Religions are Manmade

[Foxfire]

I suggest that all religions are manmade. I do not mean to suggest that they are all false, but rather that mankind has an incomplete understanding of Truth. Therefore we take the aspects of Truth that we do know and focus on that bit of Truth, add in a little dogma to fill in the gaps and create a religion.

Further diferent groups or cultures, by focusing on distint aspects of the limited view of Truth we have been given and each creating their own dogma (based partically on culture) can create very different religions.

Hence I rarely blame God for the actions of religious people who claim to be acting on His behalf. God is not a fault there, rather the flawed, confused and ignorant people are.

Opinions?

Of course religion is man made. So is God.

 

[sojourner]

No, I don't think it is. You said "being reared 'religious' hasn't stopped anyone yet from making up their own minds when they come to adulthood". I took this to mean that we shouldn't worry too much about religious instruction in childhood, because it can be "un-done" in adulthood if the person so wishes. I disagree. I think that what we're taught as children has a significant role in shaping what we can and can't be or do as adults.

I dunno about that. I have a very good friend who was reared religious and ended up an atheist. Even I ended up in a different place than how I was reared. So did my sister.

Catholic churches do view marriage as a sacrament.

When I was married the first time, it was a Catholic wedding, and there was no fee charged.

And what qualifies these churches as mainstream as opposed to others? For instance, what about the Southern Baptist Convention? If that's not "mainstream" Christianity (at least in the context of the US), I don't know what is.

Their hard-line stance on sola scriptura, the prohibition of females in ministry, their emotional piety, their movement away from Patristic Xy all point to their not being mainstream. I don't give a rat's how big they are here in the States.

I was referring to your claim that religion is only religion if it "deals in truth". It sounded like you were setting up an argument based on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No. I was saying that religion seeks for truth and human wholeness. If it doesn't do that, then it's not religion. It's something else. Cults brainwash and coerce. That's neither truth nor wholeness. It's abuse. Therefore, I'd have a real hard time calling them religions, no matter what they couch their abuse in.

I'd say they are.

What you'd say makes no difference, because you're not in charge of making that distinction.

So... could you give an example of a mainstream Christian charity that doesn't preach and "just does"?

The Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief (ECUSA)
Week of Compassion (D of C)
The Carmelites (and other RCC orders)

It's arguably the largest, most visible, most prominent Christian group presenting itself as a charity.

Wal-Mart is the largest, most visible and prominent retailer, too, but I wouldn't call them the "main face of American business."

Go to any mall at Christmastime; you probably won't see a bell-ringer for Catholic Charities or Christian Peacekeeper Teams, but you probably will see one from the Salvation Army.

Go to any strip mall in Smalltown USA and you'll see a Wal-Mart Supercenter, too. So what?

Thinking of the grocery stores around me (which would probably be about 10-15), they all have drop boxes for food donations. One is for St. Vincent's Kitchen (a Catholic charity); all of the rest are for the Salvation Army.

Again: So what? Or haven't you ever heard the term, "Size isn't what matters?"

BTW - just so you know where I'm coming from, I have three main criteria for establishing whether a church is part of "mainstream" Christianity:

- size
- influence
- deviation from "core" Christian beliefs (where I would define "core" beliefs as those held by the vast majority of Christians)

Well, they've certainly deviated from the "core" Xian beliefs held by the vast majority of Xians...

In terms of the United States, I'd say that any Christian denomination on this list would qualify as "mainstream", with the possible exception of the Seventh-Day Adventists: Largest Religious Groups in the USA

You're waaaaaay off, according to most denominational experts.

 

[sojourner]

Science disagrees with you. If you examine quantum physics, more specifically, the uncertainty principle, you will see that our reality is based on chance and probabilities.

None of that disputes the fact that the sun comes up in the east, the stars move in a fixed pattern, the swallows return to Capistrano, etc.

 

[PhAA]

If you answer "god" to everything, that's ignorance.

A reason why people designed their gods as invisible and "beyond everything" is so that the followers wont be able to question the deities and priests.

Theists claim that the people who wrote the scriptures had the guidance of deities. However, scriptures have a lot of inaccuracies, starting from the timeline, to the lack of proofs. And some reason that that's the case because the writers are only human.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

None of that disputes the fact that the sun comes up in the east, the stars move in a fixed pattern, the swallows return to Capistrano, etc.

But how does that indicate that the Universe was "ordered" in such a fashion? The sun could rise any way it wanted, it doesn't make that movement naturally "ordered".

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Religions are Manmade

The relevance/importance /significance of the query/remark/sentence is to be found only after understanding what the word *religion* means and as to who *man* is to make anything.

Has man ever made anything on his own?
No, it only manipulates whatever is available in existence to make anything.
Can he have ownership claims over what is already available in nature?
No, besides he himself is a part of existence and like everything he makes has a beginning and an end but only EXISTENCE is eternal and so is TRUTH.
Religion is nothing but a path or way to understand that TRUTH that man himself is part of existence and that it is just another form which has evolved and still evolving but still is not eternal as a form. When such an understanding develops it is understood that the human form is nothing but an extension of the source which is existence itself that man becomes a medium for existence to carry out its work, its evolutionary process through the various forms and no-forms including man and simply in that process through man only it gets revealed the path or way towards such an understanding of existence /eternal truth which becomes a religion.

Love & rgds

 

[sojourner]

If you answer "god" to everything, that's ignorance.

A reason why people designed their gods as invisible and "beyond everything" is so that the followers wont be able to question the deities and priests.

Theists claim that the people who wrote the scriptures had the guidance of deities. However, scriptures have a lot of inaccuracies, starting from the timeline, to the lack of proofs. And some reason that that's the case because the writers are only human.

Did it ever occur to you that Deity is not "designed" but discerned? Xians claim that the writers were inspired -- not guided. There's a difference. Since the texts are not history or science books, one can hardly expect them to be completely accurate in detail. Fortunately for them (unfortunately for you) the nature of the texts origins is oral. These stories were told for centuries before being written down. Since the texts originated in an oral society, detail wasn't as important as it is to a literate society.

Your arguments are weak and ill-founded.

 

[sojourner]

But how does that indicate that the Universe was "ordered" in such a fashion? The sun could rise any way it wanted, it doesn't make that movement naturally "ordered".

Doesn't matter. It is ordered that way.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is exactly why I'm an atheist, because I am pretty sure that religions are manmade.

Can somebody please tell me how to believe in a god but yet believe god was made by man? Desperately wanting to believe here.

 

[PhAA]

Did it ever occur to you that Deity is not "designed" but discerned? Xians claim that the writers were inspired -- not guided. There's a difference. Since the texts are not history or science books, one can hardly expect them to be completely accurate in detail. Fortunately for them (unfortunately for you) the nature of the texts origins is oral. These stories were told for centuries before being written down. Since the texts originated in an oral society, detail wasn't as important as it is to a literate society.

Your arguments are weak and ill-founded.

Pardon me if you didn't agree with my terms but that's how I call them.

People based their religion on what they perceive around them. If the prophets were really "guided" then there should just be one religion since there is only one source. The evolution of religion from the pagans to the religions today just proves that religion is man made. It adapts, or people change it to suit their needs as time goes by. If one religion fails , another is created.

 

[Oneatatime]

This does not = "indoctrination." It does = "poor information."

it's biology. Children are incapable of that kind of developed cognition early in life. That being said, presenting a world view that is theologically-based is presenting the child with a framework within which the child may learn to think critically about her/himself, the world, and the family/community. Being reared "religious" hasn't stopped anyone yet from making up their own minds when they come to adulthood (unless they've been brainwashed, which is both coercive and abusive -- neither of which is present in mainstream religious upbringing).

IF, in fact, indoctrination is employed (see above).

Once again: Not mine (which is the only one about which I can speak intelligently). In fact, we take special precautions not to take advantage of such people. It would be unethical.

In the first place, they're not necessarily "unsubstantiated." In the second place, all social agencies provide structure and support when people need it. The Church is no different. In fact, most clergy I know are trained to recognize mental and emotional frailty and to refer any such people to the proper agencies for help.
The mainstream Church doesn't play the numbers game. The underlying purpose isn't to "sell religion," it's to guide people into a deeper mode of living through spiritual direction.

If you doubt it, you haven't lived it. Walking a tightrope looks easy, too, until you try it. Delving into a religious lifestyle is rigorous, because it involves transformation, which is stressful. It involves calling into question again and again the way we understand ourselves and our world, and questioning the paradigms by which we operate. It involves daring to look at oneself deeply and to divest oneself of unnecessary baggage that keeps change and development from taking place.
That's not a particular motivator for us. It is a reality for us, but we don't sell it, nor do we particularly dwell on it. We are concerned with spiritual formation, not a rewards-based country club.

Rubbish.

And from our perspective on earth, the sun revolves around the earth, too...
Religion is not "pushed" or forced. Of course a person can be a good person without religion, but a person cannot be spiritually nurtured without religion. Religion teaches truth from a certain perspective, just as any other discipline.

Of course it is. That's why we don't do that.

That's why we operate that way.

You're creating a very big straw man here, my friend -- at least with regard to mainstream Xy.

Sojourner you are misrepresenting my position by fragmenting my post and taking my arguements out of context. This is why I don't break up your posts and answer each part independently of the rest. Partly because its misrepresentation of your views and also because it results in the fragmentation of the discussion based on arguements which have been taken out of context which is no way to debate an issue.

There is a clear bias on your part which you admitted when you initially responded to my post. You're not willing to accept that religions are subject to natural selection and that those religions which are most succesful as perpetuating themselves will survive and thoes which don't will decline and possibly fall to the side. Ultimately no religion can survive without followers therefore religions have evolved to retain and accumalte followers. There is no requirements that the individual be aware that their behaviour or beliefs purpose is to do this and often when the underlying purpose is laid bare for all to see people don't like it because they feel it devalues their behaviours and beliefs.

Obvious examples of reciprocal alturism or parental care which evolved to increase the chance that an individual will pass its genes onto the next generation. This can missfire at times resulting in people giving up their time and money to help others with real prospects of the favour being returned, or alternatively adopting a child so that they can grow up in a loving and stable environment, although there is evidence that adoption gives parents valuable experience for if or when they have their own children.

This is why I say that religions engage in indoctrination when children are raised in a religious environment and taught it as truth. The underlying purpose is to perpetuate the religion because without this that religion will decline. Equally the underlying purpose of targeting those is also to increase the numbers of that relgion. This is not to say that the intentions are good or that the individual doesn't neccessarily benfit but from the perspective of someone looking at religion from an atheist perspective it looks like religious marketing aimed at childre who ar a captive audience and adults in need who are vulnerable.

Not all religious people indoctrinate their children or give aid to adults in need as a means of increasing numbers. Some parents simply make their children aware that religion exists and give the the freedom of choosing a religon or none without putting presure on the to favour their parents religion. Some religious charities give aid unconditionally and do not seek to promote their religion in the process. Unfortunatly I think that such religious people are globally in the minority and the majority are very much in the business of promoting and perpetuating their religion whether conciouslly or unconciously. Like the previous example I gave of adoption and offerig aid with little chance of gettign anything in return the behavior of non-pushy religious parents and charities represents a step-away from the typical underlying goals religion and the religion.

I made a typo when I said 'I do doubt'. It was supposed to read 'I don't doubt'.

This isn't a strawman because I have included the caveat that not all religious people organisations are led by an underlying drive to indoctrinate children or exploit vulnerable adults. It is otherwise generlly true of religions that they are required to perpetuate themselves and that through natural those religions which such techniques as indoctrination and exploitation will be more sucessful the othes. How we choose to rationalise our behaviours doesn't alter the underlying purpose of that behaviour.

In regards to your comment about spirirtuality this is an example of where religion has promoted a monopoly on somethin by consistanly framing it within a relious context. Its entirley possible to be spiritual in the sense of feeling awe at the vastnes and beauty of the universe without religion. In regards the supernatural this is relgion exploiting flaws in human psychology which can be somewhat mediated by critical thiking and education which equips the individal to recoginse why human imagine the supernatural and therefore avoid coming to supernatural conclusions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Doesn't matter. It is ordered that way.

You don't seem to have understood my question.

How do you know that it being in such a way makes it necessarily "ordered"? Hypothetically speaking, the sun could raise or lower itself in any direction, at any time, and you would still call that "ordered", so by what standards to you define "order"?

 

[BruceDLimber]

[T]he vast majority of religious people do agree that every religion but theirs is a human fabrication.

Which merely proves a lot of people are prejudiced ("pre-judging"). So what else is new?

BTW - you know, you don't need to take advantage of every opportunity you can to promote your religion.

Just as YOU don't need to "take advantage of every opportunity you can" to promote atheism.

Dear Kettle,

You're black!

Love, Pot

 

[sojourner]

Pardon me if you didn't agree with my terms but that's how I call them.

People based their religion on what they perceive around them. If the prophets were really "guided" then there should just be one religion since there is only one source. The evolution of religion from the pagans to the religions today just proves that religion is man made. It adapts, or people change it to suit their needs as time goes by. If one religion fails , another is created.

But there are many points of view, given that there is a mulitplicity of people in the community of the faithful. "Guided" does not = "inspired." Inspiration does not = "uniformity."

 

[sojourner]

The evolution of religion from the pagans to the religions today just proves that religion is man made. It adapts, or people change it to suit their needs as time goes by. If one religion fails , another is created.

I never claimed religion wasn't of human origin.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner you are misrepresenting my position by fragmenting my post and taking my arguements out of context. This is why I don't break up your posts and answer each part independently of the rest. Partly because its misrepresentation of your views and also because it results in the fragmentation of the discussion based on arguements which have been taken out of context which is no way to debate an issue.

There is a clear bias on your part which you admitted when you initially responded to my post. You're not willing to accept that religions are subject to natural selection and that those religions which are most succesful as perpetuating themselves will survive and thoes which don't will decline and possibly fall to the side. Ultimately no religion can survive without followers therefore religions have evolved to retain and accumalte followers. There is no requirements that the individual be aware that their behaviour or beliefs purpose is to do this and often when the underlying purpose is laid bare for all to see people don't like it because they feel it devalues their behaviours and beliefs.

Obvious examples of reciprocal alturism or parental care which evolved to increase the chance that an individual will pass its genes onto the next generation. This can missfire at times resulting in people giving up their time and money to help others with real prospects of the favour being returned, or alternatively adopting a child so that they can grow up in a loving and stable environment, although there is evidence that adoption gives parents valuable experience for if or when they have their own children.

This is why I say that religions engage in indoctrination when children are raised in a religious environment and taught it as truth. The underlying purpose is to perpetuate the religion because without this that religion will decline. Equally the underlying purpose of targeting those is also to increase the numbers of that relgion. This is not to say that the intentions are good or that the individual doesn't neccessarily benfit but from the perspective of someone looking at religion from an atheist perspective it looks like religious marketing aimed at childre who ar a captive audience and adults in need who are vulnerable.

Not all religious people indoctrinate their children or give aid to adults in need as a means of increasing numbers. Some parents simply make their children aware that religion exists and give the the freedom of choosing a religon or none without putting presure on the to favour their parents religion. Some religious charities give aid unconditionally and do not seek to promote their religion in the process. Unfortunatly I think that such religious people are globally in the minority and the majority are very much in the business of promoting and perpetuating their religion whether conciouslly or unconciously. Like the previous example I gave of adoption and offerig aid with little chance of gettign anything in return the behavior of non-pushy religious parents and charities represents a step-away from the typical underlying goals religion and the religion.

I made a typo when I said 'I do doubt'. It was supposed to read 'I don't doubt'.

This isn't a strawman because I have included the caveat that not all religious people organisations are led by an underlying drive to indoctrinate children or exploit vulnerable adults. It is otherwise generlly true of religions that they are required to perpetuate themselves and that through natural those religions which such techniques as indoctrination and exploitation will be more sucessful the othes. How we choose to rationalise our behaviours doesn't alter the underlying purpose of that behaviour.

In regards to your comment about spirirtuality this is an example of where religion has promoted a monopoly on somethin by consistanly framing it within a relious context. Its entirley possible to be spiritual in the sense of feeling awe at the vastnes and beauty of the universe without religion. In regards the supernatural this is relgion exploiting flaws in human psychology which can be somewhat mediated by critical thiking and education which equips the individal to recoginse why human imagine the supernatural and therefore avoid coming to supernatural conclusions.

You seem to feel that religion has cultivated a monopoly on spirituality??? That's what religion is all about!!! Spirituality. It's sole purpose is to cultivate the wholeness of humanity -- not to perpetuate itself. Jesus died, after all! No longer here. So much for self-perpetuation. Ultimately religion will die as we become whole.

With regard to "indoctrination": First of all, indoctrination imposed upon a child is abuse. Responsible religion does not indoctrinate children. It does teach them useful paradigms from the particular point of view of the culture in which they live. There's a difference. Second, the purpose of the teaching is not to "perpetuate the religion." It's to engage the child in spiritual formation. Period.

I don't give a rat's what an atheist sees from the outside. Things are not always what they appear to be. Beauty lies under the skin. Regardless of what you may think, religion has not developed in order to perpetuate itself.

 

[waitasec]

But there are many points of view, given that there is a mulitplicity of people in the community of the faithful. "Guided" does not = "inspired." Inspiration does not = "uniformity."

pardon me but isn't this a result of random influences?

 

[sojourner]

pardon me but isn't this a result of random influences?

"Mulitplicity" does not = "random."

 

[Orias]

"Mulitplicity" does not = "random."

Support this statement please.

 

[waitasec]

"Mulitplicity" does not = "random."

you mentioned there are many points of views...
various levels of perspective about 1 idea that is not tangible.

as opposed to how we can have many perspectives of the same object.
given it's coherence we can all agree on the description of the same building, for instance. we can view it from top to bottom and in reverse, from the side or from the corners, and because of it's consistent relationship of it's parts we know we are describing the same building.

religion, being intangible, cannot be experienced in the same way because it is highly subjected by the multiple perceptions of it which is a collection of ideals that where randomly influenced (through space and time) and are not reconcilable, consistent or have a coherent relationship to each other... hence the various types of sects within the same religion.