Really? Then why do Christians (among a lot of other religions) beleive that if you aren't a Christian, you won't be "saved"? I never understood the belief that if you aren't part of [enter religion here], you are going to suffer after you die on Earth.
You kind of summed up my whole purpose for this thread. Last night, when I wrote this, I felt so moved, still even, from yesterday morning. I love to sometimes just sit on my own time and ponder questions amongst myself (as weird as I may be...I actually think this is a common thing though). It brings great joy, and I think, actually, a false sense of some sort of vague understanding. That's what I was doing last night when I wrote this. My point is this: Every man, no matter who you are - Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, anyone - holds their beliefs precious and dear in their heart. With these beliefs, they form their own "religion" (I use that term loosely, as you can see with my original post... and pointed out by Sishir Chang). The Bible to me, is a book, written by a small group of people who shared the same general ideals, beliefs, and principals on life. It is a great thing. It's got some great lessons to live by. I might not believe and live my life by all of them, but I truly do believe that, based on what I know of it, most of them are good tales. Now, this whole post is not going to end up being tied together into one stict argument, and I'm starting to realize that as I type. I apologize. As people read the bible, nobody has the same exact interpretation as another person. This is why, in my eyes, "religion" is different for everybody - a Christian versus another Christian, Atheist versus Christian, Buddhist versus Muslim, anybody. One can choose to follow exactly what the Bible says (that's another subject on its own), but even if they do, like I said, they're not gonna interpret it the same exact way as someone else. Someone else, who never grew up with church or The Bible, might be guided through this world by parents or someone else who, along the way, instill beliefs in them. With these taught beliefs come learned experiences, past history, and even newfound school knowledge. As this person ages, they form their beliefs, or what they hold dear, thus, the loosely-used term, religion. It's easy to see this way, why there are large followings of people with like beliefs. Many people read the Bible or other holy books, interpret them, and take away from it their morals. These interpretations, while none all the same, are gonna be somewhat similar. Because of all this, you get one common "religion." Same goes for families. People who don't go to church are usually provided with morals based around those that were given to their elders. These morals , coupled with life lessons, and other things are going to make up their "religions." Since family members share close, tight-knit relationships, these morals are also likely to be similar, but they will never be completely the same. These similar beliefs and ideals could also loosely be called a "religion." So, what I'm trying to say as I'm completely contradicting myself (honestly, I'm tired and I'm not gonna re-read what I just wrote), is that while we say that Christianity, Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, etc. are religions, I'm not sure that in the truest, loose, yet completely strict sense (once again, contradicting), every person in the entire world has their own religion. Sure, there may be models of a religion, and a striving for a certain goal, but if you were to poll 1,000 people across the globe (and without them looking into a dictionary) as to what their definition of religion is, my guess is that at least 99% of the answers would be different.
“A lot of people confuse religion with God, and walk away from them both.” - Rob Bell from the following video clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRjFnYLN_bA This clip says some great and very important things about corrupt leadership in the Church, which goes a long way toward explaining why “religion” gets the bad name it so often does. He also talks about the nature of our relationship with God, which is what being a Christian is about first and foremost. (Velvet Elvis came Max, and I’m half way through it. I like it a lot, a whole lot, but I don’t expect that that will surprise you very much. It’s soooo encouraging to read this kind of thing, and to know that it’s out there getting read by so many people. Thanks for continuing to remind me about. I might have just cancelled my order when it was taking so long to come, and I’m sure glad I didn’t now. I’m going to finish it and maybe if there’s enough interest we could do a thread on it, as I believe a number of other people here have read it too.)
I could post quotes from this guy all day. Just a real honest and rational take at society, religion, and politics. Talk about poignant!
That top one is a strange quote. Do you know what the context for it was? There is quite a bit in the bible on wisdom and knowledge and other closely related ideas, and I’m not sure why he’s only referring to the gospels and not the rest of the bible.
not even the golden rule? wow. sometimes i wonder how much ego plays into these supposedly rational people.
Hard for me to say without going home and finding the essay in question. There certainly is much praise for wisdom and intelligence in the bible, but the gospels are uniquely devoid of "ecclesiastes-esque" statements regarding wise or intelligent people. I would guess that Russell's rationale for such a statement would be due to Christian emphasis on the gospels, and particularly the ideology of literal meaning. My own purpose in posting it was to emphasize my belief that religion, as a collectivist doctrine, is anti-intellectual, as investigation and ponderance could lead to disbelief and threaten the existing power structure. I could go on about this if you like... I'm not really sure how the above question applies. Are you saying that the golden rule advocates intelligence, or that it is an intelligent thing to say? The former is dubious, the latter quite true. Of course, the golden rule is hardly recognized as a uniquely "christian" doctrine, nor is it regularly put into practice by christian groups IMHO.
Do it. I read it based on Max's suggestion, and it is absolutely a great book with great things to say/point out.
[Derail]you know what's ironic about your sig?? the British did that very thing to the Palestinians in an uprising not very long before Churchill assumed office. (i just learned that on the History channel! )[/Derail]
Well, the Christian Bible is the whole thing, though. Certain parts are more relevant to certain topics than others, but I agree that it’s hard to guess at what he’s getting at without the full context of the quote. On “literal meaning,” we could have a good discussion on that point alone. The Bible was written in a way that needs to be interpreted, so the suggestion that it should be taken literally is very problematic. Sometimes that phrase is used in an attempt to deny the broader context of the bible, to get you to believe certain things by getting you to look at certain words or passages out of context, and the “literal meaning” line is used to keep you focussed on those words and not looking at the broader context, and the meaning of those words in that context, and in the context of our daily lives today. Since I’m reading Velvet Elvis now, here’s a Rob Bell quote. “The Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted.... It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says. We must make decisions about what it means in this time, in this place, for these people,” (p.46). (I think this book is a little more directed at Christians than non-Christians because statements like this are a reminder for Christians whereas non-Christians might want that explained a little more.) I think I know what you mean, although I’d be happy go back and hear an expanded explanation if my assumptions are off, but I think that what you are referring to is a corrupt form of religion and not religion in general. This corrupt form has been common throughout the history of the church, and even today, and I’m as appalled by it as you are. Note that in the clip I posted above Bell shows that Jesus took a very, very, strong position against this kind of corruption. Religion becomes a very problematic term in a discussion like this as there are large differences between denominations and various groups that call themselves Christians, and even between how a denomination operates at the upper levels and how a given congregation operates. Ideal Christianity, however, is a pursuit of truth, a never ending pursuit of truth. The Bible says, “seek and you will find,” not turn your brain off and do whatever the head of the church tells you to do. If a Christian believes that Christ is who he said he was then he or she should not only not be afraid of pursuing the truth, they should do it as a central part of their faith, and a great many do.
Update: I sent Nooma/Rob Bell a note in case that video was on Youtube without there permission, and it turns out that it was, so they've pulled it. I hope they pay those things off soon and release them to the public because I think that what he's saying with them is very important today, for Christians and non-Christians, and the internet would be a great place to get that message out.
Religion is about moral and spiritual beliefs, but they don't necessarily have to be altruistic or optimistic, one example being the Church of Satan.
Well, the other side of the OP's idea is that... If God didn't exist, it would be excellent that everyone has their own religion and everyone isp rogressing with it while passing on their progress to the next generation. But if God exists and left us a book that describes the ideal state of a person's ethos (am I using that right?) not to mention countless other things, wouldn't it be silly to try to get to where that book is? What if you go on your whole life doing what you're doing, then one day when you're old and crippled you realize that "hey, everything I'm doing is basically identical to what the Bible tells you to do!" and you took a 60-year path rather than a shorter path? Rather than refining certain qualities in yourself with the extra time? Instead of taking that extra time and bestowing what you're learned onto other people who may need guidance? It's all good if the end result is the same. The problem lies in faith. Do you have faith that if you were given the opportunity (time, strength, rationality) you would come to the conclusion that your current Christian beliefs are what you would build up from scratch? Some people have that faith. Some don't. As always, the struggle is with being confident that the book is divine. The only proof anyone can have the the book is divine is clues, inferrences, accuracy, relevance, and ultimately, it matters if the people you trust in your life (usually family) can back it up with their experiences. That's how it's been passed on over the centuries. How do we know anything really exists today when we can't even rely on video evidence now? Video, audio, pictures, text, signatures, handwriting, anything can be faked. So what do we do? Every person takes his path and I don't think you will ultimately be judged by your journey, but by your goal. Even if you don't reach that goal you reach two places again... 1) There's no God. You did the best you could. You're good. 2) There is a God, in which case he obviously knows what your path would have been, what your heart's intention is, and will judge your life that way.
