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.
Yet who makes/decides/approves the changes? The Deity? The Deity through Prophets/Sages or other representatives? The Congregants? Do the Congregants "pray" for guidance in hopes they will be aided in the decision process? Do the Congregants take their best guess without guidance, the Deity giving them artistic license?
IMO the infrastructure of a religion with buildings/real estate holdings, donations and finances, political power and influence can take on an earthly life of it's own, possibly surpassing the import of the religion itself, and its survival may take precedent over the core of the religion. If ingrained enough it could place the religion "beyond reproach" to a degree regarding spurious alterations and changes, past deeds and behavior, etc.
Another secular example of this would be Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. Did they use a "bad boy" image to create shock value and attraction to enhance their career, including drug use, songs about drugs, etc? They hired the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang to police a concert for them and the stabbed and beat an attendant to death. Yet Mick Jagger went on to be knighted by the Queen of England and has morphed into somewhat of a mainstream accepted elder statesman.
The sheer body of work, economy, public attention, longevity of career, etc. placed them beyond reproach IMO. How would religion react to this situation? Are there parallel examples in religion?
Again, I can understand how difficult this can be for religion. For example, the core value is a loving bond between a man and a woman, family values being a priority, etc. This could leave folks without a family feeling left out, not to mention the new 62 different sexual combinations and identities.
Your first questions are difficult for me to answer because I don't believe in a god. But I would guess that the congregants take what their god has said and try to translate it for today's needs.
Your second paragraph I can definitely agree with. Belief in a god is one thing. But to institutionalize it makes it more concrete for everyone, not just the followers. As far as people or institutions being beyond reproach, that is just human behavior. This is where politics arises and causes fractions within the institution when people don't feel they are being treated fairly. Arach, another member here on C-D, calls it policing ourselves. That is really all we can do.
How did you understand from my statement that my practice would impinge on anybody's happiness and peace?
Answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
This is why discussions here can be dishonest because of posts like this.
I want to be very careful and say most posters here try to engage in intelligent and honest communication. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone. We are now diverted into some stupid argument
I thought I became an atheist at one point in my life when I was young, when my fervent prayers were not answered to my satisfaction. I stopped praying, visiting temples, or attending services. I just stopped caring, but it never occurred to me that now that I dont care everyone should also stop caring. Now, in maturity, i worship, pray, and believe in my own way. I also see the value and comfort it brings those who do visit temples and attend services. We all have our paths and all paths lead to the same divinity.
What i would like to understand, if that is possible, is why American atheists believe someone like me is not a true believer or that a religion such as mine that allows me the freedom that I take is not true religion. The religion never changed, I changed.
As to reforms the religion still has those texts within. People who no longer want to be governed by those laws, and still pray, worship by the text changed. Others did not, they still observe them. Why do American atheists even care what the religious practitioners do when it does not affect them in any way? Or if does, how?
Thanks for sharing your background. When I became an atheist I went in the opposite direction. I cared even more but about myself. When I was a Christian, caring for others and their feelings (especially God's) was more heavily emphasized. Nobody guided me on how to balance my life with others and still be a Christian. I became a doormat.
I honestly don't care if atheists or theists don't believe if I am a true atheist. They have no intention of making any progress with me (in other words getting over their feelings) and life is too short to spend it on people like that.
The point is I NEVER SAID YOU SPECIFICALLY disrupted the peace and happiness of others, somehow YOU CREATED that dishonest discussion, Not me. Feel free to show me where I specifically called out you personally. I have been QUITE clear and somehow you find a way to misinterpret just about everything anyone says. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, that's where you come in.
...Why do American atheists even care what the religious practitioners do when it does not affect them in any way? Or if does, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Because American religion attempts to impose itself on the entire society and everyone in it.
Although it is in decline, since WWII, the number of Americans claiming to be Christian has been near 80%. What phetaroi said was pretty simple to understand.
Now, let's quit bickering and discuss the topic of the thread.
Now, let's quit bickering and discuss the topic of the thread.
It seems like the last several exchanges with cb2008 demonstrate exactly why this thread was created, because generalizations about group behavior are taken as a personal assault, as so successfully demonstrated
Although it is in decline, since WWII, the number of Americans claiming to be Christian has been near 80%. What phetaroi said was pretty simple to understand.
Now, let's quit bickering and discuss the topic of the thread.
From time to time things can get a bit heated on this part of the forum, and that's often when some poster gets frustrated because his religion (or his atheism) is being "attacked". But I expect religions to be critiqued by atheists on a chat/discussion board, just as I expect religionists to critique atheistic positions. What is the difference between a post that 'critiques' a religion (or atheism) and a post that 'attacks' a religion (or atheism).
I don't think we should ever let things get nasty here, and our mods do an a very good job of heading that off in most cases. But another part of me thinks, "If you can't stand the heat..."
Thoughts?
I think it is impossible to critique one particular religion in comparison with another.
Every time you single out one religion - however improbable that religion may sound to a majority of religious people - like Scientology or Gates of Heaven cult - it is always an attack.
People believe what they believe for whatever reason they have due to their circumstances.
If one thinks that the particular religion could be “critiqued” it is the same as saying that one’s dreams could be critiqued.
The only way to critique a religion is to critique the idea of religion as a particular subject of human development in history
There are numerous reasons that the humankind created religion in multiple sets of various beliefs systems over millennia worldwide
The major one is the unique ability of humans - our abstract thinking capabilities as well as an imagination.
In the absence of the scientific knowledge early on to explain various naturally occurring phenomena the early humans developed coping mechanisms “explaining” the occurrences of lightning and thunder, volcanic activities and floods as the acts of supernatural creatures.
Later on in human development those primitive beliefs were replaced with more sophisticated which correspondent with the establishment of different forms of governing bodies in society.
The idea of religion made it helpful to ruling classes - to keep people non-violent, obedient and hopeful for a better life elsewhere in the future without cruelty and troubles -the promise of land of milk and honey, love, light - as a reward
It is not by chance that the early democracies of Greece and Rome with their religious pantheism were replaced with the religion of one omnipotent god in the heavens which reflected a transition to absolute powers of Emperors, Kings and Tsars on Earth.
Pardon for the primitive explanation and examples due to the format of the thread
Last edited by L00k4ward; 10-20-2021 at 06:31 PM..
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.
