Is Religion a good thing or a bad thing?

[endboss]

One aspect I am rather surprised has not surfaced (especially given the pedigree of some of the participants) is the nature of why religion came about to begin with. You have all touched on many of the fallacies, accuracies, misconceptions, inconsistencies, and many other wonderful notions you can associate with religion, and whether it is good or not, yet have not addressed the simple question of its core.

Religion was a means to understand that which could not be understood, at the current state of human development. Many of these religions came from a simple fear of the world around them, one they could not possibly fathom an explanation. Take the Greek pantheon for example. They did not understand the finer points of ocean, and what influenced gale winds, or large tidal waves, or other phenomena, beyond claiming it the will of a greater being. Same could be said about Egyptian religion, and even elements of the Judeo-Christian faith. You can read some of the old surviving accounts of people, and they are ripe with superstitious belief and understanding of God and his interactions with people. Hell, Martin Luther's conversion can almost be directly connected with a thunderstorm!

To get back to my point, however, religion, and invariably faith, have their roots in the desire to understand, and quantify human surroundings. As such, in its most base form, you can argue religion has been a good thing for human development, as much as it has been a negative. It has driven some of the greatest scientific minds (whether it was out of curiosity, or to disprove some notion) to learn and understand physics, the elements and energy, as well as having lead to great persecution and hardship.

The dividing line, though, comes from those who steer such power. It is the organizations that can sour a religious fervor, or make it the most pious of forces. Religion in its purest form, whether one has faith or not, is inherently a good thing, but the potential of being something truly terrible.

And just for a quick disclaimer, I am in no way a spiritual or religious person, but I have seen how it has helped other around me find some form of balance in their life. While it is not my way, it may be others. It is for the individual to decide whether it is good or bad.

First page, man!

They were a first attempt at describing and understanding the world.

Although you put it much more elegant. Unfortunately, the problem is that people don't want to realize that they were a first attempt, a pre-science, and still take the flimsy explanations they take to be fact.

[Aegis]

Edited for various reasons... Mostly to revise some concepts.

[Curry]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o"]Maybe this will answer your question[/url]

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Ooh, Youtube links!

I was going to post the clip from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_Vs_God"]John Safran vs. God[/url] where Australian comedian John Safran tries joining the Klu Klux Klan, but it's been taken down. Safran's Jewish, btw.
Won't post any of them here 'cos they're pretty graphic, but a Youtube search on Crucifiction Philippines yields quite a few disturbing results.

[Fljotsdale]

Sorry not to reply to this sooner, Fable. Been busy!

If I'm having a discussion about theater after seeing an historical production of Shakespeare's The Tempest with someone whose criticisms are all in terms of things it did that were bad because they didn't follow modern stage traditions--which the speaker kept insisting were true of theater for all time--it's only sensible for me to assume that they're unfamiliar with historically based Shakespeare productions.
So if you keep referring to "priests" and "priesthoods" in a modern Christian sense when you're commenting upon pre-Judeo-Christian priesthoods (and their "modern times" role outside a Judeo-Christian framework), I have to assume you're applying the terms anachronistically. Can't help that. With the best will in the world, I can only deal with what you write.

Well, I thought I was being clear! I assumed my reference to priestesses would have been understood as I intended.

I just finished explaining that in Greco-Roman religions, many temple priest positions were elected, and that in any case, every Greek had direct contact with his/her gods, whose three main locations were the home, the polis or city, and the temple. From our limited knowledge of them, every Frank and Celt could also contact their gods directly;

I hear you. However, they did not have voice to voice, face to face contact. It was one-sided and prayer based. This was totally unlike the claims of the voice to voice relationships between, say, Moses and Yahweh, or an Oracle and her god(s), or the Shaman and his god/spirit. Anyone can TALK TO the god(s) they worship, but the overwhelming majority of believers in whatever god(s)/spirit(s) didn't get a verbal answer back! If any answer at all.

the priests were the ones who studied and memorized the rituals, but they were definitely not, in any way, shape, or form, intermediaries in the normal course of human activity between the individual and the gods. And they were not usually revered. They were treated as any other upscale trade--such as scribes and bureaucrats in Egypt, actors and lawyers in the early Roman Empire.

Yup.... within limits. Many were not even literate, you know. They were of the people, for people, as it were, rather than educated and literate. As such they were respected (or not, according to their conduct) but not revered in any way. The educated upper echelons of what are now called Holy Orders, on the other hand, was regarded with a great deal of awe by the ordinary illiterate people they claimed to serve, and what they said was regarded as God's very word (certainly in Christendom but also among the Roman and Egyptian pantheons you mention). EDUCATED non-clerics did not regard them in such a light (and we know far more about the educated classes than about the common man), but it is apparant, nonetheless, that the ordinary 'guy in the street' did so.

Now it's possible that in pre-historic times, priests acted as you describe, but since that's based on speculation rather than research, we could state that anything is possible in pre-historic times. There's no evidence to lead us to think this occurred, however.

I think there is a fair amount of evidence that it was so. I can't quote such evidence, however, since what I have gathered on the subject has been gleaned over many years of reading and radio and, in more recent years, tv documentaries. I failed signally to keep a record of such, because it never occured to me to do so. However, I think a reading of the legends of the gods of ancient times may give you a fair handle on the attitudes of people in a variety of cultures to both their gods and their priesthoods (where priesthoods of some sort existed); some were respectful some were decidedly not! For example, the Norse peoples were not at all respectful! :laugh: Though they did fear their gods, to a greater or lesser degree

I don't know where you're getting this, and please forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like a view of pre-Judeo-Christian priesthoods based on fictional films. I can give you plenty of book suggestions for fact checking on at least a few of these cultures that have been thoroughly researched, if you'd like.

I think the only religious film I have seen was The Robe, which was based on a novel (which I have also read), based on a reference in the bible to the garment that was removed from Jesus at his execution. I've actually read the bible itself from cover to cover more times than I want to remember, besides a lot of biblical and non-biblical reference books, parts of the Koran, the Gilgamesh Epic, lots about the Egyptian gods, the Norse Gods, the Roman gods, and the societies both existed within; some about the Hindu gods, a little about the pre-christian religions of South America, a very little about some African beliefs. However, a lot of my reading took place many years ago, and I haven't kept myself up-to-date with recent thought.

They prayed, they bargained, they communed with, they gave suggestions, they berated, demanded, pleaded, threatened, argued with, connived with, etc. They even, on occasion, threw out gods, and invited in other ones. (This last continued into Christian times. There are numerous records of community prayers before saint statues in Italian cities for relief against some disaster--and if the saint didn't deliver, the people would parade the statue down the street, throwing rubbish at it, before either making demands or tossing it out, and getting a new one.)

Gosh, yes! :laugh: But it was all very one-sided. THE PEOPLE did the chatting, the god(s) didn't reply.

In other words, they treated the household gods as though they were family, which they were. (And their prayers were not attempts to placate. Again, this isn't Judeo-Christian religion.) We have plenty of evidence, in lots of scrolls and cenotaphs. Your statement just doesn't match up with the mountain of evidence we have of how religion (in this case, hearth religion) was handled.

Sure. I don't deny that. I wasn't even trying to. But I DO have a tendency to make broad sweeping statements that don't cover every variation available for debate.

Pre-Judeo-Christian, there's no evidence of priests ordering rulers about, or telling rulers what the gods wanted: this assumption of priest-ruler relationships began to arise in the late 19th century, and was based on an anachronistic understanding of late medieval/early Renaissance priest-ruler relationships.

Frequently, the ruler himself was also the god, so had no need of priests telling him what to think or do; but that was not the case in all populations, you know.

It was popular among fiction writers such as Lord Dunsany or (much worse) Maria Corelli.

Really? Never read any Dunsany that I can recall, and only one of Corelli.

In fact, the king/queen was in some cultures associated with a local god/dess.

True.

(It's been speculated that one of the major reasons the Habiru left Babylon was that their priesthood was ignored by the vast majority of people and the rulers--so they took a tiny minority that followed them like sheep.)

Ah... not come across that particular theory before. Interesting.

For example, in the so-called Middle Kingdom through the Late Period (pre-Hellenic) roughly 2000 BCE to 300 BCE in Egyptian history, the ruler, whether king or queen, gradually came to be regarded as the incarnation of a god, and treated as such. The priests didn't dictate what they did, and even the kings usually understood that their own dictatorships were limited--nuanced ruling meant you knew your limits.

Yup. Though you did get some nutters who actually believed they were god and acted accordingly.

You mention auguries. You may be confusing the role of the oracular priesthood with community priests. The oracles were located far away from communities.

I don't think I mentioned auguries? Oracles, yes, not auguries, I think. And no, I was not in the least confusing Oracles with community priests! Different kettle of fish altogether!

Their priests only offered advice based on questions that were asked--they never offered it, first. [/quote]

True.

Their advice was not regularly adhered to, and it was not considered inevitable. They did not have any role in the running of communities, and it would have been a very strange Doric Greek community that asked anybody, whether or god or human from the outside, what to do about the way things were run. They were not regularly consulted, either. We have the detailed records of at least a few of the most popular oracle sites, and what went on in a day-to-day fashion, there.

Also true; your educated human is a natural sceptic; but many did accept and obey, nonetheless, because it was the 'word of the god'.

I had to return to this, because I'm not sure what you mean, and why you're bringing this up. Yes, some priesthoods were male, some were female, and some permitted either sex to the priesthood.

"Quote":
On the other hand, since when did Christianity have priestesses, which I specifically mentioned? They go back MUCH further than any of the Abrahamic faiths, "Unquote"
mentioned it specifically to point out that I was not just commenting on the Judeo-Christian block of belief, when you told me was what I was doing! That's all.

[NarutoAngel221]

I think it really depends on your belief coz for me religion is important since my family are Catholics but if your not a Catholic of a Christian then I guess religion isnt important

[Fljotsdale]

I think it really depends on your belief coz for me religion is important since my family are Catholics but if your not a Catholic of a Christian then I guess religion isnt important

Lol! :laugh: Tell that to non-Catholic, non-Christian believers! :laugh:

But such presumption is not really a matter for amusement. It's tragic.

[Maharlika]

I think it really depends on your belief coz for me religion is important since my family are Catholics but if your not a Catholic of a Christian then I guess religion isnt important

Kabayan,just like you and majority of Filipinos, I'm Catholic too. And just like you and your family, we also give premium to our religion as an integral part of our way of life, our way of thinking.

However, people outside our culture have a different way at looking at things when it comes to religion --- whether they are believers of another religion, or they are agnostic or they are outright non-believers. But to say that religion is not important to them just because they are not Catholics or Christians is outright wrong.

What about the Hindus? The Buddhists? Muslims? Jews? Wiccans?

Christianity and Catholicism are religions but they are NOT THE ONLY religion in this world.

Religion for me is my personal relationship with my God. Religion is SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD since it should be inculcating values that should make you a better person. It's when religion is used for self-serving motives and is used to justify hurting other people, that makes members of certain religions make their religion look bad.

[Fljotsdale]

Well said, Maharlika.

[Salidin54]

Since I am what most people would consider highly religious I'll keep my comment brief. I see religion as a symbol. It is something that some people would use as an excuse to claim glory and riches, ex: Crusades. At the same time it is a symbol some people choose to attack saying it is evil, ex: the Smithsonian incidents. I used to have a quote on here that pretty much summed up my feelings on religion: "I put no weight in religion; the religion of today's society is that of hypocrisy, fanaticism, and loss of all reason. I put my weight in faith."

[Maharlika]

>snip< I put my weight in faith."

My sentiments exactly.

[Fljotsdale]

It's a strange thing - faith. It has to be based on nothing at all or it's valueless.

I used to have a faith. I was brought up Catholic myself, but by the age of 15 - having attended Catholic Schools for most of my school life up until then - I had become a vehement atheist; mostly on account of the things I had seen Catholic clergy and nuns do (and they dedicated to God to do good ).
Yes, they are only people, and fallible and it shouldn't reflect on god, but it does, especially in the mind of a child.

However, at the age of 28, because of the efforts of some very loving and kind and genuinely good people - not perfect, but genuinely good - I studied the bible and once again became a believer. Following which I was a believer for 25 years, though it was fading considerably by the end of the period. By which time I had read the bible more times than I can remember, and continued not only reading but studying it.
And the strange thing about that is that the more I read and studied, the more I found the god of the bible was not someone I could love. More than that, I found myself thinking that human beings, with all our faults, had higher standards than god. Well... most of us wouldn't commit genocide, would we? Nor kill the whole family of a person who did something god said they shouldn't, - such as collect firewood on a day god said they shouldn't - or strike a man dead for trying to save the Ark of the Covenant from falling over (it was death to touch the ark, no matter what). Nor would we instruct our troops to kill women and children. But god did all those things.

Ask yourself: If the biblical god was a human leader on earth today (like, say, Saddam Hussein), and did all those things, plus many more recorded in the bible, would you follow him? Would you believe in him? Would you put faith in him that all he was doing was ultimately good?

I wouldn't.

And the same thing applies to all the religions I have looked at, though I have to confess that i have examined no other in anything like the depth I have studied the bible!

I like Jesus, mind you. Not as a god or a son of a god, but as a man. He was agood man, according to the gospels. But later on the writers of the rest of the New Testament turned him into another Yahweh/Jehovah figure breathing fire and vengeance on his creation. Pity.

[Stworca]

There are many valid points as to why "religions are bad" (to name a few : conflicts and discrimination, which have left scars on every single page of human history) but let's not forget about the bright side!

Ask Yourself this : why do most people believe in god (one or another)? Cause 'tis world we live in, is a rather unpleasant place - we're all going to die, no matter what, and except for suiciders we have no idea when its going to happen.

Most (if not all) people would do nearly everything to extend the time we've been given.. and this is where religions shine as a beacon of hope. Reincarnation, heaven or Cleveland in Ohio state. These are the places where faithfull followers may find themselves after death.

It's not for me to say if any promised land exists, and i realy do not care about that. But truly believing in salvation, takes away a great, heavy burden of fear. And regardless of whether or not religion X or Y is fake. As long as people believe, they benefit.

And lets not forget, that people LIKE to believe in something. Whether its Walt Disney beign still alive, but frozen, the "TRUE" end of the world (nr. 518) in year 2012, or force (god) that will allow us to live once again.

Regards!

Edit : I would write more, but im not realy comfortable with the way the above text turned out. In short : Is there any religion that tells faithfull to harm the "Disbelievers"? Is there any religion that asks you to kill, in order to gain.. whatever there is to gain?

No. The ideas behind each and every faith (that i know) was to unite and help people. Its the (censored) spiritual leaders who, easily corrupted by power, change "You shall not murder" commandment (used only as an example) into Crusades.

I, beign a disbeliever / heretic or simply ateist, always clearly state that faith is a wonderfull thing, but church (as in institution.. or rather corporation) and the taint it has left on faith, is not. It saddens me that so many lives have been and will be ruined cause of this. But 'tis the world we live in.

[Revan1993]

I don't believe in anything and I have no problem with religion.

What I do hate however is people pushing others to believe. I mean it is your own concern. The crusades and jihads are some of the most ridiculous phenomenons in the history of mankind. I'm not pushing people to give up their faith in God, so they should leave me alone as well...

Conclusion: religion = not bad, people fighting over religion = bad

[drazac]

Fljotsdale, I haven't read the Old testimony, but I do remember some things that have occurred... mostly from watching biblical movies.

For Christians, like myself, NEW testimony is FAAAR more important then the OLD one, cause our salvation comes in Jesus Christ.

"God loved the World so much, that He gave his only Son to die on a cross, and whoever shall believe in Him, will Never die, but he'll have everlasting LIFE!" If God is a mass murderer, then why did He gave His only Son to pay the price for our sins?

Next, God doesn't punish. It is we, men and women, who punish our self's by defying His will... and His will was given in Ten commandments

His will is already written in our hearts and souls... When a person receives His Holy Spirit, it is becoming natural for us to obey his will. Like it is natural for us to pray and seek out His help in time of troubles, and sing songs to Him in times of happiness.

When reading Bible, it is important not to take it all literary.

God is a Perfect LOVE, that means He does NOT HATE, NOR KILL, NOR PUNISH ... the image of a vengeful, angry and punishing God is not suited for the God of Love. Instead He is merciful, caring, giving, faithful, LOVING!

Christians are invited to become more like Jesus. Good, kind, merciful and the most important... LOVING.. to Love God, and Love everyone else like you love yourself ... even your enemies.

For those who have other beliefs... that doesn't mean they will go to hell cause they are not Christians... If they have done right in life. If they love someone unconditionally ... God will reward them greatly!!!

If a Religion is based on unconditional love... then it is GOOD... but it can only be followed when a person (not God), has his heart and soul peaceful and clean... only then can you understand true unconditional love

[Salidin54]

As far as I'm concerned you have the right to your opinion, but I have one huge problem with your statement:

I like Jesus, mind you. Not as a god or a son of a god, but as a man. He was a good man, according to the gospels.

Jesus said he was the son of God, not a good man. Now you have 3 choices: either he was crazy and truly believed what he was saying, he was lying to everyone in an extremely brilliant scam to fool the ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE!!! (and consequently most of the following history), or he was telling the truth. You can decide what you believe, just make sure it all lines up.

[Xandax]

As far as I'm concerned you have the right to your opinion, but I have one huge problem with your statement:



Jesus said he was the son of God, not a good man. Now you have 3 choices: either he was crazy and truly believed what he was saying, he was lying to everyone in an extremely brilliant scam to fool the ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE!!! (and consequently most of the following history), or he was telling the truth. You can decide what you believe, just make sure it all lines up.

Well - most of those choices you outline requires that you have faith in how the bible depicts the character, as a historical fact and not - for example - as a tale to support a belief system and so on.

And for the matter - even in that case - he didn't have to fool the "ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE" at all. He just had to convince a small segment that him forming a following would be trouble if believing that part.

[Fljotsdale]

Most (if not all) people would do nearly everything to extend the time we've been given.. and this is where religions shine as a beacon of hope. Reincarnation, heaven or Cleveland in Ohio state. These are the places where faithfull followers may find themselves after death.

It's not for me to say if any promised land exists, and i realy do not care about that. But truly believing in salvation, takes away a great, heavy burden of fear. And regardless of whether or not religion X or Y is fake. As long as people believe, they benefit.

I don't know why people are so afraid of death that the only way they can cope with the reality of it is to believe it doesn't really happen - that you go on living in another way after you die.

Me - I'm almost 73, and I'm not at all afraid to die and to just be dead. What's to be scared of? When you are dead you don't feel anything, think anything, know anything. Even the bible says that the dead 'know nothing at all' and their thoughts perish', so what's to be afraid of. Of course, I don't WANT to die - althogh some days I'd welcome it as a relief! - but fear? why? I'm much more afraid of Altzheimer's than dying!

No. The reality of death is a reason to do your best to live your life as best you can, and, if you can, to leave the world a little bit better because you lived. Knowing this life is all there is is a spur to try to make the world a better place for eveyone - for our children and grandchildren, and the children and grandchildren of the whole world.
Comforting ourselves with the idea that we are all going to a 'better place' somehow seems to make us complacent about the sufferings of others, because 'at least they'll have a 'better place' to go to when they die, amen'. It ain't so. This is it. This is all there is, all we get. Make it good for everyone. Care for this poor bloody planet and the life on it, stop waffling about lliving when we're dead. It ain't going to happen.

And lets not forget, that people LIKE to believe in something. Whether its Walt Disney beign still alive, but frozen, the "TRUE" end of the world (nr. 518) in year 2012, or force (god) that will allow us to live once again.

This is true. But we might as well believe in something practical, something we can do something about, even if it's only doing the shopping for that old guy a few doors down, living alone, who isn't too clean and talks to himself all the time.
Caring about people - and our environment and the creatures sharing it - is what is important. Caring enough to help even when you don't particularly like them or even know them.

[Xandax]

Most (if not all) people would do nearly everything to extend the time we've been given.. and this is where religions shine as a beacon of hope. <snip>

Not only that - but most major religions also state you should be happy with your "lot" in life, because you'll be rewarded in the after life, or the next life. So why question why a king is the ruler, why the nobles own all the land and so on because you'll be better off in the after-life.
That's one reason why I dislike religion personally - as a system - because it looks to be little more then an archaic control system.

I'm all for people believing what they want - but as a system, I find the concept too flawed.

[Fljotsdale]

Fljotsdale, I haven't read the Old testimony, but I do remember some things that have occurred... mostly from watching biblical movies.

For Christians, like myself, NEW testimony is FAAAR more important then the OLD one, cause our salvation comes in Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I know. It's amazing, though, that people don't realise that knowing the OT is essential for understanding the NT. The whole purpose of the coming of Christ is based solidly on the OT. Remember, too, the disciples and apostles of Jesus during his lifetime, and for many years after his death, only HAD what we call the Old Testament writings. It was the Old Testament that Jesus explained to them, that he wanted them to understand. To them, the OT was The Word of God. Their own writings were not so considered. Jesus taught them from the OT. Read it.

"God loved the World so much, that He gave his only Son to die on a cross, and whoever shall believe in Him, will Never die, but he'll have everlasting LIFE!"

That is inaccurate. The bible actually says: "For god loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Says nothing about a cross.

If God is a mass murderer, then why did He gave His only Son to pay the price for our sins?

Was not the Flood mass murder? Was not the genocide he ordered of the inhabitants of the promised land mass murder?

Next, God doesn't punish. It is we, men and women, who punish our self's by defying His will... and His will was given in Ten commandments

As someone already pointed out there are a helluva lot more than 10 commandments! There are hundreds! The Ten Words, as the bible calls them, are a very brief summation of the most important.
And no, we don't punish ourselves. The bible quite specifically says god does it. It's there plain to read in the bible. In many, many places it says specifically that god punished the people. The bible also says that god takes vengeance upon people. For example: "Vengeance is mine, and retribution" (Deuteronomy 32:35)

His will is already written in our hearts and souls... When a person receives His Holy Spirit, it is becoming natural for us to obey his will. Like it is natural for us to pray and seek out His help in time of troubles, and sing songs to Him in times of happiness.

No it isn't. You have to work like blazes to obey. I bet you still do things that the bible has told you are wrong. Do you ALWAYS tell the truth? Do you sometimes steal little things - pens or pencils from work or school, for example? And what about fornication? Did you know that includes masturbation? Reading porn? What about loving your fellow man? Are you ALWAYS kind and considerate of others? What about obeying your parents (if you still live at home)? Do you ever fail to obey? Go into a fit of the sulks? Slam doors? Shout?
Being a christian isn't easy. It's damned hard work!

When reading Bible, it is important not to take it all literary.

Well, personally I don't. But since the bible is, according to Jesus, the WORD OF GOD (who cannot lie ), you are supposed to believe it and take it literally. Did you know Jesus believed in Adam and Eve? He spole of them as real people. And if he IS the son of god/god himself, he should KNOW, shouldn't he?
As for the genocide of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, that is historical fact. Dunno about the Flood. Nobody does.

God is a Perfect LOVE, that means He does NOT HATE, NOR KILL, NOR PUNISH ...

Untrue. See comments above. Plus the bible specifically says that "Anyone loving violence His (god's) soul certainly hates" (Psalm 11:5)

the image of a vengeful, angry and punishing God is not suited for the God of Love. Instead He is merciful, caring, giving, faithful, LOVING!

Have you ever read the book of Revelation? The last book of the New Testament? Perhaps you should.

Christians are invited to become more like Jesus. Good, kind, merciful and the most important... LOVING.. to Love God, and Love everyone else like you love yourself ... even your enemies.

That's why I like Jesus. Good man. But the Writers of the New Tetament, in Revelation, show him in quite a different light. More like the god of the Old Testament, in fact - nasty and vengeful. Which is a great pity. Jesus in the Gospels is the image you should follow, certainly. But read Revelation anyway. Especially the second half.

For those who have other beliefs... that doesn't mean they will go to hell cause they are not Christians... If they have done right in life. If they love someone unconditionally ... God will reward them greatly!!!

Yeah, but that's only recently. Even in my lifetime, we were being taught that non-christians - even christian non-catholics - would all burn in hell forever.

If a Religion is based on unconditional love... then it is GOOD... but it can only be followed when a person (not God), has his heart and soul peaceful and clean... only then can you understand true unconditional love

And you don't need a religion to understand the truth of that.