Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes many church members project their own fear of leaving onto the one that leaves, they are too frightened to leave because they may have been born into the church, or have friends that they have known for years, yes it takes a lot of guts to leave.
Thank you for having more of an inquisitive rather than debating
The issue with that thought, though, is assuming that religious indoctrinated people are limited because they were not give choices outside of their religious paths. I see this in a couple of ways. Is it healthy? Whose choice is it anyway?
If the indoctrination isn't healthy-say priests yelling at congregants and threatening them to hell, then, yes, I can see why a lot of people leave religion. However, that is not what religion is about. Unless that congregant doesn't believe the actual faith regardless of the people, I don't see his reason for leaving the Church unless it was just a decision or something he experience that he didn't like (among other healthy or unhealthy decisions). However, I never actually heard anyone leave the Church and any religion "just because."
Then you have to think of "whose chose is it anyway?" Are they brainwashed or do some of them actually choose to stay in their cultured or adopted faith because it gives them a connection with family and their community as a whole?
It's not just about the person, though. Many cultures build their foundation off of their faith. A couple of people here say they are atheist or non-religious and they still practice the teachings of their religion they still have because it is part of tradition and family.
So, there are a lot of factors involved. Some people feel limited and leave family/religion. I mean, when I went to the Church, an African American male (I'm African American) said, "so you went to a white Church, huh?" He seriously meant I disowned "our" religion and tradition handed down to us. Basically, I disowned the community. This was a stranger.
It really depends on whether one is in a healthy environment and/or how that person sees his religion in relation to himself, his family, and his environment. Outside of that, I can see your point.
Not everyone desires diversity in thought. I mean, my friend doesn't want to study other religions because she felt it would confuse her faith-even though she has practiced since birth. It's not limitation from her point of view and I understand why. Just for me, I find it weird but that's my morals not a universal moral that everyone should abide by or else.
In my opinion, if we are limited in thinking, then diversity in thought is hard if not impossible. I feel every religious should have some knowledge and/or experience in other faiths to really appreciate their own. I have a Jehovah Witness friend and her trainee who asked me about my faith. We talked about Paganism (at the time) and The Buddhist faith. They looked it up. We exchanged our religions and our realities.
Another JW asked me the same thing as I used to always see her at the bus stop every morning to work. We talked, she was interested, and, of course told me about her beliefs. It was respectful.
Bahai, at least online I haven't met any Bahai in person, seem to be open to diversity as well.
So, it depends on the people (in JW case) and it depends on the religion and its tenants (Baha'i case).
That depends on if you limit religious people as if they cannot make their own choices. The Buddhist school I follow doesn't allow me to make any choice I want to. I am limited in that the focus of how I become free (unlimited) is addressing the workings of the mind (rather than heart as in, say, Christianity). It doesn't feel like limitation because the mind does a lot of things and when we understand it, being religious is being free.
That's how religion, I feel, should be. It should make you free. I gravitate to freedom of expression. If I don't have that within religion, it doesn't work.
Even though Buddhism is strict, we still make our own choices. That is the point of it, actually. In Christianity, it is actually the same way (depending on denomination is depending on the severity of it). The actual teachings of Christ does not promote obedience (do this or else) it promotes worship and reverence that benefits the believer ( if you follow me, I give you this). The former, I see in Islam, the latter, in Christianity and like faiths.
The issue is the denomination not the religion and sacred text. In Christianity, OT god killed so many people and his intention was for the good of the people. Jesus Christ warned against disobeying his father. It put more emphasis on the believer's heart rather than the believer's actions as in the OT.
It's another way of saying "free will." They have freedom of choice. They choose to follow Christ and with that comes responsibilities (not rules and regulations). If I had a job, with that comes responsibilities. Same as religion. Unless someone corrects me, Muslim is the only religion I know that focus more on obedience.
Some people are actually content in the real sense of the word. They (as I mentioned with the JW above) acquire and discover. It depends on the denomination and religion rather than a generalization of religion and the religious as a whole.
My friend feels content via security, support, and relationship with her culture.
I feel secure by freedom of expression, understanding how I think and how it influences who I am and what I perceive myself-basically, reality.
Others may be secure in their morals even though they don't call it religious.
That security, support, or however they name it, lets them be content. There isn't one way to be content. There is no "we vs. them." Diversity in thought doesn't separate people but accept and if possible experience the differences from their perspective. It's a beautiful thing to really experience the sacraments of Christ and still not believe in the Church. Like falling in love and then breaking up on good terms.
If we are promoting diversity, there are many steps to do so without imposing that others are limited while we are not. We are not the center of the universe.
we all choose for ourselves
That's why. (Not to be sarcastic). I understand why you see as you do..so far.
"Religion is about beliefs"
Religion, actually, in its bare bones, is about practice not beliefs. I always use the "standing still" analogy. Since we are talking about god-religion rather than religion in general, if I believed in god and stood still, my belief means nothing. From a Catholic, Baptist, to even a Univeralist Unitarian who accepts all beliefs and none all emphasis to one degree or another than to follow a belief one must do something to follow it. Whether or no it is discovery or indoctrination, that's not depended on the religion (the definition of it) but on the people (or people that make up the denomination).
I think you're kind of mixing up people and their beliefs with religion and the definition of itself.
-
"If religion was about discovery, they would correct their errors..."
If we are talking about a specific god-religion then I'd probably ask what errors (according to the religion not the people) are there. That, and I'd probably ask how are they errors unless you see a contradiction between fact and fiction rather than just being non-existent. If god is an error, for example, how would that be? What about god makes him an error if he doesn't exist?
Religion, in general, is about discovery. It's about searching within yourself (eastern faiths for example) our outside of yourself (western faiths-not just Christianity) to understand the world around you. It let's you discover things about life such as the nature of death, for example, by a reflection of one's mind (Buddhism), a person (Christianity), or, thinking of another example, maybe Paganism (analogy or however it is seen. I don't know completely).
The difference between what we call discovery and the religious that you are referring to (since I am religious) is that they have someone or something to guide them to find discovery in themselves by external means (outside in). While, I assume we (at least for me), my religion lets me find discovery by myself (inside out). '
It's not wrong. It's different.
Now we are getting more specific: "Funny, they never discover any. They assume God sent their holy books and there are no errors."
Is this true, though? If it is an error, what really is the error?
Wouldn't it have to exist to make such a claim or are you more concerned about the claim and not the belief itself?
I guess I'll put it this way. There is no errors in the Bible and Quran.
Can I really say this? What am I basing this on? My criteria or what I believe to be reality? That's like basing truth of the Quran based on the Bible. It doesn't work that way. Of course, it has no errors. Regardless of what we believe, according to their criteria it doesn't contradict itself.
Now. If their practices contradict their own beliefs then yes, it would be in error. For example, someone here says "homosexuality is a sin" but according to that person's Church and the Church I was confirmed, it is not. They changed it actually almost recently. Now they consider it an disordered orientation and the action as a sin. So whomever said that is technically wrong. That person isn't going off of the beliefs of the Church but the beliefs that person holds to be true.
That's an error. However, if that person agreed with the CCC, then how would that be an error other than what I personally disagree with?
Hope you got all that?
Going back, religion in and of itself has nothing to do with god. It's "man's" attempt to understand the unknown. That's basically it.
How do you know god doesn't hand out knowledge? The only way I know about god is what is written in their books. If it isn't in their books, I know nothing about god. Is it in their books that god doesn't hand out knowledge? If not, how do you know? Have you personally experienced god before to make that statement?
I'm serious. This is actually a good question I haven't had answered no matter how many times I rephrased it. (Readers, your turn to chip in)
In some religions, yes. Other religions are more focused on practice. For example, a Zen Monetary I wanted to go to but it's in the mountains, they are not social like you see in Christian Churches. It's all silent. Everyone comes together in practice not in socialization because no one talks. When they do for that short amount of time, it's outside of practice. However, that short socialization doesn't define religion.
Socialization doesn't define religion. It's just man's attempt to define the unknown whether it be in himself and/or outside himself.
Also, if god doesn't exist, is that last question logical? If you believe in god (do you?) then it is, I would think if god was an entity, than discovery would be learning about god. You'd have to ask each person how they define god. I believe god is life itself. Why call it god and personalize life. There is a lot of things we don't know about life. Why replace life with god in that last sentence? Some of us do because it helps with discovery of the unknown. Just some people need external support to do so others need internal support while others just throw up their hands and figure it out without calling it internal (which that is what it is).
Yes. That's in all religions. Regardless the god ones or not. That's why discovery is so hard and mysterious, I guess. There is a challenge in understanding the unknown. Whether people call it god, Buddha-nature, or life, doesn't matter.
I assume you're talking about a specific god. I think maybe specify the religion since not all religions fit in the category and opinions that you have about it. In other words, it's a generalization.
Christians cannot become righteous by any set of rules. We are only righteous by the Blood of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
It simply isn't true that "the Bible is ... lenient toward rape.
Peace be on you.
Not evil, but on wrong way; maybe right message did not reach them properly.
If their religion is alive, right and practical, and helps them reach God and peace with world, why would they secretly or unsecretly desire so?
If they are alive, brave, wise, knowledgeable and of strong character they will not be Trapped. They will make others realize what is the real Truth.
Peace be on you.