What is wrong with religion?

[Eraser Salad]

The question is, is a religion set up so that, if everyone followed it really well, would it create a better world or a worse one?

And the other question is: are the followers actually following it well?

Who's to say what following a religion well actually means? Doesn't nearly everyone believe they're doing what their god wants?

 

[Ðanisty]

Who's to say what following a religion well actually means? Doesn't nearly everyone believe they're doing what their god wants?

Ya know, I'm not sure they do. I think some people know deep down inside that they aren't following their religion well. They're just in denial.

 

[Xbones]

"Why are people blaming religion? Isn't it the Humans' fault?" Yes it is the humans fault, because they invented religion. It is like the chicken and the egg, which came first the chicken or the egg? Well, which came first the religion or the follower?

 

[McBell]

"Why are people blaming religion? Isn't it the Humans' fault?" Yes it is the humans fault, because they invented religion. It is like the chicken and the egg, which came first the chicken or the egg? Well, which came first the religion or the follower?

Where is the start of a circle?

 

[Booko]

Who's to say what following a religion well actually means? Doesn't nearly everyone believe they're doing what their god wants?

They might believe it, Eraser, but while subjective, there is still some fact checking that can be done. Religion is not just about belief, and tools like reason and logic can (and should) be brought to bear.

For example, if Christians are killing others in the name of Christ, does this square with "Love your neighbor as yourself"?

If Muslims kill someone for converting away from Islam, does this square with "Let there be no compulsion in religion"?

I suggest in instances like that, it's pretty clear that people engaged in such acts are actually not following their religion well.

Would you disagree?

 

[Eraser Salad]

Yes.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that contradict most of everything Jesus said. The more conservative churches are of the opinion that Jesus' importance wasn't as a spiritual leader but as the pure sacrifice through which our salvation can be obtained. They view the sayings of Christ the same way you view most of the old testament - as metaphor meant to illustrate a point larger than a simple moral lesson.

Now, if you're of the belief that parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, can you really fault someone for reading metaphor in a different section than you?

 

[Xbones]

The bible was written in the times that people lived in the sand of the region. Had many conflicts in life and were up against the worst that the world offered at that time. The problem is today that believers are putting those testimonials to the test of today's standards and they are surely not the same.

 

[yossarian22]

Where is the start of a circle?

the place where the pencil, pen first touched

 

[MBones]

Yes but we are forgetting that there were no pencils and pens of the likes today when they told their stories. The stories were told on parchment, with ink that deteriorated at the time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there a religion that lacks some sort of moral code?

All of the "major" religions at least have a statement of the Golden Rule. If you want to read it I can dig it up, or there are a few others here who would have it handy.

Aguably the Quakers in theory: generally (I have to preface any statement about Quaker belief with "generally"), they don't believe in set codes or creeds of any kind.

 

[James the Persian]

Yes.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that contradict most of everything Jesus said. The more conservative churches are of the opinion that Jesus' importance wasn't as a spiritual leader but as the pure sacrifice through which our salvation can be obtained. They view the sayings of Christ the same way you view most of the old testament - as metaphor meant to illustrate a point larger than a simple moral lesson.

Now, if you're of the belief that parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, can you really fault someone for reading metaphor in a different section than you?

I'd dispute this. You can't get much more conservative than Orthodoxy (my average Sunday liturgy is 1500 years old, for instance) and we don't view Christ in the way you suggest at all (the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model of soteriology doesn't even make sense in an eastern context) and what Christ said is most certainly not taken as metaphor. I think you're confusing conservative Protestants with conservative churches. For us, the whole of the OT is always interpreted through the lens of the NT and hence what Booko said is undoubtedly true. Killing is always an evil. It can, very occasionally, be the lesser of two evils but it certainly cannot be a good and it cannot be justified in the name of Christ so, in our opinion, anyone who does so is, undoubtedly, being a bad Christian (if they're even Christian at all - by their fruits will you know them, after all).

James

 

[Booko]

Aguably the Quakers in theory: generally (I have to preface any statement about Quaker belief with "generally"), they don't believe in set codes or creeds of any kind.

Oh, there's a bit of a difference between a code or creed and a moral imperative, don't you think?

 

[Smoke]

Aguably the Quakers in theory: generally (I have to preface any statement about Quaker belief with "generally"), they don't believe in set codes or creeds of any kind.

There are some Quakers who do have creeds. The Evangelical Friends, for instance, are -- well, Evangelical. In my opinion, though, that's not at all in the spirit of Quakerism.

However, the Quakers do have testimonies about behavior. Quaker testimonies are not beliefs to which you must conform, or even commandments you must follow. They're more like an invitation to be mindful of your actions, and to consider the right way to behave.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, there's a bit of a difference between a code or creed and a moral imperative, don't you think?

Hey... it was you that said "moral code" in the first place.

As for the Golden Rule, though, I don't believe that the Church of Satan, for one, promotes it. I'm sure there are others.

Like I said, it's probably impossible to find something that's common to "all religions".

 

[Eraser Salad]

...what Christ said is most certainly not taken as metaphor.

So, how would you interpret Luke 14:26, just out of curiosity?

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

 

[Booko]

Hey... it was you that said "moral code" in the first place.

Some days I have a mind like a sieve.

As for the Golden Rule, though, I don't believe that the Church of Satan, for one, promotes it. I'm sure there are others.

You have a point.

Like I said, it's probably impossible to find something that's common to "all religions".

Maybe only that humans are involved?

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually Alestair Crowley had no trouble dealing with the Golden Rule:

"And thou harm none, do as thou wilt." Anton LaVey admits descent from Alesiter Crowley.

regards,
Scott

 

[MaddLlama]

Actually Alestair Crowley had no trouble dealing with the Golden Rule:

"And thou harm none, do as thou wilt." Anton LaVey admits descent from Alesiter Crowley.

regards,
Scott

Ah....

Actually "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" is the Wiccan rede. Crowley's version was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

 

[Popeyesays]

It's true he said that later when he wished to seperate himself from what he considered the fools trying to re-establish paganism while not having any idea what it was in the first place. He had little patience for those he considered fools. The first corollary of that is that he pretty much figured everyone was a fool. As he got older and his popularity waned, he became more and more outlandish in what he said. At the end he was mostly a cartoon of himself.

Regards,
Scott

 

[MaddLlama]

It's true he said that later when he wished to seperate himself from what he considered the fools trying to re-establish paganism while not having any idea what it was in the first place. He had little patience for those he considered fools. The first corollary of that is that he pretty much figured everyone was a fool. As he got older and his popularity waned, he became more and more outlandish in what he said. At the end he was mostly a cartoon of himself.

Regards,
Scott

I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know, Crowley never said "an it harm none do as thou wilt". That phrase wasn't coined until well after Crowley had already said "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
Just looking for some accuracy. If I'm wrong, could you kindly point me to some documentation?