Thread: Why do we waste our time with religion

Why oh why indeed, why can't we just ban and then irradicate all religions and replace them with something more practical and meaningful. Which teach people to have morals, do good things et... but leave out all the religious crap.

We could actually use the time and gatherings to educate people or pass on serious messages not listen to absurd sermons and self self righteous church know it alls.

Surely the time for religion has passed, surely now in this day and age we are too well educated to believe all that hellfire and damnation rubbish.
Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

You seem to be conflating religion with Christianity and particular brands of Christianity at that. This is probably invalid and leads to your questionable conclusion.

You want to ban it? Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution and even the (rather inferior) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It probably isn't practical to ban something that a significant proportion of the population of the world believe. And definitely not productive.

Signs of the End of the World - The Bible Last Days

This is why people like chrisgoritz have come to the conclusion of the subject of this thread.

Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

Reason, enlightenment and only a little study of sociology and anthropology will tell you that most societies most of the time seem to need some kind of supernatural or overarching belief system to make sense of their world.

What we have to do is acknowledge that that's the way the peoples of the world are. But that's no reason to accept their attempts to push non-believers or other believers into behaving according to their rules. It's also no reason to take their protestations that some of their bad behaviour is required or permitted by their religion. The treatment in some religions of children, women and of people who break their rules, and sometimes even of animals, is often utterly reprehensible.

A lot of the time they're absolutely wrong, they've just attached cultural practices to the religion. In other cases, the religious beliefs do stipulate actions that are absolutely dreadful and would never be acceptable in secular courts of law - the classic example is denying blood transfusions or vaccinations for life saving medical care. I have no hesitation in condemning some of the practices of various indigenous Australian groups according to their laws, just as most people could identify irrational or horrible practices in other religious groups.

If people feel the need to believe in astrology or other supernatural stuff, fine. If they want to use those beliefs to deny children and women healthcare, education, freedom of movement, access to information or a life free of violence, they can take a running jump.

None of the above is applicable to biblical Christianity fyi.

Originally Posted by Unified3

None of the above is applicable to biblical Christianity fyi.

None of the above? Not even

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution and even the (rather inferior) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Maybe you need to be a bit clearer what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Unified3

None of the above is applicable to biblical Christianity fyi.

Are the objections to homosexual partnerships which are raised by many Christian groups not an example of "attempts to push non-believers or other believers into behaving according to their rules"?

Originally Posted by Unified3

Signs of the End of the World - The Bible Last Days

I'm pretty sure there are similar doom-laden cuneiform inscriptions from ancient Mesopotamia written by similar pessimistic malcontents.

I hadn't thought of the non-heterosexual partnering thing earlier. But it's a very good point.

I was thinking more of beating the original sin out of children and denying women pain relief during childbirth, or contraception, or sex education.

I wasnt referring to the comment Harold made, I was only responding to the post immediately above by adelady, sorry for confusion.

There is a difference, John Galt, between standing firm on an issue which you regard as the truth and trying to force that belief on other people. To me, a Christian, I agree with Gods Word and believe that homosexuality is wrong, but only because the Bible says its wrong and I trust its authority. From laws of morals to creating everything in 6 days, i trust it.

God hates sin but loves the sinner and seeks to save that which is lost. I couldnt convince anybody that homosexuality is wrong other than from the Bible. Just because something is physically possible, doesnt make it automatically morally correct. I could kill someone in cold blood 'just because i felt like it' but it is still wrong no matter how right or wrong i believe it to be because of a moral consensus derived from the word of God.

Certainly, I would tell a homosexual of his behaviour, but if he chose not to listen to the word of God then I would just leave him alone as only the power of God can transform a sinners life. It would be pointless trying to tell him over and over and over why it is wrong if he doesnt believe in his own mind/heart that it is wrong 1st.

Originally Posted by Unified3

I wasnt referring to the comment Harold made, I was only responding to the post immediately above by adelady, sorry for confusion.

So you deny that Christians do thinks like deny life saving medical treatment on religious grounds?

Originally Posted by adelady

I was thinking more of beating the original sin out of children and denying women pain relief during childbirth, or contraception, or sex education.

I can assure you that at my church or any church I know, we dont do the first 2 as it has no biblical basis. contraception is more of an issue for the roman catholic church so I cant comment as it seems to be a law unto itself. (not modern evangelistic christianity). Contraception isnt mentioned in the Bible so i have no view on it. and sex education is a multi-faith issue about the early needless sexualisation of young children as young as 5.

Originally Posted by Strange

So you deny that Christians do thinks like deny life saving medical treatment on religious grounds?

From my knowledge of Christianity and the various sections of it, only the Jehovahs Witnesses have a problem with blood transfusions. I agree that a blood transfusion is a life saving treatment and it is not scriptural to deny a blood transfusion. I would have one and would let my kids have one if needed. The JW's think that there will only be 144,000 in heaven and that Jesus is an angel so i would question their doctrines and basis for that in the 1st place.

Any other medical treatments denied by christians i cannot think of?

Originally Posted by Unified3

From my knowledge of Christianity and the various sections of it, only the Jehovahs Witnesses have a problem with blood transfusions. I agree that a blood transfusion is a life saving treatment and it is not scriptural to deny a blood transfusion. I would have one and would let my kids have one if needed. The JW's think that there will only be 144,000 in heaven and that Jesus is an angel so i would question their doctrines and basis for that in the 1st place.

Ah, the old "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

They believe it is scriptural (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29) but as you seem to be able to decide who is a True Christian and who isn't I guess they must be wrong.

Originally Posted by Unified3

Contraception isnt mentioned in the Bible so i have no view on it.

Withdrawal is mentioned in Genesis where god didn't like it.

Genesis 9:4- are they receiving blood in a transfusion or are they eating it?
Leviticus 17:10- again, they are commanded not to eat it- like a rare steak. There is only the assumption that this verse could extrapolate to mean a transfusion.
Acts 15:29- again?! abstain from EATING blood.

It is very dangerous to make a whole doctrine out of a verse, especially as in this JW blood transfusion case, where the context of the verses has been skewed.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Withdrawal is mentioned in Genesis where god didn't like it.

This tends to confirm that Man was made in God's image.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Unified3

Contraception isnt mentioned in the Bible so i have no view on it.

Withdrawal is mentioned in Genesis where god didn't like it.

God only did not like that particular withdrawl because of the fact that the men had been commanded to give that woman children but because they did not want to obey God for their own reasons, God struck them down in their disobedience. Again, its a matter of looking at the verses in their original contexts.

Originally Posted by Unified3

It is very dangerous to make a whole doctrine out of a verse

Like condemning homosexuality, for example?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Withdrawal is mentioned in Genesis where god didn't like it.

This tends to confirm that Man was made in God's image.

How so?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Unified3

It is very dangerous to make a whole doctrine out of a verse

Like condemning homosexuality, for example?

Homosexuality isnt one verse but a theme throughout the Bible of Gods morals. It actually says in Leviticus 18:22 that this is a commandment and says that it is detestable to the Lord. Look at the example of the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of those towns tried to have sex with angels. And even if youre not Christian, you know deep down that it is not natural order for things however you try to justify it. Just because it is possible to do, doesnt make it a profitable thing to do does it?
A blood transfusion debate is different in the fact that it is extrapolated from the text from a few verses and doesnt actually declare blood transfusions immoral. Its a different issue altogether.

Originally Posted by Unified3

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Withdrawal is mentioned in Genesis where god didn't like it.

This tends to confirm that Man was made in God's image.

How so?

It's a joke.

A girl walks into a bar and asks the barman for a Double Entendre. So he gives her one.

Originally Posted by Unified3

Homosexuality isnt one verse but a theme throughout the Bible of Gods morals.

How come there are so many different interpretations and views then?

Look at the example of the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of those towns tried to have sex with angels.

Male or female angels?

And even if youre not Christian, you know deep down that it is not natural order for things however you try to justify it.

Wow. That's pretty bigoted and offensive.

Originally Posted by adelady

Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

Reason, enlightenment and only a little study of sociology and anthropology will tell you that most societies most of the time seem to need some kind of supernatural or overarching belief system to make sense of their world.

What we have to do is acknowledge that that's the way the peoples of the world are. But that's no reason to accept their attempts to push non-believers or other believers into behaving according to their rules.

Yet you will not hesitate to push them into behaving according to your rules.

It's also no reason to take their protestations that some of their bad behaviour is required or permitted by their religion.

According to their beliefs your bad behavior is justified by your (non-religious) beliefs.

The treatment in some religions of children, women and of people who break their rules, and sometimes even of animals, is often utterly reprehensible.

Prove it.

A lot of the time they're absolutely wrong, they've just attached cultural practices to the religion.

So you are more expert on a religion than the people who practice it?

In other cases, the religious beliefs do stipulate actions that are absolutely dreadful and would never be acceptable in secular courts of law

Depends on which court and which laws. In some courts of law. you would be the criminal.

There are so many interpretations and views on the Bible mainly beacause of using the same hebrew words to mean slightly different things. Also, the hermeneutics, (how literally you take the Bible), will depend on how different people translate the Bible. The Word stays the same although there are many translations, except in the case for Jehovahs witnesses who have chopped and changed the Word of God to suit themselves or even Mormons who have written a whole new unauthorized addition to the original scriptures and believe that they hold equivalent weight to the word of God.

The angels at Sodom were male angels. No female angel is ever implied in the Bible. But angels are also referred to 'the Sons of God' (benai-elohim), and never as daughters.

Its not bigoted at all to say that. Nature tells us that everything in existence has its perfect opposite- light/dark, love/hate etc etc ad infinitum. North and south poles attract. What happens in the natural laws if two south poles are pushed together? like naturally repels like. Why is the issue of homosexuality any different from any other opposite. Its clear is it not? If you believe it not to be then you are deceiving yourself, thinking that we humans can do everything we want. Everything is possible, but not everything is profitable.

It actually says in Leviticus 18:22 that this is a commandment

Quoting Leviticus is truly entering the lions' den. What about tattoos? (Leviticus 19:28)

And there's a whole heap of others - choosing what you do and don't turn into an eternal undeniable truth is a bit of a morality buffet. How high you pile your plate is up to you personally? Or do you refrain from wearing woollen socks and cotton shirts at the same time and enquire about the farming practices which produced your food - must not mix seeds, you know.

Leviticus is all very well - but claiming that one part is an absolute rule leads right into a quagmire. There are over 150 of these things, and only Orthodox Jews insist on them. Christians can refer for guidance but should take care - otherwise they can invite rather silly arguments like the one I alluded to earlier.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Why oh why indeed, why can't we just ban and then irradicate all religions and replace them with something more practical and meaningful. Which teach people to have morals, do good things et... but leave out all the religious crap.

We could actually use the time and gatherings to educate people or pass on serious messages not listen to absurd sermons and self self righteous church know it alls.

Surely the time for religion has passed, surely now in this day and age we are too well educated to believe all that hellfire and damnation rubbish.
Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

We can't eradicate religion it without eradicating the people who follow it--that's certainly wouldn't be a good thing. Most traditional religions are fading as populations get better educated anyhow--in time they probably become shallow tradition-based religions people continue for social interaction or replaced by a wave of less rigid new-age religions similar people come up with fulfill their spirituality. Secularity could fulfill spiritual needs but most who follow it shun all attempts to link the two because they either don't recognize the importance, or simply reject it because religions use it.

Originally Posted by Unified3

Look at the example of the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of those towns tried to have sex with angels.

Do you have a reference for that? Ezekiel just says it was for being jolly unpleasant:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 15:49-50

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In some courts of law. you would be the criminal.

Seeing as you're linking this to my comment about Australian indigenous practices, you might have been right not so long ago. But now it's not only a token legal provision that violence against women is wrong, there's actually enforcement against things like beating your wife (publicly .... ceremonially .... with a weapon .... in the case of some indigenous groups) because she had the nerve to refuse to do what she was told, when she was told. And it is also an offence to aid and abet such behaviour in a civilised legal system - which is actually an obligation of women in the group. To turn up at the appointed time and to observe, without interference.

Prove it.

The classic example of people claiming religious justification for reprehensible practices which are only cultural and not even mentioned in, let alone required by, their religious dogma would be female genital mutilation. And let's not get too sanctimonious about this being done by Muslims. Christian missionaries in Africa got approval from 'head office' to approve this practice in order not to put the locals off conversion. It was a fair while ago, but they did it. They knew it was wrong and they deliberately went against their own better instincts in order to 'save' some souls. Reprehensible doesn't begin to cover it.

Originally Posted by Unified3

It actually says in Leviticus ...

It also says

Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:19

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

What are you wearing right now?

Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:27

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

And how long is your hair?

And does

Originally Posted by Leviticus 18:21

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek

mean that it is OK to sacrifice your children to other gods or God?

Well maybe banning religion might be over the top but certainly ensuring that it moves with the times and is in step with current social values and norms should be at least attemped, also religion can have a profound effect on people's lives so we should seek to stop children from being indoctrinated before they are ready and capable of understanding it. For this we could introduce an age of religious consent to protect children and young people. We wouldn't put up with cult's putting ideas into children's heads, so why religion?

Also I am not trying to single out any specific religion, I am an equal opportunities religious objector.

Originally Posted by adelady

In some courts of law. you would be the criminal.

Seeing as you're linking this to my comment about Australian indigenous practices,

I wasnt thinking of the aborigines. Maybe Muslims, the old Puritan religions, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

Prove it.

The classic example of people claiming religious justification for reprehensible practices which are only cultural and not even mentioned in, let alone required by, their religious dogma would be female genital mutilation.

What's wrong with female genital mutlation? I know you think it's wrong. Is there an objective basis for it?

And let's not get too sanctimonious about this being done by Muslims. Christian missionaries in Africa got approval from 'head office' to approve this practice in order not to put the locals off conversion. It was a fair while ago, but they did it. They knew it was wrong and they deliberately went against their own better instincts in order to 'save' some souls. Reprehensible doesn't begin to cover it.

You think it's reprehensible. They didn't. What makes you right and them wrong?

Originally Posted by adelady

It actually says in Leviticus 18:22 that this is a commandment

Quoting Leviticus is truly entering the lions' den. What about tattoos? (Leviticus 19:28)

And there's a whole heap of others - choosing what you do and don't turn into an eternal undeniable truth is a bit of a morality buffet. How high you pile your plate is up to you personally? Or do you refrain from wearing woollen socks and cotton shirts at the same time and enquire about the farming practices which produced your food - must not mix seeds, you know.

All the things you mentioned are indeed commandments but all commandments are for our benefit. All things are possible (mixing seeds) but all things are not profitable. We dont know why God commanded that about mixing seeds but we do not know either what the future ramifications are of doing so. As for the clothes, i think it means about mixing them together into blends for, again, a reason that we are not given the answer to but must search it out.
I am unsure about many of the reasons God asks us to do things, but its not about understanding, its about trusting the. I may feel the urge to go outside for a second for fresh air and i wont know why, then my house explodes seconds later. That is God asking you to do something you dont understand because he sees further ahead of the ramifications of our actions.

About Moloch, God was telling the people who followed him not to go the way of the heathen and burn their children in fires for sacrifice. Why are you assuming that just becasue God says dont do something, that it is immediatly applicable back to God to do the same kind of thing.

Look at the example of the ungodly cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of those towns tried to have sex with angels.
Do you have a reference for that? Ezekiel just says it was for being jolly unpleasant:
GENESIS 19:1-13

- The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. ² “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
³ But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. ⁴ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom —both young and old—surrounded the house. ⁵ They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
⁶ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁷ and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. ⁸ Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
⁹ “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
¹⁰ But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. ¹¹ Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
¹² The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, ¹³ because we are going to destroy this city.

Also having an age of religious consent might stop us ending up with quite so many religious nutters who blindly believe and follow anything that was written a few hundred years ago now matter how absurd it actually is.

Originally Posted by Unified3

As for the clothes, i think it means about mixing them together into blends for, again, a reason that we are not given the answer to but must search it out.

So presumably you think that the companies that sell clothes made from a blend of fibres are just as evil as homosexuals?

About Moloch, God was telling the people who followed him not to go the way of the heathen and burn their children in fires for sacrifice. Why are you assuming that just becasue God says dont do something, that it is immediatly applicable back to God to do the same kind of thing.

It specifically, and only, says not to sacrifice to Molock. Which implies it is OK to sacrifice your children for other reasons. It is like a sign that says "do not park in this space"; it implies you can park in other spaces.

GENESIS 19:1-13

Thanks. Fascinating.

Your trying to twist every argument into a philosophical answer that can have no ending that is coherent, but merely acts to juggle and shuffle the information to render it obsolete. The argument is being sifted back and forth in a vain attempt to confuse and make the arguments bottom drop out. It is impossible to do such a thing with the truth however much is is bent or skewed in disbelief.

So presumably you think that the companies that sell clothes made from a blend of fibres are just as evil as homosexuals?
- No, the Bible says in revelation that no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesnt say the maker of polyblend will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. That would be silly.

Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord."- This verse shows that by offering children to Moloch, you are profaning the name of God. And how could God specifically prohibit a vile act of murder, when at the same time you think that God would want children sacrificed to Him. My God sacrificed his own son in a twist to your argument on moloch. Did God say 'Do not steal' but then he steals? Did he say do not lie, then go and tell lies? God is not a man that he can be considered so.

Originally Posted by Unified3

Your trying to twist every argument into a philosophical answer that can have no ending that is coherent, but merely acts to juggle and shuffle the information to render it obsolete. The argument is being sifted back and forth in a vain attempt to confuse and make the arguments bottom drop out. It is impossible to do such a thing with the truth however much is is bent or skewed in disbelief.

So presumably you think that the companies that sell clothes made from a blend of fibres are just as evil as homosexuals?
- No, the Bible says in revelation that no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesnt say the maker of polyblend will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. That would be silly.

Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord."- This verse shows that by offering children to Moloch, you are profaning the name of God. And how could God specifically prohibit a vile act of murder, when at the same time you think that God would want children sacrificed to Him. My God sacrificed his own son in a twist to your argument on moloch. Did God say 'Do not steal' but then he steals? Did he say do not lie, then go and tell lies? God is not a man that he can be considered so.

How about instead of quoting ancient text and stories then trying to interpret them, you actually try making a cogent case for how and why religion has any place in the modern world or why we wouldn't be better off without it or give a reason why you think that religion should be allowed to indoctrinate children for century after century. How about you start too accept that anything in any religion was written and thought of by a person, not a God or any such super natural being. How about you you accept that many of religion's archaic practices are hopelessly out of date, no longer relevant and in some cases unacceptable in modern society.
How about you explain how and why religion should be allowed to do and get away with things that no one else in society can?

How about you start dealing in facts not fiction?

My facts are your fiction and we cannot reconcile that unless we are on the same level so why bother trying?
The bottom line is that you either accept the Judeochristian God as your Lord and Saviour, repent, turn from your sins towards him that you might inherit eternal happiness. OR continue to rest on your own understandings of the universe and of who you are and grapple endlessly with these things until your body gives out and you will be no closer to understanding than when you started. People know alot of information about lots of things, yet nobody can piece all these things together into a coherent argument against a God because everyone knows deep down inside that there is a God, there are moral standards and if you break them then there will be consequences. People cant find or believe in God for the same reason a thief cant 'find' a policeman.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

--in time they probably become shallow tradition-based religions people continue for social interaction

"...But today the ancient rituals bring no comfort. The wisest of the mystics lies dying..." Sorry... what you said made "The Dark Crystal" pop into my head.

It is unfortunate that a few individuals who choose to interpret scripture for their own, sometimes evil, ends gain so much public notice that they make those who quietly walk in the way and do not preach appear as fools also, because they follow the same deity.

What's wrong with female genital mutlation? I know you think it's wrong. Is there an objective basis for it?

I'm also opposed to male genital mutilation. The big difference between the two being that there is some, not much but a little, justification for male circumcision on health grounds. My own view is that the circumcision notion was first - because it's often practised as a ghastly initiation ritual in a variety of groups entirely unrelated to Judaism or the Middle East generally - and then it was absorbed and justified as part of more formal theology.

Female mutilation? Seeing as its common justification is all about a) restricting female sexuality generally, b) 'guaranteeing' virginity. This second purpose is the one that leads to the worst excesses, with little girls dying from blood loss or from horrible infections and later suffering permanent injury from other complications of extensive surgery when most or all of the external genitalia is removed. You couldn't expect me to think it's anything other than just another nasty method of oppressing women.

And yes, I do know that it's women who inflict this on young girls. Just like parents throughout history have inflicted all manner of violence on their children, all in the name of bringing them up "properly".

I find it ironic - for want of a better word - that African regions where these practices were common are not so very distant from regions where virgin women were considered unsuitable for marriage, or at least not worthy of a dowry or bride price. Women had to prove their worth as potential wives in these social groups by first demonstrating their fertility and physical stamina by having a baby.

Objective? What's objective. When we're dealing with morality and relationships there has to be a limit. Somewhere. Otherwise we'd finish up as a philosopher friend of ours did trying to work out whether there was any 'objective' universal moral prohibition on flaying babies alive. Fruitlessly toiled away for years. Turns out there isn't.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Why oh why indeed, why can't we just ban and then irradicate all religions and replace them with something more practical and meaningful. Which teach people to have morals, do good things et... but leave out all the religious crap.

We could actually use the time and gatherings to educate people or pass on serious messages not listen to absurd sermons and self self righteous church know it alls.

Surely the time for religion has passed, surely now in this day and age we are too well educated to believe all that hellfire and damnation rubbish.
Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

We can't eradicate religion it without eradicating the people who follow it--that's certainly wouldn't be a good thing. Most traditional religions are fading as populations get better educated anyhow--in time they probably become shallow tradition-based religions people continue for social interaction or replaced by a wave of less rigid new-age religions similar people come up with fulfill their spirituality. Secularity could fulfill spiritual needs but most who follow it shun all attempts to link the two because they either don't recognize the importance, or simply reject it because religions use it.

I listened to a speech on You Tube today by a retired former Delta commander / evangelical that suggested that the decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece is directly related to the upheaval in these countries.
Personally, I agree with him. Unfortunately, the US is in danger of following the same path.

I don't know the history of Rome very well. So this is more of a question than an argument. Didn't Rome follow the path of drifting away from religion and toward avarice / high living toward the end of the empire?

I listened to a speech on You Tube today by a retired former Delta commander / evangelical that suggested that the decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece is directly related to the upheaval in these countries.

I guess the unprecedented decades of peace and prosperity don't count. People reach for damn near anything when there's a hiccup--did the Delta commander, while he was preaching, mention New Orleans sinners steered Katrina to flood their city ?

Originally Posted by dedo

I listened to a speech on You Tube today by a retired former Delta commander / evangelical that suggested that the decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece is directly related to the upheaval in these countries.
Personally, I agree with him. Unfortunately, the US is in danger of following the same path.

Bearing mind the name of this forum, was any evidence offered in favour of this thesis?

Originally Posted by adelady

Objective? What's objective. When we're dealing with morality and relationships there has to be a limit. Somewhere.

No, there doesn't.

Otherwise we'd finish up as a philosopher friend of ours did trying to work out whether there was any 'objective' universal moral prohibition on flaying babies alive. Fruitlessly toiled away for years. Turns out there isn't.

This is exactly my point. There isn't. And you can probably find somebody in favor of flaying babies alive. After all, many people are in favor of partial birth abortion, which involves plunging a pair of scissors into the skull of a baby who is just about to emerge from the womb, then sucking the brain out. This is actually legal under the secular law of the USA.

Originally Posted by dedo

I listened to a speech on You Tube today by a retired former Delta commander / evangelical that suggested that the decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece is directly related to the upheaval in these countries.
Personally, I agree with him. Unfortunately, the US is in danger of following the same path.

I don't know the history of Rome very well. So this is more of a question than an argument. Didn't Rome follow the path of drifting away from religion and toward avarice / high living toward the end of the empire?

Actually Rome was quite instrumental in the formation of modern christianity, it was adopted by the Romans as their religion and it was then used to 'absorb' other religious practices from other countries and times into this new roman christianity. It not actually decided for several hundred years that they would promote the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Also most of what we consider the modern bible or at least the 'king James bible' was the result of the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was conviened by Emperor Constantine so the Bishops could decide what the doctrine for christianity would actually be, who's ideas carried favour at the time went on to be included in the bible, where as anything that was deemed to deminish the power of their religion was excluded. It was here where myth's, stories and legends from many times and civilizations were declared to be holy facts that people would go on to believe for centuries afterwoods. Just try and imagine doing that now!

Without the credance given to it by the then Roman Empire and indeed the Emperor's conversion to christianity, christianity might well not be the dominant world religion today and would surely take a very different form, one in which it didn't have to absorb the religions and beliefs of so many other cultures.

One of the cleverist things that the christian religion ever did was to propagate the idea that very bad things would happen if people stopped believing in it, I mean self servering or what? It says nothing about God, how does it serve God. It is about the church and preserving the Church's power. Also it worked and for hundreds of years, even to this day people blindly follow what was written and what they believe to be true without ever understanding it or why and who created it.

Many religions play on people's ignorance and need and wanting to believe in something to cement their power and ideology and are always interpretted by people in a way that seems to suggest that their religion has power over them and the right to tell them what to do.

A true religion shouldn't ask anything of it's believers just give the chance to express what is truely in there hearts, of which I'm sure a merciful God would approve.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

One of the cleverist things that the christian religion ever did was to propagate the idea that very bad things would happen if people stopped believing in it, I mean self servering or what? It says nothing about God, how does it serve God. It is about the church and preserving the Church's power. Also it worked and for hundreds of years, even to this day people blindly follow what was written and what they believe to be true without ever understanding it or why and who created it.

You do not understand why or who created the things that you believe in either. As a matter of fact, what you believe is probably mostly what the Christians believed and what you were taught by your parents, who were either Christians or learned their beliefs from Christians. Where else do you think it came from?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

One of the cleverist things that the christian religion ever did was to propagate the idea that very bad things would happen if people stopped believing in it, I mean self servering or what? It says nothing about God, how does it serve God. It is about the church and preserving the Church's power. Also it worked and for hundreds of years, even to this day people blindly follow what was written and what they believe to be true without ever understanding it or why and who created it.

You do not understand why or who created the things that you believe in either. As a matter of fact, what you believe is probably mostly what the Christians believed and what you were taught by your parents, who were either Christians or learned their beliefs from Christians. Where else do you think it came from?

Apologies if I didn't make my point very clear, what I was trying to convey is that religion's can try to teach us that what is written in their holy books is the word of god, when in truth it is the word of man and can be proved as such by historians and even the reasons and motives behind specific passages can be attributed to their origins. This of course is never actually taught to the followers of religions who are expected to and are indeed taught to blindly follow without ever understanding it's true nature or origin.

This unfortunately is common to most religions, the truth being they do not want their followers to understand the true origins of many parts of the religion or the real motives of those parts. This means they are told how to interpret was has been witten, not ask questions or seek the real truth.

This is dangerous because people can interpret things in almost any way they wish to justify their wishes and objectives which is frequently put into practice by many religious leaders to encourage people to do things that the rest of society would consider wrong.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Apologies if I didn't make my point very clear, what I was trying to convey is that religion's can try to teach us that what is written in their holy books is the word of god, when in truth it is the word of man and can be proved as such by historians and even the reasons and motives behind specific passages can be attributed to their origins. This of course is never actually taught to the followers of religions who are expected to and are indeed taught to blindly follow without ever understanding it's true nature or origin.

I understood your point perfectly. I don't think you understand mine. You do not understand the true nature of the things you believe either. You are blindly following your beliefs as well. The fact that you do not attribute your beliefs to a religion does not make any difference.

This unfortunately is common to most religions, the truth being they do not want their followers to understand the true origins of many parts of the religion or the real motives of those parts. This means they are told how to interpret was has been witten, not ask questions or seek the real truth.

When it comes to moral beliefs, there is no such thing as "real truth."

This is dangerous because people can interpret things in almost any way they wish to justify their wishes and objectives which is frequently put into practice by many religious leaders to encourage people to do things that the rest of society would consider wrong.

You also interpret things in any way you wish. You encourage people to do things that other members of society would consider wrong. You seem to be justifying your beliefs because you are part of "the rest of society" meaning presumably the majority of the rest of the particular society you reside in. If you are in the majority, does that make you morally right?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Apologies if I didn't make my point very clear, what I was trying to convey is that religion's can try to teach us that what is written in their holy books is the word of god, when in truth it is the word of man and can be proved as such by historians and even the reasons and motives behind specific passages can be attributed to their origins. This of course is never actually taught to the followers of religions who are expected to and are indeed taught to blindly follow without ever understanding it's true nature or origin.

I understood your point perfectly. I don't think you understand mine. You do not understand the true nature of the things you believe either. You are blindly following your beliefs as well. The fact that you do not attribute your beliefs to a religion does not make any difference.

This unfortunately is common to most religions, the truth being they do not want their followers to understand the true origins of many parts of the religion or the real motives of those parts. This means they are told how to interpret was has been witten, not ask questions or seek the real truth.

When it comes to moral beliefs, there is no such thing as "real truth."

This is dangerous because people can interpret things in almost any way they wish to justify their wishes and objectives which is frequently put into practice by many religious leaders to encourage people to do things that the rest of society would consider wrong.

You also interpret things in any way you wish. You encourage people to do things that other members of society would consider wrong. You seem to be justifying your beliefs because you are part of "the rest of society" meaning presumably the majority of the rest of the particular society you reside in. If you are in the majority, does that make you morally right?

I think you may have been correct prehaps it was I that didn't understand your idea.
Yes well I'm not going to deny that most of us are all the time influenced by things we don't understand and believe in things we can't explain, however I do think this is different because many people it's about their personal journey what they see, hear and learn along the way and many ideas about what they think is right and wrong come from the heart. To me this is different than being force fed stories and doctrine that promote the power of religion and than tell people they have to live a certain way and do certain things and believe certain things.

I think that people should act in accordance with their own ideas and wishes and accomadate the prevailing views of the society they live in. I just don't feel that people should be indoctrinated with ideas and beliefs from hundreds of years ago just to perpetuate the power of a religion.

You know there are still people even in this day and age who take the bible literally, every mistake, misprint every translation error, they still believe it literally. Where as others chose a different way to interpet it, but still equally convinced their interpretation is correct.

The real truth is when it comes to religion it's all down to the way people interpret it, this is why religious leaders spend so much time and effort trying to make people adopt their interpretation.

Harold keeps making these moral relativism points, but I think it is because it is so important and it is something a lot of people miss. There isn't a lot of merit in getting all sanctimonious about the fallacies of religions without realizing this fact.

You can't just rip the magic carpet out from under people. They'll fall and you'll fall with them. They have to decide for themselves when they feel comfortable enough to get off.

I do believe though that strong arguments can be made for the value of secular humanistic aims and values based on existential, scientific and practical principles.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dedo

I listened to a speech on You Tube today by a retired former Delta commander / evangelical that suggested that the decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece is directly related to the upheaval in these countries.
Personally, I agree with him. Unfortunately, the US is in danger of following the same path.

Bearing mind the name of this forum, was any evidence offered in favour of this thesis?

His evidence was primarily temporal correlation.

Origins of societal collapse is the topic of many books and articles.

Thus, the cause of societal collapse is unknown and probably multifactorial.

Briefly reviewing a Wikipedia article on theories of Rome's collapse are consistent with a multifactorial etiology if only because there are so many theories.

Thus, the Delta commander's hypothesis is reasonable, since he was speculating on something where the answer is unknown.

Moral decay is one of the common factors alleged to be associated with Rome's decline although it was probably one of many factors.

I have not seen any articles that propose that atheism is correlated with societal resilience.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

A true religion shouldn't ask anything of it's believers just give the chance to express what is truely in there hearts

So basically your idea of a 'true religion' is Satanism? Whose tenant is 'do what you want'? So if I express in my heart that I feel like murdering someone, is that OK in this 'true religion'? Where do the moral boundaries come from if not from the doctrines of the religion? A Bible figure in the new testament says 'I wouldnt have know what sin was, had I not seen it in the law (the 10 commandments).' In other words, you would like a religion where you can do what you want and not have to be answerable to anybody for your actions. That is sheer lawlessness. You cant even fall back on your conscience to help you as a moral compass because you would just continually ignore it when it contradicted anything you felt like expressing from your heart. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?'.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I'm sure a merciful God would approve.

From a biblical point of view, that statement is classed as idolatry. You are making a god that you are comfortable with and one that suits your needs and lifestyle. You are putting God in a box and limiting who you believe he is.
God is merciful, yes, but He is also just and holy. Would He be an honest judge if he just dismissed every case that came before Him, no matter the severity of the crime? The Bible actually says that all sin is equal. If you break any of the 10 commandments, you are guilty of breaking all of them.

Originally Posted by dedo

His evidence was primarily temporal correlation.

Evidence or assertion?

Did he present any evidence of the "decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece"? Did he show that there hasn't been a similar decline in countries less affected by the recession (China, say. Hmmm. But then that isn't a Christian country so it should have been bankrupt from the start ...)? Did he show any correlation between the amount of decline in different countries and the degree to which they have been affected by the recession?

And the, of course, let us not forget the mantra: correlation is not causation. How did he prove that the decline in Christianity in these countries (if any such effect exists) was not caused by the worsening economic conditions?

Originally Posted by Unified3

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

A true religion shouldn't ask anything of it's believers just give the chance to express what is truely in there hearts

So basically your idea of a 'true religion' is Satanism? Whose tenant is 'do what you want'? So if I express in my heart that I feel like murdering someone, is that OK in this 'true religion'? Where do the moral boundaries come from if not from the doctrines of the religion? A Bible figure in the new testament says 'I wouldnt have know what sin was, had I not seen it in the law (the 10 commandments).' In other words, you would like a religion where you can do what you want and not have to be answerable to anybody for your actions. That is sheer lawlessness. You cant even fall back on your conscience to help you as a moral compass because you would just continually ignore it when it contradicted anything you felt like expressing from your heart. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?'.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I'm sure a merciful God would approve.

From a biblical point of view, that statement is classed as idolatry. You are making a god that you are comfortable with and one that suits your needs and lifestyle. You are putting God in a box and limiting who you believe he is.
God is merciful, yes, but He is also just and holy. Would He be an honest judge if he just dismissed every case that came before Him, no matter the severity of the crime? The Bible actually says that all sin is equal. If you break any of the 10 commandments, you are guilty of breaking all of them.

Does man's ability to reason come from a religion's doctrine, I think not. Does man's ability to tell right from wrong come from a religion again I think not. I have no problem with belief in God, my only issue is with any religion that claims to speak for God or to interpret his wishes. If any religion truely has the right to speak for God then let that religion show me proof of such in a form that I can reason. If God truely exists then it would be from him that we get our ability to reason as our way of understanding things so it is up to a religion to show us proof of it's authority by using God given reason.

It is my assertion that all religion is created by man and thus the word of religion can never be more powerful as the word of man who must be a product of God if he exists. So again I ask why should I listen to the word of religion over that of the words of man and of a God given reason?

I would also suggest that any moral decline could not be aportioned to a decline in the belief of religion for the simple fact that many of religion's idea of morals is seriously out of date and religion conveniently decides to ignore things that show it in a bad light.

Also just for your information the idea of the 10 commandments was an idea only incorperated into christianity in the 13th century. Even this was a choice of many varying accounts of the actual story or true number of commandments. Again just one more example of how religion has selectively chosen a particular account of a story to advertise it's message.

Christianity doesnt owe anybody an explanation, and God certainly doesnt. How should the vase say to the potter- 'why did you make me?'

God declares himself to be the Truth. Not a simile or metaphor for something. He actually says that He, his persona and characteristics are Truth. Once you open your mind to the Scriptures and God, then the Bible becomes proof in itself.

How can you require evidence for faith, when faith and evidence are opposites in terms of explanations of things. Man always has new theories about everything and if you believe what man has written, then the truth that man discovers can always be washed away with a new truth. Mans knowledge is like shifting sand, changing, sometimes drastically, every year at least whereas the Word of God in the Bible is like a rock As the song goes 'the wise man built his house upon the rock and the foolish man built his house upon the sand'. Which house came tumbling down? Even if you know of every discovery of a new 'truth' the moment it happens. And that is your current world view. It can never be correct as your manmade truth is always subject to change. The Bible tells us what we need to know to live a Christian life, it does not tell us necessarily what we would like to or want to know about life. That is where the faith element comes in, when natural man cannot explain things, it takes the supernatural to. Like Christians who have been dying and the doctors have given them days or weeks to live and they could do nothing further for them, the God answered their prayers and cured them of disease and illness and they have gone on to live to a normal age.

Also just for your information the idea of the 10 commandments was an idea only incorperated into christianity in the 13th century.- The 10 commandments are from the old testament, the Jewish old testament which existed before the 13th century? Does it matter when they were incorporated into christianity? All 66 books of the Bible mesh together in one form or another.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dedo

His evidence was primarily temporal correlation.

Evidence or assertion?

Did he present any evidence of the "decline in practicing Christians in Europe and Greece"? Did he show that there hasn't been a similar decline in countries less affected by the recession (China, say. Hmmm. But then that isn't a Christian country so it should have been bankrupt from the start ...)? Did he show any correlation between the amount of decline in different countries and the degree to which they have been affected by the recession?

And the, of course, let us not forget the mantra: correlation is not causation. How did he prove that the decline in Christianity in these countries (if any such effect exists) was not caused by the worsening economic conditions?

He said that Christianity was growing in China.

Also, since the cause of societal collapse is unknown, it is not necessary or even possible to "prove" that one hypothesis is correct to make the argument reasonable.

If there is a long list of examples of atheist utopias, then that would be evidence against the commander's hypothesis.

Unfortunately, the only examples I am aware of are atheist disasters.

That alone makes the commander's argument reasonable, and likely to be correct.

Thus, the OP's original assertion is wrong.

Removing religion from society would just create another disaster.

Originally Posted by dedo

He said that Christianity was growing in China.

I'm sure he said all sorts of things. I wondered if he had any evidence. I'm assuming not as none is forthcoming...

Also, since the cause of societal collapse is unknown, it is not necessary or even possible to "prove" that one hypothesis is correct to make the argument reasonable.

Is that what passes for logic in these parts? "The causes are unknown .... therefore I'm right!" Er, no. If a hypothesis cannot be supported by evidence then it is rejected. Ergo, he is wrong.

Unfortunately, the only examples I am aware of are atheist disasters.

What is an "atheist disaster"? Do you mean disasters don't befall Christian countries? That sounds unlikely. Do you mean only atheists die in natural disasters? No, that can't be right. Maybe you mean that natural disasters are caused by atheists? That must be it.

That alone makes the commander's argument reasonable, and likely to be correct.

More great logic: "Here's an unrelated fact I made up .... therefore I'm right!"

That was actually a pretty funny post.

Maybe my knowledge of ideology of foreign parties is lacking. The only ones I am aware of that have made atheism part of a governing party's philosophy include communist regimes. I consider these governments to have been disasters. Maybe you see them in a different light.

Thus, without a corresponding list that is significantly greater (in terms of populations influenced) that shows a political ideology that embraces atheism, and actually creates a good society, then the commander's comments are completely reasonable.

Originally Posted by dedo

That was actually a pretty funny post.

Good. That's the way it was intended.

The only ones I am aware of that have made atheism part of a governing party's philosophy include communist regimes. I consider these governments to have been disasters.

Well, to make any sort of scientific case based on this you would have to distinguish between the official position of the government (and, personally, I would say any regime that bans or enforces any system of belief is equally bad) and the actual beliefs/practices of the people. Secondly, you would have to have some objective measure of "disaster". There are plenty of countries with either freedom of religion or theocracies which are effectively basket cases economically (if that is the right measure). So I don't see that it is obviously a problem of atheism.

Thus, without a corresponding list that is significantly greater (in terms of populations influenced) that shows a political ideology that embraces atheism, and actually creates a good society, then the commander's comments are completely reasonable.

I'm sorry but I would have to disagree. Without the complete evidence the absolute best you can say is that no judgement can be made. I would tend to go further and say that without the evidence, the suggestion should just be ignored (until evidence is provided).

What is the purpose of regilion?

If my local church closes is my community really going to come crashing down at the hands of some moral vacuum?

What does God out of religion?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Why oh why indeed, why can't we just ban and then irradicate all religions and replace them with something more practical and meaningful. Which teach people to have morals, do good things et... but leave out all the religious crap.

We could actually use the time and gatherings to educate people or pass on serious messages not listen to absurd sermons and self self righteous church know it alls.

Surely the time for religion has passed, surely now in this day and age we are too well educated to believe all that hellfire and damnation rubbish.
Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

Chrisgolitz you seem to be forgetting that without Christianity most of the world's science would exist, it would be like living in the stone age. You and everybody else want to thank your lucky stars that our Lord thought us worthy enough even for the gift of life!

Originally Posted by TimeLord

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Why oh why indeed, why can't we just ban and then irradicate all religions and replace them with something more practical and meaningful. Which teach people to have morals, do good things et... but leave out all the religious crap.

We could actually use the time and gatherings to educate people or pass on serious messages not listen to absurd sermons and self self righteous church know it alls.

Surely the time for religion has passed, surely now in this day and age we are too well educated to believe all that hellfire and damnation rubbish.
Surely now is the time for reason and enlightnement to prevail over nonsense and superstition, and if not now then when?

Chrisgolitz you seem to be forgetting that without Christianity most of the world's science would exist, it would be like living in the stone age. You and everybody else want to thank your lucky stars that our Lord thought us worthy enough even for the gift of life!

I don't even know what to say to that!

Originally Posted by TimeLord

Chrisgolitz you seem to be forgetting that without Christianity most of the world's science would exist, it would be like living in the stone age.

I don't think you can thank (blame ) only Christianity for that. Religion has always had a role in people developing an understanding of the world. The Egyptians and Babylonians developed astronomy, mathematics and calendrical science partly out of necessity but probably also driven by their religious interest. Also, most of the early knowledge was only preserved and extended by Islam (hence words lick alcohol, alembic, alchemy and algebra).

Originally Posted by TimeLord

Chrisgolitz, you seem to be forgetting that without Christianity most of the world's science would exist, it would be like living in the stone age. You and everybody else want to thank your lucky stars that our Lord thought us worthy enough even for the gift of life!

TimeLord, it is very difficult for believers in God and Jesus to try and convince the unbelievers of what we know to be true. The Bible tells us why it is so hard: Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit in John 16 v 8-11:
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

From these verses we can see that it is the Holy Spirits job to convince people of sin, because they dont believe in Jesus. Therefore, it is not for the Christian to actually do, but we plant the seeds and are the human voice of His Message. God then waters and looks after those seeds through other people. As Christians, we should have apologetics ready for some questions that get asked and these apologetics are biblical: 1 Peter 3:15 says 'But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ', we must respect the non-believers and be gentle with them in arguments as we are Christs witnesses on this earth and we may be the only Bible they ever read. Pray for the non-beleivers that they may have eyes to see what we see. Think back to before you believed, we were no different, no less argumental, no less proud than the non-believers today and in this forum. It takes God to change their minds, people cannot come to know God or believe in Him unless they are chosen by Him. He knew who would and wouldnt accept the gospel from before He created the world. So, lets just be wise as serpents and harmless as doves with them, as we are commanded to do.

All of which preaching is based upon faith and not upon evidence. Self delusion of this magnitude is painful to witness.

It takes God to change their minds, people cannot come to know God or believe in Him unless they are chosen by Him. He knew who would and wouldnt accept the gospel from before He created the world.

I can state with total certainty, not based upon faith, but upon honesty and decency that such a God who acted in such an evil way, such a reprehensible way, such a smug, disgusting way would not be a God, but a devil of unfathomable evil. You are stating, clearly and unequivocally, that if God does not choose someone they are condemend to an eternity in hell, because he did not choose them. And this is the God you choose to worship. Astounding!

Originally Posted by Unified3

It takes God to change their minds, people cannot come to know God or believe in Him unless they are chosen by Him.

Doesn't that conflict with the whole "free will" thing?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

What is the purpose of regilion?

If my local church closes is my community really going to come crashing down at the hands of some moral vacuum?

What does God out of religion?

This is a good question. It is the kind of question we should be discussing in the "scientific study of religion" forum, not the emotional outbursts that seem to be par for the course.

I think people give more credit, and also blame, to religion for the way that people act. Yet I do think that religion does serve as a vehicle for reinforcing societal norms. Not that there are not other means, but it is one means. Perhaps it provides a certain amount of stability. Although religious beliefs do change, the same as non-religious based beliefs change, maybe they change a bit slower.

I think one of the original purposes of religion was that which is now served by science - i.e., an attempt to explain, organize and make sense of the natural world. Even the function of religion to reinforce moral values might be the same kind of thing, i.e., it is an explanation of why we believe things (which we may have believed anyway without it) rather than the cause of the belief.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I can state with total certainty, not based upon faith, but upon honesty and decency that such a God who acted in such an evil way, such a reprehensible way, such a smug, disgusting way would not be a God, but a devil of unfathomable evil. You are stating, clearly and unequivocally, that if God does not choose someone they are condemend to an eternity in hell, because he did not choose them. And this is the God you choose to worship. Astounding!

If you read the next line-
'It takes God to change their minds, people cannot come to know God or believe in Him unless they are chosen by Him. He knew who would and wouldnt accept the gospel from before He created the world'.
The purpose of this parable is to explain the process by which the called are chosen.

I should have maybe quoted the actual parable this doctrine comes from so it makes more sense to you and God doesnt come out as Satan in your mind:

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
“But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.
“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
—Matthew 22:1-14, NIV
This parable does not mean that God calls a lot of people, picks over them, and keeps only a few. If that were true, the middle of the parable would have no meaning. It means that God calls everyone and gives them the power to respond—but to be chosen, we must respond to the call, using the power God gave us for that purpose.


It is easy to misunderstand the word “many” in the New Testament, because it has slightly different meanings in Greek and in English. In both languages, it refers to a large group. In English, “many” is restrictive, but in Greek it is inclusive. In other words, if I say “many of the people came” in English, it implies that most of them did not. If I said the equivalent of “many of the people came” in Greek, it would imply that practically everyone did.
In this case, we are dealing with a Greek usage that divides the whole into two unequal parts, which are called the many and the few. In Greek you might say, “The many are on time, but the few are late.” The English equivalent is, “Most are on time, but some are late.” In Greek, “the many” and “the few” add up to everyone; just as in English, “most” and “some” add up to everyone.
In this parable, everyone was invited to the wedding, but the invitation went out in two waves. The respectable people were invited first, but they did not heed the invitation or they only pretended to accept. They lied, they pretended, but the result is that they didn’t show up. So the king told his slaves to send out the invitation again to the people who were not originally on the invitation list, and these people actually did show up. One of them was not wearing a wedding garment, so he was thrown out. In those days, the host furnished the wedding garments, so anyone who wasn’t properly dressed was very disrespectful.

In the end, everyone had been invited, but only a few were permitted to stay for the wedding. In other words, everyone is called, but some people refuse the invitation and are not chosen.
Another purpose of this parable is to prepare the disciples for the fact that when they evangelized the Jews, they would meet with disappointment for the most part, and that they should turn to the gentiles, whom they would otherwise consider unworthy. The bit about the man who avoided the distribution of the wedding garments means that the second group cannot presume acceptance, any more than the first group can presume acceptance because they are Abraham’s children. Just being called doesn’t mean you are chosen; you have to respond appropriately in your faith and conduct and then you are chosen.

Of course, Christians are presented with the problem that the gospel is Jewish, but Jews for the most part do not accept it. There are two theological explanations:
The first explanation comes from Paul and it parallels this parable. If the worthy had accepted the invitation, the unworthy would never have been invited; that means if the Jews had accepted the gospel, the gentiles would never have been evangelized. So the Jews’ rejection of the gospel is not Jewish stubbornness, it is divine providence, so that all can be saved.
The second explanation is that God wants to preserve the Jews as a witness to the One True God. The Jews were a very small and insignificant ethnic group in ancient times, yet they survive to this day. We do not hear about the plight of the Edomites, the problems of the Ammonites, or the exploits of the Hittites in the evening news; all those nations have long since passed away. Today, archaeologists study them, but to most people these mighty nations have shrunk down to names in the Bible that are hard to pronounce. Yet we still have Jews! To me, the only possible reason why this tiny ethnic group could survive when all those larger nations passed away is that they really were chosen by the One True God to bear witness to His existence and providence.

All in all- If you chose to accept God, by faith, then your are chosen. If you just juggle the idea of God all your life and either dont believe it OR dont act upon it, then you have been called.

Wherever you spend eternity, in heaven or hell, it will be your own choice and you will truly see why on judgement day how you refused every attempt to save you from hell.

*

"....bla bla bla
Wherever you spend eternity, in heaven or hell, it will be your own choice and you will truly see why on judgement day how you refused every attempt to save you from hell. "

A day off for preaching.

Honestly Unifield, if you want to explain the history of interpretations of gospel, their psychology, sociology, connection to other faiths, or divisions of Christianity, archaeological studies of how its acceptance changed over time etc....than go for it. When you come off as a preacher is where we draw the line.

I don't know why people waste their time with it... I, as a women certainly don't want to be a part of something(christianity) that tells me I came from the rib of a man, and must "obey" my husband because I - a mere woman must be sooooo below a man, right?
Oh and let's not forget all of the witch-burnings, Galileo-every other scientist or free thinker who was punished because they contradicted the bible. Just because religion decides to periodically change it's apparent beliefs to make itself more palatable, doesn't mean the core is any different.
I honestly believe there's something SO wrong with a thing that tells you NOT to question-even though that is one of the only uniquely human traits we have- it spends too much time encouraging submission and blind acceptance, instead of open-mindedness and mental/social growth. It's always seemed to fear question and rashionality and In my opinion it's only kept around to control people..

Originally Posted by Supervixen

In my opinion it's only kept around to control people..

As we moved from small, self regulating family groups through tribes, kingdoms, nations and empires to the complex global relationships of today control was central to our success. Government, police, legal systems, the military and religion are all mechanisms by which this control has been exercised. There are defective laws, oppressive military, corrupr police and ineffective governments, but only a few recommend anarchy. I think credit should be given to the positive role religion played in our development as a civilised species. We should not ignore the negative aspects you have correctly identified, but do not let our passion for condemning the unjust blind us to the positive.

Originally Posted by Supervixen

It's always seemed to fear question and rashionality and In my opinion it's only kept around to control people..

I wish to remind everyone that this is a scientific discussion topic, and is not meant as a rant forum.
I think you have a point about religion being used to control people, but this is true for any kind of human interaction. The way you have stated it here, it seems you believe that there are people who do not believe in religion, but promote it in order to control people. Do you have evidence of this?
Do you think society needs to control people? What are the other means of controlling people and why do you think they are preferable to religion?

Why oh why you ask?
Well, for one, the 'we' who you talk about, believe in religion. Also, nothing can be irradicated just like that and lastly, people need religion, they rely on it.
As many have said and will keep saying, our species has become dependent, knowing that there is a higher power that will guide us, protect us, listen to us, etc.
You might think that it is ridiculous but that is not true with so many on Earth.
True, all logic points to the fact that there cannot be hell or heaven because we cannot see it but, aren't we being narrow-minded when we say that? so what if WE can't see it? maybe others can? Why do we think we are so holy and above that whatever we think is right? we are educated in the ways of the world and the materialistic view has been drilled into us. But, is there nothing more in life than the materials we see?
If you want something more practical and meaningful, why don't you just create it? think of a way to it!
I don't think we will ever come to a point where we will stop believing in a higher power but we will certainly come to a point where religion is not what it has been portrayed to be. We will truly be free!!

Ok, first of all, yes, society itself controls people, society is a means of control.
Even if there is no evidence that is out in the open, have you ever thought about it? that there are people out there whose sole purpose is to control you?
Religion is a great way to control people because, it makes them dependent on something entirely that they stop thinking for themselves, they leave everything to their 'god'.
This makes them easy to control, because, if they somehow manipulate the words of 'god' they can manipulate the people.
Isn't that just fool proof?

[QUOTE=Harold14370;331614]

Originally Posted by Supervixen

The way you have stated it here, it seems you believe that there are people who do not believe in religion, but promote it in order to control people. Do you have evidence of this?

Well I don't know about Supervixen, but I certainly do. Religion has been used to control people for thousands of years through fear, examples being sacrafices made to appease this or that God even human sacrafices in some ancient religions. We have had holy crusades where people have been ordered off to fight. We've had priests putting people in stocks or whipping them because they've been found out walking on a 'Sunday'. History is littered with examples of people using religion to control others, even to this day people commit vile acts because others have used religion to persuade them to do so. But even more simple things like having to go to confession or pray 5 times a day or go on pilgramidges, are these not a form of control? If not what are they just a quiet word in the ear?

These 'moral standards' that you are talking about, what are they?
Do not kill. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not lust. and many more.
Also, these 'consequences' you talk about, do you mean hell?
Tis is true, we are far from knowing it all, we will always be far from it, everyday we learn, everyday, the universe expands and creates even more things we know nothing about. We can never know it all, we just learn in this life that we have. Deep down inside, we all know that we are not just as we seem, we are much more!! sooo much more!!! we just need to reach inside ourselves and find out.
We don't find 'god', 'god' is within us, 'god' is us. the sooner you understand the deeper meaning of that, the better.

When we start thinking of why we do things in life, we will understand most of it.

Originally Posted by Saberine

True, all logic points to the fact that there cannot be hell or heaven because we cannot see it but, aren't we being narrow-minded when we say that? so what if WE can't see it? maybe others can?

The thing is, this is a science forum. While there may be other ways to think about and discuss religion, what we want to talk about here are the things we can see or otherwise have scientific evidence for.

Originally Posted by Chris

We've had priests putting people in stocks or whipping them because they've been found out walking on a 'Sunday'. History is littered with examples of people using religion to control others, even to this day people commit vile acts because others have used religion to persuade them to do so. But even more simple things like having to go to confession or pray 5 times a day or go on pilgramidges, are these not a form of control?

What I was asking for, is evidence of people promoting religion without believing it themselves, which it what I think Supervixen implied, but maybe I'm wrong.

What you don't understand is that everything has science in it. Religion, what we 'believe' in, is notat all different from science.
When we think, we create something, the science you are talking about are the material things that happen that you think happen because they happen. But, they don't they happen due to some circumstance, some higher energy, something amazing that cannot be explained. Science, life, reality, everything exists around us, open your eyes.
I am not naive enough to think that I can explain why I am living because, even if I was faced with the answer, I would not be able to understand it, yet. Do you?

Originally Posted by Saberine

What you don't understand is that everything has science in it. Religion, what we 'believe' in, is notat all different from science.
When we think, we create something, the science you are talking about are the material things that happen that you think happen because they happen. But, they don't they happen due to some circumstance, some higher energy, something amazing that cannot be explained. Science, life, reality, everything exists around us, open your eyes.
I am not naive enough to think that I can explain why I am living because, even if I was faced with the answer, I would not be able to understand it, yet. Do you?

No, I do not understand why, nor do I think science can provide any answer to the question. Nevertheless, we will confine our discussion to the things that we can talk about scientifically, because it is a science forum. "Higher energy" is not one of the things in this category.

'Higher energy' is the energy that an atom vibrates with. It is the energy that everything in this world vibrates with. The only reason we see, understand, feel, acknowledge, etc. is because of this energy. So, I think that this is the perfect forum to talk about it! you still disagree?

the only reason i called it higher is because there is very little we know about this energy. Despite our scientific methods.

What I was asking for, is evidence of people promoting religion without believing it themselves,

There's some good stuff about this in The Authoritarians by Robert Altemeyer. Thankfully, it's available online.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf

Most of the book is about authoritarian followers who are often genuine believers in the religions they profess. Chapter 5, on the other hand. is about authoritarian leaders. These people will say anything to anyone if they think it will advance their own interests - no conscience, no remorse.

The whole thing is worth reading. Chapter 5 reads OK on its own but its full impact relies on the general context of contrasting with the more common authoritarian followers.

Originally Posted by Saberine

'Higher energy' is the energy that an atom vibrates with. It is the energy that everything in this world vibrates with. The only reason we see, understand, feel, acknowledge, etc. is because of this energy. So, I think that this is the perfect forum to talk about it! you still disagree?

Energy has a specific definition in physics. The vibration of atoms is a function of temperature, and the energy can be identified as rotational and translational kinetic energy. I don't think you mean this kind of energy. None of this gives us any clue about the reasons for man's existence.
You have not provided a scientific hypothesis of higher energy, or a way to investigate it experimentally. So, I do still disagree.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Supervixen

In my opinion it's only kept around to control people..

As we moved from small, self regulating family groups through tribes, kingdoms, nations and empires to the complex global relationships of today control was central to our success. Government, police, legal systems, the military and religion are all mechanisms by which this control has been exercised. There are defective laws, oppressive military, corrupr police and ineffective governments, but only a few recommend anarchy. I think credit should be given to the positive role religion played in our development as a civilised species. We should not ignore the negative aspects you have correctly identified, but do not let our passion for condemning the unjust blind us to the positive.

why do you assume i meant POSSITIVE control? that's not what i was talking about at all. I was refering to the constant pressure to behave a certain way, and religious wars all of which i EXPLAINED in my comment

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Supervixen

It's always seemed to fear question and rashionality and In my opinion it's only kept around to control people..

I wish to remind everyone that this is a scientific discussion topic, and is not meant as a rant forum.
I think you have a point about religion being used to control people, but this is true for any kind of human interaction. The way you have stated it here, it seems you believe that there are people who do not believe in religion, but promote it in order to control people. Do you have evidence of this?
Do you think society needs to control people? What are the other means of controlling people and why do you think they are preferable to religion?

I wasn't ranting, and don't say so just because you don't agree, what i said is completely valid. and don't put words in my mouth then ASK me a question on it-I never said they didn't believe in it. If you think i'm ranting then why not use more than just my last sentence as your basis?
but if you want proof that religion controls people all you have to to is open a history book or turn on a tv

That is a textbook definition of energy. If you choose to think of that as your thought, then go ahead.
If you separate science and life, there is nowhere we will go, that is what I think.
Also, you said that it is a function of temperature and that it can be identified as rotational and translational kinetic energy, but, why does it move like that? and it could also be identified by other things but, it has been defined like so. Anything is possible, will you not even consider it?

Originally Posted by Supervixen

I wasn't ranting, and don't say so just because you don't agree, what i said is completely valid. and don't put words in my mouth then ASK me a question on it-I never said they didn't believe in it. If you think i'm ranting then why not use more than just my last sentence as your basis?
but if you want proof that religion controls people all you have to to is open a history book or turn on a tv

When you say "it's kept around to control people" wouldn't that imply that whoever is keeping it around is primarily interested in controlling people, as opposed to interested in spreading a faith that they believe in themselves?

When you come onto a science forum and post an anti-religious rant (yes, it was a rant) then are you also trying to control people? In other words, you want them to abandon their religious belief, or you want them to agree with your anti-theistic position. How is this different than the control that religious people try to exert? Also, I thiink you must have missed the part where I agreed that religion controls people. But, it is not unique. Laws also control people, peer pressure controls people, and so forth.

Anything is possible, will you not even consider it?

The idea that 'anything' may be 'possible' is irrelevant.

Science cannot work unless scientists speak a consistent language. Each discipline defines many words and expressions to have specified meanings. These definitions exclude many conversational usages of those same words in other contexts.

We can't have sensible discussions unless we choose to stick to one particular path. One path, general undefined conversational vagueness. The other, specific scientific definition.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Supervixen

I wasn't ranting, and don't say so just because you don't agree, what i said is completely valid. and don't put words in my mouth then ASK me a question on it-I never said they didn't believe in it. If you think i'm ranting then why not use more than just my last sentence as your basis?
but if you want proof that religion controls people all you have to to is open a history book or turn on a tv

When you say "it's kept around to control people" wouldn't that imply that whoever is keeping it around is primarily interested in controlling people, as opposed to interested in spreading a faith that they believe in themselves?

When you come onto a science forum and post an anti-religious rant (yes, it was a rant) then are you also trying to control people? In other words, you want them to abandon their religious belief, or you want them to agree with your anti-theistic position. How is this different than the control that religious people try to exert? Also, I thiink you must have missed the part where I agreed that religion controls people. But, it is not unique. Laws also control people, peer pressure controls people, and so forth.

like i said-if you wanna say i'm ranting then use more than one sentence as your basis. I'm entitled to have an opinion
and how is me responding to a thread SOMEONE ELSE started me trying to control people? It's not, so stop trying to justify the fact that you just don't like what i said.
BTW as for you wanting prove-alot science is based on THEORY not proof, we only theorise that evolution happened and that black holes excist-that doesn't mean it's not true... And ALL religion is based on "faith" so why don't you go ask a religious person for "proof"?

Evolution is one of the possibilites of how we were created and yet we think it relevant.
Science in itself is the conclusion of many theories or many possibilities. Yes, it is spoken with consistency to enable us to understand it easier but that does not mean that it is the only possibility.
The definition of one second as well as the other fundamental units has changed with time, who is to say that it will not change again?
Anything is possible.

Originally Posted by Supervixen

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Supervixen

I wasn't ranting, and don't say so just because you don't agree, what i said is completely valid. and don't put words in my mouth then ASK me a question on it-I never said they didn't believe in it. If you think i'm ranting then why not use more than just my last sentence as your basis?
but if you want proof that religion controls people all you have to to is open a history book or turn on a tv

When you say "it's kept around to control people" wouldn't that imply that whoever is keeping it around is primarily interested in controlling people, as opposed to interested in spreading a faith that they believe in themselves?

When you come onto a science forum and post an anti-religious rant (yes, it was a rant) then are you also trying to control people? In other words, you want them to abandon their religious belief, or you want them to agree with your anti-theistic position. How is this different than the control that religious people try to exert? Also, I thiink you must have missed the part where I agreed that religion controls people. But, it is not unique. Laws also control people, peer pressure controls people, and so forth.

like i said-if you wanna say i'm ranting then use more than one sentence as your basis. I'm entitled to have an opinion
and how is me responding to a thread SOMEONE ELSE started me trying to control people? It's not, so stop trying to justify the fact that you just don't like what i said.
BTW as for you wanting prove-alot science is based on THEORY not proof, we only theorise that evolution happened and that black holes excist-that doesn't mean it's not true... And ALL religion is based on "faith" so why don't you go ask a religious person for "proof"?

Lol, we were thinking the same thing :P

Originally Posted by Saberine

Science in itself is the conclusion of many theories or many possibilities.

No. Science is a method for evaluating hypotheses against the evidence and determining which ideas/models work and which don't. On this basis, evolution is the best explanation we have for our origins and "higher energy" doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Supervixen

like i said-if you wanna say i'm ranting then use more than one sentence as your basis. I'm entitled to have an opinion
and how is me responding to a thread SOMEONE ELSE started me trying to control people? It's not, so stop trying to justify the fact that you just don't like what i said.
BTW as for you wanting prove-alot science is based on THEORY not proof, we only theorise that evolution happened and that black holes excist-that doesn't mean it's not true... And ALL religion is based on "faith" so why don't you go ask a religious person for "proof"?

All right, we won't call it a rant. Let's just say you expressed strong disapproval. You can have an opinion, but on a science sub-forum it should be a science opinion, not just a personal or political opinion.
You have already noted that controlling people does not always mean positive control, but could just be a constant pressure to behave a certain way. If you are expressing a strong opinion, i.e., disapproval of religion, then are you not applying a constant pressure to behave a certain way, i.e., not to believe in religion, or not to spread religion?

I am not asking a religious person for proof of anything, because we are not discussing the existence or non-existence of a God on a science sub-forum. If we were, then I would be asking them for evidence.

Let me add something,
Science in itself is the conclusion of many theories or many possibilites using conclusive evidence.
However, let me ask you,
Suppose evidence was gathered to prove higher energy? would you think it exists then? You are only saying it doesn't exist because it has not been found. Also, 'higher energy' is a theory, like any other, it just doesn't have conclusive evidence yet.
People did think the Earth was flat you know.

Originally Posted by Saberine

Let me add something,
Science in itself is the conclusion of many theories or many possibilites using conclusive evidence.

No it's the process for developing theories.

Suppose evidence was gathered to prove higher energy? would you think it exists then?

Of course.

Also, 'higher energy' is a theory, like any other, it just doesn't have conclusive evidence yet.

If it doesn't have conclusive evidence then it is not a theory. At best it is a hypothesis. However, as it doesn't have any evidence at all, it is not even a hypothesis. It is just speculation or fantasy.

People did think the Earth was flat you know.

Er, no they didn't.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

All right, we won't call it a rant. Let's just say you expressed strong disapproval. You can have an opinion, but on a science sub-forum it should be a science opinion, not just a personal or political opinion.

The name of this thread is "why do we waste our time with religion"...I ANSWERED that title-that title could really only be answered with an opinion! If you have a problem speak to the person who made the thread
and your avoiding the fact that apart from my opinion, I named some FACTS...OF COURSE OPINIONS HAVE A PLACE ON A SCIENCE FORUM, since no one has ever conducted a study about wht we bother with religion-then opinions are alot of what we have to work with- stop being petty