• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trapped People

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Now if they really valued people and truth, how could they run from anyone? I feel sorry for them too.
Yes many church members project their own fear of leaving onto the one that leaves, they are too frightened to leave because they may have been born into the church, or have friends that they have known for years, yes it takes a lot of guts to leave.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Thank you for having more of an inquisitive rather than debating


The issue with that thought, though, is assuming that religious indoctrinated people are limited because they were not give choices outside of their religious paths. I see this in a couple of ways. Is it healthy? Whose choice is it anyway?

If the indoctrination isn't healthy-say priests yelling at congregants and threatening them to hell, then, yes, I can see why a lot of people leave religion. However, that is not what religion is about. Unless that congregant doesn't believe the actual faith regardless of the people, I don't see his reason for leaving the Church unless it was just a decision or something he experience that he didn't like (among other healthy or unhealthy decisions). However, I never actually heard anyone leave the Church and any religion "just because."

Then you have to think of "whose chose is it anyway?" Are they brainwashed or do some of them actually choose to stay in their cultured or adopted faith because it gives them a connection with family and their community as a whole?

It's not just about the person, though. Many cultures build their foundation off of their faith. A couple of people here say they are atheist or non-religious and they still practice the teachings of their religion they still have because it is part of tradition and family.

So, there are a lot of factors involved. Some people feel limited and leave family/religion. I mean, when I went to the Church, an African American male (I'm African American) said, "so you went to a white Church, huh?" He seriously meant I disowned "our" religion and tradition handed down to us. Basically, I disowned the community. This was a stranger.

It really depends on whether one is in a healthy environment and/or how that person sees his religion in relation to himself, his family, and his environment. Outside of that, I can see your point.


Not everyone desires diversity in thought. I mean, my friend doesn't want to study other religions because she felt it would confuse her faith-even though she has practiced since birth. It's not limitation from her point of view and I understand why. Just for me, I find it weird but that's my morals not a universal moral that everyone should abide by or else.

In my opinion, if we are limited in thinking, then diversity in thought is hard if not impossible. I feel every religious should have some knowledge and/or experience in other faiths to really appreciate their own. I have a Jehovah Witness friend and her trainee who asked me about my faith. We talked about Paganism (at the time) and The Buddhist faith. They looked it up. We exchanged our religions and our realities.

Another JW asked me the same thing as I used to always see her at the bus stop every morning to work. We talked, she was interested, and, of course told me about her beliefs. It was respectful.

Bahai, at least online I haven't met any Bahai in person, seem to be open to diversity as well.

So, it depends on the people (in JW case) and it depends on the religion and its tenants (Baha'i case).



That depends on if you limit religious people as if they cannot make their own choices. The Buddhist school I follow doesn't allow me to make any choice I want to. I am limited in that the focus of how I become free (unlimited) is addressing the workings of the mind (rather than heart as in, say, Christianity). It doesn't feel like limitation because the mind does a lot of things and when we understand it, being religious is being free.

That's how religion, I feel, should be. It should make you free. I gravitate to freedom of expression. If I don't have that within religion, it doesn't work.

Even though Buddhism is strict, we still make our own choices. That is the point of it, actually. In Christianity, it is actually the same way (depending on denomination is depending on the severity of it). The actual teachings of Christ does not promote obedience (do this or else) it promotes worship and reverence that benefits the believer ( if you follow me, I give you this). The former, I see in Islam, the latter, in Christianity and like faiths.

The issue is the denomination not the religion and sacred text. In Christianity, OT god killed so many people and his intention was for the good of the people. Jesus Christ warned against disobeying his father. It put more emphasis on the believer's heart rather than the believer's actions as in the OT.

It's another way of saying "free will." They have freedom of choice. They choose to follow Christ and with that comes responsibilities (not rules and regulations). If I had a job, with that comes responsibilities. Same as religion. Unless someone corrects me, Muslim is the only religion I know that focus more on obedience.



Some people are actually content in the real sense of the word. They (as I mentioned with the JW above) acquire and discover. It depends on the denomination and religion rather than a generalization of religion and the religious as a whole.

My friend feels content via security, support, and relationship with her culture.

I feel secure by freedom of expression, understanding how I think and how it influences who I am and what I perceive myself-basically, reality.

Others may be secure in their morals even though they don't call it religious.

That security, support, or however they name it, lets them be content. There isn't one way to be content. There is no "we vs. them." Diversity in thought doesn't separate people but accept and if possible experience the differences from their perspective. It's a beautiful thing to really experience the sacraments of Christ and still not believe in the Church. Like falling in love and then breaking up on good terms.

If we are promoting diversity, there are many steps to do so without imposing that others are limited while we are not. We are not the center of the universe. :)


From my point of view, it's about truth, facts and reality whether or not one agrees with truth, facts and reality or not. I have a need to know, to Discover. If one settles for beliefs, one strays from the knowing.

You are right about religion being social. That is a factor unto itself. For some, it's not about the beliefs. It's about the People connection. Interaction is always a good thing.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
When people get away with that which God condemns, when they flout the rules you're taught are crucial to happiness, prosperity and harmony, and yet appear happy, prosperous and harmonious, it's exceedingly annoying and calls into question you're whole system of morality.

Such people must be in league with the Devil, they must be exterminated -- think of the children!
We hate them for their freedom!

I think you are right. It almost forces them to do what they do not want to do and that is to Question. If one has been accepting all the time, it's quite a change to start thinking.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
From my point of view, it's about truth, facts and reality whether or not one agrees with truth, facts and reality or not. I have a need to know, to Discover. If one settles for beliefs, one strays from the knowing.

You are right about religion being social. That is a factor unto itself. For some, it's not about the beliefs. It's about the People connection. Interaction is always a good thing.

A lot of religions are about facts, reality, discovery, truth, and people connection. I understand maybe its hard to see that in religion but that is why many people are religious. It gives them these things. Unless its unhealthy indoctrination and force, I dont see any religion that dont have the traits you describe.

Unless you define them differently?
 

Kent856

Member
Ah yes, what are your "feelings" and "thoughts" about "anyone" who has left your organization or

As I said, nothing bad :) we all choose for ourselves

Edit: as for intelligence eliminating the need for rules... There's a saying i quite like which goes something like this: A person is smart but people are stupid.

That's part of the reason why society needs to be built on rules.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
A lot of religions are about facts, reality, discovery, truth, and people connection. I understand maybe its hard to see that in religion but that is why many people are religious. It gives them these things. Unless its unhealthy indoctrination and force, I dont see any religion that dont have the traits you describe.

Unless you define them differently?

I would say people are religious because they are surrounded by people who believe that "Jesus resurrected from death". For instance.

If they were surrounded by people who believe that "cats turn into blue fairies when they die", they would probably believe that, instead.

I can hardly call facts any of those beliefs. But I would call "people connection" detrimental, in both cases.

Ciao

- viole
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I would say people are religious because they are surrounded by people who believe that "Jesus resurrected from death". For instance.

If they were surrounded by people who believe that "cats turn into blue fairies when they die", they would probably believe that, instead.

I can hardly call facts any of those beliefs. But I would call "people connection" detrimental, in both cases.

Ciao

- viole

I guess "it depends" is a good phrase for that. Edit: Sorry, I really didn't mean for this to be a long reply.

If you, for example, in what you believe or understand reality as you do now were surrounded with people who believed cats turned into blue faeries when they die, would you believe it?​

I am surrounded by Christians, live in a residential home owned by the Catholic Church, have Christian neighbors. When I walk outside, I smell the hint of Jesus in the air. When I skate (on the bus, or so have you), and fall down, there is almost always someone who comes up to me and say "did you want me to pray for you?" or another person almost recently asked "let's pray together." All my co-workers are Christian. I was surprised (but outside of my county) that I met someone who wasn't religious at all. He, on the other hand, thought I was Christian.

I came into Christianity as an adult by choice. I understand what you mean by direct experience; and, I actually think many Catholics are aware they are believing in things others may not consider facts. However, their reasoning is different than another person's and likewise another person's. I didn't mesh not because I didn't believe in god but because god (how I defined him) was not the center of my life because I couldn't shape "him" into how they see god as an entity. Jesus, I understood. Eucharist, most definitely. God/entity, no.

So, if I can believe, experience, and still reason, then I wouldn't say others can't. I actually do believe Jesus is in the Eucharist. Though, I don't take the Eucharist because I don't believe in him as god.

Blue cats and faeries are perfectly logically within the belief system that has criteria to see them as facts. Outside of that, I don't know how one can say that it is not based on reality or even analyze and talk about it given they don't exist.

It's interesting to hear an strong atheist (those who don't believe god exist) talk about god as if he does to make an opinion of his non-existence and even more so, have feelings about this non-existent god by pretending, for language purposes, that he does. Bogs my mind.

:shrug:

Anyway, I understand what ya saying. I wouldn't say it's not based on facts and reality. Who can define reality to even make a statement like that, really? All we can do is nod our head and, if we like, say " if ya say so?" But, for me, the only way I form opinions about it is because I experienced it. Since I have not experienced blue fairs and cats, etc (for example), I don't know how to talk about it. But I can't say it's not a fact I just can say what I understand as fact. Anyone who feels they know everything about life, well...
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
A lot of religions are about facts, reality, discovery, truth, and people connection. I understand maybe its hard to see that in religion but that is why many people are religious. It gives them these things. Unless its unhealthy indoctrination and force, I dont see any religion that dont have the traits you describe.

Unless you define them differently?


Granted some truth is in every religion, however religion is about Beliefs. If religion was about Discovery they would correct their errors as they discover them. Funny, they never discover any. They assume God sent their holy books and there are no errors.

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. God does not hand out knowledge. It must be discovered. That is in all fields not just religion. Holy books are a result of mankind's attempt to understand God. Have they reached a point of acceptance where the search for new knowledge no longer exists??

Religions are very social. Perhaps, people also feel safer around other religious people of their own beliefs. Is it now more social rather than having the goal of discovering God??

Yes, there are many issues and complexities around people and religions.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
That's why. (Not to be sarcastic). I understand why you see as you do..so far.
Granted some truth is in every religion, however religion is about Beliefs. If religion was about Discovery they would correct their errors as they discover them. Funny, they never discover any. They assume God sent their holy books and there are no errors.

"Religion is about beliefs"​

Religion, actually, in its bare bones, is about practice not beliefs. I always use the "standing still" analogy. Since we are talking about god-religion rather than religion in general, if I believed in god and stood still, my belief means nothing. From a Catholic, Baptist, to even a Univeralist Unitarian who accepts all beliefs and none all emphasis to one degree or another than to follow a belief one must do something to follow it. Whether or no it is discovery or indoctrination, that's not depended on the religion (the definition of it) but on the people (or people that make up the denomination).

I think you're kind of mixing up people and their beliefs with religion and the definition of itself.
-
"If religion was about discovery, they would correct their errors..."​

If we are talking about a specific god-religion then I'd probably ask what errors (according to the religion not the people) are there. That, and I'd probably ask how are they errors unless you see a contradiction between fact and fiction rather than just being non-existent. If god is an error, for example, how would that be? What about god makes him an error if he doesn't exist?

Religion, in general, is about discovery. It's about searching within yourself (eastern faiths for example) our outside of yourself (western faiths-not just Christianity) to understand the world around you. It let's you discover things about life such as the nature of death, for example, by a reflection of one's mind (Buddhism), a person (Christianity), or, thinking of another example, maybe Paganism (analogy or however it is seen. I don't know completely).

The difference between what we call discovery and the religious that you are referring to (since I am religious) is that they have someone or something to guide them to find discovery in themselves by external means (outside in). While, I assume we (at least for me), my religion lets me find discovery by myself (inside out). '

It's not wrong. It's different.

Now we are getting more specific: "Funny, they never discover any. They assume God sent their holy books and there are no errors."​

Is this true, though? If it is an error, what really is the error?

Wouldn't it have to exist to make such a claim or are you more concerned about the claim and not the belief itself?

I guess I'll put it this way. There is no errors in the Bible and Quran.

Can I really say this? What am I basing this on? My criteria or what I believe to be reality? That's like basing truth of the Quran based on the Bible. It doesn't work that way. Of course, it has no errors. Regardless of what we believe, according to their criteria it doesn't contradict itself.

Now. If their practices contradict their own beliefs then yes, it would be in error. For example, someone here says "homosexuality is a sin" but according to that person's Church and the Church I was confirmed, it is not. They changed it actually almost recently. Now they consider it an disordered orientation and the action as a sin. So whomever said that is technically wrong. That person isn't going off of the beliefs of the Church but the beliefs that person holds to be true.

That's an error. However, if that person agreed with the CCC, then how would that be an error other than what I personally disagree with?

Hope you got all that? :confused:

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. God does not hand out knowledge. It must be discovered. That is in all fields not just religion. Holy books are a result of mankind's attempt to understand God. Have they reached a point of acceptance where the search for new knowledge no longer exists??

Going back, religion in and of itself has nothing to do with god. It's "man's" attempt to understand the unknown. That's basically it.

How do you know god doesn't hand out knowledge? The only way I know about god is what is written in their books. If it isn't in their books, I know nothing about god. Is it in their books that god doesn't hand out knowledge? If not, how do you know? Have you personally experienced god before to make that statement?

I'm serious. This is actually a good question I haven't had answered no matter how many times I rephrased it. (Readers, your turn to chip in)

Religions are very social. Perhaps, people also feel safer around other religious people of their own beliefs. Is it now more social rather than having the goal of discovering God??

In some religions, yes. Other religions are more focused on practice. For example, a Zen Monetary I wanted to go to but it's in the mountains, they are not social like you see in Christian Churches. It's all silent. Everyone comes together in practice not in socialization because no one talks. When they do for that short amount of time, it's outside of practice. However, that short socialization doesn't define religion.

Socialization doesn't define religion. It's just man's attempt to define the unknown whether it be in himself and/or outside himself.

Also, if god doesn't exist, is that last question logical? If you believe in god (do you?) then it is, I would think if god was an entity, than discovery would be learning about god. You'd have to ask each person how they define god. I believe god is life itself. Why call it god and personalize life. There is a lot of things we don't know about life. Why replace life with god in that last sentence? Some of us do because it helps with discovery of the unknown. Just some people need external support to do so others need internal support while others just throw up their hands and figure it out without calling it internal (which that is what it is).

Yes, there are many issues and complexities around people and religions.

Yes. That's in all religions. Regardless the god ones or not. That's why discovery is so hard and mysterious, I guess. There is a challenge in understanding the unknown. Whether people call it god, Buddha-nature, or life, doesn't matter.

I assume you're talking about a specific god. I think maybe specify the religion since not all religions fit in the category and opinions that you have about it. In other words, it's a generalization.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
That's why. (Not to be sarcastic). I understand why you see as you do..so far.


"Religion is about beliefs"​

Religion, actually, in its bare bones, is about practice not beliefs. I always use the "standing still" analogy. Since we are talking about god-religion rather than religion in general, if I believed in god and stood still, my belief means nothing. From a Catholic, Baptist, to even a Univeralist Unitarian who accepts all beliefs and none all emphasis to one degree or another than to follow a belief one must do something to follow it. Whether or no it is discovery or indoctrination, that's not depended on the religion (the definition of it) but on the people (or people that make up the denomination).

I think you're kind of mixing up people and their beliefs with religion and the definition of itself.
-
"If religion was about discovery, they would correct their errors..."​

If we are talking about a specific god-religion then I'd probably ask what errors (according to the religion not the people) are there. That, and I'd probably ask how are they errors unless you see a contradiction between fact and fiction rather than just being non-existent. If god is an error, for example, how would that be? What about god makes him an error if he doesn't exist?

Religion, in general, is about discovery. It's about searching within yourself (eastern faiths for example) our outside of yourself (western faiths-not just Christianity) to understand the world around you. It let's you discover things about life such as the nature of death, for example, by a reflection of one's mind (Buddhism), a person (Christianity), or, thinking of another example, maybe Paganism (analogy or however it is seen. I don't know completely).

The difference between what we call discovery and the religious that you are referring to (since I am religious) is that they have someone or something to guide them to find discovery in themselves by external means (outside in). While, I assume we (at least for me), my religion lets me find discovery by myself (inside out). '

It's not wrong. It's different.

Now we are getting more specific: "Funny, they never discover any. They assume God sent their holy books and there are no errors."​

Is this true, though? If it is an error, what really is the error?

Wouldn't it have to exist to make such a claim or are you more concerned about the claim and not the belief itself?

I guess I'll put it this way. There is no errors in the Bible and Quran.

Can I really say this? What am I basing this on? My criteria or what I believe to be reality? That's like basing truth of the Quran based on the Bible. It doesn't work that way. Of course, it has no errors. Regardless of what we believe, according to their criteria it doesn't contradict itself.

Now. If their practices contradict their own beliefs then yes, it would be in error. For example, someone here says "homosexuality is a sin" but according to that person's Church and the Church I was confirmed, it is not. They changed it actually almost recently. Now they consider it an disordered orientation and the action as a sin. So whomever said that is technically wrong. That person isn't going off of the beliefs of the Church but the beliefs that person holds to be true.

That's an error. However, if that person agreed with the CCC, then how would that be an error other than what I personally disagree with?

Hope you got all that? :confused:



Going back, religion in and of itself has nothing to do with god. It's "man's" attempt to understand the unknown. That's basically it.

How do you know god doesn't hand out knowledge? The only way I know about god is what is written in their books. If it isn't in their books, I know nothing about god. Is it in their books that god doesn't hand out knowledge? If not, how do you know? Have you personally experienced god before to make that statement?

I'm serious. This is actually a good question I haven't had answered no matter how many times I rephrased it. (Readers, your turn to chip in)



In some religions, yes. Other religions are more focused on practice. For example, a Zen Monetary I wanted to go to but it's in the mountains, they are not social like you see in Christian Churches. It's all silent. Everyone comes together in practice not in socialization because no one talks. When they do for that short amount of time, it's outside of practice. However, that short socialization doesn't define religion.

Socialization doesn't define religion. It's just man's attempt to define the unknown whether it be in himself and/or outside himself.

Also, if god doesn't exist, is that last question logical? If you believe in god (do you?) then it is, I would think if god was an entity, than discovery would be learning about god. You'd have to ask each person how they define god. I believe god is life itself. Why call it god and personalize life. There is a lot of things we don't know about life. Why replace life with god in that last sentence? Some of us do because it helps with discovery of the unknown. Just some people need external support to do so others need internal support while others just throw up their hands and figure it out without calling it internal (which that is what it is).



Yes. That's in all religions. Regardless the god ones or not. That's why discovery is so hard and mysterious, I guess. There is a challenge in understanding the unknown. Whether people call it god, Buddha-nature, or life, doesn't matter.

I assume you're talking about a specific god. I think maybe specify the religion since not all religions fit in the category and opinions that you have about it. In other words, it's a generalization.


I know myself. I guess you are right. Maybe most are wandering around even trying to discover themselves. There are also mysteries about God, life and death. Since all the facts are not known, people have placed patches of Beliefs to cover the missing information. Further with the diversity of beliefs, it becomes a real challenge for many to get anywhere beyond their comfort zones. Each student moves at their own pace.

This is how I see and value beliefs: If I step off a tall building, it doesn't matter what I believe. Gravity is the only thing that matters. Facts are all that matter. Beliefs only point the Direction by which one should search for the Facts. Of course, that is provided truth and facts are what one searches for.

Beliefs are great if one only searches emotional security. Perhaps many in religion only seek that. That could never be me.

Finally, let me leave you with something to think about. Maybe you know the answer.

Logic dictates: If God exists, then God can be found!!!!!! Further, if God is found, God is no longer a Belief.

I think you are right. Religion is not really about God at all.
 

ronandcarol

Member
Premium Member
If people of religion are locked into a set of rules from their holy books in order to be Righteous, does it make them angry when others do not follow those rules? Do they see people who do not follow as evil or being the devil?
Christians cannot become righteous by any set of rules. We are only righteous by the Blood of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
We put our FULL trust in only Him!

Ron and Carol
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Christians cannot become righteous by any set of rules. We are only righteous by the Blood of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
We put our FULL trust in only Him!

Ron and Carol

So if one trusts then one is righteous, right? So Believing makes the difference. There was a serial killer who trusted and believed in Christ. Does that make the serial killer righteous?
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
Wasn't Lot praised as a moral man for handing his virgin daughters over to a gang of rapists?

Never did get how that was supposed to be a MORAL act, seems quite the opposite.

It was a middle eastern custom that when you have guests in your home, you will do everything you can to protect them. By the way, Lot's daughters were spared when angels blinded the men of the city.

Also back in that day women weren't regarded as "valuable" as men.
 

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
If people of religion are locked into a set of rules from their holy books in order to be Righteous, does it make them angry when others do not follow those rules?
Peace be on you.
From Ahmadiyya-Muslims understanding:
If people of a religion believe their religion is best and its message should reach to all.
Then:
a: they do not feel angry for others [i.e. those who are not-from-that-religion], instead they feel other miss something good.
b:If others [i.e. people from their religion] abuse the religion, they feel sorry, try to find reasons and try to fix the problem.



Do they see people who do not follow as evil or being the devil?
Not evil, but on wrong way; maybe right message did not reach them properly.


Do they secretly desire their freedom from these rules???? Would they be brave enough to admit that????
If their religion is alive, right and practical, and helps them reach God and peace with world, why would they secretly or unsecretly desire so?

But if their religion is not providing answers and is nothing but burden them they feel exactly as you said. Some escape, some escape from very idea of religion, some brave ones seek the truth and find.


Are they Trapped by what others think of them????
If they are alive, brave, wise, knowledgeable and of strong character they will not be Trapped. They will make others realize what is the real Truth.
 
Last edited:

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Peace be on you.
From Ahmadiyya-Muslims understanding:
If people of a religion believe their religion is best and its message should reach to all.
Then:
a: they do not feel angry for others [i.e. those who are not-from-that-religion], instead they feel other miss something good.
b:If others [i.e. people from their religion] abuse the religion, they feel sorry, try to find reasons and try to fix the problem.




Not evil, but on wrong way; maybe right message did not reach them properly.



If their religion is alive, right and practical, and helps them reach God and peace with world, why would they secretly or unsecretly desire so?

But if their religion is not providing answers and is nothing but burden them they feel exactly as you said. Some escape, some escape from very idea of religion, some brave ones seek the truth and find.



If they are alive, brave, wise, knowledgeable and of strong character they will not be Trapped. They will make others realize what is the real Truth.


I have found many angry when challenged. I have found many who focus on others not following, then calling them evil. Your view is of an ideal world. Can't see that much paradise from those people in reality.
 
Top