Why is Confidence in Organized Religion At All Time Low?

[Gary Sheldrake]

I realize you don't know me yet but I have a PhD in theology Mr. Sheldrake so I'm aware of the Jews at that time frame. It is not that my argument is flawed sir, it is that stalwart Christians don't like being told they are wrong about certain things. But I do thank you for your well intentions.

Good Evening JoStories: My apologies, as I certainly respect your credentials and I don't think your argument is flawed. I am simply accustomed to running into people who try and reconstruct the life of Jesus of Nazareth based in scripture rather than history.

All the best,
Gary

 

[leibowde84]

I thought religion was meant to develop and encourage those?

Sometimes. But it isn't necessary to their existence and growth.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The mix of politics and religion, and fundamentalists loudly being for inequality due to their first century interpretation of the Bible.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"The Era of Know-Nothing-Know-It-Alls" ... or something like that, maybe.

Perhaps the era of a people finally united on a real/tangible front - and therefore without the need for contrivances.

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps the era of a people finally united on a real/tangible front - and therefore without the need for contrivances.

I feel like that would be too ironic to really be funny.

 

[Looncall]

I thought religion was meant to develop and encourage those?

All sorts of settings can develop into a community. For example, the people who walk their dogs at a local park look out for each other: they care for each othrr's doga, lend a sympathetic ear, provide advice etc. No mumbo-jumbo is needed, no conman clergy are involved.
If anything, religious dogma tends to atrophy human virtues such as empathy.

 

[JoStories]

Anyone willing to offer what they see as existing or being done in place of religion?

I think a generalized spirituality. Its my, or was, my field in nursing and how I integrated two of my degrees in practice. Rather than talking about religions with patients, we offered spirituality in place of that. It could mean religion to the patient, if that is what they wanted but we never forced a faith on anyone. Spirituality can apply to anyone, including atheists.

 

[fantome profane]

That is typical for such stories when a god takes a human incarnation. However, given that Jesus strongly resembles a shaman, and shamans are typically highly literate in their culture and their people's ways, it doesn't seem like a very strong case to assume Jesus would have been illiterate.

I sense people are using the word "literate" in different ways. You say a shaman would be "highly literate in their culture and their people's ways", but this does not necessarily mean literate in the sense of being able to read or write in a written language. Certainly not all "shaman" of all cultures were able to read or write.

Not that I agree that Jesus must have had all traits associated with a shaman just because he had some resemblance in your eyes.

 

[JoStories]

Good Evening JoStories: My apologies, as I certainly respect your credentials and I don't think your argument is flawed. I am simply accustomed to running into people who try and reconstruct the life of Jesus of Nazareth based in scripture rather than history.

All the best,
Gary

Yes, I understand that. Most people take the Bible as literal historical fact, or at least, those who adhere to that faith. When I try to say that it may not be as historical as they believe, I am hit with defensive posturing and often insults. And you have nothing to apologize for Mr. Sheldrake. You seem learned and polite and very well informed. Something that is often missing here of late. I look forward to reading more of your posts and engaging in some great discussions I hope. If I may ask, and you are obviously free to abstain from answering, do you have a faith that you follow? And if you do, how do you view the history of the faith with all that is known of faiths. I personally follow a Buddhist path. I hope you have a lovely day sir.

Namaste

 

[JoStories]

All sorts of settings can develop into a community. For example, the people who walk their dogs at a local park look out for each other: they care for each othrr's doga, lend a sympathetic ear, provide advice etc. No mumbo-jumbo is needed, no conman clergy are involved.
If anything, religious dogma tends to atrophy human virtues such as empathy.

I agree with you and then again, I don't. I think some people can follow a faith and not be mired in the dogma that pertains to that faith. Often Buddhists have no need of clergy, as you know. I don't agree that religion always leads to atrophy either. In some cases, it can and does, I know. But some can be more empathetic through the use of faith. I have a friend who is Christian and his views are so refreshing. Unfortunately, he went to Haiti after that earthquake and saw some of the heinous things being done in the name of his faith; refusing water unless the person would agree to become Christian, etc, and he not only left his faith but left this country. I truly miss that man.

 

[JoStories]

I sense people are using the word "literate" in different ways. You say a shaman would be "highly literate in their culture and their people's ways", but this does not necessarily mean literate in the sense of being able to read or write in a written language. Certainly not all "shaman" of all cultures were able to read or write.

Not that I agree that Jesus must have had all traits associated with a shaman just because he had some resemblance in your eyes.

That is very true. Many NA shamans never learned to read or write and it wasn't necessary. They communed with the faith through nature. They taught through showing the person who wished to replace them how to dream walk, mix cures or healing herbs, etc. I don't believe Jesus would have been able to read or write based on the historical understanding that being a carpenter would not have been a field that would have been taught that. That would have been only taught to Rabbis, politicians, etc., IMO.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Yes, I understand that. Most people take the Bible as literal historical fact, or at least, those who adhere to that faith. When I try to say that it may not be as historical as they believe, I am hit with defensive posturing and often insults. And you have nothing to apologize for Mr. Sheldrake. You seem learned and polite and very well informed. Something that is often missing here of late. I look forward to reading more of your posts and engaging in some great discussions I hope. If I may ask, and you are obviously free to abstain from answering, do you have a faith that you follow? And if you do, how do you view the history of the faith with all that is known of faiths. I personally follow a Buddhist path. I hope you have a lovely day sir.

Namaste

Thank you for the reply JoStories: To answer your question, I don't actually have a faith that I follow. Broadly speaking, I am a Monistic Idealist, which I'm sure you're probably aware is more of a school of thought than a religion, although there are some notable Monistic Idealists who are very religious - technically Hindus who follow more Upanishadic teachings rather than the worship of a particular God (other than the one within you).

All the best,
Gary

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The mix of politics and religion, and fundamentalists loudly being for inequality due to their first century interpretation of the Bible.

The fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is not "first century". It's a modern creation.

 

[JoStories]

Thank you for the reply JoStories: To answer your question, I don't actually have a faith that I follow. Broadly speaking, I am a Monistic Idealist, which I'm sure you're probably aware is more of a school of thought than a religion, although there are some notable Monistic Idealists who are very religious - technically Hindus who follow more Upanishadic teachings rather than the worship of a particular God (other than the one within you).

All the best,
Gary

An excellent reply Mr. Sheldrake. And btw, may I call you Gary? I'm Jo. I agree with you although I follow The Buddha more than the Hindu texts. I do find a great deal of wisdom contained therein but for me, the reliance on gods is offsetting to me. God, IMO, is not a thing or being but rather a spiritual concept that I find mostly indefinable. But your remark about God being within you is right on point, at least for me.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

An excellent reply Mr. Sheldrake. And btw, may I call you Gary? I'm Jo. I agree with you although I follow The Buddha more than the Hindu texts. I do find a great deal of wisdom contained therein but for me, the reliance on gods is offsetting to me. God, IMO, is not a thing or being but rather a spiritual concept that I find mostly indefinable. But your remark about God being within you is right on point, at least for me.

Good Morning Jo - yes you can certainly call me Gary. I am also familiar with the teachings of the Buddha, and see something of a cultural concrescence between the Buddhism found in certain places such as Bali and Cambodia and some aspects of Hinduism. I share your aversion to reliance on gods.

All the best,
Gary

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel like that would be too ironic to really be funny.

Way to have faith in humanity.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Why do people reject religion? An even better question, why do people reject Jesus?
1) Some people do not think they need a savior. These people consider themselves to be “basically good” and do not realize that they, like all people, are sinners who cannot come to God on their own terms. But Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Those who reject Christ will not be able to stand before God and successfully plead their own case on their own merits.

2) The fear of social rejection or persecution deters some people from receiving Christ as Savior. The unbelievers in John 12:42-43 would not confess Christ because they were more concerned with their status among their peers than doing God’s will. These were the Pharisees whose love of position and the esteem of others blinded them, “for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”

3) For some people, the things that the present world has to offer are more appealing than eternal things. We read the story of such a man in Matthew 19:16-23. This man was not willing to lose his earthly possessions in order to gain an eternal relationship with Jesus (see also 2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

4) Many people are simply resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempts to draw them to faith in Christ. Stephen, a leader in the early church, told those who were about to murder him, “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51). The apostle Paul made a similar statement to a group of gospel rejecters in Acts 28:23-27.

Whatever the reasons why people reject Jesus Christ, their rejection has disastrous eternal consequences. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), and those who reject Him, for whatever reason, face an eternity in the “outer darkness” of hell where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30).

Hi there, I was about to like your post until I got to the last paragraph and thought it might be better to respond because I don't believe in eternal torment but age-abiding torment. I know it's not a popular belief but it's what I see in Scripture. Otherwise I go along with your post wholeheartedly!

 

[leibowde84]

Way to have faith in humanity.

I do have faith in humanity. Organized religion ... not so much.

 

[JoStories]

I do have faith in humanity. Organized religion ... not so much.

I couldn't agree more. To me, organized religion is just that, organized and has no ability to commune with God. They lost that soon after the onset of Christianity. Its lost the teachings and become rote and ritualistic, which is NOT, IMO, what the Christ taught at all. Plus, its simply Paulian anymore and also not what Christ taught.

 

[JoStories]

Good Morning Jo - yes you can certainly call me Gary. I am also familiar with the teachings of the Buddha, and see something of a cultural concrescence between the Buddhism found in certain places such as Bali and Cambodia and some aspects of Hinduism. I share your aversion to reliance on gods.

All the best,
Gary

I wouldn't precisely use the word aversion Gary. I do believe in a God concept but not in the way that most see God. God is not some white bearded old man on a cloud. In fact, God is nothing that can be defined, nor does God have 'rules' for us other than a desire to see us become enlightened. Otherwise, we are in agreement here.