To Religious believers

[spanish_emperor]

So your religion rose because it was accepted by a considerable amount of people that by following it your lives would improve on earth. However, what if your religion, instead of creating happiness amongst the majority of the people it is creating unhappiness. Sure, all religions create happiness but the matter is whether it is causing more unhappiness than happiness in the world. If your religion is causing more unhappiness in the world, wouldn't it make your religion useless and pointless? Should it be abolished and would you still support such a religion?

[Phier]

So your religion rose because it was accepted by a considerable amount of people that by following it your lives would improve on earth. However, what if your religion, instead of creating happiness amongst the majority of the people it is creating unhappiness. Sure, all religions create happiness but the matter is whether it is causing more unhappiness than happiness in the world. If your religion is causing more unhappiness in the world, wouldn't it make your religion useless and pointless? Should it be abolished and would you still support such a religion?

Who said life was suppose to be happy?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You define religion as if it was guided strictly by utilitarian criteria. Which of course they aren't; the most powerful religion is often that which do not distributes the most, but instead demands the most.

[spanish_emperor]

Who said life was suppose to be happy?

Who said life was not supposed to happy?

You define religion as if it was guided strictly by utilitarian criteria. Which of course they aren't; the most powerful religion is often that which do not distributes the most, but instead demands the most.

The emergence of religion was guided, and is still guided, strictly by a utilitarian criteria. However, the necessity given by religion to its followers can be, and is many times, misguided and come into conflict with someone elses necessities or religion.

No, the most powerful religion is not the one which demands the most, but the one which convinces its followers that it doesn't demand much. For example, a good christians spends every Sunday at least in the church praying to find a job when he could be spending that time actually finidng a job and therefore improving his chances of actually finding one. However, he has been convinced that this is not useless but will actually help him.

So to put my questions in other contexts:

1. would your religion become pointless if it provides you with a necessity but does so by taking away a necessity of someone else?
2. If not, wouldn't it mean your satisfying your own needs and have no care for the needs of someone else, thus, making you not much better than the greedy corporations that cause many humans in third world countries starve and die because they can't defend themselves?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The emergence of religion was guided, and is still guided, strictly by a utilitarian criteria.

No, of course not.

No, the most powerful religion is not the one which demands the most, but the one which convinces its followers that it doesn't demand much. For example, a good christians spends every Sunday at least in the church praying to find a job when he could be spending that time actually finidng a job and therefore improving his chances of actually finding one.

This is very misguided. It might the modern posture, but being a Christian in the earlier days meant suffering persecution and offering yourself even voluntarily to martyrdom in the name of the faith. It still happens in many less privileged places of the world.

[spanish_emperor]

This is very misguided. It might the modern posture, but being a Christian in the earlier days meant suffering persecution and offering yourself even voluntarily to martyrdom in the name of the faith. It still happens in many less privileged places of the world.

No.

Lets us put some facts down:
1. All actions require sacrifice. When i am typing this down i am sacrificing a minute or two in my life. However, if i am convinced that those 2 minutes aren't of much importance to me it won't seem like a sacrifice.

So when you say an early christian offered himself to martyrdom its not much different to the example above except that the sacrifice was greater but it was balanced out by the reward which was, in their views, even greater. Plus, to many, life itself wouldn't have seemed so important considering their lifestyles.

So the level of demand and sacrifice depends on the person. But you don't seem to understand this and to you, martyrdom seems like a great suffering because you can't put yourself in their position, however i can assure you to them it was not such a great sacrifice. If they had felt they were loosing they would have accepted to give up Christianity.

[spanish_emperor]

No, of course not.

No, yes, humans in developed nations follow a religion because it solves their questions without having to educate themselves. Its much easier to be told the answer than have to figure it out themselves. The same happened in ancient times because the majority lacked education or were to busy with other activities. And at both times religion gave them two important necessities: meaning of their lives and a sense of control (pray and you will be rewarded)

Speak to a theologian for that. In sum, there is no exact answer, but it is quite evident it is not what modern audiences might be so accustomed to think of.

There is no exact answer because we lack any real first hand evidence of its appearance to make any concrete conclusion. Thus, heaven could be anything someone can imagine (though it is pointless to argue what heaven looks like if we haven’t even figured out if heaven exists). And if your not informed and qualified enough that i need to speak to a theologian, why are you even arguing contents related to theology?

But lets return to the topic.

"Heaven", contrarily to what people on the streets might say, is not a hedonistic paradise.

But that’s what I am trying to state. It doesn’t matter if there is any truth to their beliefs, if they have been convinced that after death they will be rewarded with eternal happiness in a hedonistic paradise then sacrificing their seemingly worthless lives which must have endured injustice and hunger daily I think their lives would be a necessary and not very missed sacrifice.



So it shows humans join a religion because it provides them with a requirement in their lives. Such a necessity can simply be acceptance in a group, hope that their lives will improve, etc. It doesn't even have to make sense and it just shows that most humans accept whatever they are told without asking questions or trying to understand how it works. If you think about it, a man in the sky which you can't see directing the world yet not leaving any trace behind that he was there, kind of hypocritical.

Being tortured and dismembered to death was a painful way of losing life the last time I checked

Yes, I never said it wasn’t. I just said they would be willing to sacrifice their lives if they were convinced they would be rewarded after death. Whether they were sacrificing their lives on false promises and hopes is another matter altogether.

Only a true hero endangers and ultimately sacrifice his life to save others or to reach a goal, like the fulfillment of his destiny.

Like your definition of “hero”, the early Christian sacrificed his life to reach a goal: eternal happiness in heaven. I don’t know where you are heading with this. What does heroes have to do with religion?

"Christian Belief" does not mean you can believe in anything in the manner you want.

Yes you can and I agree 100% with House M.D. because religion itself is an opinion, a popular opinion, but an opinion nonetheless and it cannot be referred to as fact. Therefore any Christian can change the “Christian Belief” or theory on God (that’s what theology is) and get away with it because he is creating his own theory. Whether it is popular or not is irrelevant.





But the original question has nothing to do with the above. The original question was, if you're religion is causing unhappiness would you still follow it. And if you do, not you have no shame?

[MaximiIian]

No, yes, humans in developed nations follow a religion because it solves their questions without having to educate themselves. Its much easier to be told the answer than have to figure it out themselves.

This assumes all religions are of the pastoral structure that so characterises organised Christianity and Islamic communities. This is not so for plenty of other religions, including more individualised forms of Abrahamic religions.

[Arch-hereticK]

Even the followers of Yahwe have to interpret his will through a book that is written by other men. But obviously there are theisms that are free-er.

[Scorch]

This assumes all religions are of the pastoral structure that so characterises organised Christianity and Islamic communities. This is not so for plenty of other religions, including more individualised forms of Abrahamic religions.

Mainstream religion, then. I do see your point, as you've mentioned in other threads that you're an Wiccan, which clearly doesn't follow the paradigms of other religions that will be mentioned.

However I'd say that if you try to point out at every point that Wiccanism differs from mainstream religion, you will be right very often but it'll drive you insane because with the dominance on mythology and fairytale-telling that Christianity and Islam currently have, as well as the fact that they are the only religions on this earth that are politically-inclined to any major extent, skewed peoples' perception of religion.

While I agree you're right, most people you correct will simply be referring to the dominant religions of Christianity and Islam.

[MaximiIian]

While I agree you're right, most people you correct will simply be referring to the dominant religions of Christianity and Islam.

As I said in my post, even these have large amount of variability and not all denominations follow the pastoral system that is found in traditional forms of the religion. Especially with Christianity, where there seems to be a divide between the beliefs of individual Christians and he official stances of their churches in almost every group.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

So when you say an early christian offered himself to martyrdom its not much different to the example above except that the sacrifice was greater but it was balanced out by the reward which was, in their views, even greater. Plus, to many, life itself wouldn't have seemed so important considering their lifestyles.

"Heaven", contrarily to what people on the streets might say, is not a hedonistic paradise.

So the level of demand and sacrifice depends on the person. But you don't seem to understand this and to you, martyrdom seems like a great suffering because you can't put yourself in their position, however i can assure you to them it was not such a great sacrifice. If they had felt they were loosing they would have accepted to give up Christianity.

Being tortured and dismembered to death was a painful way of losing life the last time I checked. Only a true hero endangers and ultimately sacrifice his life to save others or to reach a goal, like the fulfillment of his destiny. It's easy to measure it and talk about it when we're safe and sitting on a couch, but once the crap hits the fan and sacrifice is demanded few people have the courage to proceed.

[Fiyenyaa]

"Heaven", contrarily to what people on the streets might say, is not a hedonistic paradise.

Contrary to what it looks like, "Christian Belief" does not mean you can believe in anything in the manner you want. It is organized and rigidly systematized, and there are people who are specialized in it, and as bonus followers must obey the tenets more or less unchanged.

And yet they don't, because theologians aren't preachers. Know why - because the overly complicated, esoteric stuff the spout is not going to go down well.
Theologians explain away supernatural elements of scripture, and they make interpreting it into an arcane art - they are barely theists.

[Scorch]

And yet they don't, because theologians aren't preachers. Know why - because the overly complicated, esoteric stuff the spout is not going to go down well.
Theologians explain away supernatural elements of scripture, and they make interpreting it into an arcane art - they are barely theists.

Well I think the only shot they have of convincing people of their far-fetched rubbish and continuing to oppose equality, tolerance and peace on the basis of it is by confusing the ever-loving crap out of people and hoping that they can convince them that because clearly 2+2 /= 5 it has to equal 13.

[Strelok]

"Heaven", contrarily to what people on the streets might say, is not a hedonistic paradise.

So, then, what do you believe Heaven is?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

So, then, what do you believe Heaven is?

Speak to a theologian for that. In sum, there is no exact answer, but it is quite evident it is not what modern audiences might be so accustomed to think of.

[Strelok]

but it is quite evident it is not what modern audiences might be so accustomed to think of.

And what makes you think that?

Are you implying your opinion is that of a common theologian that I would speak to? It's a matter belief, so I don't see why you couldn't have a certain, different opinion/belief.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

And what makes you think that?

Are you implying your opinion is that of a common theologian that I would speak to? It's a matter belief, so I don't see why you couldn't have a certain, different opinion/belief.

Contrary to what it looks like, "Christian Belief" does not mean you can believe in anything in the manner you want. It is organized and rigidly systematized, and there are people who are specialized in it, and as bonus followers must obey the tenets more or less unchanged.

[Strelok]

Contrary to what it looks like, "Christian Belief" does not mean you can believe in anything in the manner you want.

Individual Christians definitely do pick and choose their beliefs. If you don't do such, well then, thta is your way of following such.

[Scorch]

Contrary to what it looks like, "Christian Belief" does not mean you can believe in anything in the manner you want. It is organized and rigidly systematized, and there are people who are specialized in it, and as bonus followers must obey the tenets more or less unchanged.

Someone else who picks which parts of the Bible to follow/ignore FOR you?

Interesting. Would save a lot on the leg-work.