Religion will eventually become obsolete (salvation, divine, science, scripture)

[3~Shepherds]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Subjective stance. People use the Bible all the time to back up their zany ideas. Just because you don't think it jives with what the Bible says doesn't mean it can't be used in some other format.

This is true and NO I don't agree with it, because not one CHURCH can stand up and say I'm the ONE, well they can, but it doesn't hold water. The different ideas is the problem!!

Again, this is a subjective comment. You're saying Christ is lost in RELIGION. I put the word 'religion' in the vaguest of concepts to mean either ideology or interpretation. The problem seems to be that you are asserting that if each and every one of were to follow HIS teachings as HE directed we would have no need for these Christian denominations. I asked someone else the other night... What church do you attend and why? My best guess is you attend a certain church because it adheres to the word of Jesus Christ, or should I say, it adheres to YOUR interpretation of what Jesus Christ said the best. Right?

No, I did not say LOST in Religion, I said lost in the NAME of Religion, some just add Jesus into the mist, there are denominations that do not put Jesus at the TOP!!

I understand what you are saying but this is a non-sequitir. Even if Christianity folded up and went away the only thing you have left is people worshipping Jesus in the same subjective manner and asserting the same subjective religious overtones. The only thing Christianity does is organize all of these varying viewpoints into a collective voice under their own impression of whatever it was Jesus actually said.

Did you even look at the sites I suggested? If Christians were to follow the rules of the N.T. and not add all the other it would not be like it is today. Too many have there own rules so you can't blame Jesus for what man has done in the name of Christianity.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

This is true and NO I don't agree with it, because not one CHURCH can stand up and say I'm the ONE, well they can, but it doesn't hold water. The different ideas is the problem!!

Agreed.

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

No, I did not say LOST in Religion, I said lost in the NAME of Religion, some just add Jesus into the mist, there are denominations that do not put Jesus at the TOP!!

Sorry, you are correct, regardless I tried to make that distinction when I said to put religion in even the mildest of terms (ideology or interpretation) the problem still exists.

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

Did you even look at the sites I suggested? If Christians were to follow the rules of the N.T. and not add all the other it would not be like it is today. Too many have there own rules so you can't blame Jesus for what man has done in the name of Christianity.

And what rules would those be and tell me how they are not subjective to one's own opinion? Slavery is a fantastic example of how things like this are overlooked. You say if we only followed Jesus' example or the laws put forth in the N.T. than we would be ok. Well, Jesus never actually spoke out AGAINST slavery. He never did condone it either. It seemed he was neutral towards it at best. So... if we follow only what Jesus did then we can come to the determination that slavery is neither good or bad. Therefore, by this logic, we are not morally obligated to expel slavery nor are we obligated to condone it. In other words, Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not what Jesus would have wanted because he never "went there". He didn't sway one way or the other with it. It was just a fact of life in that time and age.

However, I firmly believe that slavery is wrong, I'm sure you do too and I'd be amazed if anyone said different on this forum. Yet, if there were a group out there that advocated slavery (I'm sure there is somewhere) they would probably use that subjective interpretation (as I just did) to assume that their actions are correct. It doesn't have to be religious. Although the backing of their moral confines are within the Bible, the motive does not have to be religious in nature. The motive could be as simple as requiring justification for having slaves and what better place to turn to than their own religious ideologies based on what Jesus did or didn't do.

What I'm getting at here is that regardless of religion's play in all of this, my personal opinion is that until we break free of the mold that the Bible (or other holy book) is the only yardstick by which we set our human morality, than we are going to incur problems such as this. Philosophy and ethical studies have given us a tremendous insight into human morality from a completely secular standpoint. Is a 'God' sometimes thrown in the mix of these ideals? Yes. However, I'd like to note, that very rarely is that "God" personified within philosophy.

The second people start personifying a deity seems to be the second that religion (and anywhere from askewed to abhorrent ideologies) follow. Using the Bible, or for that matter, the New Testament as one's ONLY truth to define what good and bad is may work for some but to try and convince people that it's required by God is a pretty errant fallacy given the nature of the subjectivity within a belief in a personified God itself.

[3~Shepherds]

[quote=GCSTroop;2858020]Agreed.

I know this was easy to agree with, but I'm glad we did!!

Sorry, you are correct, regardless I tried to make that distinction when I said to put religion in even the mildest of terms (ideology or interpretation) the problem still exists.

That is why I asked about those sights. Not to change your mind to give you a different perspective, that maybe, you hadn't seen or heard. Jesus is a Relationship, Not a Religion is trying to show the side of Christianity that should exist and how we should look at Jesus.

People have done some awful things in the name of Religion & God, but we must ask, just because they did doesn't mean it was God's work. You know about the sin of the world, so it will just continue until God has had enough and it will change.
All Christians can do today is to follow the teachings of Jesus and try to make a better world, then the one we were left with. Christians today can not change the past, if we stay in the past there is no room for the future.

And what rules would those be and tell me how they are not subjective to one's own opinion? Slavery is a fantastic example of how things like this are overlooked. You say if we only followed Jesus' example or the laws put forth in the N.T. than we would be ok. Well, Jesus never actually spoke out AGAINST slavery. He never did condone it either. It seemed he was neutral towards it at best. So... if we follow only what Jesus did then we can come to the determination that slavery is neither good or bad. Therefore, by this logic, we are not morally obligated to expel slavery nor are we obligated to condone it. In other words, Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not what Jesus would have wanted because he never "went there". He didn't sway one way or the other with it. It was just a fact of life in that time and age.

However, I firmly believe that slavery is wrong, I'm sure you do too and I'd be amazed if anyone said different on this forum. Yet, if there were a group out there that advocated slavery (I'm sure there is somewhere) they would probably use that subjective interpretation (as I just did) to assume that their actions are correct. It doesn't have to be religious. Although the backing of their moral confines are within the Bible, the motive does not have to be religious in nature. The motive could be as simple as requiring justification for having slaves and what better place to turn to than their own religious ideologies based on what Jesus did or didn't do. [quote]

According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16). Slavery back then was not the slavery that we have known in todays world. Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. People misused and the slave time was for that era. not this one.

What I'm getting at here is that regardless of religion's play in all of this, my personal opinion is that until we break free of the mold that the Bible (or other holy book) is the only yardstick by which we set our human morality, than we are going to incur problems such as this. Philosophy and ethical studies have given us a tremendous insight into human morality from a completely secular standpoint. Is a 'God' sometimes thrown in the mix of these ideals? Yes. However, I'd like to note, that very rarely is that "God" personified within philosophy.

The second people start personifying a deity seems to be the second that religion (and anywhere from askewed to abhorrent ideologies) follow. Using the Bible, or for that matter, the New Testament as one's ONLY truth to define what good and bad is may work for some but to try and convince people that it's required by God is a pretty errant fallacy given the nature of the subjectivity within a belief in a personified God itself.

Unfortunately, we will keep battling each other to the end on which religion is the TRUE one.
We should never let what happened in the pass in the name of Jesus deter us from realizing that God is a LOVING God. When all is said and done we will know why all this happened. The people that thought it was in the Name of Jesus will find out NO it wasn't. Jesus is always talking about the righteous, what's righteous in the worlds eyes are not always the way God sees it and that's whats important.

[GCSTroop]

OK, I'm having a hard time trying to quote you as your quotes kind of got messed up a bit. That's ok, it happens, I'm guilty of it too. Let me try and work around this...

Originally Posted by 3~shepherds

I know this was easy to agree with, but I'm glad we did!!

Only on the premise that once one says "Follow what Jesus says" that it is then privy to the same subjectivity that all religious ideologies have.

Originally Posted by 3~shepherds

That is why I asked about those sights. Not to change your mind to give you a different perspective, that maybe, you hadn't seen or heard. Jesus is a Relationship, Not a Religion is trying to show the side of Christianity that should exist and how we should look at Jesus.

I'm unconvinced. I can't see how one can say Jesus is a relationship and that it should be followed as such yet not call it a religion. Ummm... that screams ideology to me which is why I pointed out that I agree on the premise that following Jesus was an ideology and henceforth a religious process prone to the same subjectivity that all religions have

Originally Posted by 3~shepherds

People have done some awful things in the name of Religion & God, but we must ask, just because they did doesn't mean it was God's work. You know about the sin of the world, so it will just continue until God has had enough and it will change.

The sin of the world will continue until God has had enough and it will change?!?! Well, what the heck is enough? I'm sorry to break the news to you, but 60-70 years ago 6 million Jews were brutally murdered in concentration camps. Stalin killed an estimated 30 million. The Killing Fields in Cambodia!? Malicious religious persecution in the Congo?! The Crusades?! The Spanish Inquisition?! Mao?! North Korea?! Khan? God hasn't had enough yet?! He's still not tired yet?! Regardless of whether the above were performed in the name of religion or not, you're putting evil in the context of something that you feel is an act of some demonic handiwork (Satan). Therefore, all sin, all crime, all evil acts are perpetuated under the guise that God is just biding his time as he's NOT TIRED OF IT YET?! A God like that I want no part of!

Originally Posted by 3~shepherds

According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16). Slavery back then was not the slavery that we have known in todays world. Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. People misused and the slave time was for that era. not this one.

Hmmm... I'll be very honest.. it never fails to amaze me how Christians vehemently scream that the Old Law was in the Old Testament. It was fulfilled with the birth, life and death of Christ and yet I'm quoted Old Testament (taken entirely out of context) to prove a point about Jesus' non-condemnation of slavery... That baffles me...

Since the topic of late seems to be focused on the works, life, and following of Jesus I'd rather look at what he did or didn't do in regards to slavery.

Still... the point that I was trying to make in my previous post was completely overlooked. My point was that due to Jesus' inaction in regards to slavery, I can take that as an excuse to have slaves or I can take it as an excuse to abolish it ergo Jesus should not be the sole benefactor as to whom we attribute our morality and ethics.

Still, as we know that slavery is wrong, what gives us that notion? Are we going back to Old Testament law now? Well, that's fine, but I don't want to hear anything when I bring up the fact that if we're going to make it convenient to bring up Old Testament Law as it suits us, than we should also bring up Old Testament Law to suit us in regards to stoning prostitutes.

[urbanlemur]

GCSTroop, all the miracles He performed, the examples for a good, holy life and the love He gave to others, not to mention everything else about Him and you gripe that he didn't do anything about slavery. Because of Jesus, Paul became a follower of His and wrote a very small but significant letter called Philemon in the NT. Try reading that sometime and then tell me that Christ didn't agree with slavery because Paul was simply following the example that Christ set forth.

BTW, religion will never become obsolete because it's been around a whole lot longer than we have and will still be here after we're gone. Although I have a "personal relationship" with Christ, I don't, per se, follow a religion but there is plenty of it around.

[xino]

How could religion become obsolete? Science doesn't deal with the WHYS, God, the meaning of existence, the afterlife, or any other of those areas.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

GCSTroop, all the miracles He performed, the examples for a good, holy life and the love He gave to others, not to mention everything else about Him and you gripe that he didn't do anything about slavery. Because of Jesus, Paul became a follower of His and wrote a very small but significant letter called Philemon in the NT. Try reading that sometime and then tell me that Christ didn't agree with slavery because Paul was simply following the example that Christ set forth.

I'm not griping about Jesus saying or not saying anything about slavery. You're misunderstanding the context of the debate. My point is trying to stay within the realm of the Original Post which was "Religion will eventually become obsolete."

My point has been that when I hear people asked "What sets your moral precedences?" The only answer I seem to hear is "The Bible." Do you know what blows me away? People don't say things like Kant, Hume, Voltaire, Bacon, Ghandi, AND Jesus. They strictly confine themselves to the Bible and say "That's it. This is all I have. This is my opinion."

The whole point is that the Bible or Jesus' actions, although filled with fantastic stories, moral relevances, etc... should not be the sole measuring stick by which we set our ethical boundaries. I felt the slavery example was a good one because it CAN be interpreted in different ways. If we restrict ourselves to ONLY what the Bible says, we leave ourselves wide open to the subjective viewpoints not covered sufficiently enough.

Only until people attack the broader picture of human morality from a wide ranged view of ethical and humanitarian standpoints will things ever get better. Do I feel that this is a possibility? I really, really hope so. As the OP proferred: Does this mean religion will go away? Probably not and I wouldn't expect it to. However I feel that religion can remain intact, along with a belief in both the God AND The Bible AND Jesus so long as people are open to have their moral objectivities brought forth and challenged with other methods. That's all I've been trying to get at. Next time someone asks you what dictates right and wrong why should the ONLY answer be "The Bible"? Shouldn't it be: "The Bible + Ghandi + Kant + Hume + Voltaire + Bacon, etc...?" I think it should, and only until that answer becomes more prevalent will religion's obscene problems become alleviated.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by xino

How could religion become obsolete? Science doesn't deal with the WHYS, God, the meaning of existence, the afterlife, or any other of those areas.

This isn't a science vs. God debate. I wouldn't suggest turning it into one.

[xino]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

This isn't a science vs. God debate. I wouldn't suggest turning it into one.

That's the underlying message of the thread. If something isn't testable in a lab, it's obsolete.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by xino

That's the underlying message of the thread. If something isn't testable in a lab, it's obsolete.

You can draw whatever you want out of it but I beg to differ. It seems you're the one who wants to bring science into this, and believe me, I sincerely and utterly welcome you to bring science into other debates (topic permitting), but I don't think this one is intrinsically centered around a science vs. religion discourse.