Originally Posted By woody "Many of you have chosen to believe there is no God... or more accurately, to not believe, period. That's fine. Your choice is certainly one you can live with, and that works for you. However, try to understand that for many people, the structure of religion is the thing that keeps many people together. You may think of them as weak, or pathetic, or mindless drones cowtowing to an imagined force." How about people merely believing there is a God and then going from there? Certainly the structure of religion and church is attractive to some people, but it verges on idol worship, which is warned against in principle in most mainstrean Christian religions.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd True Woody, sometimes that happens. But many (and I count myself in this category) also believe in God, have what they believe to be a strong relationship with him, and do not subscribe to any organized religious affiliation. But I cannot discount the deep sense of mystery and sacred awe that others experience in their organized worship. While some of it does indeed border on idol worship, it may be significantly more; nearly all Christian denominations have some recognition of symbology: the cross, for example, or a fish. And to some degree, the Bible itself. How many Christians are fast to hold one dear, without actually having read it cover to cover? Frankly speaking, while it may sound like ancient man worshipping a rock, I am not so sure that is what is truly at work here. Theologically speaking, it is true: they are missing the larger picture of Christianity, choosing the religion over the relationship with God. But everyone starts somewhere, and perhaps one day they will take that leap of faith from shallow worship to a deeper commitment. When we talk of Christianity, Islam, or any religion, we must always be careful to define exactly what aspect of those words we are using. Historical events decided by individuals claiming to be members of certain faiths may not necessarily be acting in the manner perscribed by the faith's founders. Islam, for example, is really struggling with this right now. Debates occur on all levels: on major issues of a religion, down to the most minute detail. Sects and denominations divide a faith-system, often shunning those who disagree with their interpretation. It is interesting to note, for example, how the council of Nicea compiled a definition of Christianity, that essentially excluded the Coptic Christian writings. Each division is certain that they have the one true vision. Nevertheless, I think we can still find themes running throughout history that validate how organized religion have been the building blocks for our society. To deny the tremendous contribution religion has played in writing the story of modern civilization would be an ignorant venture. And, from what I see in our world, we humans just don't have the stuff it takes to go it alone.... and in fact, I personally believe we weren't designed to do it that way... but that's just me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Nevertheless, I think we can still find themes running throughout history that validate how organized religion have been the building blocks for our society. To deny the tremendous contribution religion has played in writing the story of modern civilization would be an ignorant venture. > No one's saying it hasn't been important. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the church was THE most important institution in the western world; nation states as we know them came along later. That is the history; however, history also shows that even older civilizations were not built on religion, even if they had religion.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Well, how far back do you want to go? The Greeks? The Babylonians? The Egyptians? A concept of finding some explanation for the observed changes in the world has always been a hallmark of man's progress. And in those searches, they very often, (and I will acknowledge to you, that not always), mankinds search for meaning would yield a concept of higher beings, and therefore, behavior modification to appease these beings. This is how law began. And math. And language. And critical/philosophical thinking. Not all religion is necessarily theist.
Originally Posted By woody >>That is the history; however, history also shows that even older civilizations were not built on religion, even if they had religion.<< In this case, the leader is considered to be a God. Thus, a religion. This is true for all monarchies and totalitarians.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In this case, the leader is considered to be a God. Thus, a religion. This is true for all monarchies and totalitarians.> Not all, no. In fact, some dictators (and certainly monarchies, historically) use religion for their own purposes - not saying they ARE God, but that they derive power from God, or that God has decreed that he should be the leader.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Well, how far back do you want to go? The Greeks? The Babylonians? The Egyptians? A concept of finding some explanation for the observed changes in the world has always been a hallmark of man's progress. And in those searches, they very often, (and I will acknowledge to you, that not always), mankinds search for meaning would yield a concept of higher beings, and therefore, behavior modification to appease these beings. This is how law began.> That's simplistic. Early civilizations did search for answers as to how things worked, of course. And they often came up with answers like "the sun moves across the sky because the sun god moves it with his fiery chariot." And "lightning happens because the God of thunder is angry." But there's every indication that basic laws like injunctions against murder and theft far predate early civilization's search for Gods. < And math. And language. And critical/philosophical thinking. Not all religion is necessarily theist. > That is correct, but how are you saying that the search for God led to math and language? I've never seen the explanation that language developed out of a search for God rather than a simple day-to-day need to communicate with one another, but I'd be interested if you could produce it.
Originally Posted By woody >>Not all, no. In fact, some dictators (and certainly monarchies, historically) use religion for their own purposes - not saying they ARE God, but that they derive power from God, or that God has decreed that he should be the leader. << How can you deny the obvious? Maybe make better use of Google. ----- <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57639" target="_blank">http://www.wnd.com/news/articl e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57639</a> North Korean dictator a god? Christian who fled says that's how he's portrayed "All North Koreans really believe that Kim Il Sung is a god. He [hid] the bad things he had done, to preserve his godlike status to the people. I think 70 to 80 percent of what is said about Kim Il Sung is similar to the Bible," he told the ministry, for which he also recorded himself singing. ----- Dictators portray themselves as God. They become the religion. Why do you think religious belief is opposed by some political systems like Communism? Leaders are afraid of having followers of any opposing faith. They don't want competition. A better way is declare themselves as God.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What part of the word "all" do you not understand? You said "all" dictators and monarchies do this, and that's not true. Had you said "some" or "many" I wouldn't have disagreed. But all? Not at all. Certainly you're aware of the theory of "Divine right of kings" which was prevalent throughout Europe for, oh, centuries? Even today you've got kingdoms like Saudi Arabia where they rulers do not declare themselves to be Allah, but say they have power and legitimacy derived from Allah. And then you have the Kims of the world. You have both. Thus, you do not have "all."
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Well, I have to say, this is certainly a passionate goup! <quote><i>That is correct, but how are you saying that the search for God led to math and language? I've never seen the explanation that language developed out of a search for God rather than a simple day-to-day need to communicate with one another, but I'd be interested if you could produce it."</i></quote> OK. For language, take a look at some of the research, such as Parallel Development of Language and Religion By Seth Hardy. To put it simply, Hardy argues that when ancient groups gathered together, they tended to need to find some common way of communicate about their explanations of the universe. Therefore, they developed a language, as a means to communicate this world view to each other. Or, if you would rather, consider geometry and algebra. Insofar as religion can take on many forms, the ancient Greeks enhanced the idea of logic as a means of explaining the world through logic. To that end, Math, Geometry, and Algebra are certainly the most logical developments in human history. Not originating in the Greek tradition, but certainly well developed by them, the logical philosophical approach was just as much a religion to them as the concept of hypostatic union is to a Presbyterian. To the Greeks, it was all intertwined: logic, passion, math, language, poetry, art.... and religion. Note the near perfect Geometry to the design of ancient Greek temples.... All of these things, which serve to explain to man the reason for our existance, are intertwined... each causing the development of the other. To toss one of those elements out because we have some myopic narrow definition of what constitute religion is foolish. I might suggest to you that it is not I that being simplistic in the matter. There is nothing simple about any of this. Not even what you call "simple day-to-day need to communicate with one another."
Originally Posted By woody >>What part of the word "all" do you not understand? You said "all" dictators and monarchies do this, and that's not true. Had you said "some" or "many" I wouldn't have disagreed. But all?<< You tried to disagree with me on FACT, not whether I said some or many. With this, you fail reading comprehension. >>That is the history; however, history also shows that even older civilizations were not built on religion, even if they had religion.<< >In this case, the leader is considered to be a God. Thus, a religion. This is true for all monarchies and totalitarians.< I was making an argument that for civilizations where religion was not used, the leader is made to be God, thus there is still religion. There is no exception. I was referring to a subset of monarchies and totalitarians. >>Thus, you do not have "all."<< As I was saying.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I have always been facinated with Cathoic ceremony and whatnot. I recently went to a very large urban Catholic Church and at one point the preist (no disrespect but I don't know what you call it) had this thing with incense in it and it was smoking and he was blessing stuff and at one point he went up the aisle and was (again no offense but I am not very knowledgable here) I suppose baptizing the congregation by throwing holy water on us. I AM NOT making light of this I was genuinely facinated by it all. The communion was offered but I remained in my seat being that I am protestant. The incense was overwhelming in a good way and I had a lot of respect for the things I saw and heard that day. The "sermon" <--? was like 10 minutes long and he read Latin <---? from a book. I thought how many years has this been done just this way in this church? It was really interesting. I think being Catholic would be neat in many way.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I'm going to go to Wikipedia and read about it. I should have done so before posting this so I would know the terms.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>What part of the word "all" do you not understand? You said "all" dictators and monarchies do this, and that's not true. Had you said "some" or "many" I wouldn't have disagreed. But all?<< <You tried to disagree with me on FACT, not whether I said some or many.> With this, you fail reading comprehension.> Oh please. Just the opposite. I disagreed with the fact that you said it was true of all monarchies and dictatorships. You're back in your laughable mode. >>>That is the history; however, history also shows that even older civilizations were not built on religion, even if they had religion.<<< >>In this case, the leader is considered to be a God. Thus, a religion. This is true for all monarchies and totalitarians.<< <I was making an argument that for civilizations where religion was not used, the leader is made to be God, thus there is still religion. There is no exception. I was referring to a subset of monarchies and totalitarians.> In which case, you either failed utterly to communicate what you meant, or are attempting a little revisionist history within a single thread. Which is so transparent anyone can see it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That is correct, but how are you saying that the search for God led to math and language? I've never seen the explanation that language developed out of a search for God rather than a simple day-to-day need to communicate with one another, but I'd be interested if you could produce it.">> <OK. For language, take a look at some of the research, such as Parallel Development of Language and Religion By Seth Hardy. To put it simply, Hardy argues that when ancient groups gathered together, they tended to need to find some common way of communicate about their explanations of the universe. Therefore, they developed a language, as a means to communicate this world view to each other.> Hardy has a theory; that does not mean he is correct or that the theory is widely accepted. Most researchers think that humans needed to communicate things like "I'm hungry," or "we should build a fire now" long before they needed to communicate their ideas about the universe. <Or, if you would rather, consider geometry and algebra. Insofar as religion can take on many forms, the ancient Greeks enhanced the idea of logic as a means of explaining the world through logic.> So "logic" is a religion? That's quite a stretch, especially considering the Greeks already had a set of Gods. In fact, I would argue that if anything, their development of logic was the first step towards getting away from a God-centered explanation of everything. The first step towards "maybe the sun god DOESN'T pull it across the sky in a chariot." <To that end, Math, Geometry, and Algebra are certainly the most logical developments in human history. Not originating in the Greek tradition, but certainly well developed by them, the logical philosophical approach was just as much a religion to them as the concept of hypostatic union is to a Presbyterian.> That statement is quite another stretch. <To the Greeks, it was all intertwined: logic, passion, math, language, poetry, art.... and religion. Note the near perfect Geometry to the design of ancient Greek temples.... All of these things, which serve to explain to man the reason for our existance, are intertwined... each causing the development of the other. To toss one of those elements out because we have some myopic narrow definition of what constitute religion is foolish.> No, trying to stretch the definition of religion in such a way is foolish. Nobody worshiped right angles. <I might suggest to you that it is not I that being simplistic in the matter. There is nothing simple about any of this. Not even what you call "simple day-to-day need to communicate with one another."> No, what's simplistic is trying to reduce something like the development of language to a single cause like the search for God, because it fits an earlier point you were trying to make. The search for God has led to many things, but it is foolish and reductive to say it led to, essentially, everything worthwhile. The development of language, for instance, developed from many human needs, perhaps even including the search for God (though Hardy's theories don't hold much water), but certainly it's simplistic to hold that they developed from JUST that one.
Originally Posted By woody >>In which case, you either failed utterly to communicate what you meant, or are attempting a little revisionist history within a single thread. Which is so transparent anyone can see it.<< Whats transparent is your failure to read a complete post. Cherry picking words is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Thank you, Woody! Yeah, Dabob, evidently I have failed to communicate what I have intended to say, because in reading your cut and paste job, you seem to be missing what I am trying so very hard to say. But I am glad to see others get it. You asked me to point you to some research regarding my thesis, so I sent you an example, and then you proceed to rip it apart. I am not even sure what it is you want me to say. You seem bent on this simplification thing. I keep saying, it isn't simple, there is no one way every civilization has found meaning, and you keep on requiring my definition to be related to a monotheist religion. So, I think we just disagree on what the definition of religion is. To some, logic is a religious practice. Confusious,(sp?) Aristotle, ... to others, meaning is found in symbols.... Jung.... to others, it is relationship (Martin Luther) and to others, one finds fellowship with the creator of the universe through works (The Wesleyians), and others found it in observing nature (the Druids, and the Existentialists). And, you will note, I even qualified this whole discussion on my very first post, by saying, many, but not all cultures.... So... what's the beef? Relax, babes!
