[Ciberblade]

There are many teachings among the various religions. Almost sounds like the same song, sung to a different tune. Those who believe, profess with passion, the validity of what they believe to be truth. The opposition refutes such arguments with equal fervor.

Here is my question: What is it about religion that makes it so bad or unappealing? It would seem that they act as a guide for life - what right and wrong are - to act with kindness to your fellow man.

A code for life, if you will.

[plschwartz]

CBCB
When this nation was founded it was a time when religion yea or nay was a major part of peoples lives and each formed his own part of it. Even for freethinkers they had worked out why they didn't believe.
But to believe in God and to aver that there is something greater then ones self is now something hard to swallow.
To me the Fundi idea of the literal bible is not religion but an extention of ones own ego. No struggling with ones faith just stick your credit card in the slot and God will take care of you.
Pity

[dugq]

I think if religion did in fact encourage one to act with kindness to ones fellow man then there wouldn't be such a problem. However the end result of religion has often been the reverse. Religious intolerance has been a blight upon Human history. Even when not in the name of religion, intolerance has been produced by it, anti-semitism, resulting in the Holocaust, largely stems from the Jews getting the blame for the killing of Christ.
Just take a look at the same sex marriage thread, are the people there who condemn homosexuality doing so out of kindness. While religion may provide a code, it is all too often rigid and judgemental. Subjective morality allows for other people to have different moral beliefs, religion offers objective morality, encouraging the believer to judge others, rather than examining their own motives and actions.
Even Eastern religion, traditionally more tolerant, has been guilty. The Hindu and Buddhist concept of Karma, has often been twisted to condemn those who suffer, and to withhold kindness and charity.
Personally, I find all this a serious shame. I am religious, and I find it disturbing how society has increasingly turned to materialism, and away from spirituality of any description. However, given human (and especially Western) history, it is all too understandable.

[Ciberblade]

Ah, but is the intolerance and judgementalism built into the religion, or is it the result of man's desire to control and influence? Lets take the Bible for instance - it teaches us to act in kindness. You mentioned homosexuality, the Bible indicates that the lifestyle goes against the guide or method of life. In addition, it also says that those who do not follow (sin) will be dealt with by the creator (God). It is those who try and take on God's ability by making those judgments or condemnations.

In a subjective world - there is no right or wrong.

[iltos]

perhaps it is because people seem to gravitate to religion for the wrong reasons...putting the various interpretations of "what is right" aside, most all the religions that i am aware of basically say....STOP...take a look around....it is a gift....treat it like one, and you will be at peace.......

but most folks today seem to have an expectation that their religious beliefs will provide them with something more concrete...some guarantee against confusion and fear and death....and....i dunno....i'd speculate that the gut understanding that the self imposed promise of "something concrete" is really dependant on an impossible perfection gives rise to a lot of insecurity, as well as the essential of faith, and...well...people tend to get possessive and dogmatic when they're insecure....

enter "what is right" and "you can't be unless you share my faith"

[brushmaster1]

You can have a good code of ethics without religion, and most religions sponsor the opposite; repression, intolerance, etc. Some religions are fairly tolerant within their own sect, but even those are completely intolerant of anyone not in their accepted clique.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

Ah, but is the intolerance and judgementalism built into the religion, or is it the result of man's desire to control and influence? Lets take the Bible for instance - it teaches us to act in kindness. You mentioned homosexuality, the Bible indicates that the lifestyle goes against the guide or method of life. In addition, it also says that those who do not follow (sin) will be dealt with by the creator (God). It is those who try and take on God's ability by making those judgments or condemnations.

Well, the Bible says a lot of things. The Gospels may preach Kindness, while the Old Testament, and much of the later New Testament, preaches intolerance. Obviously, an individual will choose what best fits their own nature, but I don't think that means the religion is not an important influence in shaping how we behave, if that was the case it wouldn't encourage good behaviour either.
Religions tend to look for authority from two sources, the objective authority of the written word, or the subjective authority of experience. I think that religious traditions that take authority from books which they regard as the definitive word of God encourage intolerance and judgementalism. In the Abrahamic religions, which have dominated the West, Near and Middle East, the dominant religions have been of that nature. Whereas in the East, Religion has tended to be more subjective, experience based belief. I think it goes without question, that Western religion has committed more crimes because of its intolerance than Eastern.
Even within those traditions normally characterised as intolerant (Christianity and Islam) there have been tolerant groups, such as the Quakers or Sufis, which have also tended towards subjectivism and mystic experience. Likewise, in early Christianity, mystic groups such as the Gnostics, practised tolerance and plurality.
Obviously, it is not difficult to see why this would occur. It is ludicrous to assert that my experience is more valid than your own.

Originally Posted by ciberblade

In a subjective world - there is no right or wrong.

This is true, but it misses the point. I base my religious beliefs on subjecive reason and experience, which leads me to conclude that this thing we call the Self is illusionary, hence.
1. I should try my best not to act out of selfish motives, to do so would cause me to suffer.
2. Neither can I judge another, they do what they do not through free will, but the relationship of cause and effect. It is only when I realised this truth, body and soul, that the concept of Loving ones Enemies made sense, rather than being a dry platitude.
My beliefs are based on subjective criteria, but I do not believe they are unethical. Although I should add that I all too often do not live up to either of these aims.

[Ciberblade]

Brushmaster1 ~ I am not sure I agree...the people decide on the intolerance and repression -- but is it taught in the religion?

[Ciberblade]

dugg ~ Keep in mind that the Bible is a history book from the ancient world, as well as a way of life. The Gospels, I would consider to be crucial to developing the way of life.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

...the people decide on the intolerance and repression -- but is it taught in the religion?

Or

...the people decide on the kindness and compassion -- but is it taught in the religion?

I think you are trying to have it both ways. You seem to imply that when intolerance is carried out in the name of religion, it is because of the individual, when kindness is displayed in the name of religion, it is because of the religion

Human beings have tendencies towards kindness, they also have tendencies towards hatred. I feel both of these tendencies on a daily basis. However the religion one follows can encourage one, while diminshing the other. The point I was trying to make above is that those traditions which are based on written authority tend to encourage intolerance, whereas those that are based upon subjective experience tend to encourage the opposite. I think this can be demonstrated by comparing the two types of religion, either within religions (Shia and Catholicism vs Quakerism and Sufism) or between Religions (Christianity and Islam vs Hinduism and Buddhism). Obviously when comparing between religions there are lots of other factors to take account of, but this is less so when comparing within religion, and the effect is seen to be fairly strong.
It is also easy to see why, like I said, it is absurd for me to say that my subjective experience is more valid than your own, however, as you will see from the boards, believers of written authority have no problem asserting certainity that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

[Ciberblade]

I think there is a very large difference in:
"this is how I was taught, this is what I believe"
and
"this is what you should believe, and this is why"

too many tend to follow the creed of the latter rather than focus on living their life by such teachings.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by brushmaster1

Some religions are fairly tolerant within their own sect, but even those are completely intolerant of anyone not in their accepted clique.

I am sorry but this is blatently untrue. There are scores of examples of different sects and different religions tolerating each other. Not just tolerating, but encouraging. In Ancient India Hinduism and Buddhism lived side by side, often studying and debating together. When India was conquered by the Muslims, the Sufis met and debated with the Hindu leaders and wished for it to become islamic doctrine that the Hindu God was the same as the Islamic God and for Hindu religious books to be regarded as true revelation. A similar story can be found thoughout the Eastern World. In the Western World, religious pluralism was the norm until the dominance of the Catholic Church.
This is what I dislike about a great deal of discussion regarding religion and intolerance. Religious intolerance has dominated in the Western World for just over 1500 years up until recent times. For that reason, all religion is regarded as intolerant when it is simply not true.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

I think there is a very large difference in:
"this is how I was taught, this is what I believe"
and
"this is what you should believe, and this is why"

too many tend to follow the creed of the latter rather than focus on living their life by such teachings.

I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest. All to often I feel myself falling into the same trap.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, I'll see how the thread has developed tomorrow.

Goodnight all.

[Ciberblade]

and so shall I

G'night

[iltos]

i would suggest, tho, that you are looking at the effects of religion, and not its causes (maybe i don't understand the whole point of the thread ).....i'll reassert, fwiw, that people are looking for a cessation of the confusion, and the fear, and the unknown....lets just simplifiy it for a second and say, people want to feel safe (it is probably one of the reasons for all the biggies of civilization, including politics, science and economics)

as dugq pointed out, eastern religions are much more internally based, relying on emotional process and perception...experience....while western religions are more externally based, depending more on the thoughtful understanding of "sources", which to me explains the more insistent, outspoken, and violent effects of western religions.....its much easier, in my view, to lose the "meaning", as it were, merely accepting a source and developing a faith in it, than it is to integrate the teachings of the source to a point where processing its truth becomes central to way of life.

still, all religions in some way counsel setting aside the ego (or at least making oneself aware of its dynamic)....i would even make the arguement that pure "science" almost requires this, but that is WAY esoteric for this discussion .....

the point is, for me, that because the causes of religion are people approaching questions of human frailty by exploring their own ego....which is suppose to make it a personal and intimate adventure (i mean, the bible, whether you believe in it as a religious document or not, is essentially just the story of one man's relationship to his god)....that because of the nature of these causes, to which there is no one "right" answer (and to which some eastern religions suggest can never even be completely answered, save for those oh, so few, who transcend....wonderfully accepting of the process, those religions, and not so preoccupied with "the end")....AND because western religon particularly, and all religions in general, rely on outside sources for teaching....because of these things, the meaning of religion can slip right through individual understanding and be manifested, intead, as the effects of religion.....i'm speaking here of the negative effects....intolerance, self righteousness, all that stuff.....

the bottom line is that unless some real watchfulness and critical thinking is involved, you will be the same person whether you speak with what you presume is the blessing of a god (as a zealot), or tell stories to the sidewalk from a refrigerator box (as a drunk).....it is how people deal with what they bring to and expect from religion that makes it unappealing sometimes....and it is unfortunate, too, that some religions have "adapted'' to the quest for followers, and made a mockery of their teachings

ok, so i hope that wasn't too confusing (i tend to go off on tangents, and apologize for that)