Is Religion a very bad thing?

Religion itself is no more bad than a finger, or a tree, or the concept of the number 2.

Religion was great for us while “growing up” into the wise academics we (generally) are now. Dawkins goes into detail about the socioeconomic benefits of religion in his book The God Delusion. I personally do not need religion to live my life, but I do not fault those who do need it, just as I would not fault someone with a broken leg for using crutches.

it is. <—see, that’s a period, that means i won’t accept any other opinion

Eh?

Are countries a bad thing? History shows that most wars have been caused by countries. Surely this means countries are a bad thing.

My big toe nail is ingrowing,does this mean all toenails are bad.

The bottom line of both your and @daloon‘s qualms are people. People are the common denominator. History shows that most wars and most ingrown nails are facilitated by the existence of humans. Thus humans are the problem!

Religion is not a bad thing, but when people twist their religious text so they are in command, that my friend,is a bad thing.

@dynamicduo Hey, wait a minute. How can you equate my comment with both the question and ingrown toenails? Or people, for that matter. You know I’m allergic to people. In fact, I’m growing more and more itchy by the second. Benedryl, anyone?

@daloon I can do so recklessly and without any care for logic! Begone, logic!
* throws logic away *
* Immediately runs after the fleeing logic, crying “come back dear logic! I never meant to hurt you so!” *

To me, religion is like guns. It all depends on how you use it.

Religion is a law, to guarantee everyone’s benefit, so it’s never a bad thing.
But when people disobey the rules of religion, and follow their own instincts, and even try to fake the rules of religion to fit with their own instincts. That is the bad thing.

And it’s not only about religion.
For example, how can we blame the increasing numbers of car accidents to the rules and laws of the government regarding driving and speeding?

Does the increasing number of car accidents make driving and speeding rules a bad thing?

@archaeopteryx – when two religions have rules that go against each other’s, who’s rule is the right rule?

Actually the wars attributed to religion are really caused by the desire for power.

Religion like most philosophy becomes bad when perverted by individuals.

I think ego and hubris are very bad things, whether they appear in religion, politics, business or many other arenas.

Religion in and of itself is not a harmful thing.

When people say “Religion”.. if you listen carefully enough what they’re usually saying is: “The religions we know of” or when it comes down to it people usually only mean either Christianity or the Muslim faith along with any cults and other obviously controversial faiths.

And my answer to the question is.. Yes, religion, as defined above, needs to change or go. But on the other hand, I recognize that this is already in the works. I think religion itself is unavoidable. A purification of the existing religions would do the world some good.

…

I never understood the idea that religion is only bad when people “twist” or “pervert” it.

Leviticus 25:45—you can legally buy foreign slaves and hand them down to your kids as property.

Deuteronomy 20:10—if you go to war, kill all the men and enslave the women and kids. Unless you’re fighting in the holy land—then you must commit genocide.

Matthew 5:17—Jesus says anyone who follows all the OT commandments will be called “greatest” in the kingdom of heaven.

Seems to me that just following what the Bible explicitly says would be a “very bad thing.”

@Qingu – I’m pretty sure that Jesus was referring to the Big 10 of the OT commandments. Not all of the cultural discussions that took place.

@fireside, there’s nothing in the text to suggest that.

“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

The beginning of Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 28 also makes it quite clear that God expects you to follow all his commandments, including the ones about slavery and genocide.

Though I’m curious—even if you think Jesus doesn’t expect you to commit genocide anymore, does that somehow justify its inclusion in the Old Testament laws? Would it be wrong, from a Christian perspective, for you to kill all the males of cities you conquer, just like God commanded? I mean, I know that Christians believe you no longer have to follow the OT laws, but that’s different from saying it’s wrong.

@Qingu – This is where Jesus declares his mission. He repeats the virtues of meekness, humility, etc. to uphold the virtues of the past. He says that he is not here to abolish the law but to fulfill it and then he lays out a new set of teachings that amend the old law.

There is a difference between the spiritual virtues he praises and the cultural laws he proscribes for the people which did away with the old cultural laws. As far as whether I think it was “wrong” – it is not for me to say what was “wrong” culturally 2000 years ago.

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

@fireside, you’re a moral relativist? You don’t have a problem with genocide if it’s just a “cultural thing”?

@Qingu: You are taking lots of things way out of context.
First:

Leviticus 25:45—you can legally buy foreign slaves and hand them down to your kids as property.

What many people fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

Deuteronomy 20:10—if you go to war, kill all the men and enslave the women and kids. Unless you’re fighting in the holy land—then you must commit genocide.

What version of the Bible are you reading? In my bible (NIV) it states that Deut 20:10 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. The Bible says to love they neighbor as thyself and it also states thou shalt not kill.

Matthew 5:17—Jesus says anyone who follows all the OT commandments will be called “greatest” in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17 states: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The new testament which was written in Greek uses the word entolay not nomos. Nomos typically refers to the law or the old testament whereas entolay referred to the commandments. So fireside could be correct in saying that he was referring to the 10 commandments. Additionally, if you read further into Matthew, Jesus points out the insufficiencies of any written code of law which are not of spirit. Jesus also teaches in many other Chapters of the NT that the only way to heaven is through our faith in Him and not by our doings, which again contradicts your statement that Christians need to follow the OT law.

@critter—regarding your first point on slavery, yes, Hebrews did sell themselves into slavery. But that is not the type of slavery the passage in Leviticus is talking about, which refers to foreign slaves that could never be freed and were inherited as property. You also acquired slaves in warfare, as in Deuteronomy 20:10.

On the topic of Dt. 20:10, I did leave out the initial offer of peace. You left out that, if accepted, God commands you to enslave the entire city.

On the topic of Matthew 5:17, I think you make a very weak argument that Jesus is only talking about the Ten Commandments. He specifically points out that he is even talking about the “least” of the commandments here. Do you think the TC are the “least” of the commandments?

I also am waiting for an answer to my original question to fireside. Maybe you’d care to answer. Would it be wrong to buy a slave today? Would it be wrong to commit genocide against the Muslims living in the holy land today? I realize that, as a Christian, you no longer think we HAVE TO follow these laws, but I’m still waiting for someone to come out and say it would be WRONG to actually follow these particular commandments from God.

Because it seems to me, a religion whose followers cannot even unequivocally condemn slavery and genocide is a Very Bad Thing.

@Qingu – why don’t we look at your genocide quotes in context? First off, they were delivered to the people of Israel who had been stolen from their homeland and treated as salves. So here’s the beginning of Chapter 4:
———-
1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.

13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.
———-
It sounds like Moses was given a set of spiritual teachings and a set of cultural directives. Deuteronomy, chapter 20 is certainly a set of military directives for the people of the time.

Does it sound right to me to go in and slaughter people? No, but I don’t think the moral code of 2009 applied to the people living somewhere around 3,500 – 4,00 years ago. So if that makes me a moral relativist, then yes, I guess I am.

Are you trying to imply the religion is bad because it gave military instructions to a people who had been slaves their whole live and now had to find a way to survive in the desert and fight for a place to call home? Are you saying slavery is okay?

@fireside, I am saying that a religion that orders its followers to “annihilate” all the men, women, and children in a town they conquer—so that they won’t be around to potentially teach you about a rival religion—is a very bad thing.

I don’t understand your argument that it’s okay to commit genocide if your tribe was once enslaved. Frankly, I think that’s more than a little disturbing.

I also don’t understand where you got the idea that I think slavery is okay.

@Qingu – The laws of Israel were not meant only for religious purposes, but to establish a nation. The US also has rules of military engagement. They reflect a more moderate approach, but how can you say that you know what military campaigns were like 4000 years ago?

The slavery comment was sort of a tongue in cheek response to your implication that I thought genocide was okay just because I am not condemning what people did 4000 years ago.

@Qingu: It is important that we do not confuse God’s use of an institution with His approval of it. One can reach the conclusion that the Bible approves of slavery only by ignoring the heart of the Gospel message which unequivocally proclaims liberty to the captive.

Just one example-
Luke 4:18–19 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord…..

The New Testament uses the word slave frequently. In Greek the word is doulos which is translated into servant, and one who serves as a servant is usually translated as a minister.

So yes in my mind it would be absolutely wrong to buy a slave today at least in the terms that we typically have seen slavery, which in general has been under cruel, abusive, cheap, forced labor. I have no doubt in my mind that our God would not want or would not condone this type of behavior because of the Bibles decree on liberty.

@fireside, we actually can compare the Hebrews’ military strategy with the Babylonians and the Romans. These other cultures were quite vicious in their own rights, but they often made an effort to incorporate the people they conquered into their own. The Romans, for example, often brought back conquered gods and put them amongst their own pantheon.

Again, I am struck by your reluctance to condemn what the Hebrews did, which was to deliberately wipe out a culture to guard against being corrupted by its ideas (This is the reason God gives for ordering the genocide, and it is repeated throughout the book of Joshua as we see this hero of your religion repeatedly slaughter the men, women, and children of dozens of cities and kingdoms.)

Regarding slavery—alas, I have to be off, but I’d love to discuss this further.

Some horrible ideas have crept into religion through the millenia. What makes this possible is that religion isn’t bound by commonly accepted rules of evidence. It can simply state that something is so by claiming that God is the source of the information and then demand unquestioning belief. This makes religion the perfect vehicle for ideas that can’t be justified otherwise.

I’m not saying that all teachings of all religions are based on fraudulent claims, but I’m fairly certain that all have assimilated instances of people putting forth their own agendas cloaked in the mantle of divine inspiration. If you’re trying to persuade a group of people who’s culture predisposes them to magical thinking, it’s not a bad strategy. And the intent may not always be nefarious.

Mixed in with this faux inspiration is often some very real wisdom that’s worth seeking out. But I’m wary of any belief system that demands that its followers accept an entire body of doctrine unquestioningly, or that they disregard their own sense of good judgment, just because it claims a divine source. We have to look at religion with our eyes wide open and not be afraid to ask the hard questions. If you’re constantly asked to accept what your gut clearly tells you is not right, then I think that’s a bad sign.

Extracts from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:

Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues. Without truthfulness progress and success, in all the worlds of God, are impossible for any soul. When this holy attribute is established in man, all the divine qualities will also be acquired.

Cited by Shoghi Effendi, “The Advent of Divine Justice”, p. 26

To answer the initial question:

It depends. The idea and concept of religion are not bad things. The extreme pseudo-religions that tend to idolize the symbol over the symbolized with ungrounded moralities that go outside the voice of reason are bad. God has provided us with two wonderful gifts, faith and reason, we need to be wise with both.

Suicidal religions such as the Halle-Bopp-black-Nike wearing fellows of California, the Kool Aid drinking Christians of Jonestown and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas are clearly examples of pseudo-religions, as are some of our other contemporary extremist Christian, Jewish, Islamist, PC, or Right and Left Wing religions. They are all bad religions. The good thing though is that most wide spread religions have not yet abandoned their coherent and grounded logos. Most wide spread religions contain inherently good people only looking to better the world and the people contained here. Religions “in general” promote giving, inspiration, hope, love, spirituality, humanitarianism, inspiration, contentment, etc. Only when these become perverted does religion get out of hand and become bad.

@Qingu – “This is the reason God gives for ordering the genocide, and it is repeated throughout the book of Joshua as we see this hero of your religion repeatedly slaughter the men, women, and children of dozens of cities and kingdoms.”

First off, I’ll repeat that The Talmud was a collection of books that were meant to build a nation. Are there any stories in the history of your country about brave heroes killing people? You can continue to confuse the cultural and the spiritual if you want, but that has historically been the problem.

What you point out is men taking religious teachings and using them to achieve their own aims by claiming the knowledge of God’s will. I still see that happening today because people are too unwilling to see the difference. Everyone needs to look for the truth and to me the truth is that me condemning people for what they did 4000 years ago is pointless.

Shall we condemn the Mongols and the Persians and the Expansionist Colonists and everyone other tribe, nation or civilization that ever sought to control their neighbors through aggression rather than peace? Ok, done. So what? The point is what we do today to move forward and bring people together through peace rather than divisiveness. Today has nothing to do with 4000 years ago unless you let it.

Religion can be as much an instrument of peace as it has been an instrument of discord.

I’m getting in on this discussion rather late.

I’m sure many of you have heard of the infamous Fred Phelps and his congregation that goes around picketing U.S. soldiers’ funerals with signs that read “God Hates Fags”, etc..

The thing about that, which demonstrates @Qingu‘s point, is that the Phelps family is following Biblical text literally. Sure, they are highlighting a certain portion of it to fulfill and agenda, but the fact that everything that Phelps says is in the Bible indicates that there is something very wrong with living by a literal interpretation of a Bronze Age text.

@Vinifera7 – sort of similar to asking to be mummified when you die? I’d have to agree.

@Vini: I disagree that Phelps family is following a literal transcription of the bible. The bible states that God detests 7 things:
1. haughty eyes
2. Lying tongue
3. hands that shed innocent blood
4. a heart the divises wicked schemes
5. feet quick to rush into evil
6. a false witness who pours out lies
7. a man who stirs up dissention among brothers

No where in the bible does it ever state that “God Hates Fags”, nor does it ever say that we are supposed to hate homosexuals, nor does it say that religious enthusiasts are to stand outside of fallen soldiers funerals to protest that “God Hates Fags”. In fact it is probably even more true to say that God hates the Phelps family for pouring out lies and stirring up dissention. The bible doesn’t approve of homosexuality and defines it as a sin but it never states that homosexuals are hated. The bible teaches people to have hatred towards sin and evil but to speak the truth in love.

Religion is yet another idea that only works on paper, much like cough medicine and Amway.

” The very purpose of religion is to control yourself, not to criticise others. Rather we must criticise ourselves. How much am I doing about my anger ? About my attachment, about my hatred , about my pride, about my jealousy ? These are the things we must check in daily life ”.

Dalai Lama

@fireside—you said “the Talmud” ... I think you meant the “Tanakh”?

Secondly, yes, there are American legends that glorify warfare and I’m sure old American history books even put a positive spin on the attempted genocide of native Americans and “manifest destiny.” The difference between us is that I reject these stories. I think they are immoral. I think they are a perversion of history and I think they teach the wrong lessons to our children.

You, on the other hand, do not reject your stories in your Bible. You try your hardest to ignore them, and when you can’t you rationalize them in the context of the “nicer” or “spiritual” Biblical passages… but you aren’t ashamed of them, and you don’t reject the moral authority of the text that contains them.

You talk about condemning the Mongols and the Persians and other cultures who have committed atrocities in the past. But you don’t condemn the Hebrews, because you believe they were right to commit genocide against the Canaanites. You believe the god of your holy book, Yahweh, ordered them to do so, and you believe that made it right—at least, it did back then, “culturally.” And you probably tell your children to worship this god and this holy book. The fact that you can’t see how that’s a “very bad thing” is further evidence of the same.

@critter, the Bible does not say, quote, “God hates fags.” But it does say they are an “abomination” and calls for them to be put to death in Lev. 20:13.

Incidentally, the Bible calls for unbelievers like me to be put to death (Dt. 13:6).

Is your problem with Phelps that he’s not being specific enough? Would you like him better if his signs said “God thinks gays are an abomination and wants you to kill them?”

@Qingu – It is interesting how much you read into my words, since I’m a Baha’i.
I actually meant the Torah, not sure where Talmud came from, but you’re right the Tanakh is more correct.

You seem to think my my lack of concern over what took place 4,000 years ago makes me a bad person and you say that i do not reject the stories in the Bible; but I’m wondering why i would have to reject stories.

Do you hold the words of the Bible to be the literal truth? I actually don’t. I think that they were inspired by the divinity of Moses and Jesus, but I do think that there have been problems with the way the Bible has been collected, translated and controlled over the centuries.

My point was not to condemn the Persians or Mongols, but to say that all cultures have something in their past that is shameful to look back on. Almost all cultures have wronged their neighbors in direct opposition to the central tenets of nearly every world religion.

If you want to go on making assumptions about what other people believe and holding some kind of 4,000 year old inherited grudge, that is your choice.

I prefer the path away from divisiveness and condemnation because that hasn’t worked yet, time to try something new.

[edit]
I think the main difference between us here is that I was saying that religion isn’t a very bad thing and you were saying that genocide was a very bad thing. We’re sort of discussing the difference between crab apples and trees here.

@Qingu…The Bible doesn’t actually say anything.

unless you mean the King James Newly Revised Taliking Bible

@Blondesjon – I want that one Homer was listening to the day he thought he was going to die. I think it was narrated by James Earl Jones.

@fireside…Do you mean the one where he ate the puffer fish?

@Blondesjon – That’s it! I couldn’t remember why he only had 24 hours to live. Good job.

@fireside, I had no idea you are a Baha’i. I had you pegged as a Christian—sorry about that.

But Bahai’s believe Moses was a prophet, meaning that he is (to some extent) a paragon of morality. I don’t know exactly what the Baha’i believe about Moses, but according to the Bible he ordered some ethnic cleansing himself (Numbers 31). Do you believe that Moses ordered his men to kill all the Midianite men and take the young girls for themselves as “booty”? If so, why do you believe this man is worthy of your veneration?

And my point is not to say “genocide is bad.” My point is that genocide—and lots of other bad ideas, like slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and intolerance—is codified in the Bible and in its derivative religions. I agree with you that we should not dwell on the past. At the same time, we shouldn’t drag the worst detritus from the past into our future.

People have the capacity of being “bad things”. They need no assistance from religion.

@NaturalMineralWater, I don’t think this negates the fact that religion is also a bad thing.

Religion is just a set of ideas. There are a lot of bad ideas. For example, I’m sure you’d agree that “the gods require human sacrifice” is a bad idea. Are people capable of being bad without this particular bad idea of “human sacrifice”? Of course! But that doesn’t really address the claim that “human sacrifice is a bad idea.” It’s basically a non-sequiter.

@Qingu Clearly.

It seems that people have a tendency of focusing on the negative at times too. I wonder what kind of ethic we could take into the future that would be free of all possible misunderstanding or past error.

But how can we learn from the mistakes of the past if we don’t even acknowledge they’re mistakes?

And has nothing positive come from religion?

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that genocide is a good thing or an acceptable thing. I don’t think anyone here is arguing for human or animal sacrifice. We all accept that there are people who will take the smallest thing out of context and use it to justify their own selfish desire.

Do you continue to pick on the error and mistakes of your past as you get older? Do you still remember that one day when you should have done that thing differently or said that other thing? Does that help you to be better in the future, or do you just absorb the lesson into your psyche and move on without continually rehashing your middle school years?

So the question is what do you want to focus on; the positive or the negative?
It really doesn’t matter to me what you choose, I’ve made my choice and that will help me to teach my children of tolerance and respect rather than contempt and derision.

I think the more people that focus on the positive aspects, the more we will find that common ground that will get over those last hurtles of division. But rehashing what should have happened 4,000 years ago is like tying a lead weight to your feet before attempting the hurtles.

@fireside, I have no problem picking and choosing the best aspects from ancient texts and discarding the rest.

But I don’t think that’s what religion is.

I appreciate your desire to find “common ground,” something I’ve always admired about Baha’is and Unitarians. But the problem is, the stuff we both want to discard isn’t just ancient history. It’s codified into the moral authority of the religious system of billions of people. You can’t just seive out the genocide and slavery and misogyny and intolerance of the Bible and take what’s left. It’s a fundamental part of the text. And the problem with religions is that you are supposed to venerate such texts as a whole.

@Qingu…it appears to me that intolerance comes in many different forms

Like I said, everyone has a choice to focus on the positive or the negative.
How many people do you think would give a thumbs up to genocide as a verifiable religious proscription if you went to every church, temple and mosque in America?

@fireside you stole my answer. xD

It’s a bit funny that people have perpetuated the rumor that most or all wars were caused by religion. That isn’t history at all. Off the top of my head I can only think of the crusades being religiously driven. What specific religious idea started all these other wars? (that is, unless you are using the vague definition of religion… a set of ideas.. in which case you could loosely relate everything in the planet to religion)

It’s also kinda funny that the definition of the word religion itself is very vague. By its definition it is quite literally impossible to remove from the world.

@Blondesjon, are you implying that I am intolerant?

If so, why? Being opposed to an idea or a text is different of being intolerant of that idea or text. Think about the word “tolerate.” Do you say you “tolerate” things that you like and respect? No. You “tolerate” things that you don’t like. I “tolerate” skinheads being able to march in Jewish neighborhoods. I don’t like them, but I wouldn’t suppress their right to believe what they want. Nor would I suppress the right of religious people to believe what they want.

So if you think I’m being intolerant, I’d like to hear why.

@fireside, I think most Christians in America are utterly unfamiliar with the Bible. They go to church automatically for Christmas and Easter and rarely think about their religion.

Many evangelical Christians I’ve talked to have said they support the genocide of the Canaanites. They are against genocide today because God doesn’t command it anymore.

The problem is that if you are against all genocide, that means you’re against the genocide ordered by God in the Bible. But if you’re a Christian then that would mean being against God, who supposedly can do no wrong.

I can understand that argument if you are talking to someone with a literal interpretation of the Bible. A frighteningly high number of people, if I recall.

You’d first have to convince me that those were God’s commandments intended for the betterment of the human souls.

@Qingu…i don’t think this site is vent enabled

@Qingu The old testament is perplexing indeed. Besides genocide there was the great fllood… people being stoned… blood sacrifices.. soddom and gomorrah… why stop at the genocide of the Canaanites?

@fireside, I’m glad we’re in agreement about Biblical literalists.

I guess my problem with “pick-and-choose” religious people is that, as I said earlier, you’re not treating the Bible and other books the same way you treat other texts and philosophies that you also pick and choose from. The Enuma elish and the Code of Hamurabi also contain good parts and bad parts and claim to be inspired by gods—but I think even Baha’is dismiss these texts as outdated myths. Why these texts, but not the Bible and the Quran?

(Just to be clear, I think all ancient texts, Bible included, are incredibly important to preserve and study from a historical perspective. And the Bible is also centrally important in human history, simply because it’s influenced so much of human behavior and society. But there’s a big difference between “preserving, studying, and picking the good moral lessons” from a text and actively worshipping that text.

@NaturalMineralWater – don’t forget about Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt.

@Qingu – I actually see a lot of similarities between Hammurabi’s Code and and the progression of religious teachings.

First there was God is Pharaoh and he decides right from wrong.
Then it was God is our Lord and the Elders needs to tell us right from wrong.
Then we were told that God was within us all and that we needed to do right over wrong.
Now we are told that we are connected to God’s truth and we can discern right from wrong.

It’s that gradual liberation and empowerment of the individual, but with that empowerment has come a build up of pride and ego that still needs to be mediated and overcome.

My point is that there is more to the puzzle than just this one piece. Suppose you’re putting together a puzzle and your piece has a head on it.. are you to rightly assume that the entire puzzle is a grotesque visage of death? It would be a mistake to do so.

lol

@fireside—I’m struck by how much we have in common in our views about human history. I also think human morality has “progressed” And you are absolutely right that the Code of Hammurabi has an important place in the context of the evolution of religion. (In fact, much of the Bible’s legal code in the book of Exodus is clearly derivative of the earlier Code).

We also seem to agree that it’s best to pick and choose lessons and morals from our history, not to dwell on the past, and to discard those moral lessons that do not work any longer.

In fact, I’m not even sure where we really even disagree anymore at this point. (Incidentally, I also don’t drink alcohol!) I think you simply give more credit and honor to ancient religions and their leaders than I do. It seems like you see religions as the engines of this moral progression of humanities. I agree that they can be progressive engines, that religions often start by changing an existing—often oppressive—social order. But I think more often than not religions act less like engines of progression and more like inhibitors, because they usually become the oppressive social order that needs changing. In other words, they’re moral vestiges.

@Qingu – Yeah, I’d say you’re basically a Baha’i who doesn’t believe in God.
As to the progression of religion:

It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen.

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.

Thus among the Jews, at the end of the cycle of Moses, which coincides with the Christian manifestation, the Law of God disappeared, only a form without spirit remaining. The Holy of Holies departed from among them, but the outer court of Jerusalem—which is the expression used for the form of the religion—fell into the hands of the Gentiles. In the same way, the fundamental principles of the religion of Christ, which are the greatest virtues of humanity, have disappeared; and its form has remained in the hands of the clergy and the priests. Likewise, the foundation of the religion of Muhammad has disappeared,  but its form remains in the hands of the official ‘ulama.

These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.

Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions

Surley or Surely?

Don’t call me Shirley.

I love how deep questions like this are so readily reduced to old Airplane quotes. xD The path of least resistance I suppose.

I like how this question about religion has been pondered for centuries. What good can come from asking it again here in this forum? Since the question is about good from religion. It is sort of like fanning the flames.

It’s akin to asking what is the meaning of life? You’ll never get a simple, factual answer like “43”.. yet we continue to ask it… why? I suppose because it’s only human nature to wonder such things.. and bouncing our ideas off of our colleagues is a good way to learn. It’s just plain fun.

The simple, factual answer to the ultimate question about life the universe and everything is actually: 42.

that’s why you never get the answer 43

Most of these questions are somewhat “fun”. It’s hard to use that description in this case.

@fireside I specifically say 43… all the time… just to find out which people are sticklers for pointing out the ridiculous notion that any number is more correct than another as an answer to that question. Thanks for the laughs. =D

@steve6 Why are you here then? I suppose you are the only one who can answer that question for you.

I don’t think gloom, doom, and the death of society by religion is fun. Why are you here? “Surley” not to further the discussion of conflict.

In the words of Sam from Quantum Leap “Oh boy..”

Just in case my question is deemed to be blasphemous i am going to give most of my wages to the Church roof appeal.
A sizeable donation always gets your sins eradicated quicker.

@fireside, yes, we do have a lot in common.

I think it’s interesting that you say the principles of Muhammad remain in the hands of the official ulema. I presume you are not talking about the ulema who call for the persecution of the Baha’i in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran (well, technically I guess they’re not called ulema in Iran, but you get my point)?

You believe Muhammad was one of many prophets, and your religion has culled his moral philosophy and chosen the most tolerant and progressive parts to follow (and, strangely, the alcohol ban). But to Muslims, two fundamental tenet of Islam and the Quran is that Muhammad is the last prophet and the Quran cannot be abrogated. This is why Muslims in the middle east tend to persecute Baha’is. (Not all of them, of course, and I’m sure there are non-religious political reasons as well, but it is certainly a huge factor).

Are you saying that such Muslims are misinterpreting their own religion?

I guess this is where I think the whole “unity” thing that nice and progressive religions like yours and the Unitarians falls apart. Because ultimately, it’s not unity—it’s a bunch of progressive universalists telling Muslims and Christians and Jews that their own religions are incomplete. It’s just another form of syncretism. You’re trying to co-opt older religions into your own fold—just like Muhammad tried to co-opt Arabian pagans and Jews and Christians into his own fold—just like Christians tried to co-opt John the Baptist’s cult and esoteric mysteries and Jews into their fold.

Every religion worth its salt claims to be the “Version 1.1” of previous popular religions. The Bahaluala faith is no different. And it’s not hard to see why the “Version 1.0” religions are resistant to the update when a fundamental tenet of their own version is that it’s supposed to be the final one.

Ok, all of that quote above was Abdul Baha, not me. But I understand your point.

Here’s what I see in the writings of Islam:
Surah [3:81] GOD took a covenant from the prophets, saying, “I will give you the scripture and wisdom. Afterwards, a messenger will come to confirm all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him.” He said, “Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?” They said, “We agree.” He said, “You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you.”

[3:84] Say, “We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters.”

——
Spiritual teachings cannot be abrogated, but the cultural/material ones are updated over time.
——
As far as the persecution in Iran and other areas, why should it be any different from anything else? The Jews rejected Christ, the Christians rejected Muhammed, why would you assume that the Muslims would welcome Baha’u’llah with open arms?
——
You can call it co-opting, or you can call it inclusion. I happen to see it as a good thing that people can find commonalities among their beliefs and worship the essential truths without getting caught up in divisiveness.

@fireside, the Quran explicitly says Muhammad is God’s final prophet.

Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things. —33:40

Many of the hadiths say the same thing.

So for you to say “Muhammad is not the final prophet of God” is, like it or not, contradicting a central tenet of the Islamic faith. Muslims certainly consider it a “central truth.”

Now, as I said before, I truly respect the peaceful and unifying inclinations of your religion. But at the same time, I think it’s naive to ignore the central differences between religions.

Baha’is and Muslims each make a very different claim about reality and about the nature of God and prophethood. And the Quran is not shy about telling us what it thinks about people who have a different claim of reality than Muslims. It says, repeatedly and enthusiastically, that they deserve to be tortured forever in hell, and ideally conquered in earthly life.

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
– Qur’an 3:85

This translation of verse [3:85] is by the well known scholar (‘Abdullah) Yusuf Ali. In his commentary on this verse, Mr. Yusuf Ali writes:

“The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. It was the religion preached by all the earlier prophets. It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of Allah and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to Allah’s Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance.”

Many verses in the Holy Qur’an explain the meaning of Islam as the one religion of God, revealed to all prophets. Islam is not Muhammdanism. It is the religion of submission to God, though it also is by name, the religion of Muslims.

—the above was from this page but there is also more information related to your point about Muhammed being the seal of the prophets here

But they define their God as the dude who gave a “final revelation” to Muhammad in the form of the perfect Quran.

If you believe that God did not give a final revelation to Muhammad in the form of a perfect Quran, then, technically, you’re not really talking about the God of Islam.

Have you seen Star Wars? In the prequels it is revealed that the Force works through tiny beings called midichlorians. Now, imagine if you claimed that the Force actually works through dark energy. Your Force has the same name as the Force in Star Wars, and perhaps many of the same qualities. But it’s not the same Force. You would be making a different claim about the fundamental nature of reality than the official Star Wars canon is making.

Incidentally, Muslims and Baha’is arguing about the nature of God and the mechanisms of his supposed revelations reminds me a lot of Star Wars nerds arguing about the Force and debating canon. Difference being, of course, that pro-Lucas Star Wars nerds don’t massacre anti-Lucas nerds out of fealty to their sacred scripture….

@Qingu…I see intolerance in the fact that you need to be told you are right. As intelligent as you seem, you somehow feel that continuing to reiterate you argument will eventually make everyone break down and say “Oh shit Qingu, you’re right!!!”.

If you were tolerant of other’s beliefs and ideas you would have stated your point and perhaps a counter-point and then meditated on the entire dialogue. Instead you continue to pose variations on the exact same things you said the first time.

Instead of thinking about your response while another is talking, try listening instead. It’s educational and polite.

~ Oh shit Qingu, you’re right!!!

@Qingu oh shit!!!

It all sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

@Blondesjon, with all due respect, I think that’s quite unfair. I’m new to Fluther, so maybe I’m not used to the “culture” of debate on here, but I think you’ve assumed far more about my motives and inner state of mind than is warranted.

You seem to think that having a debate about an idea entails intolerance of the opposing viewpoint. I think that’s unfortunate, because I think it’s important to debate about our ideological disagreements—even if we don’t end up agreeing (especially when we don’t end up agreeing). That said, nobody was holding a gun to fireside’s head to force him to participate in our long back-and-forth. And nobody made you read it.

@Qingu go quingo go quingo!!!Sing to the Go Ricki go Ricki theme from Ricki Lake show and do the circular arm movements.

@Qingu,...@Blondesjon are you implying that I am intolerant?

If so, why? Being opposed to an idea or a text is different of being intolerant of that idea or text. Think about the word “tolerate.” Do you say you “tolerate” things that you like and respect? No. You “tolerate” things that you don’t like. I “tolerate” skinheads being able to march in Jewish neighborhoods. I don’t like them, but I wouldn’t suppress their right to believe what they want. Nor would I suppress the right of religious people to believe what they want.

So if you think I’m being intolerant, I’d like to hear why.

@NaturalMineralWater
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

@vinifera7 – Quotes are fun, huh?

I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research.
Albert Einstein

I can understand your aversion to the use of the term ‘religion’ to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza,” he wrote. ”[But] I have not found a better expression than ‘religious’ for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.
Albert Einstein

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.
Albert Einstein

I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Ghandi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?
Albert Einstein

@Vinifera7: Yeah, but for bad people to do good things, sometimes it take religion too!!

But Einstein didn’t believe in any sort of personal God, like “religious” people do.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. (Albert Einstein – The Merging of Spirit and Science)

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. (Albert Einstein)

@fireside, I’m all for cosmic science religions. Have you heard of transhumanism and the Singularity?

@Qingu – Cosmology is the branch of philosophy and metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time.

Transhumanism and the Singularity are about pushing our brains to new heights through the use of technology.It’s the development of artificial intelligence.

My take on Einstein’s quote is not that he thinks that the future of religion will be based on computers. It’s that the future of religion will be about discovering universal truths in “all things natural and spiritual”

Religions that insist that they are the one true religion are inherently wrong and sow the seeds for abuse that are unthinkable for ordinary people. Deep belief in religion bolsters torturers when they cringe at the suffering they cause. Religion helps ignorant teenagers when they are called to strap bombs to themselves and kill neighbors and relatives.

Religion justifies the greed of preachers who ask for alms from the destitute, it raises children in fear and guilt for crimes they did not commit.

Religion helped the Aztecs tear living hearts of of their victims.

Considering the minimal good compared to its horrendous wrongs, religion is not worth the risk.

True religion brings out good in people. False religion bad behavior. The Bible says that both kinds of religion would be around.