|
|
|
|
#1
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
Religion: Personal vs. Group
I've been noticing that with religion, what most who dislike it generally disagree with tend to be how it's thrust upon them. It's usually the first argument I hear against it.
When I think of God, I think of a personalized connection, not limited by any church. Yet this fundamentally goes against what religion has been used as since institutions were put in place of a religious nature. I would submit that there are no negative results to a personal connection to God, yet a connection as a group to a religion has many negative results to it, far outweighing those that are good. I would like to hear arguments against this, and allow this thread to unfold. There are many things I wish to explain myself upon, but for now, I want to hear peoples' generalized reactions to this. 
|
|
#3
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'd argue that you cannot institutionalise something as intensely personal as religion. Once you do that, people start believing in the dogma and the doctrine instead of what they feel to be right and wrong.
Granted, I'm regrettably only really familiar with the Catholic Church and other religions may have found better ways to go about it. I think I heard that Jewish religious gatherings are essentially debates over the meaning of scripture, which is a better way to go in my opinion. (Note: I don't actually know if this is true). Once you let people tell you what/how to believe, you let them tell you what/how to think, which is essentially what instutionalisation means for religion. That's what allows things like the crusades and the infallible papacy to happen.
|
|
#4
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a false dichotomy. You can't expect somebody with "a personal connection to God" not to thrust it upon me, upon others, or at least upon their own children.
It'd be nice if you could, but you can't. Anyway, I'm not getting into this. I've had enough religious "debate" on this forum to know it's pointless.
|
|
#5
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I obviously have different ideals than you. Let's agree to disagree.
|
|
#6
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
The positive thing about having a religious belief among a group of people is that it gives a support group, a community, of people who have common interests and beliefs.
When I went to Youmcaon last year, I could feel completely comfortable getting squished in an elevator and talking to random people dressed in ridiculous costumes, something that you could never ask me to do in just about any other setting. This is because a common interest has already been established based on the reason why this convention exists in the first place. We were all anime nerds and we were all accepting of that in one another. This group setting, this convention, however, simply encouraged my own personal interest in anime, even though my interest in it is rather minimal compared to most who attended - yet the personal aspect of it developed first. From a religious perspective, the social/community aspect is not the only reason for celebrating religion in a group setting, but it seems to be a trait that some people either overlook or take for-granted. EDIT: Groups can have a negative affect too, in some circumstances... like if they're against you and non-supportive and stuff. It's another reason to be anti-group from a religious perspective, but when done correctly and in love/kindness, groups can be positive. Last edited by MrsSallyBakura; 04-25-2011 at 03:38 PM.
|
|
#8
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But seriously, I was under the impression that there were political threads too?
|
|
#10
04-25-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Crusades, the holocaust... every war in history has generally been either the result of forcing others to conform to your belief structure, kill those who don't conform to your belief structure, or capture land, therefore bending those who already exist on it to your will or kill them. Religion isn't a bad thing, as a result of this. I knew you specifically would post about groups in a small setting. Yet religion even in a small setting, for a group, resulted in the Salem Witch Trials. It's hard to simply ignore the number of deaths that have occurred throughout history as a result of religion. My point is that it is not a personalized religion that brought this about. It's why theocracies are so scary, and why so many atheists pop up in the US. They fear what religion can result in or simply don't believe the logic in it. Freedom of religion is both a freedom from religion and the right to practice it. The US developed this ideal because of atrocities committed from those trying to control others with religion. While it's easy to say "We're a Christian nation", we're actually a melding of every religion, and of none. Religion as a group tends to control others. What you've described is the single boon to practicing religion as a group, and even then, it is due to that lack of FORCE that makes it good. I am of the opinion that grouping people together in a religion both separates them from the rest of the world, giving them an identity to help define themselves and to view others through the same lens. I am for integration, through thick and thin. Yet forcing others to integrate with your way of thinking results in a defensive posture from those you're forcing. It results in a rejection of what you're trying to force, and a strike back in force themselves. This can be as simple as missionaries or be solved with the barrel of a gun. That's also the explanation for the rise of communism: A rejection of capitalism, which was thrust upon many countries that are now politically unstable. Religious grouping also forces you into this way of thinking of "This is what the church says is true, so I must follow its stance down to the last letter, no matter what." It is the personalization that causes you to say "I'm not going to kill this man just because he's gay."
|
|
#11
04-27-2011
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I think that you're assuming too much that religious groups are automatically controlling. This is not the case for many, not even in as huge of an organization as the Catholic Church. Yes, they have been controlling in the past (ie Crusades and the Inquisition) and yes, there are rules to abide by, but anyone who is a practicing Catholic still has free will, including the free will to leave the Church if they find something to be wrong with it. Quote:
I agree that forcing is a bad idea. My point is that force is not always a characteristic of group ideals. Quote:
Groups are stronger because they involve more people; imagine trying to fight the US Army all by yourself. But individuals can cause damage as well. If one person believes that it is OK to kill a gay man, then that person might do it. The damage is not as great, but it still results in wrongdoing.
|
|
#12
04-27-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
"Thou shalt not kill." Okay. If you had the choice to kill someone in order to save someone else, with the only alternative being to allow that person to kill the other person, would you kill one person to save another, given that there are no other alternatives, and that your chance of safely getting out of the situation is 100%. Even further, suppose that you now beyond all else that the person being killed has done nothing wrong, and the person killing them is a person of true evil. Most people would choose to help the one about to pointlessly die. Some would choose to ignore the situation. A chosen few would help the one doing the killing. Let's say that you're in the first category, for convenience. Even if there is some other rule that says that it's okay, you'd still be breaking that cardinal rule. In which case, you would be making the choice to follow that other rule, rather than the cardinal rule. My argument is that it's a personal distinction that you're making, saying "I'm going to help the victim". Being part of a group typically results in others trying to control you, and failing that, being controlled by the faceless group itself by virtue of being in it. It's the same effect as if you act differently with your parents as with your boyfriend as with the people on this site as with the people physically around you. I should come up with a better example at one point, but do you at least see what I'm trying to say?
|
|
#13
04-28-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, but what I am trying to say is that groups do not necessarily try to control people. Some do, some don't.
|
|
#14
04-28-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Ok. I understand the good of having a good personal connection with God. Now about the connection as a group, it really depends on how you are looking at it, and also where. There are groups and communities who achievea more stronger connection with God then just by themselves. People in these groups help each other learn more and experience more of God, while in turn they themselves receive a stronger connection. Religion isn't just about oneself. There is a reason why religion spreads to others and/or passed down through the family. They want others to join and have a connection as they do. And people can't achieve much only by themselves. Now I do understand that there are some negatives in a group setting. And it can come in different forms. It could be leaders are misusing their power of authority, group members are fighting within the group, people are using the less fortunate for their own personal gain, etc. And these are the groups that have crossed the line. But I can't say that any group or community are bad or have too much wrong in them. I feel that we hear about these many groups that have crossed the line, either from others or the media, and people begin to think that their is nothing to be gained form being a part of them. But there are so many other groups which does not reach the media's ear which do not follow the ways of other misleading groups do. There is negative in some groups and communities. Humans are not perfect. But there is also good in groups and communities. It just needs to be found.
|
|
#15
04-28-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
I do not deny that there is goodness that comes from being in a group, but rather, I argue that the evils far outweigh the good.
Show me every life that's been saved by religion, and I can list ten more that's been lost because of religion. Yet I can only list these lives lost as a result of a group identity.
|
|
#16
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Banana highlighted that the media (and I will add in historical events) make it seem like so many more lives have been lost because of religious wars and related events. But the reason why those negatives seem to outweigh the positive is because the positive does not get reported - know why? Because positive effects are not worth reporting or writing about. If you ever watch the news (which I know you do), when you listen to a lot of news reports, it makes the world look like a dreary place; it makes it look like we're all doomed. But the reality is that there is more to life than what you hear about. When looking at historical events, we are more likely to hear about the general facts about Reformation or the Crusades or the Holocaust, rather than the number of Jews who were saved during the holocaust because members of the Catholic Church were hiding Jews in their homes.
The problem with your challenge is that neither of us knows about every single person who has ever lived on Earth. I don't even see how the bad outweighing the good can be applicable to today. Yes, bad happens. But I see it as more of an originally good idea being twisted by human pride rather than something that's simply bad but with a few good consequences.
|
|
#17
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The final choice has to be an individual's choice, or all you'll do is put your future in the hands of someone who is not you.
|
|
#18
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
sally I have read this page with interest, without much to add personally as yet, because both sides made mostly fair points and I have nothing to add, which I have not already said before, but your last comment....well please, never bring up events like the holocaust like that again, it demeans the whole lesson we learn from such tragic events and those lessons are only thing we take from such affairs, while your comment, probably without intent, makes it seem like petty point scoring. However first, actually there are lots of recorded events of people protecting jews, many who weren't not Christian's so to say we cannot learn about them easily is wrong and remember, the holocrousts, were not Christian endorsed acts. Secondly, the reason we remember the holocroust, is to remember our sin as a world, not for some sick and twisted media driven entertainment as you make out and finally comparing it to the crusades like that somehow vindicates the carasades, well there, all sit in shock?
Personally, I don't wholly agree with holy's anti-group ideals, because I think they are naive and fundamentally lead selfish and broken places, but that is me, however to start ringing off historical events, like media point scoring, well just doesn't sit right with me, maybe I am being overly protective and need to remember history isn't your strongest topic, but....well I have said my piece, so I will disappear again Last edited by Fat1Fared; 04-29-2011 at 07:23 PM.
|
|
#19
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry, I do know that many others who were not Christians saved Jews as well, but all I was saying was that there was a particular religious group involved in protecting Jews as well as others. I definitely do not intend to sound like, "Hey, too bad Hitler instigated massacring thousands of Jews, but at least the Catholic Church did something right!" I was using it as an example to show that a group, a religious group in particular, can do something positive, and has done something positive, even among tragedy, or to prevent further tragedy. It was the only historical moment I could think of off the top of my head, because you're right, history is not one of my strong points. If it was my strong point, I would have a much stronger argument.
|
|
#20
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Naziism was inspired by Nationalism, a way of separating one group of people from another. Yet, it is by controlling the German people by use of Nationalism (including churches) that they were able to brainwash their people into committing atrocities.
Despite being part of a group-- the German people, they chose to follow their own moral compass and protect those they deemed victims. I'm sure there were many Catholics who simply sold out the Jews to protect themselves, just as there were those that protected the Jews. The difference is that the ones who sold out the Jews bought into the Nazi argument of "Herp durp those that aren't us are the problem", or at least chose not to act against it to protect themselves.
|
|
#21
04-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
05-05-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm going to use harm/injury/deat" as the criteria for "negative result". The group thing is not worth arguing, there's too many examples and there's no point in beating a dead horse. I'm just not persuaded by the "personal connection" bit. The best counter-example I can think of is the act of self-immolation. This is when your personal religious convictions make it okay for you to set yourself on fire. Apparently. It's great because you're not hurting anyone else, but yourself (all because of that personal connection you feel to your deity). So, while Muslims blow themselves up to maximize the number of casualties in the name of a misguided "Holy War", you'll find that the more "peaceful" religious folks (like the Quakers and a few Buddhists) invite everyone to a surprise barbecue to protest something they don't agree with. The surprise being them, roasted. Oh, and to annoy Catholics, we've also got this guy, who had to choose between his homosexuality and his Catholic faith. Alas, he lit himself on fire instead. Thanks for coming out. Topic closed. --- ~OverMind Has a Posse Last edited by OverMind; 05-05-2011 at 01:08 AM.
|
|
#23
05-05-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Is there no justifiable harming of another?
|
|
#24
05-05-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
--- ~OverMind Has a Posse
|
|
#25
06-14-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've noticed how the serious discussion's tend to be about religion a lot, or maybe it's just me Kupo.
|
|
#27
06-14-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
