Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?

[nerf13]

In a world of globalization and rapid social change some say religion provides
the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st century while others say that deeply held religious beliefs promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions, and impede social progress indeveloping and developed nations alike.. Which is closer to your own point of view?

While agreeing on one or another point of view ,please make an example of why you think so...I am curious to learn your answers!

[Lazarus]

People identify themselves as their religion. "I am a Christian" or "I am a Muslim" or whatever. It's a dividing thing because it's something I can point to and use to reinforce an "us vs them" mentality.

NOW there's an important distinction I'm going to make. That's organized religion. If you personally believe that Jesus is coming back to save you go ahead! That's fantastic - especially if it makes you a better person. If you are going to all gather at the social club on Sundays and say "WE as people who believe in Jesus are better than THEM who don't believe" - that's where the problem is. Now. I know people are going to say "that's not Jesus's teaching" or "That's not in the Bible" and yeah, that's right. It's not. But you can't say that isn't what happens in a decent percentage of churches. Maybe not your church - but it goes on.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

People identify themselves as their religion. "I am a Christian" or "I am a Muslim" or whatever. It's a dividing thing because it's something I can point to and use to reinforce an "us vs them" mentality.

NOW there's an important distinction I'm going to make. That's organized religion. If you personally believe that Jesus is coming back to save you go ahead! That's fantastic - especially if it makes you a better person. If you are going to all gather at the social club on Sundays and say "WE as people who believe in Jesus are better than THEM who don't believe" - that's where the problem is. Now. I know people are going to say "that's not Jesus's teaching" or "That's not in the Bible" and yeah, that's right. It's not. But you can't say that isn't what happens in a decent percentage of churches. Maybe not your church - but it goes on.

Okay...and that happens in Atheistic groups as well. I was, as a Christian, a member of an organization called "Students for Free Thought"...or as it should have been called "Let's get together and mock Christian beliefs". That was a very much, us vs them grouping of people. Don't kid yourself into believing this is somehow a religious persons only behavior. This happens with Religion, Politics, sports, ethnicity, nationality, etc....

[Primo]

Before the 20th century yes. Now is a different story.

No. Western Cultures are just experiencing a change of religions. Like I already described in another thread, I am fairly certain that at the end of this century we will have a very powerful religion again.

If you are going to all gather at the social club on Sundays and say "WE as people who believe in Jesus are better than THEM who don't believe" - that's where the problem is. Now. I know people are going to say "that's not Jesus's teaching" or "That's not in the Bible" and yeah, that's right. It's not. But you can't say that isn't what happens in a decent percentage of churches. Maybe not your church - but it goes on.

Wait a second. You point out a few bad examples of one religion and you think this holds true for all kinds of organized religions? That isn't very scientific thinking ...

I don't believe that I am going to heaven just because of my belief, nor do I think someone else will go to hell for his. I think that will be judged by your actions and your intents, not by whether you guessed correctly. Organized Religions outline a few rules (mostly) that hopefully ease making the right decisions, but in the end it still comes down to your decisions.

Other than that: In the end, it comes down to human nature. Everything we make is flawed, thus religions is flawed, too. We just have to accept that.

[basics]

" People identify themselves as their religion. "I am a Christian" or "I am a Muslim" or whatever. It's a dividing thing because it's something I can point to and use to reinforce an "us vs them" mentality."

Lazarus,

In so-called Christian terms you are absolutely right because denominalisation has turned it into another set of religions. In Biblical terms there never was a church of Rome, Scotland, England etc. What the Bible says and talks of is the church at Corinth, at Galatia, at Rome etc divided only by time and space yet one organism whose Head is Jesus Christ. What caused the divisions was clearly diversions from the word of God plus the bishops usurping their position within the church. That was where the them and us began.

Jesus using parables explained that this would happen and by the same showed that what was in His name should remain that way until the last day when the tares, the goats, as He calls them, would be left to be judged alongside all the other false religions and them that have none at all. Them that are His would be so because He knows them and in turn they know His voice, His calling, so it beholds the church to suffer these men and women not in hatred or revulsion but in love and forgiveness.

When you talk of the regenerate boasting of being better, my words, I think you are mistaken because in all my time belonging to the Lord I have never heard that comment being made by anyone and I have been around many churches here in the North of Scotland. Yes, we appreciate that we have been separated and do keep to where the word is preached but it is my experience that the aspertions come from them that do not. It is them in their minds that make it that way. As you know one of my most used expressions of them is as being on the outside looking in.

The thing is, unlike them we see Jesus Christ in all things, the cause of our separation, but none of us has any right to boast because of where we started from, and we know it. So, it beholds us to tell of these things despite the obvious opposition we get when doing so. To us now, we accept that Jesus Christ is the better Way and not only that the Only Way, if man is to find peace with God. This is something that has been said since the beginning of time and ignored by most in the same period, causing all sorts of religiosity to spring up.

Religious wars go back a long long way, long before Christ stepped foot on the planet, not because of Him but in spite of Him. He came to set men and women free from all that, to bring peace between them and God, because without that there never will be any peace on this planet. It is why He stressed seeking after righteousness because without it this world remains at enmity with God and so peace is but a dream that will never be satisfied by a fallen nature.

The only thing that separates me from you and others like you is that God picked me up when I least expected it and showed me Jesus Christ who died that I might live at peace with God. My nature was such that it still is so hard to understand why me? A man who set his heart on murder, a divorcee who wrecked lives yet was spared and forgiven at a cross somewhere outside Jerusalem two thousand odd years ago. Gratitude more than boasting is my watchword there. If He can forgive me He can forgive anyone. To date that is the only difference between me and all those that see my postings. Religion never came into that.

[Hakkapeliitta]

The only thing that separates me from you and others like you is that God picked me up when I least expected it and showed me Jesus Christ who died that I might live at peace with God. My nature was such that it still is so hard to understand why me? A man who set his heart on murder, a divorcee who wrecked lives yet was spared and forgiven at a cross somewhere outside Jerusalem two thousand odd years ago. Gratitude more than boasting is my watchword there. If He can forgive me He can forgive anyone. To date that is the only difference between me and all those that see my postings. Religion never came into that.

So aren't you violating what Jesus taught about divorce?

Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery

You've remarried right? So isn't that an adulterous relationship?

[basics]

" So aren't you violating what Jesus taught about divorce? "

Hakkapeliitta,

A very good question indeed and not one that has got by the legalists within the church. I was divorced when still a sinner but when Jesus Christ came into my life by regeneration, the old having passed away and me a new creation in Christ, meaning my sins all gone, that meant I was free to remarry. Some in the church couldn't see that and some still don't but then in doing so they mix the Law and grace which cannot be done. In fact they put themselves back under Law which of course they shouldn't do.

It was in the early part of my conversion after experiencing many dreams before and then that I had the dream about my little baby daughter lying in her crib just after her birth. I wasn't remarried then so that was quite a revelational mystery. Eventually getting remarried and after two boys there was still no sign of Leah until one day at the docs he told me that I was going to have a baby girl me already knowing my wife was pregnant again. This was a good six/seven years later. When I walked in that ward it was just as my dream had shown me and boy was I delighted.

" You've remarried right? So isn't that an adulterous relationship? "

Would my God and Saviour have done this were I still in sin? No, it is not an adulterous marriage because if it were, my wife being a Christian wouldn't have come near me were I still a sinner. New life in Christ means new life, in fact the book to the Hebrews quite openly declares that God doesn't even recognise me as ever having been in sin now. It was all washed away at the cross. Now if I had been converted and then divorced that would be a different matter altogether because quite rightly I couldn't have remarried inside the church ever.

[Hakkapeliitta]

" So aren't you violating what Jesus taught about divorce? "

Hakkapeliitta,

A very good question indeed and not one that has got by the legalists within the church. I was divorced when still a sinner but when Jesus Christ came into my life by regeneration, the old having passed away and me a new creation in Christ, meaning my sins all gone, that meant I was free to remarry. Some in the church couldn't see that and some still don't but then in doing so they mix the Law and grace which cannot be done. In fact they put themselves back under Law which of course they shouldn't do.

It was in the early part of my conversion after experiencing many dreams before and then that I had the dream about my little baby daughter lying in her crib just after her birth. I wasn't remarried then so that was quite a revelational mystery. Eventually getting remarried and after two boys there was still no sign of Leah until one day at the docs he told me that I was going to have a baby girl me already knowing my wife was pregnant again. This was a good six/seven years later. When I walked in that ward it was just as my dream had shown me and boy was I delighted.

" You've remarried right? So isn't that an adulterous relationship? "

Would my God and Saviour have done this were I still in sin? No, it is not an adulterous marriage because if it were, my wife being a Christian wouldn't have come near me were I still a sinner. New life in Christ means new life, in fact the book to the Hebrews quite openly declares that God doesn't even recognise me as ever having been in sin now. It was all washed away at the cross. Now if I had been converted and then divorced that would be a different matter altogether because quite rightly I couldn't have remarried inside the church ever.

You're reading the Bible as you would have it do unto you. If you were "reborn" then you would either go back to your original wife, or you would lead a life of celibacy. Your life has had its tragedy and you have overcome it, but you are, as per Jesus' words, living in sin. You might as well be living in a homosexual relationship, as you are living adulterously and making your partner an adulteress also. If you were truly "reborn" then you would leave your mistress, but you don't so you re-define what it is to be a Christian.

[Koscheideathless]

People identify themselves as their religion. "I am a Christian" or "I am a Muslim" or whatever. It's a dividing thing because it's something I can point to and use to reinforce an "us vs them" mentality.

NOW there's an important distinction I'm going to make. That's organized religion. If you personally believe that Jesus is coming back to save you go ahead! That's fantastic - especially if it makes you a better person. If you are going to all gather at the social club on Sundays and say "WE as people who believe in Jesus are better than THEM who don't believe" - that's where the problem is. Now. I know people are going to say "that's not Jesus's teaching" or "That's not in the Bible" and yeah, that's right. It's not. But you can't say that isn't what happens in a decent percentage of churches. Maybe not your church - but it goes on.

That's a fallacy.
There are great fights between religion because it ties those with the same religion closer, hence religion is actually a unifying force as well. People could now feel kinship with people not just by how they look, their skin colour, but by beliefs.
And it is not about their annoying preaching as well. If they truly believe that Jesus could save us, and they want to share it with you, then their intention is good, despite you feeling annoyed. We truly believe democracy is good, that's why we spend billions on weapons and send our young men to distant lands to spread it too.

[Sar1n]

Throughout history, religions had both positive and negative effects. But the negative ones are more prominent, and some stem from the very foundation of religions.

One central dogma of any religion I know of is, believe or go to hell. Simple...and very deadly. From here, it's a small step to many atrocities, as it defines nonbelievers as inferior (they'll go to hell anyway, why do they matter), and justifies converting people with force and violence (nothing you can do to them on this world can compare to the anguish in hell). This justification was used for many atrocities throughout history...

Every religion also has other dogmas, often by associating rituals, cultural aspects, laws, and such. That's simple marketing, tailored to whatever ethnic spawned the religion. This is another point of conflict. And I consider "divine mandate" to be the worst excuse for anything.

Religions, by playing on people's inherent fears, are very powerful manipulation tool, and there's plenty of fools to be manipulated around, and plenty of people willing to manipulate them. This makes every religion potentially very powerful tool for any self-serving bastard.

My advice, believe whatever you wish, but understand that it's just a belief. Do not involve anyone else in your own beliefs in any way.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I don't think it's good, it encourages faith-based thinking. But whether or not it's good or not doesn't matter in my opinion. A lie is still a lie, no matter how helpful or dangerous it is.

In a world of globalization and rapid social change some say religion provides
the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st century

False. Modern morality is entirely different to the scriptures. It's been developed by centuries of thought and actions. People have always claimed a religious basis for their morality, yet their morality has changed.

[nerf13]

False. Modern morality is entirely different to the scriptures. It's been developed by centuries of thought and actions. People have always claimed a religious basis for their morality, yet their morality has changed.

I agree that in a way modern morality has changed ,but I believe that the scriptures have had its affect on morality how it has been shaped.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Religion can be good, if it provides people with happiness and meaning on an individual basic, but it can - like previously said - also be used to encourage the "We versus them".

I agree that in a way modern morality has changed ,but I believe that the scriptures have had its affect on morality how it has been shaped.

Not really, you can find reasons to condemn, tolerate or encourage the same value by looking at different parts of the Bible. Ever seen a bunch of people, who have all read the bible thoroughly, "battle it out" using bible quotes to address the same issue?

The Christian values of my youth are all that's worth living for.

Tell me your values and I will find contradicting quotes to them in the Bible.
I most likely live by the same values, but I just see them as secular values deemed appropriate by Western society and culture.

[MaximiIian]

One central dogma of any religion I know of is, believe or go to hell.

Then I guess the only religions you've heard of are Christianity and Islam.

[Sar1n]

Then I guess the only religions you've heard of are Christianity and Islam.

Every Abrahamic religion got "believe and behave this way or be punished" clausule in their core, and even other religions are, in some way, playing with this. I wrote that one time already.

@Himster: there are still places where religion holds its grip on people.

[sumskilz]

Every Abrahamic religion got "believe and behave this way or be punished" clausule in their core, and even other religions are, in some way, playing with this.

Actually Judaism doesn’t. Based on the Hebrew Bible, many of the ancient Israelites believed in worldly reward and punishment, but not all. Qoheleth, the author of what Christians call Ecclesiastes, wrote “the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked”. There was no concept of heaven or hell, and clearly some writers questioned even the concept of worldly reward – as in the Book of Job for example. Worldly reward and punishment was almost completely abandoned after the Maccabean Revolt because it became clear that terrible things happened to those who remained loyal to the tradition. The concept of reward (but not punishment) in an ambiguous “World to Come” started to develop but it was never universally accepted. Many opinions expressed in the Talmud lean toward being good as its own reward. An early Fourteenth Century book on the principles of Judaism states that there are differing opinions on the idea of reward and punishment and that many rabbis reject the idea altogether. Over the past few hundred years, many Jews have moved away from the traditional conception of God, or have even rejected supernaturalism altogether. The extreme observance of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (a relatively new movement) is actually for a completely different reason than you’d expect.

Buddhism is another approach where "hell", or at least a bad place (this world), is a starting point, and like other religions, offers "reward" to those who follow it. Organized Taoism is similar in this...

I think you realize you’re making a greater stretch here.

Punishment is not a religious universal. The only concept I can think of that is a universal is the offer of a means to overcome human weakness, whether real or imagined.

[MaximiIian]

Every Abrahamic religion got "believe and behave this way or be punished" clausule in their core, and even other religions are, in some way, playing with this. I wrote that one time already.

True, but Judaism contains the caveat of "for Jews only, the rest of you can piss off". Even then, the ideas in Judaism tend more towards effects on the living, with the afterlife being generally the same for everyone. Their complex systems of laws and rules are more of cultural guidelines to ensure divine favour in life. Much more like ancient, indigenous ethnic religions than later religions that developed from it.

Even so, that's beside the point. The Abrahamic religions are only a few of the many religions that exist in the world. It's unfair and silly to generalise all religions as if they were Abrahamic. Even Buddhism, a non-Abrahamic faith that comes closest to asserting its principles as universal commandments, does not present itself as the way to avoid eternal hellish punishment, but as the road to spiritual reward.
And most don't even go that route at all. Most religions are, actually quite like Judaism, merely a way for the follower to do their thing for spiritual fulfilment and divine favour, but never claiming to be the only way for all people.

[Blau&Gruen]

-> tikkun olam

[Himster]

I think it's net value is neutral.
Having said that not all religions are equal in a utilitarian sense: Catholicism is more positive than the westboro baptists and Buddhism is more positive than most Nordic Polytheistic religions.
Religion has the power to unify and divide people in the exact same way philosophies/secular-worldviews unite and divide people: it would be the fallacy of special pleading to argue otherwise.

[Sir Adrian]

Religion is run by men. And like everything else run by men it can be either used for good (ex: the huge number of religious charities, schools, etc) or evil (ex: the crusades).

It all depends on the people who run, not the institution itself.