Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, so which religion is "true"? Which one has all the right answers? Which one would God say is the one He wants us to be part of? And are all of the others completely lacking in value? Would it be better that they not even exist, even if they improve the lives of their adherents?
I have to admit that due to my fundamentalist background that I deconverted from, I struggle with those questions a little. I still tend not to see the point of religion if it's not objectively true. I have softened on that somewhat over the years. There are lots of people who participate in religious groups who hold their beliefs very loosely or perhaps even give the impression for the sake of group membership that they believe more than they actually do. They then get whatever needs met through the group that are important to them. It may provide them with introductions to people who become friends, it provides shared experience and commitment, and in some cases the opportunity to participate in projects that require large scale cooperation, that are meaningful to them.
Of course, you could say similar things about a lodge or other "church like" quasi-theistic or non-theistic group, about involvement in some secular charities or even about working for an NGO or government social agency. Shared experiences and projects are powerful in bringing people together and giving them a sense of belonging and greater purpose. I just think a lot of people assume this is only possible in a religious context, and also, they wrongly assume that every participant fully buys into the religious context. Also playing into this is the notion that religious groups nurture some sort of superior moral code or influence that is unique or non-reproducable by any other means.
I have to admit that due to my fundamentalist background that I deconverted from, I struggle with those questions a little. I still tend not to see the point of religion if it's not objectively true.
Could you explain what you mean by "objectively true"?
Quote:
There are lots of people who participate in religious groups who hold their beliefs very loosely or perhaps even give the impression for the sake of group membership that they believe more than they actually do. They then get whatever needs met through the group that are important to them. It may provide them with introductions to people who become friends, it provides shared experience and commitment, and in some cases the opportunity to participate in projects that require large scale cooperation, that are meaningful to them.
Yeah, those are definitely positives, but as you've pointed out, they are not necessarily exclusive to religious groups. I know there's such a thing as a "cultural Mormon," which would be a person who continues to be a part of the religion solely because the group meets their needs. I happen to be completely opposite of a "cultural Mormon."
Quote:
Of course, you could say similar things about a lodge or other "church like" quasi-theistic or non-theistic group, about involvement in some secular charities or even about working for an NGO or government social agency. Shared experiences and projects are powerful in bringing people together and giving them a sense of belonging and greater purpose. I just think a lot of people assume this is only possible in a religious context, and also, they wrongly assume that every participant fully buys into the religious context. Also playing into this is the notion that religious groups nurture some sort of superior moral code or influence that is unique or non-reproducable by any other means.
Yes, religious people probably do make that assumption, and I'm not sure what my opinion is in that regard. Do you personally see religion as being able to provide anything that some secular group could provide in someone's life? I do, but I can see how the things it provides may not be all that necessary to some people.
It should be based on worshiping, obeying, praising, and thanking our Creator. Acknowledging him as our Lord and Creator. Telling others about him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
And I guess what you're saying is that religion should not benefit its adherents in any way, and that if it does, it's bad. That makes no sense to me at all.
Re-read the above. Not sure how you derived such from my two sentences.
You're asking the wrong questions. You need to be less self-focused on how it makes you feel versus seeking the truth.
Because once you know the truth, you will better understand how you will feel about it.
Re-read the above. Not sure how you derived such from my two sentences.
I don't know how I could have possibly derived anything else where what you said.
Quote:
You're asking the wrong questions.
It's one thing to tell people the have the wrong answers. You're taking it a step farther by telling me I'm not even asking the right questions! Who put you in charge of determining which questions should be asked and which shouldn't?
Quote:
You need to be less self-focused on how it makes you feel versus seeking the truth.
Stop being so condescending.
Quote:
Because once you know the truth, you will better understand how you will feel about it.
As far as I'm concerned, I do know the truth. Furthermore, I know how I feel about it. But once again, my question was not, "Which religion is true?"
Nothing, because I have no "religion". I have spirituality, and personal connection with what I consider to be God. When you really get down to it, a person needs no church, no building, no others to tell them what to do, no certain clothes to wear, no special language, or any of the other stuff that comes from religion. That just weighs us down and trips us up. We can't hear the voice of the universe with the loud voice of man in our ears. In fact, the more free we are of that, the closer and less tainted our direct connection is with God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Yes, well I make a big distinction between religion, and a spiritual walk / spiritual journey. I've met highly religious people who have rituals and words to remember (and nothing more, nothing deeper), and I know others who are highly spiritual and have no rituals or tribal rules/ways. So it's important to make that distinction, if we are going to be clear in our communication.
Low church evangelicals always have to separate themselves from the word "religion", that is almost universal.
They don't like that word, along with "church" as well.
Most are also "non-denominational", even if Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist etc.
Very rarely will an evangelical on sites like CARM etc declare their denomination.
You have a congregation, a church group etc, then you are part of a religion, whether you like it or not.
I never said that, and I don't believe that at all.
I took it as an implication. You seemed very focused on other benefits, aside from truth. Not really the focus of your thread of course, so I am happy to stand corrected and let it drop.
Quote:
So, allow me to give you an example. Let's consider a half-dozen religious people (and by that, I mean people who believe in some sort of a Higher Power). Among these six individuals is a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, a Jew, a Muslim and a Baha'i. Although all six of these individuals has beliefs in common, they also believe differently about a variety of different topics, ranging from the nature of God, His purposes in creating the earth, His plan for His children, the need (or lack of need) for certain sacraments, salvation and the after-life. All of these individuals find that their belief system helps them in hard times, provides guidance in their daily lives, adequately answers the difficult questions we all ask ourselves and helps them become better people. I believe that's a pretty darned good indication that their religions have something of value in them.
Sure, religions have benefits, but they are detrimental too. If we credit them for the good things they do for people, shouldn't we condemn them for the bad influences on society as well? think of the genocides conducted in the name of religion. The Crusades; the 100 Years War; the Yugoslavian genocides of the 1990s; the Sunni:Shi'a killings in Iraq. The organized sheltering of pedophiles by the Catholic Church. The abuses against young girls, and ostracized boys, perpetrated by the FLDS. The denial of scientific facts by American evangelicals. We both know I could go on and on in this vein. If we use truth as our objective yardstick, perhaps minimizing religion, would these horrible things have happened?
Quote:
Okay, so which religion is "true"? Which one has all the right answers? Which one would God say is the one He wants us to be part of? And are all of the others completely lacking in value? Would it be better that they not even exist, even if they improve the lives of their adherents?
Perhaps none of them are true. That is my personal belief. Maybe the world would be better if they did not exist. We simply don't know.
Could you explain what you mean by "objectively true"?
Fundamentalist Christianity is all about hewing to correct doctrine and claims to know what it is via a "correct" reading of the Bible which supposedly spells it out indisputably in black and white. My operant conditioning was that if a teaching cannot be thus determined to be correct, then everything is up for (re)interpretation and means nothing. We assured ourselves we knew the Truth. That was what anchored us. To someone like me, then, even post-deconversion, a more liberal approach to Holy Writ seems hopelessly "squishy" and stands for nothing.
I have moved beyond this to a significant extent but still tend to think that religion's main product for those who approach it as a source of capital-T Truth and moral guidance is certitude, and anything that reduces that makes it a lot of pointless effort, apart from the things I mentioned -- belonging, community, refuge -- that aren't the sole provenance of religion anyway, it must may culturally find its best or most developed expression in a religious community, little thanks to religion itself. My former evangelical tribe tended to regard such religious styles as dry, empty, lifeless husks, and our own approach as vital and compelling. Although in retrospect it was mostly insecure chest-thumping on our part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Do you personally see religion as being able to provide anything that some secular group could provide in someone's life? I do, but I can see how the things it provides may not be all that necessary to some people.
I see a religious community as able to provide anything a secular community can and vice versa. They're interchangeable in principle. In practice, for cohesiveness, every group needs a shared experience or at least needs to affirm a shared set of principles or values. The ancientness and continuity of some religious beliefs and rituals, particularly "high church" (Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox) can be one source of such cohesion that it's more difficult to younger religions like yours or secret societies to match, although as you point out, that's not everyone's cup of tea.
I don't know how I could have possibly derived anything else where what you said.
You are free to re-write it all you want to make it mean or say whatever you want it to say.
Quote:
It's one thing to tell people the have the wrong answers. You're taking it a step farther by telling me I'm not even asking the right questions! Who put you in charge of determining which questions should be asked and which shouldn't?
I didn't tell you you had the wrong answers because you weren't answering but asking a question instead.
So there is no way I "took that premise a step further" you're not making any sense. There was no step to take regarding you answering any questions. Are you feeling ok?
You are asking what religion does for you.
Again my answer to that question is don't be so self centered.
IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU.
No one needs to put me in charge of anything in order to respond to your question.
It's a message board, you asked a question, I answered it.
Quote:
Stop being so condescending.
Stop being defensive and snarky because you received an answer you didn't like.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, I do know the truth. Furthermore, I know how I feel about it. But once again, my question was not, "Which religion is true?"
We both know what you asked and that question was answered head on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
