Real World Event Discussions

Religion as an Invention

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 9267
PAGE 5 of 12

Thursday, April 7, 2011 10:23 PM

Jesus preached a number of things that were "right," but that many Christians feel Christianity has moved away from, and Leviticus preached things that are now considered "wrong" that religion has moved away from. Literary references or depictions of the prophet Mohammad have also changed drastically over the ages.

Religions, like all man made artifacts, change and evolve. The original concept of a religion is likely not what any modern variants are actually practicing. So long as no damage is done, there is no harm.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 10:29 PM

Interesting point about philosophy and religeon being on a continuam, makes sense to me. I do see some people who treat a philosophy as a religeon or visa versa, in certain situations it can be hard to see the line.

Not going to argue with Meghan's on this, even though I totally didn't understand what she was saying.

Ultimately people will decide for themselves what they will believe, a person can't force another to believe a certain way, sure they can force rules, but they can't force belief.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 10:45 PM

Not to nitpick, but seems dogmatic, no? I mean Christianity is often mixed with traditional beliefs.

Anyway, I'm on hiatus from the board as sister cancer duty calls. See you guys in a week or so.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 10:51 PM

Agreed.

Also, it's hard to find a large group of anything that is not considered by someone(s) somewhere to be oppressive/offensive, whether it's Catholics, Vegetarians, Union members, or Doctors. There's bound to be a bad apple(s) somewhere and if it was ever in a position of leadership...

It's my opinion that the ''problems' with religion would be more accurately described as 'user error.'

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2011 1:44 AM


Garbage in, Garbage out.

-F

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 7:24 AM

Happy I think you're right.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Not going to argue with Meghan's on this, ...

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep calling Magonsdaughter "Meghan's"?



NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.

The same can be said about Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Lao Tse, Moses, etc.

In every religion, there is something the masses are practicing that goes against everything the originator stood for.

Do you think Jesus would approve of the ornate churches built in his name? He was an unemployed hobo who preached giving away all riches to the poor, wherever he stood.

As Byte said, it is the nature of religion/philosophy to evolve. I like to call it mutation. None of those religions/philosophies are static and immutable. In a way, that is good. Unfortunately, the mutations tend to end up harmful, reflecting the baser intentions in human populations.

But I don't think that is the fault of religions/philosophies themselves. I think it is a function of human selfishness, to warp whatever we come in contact with to rationalize what we want.

Religion/philosophy is often offered as a solution to this mutagenic, warping, diseased selfishness. I see R/P as a mirror, not a solution. It helps us control the appearance of our nature, dress it up, prettify it. But mirrors in the end, leaves this selfishness untouched.

The way we treat each other...that is the only thing that can change who we are, our intentions, our selfishness.






NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.

The same can be said about Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Lao Tse, Moses, etc.




And we're not clones in unithought. If and when we do come up with conclusions of our own, a religion has to be flexible enough to let people believe according to their own conclusions.

Don't want to pick on PR though 'cause she's cute and has MP3s that I want ;)

Seriously though, if you hit in the general direction of the message, you're doing okay. If you go on a crusade, you're fucked up, and chances are someone fed you a line.

While I'm at it, Religious texts should be pithy and accessible, so that kids can understand it, so they don't grow up and then be told by manipulative morons what it means.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 5:03 PM

Quote:

Usually I would say that it was some particular church that went wrong, rather than a religion itself, but churches also do a lot of positive things.
Haven’t read this thread for a while, so I’m catching up from waaaay back. DT, I agree with you...I guess that’s why I call it “organized religion”. I don’t think it’s necessarily any individual church---more individual church LEADERS---and for me, those leaders do far more harm than good, on balance.

Anthonly,
Quote:

I think that having rules based on wisdom of the past is a good defense against threats of the present and future.
But do we need a RELIGION for that? And if we trust fully in those in power in the religion, how do we really KNOW we’re getting factual or honest instruction? How about what some churches teach about sex, homosexuality, abortion, etc. If we put our children in the hands of any religion, how can we be sure they’re getting the RIGHT “rules”? You got your wisdom from your grandfather, you didn’t need a religion to teach it to you. I grant that in this day and age of fractured families, the church provides the same kind of wisdom. It’s just what comes ALONG with it that I’m distrustful of.
Quote:

Perhaps it served a purpose in the past - for most of human history we didn't have a scientific explanation for the universe.
I agree, KPO; I guess that for me, even tho’ we don’t (and may never) know all the answers, I am more willing to wait and see if there are scientific answers we don’t yet have than put my trust in religions which I already believe have some of the explanations wrong (I originally wrote “KNOW”, but changed it to belief because there are those who take the Bible as fact, and they think THEY know too).

Oh, Anthony, that’s wonderful:
Quote:

I'm not sure religion requires God, and I've never been able to figure out why God requires religion.
How damned eloquent! “Religion” needs a god because to be a religion, I believe you have to have someone to revere, to follow, to ask for help of. That’s why buddhism isn’t a religion, it’s a philosophy. Is Taoism a religion, or just called one? It always bothers me that they put buddhism in with “other religions” and everyone views and treats it as one when it’s not; is it the same with Taoism? I think a religion DOES require a god; otherwise it’s faith, or a philosophy or something.

Oops, and here comes Rose, to answer the question for me. I see. Thank you, Rose. But is it VIEWED and referred to as a “religion”?

DT, I disagree:
Quote:

Philosophies are things followed by those who understand them. No leap of faith is ever required.
I don’t fully “understand” buddhism, and I follow it half because it makes sense and half because of faith. Depends on how you look at it, but how can something be a religion unless it has a core unquestioned deity?
Quote:

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.
Okay, if we accept that, buddhism is closer to a religion. There’s no definition of adherence or membership, and regular meetings aren’t for the purposes of veneration, but I guess you could exchange “meditation” for “prayer”. It gets pretty confusing, for me, I admit.

I’m further confused by the Taoism thing. You speak of “sacred texts”, which I don’t think is true o

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME