Is religion necessary in our life?
Moderator: Moderators
Is religion necessary in our life?
Post #1Imagine if there is no religion, as John Lennon sings. People have been divided by geographical borders, languages, color of the skin, political ideologies, etc. I know for some, faith gives them hope and peace but do you agree that this world will be more peaceful if there is no religion? There will be one less big reason for people to fight and worse, to kill each other.
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #2
Ah, but Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship with God... (or at least your own conscience). 
Post #3
I'd say Once convinced is on the right track, regardless of whether or not he believes the words he's typing.
I would define religion as our fundamental outlook on life. Even people who claim to have no religion do reveal their religion by what they say and do. Do they say that we should follow our conscience, or do they preach a different doctrine.
I would agree that church doctrine should be done away with.
I would say Christianity is a religion, and church doctrine is a pseudo-religion, or a false religion.
I would define religion as our fundamental outlook on life. Even people who claim to have no religion do reveal their religion by what they say and do. Do they say that we should follow our conscience, or do they preach a different doctrine.
I would agree that church doctrine should be done away with.
I would say Christianity is a religion, and church doctrine is a pseudo-religion, or a false religion.
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #4
He he. Personally I think that Christianity is as religious as every other religion due to the many religious rituals that are practised. But I guess that's a seperate debate.
Post #5
And the answer to the original question is . . . .
In many forms we fill out which contain statistical questions regarding sex, marital status, nationality, religion, etc., I am curious what these two people above will put on the religion category based on their explanation. Here is an analogy - while most will just say number 2, the people above may say it is the square root of the quotient of 1,000,000 divided by 250,000.
In many forms we fill out which contain statistical questions regarding sex, marital status, nationality, religion, etc., I am curious what these two people above will put on the religion category based on their explanation. Here is an analogy - while most will just say number 2, the people above may say it is the square root of the quotient of 1,000,000 divided by 250,000.
Post #6
I think you've got once convinced wrong, he was being sarcastic.
And I stated that I consider Christianity a religion, so if I were to fill out the "forms which contain statistical questions" I might fill in the Christianity bubble, but then again, why would I if I knew that they would think I was talking about church Christianity which I regard as false Christianity?
And that's the point.
Someone who fills in the Hindu bubble may be more of a true Christian than the professing church Christian, so a questionaire about such things is next to meaningless.
Should we just do what we're told, fill out the questionaire like they want us to, with their narrow, unjust, and misleading definitions, or are we to have some dignity? In the realm of religion, there can be no statistical data worth anything. The devil would claim to be a deeply religious person, and an angel would be more humble and modest. If you fill out anything of the sort, I think you're wasting you time.
The short answer to your question is, yes as you and John Lennon define the word religion, the world would be a better place without it, because you have defined it as something "bad". But I think this is an unsatisfactory definition.
And I stated that I consider Christianity a religion, so if I were to fill out the "forms which contain statistical questions" I might fill in the Christianity bubble, but then again, why would I if I knew that they would think I was talking about church Christianity which I regard as false Christianity?
And that's the point.
Someone who fills in the Hindu bubble may be more of a true Christian than the professing church Christian, so a questionaire about such things is next to meaningless.
Should we just do what we're told, fill out the questionaire like they want us to, with their narrow, unjust, and misleading definitions, or are we to have some dignity? In the realm of religion, there can be no statistical data worth anything. The devil would claim to be a deeply religious person, and an angel would be more humble and modest. If you fill out anything of the sort, I think you're wasting you time.
The short answer to your question is, yes as you and John Lennon define the word religion, the world would be a better place without it, because you have defined it as something "bad". But I think this is an unsatisfactory definition.
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #7
Two years ago, I would have put number 2 (Christian). Now I would put in whatever number represents "none".anu wrote:And the answer to the original question is . . . .
In many forms we fill out which contain statistical questions regarding sex, marital status, nationality, religion, etc., I am curious what these two people above will put on the religion category based on their explanation. Here is an analogy - while most will just say number 2, the people above may say it is the square root of the quotient of 1,000,000 divided by 250,000.
Post #8
Mark_W wrote:I think you've got once convinced wrong, he was being sarcastic.
And I stated that I consider Christianity a religion, so if I were to fill out the "forms which contain statistical questions" I might fill in the Christianity bubble, but then again, why would I if I knew that they would think I was talking about church Christianity which I regard as false Christianity?
And that's the point.
Someone who fills in the Hindu bubble may be more of a true Christian than the professing church Christian, so a questionaire about such things is next to meaningless.
Should we just do what we're told, fill out the questionaire like they want us to, with their narrow, unjust, and misleading definitions, or are we to have some dignity? In the realm of religion, there can be no statistical data worth anything. The devil would claim to be a deeply religious person, and an angel would be more humble and modest. If you fill out anything of the sort, I think you're wasting you time.
The short answer to your question is, yes as you and John Lennon define the word religion, the world would be a better place without it, because you have defined it as something "bad". But I think this is an unsatisfactory definition.
It's good to know that John and I have the same definition of religion. Like those people who format the questionnaires. So, instead of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, etc. or NONE, you will write on the form some paragraphs of your concept of religion.
By the way, that tool for digging, having an iron blade adapted for pressing into the ground with the foot and a long handle commonly with a grip or crosspiece at the top, and with the blade usually narrower and flatter than that of a shovel. John and I called that a "SPADE" and we do not refer to the playing card anymore.
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #9
Religion has played a vital role in the development of humanity. Religion is, from a social perspective, generally a set of baseless, unprovable rules about how people should behave. The consequences are dire, but unverifiable. The reasons for the rules and their source are unverifiable. That makes them immune from the forces of reason. They are a constant in the face of social and technological change. And, for the most part, they've worked to compel people to work in the best interest of society. So, I think it's unlikely that we'd have arrived at the level of social structure that we have without it.
That being said, religion has worked well in isolated societies. When religion is unchallenged it is a source of social cohesion. However when religions collide the fact that they are baseless and unprovable means that the conflict that arises from differences in religion does not get resolved until one or the other is destroyed. To this point in history societies have been mostly isolated. It hasn't been easy for people and ideas to get very far from home. In the Middle East, however, religions have been colliding for centuries. Now with the advent of instant global communications and routine global travel and migration in the last roughly 50 years ideas and people are moving around much more, and the religious conflict is spreading.
So while religion has, I contend, played a vital role in social evolution, I think there is need for some new thinking regarding religion. At least on the higher social scale.
From a personal perspective, religion is a form of spirituality. It's the answer to many people's need for understanding their existence and their mortality. That need, I contend, is extremely widespread, if not universal. So until there is a widely accepted notion of spirituality that does not involve religion I'd say religion is necessary.
Now, if you haven't gathered it from all of that, I believe all religion to be false. Not wrong, a position on a value judgment, but false. I believe that Jesus did not rise from dead, walk on water, heal anyone, or any of that. It's all myth. Same for any other gods. But religion is real, and it's been valuable on a macro scale, and on a personal level.
That being said, religion has worked well in isolated societies. When religion is unchallenged it is a source of social cohesion. However when religions collide the fact that they are baseless and unprovable means that the conflict that arises from differences in religion does not get resolved until one or the other is destroyed. To this point in history societies have been mostly isolated. It hasn't been easy for people and ideas to get very far from home. In the Middle East, however, religions have been colliding for centuries. Now with the advent of instant global communications and routine global travel and migration in the last roughly 50 years ideas and people are moving around much more, and the religious conflict is spreading.
So while religion has, I contend, played a vital role in social evolution, I think there is need for some new thinking regarding religion. At least on the higher social scale.
From a personal perspective, religion is a form of spirituality. It's the answer to many people's need for understanding their existence and their mortality. That need, I contend, is extremely widespread, if not universal. So until there is a widely accepted notion of spirituality that does not involve religion I'd say religion is necessary.
Now, if you haven't gathered it from all of that, I believe all religion to be false. Not wrong, a position on a value judgment, but false. I believe that Jesus did not rise from dead, walk on water, heal anyone, or any of that. It's all myth. Same for any other gods. But religion is real, and it's been valuable on a macro scale, and on a personal level.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?
Post #10
I would say it's unfortunate.anu wrote:
It's good to know that John and I have the same definition of religion. Like those people who format the questionnaires.
I think I should fill out the questionaire with a paragraph explaining what I meant, if I filled it out at all.
Your spade analogy does not fit the circumstances, because religion is more of a word that has meant varying things to many people thoughout history, just as the word Christianity has (ie nobody has a vested intrest in covering up the essence of what a spade is). Christianity to the early Christians was something very different than the far more perverted and corrupt "thing" that gets called Christianity today. If the majority just goes along with the perverted definition of Christianity, it would be doing a serious disservice to those people who spoke reasonably of Christianity (remember different meaning than the one which immediately presents itself to the majority) as a good thing, and explained just why it has/had such an impact. The same is true with the word religion.
