Religion by my brother Roger!!

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[CENTER][CENTER]Religion[/CENTER]
[CENTER] [/CENTER][/CENTER]

My family has never understood my contempt for religion. Mostly they can't distinguish religion from God and like most people, believe that to subscribe to a religion automatically means belief in God and righteousness. I despise all religion yet I don't despise the notion of God. My acceptance of the existence of God comes from the incomprehensibility of the cosmos and sheer wonder of nature. The bible means nothing to me, as would the Koran or Talmud, should I ever read these works, which I never will.

The background to my strident view of religion comes from my childhood. I don't blame my parents, they were only doing what they thought was right. They were decent people, misled by equally decent people. From the age of about nine, starting with my convalescence from rheumatic fever and for the next two years, I was confined to home and consequently spent many of my formative childhood years in the company of adults.

I was exposed to adult conversation and ultimately my parents involved me in a new sect that they had just joined. The teachings of this sect were as insidious as all other such sects and it crept up on me, and brain washed me, as it did my mother, father and two Aunts. My Aunt Dot, my mother's sister, nearly 80, and my cousin Jill, on my father's side, now over 60, are still members of this sect and have been for over 50 years.

This sect differentiated themselves by claiming no name; they wanted to simply be called Christians. However they did assume names such as "The Way". This name implicitly condemned all other religions. They taught that unless you were one of them, there would be no place in heaven for you. This condemned all of mankind, except them, to eternal damnation.

The women were not allowed to cut their hair and wore it in large buns. They were not allowed to expose their arms or legs so they wore long dresses with full sleeves, not matter how hot it was. Radio was not allowed in the home and no one was permitted to attend a movie or go to a circus. Certainly smoking and drinking were forbidden.

My Aunt Bobbie, my father's sister, remained a member of the sect all her life and attended the meetings religiously. She kept a radio in her house, under cover. I know that her husband secretly had a smoke when no one was looking!

The faithful were kept under control by the preachers who went from home to home in two's. It was always two women or two men and in many cases they were partners of 20 years or more. They were called workers, even though they never did a day's work in their lives. They were the ultimate fun police. They ensured that the hair was kept long, that there were no radios to be seen and that nobody experienced any fun or enjoyment whatsoever. They were the Taliban of the 60s and they had me entrapped.

My father eventually saw the light and withdrew and I was quickly able to follow suit. I was free. I was thirteen and there was still some time left for a normal childhood. I had spent nearly three years in this sect, during which time, I never saw a movie, attended a circus, or listened to a radio, other than secretly. I spent these years attending meetings in our home and other homes on Sunday mornings and evenings and Wednesday evenings. I had nothing in common I could share with my friends.

Once a year, we attended a convention which lasted for a week, along with hundreds of members from all over the country. The meetings went on all day, interrupted thankfully by tea, lunch and dinner. For seven days we were preached at by workers, their sermons going on interminably. I know I daydreamed through most of them.

Somehow this all seem perfectly reasonable to me at the time but over the years, leading into early adulthood, I increasingly saw the absurdity of it all. During my early adult years I began to see this absurdity mirrored in every religion. Every religion has rules which serve no purpose in furthering the worship of God, yet people mindlessly pursue these rules, even to their deaths.

I mention below a few of the absurdities that I have observed over the years.

South Africa's government and state church, the Dutch Reformed Church, justified apartheid based on Christianity. The state airline, flying only white passengers, always had bibles prominently secured to each bulkhead, presumably for the devout Christians in the plane to read up on apartheid. You could not be a real Christian if you were black, it seems. If you are a Muslim, then everybody else is an infidel!

The Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. It is impossible to ascribe infallibility to the leader of the Catholic Church, when you look back on the monumental mistakes made this religion over the years, all with the blessing of the same infallible Pope. Infallibility means never having to say sorry!

Muslims on the other hand seem to think that the murder of innocents can justified by objectives of their religion. Those that execute these crimes are little worse than those Muslims who commit no such crimes, yet stay silent! They all stand condemned by their religion.

This is different only in degree to the Catholic and Anglican leaders who knowingly hid paedophiles in the church leadership. Yet these same religions condemn gay people who commit no crime and even if by some stretch of the imagination, you decide that this is a crime, and then it is, at the very worst, a victimless crime. How much worse is it to condone the abuse of a child, by a person placed in a position of absolute trust? If you can't trust a man of God, then who can you trust?

The Israelis and Hezbollah kill innocent people and both of them do this in the name of God. Surely they can see that the God to which they both ascribe infinite benevolence, would not countenance the murder of innocents or otherwise. Surely they can see that they both can't be right. Surely they can see that if they both believe in the infinite benevolence of God, that they must both be wrong. But of course they can't!

Buddhist's are not involved in wars, abuse and don't enforce their teachings on others. Buddhists believe that you should kill no living creature and this is an admirable philosophy. Yet they eat meat. Their reasoning behind this is that the person eating the meat does not kill the animal.

Lest I stand condemned by those that follow me for these views, let me add that I despise religion, not God or the people that worship God through these religions. For these people I have only compassion, for all people need meaning in their lives and need structure and tradition against which they can measure their worth. To the extent that religion serves these ends, it is good. To the extent that it serves the ends of its leaders and founders, then it is not good.

If there is a God, these leaders of the church will face him, as will I, to justify the deceit and the wrongdoings committed in his name during our lifetimes. I expect however to face a benevolent God, who will see my misdeeds in the context of my life and my ability to comprehend and interpret, as will he those billions of people less fortunate than me. He will disregard the religion they pursued, evaluating only their life and deeds.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 825 • Replies: 7

No top replies

@Alan McDougall,

Well Alan, I thought I was anti religious but you make me appear quite moderate. Your experiences display my reasoning on why faith should be taught at an age when we are capable of reason. We escaped this indoctrination but many did not. We may disagree on the description of god but not about these dogmatic faiths, your friend Xris

1 Reply

@xris,

What's wrong with dogma?

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;122970 wrote:

If there is a God, these leaders of the church will face him, as will I, to justify the deceit and the wrongdoings committed in his name during our lifetimes. I expect however to face a benevolent God, who will see my misdeeds in the context of my life and my ability to comprehend and interpret, as will he those billions of people less fortunate than me. He will disregard the religion they pursued, evaluating only their life and deeds.

Ehhh, I agree with most of what you said but still take issue with some of it. Don't get me wrong, I hate religion too, I find it wildly fascinating in a historical and ideological context, but it's messed up people to an insane degree.
I hate religion, but I believe that the truth is out there somewhere. The universe was created, anyone who doesn't believe so is blind to the beauty in front of them. Some preachers say similar things to what I'm about to, but it is solid logic for the most part.

Our universe was created, and I don't think, I could be wrong, that humans are so perfectly created, living in such a perfect environment for the universe to be something much more than an art gallery. Man creates a bunch of things, shoes, clothes, weapons, pencils, etc. What does everything man makes have in common? They were all created by man to serve man. Who says we aren't the same on a cosmic scale.

I'm not saying that we should blindly serve God marching lock-step chanting His Name, I see serving as more just worshipping, living, communing and obeying. It's pretty obvious that man means something important with the way he is "treated" by the universe, the cosmos. And if man was such an important being, which he definitely is, it would only make sense for truth to be revealed to us in one way or another. Some say the truth is revealed in ourselves. Some say truth is hiding in nature. Some say truth is found from a Holy text. Too often people hold these as mutually exclusive, I see all three as necessary. (The Bible does too with God's three testimonies, "Word, blood and water")

His truth is revealed somewhere in writing, and it's up to us to narrow the religious texts down and determine what it is. This isn't following religion, it's finding truth. For me, I made my decision, I saw a book that everytime someone tried to discredit it as being historically incorrect, archaeology that proves it soon pops up. That describes modern science and not an outdated one (expanding universe, etc.) A book that everytime someone calls it out on a contradiction it sets the record straight. And, it's a book that speaks against religion, that we should live and love not follow strict laws. The founder (or the one who set things straight) purposefully pissed off the religious people in order to show strict laws wrong.

Eh, you already know what I'm going to say. Man makes religion, God made faith and truth.
See the Book of Eli to help understand what I'm saying. Eli carries the Book and follows it, he is a believer and a liver(sp?). Gary Oldman knows what the book says and goes crazy to find it not because he wants to live and learn from the book but because he wants to use it for power and control. Same thing with the Catholic church and televangelists throughout history.

I think that if God provides us with a truth, it's our duty to find it and abide by it. Just because we tried searching but found something that lied or said things contrary to the nature of God doesn't mean He's still going to be happy. We started a quest for truth but stopped at the first easiest stop along the way, exchanging truth for some ridiculous lie. If God gave us truth and a history behind the truth, if we don't find it, we need to keep looking.
If you wanted to join a historical society for Native American Research, thinking that they have the purest form of history, but you were well versed in Hindu history, saying that they're both Indians, they're both the same thing, don't you think they'd get a little pissed off and kick you out? Not a great analogy since one deals with a universal truth and one deals with historical societies, but you get my point.

0 Replies

@josh0335,

josh0335;123009 wrote:

What's wrong with dogma?

It sets morality at the level of the original conception. It cant move its moral ability. It is written and nothing man can do can change it. Slavery allowed by the prophet is used by the unscrupulous to keep slaves now. Four wives becomes a right, not a condition. The stoning of adulterers and the extremes of sharia in KSA are implemented through dogma. Certain laws and guidance's laid down a thousand years ago may have been relevant then but because they are dogmatic they are maintained now. All faiths have them and they inflict harm and anguish.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;123019 wrote:

It sets morality at the level of the original conception. It cant move its moral ability. It is written and nothing man can do can change it. Slavery allowed by the prophet is used by the unscrupulous to keep slaves now. Four wives becomes a right, not a condition. The stoning of adulterers and the extremes of sharia in KSA are implemented through dogma. Certain laws and guidance's laid down a thousand years ago may have been relevant then but because they are dogmatic they are maintained now. All faiths have them and they inflict harm and anguish.

There's a difference between dogma and theological opinion, where the former represents the basic tenants of the faith and the latter being a whole spectrum of views. Slavery and number of wives is part of theological opinion, not dogma. Dogma outlines the basic outlines to be part of that particular faith. So I disagree that it sets the morality level, rather it sets the requirements to be part of the religion.

The examples you've given are interpretations of scripture, i.e. theological opinion. You can't blame dogma for how people choose to interpret religious sources. I take it you're also against giving charity, feeding the poor, and respecting elders, which are all based on scripture. What happens in KSA is a poor representation of Islamic dogma, as Medievel Europe was a poor representation of Christian dogma.

1 Reply

@josh0335,

josh0335;123023 wrote:

There's a difference between dogma and theological opinion, where the former represents the basic tenants of the faith and the latter being a whole spectrum of views. Slavery and number of wives is part of theological opinion, not dogma. Dogma outlines the basic outlines to be part of that particular faith. So I disagree that it sets the morality level, rather it sets the requirements to be part of the religion.

The examples you've given are interpretations of scripture, i.e. theological opinion. You can't blame dogma for how people choose to interpret religious sources. I take it you're also against giving charity, feeding the poor, and respecting elders, which are all based on scripture. What happens in KSA is a poor representation of Islamic dogma, as Medievel Europe was a poor representation of Christian dogma.

I know there is difference but dogma is still used, not by all, today in all faiths, to the detriment of its followers.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;122970 wrote:

Buddhist's are not involved in wars, abuse and don't enforce their teachings on others. Buddhists believe that you should kill no living creature and this is an admirable philosophy. Yet they eat meat. Their reasoning behind this is that the person eating the meat does not kill the animal.

Ummm, a little pedantic correction to this assertion. Perhaps Buddhists have traditionally been a less violent religion than others, but Buddhists don't get completely off the hook, either.

Don't forget the recent Sri Lanka civil war was between the Buddhist Sinhalese (majority) and Hindu Tamil (minority). Over 50,000 deaths.

Going back in history: in 621 AD, Shaolin Temple monks fought to establish the Tang Dynasty; Tibetan Buddhist schools profited from alliances with Mongol warlords.

Zen Buddhism has been connected with the training of Samurai warriors, especially marked in the Zen "jingoism" of the 1930's and 1940's,essentially active Zen militarism.

Quoting Zen master Sawaki Kodo in 1942: "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing is preserved. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept forbidding killing that throws the bomb."

I have nothing at all against Buddhism, just against the popular myth that Buddhists are never involved in war or violence, which is touted by some to promote Buddhism as a "superior" world religion.

This was just a little pedantic correction about an issue that bugs me, not intended to address the main point of your post.

rebecca

0 Replies

Religion by my brother Roger!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know