NPR Media Player (this podcast)
Reporter: Barbara Hagerty
October 18th 2011
Well, prepare for destruction AGAIN everyone. Harold Camping, a prophet of the doomsday and head of Family Radio has recrunched the numbers and it turns out he was about 5 months off in his last prediction. He also might have been wrong about the world ending in destruction, stating his new conviction with a few 'probably...''s thrown in there.
"Probably there will be no pain suffered by anyone because of their rebellion against God. Unbelievers might just fall asleep and never wake up." -Camping
Hagerty, the reporter, had the same attitude I do: skepticism. To me this seems like a desperate, embarrassing ploy to convert more people to Christianity. Totally legal, yes, but are we really reverting to the SCARE factor to have people follow a religion? Isn't the belief in a God supposed to rely on faith, not fear?
I'm not sure why but this podcast made me consider that although I find Hinduism and Buddhism to be a little different than my daily life and quite repressing toward females, I also can't think of a single instance when anyone has tried to shove either of those religions down someone else's throat. It's a nice 'take it or leave it' approach, with no threatening consequences other than you might be reborn again as a goat or something, but have another opportunity to create better karma for yourself.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Mormons not Christians?
How do Mormons not answer Christian claims? (Article)
By Michael Otterson
October 12th 2011
The author wrote this article from his own perspective as a Latter -Day Saint church member. He was told by a very close friend 'you're not a Christian because of X,Y,andZ beliefs, or lack of those beliefs'. According to him, Mormons follow Christian ideas but of course have their own additional beliefs as well. The author writes with a very open-minded voice, not insulting other religions but simply stating the fact that 'yes, it's different than what some people know to be Christianity but come talk to us if you would like to know the similarities as well'.
This article made me think of how both Hinduism and Buddhism have so many different branches, and yet I consider them all to be properly grouped together under the same 'umbrella' naming of those main religions. For example, do people that follow the Mahayana school of though claim that the Theravada followers are 'not Buddhists!'? That is an honest question because I have never had the opportunity to ask someone, but I am going to assume not. I would think that generally people would qualify someone as a Hindu/Buddhist if they were following the same basic principles. This too SHOULD be the case for Christianity, in my opinion. I think people need to chill out, keep religion bashing OUT of their political speeches (look at this article for a good example of what I mean) and just let people be!
By Michael Otterson
October 12th 2011
The author wrote this article from his own perspective as a Latter -Day Saint church member. He was told by a very close friend 'you're not a Christian because of X,Y,andZ beliefs, or lack of those beliefs'. According to him, Mormons follow Christian ideas but of course have their own additional beliefs as well. The author writes with a very open-minded voice, not insulting other religions but simply stating the fact that 'yes, it's different than what some people know to be Christianity but come talk to us if you would like to know the similarities as well'.
This article made me think of how both Hinduism and Buddhism have so many different branches, and yet I consider them all to be properly grouped together under the same 'umbrella' naming of those main religions. For example, do people that follow the Mahayana school of though claim that the Theravada followers are 'not Buddhists!'? That is an honest question because I have never had the opportunity to ask someone, but I am going to assume not. I would think that generally people would qualify someone as a Hindu/Buddhist if they were following the same basic principles. This too SHOULD be the case for Christianity, in my opinion. I think people need to chill out, keep religion bashing OUT of their political speeches (look at this article for a good example of what I mean) and just let people be!
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Where does church end and state begin?
By Jacques Berlinerblau
The Washington Post On Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html
This article is written with a big serving of sarcasm, mostly directed toward US political figures who have tried to use their religion as a reason for doing something some find unconstitutional. It is very entertaining, and also intriguing if you look at it with an open mind.
The US is supposed to have (and I would say a majority of the time, does) a separation of Church and State. So I can see how some people get quite frustrated when political figure heads, voted into power by the American public, are making decisions based off their religious values and NOT based off the constitution. People are not voted into power because of their religion. Therefore, when someone takes power, they should not get to pick and choose which laws to pass/duties to follow based off their own beliefs. Berlinerblau does a good job giving a few examples of past experiences when people have tried to do something because of their faith, and normally these people have been told "no, no, I don't care that your faith says otherwise..your job says do this" so it's nice to know the separation is being upheld.
This just made me think of how Hinduism and Buddhism are so much more than religions, they are lifestyles, that there is no way church and state could ever be separated. I think this might make laws/rules/regulations/etc a lot easier to decide on but I can't decide if it's 'fair' or if I would like it. Probably not since I don't really have any certain religion I adhere to.
It's also interesting to think about how the first amendment protects against freedom of speech, but by requiring political figures to not base any decisions off their religion, is that somehow going against that amendment too? I think it's fair to say that religion influences a lot of people's morals and values and opinions...so are we saying that political figures need to base their morals, values, etc off of somewhere else? How could a person even control for that since those things are typically ingrained in a person by the time they are college-aged?
The Washington Post On Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html
This article is written with a big serving of sarcasm, mostly directed toward US political figures who have tried to use their religion as a reason for doing something some find unconstitutional. It is very entertaining, and also intriguing if you look at it with an open mind.
The US is supposed to have (and I would say a majority of the time, does) a separation of Church and State. So I can see how some people get quite frustrated when political figure heads, voted into power by the American public, are making decisions based off their religious values and NOT based off the constitution. People are not voted into power because of their religion. Therefore, when someone takes power, they should not get to pick and choose which laws to pass/duties to follow based off their own beliefs. Berlinerblau does a good job giving a few examples of past experiences when people have tried to do something because of their faith, and normally these people have been told "no, no, I don't care that your faith says otherwise..your job says do this" so it's nice to know the separation is being upheld.
This just made me think of how Hinduism and Buddhism are so much more than religions, they are lifestyles, that there is no way church and state could ever be separated. I think this might make laws/rules/regulations/etc a lot easier to decide on but I can't decide if it's 'fair' or if I would like it. Probably not since I don't really have any certain religion I adhere to.
It's also interesting to think about how the first amendment protects against freedom of speech, but by requiring political figures to not base any decisions off their religion, is that somehow going against that amendment too? I think it's fair to say that religion influences a lot of people's morals and values and opinions...so are we saying that political figures need to base their morals, values, etc off of somewhere else? How could a person even control for that since those things are typically ingrained in a person by the time they are college-aged?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)