What good is religion?

I'm not sure of your meaning of religion. For me, I know that God is real and that he lives. If that is religion, then it is mine...or it to which I belong. I'm not sure. But to be known and loved and to belong in spite of all that is wrong with me is to me a priceless treasure. It is to be marked and reclaimed in a sense. For it to have been God is to be drawn in every direction while yet in one place, like a light that chases away the darkness outwards to ones farthest comprehension and fills the space with charity. And though the moment of my revelation is past, yet it remains in concept a portion not unlike Mary's the Mother of the Savior who brought a great light into the world. Such is my intimate revelation and testimony that God lives. And I will tend it forever. It is my course and calling. What good is my religion? Well I think it makes me a better person...less proud and contentious, more patient and merciful, more thankful and polite, more loving, slower to anger and quicker to forgive. In concept it develops more from the inside out for the cause of edification, than say the intellectual parroting or rehearing of scripture for the purpose of deceit or self promotion. It is a matter of accountability. I know I will be judged.

 

Lol...118 words! Much better!

But it's still just repeating the same suggestions that have already been made.
You're still too much in your own head....try to clear all the garbage out of your mind...
and listen for something new (concerning "religion") to take it's place.
@Kokomojojo knows how to think outside the box...perhaps he could help you.

 

please dont put me in the middle of this.

 

Another demonstration of the, "sincerity," of your comments. The following was a quote from you, in reply to my post to Edna (not you), on page 18, after I had left your thread, as I told you I would, on page 12, in deference to your clear preference that I do so, and stop stepping on your thunder. You also applauded that exit of mine. 6 pages later, you beckon me to rejoin the discussion, and now, supposedly, a page later, you are worried about me. Well aren't you the considerate one?

 

Thanks for reply.
I can't seem to find it now...but Koko made an accurate account IMO.
It was something like your thoughts become your beliefs and the conclusion of those become your "religion"?
I can't remember exactly but it sounded good.

My point is that God and "religion" are not inseparable.
You don't "need" a religion to know God....
concentrating only on your "religion" may actually lead you farther from God.

Here is an example....
A Pennsylvania church known for worshiping with AR-15 rifles and preaching that Joe Biden is a fake president has found just the location to “expand God’s Kingdom”: Texas.
Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/bud-kennedy/article251567363.html#storylink=cpy

 

Of course I am worried about you...
that is why I stared this thread in the first place.
I am surely capable of throwing your stones back at you and Edna...
any fool (including myself) can make derogatory remarks the way you two do.
But they are unproductive. If any of your "points" pertaining to the topic
were useful...they were drowned out by all of the critical ranting.
Anything you said pertaining to the topic could have been written
in a single four line paragraph....without all the extra brain overflow.

 

Example? Of course not. Just another contention as baseless as the rest of your argument.

Example?

FYI, this is another one of your insulting comments, that you, "never made."

Incredible irony.

I included the count to guard against another one of your false characterizations of, "10,000 words," or, "50,000 words," or, "monstrous reams," from me; because, unfortunately, you frequently propagate these lies.

Let's take one more look at the credibility of anything you have said of my comments.

Example?
OF COURSE, NOT.


And as for making your own case:

Your explanation of what, "has been lost," the original concept of, "God.?"
OF COURSE, NOT PROVIDED--
though there is certainly truth in the statement, though it takes no particularly great insight to understand that, over great lengths of time, the meanings of almost all persisting words, evolve & change.

You seem to be trying to get others to do your thinking for you, then choosing, from among their offerings, those that appeal to you, while slamming the rest with unsupported assertions & other, obscure, and/or inapplicable, non-arguments, in my opinion (see examples, above, of your failure to provide any examples for your contentions).

To repeat my assertion, which you have never addressed (although I have put it forth several times, and in differing phrasings), but which seems appropriately demonstrated by your thread's, "something new, to take (religion's) place:"

The fault lies not in our Gods,
but in ourselves.

Your own postulations seem very ripe with fault, particularly hypocrisy & projection.

 

LOL. Good point. That's scary doctrine. If guns are the "rod of iron" in the book of Revelations....

 

Maybe you're just having a rough week...or maybe you're trying to hard.
This thread topic is not all that complicated...

@Giftedone summarized the whole point of the OP in one sentence...took him 10 seconds....

....and then he just moved on to something worthwhile

 

Thanks...I looked up "rod of iron" in Revelations.
Maybe you're right

 

My impression of how these threads are intended to work, especially when the creator takes a controversial position, is very different than yours. To me, the responsibility to, "summarize the whole point of the OP," is strictly that of the OP's writer, not some other member's posting on pg. 18 (or wherever). As for, "mov(ing) on to something worthwhile," you have got some nerve, to imply that I should not only define your intention, completely without your input-- this makes more than a half-dozen of your replies to me, in which you have not even tried to respond to my comment, with close to that many pretexts-- but also that I should just focus on whatever tangent might interest me, after all your (inaccurate) complaints that my points were off-topic, having nothing to do with your thread, supposedly.

Your ineptitude in advocating your, time to bury religions, argument, is flagrantly manifesting itself.

Religion is as old as human society; this feature has been constant, and omnipresent, wherever there have been people.The logical conclusion is that this proves religion is more than just some trick, being used to control people. It can, simultaneously, be both; that is, our two perspectives are not mutually-exclusive. As someone who seemingly believes in the possibility of a world w/o religion (at least from what you have indicated-- and I have asked for clarification from you, on this point, numerous times, unsuccessfully, so if you don't agree with that interpretation, the only person you can legitimately blame, is yourself), it strikes me as reasonable for you to address that idea. All you have done, in that regard, is say that my argument is the same as Edna's, & claim you supposedly defeated her argument. The problems with that are: 1) I don't know whether either of those contentions is true and, if they both were,
2) it should be obvious to even the dimmest of wits, all that would be required of you, then, would be to quote your posts, which lay-out your winning argument. You have not done this. Need I explain what that logically suggests?

 

I am not a member of any religious congregation. I do see many glaring faults, in religions. But my personal attitude towards institutional faiths is a moot point, with regard to my argument. To the OP's assertion that, it is time to bury...religions, I am simply pointing out that it will not happen, at least under normal circumstances: too many will have too great a yearning for it. I say that without implying any judgement of the value of religion; I have merely wished to begin an examination of the OP's argument by stipulating the very far-fetched nature of the idea, that most currently religious people could be coaxed into giving up their faiths (which is what his argument, at least, strongly implies that they should do). There is nothing from history, which comes to mind, that supports the feasibility of this notion. I could speculate about a certain event which might change the status quo dynamic, but do not wish to get ahead of myself.

It is the unwillingness of the originating poster to discuss with me, this primary element of his conception, which prevents my, "moving on," to other considerations. I find it inexplicably odd, however, that I have encountered such resistance, from the thread's creator, towards engaging on this point, especially because he claims that he did argue, what was supposedly the same point, with a different poster, albeit long after I had initially brought up the idea. If he merely wished to save himself rehashing the argument, he could just quote his posts, which make the case that it is not sheer fantasy to expect that this could happen.

Regardless, for any who are interested, here is my guess as to one of the psychological pillars, ensuring the continuation of religion.

Humans are reputedly the only creature who projects his mind into the future. Like so many other signs that have previously been touted as proof of humanity's uniqueness, I have a feeling this will one day, also, be disproven. Nevertheless, we are probably the species, at least, which thinks the most about its own mortality. Because we cannot, objectively, determine what will become of ourselves, after death, this is a consideration that is fraught with uncertainty, which the human psyche (among the general population) always finds distressing. That it is about something of such great importance, to most-- whether or not their existence will end and, if not, what type of existence that will be-- makes living with that much anxiety, more than most could, or would want to, bear. Though the after-life angle, was not always as big in earlier religions, as it is in modern day religions, specifically Christianity, I still believe that this desire to have a story with a happy ending, to drive away troubling thoughts, is a major contributor to the hold which religions have on people. That does not make it something that could be easily abandoned. If one's framework for conceptualizing not just life, but eternity, is overturned, that would leave a person as an anchorless boat, without direction, and at the mercy of life's often chaotic winds & unpredictable currents. I would argue that even for most Atheists, part of the appeal of the ridiculous notion they could be certain, of such things, is this sense of security which comes from believing one knows what to expect. Consider the anguish one might experience, knowing that someone was going to punch them in the face or head, but not knowing when, and the anticipation of it being worse, all told, than the actual striking, when it finally arrived. Another, maybe better, example would be the agonizing of someone deathly afraid of public speaking, over a speech they knew they were required to give, in the future.

Obviously, there are a few of us who don't mind, or have made peace with, that uncertainty. But for I think a majority of the population, having no set idea, one way or the other, what awaits them in death, is not very compatible with their natures.

 

But I suggested that you re-write my OP according to your own preference
after your very first rant. You ignored the idea. Perhaps you will provide
a link to one of your own threads...then I can see the "correct" way to post an OP.

 

Yes your argument has seldom pertained to the topic....
you've even stated that this OP is "not needed"
yet you spend an awful lot of time here at an "unneeded" thread.

If you want to argue a different subject...perhaps "proper thread construction"...
then why not start a different thread.

 

Your question must be answered by each individual for themselves. For some it will have meaning for others it may not.

For some humans you may not be aware of, religion gives them comfort in times of pain and despair and guides them to be peaceful and civil.

The fact that others use religion to justify hatred and negative behaviour reflects on the choices of that individual and how they choose to interperate their religion.

 

Lol...actually there is nothing on earth that could prevent you from "moving on"....
especially not me.

 

I am more than willing to discuss the topic as it is written...
but so far all that I have been able to extract from your "5 billion" words
is that "religion" is "needed" simply because it is "persistent and popular"...
and you've suggested it is a "psychological need". All true in fact...IMO....
and all already suggested by others here.

But those facts alone make the "need" for religion no different that the
"need" for..... tobacco use, alcohol and drug abuse or the countless other addictions.
Those....like "religion" are not true "needs" like clean air, food, water...
They are all more akin to self-medication...imaginary "needs" for miserable folks.
Why not find the cause of the misery....and eliminate the imagined "needs" all together.

 

Thanks...All valid points.
If "religion" can be used to comfort as well as bring misery on humans...
then it is not accomplishing what it was intended for.
...If...the only purpose of "religion" is for people to divide into separate groups...
then I think the original spiritual message has been lost.
Which would in fact render religion worthless. Without
the spiritual aspect..."religion" does more harm then good
even if only by distracting from the intended spiritual purpose.

 

Plainly untrue, based on all your sarcastic, erroneous, delusional contentions and evasions, about my questions posed directly to your OP. Since you choose to ignore reality, I will state for any intelligent person who wanders into this sham discussion, that religion has shown itself to be a more central part of ALL human civilization than gabmux's flaccid comparisons to tobacco & alcohol.

Further, he has given NO PROOF that any of the world's ills are actually DUE to religion. My point, which gabmux also claims has nothing to do with his thread, is that humans have these hateful impulses within themselves, which they will express through whatever societal vehicles exist. As to gabmux's preschool-level reasoning that all these ills would disappear, without religion, to spur them on, there have been many, group atrocities that have been committed not under the auspices or at the behest of religion, but of GOVERNMENT. These include quite a few genocides. So, by gabmux's facile logic, we could eliminate all this hatred & prejudice, if we simply, "buried," our governments, which have allowed all gabmux's cited problems to persist. If we were to simply move past our irrational addiction to governance, oh what a wonderful world it would be!

Lastly, for those who have not indulged in self-blinding, it is extremely telling that gabmux's vision of, a New Way, for mankind, follows exactly the same script of the worst of his cited, offending religions: he is condemning and demonizing OTHER religions, but whatever his own, personal beliefs are, he feels would work for EVERYONE, as a better replacement. This is called proselytizing. It is also simplistically false, both that people would need nothing to replace such a central part of their lives, what many build their existence around, and that ANY single path would be suitable for all. We are very different, down to the way we perceive the blue of the sky (or the colors of a dress, in the famous online post); that all could, "recognize," the Truth of, "the way of Gabmux," is a ludicrous conceit; obviously, and sadly, nothing more.

Yes, that is a fair characterization.
<Sarcasm>

More dishonesty. Though I will accept that those words are an actual quote, they are absolutely NOT a quote from ME.

The only question is whether your inability to distinguish the difference is due to total disingenuousness, on your part (continuing in the footsteps of the religious leaders whom your thread indicts), or a display of deficiencies in your mind's reasoning powers of analysis.

Yeah-- food, water, & air are our only true needs. And who hasn't prayed to alcohol?

Why not?

But you haven't.

For the third time:
The fault lies not in our Gods,
but in ourselves.


I am happy to leave you to your fantasy-thread; just don't be such a hypocrite, this time, after encouraging my departure to-- if I ever felt there was something I wished to say to any of the other participants-- invite me to direct my comments toward you.

 

Lol....this is the third time you've promised to leave.
You'll be back....you're addicted to this "unneeded" thread.

Perhaps take some time to decide why exactly you are insisting that "religion" is "needed".
Try to make your main point in two or three sentences at the most...sticking to the topic
instead of all the personal criticism.

Until then....Aloha

 

Yes...thank you...it seems some folks automatically associate the word God with "religion".
that if you are "religious" you know God or are on God's side or have something to do with God.
But I don't agree with that idea...I don't think you do either.

Yes...IMO you are speaking of God....

Exactly!!
That is all "religion" has become IMO.
There are folks that will have anxiety or a panic attack
if they miss a day of church....do they think God will leave them?
Can god only be found in one specific church or another?
Would they lose anything at all if they did not go to a church?
If they "need" a church to know God.....then I'm not sure they know
the same God you are describing above.
They are merely practicing "religion" and missing the whole point of the teachings.

 

The fact is that I just gave a lengthy (I'm sure you will feel) explanation of specifically that. It is hard to believe you have already forgotten it, especially as you quoted from earlier parts of that same post, in your previous reply. I invite all to note how I did, "stick to the topic." If, for your not responding to, or even acknowledging, my supporting my assertion, that humans need religion, numerous times, and your pretending otherwise, I call your tactic disingenuous, that is not so much a, "personal criticism," as a statement of fact. Perhaps you might benefit from looking up the definitions of the things you charge as my personal attacks on you.

P.S.-- Your, "two or three sentences at the most," rule, is your own idiosyncracy, which will often make, particularly on objectively unprovable points (one way or the other), statements seem but arbitrary opinions, and leave much room for criticism & rejection, without providing any clarity on the relative worths of the two differing perspectives. It would seem better advice, in regard to following Forum protocol, for you to focus on answering my actual arguments, not your inept translations of them, and with quotes of my own words, as opposed to trying to belittle my argument, by representing it with the quoted, by unattributed words of a different poster (have you looked up, "disingenuous," yet?).

 

Maybe....but your "5 billion" word rule is your own "idiosyncrasy".
Most of your petty criticisms have nothing to do with the thread topic...
so there is no need to address them.
I see life as too precious to try to make sense of so many "unneeded" words.

I did however read your latest attempt above.
It still sounds to me like you are describing a "psychological need"...
not an actual "need". You seem to be feeling sorry for people
that need a religion...I guess that is commendable....
but I'm not sure that is the same as helping them solve their dilemma.
A "psychological need" for religion is not a "need" at all...more like a want or desire
maybe stemming from fear of some sort...not an actual "need".
If people are adopting religion out of the fear of death (as you seem to be saying)
then they are missing the point or have been misled...most likely by "religion".
So you still have not added anything new to the conversation...just repeated
the ideas of others.

Lol...and you're back. Told you. You're addicted to this thread.

 

Not the take I got. Looks more like he is trying to prove a "need" for religion.

Not really, for instance; not eating pork was incorporated as 'religion' out of "fear of death" long before trichinae was proven to be the cause, their 'religious dogma' saved countless lives.

Life, staying alive is a hard wired 'psychological' need, I dont see psychology as neither dismissable, or not a need.

 

Can you explain why a person
who claims not to "need" any religion himself
would insist others "need" it.....

Perhaps he's just practicing his sales technique....
you try to get folks to buy something you don't actually need yourself.