How has religion helped us?

[Postmaster]

I'm not well informed on Eastern religions, so I will focus on the basic 3 Abrahamic faith, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I never say that people are Christian or Jewish or Muslim but I prefer to say that people are under the influence of these philosophies. Homosexual acts and no sex after marriage have been outlawed by these faiths, now it can't be too much of a coincidence that hundreds of years later, we are now flooded with aids many caused by homosexuality and multiple partners. Those who followed the biblical texts and passed there influence on to there children who listened and obeyed never sufferer any consequences. Then we have the peaceful teachings of acceptance of all humans, loving and peaceful teachings. Maybe these teaching saved a lot more being killed? I mean especially in Europe we have had the worst human atrocities, Jews of Second World War, Muslim of Srebrenica in 1995 and the Christian Greek Cypriots of the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Humans are naturally territorial and naturally sexually liberated but its conservatism which saves the soul.

How else has religion helped us?

 

[iBrian]

Certainly I think a lot of social proscriptions within religion made perfect sense for the social situations they addressed - it's worth noting that issues of hereditary and ancestry used to be very important in the ancient world, not simply in the family unit, but also in the social group, so it fairly obvious in that context why male homosexuality would be specifically proscribed against. Also, issues of adultery and the serious impact it would have had on dependents, especially when social security as we know it is a pretty modern invention - though I know Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have their various recommendations on helping the poor and needy and giving to charity.

Religion has also done an awful lot of good as well but it's hard putting that into clear perspective, especially when the reforms religion has brought seem so much common sense - with regards to Western civilisation, it was Christianity that brought an end to slavery, not least the abhorrent industrialised form we're more familiarly familiar with; also, it was Christian groups in Britain who during the industrial revolution instituted various modes of social care to look after the vulernable in towns and cities; and also Christian groups of the new Middle Classes who pushed for access to education for the poor, and also improved workers rights - much of which is highly popularised in the work of Charles Dickens, for example.

I guess a point to be aware of is that religion is a very dynamic part of society, and just as society wheels through extremes of compassion and inhumanity, so does religion draw and draw us from those extremes.

As for applying ancient social modes to the modern world - a big difference is that the State now tries to take charge of roles that were once entirely those of the head of the family unit - which has its mixed ups and downs in that where advantages are to be had, they are opportunities for all and equally so - access to education, healthcare, basic rights and protections, are all a part of this.

The flipside is that because the State now takes upon itself these roles, the familiy unit itself has been fragmented and denigrated from the original extended family, which could encompass generations living together, and helping one another, to the very basic and restrictive 2 parents with children unit, where that basic unit must rely on the state or purchased services to help with the challenging responsibilities of family life.

Anyway, a somewhat rambling 2c.

 

[jaxree]

A lot depends on how you define religion. In the context of the few comments here, I would say the definition being used at the moment is the institutions by which beliefs are carried from one generation to the next.

So using that definition, religion is no better or worse than any major human institution. Religions have done as much good and as much bad as governments, corporations, banks, you name it.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "conservativism." Like all other human creations, conservativism has done its share of good and bad. At its best, it keeps humans connected to their past, helps the continuity of evolving societies and ensures that culture's best attributes are passed on to future generations. At its worst, it is an oppresive force that tries to quash any threats to the status quo, holds back creative thought and creates fissures in society, separating its people into classes.

 

[nomanshake]

Religion in one way or the other is potrayed as a moral ground. If there would never have been any religion, who knows the daughters being born in Arab would still have been a shame and buried. IF religion wasnt there, homosexuality would have been like an everyday common social thing. If religion wasnt there, we would have seen a new Hitler every other year. We would have seen human beings as animals! Religion has had great influence the way the society has changed! Though there had been many negative things due to religions when they were new, but God must've made them so that examples can be set for the generations to come. After seeing so much of religion's influence it can be seen that yes God exists and he is powerful, just as his messengers were powerful in having infulence over the society and the civilizations they were sent too, Mohammed(saw) and Jesus are two great examples!

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

IF religion wasnt there, homosexuality would have been like an everyday common social thing.

I dont agree with this at all.

For whatever reason, some people turn out to be homosexual and some turn out to be hetrosexual. No one chooses to be gay, and as such, religious and cultural law can have no impact on how prolific homosexuality is.

If religion wasnt there, we would have seen a new Hitler every other year.

Once again I feel a need to disagree.

Humankind are generally good (or bad) people for the sake of being good (or bad) and I do not think religion plays a huge part in this distinction. For example, many people call themselves atheist and hold no religious beliefs at all but they do not necessarily turn out to be evil. On the other side of the coin, there have been many religious people who have done terrible things, like the Catholic clergy during the spanish inquisition, the islamic conquest of the middle east and parts of europe and Pope Pius 12th who failed to confront Hitler over his mass genocide.

We would have seen human beings as animals!

I think that there may be some hint of truth in this, certainly early in the development of civilisation the fear of God would have been a powerful tool for social control, but I do not feel that this is necessary any more. This is like disciplining a child, when the chld is young you may threaten to smack him but as the child grows he learns morals for himself and outgrows the need for discipline. I believe that our civilisation is now mature enough to function without religion.

his messengers were powerful in having infulence over the society and the civilizations they were sent too, Mohammed(saw) and Jesus are two great examples!

There have been many more secular icons who have been similarly influential:

Abraham Lincoln said, "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma"

Napoleon Bonaparte - "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
"All religions have been made by men."

Benjamin Franklin - "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

And although I disagree with it, I love the way Mark Twain puts it, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Forever,
Awaiting The Fifth

 

[nomanshake]

Awaiting the fifth, if you were born gay or homosexual, you still do get erection, it's not that you can only have sexual practice over the man. And gays do have feelings over woman too. It's just a matter of test, that God has given everyone different class, orientation status in the society, colour, civilizational messngers who bought upon religion to them, some are blind, some are deaf, some handicapped, it's just a matter of how the human being lives with what he's given. Infact those not normal part of the society, are in one way made by God to be helped by the normal ones, so that they can get rewards for the world hereafter. Thus the bad and negative things are made, because you have the concept of 'heaven and hell' if you believe in a religion.

+ i'd add a question here. A person who believes God, but through no prophets or religion what is he called?

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

And gays do have feelings over woman too. It's just a matter of test

Im not gay so I cant be absolutely sure, but I do have gay friends and Im pretty sure they dont have feelings for women, not sexual feelings anyway. Also I cannot accept that its just a test, the way you put it is as though all homosexual people are just misguided fools who should stop being so silly and turn straight. I think thats a very poor point of view.

If I have mistaken your point please let me know.


Back on topic, such arguments are a classic example of the down side of religion. I have personally had extensive "debate" with different people about the laws of karma and the idea that all wrong that becomes you in this life is payment for wrong-doing in previous lives. A religious mind feels compelled to state its true beliefs when questioned and such beliefs can offend those who do not share them.

 

[nomanshake]

If you go back to the history there have been some great examples where bi-sexual or homosexual beings tried to avoid their orientation and have faith in God and had tolerance over the evil-doing. Once again as i said, it's just the matter of human mind. Some people turn gay just because of their childhood breeding, that is over-contact with women, living around with many women or other mishaps. When a child is born, you can never know if he's gay or straight, it's just what he's turned into. Just like a child is taught religious faith, he doesn't carry any faith when he's born. According to Quran , King of Saladin was bisexual and had feelings for some General and used to take care of him and send him gifts, but he never had any sexual contacts, because he feared God and resisted it, and thus was granted the status of martyr by Mohammed(saw) in the eyes of Allah. None of the messenger's friends have been reported to be gay or homosexual.

The concept of leading lives again and suffering of the wrong-doings in the previous lives in the current life thus seem kind of real. Like the 7 janams in hindu mythology. If you were a harsh prince you would become a beggar in the next life. But once you're in the current life, you don't even know what janam are you living, that's where the conflict arises.!~

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I certainly do not agree with you about homosexuality but that's not what this thread is about we probably shouldnt hijack it.

 

[Quahom1]

I certainly do not agree with you about homosexuality but that's not what this thread is about we probably shouldnt hijack it.

I think I understand Nomanshake's point here ATF. Without religion, man tends to do exactly as he chooses, regardless of who it affects. Man is not enlightened enough to be his own police. "If it feels good do it", is never accompanied by the resulting truism, "...regardless of the affect and effect it has on others".

It is very difficult to ignore that promiscuity for example, has not brought in diseases at an unprecedented level, heretofore unknown in human history.

It is very difficult to ignore that the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the last 35 years.

It is very difficult to ignore the number of children killing other children in the last 35 years.

It is very difficult to ignore how the "state" has attempted to usurp the authority of the family unit (mainly due to the family unit being broken, and missing a crucial member...the father). Big Brother, has become defacto father.

It is very difficult to ignore the number of abortions occuring, to younger and younger females.

Without religion, man does not do so well.

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

Yep - would be great to keep the homosexuality discussion on the homosexuality threads.

 

[nomanshake]

Why do you see open prostituion in countries like Thailand, where a father can sell his daughter too. Why do you see open nude bathing in streets in Nepal ? Why do you see people eating anythnig they wish in a country like China? I've even seen pictures of kids being fried in the pans. All these countries follow Buddhism or Atheism, that is they have no pure belief in God. ( if im wrong im srory , but that's what i know).

All the things avoided by religion have always made sense. WHy is prostitution a bad thing? Hell it's like earning with fun,if that's how it was everywhere, no woman would work, and the civilization would have been dead. How would one even a man like the idea of selling his body just for cash. WHy is drinking prohibited by almost all religions, because 60% of the crimes commited in a country like U.S have been by commited by a person when he's a in a drunk state.

Go to a country like Saudi , it has the lowest crime rate, why because its the strongest religious country. Everywhere and anywhere, the powerful the religion, the powerful the morals, the lowest the crime rates. While Japan, which follows Shinto, which is also one of the mystic religions, but has no clear contradictions of God(that's what i know), and also someone told me that they see human beings as only living in this world. Now Japan offers lisenced suicide clinics, what kind of humanity is this ?

I'm sorry if i offended any country or religion, but i went to the facts, though these countries seem to do economically well, but I pointed out some of the extreme things that I did not like and had clear conflict with humanity. Long Live Pacific.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, nomanshake!

Oh boy! You ask a great deal, and seem to see only one side. If I may politely correct some things...

Why do you see open prostituion in countries like Thailand, where a father can sell his daughter too.

Prostitution is legal in the state of Nevada as well. Depending how broadly one wishes to define prostitution, it could be said to be practiced all over the world as the oldest profession. One of Jesus' great-great (umpteen greats) grandmothers "played the part" of the harlot to get her father-in-law to fulfill his promise, the story of Tamar and Judah in the book of Genesis.

Why do you see open nude bathing in streets in Nepal ?

Forgive my ignorance, but I see nothing inherently wrong with God's beautiful creation of the human body. Being nude, of itself, is no sin. Naked we are born, and naked we return. The sin lies in the fantasies of our minds, what we personally choose to do to pollute God's beautiful creation. The sin is in the lust, the coveting, and the unnatural desires we allow ourselves to entertain.

Why do you see people eating anythnig they wish in a country like China?

Possibly to prevent starvation. China has long had more population density than most other countries. It is easier to eat what you deem morally acceptable when that food is plentiful. When there is nothing "acceptable" to eat, some people turn to foods they might not otherwise eat in order to survive.

I've even seen pictures of kids being fried in the pans.

I have not seen this.

All these countries follow Buddhism or Atheism, that is they have no pure belief in God. ( if im wrong im srory , but that's what i know).

I guess a lot depends on what one means by "God." I know what I mean, and I think Buddhists seem to view the totality of what I call God in much the same way, although they do not call Him by that name. The difficulty here lies in the semantics and definition. Buddhists do recognize something beyond themselves. And while some governments may be Atheist, by and large the majority of the populations of even these countries do have an innate desire to acknowledge something beyond themselves, what we call God.

All the things avoided by religion have always made sense.

I agree with you here. Of course, I have to return to asking just what it is you mean by the term "religion?" Are you speaking of orthodoxy and establishment, or are you speaking of one's personal path? Established religions provide a moral guideline by which to guide one's life. For the most part those moral guidelines agree with one another, not only among Monotheists, but also Buddists, Hindis and Pagans. I might also add, that because a person agrees with or follows a particular path does not mean they are perfect, and always follow every rule to the letter. We all make mistakes. If we didn't, we wouldn't need religion or morality.

WHy is drinking prohibited by almost all religions, because 60% of the crimes commited in a country like U.S have been by commited by a person when he's a in a drunk state.

Not all religions prohibit drinking alcohol. A little wine is good for the stomach, Solomon tells us. Solomon also tells us that being drunken is not a good thing. Moderation is the key. One way to tell, do you control it, or does it control you?

Go to a country like Saudi , it has the lowest crime rate, why because its the strongest religious country. Everywhere and anywhere, the powerful the religion, the powerful the morals, the lowest the crime rates.

Again, I must respectfully disagree. Population density is one factor in crime. Poverty is another. Morality does play into things, but is not the overriding factor. Many people will bend their morals if they feel threatened. Why else would 15 men, all muslim, most Saudi, highjack four civilian airliners full of innocent civilians, and crash them into buildings full of more innocent people? I do not pretend these men represent all Saudis, nor all of Islam. My point is that even a society like Saudi Arabia with its high morality is still subject to the sins, crimes and passions that all people are subject to.

Now Japan offers lisenced suicide clinics, what kind of humanity is this ?

This enters yet another discussion, but I would have to look at each case by itself. If a person is dying of a terminal disease, and has no hope of recovery, and is in severe pain, then I would agree that person can choose to end their suffering. Note I did not say judge, it is not my place to judge any of them, or anybody in anything, even if I disagree with what it is they do. I do not see with the eyes of God, I will not pretend that I do.

I'm sorry if i offended any country or religion

I saw no offense, I think your questions were sincere. I hope I caused no offense to you. I merely presented my views. I only hope and pray my views are acceptable to God.

 

[nomanshake]

Well once again it's a matter of how strong your belief in religion is. It's a matter of how one sees the things. Well there have been some places where no messngers were send. So we cannot blame them. But you have to agree in a nation where no person goes against God, nothing goes wrong there.
As far as extremists Muslims hijacking the planes is considered, well once again it's about human mind. They see it as a revenge to the innocent muslims killed in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also agree that religion has also been the reason for bloodsheds at some time. Even when the religions were new and the messengers. Even today we have such cases. But if you put it against the good things it has bought, then it is likely to win.
Human beings have been given the ability to do anything they wish, because they need to have total control oveer their lives to understand God themselves. If religion was a visible God, then what would have been the reason for this life altogether.
God has given human mind to think and do anything, and distinguish between right and wrong.

Tell me one wrong thing that religion taught? It's just the people who made things wrong!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, nomanshake!

Thank you for your reply.

But you have to agree in a nation where no person goes against God, nothing goes wrong there.

Well, that might be true, but so far the nation you speak of does not exist, and never has, and likely never will. Even if I as a Christian wanted to uphold the classical Israel of the time of David as an archetype of a perfect nation before the eyes of God, people then and there still sinned. Even David. Even David's son Solomon who prayed so hard for wisdom, and was granted that wisdom for leading his people, in the end fell away and sinned. So, I have yet to see any nation that is perfect before God. As a Christian we are taught that no man ever lived that was perfect, with one exception: Jesus who is called Christ. What you are describing is a nation full of perfect people, a nation full of Jesus Christs. In my mind, that is impossible. Not only impossible, but then please explain why has humanity felt the need for religion or morality (or dare I say, law) if a nation is fully capable of being perfect in God's eyes?

Human beings have been given the ability to do anything they wish, because they need to have total control oveer their lives to understand God themselves.

I am not sure I fully understand you here. I do not think humanity is meant to take advantage of or abuse the gift of thought. "To boldly go where no one has gone before," or to climb the mountain "because it is there," is not wise in my opinion. One must look before they leap, and all too often we as humans do not look first. We do not consider the consequences of our actions beforehand, and use the excuse of seeking to understand God to justify ourselves.

If religion was a visible God, then what would have been the reason for this life altogether.

OK, I'll play. What would have been the reason for life if religion were a visible God?

In my opinion, it is not wise to confuse the messenger with the message. Religion is not God, and never will be.

God has given human mind to think and do anything, and distinguish between right and wrong.

But unless we look at our actions before we do them, we cannot distinguish right from wrong except by trial and error. If we are wise, we can learn from the mistakes of others as well as our own, but unless we each individually consider the consequences of our actions we cannot honestly say we understand right from wrong. Mom tells you "no." Priest/Rabbi/Immam tells you "no." Teacher tells you "no." Policeman/Judge tells you "no." Unless you hear and understand, and realize the consequences of your actions, you are just as likely to continue saying "yes." And in such a state of rebellion against authority, are you going to honestly hear when God says "no." Especially if God does not use words to tell you.

Tell me one wrong thing that religion taught? It's just the people who made things wrong!

Which really brings up a very good point! It is how each of us as individuals see things. Morality is subjective. Religion is subjective. All are different points of view looking towards the same source: God.

As long as we are looking towards the source, the well-spring of creation, the giver of life, the beginning and end of everything, the Heavenly Father Creator, we are looking in the correct direction. But each of us looks from a different vantage, so the view is always a little different from the next person. In the end though, those of us who sincerely and honestly seek and look, are looking at the same thing and coming to the same conclusions, even if we speak of those things in different terms that relate to us personally.

It is not religion, in the authoritarian/official/establishment sense that teaches correctly. That is the form that abuses its privilege, and has for thousands of years. In this sense, religion provides a foundation, a code of morality, a set of wisdom traditions and lessons. It is as good of a place to start as any. And each one of these religious establishments is subjective in relation to the others. And each one jockeys for political position with the masses. That is called "history." But history does not make any one of these establishments more correct than any other. God blesses who He wills.

Because establishment religion can and is abused, that is a source for your comment about people making things wrong. If I were to take you merely at your word here, I could then say, "well, since Christians are guilty of commiting atrocities in Bosnia, all Christians are guilty and should be killed..." Yet, you do not wish me to think in the same way about Islam because of 9/11. Why? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Do not wish for me what you do not wish for yourself. If you wish for me to see the 9/11 highjackers for what they were, insane fundamental radicals with genitalia envy, then you must apply the same rules in reverse to yourself. The atrocities in Bosnia were committed by insane fundamental radicals that in no way represent the whole of Christianity.

Again, do not confuse the message with the messenger. It is not religion that does not teach wrong, establishment religion has throughout history been used to teach wrong. It is God that does not teach wrong. Religion is not and never will be God.

Therefore, worship God, not religion. The path to God is inconsequential, as long as you keep yourself pointed in the correct direction, towards Him.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

For the most part those moral guidelines agree with one another, not only among Monotheists, but also Buddists, Hindis and Pagans. I might also add, that because a person agrees with or follows a particular path does not mean they are perfect, and always follow every rule to the letter. We all make mistakes. If we didn't, we wouldn't need religion or morality.

a small correction if i may..

Hindi is the language that Hindus speak

metta,

~v

 

[iBrian]

As far as extremists Muslims hijacking the planes is considered, well once again it's about human mind. They see it as a revenge to the innocent muslims killed in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Funnily enough, I'll wager that most Muslims in these countries are murdered by...Muslims.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

What a pleasure to "hear" from you, it has been a while.

a small correction if i may..

Hindi is the language that Hindus speak

Very well, I appreciate the correction. I was not certain of the plural term when I wrote. I also recall a piece you wrote recently explaining "Hindu" is considered derogatory. Since I did not wish to seem derogatory, and I could not remember the term you had given (it was long and foreign to me), I settled on the term I did. I do hope I did not cause any offense to our East Indian friends.

I am pleased, that this is the only point you deemed worthy of correction. May I consider you to be in general agreement with what I wrote?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,


whilst it is true that the term Hindu was meant as a derogatory statement, the reality of the situation is a bit different.

like many groups that get a derogatory lable applied to them, say "redskins", they have co-opted this term and now use it as their own moniker. thus, using the term Hindu today does not carry with it the same connotation that it did when the term was coined.

nevertheless, i, as well as my Sanatana Dharma friends, appreciate your thoughtful consideration in this instance.

i agree, in general, with your post. naturally, i would tend to disagree that all religious traditions have a basis or a "facing" towards God, in whatever manner that term is defined.

metta,

~v

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your response!

i agree, in general, with your post. naturally, i would tend to disagree that all religious traditions have a basis or a "facing" towards God, in whatever manner that term is defined.

Actually, this comes as no surprize. Yet it raises a question, perhaps you could help.

How would a Buddhist describe a Christian to a Hindu? Not as a stranger pointing a finger, but as a brother or cousin with a familial arm around that person? I have struggled many times here to describe an inclusiveness that involves all, and always the same problem of language comes up.

I mean, Buddhists do look to something beyond themselves, something greater than themselves, yes? Or do I misinterpret?

Or, perhaps more directly to the point, is nomanshake correct in ascribing atheism to Buddhism? I see the two disciplines as distinct, but then again, my eyesight is beginning to fail, so...