~Our world is better because religion ~

FROM THE DESK OF PASTOR REVA (lol)




~Our world is better because religion ~
But its not necessarily worse because of atheism,
Secular progressiveness? Now my beloved that is a bane on the world~.....

As a formally educated theist and minister I share my air with everyone. Even activist atheists. Mans lifespan is short and the universe is large, far too large to learn even a fraction of what there is to know. So we should be debating in good faith to learn from one another. With that in mind I reference this thread as a kind of rebuttal to those posts and threads that say the world would be better off if religion did not exist.

Think about that last statement! Without religious belief the sciences may have never been developed! Think about all the fantastic architecture that organized religion has gifted the world. The pyramids of Egypt the Americas. The beautiful monuments built on a scale that intimidates today’s engineers stand in mute testament to religions power and its ability to give man a reason to endeavor to do the impossible. The awe inspiring Sistine Chapel and scores of other churches temples adorned with unbelievably beautiful art work are proof that religion is good for the world. While religion is good God is better, infinite better. Yes, I can already hear the mumbling, I know religious belief can be for the betterment of mankind it can be an excuse for the evils to emerge from mankind too. War is usually a result of greed not religion per se. However torture and persecution such as the inquisition is again early religions skeletons and they are out of the closet. I do not count the atrocities committed in the name of God or religion when the reason is fraudulent corrupted or full fabrications such as the sickening beheadings and terrorist attacks by psychopaths that call themselves Muslims. So when the religious wars of history of the world are compared to wars caused by secular concerns ie greed and power there is no doubt they play a very distant, nearly infinitely second fiddle to secular caused war. Would the reva lie to you, my beloved?

REVA

 

Religion is a great motivator because it's not governed by reason. Religion can make humans act in all sorts of ways, for what I would call good and bad, but the religious actor would say was warranted. However, one thing religion does for humans is good for us. It gives hope.

 

The OP seems pretty valid. Religion has played both sides of history on almost any issue, arguably mostly in a favorable direction. (not sure I'd take that argument, but I see grounds).

Curious what kind of church you're minister of though, considering your handle, avatar, and the downloaded image in the OP. Some people just aren't going to trust you to not start spouting satanism, even if they support the basis of the thread.

 

Personally, I don't see why people have to think religion has done the world good, or religion is evil etc.
Religion is not in of itself an entity that exists that is 'good' or 'bad'. Humans created religion in an attempt to understand the reality we live in. Humans have done wonderful things with religion and have done some of the most atrocious things with religion. I think people create the idea of religion to be larger than what it actually is.

 

I'll tell my Animist friends next time I'm in the mountains of northern Laos.

 

Do you believe that Christ was Truth, the idea, as he told Philip in John 14:6?

I mean, Christ was the ideal, not a truth himself.
He personified Truth as a person.

 

Yes, religion was all about telling people that Truth describes a Reality which otherwise, we woukd not see.
Truth can reveal Reality.
Truth can set us free because living inside of Reality is sane.

 

Gee Dave: Can you explain in irrefutable terms what 'Reality' is?

 

Then you are suggesting that "Christ" is not 'real'.

That which is 'real' is said to be:
"re·al[SUP] 1[/SUP]
adj.1. a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life."

Using your choice of logical argument, if Christ is not 'real' then Christ is something that Jesus (the real man) was not. Further, if Christ is not 'real' then Jesus accepting the title included in "I am the way, the truth, and the life", would have some meaning other than being 'truth'. In your closing comment, you stated that "Christ was the ideal, not a truth himself." Two things there... "himself" and 'Christ' being the same sentence indicates that both are equivalent of the other... therefore, you are saying that 'Christ' was a man. That would be a positive assertion and would require proof of claim. Secondly: The scripture refers to "the way" "the truth" and "the life".... yet you want to claim "Christ was the ideal, not a truth himself." In your writings, you present little nuances that might go unnoticed by some people, however, little subtle changes in scripture can make worlds of difference in how people view the scripture. There is a huge difference in saying "a truth" (your claim) and saying "the truth" (the claim of scripture). 'a truth' would imply one of many 'truths' but "the truth" indicates the only one.

 

Reality is everything that exists.
Everything...

 

Right in that,...
Yes.

Christ represented Truth, which is only the image of what exists.

Truth, itself, is not Reality.
Truth is real, yes.
But it is not Reality.
Truth is only the report of all the past realities, like history of Reality.

 

religious freedom is best, the gov should never say there is or is not a God, leave that up to the people to decide for themselves

theists and atheists are not without greed and power... that is just common sense

.

 

Something you don't believe in

 

Which definition is your preferred choice?
"ex·ist
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists 1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur:"

 

Then you are saying that Christ does not 'exist'.

Definitively you are skewing the meaning of terms again or possibly confusing a title with the entity/person to whom the title is assigned. You might want to clarify who or what it is you are speaking about when you use the term 'Christ'. Jesus at one point was referred to as "the Christ", so are you talking about Jesus when you use the term 'Christ'? In other words, you are talking in circles.

reality:
"re·al·i·ty
n. pl. re·al·i·ties 1. The quality or state of being actual or true.

2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence."

 

Again, every theist who disregards the most immoral thoughts and actions of religion places the blame of those thoughts and actions squarely on the human being while giving that same religion credit for the morality that allowed them to reject those same thoughts and actions. You're double standard is showing.

Did science come out of religion? Perhaps in a way it did but the science we value today came out of philosophy which is not directly tied to religion, in fact ancient philosophers were some of the most outspoken atheists. To people like Epicurus concepts like an all powerful god were juvenile.

But let's for a moment give religion all the credit for creating science. Keeping it around for that sake is like keeping your training wheels for your bike after you get your drivers licence. Perhaps one could make a good argument for letting religion linger for the sake of children who might have a hard time dealing with the idea of death, kind of like lying to them about the fat guy in the red suit with the reindeer and then when they are old enough we tell them the truth. But even that bothers me, humanity will never reach it's potential if it keeps seeking to retard itself for the sake of false consolations and comfort. We didn't go to the moon because of religion, we didn't create pacemakers through prayer, the achievements of mankind with or without religion point to one truth, religion is entirely unnecessary to achieve anything. Besides if I have to choose between a pyramid made out of stone by slaves to help their king achieve immortality and the internet that brings millions of people together, providing knowledge and opportunity put me down for the science that isn't tied to religious desires.

 

This way of reasoning here is a demonstration of someone who denies Reality even exists at all.

 

In spite of all that you say, even you can see that, when Christ said, "I am the Truth," he was essentially defining exactly that which Science endeavors to discover, i.e.; Truth, itself.

 

You exist.
But you are NOT Reality.
You are real.
Truth is real.

Reality is everything which exists.
It exists only until replaced by the next Reality to unfold in the next spit second.
The sum of the past realities is Truth.

 

Gee CD: Have you heard this one before:
"
[h=1]Appeal to ridicule[/h] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[SUP][1][/SUP]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and overly simplified way."

- - - Updated - - -

And you have proof that "I" exist?

 

IMO the good that religion has historically brought humanity is offset by the evil done to others in its name. Religion leads many to acts of kindness while it leads others to acts of cruelty. The real kicker is when religion is used as a moral basis for bias towards others. Once one believes that their acts are backed by the authority of a God all becomes permissible. It is impossible for me to have anything other than a neutral view of religion as I have to take into account the good and the bad both current and past.

 

Two pharisees arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Knowing this, how do you think we should evaluate religion as such? Is it good or bad? By what standard should we make that judgment?

 

I think such evaluations are relative to the individual thus there is no universal assessment criteria for "we" to adhere to.

My individual assessment is that religion is both good and bad.

See my first answer.

 

Your point in introducing such a statement is what?