13 Jul 07
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
13 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayI believe this is already the case, but too few people realize it.
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by darvlayReligion is an excuse man. We don’t need religion to punch someone in the face, drink till we vomit or kill someone… but it is O’ so convenient.
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
If there was a single red bouncy ball on earth, I’m sure it would be a great reason to go do all of the above as well 😛
People are not good by nature. Few if any actually celebrate St. Patrick on St. Patrick’s day... we just celebrate ourselves under someone else’s name.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by darvlayAn interesting question. Let me rack my little brain and I will give my opinion. But I am leaning towards thinking that things wont change all that much.
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by darvlayWith no salvation, if the bible were only a guide, things would be worse. Why? Because the fault lies in the human heart. It is corrupt. Now, if we could remove greed, lust, envy, etc....now you might have something...However, the "emotions" I listed, have a spiritual nature and cannot be removed naturally...
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by darvlayI'm bored of religion being used as a punch bag excuse for what men do. Humans can find anything to fight and kill over , football ,territory , women , but does this mean that having a kick around with some girlies on a piece of land you own inherently bad?
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by darvlayI think the Santa Claus aspect of religion is pretty essential to its success
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?
If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?
as a moral guide. I mean the 'he sees when you are sleeping, he knows
if you're awake' aspect of things. The success of the human race depends
on most people doing reasonable good most of the time. However,
larger propinquity group size means slightly deviant behavior can transpire
with little notice and reprecussion. The idea that 'God is watching' and
will punish you mitigates against that.
So, I think the salvation aspect of religion cannot be separated from it
without making it essentially impotent; if God isn't watching, then what
reason to I have to consider avoiding sin?
Yes, I know it isn't reasonable to do so, but how many times have
you known people to behave unreasonably? I know dozens of people
who will lie to your face, but if you ask them to put their hand on a Bible
and say it, won't lie. I know people who drop the F-bomb in every other
sentence in a conversation, but won't say 'poop' in a church building.
Consider this story, which is 100% true: I know a guy who was being
assualted by a bunch of urban youth. One of them pulled out a gun
and was going to shoot him (having robbed him of the 20 or so dollars
he had on him). Another one said, 'Don't shoot him here, we're in front
of a church,' and the group started to drag him away. He moaned, 'Jesus
help me,' and they all ran away without shooting him.
With attitudes like this, I think the 'Santa Claus' God model does in fact
play a mitigating role in making some people act more peacefully,
at least in the West. Certainly, the idea of religion inclines other people
towards severe violence.
Just adding my two cents.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioNo, not really. But what you insinuate is that the "wise" like yourself know better and the thought of God watching is irrelevent. While the simple masses would adhere to sinful behaviour. Would that not make an "elitist" group who can do what they please without regard to conscience?
You've utterly missed the point of the story.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterWell, now you're just being a jerk. I never said that I believed that 'God isn't watching.' My
But what you insinuate is that the "wise" like yourself know better and the thought of God watching is irrelevent. While the simple masses would adhere to sinful behaviour. Would that not make an "elitist" group who can do what they please without regard to conscience?
reply was directly to Darvlay's inquiry about whether religion would have the mass appeal that it
does if it did not have a salvation component. I responded to that inquiry with my impression based
on my specific experience.
I think that this impression is well founded since I hear many conservative Christians saying things
like 'What good would Christianity be if we found out Jesus didn't rise from the dead?' Or when theists
in general say that without God there can be no morality.
Rather than attacking something I didn't say, why don't you say something about the topic at hand?
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI'm sorry, my apologies...your right, I read your post too quickly. And I agree, the God watching aspect would be useless without the rest. Sometimes I browse without reading the entire post....and like now, I end up with foot in mouth.....will try to do better....😳
Well, now you're just being a jerk. I never said that I believed that 'God isn't watching.' My
reply was directly to Darvlay's inquiry about whether religion would have the mass appeal that it
does if it did not have a salvation component. I responded to that inquiry with my impression based
on my specific experience.
I think that this impression ...[text shortened]... omething I didn't say, why don't you say something about the topic at hand?
Nemesio
14 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think he may be the most misunderstood person I have ever met. 😛
I'm sorry, my apologies...your right, I read your post too quickly. And I agree, the God watching aspect would be useless without the rest. Sometimes I browse without reading the entire post....and like now, I end up with foot in mouth.....will try to do better....😳
Other than myself, that is.