What is your opinion about religion?
I was just curious what you thought about religion, what religion you believe and why you believe it.
Ok, so I'll just say ( to narrow it down ) what religion do you believe in, if you believe in one at all. If you would like to give the "why", then feel free.
Or, do you think that there should be a "world religion"? One that everyone believes in, that would incorporate many of the current religions in the world today.
17 Answers
I'm a Christian and I am tolerant of others beliefs, but I don't think that everyone is right in their own way. For example Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
There are several other verses to go with this, but my point is that if one is truley a Christian you can be tolerant of people but you must stand firm in your own beliefs. If you aren't pushing you beliefs on others then don't be sorry if people feelings get hurt because of your own personal beliefs.
Or, do you think that there should be a "world religion"? One that everyone believes in, that would incorporate many of the current religions in the world today.
Since you can't mandate what people are going to believe, I don't think that such a religion is possible without divine intervention.
As a Christian, I believe that some day Christ will return to earth, visibly, and make it obvious to all that the story about him is the true story of mankind's redemption, that he is the ultimate Lord and ruler of the universe. Then we will have that "one world religion" of which you speak. And then folks will look to him for the answers to all the issues that we tend to argue about.
But that is sometime off in the future, quite possibly beyond my lifetime and the lifetime of my children.
I believe in kind people and their good intentions, though we all make mistakes (but to err is human, right?). As for the existence of any supernatural powers, I'm an agnostic, although I was raised a Catholic.
Fred, for the most part I agree with what you said... In a global sense, It is more important to be good, than to be religious. It is personally more important to me that you are a good person than if you are a Christian/Bhuddist/Hindu/Muslim, etc.
I would rather justify my morality by doing what everyone on the planet already does, using cultural norms, rather than using cultural norms and then trying to jump through hoops to get some copy of a book that doesn't allow itself to be changed(only "re-interpreted") to seem like it supports my stance, even though another person could take the same passage and twist it to accept the opposing stance.
But, be careful with cultural norms... they change as the culture does. Something that you do in the future will definitely not coincide with things that you do now.
Some cultural norms form the past...
Slavery
Exploitation of child labor
Degradation and devaluation of women
Incest
Cultural norms of the present...
Frivolous lawsuits
The desire to fit norms and standards presented by the marketing industries (with specific reference to physical appearance and standards)
Xenophobia
And so on and so on.
Although most of the cultural norms may or may not have been practiced by "religious" people, one needs to decide for themself if their culture is portraying what is really good.
Religion, to me, is essentially worthless. There are no demonstrable benefits that can not be matched or bested via a secular out look. While some may say "look what good religion has done," I say "look what good the people did." The fact that the philanthropist was religious means nothing to me. After all, it wouldn't be fair to judge a religion based on the evils of those who follow it, so why should I judge it based on the good done by the people who follow it? Especially when the actions of men, both good and evil, rarely require a religion to make these actions come to pass. Religion, like everything else, has its faults and its virtues.
Even if religion had only benefits and no detriments it still wouldn't merit some of the more elaborate claims that many religions make. To me the most important thing is to believe as many true things as I can and as little false things as I can. Most modern forms of religion with a personal "god," of some kind necessitate the preclusion of evidence to verify this claim, as well as religions that carry the notion of "miracles," so I can't really get behind this concept. Additionally there are a lot of very evil things that the religions I have been exposed to accept as morally suitable.
I would rather justify my morality by doing what everyone on the planet already does, using cultural norms, rather than using cultural norms and then trying to jump through hoops to get some copy of a book that doesn't allow itself to be changed(only "re-interpreted") to seem like it supports my stance, even though another person could take the same passage and twist it to accept the opposing stance.
Although raised in Christian family I do not consider myself Christian anymore. However for me there is clear distinction between religion and faith. The former I consider the root of all evil, the latter the foundation one builds everything else in life on.
I don't truly believe in a "religion". My "religion" is really a relationship with my creator, Lord, and Savior. Thus, others might say that I believe in Christianity.
With a question like that, don't you think you should start off with your opinions?
If this is indeed what you believe, just a questions for you, why are you alive and where you are today? What is the point of living, and where will you go after you die?
Why am I alive, and why am I where I am? I'll try to fill this question out some more. Based on the second half of the question I think this is somewhat of a four part question, where "why" is replaced with "how." So, Why am I alive? For whatever reason I choose. There is no objective reason (and indeed how could there be? Even if a deity of some kind commands my "reason" for existence it would still be subjective.) How am I alive? Well that question is rather complicated, and I couldn't explain it to you because there isn't anyone who can explain it definitively. Essentially the answer is that my parents copulated. As did their many parents before them, leading all the way back to RNA and the rest of the proteins and acids that were necessary for abiogenesis. Why am I where I am? Because after I was born a series of events lead to me being here. How am I here? The same answer applies.
What is the point of living? (rather similar to Why am I alive?) The point is whatever you make of it.
Where will you go when you die? To the same place I was before I was alive. My consciousness will cease to exist, most likely. Of course these are assumptions about what seems apparent.
With regards to Slavery and the appearance of the support of the practice... I believe that the counsel actually comes from the fact that Christianity was a new religion at the time of the writing of the New Testament and the desire was to not 'rock the boat' or to try and bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire down on the young church by teaching against the Empire or encouraging slaves to rebel against their masters. But... of course, that is my interpretation.
This relates to moral subjectivism, which is what I adhere to. Moral then is not moral now. Nor will all of what is moral now be considered moral tomorrow. When humans can afford not to kill and eat animals I assume we will be thought of as barbarians for having our slaughter houses.
It also relates to the point that religion conforms to the culture that it is contained within. For what reason would the bible support slavery if not to conform to the culture it was contained within? I'm hoping you'll see my point here. While I'm pretty sure you were trying to use this to show that maybe the religion wouldn't have been able to be used to support the African Slave Trade if not for the historical context, I am going to point out, I meant the African Slaves in the United States.
I my opinion religion and politics do not belong on a language learning site, unless we talk about it as it relates to a nation's culture. I know it is a lame opinion, but I am not a strong believer in anything except maybe in Darwin.
True, it is pretty irrelevant to the site. However, one could make the case that culture is an important part of language, and there are very few English Literature courses that do not cover the effects that Christianity (and other religions) have had on the English language.
At the end of the day I don't really think religious people have all that separate of a viewpoint than I do.
Be careful with cultural norms... they change as the culture does. Something that you do in the future will definitely not coincide with things that you do now.
Although most of the cultural norms may or may not have been practiced by "religious" people, one needs to decide for themself if their culture is portraying what is really good.
I agree with you, though our standards are based on our personal culture, so the deciding part of this is essentially almost always already made. Critical thinking skills do tend to sort out the more idiotic things people do, but our cultural tendencies are the dominant factor.
All of these "modern norms" (less of a norm for the frivolous lawsuit, I'm sure it is a norm within the practice of law, but it isn't necessarily a norm within our culture as a whole) are, indeed, cultural norms, but they aren't really a part of "my" cultural norm.
You're a product of your culture. For example, lets go with slavery.
Slavery was supported via the bible, and also so was the devaluation of women, I'm sure you're aware of how sexist Martin Luther was.
But now people say the bible somehow abhors slavery? What happened here? The culture changed and so the "interpretation" changed to fit their desires. It is a commonly observed psychological phenomenon. At the moment I can't recall the exact name, perhaps cognitive dissonance, but essentially you force your beliefs to conform out of a desire to not hold opposing beliefs. Essentially if "the bible is right" and "slavery is right" then the bible must either support or at least not abhor it, however, if slavery is "wrong" and the bible is "right" then the bible must either abhor it or take no stance. The bible was also used, rather nonsensically, to object to interracial marriages. I know, crazy right? But it is what happens when people accept two things with opposing view points. They force one of them to conform.
For example, I would submit that with the same standard that you scrutinize cultural norms you should scrutinize the bible. However most religious people would say "that is blasphemous" and not want to talk about the subject any more. I believe the quality of "good" that you would describe for a person exists outside of religion, completely independent, and changes with cultural expectations. Religious people conform to cultural norms, and then interpret their bibles to conform to their world view. Perhaps they weed out a few things that they, for whatever reason, don't personally agree with. I do the same thing except that I skip the step of "interpreting" my bible to mean whatever I want it to mean. Or, as the more common phrase is used, "cherry picking" with a twist.
Define "religion." Do you mean "belief in the Western Christian God"? Do you mean Christian denominations? A belief in a Creator? Do you include wicca, paganism, buddhism, hinduism, or Scientology?
How interesting...
For example, I would submit that with the same standard that you scrutinize cultural norms you should scrutinize the bible. However most religious people would say "that is blasphemous" and not want to talk about the subject any more.
I actually don't agree with much of what is going on in the world... And... there have been previous posts where my stance has been shown to be that there are certain parts of the Bible being missing (if interested you can go here)... but that is a different topic all together.
With regards to Slavery and the appearance of the support of the practice... I believe that the counsel actually comes from the fact that Christianity was a new religion at the time of the writing of the New Testament and the desire was to not 'rock the boat' or to try and bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire down on the young church by teaching against the Empire or encouraging slaves to rebel against their masters. But... of course, that is my interpretation.
I my opinion religion and politics do not belong on a language learning site, unless we talk about it as it relates to a nation's culture. I know it is a lame opinion, but I am not a strong believer in anything except maybe in Darwin.
Nathaniel said:
I do have a particular religion that I follow, and believe in, but recognize and respect the choices and agency of others to think and believe as they feel best.
Beautiful.
