A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: “No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead.� Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like – I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example – but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment – for those who seek it – of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are “spiritual but not religious,� to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,'� and that “Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff.� And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Essential in what way?

For a society to exist? For there to be harmony in society? For there to be a balance between good and bad? For there to be a higher motivation to spread compassion, generosity, love, and all the virtues?

Maybe religion is essential to counter the progress of mankind. It has certainly done that.

Thanks for joining the discussion

I'd be interested in your reasons for supposing that religion has countered the progress of mankind. In Cosmos (ch. 7, The Backbone of Night), Carl Sagan argued that the promising beginnings of ancient science in the Ionian awakening of the 6th century BCE onwards were eventually stifled not by religion, but by social stratification: Empirical science is practical work, slave work, which the privileged few who actually had the time and resources for the vocational pursuit of knowledge rarely deigned to stoop to. He suggests that similar circumstances may have stifled the progress of knowledge in Chinese, Indian, Mayan and Aztec civilizations for the same reason.

Opposition to material accumulation and social stratification is one of the major themes of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament, building on similar but less stringent teachings of many of the Jewish prophets in the Tanakh. In contrast the state-backed Roman Catholic Church was obviously very hierarchical, and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was probably an even bigger contributor to Europe's 'dark ages.' But even then, at that same time, classical knowledge was being preserved and even advanced by the scholars of the (Christian) Byzantine and Islamic worlds. Europe's eventual scientific revolution (c. 1543 onwards) followed hot on the heels of the more egalitarian Protestant Reformation (c. 1517 onwards), so while the latter surely wasn't a sole cause of the advance of science, its contributory influence seems probable. Many if not most early European scientists were driven to discover the 'laws' of the universe precisely because they believed there was a Law-maker whose creation they admired.

On the other hand, some elements of Christianity did seek to suppress the knowledge gained by the likes of Galileo and Darwin - it's obviously not all positive. But between the various negatives and positives, I'm not aware of any sound basis for supposing that the influence of religion generally or Christianity specifically has on balance been contrary to human progress. If anything, I'd suspect that it's helped more than hindered.

As John Lennon suggested, imagine there's no heaven, no hell, and no religion too.

Imagine the world without religion if you can. I can't.

I think in many ways it would be a better world. But given the scope and depth, emotional bonds, and political influences that constitute world-wide religions, how could one ever predict the effects on society if it were removed? Or what society would look like had there never been a religion?

So I don't think we can answer the question of essentiality. All we can do is speculate.

You're right that ultimately there isn't going to be a hard and fast answer of course. But I'd be interested in your thoughts on my comments to Marco in post #14: I would argue that one of the reasons (though not the only one) why religion is important is to serve as a counter-balance to the extrinsic values of status and wealth which we are bombarded with almost 24/7 by the commercial advertising industry, and the atomising tendencies of consumer materialism. There seems to be compelling evidence suggesting that this constant stream of messages and images, left unchecked, is likely to be a serious barrage on the psychological wellbeing of many if not most folk in a given society. With their (usually) promotion of intrinsic values and emphasis on community and social gathering, the religions which 40-80% of people in modern democracies follow are probably the single biggest factor countering that tendency; and by implication, they are likely providing very significant mental health benefits for those people and for society at large.

Of course, by implication if we ever move into post-consumerist economies the importance of religion will be significantly reduced. I can 'imagine' (albeit in fairly abstract terms) a world a hundred years from now in which only a third or a quarter of people seek the benefits which religions provide. There are certainly other avenues to meet our social, moral and existential, and even spiritual needs, after all.

But here and now, and for the foreseeable future, it seems that the roles met by religion are indeed very important.

[marco]

Could society survive without religion? Sure, I already said that.

That is all I require. The word essential is not perhaps the mot juste, as I said.

But an impressive body of psychological research appears to support these feelings. It suggests that materialism, a trait that can afflict both rich and poor, which the researchers define as “a value system that is preoccupied with possessions and the social image they project�(5), is both socially destructive and self-destructive. It smashes the happiness and peace of mind of those who succumb to it. It’s associated with anxiety, depression and broken relationships.

Well one can be impressed by street performers too. I am sometimes amazed at what they can do. Performing in the field of "psychological research" there are many with verifications already made mentally before the research is done. I am as sceptical towards some areas of quasi-science as I am of the Abrahamic gods.

You report: "It smashes the happiness and peace of mind...." It doesn't, but it CAN. There is a difference.

In any event, if I want to check on the appropriate use of a word I don't ask some psychologist researcher. A dictionary suffices.

[Mithrae]

Could society survive without religion? Sure, I already said that.

That is all I require. The word essential is not perhaps the mot juste, as I said.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12/09/one-r ... ntentment/

But an impressive body of psychological research appears to support these feelings. It suggests that materialism, a trait that can afflict both rich and poor, which the researchers define as “a value system that is preoccupied with possessions and the social image they project�(5), is both socially destructive and self-destructive. It smashes the happiness and peace of mind of those who succumb to it. It’s associated with anxiety, depression and broken relationships.

Well one can be impressed by street performers too. I am sometimes amazed at what they can do. Performing in the field of "psychological research" there are many with verifications already made mentally before the research is done. I am as sceptical towards some areas of quasi-science as I am of the Abrahamic gods.

You report: "It smashes the happiness and peace of mind...." It doesn't, but it CAN. There is a difference.

In any event, if I want to check on the appropriate use of a word I don't ask some psychologist researcher. A dictionary suffices.

Just to clarify, what you've quoted there are the words of journalist George Monbiot, not me.

And this forum really needs an option to embed pithy videos
Futurama - Didn't you have ads in the 20th century? (18 seconds)

I realize that it could be considered a bit of a grey area - the proposition that an almost 24/7 barrage of propaganda casting us as consumers who won't be completely happy or find fulfillment without having and spending more money on possessions is, unchecked, generally detrimental to our psychological wellbeing. Realistically, I don't think that in itself is a grey area at all, but it's the quasi-political implications which might worry some people. However I'm not intending to vilify advertising or capitalism generally, it just happens to be an almost inevitable side effect of how the mostly fairly positive system has evolved.

You note that it doesn't always (or perhaps even usually) "smash happiness and peace of mind," and you're correct: But I would suggest that's primarily because we have other value systems promoting more intrinsic and social values instead. And religions are the biggest of these. At 40-80% of the population in various developed democracies, I think that is beyond dispute.

[marco]

Just to clarify, what you've quoted there are the words of journalist George Monbiot, not me.

I know. I said you "reported." I don't agree with the conclusion.

I realize that it could be considered a bit of a grey area -

It's certainly a red area. Nobody's opposing you in opposing greed or in pointing out what Vance Packard called the Hidden Persuaders. Being right in area B doesn't entitle you to a free pass in area A, which is what we are discussing.

You note that it doesn't always (or perhaps even usually) "smash happiness and peace of mind," and you're correct:

That is all I want to know and all I need to know as Keats may have said.

And religions are the biggest of these. At 40-80% of the population in various developed democracies, I think that is beyond dispute.

Yes: religion, gambling, alcohol, drugs ... can we do without them? Popularity isn't proof that something is right and fitting - far less essential. I am prepared to say that religion, in its nicest habitat, gives great benefits to some. In other habitats it might want to kill Marco, so I would deny this aspect as being essential to my well-being. But that's a very selfish view, of course. I send religiously warm seasonal greetings.

[Divine Insight]

Fair enough - and as we already knew, this isn't something you and I are likely to ever agree on Though interestingly, everything I've seen suggests that the Dalai Lama is pretty big on ecumenism and building common ground among the world's religions, rather than emphasizing the narrowest interpretations of the Abrahamic faiths and condemning the entire religions as a lost cause on that basis! On this issue, I would guess that his views would probably be a lot closer to mine than yours.

Probably. This is definitely one area where I disagree with the Dalai Lama. However, having said this I can understand where he's coming from. I don't think the Dalai Lama sees the "Jealous God" nature of Christian doctrine (i.e. the Bible).

In fact, I would argue that he can't be recognizing this because of what he has said in the quote you posted from him:

From the Dalai Lama:

I want to emphasise that it is extremely important for practitioners to sincerely believe in their respective religions. Usually, I say that it is very important to distinguish between "belief in one religion" and "belief in many religions". The former directly contradicts the latter. Therefore, we should resolutely resolve these contradictions. This is possible only by thinking in contextual terms. A contradiction in one context might not be the same in the other. In the context of one person, a single truth is closely associated with a single source of refuge. This is of extreme necessity. However, in the context of society or more than one person it is necessary to have different sources of refuge, religions and truths. . . .

In this quote he is suggesting, "Therefore, we should resolutely resolve these contradictions."

The problem is that in Christianity there is no way to "resolve" a conflict between recognizing Jesus as the only begotten Son of Yahweh, and having no need to recognize Jesus as anyone special.

It seems to me that the Dalai Lama appears to be somewhat ignorant of what Christian doctrine ultimately demands. Yahweh states as one of the Ten Commandments that there shall be no other Gods placed before him.

Perhaps the Dalai Lama believes that there could be some way of imagining that the God of Buddhism and the God of the Hebrew Bible could somehow be the same mysterious entity. The only problem when it comes to Christianity is that Jesus supposedly died to pay for the sins of man and belief in him, and that he did this, is paramount in Christianity.

So I would suggest that when the Dalai Lama suggest that these "contradictions" could be resolved, he's not fully understanding that in Christianity the only way they could be resolved is for the Buddhists to recognize Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who died to pay for their sins. No other "resolution" would be satisfactory for Christianity.

In other words, Christianity cannot be satisfied until all Buddhists convert to Christianity and are worshiping at the feet of Jesus.

So I would suggest to the Dalai Lama himself that he's not fully understanding the problem here.

The same thing goes with his comments on Islam.

From the Dalai Lama:

As far as the Muslims are concerned it is appropriate for them to have complete devotion to Allah while praying in the mosques. This is also the same with Buddhists who are completely devoted to the Buddha when they pray in Buddhist temples. A society, which has many religions should also have many prophets and sources of refuge. In such a society it is very important to have harmony and respect amongst the different religions and their practitioners. We must distinguish between belief and respect. Belief refers to total faith, which you must have in your own religion. At the same time you should have respect for all other religions

Once again he seems to be totally naive of what Islam is all about. The Muslims view Allah as God himself. A jealous God who will have no other Gods before him.

Yet here the Dalai Lama is talking about the Buddhists being devoted to the Buddha. Actually I'm kind of shocked that the Dalai Lama would even say such a thing. To begin with the Buddha not seen as God in Buddhism. In fact, the Buddha even taught that we shouldn't be dedicated to him. So the idea of actually worshiping the Buddha in Buddhism is a bad idea.

So I would probably have quite a bit of issues of disagreement with the Dalai Lama.

Either the Dalai Lama thinks the Buddha is God, which he's not. Or the Dalai Lama thinks that Allah is just a symbol in Islam and is not viewed as God. I'm not sure what the Dalai Lama is thinking. But he's got to be extremely naive if he thinks that the Muslims could respect anyone who isn't worshiping Allah. Islam, like Christianity, is based on the "Jealous God" principle. You are either recognizing and worshiping Allah, or you are a heathen. Period.

You can run off worshiping the Buddha. In fact, the Muslims even object to the Christians worshiping Jesus.

So this appears to me to be some sort of extreme naivete on the part of the Dalai Lama if he thinks that either Christianity or Islam could embrace religious outside of their own "Jealous God" dogma. Apparently he isn't fully understanding the "Jealous God" nature of these religions.

Muslims cannot allow respect for any "Gods" other than Allah. And the Christians cannot allow any other way to God but through Christ. That's what these religions are all about. These aren't merely "contradictions between religions" that could be resolved.

So yes, I definitely disagree with the Dalai Lama on these sorts of issues to be sure.

I mean, I can certainly see why he could think compatibility could work from the perspective of Buddhist thinking. But his idea could never work from the perspective of Christianity or Islam.

From the Dalia Lama:

Today, a lot of people from different religious backgrounds are present here. In every religion, there are transcendent things that are beyond the grasp of our mind and speech. For example, the concept of God in Christianity and Islam and that of wisdom truth body in Buddhism are metaphysical, which is not possible for an ordinary person like us to realise. This is a common difficulty faced by every religion. It is taught in every ­religion, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, that the ultimate truth is driven by faith.

Here he sees religious leaders of all religions willing to worship together. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that in the minds of the Christians, they are thinking that given enough time the Buddhists will eventually come around and accept Christ as their savior. I'm not really sure what's going through the minds of the Muslims clerics. But I seriously doubt that their intent is give their support that it's ok to worship the Buddha. They too are probably hoping that by participating in large religious events they will just have more exposure to the possibility of converting more people to Islam.

But either way, I think we can agree to disagree.

That's always easy to do. But it's also nothing more than a concession that there's no point in debating these things.

So supposing for the sake of argument that liberal Christianity "isn't really Christian," it's still obviously religious and still plays an important role in society: Adherent for adherent, probably even moreso than more traditional Christianity, which might be a more involved or intense expression of religiosity but carries some negative baggage (as you helped highlight) precisely because of that fact.

My answer to this is that it doesn't matter whether Christians are Liberals or Fundamentalists. All that really matters is that they recognize that their beliefs are based entirely on faith. Period.

If Christians would simply confess that their beliefs are entirely a matter of faith, then they would stop pointing fingers at others as being "sinners". All they could say is that they have "faith" that those people are sinners. '

That's a big difference.

Where these religions go wrong is that people start out believing them on faith and then after a while they convince themselves that they are fact. That's when the religion moves from being a mere belief to being held up as though it represents an absolute truth. And that's when it becomes a danger to society.

[Mithrae]

So this appears to me to be some sort of extreme naivete on the part of the Dalai Lama if he thinks that either Christianity or Islam could embrace religious outside of their own "Jealous God" dogma. Apparently he isn't fully understanding the "Jealous God" nature of these religions.

So... the Dalai Lama doesn't understand this stuff, the Christian and Muslim leaders who share his ecumenical aspirations don't understand this stuff, the large percentage of members of those faiths who also share those views don't understand this stuff....

Even the authors of the bible itself didn't understand this stuff when they praised the likes of Melchizedek (a Jebusite priest who'd never heard the name Yahweh) and Cyrus (a Persian who called God Ahura-Mazda).

Only the fundamentalists and Divine Insight understand the true depths of divine jealousy, and are keen for everyone to acknowledge their 'truth'

But either way, I think we can agree to disagree.

That's always easy to do. But it's also nothing more than a concession that there's no point in debating these things.

So supposing for the sake of argument that liberal Christianity "isn't really Christian," it's still obviously religious and still plays an important role in society: Adherent for adherent, probably even moreso than more traditional Christianity, which might be a more involved or intense expression of religiosity but carries some negative baggage (as you helped highlight) precisely because of that fact.

My answer to this is that it doesn't matter whether Christians are Liberals or Fundamentalists. All that really matters is that they recognize that their beliefs are based entirely on faith. Period.

If Christians would simply confess that their beliefs are entirely a matter of faith, then they would stop pointing fingers at others as being "sinners". All they could say is that they have "faith" that those people are sinners. '

That's a big difference.

Where these religions go wrong is that people start out believing them on faith and then after a while they convince themselves that they are fact. That's when the religion moves from being a mere belief to being held up as though it represents an absolute truth. And that's when it becomes a danger to society.

Interestingly one of the other top results from Googling the Dalai Lama's views on Christianity was about faith itself:

• http://www.wisdompubs.org/blog/201603/d ... ristianity
  
  Since these passages also seem to point out the importance of faith in one’s spiritual practice, I think it might be useful here to give some explanation of the Buddhist understanding of faith. The Tibetan word for faith is day-pa, which perhaps might be closer in meaning to confidence, or trust. In the Buddhist tradition, we speak of three different types of faith. The first is faith in the form of admiration that you have toward a particular person or a particular state of being. The second is aspiring faith. There is a sense of emulation; you aspire to attain that state of being. The third type is the faith of conviction.
  
  I feel that all three types of faith can be explained in the Christian context as well. For example, a practicing Christian, by reading the Gospel and reflecting on the life of Jesus, can have a very strong devotion to and admiration for Jesus. That is the first level of faith, the faith of admiration and devotion. After that, as you strengthen your admiration and faith, it is possible to progress to the second level, which is the faith of aspiration. In the Buddhist tradition, you would aspire to buddhahood. In the Christian context you may not use the same language, but you can say that you aspire to attain the full perfection of the divine nature, or union with God. Then, once you have developed that sense of aspiration, you can develop a deep conviction that it is possible to perfect such a state of being. That is the third Faith: level of faith. I feel that all of these levels of faith are equally applicable in both the Buddhist and Christian contexts.

[Mithrae]

I realize that it could be considered a bit of a grey area -

It's certainly a red area. Nobody's opposing you in opposing greed or in pointing out what Vance Packard called the Hidden Persuaders. Being right in area B doesn't entitle you to a free pass in area A, which is what we are discussing.

You note that it doesn't always (or perhaps even usually) "smash happiness and peace of mind," and you're correct:

That is all I want to know and all I need to know as Keats may have said.

And religions are the biggest of these. At 40-80% of the population in various developed democracies, I think that is beyond dispute.

Yes: religion, gambling, alcohol, drugs ... can we do without them? Popularity isn't proof that something is right and fitting - far less essential.

What important societal needs do gambling, alcohol and drugs meet?

I have identified a major social concern which religion is currently the single biggest counter-balance to. So in order for this to be a substantive debate, it would seem that you need to either a) show that constant bombardment with extrinsic, consumerist values is not a big deal - though you seem to agree that it is - or b) show that there is some other counter-balance which could quickly, easily and effectively replace religion. If not, then it's clear that religion is indeed very important, even from just that one particular role.

Instead, all you've done is tried to pair religion with some other human tendencies (which for the record I would argue also fill significant roles, albeit more on the level of sports and music rather than up there with religion) as if the comparison should be simply taken for granted. Instead, how about "Religion, democracy, freedom, family and country"? While still arguably fallacious, that's actually a much better comparison since the common theme is not merely 'things that happen to exist in society,' but the much more stringent threshold of their being probably 'the only things most people would fight and die to defend'!

I am prepared to say that religion, in its nicest habitat, gives great benefits to some. In other habitats it might want to kill Marco, so I would deny this aspect as being essential to my well-being. But that's a very selfish view, of course. I send religiously warm seasonal greetings.

And in some habitats, democracy would round up all the Jews into concentration camps; and even universal freedoms would represent a system where no person better off in society is 'robbed' to provide for the health or well-being of the poor and no-one's emissions of chemicals into air or water on their own property is curtailed by 'oppressive' government.

Harmful attitudes towards freedom are probably more prevalent in society and certainly more prevalent in government than harmful attitudes towards religion. For but one example, it's estimated that even going into the 2010s particulate emissions from coal power plants cause some 13,000 deaths per year in the United States (or in Europe according to a different report, some 18,000 deaths per year). Religion would have a hard time matching those figures even globally, even just for weaknesses in coal regulation! But do these facts negate or invalidate the importance of either religion or freedom and democracy?

Happy X-mas to you too

[Divine Insight]

So... the Dalai Lama doesn't understand this stuff, the Christian and Muslim leaders who share his ecumenical aspirations don't understand this stuff, the large percentage of members of those faiths who also share those views don't understand this stuff....

This is true. In fact, if any of these people don't understand that their entire religions are nothing more than wishful thinking, then they clearly do not understand.

Even the authors of the bible itself didn't understand this stuff when they praised the likes of Melchizedek (a Jebusite priest who'd never heard the name Yahweh) and Cyrus (a Persian who called God Ahura-Mazda).

I personally believe that the authors of the Bible were out to proselytize their favorite fairytale. I seriously doubt that any of them actually believed what they were writing. Although I suppose it's easy to delude oneself, so they probably were self-deluded as well.

Only the fundamentalists and Divine Insight understand the true depths of divine jealousy, and are keen for everyone to acknowledge their 'truth'

All you need to do is read what's actually written in the Bible.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deuteronomy 5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I didn't write the Bible, but I'm certainly not afraid to acknowledge what is written within it.

Interestingly one of the other top results from Googling the Dalai Lama's views on Christianity was about faith itself:

• http://www.wisdompubs.org/blog/201603/d ... ristianity
  
  Since these passages also seem to point out the importance of faith in one’s spiritual practice, I think it might be useful here to give some explanation of the Buddhist understanding of faith. The Tibetan word for faith is day-pa, which perhaps might be closer in meaning to confidence, or trust. In the Buddhist tradition, we speak of three different types of faith. The first is faith in the form of admiration that you have toward a particular person or a particular state of being. The second is aspiring faith. There is a sense of emulation; you aspire to attain that state of being. The third type is the faith of conviction.
  
  I feel that all three types of faith can be explained in the Christian context as well. For example, a practicing Christian, by reading the Gospel and reflecting on the life of Jesus, can have a very strong devotion to and admiration for Jesus. That is the first level of faith, the faith of admiration and devotion. After that, as you strengthen your admiration and faith, it is possible to progress to the second level, which is the faith of aspiration. In the Buddhist tradition, you would aspire to buddhahood. In the Christian context you may not use the same language, but you can say that you aspire to attain the full perfection of the divine nature, or union with God. Then, once you have developed that sense of aspiration, you can develop a deep conviction that it is possible to perfect such a state of being. That is the third Faith: level of faith. I feel that all of these levels of faith are equally applicable in both the Buddhist and Christian contexts.

Well, I would disagree with the Dalai Lama here. I suggest that the Dalai Lama fails to understand Christianity.

Christians DO NOT attempt to aspire to be like Jesus. That's not the point of Chrsitianity. In fact, Christianity holds that this is impossible. No man can resist sin. In Christianity the goal is not to try to be like Jesus, as that would be impossible. But rather in Christians the way to salvation is to give yourself over to Jesus as a hopeless sinner to be forgiven.

So if the Dalai Lama thinks that Christianity is basically the same thing as Buddhism with Jesus merely replacing the Buddha, then I suggest that he hasn't fully understood Christianity.

Keep in mind, the Buddha is hoping that Christians can accept that the Buddhist are basically doing the same thing as the Christians only the Buddhists are doing it through the Buddha instead of through Christ.

In order for any Christian to accept that view the Christian would need to renounce John 14:6.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There's nothing in there that says, "Oh by the way, you can get to God through the Buddha too! I forgot to mention that!"

Nope, that's not in the Bible. That's not part of Christianity.

Moreover, shame on the Dalai Lama. Because the Buddha never made any claim that he is the only way to get to God.

Therefore if the Dalai Lama thinks these religions are equivalent, then why doesn't he convert to Christianity and simply follow the teachings of Jesus?

After all, there's is NOTHING in Buddhism that even remotely would prevent him from doing that.

But the Christians aren't permitted to turn away from Jesus. That would be certain condemnation.

Surely the Dalai Lama should be able to figure that much out?

[marco]

What important societal needs do gambling, alcohol and drugs meet?

Instead, all you've done is tried to pair religion with some other human tendencies ....

The part of the argument I was illustrating was that popularity does not lead to something being essential. You quoted surveys that drew conclusions from people's preferences. I offered other examples of things that people crave. When we move away from "essential" we are left with the simple truth that religion supplies a need and this need can, in many cases, destroy the individual or those around. Religion is not in itself the bringer of goodness. History and present experience show that it generates hate, unhappiness and hell on earth as much as drugs and drink can. You concentrate on the nice side of nice people. I accept that is a big aspect as well.

Religion introduces difference where there should be none. We have broken down, to a great extent, many racial barriers. Invisible barriers are still there when sects shut themselves away from sinners, Jews still believe they are chosen and Muslims build fortresses called mosques. In many parts a girl loving a boy of a different faith will end up dead. Yet all people breathe the same air, require food and sleep, and laugh or cry. If people went to Mecca or Rome or Jerusalem to love other people ....

But I think you are being Devil's advocate and see there is as much bad in religion as there is good. That millions of Muslims bend down five times every day does not make the action less absurd. And when piety believes bread is flesh, are we to say this is a belief essential to good living? Jesus was right about loving one another. He channelled the affection wrongly, via heaven. It can and should flow directly and spontaneously. We are a long way from that, thanks to religions. Go well.

[Divine Insight]

Religion is not in itself the bringer of goodness.

This is absolute truth. And proven every day by theists.

Some theists try to push goodness onto the Bible via their interpretations, others interpret the Bible in ways that are clearly not good. (note: please feel free to substitute the Qur'an for Bible in the preceding sentence.)

In fact, this is precisely why I ultimately tossed in the towel on Christianity. When I was attempting to apologize for a "decent" Christianity, more often than not my greatest antagonists were other Christians who demanded "indecent" interpretations of the scriptures.

Moreover, I had to confess that those Christian who were demanding indecent interpretations could actually point to literal verses that backed up their indecent position. For me to push some decency onto the Bible I had to opt for non-literal abstract interpretations that contained extreme excuses for why the Bible doesn't literally say what it means.

This was the eye-opener for me.

What was I doing? Was I preaching from the Bible? Absolutely not!

To the contrary I was making excuse after excuse for why I think the Bible should be far better than it literally is.

At that moment I realized that I was the one who was desperately trying to push goodness onto the Bible, and I most certainly wasn't getting any goodness from the Bible.

In fact, the only thing I can possibly say about the "goodness" of Jesus is that I personally give him my approval on many moral concepts. And even in some cases, due to the literal nature of the scriptures, I even have difficulty giving Jesus moral approval on some things attributed to him.

So there can be no doubt that my morality is my own. And if I view Jesus as being moral, it can only be because I give Jesus my moral approval. The other way around doesn't even make any sense at all.

So this is why it's ridiculous to even try to defend the Bible on the grounds that it's supposedly 'good'.

Good theists give the Bible their goodness.

Bad theists give the Bible their badness.

And the actual scriptures of the Bible support both agendas. In fact, I argue that the scriptures actually support badness on a pure literal level more so than goodness.

This is why the "good" theists are constantly arguing for non-literal interpretations. They know doggone well that when the Bible is taken literally the Bad Theists win hands down.