Can we say organized religion is a positive force in the world with headlines like this?

[rusra02]

"All religions are bad... except mine. Mine is wonderful. The ones that are very similar to mine are made up of evil, soul-sucking lies, but mine - which is so similar to those others that many people can't tell the difference - is pure goodness and a beacon of light to the world."

Just as I believe there is a true God, I also believe there is a true and acceptable way to worship God. (John 4:23,24) Counterfeit money may appear similar to the real thing, but it is essential we see the differences. I believe Jehovah certainly sees the difference between true worship and false, and judges accordingly. (Revelation 18:8)

 

[Ken Ewald]

"All religions are bad... except mine. Mine is wonderful. The ones that are very similar to mine are made up of evil, soul-sucking lies, but mine - which is so similar to those others that many people can't tell the difference - is pure goodness and a beacon of light to the world."

My sheep hear my voice and a strangers voice they will not follow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about if we just say "equal rights for all people" instead of "equal rights for gay people"? People are people.

"Equal rights for all people" implies equal rights for gay people. If a person or church opposes equal rights for gay people, then they're opposed to equal right for people generally.

Denying marriage to gay people (as far as Catholics are concerned) isn't denying them their rights. They can draw up any sort of contract they want.

This isn't true, of course (for instance, I'd love to see the contract between two people that lets one sponsor the other for immigration the way a person can sponsor their spouse), but even if it was, a special head tax on a specific group - even one paid to lawyers - to let them get the same rights as everyone else is discriminatory.

But it isn't marriage as defined in the Holy Bible so the Catholic Church does not recognize it as such.

Marriage was always meant to be between one man and one woman as defined by Jesus. Gay people can have a union of whatever sort but it isn't marriage by definition in the eyes of the Church and scripture.

I hope you recognize that "I think Jesus approves of me denying other people their rights" is not the same as "I'm not denying other people their rights."

You and your fellow Christians can have all the internal discussions you want about what you think Jesus would or wouldn't like, but none of it justifies imposing restrictions on people outside your faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW, @First Baseman -

When you say things like this:

Marriage was always meant to be between one man and one woman as defined by Jesus. Gay people can have a union of whatever sort but it isn't marriage by definition in the eyes of the Church and scripture.

I'm not inclined to respond with "oh - Jesus approves it? That makes it okay."

If you gave an iron-clad argument that clearly established that an anti-gay stance is doctrinally justified by Catholic teachings (or Christian teachings more broadly), I wouldn't take this to mean that being anti-gay is somehow good. I'd take it to mean that the anti-gay attitude - and all the harm associated with this - is a genuine part of the religion. This would imply to me that the root problem is with the religion itself being anti-gay, not with some heterodox anti-gay members of an otherwise positive religion.

IOW, in making your case for why being anti-gay is in line with the Bible or Jesus's views, you aren't alleviating any blame; you're just shifting it onto your religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Counterfeit money may appear similar to the real thing, but it is essential we see the differences.

You know what also appears similar to counterfeit money but has differences? Other counterfeit money made by someone else.

 

[Laika]

That's not really true.

A law that sits on the books unenforced still has the potential to be enforced. It also serves is a signal of the standards of the society. This can create a chilling effect: even if the police (or whoever enforces the law) wouldn't enforce it, the average person may not know that and may avoid doing whatever the law prohibits just in case.

And even if nobody here and now plans on enforcing the law, just having it on the books creates the potential for people somewhere else or in the future to enforce it.

That's one of the big issues with a lot of modern, "liberal" versions of religion: yes, none of their current adherents would, say, harm a witch, hurt gay people, or enslave their neighbouring nations, but they have no problem propagating a holy book that commands all these things to future people who will interpret the book for themselves. Some of those people will take those harmful passages more seriously than today's liberal believers do.

A truly liberal, loving believer would edit their holy books to remove the objectionable, harmful passages. OTOH, when they choose to propagate their holy books despite the harmful material in them, they're tacitly supporting the harmful material that they don't follow personally.

Neither the law nor a holy book have any significance unless we attach it to them as a source of authority. The submission to that authority as the source of the norms of behaviour- but that authority is and always was created by humans in the first place. The bible was created by humans and has no intrinsic value beyond the "politics" of organised religion. Treating scripture as the source of religious authority is a mistake regardless as to whether it comes from a religious or secular source. Liberal religions only increase the scope of interpretation within a religion rather than doing away with the source of authority. The potential for such authority to be realised does not come from the scripture but the political interests to interpret the scripture in that way.

 

[Demonslayer]

Denying marriage to gay people (as far as Catholics are concerned) isn't denying them their rights.

LOL. "as far as Catholics are concerned"

Marriage was always meant to be between one man and one woman as defined by Jesus.

Marriage existed LONG before Jesus' time.

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither the law nor a holy book have any significance unless we attach it to them as a source of authority. The submission to that authority as the source of the norms of behaviour- but that authority is and always was created by humans in the first place. The bible was created by humans and has no intrinsic value beyond the "politics" of organised religion. Treating scripture as the source of religious authority is a mistake regardless as to whether it comes from a religious or secular source. Liberal religions only increase the scope of interpretation within a religion rather than doing away with the source of authority. The potential for such authority to be realised does not come from the scripture but the political interests to interpret the scripture in that way.

Whether you dislike the practice or not, there are plenty of people who hold up the Bible as an authority and call it entirely good or divinely inspired.

I'm objecting to the people who say "we should follow the Bible"... even if they don't follow the nastier parts of it thenselves. It seems you agree with my objection, so I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.

 

[First Baseman]

"Equal rights for all people" implies equal rights for gay people. If a person or church opposes equal rights for gay people, then they're opposed to equal right for people generally.


This isn't true, of course (for instance, I'd love to see the contract between two people that lets one sponsor the other for immigration the way a person can sponsor their spouse), but even if it was, a special head tax on a specific group - even one paid to lawyers - to let them get the same rights as everyone else is discriminatory.


I hope you recognize that "I think Jesus approves of me denying other people their rights" is not the same as "I'm not denying other people their rights."

You and your fellow Christians can have all the internal discussions you want about what you think Jesus would or wouldn't like, but none of it justifies imposing restrictions on people outside your faith.

Sir, I base my judgment calls on what Jesus and His apostles did in fact say, not what I think He meant or would say today.

Jesus also said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." He did not say "Hate your neighbor if he is gay." You confuse what people think with what Jesus actually did say.

 

[Demonslayer]

Jesus also said, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Where did he say Gays Shalt Not Marry is what I want to know.

 

[First Baseman]

Where did he say Gays Shalt Not Marry is what I want to know.

He didn't as you already know. He did say that marriage is defined by God in Genesis. Marriage is clearly defined there as between a man and a woman. There is no mention of man and man or woman and woman. This you already know as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sir, I base my judgment calls on what Jesus and His apostles did in fact say, not what I think He meant or would say today.

I have no doubt that you believe that.

Jesus also said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." He did not say "Hate your neighbor if he is gay." You confuse what people think with what Jesus actually did say.

You advocate hateful acts towards gay people. I'm going to think negatively of you, your religion, or both because of this. If you manage to reconcile your actions with your religion's teachings, I'll assign a greater share of the blame to your religion and somewhat less to you personally. That's all that's at stake here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He didn't as you already know. He did say that marriage is defined by God in Genesis. Marriage is clearly defined there as between a man and a woman. There is no mention of man and man or woman and woman. This you already know as well.

The Bible defines marriage as one man effectively owning any number of wives, who are counted among his possessions along with his livestock. The only case where marriage is defined as between one man and one woman is specifically "episkopoi" (bishops, deacons, or elders, depending on your translation and denominational assumptions), who are supposed to be "husband of one wife".

Accepting a modern style marriage that's a partnership between equals already rejects the Biblical model even if the spouses are a man and a woman.

 

[Demonslayer]

He did say that marriage is defined by God in Genesis.

Jesus wasn't speaking in Genesis.

 

[Orbit]

Augustus might be overstating things to say that we can't evaluate benefits and costs at all, but I think otherwise there's a valid point here.

If there's a problem with the question, it has to do with evaluating "religion" as a concept first of all, although obviously the OP asks about organized religion, which is potentially an important qualifier. But, to make an analogy, imagine asking whether or not organized politics is a positive force in the world. You might be tempted first of all to wonder whether an alternative to organized politics (in the most general sense) is even possible. It's easy to imagine alternative political systems, or the world divided up into different states, but it's hard to imagine a world without politics because politics seems to flow from fundamental human characteristics that necessitate social organization and our dependency on cultural knowledge. Religion is similar (with possible distinctions of course, for example in being focused on ultimate meanings or discerning something fundamental about the structure of reality), and of course in many societies is never entirely separate from politics. It's also pretty easy to come up with a list of negatives associated with organized political behavior, and a lot of the negatives will actually look quite a bit like the social negatives associated with religion: the in-group/out-group dynamics, ideological dogmatism and intolerance, and etc.

On the other hand, if you replace "organized religion" with some list of traditional religions, with specific beliefs, institutions, and etc., and ask about them not just in general but whether they are a positive force in the world right now, then the argument seems a lot clearer. It eliminates the difficulty of considering augustus' last sentence about history. Maybe some traditional religions were relative forces for good at certain times, but less so now. In a sense, it feels like it has to do with the social forces that lead to them becoming "traditional" in the first place: the reification of dogma and the unwillingness to adapt to new information or embrace different ways of seeing the world. But it's not as clear to me that it's useful to generalize from recognizing a net negative effect in much of traditional religion to an idea that we should think of religion as something that could be eliminated, as is often done (I'm not accusing orbit of this). But only in the same way that it's not clear to me that we could eliminate either organized religion or politics as such. Mostly I think of it as a cultural struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

You make good points, lovemuffin. I should probably have clarified that I didn't mean religion in the abstract, as a concept, I was referring to what we actually have here on earth today. To the extent that religion is authoritarian, and has secular power, I think we have a problem. I actually find many good aspects of religious teachings: I think the teachings of Jesus and Buddha are wonderful; I love mystic apophatic theology; and there is a great deal of wisdom in Advaita Vedanta. I think where it all goes wrong is when dogma and authoritarianism about dogma are combined with secular power in politics and lawmaking. It might be worth asking "Can we fix the negatives we have now?"

 

[Orbit]

Jesus wasn't speaking in Genesis.

Not to derail my own thread, but your exchange caught my attention because my mom believes that Jesus is God, in the sense that everything done in the OT was done by Jesus, quite literally. I have always wondered where that belief came from.

 

[Orbit]

The Bible defines marriage as one man effectively owning any number of wives, who are counted among his possessions along with his livestock. The only case where marriage is defined as between one man and one woman is specifically "episkopoi" (bishops, deacons, or elders, depending on your translation and denominational assumptions), who are supposed to be "husband of one wife".

Accepting a modern style marriage that's a partnership between equals already rejects the Biblical model even if the spouses are a man and a woman.

I think one of the main problems that leads to intolerance is Biblical literalism. If we could get rid of that, it would lead to greater tolerance.

 

[Orbit]

I believe there is one true religion that brings truth and hope, and innumerable false religions that bring lies and spiritual darkness to their adherents. I believe these religions will suffer the penalty described in Revelation 18:21-24; "And a strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: “Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again....No light of a lamp will ever shine in you again, and no voice of a bridegroom and of a bride will ever be heard in you again; for your merchants were the top-ranking men of the earth, and by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled. Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth."

Condemning non-believers is exactly the sort of intolerance that leads to serious negative problems. We don't need more of this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/

 

[Demonslayer]

I think one of the main problems that leads to intolerance is Biblical literalism. If we could get rid of that, it would lead to greater tolerance.

I agree, but the catch to me is if you take out the literalism, the whole reason for being Christian falls apart.

The catch with Christianity is, because of Original Sin, everyone has to swear allegiance to Jesus. Only by following Jesus can you clear yourself of sin and be admitted to heaven.

If elements of this story are not literal...if Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, and didn't actually rise from the dead, then there is no need to follow him. If we take it figuratively instead and try to embrace some of the good lessons like "turn the other cheek" or whatnot, all we are really left with are some general moral principles that one can find repeated in almost any moral system known to man. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bring harm to other, etc. You don't need Jesus to learn those things. The only thing you really need Jesus for is to save you from heaven via his dying for our sins act. If that's not literal the whole thing unwinds and Christianity loses it's power.

 

[Orbit]

Just as I believe there is a true God, I also believe there is a true and acceptable way to worship God. (John 4:23,24) Counterfeit money may appear similar to the real thing, but it is essential we see the differences. I believe Jehovah certainly sees the difference between true worship and false, and judges accordingly. (Revelation 18:8)

This thread isn't here for you to preach. It's a debate thread.