I Like Religion Because - I Dislike Religion Because. . . . . . . .

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah. That dark chocolate. And both stains youe teeth.

No I suppose not. I just wonder how many people think they 'want' when in reality they have no choice because the belief was drilled in at such a young age they couldn't shake it.

I did when I became Catholic as an adult. I had freedom to learn and, unlike many Catholics, and read my bible. I was able to choose whats morally right by making sense of the faith and how what I did affected me. I cant forget that.

What I didnt like is how Christianity is set up. It puts a cycle affect that makes you feel you need god rather than wanting to be with him. It makes one worship him rather than being his friend. Like becoming a child all iver again (I have many more) but these things never harmed me because I wasnt forced to believe. So I left.

It's not, I just don't think it helps people as often as it harms, and I think people gloss over the harm and overly emphasize the help.

Thats why I say "in and of itself" to try and look at it objectively and not by the numbers of who is harmed compared to who has been helped by religion.

If you ask her, she would have told you religion helped her greatly in life. Gave her a purpose and moral guidance.

Thats unfortunaty. In and of itself, religion harms no one. Its how one applies it is the key.

 

[leibowde84]

Oops!

"Oops"?? Why'd you say that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Replace "stealing" with "being homosexual" or "marrying outside the religion" and you'll have your answer.

Hmm. But thats application of religion. If I were christian and had a family and one of my sons were gay, I wouldnt tell them they are wrong for who they are and their feelings. Of course Id tell them what our family views as true but I wouldnt disown him. Homosexuality and same sex marriage harms no one.

Would other christians see it like this, probably not. I dont know if they know the difference between making love and making lust.

I think you are generaling religious people. I understand what youre saying; just not all people are like that. Those that are do not represent religious influence as a whole.

 

[Demonslayer]

Thats why I say "in and of itself" to try and look at it objectively and not by the numbers of who is harmed compared to who has been helped by religion.

I find this idea a bit hard to swallow, and it gels with my belief that people grossly exaggerate the good that religion does and gloss over the bad. I'd say the numbers of people harmed vs. helped by a thing is very important when it comes to a discussion of that thing.

Speeding in a car in an of itself isn't a negative. I kind of like it, it's fun and thrilling. Yet if it can be shown...and it probably can...that speeding in a car leads to a lot of unnecessary deaths, I think that's an important fact to consider.

In and of itself, religion harms no one. Its how one applies it is the key.

Same idea. In a bubble, lots of things are probably neutral. When we apply these things, we see some effect. I think ignoring the application of a thing is perilous business.

 

[Scott C.]

.

Talking about religion in general, not any religion in particular.



So, what are your deepest, most heartfelt feelings about religion?............................................................................................Just kidding, only looking for your thoughts, sober or otherwise.


.

I love religion to the extent that it leads us to truth. Some religions do a better job of that than others. Peace and happiness come when our beliefs and practices are aligned with truth. And the truth is good news, so it's worth finding.

 

[leibowde84]

I love religion to the extent that it leads us to truth. Some religions do a better job of that than others. Peace and happiness come when our beliefs and practices are aligned with truth. And the truth is good news, so it's worth finding.

What if one's religion isn't just bad at finding truth, but, worse yet, hinders one from finding and understanding the truth. Wouldn't you feel differently about religions that do this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think this has been proven to be the case in certain circumstances. Of course, there are no absolutes, so there are always exceptions. But, there is an apparent danger.

Id say the latter. I keep thinking you guys are talking about the beliefs themselves.

Its like saying god's existence somehow make people do bad things when his existence does nothing for me and half the people do disbelieve in him.

Or like saying the gun is dangerous. It isnt unless someone uses it for harm.

 

[Demonslayer]

Hmm. But thats application of religion. If I were christian and had a family and one of my sons were gay, I wouldnt tell them they are wrong for who they are and their feelings

You wouldn't, but many do. The thing is, remove the religious reasoning behind anti-gay sentiment and you find virtually no one is anti-gay. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40% of religious people are against legal gay marriage. That number among non-religious is ~0-2%.

So in and of itself, religion doesn't cause anti-gay sentiment. But when applied, it does about 1/3 of the time.

I think you are generaling religious people.

Probably a little. I try not to, but I have more experience with Christians than I do other religions so that's what I tend to think about.

I understand what youre saying; just not all people are like that.

Of course not. I mean in my anti-gay example I'm saying 66% of religious people do NOT apply their religion to cause anti-gay sentiment. I understand it's not everyone. I just think negative application happens far too much.

Think of the "marrying outside of the religion" idea. Do all, or even most, religious people have a problem with marriage outside of their religion? No, of course not. But how many do? 100 years ago the answer was "almost all of them." Now is it maybe 25%? That's 25% more than among the non-religious.

 

[leibowde84]

Id say the latter. I keep thinking you guys are talking about the beliefs themselves.

Its like saying god's existence somehow make people do bad things when his existence does nothing for me and half the people do disbelieve in him.

Or like saying the gun is dangerous. It isnt unless someone uses it for harm.

The gun is a perfect example. Guns ARE dangerous just to have around. Even without the intention of using a gun or causing harm with a gun, harm is often done when guns are around. The potential is all that is being pointed out here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Same idea. In a bubble, lots of things are probably neutral. When we apply these things, we see some effect. I think ignoring the application of a thing is perilous business.

Im just saying you are generalizing. I dont know thr statistics but the church gave me a lot of psycbological support, they gave me clothing, they gave me food. While accross the street, they only help to a certain extent because that person is not Catholic.

Its a balance.

Its like youre comparing religion to a gun because ten people killed for harm and five people for sport. Of course there is an issue with "how many people used the gun and what for" but the gun does nothing of itself. Its a piece of medal. Of course we can take the gun (religion) from the picture. Then we have to weigh the results. A gun is used for shooting, so taking that away is fine. Religion is used for giving people purpose, so I dont see a balance or everyone being happy because people use religion for bad.

I think a lot of people dont seee the bad sides because it challenges them to think out of the box. If they dont and sont hurt anyone by their faith (but whatever means), there is a balance; I dont see a problem in that.

I mean, Id be messed up if in scenario people took religion away because X amount of people use it for the bad. I can understand guns given its made for damage, but religion?!

Thats like blaming ans taking god out the situation when god doesnt exist without the people.

Im trying to think of a better way to phrase my points

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You wouldn't, but many do. The thing is, remove the religious reasoning behind anti-gay sentiment and you find virtually no one is anti-gay. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40% of religious people are against legal gay marriage. That number among non-religious is ~0-2%.

So in and of itself, religion doesn't cause anti-gay sentiment. But when applied, it does about 1/3 of the time.



Probably a little. I try not to, but I have more experience with Christians than I do other religions so that's what I tend to think about.



Of course not. I mean in my anti-gay example I'm saying 66% of religious people do NOT apply their religion to cause anti-gay sentiment. I understand it's not everyone. I just think negative application happens far too much.

Think of the "marrying outside of the religion" idea. Do all, or even most, religious people have a problem with marriage outside of their religion? No, of course not. But how many do? 100 years ago the answer was "almost all of them." Now is it maybe 25%? That's 25% more than among the non-religious.

I dont know. I throw my hands up. There should be a balance. I mean, who am I to judge a gay child's parent to teach Their son morals that go against who he is. Its harmf to the child, yes. No question. I wouldnt look at religion being the problem but the parent who applies it (only if that child really is harmed by their parents moralz). I know one gay guy years ago that is happy living with his wife. He said god comes before himself. I cant say he is wrong or delluted. Just the situation is kinda strange.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The gun is a perfect example. Guns ARE dangerous just to have around. Even without the intention of using a gun or causing harm with a gun, harm is often done when guns are around. The potential is all that is being pointed out here.

They are only dangerous when used for harm. I can shoot a whole in a lemon donut. That does nothing. I dont see how religions are harmful unless people use it that way like many do with guns.

 

[leibowde84]

They are only dangerous when used for harm. I can shoot a whole in a lemon donut. That does nothing. I dont see how religions are harmful unless people use it that way like many do with guns.

Back to guns, what about when a gun is around and a child, without any intention of using the gun, gets curious. I remember this happening when I was in high-school, and my friends younger brother found their dad's gun. It was an antique that didn't have a safety, and it was loaded. The kid shot a hole through the floor and into the kitchen where we were. No one was hurt, thank God, but it could have been a disaster.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Back to guns, what about when a gun is around and a child, without any intention of using the gun, gets curious. I remember this happening when I was in high-school, and my friends younger brother found their dad's gun. It was an antique that didn't have a safety, and it was loaded. The kid shot a hole through the floor and into the kitchen where we were. No one was hurt, thank God, but it could have been a disaster.

I cant compare that to religion. Say that the gun is tied down to the table and the child cant pick it up. It does nothing. Its just a piece of metal. How that child uses it doesnt exclude the fact that it cant get up on its own with two leggs and shoot others.

I see how the gun can be dangerous "only" if people use it that way. If they are shooting hole in a lemon donut or paper, it harms no one.

I hate guns because it can be "used" for harm thats why I dont associate myself with them. If I steped back from my experience and bias, the gun doesnt do anything when Im around it unless I picked it up to harm someone.

 

[leibowde84]

I cant compare that to religion. Say that the gun is tied down to the table and the child cant pick it up. It does nothing. Its just a piece of metal. How that child uses it doesnt exclude the fact that it cant get up on its own with two leggs and shoot others.

I see how the gun can be dangerous "only" if people use it that way. If they are shooting hole in a lemon donut or paper, it harms no one.

I hate guns because it can be "used" for harm thats why I dont associate myself with them. If I steped back from my experience and bias, the gun doesnt do anything when Im around it unless I picked it up to harm someone.

I am talking about potential danger, not intent. Religious beliefs can cloud the mind, cause stubbornness, make people reluctant to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and can cause a will to isolate oneself. I mean, look at how some in the ME seem to want to isolate themselves from the west. I am saying that the potential for harm is enough to worry.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am talking about potential danger, not intent. Religious beliefs can cloud the mind, cause stubbornness, make people reluctant to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and can cause a will to isolate oneself. I mean, look at how some in the ME seem to want to isolate themselves from the west. I am saying that the potential for harm is enough to worry.

Okay. I agree. Understand that I get anzy when religion is put down. I learned a lot about my inner self in the religions I had practiced. Seeing them as potiental for harm just doesnt add up in my head. But from what you are saying, I agree: Logical conclusion.

 

[Scott C.]

What if one's religion isn't just bad at finding truth, but, worse yet, hinders one from finding and understanding the truth. Wouldn't you feel differently about religions that do this?

It's a question of degree. Take for example that which I believe to be true... The Book of Mormon is the word of God. That truth is not generally accepted by anyone except Mormons or Mormon spin-offs. Most Christian leaders would tell their congregations that the Book of Mormon is not divine scripture, at least if asked. In that sense, in my worldview, those faiths are leading people away from some of the truth. But I believe that the same Christian churches teach many truths of great value, as found in the Bible. I can still respect a church that teaches that my church is incorrect. There's a line out there somewhere that if crossed, I lose my respect for another's faith.

Another example are non-Christian faiths, say Hinduism, Buddhism, and of course many others. These lack essential truth about the Savior, but help people to be better and teach other truths. In a sense I suppose they direct people away from Christianity. But I can and do still respect them for the good that they do and teach.

If a religion persuades to do good, then I respect it. If it persuades to do evil, I do not.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. I agree. Understand that I get anzy when religion is put down. I learned a lot about my inner self in the religions I had practiced. Seeing them as potiental for harm just doesnt add up in my head. But from what you are saying, I agree: Logical conclusion.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment. And, I feel like I understand more where you are coming from on this issue. Keep in mind, I am pointing out potential danger, not actualized danger. Religious beliefs can certainly be a positive force, as long as questioning those beliefs is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a question of degree. Take for example that which I believe to be true... The Book of Mormon is the word of God. That truth is not generally accepted by anyone except Mormons or Mormon spin-offs. Most Christian leaders would tell their congregations that the Book of Mormon is not divine scripture, at least if asked. In that sense, in my worldview, those faiths are leading people away from some of the truth. But I believe that the same Christian churches teach many truths of great value, as found in the Bible. I can still respect a church that teaches that my church is incorrect. There's a line out there somewhere that if crossed, I lose my respect for another's faith.

Another example are non-Christian faiths, say Hinduism, Buddhism, and of course many others. These lack essential truth about the Savior, but help people to be better and teach other truths. In a sense I suppose they direct people away from Christianity. But I can and do still respect them for the good that they do and teach.

If a religion persuades to do good, then I respect it. If it persuades to do evil, I do not.

Just out of curiosity, I have a question specifically for you. I am a Christian, but I also strongly believe that belief in / adherence to Christ being the savior is necessary in any way for salvation. I also think that it is irresponsible for religions to teach such things as being necessary, as it creates unnecessary division amongst religious and non-religious people alike. To me, the spirit of Jesus' teachings are obvious in the Gospels, but imperfect men added a lot of ideas designed to control the growth of the church. This being one of them.

Do you respect my beliefs in this area?

 

[Demonslayer]

I mean, Id be messed up if in scenario people took religion away because X amount of people use it for the bad. I can understand guns given its made for damage, but religion?!

Let me clarify, I'm not talking about "taking away" religion. I am not a big fan of religion as you probably can tell p) but I am a strong supporter of freedom of religion and people's right to practice whatever they want.

So I'm not suggesting we take it away.

Im trying to think of a better way to phrase my points

You're doing fine and I appreciate the conversation.