If humans can't unite on religion, is there a purpose to religion?

sun rise said:

Rabbi Rami Shapiro said something I find very helpful when it comes to apparent religious differences:

“Aren’t all religions equally true? No, all religions are equally false. The relationship of religion to truth is like that of a menu to a meal. The menu describes the meal as best it can. It points to something beyond itself. As long as we use the menu as a guide we do it honor. When we mistake the menu for the meal, we do it and ourselves a grave injustice.”

Click to expand...

The truth that Christianity points to is Jesus who said He is the Truth.
That is not the truth for any other religion.
Even though there are things in common in most religions, the central thing is always going to be different with Christianity.

Dear @Link

The title of your thread and your OP speak of different things, I feel.

The question of whether there is a purpose to [organised] religion, is a good one. I’m uncertain of my own view and look forward to reading what others have to say.

From your OP however, I’m no longer sure you were referring to organised religion in your title. Yet, to ask if there’s a purpose to [different] faiths is to me a strange question, because faith is not about purpose. We don’t believe things because it serves us to, do we...? We’ll have to see the reflections of people here on that one.

Then, I thought a little about some other things you wrote:

Link said:

.../God can make all us unite forcefully, but won't/...

Click to expand...

Why do you reckon this is...? Perhaps forcefully being united, will not teach Man what he must learn...

When we prevent someone from committing their own mistakes and experiencing the consequences of doing so, we rob them from the opportunity to understand what we already know. They may obey us, but they will not understand why we are “right”.

Link said:

.../But those who know truth tend to be apathetic of teaching it to others/...

Click to expand...

Here again, it is not apathy that lies behind a wiseman’s silence; it is the trust and faith he has in another’s ability to eventually, personally understand wisdom.

When you believe in your brother, you grant him the space to find he’s own way to truth. For truth may be One, but the paths to It are many.


Humbly
Hermit

Link said:

we broke the pledge of morality which is for love to be guided by truth and guidance.

Click to expand...

What is "the pledge of morality"? I don't remember making that pledge. Who is making the pledge and to whom is it pledged or made to?

Hermit Philosopher said:

Dear @Link
When you believe in your brother, you grant him the space to find he’s own way to truth. For truth may be One, but the paths to It are many.

Humbly
Hermit

Click to expand...

When you love your brother you help him on the way if you can.
When you say that the paths to truth are many that sounds as if you have a view already of what truth is.
That is good. But do we know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when we see it without first being told that from an authority?
A religion would have others who have trodden the path you are on or want to be on and who may be able to be of assistance.

Link said:

To me, that answer is definitely no.

But there is an illusion that we can't, because we won't. God can make all us unite forcefully, but won't, at the same time, is very disappointed we have united on division and have agreed to not unite on the truth but leave everyone to their own path.

I believe the truth can be arrived at as a whole race, we can come to it. But those who know truth tend to be apathetic of teaching it to others while great majority of humans want to decide what to follow per their desires rather then submit to God.

As a result, it looks like uniting on truth is impossible, but it's not.

Click to expand...

If your goal is uniting the world under a common religion, but you aren't willing to abandon your current religion in favour of some other religion you currently believe to be false, then you're part of the problem you're complaining about.

Link said:

To me, that answer is definitely no.

But there is an illusion that we can't, because we won't. God can make all us unite forcefully, but won't, at the same time, is very disappointed we have united on division and have agreed to not unite on the truth but leave everyone to their own path.

I believe the truth can be arrived at as a whole race, we can come to it. But those who know truth tend to be apathetic of teaching it to others while great majority of humans want to decide what to follow per their desires rather then submit to God.

As a result, it looks like uniting on truth is impossible, but it's not.

Click to expand...

And how is it, do you think, that "those who know truth" came by it? How can anybody say that "so and so is the truth, even though there's not a scrap of evidence for it?"

I can't tell you whether there's a purpose to religion or not, which is your question, but I can tell you that the reason humans can't unite on it is because there's nothing to base their ideas about religion on. Everything, absolutely every notion about religion held by anyone today, from the greatest religious scholar to strangest cultist, is based on nothing but ideas in human minds. And on those, humans will never agree. Each mind is, after all, unique.

Barry Johnson said:

From Jesus own words, I see it like this . There's many doors. Only one door leads to safety its green . Just one. Now many are believing the blue door leads to safety, there telling others to follow them. There's a yellow door and again it looks good and many are convinced by it . All these other doors lead to danger apart from this one green door . God wishes everyone to come to the green door and had done all to make it available to all , no excuses . But he also has given us free will to choose which door .

Click to expand...

Why was the green door only offered 2,000 years ago when human beings have been knocking around on earth for many millennia before that? Why was the green door only offered to a very limited number of people in a very limited geographical area at the time the green door was introduced? Why not everyone at the same time? Why the disparity?

Brian2 said:

The truth that Christianity points to is Jesus who said He is the Truth.
That is not the truth for any other religion.
Even though there are things in common in most religions, the central thing is always going to be different with Christianity.

Click to expand...

The difference is not because you think Jesus is the truth. Many say that. So that is a similarity.

the difference is with the Athanasian creed which other religions generally reject. That is the real difference.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

If your goal is uniting the world under a common religion, but you aren't willing to abandon your current religion in favour of some other religion you currently believe to be false, then you're part of the problem you're complaining about.

Click to expand...

Would you say since you are not willing to become a religious person despite you not believing in it you are part of the problem?

In response to the question in the title, yes, and I just stated religion's purpose in another thread a few days ago.

The purpose of religion is to facilitate the understanding of one’s nature of their being and the purpose of their existence.

firedragon said:

Would you say since you are not willing to become a religious person despite you not believing in it you are part of the problem?

Click to expand...

How is someone, who is not part of a religion, part of the problem of religions uniting?

Seems to me that perhaps religions should stop trying to blame atheists for their failures....

The Hammer said:

The purpose of Religions is to teach tolerance.

Click to expand...

What about the religions that teach intolerance?

Aštra’el said:

Religions have many purposes and they all depend on who embraces the religion. “Tolerance” of whatever kind he was referring to may or may not be one of those purposes.

Click to expand...

But didn't you just say in post #8 that...? Oh, never mind.

Aštra’el said:

Please do not twist my words. I said “no” to it being “the purpose of religions”. There is no one single purpose to all religions and not all religions teach “tolerance” (whatever you mean by that).

Click to expand...

No one has to. You kinda did that yourself somewhere between post #8 and post #11.

Jesus status physical observed cell body blood changes. To human form.

The human psyche human memory agreed status. Human scenario witnessed.

No control.
No human ability to change the attacked life.

Those humans in supposed control saw what owning no control against forces does. When you aren't doing harming personally as the evil human self by supposed ownership status controller of all things by group lying conditions. The bullies who do it in group status.

Against one state we argued for life continuance as satanism.

Satan ist.
Scient ist.

Human natural ability to think con science first.

Maths calculated to an agreed man X men science status forced change to natural.

Human morals to not cause harm to natural life is inherent in us all.

Natural conditions own natural con science awAreness first.

The review O one planet one entity one creator of its owned heavens earth.

To infer status goes by conscious human inference to what origin actually existed first. Planet and heavens did. So status is given to natural and to bodies more important than the human self.

Agreed by those loving living and honouring the God earth body.

We live supported by natural.

Natural itself is owner of disasters which are harmful enough to life without any human choice causing more suffering.

As mothers and fathers you are meant to keep the baby child safe. Or have you now lost all morality?

SalixIncendium said:

The purpose of religion is to facilitate the understanding of one’s nature of their being and the purpose of their existence.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with this statement. The purpose of religion, since it's inception, has been to provide pat answers to questions for which we are unable to gather sufficient data and information with which to draw accurate and definitive answers.

We human beings struggle with the unknown and many need place-holder explanations to be at ease. The conclusion "We just don't know" seems to be intolerable.

Religious explanations have changed and evolved as our understanding of our world and ourselves has changed and improved. As our understanding expands, religious explanations must retreat to stay within the boundary of the unknown and unverifiable.

Since many possible explanations can be imagined for that which is unverifiable, there is plenty of room for the creation of many religions.

firedragon said:

I agree with you.

What’s failing with religions is the same thing that’s failing with everything else. But you should note that according to the encyclopedia of wars which is the most extensive record of all wars in recorded history only 7% were motivated by religion. So we all must think about it.

Click to expand...

War usually has an economic purpose, so this sounds like an accurate rate.

Link said:

To me, that answer is definitely no.

But there is an illusion that we can't, because we won't. God can make all us unite forcefully, but won't, at the same time, is very disappointed we have united on division and have agreed to not unite on the truth but leave everyone to their own path.

I believe the truth can be arrived at as a whole race, we can come to it. But those who know truth tend to be apathetic of teaching it to others while great majority of humans want to decide what to follow per their desires rather then submit to God.

As a result, it looks like uniting on truth is impossible, but it's not.

Click to expand...

It would be nice to have the same purpose for all the various religions (to avoid too much conflict), but that seems unlikely given (as pointed out) that there are so many divisions within many religions as to such besides between them. And since this is not so - them all having the same purpose - are we down to simple competition as to which version is the winner, even when so many people are turning away from religions rather than enthusiastically embracing them, apart from those where there are special considerations (like indoctrination or lack of freedom)?

I suspect that many religions are past their sell-by-date and causing more friction than harmony, especially when there are better ways to promote those qualities we might hope to see as being beneficial to human life and our relationship to all other life and/or our planet. Unless of course we do find the more strident religious beliefs melting away when they discover their survival rests on them becoming less so. In that case, many wouldn't care less what religion others have as long as they didn't insist others have such too - which seems to be a big ask in many countries.

MikeF said:

I would disagree with this statement. The purpose of religion, since it's inception, has been to provide pat answers to questions for which we are unable to gather sufficient data and information with which to draw accurate and definitive answers.

We human beings struggle with the unknown and many need place-holder explanations to be at ease. The conclusion "We just don't know" seems to be intolerable.

Religious explanations have changed and evolved as our understanding of our world and ourselves has changed and improved. As our understanding expands, religious explanations must retreat to stay within the boundary of the unknown and unverifiable.

Since many possible explanations can be imagined for that which is unverifiable, there is plenty of room for the creation of many religions.

Click to expand...

Your disagreement appears to refer to a specific religion(s). Not all religions’ purpose is to provide such pat answers.

firedragon said:

Would you say since you are not willing to become a religious person despite you not believing in it you are part of the problem?

Click to expand...

Good point. If we are going to be objective and rational about this proposal perhaps the truth we acknowledge is the lack of fact and evidence for religion as a whole, and work to set it aside from social and cultural experience?