Why are people religious
- Thread starter pure_ego
- Start date
+1
As the years progress we tend to move away from what we once knew or thought to be true. Now the year is 2006 AD. Time is measured from Christ's death (AD - After Death), but since so much of it (time), has passed, many don't believe that he ever existed. Just as in five(5) short years, there are many that don't believe passenger jets caused the twin towers to topple. Perhaps in another few years, there will be those that believe that the towers never existed in the first place as those that believe that Christ never existed today? I have heard athiests explain their non-belief with "If there was a God, he would not let the world be in the shape it is in today". Yet, the Bible tells us where our world is headed and as I look around, it sure seems true to me.
We are all individuals and the choices we make are ours alone to make. Accepting Jesus Christ is a personal and private thing. It can't be done for you, it is your choice and yours alone. But to call those weak minded that accept the teachings of the Bible is nothing short of prejudice. I had one athiest tell me that her greatest fear was that us Christians might be right. Hmmm
I've heard atheists (other than myself) say that from time to time as well. I used to say it too but I still think it's a weak test at best of the existence of god. Free agency plays too large a role in Christianity.
A better test for me is how many people did god order to die, just because they were not in the right religion. That's where things start to get interesting. You can start with modern times and work your way back and find many many many instances where god ordered various groups to die for no other reason than because of their beliefs being "wrong."
THAT'S why I don't believe in god. I'll leave it at that. Actually, it's a good thing I don't believe in god because I don't want to go through life hating "anyone" that much!
I completely agree with you that a decision to follow god or Jesus or Sidhartha or The Great Pumpkin is a very personal thing. There is nothing wrong with that. Bear in mind that when people refer to religious adherents as "weak minded" it's a mere generalization. We know that not all religious followers are weak-minded but generally speaking, the vocal ones are VERY weak-minded. They somehow feel compelled to demonstrate that fact at every opportunity. If you're not one of those and you still believe in god, more power to you; you have my respect because of your strengths.
Carry on, my friends!
--Wag--
I thought I would put a follow up here..
yeah it's been awhile but the class is over now..
my new and improved religious outlook.
and some interesting questions the class raised for me.
first things first...
I believed there was an "infinite being" before I took the class and I am just as sure of it now as I was before. Possibly more so.
as to which religon most closely connects us as humans to him... well.. now thats a whole can of worms which would take more then the 204,800 characters this board limits posts to
I will say that if I were going to actively practice "religion" I would try to get as close to the source as possible..
Religions change over time.. that is a given.. nothing stays the same...
Maybe go back before "religion" got organized.. to the roots and work my way forward instead of starting and where religion got to.. make sense?
Alright.. why I believe there is some type of god type thing whom created everything we will ever know.
Carl Jung explained it in a way that works for me..
this isn't exact... this is my understanding.. you can google it and find WAY more Carl Jung stuff than your gonna wanna read unless you get off on philospophy/theology/psychology stuff. .. and NO.. I don't get off on that kinda thing.. I had no choice remember! It was a required class.
short version of my understanding of it..
We as beings have been, and are even now driven primarily by instinct. We instinctually "feel" the presence of our creator.
You know.. instinct... Reproduction & Survival being the more noticable.. there are others.. creativity, a sense of safety, health,.. etc.
It makes sense that instinct could also be the prevailing force of why we believe in something that we sometimes cannot prove.
so.. an instinctual drive back to our creator does not seem strange or a stretch at all in my mind.
We (normally) keep a close connections to our immediate creators (parents) why would our ultimate creator be different?
It feels wrong for me to think that there is no larger presence in the universe... just as it feels wrong to try to convince myself that I have no parents... or that I have no desire to reproduce... or that I am not hungry.
Instict tells me to reproduce so I do alot of crazy things to be sure it happens... instinct tells me I am hungry and I stop at Mcdonalds.. i don't argue with it.. I simple DO what instinct tells me to do.
I believe all of these things go hand in hand.
so there ya have it.. ego's theory on why we are religious... because we have a gut feeling about it just as we have gut feelings about many other things that are nothing more than thousands, or millions of years of instinct kicking in.
The connection to the creator is still there.. just as a connection to a parent.. or to your ancestors from 50 generations back is.
That to me is the easy part.. believing.
The hard part is determining what "he" wants of you, why you are here, and how you should interact (or not interact) with "him". Which religion got it right.. (or close to right) Which one seems to have stayed to the original message that "he" has seemingly always tried to convey.
"I am here, Trust me!"
all done!
thanks for the replys by the way. The paper was better because of them.
yeah it's been awhile but the class is over now..
my new and improved religious outlook.
and some interesting questions the class raised for me.
first things first...
I believed there was an "infinite being" before I took the class and I am just as sure of it now as I was before. Possibly more so.
as to which religon most closely connects us as humans to him... well.. now thats a whole can of worms which would take more then the 204,800 characters this board limits posts to
Religions change over time.. that is a given.. nothing stays the same...
Maybe go back before "religion" got organized.. to the roots and work my way forward instead of starting and where religion got to.. make sense?
Alright.. why I believe there is some type of god type thing whom created everything we will ever know.
Carl Jung explained it in a way that works for me..
this isn't exact... this is my understanding.. you can google it and find WAY more Carl Jung stuff than your gonna wanna read unless you get off on philospophy/theology/psychology stuff. .. and NO.. I don't get off on that kinda thing.. I had no choice remember! It was a required class.
short version of my understanding of it..
We as beings have been, and are even now driven primarily by instinct. We instinctually "feel" the presence of our creator.
You know.. instinct... Reproduction & Survival being the more noticable.. there are others.. creativity, a sense of safety, health,.. etc.
It makes sense that instinct could also be the prevailing force of why we believe in something that we sometimes cannot prove.
so.. an instinctual drive back to our creator does not seem strange or a stretch at all in my mind.
We (normally) keep a close connections to our immediate creators (parents) why would our ultimate creator be different?
It feels wrong for me to think that there is no larger presence in the universe... just as it feels wrong to try to convince myself that I have no parents... or that I have no desire to reproduce... or that I am not hungry.
Instict tells me to reproduce so I do alot of crazy things to be sure it happens... instinct tells me I am hungry and I stop at Mcdonalds.. i don't argue with it.. I simple DO what instinct tells me to do.
I believe all of these things go hand in hand.
so there ya have it.. ego's theory on why we are religious... because we have a gut feeling about it just as we have gut feelings about many other things that are nothing more than thousands, or millions of years of instinct kicking in.
The connection to the creator is still there.. just as a connection to a parent.. or to your ancestors from 50 generations back is.
That to me is the easy part.. believing.
The hard part is determining what "he" wants of you, why you are here, and how you should interact (or not interact) with "him". Which religion got it right.. (or close to right) Which one seems to have stayed to the original message that "he" has seemingly always tried to convey.
"I am here, Trust me!"
all done!
thanks for the replys by the way. The paper was better because of them.
Everyone believes in something , I believe that Jesus Christ the son of God, died on the cross for our sins and I will always believe that . As far as religions I believe they are a way of others to make money and have power by telling you how to live your life . Some people need that type of structure or rules to disipline themselves. It is a good way to stay on a path because of fellowship, and I also think people in general need to feel that they are a part of a group so they pick who they want to follow. As long as the rules are to they're liking. I am a Christian , I don't follow any "religion" , I just try my best to do what Jesus asked us to do and spread the word by example of how I live my life . I am in no way perfect or think I am better than anyone else. And I do not need to "push" my beliefs on anyone else . I just hope that when the day comes we are all together.
ego, you'd love the the book, "An Essay on Morals," by Philip Wylie.
I think people originally came to believe in deities because of the mysteries of the world. Over time, the arrogance of man determined what characteristics god should have. Worship changed with further arrogance into rules for the dominance of one's fellows and as that concept evolved, we finally came to a state of religion determining the day to day strictures of living which are now prevalent among man.
Not to say that societal rules are not important because they are. But worship of a deity and admiration of that being's work in providing for the existence of a man is not inclusive of one man dominating another, nor is such worship inclusive of one man having greater access to a deity than another.
Science has it's share of arrogance too, however. I suppose originally, scientists had to have enough arrogance to say that they could find out things that were not in the teachings of their religions. Some scientists were arrogant enough to study the motions of the planets and in the face of contrary religious teachings, establish the reality of it. But for a mere man to figure it out? Or even attempt to do so? The height of arrogance!
Balance is in order. A certain degree of arrogance is necessary but a certain degree of humility and awe needs to be blended with it too. This is regardless of whether or not you believe in god or whether or not you believe in the abilities of man's science.
Wylie goes so far as to espouse the fact that man is merely an intelligent animal. While there is some truth to that, it's no reason to belittle ourselves and our position in this world's ecologies and our own sociologies.
--Wag--
I think people originally came to believe in deities because of the mysteries of the world. Over time, the arrogance of man determined what characteristics god should have. Worship changed with further arrogance into rules for the dominance of one's fellows and as that concept evolved, we finally came to a state of religion determining the day to day strictures of living which are now prevalent among man.
Not to say that societal rules are not important because they are. But worship of a deity and admiration of that being's work in providing for the existence of a man is not inclusive of one man dominating another, nor is such worship inclusive of one man having greater access to a deity than another.
Science has it's share of arrogance too, however. I suppose originally, scientists had to have enough arrogance to say that they could find out things that were not in the teachings of their religions. Some scientists were arrogant enough to study the motions of the planets and in the face of contrary religious teachings, establish the reality of it. But for a mere man to figure it out? Or even attempt to do so? The height of arrogance!
Balance is in order. A certain degree of arrogance is necessary but a certain degree of humility and awe needs to be blended with it too. This is regardless of whether or not you believe in god or whether or not you believe in the abilities of man's science.
Wylie goes so far as to espouse the fact that man is merely an intelligent animal. While there is some truth to that, it's no reason to belittle ourselves and our position in this world's ecologies and our own sociologies.
--Wag--
Man is a god unto lesser animals and essentially to himself because of the intelligence he possesses?
Is that what you think he is saying?
I hear some of you laughin' haha.
we cloned a sheep, and could more than likely clone you if certain people were left to their own devices.
re-creation.. or just creation?
Can we not eliminate/save nearly any species of animal/insect at will if we decide to do it within a very short amount of time? (whats 100 years when your talking about billions here?)
how many thousands of years before humans can create true "artificial" intelligence?
The light bulb is artificial light... but it is light any way you look at it.
What are life forms beyond 100% organic, somewhat self repairing, artificially intelligent machines.
We need fuel to keep running, We are not trapped into a single program we constantly learn new things.
We do many things with Carbon right now... how long until we figure out how to create our own flesh/organs... everything in our bodies are built of the very same elements that make plastics, metal, nuclear weapons.. it's not like we lifeforms have some "un-obtain-ium" element inside of us....
Makes the idea of some quack pot theory about an alien race seeding earth not seem quite so outlandish I think.
It's not like "they" haven't had time to perfect the science of it.
How big a head start would they have needed from where we are today scientifically? 50 years, 500 years, 5,000 years... 50,000, 50,000,000?
The universe has been around something like 13.7 billion years according to our best guesses.. give or take 50% margin of error.. thats still A LONG time.
Earth has only been around 4.5 billion years according to estimates..
so what does that make us?
"Human, vers. 13.69999 now with "faith in a higher power" upgrade, optimized for use with Earth vers. 4.5"
New versions every 1 billion years with updated every 100 million years..
Not like we would ever know.
still doesn't answer the question of who pushed the button (for the big bang, or whatever event you believe caused the universe to "be")
I'm getting off subject here...
in closing... I wanna go back to a line I already typed..
it's not like we life forms have some "un-obtain-ium" element/property inside of us....
... or do we?
Thats the 13.7 billion year question in my mind.
Similar threads
