BF2S Forums The Meanings of Religion

religion: The excuse one creates to cover their asses after murdering others. (KKK, Taliban, Neo-Nazis, Hitler, Hezbolah)

To paraphrase the great thinker Sigmund Freud: "Religion is the most socially acceptable form of neurotic behaviour on earth."

I believe religion spawned as a reaction to a) the absence of knowledge with which to explain things early man could not understand yet, b) primaeval anarchy: a code of conduct was required so that early humans could co-exist in a civilised society. Early religion was all about appeasing the 'angry gods' who brought storms, volcanoes and such if the general populace had been 'sinful'. Of course these things are all natural occurences but then how was early man supposed to know? Early man made futile sacrifices to the gods in the hope that such unexplainable and unpredictable things would not occur. They also worshipped fertility idols and harvests: birth and crop growth must have seemed magical to early man, these days of course modern biology and agricultural science have eradicated the need for such fatuous worship.

Modern religion is far more complex than that practiced/adopted by early man, embellished with myriad layers of dogma and symbolism. These days religion serves as a ray of hope in a life of suffering punctuated now and then with moments of true happiness, a life that has no readily discernible reward at the end. Nearly all religions refer to an afterlife - something designed to soothe the minds of those that do not wish to accept that life is ultimately pointless and futile, in the grander scheme of things.

Religion is an illusion that people buy into because there is a mental benefit in doing so (although indoctrination tends to lead people automatically down the path towards religion/spirituality).

Religion is an entirely man-made fabrication, every part of every religion is the product of human thought. Powerful humans have took it upon themselves to subvert the original teachings and to create and use religious institutions for political ends, which is unfortunate to say the least given that most religions preach valuable messages that do not need tampering with.

Incidentally I would suggest every thinker out there to read Sigmund Freud's essay 'Religion: The Future of an Illusion'. Truly a great read.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-09 05:41:23)

I agree with you Serge that it is a complex human institution in so much that it is complicated by humans.  lol

Defining that word is impossible here as everyone calls it something different.  My belief that the word religion denotes an instiution derived by man with the purpose to worship or dedicate oneself to something or someone.  For example, "I work out at the gym religiously."  From this, it's obvious it has nothing to do with a God or the standard definition people think when hearing the word.  The best example then, probably, is that it is something related to a diety.

My belief is that "religion" didn't start from some people looking for something or conjuring their behavior from a frenzied mind that has created an imaginary friend or diety.  Rather, i believe it all started from actual interaction from GOD to man.  The thousands of different religions stem from that one source (ie., Adam & Eve) and have perpetuated throughout the ages.  So the simple definition some idiots suggest that it was just conjured to comfort our inadequacies or answer our personal "voices" is not respecting history and probably the longest lasting "institution" on earth. 

Imagine if you will, that God Himself appeared to you.  He spoke with you and those in your community.  He instituted some teachings, principles, and practices, brought you peace, and made promises to you.  It would be quite amazing.  Everyone in your community began living those principles.  But as the generations progress, and that original community became long forgotten, and the stories of that visit changed..you'd pretty much have what you have today in modern religion.  Look how many christian sects there are..all with huge differences in basic doctrines yet they all pretend to tolerate each other yet they openly stab each other.  I'm guessing many non-christian religions do this as well (shia vs. sunni; hisidic vs. modern judaism).  Religion (as far as the GOD/MAN institution) is soooo varied in definition that gathering one definition here would be impossible.

Religion is the byproduct of many people believing in the same thing without any logical evidence. If not enough people believe in the same thing it's not a religion, it's a cult. Mass following is the only distinction between religion and cults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Its his fault.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Its his fault.

If you're implying that Constantine made "religion" what it is today, you're very wrong.  All nations, people, and communities as far back as written history have had religion.  And even though constantine is responsible for giving us the bible (compiling a bunch of books into one book), religion was long since living and guiding peoples' lives for millenia before it.  People have always had scriptures.

And again, where's the beginning of it all?  That would best define religion.  My belief is that prophets spoke with God and wrote those occurrences, teachings, and history.  And according to them, it goes back to Adam and Eve.

topal63 wrote:

Religion - is a derived word... it primarily denotes - tradition (primarily a parochial/provincial tradition).

It is derived from the Latin religio = (to bind) meaning a linking to the past, in this specific sense it represents a communities long adopted tradition (one of course that changes over time, as new traditions are incorporated and/or old ones subtly change). It supposedly is a spiritual tradition but a thing such as “spirit” is a fuzzy undefined concept with no actual evidence supporting the existence of it. It is a HUMAN attempt, written by humans, to rectify our psychological fears of the unknown (often the fear of an utterly-final-death) combined with the desire to place the individual in a meaningful chain that links the self back to the origin of all things (often labeled God/Gods, even though such a thing is mere conjecture and/or myth).

Religion exists - because children exist; because parents hand down myth & its tradition to the ignorant (it is not debatable that children are born ignorant). Religion exists because it is easier to ACCEPT a meaning to Universal origins and death; than it is to try and figure this life out on your own. Religion is easy to ACCEPT because it often has PEOPLE in its stories! The anthropomorphic projection of being creates a reference point with which the self can identify with.

Could it be that it started somewhere?  Could it be that it's easy to accept if someone actually proved it to be worth living?  I don't know a single person who would openly accept principles of chastity, moral purity, and other such sacrifices just because their neighbor Joe is doing it.  No, i don't believe you have a grasp on how religion continues throughout the generations.  Some look to religion not knowing what it is (like most in this thread) thinking what you think..that it's a little safe place to go to be with people trying to be nice to each other, to sit in pews and hold candles and pretend to know something about an imaginary person.  But people who have hit that crossroads (yes, everyone of YOU will do it in your lifetime) and have honestly sought meaning to their lives do often end up searching the many forms of religion for the answer..and the more honest they are with themselves and focused they are..find the truths..and they are usually always found in religion.

CameronPoe wrote:

To paraphrase the great thinker Sigmund Freud: "Religion is the most socially acceptable form of neurotic behaviour on earth."

I believe religion spawned as a reaction to a) the absence of knowledge with which to explain things early man could not understand yet, b) primaeval anarchy: a code of conduct was required so that early humans could co-exist in a civilised society. Early religion was all about appeasing the 'angry gods' who brought storms, volcanoes and such if the general populace had been 'sinful'. Of course these things are all natural occurences but then how was early man supposed to know? Early man made futile sacrifices to the gods in the hope that such unexplainable and unpredictable things would not occur. They also worshipped fertility idols and harvests: birth and crop growth must have seemed magical to early man, these days of course modern biology and agricultural science have eradicated the need for such fatuous worship.

Modern religion is far more complex than that practiced/adopted by early man, embellished with myriad layers of dogma and symbolism. These days religion serves as a ray of hope in a life of suffering punctuated now and then with moments of true happiness, a life that has no readily discernible reward at the end. Nearly all religions refer to an afterlife - something designed to soothe the minds of those that do not wish to accept that life is ultimately pointless and futile, in the grander scheme of things.

Religion is an illusion that people buy into because there is a mental benefit in doing so (although indoctrination tends to lead people automatically down the path towards religion/spirituality).

Religion is an entirely man-made fabrication, every part of every religion is the product of human thought. Powerful humans have took it upon themselves to subvert the original teachings and to create and use religious institutions for political ends, which is unfortunate to say the least given that most religions preach valuable messages that do not need tampering with.

Incidentally I would suggest every thinker out there to read Sigmund Freud's essay 'Religion: The Future of an Illusion'. Truly a great read.

Cameron you state these as facts.  You may want to add this is just your opinion.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

If you're implying that Constantine made "religion" what it is today, you're very wrong.  All nations, people, and communities as far back as written history have had religion.  And even though constantine is responsible for giving us the bible (compiling a bunch of books into one book), religion was long since living and guiding peoples' lives for millenia before it.  People have always had scriptures.

And again, where's the beginning of it all?  That would best define religion.  My belief is that prophets spoke with God and wrote those occurrences, teachings, and history.  And according to them, it goes back to Adam and Eve.

Aye. But Christianity didn't have a position of power until Constantine. Hence corruption and other horseshit that has ruined religion for alot of people.

MY overall agnostic view, to each his own. As long as no one shove it down your throat, you shouldn't demean thier beliefs. Wehter you think it is hysteria, guilt ridden horseshit, you don't worship it so who are you guys to judge those that find a great deal of value in religion.

Now, if someone tries to "convert" you or knock on your door and want to talk about it, verbally abuse them as much as you like. But constantly downing religion just to do it, meh.

Christianity had a position of power before Constantine.  King Agrippa recognized it as a threat to his policies, as did other regional leaders.  King Agrippa also confessed to Paul that he was almost "sold" on Paul's teachings of it.  Imagine if King Agrippa started bringing Christianity into Greek politics?  How fun would that be? 

And long before Christianity, there was thousands of years of religions and governments solely driven by religious teachings.   Before Christianity, Rome had religious teachings as well..as each emporer saw fit.

Anyway, yes, I respect your decision to stay aloof, but why you gotta harsh on people "sharing" their religion?  What is the difference between that and someone sharing BF2 with you?  Should the person sharing BF2 to you be run off your porch?  I like when religions people knock on my door...I know they care and they love me..then I let them continue on to my neighbors house.

What you call "sharing" I call waking me up on a Saturday morning after I worked all week. Because people have jobs and lives. I choose not to go to church every Sunday. I have stolen things. I have had pre-marital sex and continue too. I curse. I use the lord's name in vain at least 10 times a day. I covet thy neighbors wife because she is hot. I do not need someone to make me feel guilty for living life. I've made mistakes. I've accepted the concequences. And I have my beliefs.

I HOPE there is something greater for all of us when we pass. Granted it could just be wormfood that awaits. I like to think we all have our own version of heaven. Many here may say that is in front of pc with BF2 and a pornstar below. If that is someones idea of heaven, who is the "church" to make me feel guilty for believing that.

And the guys knocking on the door "love" me? They don't fucking know me. And if I was your neighbor you 'd have a good kicking for sending them my way.

Each his own.

PS. I'd like some links to the "history" of Christianity your giving us today.

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-01-09 13:29:31)

FFS What's with all the stupid religious threads!? I'm sick and tired of everyone getting into each others nerves fighting with each other about this, half will say something good and the other half something bad, it's senseless and pointless.

A word that simply means World Peace will never exist.

topal63 wrote:

The starting point has already been indicated. It is the human-psyche. That in no way demeans the power and value of myth or tradition. A demystification by rational thinking does equate to the “end of all values.”

And NO there is not a single reason to think that it started by a transcendent-being reveling itself to a limited number of individuals in the distance NON-HISTORICAL mythical past. Also, you’re operating under false assumptions “again.” Your comment that I do not have “a grasp” is an utterly empty assertion; you most certainly do not know what I do or do not know; my level of education; my age; how much personal time I have devoted to philosophy; myth; psychology; theology; and/or science studies.

The human-psyche started religion?  You mean "YOU" have already indicated that as your erroneous opinion.   And before you go and imply that all religious people are loons who have the mental stability of our president, you should also know you're arguing against a huge majority of people on this earth which has remained the huge majority throughout the ages of this world's history.  And last i heard, 95% of the world believes in a supreme being.

I do like your mention of "tradition" and "myth" in relating to religion because it's true.  People do pass on their father's religion and it gets permeated that way for many generations..often without those religionists ever questioning the principles of religion they are trying to live.  It's when they do question those teachings, validate them and the promises attached to them that you get real adherents who revitalize the 'tradition.'

And lets get something else established here.  GOD did not set forth a religion that was meant to be a social establishment..which is what most readers here equate with it.  God has put forth commandments, teachings, and many promises which become fulfilled based on the adherent's practice of them.  He established a governing body through Jesus while in Israel as he had done in the past as mentioned in the bible and probably hundreds of other missing texts detailing his interactions with men.  What MAN has done is to do their best to organize people into bodies that espouse those teachings..and mingle them with their own social aspect..or "fellowship" and add their own teachings and things...and yes, as it progresses through the ages, it changes..though God's original teachings do not.  that's the difference that many here do not equate...God and his teachings are not found in what people consider "religion."  I know I don't equate the two as the same.