What good is religion?

The only "reason" you have offered is that
people practice "religion"...so therefore it must be "needed"....correct?

 

Lol...you're leaving out the most important fact...
you are the one that's hurling.
You make things up....accuse someone else of saying them...
and then proceed to argue against your own ideas.
Why not stick to the topic...if you have nothing new to offer
then just listen. Maybe something useful will come to you.

 

@Kokomojojo , @Joe knows

All right then, for the sake of resolving the debate, I offer this "compromise," (and I only put it in quotes because none of the compromise will be coming from the above-stated, thread-originating, gabmux side):

Stipulated that perhaps religions are
1) not as, "useful as people seem to think they are," the inexactness of that gabmux-description notwithstanding. Further, that,
2) "they," tend to separate people into groups of us & them, which is, of course, true, but ignores my supposedly, "off-topic," argument that humans naturally separate into camps, as the OP writer acknowledges here, saying, of this division, "We have enough of that going on already in the political spectrum." While we never took up my argument that, in lieu of being able to do this through religion, people would simply find some other groups to satisfy this human need-- the way a competitive sports junkie, in between major league team sport seasons, might find himself rooting for one particular female figure skater-- nevertheless, I will acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument, and probably no way to definitively prove either so, at this point, I am willing to stipulate it, for the sake of argument-resolution.

Lastly, & most dubiously, I suggest stipulation to the possibility, at least-- and considering that this point was in no way proven, anywhere in the last 26 pages, one would think the thesis postulator would be happy with the gift-- that 3) we could do, "just fine," without them (religions).

And, in exchange for all these concessions of unproven assertions, the other side of the argument-- which I think is just gabmux & @Greatest I am (though he seems more interested in just pushing his usual anti-Christian views, at this stage)-- only need stipulate to the obvious FACTS that, regardless of all the foregoing, people are, for the most part, going to continue to put faith in religions, so that we are stuck with them, nonetheless.

Anyone else feel ready to end an absolutely pointless argument?

 

@Cosmo -- sorry I missed adding you, in my previous post. I can't recall seeing any of your posts that spoke directly to the thread's main idea, but I assume you are on team @gabmux (irony intended).


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-good-is-religion.588493/page-27#post-1072760194

 

Or do you mean "Is religion good?"

Christian theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr said, "Religion is a good thing for good people, and a bad thing for bad people."

Christian theologian Paul Tillich said, (See my essay "The Latent Church."):“All institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic.”

“Not he who rejects the gods of the crowd is impious, but he who embraces the crowd’s opinion of the gods.” (From Epicurcus’s letter (341–270 BC) to Menokeus on the tenth book of Diogenses Laertitus)

 

When I want your advice on what is wisdom, and where to look for it, I'll let you know.

No, incorrect-- as I've explained enough times to realize that, as you are still fixated on this erroneous idea, it would be a waste of time & energy, to repeat the process.

I have heard of color-blindness, and tone-deafness, but you are the first case I have seen of total IRONY-blindness.
This was my quote, you were answering:

DEFinning said: ↑
You and your fellow black-baller, @gabmux , can hurl your lies at me, and draw from this fabricated excuse-well, ad infinitum; the absence of any of my quoted words that show merit to your charges, will always be the note that rings the loudest.


That was my reply to Greatest I am's post, doing exactly as my post charged: saying that I was misrepresenting him, without quoting any of my posts that supposedly did that.

You know this, because it was his response to your charge that I just make things up that I say you had said; which YOU did WITHOUT QUOTING MY DOING THIS.

gabmux said: ↑
Yes he will make stuff up in his head....and he will claim that you said it.
Then he will argue with it. I've already suggested that he start his own thread
dedicated to arguing with himself...
....but he seems to be addicted to this one
<END>

Your saying that I do something-- for which you provided no evidential quote-- is not proof, for his false contention.


It is the QUOTED PROOF that makes the difference between a legitimate charge, and just a lot of hot air.

AND THEN YOU ADD YOUR CHARGE THAT I, supposedly, AM THE ONE THAT'S HURLING LIES, along with a repetition of numerous of your OTHER CHARGES AGAINST ME--

"you are the one that's hurling.
You make things up....accuse someone else of saying them...
and then proceed to argue against your own ideas."

-- and you do all this (wait - for - it)
WITHOUT OFFERING A SINGLE QUOTED EXAMPLE TO BACK UP THESE LIBELOUS ACCUSATIONS!

Do you still not get it? Your response to my calling you & GIA, "black-ballers," who falsely accuse, without showing any evidence...

WAS TO BLACK-BALL ME, with a HOST OF CHARGES, for which you supplied NO EVIDENCE!

In other words--
WITH YOUR REPLY,
YOU PROVED MY CHARGE


Here are just a couple of the quotes of GIA's, which make charges w/o proof, in the form of my quotes actually doing, what you are alleging against me.

DEFinning said: ↑
So, even though you give the term, "divine," to yourself

My quote not only does not show any, "lies," on my part, but shows Greatest I am to be a bald-faced liar, as he did say just what I'd said he had, and I had previously supplied him with the quote, the first time he contended that he'd not said something which, indeed, he had:

↑Greatest I am said:
In Gnostic Christianity, divinity is in all of us.

We also know that divine is a title that can only be given. There is no real sentient Divine.

If any stood up, you me or the Pope, to claim Divine status, we would be ROFLOL at.
<END>

Greatest I am said: ↑
If you cannot live without the supernatural, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian as the Jesus we follow is just a man.

Most forget that he asked us in scriptures, indirectly of course, when he asked, have ye forgotten that ye are gods?

Most have, but not Gnostic Christians. We just do not name god other than I am, and yes, a Gnostic Christian will mean himself or herself. We define that I am as the best rules and laws we can find to live with...
<END>

And yet he both denies saying it, says that I did not reply to his prior request, which I did--

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-good-is-religion.588493/page-23#post-1072752082

-- & slanders me, by saying I lie.

(Which he hasn't BTW.)


And THIS is the guy you look to for wisdom.

Oh, well, as you have likewise proven, YOU TWO ARE
BIRDS OF A FEATHER.

 

I was thinking more along the parts which overlap and concepts which they all share in common, and which are also reflected in secular laws such as murder, theft, the value of family, marriage, life, fairness, dignity, etc.. So in that regard, to one degree or another, all religions have a stake in secular laws and values which bind civilization. But yes, if you run out the particulars of the many religions, they all wind up at different places at odds with one another. Even the common religion of Christianity has forty thousand different denominations. Which is adverse to the existence of one Christ and one gospel. It's like they have all left or dismissed/discarded the path of truth to go find the truth and have become tangential tribes in the wilderness. And I think it begins with the presumption of divine authority or calling.

 

Yes!! Thanks for link! Here is part....

“Christianity knows nothing of a right to civilize uncivilized races by means of force. It insists upon the avoidance of everything by which the Christian name might be blasphemed among the nations (i Tim. vi. I Tit. ii. 5- ; and by nothing has it been more blasphemed than by oppression. We rightly wonder how it is that Christians live in intercourse for centuries with pagan peoples without exciting in them any friendly disposition towards Christianity. But the reason of this is to be sought for, not so much in the circumstance that Christian people have no interest in Christianity, as in the fact that Christianity has made itself hated and contemptible through its deeds of violence. Were it not for this, those plastic races with whom it came in contact fifteen centuries ago would have long since been Christianized. That they are now only partially so is a standing disgrace to the Christian name”(Munro, p. 276).

"The United States is responsible for the torture and murder of some 250,000 Latin Americans during the 1980s American/Contra death squad inquisition. Many were professing Catholic Christians that are to this day being discovered in mass graves throughout Central America. Those government officials responsible for this mass murder of Catholic Christians have gleefully returned to U.S. government seats of power to duplicate the atrocities of the American/Contra death squads in Venezuela in a publicly admitted effort to seize its natural resources."

 

Yes!! Thanks much for reply....
@Kyklos posted a link that seems to address what you are speaking about.
https://sphenomenon.blogspot.com/search?q=inherently+corrupt

 

Yes....it has been said...."There has only ever been one spiritual teaching."
But the groups seem to ultimately be concerned more with
defending their own particular method...rather than pursuing the intended purpose of the spiritual teachings.

 

Lol...lets see now....first you claimed this thread to be unneeded...
now you are calling it...."an absolutely pointless argument".

This thread has obviously become an important part of your life
considering the amount of time you spend here.

 

You've regressed back into long-winded ranting of petty criticisms....
please try to focus on the topic.

 

Really now?

seems thats not true, it would be pretense that anyone would build on anything "not needed".

You have continually preached through out this thread religion is not needed.
when something is not needed it is discarded

theres a quick way to lose credibility!

 

Can you please explain what your idea of..."proselytizing"...is referring to?

Yes, some folks discard things they don't need...others keep them around forever.....just in case.
That idea somewhat applies to "religions" in that some attend "just in case" there really is a God.
I remember someone telling the story of how her mother made her go to church "just in case".
But that would not be an authentic "need" for "religion"...only an imagined possibility of one.

 

Yes. Where did you get the idea that I'm advocating the elimination of anything??

Attempting to abolish anything that humans have attached themselves to will
not deter them from seeking it. However...humans can in fact let go of something
once they've realized they never "needed" it in the first place....like tobacco, alcohol/drugs.
You might easily let go of this thread....but you're attached to it somehow... even though you seem to see no purpose for it...you still keep coming back.
Attachment may also explain why "religions" remain...
even though....what their founders pointed to....may be all but forgotten.

 

Thanks much for your input!!

Me thinks your quote below is quite accurate....

 

so that is why you are "proselytizing" your religion

seems you have just proven they are

give us an example what qualifies for need

its not the thread its become all about pointing out your mischaracterizations

ih sure, the purpose is about getting a good laugh over watching you dodge every thing.

yes as I said look at your "proselytizing"

LOL

 

Here is def of proselytizing....

Definition of proselytize
intransitive verb
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

Am not trying to recruit, convert, anyone to a "religion"...or even a belief of some kind.
Am merely suggesting to de-proselytize may be a better idea....
don't need to add anymore useless beliefs...
just let go of the ones you are so attached to.

 

Nobody has proven "religions" are "needed"....
only that they are practiced.
Just because something is "practiced" "religiously"
does not necessarily mean it is helpful.

1 Corinthians 10:23
"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

 

yep thats what you are doing!
its all here as many have pointed out to you in black ink on white paper.

Its intrinsic, like blood, part of the process of all actions
you never defined what need is,
you failed to make the distinction between religion and vice
you also failed to make the distinction between religion and deity or supernatural.

define your use of helpful? To whom?
You failed to post a convincing argument that religion is not needed

 

I'm doing no proselytizing...am suggesting letting go of useless beliefs...not introducing more of them.
You seem to be using the same tactic as your pal....you make things up...and then accuse me of doing them.

 

"Religions" are ideas....beliefs
all of which are unstable...changeable.
You could die without blood...no?
Would you die without "religion"?
I don't think so.

 

My opinion is that there is no "distinction" between religion and vice...
except that you may get arrested for vice. But you could also
get arrested for practicing your "religion" if they get out of hand like some do.

 

So you think religion is the same as vice.

vice
Definition of vice
1a : moral depravity or corruption : wickedness
b : a moral fault or failing
c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : foible suffered from the vice of curiosity
2 : blemish, defect
3 : a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint
4a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play
b : buffoon, jester
5 : an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness
6 : sexual immorality especially : prostitution


bit of a stretch.

 

False, religion is the ACTIONS resulting from beliefs and thoughts.
philosophy and ethics are thoughts.

morals self governance are indisputably religion, drinking till you pass out is not.
yes you would die without religion.