The Gay Fray

[Magical Realist]

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements. Without these artificial additives, not found in nature, analogous to synthetic growth hormones, it will not happen naturally to any degree.

About 10-20% of pregnancies result in miscarriages. So to say abortion doesn't occur in nature isn't true.

As for using strictly Kosher methods, next time you need a stent put in to save your heart, or have to take chlorestrel medication, or insulin shots for diabetes, or need a hearing aid to hear, or glasses to see, or have to wear sunscreen at the beach, or need an aspirin for a headache, or whatever, thank god for artificial implements in helping to save our lives and make us healthier. The Kosher school of all-natural wouldn't get you past your first cavity filling or flu vaccine, that's for sure. And for the record all sex has the potential of spreading disease. So condemning gay sex for that is rather silly see?

 

[pjdude1219]

The position taken by many religions is connected to maintaining natural choices and avoiding unnatural and artificial choices. The Koser standards for food, for example, do not allow artificial additives even if science can create these in the lab. Many people prefer Koser and natural foods which don't contain manmade adjustments not found in natural, such as growth hormones. In religions, this is extrapolated to behavior, with the behavior acceptable to many religions being kosher in the sense they do not use or need artificial additives to cheat nature.

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements. Without these artificial additives, not found in nature, analogous to synthetic growth hormones, it will not happen naturally to any degree. Atheists and liberals appear inconsistent whining about artificial additives in food while accepting behavior made possible only with artificial additives. Religion is more consistent this way.

If we go back to gay sexual behavior, this behavior would lead to higher attrition, if it did not have artificial additives to supplement it. It is not considered Koser behavior since its only works safely in culture, with artificial additives, such as condoms that don't grow anywhere in nature. This is insanitary which is why science recommends using plastic sleeves not found in nature.

I believe in freedom of choice in all matters, but it is useful for culture have an understanding of kosher versus non kosher behavior. When athletes uses steroids to enhance performance, this is not kosher, since it uses artificial additives.

On the other hand, if one changes their sex from male to female or vice versa, that only works with artificial additives, yet it is treated as different. Neither athletic performance enhancement or sex change just happen naturally, but these are not treated the same. The mind of both people see a different image of themselves which takes fake stuff to make happen. The athlete has to accept this and work harder. This is the kosher standard. Liberals tend to use the dual standard, with the same things treated differently if made political.

What would happen if homosexuality decided to only use Kosher behavior standards without any artificial additives. Nature would reduce their numbers with various diseases. Religions have seen this happen over the centuries. The writings reflect this.

you do realize abortion and contraception is as old or older than human civilization right?
your just a bigot

 

[Dywyddyr]

The position taken by many religions is connected to maintaining natural choices and avoiding unnatural and artificial choices.

Given the antiquity of the rules this is hardly likely.
There wasn't much "unnatural" around at the time.

The Koser standards for food, for example, do not allow artificial additives even if science can create these in the lab.

This is false.
List of allowed E numbers.

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements.

False.

Without these artificial additives, not found in nature

Is this some sort of suggestion that there are no natural abortifacients?

Atheists and liberals appear inconsistent whining about artificial additives in food while accepting behavior made possible only with artificial additives.

Utter nonsense.
If you'd said SOME "atheists and liberals" you'd have been closer to accurate.

If we go back to gay sexual behavior, this behavior would lead to higher attrition, if it did not have artificial additives to supplement it.

Evidence required.

It is not considered Koser behavior since its only works safely in culture, with artificial additives

Evidence required.

This is insanitary which is why science recommends using plastic sleeves not found in nature.

Absolutely. Because there's no possible way to make a condom without plastic is there?
Oh, wait...

I believe in freedom of choice in all matters, but it is useful for culture have an understanding of kosher versus non kosher behavior.

Since you obviously have no idea - or have chosen to fabricate "facts" - about kosher it's difficult to lend any credence to your claim to "believe in freedom of choice in all matters".

As usual your post is a mix of falsehoods, generalised claims and nonsense.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

List of allowed E numbers.

Why can't Jews take vitamin B2 during Passover?

 

[Bells]

The position taken by many religions is connected to maintaining natural choices and avoiding unnatural and artificial choices. The Koser standards for food, for example, do not allow artificial additives even if science can create these in the lab. Many people prefer Koser and natural foods which don't contain manmade adjustments not found in natural, such as growth hormones. In religions, this is extrapolated to behavior, with the behavior acceptable to many religions being kosher in the sense they do not use or need artificial additives to cheat nature.

Sure and those people eat off plates, use water from taps, buy their food from supermarkets in the hope that the 'all organic' tag is correct and use modes of transportation that is not found in nature (from bikes through to cars, planes and trains). They also use computers, read religious texts that are printed on paper (none of which is found in nature).

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements. Without these artificial additives, not found in nature, analogous to synthetic growth hormones, it will not happen naturally to any degree.

Have you never heard of a miscarriage? Or the fact that there are many natural products (plants) that are abortificants?

Atheists and liberals appear inconsistent whining about artificial additives in food while accepting behavior made possible only with artificial additives. Religion is more consistent this way.

What behaviour is only possible with artificial additives?

If we go back to gay sexual behavior, this behavior would lead to higher attrition, if it did not have artificial additives to supplement it.

Pretty sure gays can have sex au naturale...

It is not considered Koser behavior since its only works safely in culture, with artificial additives, such as condoms that don't grow anywhere in nature.

Nonesense. Kill a lamb and use its gut. They are called lambskin condoms and were used thousands of years ago, by the Romans I believe. It's literally a piece of lamb's intestines used as a condom. Grows in nature. And used by people who are allergic to latex.

This is insanitary which is why science recommends using plastic sleeves not found in nature.

No, science recommends the use of condoms when having sex (gay or straight sex) to prevent the spread of STD's and HIV/AIDS.

I believe in freedom of choice in all matters, but it is useful for culture have an understanding of kosher versus non kosher behavior. When athletes uses steroids to enhance performance, this is not kosher, since it uses artificial additives.

So if gays don't take steroids or any 'performance enhancing drugs' before they have sex, it's perfectly acceptable religiously?

On the other hand, if one changes their sex from male to female or vice versa, that only works with artificial additives, yet it is treated as different. Neither athletic performance enhancement or sex change just happen naturally, but these are not treated the same. The mind of both people see a different image of themselves which takes fake stuff to make happen. The athlete has to accept this and work harder. This is the kosher standard. Liberals tend to use the dual standard, with the same things treated differently if made political.

Was this meant to make sense?

What would happen if homosexuality decided to only use Kosher behavior standards without any artificial additives. Nature would reduce their numbers with various diseases. Religions have seen this happen over the centuries. The writings reflect this.

Nothing would happen. People would still keep having sex. Homosexual or heterosexual. And the risks of STD's would apply to both. I mean sure, religion can let nature take it's course and promote unsafe sexual practices, and many do.. We are talking about organisations that sometimes declare it is acceptable to beat your wife, so really, I should care what they say because of.....?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why can't Jews take vitamin B2 during Passover?

Well duh!
Because it's not allowed.
This is an excellent example of, as Wellwisher claimed, "religious consistency".

Or maybe there's an footnote in the Torah stating god said it changes properties on certain days of the year.

 

[wellwisher]

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements. Without these artificial additives, not found in nature, analogous to synthetic growth hormones, it will not happen naturally to any degree.

Have you never heard of a miscarriage? Or the fact that there are many natural products (plants) that are abortificants?

This is a good example. Miscarriage happens in nature, in a limited way, and is natural. It does not happen anywhere near the rate of the non-Kosher miscarriages called abortions, which is manmade and not Kosher. Because a miscarriage is natural and therefore Kosher, 98% of the religious people will have compassion and sympathy. The Priest or Rabbi might called in to comfort the grieving couple.

If the lady was harming her body with drugs or behavior and this caused a miscarriage, the religious compassion gets divided since it may be at the margins of Kosher law. With full scale abortion there will have even less compassion, since this is fully artificial, like fake meat and therefore will be Kosher censored the same way as growth hormones in food.

There is a logical consistency with this schema. It is not just arbitrary. This schema applies to all things where choices are possible. It does not always apply to disease and using medicine or surgery, even if these are synthetic, since being sick is not a choice. I can't just choose to have cancer or not. However, there is a minority of the religious who still expect Kosher, even in sickness, with only herbal and natural remedies allowed. They stay retro. Church and Temple standards change but at a slower pace than business and science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It does not happen anywhere near the rate of the non-Kosher miscarriages called abortions, which is manmade and not Kosher.

Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011
900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year
Your claim is not supported by the facts.

(Figures for the USA).

 

[wellwisher]

I stand corrected on that point. The main point is religion tend to believe in Kosher behavior where choices are possible. A miscarriage is not a choice but a natural event where a choice may not be possible. An abortion is not natural, since this choice requires a lot of artificial things to make it happen by choice.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I stand corrected on that point.

If you had any sort of integrity you wouldn't have to "stand corrected". You have a long and ignominious history of stating things as fact that are nowhere near such.
Zero to very few of your posts, to my memory, have any sort of supporting citation for your claims, you persist in vague generalisations, incorrect claims and rambling (often to to the point of obscurantist incoherence [sup]1[/sup]) nonsense and, rarely, do you bother (or condescend?) to reply to critiques.

The main point is religion tend to believe in Kosher behavior where choices are possible.

Absolutely.
And religion expresses that belief in choice by telling what you can and cannot eat.
What medical procedures you can and cannot accept.
What behaviours you must subscribe to or condemn.
Etc etc.
Religion: Promoting choice (So long as you do as you're told).

1 I suspect that, if your posts and "prose" were as clear as they should be, you'd get more replies. As it is there's always a vague feeling of "That's b*llocks" when reading your posts but they're so convoluted that your meaning tends to be lost - at least partly because, when breaking your posts down they contradict themselves at numerous points so that the precise intent (if there actually is one) is unfathomable. This may, however, be a deliberate ploy on your part. Perhaps you get a kick out posting just for the sake of seeing your user name in the screen regardless of attached content.

 

[Tiassa]

Kosherdiddle

An abortion, for example, would not be able to happen without science, medicine and technology as supplements.

Given that you are also invoking a context of Kosher, I would wonder how you're defining science, medicine, and technology.

In terms of the Kosher times, people didn't call it "abortion". Rather, it was what a man and a rabbi did to the man's wife if the man thought she cheated on him, just didn't like her, or whatever. Kind of like the Christian dunking tests for witchcraft; there was no way for the test candidate to pass.

To the one, it's morbidly funny, but only slightly, and rather quite appalling every time you open up with one of these ideological, fact-free, delusional spiels.

And given that the heart of this all is your persistent need to complain about political liberals, well, you do realize that the conservatives don't want you in their camp? Nor the libertarians? No, seriously, man, what are you even on about? The idea that you would put this kind of effort into self-gratification is, certainly, no more perverse than trying to figure out just what the hell I would be doing with a replica pangolin skull[sup]†[/sup].

But like actual masturbation, this sort of diddling about is something best kept between oneself and, well, oneself.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] To the one, we get the thing about how primitive these advanced search algorithms are, since Amazon can pick the keywords out of customer reviews and apply them within the search; hence a result that would seem to suggest that Amazon.com thinks replica pangolin skulls are sex toys.

To the other, come on, really? There are freeware scripters hoping for a real job who could write a filter that could figure out that pangolin skulls simply aren't [gay, anal] sex toys.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I stand corrected on that point. The main point is religion tend to believe in Kosher behavior where choices are possible.

the ONLY point of RELIGION is to segregate and CONTROL

there is NO OTHER PURPOSE that religion serves... and there is a difference between a faith and a religion
a faith is a belief in something without empirical data or evidence proving it
a RELIGION, on the other hand, is the dogmatic institution that segregates those who follow the rules with those who do NOT

religion is used for CONTROL of others PERIOD
there is NO OTHER PURPOSE than to CONTROL what you think, do, believe, act upon and more... and to prove it, you simply have to look at Christianity and the many factions therein, from catholocism to the snake handling pentacostal whom all technically believe in the same thing, but different versions/dogma/tenet/philosophy (or religions)
you can't even say that they are the same religion because they all practically hate each other...

because the tenet's of one go against the tenet of another, which is where the segregation comes in

and more to the point, especially concerning this thread... the tenet's of religion on one hand preach tolerance and the other violence
this is the dichotomy of religion, and the paradox

the religion of "love" as they have celled themselves would stone another for their sexual preference, even though our Constitution guarantee's everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... doesn't that mean love too?
WHY would ANYONE want to interfere between two people who love one another? because they think it is yucky? because some pastor says so? because the bible and "kosher" standards? well guess what, the standards also say a lot that most don't want to hear, including about divorce, wearing man made fabrics and eating dairy and meat together....

Religion served a purpose at one time. Now it only serves to segregate and control lives so that there will always be an "enemy" to fight against

 

[Bells]

This is a good example. Miscarriage happens in nature, in a limited way, and is natural. It does not happen anywhere near the rate of the non-Kosher miscarriages called abortions, which is manmade and not Kosher. Because a miscarriage is natural and therefore Kosher, 98% of the religious people will have compassion and sympathy. The Priest or Rabbi might called in to comfort the grieving couple.

If the lady was harming her body with drugs or behavior and this caused a miscarriage, the religious compassion gets divided since it may be at the margins of Kosher law. With full scale abortion there will have even less compassion, since this is fully artificial, like fake meat and therefore will be Kosher censored the same way as growth hormones in food.

There is a logical consistency with this schema. It is not just arbitrary. This schema applies to all things where choices are possible. It does not always apply to disease and using medicine or surgery, even if these are synthetic, since being sick is not a choice. I can't just choose to have cancer or not. However, there is a minority of the religious who still expect Kosher, even in sickness, with only herbal and natural remedies allowed. They stay retro. Church and Temple standards change but at a slower pace than business and science.

1) Miscarriage is limited? The majority are lossed before the woman even realises she is pregnant. Have you not looked at miscarriage figures?

2) A woman can miscarry if she eats the wrong type of cheese, ingests the wrong type of herb or doing just about anything. Suffice to say, not every woman will miscarry while taking drugs and others will miscarry even if she does not take drugs. It's hardly something that can be controlled.

3) Priest sympathy.. Like the ones who damn gays and lesbians to hell and encourage parents to reject their own children or have them kidnapped and tortured into 'straightness' them if they are homosexual?

4) Ah yes, the kosher method.. All natural. In one case, a 2 year old girl suffocated to death for the course of an hour as her parents and others prayed and lay on hands instead of trying to help her. Is that kosher enough for you? How about the ones who noticed a lump in their 2 year old son's abdomen and instead of taking him to a doctor, prayed on him and anointed him in their church. Over the course of a a summer, the lump had grown until it was so large (volleyball size), it distended Justin Barnhart's abdomen. Over the course of that summer, Justin slowly starved to death as his cancerous Wilm's tumour spread to his other organs. By the time he died in September 1981, he had lost so much weight, that you could feel the outlines of his bones in his limbs. At no time did his parents take him to a doctor and instead resorted to prayer. They "stayed retro".. Had they taken him to a doctor, he would have been saved. So who do you think benefited from this 'kosher' style of parenting?

More "natural" and "retro remedies"..

Two Kenyan boys, horribly mutilated in the mistaken belief that their genitals could be used in the treatment of HIV/Aids, have told the BBC of their ordeal.

Late last year, Philip Barasa and Oscar Kituyi, both from the remote northern region of Bungoma, had all or part of their genitals cut off to be sold for the making of an HIV/Aids potion. Another boy, six-year-old Omandi, was also attacked in a similar way.

[source]

The Moorheads are Seventh Day Adventists and vegans, abstaining from eating fish, meat and dairy products.

Despite the parents receiving numerous warnings, Caleb died from broncho-pneumonia due to vitamin B12 deficiency which could have been easily treated.

Instead of allowing a simple injection of vitamin B12, the couple took the boy from Starship Hospital and went into hiding from the authorities.

They administered a variety of herbal remedies including smearing garlic on the soles of his feet.


[source]

Of all the Oregon City cases, the ordeal of 4-year-old Alex Dale Morris stands out.

The boy first complained of fever and congestion on Feb. 28, 1989. He was anointed with holy oil while church members laid their hands on him in an attempt to heal him through the spirit of the Lord. They prayed for 46 days.

On April 14,1989, acting on an anonymous tip to state child welfare workers, an Oregon City policeman visited Alex's home. The officer noticed the boy was sick, but the child appeared well cared for and told the officer he was "all right."

Alex Morris died 29 hours after that visit. An autopsy revealed an infection had filled one side of his chest with pus. Basic antibiotic treatment would have saved him, said Dr. Larry Lewman, Oregon medical examiner.

"It was a horrible thing," Lewman said. "The kid was getting sicker and sicker for days and days. At times, the child would have been overwhelmed with fever and pain.

[source]

Is this logical to you?

Is it logical to let your child die and not seek help or treatment for that child?

And I haven't even touched on the all natural parents who literally starved their children to death by not providing the proper nutrition and feeding their babies vegetable juices, coconut milk and water while they were babies.

 

[Tiassa]

¿Provocateuerist?

Is this logical to you?

The problem with these routines is, in a simple term, "Poe's Law", an axiom suggesting that, barring a clear and concise statement of intent, it is impossible in some cases to distinguish genuine expression from vicious parody.

Religion is the foremost example, and the basis of Poe's Law. The idea is, simply, that the public discourse entertains such arguments that the audience cannot tell whether a given statement is a genuine expression of religious faith or a mocking satire offered by an overzealous and misguided advocate for the opposition—a half-witted agent provocateur.

Is our neighbor expressing a genuine position, or clumsily mocking conservatives he thinks believe such things? In truth, I can't tell. Our neighbor is just as likely to be a queer provocateur trying to discredit his right-wing opponents as a genuine, clueless zealot.

Even I give over to temptation and respond to his rants. But the problem with putting a great deal of thought into those responses is that even with the most superficial credibility, that his is a genuine expression, it is so disorganized, ignorant, and, as a result, patchwork argument, that his underlying thesis is a mystery unless we settle on the one common element that he will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in order to denounce what he envisions as political liberalism. In which case, we come back to the question of a self-defeating genuine zeal versus a self-defeating provocateurist zeal.

There is, of course, a third option, which is that he simply represents the sickness of our society, what Sufis call "earthsickness", a malady of superficial attachment and accretion. We can let him ramble on, indict no one, and simply take his words as an example of what humanity looks like when it runs so far astray. At the very least, that option allows us to seek some redeeming value in his labor.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Well duh!
Because it's not allowed.
This is an excellent example of, as Wellwisher claimed, "religious consistency".

Or maybe there's an footnote in the Torah stating god said it changes properties on certain days of the year.

You think there might be a footnote in the Torah about Vitamin B2?
The odds of that are less than 50/50 I'd say.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You think there might be a footnote in the Torah about Vitamin B2?
The odds of that are less than 50/50 I'd say.

Don't be silly.
There must be something about it in there.
Otherwise that would mean the prohibition against B[sub]2[/sub] is just something some guy made up.
(I wonder if he used a set of Scrabble letters and some dice? Sat there saying to himself "Somewhere down the line this going to play hell with peoples' lives, and confuse the shit out of everyone.")

 

[Captain Kremmen]

To be fair, it is probably something to do with the way vitamin B2 is manufactured.
There will be a logical reason behind it.
Enough digression already.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

the ONLY point of RELIGION is to segregate and CONTROL

there is NO OTHER PURPOSE that religion serves... and there is a difference between a faith and a religion
a faith is a belief in something without empirical data or evidence proving it
a RELIGION, on the other hand, is the dogmatic institution that segregates those who follow the rules with those who do NOT

religion is used for CONTROL of others PERIOD
there is NO OTHER PURPOSE than to CONTROL what you think, do, believe, act upon and more... and to prove it, you simply have to look at Christianity and the many factions therein, from catholocism to the snake handling pentacostal whom all technically believe in the same thing, but different versions/dogma/tenet/philosophy (or religions)
you can't even say that they are the same religion because they all practically hate each other...

because the tenet's of one go against the tenet of another, which is where the segregation comes in

and more to the point, especially concerning this thread... the tenet's of religion on one hand preach tolerance and the other violence
this is the dichotomy of religion, and the paradox

the religion of "love" as they have celled themselves would stone another for their sexual preference, even though our Constitution guarantee's everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... doesn't that mean love too?
WHY would ANYONE want to interfere between two people who love one another? because they think it is yucky? because some pastor says so? because the bible and "kosher" standards? well guess what, the standards also say a lot that most don't want to hear, including about divorce, wearing man made fabrics and eating dairy and meat together....

Religion served a purpose at one time. Now it only serves to segregate and control lives so that there will always be an "enemy" to fight against

Some interesting ideas TCS.
Religion as a method of control, as opposed to belief or faith which is person centred. (roughly)
My instinct is to agree with you, if that is what you meant.

 

[kx000]

Love will be the judge on what sex is. Anyone who rebels against a loving judgement is a fool.

In one had I love everyone and I am attracted to other women, in the other hand I do love one the most written in the stars. How do I satisfy?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Some interesting ideas TCS.
Religion as a method of control, as opposed to belief or faith which is person centred. (roughly)
My instinct is to agree with you, if that is what you meant.

That is pretty much exactly what I mean.

if you truly look at what "religion" does vs. the "faith" one has... you can easily see a huge difference.
I have traveled all over the world and experienced more religions than some people experience new clothes... and they are all very similar in most ways. It is my personal belief that religions (the tenets/dogma's/philosophies/etc) are pretty much like cultural and national beliefs... they are there to establish a bond between similar or like minded people and a prejudice against others (which is a key ingredient to controlling others). ANYTHING that is used to create a division among people due to some arbitrary system of selection is a system that creates prejudice and mistrust for those who are NOT of a like mind, and therefore is a method for controlling others. And by arbitrary I really mean arbitrary... have you ever actually read the differences between most religions? so many preach the SAME THING... just in a different way usually affected by the culture and location of the belief!


having "faith" that there is a god is relatively benign, and doesn't mean that you can't do some good science... but then in steps the dogmatic institution of "religion" which states that anyone who speaks against the god of the religion is a heretic: and THEN you get things like the Inquisition, witch burning, expulsion and excommunication and more, etc. The control part comes in regarding the CHOICE of the arbitrary moment/situation/item/belief/thing that causes the divergence between people (baptist vs catholics vs mennonite, etc). This arbitrary decision, taken out of the context of RELIGION is then labeled PREJUDICE.

These tactics are DESIGNED to control the populace of the church and make sure that they do NOT step out of bounds... but it is touted as a "guidelines" for being a good [insert religious dogma/tenet/philosophy here]. Case in point: Amish and or Catholicism excommunication from the church as well as community (although the Catholics don't always fervently and fanatically adhere to the community part of excommunication anymore).

and HERE is a POINT most religious people never can address:
WHAT would be the purpose of strictly adhering to a dogma and or tenet that actually GOES AGAINST the central figure and his teachings in a faith?

my question is based upon this:
Christianity believes in Jesus, which stated that of all the commandments, the most important are to have no other god and the second is to treat others as you wish to be treated... and that ALL OTHER commandments were based upon THESE TWO!
One of the commandments is to NOT JUDGE OTHERS.
Now consider the actions of MOST CHURCHES that I see in christian faith: THEY JUDGE A PERSON BASED UPON SEXUAL PREFERENCE
THEN THEY DENOUNCE THEM
THEN MISTREAT THEM
and all this they try to justify based on a code of conduct from 2000 years ago! LONG before people learned that we are all basically the same, there is very little difference between the arbitrary designation we call "race" (not even enough to justify a taxonomical sub-species or divergent species reference, if I remember correctly).

and now, with modern technology and the realisations of genetics, DNA and more, we can plainly see that we are essentially all the same, that the problems that interfere with simple things like equal pay for equal work are cultural and due to a learned prejudice, and that there is so much more to be learned out there... but we still allow a 2000 year old outdated code that says a WHOLE lot of things besides their "sexual preference" policies ... we still let this direct our minds and hearts.

in the old testament, they put entire cities, man, woman and child to the death per the word of their deity because they weren't Kosher or whatever arbitrary reason. Why then do the "faithful adherents of the word" not comply with these OTHER "rules" and codes of conduct today? Because the other cultures around them will then label them as a terrorist and fanatic, they will receive negative attention and the entire world that is NOT of their belief will turn against them (see 9/11, muslims and the problems there)

IOW - to put it more concisely, As Captain Kremmen so succinctly puts it: Religion as a method of control, as opposed to belief or faith which is person centered. (roughly)
Religion controls
Faith is just a belief without proof and can apply to ANYTHING: from ability to cook or drive to sexual prowess