View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

Semitaire
61797.  Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:36 pm Reply with quote

There are many organised religons nowadays and they generally tend to contradict themselves alot. For instance in catholosism the hail Jesus as the prodigal son but prodigal means a waste of space or a dissappointment
there are just small things like that which are really annoying me, Your thoughts?

 
mckeonj
61802.  Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:23 pm Reply with quote

Try existentialism.

 
suze
61806.  Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:41 pm Reply with quote

I'll leave the religion debate to others; as a lapsed Catholic who hasn't been inside a church for twenty years or so - but still more or less believes in God - I don't really have much to say.

But I have to disagree with the OP re the Prodigal Son. Surely the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15 if you want to read it) was a parable, and the point was that the son in question repented of his erstwhile extravagant ways. The suggestion that Jesus was the son in question doesn't form part of mainstream theology so far as I am aware.

 
djgordy
61807.  Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:48 pm Reply with quote

There are no inconsistancies in religion. It is simply that people haven't grasped the all the subtleties and intricacies of theology.

 
Jenny
61818.  Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:44 am Reply with quote

Quote:
For instance in catholosism the hail Jesus as the prodigal son but prodigal means a waste of space or a dissappointment


Where to start with this one?

The Prodigal Son is a parable told by Jesus (Luke, ch 15 v 11-52). It is told as part of a series of other parables including that of the rejoicing of the shepherd over the recovery of a lost sheep, and has essentially the same meaning.

Jesus was not identified as the prodigal son.

Prodigal does not mean a waste of space or a disappointment - it means recklessly extravagant or characterized by wasteful expenditure, but can also mean yielding abundantly, which is quite a nice little theological twist on the part of the King James translators.

I don't have a great deal of time for organised religion, but if we're going to talk about its inconsistencies, maybe we ought to check our facts?

 
Feroluce
62018.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:10 am Reply with quote

Organised Religion is necessary, and indeed exists, because some people need to be told what to believe.
Simple.

Until the human race evolves a bit more (or we revert to the survival of the fittest maxim and institute a culling policy) Organised Religion and Party Politics will always have a place in the world.

 
Feroluce
62019.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:14 am Reply with quote

As far as inconsistencies go..

Every religion clearly states that if you follow a religion other that theirs, you go to hell.

A classic bit of Zen there, unless you can figure out a way to follow every religion while at the same time following none of them, you're going to hell.

 
Tas
62021.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:33 am Reply with quote

That's probably the hardest time I have with organised religion. Follow our teachings, or suffer. It does seem a tad unforgiving. By that maxim, as I have been told by several Christians (not sure which denomination, sorry), even those that have not heard of the religion will suffer in the next life.
Now, I know that life is not fair all the time, but that does seem unrealistic. Actually, one supreme all-knowing being seems unrealistic to me, but that's another kettle of fish.

What really annoys me, particularly with Catholicism, is the 'Don't do as I do, just do as I say' attitude of various priests, vicars and so on. When I asked several of the (churchgoing) colleagues here, at work, I was told, "Well, you should not judge someone. You should forgive." How can someone tell me the rules that we should live by, and then not follow them theirselves?

I don't suppose anyone has a realistic answer, do they?

:-)

Tas

 
Celebaelin
62024.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:59 am Reply with quote

Organised religion, by it's very nature, exists as a way of linking belief to civil obedience. A guy stands up and tells you what to do and if you don't do it you're going to hell, or you'll incur the wrath of the gods or some such. Any form of secular government, from tribal leader to world super-power has only two options with regard to religion. The first is to embrace religious worship and use the fear of god(s) and the belief system associated with the religious chain of command to control the hearts and minds of the population thus allowing some degree of power to be 'legitimately' vested in the higher echelons of the church. The second is to surpress ,or perhaps just smirk at, religion and deny religious bodies any official form of power.

Examples of these two approaches may be found in the Church of England and the Roman Empire respectively and the question as to whether religion has been a good thing depends entirely on how it's used both by the governing political body and by the clerics themselves. It should of course be pointed out that even where these two pillars of modern society are not inextricably linked politicians will wish to associate themselves with religion even if that is not the official standpoint of government in order to snaffle up guaranteed popular support ordained by god. On the other hand where the two aforementioned pillars are linked the bodies and individuals involved don't always see things the same way and this can in itself be either a good thing (reform of some variety) or a bad thing (unrest and perhaps even civil war).

 
Feroluce
62037.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:21 am Reply with quote

Tas wrote:
That's probably the hardest time I have with organised religion. Follow our teachings, or suffer. It does seem a tad unforgiving. By that maxim, as I have been told by several Christians (not sure which denomination, sorry), even those that have not heard of the religion will suffer in the next life.


I quite often take pleasure in dismantling that arguement.

If a new born baby was washed up on a desert island and lived a perfect life, never 'sinning'.
This person wouldn't know what god was but they still might believe in a higher power and give thanks to that power several times a day.
This person would be the perfect follower in the eyes of god but they weren't baptised or never went to church.

Do these high and mighty bible bashers really believe that god would follow their silly rules and not admit this perfect person to heaven?

I still don't know how people can worship an omnipitent and omnisentient being and yet presume that this being needs their assistance.

 
Davini994
62054.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:06 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
Organised religion, by it's very nature, exists as a way of linking belief to civil obedience.


I agree Celebaelin.

And because of this, I feel that it has advanced the development of human civilization massively: it provides the populace with a reason to strive for goodness (at least as determined by the religious dogma in question) and civil stucture, as opposed to self advancement. Which benefits the civilization as a whole, in theory.

The main reasons for this failing are failings in the religion. And failings in the interpretation.

It would of course be nice if people could be altruistic off their own back, and how to help society as best as they can. This would often fall outside the rigid rules of religion. But as yet, that seems unrealistic, e.g. communism.

Have there been any major, successful civilizations that didn't reference some sort of higher power to glue the people together? I'm not convinced about the Romans not using referencing divine motivation before Christianity was introduced...

I'm not at all religious myself BTW. And my apologies if this post is offensive to anyone; it's just my point of view.

 
96aelw
62058.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:22 am Reply with quote

Feroluce wrote:
If a new born baby was washed up on a desert island and lived a perfect life, never 'sinning'.
This person wouldn't know what god was but they still might believe in a higher power and give thanks to that power several times a day.
This person would be the perfect follower in the eyes of god but they weren't baptised or never went to church.


Why would such a person be perfect or sinless? It is perfectly possible to sin on one's own. The theology of "unbelievers are all damned" (with which I have little or no sympathy) is not that people would be punished by God for their lack of faith, but rather (from a Christian point of view, at least, which is the only one I'm qualified to type about) that everybody by virtue of their own sins (and/or original sin, according to taste) deserves damnation, and it is only by allowing Christ to have born the punishment for your wrongdoing on the cross that you may escape being punished yourself. Thus the atheist is punished for his sins, whereas Christ has been punished for the Christian's. This idea can indeed develop in some bizarre ways, such as St Augustine of Hippo's idea that unbaptised babies, tainted by Original Sin, are necessarily damned, and I don't much like it personally, but any "perfect follower in the eyes of God" might well gain salvation according to it.

 
dr.bob
62061.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:39 am Reply with quote

Basically they're saying that everyone sins in some way. So someone who spends their life helping others and trying to be a good person as much as possible, but doesn't believe in God, will burn in hell for all eternity.

While a person who lives a wild, debauched life for years but confesses his sins and allows Jesus into his heart just before he dies will go to Heaven.

I don't have much time for religion generally, but I view organised religion as being the worst of a bad bunch.

 
Tas
62062.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:48 am Reply with quote

Yet again, I find myself in agreement with Dr. Bob.

Organised religion has a lot to answer for. Whilst I can agree with Davini to a certain extent, Religion (at least in europe) also held back humanity from a scientific point of view. Look at the dark ages. Not only was science crushed as 'witchcraft' but there were crusades against 'infidels', and then there were inquisitions and so on.

All in the name of a religion that spouts nonviloence. Thou Shalt Not Kill, anyone? Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone? Convert or die. Looks a little hypocritical to me...

:-)

Tas

 
Celebaelin
62072.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:17 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
Have there been any major, successful civilizations that didn't reference some sort of higher power to glue the people together?

Not that I'm aware of, perhaps humans being social animals need a heirarchy of some sort.

Davini994 wrote:
I'm not convinced about the Romans not using referencing divine motivation before Christianity was introduced...

I didn't say that exactly but I did say that the religion was not intrinsic to the power structure for the Romans. There were haruspices and various forms of worship but they were separate from any form of government except the government of the mob, appealing to the plebs was often a lot easier if the auguries were right (which could be arranged for some form of consideration in most societies).

Checking my facts here I find that with regard to vestal virgins

Quote:
and in national crises the advisory power of the Senior Vestal, (Virgo Vestalis Maxima), was undisputed
Wiki

But in fairness this seems to mean that she could offer advice, not that she would or that it had any superior authority of itself. Although what she knew of the mood of the city could be most useful I guess.

 

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group