why religion makes no sense? please respond

Hey there, Nice post,

... no, I don't agree with a lot of your reasoning; but in your conclusion, I'm with you all the way.

I believe it to be an undeniable truth of the human existence that many need to believe. I have severe reservations about the effects of some religions, but I'll add this: I've come to have a larger respect for believers and have tempered my judgment of them (which is as it should be, imo).

Within the question, "Is this all that I am?" there lies a yearning, a hope and a preciousness of existence that one, no matter HOW steadfastly-atheist they may be, must appreciate and respect. It is uniquely human and speaks volumes of what it means to be one of us.

Now if we can all get together and grab some beers, life would be good! :a-ok:

Thanks

Not everyone has the same reason(s) for why they believe in God, religion, or any other spiritual matter. For some, yes, undoubtedly they're just looking to explain the otherwise unexplainable. But that's a simple reason and it certainly doesn't apply to all. As I pointed out, some others approach these matters with the full knowledge that they create more questions than they solve when they bring God into the picture. Asking questions is just as much a part of the human experience as is obtaining answers. Sometimes, even, the questions are far more satisfying than the answers. And certainly the quest to obtain the answer can be more rewarding than the answer itself.

A few enlighten smiles:)



YouTube - What do I believe?








It is inevitable that children should be taught in purely concrete terms. But then the child grows up and realizes who Santa Claus is. He is really Daddy. So, too, we must grow in the same way in learning about God, and the institutional churches must grow in presenting the message of the symbols to adults.
Joseph Campbell
Thou Art That

Well, the video fellow has some lovely sentiments, much of which I agree with on general premisis... but let's face it, if things were done his way we'd all just be put under another form of tyranny. Better the devil we know...

People like that guy in the video confuse me. It seems like in their vehement, un-discerning attack against anything they can label "religious" they demonstrate the hateful and discriminating attitude for which they condemn the "religious". I don't see much substantial difference between that guy and the angry fanatic screaming "you're going to HELL!". Sure they have different beliefs, but the end result has much more in common with each other than either of them have with the millions of loving and caring "religious" folks out there.

Lord Shorty, I don't know how to tell you this but straight up. Christianity and Islam are not religions, they are cults. Like most cults, that someone at the top has their own agenda fixed into the wheel. Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. The followers of his life have cultivated his actions and words to grow a cult of his religion. No different than what the Romans did to the Greek Gods. What the Jesuits did to occupy the calendar of the Mayan and Aztec peoples. In the end, all is an homogenised cult. We have got things so screwed up through our own actions that I do not believe you can honestly bring religion into the equation and claim it as the scapegoat.

Wow I got a kick out of that. Very good stuff.

EDIT: I think this kind of hard-line "religion-is-silly" is very difficult for theists to hear. As with all things, people have the right to believe as they wish - I don't think this is much in dispute. Where this becomes a problem, is in the reactions to such expressions.

Such reactions tend to be so rancor filled - so vitriolic - that many of us, in the spirit of cooperation, simply keep this kind of thing to ourselves; Hoping for those rare moments where we won't get a basket-o-hate tossed at us for feeling this way.

Good link Boagie, thanks

1 : corinthians 15:14

and if christ be not risen then is our preaching in vain and your faith is also vain

sums it up i guess

Yep. I could pull a few sound bites from the video to make the guy sound reasonable, but much of what he said was just childish.

I won't make the same mistake some make about Christianity by assuming extremists like this represent the majority. I'd rather find those who are open to having a discussion.



This isn't a discussion. It's pontificating in the same vein as the video. Under what circumstances would I let someone who opposes my view define what my views mean? I doubt atheists, agnostics, deists, etc. would let me, as a Christian, define them. So why does urangutan attempt to define (or maybe I should say stereotype) Christians?

Like I said, I'd prefer a discussion.

If you think you can deny that Christianity is a cult of Judasim then by all means please do so. It is not an insult, not that I cannot see why you would think so but what I said in no way takes away the value of what you believe. That was not my intention and I apologise for how you may have interpreted what I have said.

The "value of what believe"? Hmm. So you think it has value? I didn't get that impression, but if you think it has value, I certainly like to hear your take on that.

You don't need to patronize me. I didn't say I was insulted.

I understand "cult" to have a negative connotation. Especially when you say there is someone at the top with an "agenda", which is typically meant to imply a hidden, disingenuous agenda.

So, you'll have to define for me what you mean by "cult". If you mean it's something good, then I expect you're anxious to become a Christian. I'll send you some literature. :poke-eye:

Christianity as a single book without the influences of the Old Testament, would probably be a different Book. Each Book of the New Testament was written by an individual who had their own agenda embedded in the scripture. It is really that simple. By the way I hate that little pokey eye figure, I have been meaning to tell Holiday, I just kept avoiding it.

If you consider that the New Testament is a part of the the Judaic Bible, that being the Old Testament, (which as a blessing the United States did incorporate together through its history,) then as a sigularity, Christianity is a cult. In Europe however, Christianity was forced onto the populace as a sole entity. The agenda was to, lets say exterminate, the "Pagan" beliefs as much as possible, Christianity was a cult. It had to be that way to overrule the belief systems that were in place.

Thanks all the same but I rather you didn't send me literature on the topic.

You still haven't defined "cult" for me. That was a serious request.

Your reasons, at this point, seem a typical slant to me, but I need some definitions before I'm going to reply to them.

As for the poky-eye-thing. I don't like emoticons either, but my statement about sending you literature was sarcastic, and I didn't want you to take it as a serious statement. Should I use footnotes instead?

Anyway, define "cult" for me.

I think now I have used the wrong word for a meaning that is completely different. Think of a splinter group or a faction, I honestly believed the word for it was "cult". I thought to myself, I will quote the meaning in the dictionary and shut you up, took a look and had to reread it just to be sure. I will be damned. I don't even know what word to look for.

The more I think about it, the more i begin to think I am right with the meaning just not completely secure with it.

That's what I thought you were saying, that Christianity is derivative.

I would disagree, but first I'll point this out to you: others would say the same of Judiasm, that it is a derivative of Babylonian ideas. So, I don't understand why you draw a line, calling Judiasm a religion and Christianity a faction. I would expect that from a secular point of view, all religion derives from a single concept.

Now I think I must correct you Resha Caner. It is not a single concept but two. Instinct and thought, Adam and Eve. I will not say respectively or otherwise as that would imply that it is intinct and afterthought.

OK, so you think a religion could arise from one of two distinct concepts. I'm not saying I agree, but I'll give you that for the time being because otherwise it would lead to a digression from the main thread of our discussion, which is:

Why would you claim Judiasm is a religion, and not derivative?

I thought that Babylon was just a resting post between their travel to the Holy Land. Not that there wasn't going to be influence arise but where does Babylonian culture enter into the system of Judaism to be its founder, of sorts.

Not from one of two concepts but both. You are still implying a singularity, for which I hope you are not implying the Creator, because being the Key of religion, doesn't make it religion. Tell me a religion that doesn't have the Creator or Creators.

Uh. I'm not going to build your argument for you. You are placing Judiasm and Christianity in two different classifications. I am asking why you do that.

You've explained why you think Christianity is derivative. You haven't explained why Judiasm is NOT derivative.

Maybe we need a history lesson ... or at least what some would claim is the history of Judiasm. As starters, some would claim the Biblical flood story derived from the Babylonians. Do you hold the same view, or are you accepting the historical claims of the Old Testament?

None of this is my position. I was trying to clarify your statement, but I haven't yet determined what you think supports that statement.

Not to say it wouldn't be open for interpretation but Exodus, would be the point where the culmination of "histories" were gathered, giving rise to the lost tribes, that were not encountered and the peoples, who were they really. So why wouldn't they include the histories of them all in what is the Bible.

That all seemed a bit brisk and just so we do not get off on a tangent that leaves the point, worship, does not equate to religion. Religion begins with Creator/s, formation and seeding, again brisk but I think you get my meaning. It is the fundamentals found in the tribes of Australian Aborigines, a great Creator, formation and finally seeding. Following this there are histories of moral and ethical nature.

Maybe you could tell me of a religion that doesn't have a Creator/s and such.