Is no religion better than religion?

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, our countries do mirror one another in many ways. I know that Aussies are very secular and many mainstream churches have closed down everywhere, turned into art centres, boutique housing and real estate agencies.

The entertainment oriented churches are gaining ground because people love to be entertained and to have their emotions whipped up enough to donate lots of money.

It is certainly true that New Zealanders are leaving Churches in droves. We probably have more people who identify as having no religion than being Christian. The reasons people are leaving Christianity is not all bad. They see the hypocrisy and bigotry. There are fundamental beliefs such as Jesus being literally the son of God and God at the same time, the resurrection, and all this end times talk that sounds as if it belongs to a pulp fiction magizine. That doesn't mean Christian values are lost though and there are many who live good lives.

The Bible says that there is no rulership except by God's permission. (Romans 13:1) Not that God set humans up to rule themselves, but that he knows that anarchy would dominate if there was no law and order with accountability. Jesus told us to be "no part of the world" because of who is its supreme ruler. (1 John 5:19; John 18:36) Satan told Jesus that rulership of this world had been handed over to him and that he could give authority to whomever he wished. (Luke 4:5-6) We all benefit when a government implements good policies, but no government has ever fulfilled the needs of all of its citizens. People are getting sick of governments taking care of themselves first.

In regards government, it was very different days amidst the Roman Empire when Emperors like Herod, Caligula, and Nero ruled. We can bewail the corruption today but the verses you mention were at a time when democracy wasn't established, men and women were not treated equally and slavery was the norm.

The verse from Paul's epistle is simply encouraging those in the church to turn towards God and see Him as their sovereign power. It shouldn't be used as a commentary about what our relationship should be to government now. Consider that 100 years ago woman in Australia weren't allowed to vote. Democracy has now been firmly established in the majority of countries and what an improvement that is over the types of autocratic power that's dominated much of humanities history up until now.

Jesus' teachings were going to reach a very wide audience, so that is why we see this expression by the apostle Peter in Acts 10:24-25...."Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter was the first of the apostles to welcome Gentiles into the Christians arrangement. (Acts 15:14)

We all know the history of Christianity or at least should do. The gospel was preached to all the nations and there is no nation that has not receievd the gospel thus fulfilling Christ's promise of the end of His era and accompanied by His return. Most of the missionary work in regards nations had been completed by the nineteenth century.

Of course the Christian's did have their time in power through the institution of the papacy amidst others. There were mixed results but it wasn't all bad.

He sure did.....Matthew 16:3...."You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret." The signs were all there to help the Jews to see that the end of the Jewish system was getting close. Jesus told his disciples that when they saw "the disgusting thing standing in the holy place" they were to flee to the mountains and not go back to pick up their belongings, just to be content to escape with their lives.

Those who heeded Jesus' words must have wondered if they had jumped the gun a bit because the withdrawal of the Romans that facilitated their escape, lasted about four years. They had left everything behind in Jerusalem and it must have been a temptation to go back and pick up a few things...or to assume that they had got it wrong and go back to assume their former lives. But without warning the Romans came back and laid siege to the city again, trapping everyone inside and cutting off all their means of survival. It was a cruel and protracted death with some forced to eat their own children. How grateful were those Christians who obediently stayed put in the mountains when Jesus told them to flee. External appearances did not give away the imminence of the Roman attack. He said the end of the present system of things would also come without warning. (Matthew 24:42-44)

That is all true but I was thinking more of the signs of the times now and what our role and responsibilities should be in regard to our democratically elected institutions. Also the not insignificant matter of fulfillment of prophecy and the positive changes this has brought with it.

Most especially are we to be aware of the "sign" of Jesus' "presence" (parousia) and "the conclusion of the system of things". (Matthew 24:3-14) This had a minor fulfillment on first century Jerusalem but Jesus pointed forward to his return....and the final conclusion of the present system of things.

And Ecclesiastes 3 highlights that there is an appointed time for all things. Solomon went on to say in verses 17-20...
"So I said in my heart: “The true God will judge both the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every activity and every action.”
18 I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19 for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."

All the best convincing your fellow Christians they are wrong to belief in an afterlife lol.

The 'signs of the times' mean something to those who study Bible prophesy. God has appointed a time for all things to take place, just as he said, so Christians today must also "flee to the mountains" in some figurative sense because they are no longer in one geographical location. I believe that we will be told what we need to do by the ones appointed by Christ to do so. (Matthew 24:45)

But are the appointed ones the JWs, Baha'is or perhaps someone totally different?

 

[Deeje]

Sorry for the messed up sizing but all of a sudden the text on the site has turned minuscule. Is it just me? I wonder if there is some reason for the very small text?

It is certainly true that New Zealanders are leaving Churches in droves. We probably have more people who identify as having no religion than being Christian. The reasons people are leaving Christianity is not all bad. They see the hypocrisy and bigotry. There are fundamental beliefs such as Jesus being literally the son of God and God at the same time, the resurrection, and all this end times talk that sounds as if it belongs to a pulp fiction magizine. That doesn't mean Christian values are lost though and there are many who live good lives.

Christianity as I see it, is a package....you can't accept some parts and reject others. What I see in the churches today is a mish-mash of bits and pieces. Like people 'shopping' in some big celestial supermarket and picking a bit from this religion and a bit from that one, and basically calling it Christianity or something akin to it. I don't see what Jesus taught as being practiced....far from it.

In regards government, it was very different days amidst the Roman Empire when Emperors like Herod, Caligula, and Nero ruled. We can bewail the corruption today but the verses you mention were at a time when democracy wasn't established, men and women were not treated equally and slavery was the norm.

According to the Bible, the family was to operate somewhat like a company with a CEO and a vice president. The husband was appointed as head of the family, with his second in command at his side, not beneath him. The children were to be raised under the headship of both their parents.

Discrimination against women has a long history and it continues in some countries. Slavery was an horrendous practice where people were owned and often mistreated. It would be nice to be able to say it had been abolished world-wide....but it hasn't. Children also continue to be exploited.

The verse from Paul's epistle is simply encouraging those in the church to turn towards God and see Him as their sovereign power. It shouldn't be used as a commentary about what our relationship should be to government now.

From our perspective, if satan has charge of the rulership of this earth, then we should be able to see his stamp on all of it. We should see corruption and greed, lack of trust, broken promises, lies, abuse of power and cover-ups..... did I miss anything?

Regardless of this, we are counselled to obey the authorities and to remain at peace with our fellow man.

Consider that 100 years ago woman in Australia weren't allowed to vote. Democracy has now been firmly established in the majority of countries and what an improvement that is over the types of autocratic power that's dominated much of humanities history up until now.

Things have improved in some ways but the ability to vote never solved any political problem....did it? Even in so called democracies, do we really see freedom? Or is it largely an illusion?

We all know the history of Christianity or at least should do. The gospel was preached to all the nations and there is no nation that has not receievd the gospel thus fulfilling Christ's promise of the end of His era and accompanied by His return. Most of the missionary work in regards nations had been completed by the nineteenth century.

Jesus said that the preaching would continue to "the end" (Matthew 24:14).....the end has not yet come...
By the nineteenth century, the "last days" of the present system had not even begun according to our reckoning. Christ's return was to usher in the rule of God's Kingdom. Revelation 21:2-4 was to be the realisation of its rule. No more pain, suffering or death....and a thousand years of peace.

Of course the Christian's did have their time in power through the institution of the papacy amidst others. There were mixed results but it wasn't all bad.

It wasn't? Tell me what was good....and while you're at it...tell me what was "Christian" about the papacy.

That is all true but I was thinking more of the signs of the times now and what our role and responsibilities should be in regard to our democratically elected institutions. Also the not insignificant matter of fulfillment of prophecy and the positive changes this has brought with it.

The "sign of the times" now, from our perspective, is the imminent return of Jesus Christ to defeat the corrupt kingdoms of men (influenced by the devil) and to reinstate the kingship of God in the capable hands of his son. (Daniel 2:44) This was the rulership that humans should have had from the beginning.....but lost it due to Adams disobedience.

All the best convincing your fellow Christians they are wrong to belief in an afterlife lol.

It's one of the devil's most convincing cons. "you surely will not die". The first woman fell for it and because we are not programmed for death, it is something we want to believe. That is not surprising because humans are programmed to live forever. The only way to reconcile the reality of death with our programming was to believe that some conscious part of us continues to live invisibly in some spirit realm after we die.
The Bible says that the only ones who inhabit the spirit realm are God and the creatures he designed to live there. That did not originally include humans.

But are the appointed ones the JWs, Baha'is or perhaps someone totally different?

We have a body of older men who form a composite "faithful and discreet slave" who are appointed by their Master to "feed" his entire household of fellow slaves their "food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45)
Like Peter was appointed to "feed" Jesus' sheep in the first century, this "slave" was to feed the sheep in the time of the end.

Gradually over the years we have been educated about the Bible in ways that no others have. We have very little in common with Christendom's teachings as a result. Having come out of Christendom's church system, I have a clear understanding of what they taught me, compared to what the Bible says. I came to realise how far the churches had strayed from simple Bible truths.

 

[Earthling]

LOL. Mate have a cuppa tea, breath, relax, pray and then post. You can't convince anyone of your truth with these kinda responses.

I don't consider truth mine to offer and I don't like the idea that I intend to convince anyone of anything. Otherwise I wouldn't present myself in such a way. I express my frustration poorly, though, in this you are correct. And as of now I'm going to change that. Thanks for the advise.

 

[Earthling]

That's so cute!

IF your beastly religion was wiped out? It would never come back EVER.

But. If ALL science were wiped out? ALL WOULD RETURN.

Because science is based on FACT.

Religion --- ESPECIALLY YOURS -- is based on horse hockey.

Your ugly words above? Are all the proof anyone needs....

My ugly words are proof of my stupidity and inability to express frustration, as well as having been raised to believe that no words are "obscene."

To say that science is based upon fact is unscientific. And my religion, beastly or not, would remain so long as I do, regardless of science or the wiping out of all other religion.

 

[Shaul]

Religion is also about proselytizing and wanting to convert people who are in other paths.

That is an inaccurate statement. It is true that some religions proselytize, but other religions do not proselytize.

 

[Shaul]

According to the god gene theory ( God gene - Wikipedia ) people are predisposed to be religious. Also there may be evolutionary advantages to being religious ( Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous? ).

I can envision distinct advantages to being religious, but far fewer to being an atheist.

 

[Anna Therese]

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

I believe all religious outside the Catholic religion are harmful because they are false. False religions corrupt the intellect and the true worship of God through false teachings and through the worship of false gods; false religions corrupt the body through promotion of false practices; false religions bring ruin upon societies; false religions ultimately lead to the corruption of the soul in the eternal torments of Hell.

The Catholic religion ought never to be abandoned because it is the true religion revealed by God to His Church for the temporal and eternal welfare of mankind. Down through history wherever the true religion was practiced, societies flourished, learning flourished, morals flourished. Superstition, slavery, immorality, and every evil reigns where their is no practice of the traditional Catholic faith. A study of history, civilizations, and Catholicism bears witness.

 

[Earthling]

I believe all religious outside the Catholic religion are harmful because they are false. False religions corrupt the intellect and the true worship of God through false teachings and through the worship of false gods; false religions corrupt the body through promotion of false practices; false religions bring ruin upon societies; false religions ultimately lead to the corruption of the soul in the eternal torments of Hell.

The Catholic religion ought never to be abandoned because it is the true religion revealed by God to His Church for the temporal and eternal welfare of mankind. Down through history wherever the true religion was practiced, societies flourished, learning flourished, morals flourished. Superstition, slavery, immorality, and every evil reigns where their is no practice of the traditional Catholic faith. A study of history, civilizations, and Catholicism bears witness.

Wow. I had better leave this without response other than to say it speaks for itself. Just requires a little thought and research.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe all religious outside the Catholic religion are harmful because they are false. False religions corrupt the intellect and the true worship of God through false teachings and through the worship of false gods; false religions corrupt the body through promotion of false practices; false religions bring ruin upon societies; false religions ultimately lead to the corruption of the soul in the eternal torments of Hell.

The Catholic religion ought never to be abandoned because it is the true religion revealed by God to His Church for the temporal and eternal welfare of mankind. Down through history wherever the true religion was practiced, societies flourished, learning flourished, morals flourished. Superstition, slavery, immorality, and every evil reigns where their is no practice of the traditional Catholic faith. A study of history, civilizations, and Catholicism bears witness.

Hi Anna,

Thank you for your candid response. I must say that in the last 2 years of being on this forum I’ve never heard a Catholic make such a claim. I had understood the Catholics after the second Vatican council in the 1960s had changed its stance. Other than personal perspective what would be the main arguments to support the Catholic Faith as the only true faith?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My ugly words are proof of my stupidity and inability to express frustration, as well as having been raised to believe that no words are "obscene.".

Oh, I wasn't offended in the least. I found it extremely funny that you got so upset over the idea your religion would just vanish into the AEther if everyone who practiced it, suddenly quit.

Because all religion is based on FAITH-- not facts. Since there is zero facts to re-create it from scratch? It would vanish... *poof*

Unlike SCIENCE, which IS based on FACTS.

To say that science is based upon fact is unscientific. .

LMAO! Dude! You need to re-read the definition of scientific.

Science IS based on fact-- entirely. Which could be why so many religious types hate it so: Jealousy.

And my religion, beastly or not, would remain so long as I do, regardless of science or the wiping out of all other religion.

Unless? Your brain suddenly began to start working, and you woke up to the realization your religion isn't based on anything tangible.

So, it would never-ever be recreated, if all it's followers forgot or simply woke up and quit believing.

Because there is nothing in reality to recreate this giant pile of MYTHS.

 

[Earthling]

Oh, I wasn't offended in the least. I found it extremely funny that you got so upset over the idea your religion would just vanish into the AEther if everyone who practiced it, suddenly quit.

As I've stated elsewhere on these forums, I loath organized religion. I would be glad to see it destroyed. By that I mean impotent, and religious belief a personal responsibility. The reason for this is it's destructive power. Politically would be replaced immediately with anything subject to political manipulation and abuse. Including science or atheism.

So my religion goes to the grave with me. If someone picks up on something I present of a religious nature, that is their own personal responsibility.

I've also stated that I would be sad to see science and technology destroyed, unless it were abused as religion has been.

I believe that you would be far more likely to be upset to see your world view, which I think is loosely based upon science, to be done away with.

Because all religion is based on FAITH-- not facts. Since there is zero facts to re-create it from scratch? It would vanish... *poof*

Unlike SCIENCE, which IS based on FACTS.

Some proponents of science here have dismissed the concept of science being based upon facts, but it's funny, as much as I get both sides of that argument each seems blind to the existence of the other.

LMAO! Dude! You need to re-read the definition of scientific.

Science IS based on fact-- entirely. Which could be why so many religious types hate it so: Jealousy.

I think you overestimate your estimation, while, ironically underestimating the arrogance of the religious. Put more realistically both science minded atheists and religious see their own perspective as based upon facts.

Unless? Your brain suddenly began to start working, and you woke up to the realization your religion isn't based on anything tangible.

So, it would never-ever be recreated, if all it's followers forgot or simply woke up and quit believing.

Because there is nothing in reality to recreate this giant pile of MYTHS.

Really? Is that testable? Have you recreated that hypothesis?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

As I've stated elsewhere on these forums, I loath organized religion..

Extreme irony duly noted.

I would be glad to see it destroyed. By that I mean impotent, and religious belief a personal responsibility. The reason for this is it's destructive power..

Even more irony-- your "personal" religion is absolutely a product of organized religion. Without which? Your faith would not even exist in the first place! And you would tear it down? You may as well tear out your own faith. They are one and the same, at the fundamental level.

Politically would be replaced immediately with anything subject to political manipulation and abuse. Including science or atheism. .

LMAO! atheism? Is JUST and ONLY the rejection of the claim "god is real".

THAT IS IT. It is no more political than a jar of sand. You can't politically manipulate the rejection of a god-claim. Sheesh... that's the dumbest thing I ever read...

Same for pure science-- it's a-political. The results and conclusions are often politicized, from all sides-- especially the religious crowd.

So my religion goes to the grave with me. If someone picks up on something I present of a religious nature, that is their own personal responsibility..

That makes no sense. But it does explain.... some of your nonsense.

I've also stated that I would be sad to see science and technology destroyed, unless it were abused as religion has been..

What? English, please.

I believe that you would be far more likely to be upset to see your world view, which I think is loosely based upon science, to be done away with..

What, is my "world view". Strawman, much?

Some proponents of science here have dismissed the concept of science being based upon facts, but it's funny, as much as I get both sides of that argument each seems blind to the existence of the other..

????

I think you overestimate your estimation, while, ironically underestimating the arrogance of the religious. Put more realistically both science minded atheists and religious see their own perspective as based upon facts..

Science IS based on facts. Religion? Is not-- even yours it really is that simple.

Correction: Religion isn't fact-based, especially yours. Most common religions at least have an ancient bucha silly writings to point to...

 

[Earthling]

Even more irony-- your "personal" religion is absolutely a product of organized religion. Without which? Your faith would not even exist in the first place! And you would tear it down? You may as well tear out your own faith. They are one and the same, at the fundamental level.

That's fine.

LMAO! atheism? Is JUST and ONLY the rejection of the claim "god is real".

THAT IS IT. It is no more political than a jar of sand. You can't politically manipulate the rejection of a god-claim. Sheesh... that's the dumbest thing I ever read...

Theism is just and only the acceptance of the claim "god is real." You can politically manipulate either.

Same for pure science-- it's a-political. The results and conclusions are often politicized, from all sides-- especially the religious crowd.

"Scientists are not always as scientific as many suppose. Recent well-publicized cases of scientific fraud prove that scientists can be as susceptible to the allures of wealth, power and fame as politicians, the group that enjoys the lowest public trust. Glaring recent cases have included falsified results in the development of an HIV vaccine and new techniques for producing stem cells." Read more.

Science IS based on facts. Religion? Is not-- even yours it really is that simple.

Actually, both are based upon facts of which there are two kinds, accurate and inaccurate.

 

[74x12]

The answer may be a resounding "No" for many of us for all sorts of reasons.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that religion should be like a healing medicine causing love and unity between peoples. If it does the opposite and causes estrangement and hatred, then that religion is no religion. Instead of being a healing medicine it is a deadly poison. It is noble and a truly religious act in the sight of God to leave such a religion.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 158-160

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

Well, respectfully do you mean organized religions or personal religion? Personal religion is just you putting your beliefs into practice. That's all it is. As for "organized religions" they're mostly false teachings.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Christianity as I see it, is a package....you can't accept some parts and reject others. What I see in the churches today is a mish-mash of bits and pieces. Like people 'shopping' in some big celestial supermarket and picking a bit from this religion and a bit from that one, and basically calling it Christianity or something akin to it. I don't see what Jesus taught as being practiced....far from it.

Yet the JWs remove doctrines that other mainstream churches would consider essential to that package. Doctrines such as the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the existence of an immortal soul, life after death and even hell itself. These doctrines have been present from early in Christianity's history. So if the JWs are correct, Christianity has been corrupted from near the beginning of their history. Every denomination of Christianity has a package of essential doctrines they consider to be the truth, allegedly based on the bible. But one sect's essential truths and doctrines differ from all the other sects. So no Church has the true teachings anymore. Every church has some truth but also false doctrines. The biggest lie in Christianity is for one group to claim the complete truth and all the others are wrong. Christians denominations fight and condemn each other. A faith that once taught love is bitterly divided. Ironically the ones that cause the most division are the ones most insistent they are right and everyone else is wrong.

According to the Bible, the family was to operate somewhat like a company with a CEO and a vice president. The husband was appointed as head of the family, with his second in command at his side, not beneath him. The children were to be raised under the headship of both their parents.

Discrimination against women has a long history and it continues in some countries. Slavery was an horrendous practice where people were owned and often mistreated. It would be nice to be able to say it had been abolished world-wide....but it hasn't. Children also continue to be exploited.

As false doctrines have been part of Christianity from the early days so too has the oppression of women, the practice of slavery and the exploitation of the vulnerable.

From our perspective, if satan has charge of the rulership of this earth, then we should be able to see his stamp on all of it. We should see corruption and greed, lack of trust, broken promises, lies, abuse of power and cover-ups..... did I miss anything?

Regardless of this, we are counselled to obey the authorities and to remain at peace with our fellow man.

The doctrine of the a literal existence of Satan is just one more false doctrine. Its human nature to blame others or an imaginary being for their failings. If we understand basic psychology and the roots of human nature we can easily explain negative human traits. We don't need Satan to make sense of it. What we do need is genuine spirituality that brings out the best in people. The stars of heaven that Christ spoke have truly fallen. The sun of God's spiritual guidance has truly been dimmed.

Jesus said that the preaching would continue to "the end" (Matthew 24:14).....the end has not yet come...
By the nineteenth century, the "last days" of the present system had not even begun according to our reckoning. Christ's return was to usher in the rule of God's Kingdom. Revelation 21:2-4 was to be the realisation of its rule. No more pain, suffering or death....and a thousand years of peace.

The era of Judaism with its associated temple and holy city Jerusalem effectively ended with the start of Christ's ministry. It was simply a formality that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed in 70AD as Jesus spoke. The Christian era as known since the Christ's first proclamation effectively ended during the nineteenth century when the last nations had the gospel preached. Rome for centuries had been the most significant centre of Christianity since the Roman empire. The Pope's temporal power was finally vanquished forever with losing power of last of the papal states in 1870. The complete disarray of Christianity's vital institutions and the bewilderment and division of its followers is clear for all to see.

Papal States - Wikipedia

It wasn't? Tell me what was good....and while you're at it...tell me what was "Christian" about the papacy.

I wonder if you need to learn some history. It was largely the Catholic church the spread the gospel of Christ throughout the world (The great commission). The Protestant Churches contributed later on.

Timeline of Christian missions - Wikipedia

 

[Anna Therese]

Hi Anna,

Thank you for your candid response. I must say that in the last 2 years of being on this forum I’ve never heard a Catholic make such a claim. I had understood the Catholics after the second Vatican council in the 1960s had changed its stance. Other than personal perspective what would be the main arguments to support the Catholic Faith as the only true faith?

Thanks. The Second Vatican Council is also correctly known as the Council of Apostasy because it was a false council that ushered in a new religion (the Vatican II Sect) which purports to be the Catholic Church, but is not. The Vatican II Sect and its antipopes is the prophesied end-times Counter Church. This is well documented as the facts prove beyond all doubt in the following video.

The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20; Jn. 21:15-17). This is proven by history, Scripture and tradition.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually, both are based upon facts of which there are two kinds, accurate and inaccurate.

No. No religion has a single fact in support of their particular brand of god-claims.

Not one.

Personal experience does not constitute facts.

Which is why, in science, personal witness is dismissed as likely biased or limited.

So no-- no religion-- from it's most fundamental claim-- is based on a single fact.

I do not consider their various "holey" books to be factual-- at all. They have a clear agenda, and therefore, cannot be trusted. These books are the claim. None of which have ever been verified by unbiased outside source material.

Have god show up and say, "Hi!" That would eliminate all atheism in one instance.

But. It would also eliminate faith. And without faith, how could you re-invent the God Myths to fit the current political need for lots and LOTS of money for the self-appointed "Men Of God"?

Since, just using faith? Anything Goes. Literally-- even a Religion Of One.

 

[74x12]

Since, just using faith? Anything Goes. Literally-- even a Religion Of One.

True, but we prefer the word trust. As in we trust in what God has shown us. So it's not just random personal belief. Like I could believe in unicorns as my personal saviors. That one day a unicorn will come and take me flying into the sky to live in candy land forever.

But when you factor in the working of God. That is God showing people things personally; then "faith" makes sense because it's not blind but it is "trust" instead.

 

[Earthling]

No. No religion has a single fact in support of their particular brand of god-claims.

Not one.

Yes. As you keep saying that. The only thing is, about that, is that all of this science talk on these forums has rubbed off on me, so I'm eager to see your published work to that effect. It must be monumental, all that evidence and peer review, and recreation, investigation etc.

Don't molest us any longer with your teasing. Show us the work!

Personal experience does not constitute facts.

Oh. Then you have no work to back up your facts on religion. Well, I must confess. I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Fool]

The answer may be a resounding "No" for many of us for all sorts of reasons.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that religion should be like a healing medicine causing love and unity between peoples. If it does the opposite and causes estrangement and hatred, then that religion is no religion. Instead of being a healing medicine it is a deadly poison. It is noble and a truly religious act in the sight of God to leave such a religion.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 158-160

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

i know the religion that leads to it's own undoing, untying the gordian knot, the unconditional mind, leads the WAY.

like lightening flashing from east to west; so is the thunder perfect diamond mind.