Does organized religion miss the whole point about God?

[Mister_T]

You're more than welcome to that opinion, though fellowship and community are stressed by Jesus Himself in the Gospels. One cannot find those things alone.

I'm not alone. I hang out with my Christian buddies a few times a week and we disscuss God. We call each other and and a lot of time God comes up in the conversation. We have fellowship. If we see someone in need, we help. Same thing.

I'm not a Christian, but a Baha`i - community, fellowship are extremely important in the Baha`i Faith.

I'm not familiar with Baha'i Faith. I would like to know though. Could you enlighten me?

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm not alone. I hang out with my Christian buddies a few times a week and we disscuss God. We call each other and and a lot of time God comes up in the conversation. We have fellowship. If we see someone in need, we help. Same thing.



I'm not familiar with Baha'i Faith. I would like to know though. Could you enlighten me?

You can get basic info at www.bahai.org . I'd be happy to answer any questions. Basically we believe that there is ONE God, the Creator. That from time to time as God wills, He sends a Divine Messenger to mankind to educate us, and renew His covenant and religion with man. That mankind, whatever his color, or ethnicity, or politics, or religion, or language, or culture, is ONE race of man. And the purpose of the man is to build the Kingdom of God on earth with his own sweat.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

One of my students said once:

I have a legitimate excuse if I get judged. There is just too many flavors to choose from. That devil is a genious to add confusion to the mix.


​

Definately organized religion...:jam:

 

[d.]

I think it does in a sense.

There is no realistic evidence that a god even exists yet organized religions claim to know what god thinks, wants, needs, and demands.

Different organized religions state that god thinks, wants, needs, and demands entirely contradictory to other organized religions.

The fact that the greatest determining factor of what a believer will believe is geography shows me that these contradictory systems don`t do much but muddy the waters of spirituality.

Each should find their own path, this way none can be "wrong".

my own thoughts exactly.

 

[Revasser]

I think 'organised religion' is just the natural result of people with similar ideas getting together. There's nothing inherently wrong with that and it's inevitable that people who think in similar ways are going to find each other and discuss their ideas.

I have no problem with organised religion in principle, heck I could even be said to belong to one if you take a liberal view of what constitutes "organised". What I do tend to try to avoid is rigid, dogmatic orthodox religions. Once a religion loses its flexibility, that's when the problems begin. It moves steadily from "We got together because we all believe things that are quite similar" to "Our organisation believes this, if you want to join, you must believe this" to "We believe this and it is The Unassailable Truth, so you must join us and believe it too or you will suffer for your transgression against Truth." This is pretty much what happens when your organisation starts encouraging ideas of it's truth being The Truth(tm).

This does not, by any means, always happen in organised religion. Look at the UUs. Admittedly (and sadly), my experience with them has been limited, but to me it seems that they never lost their fluidity and seemed to have thus far managed to avoid the pitfalls of orthodoxy and rigid dogma.

So, I think organised religion is fine, but I usually have no time for strict dogma.

 

[cardero]

I would suggest a few points.



GOD deals with us individually, personally because each one of us is different. It is not who you know but who you are.



A GOD who is everywhere never solicits a place for worship, service or gathering.



GOD cannot be contained to any publication. Any knowledge desired about GOD can be related through observation, conversation and examination.



Never did GOD need a group to represent Him, define Him, defend Him or promote Him.

 

[Squirt]

Do you have to be submerged in slime to know it's slime?

Of course not. But I can tell you one thing for sure: If I were submerged in slime, I'd know it. I'm not that stupid!

 

[Smoke]

Of course not. But I can tell you one thing for sure: If I were submerged in slime, I'd know it. I'm not that stupid!

"Slime" was a metaphor, after all. However brilliant you -- personally -- may be, the current state of our political system, our popular culture, and our popular religions makes it pretty clear that a lot of people either don't know or don't mind when they're submerged in slime.

 

[linwood]

And what makes you think you are in a position to do that? You apparently have no religious beliefs at all, and yet you feel that you are qualified to call the beliefs of others "viscous slime."

You misunderstand my statement.
We are all in the position to do that, we just have to come to an understanding from our own perspective.

I have no religious beliefs because I`m doing it .

The "slime" I speak of is the dogma that harms people for nothing more than the sake of it`s own existnce.
Every religions dogma is inherently discriminatory, they all place themselves above others as a group with no standard for doing so other than they say to do so.

It isn`t spirituality that condemns homosexuals, it isn`t spirituality that causes guilt, it isn`t spirituality that condemns kids to STV`s and teen pregnancy, it isn`t spirituality that stops enlightenment.
It`s religious dogma that does these things and so much more.

 

[Quiddity]

You misunderstand my statement.
We are all in the position to do that, we just have to come to an understanding from our own perspective.

I have no religious beliefs because I`m doing it .

The "slime" I speak of is the dogma that harms people for nothing more than the sake of it`s own existnce.
Every religions dogma is inherently discriminatory, they all place themselves above others as a group with no standard for doing so other than they say to do so.

It isn`t spirituality that condemns homosexuals, it isn`t spirituality that causes guilt, it isn`t spirituality that condemns kids to STV`s and teen pregnancy, it isn`t spirituality that stops enlightenment.
It`s religious dogma that does these things and so much more.

Alright, I'll be open and hear you out as to how dogma "hurts" people. Start another thread if you wish to take this further.

 

[cardero]

I should suggest a few more:

A GOD who operates on truth does not require their followers to take great leaps of faith.



Organized religion is not qualified to teach is purpose.



The knowledge that GOD treats both man and women equally doesn’t seem to be a quality that some religions share with GOD. GOD does not have a chosen people. GOD does not rank humankind or appoint to position.



An accurate understanding of GOD does not require money or the exchange of money.



Some organizations can be strict and stifling which can inhibit the experience process of a physical existence which concentrates on life and living.



Some organizations misrepresent, misunderstand and misinterpret GOD’s love.



Knowing GOD does not require tradition, ritual or custom.



Though GOD understands what it is like to be human, GOD doesn’t behave like a human.

 

[CAPPA]

Organized Religion, serves a major part in our misguided world, it stands as the voice of the bible/teachings of god. And, not only does it support it, it also tries to vindicate it, in all possible ways. However, whether or not they missed the point about god, is, IMO, a useless question. There is no god, no higher power, no supreme being, and therefore, they did not just miss the point on god, they seem to miss the fact that, no point or stance can be made on something that simply does not(no actual proof) exists. :sarcastic




cappa's thoughts

 

[Quiddity]

Hey CAPPA, welcome to the forum. Feel free to introduce yourself to the whole gang.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21

 

[Ody]

I'm sure that it happens in some mainstream organized religions..after all many make G-d illogical and full of childish pride

 

[nutshell]

Organized Religion, serves a major part in our misguided world, it stands as the voice of the bible/teachings of god. And, not only does it support it, it also tries to vindicate it, in all possible ways. However, whether or not they missed the point about god, is, IMO, a useless question. There is no god, no higher power, no supreme being, and therefore, they did not just miss the point on god, they seem to miss the fact that, no point or stance can be made on something that simply does not(no actual proof) exists. :sarcastic




cappa's thoughts

I'm sure the religious would say you and other atheists miss the whole point that there is a God and that you have no actual proof that God does not exist.

But that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[CAPPA]

I'm sure the religious would say you and other atheists miss the whole point that there is a God and that you have no actual proof that God does not exist.

But that's not the topic of this thread.

I would kindly reply by asking the religious to provide one real speck of evidence, and I don’t mean a book that was written by old fools 1343234 years ago, not a priest who claims to know god or the good book, not an emotion, not a prayer, something that is factual.... something that is not just based upon a feeling or notion or perhaps a misconstrued conception of what actually took place... actual evidence and if they could, they'll have another believer... OR BETTER YET, ONE THAT WOULD PROCLAIM HIS NAME

 

[Quiddity]

I would kindly reply by asking the religious to provide one real speck of evidence, and I don’t mean a book that was written by old fools 1343234 years ago, not a priest who claims to know god or the good book, not an emotion, not a prayer, something that is factual.... something that is not just based upon a feeling or notion or perhaps a misconstrued conception of what actually took place... actual evidence and if they could, they'll have another believer... OR BETTER YET, ONE THAT WOULD PROCLAIM HIS NAME

There is none. All you we have is natural things like desires, belief, attaching meaning to things, etc. But since this doesn't fall under empirical evidence it is a moot point. If you are truly interested I suggest you start with the cute little pixies and work your way through them.

Peace be with you
~Victor

 

[CAPPA]

There is none. All you we have is natural things like desires, belief, attaching meaning to things, etc. But since this doesn't fall under empirical evidence it is a moot point. If you are truly interested I suggest you start with the cute little pixies and work your way through them.

Peace be with you
~Victor

[font=&quot]I assume we are playing out a conversation that has been written/spoken/discussed a million times before... but I’d like to point out that you yourself said there is none, natural things like the ones you described, can not in all honesty establish proof for god. And, the cute little pixies... sure.. I’ll get right on it..[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

 

[Feathers in Hair]

As a believer in pixies (they bite), I would kindly ask that you refrain from referring to the scribes of other people's religions as 'foolish'. (There is such a thing as tact, even on a debate forum.)

 

[Quiddity]

[font=&quot]

[font=&quot]I assume we are playing out a conversation that has been written/spoken/discussed a million times before[/font]

[/font]

Yup..
[font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]

[font=&quot]... but I’d like to point out that you yourself said there is none, natural things like the ones you described, can not in all honesty establish proof for god. [/font]

[/font]

Cool choice of color by the way.
CAPPA, don't confuse proof with evidence:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

As far as proof here is a couple:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p19.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p21.htm
[font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]

[font=&quot]And, the cute little pixies... sure.. I’ll get right on it..[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

[/font]

I doubt it.. But I hope I'm wrong.

Peace be with you
~Victor
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm