What has Religion taught you.....

[G.T.]

G.T.,

What was the point of this thread? You provide what seems like a friendy and open-ended invitation for honest responses, but what results is essentially your attacks on religion, faith, etc.

It's like setting a bait trap and then sitting back with a sniper rifle and taking pot shots at those who come to examine the bait. If that is your intention, mission accomplished I guess, just seems a bit sneaky to me.

You got the wrong impression. I opened this thread for argument's sake, not for anything else.I'm not attacking, I'm expressing a view contrary to the Religious folks' view. My argument is that man invented religion, and with it, religion's teachings. God did not touch, inspire or speak through religions.

@peach - the twitter punks have always been around. I guess you must have missed all of the stories of what kids used to do to blacks in the middle of the 1900's.

Like I said, it's media hype you're buying into. Human nature that has always existed, is just way more visible to you now, and more in your face.

 

[PratchettFan]

That you could not have learned outside of it, or as a happenstance that you didn't learn outside of it?

I suppose the argument could be made that I might have learned it from books written by people who had read "religion", but I don't see how that changes it. How many writings from the early periods of our history do we have, outside of religious texts?

Religion is an intrinsic part of human culture. Any study of humanity without including religion would be self-defeating.

the point is not that religion has not contributed anything to society...its that man came up with religion as a control mechanism to spread a way of living that they had learned was optimum all on their own...god aside.

That is a theory, but I think it wrong. Man did not come up with religion anymore than man came up with government. Religion is an aspect of human social interaction and probably essential to a healthy society. Of course you will find people taking advantage of that, but what aspect of human interaction do you not find those people?

 

[G.T.]

Well..yea I do think that man came up with government also. Religion is an aspect of society, but I think it's both fraudulent and not vital. We disagree.so.....thats where we are you and i, unless new information is to be revealed. Have a good one tonight!!

 

[FactFinder]

Here is religion:

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[FactFinder]

Spiritual journey is another matter and rather far removed from religion.

 

[turzovka]

About the human experience, that you (or humanity) could not have learned otherwise? Mainly morals, but open to whatever.

It has taught (or shown) me that the truth about who God is can be known, not just believed. Pretty important when you also come to know that our beings are immortal and will exist after death.

It has also taught me that just because some religions are not accurate in their tenets, that does not discount the fact one can be quite accurate on the vitals. The one Jesus was all about.

 

[G.T.]

Spiritual journey is another matter and rather far removed from religion.

I agree

 

[Skull Pilot]

Religion has taught me that people will believe anything as long as you tell them there's eternal life.

 

[G.T.]

Religion has taught me that people will believe anything as long as you tell them there's eternal life.

I agree.

Much of my point here is that the good moral teachings of many of the given Religions are very easy to arrive at with logic and experience, outside of Religion within any given social construct.

Most morals are arrived at through thought and experience, and their main existence is to attempt to achieve an optimum peaceful coexistence. Almost every moral can be traced back to that goal, with the exception of some that are rather frivolous and eventually become taboo.

As an aside, the elderly have always thought that society is becoming degenerate. Humans become more knowledgable over time (knowledgable doesnt mean smart, before anyone quips), and with said knowledge many things that were once considered taboo are normalized, because through reason the taboos were deemed frivolous.

Tattoos, for instance - have been around for Centuries. Then, they became taboo, and people who got them were seen as criminal somehow. Then, they started to make waves around the Military and finally, now they're not seen as any big deal except by mostly the elderly - who still hold on to meaningless taboo. Not all of them, mind ya'z.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well..yea I do think that man came up with government also. Religion is an aspect of society, but I think it's both fraudulent and not vital. We disagree.so.....thats where we are you and i, unless new information is to be revealed. Have a good one tonight!!

Given that there is not a single human society in all of discovered history, more complicated than a small clan, which does not have religion as a central aspect, it is difficult for me to disagree with you. We simply have nothing to compare. However, I am of the opinion that if you find a trait in a sucessful species which is universal to that species, it is probably of positive benefit to it. Negative traits tend to die out.

 

[G.T.]

Well..yea I do think that man came up with government also. Religion is an aspect of society, but I think it's both fraudulent and not vital. We disagree.so.....thats where we are you and i, unless new information is to be revealed. Have a good one tonight!!

Given that there is not a single human society in all of discovered history, more complicated than a small clan, which does not have religion as a central aspect, it is difficult for me to disagree with you. We simply have nothing to compare. However, I am of the opinion that if you find a trait in a sucessful species which is universal to that species, it is probably of positive benefit to it. Negative traits tend to die out.

I agree, but of course successful will always be subjective if we wanted to really hash things out.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well..yea I do think that man came up with government also. Religion is an aspect of society, but I think it's both fraudulent and not vital. We disagree.so.....thats where we are you and i, unless new information is to be revealed. Have a good one tonight!!

Given that there is not a single human society in all of discovered history, more complicated than a small clan, which does not have religion as a central aspect, it is difficult for me to disagree with you. We simply have nothing to compare. However, I am of the opinion that if you find a trait in a sucessful species which is universal to that species, it is probably of positive benefit to it. Negative traits tend to die out.

I agree, but of course successful will always be subjective if we wanted to really hash things out.

True. However, I define a successful species as one which survives, which is a fairly objective standard. So I think we have been pretty successful so far.

As I see it, we have two options. Option one, we are the creation of some greater being and are on some higher spiritual plane. Option two, we are just another animal. If option one is correct, then you have to accept that religion is a potentially valid connection with that greater being. If option two is correct, then you have to look at homo sapien in the same way you would any other species. I'm choosing option two since it has the benefit of at least being testable.

So, in examining homo sapien as a species I am forced to conclude that religion (and government for that matter) are important to the species based upon the observable fact that it is a universal aspect of all human societies. While it may well be a problem for individuals, I would argue that the individual is important to the species only to the extent it is able to pass on its genes. An individual human has the same importance to the species as a single skin cell is to your body. So if we are to look at religion, it must be in its relationship to the species as a whole and not to any individual.

 

[G.T.]

Given that there is not a single human society in all of discovered history, more complicated than a small clan, which does not have religion as a central aspect, it is difficult for me to disagree with you. We simply have nothing to compare. However, I am of the opinion that if you find a trait in a sucessful species which is universal to that species, it is probably of positive benefit to it. Negative traits tend to die out.

I agree, but of course successful will always be subjective if we wanted to really hash things out.

True. However, I define a successful species as one which survives, which is a fairly objective standard. So I think we have been pretty successful so far.

As I see it, we have two options. Option one, we are the creation of some greater being and are on some higher spiritual plane. Option two, we are just another animal. If option one is correct, then you have to accept that religion is a potentially valid connection with that greater being. If option two is correct, then you have to look at homo sapien in the same way you would any other species. I'm choosing option two since it has the benefit of at least being testable.

So, in examining homo sapien as a species I am forced to conclude that religion (and government for that matter) are important to the species based upon the observable fact that it is a universal aspect of all human societies. While it may well be a problem for individuals, I would argue that the individual is important to the species only to the extent it is able to pass on its genes. An individual human has the same importance to the species as a single skin cell is to your body. So if we are to look at religion, it must be in its relationship to the species as a whole and not to any individual.

I think that Religion being a staple of human societies is not automatic evidence that it's necessary for us to survive as a species.

 

[PratchettFan]

I agree, but of course successful will always be subjective if we wanted to really hash things out.

True. However, I define a successful species as one which survives, which is a fairly objective standard. So I think we have been pretty successful so far.

As I see it, we have two options. Option one, we are the creation of some greater being and are on some higher spiritual plane. Option two, we are just another animal. If option one is correct, then you have to accept that religion is a potentially valid connection with that greater being. If option two is correct, then you have to look at homo sapien in the same way you would any other species. I'm choosing option two since it has the benefit of at least being testable.

So, in examining homo sapien as a species I am forced to conclude that religion (and government for that matter) are important to the species based upon the observable fact that it is a universal aspect of all human societies. While it may well be a problem for individuals, I would argue that the individual is important to the species only to the extent it is able to pass on its genes. An individual human has the same importance to the species as a single skin cell is to your body. So if we are to look at religion, it must be in its relationship to the species as a whole and not to any individual.

I think that Religion being a staple of human societies is not automatic evidence that it's necessary for us to survive as a species.

I would agree it is not definitive proof, but I can't think why you would not consider it evidence. Can you point to a single human society which has survived without it?

IMO, and I admit this is just my opinion, religion and government are actually two halves of the same thing. They are a method of formalizing human society to allow it to grow beyond the clan and adapt to the natural stresses of human contact. It is a way for us to agree you can't just smack your neighbor with a club and take his wife, and provide for dealing with those who think they can. Government provides structure and enforcement while religion provides continuity and authority. Kings die and laws change, but God is always there and approves of whatever the current government might be. This allows the society (the hive, if you will) to get on with the actual work of making and raising babies, which is the only work which matters to the species.

If you remove God from the equation, then you do have to ask yourself why religion is there at all. I really think the answer "to let some people take advantage of other people" a far too shallow conclusion. We aren't bees, but we still have to operate as a hive. In our own way, we need a queen. That, I think, might well be the true purpose of religion.

 

[G.T.]

True. However, I define a successful species as one which survives, which is a fairly objective standard. So I think we have been pretty successful so far.

As I see it, we have two options. Option one, we are the creation of some greater being and are on some higher spiritual plane. Option two, we are just another animal. If option one is correct, then you have to accept that religion is a potentially valid connection with that greater being. If option two is correct, then you have to look at homo sapien in the same way you would any other species. I'm choosing option two since it has the benefit of at least being testable.

So, in examining homo sapien as a species I am forced to conclude that religion (and government for that matter) are important to the species based upon the observable fact that it is a universal aspect of all human societies. While it may well be a problem for individuals, I would argue that the individual is important to the species only to the extent it is able to pass on its genes. An individual human has the same importance to the species as a single skin cell is to your body. So if we are to look at religion, it must be in its relationship to the species as a whole and not to any individual.

I think that Religion being a staple of human societies is not automatic evidence that it's necessary for us to survive as a species.

I would agree it is not definitive proof, but I can't think why you would not consider it evidence. Can you point to a single human society which has survived without it?

IMO, and I admit this is just my opinion, religion and government are actually two halves of the same thing. They are a method of formalizing human society to allow it to grow beyond the clan and adapt to the natural stresses of human contact. It is a way for us to agree you can't just smack your neighbor with a club and take his wife, and provide for dealing with those who think they can. Government provides structure and enforcement while religion provides continuity and authority. Kings die and laws change, but God is always there and approves of whatever the current government might be. This allows the society (the hive, if you will) to get on with the actual work of making and raising babies, which is the only work which matters to the species.

If you remove God from the equation, then you do have to ask yourself why religion is there at all. I really think the answer "to let some people take advantage of other people" a far too shallow conclusion. We aren't bees, but we still have to operate as a hive. In our own way, we need a queen. That, I think, might well be the true purpose of religion.

We just simply disagree that people would be anarchists without religion. I wholly disagree.

I dont need to point to a non religious society, although there likely are some - for my evidence.

All I have to do is use logic.

Religion, and just in my opinion, was created as a means to control people so that they peacefully cohabitate (amongst other reasons).

Laws, and just in my opinion, were created as a means to control people so that they peacefully cohabitate.

Both work to a degree, but both are not necessary and one is clearly more all-inclusive to a society as a whole - that one being the Law.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think that Religion being a staple of human societies is not automatic evidence that it's necessary for us to survive as a species.

I would agree it is not definitive proof, but I can't think why you would not consider it evidence. Can you point to a single human society which has survived without it?

IMO, and I admit this is just my opinion, religion and government are actually two halves of the same thing. They are a method of formalizing human society to allow it to grow beyond the clan and adapt to the natural stresses of human contact. It is a way for us to agree you can't just smack your neighbor with a club and take his wife, and provide for dealing with those who think they can. Government provides structure and enforcement while religion provides continuity and authority. Kings die and laws change, but God is always there and approves of whatever the current government might be. This allows the society (the hive, if you will) to get on with the actual work of making and raising babies, which is the only work which matters to the species.

If you remove God from the equation, then you do have to ask yourself why religion is there at all. I really think the answer "to let some people take advantage of other people" a far too shallow conclusion. We aren't bees, but we still have to operate as a hive. In our own way, we need a queen. That, I think, might well be the true purpose of religion.

We just simply disagree that people would be anarchists without religion. I wholly disagree.

I dont need to point to a non religious society, although there likely are some - for my evidence.

All I have to do is use logic.

Religion, and just in my opinion, was created as a means to control people so that they peacefully cohabitate (amongst other reasons).

Laws, and just in my opinion, were created as a means to control people so that they peacefully cohabitate.

Both work to a degree, but both are not necessary and one is clearly more all-inclusive to a society as a whole - that one being the Law.

I don't think you get my point. I don't think people would be anarchists without religion, they would instead reinvent religion. Religion and government were not created, they evolved. It is intrinsic to our species, an observable behavior. It exists because it works. They are traits of homo sapien.

You say that laws are meant to control, and that is true on the surface. But show me one human group which exists without laws. Again, laws exist not to control but because people always create laws. Always and there are no exceptions. It is a human behavior. A group without laws is almost certainly not homo sapien.

 

[uscitizen]

About the human experience, that you (or humanity) could not have learned otherwise? Mainly morals, but open to whatever.

It taught me that religion is not about salvation.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Religion doesn't end....it isn't about teaching me...it's what me made me....it will stay with me until the end of my life, my grave and my after life God willing.

 

[Pogo]

Religion? Or organised religion? Because that's two very different things. often conflated...

The latter has taught me the pitfalls of mob mentality and the depths of idiocy that otherwise rational people will allow themselves to murmur to assuage their own fears of the unknown. Even unto the point of murder, war, torture and genocide.

Seems to me the distinction must first be made between "religion" (generally meaning organised religion which is a political power structure dependent on masses) and "spirituality", which is individual and personal.