Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[kirei_na_me]

this is in answer to the thread question,

what does religion that nothing else can bring? WAR.....no religion no war,
simply put.

Excellent point, jack2.

 

[Index]

I'm sorry to say this, but it's been bugging me for a couple of days now: I'm surprised some of you have the time to go over these arguments so many times, which isn't so bad in itself, but when you are being baited into arguing against obviously antagonistic religious propaganda, with absolutely no hope of being listened to or coming to a consensus, it just seems like a waste of time. Excuse my cynicism, but what's the point?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think that these kinds of statements are highly offensive to the large number of people worldwide who follow organised religions.

So many of you seem to view faith as a weakness- some sort of insecurity, immaturity or weakness- rather than a facet that meet a universal need and enriches one's life

Kinsao, I hope you know I would never intentionally offend someone. Sabro, I wouldn?ft use the word ?eweakness?f. I stand by my statement that I think religious people are in some sense immature, but that?fs not necessarily a criticism. I think atheists are in some sense arrogant, and agnostics are in some sense indecisive.

I also think those sorts of views demonstrate as much closed-mindedness and belief in their own superiority as the religions they are putting down.

I have come to my conclusions because I am opened-minded and go where the facts lead me, rather than assuming the conclusions from the outset. I believe that anyone who is truly open-minded will reject religion. (Note, I say ?eI believe?f – it?fs just my opinion, which will change if I see proof to the contrary)

I'm sorry...I read this over a few times and it just doesn't make sense. Why would you strive to go against nature? Sex is natural..do you strive to go against it? Breathing is natural..do you strive to go against it?

Hi Belle. If you want to quote someone you can use the ?equote?f button in the bottom right corner. Hope that helps! To answer your question, obviously we can?ft strive against the basic necessities for survival. But we certainly strive against nature – if someone stops beathing it?fs natural that they die – but if possible we strive to resuscitate them. Sex is natural, but sometimes we have to strive against the urge. Otherwise nothing else would get done.

My point is that if you're trying SO HARD not to believe in God, it's probably because you believe in Him so much.

Finding out that I don?ft believe in god was hard because it involved a lot of study, discussion and grasping of difficult concepts, and because it meant accepting that so much of what I had been taught by people I looked up to was a lie.

Why do parents warn their kids if they're doing something wrong? Why not leave them alone to fend for themselves and potentially get really hurt? Because they love and care for you. So multiply that by the billions and that's how much God cares for us. This is why He sent prophets.

But parents don?ft usually get a middle man to instruct their children for them. So the question remains, why doesn?ft god always speak to people directly?

If the Greeks and Romans did so well with their beliefs, it would still be prominent today...which it's clearly not because it's been termed a myth.

I think atheists would consider the Bible and other religious texts as myths too.

 

[Revenant]

I am not sure that Dalai Lama is a reference for talking about world religions. After all, he is the leader of one particular religion (thus biased toward others), and Tibetan Buddhism is not as organised a religion as Christianity or Islam. The reason is that Buddhism is a "free religion", which means believers can do what they want (no strict rules), believe only in what they want, stop believing, mix their beliefs with other religious beliefs, etc.

According to Buddhist scriptures, Buddha told people to accept nothing he said unless it made sense to them. I would agree that Buddhism is left far more up to the practitioner than that of Christianity and Islam. But most religious scholars do recognize the common thread in all religions. The intolerance of Christianity at least doesn't seem fully supported by scripture. I mean that while Christians aren't to accept other beliefs, they are to leave those outside the church alone, only living such as good life that others will want to know the truth. They are to tell the gospel to any who want to hear it. That is as I understood it in the time I considered myself a Christian.

In fact, the original Buddhism was not even intended as a religion but an atheist philosophy (there is not god in Buddhism, apart from the Hindu gods of Mahayana Buddhism).

I'm not quite certain exactly what you mean here. Buddhism is a religion in that it has beliefs in the afterlife.

So my opinion is that the Dalai Lama is misleading the world because of his ignorance of what exclusive monotheist religions really are. Not a single convinced Christian or Muslim would accept Buddhist ideas if they conflicted with their beliefs.

They wouldn't accept another's ideas if they conflicted with their own, but then neither would I. I wouldn't accept another's idea that the death penalty is necessary. That doesn't say that people within the exclusive monotheistic religions won't look past personal beliefs to be compassionate. A lot of them do, all the time.

In fact, they would surely try to convert the infidel Buddhists to Christianity or Islam. The Muslims have killed Buddhist before in their jihad in South and South-East Asia. That's why in one country you have mostly Buddhist people (Thailand, Myanmar), but in the next only Muslims (Malaysia, Bangladesh). Originally they were all Buddhist or Hindu (Buddhism is a part of Hinduism anyway, if you believe the Hindus).

And Buddhists have killed Muslims, Communists have killed people of many religious faiths, etc, etc. Hurt, fear, anger, greed, and arrogance cross all lines of beliefs. It is these that all religions attempt to subdue, and put in it's place compassion, tolerance, peace, gratitude and humility.

this is in answer to the thread question,

what does religion that nothing else can bring? WAR.....no religion no war,
simply put.

That was the subject of this thread, and I believe most people would say religion can intensify the motivation in a war, and that some would be more willing to die as a result of their belief in an afterlife, but that religion wasn't the main cause of war. The main cause of war has almost always been economic.

 

[Maciamo]

According to Buddhist scriptures, Buddha told people to accept nothing he said unless it made sense to them. I would agree that Buddhism is left far more up to the practitioner than that of Christianity and Islam. But most religious scholars do recognize the common thread in all religions.

The only thing that makes Buddhism a religion is that it has temples (places of worship) and priests/monks. Mahayana Buddhism also has deities and supersititions.

I'm not quite certain exactly what you mean here. Buddhism is a religion in that it has beliefs in the afterlife.

I don't believe in god, nor in the existence of a soul, but I do believe in the afterlife. Yet I am not religious, nor even spiritual. How is that possible ? As for me life is just a chain of biochemical reactions, and our bodies are made of eternal matter/energy, nothing can be lost. The energy will change form, and will have as much time as it needs to recreate life, for an infinite number of times, and thus an infinite number of possibilities. I do not believe in ONE life after my current life, but an infinity.

I find it very narrow-minded and impossible to admit to have just one eternal life after death. This eternal life would be one of continuous perfectioning, or one where improvement is impossible. In the first case, humans would soon not be human anymore (too perfect after a few thousands years of learning). What's more, people who died, say a few thousand years earlier, would have a tremendous advantage over "new deads" in paradise/heaven/nirvana. In the second case, it is just too depressing to have an eternity of time with no possible improvement. It's basically the same as to be dead - perfect inert matter... Buddhism teaches the impermanence of things, with which I agree. The universe is in perpetual movement, perpetual change... Life comes and goes, evolves or disappear, reappear, dies, is decomposed, recomposed, planets die, others are created, galaxies expand, change, change and always change... We are part of this eternal momentum, cannot escape it, alive or dead.

 

[bossel]

You would call a dog "it" or some object "it", that would be an insult to God to call God by that term.

It is neuter & neutral.

A little voice put into everyone's head? Hey maybe it would work for you, but the people who claim to have voices in their head are usually termed insane pretty much everywhere in the world.

Not if everyone has such a little voice, which should be a trifle for an omnipotent being.

Why do parents warn their kids if they're doing something wrong? [...] Because they love and care for you. So multiply that by the billions and that's how much God cares for us. This is why He sent prophets.

Why not send little voices to everybody instead some prophets to a few thousands?

If the Greeks and Romans did so well with their beliefs, it would still be prominent today

Then, those centuries that these civilisations flourished, they were not under the influence of their religion?
Anyway, what about Hinduism? Still prominent today.

what does religion that nothing else can bring? WAR.....no religion no war, simply put.

Not even that. Human beings are very good at finding reasons to kill each other.

 

[Zentron]

this is in answer to the thread question,

what does religion that nothing else can bring? WAR.....no religion no war,
simply put.

Actually, no Christianity, no Catholism, no Islam, no War(well, at least no way near as many, there are still others to get their act together).

I mean that while Christians aren't to accept other beliefs, they are to leave those outside the church alone, only living such as good life that others will want to know the truth.

Uh-huh, 14,000,000 murdered, any other religion persecuted, yep, they definately leave other religions alone!

Small example: group of men are pulled over by police and found to have, shotguns, semi-automatic maching guns, machete's and several hand pistols, 'Why?', they were asked, they were going to gun down a group of Pagans who were just celebrating the Solstice. Nice guys huh!?

What is the true incorrupted religion?

Hmmm, Wicce (I said Wicce, not Wicca)

 

[PRIZMATIC]

"Belief" - totality world outlook and practice of its realization."The religious belief" - displays interrelation from "the Beginning of the Universe" up to the person and meaning of the life of the person,giving answers and to questions,what after this life?...But it only "shadows" from "are True"...
Prophet - name people in which "True" wakens those or other "strings" of interrelation with it...It are "tops' achieved in the development by the person...But it only "tops of the person"...And search of "new tops" by people - is only an ask of birth of "the new prophet"...:blush:

 

[bossel]

Hmmm, Wicce (I said Wicce, not Wicca)

You mean witchcraft? Or something else?

 

[Jack]

I'm sorry to say this, but it's been bugging me for a couple of days now: I'm surprised some of you have the time to go over these arguments so many times, which isn't so bad in itself, but when you are being baited into arguing against obviously antagonistic religious propaganda, with absolutely no hope of being listened to or coming to a consensus, it just seems like a waste of time. Excuse my cynicism, but what's the point?

no offence intended at all.

The post you posted is seen a lot, but its fulcrum, i mean dont get me wrong but why come on a forum, where you post and say "why post?".
Does posting a post like yours seem like a waste of time?

 

[Revenant]

Actually, no Christianity, no Catholism, no Islam, no War(well, at least no way near as many, there are still others to get their act together).

Dunno, I think people would still find reasons to justify wars, and new ideologies to die for.

Uh-huh, 14,000,000 murdered, any other religion persecuted, yep, they definately leave other religions alone!

What I was trying to say is that the scriptures don't support those Christians that do persecute, at least from what I and most other Christians I knew understood of the scriptures.

Other ideologies, including religious ones, also have a high murder count. The atheistic Communist ideology itself within a short time accrued a death count in the millions (25 million if I remember correctly).

Small example: group of men are pulled over by police and found to have, shotguns, semi-automatic maching guns, machete's and several hand pistols, 'Why?', they were asked, they were going to gun down a group of Pagans who were just celebrating the Solstice. Nice guys huh!?

No, they aren't nice guys, but neither are they representative of Christianity as a whole. I do not know one Christian that would do so, and I know a lot of Christians. I mean that isn't to say that there are some that wouldn't do so, but that at least I think it is rare.

 

[Maciamo]

You would call a dog "it" or some object "it", that would be an insult to God to call God by that term.

Are you saying that in the eyes of god, a dog is less good than a human ? If you believe in creationsim like any self-respecting Christian, dogs and humans are all god's creation, and therefore all equals in his eyes (I say "his" because creationists usually see god as male). In that case you should be more humble regarding human condition. Please call all humans "it", or all animals "he" or "she" according to their sex. If you are in favour of the theory of evolution, how do you justified human superiority in the eyes of god, as humans are just animals, and like all animals, descend from the same original mono-cellular life being.

 

[Gaijin 06]

I thought the Bible says human has dominion over all beasts somewhere?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Wicce (I said Wicce, not Wicca)

You mean witchcraft? Or something else?

Wicce is just the female version of Wicca - Wicce is 'female' witchcraft, Wicca is 'male' witchcraft. Historically males who practised Wicce were not respected as they were seen as interferring in 'women's work'. I suppose in these more enlightened times it is OK for a man to practise Wicce - and I suspect most who call themselves Wiccans are really Wiccens.

 

[Mycernius]

I thought the Bible says human has dominion over all beasts somewhere?

Put a man with a tiger and then find out who has dominion over whom. My moneys on the tiger:eek2: :evil:

 

[Maciamo]

I thought the Bible says human has dominion over all beasts somewhere?

I wonder from what age are humans considered humans by the Bible (Homo Erectus, Cro Magnon, after the Bible was written ?)

I think that many of our animal lovers will disagree with that.

 

[Zentron]

Wicce is just the female version of Wicca - Wicce is 'female' witchcraft, Wicca is 'male' witchcraft. Historically males who practised Wicce were not respected as they were seen as interferring in 'women's work'. I suppose in these more enlightened times it is OK for a man to practise Wicce - and I suspect most who call themselves Wiccans are really Wiccens.

Errr no, Wicce is the correct term for Witchcraft, the name Witchcraft was made up by the Christians of the time to make it sound evil, there is no such thing as Male or Female Witchcraft, the Wicca religion we know of is just abut half a century old, Wicce is around 25,000 years old(though not always having the name Wicce) and has always been practiced by men and women.

Dunno, I think people would still find reasons to justify wars, and new ideologies to die for.

Most likely.

No, they aren't nice guys, but neither are they representative of Christianity as a whole. I do not know one Christian that would do so, and I know a lot of Christians. I mean that isn't to say that there are some that wouldn't do so, but that at least I think it is rare.

Not as rare as you might think, that was just one example I could remember, the one with the priest/vicar, I can't remember all the details so I can't put it down.

 

[bossel]

Errr no, Wicce is the correct term for Witchcraft, the name Witchcraft was made up by the Christians of the time to make it sound evil, there is no such thing as Male or Female Witchcraft, the Wicca religion we know of is just abut half a century old, Wicce is around 25,000 years old(though not always having the name Wicce) and has always been practiced by men and women.

Do you have any sources for the point of 25,000 years?

What I know is pretty much the same as Tsuyoiko. No time to elaborate right now, but AFAIK witchcraft was never a religion as such.

To say that wicce is the real name is also a bit different from what I know. Witchcraft is just wicce (= witch) + craft, not very derogative, I think.

 

[Katrean Shard]

Wicce is the correct term for Witchcraft

To say that wicce is the real name is also a bit different from what I know. Witchcraft is just wicce (= witch) + craft, not very derogative, I think.

Some Wiccans do not like it called Witchcraft because of the image it makes sometimes in the minds of people. There is nothing badly with witchcraft but some have an idea stereotyped of it. Maybe that is why Zentron prefers it is not called Witchcraft.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Errr no, Wicce is the correct term for Witchcraft, the name Witchcraft was made up by the Christians of the time to make it sound evil, there is no such thing as Male or Female Witchcraft, the Wicca religion we know of is just abut half a century old, Wicce is around 25,000 years old(though not always having the name Wicce) and has always been practiced by men and women.

Perhaps I should have quoted some sources:
Wikipedia
Etymology
Pagan Dictionary
Occult Dictionary
Definitions
Esoteric Dictionary

You're right that use of the word 'Wicca' to refer to the religion itself, rather than to a male practioner, is new - it was coined by Gerald Gardener in the 1930s. If anything, the word 'wicce' originally referred to a specific type of female witch - see the etymology link above. The word Christians used in the middle ages would not have been 'witchcraft', as that is a modern rendering. Back then it was 'wiccecraeft', so it was probably Christians who coined the Anglo-Saxon word 'wicce', which has evolved into the modern English 'witch'.

The only references I can find to wicce as a religion say that it is synonymous with Wicca (Witchway, Pagan Dictionary.)

I'm interested to know what are the differences between Wicca and Wicce, and what sources you have to support your claim that your religion is 25,000 years old.

One thing I almost agree on: most modern paganism (Wicca, Wicce, The Craft, whatever) includes some form of Nature worship. Awe and respect for Nature is the closest thing I have to religious beliefs - so out of all religions, neo-paganism is probably closest to my truth.