Religion? What for?

wynn said:
You're setting yourself up for a double bind, conflating two things: You swing from belief that God of Christianity exists (so your fear of the Christian idea of God is justified!), to the belief that there is no God whatsoever (so that you feel justified doing your own thing, not abiding by Christian doctrine).

IOW:
1. what you feel for real, is fear;
2. then you try to justify that fear, and you do so by taking for granted that the Christian idea of God is true;
3. then, considering some absurdities and atrocities of the Christian idea of God, you abandon that idea of God;
4. your fear nevertheless persists, it doesn't go away with your abandonment of the Christian idea of God (if your fear would truly be caused or strongly correlated with Christian notions of God, the fear would go away once you renounce those Christian notions);
5. back to step 2, and down in a vicious circle.

IOW, you need to find another justification or explanation for your fear, one that will not tie you into a vicious circle like that above.

You might actually feel afraid for very good reasons, and it might have nothing at all to do with Christians or God or other people, but primarily with the things that you yourself do or don't do.
Click to expand...

After consideration, I think it is the agnostic stance that is hanging me up. If I accept that there is no God, there is nothing to fear. I've never abandoned the idea of God as your are assuming. I just choose to not believe, just as I chose to believe once before. What that means is I need to have faith in my atheistic belief. The problem is, I am having a hard time completely renouncing the Christian idea of God. Is it because of the years of Catholic upbringing and tradition? I still remember my first communion, reconciliation, and vigils. They are part of me. I attended a Catholic private school through 4th grade. It is definitely a part of me.

Anyway, I've got some soul searching to do it seems. Thanks again.
 
jayleew said:
After consideration, I think it is the agnostic stance that is hanging me up. If I accept that there is no God, there is nothing to fear. I've never abandoned the idea of God as your are assuming. I just choose to not believe, just as I chose to believe once before. What that means is I need to have faith in my atheistic belief. The problem is, I am having a hard time completely renouncing the Christian idea of God. Is it because of the years of Catholic upbringing and tradition? I still remember my first communion, reconciliation, and vigils. They are part of me. I attended a Catholic private school through 4th grade. It is definitely a part of me.

Anyway, I've got some soul searching to do it seems. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

It appears that your dilema stems from ''religion''.
Each religion claiming that God is the object of each particular sect.

The idea of a ''Christian God''or a ''Islamic God'', is bogus. There is One God, and that One God is the Origin of everything.

It seems that while you reject the sectarien Gods, you have trouble rejecting ''God''. So a good place to start your ''soul searching'' would be to dismiss the sectarien ideas, and concentrate on any scripture that defines Who and What God is.

jan.
 
jayleew said:
After consideration, I think it is the agnostic stance that is hanging me up. If I accept that there is no God, there is nothing to fear. I've never abandoned the idea of God as your are assuming. I just choose to not believe, just as I chose to believe once before. What that means is I need to have faith in my atheistic belief. The problem is, I am having a hard time completely renouncing the Christian idea of God. Is it because of the years of Catholic upbringing and tradition? I still remember my first communion, reconciliation, and vigils. They are part of me. I attended a Catholic private school through 4th grade. It is definitely a part of me.

....
Click to expand...

It's conditioning. That's why "family values" as so important to Christians, it's very important to them that their children never think for themselves. They must internalize the cosmic policeman.
 
That's a very insulting generalisation of individuals.

Do you think you can conduct a discussion about Christians, Muslims, or others
without resorting to character assinations?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
That's a very insulting generalisation of individuals.

Do you think you can conduct a discussion about Christians, Muslims, or others
without resorting to character assinations?

jan.
Click to expand...
I think it's a valid criticism. Many of them don't even want to send their kids to a secular school, for fear that science will contradict their precious mythology. Or maybe that they don't pray (brainwash) the kids enough.
 
spidergoat said:
I think it's a valid criticism. Many of them don't even want to send their kids to a secular school, for fear that science will contradict their precious mythology. Or maybe that they don't pray (brainwash) the kids enough.
Click to expand...

My parents sent me to a Catholic high school, and were both pretty religious. They also pushed me to think for myself. The religion classes I took in high school were an eye-opener; I wasn't aware of the histories of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu etc.
 
billvon said:
My parents sent me to a Catholic high school, and were both pretty religious. They also pushed me to think for myself. The religion classes I took in high school were an eye-opener; I wasn't aware of the histories of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu etc.
Click to expand...
And you are still religious, so I guess it worked.
 
jayleew said:
Is it not? Can you explain why it isn't superfluous?
Click to expand...

Cicero believed the word religion came from the Latin "re-legere," which means to reread, or read over again. However, modern scholars would say that it is more likely to have come from the Lain "re-ligare," which means to reunite, or bind together again. It is believed that this etymology originated with Augustine.

Given the historical context of the word, it ought to be understood in light of God, or gods. That is to say, religion refers to a reunion between God (or the gods) and man.

Theistic opponents of religion argue that religion is a means of oppression, and that the word itself means "to bring back into bondage." However, this is an interpretation of the word in light of a more recent historical context, and does not reflect an accurate etymology. Indeed, such opponents of religion argue for exactly what the word implies, a return to a relationship with God.

Ligare implies that the relationship is a binding one. This is where the idea of bondage comes in. However, given the history of marriage and contractual relationships, bondage doesn't necessarily have to be the only idea of a binding relationship. Every marriage is a legally binding union. The Covenant that God makes with His people in the Torah is a binding relationship. It implies that there are obligations to be met by both parties. A binding relationship may be a loving one.

The atheist will argue that there is no God, and therefore religion is a man-made construct. Thus, it is superfluous. However, supposing the atheistic position is wrong, and further supposing that there exists some disconnect between God and man, then there must be some context in which there can be a reunification between the two. Religion is that context, for that is what the word means.

Debating which religious framework (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc), if any, is good for such reunion is beside the point. Religion, as the word originally means, is exactly necessary if man is to have a relationship with God.

This of course rests on the two presuppositions I mentioned, along with a third. First, that there is a God(s). Second, that God desires or intends a relationship with man. Third, that there is some disconnect that exists between God and man.
 
Jan Ardena said:
That's a very insulting generalisation of individuals.

Do you think you can conduct a discussion about Christians, Muslims, or others
without resorting to character assinations?

jan.
Click to expand...

Uncomfortable truth is uncomfortable.

Seriously, stop trolling.
 
billvon said:
My parents sent me to a Catholic high school, and were both pretty religious. They also pushed me to think for myself. The religion classes I took in high school were an eye-opener; I wasn't aware of the histories of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu etc.
Click to expand...



How lucky you were you had good parents , they wanted the best for you by exposing you to Godliness, otherwise you would be a pagan atheist.
 
arauca said:
How lucky you were you had good parents , they wanted the best for you by exposing you to Godliness, otherwise you would be a pagan atheist.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure you'd consider me a pagan atheist. Most religious types do. Atheists consider me a clueless brainwashed religious type so I seem to be equally rejected by both sides.
 
IfIonlyhadabrain said:
Cicero believed the word religion came from the Latin "re-legere," which means to reread, or read over again. However, modern scholars would say that it is more likely to have come from the Lain "re-ligare," which means to reunite, or bind together again. It is believed that this etymology originated with Augustine.

Given the historical context of the word, it ought to be understood in light of God, or gods. That is to say, religion refers to a reunion between God (or the gods) and man.

Theistic opponents of religion argue that religion is a means of oppression, and that the word itself means "to bring back into bondage." However, this is an interpretation of the word in light of a more recent historical context, and does not reflect an accurate etymology. Indeed, such opponents of religion argue for exactly what the word implies, a return to a relationship with God.

Ligare implies that the relationship is a binding one. This is where the idea of bondage comes in. However, given the history of marriage and contractual relationships, bondage doesn't necessarily have to be the only idea of a binding relationship. Every marriage is a legally binding union. The Covenant that God makes with His people in the Torah is a binding relationship. It implies that there are obligations to be met by both parties. A binding relationship may be a loving one.

The atheist will argue that there is no God, and therefore religion is a man-made construct. Thus, it is superfluous. However, supposing the atheistic position is wrong, and further supposing that there exists some disconnect between God and man, then there must be some context in which there can be a reunification between the two. Religion is that context, for that is what the word means.

Debating which religious framework (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc), if any, is good for such reunion is beside the point. Religion, as the word originally means, is exactly necessary if man is to have a relationship with God.

This of course rests on the two presuppositions I mentioned, along with a third. First, that there is a God(s). Second, that God desires or intends a relationship with man. Third, that there is some disconnect that exists between God and man.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, I reject the second presupposition you have made. There is no longer any indication that God desires or intends a relationship with man. The stories is all we have to get us by for thousands of years. Any indication in this realm is non-existent. This is why religion is superfluous, regardless of if the first or third presuppositions.

If there is an indication (or sign), what observable indication do we have? How long do we wait until we call a spade a spade? 400 millenium of silence? At that point, what does it matter to our generation? Who is to say that God did not abandon mankind? He has done so plenty of times in the past. If the stories are believed, mankind was rebooted at least once and left to times of silence (or abandonment) 400 years at a time at least twice. He desired to restart mankind twice as well: once with Noah and again with Moses.

Now we have about 2000 years of silence. How do we know for sure that God has not abandoned us as he abandoned Christ on the cross and the Israelite in Egypt? Surely, we cannot accept the word of a man because mankind is fallible.

Religion is superfluous, even some theists agree.
 
jayleew said:
I see. Well, I reject the second presupposition you have made. There is no longer any indication that God desires or intends a relationship with man. The stories is all we have to get us by for thousands of years. Any indication in this realm is non-existent. This is why religion is superfluous, regardless of if the first or third presuppositions.
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely true. It just depends on what evidence you accept. On the one hand, you have a set of people who say they have had no experience of God in any way. On the other hand, you have a set of people who say they have had anywhere from mild to deep personal experience of God. Ignoring the present population, since it is pretty fairly divided, the set of people extending into known history that belong to the second exceeds the set that belong to the first by a wide margin. You can apply current psychological data to the past, but that's speculative, and may not be accurate, because the sets that exist today don't correspond equally to the sets that existed in the past.

If the only evidence you accept is scientific in nature, then yes, the hidden Divine appears to be gone. However, if you accept testimony, evidence that is personal in nature, and everyone does this on a daily basis about entirely mundane, and even generally important things, then the hidden Divine is just that, hidden, but not gone.

jayleew said:
How do we know for sure that God has not abandoned us as he abandoned Christ on the cross and the Israelite in Egypt?
Click to expand...

Just a quick note. When Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" He wasn't actually expressing despair, or even actually indicating that God had abandoned Him. Rather, Jesus was quoting a scripture prayer, Psalm 22. It is a prayer of hope, not a prayer of despair, and what Jesus is recorded to have said (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani), is merely the opening verse of the prayer.
 
Balerion said:
I'm plenty chill. Just telling you to cut the crap.
Click to expand...

SP spouts... ''family values'' are important to Christians, the object of which is to ensure that their ''CHILDREN NEVER THINK FOR THEMSELVES''.
Then has the gaul to say that he thinks it is a ''VALID'' critisism (despite the confession of one who was raised as a Christian to the contrary?

And then you tell me to stop trolling, and accuse me of talking crap because I call him out on it?

Please ''validate'' his claim, or apologise for your remarks.

He's already been shown to be wrong by one person in this thread.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
The idea of a ''Christian God''or a ''Islamic God'', is bogus. There is One God, and that One God is the Origin of everything.

It seems that while you reject the sectarien Gods, you have trouble rejecting ''God''. So a good place to start your ''soul searching'' would be to dismiss the sectarien ideas, and concentrate on any scripture that defines Who and What God is.
Click to expand...

That is still sectarian.

Concentrating on any particular scripture of any particular tradition is sectarianism.


The mistake you are making is that you are arguing that it is possible to use an inferior system of knowledge and values (ie. one's own mind) to adequately ascertain what system of knowledge and values is superior.

Much like having a preschooler decide whether the solution to a complex math problem as proposed by an academic is correct or not. It's absurd.
 
jayleew said:
Religion is superfluous
Click to expand...

No. What is superflous is about 98% of the discourse about it.

IOW, it's the way people usually talk about religion that goes nowhere and just causes bad blood, a lot of suffering for all involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top