Is Religion Worth It?

[Maestrophil]

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.

 

Why are the two mutually exclusive? 

 

I see people all around me who attend church every week AND spend hours serving others.  Also - in my experience, most of my Sunday church time is actually spent serving and ministering to others, expressing my love for God, and increasing my desire to do good. I feel the "church is not needed to be Christlike" argument often finds footing with people who are spiritually lazy, or do not want to hear that they are required to actually, you know. keep the commandments if they love God.

 

also, bad behavior on the part of religious people, past or present, is no more an indicator of the inherent goodness or evil of religion than the bad behavior of any other collective group be it atheists, homosexuals, American Indians - etc.  All groups have good and bad seeds.

 

In my life, religion has given me hope and strength through very difficult times, a sense of community like nothing else I have felt, a set of guiding principles that helped me feel secure and focused, a sense that I am loved and important while still helping me feel humbled knowing I am no more loved than my brother, a sense of pride in a legacy of faith, and many more things.

 

On the other hand. The one thing that I feel great pain from, and often envy non-believers for, is that I feel pain when loved ones stray from the gospel.  Without belief that a particular path is necessary, there is no pain in the non-belief of a loved one  - but perhaps as I grow in understanding, I will trust the Lord will make all things right for those who stray.  Or perhaps this is just a burden that comes with the gospel message?

[Ahab]

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.

You are now making it obvious that we should be talking about what religion is, and what it is not, and what makes each religion different fron another, and what many religions have in common. And also what makes one religion better than another, with one even being better than all others.

But I think all of that is outside of the more limited scope Wade intended for discussion in this thread, so we'll just stick with your "not so much" response as your answer.

[california boy]

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.

 

Could you please point out where in what I wrote that I stated or implied that Christ tolerated sin???  What an odd comment.

[wenglund]

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.

 

How do you reconcile your admirable deference to Christ with the fact that part of the Savior's earthly mission was to establish his Father's KINGDOM on earth, or in other words institute his religion, founded on apostles and prophets, with him as the chief cornerstone. It seems contradictory to claim to follow Christ and to live a Christlike life while deny the very institution he ordained and leads to this very day?

 

Have you considered the positive synergistic power of organized religion, wherein there is strength for good in numbers, and where people with divergent talents and abilities unite to form a body far more capable that its individual parts? Symbolically, a foot and a hand can do some Christlike good on their own, but can accomplish some much more when joined with many feet and hands and heads and hearts.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

Could you please point out where in what I wrote that I stated or implied that Christ tolerated sin???  What an odd comment.

 

The implication is in your definition of "a better person" or "more Christ-like". 

 

It is statements like:

 

Christ spent his life serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned,

that are absolutely true but purposely incomplete.  You say nothing false here, but you imply limitations to Christ's example where none exist.

 

Reducing Christ to a "love everyone all the time" preacher is ignoring much of what Christ taught and did. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[VideoGameJunkie]

JLHPROF, do you shun sinners from your life?

[wenglund]

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

 

Lame comeback. I expected better of you. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rodeo]

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-

Hitchens is wrong, completely mistaken. What he refuses to understand is that evil has its religion also. In fact, according to Christ hiself, everything filters down into two religions and everyone on earth belongs to one or the other. What is it that he says?-

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

Hitchens is wrong because he doesnt understand the logic of good and evil and that they both exist. He is one of the worst atheists because of his refusal to look at the good that "good religion" does do. He just sees the bad people do and then blames mans belief in a supernatural entity that he thinks doesnt exist. Thus, he makes religion to be a bad thing and that is all he sees with his ridiculous blinders on. He plays right into the church of the devils hand and doesnt even realize he himself is a member of his religion right now.

[LJP]

Has anyone read the "The Rage Against God" by his brother Peter Hitchens? I have and quite enjoyed it. In this book he talks about his life as an atheist and how he came about to becoming a Christian. I recommend it.

[strappinglad]

Hitchens has passed on. I don't know what he realizes by now. Other than that , your post is correct.

[Guest]

Odd that Hitchens would ask this as he belongs to no religion as we would define it. His religion is to attack all faiths, to use "his" logic and belief in no God, to point out that belief in God means we have no, nor would be be able to employ logic. His belief that there is no God, requires a great deal of faith that he is right. To use our terms and Church History; he is the "first elder", "first profit", as this what his books and lectures are all about). The "faith" or "religion" that he preaches along with his epistles, has already brought him worshipers, and lemmings to follow him.

As for "my faith"...has it been worth it? Yes.

While serving as a Stake Clerk, my Bishop called to teach Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Principles. Then I spent 5 years as the HPGL, taught many Priesthood lessons. When released from that calling, I was called to serve in the Bishopric...after being released (3 years in that calling) the following Sunday was called to teach Gospel Doctrine, where I remained in that callings which began on the first Sunday in January and lasted for the next four years on the final Sunday in December...I was able to do all the Standard Works. Then on the first Sunday of January, I was called to teach Gospel Principles...and there remained for the next five years.

So to answer the questions given in the thread, I began to think...were all those Bishopric meetings before the sun came up, and all of the correlation meetings as HPGL worth it; yes!

Were the 25+ years of study and teaching of some many classes, worth it; yes!

Were all of the others things which involved Young Men and Young Women lessons. activities, campouts worth it; yes!

I would love to say that I have influenced many lives in callings, classes, blessings, baptisms and ordinations...but the simple fact is this, with all of the time invested worth it; yes!

Not because I may have made a difference in the lives of others, but that "this service", made a difference in my life and in my family's.

As I get older and many things I used to do with ease does not come to me as it did before. Now I will have to learn how to being on the bench and being ministered too, instead of me doing the ministering.

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, do you shun sinners from your life?

 

Nobody suggested shunning repentant sinners, but we are admonished not to allow the unrepentant sinner among us.

Everyone has the right to repent and I would never shun those working through the process.  I have family and friends that have left the Church and participate in much sinful activity.  I do NOT shun them, but I do not associate with them in their sins either.

 

I Corinthians 5

 

⁹ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

¹⁰ Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

¹¹ But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat

¹² For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

¹³ But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

(See also D&C 134:10, Alma 1:24, D&C 42:24)

 

3 Nephi 18 commands us to minister to the sinner, but not to number them among you.

 

I will not shun the repentant sinner but nor will I allow wolves among the sheep.  Would you allow a child abuser in your home with your children?  Would you allow a rapist alone with your wife?  Some sins do not warrant embracing the asp to your bosom.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think having a friend who occasionally looks at pornography is not the same as allowing a child abuser to be in our home with our children. And you're implying we should only then be friends with fellow Mormons who know about repentance and live the same values as us. I live in Boston where almost no one is Mormon. All of my friends are non Mormon and have their vices. I would never shun them because I care for them and I know they're good people with good hearts.

[JLHPROF]

I think having a friend who occasionally looks at pornography is not the same as allowing a child abuser to be in our home with our children. And you're implying we should only then be friends with fellow Mormons who know about repentance and live the same values as us. I live in Boston where almost no one is Mormon. All of my friends are non Mormon and have their vices. I would never shun them because I care for them and I know they're good people with good hearts.

 

You define shunning as "refusing to associate with the person".  I am defining shunning as "refusing to associate with sinful behaviors".

To use your example if I had a friend who occasionally looked at pornography I wouldn't cease to be their friend.  I wouldn't cease associating with them.  But nor would I allow pornography in my home, on my television or computer, or go with them to movies outside my personal moral standard.

 

I have also lived in non-mormon areas, associated and been close friends with many people who smoked, drank, slept around, and may other sins.  I do not consider it shunning to refuse to go one of their parties where these things occur.  I don't allow their sin into my life, but I do try to allow my values to positively influence theirs.  3 Nephi again.

 

There is a reason why the Celestial Kingdom can minister to the Terrestrial but they cannot do it in the Celestial environment.  (D&C 76:86-87).  They cannot allow the unclean to enter.  The terrestrial are only shunned in as much as they are not allowed into the celestial.  If we want a Celestial life that is the example to follow.  The sin cannot be accepted by the righteous.

Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[VideoGameJunkie]

Thanks for clarifying JLHPROF. I was worried you were judgemental of what friends you had.

[halconero]

Interesting thoughts.  You are right. I am a reductive kind of guy.

 

The problem with a reductionist paradigm is that in simplifying a concept down to a particular definition you tend to exclude the genealogy, cultural-context, language and actions based off that concept. Though longer in its formation, taking a holistic view of any concept will result in greater clarity on the subject than simplifying it will. While easier, and less taxing on time and energy, reducing something to its "bare bones" not only obscures that "thing" but also places you in a position power over it. Why? Because such a reduction is not so much deciding what the "bare bones" of the concept is, but deciding to exclude huge, attached, and vital notions, nuances, actions, and ideologies attached to that concept. 

 

What you find important in religion, I do not.  It is as simple as that.

 

Is it so simple? By deciding the "importance" of one aspect of religion over an other you are defining the importance of a multitude of emotions, thoughts, actions and even materials for others based on your worldview, rather than taking their worldview into account. It is, in a manner, reductionist imperialism. Reductivist because it excludes certain aspects of others' religion as frivolous, and imperialist because you have taken a place of intellectual power to decide such.

 

Imagine how different the world would be if every person who attended church each week instead used that time in service to others.

 

These things need not be exclusive. 

 

If they spent that time practicing what Christ taught rather than sitting in a meeting hearing what another person thinks.

 

Does that include all of what Christ taught? If so, those teachings would include a great commission to go be missionaries, perform sacred rituals like baptism, and organize local cults for instruction. I'm imagining a world where people practiced what Christ taught, as you said, and it still involves going and telling another person what you think.

 

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.  

 

The world would definitely be a better a place.

 

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.

 

Lumping all Christians together as murderous crusaders and inquisitors, and then implying that there aren't a significant number of not only individuals, but groups which love, care and bless others is not only a gross over-generalization but intellectually lazy as well.

 

I see more of Christ in the food banks and soup kitchens than I do in the ivory towers of crystal cathedrals.

 

You see Christ in both in the recorded portion of his life in the New Testament. You see him doing a whole lot of healing, feeding and caring for the poor, but also a whole lot of teaching, residing and instruction among stone, gold, jeweled and rich Temple, the "crystal cathedral" of his day.

 

I think mankind would learn more about Christ practicing what he taught then they ever learn sitting in pews.

 

Christ and you might disagree on this one. He had a habit of gathering people in institutionalized religious centres to instruct them. Don't misunderstand me, the Christ of the Bible certainly advocates learning through practice, and practicing virtue, charity and love, but the picture you paint of a Jesus who had no use for congregations is not historically true to the accounts found in the New Testament.

 

We will not be judged by how many hours we have spent in the pews, but how our hearts have changed.

 

I suspect that more than a few hearts have changed from sitting in pews. Jesus seemed to have no issue with it, rebuking Martha for chastising her sister for "sitting" at the pews of Jesus' feet.

 

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. Who said anything about scholarship? Learning the Word of God doesn't necessarily mean knowing every single word of the Bible.  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.  "Nothing" is such a blanket statement. Religious people and religious institutions have left much good in the world, as much as evil. Don't misunderstand what I say, I'm not saying that the good nullifies the bad, but saying whether religion provides a "net" positive or negative has the effect of ignoring the history of both.

 

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

 

Given his historical and social context, he's probably referring to British Imperialist Christianity. I agree, it's definitely unlike Christ. However, I don't see his statement as representative of the small Quaker parish in Pennsylvania which advocates peace, helps the downtrodden, and preaches the Word. I don't believe Gandhi is saying that either, yet you've taken his statement and applied it to every denomination of Christianity.

 

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

 

A repetition of your statement from before. Yet it appears you want to pick and choose from the events and actions of the recorded life of Christ those which appear to support your beliefs the most. You see the charity, the love, and the friendship and say "that's Christ's life". You see Christ's support for the institutionalized rituals, edifices, monetary donations, and his preaching, rebuking, personalized ceremonies, and instruction and decide that those do not constitute a "Christ-like" life though they come from the life of Christ itself.

Edited September 25, 2014 by halconero

[california boy]

The implication is in your definition of "a better person" or "more Christ-like". 

 

It is statements like:

that are absolutely true but purposely incomplete.  You say nothing false here, but you imply limitations to Christ's example where none exist.

 

Reducing Christ to a "love everyone all the time" preacher is ignoring much of what Christ taught and did. 

 

 

Christ did teach other doctrine, but if you get His core message of serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned, loving one another, even the sinner, then you miss the whole point of his ministry.  

 

1 Corinthians 13

² And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 

 

One of the things that I have thought about is, I believe that when a person is about do die, and knows that he has few words left to speak or teach, those become the most important message above all else.  We talked briefly about the meeting held with the apostles that John recorded.  Certainly Christ is giving them, His most faithful followers, the ones He is relying on to carry on his work after his death.  And what is the core message?  "As I have loved you, love one another".  Studying what could arguably be the most important meeting Christ ever had with mankind contains wisdom and the key to understanding the ministry of Christ.

 

The second message, with almost the same importance would be Christ's last public sermon.  He is imparting to all his disciples the very core of what He wants them to remember.  Do any of you even know what the sermon was on?  Are you aware of where it is recorded without looking it up in the concordance?  How important are these two meetings in your life?  I would think they would be carried with you in your heart at all times.  Christ himself tells us it is the key to entering into the Kingdom of God.  

 

I am a very simple guy.  I need to stay focused on what is the most important things in life. If I get this part of my life wrong, then it doesn't really matter how many sundays I spent in church or how many commentaries I have read, how many classes I have taught, how many PEC's I have attended.

[Rain]

Christ did teach other doctrine, but if you get His core message of serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned, loving one another, even the sinner, then you miss the whole point of his ministry.  

 

 

One of the things that I have thought about is, I believe that when a person is about do die, and knows that he has few words left to speak or teach, those become the most important message above all else.  We talked briefly about the meeting held with the apostles that John recorded.  Certainly Christ is giving them, His most faithful followers, the ones He is relying on to carry on his work after his death.  And what is the core message?  "As I have loved you, love one another".  Studying what could arguably be the most important meeting Christ ever had with mankind contains wisdom and the key to understanding the ministry of Christ.

 

The second message, with almost the same importance would be Christ's last public sermon.  He is imparting to all his disciples the very core of what He wants them to remember.  Do any of you even know what the sermon was on?  Are you aware of where it is recorded without looking it up in the concordance?  How important are these two meetings in your life?  I would think they would be carried with you in your heart at all times.  Christ himself tells us it is the key to entering into the Kingdom of God.  

 

I am a very simple guy.  I need to stay focused on what is the most important things in life. If I get this part of my life wrong, then it doesn't really matter how many sundays I spent in church or how many commentaries I have read, how many classes I have taught, how many PEC's I have attended.

 

Let's assume your idea is correct - that last words before death are the most important. The problem is that Jesus wasn't like anyone else on earth.  He knew these weren't his last words.  He knew that in 3 days he would come back to visit.  He knew he would spend time with them.  When he talked about loving one another he also said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." 

 

I do not know where his sermon was recorded.  I couldn't even tell you which his last one was.  Unfortunately, as the years go by I am finding I am forgetting more and more things that don't matter much to me.  It's not that his sermons don't matter - it is that it doesn't matter to me if it was his first or his last. While you see importance on what is said last in a person's life, I find more importance in the sum of the parts of a life.    

 

I do think that you are correct - that loving one another is the very most important thing.  I love my children dearly.  Imagine that when my children were young I told  them to love each other, but didn't teach them to brush their teeth, be honest, how to eat. That wouldn't be real love and society and God would condemn me for neglecting my children.

 

It is the same with Christ.  He taught missionary work because of his love for each of us.  He taught repentance because he loved us.  If all he ever did was teach to love each other and didn't show by example that love by asking us to sin no more then his words would ring hollow.

[Rain]

While simple yeah or nae answers to the question are appreciated, it may prove more useful to also provide rationale for your answers. More particularly, I would like to learn what costs and benefits within your personal lives you have factored into the equation behind your answers.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, it's been worth it.

 

So just ignoring the spiritual aspects of it which I think are highly important in and of themselves:

 

Paying tithing has taught me to be wiser with my money.  Should I find that this church was all nonsense I have learned the benefit of that.  Strangely though, or maybe not so strangely, through prayer I have found that I have found other benefits of tithing that included health for myself and help in raising children.  Can I directly point them out?  No, but when I asked the Spirit let me know what some of them were - some I never would have considered on my own.

 

I have found many more friends through living my religion that I would have on my own.  While I have met many people through volunteering, scrapbooking, meeting neighbors, work, I have found many more friends through church.  

 

I have gained skills from it.  Things I have learned in callings that I probably could have learned in other ways, but unlikely have sought to learn on my own.  

 

Keeping my mind sharp.  The more I read my scriptures the more my mind stays sharp.  Sometimes I find that in reading my scriptures I start to understand things I have been trying to learn elsewhere.  

 

Those are just a few.  Yes, religion has been worth it to me.  

Edited September 25, 2014 by Rain

[wenglund]

Christ did teach other doctrine, but if you get His core message of serving others, lessening others burdens, taking care of the poor, showing kindness to those that others shunned, loving one another, even the sinner, then you miss the whole point of his ministry.  

 

To an extent I agree. Christ declared that all the laws and the prophets rest on the two great commandments--to love God and fellow man.

 

What this means to me is that obedience to all of God's commandments is an act of, and/or better enable us to, love God and our fellow man.

 

Reason suggests that we cannot fully comply with the two great commandments without complying with all of God's commandments.

 

And, we cannot comply with all of God's commandments without knowing what are those commandments.

 

This is why the scriptures are filled with more than feel good phrases about love. We daft humans need a clear road map to Christlike love, if not also an organization through which to be developmentally educated and express and experience that love. 

 

Christ knew what he was doing, and had good reason for establishing his religion (gospel) and Church.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-