Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Is Religion Best in Slower Times

Posted 32 months ago|54 comments|703 views
Written by
Perhaps Religion is for Slower Times

Today's world has more people than yesterday's. It follows that personal transportation on donkeyback and transport of goods on camelback can not fulfill today’s lifestyle. Life moves more quickly today than when world religions began.

According to Wikipedia, Judaism is about 3000 years old. In those days transportation was by foot and ship. Jesus brought Christianity about 2000 years ago. Shipping was still done by sail while other transportation was by foot and beast. Islam began with Muhammad about 600 years ago. Again, transportation was by foot, beast, and sail. A person's communication could be written in those days, and was. But almost all communication was while looking at the person with whom you were conversing.

Living in those earlier times, there was ample opportunity for like-minded people to talk with each other. You got to know your neighbor - simply because there was no telephone, television, or other entertainment available. With such a lifestyle, a weekly gather for talk and song, to listen to a speaker, was an entertainment. To an extent, early churches in small communities offered a break from daily lifestyle that could not be found elsewhere.

Perhaps religion is for slower times.

But the opening of the Americas brought a new thing, a land of vast natural wealth and opportunity. Where people could settle amidst nature in a desirable way. And could hunt, plant, harvest and live alone, in families, or could form towns. Yet, many communities established a Church as an early community effort. The most well known example is the Mormon Church. The religion Brigham Young begin is but one example of Christianity, and stands today as central to Salt Lake City's politics.

The argument that religion is for slower times, begins to lose power with Mormonism. That Church's support for its members, combined with its members supporting each other, has flung it into the 21st century as a viable religion. Salt Lake City was built from the ground up with the Mormon Church as its focal point, according to Wikipedia. The Church has spread; its success based on strong ties with members and education of its young members.

And so, we still have religion, today.

In days gone by, communication was face to face. Today we can talk via phone or other means, almost anyplace, almost anytime. Yet the same problems that caused earlier societies, such as Babylonia, Greece, and Rome to fail, are close by us today. The same immorality we find in early history is present in recent history. Cheap transportation and travel, inexpensive long distance communication, and plentiful entertainment have not reduced this urge. Indeed, some would argue these things have increased the urge toward crime and harm. The problems religion confronted 3000 years ago are found today in more modern form. Some teens misbehave and cause problems; some adults covet their neighbor’s wives, some people steal and kill. Likewise, effort toward a common morality, toward what is good for everyone, are still espoused by today’s churches.

An overlooked argument about religion is its stance for morality and against immorality. Traditionally, religion has been a force for good and against evil. But population has increased and many churches have become less central to their communities. Their moral force has become less a force to obey, and more a force to rebel against.

Some of this effort toward common good, once filled by the Church, has fallen into the hands of elected officials and their hired employees. Today, much of that flag is carried by public tax money, rather than by common agreement and voluntary activity. Certainly this separates Church from State. But the desire of citizens to lead peaceful, prosperous lives continues, whether this common desire is served by badge or by holy symbol.

The need for a central symbol of morality is no different today than in times gone by, when civilizations failed for its lack. Whether this need is filled by church or by the elected official and his employees, it remains. And the opposing force, immorality, grows no weaker because religions disagree about who is the best moral authority.

Is religion for slower times?

When a teen can pick up a tool of civilization and, with a key press, create a denial of service attack, with a finger's twitch, can kill a human being, with a cordpull, can set off a vest bomb, the answer is no. The need for community spirit, for guidance and urge toward moral actions, grows stronger as the tools for immorality become cheap and available. Such community spirit can not be filled by law enforcement because law can only act after a crime is committed; it can only stand as a deterrent. Education can fill this need somewhat, but unless students live as one, there will be large gaps. Family can fill this need and religion can fill this need. But we can not look to slower times because technology has raced us forward. Our morality must keep stride. Religion is for modern times.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
32 months ago: Your dates for the start of Islam is about 1400 years off. Islam started around the year 600AD not 600 years ago.
But your basic idea is interesting. Most of the early religions started with a oral tradition and was transferred to writing much later. People probably appreciated the stories more then since that was one of the few sources of entertainment.
I think it is important to understand that each teller modified his stories a bit as did the scribes later. Plus most of the original "sacred" texts were lost or intentionally burned when The Christian church collected some texts and destroyed others to collect what they thought people should read, and what became the bible. The texts they chose retained much of the Judaic texts which stressed the harsh punishments, that have little relevance in the modern world. Islam is still stuck in the 7th century with its harsh punishments.
I think that the harsh treatments advocated by all three religions are best ignored as a bases for moral guidance, and plain common sense and what is best for the community is a better guide to morality.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
32 months ago: The post presumes that morals are derived from religion. That's incorrect - morals are derived from human social organizations, and they evolve and change over time.

I'm sure some would like to think it's their personal version of deity sitting in heaven dictating the morals, but not everybody shares the same deity or any at all. Multiple religions equals multiple and conflicting morals.

One does need to be religious to be moral - in fact, the opposite is more likely because if you're rational, you don't blame the devil for your 'sins'.
32 months ago: While it may appear I have stated religion forces compliance to morality, this was not my intention, nor do I understand this to be the actual situation. Various forces within the environment encourage good morality. Churches are one of those. I've attempted to explain how the elected official and his employee, law enforcement can only act as a deterrent against a negative effect. While churches and parents can act as a positive force. And it follows then, when large immoral effects can be easily created, there is greater need for moral encouragement.
32 months ago: Amen.

Now, I'm getting up and going to Sunday School.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: Just for the record, Judiism is about 6000 years old.
32 months ago: The "newest religion" is somewhat lacking in morality. With forced disconnection of family members who are not members, forced abortions, "fair gaming" of critics, bankrupting their own members and slave labour. Just a few of their immoral practices.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
32 months ago: Provcateur, good point and Scientology is definitely one of those religions where morals can be turned inside out in the pursuit of 'clearing the planet'
32 months ago: Oh hum, falsehoods stated as if they were facts. When will pimpleheads learn, your actual arguments have more weight if you don't spatter the paper with lies?

Now I understand you refer to one or two people who have left the Church as say, "I was forced to abort", or "I was forced to disconnect". And yes, those very few people who say that, attract your sympathy. Oh hum. But a good look at and evaluation of the situation gives you quite a different yield. Therefore you have two opposing data:
1. The small handful of people who have left the Church say those things.
2. The many active members of the Church say otherwisel, and say those things are not true.

When you state the opinion of the few as if they represent everyone's opinion, you are creating a lie. However, you could state the opinion of the few, as the opinion of the few. Then you would have a platform. But when you state the opinion of the few as if it were true for all, you have lied.

It isn't true for all. Disconnection, for example, can do no real good unless a person wishes to disconnect. But to understand that simplicity would require considerable reading, clearing new words throughly, and other literate exercises which I don't expect a Provocateur is capable of. lol.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "The argument that religion is for slower times, begins to lose power with Mormonism. That Church's support for its members, combined with its members supporting each other, has flung it into the 21st century as a viable religion. Salt Lake City was built from the ground up with the Mormon Church as its focal point, according to Wikipedia. The Church has spread; its success based on strong ties with members and education of its young members.

And so, we still have religion, today."

terryeo: The Church of the Latter day Saints is undoubtedly successful but it is far from the most successful church today and it is definitely not the reason we still have religion today. Besides as a religion it's really just a Christian variant rather than a truly separate religion in its own right such as Scientology is.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Religions are a bit like species, most evolved from others dating back to pre-history - read up on Egyptian mythology and you will see similarities with the Christian religion and indeed several others. Others appeared spontaneously, like Scientology.

Scientology is evolving because it already has its own splinter groups. In decades to come scientology may well have as many splinter groups as the Christian (as in the belief in Christ as the son of God) religion.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: For the record here's how major religions are ranked today, based on best data available. (Christianity includes all variants that concur that Jesus was the son of God).

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha'i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Religion has always flourished in both slow and fast times. In some states in the USA a person's church is the focus of their lives. Indeed not being in a church can stunt your social life. In other parts this is less true.

Religion serves several purposes but mainly it's a tool to maintain social order and control. As with all such tools they are open to abuse and hence religion has been used to motivate people to war and violence even to this day, whether it be a suicide bomber looking for his 72 virgins or the woman who punches a critic and gets herself arrested because she believes that violence is justifiable against none violent people who disagree with you.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "Yet the same problems that caused earlier societies, such as Babylonia, Greece, and Rome to fail, are close by us today. The same immorality we find in early history is present in recent history."

Actually these societies did not fall due to "immorality", which you left a little vague for my liking - morality is subjective. Either way the immorality of the masses was not the cause.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Babylon - many ups and downs over the centuries linked to the leadership. Good leaders and Babylon and the city flourished. Bad leaders and it went down. Alexander was its last great leader as part of the Alexander empire. He died in 323BC, his empire was divided up and Babylon became something of a bone of contention. It failed not because the people were having a good time partying and being sexually free but because a number of generals wanted control and in the end it was left with little or no leadership and the focus of several battles.

Greek - well this is awkward because there wasn't a true Greek empire but in terms of it being a power base it too had it's ups and downs. Basically though it was part of the political cooking pot and invaded and was successfully invaded several times. The fall of Constantinople and the fall of the then "Greek Empire" occurred in 1453 for instance.

Again, the morality of the people had nothing to do with it. Political and military leadership abilities of several leaders helped expand and defend successive empires based around Greece. Sometimes however they were simply out manned and out gunned by an ambitious neighbour.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Incidentally the fall of Constantinople was the death knell for the Eastern -

Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire actually didn't fall so much as go in to a slow decline over several centuries. There is much debate about when it "fell" and you could pick any of several points in its history and justify that as a point at which it fell.

Either way though the behaviour of the people, sexual customs, propensity to commit murder etc. varied over time but was by no means the cause of it's decline. The causes being economic and political and yes, even religion played a part in the cause of its decline.

Over all the behaviour of the masses didn't cause the fall of society rather it was the behaviour of its leaders.

At the end of the day the masses can murder, rape and rob each other but if the leaders are strong and can mobilise the country then empires can be built.

Empires were built not just to sate the leaderships ambitions but also as a means of controlling the people. Humans without an enemy to fight tend to fight each other.

Empires failed either because they simply got too big to control or a bigger, stronger enemy came along and smashed it. How the people behaved within those empires didn't matter one jot.

As to today, well we seem to be better at controlling our urges to invade other countries, ahem, but it's still more of the same.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Religion is a tool it can be used for good or bad. At its worst religion is used to provide the few with the luxury that the servitude of the many can provide. At its best religion can be used to motivate the few to be more generous to the many. No one religion is better than another in this respect, it's whose wielding the tool that matters.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: The behaviour of people in societies is remarkably consistent with a couple of notable tendencies. In difficult times people tend to steal more from each other. In times of plenty they tend to murder each other more.

It would seem that when people are busy fighting for their own survival they have less time to fight each other.

NOTE: This is behaviour of people in societies rather than societies themselves.

The basis of Neo-Conservatism is that society needs an enemy to fight to provide cohesion. Theory is that if the people are not distracted by such things as terrorism they get more uppity and start demanding more freedom; they become harder for the leaders to lead. This is of course a theory borne out of leaders who only know how to lead when there is a war going on.

There are other ways to lead that do not require such mechanisms because people want social order and will support anyone giving them that even if they are free to do as they please. It's like teenagers want boundaries, no they really do, there is something socially comforting about reasonable rules and order.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "When a teen can pick up a tool of civilization and, with a key press, create a denial of service attack, with a finger's twitch, can kill a human being, with a cordpull, can set off a vest bomb, the answer is no."

Hold on now, you're over dramatising the effects of Denial of Service attacks. As to the rest of the paragraph, the ease with which one individual can kill another or a group hasn't changed that much centuries.

The advent of explosives did increase the ease with which one person could kill many but that's about it and that happened a good few hundred years ago.

If anything religion is necessary in order to motivate someone to put on a suicide vest packed with explosives and blow themselves up as well as many others; no other tool of control is better suited to the job of making people commit acts of selfless violence.

Fact - you can have good people doing good and bad people doing bad but in order to get good people to do bad you need religion.

As per previous - religion is just a tool and isn't the issue it's who wields it and how.
32 months ago: Religion has always been a force for good behavior, call it morality, ethics, or simply, doing what is right.

If you really and truly don't understand this idea which most people, even terrorists, will tell you is true, you need some kind of data tune-up. Terrorists may use convoluted reasoning, but they too are doing what they think is right and just. They too see their religion as a force toward a better life for all.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
32 months ago: Terryeo
...Religion has always been a force for good behavior, call it morality, ethics, or simply, doing what is right...Terrorists may use convoluted reasoning, but they too are doing what they think is right and just. They too see their religion as a force toward a better life for all...

So your definition of good behavior and doing right is whatever a particular religion defines it as such, even if the definition includes employing terrorism to proselytize or kill infidels. Assuming you've swallowed that twisted logic pretzel, I guess you wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of that 'good behavior'?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "If you really and truly don't understand this idea which most people, even terrorists, will tell you is true, you need some kind of data tune-up. Terrorists may use convoluted reasoning, but they too are doing what they think is right and just. They too see their religion as a force toward a better life for all."

Oh Terryeo you are surely trolling to come up with that.

Of course everyone acting under the influence of religion believes they are doing good but you must surely know that believing one is doing good does not equate to doing good. That just because you believe you are working towards a better world does not mean you actually are.

Religion is not "a force for good behaviour" as is demonstrated by terrorism and countless wars motivated by religion. Religion is a tool that can cause good or bad behaviour and which depends on who is weilding it; this is true whether or not their is a God.

If you don't get that idea then you Terryeo have no more clue than the terrorist as to what is right and wrong; I actually think you do but you're being deliberately obtuse.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo, perhaps you should address some of the other points I raised, you might be on safer ground, rather than suggesting you have the same mentality as terrorists.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Incidentally, regardless of actuality of their being a Deity, Deities, supreme being(s), absolute force or omnipotent energy worship and churches are very much a human idea.

Any judgement here of in an after life is based on the actions of the person not how often they worship or attend church nor what they believe. This is because the impact a person has on this world is the sum of their actions not what religion they subscribe to.

Even attaining the nebulous concept of "Salvation" is based on actualities, not beliefs; just because you believe you're on the right track to salvation doesn't mean you are.
32 months ago: Amazing. Beyond the ken of sanity. Religion is and has always been a force for good. This is not to say it is perfect in intent, nor perfect in practice. Yet ask any preacher, priest or what have you, any nun, or any of most of the people who go to church regularly. It is as obvious as daylight shining through stained glass. Religions are based in morality and are intended, in practice, to be a force toward the better survival of all, a force for good.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: Terryeo, I think that in the vast majority of cases religion is intended as a force for good. I don't know if Satanism is intended as a force for good. I believe, though I am no expert, that it is a force for greed. I am extremely knowledgeable on Scientology inside and out and my experience is that it is a force for greed. Most religions though, have huge holes (not just imperfections) and have done things that needlessly hurt people. Ask an African American about Mormonism. Ask a homosexual about Islam. Ask a Jew or a Moslem about the Spanish Inquisition. I could go on. The phrase is, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". And really Terryeo, the ignorant are driving the steamroller over the asphalt.
32 months ago: You do? You think that religion is intended as a force for good? Perhaps you get a clue from the 10 commandments. Perhaps your clue comes from the implied threat that "if you're not good then you're going to hell". Perhaps from other source. Or perhaps from Buddhism's multifold path. The great religions touch or are known of by nearly everyone on Earth today.

Most adherents, and religions themselves, speak of their faith. The phrase, "Faith in God" has even found its way into the public courtroom. But behind this public argument stands morality, which religions inculcate song and prayer, encourage members toward and educate into new generations. Morality is not simply good intention, but a way of living. Without some confidence that most people will not be picking your pocket, you could not walk the public street or navigate through a crowded corridor. Religion is a force for good.
32 months ago: And of course, $cientology has faith in nothing, hence their total lack of any moral fibre.
And the cult doesn't pick your pocket, they completely bankrupt you. If you have any assets that they know of, they will hassle you until you have handed over every cent you have.
Beware the cult of $cientology!
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "Amazing. Beyond the ken of sanity. Religion is and has always been a force for good. This is not to say it is perfect in intent, nor perfect in practice. Yet ask any preacher, priest or what have you, any nun, or any of most of the people who go to church regularly. It is as obvious as daylight shining through stained glass. Religions are based in morality and are intended, in practice, to be a force toward the better survival of all, a force for good."

You just don't get it do you so you presume me insane.

Ask any person of religion and they will doubtless tell you their religion is a force for good. If you ask they will also tell you of religions that are forces for evil or they will denounce such religions as not being religions at all.

Most religions intend to be a force for good, most practitioners of religion intend to be a force for good but intent does not equate to actual results. Here's a cliché that sums it up nicely: "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "Morality is not simply good intention, but a way of living."

No, morality has nothing to do with good intentions, it has everything to do with the actions and the results of those actions. Even those with a religious belief would have to accept that.

Since "good intention = force for good = good morality" is the crux of your argument then you have no argument because most should see that good intentions do not mean you're doing good. Likewise the good intentions of a group does not mean they are doing good. Hmm. perhaps I should take this idea to another forum and post the result...
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: OK - Church of Latter Day Saints (Todd). Is religion a force for good?

"Not all religion is a force for good all the time. However I also think that religions may change for good or bad at different times. Religions, for the most part, evolve."
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Damn, Jehovah's Witness forum doesn't have live chat and doesn't do instant access. You'll have to wait for their response.
32 months ago: What do we expect of Church - going folk? Well, we expect good behavior, we expect responsible actions. You even see the shocked statement here and there: "And him being a member of the church!" .. explaining that we don't expect immoral actions from church members. Which also explains why, when we do find immoral actions within a church, it is a VERY BIG DEAL, because it is unusual and rare.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: No. You don't even believe that. If you do, went until you learn that Christianity is an implant put there by the evil intergalactic overlord Xenu. Ooops, I let OT3 out of the bag.
32 months ago: Al Capone was a regular member of his local Catholic church. And we all know how moral he was. Elron started a religion because it made much more money than "a penny a word". Greed - not morality.
32 months ago: So now the critics fall to chanting the same chants, thus refusing to discuss the points the article makes. "Creampuffs are yummy!" would bring the same droning. Yet if these issues are confronted the critic moves on, refusing to either acknowledge what has been discussed, nor moved one iota from his repeated chant.

"You don't believe that", says Frederick, as if he knew what I believed. Christianity isn't itself, he drones. Provacateur drones about the motivation of Ron Hubbard who worked from 1950 until 1986 almost exclusively on Scientology's development, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I point out, if you look over in that field there, you find like minded people banding together toward better morality. The idea is beyond Fox, the idea causes Frederick and Provacateur to react predictably.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: Todd from the Church of the Latter Day Saints is perfectly capable of expressing the fact that the statement "religion is a force for good" is simple not true.

His statement, take from live chat on the church of Latter Day Saints US web site, doesn't agree entirely with my point that religion is not a force for anything but it does recognise that religion is not and has not always been a force for good.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Your sweeping statement "religion is a force for good" reinforced with "religion is and has always been a force for good" is bogus. What ever religion, what ever the intentions of the individual practitioner, religion can be used by churches to motivate, create and cause both good and bad. Religion is a tool of churches.

The idea of people banding together towards a better morality isn't beyond me, you're slipping in to personal and presumptuous attacks here. Nothing I have said could be used as evidence of this. Quote me and we will discuss.

I see the Anonymous phenomenon as being like minded people banding together towards a better morality. There is no one religion involved, indeed there is a fair mix of beliefs, just a common understanding that resonates throughout society; for every 1 Anonymous there must be at least 100 people who thank them for doing what they are doing (personal experience and anecdotal reporting).

I see Anonymous as an indicator of good morality, that people will band together and stand up to what is wrong and do it in a peaceful fashion.

I'm impressed that a peaceful Anonymous protester in Halifax Canada last weekend can resist being baited while still trying to engage the woman baiting him in reasonable conversation to the point that the woman doing the baiting punches him and gets arrested all on video.

I also recognise that a fair number of churches do good deeds, that they are a group of like minded people banding together to do good.

That said a fair number of churches do bad with good intentions too, like the Catholic church anti-contraception (condom) propaganda in Africa being responsible for the AIDS epidemic there.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Incidentally I expect all people to behave properly towards each other regardless of their beliefs, upbringing, life style or any other social factors.

I expect all people treat each other fairly, to avoid harming others either physically or mentally, regardless of what they believe or their intentions. I expect all people to not abuse others.

I go beyond this and oppose acts of abuse regardless of origin, be it Government, religion, media, corporation or individual and regardless of intent, this is my choice.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: The above post is a response to Terryeo:

"What do we expect of Church - going folk? Well, we expect good behavior, we expect responsible actions."
32 months ago: terryeo, your drone is boring. You have no idea what religion is. The cult you follow is nothing more than organised crime.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: Terryeo, if you feel that I drone, it is because you have yet to reach OT3. You seem to believe everything that your cult tells you. One day you will find out that Christianity and, in fact, all the religions, are just an implant of Xenu's. You will get the implant removed. Did you know that? If I am wrong I await your correction. YOU deal with the point.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: Terryeo, I wrote the second essay on this board about Scientology. I think, because I wrote it so early on, it is among the most read. I said there that I didn't expect to change the minds of Scientologists. I don't expect to change your mind.

Writing an essay about religion being a force for good on this board, is a prod to critics, and you must know that. A discussion of this topic would be empty and meaningless without getting to the belief system that you and the critics are most concerned with.

Scientology seems to have one on going process that works quite well. It takes away any self awareness a member may have. Thus Tom Cruise making a fool of himself for years until his publicist roped him in. Thus Tommy Davis transparent lying at press conferences. Thus Kirstie Alley's arrogance about Scientology getting her off heroin while going to Jenny Craig to (unsuccessfully) lose fat.

After over 50 years your membership has swelled to 50,000 in America. But most Americans don't know what Scientology is. Most of the ones who do think it is a transparent scam. I am here to tell those who might be convinced to buy a book or visit an org that they would be foolish to do so. Until America goes the way of France, Germany and Belgium they have me, DeanFox, Provocateur and the rest. We do our part. We will continue to debate your points, and expand upon them, getting to the core.

I don't expect YOU to change, though some of what we say might sink in in a few years or the day after they declare you suppressive. If I am repetitive, that is why.
32 months ago: "What do we expect of Church - going folk? Well, we expect good behavior, we expect responsible actions."

Some expect that. Others expect a smug justification for whatever they do is right because some "God" is on their side. There are numerous aberrations of religion NOT being a force for good but in fact being the MOTIVATOR behind great evil.

The most glaringly obvious example is the Spanish Inquisition which brought about thousands of deaths through "good intentions" and "good motivations". All the poor Spanish clergy wanted was to save the souls of those lost Jews and Muslims!! Even if it meant torturing each and every one of them to confession or death.

What about the numerous Protestant vs Catholic wars that erupted in Europe during the Middle Ages? Entire kingdoms and their populaces sacked and razed because of religion.

No one is denying that religion has the potential for being a motivator for good, but a blanket statement like "Religion is and has always been a force for good" is outright wrong. History is RIFE with instances to the contrary, and you are obtusely and ignorantly ignoring that, TerryEO.

But I would expect nothing less from you, as your own "religion" demands blind obedience and incubates an unwavering self-righteousness and self-assured correctness. You could outright lie to us, knowing its a lie, and it wouldn't bother you one bit.
32 months ago: I find it interesting that people who do not understand and unwaveringly criticize the Church of Scientology have one thing in common. The opinion that religion (all religion) is not a force for good morals, good behavior, and treating one's brother as oneself. DeanFox searched for truth in a chat room, and hey, I can appreciate that effort, in response to earlier posts, here.

Really, I believe you all. You are certain that religion is not a force for good, as we have been talking about "good", here.

Does anyone know of any public poll that has been taken in this area?

AnonymousVoice, be a bit more polite, will you? Blind obedience -- isn't the reality. Lies are not how the world goes around, although if you work at it long enough you can find them.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "DeanFox searched for truth in a chat room, and hey, I can appreciate that effort, in response to earlier posts, here."

Thank you Terryeo, what I found was and am continuing to find is that people do not agree with the blanket statement that religion is a force for good.

Some say it can be a force for both good or evil but increasingly more are coming to realise that religion itself is not a force at all, rather it is how it is taught and how people are encouraged to practice it by the leaders of the church.

I thank you terryeo for raising this very interesting point, one I had not considered before and one I have now taken out to a range of forums for both believers in various religions and theology discussion forums in general.

It is certainly sparking much thought about this and is fast becoming a hot topic. Maybe it will be a question posed to congregations around the world over the next few weeks. One hopes you will soon not meet anyone who does not have a more considered response to the statement "religion is a force for good".

Here's one link:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/181910/1/Religion-a-force-for-good

You are welcome to join in, I am sure they will welcome you as they and several others did me.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo, I agree with you that I do not believe religion is a force for good, however this does not mean I believe the opposite, religion being a force for evil is true.

What I am saying and feel I must clarify to you because I am sure your intent is to quote me as being against religion is that religion is not a force at all.

I should point out that the Anonymous protester that was punched by a female member of the Halifax church of scientology, who had spent quite some time bull baiting him is a Christian. Here is his story:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/280-canada/donkey-punched-anon-assaulted-halifax-haliwin-raid-report-53176/11/#post1004012

Do I believe scientology made this woman do it? No, but the church of scientology, well quite possibly.

32 months ago: Dean,

the link did not work for me. Are you sure this is correct?

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/181910/1/Religion-a-force-for-good

Thx
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Copy paste of the above link worked for me. Ah, maybe you have to join the host site forum to gain access. Damn. You'd have thought read access would be OK.

Try again with copy paste in to browser.

If not try the parent site and work down, if possible.

Thank you for taking the time to at least try to follow the links.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
32 months ago: Terryeo: "Does anyone know of any public poll that has been taken in this area?"

Well based on evidence so far it would seem that when asked the question most people come up with a knee jerk response without much thought.

Those who are religious say it is and atheists say it isn't. A few think a bit more about it say it can be both.

After discussion a consensus forms that regardless of the religion it is churches, the leaders and followers, who determine whether they are a force for good or not, the actual religion is neither here nor there. Further more most religious people believe they are doing good and intend to do good but that this does not mean they are doing good or are a force for good. In fact the cliché the road to hell is paved with good intentions has been validated by the religious community at large.

This is all based on a range of forums including Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of the Latter Day Saints, Christian, Islam, Buddhist and a couple of Interfaith forums too.

No one else has found this idea to be "beyond the ken of sanity" yet.
31 months ago: Google up:

"religion is a force for good" poll

and find out what is on the net for that phrase.
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/2006/12/
http://www.secularism.org.uk/83870.html
Come us as links. And I googled afterward, not before I said so. And thought of the google and bing searches later. Religion is publicly thought of as a force for good -- or not, but the idea is a common one. And has been researched.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
31 months ago: Indeed Terryeo, most think of religion as a force for either good or evil. Most religious people will automatically side for good and most atheists side with evil. I know this.

The idea that religion is actually not a force rather it is a tool and how it is wielded determines if good and evil are the result is new. It was spawned from this debate and an idea I thank you for inspiring.

Unthinking public opinion has it that religion is a force for good in countries were religion is prevalent. Once you get people thinking though, as I did on the forums the results are very different.

Most can understand the logic that the religion in as of itself is not a force because the results are not consistent; forces have consistency of action if not strength and both good and evil have been spawned by religion making it inconsistent in action.

That said there are those on both sides of the fence who don't want to divest religion of its status as a force.

Extremist atheists want to get rid of religion so want it to be seen as a force for evil where as naturally in defence of religion adherents want it seen as a force for good.

This is sad because until both sides can see that religion isn't a force they won't realise that the problems lay not with religion or atheism but with people. (Ho hum as you might say).
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
31 months ago: Oh yes, thanks for finding me a few more places to question the idea that religion is a force.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
31 months ago: Seems my idea is not as new as I thought. Check out comment here:

http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/the-great-debate-dinesh-d%E2%80%99souza-v-michael-shermer/

MJ "Revolting Spawn" said "I have always said myself that man causes evil and religion is just one the tools he uses."...

Ah well nothing new under the sun today.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
27 months ago: I’ve been wishing for a long time that some of the old school rantravers like you would start ranting again. I know you probably did it as an income opportunity as did some of the others but it would really be nice to hear from you again. There is no real way to get you to come back unless of course you really wanted to and I certainly hope that you want to. So here is to hoping that you decide to come back even if it is just once or twice to say hello!

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.