firedragon
Veteran Member
It is a proven percentage. And even religious wars are fought for economic or political reasons. You should study it a little in depth.
-
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!
If humans can't unite on religion, is there a purpose to religion?
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
It is a proven percentage. And even religious wars are fought for economic or political reasons. You should study it a little in depth.
Brilliant -- an untold number of cultures spanning the globe and the millennia have (1) opted to produce, and (2) sought to sustain something that is, in fact, purposeless. Sociology be damned!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Religion has two different approaches. The sociological approach would deem that the "truths are subjective" and it stems from sociological foundations. The other is the objective approach which is the theology is objective but influences sociology.
You have to take both.
I never said they weren't. And even you admit you had to look it up. So keep up with the irony.
Are you suggesting that religions are developed from a scientific approach? Or just acknowledging that sociology can explain how religions learned to be more effective as they spreads their influence?
What theology is objective? I've never seen one.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I can't understand what you mean by "even you admit you had to look it up". About what? And where did I say something like that?
Anyway, what is this "irony"?
I dont know what you are looking for really.
Are you saying you had the "7% of wars had religious motives" off the top of your head?
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt even mention the word science so I dont know where that came from. Second, I mentioned two different things, not just sociology of religion. You missed it. Please read it again.
I dont think you are attempting to understand someone.
firedragon
Veteran Member
That was not the question I asked. I asked you where did I say "I had to look it up". Also, why would that matter? What are you looking for?
Sociology is a social science. You wrote that religion has a sociological approach, which means religion uses sociology to engage with the public.
This doesn't explain how any theology is objective.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. I said two things. Read again please.
Of course not. Maybe you should read again. If you want a clarification please ask.
Or just say what you are looking for.
I did. What religions use sociology to engage with the public?
You wrote this:
"The other is the objective approach which is the theology is objective but influences sociology."
Your language is ambiguous. Are you saying theology is objective? Clarify.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Dear Brian2
I give the answers that I personally live by; whether “true” or not (I’m not myself a fan of thinking in such terms), they work for me. By this I mean that when I live by them, peace of mind in self and in those whom I come across, increases - and peaceful beings, in my experience, are more at ease with selves, others and life.
Ps. My comment about “truth” and “paths” was worded in relation to things written in OP of this thread. But you could choose to read it like this instead, if you wish: even if truth were One, there are likely many different ways to get to it.
Humbly
Hermit
What would be a specific example of a religion that does not address the unknown is some way?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I view religion much like any average species of creature. Once it is here, it attempts at just about any cost to survive and reproduce itself as (or more appropriate in religion's case, "within") the next generation. Some of these things eventually die out, as has been evidenced by religions that have zero or very near zero adherence - only the ones best adapted to hold the minds of the ever-changing landscape of humanity, or can adapt in some way to become something new and different that might do so (see the great many branches of Christianity) tend to propagate over the long haul.
But just as one cannot point to the objective purpose of something like the dodo bird (and recognize that only subjective "purpose" is even possible to contemplate - especially given that it went entirely extinct), trying to do so for any given transient religion is no less an exercise in futility.
Is the "encyclopedia of wars" peer reviewed?
I googled it but I could only find a book with a pair of authors.
It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed after a 5 minute google search.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You mean religion as an entity uses sociology? My God. Thats not what I said. Let me say this once more.
Understanding religion/study of religion has two different approaches.
1. The sociological approach would deem that the "truths are subjective" and it stems from sociological foundations.
2. The other approach is the objective approach which is the theology is objective but influences sociology.
I dont know whether the above clarifies it. I mean in studying theology. Studying religion. There are two very different, standard approaches.
If these schools of Buddhism do not ascribe to any teaching of Gautama Buddha that address subjects outside of that which is real and existent (for example immortality of the soul and reincarnation) then are they really Buddhism and are they religious?
The same would hold true for a flavor of Hinduism. If no gods are involved, if reincarnation is not involved, then are there values expressed in these sects considered Universal Values, that are external and independent of human beings, not created by human beings? If so, my definition applies.
If there are no gods, no immortal soul, afterlife, reincarnation, no universal truths, no metaphysical or transcendental plane, then I don't see why the label of religion would even apply.
Great job tiresomely and pretentiously missing the point!