D1B wrote:soul man wrote:
Perhaps you should actually take a college level or seminary Old Testament course before you make grand generalizations about such things. Most reputable bible scholars approach the bible with the exact critical eye upon which you speak. People of faith are not all snake-handling shucksters, bible thumping demagogues, or toothless, stupid idiots. They are people of science, Fortune 500 executives, athletes, college presidents... that they can also be people of faith eludes many.
Secondly, the bible is not a book of science. Faith is not a scientific formula that one uses to prove anything. They are, in comparison terms, apples and oranges.
Joe, I understand what your saying but it's important to note that primarily the Fortune 500 executives et al who are religious did not become so based on logic or critical thinking. Religion for the vast majority is pounded into them from birth, so much so that it becomes part of their nature and psychological/(yes)biological make up. This is essentially how you train a dog. You ever fake throwing a ball to a dog and he chases after it? That all you need to know about the effect of religion on the human mind. Keep doing that and the dog just looks at you without running. That's where we getting close to in America.
Unfortunately religion is a means to transmit morality and culture to the next generation and this is sad as religion is dogmatic and it's focus is on another life (in heaven or hell) and than man is inherently bad. We've reached a point in civilization where religion is no longer necessary, for many things. Now it is essentially a club where socialization needs are met.
Secular humanism will bury the major religions in due time. Thank God!
You first paragraph describes the principal reason I chose to uninvolve myself from my family's church, disavow religion, and become a self-proclaimed atheist when I was 14 yr. old. Still, to this day, I agree that organized religion's method of indoctrination through conditioning is vulgar and abominably UNCHRISTIAN. Think about it... Assuming a person believes in the teachings and messages of Christ, how can anyone extrapolate that Jesus would encourage people to force a belief system onto (into) their children while restricting/prohibiting their child's natural instinct to question, explore, reason and ultimately "think for themselves"?
Where I disagree with you, D1B, is your logical extension that if the method employed by organized religion is faulty, the underlying knowledge/message must be faulty. Rather, like you implied, absent other methods to teach their children the "necessary life skills" of stewardship, respect, and appreciation of all that's around them, religion offers the "opportunity" to pass-on a usable belief system through conditioning, a method normally employed in rearing children through stick and carrot training exercises. While the original "sin" of parental ignorance or laziness may be condemnable (ultimately, the sin becomes fogiveable as "conditionees", the children grow and repeat the cycle with their children), again, that does not invalidate the underlying "product" they are peddling.
The logical extension "fault" is the same error I made when I was younger. It took eight years of study and discussion with people of true faith (non-conditioned Christians), conditionees, and mature non-believers, as well as numerous personal life incidents, before I was willing to admit the message was real. I have "insisted" each of my children develop their belief system ON THEIR OWN, and while I did expose them in a limited manner to organized religion when they were younger (as well as discussing atheism), it was always with the caveat that they needed to judge for themselves the legitamacy of any information put before them.
Heaven and hell, as you note, are merely the carrot and stick of theology. When mortal methods of enforcing accountability become insufficient, develop a new and improved carrot and stick: The immortal Heaven and hell. This works well with the "if'n I hide in the woods when Pa gits home, I won't git the belt for spittin on sis's doll" mindset. More thoughtful believers (and non-believers), understand the simple, natural interdependency of all things, aka Karma. If I put a boot on your ass enough times, eventually, your ass muscle will fail and you're going to crap on, and ruin, my nice boots. Karma is as real as real gets. People who do not believe in/practice Karma are either incarcerated, being spoon-fed by minimum wage caregivers who feed them two month old food from dirty refrigerators, or are "living on borrowed time".
But back to your assertion that religion's principal purpose is to transmit morality and culture, assuming that man is inherently bad: I, again, disagree with that assertion. While not a walking See-'N-Say of Biblical passage (...THAT issue can be reserved for another discussion), my inference of "the message" includes a belief that man is inherently good, strives to improve intellectually, seeks out goodness and decency, yet is easily distracted and misled down paths of indecency (meant in a broader connotation, not the victorian sense), self-indulging judgement, self-rightiousness and hate (in essence, superficiality of intellect): That, I believe, is overwhelmingly true. (I'll start rote memorization of the Bible tonight so I can appropriately take phrases/sentences out of context to rationalize, er, I mean, support
MY beliefs...).
Obviously, while I share much of your critical evalution of organized religion, I cannot condemn organized religion merely due to the methods employed. Akin to many of the differences I have with zealous ideologues, since humanity is (and always will be) a "work in progress", there is no single solution to every problem. IMHO, a wiser approach is to assume the best solution is a "balance" of decisions/choices. While I don't "prefer" many decisions/choices I have to make, I focus on the ones that I believe will have the greatest impact on improving myself and humanity. Likewise with organized religion: I ABSOLUTELY believe a world of people who accept and embody a belief in a higher power, and attempt to live their lives by an ever-elevating standard of conduct, is THE BETTER CHOICE for humanity. If that choice includes accepting a "method of education" that utilizes unenlightened techniques, given the alternative of a virtually secular world, I am begrudged to support the outcome of organized religion's mission.
Finally, to address those in organized religion who CLAIM a place of elevated entitlement as a result of their membership in a Church or belief system, you really need to stop what your're doing and have a "gut check" moment. Belonging to the Catholic church, or Baptist church, or Church of Latter Day Saints is not going to put you at the head of the chow line at dinner time. If you TRULY believe in scripture, then you have to accept the condemnation of self-rightousness. The twisted notion that only those who belong to the church founded by Peter, or Joseph Smith, or whomever, will receive "favorable" consideration come "judgement day", is as absurd as claiming a person born in Texas can play football BETTER THAN a person born in Louisiana (...Ohio, on the other hand...). Within the context of a human soul, only a church with a vested self-interest would attempt to convince people that their "soul" becomes more important through membership and practice of that church's ideology. Again, if you TRULY believe in scripture, then you understand the sanctity of life and spirit are universal, and sin can not be conferred solely by membership in the wrong church.
Bottomline, a Christian who has been "conditioned" to accept a belief system called "[Insert your organized religion's name here]" is not walking the walk, and all the liturgy, sacrament and ritual in the world will not make you a Christian in heart: Think about that next Sunday, BEFORE you yell at your children and threaten to punish them unless they hurry up and get dressed for church.
(P.S...this is a good debate that many should read and participate in, however...please check your scripture quotes at the door. IMHO, scripture quoters are no better than IRS bureaucrats: You can always find a rule or statement, when taken out of context, to support any position.)
