have derailed to such a state at many a place.. I consider its there in every religion in one form or the other.

The last messiah and the Last message.. portion of Islam that you mention could be discussed in length. I know we would never reach anywhere, and as any other big wrtten texts, religious texts are also subject to many forms of interpretation. Again just my view. No offense to anyone's belief or not to insult any scripture.

St.Lucifer wrote:Shafique, Idol worship is something that is largely misunderstood. the concept is not worshipping the stine. although it may have derailed to such a state at many a place.. I consider its there in every religion in one form or the other.

I understand where you are coming from - I pray facing a 'shrine' in Mecca, but am not worshipping it.

However, the point I was making was not the pros/cons of idol worship but the startling fact (at least for me) that the 'natural' tendency for man is not to start worshipping idols. (As shown by looking at 'traditional' religions around the world and noting how many involve worshipping towards idols)

St.Lucifer wrote:The last messiah and the Last message.. portion of Islam that you mention could be discussed in length. I know we would never reach anywhere, and as any other big wrtten texts, religious texts are also subject to many forms of interpretation. Again just my view. No offense to anyone's belief or not to insult any scripture.

I know it's contentious - that is why I am always careful to say that 'Islam says it is the final message' - which is a factual statement. Islam teaches that the previous scriptures are of value, but have been superseded - again a factual statement (that this is a teaching of Islam).

I find that acknowledging the truth in another persons beliefs, prophets and books is a very good way to build bridges between faiths.

Cheers,
Shafique

This all goes back to people feeling the need to have something to blame/ explain what is beyond their knowledge though. The gods take many forms as well, some linked to nature, the sun, animals etc. - all they're doing is taking their frame of reference and attempting to rationalise the unexplainable.

The contrast between many societies who are happy to have these Gods as a safety net in the background against the (most notably) Islamic interpretation which says you should make many sacrifices (time, possessions etc.) to satisfy the religion is where the real interest comes in. That to me shows that religion truly is a man-made thing, bound by cultures and societal norms. Indeed, the whole idea of worship is just an extension of human vanity, that they feel as if God is personified and if they had the same powers themselves then they'd expect people to kneel before them. If there is a God and he/ she/ it is all-powerful, surely we would all be in-built with how we were supposed to worship? That we rely on people to come up with stories/ parables about God to drive our actions is really quite laughable when you think about it. And when people like me come along questioning it all, it's dismissed by religions with wishy-washy statements about non-believers testing people's resolve and, even more hilariously, statements like "God moves in mysterious ways" to explain when it all goes against you.

Said way back at the start of this topic, believe if you want, but again Mr. Shafique I feel you're finding logic in some of this because you want to find logic (the old leap of faith can do wondrous things) but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Scot you raise interesting points.

Philosophically, if God did make it obvious how and who to pray, that will remove the element of choice in religion.

Your theory about religion being man-made is a valid one. So is my often quoted theory of creation - we were all created 5 minutes ago with ready made memories. Both are theories, both are equally unprovable or disprovable. We just have to use our intellect and weigh the probabilities and reach a decision. (I personally believe that there is a God, a belief that is reinforced when I look at all the evidence - but can I prove it? No more than I can prove to a child that the air is full of radio and tv waves.)

I totally agree that religion is a matter of personal choice.

I've said, in this thread too, that I do not have enough faith to believe that we all came into being by chance alone. Others obviously have enough faith to believe in chance - and that is totally their choice.

Anyway - my post count is creeping up to the 1000 mark and I'm trying hard not to post any silly posts to get there !

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
I will not put myself as an expert on Buddhism, but what I was saying was that the original teachings of Buddha was monotheistic, and that this later was modified over time.

I draw parallels between Sufi teachings (very philosophical) in relation to 'orthodox' Islam, and the current Buddhist beliefs and the original teachings.

I'll try and dig out some references.

However, let me be clear that this is merely an intellectual exercise and that these issues do not (nor should they) change anyone's faith.

What one chooses to believe is, in my mind, totally up to the individual and should be assessed on whether it gives them peace or not. For me, for something to give me peace - it cannot be illogical, it has to sit well with my logic and not offend my logic. This is my personal test - and it is not a test I expect everyone else to follow nor will I wish to impose anything on anyone else.

Islam teaches that there is no compulsion in matters of faith - people are different and some value logic more than others, some value feelings above logic - neither are wrong, both feel what they feel and have to find their own peace.

Religion teaches empathy for others, teaches sacrifice and accountability. In short it teaches morals. Because of this, I believe religion to be extremely important - because you can't legislate for these factors.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hi Shafique - I concur with your last point and also will always respect someone's faith.

My main point is that religion it is not an essential pre-requisite for living a moral & wholesome life.

jabbajabba wrote:
My main point is that religion it is not an essential pre-requisite for living a moral & wholesome life.

I agree with you that religion is not an essential pre-requisite for any one person. Laws are not a requisite for someone to not commit crimes and one can live a moral life without having reference to any sets of laws or fear of punishment.

However, I would argue that society needs laws to define crime and to punish and deter criminals - therefore I think laws are important to society for sociological reasons.

For spiritual matters, I similarly view religion as important.

Neither laws or religions are essential for particular people - but both are important to society, in my opinion. Which, is what the question originally posed was asking.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

You know I like my analogies - but bear with me.

I don't hear a big cry out from people saying that organised sports is a bad thing and that it is best if there weren't sports teams and fans who support them. Fans do not have to justify why they choose to follow a sports team and go through rituals of dressing up, worshipping in the stadia or in front of the tv, or following the actions of their teams. I know it sounds ridiculous - but imagine if I were to start saying because of rioting by some football fans, the killing of a policeman in Italy - the other fighting around the world, it is 'obvious' that sport does more harm than good.

My contention is that similarly, the vast majority of people who follow a religion are going about their lives peaceably and aren't fanatically calling each other names or plotting to kill people.



Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,
We dont ban sports.. or football.. very very true.. nice point made.. but just look at it from a differnt angle... if you say sports is good even though there are some killings goin on.. or if u say, its just great to let it be like that.. Those freaks just love the game.. and imagine if I encourage others also to love their team n the game.. and I dont know if they would kill others because of that.. may be some of them would.. but only a few would kill and riot, coz of their passion for the team.. Thats ok I would still ask everyone to be extra passionate about their teams, even it if may take attacking others or even killing couple of people when it comes to supporting their team interest..

It doesnt happen that way.. right? people realize that its just a game,even though they are passionate abt it , end of the day its just a game.. and it shouldnt b a reason to differntiate other club supporters from them, and it shouldnt b seen as a reason to attack.. and many people realize it.

I'm sorry if my words r sharp.. that was just to get the point across..

St Luc - the point I would make in return is a statistical one (I'm an actuary by profession, so I find comfort in numbers - so excuse me).

The point is that if one were to do the research, the proportion of troublemakers amongst football supporters is more than the proportion of troublemakers amongst religious people.

I'm talking about those who actually go out of their way and want to harm other people - there are more thugs who call themselves football supporters (who the vast majority will disown their action as nothing to do with sport) - and there are thugs who call themselves religious people (who the vast majority of religious people will disown their actions as nothing to do with religion).

Of the Billion or so Muslims, how many are terrorists? Of the Billion or so Catholics - how many are terrorists (think IRA, real-IRA etc)?

If we don't talk about sport being bad DESPITE a small minority harming others, why talk about Religion being bad when (I contend) an even smaller minority are causing trouble?

Could it be because of media spin? Or is it xenophobia?

Cheers,
Shafique

Cool profession.. stats... is one good subject.

But I think I didnt make myself clear there. Well, since its coming from an authority, I would agree that the football stats may b right, but I think you are only mentioning about percentages here not numbers.. coz Numbers would tell a different story.

I want to make sure that we stick to the point. I never said I'm against religions, Never said it is a bad thing or thats the cause of all trouble, but I've always been questioning how important should it be. To me it shouldnt cross the limits of the biggest religion, the humanitarian religion.

It is a very normal psychological aspect, that creating different types or social classes would only create more distrust and ill respect. Unless everyone is controled by a powerful ruler, problems are bound to come up. And this where the importance of keeping religion as a personal thing is so important.

It shouldnt be given the prime importance, important than life, yours or anyone elses. And please update the suicidal attacks around the word, the stats would reveal that its on the raise. Whatever may the religion be teaching, some of it is going the wrong way, 1 terrorist can kill 100 and can influence another 100 to think that he was right in what he did. Now again we may always differ on who is a terrorist and who is not.

Sorry for my ill knowledge on this subject, but I've seen how mass hysteria works. Some faiths have instilled such strong religious bond in people that when a religious leader evokes an issue, it is supported by almost all of the people as if in a trance. You can blame the leaders, but end of the day the roote cause remains the same.

I'll start with the last point first - but will use numbers instead of percentages

St.Lucifer wrote:Sorry for my ill knowledge on this subject, but I've seen how mass hysteria works. Some faiths have instilled such strong religious bond in people that when a religious leader evokes an issue, it is supported by almost all of the people as if in a trance. You can blame the leaders, but end of the day the roote cause remains the same.

Which faiths are these? Christianity - in the hands of David Coresh etc? - Shia Ishmaelism of the fabled Hashashin? Or perhaps the Kamikazi pilots of Shinto Japan? Or perhaps the Sunni suicide bombers in Iraq and Palestine?

Hardly mass hysteria, if one looks at the numbers.

I totally agree about mass hysteria (just look at the illogical fear of bird flu, mad cow disease, immigration, Al Qaeda etc etc). All have in common emotional fear that is not backed up by any facts (and yes, numbers).

St.Lucifer wrote:But I think I didnt make myself clear there. Well, since its coming from an authority, I would agree that the football stats may b right, but I think you are only mentioning about percentages here not numbers.. coz Numbers would tell a different story.

I would disagree - the numbers make the arguement even stronger in my opinion. We do not say sport is bad because of the hooliganism, vandalism etc of fans (we do say that the hooliganism etc is bad - but don't blame football).

Let's look at the numbers:
Of the 2 billion (say) religious people in the world (of all religions) - what would be your guess of the numbers who are using religion as an excuse to hurt people or do harm, instead of using religion as a positive influence on themselves and their social environment. Would you say there are more religious 'nutters' harming people or more 'simple' criminals doing harm to others (hint think which of the two groups are in prison, bombing the hell out of countries etc)?

Vaccines kill people every year. So do many medicines. However we do not ban either, unless the good doesn't outweigh the bad by a very large degree. I am applying the same test of does religion do more harm than good when answering the question posed in this thread.

Chocs has worded very well my answer - religion is important to those who value it.

St.Lucifer wrote:I want to make sure that we stick to the point. I never said I'm against religions, Never said it is a bad thing or thats the cause of all trouble, but I've always been questioning how important should it be. To me it shouldnt cross the limits of the biggest religion, the humanitarian religion.

If you aren't saying religion is a bad thing - but saying that there are alternatives to religion that address the sociological issues that religion encompasses (how to deal with fellow humans) - then this is a different topic. I totally agree you don't need religion to be humanitarian - but I would turn around and say that removing religion will reduce humanitarian actions around the world (but this will be my opinion, based solely on what religion followed by the majority teaches everyone how to deal with others).

St.Lucifer wrote:It is a very normal psychological aspect, that creating different types or social classes would only create more distrust and ill respect. Unless everyone is controled by a powerful ruler, problems are bound to come up. And this where the importance of keeping religion as a personal thing is so important.

My dad is a sociologist and I guess would have a field day with the above statement - but I would agree with your assessement that social classes and divisions cause problems. This is a societal issue and I'm struggling to see what this has to do with religion. As far as I can tell, no religion teaches that you cannot have rich people and poor people, servants and masters, teachers and students, leaders and followers - in all walks of life.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your quarrel is against mad cults as opposed to religious people.

St.Lucifer wrote:It shouldnt be given the prime importance, important than life, yours or anyone elses. And please update the suicidal attacks around the word, the stats would reveal that its on the raise. Whatever may the religion be teaching, some of it is going the wrong way, 1 terrorist can kill 100 and can influence another 100 to think that he was right in what he did. Now again we may always differ on who is a terrorist and who is not.

Religions that teach someone should kill innocents or commit suicide are very few on the ground. Islam certainly doesn't teach this.

My definition of a terrorist is anyone who kills innocent people to achieve another aim (apart from kiling them - if the aim was just death, they would be murderers/assassins). By this definition 9/11 was a terrorist act, as was 7/7 and as are the suicide bombings in Israel. Similarly, the thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US bombs are victims of terrorism. The thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israelis - also terrorism. Those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - victims of terrorism by this definition - and the biggest terrorist acts ever seen.

But you invite a numerical evaluation of the rise of suicide bombers - I think implicitly saying this is as a result of religion (a point I will say is wrong, as is more to do with desperation and lack of military strength - but let's leave that to one side).

Numerically, shall we say there are 5 suicide bombs a day? Lets say they kill 50 on average. Over a year that means under 2000 bombers and under 100,000 killed by suicide bombers - worldwide. Lets say that each bomber influences 1000 people - that is 2,000,000 people.

Each innocent dying is a tragedy - but as we are playing with numbers, let's look at what 100,000 deaths per annum means as a global figure.

Compare these deaths with other acts of terrorism done in the name of territory, oil or just plain old money. More or less than 100,000 pa (in the same period as the suicide attacks)? Is this religion's fault too?

We can throw statistics around and try and prove points - but at the end of the day, what I get from you is that people should be good to each other. On that point I am of the considered opinion that religion aids this goal more than it hinders it.

If you have a different opinion, then let us cordially to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
Which faiths are these? Christianity - in the hands of David Coresh etc? - Shia Ishmaelism of the fabled Hashashin? Or perhaps the Kamikazi pilots of Shinto Japan? Or perhaps the Sunni suicide bombers in Iraq and Palestine?

I dont know much about those u've mentioned, I also 've the 2nd,3rd,4th hand knowledge of these cults, the incidents. What I know is the kind of hatred that is generated at large communal gatherings at different parts of India. Ofcourse these are my firsthand experiences. The way the common christian and islam followers get motivated and influenced by imams and speakers (seemingly, not in their true sense of someone who understands religion as u or many of us do) is sometimes shocking. sadly many of the times.. its being used to differentiate people of other religion or some are plain extremist views.

Political parties are no better, they take advantage of this, especially political parties that are tied with religions, like muslim league, like RSP, VHP etc etc

Y the difference in look, dressing, custom, living ...n everywhere...

shafique wrote:
Hardly mass hysteria, if one looks at the numbers.

I totally agree about mass hysteria (just look at the illogical fear of bird flu, mad cow disease, immigration, Al Qaeda etc etc). All have in common emotional fear that is not backed up by any facts (and yes, numbers).

I've friends from all the fiaths.... i'm lucky coz i was born into a somewhat equalitarian society ( or say heavy influence of communism). But I grew up in different parts of India. Over the years, people have become less comfortable with others of different faith. Different studies show that, even in uraban areas middle class people dont want his neighbour to be from a different religion. some of them felt that having a friend from a different religion is something uncommon .. hahah

shafique wrote:I would disagree - the numbers make the arguement even stronger in my opinion. We do not say sport is bad because of the hooliganism, vandalism etc of fans (we do say that the hooliganism etc is bad - but don't blame football).

Let's look at the numbers:
Of the 2 billion (say) religious people in the world (of all religions) - what would be your guess of the numbers who are using religion as an excuse to hurt people or do harm, instead of using religion as a positive influence on themselves and their social environment. Would you say there are more religious 'nutters' harming people or more 'simple' criminals doing harm to others (hint think which of the two groups are in prison, bombing the hell out of countries etc)?

Vaccines kill people every year. So do many medicines. However we do not ban either, unless the good doesn't outweigh the bad by a very large degree. I am applying the same test of does religion do more harm than good when answering the question posed in this thread.

Chocs has worded very well my answer - religion is important to those who value it.

Agreed.

How much statistics would u need to prove that, "ok .. religion kills people so are other things, like smoking, cancer.. "
what i'm sayin is, we could cut that one portion

shafique wrote:
If you aren't saying religion is a bad thing - but saying that there are alternatives to religion that address the sociological issues that religion encompasses (how to deal with fellow humans) - then this is a different topic. I totally agree you don't need religion to be humanitarian - but I would turn around and say that removing religion will reduce humanitarian actions around the world (but this will be my opinion, based solely on what religion followed by the majority teaches everyone how to deal with others).

and I would be against, making religion more important than living.

My dad is a sociologist and I guess would have a field day with the above statement - but I would agree with your assessement that social classes and divisions cause problems. This is a societal issue and I'm struggling to see what this has to do with religion. As far as I can tell, no religion teaches that you cannot have rich people and poor people, servants and masters, teachers and students, leaders and followers - in all walks of life.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your quarrel is against mad cults as opposed to religious people.

shafique wrote:
Religions that teach someone should kill innocents or commit suicide are very few on the ground. Islam certainly doesn't teach this.

My definition of a terrorist is anyone who kills innocent people to achieve another aim (apart from kiling them - if the aim was just death, they would be murderers/assassins). By this definition 9/11 was a terrorist act, as was 7/7 and as are the suicide bombings in Israel. Similarly, the thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US bombs are victims of terrorism. The thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israelis - also terrorism. Those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - victims of terrorism by this definition - and the biggest terrorist acts ever seen.

But you invite a numerical evaluation of the rise of suicide bombers - I think implicitly saying this is as a result of religion (a point I will say is wrong, as is more to do with desperation and lack of military strength - but let's leave that to one side).

Numerically, shall we say there are 5 suicide bombs a day? Lets say they kill 50 on average. Over a year that means under 2000 bombers and under 100,000 killed by suicide bombers - worldwide. Lets say that each bomber influences 1000 people - that is 2,000,000 people.

Each innocent dying is a tragedy - but as we are playing with numbers, let's look at what 100,000 deaths per annum means as a global figure.

Compare these deaths with other acts of terrorism done in the name of territory, oil or just plain old money. More or less than 100,000 pa (in the same period as the suicide attacks)? Is this religion's fault too?

We can throw statistics around and try and prove points - but at the end of the day, what I get from you is that people should be good to each other. On that point I am of the considered opinion that religion aids this goal more than it hinders it.

If you have a different opinion, then let us cordially to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
If you have a different opinion, then let us cordially to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

most important point.

Or just say.. I think you are correct.

I think you are correct.



Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting discussion but the answer is quite obvious. Religion is that important to religious people and not important to non-religious people.

As for me personally, religion in the sense of different rules and regulations people live by is not important but religion in the sense of a persons faith and relationship with God is important. Why is it so important?... because I don't believe life ends in this world but that our spirits live on for ever after and what could possibly be more important than where we spend eternity? And do I believe my religion is the best?... of course I do, if I thought any other religion was better I would follow it instead. It's quite simple, it all comes down to faith... which is something that cannot be forced on people. Everyone will know the truth one day and will (or will not depending how you look at it) pay the consequences for their choices.

Excellent first post Strawberries, and great nickname too.

Welcome.

cheers,
Shafique

It’s been a while...an interesting thread.guys..

Strawberries wrote:Interesting discussion but the answer is quite obvious. Religion is that important to religious people and not important to non-religious people.

As for me personally, religion in the sense of different rules and regulations people live by is not important but religion in the sense of a persons faith and relationship with God is important. Why is it so important?... because I don't believe life ends in this world but that our spirits live on for ever after and what could possibly be more important than where we spend eternity? And do I believe my religion is the best?... of course I do, if I thought any other religion was better I would follow it instead. It's quite simple, it all comes down to faith... which is something that cannot be forced on people. Everyone will know the truth one day and will (or will not depending how you look at it) pay the consequences for their choices.

Welcome Strawberries

I too believe that life doesnt end here in this world. Just that I dont believe in what ever is written. or is taught... I also believe in God, we may have different views on it though.

Well this falls right on the boundary line.

"Everyone will know the truth one day and will (or will not depending how you look at it) pay the consequences for their choices."

A moderate, considerate society should have the ability to respect others and their ideologies but thinking that one is right and other is wrong doenst do a lot of good in promoting it... just my view.

shafique wrote:I think you are correct.



Cheers,
Shafique

no no.. I said that first I think you are correct. haha

Well this falls right on the boundary line.

"Everyone will know the truth one day and will (or will not depending how you look at it) pay the consequences for their choices."

Haha yeah I threw that one in there to see if I'd get any reactions

Thanks for the welcomes