Is Religion Worth It?

[wenglund]

I can't help the religion is many things to many people. To me defining and questioning what is meant will get to the bottom of any sort of conversation on this topic. But if it upsets you, I'll gladly exit and leave you to it.

 

I am not upset. Just trying to keep the discussion from counter-productive distractions

 

However, If you think that defining the term "religious" is necessary and/or of benefit, then open a thread on the topic, and come up with what you believe is an acceptable working definition that will fit this discussion, and proffer it here at that time.

 

In the interim, the rest of us will see if we can manage without it, relying informally instead on the common vernacular noted above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

You and Stemelbow have clearly demonstrated that an inane semantic quibble can render a good thread bad for some people. I trust, though, that the vast majority of potential participants wont be similarly challenged.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not challenged at all by your thread or your thread title and my summary statement still suffices as an appropriate response.

Any religion is worth exactly what those in the market for that religion will bear, and if you have a religion that is worth the entirety of a person's whole life you will find some people who are in the market for a religion that requires that much from them and will bear it.

But, on the other hand, there are those who are not in the market for a religion like that, which requires that much from them, and they will not bear it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Joseph Smith felt it was worth it to pray about it at a young age. And he got an answer he wasn't expecting. So finding the correct religion is worth it.

Edited September 23, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[california boy]

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.

[strappinglad]

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.

And just where did you get the idea of a Christ- like life?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Here's a better question. Would following the wrong religion be worth it? Even if it teaches good values and how to be a good person? Or is only the right religion worth it?

[LOSTONE]

This is a very interesting subject and thought.

For me personally, I say yes, religion matters and makes a huge positive difference to millions. Sadly, there are times that it matters in twisted mental ways to some who use it as a justification to hurt others. But good or bad, it does matter and makes a huge difference.

Also for me, as a Christian, I follow guide lines as a way of living, but I do not claim to have a religion, but instead, a relationship. Religion is something I would say is for my time at my church, but my relationship with God is all the time in my life.

I may not agree or understand many people’s religions, but it is not my place to judge others or to be hostile to them for believing differently than me. If their religion is of a non hostile nature and they are as well, than I am not to judge them, but to share with them in God’s grace and love. If theirs is hostile than I feel I have an obligation to somehow stop such hostilities.

[wenglund]

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.

 

Why not so much religion? Please explain.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here's a better question. Would following the wrong religion be worth it? Even if it teaches good values and how to be a good person? Or is only the right religion worth it?

 

I don't know if that is a better question or not. It may be in certain respects. However, it isn't better for my purposes, which is to address religiosity in  general so as to set a foundation of precepts upon which to eventually compare the worth of specific religions or religious denominations.

 

Feel free to start another thread if you wish to discuss your alleged "better question," which, at this point is tangential to this thread, or please wait until the topic at hand has been sufficiently addressed so as to established the desired foundation for further discussion..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[danielwoods]

This is a good point.

However, I think Hitchen's fundamental mistake is in his selective view of "good" and "bad." For example, he views religion as a substantial impediment to intellectual pursuit and knowledge acquisition, not realizing that religion provides different a perspective and examines different dimensions that can add to the general well of intellectual pursuits and knowledge acquisition (I am using the word "knowledge in a lose sense of the word.) By looking at things only from a secular perspective, or selectively restricting it to such, Hitchens inadvertently, and ironical, commits the very "bad" for which he mistakenly accuses religion.

Said another way, religion broadens the vistas of human understanding rather than the opposite as Hitchens claims.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree.

What often seems to result of his type of criticisms is a reduction of diversity of thought not an increase of diversity. The net result of less diversity is as you pointed out decreased knowledge.

I think about the difference between what is common knowledge for kids raised on a farm and kids raised in the inner city. Kids in the inner city simply don't have the breadth and diversity of knowledge about life that the farm kids do.

[halconero]

Talal Asad would first ask Christopher Hitchins what religion was in the first place. Is it a belief in deity(ies)? Well then we can exclude a good number of Buddhists, quite a few Hindus, and a number of Confucianists.

Is it belief in the metaphysical then? Well some people perform cultural rituals for their own sake, without any connection to an active belief.

Well then is it that set of rituals in and of themselves? Then that raises the question of what is a religious ritual and what is a secular one.

You see "religion" as an idea is a very modern, very Euroamerican concept, and attempts at reducing it to a core definition creates exclusion of diversity, culture, and history. The word itself has a specific genealogy. Activities that are now secular (running a town bureau) were once religious activities by virtue of their being directed by the local prince-bishop. However innocuous, mundane or devoid of zealous conviction, activities like tax collection or planting crops were not necessarily secular activities as oppose to mass.

A more recent example was pre-China Tibet. Being a theocracy, with the monks controlling and running the government, at what point does regular activity become religious activity?

Furthermore, Mr. Hitchins, at what point does ideology become religious? I'd argue that political persuasions, whether democratic, totalitarian, left-wing or right-wing take on rituals, holy days, saints, scripture, pilgrimage sites, and advocation for both violence and charity as much as any religion.

What Christopher Hitchins wants is an abolishment of organized conviction. Ironically, probably one of the only ways to force such an abolishment is to produce an ideology which itself has the organized conviction to do so.

[sethpayne]

Two things.

 

1.  Hitchens is not a scholar.  A skilled polemicist with a sharp wit?  Yes.

 

2.  Religion is worth it -- at least to me.

[mnn727]

Assuming there is an afterlife and we are at least partially correct about it, yes it's worth it.

 

Now lets assume there is no afterlife and we're all fooling ourselves. Is it worth it then, to serve others, to be kind to others, to assist others, to love others as yourself? how can the answer be no.

Even if you give up alcohol, coffee, gambling, etc I still believe you are better for it.

 

As an adult convert of 21 years now (joined in my 30's) I am a much better man and a much better husband that I was without religion in my life.

Yes its worth it.

[wenglund]

What Christopher Hitchins wants is an abolishment of organized conviction. Ironically, probably one of the only ways to force such an abolishment is to produce an ideology which itself has the organized conviction to do so.

 

Well said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Why not so much religion? Please explain.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The gospel that Christ lived and taught was very simple.  At the core of it was how we treat others and focusing on our own spiritual connection to God.  Organized religion is focused on others telling you what they think God wants you to do.  Quite frankly the gospel gets lost in the dogma.  Christ rejected the organized religion of his day.  The Jews too were caught up in a whole list of dogma that evidently was never intended by God to follow.  The rules became a judgement stick and a criteria of one's "worthiness".  Christ taught that our concern for others is more important than walking too many steps on the sabbath.  That picking an ear of corn on the sabbath was more important than following dogma.  He never attended church services on a regular basis.  Christ spent his life serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned,  How someone else lived their lived did not dictate how He would live his.

 

Almost half of the book of the Gospel of John records just one meeting the Savior had with his apostles. He knew he was going to leave the earth shortly.  So Christ imparted the very most important doctrine he wanted them to remember.  "As I have loved you, love one another.  One could throw away volumes and volumes that have been written about religion.  They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  The gospel that Christ taught was not all that complicated, yet few are able to not get distracted with all the man made insertions religion has come up with.  I see little value in adding to the words and example of Christ.

 

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.  Just my opinion.

[3DOP]

Christ repeatedly affirmed the authority of "the organized religion of the day" as instituted by Moses the Prophet, and the Aaronic priesthood. For example, He told the ten lepers to show themselves to the priests, "for a testimony unto them", acknowledging the continuing authority of the Levitical priesthood. He referred to the Temple, rebuilt by King Herod, serviced by Zachary, the father of John the Baptist, as "His Father's house". From the beginning of His life, when His holy parents offered a turtle dove, the Levitical sacrifice prescribed for the first born son, according to St. Luke's Gospel, until after His persecutors had persuaded the Romans to crucify their Messiah, resulting in the supernatural renting of the veil of the Temple in twain, Christ Jesus continuously affirmed the institutional religion of His fathers.   

Edited September 24, 2014 by 3DOP

[strappinglad]

In reality we have very little information about what Christ did for the first 30 years of his life. He may never have set foot inside a synagogue or (and I think this more likely) he may have spent time there daily or at least weekly. I doubt the scriptures He quoted just magically appeared in His brain.

Also, we have a minimum of info on His life during His preaching years. John 21:25 indicated that there are volumes that could be written on His works. The efforts of the early church leaders and organization are what preserved what little we have. The work of untold scribes and monks for over a millennium are the only reason there are scriptures to read.

Edited September 24, 2014 by strappinglad

[3DOP]

In reality we have very little information about what Christ did for the first 30 years of his life. He may never have set foot inside a synagogue or (and I think this more likely) he may have sent time there daily or at least weekly. I doubt the scriptures He quoted just magically appeared in His brain.

Also, we have a minimum of info on His life during His preaching years. John 21:25 indicated that there are volumes that could be written on His works. The efforts of the early church leaders and organization are what preserved what little we have. The work of untold scribes and monks for over a millennium are the only reason there are scriptures to read.

 

Hey strappinglad. Good name. God love the happy man. Somebody in this world should get that for a great middle name. Jim Strappinglad Smith would be one of the solidest names I have ever heard!

 

True, we have little information. What information we have, from the Gospel writers, seems intent to emphasize that Christ accepted the institutional religion inherited from Mosaic times. Incredibly almost. How could the "true religion" have survived two apostasies that required building and rebuilding Temples destroyed because of the infidellty of priests, prophets, and kings? The Old Testament word is adultery. It seems that spiritual adultery could not annul the promises made to Abraham and Moses. Only the crucifixion of the promised Messiah definitively abolished the Mosaic priesthood. That would seem to be indicated by the renting of the veil of the Temple, coincident with the death of God's Son on the Cross.

 

Henceforward, another religion was to be established, founded on greater promises, while still fulfilling those unto Abraham, that Abraham's spiritual seed would spread throughout the whole world. "Unto me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord:"  (Eph. 3:8-11)

 

Since in every language the Greek is translated, from Berlin to Hong Kong, church implies a community of believers, we should be persuaded that it is through a community of believers, instead of individual experiences of God, that God intends to manifest His "manifold wisdom". If I am not greatly mistaken, those who blithely oppose "organized religion" fail to appreciate the importance, in God's plan, in accord with the life, passion, and death of Christ His Son, and the witness of His holy Apostles, of a unified community of believers who testify with one voice to the same religious truths.

 

To oppose all forms of religion is certainly to oppose the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps all religions are not equal. Still, it seems sure that adherents of other religions besides my own are willing to give their lives in its service. For that reason alone, I am willing to say in general that "religion is worth it." But let me speak only for my own religion. For those like me, who believe in the message of the New Testament, the religion established by the Apostles (sent ones) of Jesus Christ is worth every burden and every heartache which could accompany it. It means God loves those who receive Him as His sons and daughters, and delights to exalt us far beyond our worth. My religion is love, and the God in which I believe would never be so pusillanimous as to share His love with one or two alone, but rather with a church, with a great community of souls that will glorify Him for all eternity for His gracious love to us.

 

I think all religion is "worth it", at least as opposed to no religion, that doesn't even try to find God. By the dim light of faith, more certain than the brightest reason, I am sure of my own.

 

Rory 

[halconero]

The gospel that Christ lived and taught was very simple. At the core of it was how we treat others and focusing on our own spiritual connection to God.

 

Debatable. This is a very reductionist line of thought, and ignores the variety of Christ's message across the different gospels. Johannine Gospel, with its dense Christology and esoteric message is not so simple. The Matthean Gospel is an expansion, rather than a simplifying of Jewish Mosaic laws. The Lukan Gospel is somewhat closer to your original comment, as its focus is on what's called the "social Gospel" in academics, though even that gets complicated. The Markan Gospel itself is actually a bit of a puzzle and mystery, as Jesus purposely teaches in parables among the unbelieving populace in order to obscure what his Gospel his, and saves it for the elect. What I'm trying to illustrate is that attempting to reduce the Jesus' Gospel to what you said is, as John Kloppenborg, Reza Aslan, or Bart Ehrman would put it, the "writing and synthesis of a new Gospel". 

 

Organized religion is focused on others telling you what they think God wants you to do.

 

So...preaching...like Jesus did, almost everywhere, and then commissioned his followers, both the 12 and the 70 to do the same.

 

Quite frankly the gospel gets lost in the dogma.

 

Like the dogma spewed at church conferences, letters to members, or doctrinal developments right?........all of which occurred in the Early Church...when Christ was recorded as quite involved in its dealings.

 

Christ rejected the organized religion of his day.

 

Given the multiple stories advocating that those healed should go meet with levitical priests and offer formal sacrifice, the stories of his frequent attendance at the synagogues, his approval of temple offerings, and his naming of post-resurrection church leadership, I don't think you can offer much support for that statement. Yes, he frequently debated with the Pharisees, and to a lesser extent the Sadducees, but never did he advocate for a rejection of the religion of his people, but a reform.

 

 The Jews too were caught up in a whole list of dogma that evidently was never intended by God to follow.  The rules became a judgement stick and a criteria of one's "worthiness".  Christ taught that our concern for others is more important than walking too many steps on the sabbath.  That picking an ear of corn on the sabbath was more important than following dogma.  

 

I addressed this above, but I'll say it again. Jesus, and especially the Matthean Jesus, actually called for a far more stricter version of Mosaic Law. No longer was it limited to actions only, but extended to the heart and mind as well. He did not combat the commandments of God as laid out in the Torah, but traditions which had been built up by certain sects to fence in the law.

 

He never attended church services on a regular basis.

 

I can give you a reference list of the number of miracles or teaching incidents Jesus gave while attending the synagogue, the Herodian temple, or while celebrating a religious holy day if you wish. The above statement is simply not true.

 

Christ spent his life serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned,  How someone else lived their lived did not dictate how He would live his.

 

He also went around preaching repentance. Of course the actions of others didn't dictate how he would live his life, but he had no problem with dictating to others how they should live theirs. 

 

Almost half of the book of the Gospel of John records just one meeting the Savior had with his apostles. He knew he was going to leave the earth shortly.  So Christ imparted the very most important doctrine he wanted them to remember.  "As I have loved you, love one another.

 

One of my favourite pieces of scripture. I love the Gospel of John. Yet we should not conflate the idea of love being Jesus' "very most important doctrine" with being his sole doctrine. Remember, while he did say that there were two great commandments, to love God and love our neighbour, he did mention that all the teaches of prophets and scripture hang on these. In other words, all those teachings of mortal men and organized religion? Yeah, those still applied. 

 

One could throw away volumes and volumes that have been written about religion.  They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

Throw away every book of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Humanism, Ideological Marxism or Liberalism, and every other scrap of info on ritualized conviction or habit? You and I sir have very different ideas about the value of knowledge. Even the individual journal of a simple believer in Christ, with its musings on that own person's struggles, temptations, comforts, love, thankfulness and spiritual impressions is worth its weight in Gold.

 

The gospel that Christ taught was not all that complicated, yet few are able to not get distracted with all the man made insertions religion has come up with.  I see little value in adding to the words and example of Christ.

 

I see little value in adding to it either, but let us beware lest we remove from the words and example of Christ as well.

 

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.  Just my opinion.

 

If we take into account all the Gospels, just remember that a Christ like life includes preaching repentance, making commentary on contemporary issues like taxation, approving monetary offerings to God in a religious institution, organizing a body of leaders and missionaries to disseminate your teachings, memorializing rituals (the last supper), commenting on social and political issues, rebuking those who misunderstand or fight against your message about God, participating in socio-cultural rituals yourself (like baptism), etc etc, I could go on.

Edited September 24, 2014 by halconero

[teddyaware]

I would like to pose a question for discussion that has been addressed by at least one scholar in the negative: Christopher Hitchens on "Is Religion Worth All That Comes With It?"

 

 

I am hoping to use this general discussion on the net value of religion to lay a foundation for future discussions on more specific topics--i.e the net worth of Christian observance as well as the net worth of active LDS faith.

 

I would like to examine this issue on a micro level in addition to the macro level briefly covered in the video linked above.

 

Is Hitchens correct or ironically mistaken?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nah, religion ain't worth it. What with forgiveness of sins, a clear conscience, eternal glory as joint heirs with Christ, and living forever in a state of happiness that has no end -- what are these things but mere 'trifles' when compared to the baubles and ephemeral amusements of the temporal world?

Edited September 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[halconero]

Nah, religion ain't worth it. What with forgiveness of sins, a clear conscience, eternal glory as joint heirs with Christ, and living forever in a state of happiness that has no end -- what are these 'trifles' when compared to the baubles and ephemeral amusements of the temporal world?

 

Going beyond Christianity, and Mormonism specifically, I'd raise my concerns again that banning religion essentially comes down to banning ritualized conviction or habit. Many professors of religion regularly demonstrate the religious sides to ideology or even music. Heck, I've even seen a professor outline the devotion to a particular saint, with an attending pilgrimage, homilies, and devotion to the point where I was convinced he was talking about some Buddhist or Catholic saintly figure, only for him to reveal that he was talking about Elvis and the Nashville pilgrimage.

[Tacenda]

The gospel that Christ lived and taught was very simple. At the core of it was how we treat others and focusing on our own spiritual connection to God. Organized religion is focused on others telling you what they think God wants you to do. Quite frankly the gospel gets lost in the dogma. Christ rejected the organized religion of his day. The Jews too were caught up in a whole list of dogma that evidently was never intended by God to follow. The rules became a judgement stick and a criteria of one's "worthiness". Christ taught that our concern for others is more important than walking too many steps on the sabbath. That picking an ear of corn on the sabbath was more important than following dogma. He never attended church services on a regular basis. Christ spent his life serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned, How someone else lived their lived did not dictate how He would live his.

Almost half of the book of the Gospel of John records just one meeting the Savior had with his apostles. He knew he was going to leave the earth shortly. So Christ imparted the very most important doctrine he wanted them to remember. "As I have loved you, love one another. One could throw away volumes and volumes that have been written about religion. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The gospel that Christ taught was not all that complicated, yet few are able to not get distracted with all the man made insertions religion has come up with. I see little value in adding to the words and example of Christ.

Living a Christ-like life is worth it. Religion? Not so much. Just my opinion.

Add to that the money that ends up at the top in some religions, not gonna name names. .

[The Nehor]

Since the thread is in the beginning stages, I was speaking in terms of potential "good."

 

However, in terms of what little has gone on thus far, I concur that at least your participation in the thread renders your dispute warranted. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I pity you if making such an obvious joke qualifies as wit in your mind.

[california boy]

 

The gospel that Christ lived and taught was very simple. At the core of it was how we treat others and focusing on our own spiritual connection to God.

 

Debatable. This is a very reductionist line of thought, and ignores the variety of Christ's message across the different gospels. Johannine Gospel, with its dense Christology and esoteric message is not so simple. The Matthean Gospel is an expansion, rather than a simplifying of Jewish Mosaic laws. The Lukan Gospel is somewhat closer to your original comment, as its focus is on what's called the "social Gospel" in academics, though even that gets complicated. The Markan Gospel itself is actually a bit of a puzzle and mystery, as Jesus purposely teaches in parables among the unbelieving populace in order to obscure what his Gospel his, and saves it for the elect. What I'm trying to illustrate is that attempting to reduce the Jesus' Gospel to what you said is, as John Kloppenborg, Reza Aslan, or Bart Ehrman would put it, the "writing and synthesis of a new Gospel". 

 

Organized religion is focused on others telling you what they think God wants you to do.

 

So...preaching...like Jesus did, almost everywhere, and then commissioned his followers, both the 12 and the 70 to do the same.

 

Quite frankly the gospel gets lost in the dogma.

 

Like the dogma spewed at church conferences, letters to members, or doctrinal developments right?........all of which occurred in the Early Church...when Christ was recorded as quite involved in its dealings.

 

Christ rejected the organized religion of his day.

 

Given the multiple stories advocating that those healed should go meet with levitical priests and offer formal sacrifice, the stories of his frequent attendance at the synagogues, his approval of temple offerings, and his naming of post-resurrection church leadership, I don't think you can offer much support for that statement. Yes, he frequently debated with the Pharisees, and to a lesser extent the Sadducees, but never did he advocate for a rejection of the religion of his people, but a reform.

 

 The Jews too were caught up in a whole list of dogma that evidently was never intended by God to follow.  The rules became a judgement stick and a criteria of one's "worthiness".  Christ taught that our concern for others is more important than walking too many steps on the sabbath.  That picking an ear of corn on the sabbath was more important than following dogma.  

 

I addressed this above, but I'll say it again. Jesus, and especially the Matthean Jesus, actually called for a far more stricter version of Mosaic Law. No longer was it limited to actions only, but extended to the heart and mind as well. He did not combat the commandments of God as laid out in the Torah, but traditions which had been built up by certain sects to fence in the law.

 

He never attended church services on a regular basis.

 

I can give you a reference list of the number of miracles or teaching incidents Jesus gave while attending the synagogue, the Herodian temple, or while celebrating a religious holy day if you wish. The above statement is simply not true.

 

Christ spent his life I am more the simple love your neighbor, love God kind of guy.,  How someone else lived their lived did not dictate how He would live his.

 

He also went around preaching repentance. Of course the actions of others didn't dictate how he would live his life, but he had no problem with dictating to others how they should live theirs. 

 

Almost half of the book of the Gospel of John records just one meeting the Savior had with his apostles. He knew he was going to leave the earth shortly.  So Christ imparted the very most important doctrine he wanted them to remember.  "As I have loved you, love one another.

 

One of my favourite pieces of scripture. I love the Gospel of John. Yet we should not conflate the idea of love being Jesus' "very most important doctrine" with being his sole doctrine. Remember, while he did say that there were two great commandments, to love God and love our neighbour, he did mention that all the teaches of prophets and scripture hang on these. In other words, all those teachings of mortal men and organized religion? Yeah, those still applied. 

 

One could throw away volumes and volumes that have been written about religion.  They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

Throw away every book of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Humanism, Ideological Marxism or Liberalism, and every other scrap of info on ritualized conviction or habit? You and I sir have very different ideas about the value of knowledge. Even the individual journal of a simple believer in Christ, with its musings on that own person's struggles, temptations, comforts, love, thankfulness and spiritual impressions is worth its weight in Gold.

 

The gospel that Christ taught was not all that complicated, yet few are able to not get distracted with all the man made insertions religion has come up with.  I see little value in adding to the words and example of Christ.

 

I see little value in adding to it either, but let us beware lest we remove from the words and example of Christ as well.

 

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.  Just my opinion.

 

If we take into account all the Gospels, just remember that a Christ like life includes preaching repentance, making commentary on contemporary issues like taxation, approving monetary offerings to God in a religious institution, organizing a body of leaders and missionaries to disseminate your teachings, memorializing rituals (the last supper), commenting on social and political issues, rebuking those who misunderstand or fight against your message about God, participating in socio-cultural rituals yourself (like baptism), etc etc, I could go on.

 

 

 

Interesting thoughts.  You are right. I am a reductive kind of guy.  What you find important in religion, I do not.  It is as simple as that.  Imagine how different the world would be if every person who attended church each week instead used that time in service to others.  If they spent that time practicing what Christ taught rather than sitting in a meeting hearing what another person thinks.  If the armies of the Crusade went to the holy land to serve the Muslins there rather than butchering them.  If those pious leaders of the inquisition spent their time in the back alleys lifting and elevating mankind rather than tourchering people simply because they were different.  

 

Close your eyes and imagine Christians actually being a body that loved, cared for and blessed others even if it was just on sunday for a couple of hours.  I see more of Christ in the food banks and soup kitchens than I do in the ivory towers of crystal cathedrals.  I think mankind would learn more about Christ practicing what he taught then they ever learn sitting in pews.  We will not be judged by how many hours we have spent in the pews, but how our hearts have changed.  Religion is failing in this country and throughout the world, not because the message of Christ is not important, but because the delivery of that message is failing.  Christ wants me to be a better person, not a better scholar.  That is what I see in the message of Christ.  Unfortunately, the legacy that religion has given us a history that is nothing like that.  

 

As Gandhi said, " I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."

 

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.  Just my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

Interesting thoughts.  You are right. I am a reductive kind of guy.  What you find important in religion, I do not.  It is as simple as that.  Imagine how different the world would be if every person who attended church each week instead used that time in service to others.  If they spent that time practicing what Christ taught rather than sitting in a meeting hearing what another person thinks.  If the armies of the Crusade went to the holy land to serve the Muslins there rather than butchering them.  If those pious leaders of the inquisition spent their time in the back alleys lifting and elevating mankind rather than tourchering people simply because they were different.  

 

Close your eyes and imagine Christians actually being a body that loved, cared for and blessed others even if it was just on sunday for a couple of hours.  I see more of Christ in the food banks and soup kitchens than I do in the ivory towers of crystal cathedrals.  I think mankind would learn more about Christ practicing what he taught then they ever learn sitting in pews.  We will not be judged by how many hours we have spent in the pews, but how our hearts have changed.  Religion is failing in this country and throughout the world, not because the message of Christ is not important, but because the delivery of that message is failing.  Christ wants me to be a better person, not a better scholar.  That is what I see in the message of Christ.  Unfortunately, the legacy that religion has given us a history that is nothing like that.  

 

As Gandhi said, " I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."

 

Living a Christ-like life is worth it.  Religion?  Not so much.  Just my opinion.

 

The problem with this thinking is it completely misrepresents what Christ taught.  It's this kind of thinking that leads the unread to believe that not only did Christ love sinners, but he tolerated their sins.  Christ never for a minute tolerated sin.

 

He may have shown love and compassion to the woman taken in adultery, but he still told her to "go and sin no more".

He took a whip and chased the merchants and bankers out of the temple.

 

When people try to reduce "Christianity" to a "love your fellow man no matter what he does" religion they have completely ignored many of the things that Christ actually taught.

Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF