Is religion a source of unity or division?

[cbayer]

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/03/religion-source-unity-division-2014327161222765229.html

Religious leaders promote a message of co-operation between followers of different faiths.

Last updated: 27 Mar 2014 19:38

It is blamed for wars and discrimination, yet also embraced as a means of resolution and integration.

Religion is the source of many arguments, while some studies suggest it is on the decline.

A conference in Qatar is promoting a message of interfaith dialogue, of religion as a means of global co-existence.

"This is very helpful in terms of breaking misconceptions, all the challenges we have in the peace-building process, the barriers to achieving peace, it is very important that we search for common ground," Rohaniza Sumndad Usman, founder of the Teach Peace, Build Peace Movement told Al Jazeera.

more at link, including video

[exboyfil]

1. Division

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:6

About as exclusionary as you can get.

[cbayer]

3. One can find biblical passages to support either answer.

The question for each individual is whether they want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

[exboyfil]

9. Which ones?

Matthew 10:35-36
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

Luke 12:51
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

It gets worse if you look at the OT (advocates slaughtering entire tribes of people including women and children). Revelation is also an eye opener.

My contention is that religion is not a foundation of unity in a pluralistic society. Something else needs to be in place. Religion can offer a moral code and a check on behavior, but it is not a necessary condition for unity. In fact it quickly leads to disunion (even among professing Christians). When the founder of your faith is absolute in this belief (and the writings of his apostles even more so), I don't see how this helps.

[cbayer]

14. Cherry picking can go both ways.

One can pick the good fruit or one can pick the rotten fruit.

There is no question that there is rotten fruit in there.

In the end, you get what you pick.

Psalm 133:1

How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!

Colossians 3:14

And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

1 Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

2 Corinthians 13:11

Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

[hrmjustin]

16. Well said!

[Goblinmonger]

19. And you're the "decider"

as to what is good and what is rotten?

[longship]

56. Apparently you did not get cbayer's point.

One can quote mine the Bible for just about anything. She provided examples. Her point is that one can take many different positions from the Bible. It's one I happen to agree with. The point is, the "decider" is that there are a myriad of "deciders".

She's made an argument. Do you have a counter argument?

[skepticscott]

57. You made the argument below

In your very apt quote about ventriloquist dummies.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Apparently you DID NOT get cbayer's point

She said:

One can pick the good fruit or one can pick the rotten fruit.

Which clearly means that liberal Christians are picking the good fruit and RW fundies are picking the rotten fruit. Which they would certainly thing the same thing.

And because you seem to be a not-getter recently, my counter argument is that the Bible isn't a good source of any guidance since it is all over the place and we should stop thinking there is something to gain from it as a whole.

[longship]

65. I would agree with your point.

That the Bible is not a good source for guidance.

[Goblinmonger]

71. I don't think that is the general consensus of theists here

They feel that it is a good source if you take out the "bad stuff." Perhaps I'm wrong.

[skepticscott]

20. Giving the context for those quotes

would be nice, but I suspect that doing that honestly would undermine your agenda here.

[longship]

54. Agenda? What agenda, pray tell. (So to speak) nt

[skepticscott]

58. Oh, so you've volunteered

to provide the context for those quotes?

I'm not holding my breath, and am not inclined to deal with Mahoneys in any case.

[trotsky]

22. It sure can. No one disputes that.

In fact, it's the central problem. When the very definition of what constitutes "good" fruit versus "rotten" fruit is in dispute, how does your approach really solve anything?

[longship]

55. Her point is that one can use the Bible to support just about anything.

See my post #52 below, Bible as ventriloquist dummy, which I think was cbayer's point, and which she puts forth here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218120710#post3

But I guess the ventriloquist dummy also works with DU posts.

[Brettongarcia]

59. If the Bible supports ANYthing, then we should not quote it at all. Since it's actually equivocal

If it actually never really, firmly, says anything? Then therefore, to use it as "authority" is not honest. Unless we want to quote its criticisms of itself and religious leaders, say.

And? All forms of cherry picking are dishonest. Since they imply God said something univocally, or firmly.

[trotsky]

64. It sure can. I totally agree.

In fact, it's the central problem. When the very definition of what constitutes "good" fruit versus "rotten" fruit is in dispute, how does her approach really solve anything?

No need to be snide.

[exboyfil]

25. Where the Bible talks about living with all in harmony

it is at its best. Unfortunately the overall theme of the Bible is one of exclusion - exclusion to the point that God authorizes your immediate execution in some places and the eternal suffering of your soul in other places. Now I am not questioning the belief system. I am only wondering how such a belief system can be the basis of unity in a pluralistic society.


Moving on the Psalm 135

8 He struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
the firstborn of people and animals.
9 He sent his signs and wonders into your midst, Egypt,
against Pharaoh and all his servants.
10 He struck down many nations
and killed mighty kings—
11 Sihon king of the Amorites,
Og king of Bashan,
and all the kings of Canaan—
12 and he gave their land as an inheritance,
an inheritance to his people Israel.


2 Cor 13:11
Paul is addressing his brothers and sisters in Christ. Earlier in the same letter in Chapter 6

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
******
1 Peter is a call for unity (or at least submission). Unfortunately it has been used to shut down legitimate protest and nonviolent resistance. It contains some of the best that can be found in the NT. I don't like that it basically advocates support of the status quo (including deference to an unelected monarch and slavery). The fact that it focuses on your own behavior is a definite plus.

1 Peter 2
12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
******
Colossians also is directed to Christians. Its sentiments mirror those of Peter in that whatever your lot you should just accept it.

Col 3

18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21 Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

[cbayer]

29. Again, you are cherry picking and your conclusion that the overall theme is one of

exclusion is based on what you pick.

The fact is that many individuals and groups use their religion and their religious texts as sources of promoting unity, harmony and peace.

What do you think of this particular group? Here is a more extensive article if you are interested in how they are using their religion to promote unity.

http://twocircles.net/2014mar29/interfaith_dialogue_peaceful_world_dr_alam_emphasizes_role_youth.html#.UzmLHVzMdBU

[exboyfil]

34. Revelation ends with

the sheep and goats assigned to their two fates. I am not cherry picking. The OT is all about securing a patch of land for a specific tribe and justifying various horrendous actions to ensure that claim is satisfied.

The Bible can't form the basis of unity. It can serve to check the behaviors of its true believers, but, at the end of the day, you are going to need something else. Now if you want to rewrite the Bible (you know take out the stuff about women being subservient to men, slavery is a ok if you are humane, and always obey the civil even undemocratic authority) then we can talk. Especially you need to gut the foundation of the Christian church (that only believers in Christ are destined for heaven and there is some future war coming in which all the unbelievers will be thrown into a lake of fire). Kind of hard to start a discussion about unity if that is your foundation premise.

[hrmjustin]

36. I find the bible unifying but I see how you disagree.

[cbayer]

37. Revelation? Do you actually read revelation literally?

That's some scar stuff right there.

See, when you say "the OT is all about", you are clearly picking cherries. There is so much in there, much of which is contradictory and even more that is reflective of a culture and time long ago.

Everyone does their own rewrite and takes what they read in context, except for the literalists who draw sweeping conclusions based on things that are all over the place.

So, let's throw out those bad parts and look at how the abrahamic religions can be used to promote unity, harmony and peace. Let's focus on those who don't believe that all people who think differently than they do will be thrown into a lake of fire.

I don't believe that to be true and I doubt you do either.

And, in fact, I've never met a believer on this site that thinks that.

So what do you think about the group highlighted in this article?

[hrmjustin]

38. Personally I don't think Revelation should have been included in the bible.

[cbayer]

39. There's a bunch of stuff I think could have been left out, lol.

[Brettongarcia]

75. If "cherry-picking" is not legitimate ... then what about your advocacy of the cherries you like?

Are you dropping your apparent old position that the parts YOU picked were good at least?

[cbayer]

77. Where did I say cherry picking was not legitimate?

I not only think it's legitimate, I think it's necessary, particularly in regards to the bible.

It just needs to be acknowledged for what it is. Those that say "all bad" or "all good" generally pick the parts that support their position and attribute that to the entire set of books.

Others are able to look more critically and discern that some is good fruit and some is rotten.

[stopbush]

101. The verses that you cherry picked to show the "good" part of the Bible

actually don't show that at all.

When the OT and Jesus refer to "brothers," it's not in the universal sense we think of today. It's much more literal than that. In other words, it's a closed society view of the world. Jesus said he was sent for the Jews, not the Gentiles. It's good when Jewish brothers get along. Jesus isn't talking about Jews getting along with Romans. That's as exclusionary as one can get, isn't it?

[cbayer]

88. You just continue to make my point.

I'm not interested in defending each and every thing that is said in the bible. But some people take good parts of it and use it for good ends.

No one expects you to use it as a basis of unity. Clearly it is not that for you.

But if there are others who are able to find unity in some of the passages and use that to promote harmony, what's the harm in that?

[eomer]

87. Unity like that is actually division.

Three of your excerpts are from an epistle (a letter) written to just the Christians of a particular area and they appeal for unity among just the Christians to whom they're directed. Other parts that you left out treat non-Christians with division, not unity.

These are great examples of how using a very short excerpt can change the meaning. In other words, there are two kinds of cherry picking - the kind that changes the real meaning of a passage and the kind that doesn't. Your excerpts (at least three out of four) are the kind that changes the meaning. The short excerpts sound like they are a call for unity among all people when in fact they are a call for division of Christians from non-Christians.

[cbayer]

89. Of course they are great examples of how using a very short excerpt can

change the meaning.

The same can be said for many of the short excerpts are repeatedly used to show that the book is evil from start to finish.

If one wants to go through them one at a time (which I don't), we could argue for the rest of our lives about what they really mean, the context, the social/cultural norms of the time, etc, etc.

That is not my point.

My point is that if some people take positive messages from the documents and use them to achieve mutual goals such as social justice, peace and economic equality, then there is no harm.

Christians from non-christians, muslims from jews, theists from atheists. What's the point?

Why not judge people based on their actions and not on the sources of their inspirations?

[skepticscott]

91. The point is, why do people need the Bible for that?

The very fact that they cherry pick shows that they don't. And yet they still cling to it as some sort or moral authority.

[eomer]

92. Okay, but if one gets a positive message from a section that actually said the opposite...

then it's getting really difficult to say that the Bible was a guide. You not only have to look for passages that say what you want, you also have to excerpt such a small part that it changes their meaning to the opposite of what they really said. If you're going that far then why not rearrange the order of the words too? Would the Bible still be a good guide if to make it so you rearrange the order of the words so they say the opposite of what they really said?

I know it sounds like I'm being facetious but I think that many people do exactly this - cite the Bible as a guide while at the same time taking the meaning to be the opposite of what it really was.

[cbayer]

93. I can tell you this from my own experience.

I was raised in the church. My father is a minister.

The bible was used to promote and teach about the issues that liberal/progressive people care about.

It was used for guidance when it made sense to use it for guidance. It was never used to promote anything that you or I would probably consider evil. It was used to teach about love, peace, caring for the most needy.

Of course you have to look for passages that say what you want and it's not always a really small part.

Only a literalist of a fundamentalist would insist that you must swallow every word.

The book offers you nothing and does not speak to you? Cool. You think people distort it to meet their objectives? So what, if those objective coincide with your own?

[skepticscott]

94. Here's the glaring flaw in all of that

It was used for guidance when it made sense to use it for guidance.

How did you know when it "made sense" and when it didn't make sense? Because you were simply trying to use the Bible as support and reinforcement for something that any decent person already knew was the right thing to do anyway. Not because there was any evidence that the dictates of the Bible came from any authority that should be deferred to or obeyed.

The bottom line is that there is nothing good in the Bible that you can't get elsewhere, or that you would even recognize as good if you didn't already know. So why encourage its use at all, given that it contains so much toxic shit?

As I've said before, if you can take two drugs to cure your illness, and one has strong negative side effects and the other doesn't, what sensible person would choose the former?

[stopbush]

108. You've pointed out the crux of that which our friend CBayer doesn't see

in her myriad posts in defense of Christianity.

But at least you're trying to show her the flaws in her arguments, and showing them quite clearly.

[skepticscott]

112. Not only doesn't she see it

but she doesn't want to see it. Anything that might disrupt her worldview is kept outside the bubble.

[stopbush]

114. Sadly,yes. She frames issues in as narrow a way as possible. Then, when challenged within

that narrow view, she opines that she's "not interested in discussing" that which she's been challenged on.

Like most religious arguments, Cbayer's are dependent on the opposition stipulating that religious ideas have some basis in reality. If one doesn't so stipulate - which means having an argument on a level playing field where words have meaning - well, she's not interested.

[skepticscott]

115. Exactly

The radical concept that it matters whether the god(s) that people worship and base their beliefs, actions, laws and entire worldview on even exist, is simply dismissed as outdated. Which is really the only way such people can continue to promote their agenda.

[skepticscott]

110. You seem determined to follow me around everywhere

and to carry gripes from another thread into this one. In which thread I demonstrated the existence of bad things motivated by religion that could have been motivated in no other way, and in which you failed to demonstrate the existence of any good things motivated by religion that could have been motivated in no other way (despite being given half a dozen opportunities to do so, and dodging every one). So your attempts to create a false equivalence between the two continue to fall flat.

[rug]

111. Fortunately, anyone who reads that thread without bias can see you demonstrated no such thing.

In fact, you had your ass kicked.

[skepticscott]

113. And yet another noise blast

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

119. I think "noise blast" is an apt description of skepticscott's posts

I would like to thank him for. I particularly want to thank him for a phrase which, since he used it, he cannot put an alert on, without being a howling hypocrite.

[skepticscott]

90. Hence the call for context of those quotes

Which was conspicuously ignored, since an honest answer would have undermined her agenda here.

[AlbertCat]

100. Brethren and sisteren

Of course they are talking only about people who agree with them.... other Christians and Jews. They don't mean Hindus.




(And you know it. Disingenuous much?)

[trotsky]

10. Yes, one certainly can.

And the worst part is, one is equally justified in selecting whatever passages one wants. And if one *truly believes* god wants them to get rid of other religions, who are we to say they're wrong?

Thus the core problem, which so many people refuse to acknowledge.

[Brettongarcia]

72. So how did the Jews come to God the Father, as it seemed - before Jesus was alive?

Did they never come to God, even though the Old Testament had them following him often?

Or did they come to God say, under a different name? "Jahweh," "Elohim," etc.? In which case, its not so exclusive.

Look into the inherent ambiguity that came from the many different names of God. Including "Jesus" himself.

For a long time theologians hypothesized that early texts were talking about somewhat different gods in fact. Like the "Jahwist" vs. the "Elohim"ist. Today we might extend past that incomplete hypothesis, to look at the dozens of names that were taken to be the name of "one" God. But which are significantly different gods, it often seems.

Still some ambiguity, even here. In the name, identity, and character of God himself.

[exboyfil]

82. One theory that I heard

which I have not studied much is that the original God of the Israelites was a tribal god like you said who eventually grew into the omnipotent/omnipresent monotheistic God. You can see shadows of this in some of the earliest parts of the Old Testament.

Here is a link with one blogger's speculation. The translation for Deut 32 is markedly different than that found in the NIV for example.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/02/polytheism-in-the-bible/

As far as the question about those under the law before the arrival of Jesus. Various passages talk about the promise of the coming Messiah as a path of salvation (most notably Isaiah 53).

[Goblinmonger]

2. Unifying for those IN the same sect

Divisive against those outside the sect

[trotsky]

12. Correct!

And great clip.

[exboyfil]

13. And of course sects keep

forming like a hydra. Consider at least five different interpretations of Holy Communion - each interpretation adopted by a significant percentage of individuals. http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

The Gospels devote a significant part of the narrative to Holy Communion. Contrast with the scientific theory of evolution which has converged to a consistent statement that a vast majority of scientists agree upon.

[AlbertCat]

102. And of course sects forming like a hydra

And we're only talking (at this point) about ONE religion!

The question is: "Is RELIGION a source of....." not "Is Christianity a source of....."

By concentrating on a single religion, it has definitively proven to be divisive and not unifying....since you are completely ignoring other religions. The word "religion" seems to mean "Christianity" to some. Or at least "Abrahamic".

Indeed, polytheist religions seem to be more inclusive than monotheism.....since there are already plenty of gods to chose from.


But it's best to just fee oneself from ancient superstitions altogether. They make a great action flick, but should be relegated to the fairytale folder.

[hrmjustin]

4. For me unifying.

[cbayer]

7. And the world could use more of you.

[hrmjustin]

8. Lol I have plenty of faults but thank you.

[Deep13]

5. Yes.

It is a source of unity and division.

[cbayer]

6. Exactly. It can be either and has been both.

What do you think of this conference?

[Deep13]

11. I don't think I will be able to attend, so no basis for an opinion.

In point of fact, that short article does not say when the conference is/was.

[cbayer]

17. I think it was invitation only.

It was held March 26 & 27. This years conference was specifically about the role of youth. It was the 11th annual conference.

[AlbertCat]

103. I think it was invitation only.

How inclusive!

[trotsky]

15. Were any atheists invited to this conference?

That should hint at an answer.

[skepticscott]

18. Count up the number of

Christian denominations and sects in the world, and chart whether the number has increased or decreased over the last 1500 years. Or the last 500. Or 100. How many times have new sects split off, as compared to how many times sects have merged?

If Christianity is a unifying force, why are there so many groups who stay apart over minor differences?

[ladjf]

21. Religion usually supports anti-science based subjective thinking, a dangerous policy. nt

[cbayer]

23. While there are some religious groups that do support anti-science based

positions (not sure what you mean by "subjective thinking&quot , it is a stretch to say it "usually" does.

And this conference certainly does not appear to be taking that position.

Do you support what they are doing here?

[ladjf]

24. My post was my comment on the question about religious groups tendency toward unity or divisiveness.

"subjective thinking" - try a dictionary for the meaning of subjective.

I only used the word "usually" to soften my actual observations of religious groups. In fact, I know of no religions that that follow anything other than subjective notions. Those notions or beliefs, with few exceptions, were never proven or dis proven using scientific methods of investigation.

I no longer waste time studying voodoo.

(Still think you have the coolest avatar on DU. You gave me the address for it, but I never could make in animate.)

[cbayer]

27. I know what subjective means, I just didn't understand how you were using

it in this context. I will assume you mean thinking that is individualized and based on a person's experiences and ways of seeing the world, as opposed to thinking that is based only on external material. Still not sure what that means in terms of religion.

Religion is not based on scientific methods of investigation, let alone proven by them. But then there are lots of things that aren't that promote unity and peace.

Glad you like the avatar, but sorry you can't make it work. There are a few other .gif's of sailboats you might want to try out.

[ladjf]

33. Ethics systems based on subjective thinking alone are dangerous guidelines. It some cases, they may

produce satisfactory results, and by accident may actually be in line with the the laws of physics.

I feel that the leading Existentialist of the early 20th Century, invented the entire philosophy of Existentialism using the same arrogant and subjective thought processes that one sees among religious thinkers and scholars and by doing so have all but wiped out Philosophy as a science. They thought their wonderful minds possessed all the thinking power needed to create a new philosophy. They were Religionists in disguise who denied the existence of God, but at the same time promoted themselves as Gods among thinkers.

cbayer, I read and enjoy your posts. I have no doubt that you are person of good will trying to do what you can to help mankind.
That is all I ever ask of anyone.

[cbayer]

35. How does one base ethic systems on science?

Ethics tend to be entirely subjective. That's so true that we go to great lengths to codify them in a way that we can share them.

I'm missing any connection between ethics and physics here.

I will admit that my knowledge of philosophy is not extensive and confined to just a few college courses, but I don't recall ever thinking that philosophy was a science. It always seemed to be based on the way one particular individual saw the world and asked him/herself the big questions.

And I was taken in by each and every one of them, at least until I got to the next one, lol.

Thank you, ladjf. Not everyone sees me as sincere or of good will, but I generally am. That doesn't mean that I'm always on the right track, though, and I recognize that.

You are a joy to talk to - civil, thoughtful and still able to be provocative. Glad to see you here.

[stopbush]

116. Ethics are entirely subjective? Are you kidding me?

So, if Jesus said that murder was OK, it would be OK because subjectively, one could argue that what god says is OK is OK, even when our evolution-based sense of ethics is screaming out that murder is not OK.

I will give you this - ethics systems based on religion are subjective in the extreme...which is why they cannot ultimately be considered to be ethical.

[LTX]

80. Are you proposing a physics-based "ethics system"?

Some clarification would be helpful.

[ladjf]

81. Yes, I am suggesting that ethics should be based upon the

physical realities of Existence. I do have explanations for my views on this subject. But, I have no appetite to wade into controversy with those who are likely to vehemently disagree.

However, you are correct to say that if I'm going to toss my ideas into the "pot", I should be willing and able to include enough
information to at least make my comments intelligible.

[LTX]

84. Well, if you ever do decide to provide explanations for your views,

it would be most interesting. As it is, I can't say whether I agree or disagree with your proposition, and the statement that ethics should be based on "the physical realities of existence" is simply too nebulous to envision what you have in mind.

Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic. It would be a great deal more interesting than the usual sniping that seems to predominate here.

[ladjf]

95. LTX, thank you for your insightful questions and ideas.

In order for me make clear my theory on the subject of Ethics, as a system of conduct , I would first need to carefully clarify my
definitions of several key words. I'll work on it and respond in a day or so.

[AlbertCat]

104. While there are some religious groups that do support anti-science

Just "some"?

Believing in the supernatural instantly means support of anti-science.

It IS a stretch to say it "usually" does. It always does.

[deathrind]

26. It empowers both but...

Overall it has created more division than unity.

[cbayer]

28. I think the jury is out on whether there has been more division than unity.

And, imo, it remains impossible to quantify.

Same could be said about money and politics. They can unify or divide and have done both.

But the overall impact is going to be really hard to quantify.

[deathrind]

30. Funny that you...

Frame it that way as I am doing my civic duty of jury service today.

[cbayer]

31. How are you liking jury duty?

I have never been called for a jury, even though I have been eligible for almost 40 years.

[deathrind]

32. The

Jury is still out in that decision. 😀

Couldn't resist...so far it's not too bad.

[Fumesucker]

40. I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

[cbayer]

41. Asking him if her were religious or an atheist should have been a dead

giveaway that this wasn't going to end well.

[The River]

42. Holy Wars, Jihads

Crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, the Holocaust, Middle East, N. Ireland, India - Pakistan, just to name a few. Then there is the whole thing about keeping half the worlds population subjugated by their spouses, excluded from power, locked in their homes or covered in cloth sacks.
They build vast (tax free) temples to hide nearly 2 millennium worth of priceless art, literature and treasure in an age of growing poverty while too many of them live like princes.
Despite their lofty rhetoric and stated goals, they too often traffic in fear and hate. Fear of damnation, fear of other religions and every other thing or person "they" don't deem to be pure or holy. Throughout history demagogs of every persuasion claim divine power and use it to control whole societies. This abuse of religion by right wing fundies is helping divide this country today.

Yeah, some people find comfort and solace. An opiate for the masses. Ever since mankind became conscious of a separate "self" which was not going to "continue in time", we have been obsessed with inventing some sort of external power which could grant a good hunt, harvest or fertility, but most importantly, some sort of after life where the "self" could continue to exist.

Like everything else, religion evolves. At one time we were multi-theistic. Every tree and animal had some holy power. Gradually multi-theism was replaced by monotheism. Eventually we will not need some external "god" and we will be a-theistic, ie, without religion.

Imagine what it would be like without all the division and fear mongering?

[cbayer]

43. While I agree that religion is part of the evolutionary process and evolves,

I do not think we will ever been without religion.

Every door that opens leads to a dozen that have yet to be opened, and as long as there are unanswered questions and mankind continues to seek answers, there will be religion.

[The River]

44. Religion will be replaced

when mankind evolves to the point where we truly realize
our own innate spiritual nature and the power it gives us.
We will no longer need external "guidance" to find answers.
It's built in. We are the answer to all our problems.

To understand where we are now, you need to understand
how we got here. Not just the physical world but the evolution
of human consciousness in the world. When you see the pattern,
you see where everything is headed. We can not not evolve.

Religion is built on a foundation of fear brought about by ancient
ignorance of the science we take for granted today.
It is "contaminated" by both magical and mythical thinking from epochs long
past and too invested in its dogma to change. The "God" that religion offers up
today is far too small for the universe I inhabit.

A brief academic history of the evolution of human consciousness.
http://www.integralworld.net/rev/rev_ashok2.html

[cbayer]

45. I don't believe that will ever happen.

And even if we did evolve to the point where we truly realize our own innate spiritual nature, nothing about that excludes the possibility of a god or god(s) as part of that realization.

It may or may not hold any similarity to the concept of god(s) that people hold now or have held in the past, but it doesn't exclude it at all.

There is much more to religion than fear, ignorance, contamination, magical and mystical thinking.

I agree that the "god" that most people conceptualize is far too small for the universe. I think it fits more of the elephant and the blind men analogy.

But then, who really knows. Surely not you or I.

I'm not going to read that article. It's too long and appears to be a philosophy and not data driven, which really doesn't interest me.

[The River]

46. Figures...

I'm not going to read your bible then. To quote you:

" It's too long and appears to be a philosophy and not data driven, which really doesn't interest me."

So tell me how it is you spend so much time posting your opinion on a philosophy without data
and you can't be bothered learning something that explains things more clearly?

Your imagination is too small.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. I wouldn't read either, to be honest

With a prodigious mission of evolutionary rehabilitation that can rescue us from the "disaster of modernity" which has worsened into the contemporary "aperspectival madness" of deconstructive postmodernity and make us fit to go forward in higher emergence, Wilber is a visionary custodian of our teleological tryst with an integral and transpersonal tomorrow.

A word salad of Chopra-esque proportions, and just as devoid in meaning.

[The River]

49. According to Chopra

Deepak Chopra says: "I regard him as my mentor. He is a source of inspiration and insight to all of us. Read everything he writes -- it will change your life".

When people say "word salad" I know that they really mean is: "I can't understand it".
It's not an easy read, it requires a solid understanding of philosophy, anthropology and
comparative religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. Ah. I'm stupid. That explains it!

I would ask you to explain what is meant by all that purdy prose, but no doubt my inferior intellect would buckle beneath the adipose verbosity of your thusly engendered grandiloquence.

[cbayer]

62. Read it or don't. Makes no difference to me. Anyway, it's not my bible.

I'm happy to look at data, I'm just not interested in reading a long, philosophical treatise on a topic in which I have little interest.

My imagination is fine, thanks.

[okasha]

48. For Native Americans

it has been a powerful unifying factor.

[SamKnause]

51. Divisive

[on point]

52. Subjugation and division actually

[longship]

53. I love all the Bible quotes in this thread.

But here's the thing...

Since the book was compiled some centuries ago, the Bible has always been used as a ventriloquist dummy for ones personal religious opinion, and/or to prop up any number of idiotic propositions.

I have no problem with Bible as literature or using it to understand culture of the time it was compiled. Many of the books were written later than their so-called histories. Others were redacted by later editors. So the Bible as ventriloquist dummy trick is not one anybody should take seriously.

Regards.

[Goblinmonger]

61. So, as a book, it isn't a good basis for a moral code.

You're fine with that? You think the Christians in here are fine with it?

I really doubt that is cbayer's point.

[cbayer]

63. I love the ventriloquist dummy analogy and that was exactly my point.

One can pick what ever they like from that complex and contradictory set of books. It all depends what you are looking for.

And maybe that is it's downfall, but maybe that's also it's beauty.

[el_bryanto]

66. Well it depends on how you think the Bible should be read.

But if you don't believe in God or in the Bible as a way to connect with God, than the fact that you can justify pretty horrible crimes with the Bible can't really be seen as beautiful.

Bryant

[cbayer]

67. Good point.

No, you can't really see that part as beautiful, but you can see it for the cheap shot that it is.

[el_bryanto]

68. How is it a cheap shot? A cheap shot implies that it isn't a fair criticism.

If you didn't believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, than how is that a cheap shot?

Bryant

[cbayer]

69. I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally.

I think each individual should take what is meaningful, understand the context and acknowledge the contradictions.

It is when someone claims that the bible is all bad, or for that matter all good, that it is a cheap shot. To do that ignores the inconsistencies and shows an inability to critically analyze a complicated text.

[trotsky]

70. Well, that is your belief. Many people disagree with you.

Including lots liberal Christians who DO take much of the bible literally, like the story of Jesus.

[el_bryanto]

73. I don't think that's what I did.

I acknowledge that the Bible has some beautiful passages - I'm a believer myself. I would find it hard to believe that there are people who have read the Bible and find nothing worthwhile in it - i.e. they say it is all bad. But once it is used as a code for living, the fact that it can be used to justify all sorts of bad things is a problem, particularly if you don't believe in God.

Bryant

[cbayer]

74. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what we are debating here.

I haven't said anything contrary to what you have other than I think their is beauty in the ability to have a text that can be interpreted and used by so many people is many meaningful ways and object to the way it is sometimes used to bash all religion.

There are those that use selected passages to make the case that it is a book that promotes everything evil and they have apparently missed the good parts.

[el_bryanto]

85. I guess the question would be have they missed the good parts?

If someone said that that the Bible is evil from beginning to end, or that there's nothing good in the Bible, than that's messed up. If someone said, though, that the Bible, despite it's good parts, has inspired more evil than good, I'd disagree with that assessment, but I could understand it, particularly if they didn't believe in God.

Bryant

[cbayer]

86. Agree. It's the absolutist statement that are problematic, imo.

I would also argue that anyone who said that the bible is good from beginning to end and there is nothing bad in the bible, then that is messed up.

But if they said that it had inspired more good than evil, that would be a very reasonable approach.

[cantbeserious]

76. Division - By Design

eom

[JEFF9K]

78. FEAR vs. FEAR

A person's religion may help him to deal with fear ... but someone having a DIFFERENT religion makes the first person afraid that his own religion may not be true.

[cbayer]

79. I think that's true to some extent.

There are certainly many who maintain that they, and they alone, have the right answer. And I think your point can be applied to both believers and non-believers.

On the other hand, I like the elephant and the blind men analogy.

What if people are just touching different parts, so that what they experience is just a piece of something bigger?

That allows for a wide variety of beliefs that don't necessarily threaten each other at all and might, in fact, endorse that there are other parts.

I say this because there are many whose beliefs are not threatened by the belief of others. They are not afraid.

[JEFF9K]

83. Good point.

[goldent]

96. I don't know how many people feel that way.

I don't have that fear at all - I think most of the religions of the world have enough similarities that any one would be ok.

[Deomocritus318]

97. unity

"Above all these virtues put on love, which binds everything together in perfect Unity."

[Deomocritus318]

98. Ch 42

"The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces."

www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html

[rug]

99. Welcome to DU!

[PassingFair]

106. Tribes.

For survival.
For better or worse.

For me, the tribe always demands more than it gives.
I can live without pancake dinners.

[Trajan]

107. As usual, the fallacy of complex question

C'mon .... surely you recognize the answer is not so simple as a yes or a no ...

Religion, early on, was a means of bringing the members of a community together, which would help a group organize efforts that aided the community as a whole ... whether hunting for or growing food, whether fighting enemies or building earth works or community institutions: religion was a primary means of bringing disparate members into a whole community.

That was a benefit of monolithic religious belief in a community. However, the benefits evaporate as other individuals are introduced and other ideas set into the community consciousness, and begin to contend and conflict with the primary tenets of an existing religious belief system ... demagogues would exploit those differences as a means of usurping political institutions for their own benefit.

Political power is a means to personal enrichment, so the hold of religion on a community could be exploited for the benefit of individuals who would wield that power for personal gain ... gain they will fight to keep ...

All actual differences between faiths are minimal, but those differences are exploited to keep communities in a state of tension .... it is easier to control a population that lives in a state of fear, and if an adversary can be made into an enemy, then the cowed population can be whipped into a frenzy by religious fervor in order to attack the apostates ...

Your question cannot be answered as one or the other ... both instances are apt, and so, as usual, a post in DU asks a ridiculous question ...

[Warpy]

117. Historically speaking, it's natural for all Christian sects to battle each other

exactly the way the Alawites, Sunni and Shi'a are battling each other in the Middle East.

This unity under the Christian umbrella only happened in 1980, when Reagan decided to put them uppity wimmen in their places, chained to a stove and popping out a baby every year.

Younger Christians have already recognized it as a scam, so the days of Christian unity in the US are numbered.

It has not been a force for good since it allowed the rich to grab power away from the people.

Religious division served this country much better.

[mmonk]

118. Both. Unity of Group. Division of groups.