does religion have a positive or negative impact on society

[John Cuthber]

Giving God the authority to let others off misbehaving on my behalf barely makes sense if He exists.

You seem to have forgotten that, since He doesn't exist, He can't offer forgiveness.

The idea that He holds me responsible for His son's death many years before I was born is preposterous.

[Severian]

so a potentially imaginary god gets to allow people to treat people like crap and still have a pompous attitude and claim others are cursed to a eternity in a lake of fire?

something is very wrong with this system.

 

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

[lemur]

While religions often support useful moral codes, an atheistic love of humanity and desire to organize society so that people can live together in harmony would produce and sustain a similar moral code.

 

I often think that the whole problem with secularism is that it promotes social harmony and order above any moral values. Rationality that lacks morality is capable of sacrificing a few people in the interest of good of the many. I don't know of any religion that would prescribe sacrificing an innocent few for the good of the many. Likewise, I don't know of any religion that would prescribe sacrificing moral right in favor of keeping the peace with people who profit through lies or other immoral methods. It seems like it's always secular pragmatism that looks away when something ugly has to happen to grease the wheels of the machine. Christianity may "turn the other cheek" and forgive, but it doesn't deny the right or wrong of what it is forgiving and resisting retaliating against.

[dragonstar57]

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

I read every word and it was just saying that the reason religious people can do whatever they want free of guilt is because "god is Superior to man" and even if that is true people are indebted to me if they wrong me i'm not jugging them but the only real forgivingness that matters is forgiveness from the victim.

and one should not act absolved because they said a quick payer or told a priest what they did.

or even decided to eat fish for a week. maybe that squares your debt with god but you still got a debt to settle with the victim. you seek god's forgiveness for selfish reasons (ie to go to heaven or to not go to the other option) you seek forgivingness from the victem because you genuinely feel bad about what you did. and even if your religion says to ask for gods forgiveness common sense says that weather more "beneficial" to your soul or not, to be a good person you need to seek the victims forgiveness and give forgivingness when it is sought of you.

Edited September 14, 2010 by cipher510

[Severian]

I read every word and it was just saying that the reason religious people can do whatever they want free of guilt is because "god is Superior to man"

 

That isn't what I said. It is true that "God is superior to man" but why would that absolve man of guilt?

[dragonstar57]

That isn't what I said. It is true that "God is superior to man" but why would that absolve man of guilt?

did you read ALL of what I said?

[dragonstar57]

That isn't what I said. It is true that "God is superior to man" but why would that absolve man of guilt?

it would absolve man of guilt if they believe a few muttered words would make it all beater

[Severian]

it would absolve man of guilt if they believe a few muttered words would make it all beater

 

I am still not sure what you are getting at. I agree that "a few muttered words" doesn't absolve one of guilt. Christianity would be a bit hollow if it did.

[pioneer]

Christ was a sacrifice for sin. The righteous man shall live by faith apart from the works of the law. This thinking sort of reflected a return to instinct, away from the pseudo-herd instinct of collective human law. One needs faith, since the path of the inner voice is not always chartered as well as fixed human law.

 

The practical problem this creates is faith can lead one one way, while herd laws can lead one another way. Although there was a sacrifice for sin, and it is OK to follow one's faith apart from herd law, the path of faith can still generate guilt.

 

As a silly example. One hundred years ago if you wanted to go the beach, it was a man-made sin to expose too much skin; puritan laws. The inner voice of faith may sense less clothes is more comfortable in the heat. But the law was strict and said cover up. There is no real sin to your wearing less, however, there will be outrage and a need to enforce the law by the herd.

 

One is sort of placed in the middle (cross) between following their instincts or following this man-made law. There might be guilt. The intent of wearing less clothes is not to incite the herd but to be comfortable, yet the law of the herd will result in group anxiety, in a conditioned way. The guilt stems from the Pavlov reaction, and knowing you will nevertheless push the button that allows the food pellet to drop.

 

Although not obvious, prophesies tells of a guilt sacrifice that is suppose to address this. Guilt can prevent some from following their inner voice, thereby creating blaspheme against their spirit in favor of the sin and law. Then you also neutralize the sacrifice for sin.

 

For example, say a mother is overly worried about her child. The child may have the urge to take some reasonable and calculate risk, to go wading in the pool. But since this creates so much anxiety in their mother, they are placed in the middle between her laws for peace of mind and the urge of their inner voice. Out of guilt, they may decide to appease her laws and deny their inner voice. It may appear one is doing the best thing, but it blasphemes the inner voice. The guilt led one back to her man-made law for sin.

 

The guilt sacrifice is suppose to break the stalemate, so both sin and guilt are secondary to the inner voice. But this will have its pitfalls, due to confusion, leading to degeneration to below what law had evolved to. The outer voice of the herd, will pretend to be the inner voice for the individual.

 

The analogy is rather than the child having their inner urge to take a calculated risk, with sort of a balance to their mother, someone outside them puts that idea in the child's head. This is not from their inner voice, but from an outside voice. With sin and guilt gone, the result is much different. Mother may decide to enforce her law using guilt, but since the child is being led from the outside, and there is no sin or guilt. The natural connection is broken for artificial and the entire situation starts to go retro to before the need for law.

Edited October 29, 2010 by pioneer

[dragonstar57]

Christ was a sacrifice for sin. The righteous man shall live by faith apart from the works of the law. This thinking sort of reflected a return to instinct, away from the pseudo-herd instinct of collective human law. One needs faith, since the path of the inner voice is not always chartered as well as fixed human law.

 

The practical problem this creates is faith can lead one one way, while herd laws can lead one another way. Although there was a sacrifice for sin, and it is OK to follow one's faith apart from herd law, the path of faith can still generate guilt.

 

As a silly example. One hundred years ago if you wanted to go the beach, it was a man-made sin to expose too much skin; puritan laws. The inner voice of faith may sense less clothes is more comfortable in the heat. But the law was strict and said cover up. There is no real sin to your wearing less, however, there will be outrage and a need to enforce the law by the herd.

 

One is sort of placed in the middle (cross) between following their instincts or following this man-made law. There might be guilt. The intent of wearing less clothes is not to incite the herd but to be comfortable, yet the law of the herd will result in group anxiety, in a conditioned way. The guilt stems from the Pavlov reaction, and knowing you will nevertheless push the button that allows the food pellet to drop.

 

Although not obvious, prophesies tells of a guilt sacrifice that is suppose to address this. Guilt can prevent some from following their inner voice, thereby creating blaspheme against their spirit in favor of the sin and law. Then you also neutralize the sacrifice for sin.

 

For example, say a mother is overly worried about her child. The child may have the urge to take some reasonable and calculate risk, to go wading in the pool. But since this creates so much anxiety in their mother, they are placed in the middle between her laws for peace of mind and the urge of their inner voice. Out of guilt, they may decide to appease her laws and deny their inner voice. It may appear one is doing the best thing, but it blasphemes the inner voice. The guilt led one back to her man-made law for sin.

 

The guilt sacrifice is suppose to break the stalemate, so both sin and guilt are secondary to the inner voice. But this will have its pitfalls, due to confusion, leading to degeneration to below what law had evolved to. The outer voice of the herd, will pretend to be the inner voice for the individual.

 

The analogy is rather than the child having their inner urge to take a calculated risk, with sort of a balance to their mother, someone outside them puts that idea in the child's head. This is not from their inner voice, but from an outside voice. With sin and guilt gone, the result is much different. Mother may decide to enforce her law using guilt, but since the child is being led from the outside, and there is no sin or guilt. The natural connection is broken for artificial and the entire situation starts to go retro to before the need for law.

what is this rubbish?

guilt is the result of man made laws and ones "inner spirit" being in conflict?

no guilt is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guilt

a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

Edited November 1, 2010 by cipher510

[lemur]

what is this rubbish?

guilt is the result of man made laws and ones "inner spirit" being in conflict?

no guilt is http://dictionary.re...om/browse/guilt

a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

 

You are both basically right, imo. He has a good point that Christ preached faith in revelation through the holy spirit (direct inner revelation as opposed to revelation through religious orthodoxy/authority). Christ was opposed/persecuted from two general forms of authority: 1) religious authority (pharises) and 2) secular authority (Pontius Pilate). Together, the two forms of authority represented suppression of direct individual revelation of ethical/moral truth.

 

You are right, imo, in the sense that guilt is the result of "man-made laws and 'inner spirit' being in conflict." Maybe it is a radical constructionist interpretation, but I think that you could ultimately interpret the story of Adam and Eve as describing the inner-process of experiencing one's actions as sin by one's own definition of sin. In other words, you could say that for some reason, people come to a point where they become self-aware of themselves and their actions as being in conflict with what they believe is good. At that point they experience shame and the desire to hide themselves from view. Ironically, it doesn't matter what the source of their feeling of transgression was. All that matters is that they transcend the feeling of total innocence that feels like living in paradise. You can blame this feeling of "falling from grace" on authority external to them, but I wonder if people wouldn't eventually develop this feeling even in total isolation from others. I think it is just part of human development that people come to the point of questioning their own legitimacy and guilt/shame emerges from that questioning.

[dragonstar57]

Christ was a sacrifice for sin. The righteous man shall live by faith apart from the works of the law. This thinking sort of reflected a return to instinct, away from the pseudo-herd instinct of collective human law. One needs faith, since the path of the inner voice is not always chartered as well as fixed human law.

 

The practical problem this creates is faith can lead one one way, while herd laws can lead one another way. Although there was a sacrifice for sin, and it is OK to follow one's faith apart from herd law, the path of faith can still generate guilt.

 

As a silly example. One hundred years ago if you wanted to go the beach, it was a man-made sin to expose too much skin; puritan laws. The inner voice of faith may sense less clothes is more comfortable in the heat. But the law was strict and said cover up. There is no real sin to your wearing less, however, there will be outrage and a need to enforce the law by the herd.

 

One is sort of placed in the middle (cross) between following their instincts or following this man-made law. There might be guilt. The intent of wearing less clothes is not to incite the herd but to be comfortable, yet the law of the herd will result in group anxiety, in a conditioned way. The guilt stems from the Pavlov reaction, and knowing you will nevertheless push the button that allows the food pellet to drop.

 

Although not obvious, prophesies tells of a guilt sacrifice that is suppose to address this. Guilt can prevent some from following their inner voice, thereby creating blaspheme against their spirit in favor of the sin and law. Then you also neutralize the sacrifice for sin.

 

For example, say a mother is overly worried about her child. The child may have the urge to take some reasonable and calculate risk, to go wading in the pool. But since this creates so much anxiety in their mother, they are placed in the middle between her laws for peace of mind and the urge of their inner voice. Out of guilt, they may decide to appease her laws and deny their inner voice. It may appear one is doing the best thing, but it blasphemes the inner voice. The guilt led one back to her man-made law for sin.

 

The guilt sacrifice is suppose to break the stalemate, so both sin and guilt are secondary to the inner voice. But this will have its pitfalls, due to confusion, leading to degeneration to below what law had evolved to. The outer voice of the herd, will pretend to be the inner voice for the individual.

 

The analogy is rather than the child having their inner urge to take a calculated risk, with sort of a balance to their mother, someone outside them puts that idea in the child's head. This is not from their inner voice, but from an outside voice. With sin and guilt gone, the result is much different. Mother may decide to enforce her law using guilt, but since the child is being led from the outside, and there is no sin or guilt. The natural connection is broken for artificial and the entire situation starts to go retro to before the need for law.

by this reasoning a murderer on a desert island would feel no remorse

[ydoaPs]

many religions have a code of rules and they may be perceived to help society ie Christians believe it is wrong to steal.

but some extreme forms of religion can cause war and chaos. ie imperialism, the crusades religious wars, terrorism to name just a few.

so does religion have a positive or negative impact on society? do religious people make the earth a better place to be? or a worse one?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

 

The following figures demonstrate that, if religion has a positive effect on society, it's not statistically relevant. In fact, there is a negative correlation between religious adherence and societal health.

 

A = Australia L = Switzerland

C = Canada N = Norway

D = Denmark P = Portugal

E = Great Britain R = Austria

F = France S = Spain

G = Germany T = Italy

H = Holland U = United States

I = Ireland W = Sweden

J = Japan Z = New Zealand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, you have to recognize that shame/guilt is a form of punishment that indebts people to those they "sin" against. So if someone stole something from you and felt sorry for it, but you didn't forgive them, they would be indebted to you until you were satisfied with their atonement to you and forgave them.

So, what if someone ruined your entire life for a bet? They even gave you diseases and killed your entire family. When you question them on it, they tell you off. Eventually they give you a new family to make it all better.

 

Yes, I think Lemur is correct. That is the Christian view as written in the new Testament. But it is with a slightly different emphasis which I think is colouring your view. Imagine this anology:

 

You and lots of other people are in a boat going down the river. The boat is headed for the waterfall and you will all die if nothing is done. But a guy standing on the bank notices. He can stop the boat by felling a small tree, but to do this he has to climb it and overweight it making him and the tree fall into the river. He is then swept over the waterfall, but the boat is saved. The people on the boat are guilty of the man's death in a way similar to how you are guilty for Christ's death. You never asked him to save you, but you would have died without him.

You left out the part where the guy who falls in the river is the one that steered the boat toward the waterfall and that he was only dead for 3 days.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ydoaPs

[jerryyu]

in my opinion, all religions have one big positive impact on the societies. They all created a sense of communities within the group-they helped each other and helped people to feel that they have a purpose in life and that they belong somewhere.

 

Some people might argued that it(what I just said) also applied to the larger world, but the thing is it's very hard to find that common ground. And even if u did( like through workforce) it's really hard to trust that person if u're not sure that person will help u or not. And in all types and forms of religion, they all sponsored high-morality, which made the believers( Christians, Buddhists, Islam) look reliable.

[ydoaPs]

in my opinion, all religions have one big positive impact on the societies. They all created a sense of communities within the group-they helped each other and helped people to feel that they have a purpose in life and that they belong somewhere.

The flipside of that is divisiveness between groups.

[lemur]

It's as if you think that religion is optional instead of a basic facet of human existence. I think you just define certain belief systems as religious while believing that others are secular. What you should do is isolate the cognitive functions that get expressed by religious activity and ask whether it is possible to eliminate those without destroying human functionality.

[dragonstar57]

in my opinion, all religions have one big positive impact on the societies. They all created a sense of communities within the group-they helped each other and helped people to feel that they have a purpose in life and that they belong somewhere.

 

Some people might argued that it(what I just said) also applied to the larger world, but the thing is it's very hard to find that common ground. And even if u did( like through workforce) it's really hard to trust that person if u're not sure that person will help u or not. And in all types and forms of religion, they all sponsored high-morality, which made the believers( Christians, Buddhists, Islam) look reliable.

this is also a big reason why the world can find no lasting peace

people are viewing themselves as members of their religion before members of the human species

people are not all that different and there is no reason why people could not be united other than religion and nationalism.

[pioneer]

The following figures demonstrate that, if religion has a positive effect on society, it's not statistically relevant. In fact, there is a negative correlation between religious adherence and societal health.

 

Part of the problem with such data is it does not address the impact of secularism on religion. When America was held as the role model for other countries, back in the 1950-60's, religion was much more traditional and addendence higher. America was at the top in education and standard of living. With atheism and liberal secularism, the religion got watered down to where it began to dissociate and the USA is not considered in the same light by the rest of the world.

 

Religion believes in family and community. The break up of the family was not driven by religion. That secular atheist brain storm, led to a whole new set of problems and social expense. It was atheist secularism based on an animal standard for human behavior instead of a higher standard. The irrational atheist can't see cause and effect and blame religion.

 

In current times, the irrational liberal atheists were not rational enough to see cause and effect and started to bring the country into a deepening resession with massive debt. Pumping money to clean up the problems they had created, may have worked in the past, but with money tight the religious had to put down their foot and treat the irrational with a firm hand.

Edited November 2, 2010 by pioneer

[dragonstar57]

Part of the problem with such data is it does not address the impact of secularism on religion. When America was held as the role model for other countries, back in the 1950-60's, religion was much more traditional and addendence higher. America was at the top in education and standard of living. With atheism and liberal secularism, the religion got watered down to where it began to dissociate and the USA is not considered in the same light by the rest of the world.

 

Religion believes in family and community. The break up of the family was not driven by religion. That secular atheist brain storm, led to a whole new set of problems and social expense. It was atheist secularism based on an animal standard for human behavior instead of a higher standard. The irrational atheist can't see cause and effect and blame religion.

 

In current times, the irrational liberal atheists were not rational enough to see cause and effect and started to bring the country into a deepening resession with massive debt. Pumping money to clean up the problems they had created, may have worked in the past, but with money tight the religious had to put down their foot and treat the irrational with a firm hand.

what is this rubbish?

your blaming atheists for the recession?

and not the fact that a religious society teaches to believe anything without evidence and that "GOD" will wave some kind of magic wand and make the fiscal criss go away?

[imatfaal]

When America was held as the role model for other countries, back in the 1950-60's, religion was much more traditional and addendence higher.

 

Pioneer - I am not a stereotypical European anti-American, I really like America, I work for an American (ish) company, I spent a year working in NYC etc - but I must point out that 1950s America was not held up as a role model for most countries. The small-town family-orientated idyll of the traditional American religious right was anathema to much of Europe that was moving in entirely another direction. I realize that Europe is not the be-all and end-all, but I cannot really imagine that Asia, Africa, or South America were too enthralled either. Many countries wanted America's wealth, productivity, and growth; but I know of none that aimed for America's combination of intense religious feeling and power yet a formal separation of Church from State.

 

Exactly who are the atheists in power in the 1990-2008 who

were not rational enough to see cause and effect and started to bring the country into a deepening resession with massive debt

?

[ydoaPs]

what is this rubbish?

your blaming atheists for the recession?

and not the fact that a religious society teaches to believe anything without evidence and that "GOD" will wave some kind of magic wand and make the fiscal criss go away?

You're new here. Most of his posts are ridiculous. At least, they were at one point. I wouldn't know, because, for quite some time, all of his posts say "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore pioneer".

 

As for the portion of his post you quoted, the data I provided above proves him wrong.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ydoaPs

[dragonstar57]

ou're new here. Most of his posts are ridiculous. At least, they were at one point. I wouldn't know, because, for quite some time, all of his posts say "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore pioneer".

 

As for the portion of his post you quoted, the data I provided above proves him wrong. .

i'm not new i'v been a member sense July

how did you block pioneer's comments?

Edited November 3, 2010 by dragonstar57

[ydoaPs]

i'm not new i'v been a member sense July

how did you block pioneer's comments?

Yeah, I have him and a few other posters who habitually make terrible posts not worth reading on my ignore list. Near the top of the page, there is a link that says My Settings. Click that. Under the heading Options, there are three tabs. Click the one that says Profile. On the left side, there is a menu. Click Manage Ignored Users. You can then search for members and add them to your ignore list.