Can religion solve the world's problems?

It depends on what you mean by the word "religion." People like to twist religion to meet their own ends, claiming their actions to be God's will, etc. However, if one who claims to be of Christianity and truly followed the teachings of the Bible, then yes, religion would solve the world's problems. No sin = No problems.

The conflict comes in when people only follow some of the rules. That's when religion causes problems as opposed to preventing them.

And to whom should we look for that definition of "sin" which will save us all ? You ?


Perhaps someday you'll understand my scepticism.

That's precisely the problem. If man defines sin, then who can say I am wrong and you are right? Who can say my definition of sin is right and your definition is wrong? This is what causes so much conflict in the world: Man justifies his actions as not being sinful, so he thinks that he is in the right (and in some cases feel obligated take those actions). There is no foundation.

However, if one would have a solid definition of sin (have a look at Genesis), that is, the proper definition of right and wrong, and in turn did not do wrong, then... Well, to quote a character from a movie I just watched (which was really good):

Given that there are very nearly as many interpretations of the meaning of the bobble as there are readers thereof, the question stands:

To whom should we look for that definition of "sin" which will save us all.

That's the thing: You shouldn't look to someone else for the definition of sin. Blind faith is a very, very bad thing. If at a young age someone told you doing X was wrong, then you would not do X without question, simply because you would not understand right from wrong at a young age.

One should study the Bible in order to determine the definition of sin (no using dictionary.com :p), not just follow someone else's interpretation. I know what you're thinking: But isn't that interpreting the definition of sin? The answer: Yes it is. The Bible clearly defines sin, and through reading the Bible you should be able to reach the same conclusion as others (professional help wouldn't hurt [i.e. scholars who have studied the Bible for years]). The problem comes in when people twist the Word to fit their own ends.

No, in fact you don't know what i am thinking. In reading this response, i am thinking that you are far more reasonable than those whom i would consider fanatics, but i am also thinking that you are nevertheless deluded, because you believe that such a book as that is the source of divine teaching. You have yourself asserted that the work of men is fallible, but not the deity. The book of which you speak is the work of fallible men. To simply assert that it is the word of god is once more asking someone to rely upon fallible man--in this case, he who asserts that the book is the word of god.

That may be a step up from blind faith, but it is not much of a step, and is nevertheless faith, and not certainty. Given that there is so little certainty in life, i don't think i'll queer the pitch by taking someone else's word for it, especially from a source so far removed from its origins.

Which is why I don't rely completly on the NIV. Of course there will be errors in translation (the second law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards disorder). Sometimes I'll even go as far as to read the original Hebrew, but that's very difficult for me, as I can't read or comprehend Hebrew without extensively researching every character, going through at an incredibly slow pace. I only go to that length to make absolutely sure something was not lost (or added) in translation if I question it.


I doubt that God would allow his inspired Word (referring to the original text) to be corrupted. I'm pretty sure if man would have made a mistake in recording something then God would have done something about it rather than let the error slide.

So we have here that old, worn-out circular reasoning: the bobble is the word of god. Oh, how do you know that? It says so in the bobble.

Sorry, i'm not that particular type of fool, for whatever foolish i do actually indulge.

Ever heard of a thing called faith?

How do you know that the sky is really blue? How do you know your eyes aren't deceiving you?

Cogito ergo sum

I'm reasonably certain that a just and loving God would not allow us to remain ignorant of His will. This certainty does not apply to the clergy.

Nor would it necessarily apply to scribes engaged in the alleged activity of recording the word of god.

If there were a written word of God, there would have to be some way of verifying its integrity, reconciling its apparent inconsistencies and understanding its message in such a way as to provide hope and guidance for the unlettered and ordinary. I find it interesting that Jesus was reported to have been well understood by the amhaarets while subject to outright hatred from the pharisees.

Neologist said :
I find it interesting that Jesus was reported to have been well understood by the amhaarets while subject to outright hatred from the pharisees.

Sounds a bit like the trials of willie the slick.

You were just sitting there waiting for me, weren't you?

Nope, just lucked into it.

Whats all this I hear about 'blind faith'? There is an easy solution to that problem-

Take your blinders off, then look at the view. ~pjg

From Robinson Crusoe

Aye,
welcome aboard laddie.

Now prepare to be boarded.

There you are again! In the window across the street, I'll bet!

Nah ,
I was just feeling a bit piratey.