I'm not particularly religious or blindly accepting of our religious institutions, but I'm not going to make rash over-generalizations either. Your attitude is equally as cynical as mine, but removes people's accountability by blaming the institutions they create or join. Let's make the people accountable for their actions.
Further, your declaration that religion does not invlove groups or communities is fundamentally incorrect. I don't know where to even start refuting that claim. Take a look around, read some texts. Community is fundamental to religion, worship, belief. You know in the Catholic churches, the Eucharist is the one and only reason to even be Catholic, to show your belief in God, Jesus and allthat stuff. Everything else, the sermons, the weddings, the baptisms, the tiaras, bingo, is all icing on the cake. The Eucharist is belief.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
!!!!! chuckle!
but...sheeeesh...if you read my post, I stated that religions are peoples' creations. Forget all the 'holy', 'paranormal', 'miraculous' 'god references' baggage; those are merely tools for deception. Ask any competent magician; they are well versed in the art of distracting people. But perhaps I omitted that religions are maintained by people as well....and usually for purposes of material gain than enlightenment. Genuine spirituality requires no organization, just a private one-on-one communication between a human being and its "creator" (for those who acknowledge a "creator"). A "menage-a-millions" is/was not the intent of bona-fide spiritual teachers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BS SJO. Christ himself established the Church starting with Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
The Gree word for Church is ekklesia and refers to a meeting of a people called out and summoned together. The church also is described as the body of Christ. And in this way there can be no Church without a union of the members with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 you get a vivid picture of the intention that the Church be a larger group and not one person only.
12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by [3] one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?
18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.
19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"
22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,
24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues [4] ? Do all interpret?
31 But eagerly desire [5] the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.
A lot there to say basically, you are all a part of a larger whole. "Menage-a-millions" was the intent as far as I can see. Unless you have other texts you can use to refute my position other than your personal opinions on religion.
Also I am not saying that the only spiritual activity that can occur is in a group setting, but to totally discount it is completley wrong. You should have a personal relationship with Christ, and you should have a Church family as well. They are linked for your spiritual growth and edification.
[quote]Further, your declaration that religion does not invlove groups or communities is fundamentally incorrect. I don't know where to even start refuting that claim. Take a look around, read some texts. Community is fundamental to religion,
worship, belief. You know in the Catholic churches, the Eucharist is the one and only reason to even be Catholic, to show your belief in God, Jesus and allthat stuff. Everything else, the sermons, the weddings, the baptisms, the tiaras, bingo, is
all icing on the cake. The Eucharist is belief.<hr></blockquote>
Buon Rotto, if you took the time to actually read my post, I said that "the best things to come out of organized religion are the festivals, the community events and *some* of the music". Talk about getting misquoted and misrepresenting a statement. Or can't you read?
"the best things to come out of organized religion are the festivals, the community events and *some* of the music"
I took this as a swipe at religion, that its communal good was trite and irrelevant. That's the tone it took. However, these lines seemed more pertinent:
"Genuine spirituality requires no organization, just a private one-on-one communication between a human being and its "creator"
"Jesus Christ himself advocated individual private spirituality over mass and visible piety:
Matthew 6:1-9 inclusive"
Am I still missing your point or do you think your own words try to discredit community in religion? Regardless, that sentiment is wrong. Not to mention that community is irrelevant to God or spirituality. Wrong again. And blaming religion for the woes of the world absolves those people who are accountalbe for their actions. This is also wrong.
I have no gripes with the original teachings of any genuine spiritual master (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses to name the four biggies in alphabetical order). I understand that these people, and their ilk were all having a go at making the world a better place for everyone by promoting greater understanding of each other and each person's place in the universe. They essentially are talking the same language, albeit with differing dialects. An (oversimplified) analogy would be the spokes of a bicycle wheel (faiths) all centering in the hub (God). All belief systems gather strength in community and people and the associated rituals and customs can bring people together.
However, I *do* have gripes with those who use the teachings for other than spiritual purposes, namely material gain, and control of mass thought for political/ideological ends. Because human beings are fragile and aware creatures and need reassurance and comfort regarding issues which frighten and unnerve, specially matters of mortality and the great unknowns such as 'life-after-death' etc., it is so easy for charismatic people and their affiliated organizations to use mass religion for coercion, manipulation and control, using fear as the prime mover. Nobody can say this doesn't happen: All big religion abuses this power routinely, and use selective, most convenient to their philosophy, often out-of-context extracts from their holy scriptures to put out their message, which becomes distorted and unreprestentative. Fundamentalists of all brands are the most flagrant in distorting the origins of their espective belief systems. So rather than becoming a powerful vehicle for genuine human enlightenment, it is the potential profit or control motive from selling quasi-spiritual soundbites to a captive (often gullible) audience which wins out. Nobody can tell me that the Roman Catholic Church became the world's wealthiest organization by simply teaching love and self-realization!! The whole 'big business' orientation of mass-religion is completely at odds with the teachings of their originators.
Religion potentially is an effective way of bringing people together, as well as tearing people apart. It happens both ways. But all too often it is serving as a middle-man getting between a human and her/his personal relationship with God, siphoning material wealth in return for unguaranteed and unprovable promises.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
[QB]I have no gripes with the original teachings of any genuine spiritual master (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, to name the four biggies in alphabetical order).<hr></blockquote>
Four eh? And some people have a hard time understanding the trinity concept. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
No time for a full response, but It seems you feel my post was of no consequence as you ignored it completely. Oh well.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
I have no gripes with the original teachings of any genuine spiritual master (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses to name the four biggies in alphabetical order). I understand that these people, and their ilk were all having a go at making the world a better place for everyone by promoting greater understanding of each other and each person's place in the universe. They essentially are talking the same language, albeit with differing dialects. An (oversimplified) analogy would be the spokes of a bicycle wheel (faiths) all centering in the hub (God). All belief systems gather strength in community and people and the associated rituals and customs can bring people together.<hr></blockquote>
You have no problem with them and yet you use the word ilk to lump them. Hmmm. I realize that the work only means of a certain type, but the connotation of the word is negative. Maybe a nitpick, but it really stood out to me so I thought I would share it as I see it.
Next you go on to say how they are basically all the same, just with a different bent. All spokes on the same wheel with God in the middle. However, Mohammad did not believe or teach that Jesus was the son of God, and Jesus did. Moses actually spoke with God (burning bush and other times), and what I know about Buddha you can put in a thimble and rattle around. Wasn't Buddha on about reincarnation?
[quote]However, I *do* have gripes with those who use the teachings for other than spiritual purposes, namely material gain, and control of mass thought for political/ideological ends. Because human beings are fragile and aware creatures and need reassurance and comfort regarding issues which frighten and unnerve, specially matters of mortality and the great unknowns such as 'life-after-death' etc.<hr></blockquote>
I agree, I dislike this as well.
[quote]it is so easy for charismatic people and their affiliated organizations to use mass religion for coercion, manipulation and control, using fear as the prime mover. Nobody can say this doesn't happen: All big religion abuses this power routinely, and use selective, most convenient to their philosophy, often out-of-context extracts from their holy scriptures to put out their message, which becomes distorted and unreprestentative. <hr></blockquote>
And now you are getting into over-generalizations and over-simplification. You can find examples of this in all religions, where people were using it for their own means and as a power grab. There is no denying that. However, it is not the foundation of many of the churches. I will give you that many of the televangelists over the years have a less than stellar track record. In fact, I would say their record has been horrible. And being that they are in the limelight it reflects badly on what they represent.
[quote]Fundamentalists of all brands are the most flagrant in distorting the origins of their espective belief systems. So rather than becoming a powerful vehicle for genuine human enlightenment, it is the potential profit or control motive from selling quasi-spiritual soundbites to a captive (often gullible) audience which wins out.<hr></blockquote>
I guess you could say I am a fundamentalist in the strict sense of the word. So does this apply to me as well? Do you see me as "distorting the origins of [my] belief system" and using it for "potential profit or control motive [for] selling quasi-spiritual sound bites"? Or are you still speaking of just the larger organizations such as televangelists and such? Does tithing bother you a lot. This next post seems to bring us there.
[quote]Nobody can tell me that the Roman Catholic Church became the world's wealthiest organization by simply teaching love and self-realization!! The whole 'big business' orientation of mass-religion is completely at odds with the teachings of their originators.<hr></blockquote>
In this i have a few reasons I both agree and disagree with you. And I will likely tick off quite a few catholics when I respond. First of all, there is nothing wrong with tithing. I even see it as something that builds character. A person should tithe to their home church, that money can be used to pay for outreach, mission work, and general neighborhood programs. (My church works with food banks and such on major holidays to help low income families have more than Mac and cheese on the table for instance. we're a very small congregation though and cannot afford a lot more.)
On the bad side of things. Indulgence. Indulgence is when someone commits a crime and he pays the church in order to be forgiven and then die and go to heaven rather than go to purgatory or hell. The catholic church even allows for living men and women to buy an indulgence for someone who had died and was believed to be in purgatory. This could allow the dead person in purgatory to go to heaven. There is no scriptural backing for this that I can find, it seems to stem from the want for money more than anything. So there is one instance where I agree with you SJO.
[quote]Religion potentially is an effective way of bringing people together, as well as tearing people apart. It happens both ways. But all too often it is serving as a middle-man getting between a human and her/his personal relationship with God, siphoning material wealth in return for unguaranteed and unprovable promises.<hr></blockquote>
This can be said of many things though, not just religion. Organized religion can be very good or very bad. What stops the very bad is study by those that follow them and the "testing of the spirits". Read your bible, know the truth, and you will not fall for the con men and the thieves out there. In fact, for those that preach the bible for their own gain and lead people wrong Jesus spoke to them directly:
Matthew 18
5Â*Â*Â*"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.
6Â*Â*Â*But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7Â*Â*Â*"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! NIV
Some translations speak of leading them astray. Basically, if you teach it wrong and cause them to get it wrong, you are responsible in God's eyes and it will be very bad for you.
It turns out from empirical research that humans are controlled by a mass of neurons.
Period.
We do not know anything more. Let the debate end there.
As for the cruelty religion has inflicted upon its beleivers (or the religious have inflicted upon people of conflicting beleif), the issue should be tackled with the issue of human rights (or common decency?), not whether it is true or not.
Let my statement stand alone. I am not arguing with anyone.
I am personally agnostic and think that humans have evolved spirituality through the need to come to a conclusion. From Psychology we've learned humans do not unnecessarily stress their cognitive abilities when a solution is required.
(Thus when lightening would strike, our ancestors would simply say "God is mad" since we had no other explanation.)
It turns out from empirical research that humans are controlled by a mass of neurons.
Period.<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. Big suprise there.
[quote]We do not know anything more. Let the debate end there.<hr></blockquote>
Since it cannot be explained in terms that you want to believe or understand then I suppose it should end there for you. For you to concede anything more would mean that you would have to be at least partially wrong in your views, just like for me to concede any of your points would mean that I would have to be wrong. I am secure in my view that we are more than just controlled by neutrons, and empirical evidence can never be as empirical as you would like to believe. There are some things God never meant for us to find out or understand.
[quote]As for the cruelty religion has inflicted upon its beleivers (or the religious have inflicted upon people of conflicting beleif), the issue should be tackled with the issue of human rights (or common decency?), not whether it is true or not.<hr></blockquote>
That is if you are approaching it from a viewpoint that cruelty is a give when it comes to religion. There are some religions that are cruel, and sometimes you can find cruelty in any religion due to the fact that we are human and none are perfect. But when it comes to religion you can never ignore the truth of the issue. Without truth there is nothing to a religion but words and emptiness.
[quote]Let my statement stand alone. I am not arguing with anyone.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe not in your mind, but your words say different.
[quote]I am personally agnostic and think that humans have evolved spirituality through the need to come to a conclusion. From Psychology we've learned humans do not unnecessarily stress their cognitive abilities when a solution is required.
(Thus when lightening would strike, our ancestors would simply say "God is mad" since we had no other explanation.)<hr></blockquote>
So what made us "stress our cognitive abilities later on"? Why was it necessary? Why is it necessary? Sure, we now know that lightening is caused by static charges and that it comes from the ground up and not the other way around, but why would we unnecesarily try to figure that out? There is more to this issue than one sentance about psychology can explain.
Comments
I'm not particularly religious or blindly accepting of our religious institutions, but I'm not going to make rash over-generalizations either. Your attitude is equally as cynical as mine, but removes people's accountability by blaming the institutions they create or join. Let's make the people accountable for their actions.
Further, your declaration that religion does not invlove groups or communities is fundamentally incorrect. I don't know where to even start refuting that claim. Take a look around, read some texts. Community is fundamental to religion, worship, belief. You know in the Catholic churches, the Eucharist is the one and only reason to even be Catholic, to show your belief in God, Jesus and allthat stuff. Everything else, the sermons, the weddings, the baptisms, the tiaras, bingo, is all icing on the cake. The Eucharist is belief.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
!!!!! chuckle!
but...sheeeesh...if you read my post, I stated that religions are peoples' creations. Forget all the 'holy', 'paranormal', 'miraculous' 'god references' baggage; those are merely tools for deception. Ask any competent magician; they are well versed in the art of distracting people. But perhaps I omitted that religions are maintained by people as well....and usually for purposes of material gain than enlightenment. Genuine spirituality requires no organization, just a private one-on-one communication between a human being and its "creator" (for those who acknowledge a "creator"). A "menage-a-millions" is/was not the intent of bona-fide spiritual teachers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BS SJO. Christ himself established the Church starting with Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
The Gree word for Church is ekklesia and refers to a meeting of a people called out and summoned together. The church also is described as the body of Christ. And in this way there can be no Church without a union of the members with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 you get a vivid picture of the intention that the Church be a larger group and not one person only.
12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by [3] one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?
18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.
19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"
22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,
24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues [4] ? Do all interpret?
31 But eagerly desire [5] the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.
A lot there to say basically, you are all a part of a larger whole. "Menage-a-millions" was the intent as far as I can see. Unless you have other texts you can use to refute my position other than your personal opinions on religion.
Also I am not saying that the only spiritual activity that can occur is in a group setting, but to totally discount it is completley wrong. You should have a personal relationship with Christ, and you should have a Church family as well. They are linked for your spiritual growth and edification.
worship, belief. You know in the Catholic churches, the Eucharist is the one and only reason to even be Catholic, to show your belief in God, Jesus and allthat stuff. Everything else, the sermons, the weddings, the baptisms, the tiaras, bingo, is
all icing on the cake. The Eucharist is belief.<hr></blockquote>
Buon Rotto, if you took the time to actually read my post, I said that "the best things to come out of organized religion are the festivals, the community events and *some* of the music". Talk about getting misquoted and misrepresenting a statement. Or can't you read?
I took this as a swipe at religion, that its communal good was trite and irrelevant. That's the tone it took. However, these lines seemed more pertinent:
"Genuine spirituality requires no organization, just a private one-on-one communication between a human being and its "creator"
"Jesus Christ himself advocated individual private spirituality over mass and visible piety:
Matthew 6:1-9 inclusive"
Am I still missing your point or do you think your own words try to discredit community in religion? Regardless, that sentiment is wrong. Not to mention that community is irrelevant to God or spirituality. Wrong again. And blaming religion for the woes of the world absolves those people who are accountalbe for their actions. This is also wrong.
[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
However, I *do* have gripes with those who use the teachings for other than spiritual purposes, namely material gain, and control of mass thought for political/ideological ends. Because human beings are fragile and aware creatures and need reassurance and comfort regarding issues which frighten and unnerve, specially matters of mortality and the great unknowns such as 'life-after-death' etc., it is so easy for charismatic people and their affiliated organizations to use mass religion for coercion, manipulation and control, using fear as the prime mover. Nobody can say this doesn't happen: All big religion abuses this power routinely, and use selective, most convenient to their philosophy, often out-of-context extracts from their holy scriptures to put out their message, which becomes distorted and unreprestentative. Fundamentalists of all brands are the most flagrant in distorting the origins of their espective belief systems. So rather than becoming a powerful vehicle for genuine human enlightenment, it is the potential profit or control motive from selling quasi-spiritual soundbites to a captive (often gullible) audience which wins out. Nobody can tell me that the Roman Catholic Church became the world's wealthiest organization by simply teaching love and self-realization!! The whole 'big business' orientation of mass-religion is completely at odds with the teachings of their originators.
Religion potentially is an effective way of bringing people together, as well as tearing people apart. It happens both ways. But all too often it is serving as a middle-man getting between a human and her/his personal relationship with God, siphoning material wealth in return for unguaranteed and unprovable promises.
<a href="http://www.jerryfalwell.com"; target="_blank">http://www.jerryfalwell.com</a>;
[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
[QB]I have no gripes with the original teachings of any genuine spiritual master (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, to name the four biggies in alphabetical order).<hr></blockquote>
Four eh?
No time for a full response, but It seems you feel my post was of no consequence as you ignored it completely. Oh well.
Not at all: your post deserves more than a quickly hacked out response. Haven't had the time today to get into that.
I have no gripes with the original teachings of any genuine spiritual master (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses to name the four biggies in alphabetical order). I understand that these people, and their ilk were all having a go at making the world a better place for everyone by promoting greater understanding of each other and each person's place in the universe. They essentially are talking the same language, albeit with differing dialects. An (oversimplified) analogy would be the spokes of a bicycle wheel (faiths) all centering in the hub (God). All belief systems gather strength in community and people and the associated rituals and customs can bring people together.<hr></blockquote>
You have no problem with them and yet you use the word ilk to lump them. Hmmm. I realize that the work only means of a certain type, but the connotation of the word is negative. Maybe a nitpick, but it really stood out to me so I thought I would share it as I see it.
Next you go on to say how they are basically all the same, just with a different bent. All spokes on the same wheel with God in the middle. However, Mohammad did not believe or teach that Jesus was the son of God, and Jesus did. Moses actually spoke with God (burning bush and other times), and what I know about Buddha you can put in a thimble and rattle around. Wasn't Buddha on about reincarnation?
[quote]However, I *do* have gripes with those who use the teachings for other than spiritual purposes, namely material gain, and control of mass thought for political/ideological ends. Because human beings are fragile and aware creatures and need reassurance and comfort regarding issues which frighten and unnerve, specially matters of mortality and the great unknowns such as 'life-after-death' etc.<hr></blockquote>
I agree, I dislike this as well.
[quote]it is so easy for charismatic people and their affiliated organizations to use mass religion for coercion, manipulation and control, using fear as the prime mover. Nobody can say this doesn't happen: All big religion abuses this power routinely, and use selective, most convenient to their philosophy, often out-of-context extracts from their holy scriptures to put out their message, which becomes distorted and unreprestentative. <hr></blockquote>
And now you are getting into over-generalizations and over-simplification. You can find examples of this in all religions, where people were using it for their own means and as a power grab. There is no denying that. However, it is not the foundation of many of the churches. I will give you that many of the televangelists over the years have a less than stellar track record. In fact, I would say their record has been horrible. And being that they are in the limelight it reflects badly on what they represent.
[quote]Fundamentalists of all brands are the most flagrant in distorting the origins of their espective belief systems. So rather than becoming a powerful vehicle for genuine human enlightenment, it is the potential profit or control motive from selling quasi-spiritual soundbites to a captive (often gullible) audience which wins out.<hr></blockquote>
I guess you could say I am a fundamentalist in the strict sense of the word. So does this apply to me as well? Do you see me as "distorting the origins of [my] belief system" and using it for "potential profit or control motive [for] selling quasi-spiritual sound bites"? Or are you still speaking of just the larger organizations such as televangelists and such? Does tithing bother you a lot. This next post seems to bring us there.
[quote]Nobody can tell me that the Roman Catholic Church became the world's wealthiest organization by simply teaching love and self-realization!! The whole 'big business' orientation of mass-religion is completely at odds with the teachings of their originators.<hr></blockquote>
In this i have a few reasons I both agree and disagree with you. And I will likely tick off quite a few catholics when I respond. First of all, there is nothing wrong with tithing. I even see it as something that builds character. A person should tithe to their home church, that money can be used to pay for outreach, mission work, and general neighborhood programs. (My church works with food banks and such on major holidays to help low income families have more than Mac and cheese on the table for instance. we're a very small congregation though and cannot afford a lot more.)
On the bad side of things. Indulgence. Indulgence is when someone commits a crime and he pays the church in order to be forgiven and then die and go to heaven rather than go to purgatory or hell. The catholic church even allows for living men and women to buy an indulgence for someone who had died and was believed to be in purgatory. This could allow the dead person in purgatory to go to heaven. There is no scriptural backing for this that I can find, it seems to stem from the want for money more than anything. So there is one instance where I agree with you SJO.
[quote]Religion potentially is an effective way of bringing people together, as well as tearing people apart. It happens both ways. But all too often it is serving as a middle-man getting between a human and her/his personal relationship with God, siphoning material wealth in return for unguaranteed and unprovable promises.<hr></blockquote>
This can be said of many things though, not just religion. Organized religion can be very good or very bad. What stops the very bad is study by those that follow them and the "testing of the spirits". Read your bible, know the truth, and you will not fall for the con men and the thieves out there. In fact, for those that preach the bible for their own gain and lead people wrong Jesus spoke to them directly:
Matthew 18
5Â*Â*Â*"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.
6Â*Â*Â*But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7Â*Â*Â*"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! NIV
Some translations speak of leading them astray. Basically, if you teach it wrong and cause them to get it wrong, you are responsible in God's eyes and it will be very bad for you.
<strong>Noah....I now have 2 posts to answer!....ouch!
You must be working up quite a response for the amount of time it has taken you.
Period.
We do not know anything more. Let the debate end there.
As for the cruelty religion has inflicted upon its beleivers (or the religious have inflicted upon people of conflicting beleif), the issue should be tackled with the issue of human rights (or common decency?), not whether it is true or not.
Let my statement stand alone. I am not arguing with anyone.
I am personally agnostic and think that humans have evolved spirituality through the need to come to a conclusion. From Psychology we've learned humans do not unnecessarily stress their cognitive abilities when a solution is required.
(Thus when lightening would strike, our ancestors would simply say "God is mad" since we had no other explanation.)
It turns out from empirical research that humans are controlled by a mass of neurons.
Period.<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. Big suprise there.
[quote]We do not know anything more. Let the debate end there.<hr></blockquote>
Since it cannot be explained in terms that you want to believe or understand then I suppose it should end there for you. For you to concede anything more would mean that you would have to be at least partially wrong in your views, just like for me to concede any of your points would mean that I would have to be wrong. I am secure in my view that we are more than just controlled by neutrons, and empirical evidence can never be as empirical as you would like to believe. There are some things God never meant for us to find out or understand.
[quote]As for the cruelty religion has inflicted upon its beleivers (or the religious have inflicted upon people of conflicting beleif), the issue should be tackled with the issue of human rights (or common decency?), not whether it is true or not.<hr></blockquote>
That is if you are approaching it from a viewpoint that cruelty is a give when it comes to religion. There are some religions that are cruel, and sometimes you can find cruelty in any religion due to the fact that we are human and none are perfect. But when it comes to religion you can never ignore the truth of the issue. Without truth there is nothing to a religion but words and emptiness.
[quote]Let my statement stand alone. I am not arguing with anyone.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe not in your mind, but your words say different.
[quote]I am personally agnostic and think that humans have evolved spirituality through the need to come to a conclusion. From Psychology we've learned humans do not unnecessarily stress their cognitive abilities when a solution is required.
(Thus when lightening would strike, our ancestors would simply say "God is mad" since we had no other explanation.)<hr></blockquote>
So what made us "stress our cognitive abilities later on"? Why was it necessary? Why is it necessary? Sure, we now know that lightening is caused by static charges and that it comes from the ground up and not the other way around, but why would we unnecesarily try to figure that out? There is more to this issue than one sentance about psychology can explain.