Is religion a good thing?

[AquaEyes11010]

Jimmy Carter is another millionaire giving money under the guise of charity. His help is all tax write-offs...blah blah blah... It's not real charity, even if it's a nice gesture. Sure, his efforts may help improve the lives of the less fortunate (better than nothing), but he's not making the ultimate sacrifice as I've been describing - far from it! He goes back to his maid-filled mansion at night for a good night's sleep. He's doing just fine.

Part of life is embracing suffering, not running from it. Mother Theresa showed us that.

You must have added the first bit after I started responding to the last bit.

Jimmy Carter actually goes out and helps build the houses -- he doesn't just write checks. He also works for women's education in poor areas of the world -- something Mother Theresa frowned upon. He doesn't "embrace suffering" -- he actively fights against it.

 

[SprinkleMe69]

Jimmy Carter wound up in this thread? What the?????

 

[AlteredEgo]

I have worked with Jimmy Carter to build houses for the poor. Who cares if his charity is rewarded? It is still activity that actually improves lives. The organization through which he operateoperates is Habit at for Humanity, which is run by Christians and considered a Christian charity. To argue for Mother Theresa's inaction in support of organized religion, and then argue against Habitat for Humanity which actually corrects a problem that should concern us all, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[vince]

Mother Theresa always flew first class.

 

[950483]

I really do love self-determination. I still think religion is a good thing on balance because of what we can learn about the human experience.
Someone needs to update all of the health and safety information contained in religious texts for a start. Just as some people agree that the theory of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it would just be good common sense to inaugurate new knowledge whenever it comes along. In Islam people are encouraged to read and educate themselves, and I like to think that this is because someone was wise enough to consider the possibility that there was perhaps more to add. Recent comments made by the pope at first seemed to show a tiny flicker of hope; I felt utterly dismayed once I realized this was not the case : /
Religion could certainly be a better thing.

 

[798686]

Mother Theresa always flew first class.

Mother Teresa thought they 'deserved' their lot in life.

She did try to alleviate their suffering - but didn't try to improve their prospects or help them into a better situation. :redface:

PS: Just seen Aqua wrote something similar re:Teresa, sorry. Obviously read the same reports of her as I have, lol.

 

[798686]

Calboner -- I was thinking along the lines of an intricate explanation of something which could be confirmed via technology available today but not at the time of the prediction. Yes, I suppose someone could say it would have been a "lucky guess" if it was something simple. But I was thinking along the lines of someone from thousands of years ago perfectly diagramming the makeup of an individual cell, or drawing a map of a part of the universe (and labeling them as such), neither of which can be seen with the naked human eye. Yes, it's all a bit of a magical "what if?" but such would be required as evidence that magic exists. Would it be absolute? Probably not, but at least it would be the first coherent bit of evidence that knowledge came to humans from beyond this planet -- even if it turns out to be "ancient aliens from elsewhere in the universe" rather than a supernatural being.

That would be interesting.

Prophecy followers claim this sort of thing - however, many of the 'prophecies' especially those that pertain to events in Old Testament times, can't be verified since the events are long since passed - and we have no way of knowing if they were predicted before the event, or afterwards with hindsight.

The prophecies of Revelation and Daniel are most interesting - to me, at least - because they seem to be referring to events way beyond the time of Christ. It's always possible to 'fit' current events into what you think prophecy was trying to say, which negates any credibility, but some of it is interesting, imo.

The essence of Daniel & Revelation, when put together, was that there were to be 4 world-ruling or dominant empires from Babylonian times to the 'end' time or present day, when Christ was due to return (according to scripture). These are usually thought by prophecy scholars to be Babylonian, Median/Persian, Greek and Roman.

There were to be a number of revivals of the Roman Empire (hard to explain without quoting shitloads of scripture), the later ones with a 'whore' or church ruling over it (Catholic?). It was also to culminate in a system made up of 10 nations.

This could of course all be absolute bollocks - but it's interesting to see where the EU is headed, whether the Catholic Church is involved at some point, and whether it ends up as an alliance of 10 nations. If so, watch this space - if not... don't bother. :wink:

This is probably completely meaningless to many (and may be, period) - but since the 'sect' I was brought up in has been labouring this point since the early 40s, and 'predicting' that Germany would again rise to lead Europe (at a time when this looked impossible, post-WW2) it remains a source of interest to me. This would only 'prove' insight of the Bible if it comes to pass, along with other things... but could possibly constitute the kind of proof you'd require to take the Bible more seriously.

Other 'proofs' people hold onto are answered prayer in unlikely situations, etc - although this would be virtually impossible to verify with any accuracy, and could always be explained as coincidence.

 

[MP15]

I'll just say 'no' and leave it at that.

Not that all religion is bad, it's just extreme minorities in religion that make it that way. And I frown on folks trying to draft their religious beliefs into law.

I stopped believing in high school because it never 'spoke' to me or fit with the things I was learning in public school.

 

[Bardox]

I really do love self-determination. I still think religion is a good thing on balance because of what we can learn about the human experience.

On balance?? Please explain this. For every "good thing" you can point to in a particular holy book there are multiple examples through out human history of those things prompting horrendous events. Please explain "on balance".

Someone needs to update all of the health and safety information contained in religious texts for a start.

You are talking about something that is supposedly straight from god. The only perfect being to every exist and cannot make mistakes. The idea of the faithful not only questioning the "truths" put forward by their scriptures is nonsense. God is perfect therefore the word of god is perfect. You can change what parts of those texts are taught, but the texts themselves are almost never changed and the suggestion is seen as heresy.

Just as some people agree that the theory of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it would just be good common sense to inaugurate new knowledge whenever it comes along.

First "Evolution is just a theory" is a misrepresentation of evolution. When scientists use the word "theory" it has a different meaning than the everyday use of the term. In everyday use, theory is a guess or a hunch. In science, theory is the ultimate explanation of a set of observable testable facts.

Some people think that in science you have a theory that, when proven, becomes a law. That's not how it works. We use "laws" to describe facts, observations, and test results. We use a "theory" to explain why these things are this way. You don't turn a theory into a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

The fact of evolution is the genetic change of species over generations. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the explanation of these facts. The theory of evolution has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years and it is supported by all relevant data and observations.

If you think that evolution hasn't been proven and is just a guess, it's not because it hasn't been proven and is just a guess. It's because you don't understand the terminology.

In Islam people are encouraged to read and educate themselves, and I like to think that this is because someone was wise enough to consider the possibility that there was perhaps more to add.

This is another misunderstanding. Islam does not encourage education. It discourages education in half it's population. Secularism in the US and UK and other modern societies encourage reading and education. Islam "encourages" not sending girls to school. That only changes when you are not in a country that was founded on Islam.

Recent comments made by the pope at first seemed to show a tiny flicker of hope; I felt utterly dismayed once I realized this was not the case : /
Religion could certainly be a better thing.

This... well... this is true. I don't think it will happen until people start reading scripture the same way they read books describing the details and history of worshiping Poseidon, but it could happen... eventually... I hope.

 

[Jason]

You are talking about something that is supposedly straight from god.

I don't think this is factually correct - and if this is your starting point then the argument that you are advancing from it doesn't follow.

Sticking just with the Christian tradition (which is the one most familiar to most posters on this thread) it just isn't correct to say that the Bible is "straight from God". I'm not disputing that there might be a few who argue this, but this would not be a mainstream view. Rather Christians see three sources of their knowledge of God:

* The Bible. Protestants in particular give this a central position. However there is the idea that we see the meaning of the Bible in a manner that the Bible describes as "through a glass, darkly". Protestants put a great deal of energy into studying the Bible to improve our understanding of it. Notwithstanding problems are always going to remain with texts written thousands of years ago in languages now dead and for people living in different cultures. Anyway who says "the Bible says" and quotes a single verse is very likely indeed to have missed the point. A lot of what we see in the Bible is people trying (and failing) to comprehend God.

* The Church. This can mean a church hierarchy. In the Catholic tradition this has enormous influence - indeed the recent Popes are ultimately believed to be infallible on matters of belief. Within many traditions the church is the congregation, or the elders.

* Revelation. The whole area of personal revelation, the experience of individuals who believe they have had a direct experience of God. A related area is prophecy, which I see has been looked at above.

At issue is not what the critics of religion think of these sources of religion, but simply to point out that it is emphatically not something "straight from God" in the way the poster seems to be suggesting. Christianity has some central ideas which do not change but much that does change. The world changes and religion changes with it.

 

[Jason]

The only perfect being to every exist and cannot make mistakes.

Where are you getting this from? You are setting up a pretty extreme view of God then attacking this extreme.

There is in Matthew: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Perfect is not unique to God. Of course this raises a translation issue around what perfect means. Does God make mistakes? In Genesis we read that he "regretted" that he made man.

It would be a sound argument to find what Christians believe then attack this belief.

 

[Bardox]

I don't think this is factually correct - and if this is your starting point then the argument that you are advancing from it doesn't follow.

Sticking just with the Christian tradition (which is the one most familiar to most posters on this thread) it just isn't correct to say that the Bible is "straight from God". I'm not disputing that there might be a few who argue this, but this would not be a mainstream view. Rather Christians see three sources of their knowledge of God:

* The Bible. Protestants in particular give this a central position. However there is the idea that we see the meaning of the Bible in a manner that the Bible describes as "through a glass, darkly". Protestants put a great deal of energy into studying the Bible to improve our understanding of it. Notwithstanding problems are always going to remain with texts written thousands of years ago in languages now dead and for people living in different cultures. Anyway who says "the Bible says" and quotes a single verse is very likely indeed to have missed the point. A lot of what we see in the Bible is people trying (and failing) to comprehend God.

* The Church. This can mean a church hierarchy. In the Catholic tradition this has enormous influence - indeed the recent Popes are ultimately believed to be infallible on matters of belief. Within many traditions the church is the congregation, or the elders.

* Revelation. The whole area of personal revelation, the experience of individuals who believe they have had a direct experience of God. A related area is prophecy, which I see has been looked at above.

At issue is not what the critics of religion think of these sources of religion, but simply to point out that it is emphatically not something "straight from God" in the way the poster seems to be suggesting. Christianity has some central ideas which do not change but much that does change. The world changes and religion changes with it.

It's true that for most Christians these are the sources they look to for they spiritual guidance. But... well... problem. I have had to sit through many sermons, both in church when I was a kid and through out my life at family gatherings. In almost every single one I hear the bible referred to as "The word of God". Not "The words of people who believed in god", which technically is what the bible is, but priest and pastors and so called bible thumpers don't call it that. They call the bible (when preaching) the actual word of god to us lowly mortals. Try to get your grandmother to tell you your bible is not the word of god. I dare you.

You don't necessarily need faith to take part in church or church activities. The pastor my sister, parents, and grand parents listened to for nearly 3 decades admitted two years ago that he did not believe god was really watching nor that Jesus was ever coming back. He said "It makes people feel better about bad things that happen in the world, so even after I lost my faith I just kept preaching." Church has been reduced in the mainstream to more or less a community/family activity. Like a weekly family BBQ cookout. The teachings in the books themselves haven't changed. It's just the way they are presented that has changed because saying "Noah lived to be 900 years old" strains the imagination and that talking ill of one of your parents (deserved or not) is punishable by death is not something you will continue to get donations for teaching in modern society. The church doesn't change until the congregation complains about what the church is saying and more and more of the "young folks" stop showing up on sunday.

There is no proof to support anything in revelations. The things in revelations are simply asserted to be true and that you have to believe them or god will be mad at you and you won't get into heaven. It was written by the disciple John who wrote it while he was imprisoned on Patmos around 85 A.D. (I think, if I'm wrong correct me). He was in an utterly hopeless situation and wrote revelations to provide encouragement and hope. To tell Christian believers to keep watch for the return of Jesus and to warn/threaten of the final judgement and punishment nonbelievers will suffer for not believing in his prophecy. You can get people to believe it if you drill it into their brains from the time they are 5 years old and they never care enough to question it... or if they have some kind of mental disorder. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Some people get great comfort from the various scriptures. I don't deny that. I've seen it myself several times, but in order to get that comfort you have to take a cookie cutter to those texts and ignore the history of their effects on world events. The bible itself was cobbled together, over a hundreds years after Jesus is said to have died, by the Ancient Roman Senate. They actually voted on which gospels should be in the bible and which should be tossed out because it did or didn't support the over all story they were putting forward. It's as divinely inspired as a frat house charter. Taken as a whole, this amalgam of story books has some seriously fucked up things in it.

 

[Bardox]

Where are you getting this from? You are setting up a pretty extreme view of God then attacking this extreme.

There is in Matthew: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Perfect is not unique to God. Of course this raises a translation issue around what perfect means. Does God make mistakes? In Genesis we read that he "regretted" that he made man.

It would be a sound argument to find what Christians believe then attack this belief.

Next time you go to church stand up and say as loud as you can, in a room full of the faithful, "GOD IS NOT PERFECT! HE IS FLAWED I SAY! HE REGRETS YOUR EXISTENCE!" See what happens.

 

[Perados]

The official view of the catholic church is, god is perfect - for god neither exist time nor space. He is at every time at every place.
This means, he knows everything and cant regrett a desition. At the beginning of time he already knew everything what will happen. - same counts for angels, thats why they cant expect forgiveness. Only humans cant know the future, thats what makes forgiveness possible.

 

[Matsi]

No religion itself isn't bad, it's the sick minority of extremists who distort it and twist it to justify their atrocities committed against other innocent human beings who make it have a bad name.

 

[Exbiker]

Most religious belief is simply competing supernatural belief systems used a weapons. The two exceptions I can think of are Zen Buddhism and the Quakers.

Agreed.

Other than those two, which are arguably not "religions" anyway, I think religion is the most evil, foul and destructive force on our planet.

It is the complete suspension of belief in logic, empirical science, and rationality.

That isn't to say that some religious people aren't nice. Some of them are very nice. But it's because they have somehow built up a kind of moral immunity to the messages of the leaders of their religious propaganda systems ...

 

[798686]

It's true that for most Christians these are the sources they look to for they spiritual guidance. But... well... problem. I have had to sit through many sermons, both in church when I was a kid and through out my life at family gatherings. In almost every single one I hear the bible referred to as "The word of God". Not "The words of people who believed in god", which technically is what the bible is, but priest and pastors and so called bible thumpers don't call it that. They call the bible (when preaching) the actual word of god to us lowly mortals.

Same. :redface:

You don't necessarily need faith to take part in church or church activities. The pastor my sister, parents, and grand parents listened to for nearly 3 decades admitted two years ago that he did not believe god was really watching nor that Jesus was ever coming back.

I don't see the point though. :frown1: I don't mind doing stuff like that if it IS actually true, and what you've been told is relevant - but I resent doing something that has huge influence on your life if it's actually untrue.

I don't think I'm a particularly 'religious' person per se - so the thought of doing all that for nothing aggravates me. :tongue:

There is no proof to support anything in revelations. The things in revelations are simply asserted to be true and that you have to believe them or god will be mad at you and you won't get into heaven. It was written by the disciple John who wrote it while he was imprisoned on Patmos around 85 A.D. (I think, if I'm wrong correct me). He was in an utterly hopeless situation and wrote revelations to provide encouragement and hope. To tell Christian believers to keep watch for the return of Jesus and to warn/threaten of the final judgement and punishment nonbelievers will suffer for not believing in his prophecy. You can get people to believe it if you drill it into their brains from the time they are 5 years old and they never care enough to question it... or if they have some kind of mental disorder. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not sure about this.

I questioned a great deal - and discarded a lot - when I hit a block and realised a lot of what I'd been taught was nowhere near as rock solid as I'd been led to believe. Basically has to re-assess what my values were, regardless of religious affiliation and whether the Bible was true or not - and look into what I'd been taught, as critically as I was able to, to see if any of it was plausible or if it was all shite.

The prophecy bit is interesting - some of it is amongst the only things that stood up to scrutiny as at least possible, if not provable or conclusive.

You're right about John writing Rev on Patmos in about ad 90 or so. It's basically a compilation of the whole range of expected happenings before Christ's expected return - tied in with various prophecies from the OT, teachings of Christ and some other supposed actual visions. Whether it's true or not is hard to say (for me). It's certainly consistent with what's written in the rest of the Bible, and also in terms of the NT applications of the original Jewish Holy Days (Christ to return on the Feast of Trumpets, etc etc). And the 'chronological' but also symbolic representations of nations and churches laid out in Rev 12, 17 and 2/3.

I also find his description of things he saw quite thought-provoking. Were 'armies of locusts with breastplates of bronze, and fire coming out of their mouths' modern day weapons such as helicopters? Or... was he delusional, and what he said applicable to just about anything if you have enough imagination?

Many (most) would probably dismiss it - but it has enough merit, for me, to warrant further investigation. :smile:

 

[bigbull29]

Some much hate on the internet...WOW!

Anyways, I don't think any of you will end up in the history and philosophy books like St. Anselm or St. Thomas Aquinas, both staunch Catholics.

Some of the greatest minds in human history were strong believers in the Catholic Church.

I can only propose arguments, not defend them. That's for LPSG sages, which I am not.

 

[bigbull29]

I have worked with Jimmy Carter to build houses for the poor. Who cares if his charity is rewarded? It is still activity that actually improves lives. The organization through which he operateoperates is Habit at for Humanity, which is run by Christians and considered a Christian charity. To argue for Mother Theresa's inaction in support of organized religion, and then argue against Habitat for Humanity which actually corrects a problem that should concern us all, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I didn't know that you all worked with Mother Theresa side by side and knew her personally. I didn't know that. Sorry.

Habitat for Humanity is fine.

Jimmy Carter ain't no saint.

Man taints everything, even religion.

For the love of money is the root of all evil.

Fight nice y'all....:biggrin1:

 

[Bardox]

Some much hate on the internet...WOW!

Anyways, I don't think any of you will end up in the history and philosophy books like St. Anselm or St. Thomas Aquinas, both staunch Catholics.

Some of the greatest minds in human history were strong believers in the Catholic Church.

I can only propose arguments, not defend them. That's for LPSG sages, which I am not.

Many of whom also believed seizures were caused by demonic possession (which is a belief that a few hard-liners still hold today) and that if you sailed across the sea far enough you would fall off the edge of the world.

Please stop using this. Being the wisest of a group of primitives doesn't mean they were right about an invisible peeping tom in the sky (think about that one next time you shower). It just means they were more imaginative than the rest. Go hang out with someone high on weed or LSD and you hear the secrets of the universe. Actually, hanging out with drug addicts is probably a bad idea. Don't do that.