Organized Religion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tiberry · 12-28-2008, 04:53 AM

Yep - been done over and over again, but not enough!

I've "borrowed" and paraphrased liberally from Richard Bach's "One" throughout this post. Doesn't seem wrong since the majority is already posted elsewhere on the Internet; sorry for the loooong post - but read it if you care to and comment on your thoughts about organized religion.

This is what organized religion has become to me:

“God's word” - Empty syllables, more powerful than arrows, for no one dares stand against them. How simply the quick grasp power from fools! Man does not possess the ability, nor the right to claim responsibility for accurately transcribing God's Word - much less teaching it to others.

The words and teaching of organized religions today are not God's word - they're man's word assigned to God so that no one dares question.

The fallacy of fear stands out the most - teach others of a vengeful and ruthless God, full of anger and spite for those who dare not listen to "his words"…teach your children to be good "God fearing" Christians. Does this sound like a God of love to you?

You can build entire nations from this idea, enslaving countless people in lies. First turn merciless, then claim you're the Scourge of God and your armies swell with those too dim to imagine a loving God, too frightened to challenge an evil one. Shout that God promises women, oranges, wine, virgins, and all the gold of Persia when they die with the blood of infidels on their swords, and you have a force that turns cities into rubble.

To seize power, call up God's word, for that word best shifts fear to rage at any enemy you choose! We've even become so twisted as to believe that there is such a thing as waging war in "God's name". That our purpose is "just and right in the eyes of God". In God we trust, indeed.

Quote:

The Pageite Wars
From One, by Richard Bach, 1988, Pan Books. Chapter 10, pp118-129.

Where we stopped, grass spread around us like an emerald pond cupped in mountains. Sunset flamed from crimson clouds.

Switzerland, I thought at once, we've landed on a Swiss postcard. Away down in the valley was a sweep of trees, sudden houses, high peaked roofs, a church steeple. There was a cart of the village road, pulled not by a tractor or horse but by some kind of cow.

I saw no one nearby, not a path, not a goat trail. Just this lake of grass, sprinkled with wildflowers, half-circled by snow-capped rocky steeps.

"Now why do you suppose…" I said. "Where are we?"

"France," said Leslie. She said it without thinking, and before I could ask her how she knew, she caught her breath. "Look."

She pointed to a cleft in the rock, where an old man in a coarse brown robe knelt on the ground near a small campfire. He was welding; brilliant yellow-white flickered and danced on the rocks behind him.

"What's a welder doing up here?" I asked.

She watched him for a moment. "He's not welding," she said, as though she were remembering the scene instead of observing it. "He's praying."

She set off toward him and I followed, deciding to stay quiet.

Closer and we saw sure enough, that was no welding torch. No sound, no smoke, it was a flaring sun-color pillar pulsing above the ground less than a yard from the elder.

"…and to the world shall you give, as you have received," came a gentle voice from the light. "Give to all who yearn to know the truth from whence we come, the reason for our being, and the course that lies ahead on the way to our forever home."

We stopped a few yards behind him, transfixed by the sight. I had seen that brilliance once before in my life, years ago, had been stunned by one accidental glimpse of what to this day I still call Love. The light we saw this moment was the same, so radiant it rendered the world a footnote, a dim asterisk.

Then, next instant, the light was gone. Beneath the place where it had been lay a sheaf of golden paper, a scripture in grand calligraphy.

The man knelt silent, eyes closed, unaware of our presence.

Leslie walked forward, reached for the glowing manuscript, picked it up.

Expecting runes or hieroglyphics, we found words in English. Of course, I thought. The old man would read them as French, a Persian as Farsi. So it must be with revelation - it's not the language that matters, but the communication of ideas.

You are creatures of light, we read. From light have you come, to light shall you go, and surrounding you through every step is the light of your infinite being.
She turned a page.

By your choice dwell you now in the world which you have created. What you hold in your heart shall be true, and what most you admire, that shall you become.

Fear not, nor be dismayed at the appearance that is darkness, at the disguise that is evil, at the empty cloak that is death, for you have picked these for your challenges. They are the stones on which you choose to whet the keen edge of your spirit. Know that ever about you stands the reality of love, and each moment you have the power to transform your world by what you have learned.

The pages went on, hundreds of them. We leafed through, struck in awe.

You are life, inventing form. No more can you die on sword or years than you can die on doorways through which you walk, one room into another. Every room gives its word for you to speak, every passage its song for you to sing.

Leslie looked at me, her eyes luminous. If this writing could touch us so, I thought, we from the twentieth century, what effect would it have on people from whatever this-was…the twelfth!

We turned back to the manuscript. No words of ritual, no directions for worship, no calling down fire and destruction on enemies, no disasters for unbelievers, no cruel Attila-gods. It didn't mention temples or priests or rabbis or congregations or choirs or costumes or , jihad, or holy days. It was scripture written for the loving inner being, and for that being only.

Turn these ideas loose in this century, I thought, a key to recognize our power over belief, unleash the power of love, and terror will vanish. With this, the world can sidestep the Dark Ages!

The old man opened his eyes, saw us at last, and stood as unafraid as if he'd read the scripture through. He glanced at me, looked a long moment at Leslie.

"I am Jean-Paul Le Clerc," he said. "And you are angels."

Before we recovered from our puzzlement the man laughed, joyfully. "Did you notice," he said, "the Light?"

''Inspiration!" said my wife, handing him the golden pages.

"Inspiration, indeed." He bowed as though he remembered her, and she, at least, were an angel. "These words are key to the truth for any who will read, they are life to those who will listen. When I was a child, the Light promised that the pages would come to my hand on the night you should appear. Now that I am old, you have come, and they."

"They will change the world," I said.

He looked at me strangely. "No."

"But they were given to you...."

"… in test," he said.

"Test?"

I have traveled far," he said, "I have studied scriptures of a hundred faiths, from Cathay to the Norselands." His eyes twinkled. "And in spite of my study, I have learned. Every grand religion begins in light. Yet only hearts hold light. Pages cannot."

"But you have in your hands. . . ." I said. "You must read it. It's beautiful!"

"I have paper in my hands," said the elder. "Give these words to the world, and they will be loved and understood by those who already know their truth. But before we give them we must name them. And that will be their death."

"To name a beautiful thing is to kill it?"

He looked at me surprised. "To name a thing is harmless. To name these ideas is to create a religion."

"Why?"

He smiled, handing me the manuscript. "I give these pages to you ...?"

"Richard," I told him.

"I give these pages directly from the Light of Love to you, Richard. Do you want to give them in turn to the world, to people yearning to know what they say, to ones who have not been privileged to stand at this place in the moment the gift was given? Or do you want to keep this writing for yourself alone?"

"I want to give them, of course!"

"And what will you call your gift?"

What is he getting at, I wondered. "Does it matter?"

"If you do not name it, others will. They will call it The Book of Richard."

"I see. All right. I'll call it anything ... the pages."

"And will you safeguard The Pages? Or will you allow others to edit them, to change what they don't understand, to strike out what they please, whatever is not to their liking?"

"No! No changes. They were delivered from the light! No changes!"

"Are you sure? Not a line here and there, for good reason? 'Most people won't understand?' 'This might offend?' 'The message isn't clear?'"

"No changes!"

He raised his eyebrows, questioning. "Who are you to insist?"

I was here when they were given," I said. "I saw them appear, myself!"

"So," he said, "you have become the Keeper of the Pages?"

"Doesn't have to be me. It can be any one as long as they promise no changes."

"But someone is Keeper of the Pages?"

"Someone. I suppose."

"And here begins the Pageite priesthood. Those who give their lives to protect an order of thinking become the priests of that order. Yet any new order, any new way, is change. And change is the end of the world as it is."

"These pages are no threat," I said. "They're love and freedom!"

"And love and freedom are the end of fear and slavery."

"Of course!" I said, vexed. What was he getting at? Why was Leslie standing silent? Didn't she agree that this was….

"Those who profit from fear and slavery," said Le Clerc, "will they be happy with the message of the Pages?"

"Probably not, but we can't let this ... light ... be lost!"

"Will you promise to protect the light?' he said.

"Of course!"

"The other Pageites, your friends, they'll protect it too?"

"Yes."

"And if the profiteers in fear and slavery convince the king of this land that you are dangerous, if they march on your house, if they come with swords, how are you going to protect the Pages?"

"I'll take them away! I'll escape!"

"And when you're followed, and caught, and cornered?"
"If I have to fight, I'll fight," I said. "There are principles more important than life. Some ideas are worth dying for."

"The old man sighed. "And so began the Pageite Wars," he said. "Armor and swords and shields and banners, horses and fire and blood in the streets. They will not be small wars. Thousands of true believers will join you, tens of thousands, swift and strong and smart. But the principles of the Pages challenge the rulers of every nation that keeps its power through fear and darkness. Tens of thousands will ride against you."

At last it began to dawn, what Le Clerc was trying to tell me.

"To be known," he went on, "to be distinguished from others, you will need a symbol. What symbol will you choose? What sign will you strike upon your banners?"

My heart sank under the weight of his words, but I struggled on.

"The symbol of light," I said. "The sign of the flame."

"And so shall it be," he said, reading history unwritten, "that the Sign of the Flame shall meet the Sign of the Cross on the battlefields of France, and the Flame shall prevail, a glorious victory, and the first cities of the Cross shall be leveled by your pure fire. But the Cross shall join with the Crescent, and together their armies shall swarm in from the south and the east and down from the north, a hundred thousand armed men to your eighty thousand."

Oh, stop, I wanted to say. I know what comes next.

"And for every soldier of the Cross and warrior of the Crescent whom you kill protecting your gift, a hundred will hate your name. Their fathers and mothers, their wives and daughters and sons and friends will hate the Pageites and the cursed Pages for the murder of their loved ones, and every Pageite will despise every Christian and cursed Cross and every Moslem and cursed Crescent for the murder of their own."

"No!" I cried. Every word he said was true.

"And during the Wars, altars will spring up, cathedrals and spires will rise to enshrine the Pages. Those reaching for growth and understanding will find themselves burdened instead with new superstitions and new limits: bells and symbols, rules and chants, ceremonies and prayers and vestments, incense and offerings of gold. The heart of Pageism will turn from love to gold. Gold to build greater temples, gold to buy swords to convert the non-believers and save their souls."

"And when you die, First Keeper of the Pages, gold to build images of you. There will be towering statues, grand frescoes, paintings to commit this scene to immortal art. See, woven in this tapestry: here the Light, there the Pages, there the vault of the sky opened to Paradise. Here kneels Richard the Great in gleaming armor, here the lovely Angel of Wisdom, the Hallowed Pages in her hand; here old Le Clerc at his humble campfire in the mountains, witness to the vision."

No! I thought. Impossible!

But it wasn't impossible, it was inevitable.

"Give these pages to the world, and there shall be another mighty religion, another priesthood, another Us and another Them, one set against the other. In a hundred years, a million will have died for the words we hold in our hands; in a thousand years, tens of millions. All for this paper.

"There was no trace of bitterness in his voice, nor did it grow cynical or weary. Jean-Paul Le Clerc was filled with a lifetime's learning, calm acceptance of what he had found.

Leslie shivered.

"Do you want my jacket?" I said.

"No thank you, wookie," she said. "It's not the cold."

"Not the cold," said Le Clerc. He stooped and picked a brand from his fire, raised it to touch the golden pages. "This will warm you."

"No!" I jerked the sheaf away. "Burn the truth?"

"The truth doesn't burn. The truth waits for anyone who wishes to find it," he said. "Only these pages will burn. It is your choice. Would you like Pageism to become the next religion in this world?" He smiled. "You will be saints of the church. . . ."

I looked to Leslie, saw the horror in her eyes that I felt in my own.

She took the brand from him, touched it to the comers of the parchment. The blaze grew to a wide sun-white blossom under our fingers, and in a moment we let the bright shards fall to the ground. They burned a moment longer and went dark.

The old man sighed his relief. "What a blessed evening!" he said. "How rarely are we given the chance to save the world from a new religion!"

"Then he faced my wife, smiling hopefully. "We did save it?"

She smiled back at him. "We did. There is not a word in our history, Jean-Paul Le Clerc, of the Pageites or their wars."

They looked a tender goodbye to each other, skeptic to loving skeptic. Then with a small bow to both of us, the old man turned and walked up the mountain into the dark.

The fiery pages still burned in my mind, inspiration turned to ash.
"But the ones who need what those pages had to say," I said to Leslie. "How can they ... how can we learn what was written there?"

"He's right," she said, looking after the man until she could see him no more, "whoever wants truth and light can find it for themselves."

"I'm not sure. Sometimes we need a teacher."

She turned to me. "Try this," she said. "Pretend that you honestly truly deeply want to know who you are, where you came from and why you're here. Pretend you're willing never to rest till you know."

I nodded and imagined myself non-stop determined resolute, eager to learn, combing libraries for books and back-issues, haunting lectures and seminars, keeping diaries of my hopes and speculation, writing intuitions, meditating on mountaintops, following leads from dreams and coincidence, asking strangers -- all the steps we take when learning matters more than anything. "OK."

"Now," she said, "can you imagine yourself not finding out?"

Whuf, I thought. How this woman can make me see!

I bowed in answer. "My Lady Le Clerc, Princess of Knowing."

She curtsied slowly in the dark. "My Lord Richard, Prince of the Flame."

Close and silent in the clear mountain air, I took her in my arms, the stars no longer above but around us. We were one with the stars, one with Le Clerc, with the pages and their love, one with everything that is, that ever was or will be. One.

Thoughts, comments, attacks, counter points, etc. very welcome...

tcp · 12-28-2008, 06:38 AM

I say don't attack the foundation, change the process. What I find interesting about "One" is that it seems to take place in a medieval time, even if it could be fantasy and the message was meant to be universal. Now, when they burned those pages, did they stop a war? Mankind was fighting before religion came to be. It is the nature of man to want what another has. A peaceful people would only last so long before they would be forced to defend themselves. Would Richard or his wife have regrets if they went out into the world and saw that men were fighting each other over land, wealth, and power, anyways? They could stop it if they presented those pages. It would place a standard on people, that most would believe in and follow. That is, until, they found a better excuse to wage war, such as religion vs. religion. Mankind has done a pretty good job of accepting other races and learning to live together. Now does that leave religion as what separates mankind from becoming 'one'?

Maintaining that the scripture is the word of God has served to keep man from changing the rules to their own benefit. Whether you believe that the message has become distorted over so long a time, doesn't change what Jesus did. Really, you can learn from his story whether you believe he existed or not. He came into this world knowing what was in the hearts of men. He knew the evil of men and that he would be crucified, but his actions as a man set an example for how to live righteously in a unfair world. He died for the sins of all mankind, even those yet to come. We would continue to sin, but he didn't force the people of that time to change, and he didn't change what it is to be human.

Now, many people attack religion, bringing up its flaws and thinking that the people who believe in it are foolish. Those who don't believe in God, probably at one point, wanted to believe in something, but reason to them was more powerful than faith. It is said the most pious people in history often hide a great internal struggle over their faith. And there are people who don't allow their faith to be shaken, but that does not mean they don't question what goes on in this world. To them, religion is about being a good person along with their community. Most religious people accept others, even if they think you should believe in their message.

I think that religion is a necessary part of our evolution. Not much separates us from humans a couple thousand years ago. We have grown more intelligent, but morals are not embedded in our genetic code. Our selfish nature has not changed, in other words. Many of our institutionalized beliefs prevent humans from acting as barbarians, however, we are obviously still capable of doing so. No matter how non-religious you may be, your beliefs are still borrowed. They took root in religion. You may say it's time religion changed. Well, with as many denominations as there are nowadays, I say it is, and possibly has been for a while now. Actually, if it is true that a house divided can not stand, then maybe organized religion is on its way out. You've probably heard of the coming Age of Aquarius, when science becomes more powerful than religion, reason greater than faith. Every person becomes independent enough to decide their beliefs on their own, which means religion is no longer needed, but supposedly family ties disappear also. What determines value is cold logic. The question remains, are we advanced enough to no longer need religion? With religion there is warmth as much as their is darkness. Whatever replaces religion will not differ in that. As much as we may welcome change, we would be incompatible with a distant future that has totally done away with religion. I think we are just lucky to live in a time when religion exists, but we are free to question it.

tiberry · 12-28-2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamtc

Now, when they burned those pages, did they stop a war?

Yes. They stopped unnecessary killing in the name of yet another organized religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamtc

Mankind was fighting before religion came to be. It is the nature of man to want what another has. A peaceful people would only last so long before they would be forced to defend themselves.

Agreed. But fighting/killing for these reasons are beyond the scope of this post. This is focused on the zealousness of any particular organized religion and the inherent killing that takes place in the name of spreading/enforcing said religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamtc

Would Richard or his wife have regrets if they went out into the world and saw that men were fighting each other over land, wealth, and power, anyways? They could stop it if they presented those pages.

Really? Do you think so? Maybe they could have changed the reason for killing, but not the killing....which is the point of my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamtc

Mankind has done a pretty good job of accepting other races and learning to live together. Now does that leave religion as what separates mankind from becoming 'one'?

Oh really? Do you truly believe what you've postulated here? "Mankind has done a pretty good job of accepting other races and learning to live together?" Please give examples!

tcp · 12-28-2008, 08:26 AM

I think you should have narrowed down what the question was, because that excerpt says a lot.

I am saying that the fighting could be in spite of religion. Religion has united otherwise different people. It welcomes you as long as you believe the same thing, which is probably better than being persecuted for race, for example. It has been a recent struggle, but most races are equal. Ethnic lines are blurring. Religion is not perfect, but its a good start.

asaris · 12-29-2008, 06:06 AM

It seems to me that even without religion, mankind is pretty good at finding reasons for war. Religion may provide a convenient excuse, but wars would happen with about equal frequency with or without it.

Dead_man · 12-29-2008, 07:42 AM

Like everything, you can take good and bad away from it. Most use the bad to push an agenda, others use the good to push an agenda.

The flaw is within humanity, not the religion. Take, for instance, muslims. We are now learning that the Persian and Muslim influences have shaped a lot of what we know today. Early invention history has had to be re-written because a muslim or persian did it earlier than we'd known. ...BUT! Some extremist muslims did not like how advanced their society was becoming, because of any reason, really... mainly though, it was forgetting the "old" ways. So, they'd overthrow a leader or two and knock the people back down into the stone age. As that leader faded away, and the civilization started advancing again, another would come along to destroy it.

Is the flaw in the religion? Partly, because it leaves a lot open to interpretation. The main flaw is some bonehead who can't stand to see the old ways having to adapt. Who knows where we'd be as a society if people would have just calmed down for a few thousand years. It's easy to blame religion but religion didn't start the war. It took some zealot to do it.

I have a saying: Religion is beautiful. It's the people that ruin it.

Cynosure · 12-29-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiberry

This is what organized religion has become...

"Has become..."? Don't you mean, "Has always been..."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiberry

“God's word” - Empty syllables, more powerful than arrows, for no one dares stand against them. How simply the quick grasp power from fools! Man does not possess the ability, nor the right to claim responsibility for accurately transcribing God's Word - much less teaching it to others.

The words and teaching of organized religions today are not God's word - they're man's word assigned to God so that no one dares question.

And yet, the three major religions (i.e. being the most influential on world history and events, as well as having the most numerous of followers) of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share most of the books of the Old Testament as their foundation, and these religions have endured upon that foundation for thousands of years, up into the modern day. So, the Old Testament, at least, is made up of much, much more than "empty syllables". I mean, even if, veritably, the Old Testament is not of divine origin (i.e. divinely inspired, if not outright divinely transcribed), it is still one of the most incredible, fascinating and influential – if not the most incredible, fascinating and influential – works ever written in human history. You may disagree with it and disbelieve in it, and you may even call for its disuse, but you shouldn't discount it all as empty nonsense.

levite · 12-30-2008, 02:44 PM

I tend to think that making statements about "organized religion" is painting with an overly wide brush. Religion is a double-edged sword, like pretty much all forms of knowledge. It can be used responsibly or it can be misused and abused. Because it is more powerful knowledge than most kinds, if it is abused, the effect is horrific. But the same can be said about a number of kinds of knowledge.

Part of the problem of religion being misused, I think, has to do with the necessity of some notion of pluralism in the tradition, in some way that does not compromise the tradition itself. Christianity is still struggling with this, but has made advances. Judaism is currently experiencing a number of problems due to many on one end of the Jewish spectrum neglecting the pluralism, and many on the other end neglecting the tradition. Islam is in the deepest struggle of the three, because (insofar as I know) there has not been a dominant interpretive tradition of pluralism, and only recently has there begun to be suggestions of religious liberalism and progressive theology.

But that does not mean, I think, that "all religion" is bad. That means that religious cultures or societies are, like all cultures or societies, evolving and growing.

Ideally, religion is an ongoing conversation between humans and God, wherein we attempt to mature and become better able to comprehend the Infinite, and God in turn attempts to guide us more subtly, and permit us more room to learn, and make Himself known to us in personal ways. Granted, this ideal has often gone astray, and on occasion has been dreadfully perverted. And when it is not perverted maliciously for personal gain, it is perverted unwittingly, by fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism-- which is really what most anti-religious folks these days have a problem with, not religion per se-- is not equivalent with religion. Nor does it have to be. Many religions, many religious movements, many religious people, have been quite clear that there are other ways to interpret Scripture besides literally and strictly, and that an Infinite God might well provide different revelations and different paths to different people at different times, and all might be right for the people for whom they were intended, without the necessity of there being One Right Way.

Nonetheless, practically, if one wished to say that it is generally not a good idea for religious organizations to be in charge of governments, or to otherwise implement permanent institutions of hierarchical power, I would hasten to agree. But I don't believe such things are innately necessary to organized religions, though there are some that have (unwisely, IMO) adopted them.

But in any case-- and I mean no offense in saying this, nor do I intend it as any kind of personal attack-- I think that it is not necessarily productive to condemn all organized religion, nor to do so in an insulting fashion. Religion is not going anywhere; that being the case, perhaps it might serve us all best to encourage not a suppression or elimination of religion, but a liberalization of religion, and to support the progress of pluralism in religion, while at the same time respectfully maintaining and/or encouraging the separation of religion and government. Also, as someone who is religious, but does not believe in fundamentalism.

As for Richard Bach, I think I will refrain from responding to his words: he is a professional atheist, and as such, he is as much a fundamentalist about his beliefs as any fervent evangelical is about theirs. Which is his right, of course; but that does not make it any more productive to attempt debate with him. His mind is made up.

Lebell · 01-17-2009, 08:39 AM

Like most things, your view of religion is your own paradigm of your creation. I believe we bring into it our own hurts and wants and then justify that it must be religion's fault.

As has been noted, religion has done some great things.

Also as has been noted, we find reasons to kill without religion. I would point towards any of the great killings perpetrated in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., all done without religion.

12-28-2008, 06:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
tcp Crazy	I say don't attack the foundation, change the process. What I find interesting about "One" is that it seems to take place in a medieval time, even if it could be fantasy and the message was meant to be universal. Now, when they burned those pages, did they stop a war? Mankind was fighting before religion came to be. It is the nature of man to want what another has. A peaceful people would only last so long before they would be forced to defend themselves. Would Richard or his wife have regrets if they went out into the world and saw that men were fighting each other over land, wealth, and power, anyways? They could stop it if they presented those pages. It would place a standard on people, that most would believe in and follow. That is, until, they found a better excuse to wage war, such as religion vs. religion. Mankind has done a pretty good job of accepting other races and learning to live together. Now does that leave religion as what separates mankind from becoming 'one'? Maintaining that the scripture is the word of God has served to keep man from changing the rules to their own benefit. Whether you believe that the message has become distorted over so long a time, doesn't change what Jesus did. Really, you can learn from his story whether you believe he existed or not. He came into this world knowing what was in the hearts of men. He knew the evil of men and that he would be crucified, but his actions as a man set an example for how to live righteously in a unfair world. He died for the sins of all mankind, even those yet to come. We would continue to sin, but he didn't force the people of that time to change, and he didn't change what it is to be human. Now, many people attack religion, bringing up its flaws and thinking that the people who believe in it are foolish. Those who don't believe in God, probably at one point, wanted to believe in something, but reason to them was more powerful than faith. It is said the most pious people in history often hide a great internal struggle over their faith. And there are people who don't allow their faith to be shaken, but that does not mean they don't question what goes on in this world. To them, religion is about being a good person along with their community. Most religious people accept others, even if they think you should believe in their message. I think that religion is a necessary part of our evolution. Not much separates us from humans a couple thousand years ago. We have grown more intelligent, but morals are not embedded in our genetic code. Our selfish nature has not changed, in other words. Many of our institutionalized beliefs prevent humans from acting as barbarians, however, we are obviously still capable of doing so. No matter how non-religious you may be, your beliefs are still borrowed. They took root in religion. You may say it's time religion changed. Well, with as many denominations as there are nowadays, I say it is, and possibly has been for a while now. Actually, if it is true that a house divided can not stand, then maybe organized religion is on its way out. You've probably heard of the coming Age of Aquarius, when science becomes more powerful than religion, reason greater than faith. Every person becomes independent enough to decide their beliefs on their own, which means religion is no longer needed, but supposedly family ties disappear also. What determines value is cold logic. The question remains, are we advanced enough to no longer need religion? With religion there is warmth as much as their is darkness. Whatever replaces religion will not differ in that. As much as we may welcome change, we would be incompatible with a distant future that has totally done away with religion. I think we are just lucky to live in a time when religion exists, but we are free to question it. Last edited by tcp; 12-28-2008 at 08:13 AM..

12-29-2008, 06:06 AM	#5 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	It seems to me that even without religion, mankind is pretty good at finding reasons for war. Religion may provide a convenient excuse, but wars would happen with about equal frequency with or without it. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

12-30-2008, 02:44 PM	#8 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	I tend to think that making statements about "organized religion" is painting with an overly wide brush. Religion is a double-edged sword, like pretty much all forms of knowledge. It can be used responsibly or it can be misused and abused. Because it is more powerful knowledge than most kinds, if it is abused, the effect is horrific. But the same can be said about a number of kinds of knowledge. Part of the problem of religion being misused, I think, has to do with the necessity of some notion of pluralism in the tradition, in some way that does not compromise the tradition itself. Christianity is still struggling with this, but has made advances. Judaism is currently experiencing a number of problems due to many on one end of the Jewish spectrum neglecting the pluralism, and many on the other end neglecting the tradition. Islam is in the deepest struggle of the three, because (insofar as I know) there has not been a dominant interpretive tradition of pluralism, and only recently has there begun to be suggestions of religious liberalism and progressive theology. But that does not mean, I think, that "all religion" is bad. That means that religious cultures or societies are, like all cultures or societies, evolving and growing. Ideally, religion is an ongoing conversation between humans and God, wherein we attempt to mature and become better able to comprehend the Infinite, and God in turn attempts to guide us more subtly, and permit us more room to learn, and make Himself known to us in personal ways. Granted, this ideal has often gone astray, and on occasion has been dreadfully perverted. And when it is not perverted maliciously for personal gain, it is perverted unwittingly, by fundamentalism. Fundamentalism-- which is really what most anti-religious folks these days have a problem with, not religion per se-- is not equivalent with religion. Nor does it have to be. Many religions, many religious movements, many religious people, have been quite clear that there are other ways to interpret Scripture besides literally and strictly, and that an Infinite God might well provide different revelations and different paths to different people at different times, and all might be right for the people for whom they were intended, without the necessity of there being One Right Way. Nonetheless, practically, if one wished to say that it is generally not a good idea for religious organizations to be in charge of governments, or to otherwise implement permanent institutions of hierarchical power, I would hasten to agree. But I don't believe such things are innately necessary to organized religions, though there are some that have (unwisely, IMO) adopted them. But in any case-- and I mean no offense in saying this, nor do I intend it as any kind of personal attack-- I think that it is not necessarily productive to condemn all organized religion, nor to do so in an insulting fashion. Religion is not going anywhere; that being the case, perhaps it might serve us all best to encourage not a suppression or elimination of religion, but a liberalization of religion, and to support the progress of pluralism in religion, while at the same time respectfully maintaining and/or encouraging the separation of religion and government. Also, as someone who is religious, but does not believe in fundamentalism. As for Richard Bach, I think I will refrain from responding to his words: he is a professional atheist, and as such, he is as much a fundamentalist about his beliefs as any fervent evangelical is about theirs. Which is his right, of course; but that does not make it any more productive to attempt debate with him. His mind is made up. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

01-17-2009, 08:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Like most things, your view of religion is your own paradigm of your creation. I believe we bring into it our own hurts and wants and then justify that it must be religion's fault. As has been noted, religion has done some great things. Also as has been noted, we find reasons to kill without religion. I would point towards any of the great killings perpetrated in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., all done without religion. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-28-2008, 08:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
tcp Crazy	I think you should have narrowed down what the question was, because that excerpt says a lot. I am saying that the fighting could be in spite of religion. Religion has united otherwise different people. It welcomes you as long as you believe the same thing, which is probably better than being persecuted for race, for example. It has been a recent struggle, but most races are equal. Ethnic lines are blurring. Religion is not perfect, but its a good start.

12-29-2008, 07:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
Dead_man Upright	Like everything, you can take good and bad away from it. Most use the bad to push an agenda, others use the good to push an agenda. The flaw is within humanity, not the religion. Take, for instance, muslims. We are now learning that the Persian and Muslim influences have shaped a lot of what we know today. Early invention history has had to be re-written because a muslim or persian did it earlier than we'd known. ...BUT! Some extremist muslims did not like how advanced their society was becoming, because of any reason, really... mainly though, it was forgetting the "old" ways. So, they'd overthrow a leader or two and knock the people back down into the stone age. As that leader faded away, and the civilization started advancing again, another would come along to destroy it. Is the flaw in the religion? Partly, because it leaves a lot open to interpretation. The main flaw is some bonehead who can't stand to see the old ways having to adapt. Who knows where we'd be as a society if people would have just calmed down for a few thousand years. It's easy to blame religion but religion didn't start the war. It took some zealot to do it. I have a saying: Religion is beautiful. It's the people that ruin it.