Why believe in God when there are more logic solutions?

[seekandlisten]

i remember those days when i used to think like seekandlisten.

Just out of curiousity, in what ways? Also, what changed?

 

[seekandlisten]

can religion be defined as a set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances?

I would think so.

This is the way i see it. These doctrinal beliefs may be man made or divinely inspired - nonetheless, religion still remains a set of doctrinal beliefs.

I would definitely hold some reservations on doctrines being 'divinely inspired' but that's just me.

It doesn't mean the religious leaders, it doesn't mean the followers/believers - it just means the set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances.
Two independent cases arise here which must be differentiated -
1) These doctrines may be true or false.
2) These doctrines may be misinterpreted or abused.
For the first case, we'll have to evaluate the truth of those doctrines separately. For the second case, we'll have to evaluate the actions of the religious believers/leaders separately.

I would tend to agree with you here.

I feel that 'religion' is accountable only for the first case. I mean, the truth of a religion rests on the truth of its doctrines only and not on the acceptance or practice of its believers.

I can agree with this as well.

Christianity is a set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances. Christianity is not the pastors and not the believers - these are Christians, not Christianity. The religion of Christianity is accountable only for the truth and veracity of its doctrinal beliefs and not the interpretation and practicing by its believers.

All I'm trying to say is that it's unfair to judge a set of doctrines based on the fallible interpretation, abuse and works of man. I agree with you that man is imperfect. To extend that imperfection by association to the religion seems unfair. Here, I think you've arrived at this conclusion based on your assumption that all religious doctrines are created by man and hence should be imperfect because of man's nature.

I think we may have a little bit of a misunderstanding here. I agree with you that one mustn't judge the whole of any religion by the actions of a few. When I say I disagree with religion, it's in a sense that one must decide whether to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. I think each religion has its values and shortcomings, so I tend to base my personal beliefs off of doctrines I have come to hold as 'truth' which aren't necessarily all 'Christian' doctrines or on the same note not all belonging to say the religion of Buddhism but rather a collection of doctrines which I don't pay much attention to the religion the doctrine comes from. Does that clarify a little bit my position of saying I disagree with religion? I don't reject the 'whole' of any religion, but rather the 'idea' that one needs a religion.

But are you absolutely sure that all religions have been made by men?

I'm pretty sure, but like anything its hard to make 'absolute' any belief. Buddha didn't make a religion, Jesus didn't make a religion, Muhammed didn't make a religion, etc. They were 'teachers' who taught many good things in regards to how one should live their life. After their deaths, their followers formed doctrines and compiled them into a religion.

Are you absolutely sure that there is no divine authority behind any of them - even just one of them?

If by 'divine authority' you mean 'God' I would say 'He' is behind more than one religion. The problem arises that we have our hands in the mix too.

If you're not sure, then man's actions must be separated from the religious doctrine itself. If man's actions are wrong, they have to be evaluated independent of the religion. But if the religion itself puts forth a doctrine that perpetrates evil, then that religion should be evaluated for truth. Would you agree?

I agree with not basing the value of a specific religion on a whole on the actions of a few claiming that religion. I think the doctrine of a religion being the 'only true one' can be taken to extremes and that is a big problem with what such doctrine 'encourages'.

Christianity is answerable for it's own atrocities though. Most Christians will regard Muslims as 'evil' based on the minority extremists so how is Christianity not subjected to the same scrutiny due to its extremists?

I wouldn't generalize this across all muslims. I only hope that their Scriptures don't explicitly call for such violence in which case I'd question the validity of Islam. On the other hand, if their scriptures have been misused and abused to suit some individual fanaticism, then I wouldn't generalize fault across all other muslims.

That wasn't the point I was getting at. I too don't generalize all Muslims on the actions of a minority. And like any religious extremism it is the misuse of scripture that leads to these actions.

On the same lines, Christianity cannot be answerable for the wrong actions of some extremists. Christianity does not put forth any doctrine calling for any extremism. On the contrary, Jesus calls us to love even those who do harm to us. If some commit atrocities, then only such should be blamed, independent of the religion.

I can agree here and this is the reason I don't totally write off the religion of Christianity because I believe in the teachings of Jesus in relation to how we relate to others and the world.

When it's 'doctrines' come into being by force and coercion I tend to question the 'motives'.

When Christian doctrine is forced or coerced, then I'd ask if there is any Scriptural validity to such an approach. I haven't come across a single line, either by Jesus or the apostles that we have to force Christianity down people's throats or manipulate them into believing. If this is not in the Bible, then such men have acted of their own will - let such be held accountable and not the doctrine of Christ. The motives of such people should be questioned, not the motives of Christianity. Wouldn't you agree?

I can agree with the point you are making. I was more going along the lines of early Christianity and the means by which Christianity was spread or enforced. The doctrine of the trinity was 'forced' up until a few hundred years ago. Also, why if there is more than one point of view does one view become heresy and the other 'truth'?

I'll try and address your other post tonight.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

If there's anything else that I need to explain, please point them out to me - and I'd be glad to clarify...

Hey ivdavid,

I was just rereading over what we have put forward and was beginning to wonder where this was heading. As far as religion goes, I understand you are a Christian, and I am not. I can agree with your take on the the misuse and misrepresentation of religions. I can also agree with the misrepresentation of doctrines. I don't want to get into the discussion of doctrines too much, as at some point, to explain my position may go against the rules of this site in regards to discussions on Christianity.

When I look at religion, I look at how it is applied to one's everyday life. If one wants to believe in the supernatural, I don't see a problem as long as they don't expect others to join in their belief, if the belief cannot be 'proven' as useful to our everyday life. I don't expect anybody to agree with me when I speak of my thoughts on different aspects of the supernatural or my thoughts on the afterlife. These are beliefs/thoughts that I don't hold as being all that important for anyone other than myself, unless for the purpose of discussion on such topics.

I believe in doctrines stemming from Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Sufism, as well as a couple of blended versions of these religions such as Zen or Sikhism. On one hand I would be an agnostic pantheist of sorts. On the other hand I 'entertain' ideas and beliefs concerning the supernatural and afterlife such as 'Christ's resurrection' and beliefs regarding reincarnation.

As far as my beliefs go that I would pass off as 'truth' would be along the lines of the 'Golden Rule' and Karma. Two things I firmly believe would make this world a better place if people followed these beliefs. They are present in most every religion such as:

When asked of a single saying that one could act on in day to day living, Confucius stated, 'Perhaps the saying about consideration: 'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you'. (Analects 15:23)

When a 'scoffer' asked Hallil to teach him the entire Jewish law while 'standing on one foot', he replied 'Whatever is hateful to thee, do it not unto thy fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary...' The Talmud (Shabbat 31a).

Jesus stated in Matthew 8:12, 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.'

These are just a couple of examples from different 'schools of thought' teaching the same thing. If one's religion doesn't make them a better person, I tend to question the purpose of it.

So I'm not sure if there is something else along these lines that you'd like to discuss or not but I would suggest it may work better to look at individual doctrines rather than the whole of a religion to make it easier to discuss agreements and disagreements.

Regarding hell, i'll address it in detail in a later post. But for now, I'd agree that it is wrong for people to seek God only to escape hellfire and not out of a heartfelt desire to truly love God.

If you wish to share your point of view on this I'm open to it, but realize I don't believe in 'hell'. If we are subject to judgement in the after life I believe 'evil' will simply be 'destroyed' rather than people burning in an eternal fire. 'God' is just, and not a God of torture.

cheers