i'm sorry for bothering everyone, once again... but this is for my homework, a survery.. is religion still relevent today?
thanks for replying
love thomxxx

it depends religion itself no because it is my veiw that christianity was just another form of slave-control in the middle ages that just carried on afterwards however religion has inspired some wonderful works of art architect and literature for instance most of bach and handels works were religously themed and the lord of the rings and al the rest of tolkeins mythology was based upon christianity

Is this your homework? If yes, you MUST MUST MUST READ - "The Question of God" by Dr Armand Nicholi. He's a Harvard professor who taught for very many years at Harvard a course on your question, etc, based on the opposing views of Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis. He's not a religious guy but nonetheless is a fair guy as he teaches from a neutral viewpoint.
The book is very readable and in the form of an imaginary debate between the two greatest giant thinkers of the 20th century. It's a virtual debate because they live in different time frame. Lewis, the Brit, is younger than Freud.

Imagine reading Harvard stuff for a school project! The last time I did this, I got first class because you get so many sources to follow up from just one such book's index. Your essay will look cool with so much variety.

Tess

I think it is, yes. Look at the London bombings and 11th Sept 01 for an example. Those were done for "Islam". (Before anyone jumps on me at this point, I know that no where in the Koran is any racial hatred stated - my friend has read it tonnes of times, and can recite passages). Personally, I think that religion today is just as relevant as the year 1AD.

i always have trouble with this question because i don't think religion and morarilty are the same thing. almost every religion has a code close to [some of ] the 10 commandments though pantanjali in the bhagavad-gita is more thorough.
following a moral code is great but you don't have to be rligious for that.

it comes down to the indivdual. for some, religion is vital, not just the bods who get paid for it but their followers. for others a belief in the solidity of the universe is ok.

I think religion is very relevant today. That's why atheism as we know it, is dead. Today there are lots of agnostics instead of atheists - people who say I think some superior being may well exist but I don't care to think about it and I DON'T particularly want it in MY life, not right now and maybe even not in my future, either!

The reason WHY it is relevant is because we need to understand HOW and know WHEN, religion is invariably used/exploited to justify war, killing, etc, and be able to see through and expose all that cover-up for what it really is. So many things have been done in the name of GOD that I don't want to be GOD myself! Seriously, like the Crusades which is disgraceful and has nothing to do with Christ's Christianity, as the Man said, my kingdom is not of this (earthly) world and like Sept 11!

Hope I'm making sense to some of you.

Tess
PS. We have both the Koran and the Bible at home and yes, I have read both. Very hard, though!

a belief in the solidity... ok? I don't get it.

a belief in what you can see, touch, what seems to be real. i'm not gonna argue whether there's actully anything there but some are happy to trust in what they believe is materially real
sort of thing. sorry it didnt come across.
an external agent putting it all together isn't relevant to them.


ps to thomxxx; remember that this forum is a subset of the poplation as a whole. if the people up the local voted the results might be diffrent. just a statistics issue.

Thomxxx, Simon Scharma (historian) stated in the Daily Telegraph last week that one big difference between America and UK is, their belief in religion. Europeans statistically believe in themselves.

Sorry, SP, I am genuinely trying to see where you are coming from but I still can't. Not to be nosy or argumentative as this is a genuine discussion forum but to understand where you are coming from... as we are all friends (in music, anyway)?

There are 2 basic world views as Freud put it, that form the basis on how one lives regardless of what religion one adopts. This is very clearly explained by Freud.

One is atheism. This is Freud's basis which states basically that I believe that God does NOT exist and is a pure 100% figment/creation of man's imagination.

This is different from agnosticism - I believe that it can NEVER be KNOWN for certain whether God exists but if he does, I don't want to know/care!

The 2nd/other is - God made the world and thus we need to find out his will and live accordingly to be at peace with him and mankind.

So, is your position atheism or agnosticism? Not religion.

Tess

It's GOOD to examine one's life (not to argue these issues as intellectual arguments are seldom persuasive or conclusive) because Socrates said - An unexamined life is not worth living. That is SO true.

I think religion is important because it's there, whether you like it or not. Many of our laws and taboos come from old church/Christian law. They still affect our 'way of life' and struggles evolve from the tensions caused between them and today's living. Examples: self-denial v materialism which is very 'here' and associated with the horned one (!) because it keeps us earthbound. Female fashion v sexual restraint.

The Protestant church seems to have sold itself trying to bid for followers with radical departures from tradition. The Catholic church lost its way turning a blind eye to the conduct of a few priests and refusal to debate in the face of crisis. Hope this is not too contentious. If so I shall edit it.

But - Christianity is only one of the major houses.

An interesting point, SirP - are people close to music closer to some kind of spirituality?

It's clear to me that religious belief is a very potent influence on the behaviour of a lot of people. The historical record strongly suggests that one of its main effects is to help tribes become more effective at making war. Even communism and national socialism don't contradict this, because they had many of the characteristics of organised religions, most strikingly the usual characteristic of a ruling religion of being intolerant of any other.

Before you answer your original question, I think you need to be very clear what your definition of 'religion' is. Do you mean is 'faith' relevent? or is 'religion' relevent? Many would say that we are all 'religious' - and that may manifest itself in response to what we believe, or we may be religious about something like music...

[i hope i get the 'quote' flags right!]
please discuss away, i don't get the least offended at all in discussions like this but some people get frustratd by my stance which is a bit open-ended. [i'm friends with all, specially those in music because [funny enough an earlier poster picked this up - thisisus?.] i believe them to be more spiritually inclined. it's a long story.
i think the philosophics go deeper than this, and i don't think freud or anyone else was right saying you're this or that as if there are no shades between.
because, i believe there was a supreme creator or creative impulse simply because i'm here with material things persisting around me that my perceptions learn[ed] to recognise. but i don't know what it, this impulse, is. some people came up wuth words and images like 'god' or 'osiris' or if a she, 'isis' 'aphrodite' or 'shiva' etc often used to answer what's unanswerable here.

if i could wind time back to zero i may find out. but i can't so i don't waste time trying. i look for answers 'out there' and receive endless contradiction so i look inwardly for 'enlightenment' about my relationship with this stuff.
music [which is an experiencial thing], the existence of other individuals evolving distinct egos etc, affirms that the answers must lie inside individuals which means the mysteries are within us separately [my belief].

so i can't fall into yor second case. does this make me a gnostic? an existential christian, a pariah-agnostic?.

so i put myself up as a third case. - someone who knows something started it, someone who trusts my perceptions because the result is here and i can believe in what's perceived to be [while knowing the 'truth' of what it actually is, [reality?] is kept from me by perception]. so if i need to question what's out there i have to 'look internally' tryin to make sense of what i perceive.

i don't suppose that makes any more sense, does it. i don't bother with 'reality'.
my senses that give reality 'solidity' also work in dreams but that's anothr issue!

heck i've gone on a bit but i hope it explains at least some.

soreee!

Good point, Tess! Talk about giving someone a bad name...

the job will be advertised in the times when it comes up.

Be slightly carefull if I remember this book correctly its an argument about God and not just religion. That aside it is worth a read anyway.

And yes religion is still relevent 80% of the news we watch today will be about or have some link to religious fundalmentalisum of some kind. Weather it be christain, muslium or some other!

I had to say yes because world events, in particular friction between the Middle East and the West are based in religion. But that is as a way of life, not adherence to a moral code purported to be defined by any god.

I can't see Christian faith regaining enough ground to assume its former power. Probably good as it may well go as it has in the past. Someone earlier said "Americans believe in religion, where Europeans believe in themselves." This is probably then why Americans form a warrior nation. They have taken over from the Europeans as if the current thrust of the Roman Empire.

I think the important point is "in the name of GOD"

and the point to note .... "Not by God"

Self determination is the key to it all. All the problems of this world are of mans making.

There is enough food & water in the world to look after the entire population, we have the ability to deliver and maintain supplies to all communities but dont.

We all know the difference between right and wrong but choose our own paths through life.

As i said befor religon is still relevent but for all the wrong reasons.

I believe the question is a poor in terms of the person setting it:

1) What is the boundery between religion and faith I have very clear feelings I suspect many dont seperate the to.

2) In Britain the concept of religion is very different to that of Germany, India, China etc

3) Has someone pointed out before, goverment modles can be seen as religions in their own right.

4) After the last census in Britain the "Jedi Knights" can now be termed an official religion......

Be carefull of the question and ensure you know what they are asking LOL

*** To all of you sorry about the spell/grammer I am having an off day again ***

Before anyone ask yes I am a Christain but dont let that put you off LOL.

Thanks, SP. That does help. I promise not to pigeon hole, yeah?

OUCH Just woundering what the ad would look like:

1) Are you ominipitant?
2) Are you commited to redeeming all people regardless of sins, past behaviour or even doubt providing they ask for forgivenes.
3) Are you happy to see your greatest creation smashed, runined and destroyed just because people can.
4) Will you willingly sacrafice your son for the forgiveness of all.
5) Are you prepared to take the blame for everything and credit for nothing.

I cant go on the list is endless but it would make interesting reading.

Good point! Was it Machiavelli , the political thinker/strategist/genius who said that if you are in politics, then, religion must be/is your greatest weapon???

Tess

don't forget -

what grade did you achieve in gcse a level religious instruction?


while on the subject of sons, why does the christian holy trinity contain no female element?

Here is my view of this:

I think religion is relevant in today's society because there is alot of prejudices which leads hatred due to religion (I won't give any examples...). But, also religion has helped some people....

I'm sorry if I have offeneded anyone.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. First, no one ever LIVE (as opposed to exist meaninglessly) without EVER offending certain folks. So, what? What's the big deal if they do?

Secondly, if we get so easily offended just by the mere expression of a personal opinion which is not perverse (I mean, like the Nazi's) then we are not worthy of your friendship! Worse, we are eggheads who are not qualified to DISCUSS on a forum like this as reasonable-minded people do.

Finally, far better to be offended by a friend whose stand / viewpoint you know and understand (though you may not accept) rather than not offended by a reserved unknown enemy who dislikes you for what he/she may GUESS is your view based on something else he/she noticed/judged about you behind your back! Grrrrr...

On the contrary, many here will appreciate your honesty.

Tess

[quote=SirPrancealot,Sep 12 2005, 09:24 AM][quote=kmt63,Sep 12 2005, 09:48
while on the subject of sons, why does the christian holy trinity contain no female element?

[/quote]

The God in the Bible is NOT male! "He" is used for convenience only. How do I know? I've read the Bible from cover to cover in my twenties before nappies arrived and found it to be the case. There is no mention/element of sexuality in the Trinity! The Bible teaches that God is SPIRIT. Sex, on the other hand, is a purely physical dimension/element, the antithesis of the spiritual dimension. I have to stop here for fear of going off-tangeant on this thread.

Thanks. I am used to getting told off for my viewpoints at school becuase they are different to what the school has been told to teach. It just makes me so sad that something that could bring everyone together, just pushes people apart.

EDIT: I accidently quoted the wrong part of Tess' post. oppsie

hey everyone, thanks so much for bothering to reply, as it's not exactly the most interesting topic .
all your ideas have given me alot of ideas to do for my essay, so thanks again .
love ya
thomxxx

[quote=Tess,Sep 12 2005, 06:03 PM]
[quote=SirPrancealot,Sep 12 2005, 09:24 AM][quote=kmt63,Sep 12 2005, 09:48
while on the subject of sons, why does the christian holy trinity contain no female element?

[/quote]

The God in the Bible is NOT male! "He" is used for convenience only. How do I know? I've read the Bible from cover to cover in my twenties before nappies arrived and found it to be the case. There is no mention/element of sexuality in the Trinity! The Bible teaches that God is SPIRIT. Sex, on the other hand, is a purely physical dimension/element, the antithesis of the spiritual dimension. I have to stop here for fear of going off-tangeant on this thread.

[/quote]

Interestingly while God and Jesus Christ are referred to with male pronouns, the Holy Spirit is female, but you need to know Greek and Hebrew for that...

shame because we need alternative thinkers in this day and age. stick to your story and agree to disagree as necessary!! you should get bonus points for initiative!

this [like a previous topic] shows just how religion suppresses people. we post opinions with assurances about not wanting to offend! we're expecting someone to come back upset or angry. possibly its having to depend on just the written word again where you can't say an immediate 'sorry let me rephrase [or withdraw] that'.

I like- agree to disagree.

I generally like to keep my mouth shut because I don't want to offend anyone or I weren't confident enough, but sometimes I do say what I think when something has been pushed over the line and i have more than one arugement. We are taught to think outside the box but, when it suits the teachers we are not allowed to.

Schools discourage free thought or personal opinions when it disagrees with anything they have to say. Or at least mine does. It's odd that, as a preparation to going into a very democratic fair society (relatively speaking) they force you through a dictatorship-style system (this may just be my school though)

It is not just your school. Mine does it as well.

I think religion is still important because it's important to quite a lot of people so if we just know about it but not necessarily believe it then I think that's good. I don't really believe in anything because I get too confused easily and also, you don't get any new religions now, like if anyone started one, then everyone would think it's fake...

I beg to differ. Scientology (link here) was started as late as 50 years ago by a science fiction writer of all people. The problem is that religion, especially for celebrities, can now almost be used as a fashion-accesory. Creating/starting/joining a new religion can be cool and cause a bunch of mindless people to follow them in an attempt to idolise their role-models. And lots of people will say they are spiritual, yet not religious, which others would view as the same hting.

I beg your pardon? How odd. I believe that it is not religion (or football or any other controversial topic) that suppresses people. I believe that it is the fear of non-acceptance or hypocrisy/dishonesty (in the sense of not being "true" to oneself) that suppresses people from expressing and being themselves. May I add - That is why for example, a man who is comfortable in his own skin is an attractive man!

Religion is not necessarily bad or good in itself. It depends on how you handle it. But whether you like it or not, it is relevant. Take a look at the newspapers. And, if one handles it dishonestly, it is not religion per se that is bad (that suppresses or oppresses) but the individual himself. Human beings like you and I.

Tess

i dunno. hard to answer because its either a huge discussion - or for someone unintellectual uncluttered by freud, lacan and sophistry, simplicity itself.

i'm the latter so here's mine.
seems a certain defensiveness on this and similar topics that goes beyond deference, fear of non-acceptance [which i find difficult to comprehend on an internet message board anyway] etc. i think its because these reply-ers, me included, know firstly that the message-board is a pathetic public medium through which to 'discuss' - you never know who's gonna go petulant or throw a fit on seeing a particlar combination of words.

There's at least a couple of membs who turn on 'ignore user' [or threaten to] on the least provocation - and great i say, because if they're upset by a poster then if they can't see that poster's messages they won't boil up and spray the town with anger.

next, this thing with religion - religion isn't [to me] a rational premise. in the macro, someone knocks a particular religion and death and destruction result for many. that's the shared orientations of many component individuals. individuals often can't rationalise deeply-held beliefs, so their reactions if any are emotional. they invent a rationale - they have to if they're to talk at all. this arises because words are useless for describing experiences exactly. and, if there is a mystical / spiritual answer within them they've yet to find it. their 'arguments' are often fragile. [no need to ask why they're sensitive, they just are]. not everyone is, but enough are to raise my caution.

so i try to be polite, recognise from experience that not everyone's as broadminded as me with my [paradoxically] boudrillardian view of life, and assure people I am not knocking their view / faith etc because mine happens to be different.

how odd you rightly say.

but you see, that 'how odd' reaction is the result of trying to pigeonhole the unpigeonholeable. one puts the pigeon in what seems is the right hole and.................suddenly it's gone!

I hope that I have not offended you but what is meant is this - What an odd thing to attribute blame on "religion" for suppressing people. I rest my case. No further comment.

*wry grin*


Wouldn't it just.

I agree with Tess that religion doesn't oppress people - some of the proponents of some religions do, however.

Mine as well..... there was the time when I said in an English lesson a couple of years ago that we shouldn't go into Iraq and the teacher spent 20 minutes saying how wrong I was! Just for one non-offensive comment (I phrased it nicely!)

I'm used to getting stick from people for being vegetarian, pro-animal rights, pro-human rights, anti-racism etc

no offence at all. i won't prolong this either.
with philosophy no one wins!

and i agree with you but if ur tracing back to my original comment i said 'suppressed' people which is a bit different like holding people back or down - because of this social acceptance thing which is partially down to religious principles, so people tailor their behaviour. newspapers sell heavily on the breakdown of restraint. enough tho, its too big a discussion for a typing forum. too big for my brain for a start.

well done for speaking your mind - and no doubt the teacher failed dismally to change your mind!!

It reminds me of a similar thing in junior school when I was 10. It wasn't to do with war, it was about animal rights versus human rights. My form teacher - very kindly mind you - told me I was wrong. No discussion, not even "my opinion is different" just "no, it's not."

I was puzzled and couldn't understand how somebody so much wiser than me could get it so wrong!

Awww, I hate it when people say stuff like that! They could at least try to understand someone's point of view. And she did indeed fail dismally to change my mind! Coincidentally (or maybe not!) we then wrote essays about the war in Iraq and she liked mine so much that she read it to people 2 years older than me *cringe*

All my teachers are used to me being quiet most of the time and then coming out with an opinion that is ususually quite different from anyone else's! My history teacher says I'm an idealist - maybe I am!

then I wonder if maybe you changed her mind just a little??

I remember my moral principles got me into trouble at primary school - we were doing fractions and the homework questions were " if you could have 5/8 of a cake or 3/4 of a cake which would you choose and why?" and so on - about 10 questions in all. For each one I chose the smaller fraction and my reason was "because I don't want to be greedy!" The teacher marked them all wrong! (Well yes her answerbook would have been different but surely the point of the exercise was understanding fractions, and my answers and reason showed that I did. Honestly, inflexible teachers or what!!! )

Yes, that is silly. Surely your understanding of the fractions should have awarded you the marks? Or perhaps the teacher didn't know the answers for herself?

Oh no! that is stupid - because it does assume all children are greedy. And yep, most are, but you understood the fractions and still got the questions wrong. Stupid.

I think you'll find the electoral system in Britain isn't democratic. Once voted into power there is next to nothing you can do to get the government of the day to do something it doesn't want too.

Some would argue that the first past the post system is actually a meritocracy.

The best that can be said about our two tier, westminster system is that it is probably the best there is i.e. the best of a bad bunch.

As for society being fair we have a very long way to go before we can say that. We still live in a society of privlage but again we are probably no worse off than any other Western society!

I only hope schools and adults dont complete destroy childrens inherant ability to be fair and just and future generation build and improve upon what we have.

(As an aside one of my teachers once said to me "Dont be a fool students will never be treat as equals, a school is a fedual dictatorship and always will be. The day when students gain or have more control will be the day when moral and educational standards fall". This statement at the time (1977) made me very angry and upset. With age some of what he was trying to say has finally sunk in although on face value it sounds abhorant, sit down and think about it. Then think about some of the problems we have in (some) modern secondary schools maybe he was right? But then I would be generalising!

I thought that was the point? The idea being you vote into power those you think most capable of running the country, and they get on with running it for four years. (better, IMO, to at least place your trust in a group of people who also have an opposition and disillusioned backbenchers to try and keep them in check than in one chap eg a President...)

I realise it doesn't generally work like that, but that's the idea behind it I believe. Some things are done for future votes (ie the government wants to make sure it stays in power next time round) and opinion polls etc can sway a decision.

To be democratic in each decision, one would have to run a referendum for every decision the government makes. Maybe this would be fairer but it's hardly practical.

I'm not saying our system is perfect (far from it) but the way you describe it is how it's supposed to work, as I understand it.

The way the MPs are selected, the first past the post thing, etc, seems a bit crazy - our JCR elections were run on a "fairer" basis. Though I don't claim to understand the system properly...

As you say, best of a bad bunch is a realistic way of looking at it.

Yup .... Best of a bad bunch....

I actually feel the current system is the most sensible and has provided reasonable stable government to this country over many years. I get frustrated as I am sure many others do at the unfairness of things and the inherant injustice of some things; but recognise that I can at least feel and say these things without any threat of harm. Which is more than the MAJORITY of the worlds population but is in serious danger of changing soon (but thats a different story).

I am very greatfull for what I have but this shouldn't blind me to what I dont! (I dont mean that in a selfish way either LOL). I can at least then strive to improve things (as generation before me did) if I so choose.