Introduction to the Religious Life
- Thread starter cingolani_c
- Start date
I guess it is my personal opinion that Martin Luther's "opinions" helped in revolutionizing christianity a bit by sort of rediscovering a scripture/concept and making a stand toward this progressive doctrine in the christian faith. As far as what chapter? are you referring to a book or script that he wrote or the Bible in general?
Well in the case of the bible, the reason for confusion was the transition from the old testament to the new and this is explained in the bible. To you it may seem like a contradiction, but if read in context can be explained pretty easily. I think it is a pretty well taught and followed practice that man is saved by grace alone and not works. Possibly the part that may seem somewhat contradictory is also that people interpret christianity as a list of do's and do nots. This is the wrong way to view it as many believe that there is no good in them at all and it's only by God's grace that one can come to perform charitable or good works. The other damage is that salvation is a process and many "christians" are only humans subject to misdeeds like the next person. The arrogance of christianity says that they are better than the murderer or rapist, but truelly, all humans are subject to the same depravity. By grace, humanity can overcome it's own sick depravity, but again I revert to the fact that it is not about works with christianity. LDS, Jews, and Muslims may be a better fit for the the salvation through works doctrine.
The Devil Inside said:
Bah, I'm an athiest and I agree wholeheartedly with what Quarkmoon has said, at least what I read of it.
IMO, religion is has allowed our species to flourish as it has. The reality of "god" is actually entirely irrelevant. What it means to people is of far more importance.
Honestly the god thing is quite fascinating as I see it. IMO, it is 'the binding factor' that allowed tribes to loose their potential on threats, and gave them reason to help one another, rather than everyone for themselves. Of course a consequence of individualized religions is that they conflict with one another at least to some extent... but still, what a wonderous aspect of abstract space - a built in tool for human bonding. That's keen stuff right there.
Cris said:
How do you know they wouldn't have had any reason to bother doing anything were it not for the idiocy of their religion? How do you know that their religion is patently idiotic? Do you completely disregard that good things often come from places you might consider completely irrational?
I would hypothesize actually, that were it not for their religion, they might not have had motivation or reason to be great at all. *shrug*
QuarkMoon said:
The reason these famous and influential people 'were' religious is that they discovered they could use religion as a tool and through using it as such a tool they gained their fame and honor. yes they were some of the smartest, they saw religion for what it really is, a way of mind control.
I would love to give the finger to the world, and hole up in some peaceful monastery writing crappy poetry. By the way, what do you want from us?
Last edited:
To you perhaps, but then clearly not to other sects of christians - not to mention jews etc.
You go on to state:
"LDS, Jews, and Muslims may be a better fit for the the salvation through works doctrine."
Showing that the contradiction does exist, you just consider yourself right and them wrong. Needless to say, they think they're right and you're wrong - ergo, contradiction.
wesmorris said:
I am very much in agreement with this. cingolani_c's responses to me validate this as well. People tend to value relationship and enjoy the emotional benefits of it. I have a hypothesis that the relationship with 'God' may be as simple as a relationship with the ego. In cases of extreme euphoria resulting from the relationship, I have a hunch that such folks are able to severly dampen their sense of self through concentrating (prayer, meditation, etc.). Biologically it's probably resulting in less blood flow to that part of the brain. The end result is a great feeling and possibly hallucaintion. Imagine having a relationship with that (especially if it is ultimately yourself).
Last edited:
SnakeLord said:
I was merely comparing the difference that's all. I believe a lot of religions do believe that good works and actions in life lead to salvation in the afterlife. Almost like paying a debt by your good works. Christianity believes differently. Whether one right and the other wrong or all wrong. Merely an observation.
I would hope the sects of christians would understand their fundamental groundwork of beliefs. I am not completely sure about what all the jews believe,so i'd be speaking out of turn. I do know that they don't accept Jesus as anything more than a good man or possibly a prophet. This is yet another difference.
Present said:
You know what, I can actually consider that as a possiblity. I mean, who really knows, right? All of those men(and women) could have just been mastermind munipulators, pulling on the strings of all the "puppets" and making us dance.
Or, they could have simply been religious. Take your pick.
if a person wants power they lie, cheat, and kill, to get it, so it's not likely they were religious, and people who follow a religion can be easierly lead.QuarkMoon said:You know what, I can actually consider that as a possiblity. I mean, who really knows, right? All of those men(and women) could have just been mastermind munipulators, pulling on the strings of all the "puppets" and making us dance.
Or, they could have simply been religious. Take your pick.
jimmy jones, david koresh, etc. were very sucessfull at it.
oh I forgot delusional.
That is making a pretty bold statement if you ask me. Many influential people didn't have to lie, cheat, and kill to gain the influence. Many influential people were religious. Many influential people may have been motivated by religion to become what they were. There are quite a few examples of religious leaders and so this brainwashed/brain dead non sense theory has holes in it.
Crunchy Cat said:
It's one powerful meme. Perhaps the meme supreme.
IMO, people - being partially abstract creatures - create reasons to allow subjective abstract continuity. God is a great reason from this perspective. It's like the joint compound of the drywall mind. It pretty much fixes everything if applied properly, and allows it to bond not only to itself - but also to the rest of the house. *shrug*That's not a hypothesis. There's nothing to ponder. It is that. Simple.
I'd say it's as empowering as the potential for the individual to be empowered and the intensity of the belief.
Do you think that knowing it's yourself is necessarily a limiter to the potential there? I think it often is, but isn't necessarily.
wesmorris said:It's one powerful meme. Perhaps the meme supreme.
Lol, meme supreme. I should order one of those at Taco Bell next time. Yep, 'God' is certainly a great reason to maintain abstract continuity.
wesmorris said:
wesmorris said:
That's an excellent point which I don't think I had even considered.
wesmorris said:
It's a great question and I don't have a good answer for it yet.
Crunchy Cat said:
My point is more that we need to maintain abstract continuity to the degree that our circumstance demands of us, and god is a powerful abstract tool that facilitates said continuity.
I thought you'd like the meme supreme thing. lol.
It's an angle I've been looking at lately. I wish you, I and a few others could sit around in a think tank and properly model all of this.
I won't hijack the thread further, but could probably expound on the point.