Grandparents

posted January 9th, 2016, 2:01 am


average rating: None
post a comment
author comments
view GreenKrog's profile

February 27th, 2015, 4:09 pm

GreenKrog

reply

Unfortunately, what Annie's father said is autobiographical. I never understood what my father had against his parents - they were always the sweetest, kindest people I knew. They prayed before dinner, led humble lives, worked hard.
When I was older, he told me how brutally hard they could be because of their Mennonite Christianity. I had never seen it, because I was their grandkid.

My father never pushed religion on me either. He answered my questions if I had them. He let me make up my own mind. He didn't try to protect me from it, even though he didn't believe it himself.
My father only hates people who hurt each other. He could never willingly participate in religion, because that is what it does to people - it takes messages of love and turns it dark.

My mother, Annie's mother.. she was religious.

end of message
user comments

January 9th, 2016, 5:07 am

Lucy (Guest)

Religion

reply

Like someone commented a day or 2 ago, the Bible is so full of contradictory messages (as well as things you can interpret more than one way, I might add) that you have to pick some messages to take seriously, and others to discard. Though I'm agnostic, I go to church with my family regularly because my parents started taking my daughter, and she sings in the choir. I am happy to report that there are churches that pick the positive aspects to take seriously. My willingness to go to church to keep the peace would take a steep nosedive if I heard so much as a whisper of hate or the suggestion that God made people imperfect and is now going to cast them into hell because they are imperfect.

If Annie were a real person, I'd suggest she check out the United Church of Canada.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

January 9th, 2016, 11:48 am

GreenKrog

reply

@Lucy: That is why I believe that the philosophy of the Abrahamic religions can be beautiful. The faith of it brings goodness to people, gives them cause to come together.
It is religion, the dogma that says 'it is written, therefor it is true', that I take such premise with.

end of message

January 28th, 2016, 4:38 am

Miiohau

reply

@GreenKrog: I see you were deeply hurt by religion. But I have to think at it's best religion acts as set of training wheels. "Do good and hope for blessings in the afterlife." Which becomes just "Do good."
I believe most religious bigots don't understand their own doctrine. Most mainstream churches have some variation of love your neighbor as one of central tenets. Any christen faith should because when asked that the second thing cited and the first does over rule it (Love doesn't condone hate and doesn't justify attacking unless the object of love is under attack and how could any mortal action harm God).

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

January 28th, 2016, 10:24 am

GreenKrog

reply

@Miiohau: If you can translate a religion in to 'do good', then you are talking about humanist values. So why bother having any of the dogma attached to it? Why claim to be of a denomination that is 'right' when the other denominations do the same? It isn't so much that I've been hurt by religion, as much as it doesn't follow logic to have a lot of extra baggage on top of a message so pure as love each other.

end of message

January 28th, 2016, 2:10 pm

Miiohau

reply

@GreenKrog: humanism rejects the existence of God or the afterlife. What I am talking about is doing good for some reward (possibly in the next life) until it becomes part of you. At which point the doctrine becomes a guide in as much as represents collective wisdom.
In terms of dogma(incontrovertibly true) I hold only love god and love your neighbor as yourself as the only absolute moral truths (I hold other things to be true but they are metaphysical or historical). "Thou shall not kill": Ancient Israel was commanded by God to wage war. Nephi was command to kill Laban. Admittedly these were edge cases but that's the point they were exceptions to the rule. Thence the rule isn't incontrovertibly true.
Man can't serve two masters and that goes for doctrine and commandments as well. The two great commandments work is because the first tells to follow the second and the second tells how to act in all cases it doesn't conflict with the first (see my comments on "Eph" for my thoughts on the first commandment and hate). The rest of the law just gives us good rules of thumb that we should follow in most cases but don't have to if they conflict with either of the two great commandments. Again like training wheels.

end of message
post a comment