Religious belief is declining faster than attendance

[Drip Curl Magic]

there are two reasons why i think that this could be happening. one is that people were much more ignorent and therefore more easily persuaded when religion really came into play. as with the stories of Jesus Christ and Muhommed, as well as any number of other prophets, it always seemed to me that they were taking advantage of others in a hope to gain power in their respective societies. if this theory is true, imagine J.C.'s suprise when he was murdered.:cup:

 

another option could be that the birth of religion co-isides with mankinds discovery of psychadellic drugs. having seen these things, these "prophets" probably thought they saw what was a message from god, when it was infact just the effects of the drugs hitting them. they most likely wouldnt have been able to explain what had ahppened to them and therefore told people what they had seen and thought themselves prophets.

 

it could also be a combination of these things.

 

 

I have something to add to this. back in the old days... when religion first came about... a big reason why it was created was to be a form of government. Because without big guns to keep everyone at bay, the power hungry humans needed to think of another way to control people... Some smart bastard figured out that the best way to achive control... was to play around with people's worst fears.... and what is a very universal fear amongst many many humans? DEATH! yes, scare people into believing that if they don't follow MY rules... that they will burn in a big boiling pot of acid for all eternity after they die. GENIUS!

[Tarantism]

haha. thanks, sean, that was definatley missing from the discussion.

[SakmonKi]

What's missing from the discussion is a spellcheck.

 

1. As far as Christianity is concerned, attendance has fluctuated since day 1. Gravitating toward any religious tenet without true belief will wear thin for any human regardless of their education.

 

2. The early Christians weren't ignorant. They were members of the Roman Empire, a society that saw technological advancements that rival our own. A time period where science, engineering, and philosophy were a way of life. A government and religious establishment that celebrated human vice and sexuality. And a society that was brutal and corrupt at the very core. The earliest Christians were Jews (a people who defined themselves by their traditions and beliefs) and yet they changed those traditions and beliefs practically overnight and went to their own violent deaths proudly defending their convictions.

 

3. Don't mistake political ambition for religious conviction. They aren't at all the same (at least not from a Christian standpoint — I can't speak for other religions). The crusades were not about righteousness. The wars in Northern Ireland have nothing to do with religion. Hitler was not spreading Christianity. It's unfortunate, but yes, ambitious men use their own people's fears against them and the rest of the world. Exactly the opposite behavior of what Jesus taught. The worst enemies of Christianity have always been "Christians" — people directly addressed in the letters of Paul, Peter, James, and John. When Constantine established Christianity as the national religion it opened the gate for the insincere, but it didn't kill true faith. There are millions of Christians in the world who still display the traits that helped Christianity spread so rapidly in the world — namely, charity and a genuine care for others. "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.(Mark 12)" Paul commented on this by saying that if these two commandments are not adhered to, we only end up "devouring each other" (Galatians 5).

[Tarantism]

i see your points, sakmonki, but it is easy to contradict everything that we say if you follow the religious way of thinking.

 

of course, the religious way of thinking has always been able to defend itself based on "faith". i do not see this as a valid defense.

 

now, seeing around that little tidbit, i can see what you mean and i am happy that you base your points on facts and not bible passages. refreshing.

 

however, your third point i disagree with. how can you say that religious conviction and politlcal powerstruggles dont go hand in hand. has a president never thanked god? you dont thinkthat church needs and christian beliefs have somethign to do with wheather or not same-sex marrige is legal? cmon now...

 

 

and i dont believe that Hypography has a spell check. i will be the first to admit that i am a terrible speller though...haha.

 

regards,

(((tartanism)))

[SakmonKi]

and i dont believe that Hypography has a spell check.

 

Heheh... no offense, I was just being a smart ***.

 

And yes, political people have always used religion as a means to an end. They always hit people where they are most passionate. What I meant was that Jesus would not be smiling at a lot of the things people do "in his name". It's not the religion that is to blame, it's the people who hurt others when they let their emotions and ambitions guide their actions.

 

I think we've lost something in our society when we can throw around words like "Lord" so flippantly. If we call someone our "Lord", we are acknowleging their authority over us. We are essentially saying that their words are the laws by which we govern ourselves. Disobeying that makes us rebels. The Bible calls rebellion against God "sin".

[Tarantism]

yes i know, i gave you my own bit of sarcasm in return.

'

and i agree. i suppose that it is important for me to point out that, at least from a personal standpoint, i dont se anything WRONG with religion, though i do not personally follow one. but, on the flipside, some religious PEOPLE are down right scary, and power hungry.

 

as you stated above, sometimes words like "lord" or the phrase "oh my god" or "thank you god" are taken with much less weight then they actually possess, at least to a religious person.

 

so, you are in the end correct. it is not fair to blame religion for problems in society.

 

regards,

(((tartanism)))

[Pyrotex]

1. As far as Christianity is concerned, attendance has fluctuated...

SakmonKi has a point. At any given time in any given place, religion fluctuates. Recent studies of early America show that in the last decades of the 18th Century up to 1810 or so, attendance was poor. Then came a big revival of interest.

2. The early Christians weren't ignorant. They were members of the Roman Empire, a society that saw technological advancements that rival our own. ...Jews...changed those traditions ...and went to their own violent deaths proudly defending their convictions.

The Romans had concrete that would harden under water, and sophisticated iron weapons. However, let's not get carried away. Their tech did not rival Victorian England's and their steam engines, let alone ours. Historians think that many Jewish survivors of the destruction of Jeruselum moved to Egypt. There was a large, thriving community of Jews in Alexandria around 200 CE. The bulk of the Christians (especially in Rome by 200 CE) were prolly made up of non-Jews. The Christian religion appealed to the poor and (probably) uneducated. The victims in the colleseum included *everyone*, not just Christians. Too many bad gladiator movies!

3. Don't mistake political ambition for religious conviction...The crusades were not about righteousness. The wars in Northern Ireland have nothing to do with religion. Hitler was not spreading Christianity...

True, true and true.

[sanctus]

 

3. Don't mistake political ambition for religious conviction. They aren't at all the same (at least not from a Christian standpoint — I can't speak for other religions). The crusades were not about righteousness. The wars in Northern Ireland have nothing to do with religion. Hitler was not spreading Christianity.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong (just to "emulate" pyro)

 

They are indeed, simply what they understood about the religion, they believed to act like the religion dictated. Now if it is not your interpretation/understanding of christianity then that's another point.They strongly believed they were acting like a "proper christian" should.

[Pyrotex]

Wrong, wrong, wrong (just to "emulate" pyro)...

Awwww, Sanctus, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. :D :cup: :cup:

And I was going to agree with your post, too.

 

Religion may not mandate war and violence. However, it does invariably lead its believers to the conclusions that: 1. God hates 'unbelievers', because 2. Unbelievers have 'rejected' God. 3. Rejection is an act of contempt and disrespect, and therefore 4. the unbelievers 'deserve' to be punished. 5. Believers, acting out of love for God and obedience, must take it upon themselves to see that God's desire for the unbelievers to be punished is swiftly carried out.

 

THAT was what I was GONNA say to back you up, Sanctus. But not now! No way! You can just argue your point by yourself. :cup:

[SakmonKi]

Wrong, wrong, wrong (just to "emulate" pyro)

 

They are indeed, simply what they understood about the religion, they believed to act like the religion dictated. Now if it is not your interpretation/understanding of christianity then that's another point.They strongly believed they were acting like a "proper christian" should.

 

The crusades were started by Pope Urban II who urged his cardinals to send an army and take back the land from the invading Muslims. If he had been acting as a "proper christian", he would have put his desire for financial gain and property behind him.

 

In Belfast, although the lines are drawn between "Catholic" and "Protestant", the conflict translates to the "Ulster Party" and the "IRA". It comes down to socio-economic oppression and a need for civil rights reform. It has turned into gang warfare. It has nothing to do with "proper christian" behavior.

 

I don't think I even need to go into WWII. If anyone is under the delusion that Nazis represent "proper christians" we can talk about it, but it should be pretty obvious that they don't. Although some professed "christians" will carry anti-semitic hatred, this is also contrary to what Jesus taught. Jesus was a Jew. He was executed by gentiles. Everybody shared in the guilt.

 

If you want to know what the religion says, and what it leads believers to understand, you have to go to the source of the religion. Here is the Bible's take on the discussion:

 

1 Corinthians 7:14-16

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

(This is specifically referring to marriage between believers and unbelievers. If you know anything about divorce, "living in peace" is usually not the case.)

 

Leviticus 19:17-19

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

 

Zechariah 8:16-18

These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this," declares the LORD.

 

See also: Matthew 5:43, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Mark 12:33, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8

 

An "expert in the law" once asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" And Jesus replied with the parable of the good Samaritan — (a Samaritan to a Judahite was kind of like a Palestinian in the eyes of an Israeli).

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

 

1 John 4:19-21

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

 

Even if your brother is an unbeliever.

[sanctus]

The crusades were started by Pope Urban II who urged his cardinals to send an army and take back the land from the invading Muslims. If he had been acting as a "proper christian", he would have put his desire for financial gain and property behind him.

 

Well yes if you put it like this I agree it is as well my interpretation for it.But is it really the proper interpretation? Can't you imagine somebody who thinks that he helps most the others the more powerfull he is..... Anyway even if this pope wasn't a "proper christian" he used the "proper christianity" of the soldiers at his service who thought what the pope says must come from god.

 

The same goes for the other two examples you gave it's all a matter of interpretation. I don't have time to go to look for it but you will know better than me that there are heaps of passages in the bible open for interpretations which may differ quite much. Sure you brought the ones which would sustain your claims (I would have done the same), but can you prove me that there are no passages which could be interpreted as the existence for a better and worse race?

[SakmonKi]

Anyway even if this pope wasn't a "proper christian" he used the "proper christianity" of the soldiers at his service who thought what the pope says must come from god.

 

Yes he did. Most people in those days couldn't afford their own copy of the scriptures for their own study. I don't know what the priests were preaching during that time, but if they said that Jesus commands murder and warfare then the soldiers may have thought they were doing the right thing. Then again, the Knights Templar became very rich all of a sudden, so I'm inclined to wonder if they were also thinking of financial gain and property. (And I humby request we leave the Holy Grail discussions for another thread).

 

By race, I assume you mean just that (as opposed to nationality — afterall, it's common knowledge that Canadians are better than Americans :cup:).

 

The only scripture I can think of that's been used to justify racism is Genesis 4:15. The Mormons used to exclude blacks because they interpreted the "mark of Cain" as God turning his skin dark. No translation I have ever read has rendered this as some sort of skin coloring. I don't agree with the interpretation, and since the Mormons have retracted their policy, I assume they don't anymore either.

[sanctus]

You'are right I wasn't clear about races. I just meant that there are passages which could support the fact that there should be races dictated by god.

By the way, just that you don't get m wrong I don't think that races exist at all.

[Tarantism]

"the best way to keep out of conflict and argument is to leave your religions at home in your closet, between you and God"

 

-MLK

[SakmonKi]

Indeed. That's why we're here. We enjoy conflict and argument. :eek2:

[Pyrotex]

Indeed. That's why we're here. We enjoy conflict and argument. :(

Has anyone seen the episode of The Simpsons where Bart becomes the "prophet" of two religions a thousand years in the future. Both religions seek peace and harmony. So they throw their vast armies against each other in all-out total war.

:eek2: :eek: :) :) :D

[Tarantism]

Has anyone seen the episode of The Simpsons where Bart becomes the "prophet" of two religions a thousand years in the future. Both religions seek peace and harmony. So they throw their vast armies against each other in all-out total war.

:eek2: :eek: :) :) :D

haha!