What is wrong with religion?

[TashaN]

I met alot of people who don't believe in God, and when i engage in a discussuin with them about religion, they jump into conclusions saying that religion is the source of evil in the world and they start giving me some examples.

I think that what they saw about what religion's influnce on people did was not quite accurate, because people *used* religion to gain power, money and more land, because human beings found out that religion is the most effective tool in order to control their nation. Nevertheless, just because someone used fire to burn buildings so that doesn't mean fire is no longer a source of light, heat, and feeling warm.

The question which is begging to be answered now is, as we can see that religion "in general" is not the source of evil and human beings just used it in the wrong way, so then, what's wrong with religion?

 

[wizanda]

It isn’t the God concepts explained in the books that puts people off (most knew God and religion distracted them), yet peoples lack of interest in the end point and more in the dogma of words….

When live is real…..then anything opposing to this or accusing the soul (to place it in boxes) and so not to live to the fullest is then opposite……and so Evil……

If people get off their high horses, it allows others to, and so when most of us did know right and wrong…….. until………. we are told it is acceptable to murder a good person for the sake of our own well being and we know this is wrong, so then 95% of us just give up or go mad as we see with fundamentalist…..:angel2:

 

[cardero]

The Truth writes: The question which is begging to be answered now is, as we can see that religion "in general" is not the source of evil and human beings just used it in the wrong way, so then, what's wrong with religion?

A fair question, I assure YOU. Religions in your society need to BE completely updated to function in today's modern moments. It is surprising some of the dogma and rituals that religious organizations cling to just to comply with tradition.
The first thing I would suggest is to drop the barriers and dissolve the sanctions. These are lines meant to divide certain belief systems or groups, and are counterproductive to the TRUTH that WE are ALL ONE. A more satisfying approach would BE to group religions into ONE major movement of good that would aid ALL fellow entities. This has been lost throughout the centuries in favor of a more performance-orientated, big-business attitude of displaying religion. ALL(WAYS) keep in mind that humans share much more in common than they think.

Belief was never one of those things. That is why the second thing I would suggest is to stop promoting a belief system. People will need to K(NOW) and UNDERSTAND their own beliefs in their own time.

Many of the ideas brought forth from different religions were started from just a few individuals who felt a particular way at a particular moment. Most of their beliefs were never established to BE TRUTHs. These same people have either passed on or no longer practice past ways of believing. Beliefs are ALL(WAYS) changing and very few can BE applied to many people.

Ideas and perspectives are unique as well. People are different and so are their PURPOSES. It is unfair to "lump" them in something as constrictive as organized religion. I would not advise people to pursue a person, place, or book to attain spiritual growth. MY REALationship will ALL(WAYS) BE with people directly, not through a person, place, or publication.

HELLO IT'S ME: An Interview WIth GOD
Chapter: Religion
Pg: 43

 

[vandervalley]

A more satisfying approach would BE to group religions into ONE major movement of good that would aid ALL fellow entities.

A very good suggestion indeed. However it's really hard to achieve as an idea can be interpreted so differently by different people.

That is why the second thing I would suggest is to stop promoting a belief system. People will need to K(NOW) and UNDERSTAND their own beliefs in their own time.

I got a question on this statment. If you stop promoting belief system(s) then how would people know which belief is their own belief if they were never introduced to one before?

For example how would a person know wether Islam or Buddhism is the right religion/believe for him/her if he/she never had the chance to get to know the 2 religions in the first place?

so then, what's wrong with religion?

I think it's wrong for any religion to include any form of physical violence in its teachings; let it be for personal or religious purposes.

The reason behind this is that there will always be people who take advantage of such violence teachings to justify their own violent behaviours.

 

[cardero]

Vandervalley writes: A very good suggestion indeed. However it's really hard to achieve as an idea can be interpreted so differently by different people.

Deciphering what is “good” for people may be difficult but providing aid to people who need it should not be so complicated. If we see a child who is nothing but skin and bones, we can easily assess that this individual is hungry and in immediate need of food and not in need of a church service or a religious publication.

Vandervalley writes: I got a question on this statment. If you stop promoting belief system(s) then how would people know which belief is their own belief if they were never introduced to one before? For example how would a person know wether Islam or Buddhism is the right religion/believe for him/her if he/she never had the chance to get to know the 2 religions in the first place?

There are no shortages of beliefs and not too many that are original anymore. Belief systems are best acquired when they are revealed, researched and chosen (not imposed ) it is what gives us our individuality or personality. Even in religion, with a proposed belief system already established, you will usually find every member not believing the same or agreeing with everything. People can believe in certain aspects of other religions and still not become a member or accepting of a religion. If an atheist believes that murder, coveting others belongings or stealing is incorrect this does not immediately make them religious.

 

[robtex]

I met alot of people who don't believe in God, and when i engage in a discussuin with them about religion, they jump into conclusions saying that religion is the source of evil in the world and they start giving me some examples.


The question which is begging to be answered now is, as we can see that religion "in general" is not the source of evil and human beings just used it in the wrong way, so then, what's wrong with religion?

I think evil is one of those words that people can't agree on the definition of but can list out examples. Until someone articulates to me in words what evil is to them qualifying it in a sentence is hard to do. However, if they can qualify evil than I think the subsequent communication on the topic it is attached to is high. Meaning lots of info is shared.

As far as religion's con's, and I think con as a word is more adaptable in the context of the OP, I would fault if for the following:

1) Too exclusive. This is true of only some religions but true of the Abrahamic religions in general. The idea behind membership is belief in a higher power, shared values and beliefs with no or little variation and the concept of special privileges of those of the same faith. In many faiths you are either with the program, believe in the right god or you are an outsider. If they do make friends with an outsider there is that constant pressure from many if not most of them to believe and "be part of the program."

2) morality is painted as black and white as opposed to something shaped by the environment and context it is in and than amended by communications with the God of that faith. For instance in the "not murder clause" few religions actually qualify murder from killing (though holy men "Interpret" it from time to time), nor look at the context making the moral introspection of the idea of taking a life so abstract it is not examinable. However, it can be amended (for instance many Christians are pro death penalty) based on communications that religious leaders have with God. To a non-believer it presents the idea that significant moral questions that are needed in a society are glossed over, trivialized and pawned off to a higher power that doesn't qualify the moral idea to his subjects with anything other than the single word "faith" or the duel words of "God's will"

3) faith is elevated to a higher status that evidence in areas where they are mutually exclusive. Evolution vs theological theories on the birth of man being the largest example.

4) The two largest religions, Christianity and Islam are in a current and apparently a permanent power struggle all over the world killing each other on a whim based on which group they belong to. Not just killing combatants, but women, children and advocating genocide at times which is procured as just by their God according to the groups involved.

A large reason for # 4 is because 1,2,and 3 exist in those groups.

As a footnote, one cannot lump all religions into this category because, say findings a Pagan coven that falls into this paradigm or a UU would be somewhere between challenging and impossible but, somewhere between many and most of Christians and Muslims, who together, make up well over 50 % of the believers, are structured in this way.

 

[McBell]

what's wrong with religion?

I have to go with: It's followers.

 

[joeboonda]

if one's religious beliefs compel them to fly a jumbo jet into a building or become a suicide bomber killing innocent men, women and children, or to carve up innocent missionaries slowly with a knife, then there is plenty wrong with it. If one's religion teaches to love one another, love our enemies, do good to those who persecute you, to give your enemy food and water if they need it, then there is plenty right with it.

 

[wizanda]

if one's religious beliefs compel them to fly a jumbo jet into a building.......

That is just pure brainwashing, you can find almost every video of the whole event and see it was a controlled explosion.
People say they even heard what sounded like rockets….
so what our own public now are behind it also or someone is playing silly buggers trying to pull the wool over our eyes….with our laws, religions, music, movies etc
Can you see what Babylon is and where the beast is already in our politics....you already have a number since birth to buy and trade.....

 

[doppelganger]

These aren't unique to "religion" but the two big negatives to what usually is considered "religion" are: (1) it tends to encourage authoritarianism and thought control, because religion proposes interpretations that must be accepted to be part of the group; and (2) it reinforces our natural habit of confusing the signs for the things signified. Dogmas and doctrines of any form do this as well as "religion." It happens with nationalism, racism, and political ideologies. Even "science" sometimes takes on the characteristics of dogma.

Mythology is powerful and invaluable. The problem is with "followers" who consider the meaning to be a product of authority rather than a product of self-discovery.

 

[robtex]

if one's religious beliefs compel them to fly a jumbo jet into a building or become a suicide bomber killing innocent men, women and children, or to carve up innocent missionaries slowly with a knife, then there is plenty wrong with it. If one's religion teaches to love one another, love our enemies, do good to those who persecute you, to give your enemy food and water if they need it, then there is plenty right with it.

The key word in that post is compel. Compel in some religions means living in subservience to a higher power and basing ones decisions, from day-to-day to decisions to one that alters a small or large society based on divine revelation and faith-based signs. The driving motivator, and in my opinion complication, is that ones decisions many times are made independent of empirical data or in direct conflict of empirical data. Analysis is back-seated to a divine communication and actions are preformed based solely or in majority on that communication.

This is projected in the metaphor of "going on what's in my heart (where God metaphorically lives for many people), as opposed to using reasoning skills to reach a conclusion. There are certainly times where all one has to work with, with time constraints is a gut feeling, but many religions push making most of,and the most important decisions in this way and present them as divine revelations. In this way the idea of compulsion is problem of religion at large weather it is flying planes into a building (and getting 72 virgins as sex slaves in exchange for this), or making a day-to-day decision involving family, finances, voting issues or other activities.

 

[McBell]

if one's religious beliefs compel them to fly a jumbo jet into a building or become a suicide bomber killing innocent men, women and children, or to carve up innocent missionaries slowly with a knife, then there is plenty wrong with it. If one's religion teaches to love one another, love our enemies, do good to those who persecute you, to give your enemy food and water if they need it, then there is plenty right with it.

Was it their religion that 'told' them to do this or is it that they are using religion as an excuse to justify doing it?
The same can be said about the crusades: was it religion that told them to do it or is religion the excuse used to justify it?

If it was the religion that 'told' them then i agree it is the religion.
However if religion is merely the excuse to justify the action, then it is the follower, not the religion.

 

[TashaN]

It isn’t the God concepts explained in the books that puts people off (most knew God and religion distracted them)

So religion altered by man to describe what God really want is the problem?

 

[joeboonda]

That is just pure brainwashing, you can find almost every video of the whole event and see it was a controlled explosion.
People say they even heard what sounded like rockets….
so what our own public now are behind it also or someone is playing silly buggers trying to pull the wool over our eyes….with our laws, religions, music, movies etc
Can you see what Babylon is and where the beast is already in our politics....you already have a number since birth to buy and trade.....

Say what??? You honestly don't believe the Twin Towers were brought down by those planes??? (...I will love my enemies...I WILL love my enemies...sigh...) I would seriously NOT say that to anyone if you are ever in the public in the USA, just for your own safety, because they most assuredly won't take it well.
Peace,
Joeboonda

 

[joeboonda]

The key word in that post is compel. Compel in some religions means living in subservience to a higher power and basing ones decisions, from day-to-day to decisions to one that alters a small or large society based on divine revelation and faith-based signs. The driving motivator, and in my opinion complication, is that ones decisions many times are made independent of empirical data or in direct conflict of empirical data. Analysis is back-seated to a divine communication and actions are preformed based solely or in majority on that communication.

This is projected in the metaphor of "going on what's in my heart (where God metaphorically lives for many people), as opposed to using reasoning skills to reach a conclusion. There are certainly times where all one has to work with, with time constraints is a gut feeling, but many religions push making most of,and the most important decisions in this way and present them as divine revelations. In this way the idea of compulsion is problem of religion at large weather it is flying planes into a building (and getting 72 virgins as sex slaves in exchange for this), or making a day-to-day decision involving family, finances, voting issues or other activities.

Yeah, if you have to leave your brain at the door then I would think twice about the religion.

 

[TashaN]

A fair question, I assure YOU. Religions in your society need to BE completely updated to function in today's modern moments. It is surprising some of the dogma and rituals that religious organizations cling to just to comply with tradition.
The first thing I would suggest is to drop the barriers and dissolve the sanctions. These are lines meant to divide certain belief systems or groups, and are counterproductive to the TRUTH that WE are ALL ONE. A more satisfying approach would BE to group religions into ONE major movement of good that would aid ALL fellow entities. This has been lost throughout the centuries in favor of a more performance-orientated, big-business attitude of displaying religion. ALL(WAYS) keep in mind that humans share much more in common than they think.

Belief was never one of those things. That is why the second thing I would suggest is to stop promoting a belief system. People will need to K(NOW) and UNDERSTAND their own beliefs in their own time.

Many of the ideas brought forth from different religions were started from just a few individuals who felt a particular way at a particular moment. Most of their beliefs were never established to BE TRUTHs. These same people have either passed on or no longer practice past ways of believing. Beliefs are ALL(WAYS) changing and very few can BE applied to many people.

Ideas and perspectives are unique as well. People are different and so are their PURPOSES. It is unfair to "lump" them in something as constrictive as organized religion. I would not advise people to pursue a person, place, or book to attain spiritual growth. MY REALationship will ALL(WAYS) BE with people directly, not through a person, place, or publication.

HELLO IT'S ME: An Interview WIth GOD
Chapter: Religion
Pg: 43

So you think if we can group religions into ONE major movement so you would have no problem to adhere to it?

 

[Sunstone]

if one's religious beliefs compel them to fly a jumbo jet into a building or become a suicide bomber killing innocent men, women and children, or to carve up innocent missionaries slowly with a knife, then there is plenty wrong with it. If one's religion teaches to love one another, love our enemies, do good to those who persecute you, to give your enemy food and water if they need it, then there is plenty right with it.

What about a religion that teaches it's followers to characterize other religions as evil? Is that a good religion?

 

[Charles]

I think evil is one of those words that people can't agree on the definition of but can list out examples.

totalt agree on that robtex, which is more evil:

A woman has been raped, she falls pregnant, is it not her own right to have a termination?

A cow is killed for food, but is not used and left to rot, is that a waste of life and creation?

 

[TashaN]

I think it's wrong for any religion to include any form of physical violence in its teachings; let it be for personal or religious purposes.

The reason behind this is that there will always be people who take advantage of such violence teachings to justify their own violent behaviours.

Even if there was no such thing, people will invent it, and you just have to look at nations who had no religion but they were involved in violence. Human beings just want an excuse to leave it all, this is how i think of it.

 

[Charles]

What about a religion that teaches it's followers to characterize other religions as evil? Is that a good religion?

personally, certainly not!