The Purpose of Religion

[The Grey Wolf]

IMO, the people are the religion. A religion would not be so without the people. A religion is not a "thing" or an object, it's the beliefs of the group that pracitices it, so to me there really is no difference in saying the religion itself or the people that practice it.

This has got to be the smartest thing Ive read all week. And on top of that I agree. A religion is not the place it is practised or the thing being whorshiped, it is the people doing the worshiping and thier actions are what defines it. Things may change but that does not change what has been.

And now some words to live by...

"If it walks like a duck, lookes like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a tool of the Conspiracy!!!"

 

[Arkangel]

Why? why do we need religion. Is it to teach us morality, to show us the right way, salvation, nirvana, to binds us into one entity, to give hope where none is, to divide us on religious lines, to identify us of belonging to one belief, or to show us heaven.

Religion plays such an important role in our life defines it, controls it and even guides it to some extent.

Religon stifles our growth as humans. It stops us from asking the big question, God? It tries to define life and god for us and fails at the core of it. It never explains to us why? why do we need it.

Before you religious zealots start explaining to me why do i need it. Ask yourself why do you need it and when you find an answer for that ask another why and repeat the process until you reach the boundry set by religion beyond which you will not get a defined answer by that religion. This is the only reason that i do think that religion stifles our growth and evolution. It will never answer the Why?

 

[GodLovesUs]

Religion is a way to unite people with the same beliefs, hence possibly creating a majority. Often in the past religion, (in my opinion) would be used to establish morality. I always believed that our faith which is innate out weighs whatever religion you decide to join. Religion in my opinion was invented to unite people in the old ages.

Religion was invented by men (in my opinion always had arrogance) for men.

 

[Arkangel]

Religion is a way to unite people with the same beliefs, hence possibly creating a majority. Often in the past religion, (in my opinion) would be used to establish morality. I always believed that our faith which is innate out weighs whatever religion you decide to join. Religion in my opinion was invented to unite people in the old ages.

Religion was invented by men (in my opinion always had arrogance) for men.

Why unite, so that we can pounce on others with different beliefs. That we can band up together to discuss how right we are in believing what we believe in and to point out the flaws in others beliefs. To expand our knowledge in what we beieve and limit our beliefs to only those we started in first place and leave no room for others. I see no religion which adds new beliefs into it as we amend our constitutions and laws has time and civlization progress. Why does the religion that unite men only unites men and not women. Why divide religion on the basis of gender and not unite us there. Why are there no women Pope or Imams if religions do unite men and women.

This is not a question directed at you GodLovesUs but just a general one to all. I just quoted you since you raised a very good point here.

 

[Green Gaia]

IMO, the people are the religion. A religion would not be so without the people. A religion is not a "thing" or an object, it's the beliefs of the group that pracitices it, so to me there really is no difference in saying the religion itself or the people that practice it.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're generalizing too much. If what you say is true, then all Christians would act exactly the same, all Buddhists would act exactly the same, all Muslims would act exactly the same, etc., but we see that isn't the case. Two people read the same holy text, one is inspired to devote her entire life to helping the needy while the other person feels it is their religious mission to rid the world of homosexuals by whatever means necessary. One person commits evil acts, the other good acts. So the same religion you would call evil, would you also call it good? I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions, good or evil, not their religion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you have those links handy and don't mind, you could make a thread about them in our Religious Books forum? I've read both, but others may not have them available to them otherwise. Thanks, Maize.

Done.

 

[Green Gaia]

Done.

Thanks!

 

[Sunstone]

As Jay once said, religion is a "powerful enabler". It sometimes enables people to do great good, and it sometimes enables people to do great evil. But it is not by any means the only factor or influence on whether people do good or evil. I tend to think that if someone is predisposed towards doing good, then religion will help them do good. And if someone is predisposed towards doing evil, then religion will help them do evil. That is, I believe the most crucial factors in whether someone does good or evil have nothing to do with religion.

 

[YmirGF]

The purpouse of religion should be to put itself OUT OF BUSINESS. If they feel a need to continue, they are not doing a very good job.

 

[Green Gaia]

As Jay once said, religion is a "powerful enabler". It sometimes enables people to do great good, and it sometimes enables people to do great evil. But it is not by any means the only factor or influence on whether people do good or evil. I tend to think that if someone is predisposed towards doing good, then religion will help them do good. And if someone is predisposed towards doing evil, then religion will help them do evil. That is, I believe the most crucial factors in whether someone does good or evil have nothing to do with religion.

Thank you. You (and Jay) said it much better than I could.

 

[Arkangel]

I get what you're saying, but I think you're generalizing too much. If what you say is true, then all Christians would act exactly the same, all Buddhists would act exactly the same, all Muslims would act exactly the same, etc., but we see that isn't the case. Two people read the same holy text, one is inspired to devote her entire life to helping the needy while the other person feels it is their religious mission to rid the world of homosexuals by whatever means necessary. One person commits evil acts, the other good acts. So the same religion you would call evil, would you also call it good? I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions, good or evil, not their religion.

Ultimately there actions are based upon the holy book meaning they were inspired either in a positive way or a negative to do it. Whether it is evil or good depends on your morality since it is that same holy book from which majority of the people draw morality. So actions taken by the cause of religious motivation should be morally right then. Atleast for the person doing it.

Mother Thereasa saw it as gods will and her duty to help the sick and diseased and some see that getting rid of homosexuals is gods will and their duty. Both view points are generated in the persons mind but religion justifies to them as being the right path by confirming their view points in their holy books. Religion just made the act of getting rid of homosexuals a morally right thing for a person who believes in that. It just gave him a weapon and justified his acts as being right in his eyes for him to carry it out. It is not just the people who are accountable but even religion for being so vague in describing many things to its followers.

 

[Eynah]

True it was the human element that commited the crime, but it was the religion that gave them an excuse to do the normaly inexcuseable. I also did another post regarding this issue.

I don't see how religion gave them an excuse. It is still inexcusable anyways, while some people in the time that it happened might have been 'woohoo! person', it's clear that we ourselves don't look fond upon it. While there is no way to change the past, I know that some people, such as Pope John Paul II, have spent time apologizing and criticizing what has happened. There will always be people who kill in the name of religion, but for every one of them there is quite a few that will not, nor will they condone it.

 

[ChrisP]

Done.

Sank Yuuuu

 

[Green Gaia]

Ultimately there actions are based upon the holy book meaning they were inspired either in a positive way or a negative to do it.

I believe that people have it within them already to do great good or great evil, they don't need a religion to bring either out, they just believe they do.

It is not just the people who are accountable but even religion for being so vague in describing many things to its followers.

How do you hold a religion accountable? Put it on trial? Ban it from being practiced? Punish it's followers? Those things don't work...

 

[The Grey Wolf]

But it did make sure a great many lions got fed!!!

But in all seriousness,

Good and evil are illusions produced by man to denominate morality. One mans saint is another mans sinner. Vlad the Impaler is veiwed as a generally bad person here but in Romania he is a national hero. We are all judged. The manner of which is foolish, but it is done anyways. The world is flat. The Sun revolves around the Earth. Wrong? Yes, but they were right when they were popular. That is it. What is popular is Good, and what is unpopular is Evil.