Well, from my experience, many religious folk don't lead a super healthy lifestyle. But these are dumb generalizations. Reduced stress lets you live longer and if religion does that for you, so be it.
Religion: The greatest strength or greatest weakness of humanity?
- Thread starter jimtaylor
- Start date
Well, from my experience, many religious folk don't lead a super healthy lifestyle. But these are dumb generalizations. Reduced stress lets you live longer and if religion does that for you, so be it.
I'm of the opinion that people will kill and segregate each other for no reason. Instead of opposing each other in the name of creed, race or nationality. People oppose each other and then think of reasons to do so.
I have nothing to base this on then my own personal knowledge however.
Isn't this a contradiction of what you said earlier?
This runs off the assumption that people hate other people by nature otherwise they wouldn't create reasons to oppose each other. This makes no sense in any way. Why would this be. There's not reason evolutionarily why a species would attack itself en masse. We segregated and killed because we were afraid of "the other".
If what you said was correct, then hippies would have never existed, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened and we would still have slavery. This is hyperbole but the ridiculousness of my response seems to fit with your thesis.
People use religion because it makes them feel good about themselves. I don't think humans feel naturally good about killing and segregating one another. They need institutions like religion in order to feel good about doing it.
I think we are giving religion WAY too much credit/blame here. Most times rightful and heartfelt religious sensibilities are coopted in the name of political clout, domination, economic development, territorial expansion, social control and the like. Religion is abused....it did happen and it is happening today. It's easy to (just like those who adhere to distorted systems) place all the focus on this....they on one side and we on the other. In this regard we are the same in that all we see is one dimension. But there are others dimensions that are good and true. Honestly, sometimes today I think we are swimming in a mass of inauthentic, distorted religious systems...that is what affronts our senses...and we think that is what it is all about. Not so, not at all. It behooves us to look much deeper...if we can.
I am sorry, but from where did you get this reasoning and the conclusion ?
I am not denying that there are people who hide behind their religion to justify killing people.
But the point with them is that they do not understand the Word of God.
Bible clearly states that "Thou shall not kill". They country from where i am from still has National Service.
And i know many people who had to go there but chose alternative service instead as they didnt
want to carry a gun. I know police officers who dont carry a gun as well.
What you say on the post above is a narrowminded commend generalizing and putting all the religious
people in the same pot with the minority of extremist.
Are all the churches and church members like WBC ?
No. Most condone them for what they do and say outright that they are not real Christians.
Last edited:
For some people all they need from religion is to feel good about themselves. Others, in addition to that, use it to make it easier to do terrible things to their fellow human beings. Other institutions, like patriotism, have picked up a lot of slack in this area. It's much more common nowadays to hear people are killing women and children in the name of freedom and security than in the name of their God.
Religion is an institute of hope, a unifying link between this and that. Between faith in one's perceptions and the deep, dark Unknown. It's just one current in this vast ocean called existence; one that is given a great deal more credit than the rest, at times. Is it outdated? That depends on what it's used for. A system as a whole can only be dismantled when another system has the leverage to overwhelm it entirely. Dogma can be found anywhere if one looks hard enough - it is a personal choice to overcome its influence and introspect.
The belief in a god(s) is, to me, a traditional symbol that has lost its glitter and gleam. Antiquated in the face of modern marvels - placebo is perhaps the dominating factor of miracles and signs from whatever deity. As said somewhere else in this thread, religion served to unite the tribe of humanity; however, what seems to be overlooked often is that religion is not a perfect seam connecting all the threads together. It was never, and probably will never be, a perfect system - much like those who use it. It is used because it is necessary or prudent in the eyes of the believers to whatever end. I think it is an irrational attempt to analyze the extent and uses of this thing called religion. As shown by numerous disagreements, humans are diverse and the reasoning behind their actions reflects the life they (have) live(d). Casting judgement on this illustrates a clear lack of understanding; what is worthy of praise to one can easily be worthy of scorn to another. Who can honestly claim to know better than another?
That said, any mass-appeal will charge the hearts and minds of those enraptured with the will of whoever happens to pull the strings of the appeal. There may come a time when deliberate questioning of these appeals becomes commonplace, but the environment that would sustain that opportunity has not come yet. Perhaps a pertinent question is this: what is required to engender a world-wide niche of individual sovereignty? We can never be truly free from attachments, but we can rationalize the purpose, extent, and roots of these attachments. That, I believe, is a necessary step towards creating a perfect link to bind our Tribe - something that religion failed to do.
All of this is said with the following in mind: religion as an institute is a dying beast laboring for breath. Religious conflicts bloom into wildfires capable of culling the fields of understanding humanity has sown. When the value of following an institute is outweighed by the value of introspection (acceptance of the self belonging to an accurate construct; i.e, science [don't flame me, please]) then it seems prudent to align one's self with themselves instead of a detrimental force - this, I believe, it what turns many people off when searching for their truths. It is a new thing, something unknown and completely foreign. We become children again learning how to walk, or perhaps more aptly, learning to ride a bike. Scratches and falls are frequent at first, tears are shed, but we steadily learn a new mode of transportation that opens up a 'new' world. To sum everything up, "If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you".
(To answer the question within the thread title: It is neither. Religion is a tool, not an end)
Edit: Clarified some thoughts in the first paragraph and consolidated everything (I hope) into a fourth paragraph.
The belief in a god(s) is, to me, a traditional symbol that has lost its glitter and gleam. Antiquated in the face of modern marvels - placebo is perhaps the dominating factor of miracles and signs from whatever deity. As said somewhere else in this thread, religion served to unite the tribe of humanity; however, what seems to be overlooked often is that religion is not a perfect seam connecting all the threads together. It was never, and probably will never be, a perfect system - much like those who use it. It is used because it is necessary or prudent in the eyes of the believers to whatever end. I think it is an irrational attempt to analyze the extent and uses of this thing called religion. As shown by numerous disagreements, humans are diverse and the reasoning behind their actions reflects the life they (have) live(d). Casting judgement on this illustrates a clear lack of understanding; what is worthy of praise to one can easily be worthy of scorn to another. Who can honestly claim to know better than another?
That said, any mass-appeal will charge the hearts and minds of those enraptured with the will of whoever happens to pull the strings of the appeal. There may come a time when deliberate questioning of these appeals becomes commonplace, but the environment that would sustain that opportunity has not come yet. Perhaps a pertinent question is this: what is required to engender a world-wide niche of individual sovereignty? We can never be truly free from attachments, but we can rationalize the purpose, extent, and roots of these attachments. That, I believe, is a necessary step towards creating a perfect link to bind our Tribe - something that religion failed to do.
All of this is said with the following in mind: religion as an institute is a dying beast laboring for breath. Religious conflicts bloom into wildfires capable of culling the fields of understanding humanity has sown. When the value of following an institute is outweighed by the value of introspection (acceptance of the self belonging to an accurate construct; i.e, science [don't flame me, please]) then it seems prudent to align one's self with themselves instead of a detrimental force - this, I believe, it what turns many people off when searching for their truths. It is a new thing, something unknown and completely foreign. We become children again learning how to walk, or perhaps more aptly, learning to ride a bike. Scratches and falls are frequent at first, tears are shed, but we steadily learn a new mode of transportation that opens up a 'new' world. To sum everything up, "If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you".
(To answer the question within the thread title: It is neither. Religion is a tool, not an end)
Edit: Clarified some thoughts in the first paragraph and consolidated everything (I hope) into a fourth paragraph.
Last edited:
[MENTION=2578]K-gal[/MENTION]
I do understand your arguments and I personally don’t disagree with you but I am trying to evaluate all view. Religion does serve a purpose and by us simply stating that they all judge and that religion itself is evil is a judgment by us and we are then acting in a way like religion. So to evaluate religion, we have to remove the self and not judge but instead observe.
So I will take your last statement first. It is a very appropriate statement but I don’t think religion itself is a barrier but again religious institutions. A person born onto no religion; pretty much like myself, who is given the choice of pursuing whatever they want in life and then decides to do so through a Christian God is not evil. They are trying to find their spiritual selves and have found that through god but if in order to find god they must pledge themselves to a religious institution than that search becomes corrupt by the judgments and rules of that institution. To find god on your own separated from all institutions and to believe in that religion without any outside influence could be considered as high a calling as any. Those who are claimed to have formed the religions found god this way.
Again I personally do not believe in god and religion as I don’t need it but one cannot argue against the value of religion of religion itself, with all institutions removed. Holy books themselves teach some very good principles and if a person can evaluate them subjectively to find their own connection with god, than I believe they would be correct in doing so.
I do understand your arguments and I personally don’t disagree with you but I am trying to evaluate all view. Religion does serve a purpose and by us simply stating that they all judge and that religion itself is evil is a judgment by us and we are then acting in a way like religion. So to evaluate religion, we have to remove the self and not judge but instead observe.
So I will take your last statement first. It is a very appropriate statement but I don’t think religion itself is a barrier but again religious institutions. A person born onto no religion; pretty much like myself, who is given the choice of pursuing whatever they want in life and then decides to do so through a Christian God is not evil. They are trying to find their spiritual selves and have found that through god but if in order to find god they must pledge themselves to a religious institution than that search becomes corrupt by the judgments and rules of that institution. To find god on your own separated from all institutions and to believe in that religion without any outside influence could be considered as high a calling as any. Those who are claimed to have formed the religions found god this way.
Again I personally do not believe in god and religion as I don’t need it but one cannot argue against the value of religion of religion itself, with all institutions removed. Holy books themselves teach some very good principles and if a person can evaluate them subjectively to find their own connection with god, than I believe they would be correct in doing so.
[MENTION=4297]yndsu[/MENTION]
The research though is flawed. Until the fifty years or so, the vast majority of the world was religious and still is. Of course people are living longer because everybody is living longer. Also a study about feelings is very difficult to say is reliable. Of course people who go to church are going to say they enjoy it or else they wouldn’t go. If people hated church, they wouldn’t go and they don’t. Now 100 to 200 years ago, you did go even if you hated it because it was social genocide at the least or possibly death in other cultures, as it still is today. Also stating that they live longer than the average person is a rather counterproductive statement because the average person is religious. Also where was this study done? The United States? Not a very accurate study at all. African’s are very religious and don’t live long, neither do a lot of Middle-Easterners and Asians. It’s great to bring this study because it does reveal what people gain from religion but it really cannot be used as fact or a respectable source.
So the claim here is not that religion doesn’t make people happy and that what you gain from religion is worth any less or not real but to what cost and to what purpose? Now your story is very similar to those who leave their religion and go back to find their lives healthier and happier. You left when you where young, went and experimented and went back to religion because you wanted your life to have meaning and purpose. Religion could provide that because it does give greater meaning to people’s lives when they believe they are serving the will of god. But could the cause of your drinking and your experimenting been because of religion? Why did you leave the church at 13? Where you tired of being told how to live your life and that you had to serve some greater cause and give up what you enjoyed?
Humanity is selfish and religion is no different. Now stating that is not a negative thing. Being selfish is not always bad. Someone who sacrifices their life for another person because they love that person and want that person to live is still selfish. Yes, they are giving themselves up but that is because they value that other person’s life and happiness more than their own. That person is selfish but not in a bad way. What you valued most as a teenager was your present enjoyment and as you grew older you realized that life held something more and so you turned to the one thing that could tell you that. Looking at this you seemed to be acting on genetics and hormones. You left the church when your emotions where most volatile and before your brain developed the ability to truly understand the consequences of your actions and then you went back to religion when as you said, finally matured and could see that your actions not only hurt yourself but those you possibly cared about.
You went back to the safety of being told what your life should mean and what your life should be dedicated too. Why? You state that you don’t need religion to make you a better person but your story begs the difference because without religion you acted in selfishness and it attacked your conscience, but did you learn anything? Looking at from an outside perspective, even when not in church you where dictated by the tenants of religion. To be outside of the church and to not believe in god is a sin, so you sinned and to believe in god and go to church is to be true to god, so that’s what you do now. The fact that you had no self control when outside of the church only proves that without it, you struggle to function and therefore have forfeited your free-will to the will of those who wrote the bible and preach it who are human and therefore flawed.
I
am not trying to convince you to give up your beliefs because they seem to make you a better person and that is never bad, but what I am trying to understand is why you can’t do that on your own. This is not a question just for you but for any religious person. As we evaluate the value of religion it is obvious of why people need religion but what is not obvious is why they can’t apply that without somebody telling it to them.
Like many have stated and as I have, religion is not innately evil but the corruption and distorted views of man have made it such. Even religious people acknowledge this but despite having this knowledge they continue to promote that corruption. Religion itself and trying to connect to god as individuals can’t hurt but it’s when this desire becomes a religion that tries to force its values and ideals upon other peoples that we have conflicts like the Middle East. So again I ask why do you have to go to church to be connected with god? Why do you have to read the bible and be told by whatever religious figure there, how to live your life? Wouldn’t god rather you find the right thing to do by looking within and connecting to god through your own convictions and desire to do right? Religious structures by nature are corrupt but it is the average everyday person that chooses to ignore that corruption that gives religion its power to be a tool of war.
As I argued before this may not be a bad thing if you look at this with all emotion removed and see it is as a form of population control. The elimination of genetically or mentally inferior peoples while at the same time increasing the diversity of the genetic pool by encouraging those with good genes to have many offspring to please god. Other than this, there appears to be little value to actual religious organizations. This does not apply to religion itself but just the organizations that form from its existence.
The research though is flawed. Until the fifty years or so, the vast majority of the world was religious and still is. Of course people are living longer because everybody is living longer. Also a study about feelings is very difficult to say is reliable. Of course people who go to church are going to say they enjoy it or else they wouldn’t go. If people hated church, they wouldn’t go and they don’t. Now 100 to 200 years ago, you did go even if you hated it because it was social genocide at the least or possibly death in other cultures, as it still is today. Also stating that they live longer than the average person is a rather counterproductive statement because the average person is religious. Also where was this study done? The United States? Not a very accurate study at all. African’s are very religious and don’t live long, neither do a lot of Middle-Easterners and Asians. It’s great to bring this study because it does reveal what people gain from religion but it really cannot be used as fact or a respectable source.
So the claim here is not that religion doesn’t make people happy and that what you gain from religion is worth any less or not real but to what cost and to what purpose? Now your story is very similar to those who leave their religion and go back to find their lives healthier and happier. You left when you where young, went and experimented and went back to religion because you wanted your life to have meaning and purpose. Religion could provide that because it does give greater meaning to people’s lives when they believe they are serving the will of god. But could the cause of your drinking and your experimenting been because of religion? Why did you leave the church at 13? Where you tired of being told how to live your life and that you had to serve some greater cause and give up what you enjoyed?
Humanity is selfish and religion is no different. Now stating that is not a negative thing. Being selfish is not always bad. Someone who sacrifices their life for another person because they love that person and want that person to live is still selfish. Yes, they are giving themselves up but that is because they value that other person’s life and happiness more than their own. That person is selfish but not in a bad way. What you valued most as a teenager was your present enjoyment and as you grew older you realized that life held something more and so you turned to the one thing that could tell you that. Looking at this you seemed to be acting on genetics and hormones. You left the church when your emotions where most volatile and before your brain developed the ability to truly understand the consequences of your actions and then you went back to religion when as you said, finally matured and could see that your actions not only hurt yourself but those you possibly cared about.
You went back to the safety of being told what your life should mean and what your life should be dedicated too. Why? You state that you don’t need religion to make you a better person but your story begs the difference because without religion you acted in selfishness and it attacked your conscience, but did you learn anything? Looking at from an outside perspective, even when not in church you where dictated by the tenants of religion. To be outside of the church and to not believe in god is a sin, so you sinned and to believe in god and go to church is to be true to god, so that’s what you do now. The fact that you had no self control when outside of the church only proves that without it, you struggle to function and therefore have forfeited your free-will to the will of those who wrote the bible and preach it who are human and therefore flawed.
I
am not trying to convince you to give up your beliefs because they seem to make you a better person and that is never bad, but what I am trying to understand is why you can’t do that on your own. This is not a question just for you but for any religious person. As we evaluate the value of religion it is obvious of why people need religion but what is not obvious is why they can’t apply that without somebody telling it to them.
Like many have stated and as I have, religion is not innately evil but the corruption and distorted views of man have made it such. Even religious people acknowledge this but despite having this knowledge they continue to promote that corruption. Religion itself and trying to connect to god as individuals can’t hurt but it’s when this desire becomes a religion that tries to force its values and ideals upon other peoples that we have conflicts like the Middle East. So again I ask why do you have to go to church to be connected with god? Why do you have to read the bible and be told by whatever religious figure there, how to live your life? Wouldn’t god rather you find the right thing to do by looking within and connecting to god through your own convictions and desire to do right? Religious structures by nature are corrupt but it is the average everyday person that chooses to ignore that corruption that gives religion its power to be a tool of war.
As I argued before this may not be a bad thing if you look at this with all emotion removed and see it is as a form of population control. The elimination of genetically or mentally inferior peoples while at the same time increasing the diversity of the genetic pool by encouraging those with good genes to have many offspring to please god. Other than this, there appears to be little value to actual religious organizations. This does not apply to religion itself but just the organizations that form from its existence.
@Trifolum
That is part of what I am trying to discern. Has religion run its course and now should become obsolete like many things we have left behind as we have evolved? Not many of us ride horses anymore or wear armor, or carry around swords so why do we still hold onto institutions created thousands of years ago by people whom thought drilling into the head could cure mental illness? Why do we hold their writings as truth when those same people believed in such basic and barbaric ways? We have left many of these other things behind and so why have held onto religion then? What makes religion so different that we still hold onto it when logic and science would otherwise state it has no purpose?
See I wonder if it does serve a purpose, genetically or socially. Perhaps religion as you stated helped encourage our growth but now it is only hindering us from advancing further. Religion and god served the principle of uniting people to something greater and gave the reason to live despite living bleak and painful lives. Or again religion was created as a way to cope with loss and the fear of what happens when we die. The one thing I am looking at here is that religion is not a construct of god but instead of humanity. The existence or none existence of god is relevant when considering the existence of religion and how it functions. I see nothing wrong with the belief in god but it is when man tries to interpret whatever that means into a religion that dictates how people live their lives, than that is a flawed system. It is illogical and irrational to not consider religion a flawed institution as any institution of humanity is flawed which religious people claim to understand, yet they do not acknowledge the flaws in their religion. I believe you are correct and religion did serve a purpose and one time, but it seems that purpose is no longer relevant or perhaps we need religion now more than ever. I think as humanity goes into the future it is imperative for us to find the answer to these questions or we are going to remain stuck in the dark ages.
That is part of what I am trying to discern. Has religion run its course and now should become obsolete like many things we have left behind as we have evolved? Not many of us ride horses anymore or wear armor, or carry around swords so why do we still hold onto institutions created thousands of years ago by people whom thought drilling into the head could cure mental illness? Why do we hold their writings as truth when those same people believed in such basic and barbaric ways? We have left many of these other things behind and so why have held onto religion then? What makes religion so different that we still hold onto it when logic and science would otherwise state it has no purpose?
See I wonder if it does serve a purpose, genetically or socially. Perhaps religion as you stated helped encourage our growth but now it is only hindering us from advancing further. Religion and god served the principle of uniting people to something greater and gave the reason to live despite living bleak and painful lives. Or again religion was created as a way to cope with loss and the fear of what happens when we die. The one thing I am looking at here is that religion is not a construct of god but instead of humanity. The existence or none existence of god is relevant when considering the existence of religion and how it functions. I see nothing wrong with the belief in god but it is when man tries to interpret whatever that means into a religion that dictates how people live their lives, than that is a flawed system. It is illogical and irrational to not consider religion a flawed institution as any institution of humanity is flawed which religious people claim to understand, yet they do not acknowledge the flaws in their religion. I believe you are correct and religion did serve a purpose and one time, but it seems that purpose is no longer relevant or perhaps we need religion now more than ever. I think as humanity goes into the future it is imperative for us to find the answer to these questions or we are going to remain stuck in the dark ages.
A word about dogma to differentiate perhaps between a rightful, helpful place for dogma and a dogmatic mindset or personal outlook that some people may have.
Dogmas, in the best sense, are basically established ideas that have been long-held, scrutinized and found to be consistent with many diverse perspectives within a community. They are, however, not an end in themselves, and I'd say without exception they are merely signposts, portals into a mystery and, typically, a whole set of mysteries that have been revealed and/or observed. Dogmas are established to embrace a range of perspectives, too, folding them into a core to capture and articulate a broad concept. These help perpetuate a community across generations and centuries with core ideas intact, even though the idea may be approached very differently (for better or worse) in one historical moment as opposed to another, due to a variety of factors.
I think these ideas are important, so far as they go, as a means of establishing commonalities in a community, to create a sense of unity, and yet even from their inception do not prescribe one way or one approach to take on these beliefs. They may identify what is believed, but not how to go about living that out.
An analogy: consider sign posts on a road. They may provide vital information or indicators of location....they are meant to be helpful, to keep the motorist on their journey in a positive manner. They may indicate, for example, a twisty road, but they do not necessarily indicate what one will see on that road. One may decide to stop for a picnic, take in a scenic overlook, drive straight through, or converse with a friend in the passenger seat....all that is fine. All the sign is relating is first, that there is a twisty road, and second (one often has to intuit this), that certain driving may be advisable to avoid harm which might impair an otherwise productive and enjoyable journey. I kinda think of dogma this way. They are authorative (based on a consensus of those who travelled before) but are not meant to control us or our every move.
Now, if I were only following the signs and not watching the road, conditions on the road, other vehicles, or the surroundings around the road at all, I miss a good bit of information that I am meant (and expected) to engage in. This approach would lead to a whole other set of problems, even though I followed that sign to the letter!
By the same token, if I decided all signs should be done away with, that they were meaningless and an affront, I am at risk of someone running right off the road, or causing injury to myself and others. I may become disoriented and lost, my journey not being a safe passage, but a very stressful one. And curse the sign as I may, that road is still twisty, like it or not!
I am sure one's approach to dogma varies according to one's life experience regarding it. If one's experience was/is of a rigid, unbending, or controlling approach/system, yes, I could see where this would be off-putting. If, however, one experienced dogma as a welcome sign of navigation that guided but not dictated, that instilled a sense of peace so that one experienced even greater freedom to explore and grow, then it would not seem a problem at all...quite the opposite.
I hang-out with people for whom dogmas is just one part of community life. They have a place, yes, but they are provided as a favor, as a gift and are not preoccupying. They are not seen as controlling one's every move in a limiting sense...more as a liberating factor. They lead us towards wondrous mysteries.
Perhaps our culture has generated far too many visible groups for whom this is otherwise. If so, I would say this is an abuse. Our historic moment seems to require that some wisdom, with humility, be heavily applied in this regard.
Dogmas, in the best sense, are basically established ideas that have been long-held, scrutinized and found to be consistent with many diverse perspectives within a community. They are, however, not an end in themselves, and I'd say without exception they are merely signposts, portals into a mystery and, typically, a whole set of mysteries that have been revealed and/or observed. Dogmas are established to embrace a range of perspectives, too, folding them into a core to capture and articulate a broad concept. These help perpetuate a community across generations and centuries with core ideas intact, even though the idea may be approached very differently (for better or worse) in one historical moment as opposed to another, due to a variety of factors.
I think these ideas are important, so far as they go, as a means of establishing commonalities in a community, to create a sense of unity, and yet even from their inception do not prescribe one way or one approach to take on these beliefs. They may identify what is believed, but not how to go about living that out.
An analogy: consider sign posts on a road. They may provide vital information or indicators of location....they are meant to be helpful, to keep the motorist on their journey in a positive manner. They may indicate, for example, a twisty road, but they do not necessarily indicate what one will see on that road. One may decide to stop for a picnic, take in a scenic overlook, drive straight through, or converse with a friend in the passenger seat....all that is fine. All the sign is relating is first, that there is a twisty road, and second (one often has to intuit this), that certain driving may be advisable to avoid harm which might impair an otherwise productive and enjoyable journey. I kinda think of dogma this way. They are authorative (based on a consensus of those who travelled before) but are not meant to control us or our every move.
Now, if I were only following the signs and not watching the road, conditions on the road, other vehicles, or the surroundings around the road at all, I miss a good bit of information that I am meant (and expected) to engage in. This approach would lead to a whole other set of problems, even though I followed that sign to the letter!
By the same token, if I decided all signs should be done away with, that they were meaningless and an affront, I am at risk of someone running right off the road, or causing injury to myself and others. I may become disoriented and lost, my journey not being a safe passage, but a very stressful one. And curse the sign as I may, that road is still twisty, like it or not!
I am sure one's approach to dogma varies according to one's life experience regarding it. If one's experience was/is of a rigid, unbending, or controlling approach/system, yes, I could see where this would be off-putting. If, however, one experienced dogma as a welcome sign of navigation that guided but not dictated, that instilled a sense of peace so that one experienced even greater freedom to explore and grow, then it would not seem a problem at all...quite the opposite.
I hang-out with people for whom dogmas is just one part of community life. They have a place, yes, but they are provided as a favor, as a gift and are not preoccupying. They are not seen as controlling one's every move in a limiting sense...more as a liberating factor. They lead us towards wondrous mysteries.
Perhaps our culture has generated far too many visible groups for whom this is otherwise. If so, I would say this is an abuse. Our historic moment seems to require that some wisdom, with humility, be heavily applied in this regard.
[MENTION=2710]jimtaylor[/MENTION]
Well, i didnt give up free will when i went back to church. I excercised free will by choosing to go back.
I still have my free will and because i have it i still make many mistakes. I actually would prefer if God would
take my free will away from because then i wouldnt sin anymore and i see that as a good thing. Also i believe
that the Bible was written by God. By that i mean that God guided the people who wrote it.
Why cant i do that on my own ? Because i am a sinner. I was born in sin and i will die in sin. And as long as
i am a sinner i am never truly free and i will always do bad things. Because that is the nature of sin.
http://www.humanrestore.com/physical-health/how-to-live-to-101/ I suggest that you watch this video.
It was done by the BBC and it looks at the 3 longest living communities on Earth. One of witch is the Seventh
Day Adventist communitie in Loma Linda. There are scientist also talking about the observations they have made in
connection to peoples faith and healthy living and longetivity.
I would like to say that i am part of the SDA church myself. But what defines me is not my religion, it is my faith in Jesus Christ
and my personal connection to him. That is what makes me thrive to be a better person. That was the thing that made me
to give up smoking and drinking.
Why do i read the Bible and follow it's teachings ? Because the Bible is like a TomTom. It guides you to your destination.
And while guiding you it pots up warning signs on where the was an accident and where there is a camera waiting for you.
I do connect to God through my desire to do good and be better. But like i said before, i can not do it on my own. I am week
and i make mistakes, my God is the dreator of the universe and nothing is too hard for him. And he shows me the better way
of living. Also, my convictions are from the Bible. "37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40) Those are my convictions and i do my best to live by them with God's help.
Those convictions are rooted deep in me.
When i stopped going to church i stoppe wanting to do good things as well actually. I got drunk with my friends and then beat up one of the guys i was drinking with. I got into fights and i stole some things as well. On my own i didnt want to do the good things out of the goodness of my heart.
With God by my side it has become me nature to do good and to help others.
Also, just wanted to ask what is wrong with looking for my life to have a meaning ? Isnt the question: What is the meaning of life ? one of the most sought after questions in the world ? With God i know what my purpose is. And that gives me peace. And if it does that then what is wrong with that ?
Well, i didnt give up free will when i went back to church. I excercised free will by choosing to go back.
I still have my free will and because i have it i still make many mistakes. I actually would prefer if God would
take my free will away from because then i wouldnt sin anymore and i see that as a good thing. Also i believe
that the Bible was written by God. By that i mean that God guided the people who wrote it.
Why cant i do that on my own ? Because i am a sinner. I was born in sin and i will die in sin. And as long as
i am a sinner i am never truly free and i will always do bad things. Because that is the nature of sin.
http://www.humanrestore.com/physical-health/how-to-live-to-101/ I suggest that you watch this video.
It was done by the BBC and it looks at the 3 longest living communities on Earth. One of witch is the Seventh
Day Adventist communitie in Loma Linda. There are scientist also talking about the observations they have made in
connection to peoples faith and healthy living and longetivity.
I would like to say that i am part of the SDA church myself. But what defines me is not my religion, it is my faith in Jesus Christ
and my personal connection to him. That is what makes me thrive to be a better person. That was the thing that made me
to give up smoking and drinking.
Why do i read the Bible and follow it's teachings ? Because the Bible is like a TomTom. It guides you to your destination.
And while guiding you it pots up warning signs on where the was an accident and where there is a camera waiting for you.
I do connect to God through my desire to do good and be better. But like i said before, i can not do it on my own. I am week
and i make mistakes, my God is the dreator of the universe and nothing is too hard for him. And he shows me the better way
of living. Also, my convictions are from the Bible. "37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40) Those are my convictions and i do my best to live by them with God's help.
Those convictions are rooted deep in me.
When i stopped going to church i stoppe wanting to do good things as well actually. I got drunk with my friends and then beat up one of the guys i was drinking with. I got into fights and i stole some things as well. On my own i didnt want to do the good things out of the goodness of my heart.
With God by my side it has become me nature to do good and to help others.
Also, just wanted to ask what is wrong with looking for my life to have a meaning ? Isnt the question: What is the meaning of life ? one of the most sought after questions in the world ? With God i know what my purpose is. And that gives me peace. And if it does that then what is wrong with that ?
@yndsu
Nothing, that's my point. I simply asked why and you answered. You see I have never had a god or religion or at least not since I was 4 years old so it's not important to me. I drink but for my health. A glass of wine with dinner is really healthy. I also work very hard and I do charity because I like the feeling of helping others, but I never needed anybody to tell me to do so. Thank you for sharing though and I do not question your conviction or the good it has done for you, which it obviously has but I wonder if it is not just a band-aid covering a festering wound. Sometimes as Jesus did, you have to face the sin and allow your own strength to overcome it, otherwise it will always exist. You can go to church until the day you die but eventually you will have to face that temptation again and overcome it, or at least isn
Nothing, that's my point. I simply asked why and you answered. You see I have never had a god or religion or at least not since I was 4 years old so it's not important to me. I drink but for my health. A glass of wine with dinner is really healthy. I also work very hard and I do charity because I like the feeling of helping others, but I never needed anybody to tell me to do so. Thank you for sharing though and I do not question your conviction or the good it has done for you, which it obviously has but I wonder if it is not just a band-aid covering a festering wound. Sometimes as Jesus did, you have to face the sin and allow your own strength to overcome it, otherwise it will always exist. You can go to church until the day you die but eventually you will have to face that temptation again and overcome it, or at least isn
I feel it a shame for someone to NOT pursue meanings themselves. Hatred makes people fly airplanes into buildings. If I have spirituality and religion; what do people call it, I wonder? The fruit of the spirit is not hatred.
I do not think we can really find THE meaning of life on our own, but we can find A meaning. To find THE meaning we have to become open to the Divine Life. This Life (who we refer to as God) will not tell us the meaning, but will accompany us into the meaning. In the end, He is the meaning....it is not a thing or an idea...it is a relationship, a vital connection, a return to a Reality we have all too often forgotten. All things exist in God whether we know it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Our egos are very strange gifts, they can work for us in so many ways, but they do have a mode that can leave us blind, unaware and, frankly, quite satisfied in this condition! It longs for control, but as we approach God we must relinquish this to some degree. Why? Because we are offered grace to enter into a New Reality...the reality that actually IS, and we must become the learners. Letting go is not something the ego likes to do.
I mean, really, if God exists at all do we think He is a puppet that we can pull around on a string? Is He one of our accessories? Does He have to agree with us and our viewpoints or else get the boot? I mean...He comes near to us in Christ, yes, but on another level we are dealing with things FAR beyond our scope here. Why would we even imagine that we would not come to learn?
It is not my place (nor will it ever be...I do not have sufficient information) to judge the journey of another. We are offered the dignity of entering into that as we wish or are able. The universe, the world we see, from micro to macro, exists in almost unimaginable diversity and combination. The spiritual world is every bit as complex (maybe more) so who can say what the journey of another might be? One can bet there is one, though....I can say that with certainty.
But religion isn't the only reason people kill, we both know that. Plus many religion simply don't condone the act yet people will still do so.
If anything Religion is being used too modify the act so that they can feel good about it, it's not giving them motivation or urge to do so.
So the question is, what causes people to kill and segregate.
We know know of the most basic reason, survival.