who believes religion is out dated (2 Viewers)

[jumb]

god judges.
thats the myth of the religions.
he/she NEVER judges.

how do you know?

 

[jennieTalia]

Faith in something, if it helps you to better your life, is never outdated. Whether it is faith in your self, in some sort of higher entity/power or just faith in existance.
What is outdated is the structure around that faith (often what becomes the "religion" aspect of it). Such as the Church institution with its centuries-old rules that mean absolutely nothing in relation to your own beliefs, and the majority of structural religions.

Then again, that's my opinion. Heaps of people think it is up to date, although I find that hard to comprehend.

 

[moll.]

Faith in something, if it helps you to better your life, is never outdated. Whether it is faith in your self, in some sort of higher entity/power or just faith in existance.
What is outdated is the structure around that faith (often what becomes the "religion" aspect of it). Such as the Church institution with its centuries-old rules that mean absolutely nothing in relation to your own beliefs, and the majority of structural religions.

Then again, that's my opinion. Heaps of people think it is up to date, although I find that hard to comprehend.

The question of the thread is on religion though. Not faith.
Religion is made up of the scriptures, traditions and culture of a particular faith. It is these three things which are also the greatest causes of division, ignorance and violence in the modern world.
So is religion outdated? Yes.
Is faith and spirituality? No.

 

[jennieTalia]

The question of the thread is on religion though. Not faith.
Religion is made up of the scriptures, traditions and culture of a particular faith. It is these three things which are also the greatest causes of division, ignorance and violence in the modern world.
So is religion outdated? Yes.
Is faith and spirituality? No.

That was my point though.
And the fact that the CORE of religion is supposed to be faith, sort of reveals that it's all the bullshit surrounding the pure concept that is outdated. I don't think that questioning religion means that you have to question the existance of GOD for instance (which many people have been doing)...

Sorry if that was a bit convoluted, I'm getting a bit tired.

 

[Will Shakespear]

The question of the thread is on religion though. Not faith.
Religion is made up of the scriptures, traditions and culture of a particular faith. It is these three things which are also the greatest causes of division, ignorance and violence in the modern world.
So is religion outdated? Yes.
Is faith and spirituality? No.

actually, i'd say that a religion requiring no faith (e.g. some variants of Buddhism) is quite alright and could be relevant today

whereas faith, especially as a virtue, i.e. strong belief despite a complete lack of evidence, is horribly outdated and even dangerous

 

[jennieTalia]

actually, i'd say that a religion requiring no faith (e.g. some variants of Buddhism) is quite alright and could be relevant today

whereas faith, especially as a virtue, i.e. strong belief despite a complete lack of evidence, is horribly outdated and even dangerous

Interesting viewpoint.
Although, in my opinion, faith is one of those things that makes us human.
I wouldn't consider belief without evidence to be OUTDATED as such, but dangerous... in extreme cases, definately.

 

[moll.]

actually, i'd say that a religion requiring no faith (e.g. some variants of Buddhism) is quite alright and could be relevant today

whereas faith, especially as a virtue, i.e. strong belief despite a complete lack of evidence, is horribly outdated and even dangerous

I was talking about religion as theistic religion, which is the generally accepted defintion of religion.
And I meant faith as faith in the supernatural not in anything else. Faith in dogma, religious institutions and divine stories is a continual problem and have mountains of evidence weighted against them. But there is no evidence for or against belief in a higher deity without any of the traditional strings attached to this entity, which means that non-aligned theistic faith is as perfectly acceptable as agnosticism or atheism.

 

[Air Jordan]

There are still relevent points in religions that we follow today in our laws E.g. 'Do not murder, steal, commit adultery'

 

[moll.]

There are still relevent points in religions that we follow today in our laws E.g. 'Do not murder, steal, commit adultery'

They're not part of religion though. They're just basic ethical and moral guidelines that every human being - with the exception of the minority psychopaths - are born with.
In fact, many of these "relevant" rules are in fact far outdated and unrealistic. For instance, lying is an inherent part of being a socialised homo sapien, and yet all forms of it are banned by the Bible.
Same too for the multitude of sexual restrictions placed upon humankind by the Hebrew, Christian and Arabic scriptures. Sex is a natural, fun and essential part of being a human, yet is illogically restricted or even banned by religion.

 

[Air Jordan]

I know stuff like lying is part of human nature, but that is one of the reasons why the Bible says that no one is perfect except jesus/god. The Bible itself says that all have sinned, therefore do take these rules as something you must follow or else you go to hell. People who have told a lie CAN go to heaven regardless of what people say ('liars go to hell'). Whether everyone does it or not, it is still something that we should all TRY to follow. Just because everybody does it, doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. Plus, many people don't follow these rules because they are not of the particular religion anyway.

 

[moll.]

Curiously enough, you failed to address the sexual restrictions that I spoke of as well, and instead focused only on the lying part.

I know stuff like lying is part of human nature, but that is one of the reasons why the Bible says that no one is perfect except jesus/god. The Bible itself says that all have sinned, therefore do take these rules as something you must follow or else you go to hell. People who have told a lie CAN go to heaven regardless of what people say ('liars go to hell'). Whether everyone does it or not, it is still something that we should all TRY to follow.

But the Bible doesn't say to try and follow the Decalogue. It says that you have to follow it.
This is even reflected in the language used. Each of the Commandments (with the exception of the two pertaining to monotheism and respect of one's parents) start with the words "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not". This is not at all like the Buddhist precepts, which start with "try to" or "try not to".
This kind of moral absolutism leaves no room for normal human error and is often a great cause of intolerance, confusion and ignorance amongst humankind.

Just because everybody does it, doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

Why not? If it's in our biology to do something, then it's because the long process of environmental trial and error, otherwise known as evolution, has found it to be good for us in the long term. Who are you to argue with three and a half billion years of evolution?

Plus, many people don't follow these rules because they are not of the particular religion anyway.

Or because many people who are not subject to religion's authoritarian yoke realise that the rules are ridiculous.
By the way, have you noticed how all of the major religions in the world have the same basic tenants of "do not murder" etc? That's not because the same god/s likes to reiterate his point ad infinitum, but because the creators of these religions recognised that these basic precepts are intrinsically part of every human being.

 

[Air Jordan]

When I said 'try to' it was because it is impossible to actually follow those rules through your whole entire life. Everybody has broken at least some of them at some point in there life. When it says that you have to follow it, it does not mean that if you don't then you will go to hell (as I mentioned earlier).
What is your interpretation of what happens when someone breaks one of the rules?

 

[moll.]

Again, you keep ignoring half of my posts.

Yes, it is impossible to follow these rules constantly. So why say "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not"? Why not "try to" or "try not to"? A case of aiming for the stars in order to realistically fall on a cloud? This then means that God created the original rules with the knowledge that they would be frequently broken. And yet he threatens eternal punishment for those who do break them and admonishes the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve for the transgressions of their deceived forebears. Obviously either God is not all he cracked up to be, or the scriptures are lying to you.
I'm not religious, so when someone breaks one of God's laws, I believe nothing happens. However, when someone breaks a legislative or common law (which occasionally overlap with God's laws), I believe that they are punished appropriately by our justice system according to their individual circumstances sorrounding the breaking of said laws.

 

[georgefren]

Can religon BE outdated? it seems to me like its a natural part of humanity, to require faith in an outside force when times are harsh.

Religon itself has been around ever since farmers began praying to rain gods and hunters began praying to gods of the hunt; and its stayed ever since. I think it'll stick around pretty much as long as there are humans left.

 

[moll.]

I'm referring to the taboo placed upon various sexual acts by religion in the name of their being unholy and heretical and the use of vague interpretations of religious texts to justify this.
Things such as how several states in the U.S have banned certain sexual acts or sexual positions, despite the illogical problem created in trying to police such laws.
I'm talking about how the Catholic Church still has an official policy against any form of contraception, meaning that millions have AIDS where it could have been avoided and millions more have excessive amounts of offspring, deepening their poverty.
I'm talking about how Islamists across the world stone female adulterers to death for their sexual transgressions.
I'm talking about how many children believe that masturbation will give you blindness because of a rumour perpetuated by various religious institutions.
I'm talking about how holy men of all faiths are forced to keep their celibacy, only for the mounting sexual pressure to find vent in child abuse and kiddie-fiddling.
And as for the proof of this, well the Q'uran and the Hebrew Bible specifically state that adulterers should be stoned, whilst the Christian policies above may find justification in one of these passages: Sex in the Bible. If that's too long for you there's a link to a short list on the side, and also links to sex as portrayed in the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon.

 

[moll.]

Can religon BE outdated? it seems to me like its a natural part of humanity, to require faith in an outside force when times are harsh.

Religion itself has been around ever since farmers began praying to rain gods and hunters began praying to gods of the hunt; and its stayed ever since. I think it'll stick around pretty much as long as there are humans left.

As has been stated above, there is a vast difference between faith and religion, and this thread is debating the merits of religion only.
That aside, however, it is quite ridiculous of you to compare a peasant farmer of the ancient world to a modern homo sapien. Our knowledge of the universe has come a long way, such that we no longer need to pray for rain because we understand why it is that it rains. We know vastly more about the world around us, and most of what remains a mystery will only be solved by philosophy or technology well above our own.
Besides which, we now have a viable alternative to theistic religion where none used to exist: humanism, be it the theistic or atheistic variety. You don't need religion and religious traditions, scriptures and culture when your primary concern is living your life to the full and working towards the betterment of humankind.

 

[georgefren]

moll, im an athiest.

i just dont think religion is going anywhere. people NEED to believe - they crave the certainty that faith and religon offers them in a world that, more than ever, is changing and uncertain.

 

[Will Shakespear]

I was talking about religion as theistic religion, which is the generally accepted defintion of religion.
And I meant faith as faith in the supernatural not in anything else. Faith in dogma, religious institutions and divine stories is a continual problem and have mountains of evidence weighted against them. But there is no evidence for or against belief in a higher deity without any of the traditional strings attached to this entity, which means that non-aligned theistic faith is as perfectly acceptable as agnosticism or atheism.

umm no it doesn't

the complete lack of evidence means faith is still stupid whether ur god has a name or not

 

[Air Jordan]

I'm referring to the taboo placed upon various sexual acts by religion in the name of their being unholy and heretical and the use of vague interpretations of religious texts to justify this.
Things such as how several states in the U.S have banned certain sexual acts or sexual positions, despite the illogical problem created in trying to police such laws.
I'm talking about how the Catholic Church still has an official policy against any form of contraception, meaning that millions have AIDS where it could have been avoided and millions more have excessive amounts of offspring, deepening their poverty.
I'm talking about how Islamists across the world stone female adulterers to death for their sexual transgressions.
I'm talking about how many children believe that masturbation will give you blindness because of a rumour perpetuated by various religious institutions.
I'm talking about how holy men of all faiths are forced to keep their celibacy, only for the mounting sexual pressure to find vent in child abuse and kiddie-fiddling.
And as for the proof of this, well the Q'uran and the Hebrew Bible specifically state that adulterers should be stoned, whilst the Christian policies above may find justification in one of these passages: Sex in the Bible. If that's too long for you there's a link to a short list on the side, and also links to sex as portrayed in the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon.

If people are interpreting religious text types and twisting the meaning, then I am as much against them as you are. I was only interested in what the Bible says is a restriction to sex. From some of the things I read in your link, it merely stated events in which people had sex...They do not say that God condemns sex or this type of sexual position or masturbating etc. (Please find one for me)
On your point about adulterers, the Bible does say You shall not commit adultery. I am therefore against adultery. I know I am not the only person against adultery and therefore I believe it is not outdated.

In my other post, I was refering to what do you believe christians believe will happen to them when they break a commandment?

 

[moll.]

umm no it doesn't

the complete lack of evidence means faith is still stupid whether ur god has a name or not

I said non-aligned theism was acceptable, not ideal. Non-aligned theism doesn't hurt anyone, which is my definition of acceptable when it comes to religion. Of course faith is still ridiculous, but I'd be content with non-aligned theism.