It is a tricky thing to usurp all organized religion. It's like everyone getting up today and deciding not to fight for ever. It is a marvelous thing to contemplate and many would want it. It is highly unlikely because of all the billions at any one time too many people are tied into stress and conflict for it to become a reality. It is the same with OR! At any one time too many people are burried in it to make a global switch. And we all know the effects of an instant switch off. There would have to be a worldwide community of support and consensus to help each other through the quagmire of change - and some may feel it a forced change which deprives them of free choice. This is the hold existing organizations have over the human race. Full scale change can be messier than the current situation. I'm not sure how it could be worked out. My brain alone is not enough!
Who on this Board would love to get rid of Organized Religion?
by restrangled 122 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlphaOmega
I'm late arriving on this thread, but what I think probably pretty much echoes Brother Apostate in that :
God does not live in houses made by human hands.
Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 77.
Instead he lives in every one of us.
As far God having people inside organised religions - I guess that is the meaning of the Revelation quote, that God calls "his people" out of organised religion.
-
BurnTheShips
Hi AO!
I guess that pretty much begs the question:
What exactly is organized religion?
Burn -
funkyderek
BurnTheShips:
You crack me up FunkyDerek
Thank you. I crave attention so any reaction will do.
if a religious person is fundamentalist, he is "evil and dangerous".
Those quotation marks make it seem as if I used those words but I don't recall doing so. I certainly did not use them in this thread or as a contrast to my description of moderate religionists as "wishy-washy". Please be more careful.
I do, however think that fundamentalism is both evil and dangerous, because it puts the text of a book - usually one written by primitive barbarians - ahead of reason and concern for others.
However if he is moderate and ecumenical he is "wishy-washy".
Perhaps it seems a bit unfair to describe such a person as "wishy-washy". I am talking, after all, about the majority of decent, upstanding citizens who do their best to get along with their neighbours. But I am also talking about people who claim to believe that a particular holy book is from God yet ignore passages that conflict with modern enlightened morality. I'm glad they do this, of course, but it still strikes me as hypocritical. If it's the Word of God, then what it says should come ahead of all other concerns - this is how fundamentalists behave. The reason I am critical of both groups is that they are both wrong. The Bible (the Koran, the Gita, Dianetics etc.) is not the word of God, it is not something that should be believed or followed even partially, and it is thankfully not the source of most people's morality.
Since you yourself do not believe, what makes you such a good judge of those who actually believe?
The fact that I am not superstitious makes me more - not less - capable of understanding the problems caused by other people's superstitions. Why would I have to believe in invisible friends and enemies in order to have an opinion about those who do?
Psst! Your bias is showing.
It shouldn't matter. I'm either right or wrong, regardless of my ideological preferences.
-
BurnTheShips
Those quotation marks make it seem as if I used those words but I don't recall doing so. I certainly did not use them in this thread or as a contrast to my description of moderate religionists as "wishy-washy". Please be more careful.
Sorry FunkyDerek! I did not intend to erect a caricature and attack that. And maybe I am misjudging or misinterpreting you. I did not mean that you said those words, but that I thought those would be words I suspect you would use. However, that kind of thought process (the one I attributed to you-my mistake) does typify much of the antitheist dialogue taking place on this forum, wouldn't you agree?
I do, however think that fundamental ism is both evil and dangerous, because it puts the text of a book - usually one written by primitive barbarians - ahead of reason and concern for others.
I am inclined to agree with you on that one!
Perhaps it seems a bit unfair to describe such a person as "wishy-washy". I am talking, after all, about the majority of decent, upstanding citizens who do their best to get along with their neighbours. But I am also talking about people who claim to believe that a particular holy book is from God yet ignore passages that conflict with modern enlightened morality. I'm glad they do this, of course, but it still strikes me as hypocritical. If it's the Word of God, then what it says should come ahead of all other concerns - this is how fundamentalists behave. The reason I am critical of both groups is that they are both wrong. The Bible (the Koran, the Gita, Dianetics etc.) is not the word of God, it is not something that should be believed or followed even partially, and it is thankfully not the source of most people's morality.
It is a bit unfair, and I am happy you realize that! I don't like to think of myself as being "wishy-washy" if I am not a biblical literalist. Regarding what you think is hipocritical, many Christians (the majority actually, fundies are a minority in the Christian world), regard the Bible as a book about the Revelation of God, not the Revelation itself.Truth be told, some of the greatest idolatry being perpetrated today is by those who have substituted finite religious text for an infinite God. The extreme elements within Islam and Christianity (and some religious Zionists in Israel) are currently unable to distinguish between God and God’s written word. A book cannot contain God. In the minds of many, God’s fixed word has in some sense taken the place of God’s infinite being. Idolatry is when one confuses a partial truth for a whole truth, or when one makes a relative into an absolute.
The fact that I am not superstitious makes me more - not less - capable of understanding the problems caused by other people's superstitions. Why would I have to believe in invisible friends and enemies in order to have an opinion about those who do?
Perspective.
It shouldn't matter.
Fairness matters.
Cheers,
Burn
-
AlphaOmega
Taking the question literally, I would have to say that organised religion is :
at best : man's attempt to gain favour with God through ritual
at worst : man's desire to rule over people through fear
In short, religion is bad... God is good.
God doesn't need religion.
But as soon as you get a group of like-minded believers together, they start to need to be organised... and that is where all the committees start, they elect a leader - and then power struggles begin.
Whereas, if we all did as Jesus said and went into our room to pray in secret, there would be no need for religion.
-
Dansk
Trygon:
I am with Dansk. funkyderek is what we call:
It's good to have your support, but Funky is a great guy and by no means biased. When you've been on the forum longer you'll realise what a wonderfully intelligent person he is. We've actually met and my opinion of him has gone even higher (not that he'll remember, I believe he was pi**ed at the time).
Ian
-
BurnTheShips
God doesn't need religion.
God doesn't need anything.
But man does.
Whereas, if we all did as Jesus said and went into our room to pray in secret, there would be no need for religion.
Jesus did/said a lot more than that! Jesus founded the largest religion in the world!
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Burn.
-
Junction-Guy
Not me particularly, however there is at least one religion I wish would totally eat dirt.
Im not anti-religion, Im anti-watchtower.
Religion is the spice of life in this country and I would hate to see it all banned. It would be nice if there was a way for the goverment to hold lying,thieving religions to task, without bothering the rest of them. -
AlphaOmega
Whilst he may have asked for the word to be spread, he didn't ask people to form a massive chain of command inside a power hungry organisation.
To me, it's a case of "God, protect me from your followers".
Connecting with God (or how ever you perceive a greater force in our lives) does not need rituals or religion.
...and you are quite correct - God doesn't need anything - man does. Man needs predictability, he needs answers, he needs routine etc etc.
I like the quote from "The Men in Black" - "A person is smart - people are stupid".
Talk to most people that believe in "something spiritual" and they don't seem to want anything complicated and most disagree with things that their organisations teach (including the JWs)... but yet, stick them together in a group and they all run with the pack.
Maybe it's time to rock the boat.