Friday, March 10, 2006

Church of Reality Challenges Other Religions on Morality

Here's an interesting press release I received yesterday from Marc Perkel of the Church of Reality. I think he makes several valid points. What do you think?
The Church of Reality today issues a challenge to other religions on the issue of ethics and morality. We live in a world where the hatred among religions grows daily between Christianity and Islam and the time has come to put a stop to it. Both sides claim the superior moral position and to represent the word of God while taking up arms and going to war with no concern for the costs to civilization and the future of the human race. Both religions claim divine inspiration from the same source, but as an outside observer, we do not see it. We believe that what you do represents what you believe and, if you are dishonest and you are violent, then that is what you are and that is what you believe.

Both religions claim to be a religion of peace, yet neither side has not the will nor the divine inspiration to make peace happen. If your religions truly have divine inspiration and guidance, then one can only conclude that your gods are failures. On the other hand, if your gods actually do represent love and peace, then your religions do a disservice to your creator.

It is logical, therefore, to assume that the superior religion would be the one which wins based upon the nature of the gods that one believes in. Therefore, our challenge is: Show us your God through you and show you are the true voice of the master by winning through peace and not by war. According to your own holy books, when you turn to war over peace and when you put hate before love, you are violating the very core principles that you claim that God stands for. Therefore, you cannot win a religious war by doing the opposite of what you claim God wants you to do.

We in the Church of Reality are Atheists. We look at your behavior and we conclude that, if a God does exist, that you are not in touch with it. We are committed to believing in whatever is real. We would believe in God if God were real. Your religions claim that you have a personal relationship with God, that you communicate with God directly, and that God transforms you into something that reflects its nature. So we say, show us the fruits of that transformation. We ask you, if your God is powerful enough to erase the hatred from your heart and to bring peace through each of you, to stop the violence. If your God is so weak that his followers can't stop killing, then you aren't going to convert any Realists to your religions.

We in the Church of Reality also believe, "By their fruits you shall know them." So, if you are filled with the spirit of the Lord, then lets see if you can shine the light of God's peace and love and end the wars.

11 comments:

  1. I couldn't agree more.

    For them to be preaching and taking the moral high ground from a book that speaks of peace, mercy and brotherly love and then give in to hatred and mistrust at the first opportunity is total hypocrisy.

    As far as I am concerned if a path isn't simple to follow and free from contradiction and hypocrisy, then it's not worth my time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Points well made. People - not as a whole, but the highly visible radicals (radicals always manage to be highly visible don't they??) do not represent what their faith claims to stand for.

    It sounds as though the atheists are basing their opinion of God's existence upon how others (who claim to believe) carry out their lives. I guess that's like deciding whether a restaurant's food is good by reading the review but not going to taste for yourself. Valid, but incomplete.

    The question of what one is to do in the face of a force that professes to intend one's destruction is a difficult one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't believe in reality. I don't believe in anything. That includes God and atheism. A new religion: first tenet: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY THINGS, ESPECIALLY THOUGHTS. Bound to confuse matters. Hotboy
    p.s.Weesoul: I'd google Samye Ling if I was wanting a retreat spot. Couldn't get your comment thing to work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Julie, if someone was telling me the food in a restaurant was great while standing there throwing up in the street, I would have a hard time believing them, I think.

    When people profess their belief in God while treating other people like crap, I have a very hard time believing them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Religions, like computers, are only as good as the people using them.

    I haven't met a perfect person in my lifetime, doubt there are any, so, logically, religions, which are made up of people, can't be perfect either.

    Donna said:

    When people profess their belief in God while treating other people like crap, I have a very hard time believing them.

    Therefore to condemn the religion because of its adherents doesn't work for me, and it's just another variation on killing people for their religious beliefs.

    You can go the Taoist route and shun religion altogether, or you can stake a claim on the very real truths that most religions have espoused at one time or another, looking for the silver lining so to speak.

    Sorry if this is all disorganized and incoherent. Just stuff off the top of my head.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hotboy: Aah yes, the belief in no belief -- the ultimate contradiction! ;-)

    Howard: While it may or may not be true that a higher power exists, religion is created by people; it doesn't exist independent of them. Consequently, the argument that one should judge a religion by its innate principles and not by its adherents makes no sense to me.

    If ANY religion or philosphical system is to mean anything in terms of society, its followers must exhibit the core principles in their thoughts and actions. What does it mean if a particular belief system promotes the eating of pickles and yet most of the adherents eschew pickles? Saying "people aren't perfect" doesn't cut it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've made my point about this on another post of Trey, where I stated that religion was created 2000 years ago to order societies far less complicated than today and that they have not evolved since then.
    The philosophy behind a religion is not that bad, the direct implementation is...
    But who are christians to say who's right and who isn't. Didn't they have a thing called Inquisition?

    Oh well, I don't want to get into discussion with pure christians (do they even exist?) merely because it's impossible to convince them that just aren't strong enough to face reality on their own. I don't blame them for this, but from my personal point of view, I find it strange that so many people need the search for something as made up as a god or whatever you want to call it.

    *Going to continue listening to Ronda alla Turca*

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you're a sceptic, you have to be sceptical about scepticism! I don't believe in scepticism either!

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, How come it's called Aberdeen? Who called it that? Even Scottish people think Aberdonians are mean! Your Aberdonian usually is known as a joe who doesn't sing, dance, or tell jokes! Have you heard of the IWW and the logging connection? Hotboy

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent post. Seeing all these hateful bigots trying to push their own religion is very much like (as the above commenter says) "standing in front of a restaurant throwing up, and telling everybody that the restaurant serves great food."

    It's too bad more people don't see the irony of these hateful control freaks trying to push their "peaceful" religions. It's like that old joke about "the beatings will continue until morale improves."

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.