• 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!

Of the various takes on the role and scope of religion, which do you favor, and why?

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Religion is almost like trying to create a valid inner reality of being, or at least trying to explain the workings of the non physical attributes of being. The soul, the spirit, the heart , universal purpose and morality, higher powers of the nature of being and its motivations.

Religion is a narrative about how spiritual principles work together in the life of the believer. Faith, wisdom, belief, love, and justice, judgment, virtue, purpose and relation, action and intention. And all the causes and effects of all these descriptives of being.

Personally i love the idea of going to church; a place where people are supposed to preach the truth. But i dont go to church, because its a lot of bad advice, and hot air, and false doctrines. There are some very talented oral speakers out there, the power is in the message, and not since Martin Luther King have i heard a powerful message.

Religion at its best would be about the causes and effects of being , and being alive.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I’m curious: how are you defining “hobbies?”
The first definition that came up when I googled it is "an activity done in one's legal time for pleasure," though that doesn't really capture my understanding of the word (for religion or other hobbies). The key characteristics of a hobby, as I see them:

- it involves some sort of activity (e.g. merely appreciating the beauty and variety of birds isn't a hobby, but birdwatching is).
- it's voluntary. People are free to do it or not.
- it's generally unpaid (with some exceptions, for instance: model railroading is still a hobby even though for-profit hobby shops are a thing; amateur auto racing is a hobby even though there are sometimes cash prizes).
- it can involve a great deal of passion or even feel like it's encompassing a person's whole life ("quilting is life - the rest is just details" and the like).
- despite the fact that it can be very immersive to those in it, it's entirely optional. While one person may get great personal benefit out of a hobby, someone else can live a completely full, rich life without ever taking part in it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There is something to that, but I don't think that is the whole story. People may find it in poor taste to root for a certain sports team or to be a Trekkie instead of a Star Wars fan. But they won't think of Star Trek as "false fiction", and they certainly won't dare trekkies to risk literal eternal damnation for failure to "choose the correct path".
Every hobby will have its own quirks. As for passion, Google Robert J. Sawyer's lecture (rant?) about how Star Wars is bad fiction.

Also, see for instance the Lebanese National Pact of 1943.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/National_Pact.html

I don't think there is much of an expectation anywhere that everyone must be either a Trekkie or a Star Wars fan in order to qualify for civil rights or specific seats of government.
Restrictions like this actually did develop in ancient Rome around sports team affiliations.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The first definition that came up when I googled it is "an activity done in one's legal time for pleasure," though that doesn't really capture my understanding of the word (for religion or other hobbies). The key characteristics of a hobby, as I see them:

- it involves some sort of activity (e.g. merely appreciating the beauty and variety of birds isn't a hobby, but birdwatching is).
- it's voluntary. People are free to do it or not.
- it's generally unpaid (with some exceptions, for instance: model railroading is still a hobby even though for-profit hobby shops are a thing; amateur auto racing is a hobby even though there are sometimes cash prizes).
- it can involve a great deal of passion or even feel like it's encompassing a person's whole life ("quilting is life - the rest is just details" and the like).
- despite the fact that it can be very immersive to those in it, it's entirely optional. While one person may get great personal benefit out of a hobby, someone else can live a completely full, rich life without ever taking part in it.
Thanks. That clarifies things. However, many adherents don’t feel free to “participate or not.” So, if religion is more than just an activity, or even a lifestyle (for example, religion is neither particularly an activity or a lifestyle for me — it encompasses world view, philosophy, self-identity and cosmology), how can “hobby” apply?

“Hobby” seems a bit dismissive as a descriptor in this case.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?

The different POVs are usually too superficial.

In a nutshell, humans are creatures of the present. They lack ability to know both the past and the future. History is the human testimonies about our past. Religion is the human testimonies about the future. Even for the same events of history, different history books may have opposite point of views about what happened. Even as recent as WWII, events described by Japanese books may be the opposite to Chinese history books. They can be in opposite simply because history as recent as WWII is not verifiable. They are accounts of human testimonies. There could be truth there could be lies.

Similarly, religion in its past is the human accounts of testimonies about the activities of the gods (in contrary history is about activities of humans). Its future part is what the gods can tell us through the eyewitnesses. There could be lies (i.e., false witnessing by false witnesses), however shall there be any truth there it is the only way for such a truth to convey (unless the gods choose to show up in front of all mankind).

So when looking into a religion, you can first examine why the god of that religion has to hide behind. Why doesn't he come forward to lead humans if he is a superior being. The next is to examine the credibility of witnesses. Then the third is to examine whether there is a more efficient way for this god to convey the same message (under the circumstance that he has a good reason to hide behind) without employing a religion.

To me, all these point to the same that Christianity is more likely a truth.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Thanks. That clarifies things. However, many adherents don’t feel free to “participate or not.”
I know many amateur racers who feel the same way about racing.

So, if religion is more than just an activity, or even a lifestyle (for example, religion is neither particularly an activity or a lifestyle for me — it encompasses world view, philosophy, self-identity and cosmology), how can “hobby” apply?
Virtually any hobby can be more than an activity or lifestyle for the people passionate about it.

“Hobby” seems a bit dismissive as a descriptor in this case.
I think it's only dismissive in the sense that a hobby is optional and many people see their religion as mandatory for everyone.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?
They way I see it, religion is supposed to do the following: (1) Provide its adherents with a spiritual focus, helping them to connect to the object of their worship, (2) give them direction, guidance and hope when life gets rough, and help them to become better human beings and leave this world better than they found it. Hope that answers your question.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
The different POVs are usually too superficial.

In a nutshell, humans are creatures of the present. They lack ability to know both the past and the future. History is the human testimonies about our past. Religion is the human testimonies about the future. Even for the same events of history, different history books may have opposite point of views about what happened. Even as recent as WWII, events described by Japanese books may be the opposite to Chinese history books. They can be in opposite simply because history as recent as WWII is not verifiable. They are accounts of human testimonies. There could be truth there could be lies.

Similarly, religion in its past is the human accounts of testimonies about the activities of the gods (in contrary history is about activities of humans). Its future part is what the gods can tell us through the eyewitnesses. There could be lies (i.e., false witnessing by false witnesses), however shall there be any truth there it is the only way for such a truth to convey (unless the gods choose to show up in front of all mankind).

So when looking into a religion, you can first examine why the god of that religion has to hide behind. Why doesn't he come forward to lead humans if he is a superior being. The next is to examine the credibility of witnesses. Then the third is to examine whether there is a more efficient way for this god to convey the same message (under the circumstance that he has a good reason to hide behind) without employing a religion.

To me, all these point to the same that Christianity is more likely a truth.

That being said, Christianity is about an advocate that God granted a covenant to humans for humans to be saved by faith, and faith alone. Thus if God shows up to everyone it simultaneously means that everyone is not savable! Empirical evidence is not available or else all mankind will wind up in hell. It's actually a good reason for the Christian God to hide behind. If God doesn't show up to anyone at all, it means no one knows who He is and what His covenant is. As a result, the only way which works if for God to show up to the chosen eyewitnesses, and for them to write about Him (more like WWII history) for the rest of humankind to believe it or not.

But wait, is this already the most efficient way for His message to convey. The answer is yes. By far human witnessing is the most efficient way for a truth to be conveyed among humans (especially across history). Evidence is a joke if you are willing to think deeper (it's almost a satanic deception).

What the Bible provides is a whole theology about this God's laws and covenants. Secular source can never carry this theology forward. Moreover, humans are never good keeper of original documents. We can't reconcile distant history with its original writings (most of you failed to realize this). The survivability of religious documents are far better than their secular counterpart (i.e., out history books). We can compare all the OT books with Dead Sea Scrolls. Now how about your secular history written 2000 years ago? I doubt that you can provide the ancient scrolls of a whole history book written 2000 years ago.

(It is yet another deceptive argument to say that history books are supported by ancient tablets and scrolls, it turns out you have to use one page of ancient scroll to support a history book of 1000 pages. That's how satanic the argument is. There are similar deceptive arguments in terms of archaeology).

In critical period of times, almost all the Jews would bring them with a copy of the OT Bible. In contrary, few would bring a history book. That's the power of a religion, in terms of carrying forward a theology.
 
Last edited:

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Religion is about the relation of humans to the divine. If it is rational, it must be based on human experience, like any other knowledge or activity. Mere belief without evidence, whether in a religion or in atheism, is not rational.

Why do humans (getting on for 90% of them, at least) seek relations with the divine? Well, why do they want relations with other humans? There is also evidence that having a religion is beneficial: those who have one are less likely to have psychological problems and even recover more rapidly from trauma*. Why do gods seek relations with humans? Well, why do people keep pets?

* see: P. Pressman et al. Religious belief, depression, and ambulation status in elderly women with broken hips. (American journal of psychiatry. 147(6):758-60)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I know many amateur racers who feel the same way about racing.


Virtually any hobby can be more than an activity or lifestyle for the people passionate about it.


I think it's only dismissive in the sense that a hobby is optional and many people see their religion as mandatory for everyone.
But at that point, doesn’t racing stop being a hobby and become a religion, in a sense? Once we cross the line from the literal to the mythic, and especially go on to the energetic, Formula 1 becomes God, the Brickyard heaven, and Jackie Stewart Jesus.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?
Self development is the most imp. object in my view.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But at that point, doesn’t racing stop being a hobby and become a religion, in a sense?
No. Just because you see things through a religious lens doesn’t mean that religion is inherent in a thing.

Once we cross the line from the literal to the mythic, and especially go on to the energetic, Formula 1 becomes God, the Brickyard heaven, and Jackie Stewart Jesus.
What “mythic?” What are you talking about?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
The different POVs are usually too superficial.

In a nutshell, humans are creatures of the present. They lack ability to know both the past and the future. History is the human testimonies about our past. Religion is the human testimonies about the future. Even for the same events of history, different history books may have opposite point of views about what happened. Even as recent as WWII, events described by Japanese books may be the opposite to Chinese history books. They can be in opposite simply because history as recent as WWII is not verifiable. They are accounts of human testimonies. There could be truth there could be lies.

Similarly, religion in its past is the human accounts of testimonies about the activities of the gods (in contrary history is about activities of humans). Its future part is what the gods can tell us through the eyewitnesses. There could be lies (i.e., false witnessing by false witnesses), however shall there be any truth there it is the only way for such a truth to convey (unless the gods choose to show up in front of all mankind).

So when looking into a religion, you can first examine why the god of that religion has to hide behind. Why doesn't he come forward to lead humans if he is a superior being. The next is to examine the credibility of witnesses. Then the third is to examine whether there is a more efficient way for this god to convey the same message (under the circumstance that he has a good reason to hide behind) without employing a religion.

To me, all these point to the same that Christianity is more likely a truth.

Really? So you expect more truth from the past than the present? I doubt that is at all possible, and as you have pointed out, we can't exactly rely on any evidence these days so as to provide 'the truth', such that I have even less confidence in the past when much information was just passed by word of mouth or by those who held power - education and even reading ability not being exactly common. Not much different now as regards power - but we do have the option of looking at a much wider range of information to challenge this. And people tend to be better educated these days - if they so choose.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?


On "God":
I believe in Einstein's E=m.c.c, so no matter without energy. Energy [so also matter] I call God. But God is beyond my comprehension.

On "World" and "universe":
The universe/world seem perfect. My software always contains 1 or 2 errors I need to correct. Universe corrects itself without external help [very intelligent design].

On "religion":
All religions and Atheism++ are part of this world. If the world is perfect religions must be perfect. If God created universe/world then logically also religion.

On "your questions":
So religion is a consequence of the existence of God. Man is curious. Conscience searches truth = "emphasis on matters of belief to find out how God `ticks`"

The more practical ones are Humanism, Atheism and science++; also part of this world. So also created by God. Not less or better. All are needed.

If 1 organ is in trouble other organs "feel" and "suffer". So I can't say 1 is more natural, meaningful or valuable. If God is perfect each BeliefSystem is perfect.

Several competing views, again, are part of this perfect creation therefore not only proper/desirable but even perfect.

When I don't use my brainpower and speak out of "desires, duality" I could disapprove of some. But when I view it from a perfect creation I can not.
 
Last edited:

dfnj

Well-Known Member
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?

Religions exist to answer the four great existential questions about our lives:

1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die?

In many ways, these are unanswerable questions. But many people are very uncomfortable with NOT knowing. So religions are invented so people feel safe by having someone else answer these difficult questions for them in a concrete way.

My religion is different in the sense I embrace every religion equally. This is because I see all human language as systems of semantics call dogmas. Every dogma as two things. Every dogma has a set of assumptions taken as being absolutely true without any proof. And second, every dogma has statements or assertions that are judge as being "good", "bad", or "insane" based on or judged by the dogma's base assumptions. The funny thing about a dogma's assertions is they are never complete or perfectly accurate. No matter how much you know there is always more you can talk about.

This why people with strong convictions usually do not agree on anything significant. If I don't share your assumptions to your dogma then everything I say will be "insane" in your system of semantics.

This scripture proves my point: Ecclesiastes 1-12
 
Last edited:

Enlil

Allah's servant
There are those who think of religion as being a direct consequence of the existence of a God. Sometimes those put a lot of emphasis on matters of belief and certainty regarding that God and its existence.

Other takes tend to focus more on more practical effects on the adherents, their motivations, values and goals.

Of the understandings of what a religion makes that you are aware of, which ones do you see as most natural, most meaningful, or most valuable, and why?

Do you think it is proper and/or desirable that there are several competing views?

Are there any that you actively disapprove of? If so, why?

I quite like Emile Durkheim's definition of religion: "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." (from The Elementary Forms of Religious Life). It seems to do a pretty good job of capturing the social phenomena generally considered to be religions.
 
Top