Purpose of religion

This is your opinion still, rather than evidence based.
The evidence is the history of humanity. I will concede the sensationalist aspect of history reporting, where simple good events may not generally be reported. However if human beings in general were considerate towards one another, outside of their own tribe – using the word quite broadly – human history would simply tell a different tale?

Ah! You're projecting the behaviour of tribes back on to individuals, I think. Collective human behaviour differs from individual human behaviour, another well studied area.
I concede this. However human beings gather in tribes for security. Loyalty to the tribe is a matter of personal survival. An individual cannot in general survive outside the tribe. Such an individual is fighting for his life. It’s stuff that is inbred by millennia of human experience.

EDIT: Tribal instincts may have blurred in the global 21st Century, but they're always still there as ideologies and group loyalty, imo. Xenophobia is rife all over the world today.
 
Last edited:
The evidence is the history of humanity. I will concede the sensationalist aspect of history reporting, where simple good events may not generally be reported. However if human beings in general were considerate towards one another, outside of their own tribe – using the word quite broadly – human history would simply tell a different tale?
So you're just dismissing all developmental evidence, all human behaviour outside of tribal settings.

Yes, human history says "tribes naturally tend to ɓe mean to strangers".

No, that doesn't mean "individuals naturally tend to be mean to strangers".

And it also depends on the culture of one tribe versus another. There have always been societies where kindness is valued, way before your particular version of god came along.
 
In my story, virtues are part of human nature, but sometimes they are repressed.
I would add 'also' somewhere. :)

That goes back to the Hindu theory of three qualities in all humans - "Gunas", Sattva (Saintly), Rajas (Possesive) and Tamas (Evil).
It is only a question of proportions. The proportions are changeable according to beliefs, education and upbringing.
 
Last edited:
You make assumptions, coming from your own personal projection.
I make the assumption that you're coming from a monotheistic and broadly Christian viewpoint, given that at every turn you've credited Jesus and Christianity with basically "civilising" the western world.

Apologies if I'm wrong. But it's based on the evidence of your posts, not projection.
 
I see the purpose of religion, is to know and love God, and that knowledge and love is expressed in family and community.
Add: Sense of wholeness and ability to act in a more integrated fashion because of that sense? My question is a psychological framing of religion, probably consistent with Wil’s exploration here.
 
you've credited Jesus and Christianity with basically "civilising" the western world.
And I have credited eastern spiritual thought with basically "civilising" the eastern world.

Muslim civilization is also based on Muslim spiritual ideas.

Western civil rights movements have generally been led by Christian ideology, and often by Christian figures. The 'atheist' Marxism movement brought no real civil rights benefits for the populations involved.

Once modern human rights paradigms have come into being as basically standard amongst 'civilised' western societies, fringe groups have found space to prosper.
 
I make the assumption that you're coming from a monotheistic and broadly Christian viewpoint, given that at every turn you've credited Jesus and Christianity with basically "civilising" the western world.
Apologies if I'm wrong. But it's based on the evidence of your posts, not projection.
That should not surprise anyone. RJM is a Christian (and quite a liberal one). Allow him his views. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
I see the purpose of religion, is to know and love God, and that knowledge and love is expressed in family and community. ..
It is manifested in "The joy of shared belief...
What about atheist religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Advaita Hinduism (which includes animals, vegetation and even non-living things as part of one). Cannot one have love for family and community without believing in a religion and one who started it claiming that he represents a God (without ever giving any evidence for it)?

Any problem if our beliefs may not be the same?
 
Western civil rights movements have generally been led by Christian ideology
Were the people in West not civilized before the advent of Christianity? Where do you draw the line?
The American Indians, The Africans, the Australian and New Zealand aboriginal or those in other places (lots of them in India).
 
RJM is a Christian (and quite a liberal one). Allow him his views. ;)
Thanks Aup ;)

I'm loosely tethered as Catholic, having explored most other religions and faiths, and now believing that the spiritual ideas and values of other religions are always fully present in Christ. I accept the Buddhist concept of 'rebirth' into other dimensions, and heavens and hells, over 'reincarnation' directly back upon the planet earth.
 
Last edited:
Were the people in West not civilized before the advent of Christianity?
They were tribal, imo. Celts and Scythians had their kings and limited civilizations, but weren't kind to captured enemy. Their civilization generally did not extend beyond the tribe -- using the term broadly. The tribe was the tribe and the tribe came first.

Egyptian civilization was alright basically for Egyptians of a certain class. Certainly a great civilization. The actual reality hidden in mists of time. Also Babylon, Assyria, and so on. But human rights were probably not what we would think of today.

Roman law was guaranteed for Roman citizens, not for others. Athenian democracy was not really close to how 21st Century minds think of the term. Spartans treated their Helot population as slaves and servants.
 
Last edited:
Difference of beliefs. view; who would know it better than Indians? :)
I am always talking about the values expressed by Christ, and not to the way they have often been abused down through history by human beings using the banner of Christianity.

Were the people in West not civilized before the advent of Christianity? Where do you draw the line?
The American Indians, The Africans, the Australian and New Zealand aboriginal or those in other places (lots of them in India).
All those people had their own gods, and it was the gods who insisted on them behaving themselves and laid down the tribal mores. The people alone weren't to be trusted with being nice to one another, not stealing or killing one another etc, human nature being what it is, lol
 
Last edited:
Yup... but the Protest, ants and Luther elicited their reasons for that "first" (major) division since the universal church was created.
I'd say the 'first major division' was the schism between the Greek East and the Latin West.

Then the CoE was created basically to allow a what was considered immoral (endless circles of divorce and marriage by a "divine" royalty.
Well Henry was not so fond of the Reformers, hence his religion was 'Anglo-Catholicism' rather than Protestantism. The significant change was, as you say, his desire to get an annulment of his first marriage.

Henry had to get Rome to legitimise his marriage to Catherine, as there was a biblical prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow. Then, having got Rome to validate the marriage, he wanted Rome to invalidate it ...

...a dozen varieties of Christianity ran to our Europe's various colonies and a number of various religions and beliefs (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and more) as well as the nons, deists, African and indigenous beliefs were all here before 1776...and yeah from that over the past 250 years those divided and multiplied.
And some!

According to wiki, how many Christian denominations there are vary depending on the definition used. When grouped by major theological traditions and distinct ecclesiastical families, the number is categorized into six main taxonomical groups:
  • Catholicism (including the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches)
  • Protestantism (including Lutheranism, Calvinism/Reformed, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals)
  • Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Church of the East
  • Restorationism (including nontrinitarian groups like Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses)
Within these broad branches, there are roughly 200 to 500 distinct denominational families or major sects recognized globally,
while the United States alone is estimated to have between 200 and 438 denominational groups.

It is my understanding in Judaism there has always been debate, there have always been liberal and conservative voices, there were various thought allowed in religious circles...but as one temple attracted one group labels and divisions became identified.
Well again it depends on where one wants to draw lines ... there has always been debate within Catholicism between liberal and conservative voices.

I expect that is similar to all thought and the real thing that caused it wasn't those dang Americans or material economic or marketing moves by us ugly Americans but simply a mater of time....the past 250 years the changes have been accelerated worldwide. (Maybe almost as dramatic as the first 500 years CE)
I think the proliferation within the US is disproportionate compared to the rest of the world. That, and that many of them began life as commercial enterprises ...

Unity has recently merged into a single entity. Mark Hicks of TruthUnity has voiced a concern that treating a religious movement like a brand-led media corporation makes its vulnerable to shifting political and cultural winds. Likewise he has voiced concerns that Unity is losing Fillmore's foundational metaphysics and becoming increasingly secularised with its drift into generalised New Age teaching.

Hence my comments about a more anodyne messaging to attract a broader audience.
 
  • Love
Reactions: wil
OTOH, I am horrified at the influx of predominately young men (it seems) into the ranks of the Orthodox and the Catholic – seeking 'traditional values', what they bring with them is their misogyny and their toxic manosphere ideologies, which they assume the term 'tradition' embraces with open arms ...
 
All those people had their own gods, and it was the gods who insisted on them behaving themselves and laid down the tribal mores. The people alone weren't to be trusted with being nice to one another, not stealing or killing one another etc, human nature being what it is, lol
No God has been more tribal than YHWH. What is wrong in people having their own Gods. In India, even villages have their particular Gods and Goddesses. They acknowledge each other when they gather for festivals.
I do not know of Hindu Gods who would be pleased with killing or stealing or one who did not insist on being nice to others.
(Sure, thugs thought so to escape the guilt of murders).

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
No God has been more tribal than YHWH.
Yes I know. Christ's values seem to be very different.

Of course, but I keep hearing the name of Hammurabi.
Was the tribal feeling gone after advent of Christianity?
Are we not tribal now?
Yes. We are still tribal now.

What is wrong in people having their own Gods. In India, even villages have their particular Gods and Goddesses. They acknowledge each other when they gather for festivals.
Yes I know. I don't have any issue with people having their own Gods.
"I have practised all religions - Hinduism, Islam, Christianity - and I have also followed the paths of the different Hindu sects. I have found that it is the same God toward whom all are directing their steps, though along different paths.

He who is called Krishna is also called Siva, and bears the name of the Primal Energy, Jesus, and Allah as well - the same Rama with a thousand names. A lake has several Ghats. At one, the Hindus take water in pitchers and call it Jal; at another the Muslims take water in leather bags and call it pani. At a third the Christians call it water.

Can we imagine that it is not Jal, but only pani or water? How ridiculous! The substance is One under different names, and everyone is seeking the same substance; only climate, temperament, and name create differences. Let each man follow his own path. If he sincerely and ardently wishes to know God, peace be unto him! He will surely realize Him."

I do not know of Hindu Gods who would be pleased with killing or stealing or one who did not insist on being nice to others.
I know

The argument I'm making is that when modern secular humanists say that human rights are human nature, history shows that humans are not good to each other. The 'good' values come from their gods -- whatever their gods might be.

In general human history is tribal. Theft and murder and adultery are not good for the strength of the tribe. So most tribes practice these mores, but they do not extend the same consideration to others outside the tribe, or to other tribes.

I believe that in western culture it is Christ who extended the concept of 'love your neighbour' beyond the tribal fence to include all humanity. That is the source. It is not innate human nature. In eastern cultures where the same values exist, they also come from the spiritual teachings, not from inherent human nature.

And of course these values are very often not practiced, but that does not negate the spiritual teachings from which they originate.
 
Last edited:
The 'atheist' Marxism movement brought no real civil rights benefits for the populations involved.
I understand the point that you are making here I think it is a mistake to confuse those goverments that were ruled by Stalinists with the "Marxist movement. In the west Marxists have long been at the forefront of the struggle for civil rights.
No Marxist ever tried to keep black children from attending a school. Plenty of Christians did though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Back
Top