Religion...

Remove all ads!

A simple problem with religion is that they all counter one another "I am the one true god" and so forth "You shall worship no other gods before me" or something. Basically all these gods are saying that they are the ONLY god. So if so many gods are saything they're the only god, therefore at least one god does not exist if another one does exist.

Now, assuming that the Bible is correct, all other religions have just been made up by some nutter and his lackies. If ANOTHER religion is the correct religion then the Bible is automatically debunked as well as many other monothesisims (uh, is that the plural for that word?). Obviously SOMEBODY has to be wrong and frankly either the richest and most powerful religion (Christianity) is wrong or all the other religions that make up more than half of the world's population are wrong. Either outcome can't be good yet one of those two outcomes is actually upon us, we just don't know what one yet.

Oh wait, one more outcome - no religion is true, it's all made up by some nutter or another and all these people have been following the echos of some mad socialist's stone engravings.

That's why religion is screwy. If one is right, all the others are wrong or everybody is wrong.

 

@Abomination: It's a fundamental principle of Judaism that the righteous of ALL faiths will have their place in the hereafter. This acceptance that there can be different paths to God is a BIG part of the appeal for me.

IMO, religion is man's attempt to fit himself into the cosmos, to understand the infinite. Religions that fall out of favor (for whatever reason) turn into myths, but that doesn't make them any less valid for the people who believed and found comfort in those beliefs. Every person has to come to grips with the idea of the infinite at some time. Some turn to religion, others not. The problems stem not from the differences between religions, but in the very HUMAN characteristic of needing to convince everyone else that your way is right and theirs is wrong.

 

Rally is right as usual. The problem lies not with God but Man.

Not all religions actual worship God. I'm having trouble getting the right words.

Buddhists as I understand it do not worship a god. The impression I have is it is more of a coming to wholeness with infinity. The state of pure selflessness.

Confucius taught a philosophy that evolved into a religion.

Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same god. The one that evolved in the Old Testament/Torah.

I know almost nothing about Daoism so can't comment. It is the path to enlightenment I believe.

Hinduism seems more complex with its multitude of gods or godlike beings or are they aspects of the same god?

When I read these posts on religion I visualize the founders of these religions sitting around shaking their heads and commenting on how their followers misunderstood what they were trying to teach.

They all have in common that in one form or another they said "treat other people the way you would like to be treated".

 

You can say the same about political parties or trends within science.

Besides, not all religions are made up by lunatics or greedy people. In many cases, they have evolved from primitve people's perception of the supernatural, so basically, a monotheistic religion worships the same god, God, as Christianity or Judaism. It's the perception of God what's different. Politeism is trickier here but there's no reason to suspect mala fides in all cases by default. According to the Bible, deities worshipped by other peoples are daemons rather than made up beings. Besides, politeism varies in degrees and in some cases, it isn't so far from the vision of one god with angels and, let's say, saints. There may well be sparks of truth in all religions, which doesn't mean they are equally right or that one should believe in more than one of them.

@deepfae:

So does Jesus. Give to God what's God's, to Caesar what's his... Separation of Church and State isn't perhaps a religious tenet of Christianity per se, but there's difference between the temporal and the eternal and who rules where. Paul's letters are full of being a good citizen and, generally, it's actually a sin of neglect if you don't vote in democratic elections, according to Catholic doctrine, while priests should tell you to vote, that you should be mindful of who you vote for and that you should have Christian values in mind, but not whom to vote (and if there are two candidates of whom one obviously opposes Christian values, then pity... he still shouldn't be named, though). Casting a vote in any kind of elections or parliamentary vote is a moral action for which the actor is responsible, so it may be sinful. The Church deals with sin, forgiveness and salvation, so it isn't out of place for the Church to say it's wrong to vote for abortion, for instance (which it obviously is in the light of Christian doctrine). Telling people the names of candidates to vote for is a whole different thing and it shouldn't be done. The current Code of Canon Law (RCC) prevents priests from accepting any office in which they would exercise temporal authority.

Well, whoever is without sin, let him throw the stone. This, however, refers to judging people, not to judging acts. This means that, "Hey, you abominable fag, thou shalt rot in hell, yadda yadda!" is obviously wrong, while the fact it's wrong doesn't mean one should stay away from classing a given kind of acts as wrong and sinful (as we classed the "you will rot, you @#$@#%" kind of comments ).

By the way, I like what Oaz said. Surely religions face their problems and some more than others. There's been a number of quite freaky ones, as well. As Rally and Nakia said, the problem is with men, though. Except I once again want to stress I'm far from the notion that religions are equal and converting is wrong. Heck, on the part of a person believing differently from me, it's an act of charity if he attempts to convert me.

As for Jesus, He was God and human both and His human nature was Jewish, as was His mother's and most of the Apostles'.

[ March 02, 2006, 11:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

NOG:

Regarding Christ's attitude towards neighboring peoples, check out Matthew 15:21-28. A woman from Canaan requests help, and Jesus quite clearly expresses his top priority is the Jewish people. He even says one shouldn't take bread from children (Jews) and throw it to the dogs (Canaans). It is only when the woman insists that even dogs can eat the bits that fall off the table that Jesus agrees to help her.

Agreed about the Samaritan tale though. Somehow that slipped my mind.

As for what Paul says, well...Paul says many things, some of it pretty far out. He makes it clear that men are superior and women secondary in the eyes of God. Check out the letter to the Corinthians chapter 11.

He may have actually been progressive compared to the standards of the time, (I'm mainly taking your word for it here) but I would wager his sayings have been used in more modern times to promote the exact opposite ideas. Which is to say, generally I think it's a bad idea to try to use a dated scripture tied to its time and place as a guideline today. If it takes so much research in interpretation to dig up the core meaning, I really don't see the point in clinging on to some old writings. I prefer common sense.

Why do I get the feeling I've made this same little speech before...

 

First of all, yes it has. I could as much say if you are not Russian Slavic, you could NEVER possibly understand Russian Culture and Soul, something I re assure myself of each time I see a western analysis of Russia or Russians. At best they give me a good laughter, at worse... you don't want to know.
So yes, if you are not a Christian, you can't possibly understand how Christians view issue pertaining Christianity.
I don't care if that fits your idea of "rational" discussion, but that's pretty much how things are.
Second one all, dude, you are entitled to whatever interpretation of Christ you may want, why do I f*cking care? However, I am Christian, not jewish, not atheistic, so my view is Christian, and that is the one that concerns and interest me. So yes, as a Christian, Jesus was neither jewish nor Slavic; he was not even man. Now believe whatever you want, I don't give a damn.

 

Dude, you need to re-read your Bible. And lest you think that this Jew doesn't properly understand the Christian perspective, please note that I was raised Roman Catholic.

 

That's true Nakia. There is actually no worship of any figure in Buddhism. Honouring would be the better term. The first Buddha (Sidartha) is honoured for sharing his ways to the path of enlightenment and ultimate compassion. In Buddhism, it states that we are all Buddha, we just have to awaken ourselves to that reality.

I was born to a Protestant family. I had religion class growing up went to Sunday School and even said the Lord's prayer in Boy Scouts. My parents never forced their beliefs on me and for that I'm thankful.

I spent many years trying to fill a gap I had in myself. I studied about all the religions out there (even Scientology) in order to find something that I could believe in. It took me years, but I found that Buddhism most mirrored my own beliefs and philosophies that I had realised on my own.

Religion, like anything in life; can be good or bad. Unless a religion glorifies and touts acts of violence, depravity and other evil things then religion in general is harmless. It brings people together and creates a foundation for helping others.

To quote Constantine: "I don't have a problem with God, I love God. It's his fricken fan club I can't stand!"

People are what twist a religion. Religion is essentially just an idea. An idea has no ill will, maliciousness or intent. It's people and their views and interpretations that corrupt an idea.

For all these reasons I chose and call myself a Buddhist. The point of Buddhism is to help yourself so you can help others. Only you know your path to enlightenment. Your teachers can help guide you on your path, but ultimately your experiences are unique. This independance is another reason why I chose Buddhism too.

Like I said before. The idea of religion is good, it's how people interpret it that makes it evil.

 

I know I've written this before, but every time I see this brought up, I have to readdress it. Condoms are VERY effective in preventing HIV (provided they don't break of course). It is true that latex condoms, when viewed at a microscopic level, form a lattice structure. That is to say, there are strands of latex in criss-cross patterns with holes in between them. Furthermore, it is also true that the size of an HIV virus is considerably smaller than the holes in the latex lattice. The comparison I have heard is if the HIV virus were the size of a basketball, the spaces in the latex would be about the size of a doorway. So clearly, you can fit a basketball through a doorway.

However, latex condoms are not one latex layer thick. They are hundreds of latex layers thick. So it's not like throwing a basketball through a doorway. It's like throwing a basketball through hundreds of doorways, and the doorways aren't even lined up. Therefore it is effectively impossible for the HIV virus to get through the condom. People who contract HIV despite always using condoms are due to the condom breaking, not the HIV virus penetrating the latex barrier.

Yes, but the problem with the comparison is most political parties can be compared to truths that anyone can see. For example, regardless of your view on the war in Iraq, it is clear that there is a war in Iraq, and you can form opinions on what is obviously a concrete action. Religion works in abstract concepts. There is no universal truth in it, and what you may assume is true for all to see may not be as easy for others.

Finally, in my Roman Catholic upbringing, I always thought that Jesus was considered Jewish. In fact the inscription INRI at the top of the cross he was crucified on meant "King of the Jews".

 

Hmmm... I haven't read any of the responses... so I don't know what turns this topic has taken... but in the interest of intellectual honesty I would like to point out a couple of items that come to mind.

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler... just to name a few... it would appear to me that Man Inc. is a little ahead in the war and "taking of innocent life" department... in fact, during the twentieth century, the worshippers of Man Incorporated would appear to have gotten genocide down to a quite disturbing science not known in the ancient world.

Considering the evidense... man worshiping himself, the state, concerns me much more than man worshiping God.

Regarding religion as a causation for war... please, that is a far too simplistic approach... it is my observation that man needs little reason to kill his brother... just an excuse... and those are easily found, rationalized, or manufactured.

The common catalyst for man's propensity to commit evil against his fellow man is not religion... it is man himself.

Or can we give example of a more sincere and altruistic morally pure example than say a God who became a man to die for the enemies of his followers... that while they were yet reprobate, sinners, and enemies of their brothers in Him... He died for their reconcilliation.

And yet as we all know too well... man is even capable of screwing that message up.

No... to say religion... any religion... is the problem... noting that indeed empirically some lend themselves more readily as an excuse... is yet, simply to lie to yourself... and say that we are better than we really are.

Respectfully,
HOM

[ March 03, 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: halfogremagi ]

 

Religion was just some scam artist coining onto the idea of afterlife insurance. Nobody knows if you need it so they buy it just in case. End of story. Live life, die. Then you'll get your answer.

 

I stand by what I have said. I don't want to get into the specifics of your case - read the reasons that made you convert etc - because that would 1) get too personal and 2) I would probably violate some rules in the process. So I will just say that my view as an Orthodox Christian is firm and clear. By the way, all the Orthodox people whom I know share my belief.

EDIT: halfogremagi,

Great post. I don't particularly mind non religious people, but those 16 years old bitter boys who go on like "religion is bad; it creates Wars; it kills people" annoy the hell out of me. If that is your sole reason to be against religion, better to just say you are not very religious at all, but don't embarass yourself trying to justify your "reasoning".

[ March 02, 2006, 16:40: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Too many people are what they eat... or more to the point... fed.

The current "system" is not weighted to produce very critical or deep thinkers. Bias begets bias and people are not taught that "I don't know yet" is a valid and indeed good answer to some questions until they have done their due dilligence... instead they are instructed to pick a side and never say "I was wrong". Failure and being wrong is a good thing... as long as you learn something from it. Instead, fear of failure continues to produce ignorance... and of course 25 page threads full of vitriolic add hominem attacks.

Folks are less concerned today with discourse that illuminates the truth, than they are with being right straight out of the box.

Best regards brother,
HOM

 

Very good point, HOM. I would love to see this thread develope into an actual discussion of religoins, their values, their validities, etc. but I'm afraid we'll never be able to get rid of posts like:

If you're going to claim something like this, at least try to back it up a little. Not that there's really any backing for that arguement. The origins of religion date back to well before written texts. Either you can believe the origin story of one religion or another, or you can say you really don't know and can only make rational guesses. This is not a rational guess.
Finally, as a Christian, I can say once and for all, Jesus WAS a Jew. He was circumcised, He was human (albeit God as well, but still human), He was born and raised in Jewish land by a Jewish family, He taught in the temple, He was as Jewish as it gets.
As for His attitude to other peoples, Matt. 15:21-28 demonstrates (along with a umber of other passages) that the Jews are still God's chosen people and that everyone else, though they may be accepted into God's family, is adopted from outside. Please note, however, that by Jewish law, an adopted child is as much a child of the family as a blood-child is. Adopted children are entitled to just as much inheritance, respect, and everything else as if they had ben born into the family.
The misuse of Paul's words merely demonstrates the need to understand the context in which these letters were written. If you just read an NIV and take what's there, you'll get the main points, but you can make a lot of mistakes and you miss a lot of stuff.
On top of all that, Abomination actually made a good point in that either Christianity is right, our God is real, Christ came in the flesh, died, rose again, and is returning for those who believe, or someone else is right. In either case, a majority of the world's population HAS to be wrong.

 

@Svyatoslav: Yes, I am entitled to my in interpretation/opinion, and so are you. I am all for not opposing one's viewpoint on another, however the point of a discussion is to attempt to understand oneanothers viewpoints on the subject being discussed. That being said, I understand that not being raised Christian means that I cannot completely understand such concepts as Jesus not being a man at all, but mabye with a little explanation I could gain a fundamental grasp on the idea. Saying that I "could not possibly understand" creates a roadblock in the way of discussion, saying that you are not going to take the effort to explain something because you think me either incapable or unwilling to consider something from your pointof view.

 

Don't worry, Deepfae, Svyatoslav was not representing the majority of Christians. I don't know what denomination he is from, but every denomination I know of claims that Christ was BOTH fully God AND fully man. In fact, this is one of the central tennents of the Christian faith. Jesus faced all the same temptations and trials that we do. This could only be the case if He was human himself. If He were not human, He could not have sinned and thus could not have been tempted to sin. The very fact that He lived a perfect life in the pressence of temptation requires that He have been human.

 

Ok that makes more sense to me.

 

Must interject one little comment here.

Not every denomination of Christians believe that Jesus was God. Jehovah Witnesses believe he was the Son of God, the first created being. Now before some one jumps in and says they are not Christian that is . They are followers of Jesus Christ and that is what the word Christian means. They believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. They study it extensively. They also believe that the world as we know it now will end soon and if they are correct that solves all our agruments.

 

Huh? I thought everyone thought he was the Son of God. Wasn't that the whole point? God sending his only son to earth to do a bunch of good stuff and show us the Way? If he wasn't the Son of God, who the heck else was he (other than the non-religious answer of 'nobody')?

 

Calls for Chev to make a short theological excurse on holy trinity, the father, the son and the holy spirit, the orthodox church, St. Augustine, theology and late antiquity. Orthodox doctrine sees the son a little bit different as far as I know.