Topic awaiting preservation: why Religion?

Isn't it enough for a person to have beliefs? Why do we have to have a "Religion"?

and I mean besides the tax reason...

Because people are far more secure when they are part of a group. Of course... they are much more easily controlled as part of a group too.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

To quote our former Minneosta state governor... "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. "
Jesse Ventura


Though roughly said, I think he summed up the whole thing quite well...

Ok, I'm a Christian, and I think that Jesse Ventura has it all wrong.

quote:

---

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. "

---

I don't considerer myself weak minded, nor do I feel that I need a crutch. Actually, I do, since for the last year of so I've had mild depression, and I don't think that I ever used religion as a "crutch." Sure, I prayed about it, but I didn't expect it to magically go away, and I sure don't count on many of the other Chrisitans that go to my church to really lift me up, nor do I rely on it to help me in any urgent needs. Along that line, I don't find strength in numbers. I think that when people gather, even in a church, I think that you have the tendancy to lose the original purpose. I think that groups such as AA and support groups are fine, but in a church setting, it seems as if many people go to church just because it's part of their routine. I'm an independant person, I suppose that when my brain was developing, the creative and intellectual side got more attention than the social side.

But, some people do find it helpfull to be surrounded by people with similar faith as in a church, and I'd have to admit that it is kinda uplifting. But, I don't beleive that religion is a sham. Even ones that contradict what I beleive, since most religions revolve around good and evil and the fact that there is a spirit world and a higher power. They just give them diffrent names, have diffrent fetishes, rituals etc. I personally beleive that Christianty is about your relationship with God, and second to that, striving to be the best person that you can be.

Has anyone ever read the book "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchet? I find a lot of religion to be similar to the church of Om, and the few that have the relationship that Brother and Om himself had to be the truly enlightened ones. Again, blind faith is bad, etc etc etc. Not saying that churh is bad, either, it has it's uses, and serves a purpose, but unfortunatly too many people more or less "play" church.

So, Jesse Ventura has it partly right and partly wrong. For me, he has it wrong. Unfortunatly, for many church-goers, he has it right.

I hope that this didn't come off as preachy. I didn't mean it too be.

[EDIT= I forgot to add: That quote was quite offensive, and I never heard anything on the news when he said it. Imagin the uproar if he would of worded it with the subject of homosexuals or abortion or something like that. He would of had to reword it entirely, but it goes too show how much our goverment tries to reinfocre the fact that religion is "bad.")


[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 05-14-2003).]

everyone has something they worship, a religion of some sort, their own god, whether they admit it or not. it may be money, power, success, sex, or a substance, but it's what you live for.

chris

Well, what I worship is (the Chrisitian) God, but what I use as a crutch is computers. (that sounds odd, but it's true).

I disagree Fig...I worship nothing. Now, if you said that everybody has something that they believe in...I might be inclined to agree...

And my peoples religion doesn't have 'good' vs 'evil' in it...and no 'God', or 'gods'...

maybe not worship in a "bow down before" kinda sense, but in a sense of importance and priority. everyone makes something their god, the thing that they live for imo. idolatry in a modern sense is simply putting something else before God.

chris

I've thought about that statement for a while now fig, and I just can't agree with it.

Many people? Sure.

Everybody? Not a chance.

I think the problem stems from the fact that you do so strongly beleive in your god and your religion that it's difficult to imagine not having *something* in that place...

Amen, DL.

I have to agree with these lunatics ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think family and friends are important but worship.......

Oh and cfb:

quote:

---

I think that Jesse Ventura has it all wrong.

---

Go and tel him - he might be an old man but I bet he could still give you a one way flight to the planet Pain!!

----------------
Anyway as well as being a sociable animal we are also insecure when it comes to the Big Issues and it is clearly easier to believe something people tell you is true than to believe something you made up. I would have trouble believing in my own religion but would find it easier to be told things by authority figures (probably also due to our primate past when looking up to an alpha male or other authroity figure would help with group stability).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I don?t really know about this. I definitely think that religion is good, in a way, but I think it sort of gives people an excuse to not abide by the universal truths. It seem pretty contradictory, but it seems that main-stream Christians, are not very Christ-like.

As far as Why do people need religion? I think that the options have been covered above and I agree with most of the stuff. To add something to this though, I would say that people need religion to help put there beliefs into practice and to have some structure. If people did not believe in the basic beliefs of Christianity, I doubt they would be Christians. So beliefs and religion sort of melt together.

As for me individually, I really have no set religion. I really am into all different religions, and belief systems. I think they all have something knowledgable to offer us as we strive to reach perfection. I guess that is the main problem I have with someone wanting to be a certain religion. Why not learn from all of them?


.quotes.

DL WS and Emps, I think there's a just a disagreement on the vision in your heads of 'worship'. Chris's view of 'worship' somes from a personal relationship, as he strives to live for Him:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God?this is your spiritual act of worship. (Romans 12:1)

This doesn't mention anything about bowing humbly. burning incense, blood sacrifice, chanting, nothing like all that which is maybe what you guys have in your head when you think of worship? Worship is living for God, making His will your priority. In that true sense of the word 'worship' surely you all three can agree that you have something that is a number one priority in your life?

For norm's original question, I'd say that 'religion' by my definition, is the trappings that men put on worshipping God (I don't know the accepted definition, Webster's or theologians' so pardon me for defining it myself). No, religion never saved a single soul. Religion may help some people to remain disciplined and may help them to worship but it never saved anyone from an eternal seperation from their maker.

*off to look up 'religion'*

Jason

the thing is there were a number of years before i really believed in God and looking back i can see what i tried to substitute. when i was young it was popularity, i thought that if i could get with that crowd or date that girl, etc., that things would be great and my life would just be perfect. after college it was cash and stuff, the more i made the more i bought and better off i thought i'd be. i look around me and see people that do it with relationships, alcohol, their career, and lots of other things. i think using the word worship and thinking of something as an actual god throws the concept off in terms of how we think of those terms, but imo the concept still applies.

chris

I understand exactly what you meant by 'worhsip' fig, and I undertand exactly the things you explain that you tried to substitute for that place that you now fill with god/religion.

A lot of people strive for popularity and wealth to make them feel ok. A lot of people use alcohol or drugs to try to gain the acceptance, or to take the edge off of their hurt - to make them feel ok.

A lot of people eventually turn to religion to fulfill those same purposes.

I took the drugs/alcohol route for a while in my life. And unlike some people's experiecnes, it was by and large rather therapeutic (in that it made me learn a lot about myself, in a mental state where there was no running away from it).

But I've outgrown that and come out now with something that takes away my need for that - an understanding of the things that pushed me in that direction, and an acceptance of my self.

I don't need the church to tell me that it's ok to accept my self...and I don't need any other outside force or object to fill that space.

In my experience, when you start off with the need to find acceptance or validation, and the things you try don't fill that need, that is when most people turn (or turn back) to religion.

It basically all comes back to finding a way to deal with yourself and feel ok about yourself.

Different religions offer different ways to accomplish this...some far better than others.

As to "why religion" as norm asked - well, I'll pretty much second Emperor on this - it's easier to join an established belief system and accept what you're told than it is to go it alone.






[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-14-2003).]

Yup. I second DL on that...

About the only thing I really would put in first place is...well, living...learning...Life itself. I enjoy watching myself go through this life...and seeing where I've been, and enjoying where I am...and looking forward to where I'm going...

I never, in my wildest dreams, thought I'd reach where I am now, or have had the privilage to go through everything that I have...my life has been an adventure, and continues to be. By keeping my eyes open, I've gone through doors, and down paths, that I never thought I could...it does somewhat evoke awe in me.

But worship? No...I can't say that.

There was a time, when I used to worship God, the christian god, that is...but those days are long past.

Appreciate, attempt to understand,......Yes.

Worship........No.

I think we can all agree that there is an inner force within ourselves that wants to know why we are here, where we came from and where we are going. It has pulled us from the time we were able to ponder about it. So with that being said, this force has to have a direction for us to follow. A structure of an organized way of thinking about it. Be it Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, etc. Whatever way God decides to take place in a persons life or within a sect will lead them to a spiritual path of attaining a happiness. For me, I happen to believe it is Catholicism. The Mass is our greatest form of a oneness with all persons of God.

Rather than the term 'worship' drink, drugs, fame, wealth (and I'd include religion) are props - a crutch to help you through life. If they make you feel better and don't hurt anyone else then I'm not going to judge you.

jade:

quote:

---

I think we can all agree that there is an inner force within ourselves that wants to know why we are here, where we came from and where we are going. It has pulled us from the time we were able to ponder about it.

---

You assume too much we have an inate primate curiousity but I wouldn't equate that with some kind of 'inner force' (sometimes its an inner farce though).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

inate primate curiousity

---

If our curiosity level is not above that of a primate, why is it then that the best thing primates have figured out how to do is to use a stick to get ants out of a hole?

Most of the long running primate studies have shown that they all have what can be defined as culture so they are engaged in a wide variety of things.

Why are we capable of flying to the moon while they are doing simpler things?

Well that is the kind of thing that will keep philsophers busy for centuries. Opposable thumbs, perhaps they are happier (and better off) that way, etc. Perhaps the question is pointless - why does any animal do something different to any other animal?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Or perhaps the primates have found their answers and don't NEED anything to make them feel better or more secure.

Our basest instinct is safety in numbers, expel those who don't fit with the main group, and destroy that which opposes the main group. Survival of the fittest. Isn't this evident in many religions? Since the earliest times of man religion has been used to control, shape, and structure peoples lives. It makes us more stable as a race (even with all of the wars that have happened because of GOD). It is unfortunate that religion destroys the ideals of the beliefs it was founded on. I would think that a religion of like minded people wouldn't get lost amongst their own faith. The problem occurs when people of like mindedness decide that everyone should believe this way because it is SO good, or right. Then the religion changes from what it should be (ideally, following all of the original beliefs) to having tenets that are designed to expand that singular faith to the expulsion and destruction of all other faiths. The Inquisition and the Crusades are only two examples of that change.

I find religion to be the bastardization of a good idea. Just think... If all of the sects of christianity didn't have religion pointing out what their differences were there wouldn't really be all that many differences. The split from this sect to that sect, in the grand scheme of things, is miniscule. But because there is something to hold onto, a name to follow, people won't let go of stupid little things that really make no difference.

Bah!! Not worth my time...

quote:

---

it's easier to join an established belief system and accept what you're told than it is to go it alone.

---

I find that statement interesting because it does not specifically mention religion. Yes, religion may be an established belief system, but there are plenty of other established belief systems out there that are not religious, and many people subscribe to them. There are plenty of non-religious people who merely "do what they're told."

I honestly resent the implication that adherents to a belief system cannot think for themselves. That seems to be a common (mis)conception among the atheists here and, while I don't hold it against you personally (since I like most of you guys anyway), I do wish that you would give us some credit for having brains and being able to use them.

So now you're thinking, "So what set Suho off today?" Well, it's that whole "go it alone" bit. What a crock. Can you honestly tell me that you believe any one human being "goes it alone?" Human beings are social animals, like it or not, and we need each other to survive. Look down on the church (synagogue, temple, whatever) if you will--that doesn't bother me. But don't tell me that you are a completely independent free-thinker just because you do not subscribe to a religion.

I struggle daily with my faith. I doubt, I question, I search. I out everything to the test. Those of you who know me here will know that this is true. I do not blindly follow the doctrine of the church--there are, in fact, some things that I was taught when I was young that I now reject. But the core of my faith stands firm.

Reject religion if you like. That is your prerogative. But don't pretend to be more enlightened because you think you don't subscribe to an "established belief system."

Now I really need some shock therapy...





www.liminality.org

Suho1004: By go it alone I think DL only meant when it comes down to questions of life and death, etc. and it isn't an atheist vs religious folk - its more a comment on those who follow an organised religion and those who don't (as I'm sure GD would agree with). I don't have a problem with religious people (unless they try and ram it down my throat - 'amusing' story: I opened the door and a smartly dressed young guy was standing there and he said @Jehovah's Witnesses'. As I was shutting the door in his face he revealed that in fact he was from the gas company doing a survey) but whereever religions (and lets not stop there - politcial parties and movements, charitable organisations, etc.) get organised someone always seems to rise to the top to try and interpret things and tell people how to live their lives. Thats fine if thats what you want but so many evils in the world have come from such things reaching their extremes (Rev Jim Jones, The Spanish Inquisition [I but no one was expecting that], the slaughters of the Jews before the Crusades, the Crusades, various atrocities during WWII, etc.) that it has seemed to me that on balance I think we'd all be better off seeking the Truth in our own ways.

quote:

---

Reject religion if you like. That is your prerogative. But don't pretend to be more enlightened because you think you don't subscribe to an "established belief system."

---

In fact the agnostics and atheists amongst us (well OK me) tend to think of themselves as less enlightened as we have to admit that there are things unknown (and pos. unknowable) but we don't feel the need to fill that gap in our knowldge with a more 'suprenatural' explanation

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I've enjoyed the conduct of this discussion loads, it is uplifting to see such honest and sincere views expressed.
I feel that some confusion is bound to arise in our lives when we try to limit (by definitions) the limitless.
But it never seems to stop us trying!
Most of my life I have activly searched for some meaning or truth "to it all" and these words written by an Native American, hit a chord of recognition, deep within.

Tecumseh-Shawnee

(This links to a page on a site I've just started)

OK, maybe so. The statement was just a bit too vague and general for my tastes, that's all. And it just smacked of (if you'll pardon the expression) "holier-than-thou"ness. I guess I'm just being sensitive today.

Suho1004: No thats just DL for you ;P

TB: Nice quote - got more info on him?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Sure Emps This goes into quite a bit of detail, and is slow to get going at first, but I think well worth it in the end.



Tecumseh



[This message has been edited by Taobaybee (edited 05-15-2003).]

Well, actually, it was very pointedly "less holy than thou"

More seriously though, there are many aspects to the statement, and as you said Suho, it doesn't mention religion - that was intentional. It also doen't address anyone in particular, and there are indeed a *huge* number of people who are members of a church or otherwise engaged in religious practices simply because it's the "easy answer".
In my personal experience, people like yourself or Bugimus and others here who have displayed such depth of thought and feeling towards their religion are truly a rarity.

There are also, as you say, many other aspects in which my statement holds true. I guess that's why I'm confused as to how it upsets you...it was intentionally vague, and can be applied across many topics, and addresses a general trait of humanity.

As far as "going it alone" it was very simply meant to illustrate joining a group that gives you the answers versus.....not. Again - perhaps you struggle, perhaps you question. Many do not! Much in the way that some people join a political party, or pick a fraternity, or...buy a certain tyoe of sports car - predefined actions that make you "better" in some way.

Does anyone *truly* go it alone? No. But in relative terms, it can come down to just about that.


The statements I was responding to were implying that I *had* to have something to take the place of religion in my life, so the rest of my post was an attempt to dispute that, as I don't see it that way at all.

{{edit - of course, on the other hand, I can see how the generalization of christians can rub you the wrong way. I get quite tired of being told how "blind" or "empty" or "lost" I am for not being one
I tend to forget that my use of the word doesn't imply to the rest of you the seperation that I inately make between people with actual personal dedication and thought, and the spoonfed masses that disgust me so. For that I apologize. In terms of the public at large though, I have to hold to my statement.}}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-15-2003).]

i have to say i'm having similar thoughts to suho, i do resent the implication as i've read it. it is late tho, and when i have more time to digest i'll give it another read.

chris

DL: Well, I guess the only thing I can say is that I read that statement after reading everything else, and it was kind of a "last straw" thing. In and of itself, I see your point, but I was reading it with a less-than-clean slate. It was more the way that the statement seemed to summarize the general feeling of many of the anti-religious postings rather than the statement itself.

I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across here. It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm not sure it makes that much sense once it's outside of my head. Anyway, it's time for me to head out, so I'll come back to this later on.

[Edit: OK, one more attempt at clarification here. If you look at Emps answer to my intial complaint, you'll notice how he automatically filled in the blank left by "established belief systems" with "religion." That's what I was getting at--the fact that most people would automatically assume you were talking about religion, even if you yourself may not have been talking specifically about religion. Does that make more sense?]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-15-2003).]

well, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say I wasn't referring to religion. The topic is religion, and so that was iplied in my comment. My point, however, is that it is a generic human trait to go with the group, to take the pre-established doctrines that offer easy answers.

I fail to see how that can be taken offensivley really. Am I saying *you* just accept what's written without question? Am I saying I am somehow superior or that I rely strictly on my own original thoughts? Obviously not, noone does.

What I am saying is that there are - indisputably - a vast percentage of the world's population that does indeed blindly accept the teachings of their religion for no other reason than that it is the easiest solution. "we do this becasue it's what the book says".

There are also aspects other than religion where this holds true.

But the topic is religion....

I don't know...I'm trying to work through this and I simply cannot find how this is wrong or insulting...

It seems like it's ok for me - as an atheist - to be told what I am lacking or that I am simply replacing god with something else (the implication being that I'm on the wrong track, and haven't been 'enlightened' as you put it), but it's offensive for me to present the other side of that.

We're obviously not connecting here, but let me give it one more shot with this:

quote:

---

It seems like it's ok for me - as an atheist - to be told what I am lacking or that I am simply replacing god with something else (the implication being that I'm on the wrong track, and haven't been 'enlightened' as you put it), but it's offensive for me to present the other side of that.

---

Notice that not once in my post did I ever accuse you of being unenlightened--yet you're making it seem that I said you were (I know you are simply using the term I used, but at a casual glance it looks like you are attributing the whole idea to me). My only complaint with the general attitude of atheists is exactly what you're talking about here.

I do understand what you're saying, and I agree: there a lot of blind people in the world merely doing what they are told without thinking twice about it. And, in fact, I never really had a problem with your statement per se, but it just happened to sum up a lot of what I've heard, and I was lashing out against that, really. This is the part that I am apparently not getting across. It wasn't so much the statement itself (which is valid) as the attitude I have seen in people who often adopt that stance--a very close-minded attitude. So, if it will explain things any better, I wasn't really responding to you per se, but just making a general statement that was triggered by something you said. I don't know if this makes any more sense now, but I can't think of how else to say it.

quote:

---

Am I saying *you* just accept what's written without question? Am I saying I am somehow superior or that I rely strictly on my own original thoughts? Obviously not, noone does.

---

No, and no. But I disagree with the last statement. You may not be saying these things, but there are plenty of people who do believe and say that sort of thing (whether or not it is actually true is beside the point), and I've heard it enough times that I just had to say something.

That's the last I'm going to say on this, because I think we're just running around in circles here. You can always catch me on Q if you want to talk about this more.

And I still love you, if that helps.

Now I'm off to bed. Have fun, people.

Love

Ok, let's see if I can clear up a couple things then -

1) (numbers help me keep track )

quote:

---

Notice that not once in my post did I ever accuse you of being unenlightened--yet you're making it seem that I said you were

---

No, I was only borrowing your term, and applying it to Fig's comment, and applying it in a more general sense as well - it's a pattern I see everywhere, including here.

2)

quote:

---

quote:Am I saying *you* just accept what's written without question? Am I saying I am somehow superior or that I rely strictly on my own original thoughts? Obviously not, noone does.

No, and no. But I disagree with the last statement. You may not be saying these things, but...

---

The 'nobody does' portion was in reference to my own question of "or that I rely strictly on my own original thoughts?"

3)

quote:

---

it just happened to sum up a lot of what I've heard, and I was lashing out against that, really. This is the part that I am apparently not getting across. It wasn't so much the statement itself (which is valid) as the attitude I have seen in people who often adopt that stance

---

And me is well, partly.

So yeah....circles. They're nice and round.

And uh...yeah, I love you too. Just don't tell binary.....

I am quite amazed at how "a love" develops on this asylum. It just shows how you cannot stop love (God) from manifesting eveywhere even in the ozone. No matter how hard we try to obliterate God from our life, God always shows up. I think its a good thing.

Suho & DL, GN

I am grateful for the love message. I really needed a lift today.


And I think this is what the majority of organized religions are called to do; to express, to preach and show love. So whats wrong with doing it in an organized structured way?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-15-2003).]

Some people need organized, structured religion to focus their meditation/prayer, some people don't. In both categories, there are people who simply do either what they're told to do, or what they are told not to do. In either category, there are the precious few who actually have a brain and a desire to use it to better understand their world, both physical and spiritual (if you will).

You can't really make total generalizations in either case. That's how I interpret what Suho has been saying.

Though, this thread started with some pretty distinct generalizations on both sides, and I can also see how that prompted DL's initial comment.

In recent years, I've held some pretty fervent beliefs, and also had my personal spirituality completed devastated by the blatancy of the scientific method. For myself, I would have to say that I now feel the desire to believe that there is something that cannot be explained in words, but that truly does exist.

Jade would call that God. I find it easier to call it God myself rather than try to explain all of my experiences to someone who doesn't really want to hear all of it. (however, if you're interested, I'll talk your ear off...) But I don't call myself a Christian or subscribe at this point in my life to any specific order of religious thought. I just have the need to believe something.

But not worship. Not ever worship. The term "worship" just implies subjegation and submission. Whether you consciously acknowledge that subjegation or not, it's there. In the occult belief systems that I've studied, that term is studiously avoided. The general line of thought is that as an individual, you should not consider yourself to be "beneath" or "above" anyone or anything else. We meet on an equal basis. Even when discussing gods and godesses, the term used is "honor", not "worship". Based on that, I completely disagree with the earlier reference that everyone needs something in their lives to "worship". I think that WS, Emps, and DL pretty much hit the nail on the head in their replies to that remark.

Having a belief, or the desire to have a belief, is totally separate from the worship aspect of organized religion. Be careful with words - semantics will creep up an smack you in the back of the head if you're not paying attention...

Bodhi - Cell 617

Mmm, but I think the use of the word worship by Fig and JK was not meant in the literal sense, and I think the general christian understanding of the term follows more to their use of it.

And the semantics of it was not what I disagree with, but rather that need to believe at all...that need to believe in some greater purpose is something I don't have. But that doesn't mean my life is empty or lacking, or that I don't have a spirituality.

I certainly beleive there are far greater forces than human consciousness at work in the universe, and I also beleive that those forces have nothing to do with us or our minute existence nor are they comprised of any divinity or omniscience.

I don't think there is any prescribed purpose for our existence, nor any 'right' way to live it...enjoy life and help out when you can. That about sums up my set of rules for life.

Well I can't speak for other Christians, but I worship God. I kneel down and praise and thank God for lots. I don't do it because my belief dictates to me to worship. My soul desires it. It, of itself has this knowlege of the revered greatness of God and it penetates all of my senses. I am subject and submissive to God of free will. I honor the will of God.

I am submissive and subject to lots of persons & things here on earth. Policemen, lawmakers, presidents, bosses, the courts system, laws, rules, my husband. How many times have I called the judge "your honor" and give him the right protocol. Why do we give royalty the right protocol and curtsey and address them with their titles? Do they deserve this teatment?

This being said, how do we not worship the maker of these people and things? I would think the creator deserves a bow and kneel for goodness in all things made.

In the bible's Book of Revelation, the angels are worshiping 24/7 non-stop with incense repeating, "Hosanna in the Highest" to God. In Christian thought, I would call that worship even in the heavens.

so wait a min...they are worshiping and doing nothing else? umm....heaven sounds boring...

Jade - Certainly the Creative Force that causes us to be deserves both credit and honor - I never said it didn't. But my soul does not desire to kneel and worship anything.

I give the authorities of the country I live in the honor and respect due their position. I do not worship them. I am subject to their laws in that I live in this country. But I have freedom to leave it if I wish. But that's not the point of the discussion.


DL - that's what I meant. Not that you feel the need to name those forces, you simply know they exist. That's right about where I am in my spiritual thoughts these days. And I use the term "spiritual" pretty loosely.

Bodhi - Cell 617

bodhi: Yes, that's a good assessment of what I was trying to say.

DL: binary hasn't been talking to me lately... a distance seems to have grown between us.

In general, the term "worship" seems to be a big stumbling block in this thread. The idea that everyone "worships" something is quite a common idea among Christians, because for us the word "worship" holds no negative connotations. To non-Christians, though, "worship" is a very religious word, and I have not encountered a single non-Christian who has ever said that they worship someone or something (outside of jesting).

The term originally means "worthiness" or "respect." But that doesn't really help us here, because however fun it might be for a linguist like myself to go rooting around in word origins, it doesn't matter what a word might have meant hundreds of years ago. What matters is what the word means today, and today, "worship" is only used to refer to the act of reverencing a deity (with the exception of the occasional hyperbolic usage in literature, etc.). Since atheists, by definition, reject the existence of God, they will also naturally reject anything related to this God. DL said it all with this:

quote:

---

I think the problem stems from the fact that you do so strongly beleive in your god and your religion that it's difficult to imagine not having *something* in that place...

---

For DL (and forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth), there is nothing in his life that he perceives to be filling the "God" slot that would have the same meaning for him as it does for Christians. As far as he is concerned, there is no "God" slot.

It just doesn't make sense to try to apply a Christian term to a non-Christian and expect them to relate to it. We may be preaching at them, but we are certainly not opening up avenues of communication. Because of the automatic backlash against such a strongly religious term, were are in fact closing those avenues.

How would I put the same idea? Well, I'd talk about it in terms of priorities. For Christians, God is number one in our lives (or at least that's the idea). Everyone has something that they feel is important, that they value over other things. Christians often like to cite things like "self" or "money" as things that non-Christians "worship," but those are just generalizations. Yes, we all know of people who value money above all else, and it is not just a Christian idea that such people usually fail to find happiness. But many of the non-Christians I know do not value money above all else. Many people put their family first, for example. Looking at it in that light, it should be obvious how inappropriate the term "worship" is here.

But the question was "Why religion?" and the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to (at least partially) agree with DL, Emps, et al. If norm has asked "Why God?" I think things might have gone differently, but we're talking about institutions created by mankind here. In that light, a religion is not much different from a political party. And yes, it is easier to go with the flow than to try to swim on your own.

Now that I am honest with myself, I see that this is why I reacted so strongly to DL's statement--because I see the truth in it, and resent the many times I have been pegged as another brainless church zombie. I am not trying to appear wise in the eyes of men--I will readily admit that I do not have nearly as much wisdom as I would like. But I think God knows my heart, and that He does not despise me for questioning and for seeking. Paul says to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). What does that mean? Well, for me that means my belief is not a passive thing, but something I must struggle with daily. The moment I stop struggling and feel that I have finally found all the answers is the moment that complacency sets in and decay begins.

I suppose it should be obvious that I draw a distinction between religion and my faith. Not that the two cannot coexist, but one is a man-made institution, and the other is a personal relationship with God (sorry, that's another term Christians like to use). So, I don't know if that answers the question, but maybe it will shed some light on the way I think and why I reacted the way I did.

Excellent post Suho

I might add that some Christians depending on their level of sancity feel compelled to share the good news, in the caring of each others souls. This compelling is part of our striving for a Christlike nature and comes directly as an intuitive from the light of God. I don't want to force Christ down anyone throat, but the feeling of wanting to share, I have no power over it. It just is. I don't know if other sects feel this same way, in regard to their faith, but since they worship a God, I would think that God would send an enlightment to them also in wanting to know God.

jade: I understand what you are saying about sharing your faith, and I understand your concerns about not shoving Christ down people's throats. My view on sharing Christ is this: if people can't see Christ in my life, then it really doesn't matter what I tell them. The old saying that actions speak louder than words applies here as well. My goal is for my life to be my witness. I don't always succeed, but I always try.

If people don't ask me about my faith, I don't force it on them (not saying that I might not mention it in the course of a normal conversation). If they do ask me about my faith, then I try to focus on what it means to me, since that's the only thing I have any right to talk about anyway.

[Edit: Hmm... I'm actually tempted to comment on your "sanctity/desire to share" formula, but I'm just way too tired right now. Maybe later.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-16-2003).]

Oh please don't want too long for that comment Suho.
Get some rest and get back to us. I will be biting my
nails in anticipation of your next post.