Organized Religion, Good or Bad?

[cariad]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad

[Tojo]

Dungeon Master - perhaps that highlights the importance of worshipping God, not the leaders of the organisation or the organisation itself.

cariad

Exactly my point earlier in the thread.

You're not just a pretty face cariad.

Tojo

[fantassy]

I would never criticize anyone's religious beliefs...unless it becomes destructive.

By destructive: Teaching people that commiting suicide is alright ( Jim Jones); Killing or torturing people because you consider them heretics ( The Inquisitions); Allowing people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings ( 9/11)

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy

[DungeonMaster6]

I agree with you fantassy

[cariad]

Don't you think organized religion can be more subtly be destructive? Isn't a religion that tells its followers that homosexuals are going to hell destructive? Destructive to the homosexuals by rejecting and ostracizing them. Destructive to our society by promoting intolerance.

fantassy

I also agree with you.

[ColinClout(c)]

See my earlier post for my answer to this question. While I don't mind debating this topic I'm don't think this is the thread to do it in. This is about organized religion, not whether or not Aesop is absolutely wrong about absolutes.

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

[ColinClout(c)]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

[Aesop]

My apologies if I am talking off topic. The reason I began with this point is as follows.

If we are asking whether or not organised religion is destructive, I would argue that the primary issue is whether the teaching of that particular religion is (or is not) true. If it is not true, it might be useful for some other end that we agree to be desirable (although we would then have to ask where we get the values from that allow us to say anything is desirable), in which case it is helpful or constructive. However, if the ends change or the means no longer work, as long as the teaching is not true, we are at liberty to change it.

If, however, the teaching is true, regardless of whether we find it comforting, convenient, upsetting or unpalatable, we cannot change it, and we would be foolish to live in denial of it. So truth come before usefulness.

'Colin'

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

[Aesop]

and tolerance is an interesting word. If tolerance is your supreme value, how do you respond to people who are intolerant?

'Colin'

A quote I particularly like.

"Open-minded people must accept the possibility that being closed-minded is better. Close-minded people can take comfort in knowing that they are right." - no author listed.

[ColinClout(c)]

The trouble with that arguement is that the truth of any organized religion can't be proven. To me the issue of truth is the primary reason organized religion has had such a destructive impact on the world at large. "We are the true believers. You are infidels." Faith is a wonderful thing, and I won't dispute that, but to take faith to extremes and call it truth breeds contempt for other faiths.

I agree that absolute (that word again) proof cannot be alleged for any faith, including, of course, atheism. What I would assert is that the issues raised by religion are of sufficient importance that each of us would be well advised to look at the evidence and take a position. And I freely accept that having done so different people will come to wildly different conclusions.

Yet whether or not we can prove something does not affect whether or not it is true, at least not on my philosophical understanding of truth. (And I confess I am unequal to the task of debating different understandings of that, although I will try if anyone wants to!) Electrons existed long before we could prove they did. And if a person has been convinced of the truth of a faith, it is entirely logical that they should seek to contest other thought systems that contradict it.

So those who adhere to a religion will always feel that its utility is, on the one hand, supremely important, in that it is how things are and the basis for all other thought and behaviour.

Several cans opened there, but I will stop for fear of going off-thread...

'Colin'

[Aesop]

I agree that absolute (that word again) proof cannot be alleged for any faith, including, of course, atheism. What I would assert is that the issues raised by religion are of sufficient importance that each of us would be well advised to look at the evidence and take a position. And I freely accept that having done so different people will come to wildly different conclusions.

Yet whether or not we can prove something does not affect whether or not it is true, at least not on my philosophical understanding of truth. (And I confess I am unequal to the task of debating different understandings of that, although I will try if anyone wants to!) Electrons existed long before we could prove they did. And if a person has been convinced of the truth of a faith, it is entirely logical that they should seek to contest other thought systems that contradict it.

So those who adhere to a religion will always feel that its utility is, on the one hand, supremely important, in that it is how things are and the basis for all other thought and behaviour.

Several cans opened there, but I will stop for fear of going off-thread...

'Colin'

First of all let me say that it is truly a pleasure to debate with you.

Your understanding of truth is close to my own and I have no arguement with that. Proof doesn't equal truth and lack of proof doesn't make a lie. But...truth without concrete proof seems to me to be a personal truth and not one to be imposed on others. I have found my faith and am at peace with it. I will explain it to anyone who wants to hear it, but otherwise I don't bother people with it. Organized religion is hardly ever content with that. They push and prod and force their "truth" upon others. Even when that truth has been distorted from what evidence there is. Take Christianity for example.

Jesus taught tolerance and peace. He never once wrote anything down regarding rules or exceptions from the Kingdom of Heaven. All were accepted as long as they had faith in Him and His Father. Not 30 years after his death his disciples imposed rules upon the faith exempting certain groups of people and giving them rules to live by. Those rules became the basis of the Christian faith; not the teachings of the Nazarene.

My point in all of this is that taking the truth you can't prove to the extremes of war or persecution seems...silly?...to me. Why waste the time? Chances are just as good that you are wrong as that you are right so why make an issue of it? Learn from one another, share your faith, hold your own truths, but don't stone the guy next door if he worships the lamp-post.

[Malicat]

Just wanted to drop in my opinions here... It seems popular to bash organized religion nowadays, I've been noticing. I'm going to have to sound class-ist here for a moment, but I feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.

It seems like kind of a harsh way of looking at things, but society is based on control. Religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control, because it gives the ability to say 'you must do this or else' and not have to worry about reinforcing the threat with action. Regardless of whether or not any religion is logical or true, it is intrinsically necessary.

Take the Declaration of Independence for example. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. God gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The French tried something similar in 1789, however they forgot something crucial. They left out God. And Napoleon had to restore order.

--Mali

[cheeseburger]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

[Ozme52]

Not to repeat what's alreay been said here, but organized religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

As with any system without checks and balances, the ones on top tend to get corrupt. The same is true with religion; over the years the 'leader' or influential figure in the religion abused the power he had over others. (This happened in pretty much every religion, so I won't go into details).

Beyond that, I see no problem in people actively participating in an organized religion. Personally, I don't, but that's just my opinion.

Again, you need to draw the distinction between believing in god and participating in organized religion. They are very different.

Well, that's the point. The moment religion becomes "organized" it begins imposing on it's followers and making rules beyond the original precepts of the beliefs.

[fantassy]

JI feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.
--Mali

You certainly express the view held by Thomas Hobbs. He too argued that the moral suasion of ministers and the promise/threat of eternal rewards and punishments could be harnessed to state purposes as an auxiliary form of social control since "men's actions are derived from the opinions they have of good and evil." However, that view was considered and rejected by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and James Madison when drafting the religious liberty clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall mke no law repecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson, especially, saw this clause as "building a wall of separation between Chruch and State." He saw the effects of organized religion on government as largely deleterious, leading to persecution and civil war. (hmm, can we say Iraq?)

Not sure if this stuff adds to the discussion, but your comments made me think of it.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Just wanted to drop in my opinions here... It seems popular to bash organized religion nowadays, I've been noticing. I'm going to have to sound class-ist here for a moment, but I feel that organized religion is absolutely critical to a stable government. There will always be classes in society, and religion is the best way to keep control of the lower classes, which also tend to be more numerous.

It seems like kind of a harsh way of looking at things, but society is based on control. Religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control, because it gives the ability to say 'you must do this or else' and not have to worry about reinforcing the threat with action. Regardless of whether or not any religion is logical or true, it is intrinsically necessary.

Take the Declaration of Independence for example. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. God gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The French tried something similar in 1789, however they forgot something crucial. They left out God. And Napoleon had to restore order.

--Mali

I completely agree with your statement that religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control of the populace. Do this or go to hell! is a great way to motivate people, yes. It's a (and I apologize for the language) fucking horrible thing to use religion for, but yes it's effective. I don't agree that it's critical to a stable government though. Here in the U.S. we have many different orginizations trying to save our souls and although the majority are Christian, there are large groups of other faiths that take part in the political process. There are also large groups of atheists and agnostics that have an impact. And of course the politically correct army keeping their fingers in the government pie and religion out of our schools. Even with all that going on our lives are as stable as one could expect in a state of an ongoing war. Also you choose to interpret Creator as God. All right. Which God? Jefferson doesn't say YWHW or Allah or even Jesus, just Creator and as Jefferson was himself dubious of organized religon I doubt he was advocating the use of it as a governing tool.

[Malicat]

I completely agree with your statement that religion is probably one of the best ways to maintain control of the populace. Do this or go to hell! is a great way to motivate people, yes. It's a (and I apologize for the language) fucking horrible thing to use religion for, but yes it's effective. I don't agree that it's critical to a stable government though. Here in the U.S. we have many different orginizations trying to save our souls and although the majority are Christian, there are large groups of other faiths that take part in the political process. There are also large groups of atheists and agnostics that have an impact. And of course the politically correct army keeping their fingers in the government pie and religion out of our schools. Even with all that going on our lives are as stable as one could expect in a state of an ongoing war. Also you choose to interpret Creator as God. All right. Which God? Jefferson doesn't say YWHW or Allah or even Jesus, just Creator and as Jefferson was himself dubious of organized religon I doubt he was advocating the use of it as a governing tool.

Hmmm, while faith takes place in the political process, I'm not sure the actual religion matters, provided it follows one particular tenent. "Don't be a dick, and you will go to heaven where your every desire will be fulfilled. Be a dick, and go to hell, where the worst thing possible will happen to you constantly." That's the attitude necessary for threats without followup. And let's face it, a majority of religions use that particular party line with just a lot of other stuff thrown in.

Oh, and I really don't choose to interpret creator as anything, honestly. I am not christian, but god is simply less letters to type. If such a being were to actually exist, I honestly don't think he (HA, yes, I used he instead of he or she, politically incorrect, here I come!) will really be so petty as to be pissed off because I used a different word for his name. And if I recall correctly, the majority of the signers of the Declaration were Deists. However, I'm not sure that means that they didn't understand the value of a population kept in control using religion. The Constitution and the laws put into place afterwards were actually based on Hobbes's political philosophies. And while Hobbes certainly wasn't of the most joyful souls, his theories have proven themselves to be sound when it comes to laws and government. Just because a man doesn't believe in something, doesn't mean that he can't believe in the power it holds over others.

[Aesop]

Just because a man doesn't believe in something, doesn't mean that he can't believe in the power it holds over others.

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven.

[Malicat]

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven.

Oh, I have to admit that if I'm wrong and Christianity is the 'one true way', I'm going to hell. Without a doubt. I work out at a Christian gym, mainly because there is a full service spa on site that will bill to my gym account, so I can get therapy massage when I need it, and not when I can afford it. I ended up purchasing a few extremly tight tank tops with the gym name on the front because... well, let's face it, they're christian shirts and they make me look kind of slutty. Yeah, definitely going to hell if they're right.

--Mali

[Aesop]

Oh, I have to admit that if I'm wrong and Christianity is the 'one true way', I'm going to hell. Without a doubt. I work out at a Christian gym, mainly because there is a full service spa on site that will bill to my gym account, so I can get therapy massage when I need it, and not when I can afford it. I ended up purchasing a few extremly tight tank tops with the gym name on the front because... well, let's face it, they're christian shirts and they make me look kind of slutty. Yeah, definitely going to hell if they're right.

--Mali

Well since I like the kind of slutty look I'll see you there.


Okay back on topic....

[cheeseburger]

Well, that's the point. The moment religion becomes "organized" it begins imposing on it's followers and making rules beyond the original precepts of the beliefs.

I would have to disagree. The moment there exist (at least) two people that jointly agree on a set of rules or guidelines that tell you how to live your life, you're talking about organized religion.

In no way does it follow that these people will impose anything on their followers - if you don't follow the rules, you aren't a part of that religion. Simple.

I agree that in the past many such organizations have, brutally, enforced their way of life on others. This has nothing to do with the concept of organized religion.

The only serious objection I have to organized religion (that doesn't participate in any illegal coercion) is that their children are more or less automatically signed on to the religion. They have little say in that (how do you ask a 2 year old what religion he belongs to?), and in some cases it leads to all kinds of stupidity.

But in principle, there's nothing wrong.

[poboy789]

What a deep topic. Because of my beliefs, I'm certainly bias. However, I believe that a belief in God or some other higher force is a good thing. It gives people something to believe in and something to live for. From a personal standpoint, things I have done and experienced in my life have lead me to believe that there is a God. Within the framework of a belief in God, organized religion serves a purpose. Now, organized religion has never done a lot for me personally. Certainly, there have been instances where people, in the name of religion, have done terrible things. However, in a lot of these cases, if you look hard, you will find that religion is not the basis for the action, but some politician's or other leader's personal agenda is the basis for the action. The politiian or leader manipulates and uses religion as a basis so people will follow the agenda. Regardess, focusing on the negative aspects of religion igones the good things that organized religions do. I know of no other organizations that provide more charitable contributions, both on a local, national and global level to our society. That's just how I see it, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

[Guest013109]

Hello. Someone from another topic directed me over here.

I do admit I'm being lazy and did not read the first 6 or 7 pages of this thread. However, kind of nice to see this topic mentioned on a BDSM-influenced site.

Personally, I do not like the term 'religion'. For me, it is more about faith and personal beliefs. I attend a great AOG (assembly of God) church I adore. They focus on the life of Jesus, our current society and how to apply Biblical teachings to our current world. Anyways, I'm not one to bash 'religions' and state Christianity is the 'only' way to go. That is something you should personally pray about and work with God about.

I'll try to follow this topic now and chime in when needed. I will not preach on and on about why you should ask God into your lives. However, I'm always available to talk with if you are curious about learning of Christianity or just for general discussion.

[Sklaventreiber]

I couldn't agree more and that's why so many of us have a problem with organized religion. I seriously doubt God cares what my political affiliations are, but many organizations would have me believe otherwise and quite frankly if God wants me to vote for the religious right here in this country I'm not sure I want to go to that heaven.

I agree with your statement here Aesop.

I have been away for a while and didn't want to read all that has gone before. I still feel that there is a lot wrong in the world due to religious fanaticism. There are wars and strife brought about by organized religious sects, regardless of the faith they are associated with, Muslim, Christian, buddhist, etc.

But then, when I started this post I made it clear that "organized religion" is not something I adhere to.

[karnautrahl]

I don't like the idea of religious beliefs having influence on my life and the laws that govern it. I can't quite decide if we'd be centuries ahead in terms of science and social maturity if religion hadn't come about or not. There are arguements both side of the fence on that one. However, I'd certainly fight for my right to not subscribe to anyone's belief systems. I do wish the radical muslims and radical christians would stfu and give up because those folks are a great danger to the world-note I'm on about extremists in particular. Those folks views to me are evil and of great danger to the freedom of all.