ANTI-RELIGION: Discuss the perils of religion

staples420 · Nov 21, 2004

BlackBillBlake said:

I think this is a tricky issue. I agree that its the 'sin not the sinner' that is at fault. But what I'm trying to say is that we have to be careful and use discrimination to decide what we believe and who we should follow (if anyone).
Also, it can happen that the influence of some fanatical and narrow sect can actually be very damaging to those they seek to convert. I have seen this in the case of Mormons, who tried to break up a family I know, and would have installed the female half in a house owned and furnished by their church - in effect, they would 'own' that person. To leave the cult would be to become homeless.
In an instance like that, I have no hesitation in saying what I think - that this is obviously wrong. But in the instance I mentioned, the woman concerned managed to see through it all.
But of course, we can't dictate to others what they should believe. People need to make their own mistakes - come to some kind of understanding for themselves.
The only thing that can justify 'intervention', to put it that way, is where a persons actions may threaten some definite harm to others - society has to be protected.

Love & Peace.
Click to expand...

Well, in cases like that I can certainly agree. Intervention can most always be justified when others are endangered.

Log in or Sign up

ANTI-RELIGION: Discuss the perils of religion

staples420 Member

Log in or Sign up

ANTI-RELIGION: Discuss the perils of religion

staples420 Member

Useful Searches