...to which religion do we go?

One of the most amusing aspects of religion is the large number of them, and how each claims to be the only "right" one. The followers of each religion stand a chance at some kind of "eternal reward" while everybody else is doomed. There are even sects within major religions that are the only one "doing it right". So, how does one choose? Just roll the dice and hope you don't crap out? Just blindly foolow along with what you were fed growing up, never questioning?

A teacher gives a test. One of the problems is 6 + 6 = __. The answers the kids give are 9, 13, 11, 8, 7, 15 - everything but 12. And each one firmly believes that his answer is right. Religions are like those kids - they can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

For many, religion is a very personnal issue,

so the right one is the one that feels right to the individual.

I chose the one that made most sense to me. I looked at all (the major) religions. I read their books (bibles), talked ,asked, listened and attended. I was hen able to make a decision of which i'd follow. I do believe mankind inherently believes in a diet. The drawings,writings and even the social structures paid reverence to a god be it spiritual, beast, crafted or a man himself.

Not Americans, from the looks of most of 'em.

what is also really funny is that in any other religion besides christianity they have to earn their way to heaven or others there is no heaven... Christianity is the only religion where you do not have to follow a ritual to be saved...

now to get on topic.... I believe there is only one right way. That is by following Christ Jesus.

-Steve

Well you could always take this test to tell you what religion is right to you: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

Here were my results: as of May of 2007.

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (96%)
4. Secular Humanism (88%)
5. Reform Judaism (87%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (83%)
7. New Age (78%)
8. Neo-Pagan (76%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (71%)
10. Taoism (69%)
11. Nontheist (69%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (65%)
13. Sikhism (61%)
14. Bahá'í Faith (57%)
15. Jainism (57%)
16. Seventh Day Adventist (54%)
17. New Thought (53%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (51%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (49%)
20. Scientology (49%)
21. Hinduism (46%)
22. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (45%)
23. Islam (40%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (32%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (30%)
26. Roman Catholic (30%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (12%)

Sounds very interesting that they come up with that.... kind of stupid in my opinion, but I'll do it anyways once I get the time.

-Steve

I took that quiz - my religion (Mormonism) was second (hah!) - Sikhism was first.

I tend to be more believing of religions that believe that one's quality of life is more important than obeying their leaders and following rituals. If a religion will permit one to enter into glory for following a deity while being a total jerk, or likewise put someone in the depths of fire for not following a deity, but living a good life, I have an issue with it.

I personally believe that the most important thing to do on this Earth to ensure "redemption" is to be kind to humanity. Do your best to strive to make the world a better place.

Took the quiz. 100% "Non theist". Which is the PC way of saying Atheist. Which is what I am. What I'm not, though, is "politically correct".

I thought that about 5 questions were way to vague or not applicable. I would be # 4, It asked no question about the Christ.

1. Orthodox Judaism (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (98%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (93%)
4. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (93%)
5. Roman Catholic (93%)
6. Islam (92%)
7. Seventh Day Adventist (88%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (87%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%)
10. Sikhism (74%)

For the most part, a person's religion is a matter of habit, and not of real choice; where and when a person is born is the determining factor. Is an unexamined religion worth having?
Z

I disagree with your assessment. I believe the majority of Christians that truly love Jesus have made an active decision to engage the LORD.

I have seen people come from various parts of the world and make a decision to love Jesus. Where and when may indeed be a factor for some...but for the majority of those that love Jesus, Christianity transcends location and time.

Is that you Mr. Weed? I am beginning to see you are pretty much an echo box for Mr. Nietzsche. Glad we can all think for ourselves.

The LORD had very prolific statements that apply to philosophers that think they were great....Two come immediately to mind...


And

(Both NKJV)

I'm gunna guess that universalism is a nice way of saying agnostic...I hope so, cause that's what I am. And that's kinda right too because i have a few buddhist beleifs such as reincarnation and karma. I dunno about the rest, lol, but w/e.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (95%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (93%)
4. Liberal Quakers (91%)
5. Neo-Pagan (88%)
6. Mahayana Buddhism (76%)
7. Taoism (76%)
8. New Age (75%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (70%)
10. Jainism (61%)
11. Reform Judaism (61%)
12. Nontheist (60%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (57%)
14. Sikhism (53%)
15. Scientology (48%)
16. New Thought (45%)
17. Hinduism (43%)
18. Bahá'í Faith (42%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (32%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (28%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (24%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (23%)
23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (20%)
24. Islam (17%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (12%)
26. Roman Catholic (12%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (10%)

I think that there should be no religion and people should live as one and help each other, cause when that happens, the world will be in peace. But that'll never happen cause people are selfish...

Regards,
TheYoda

Without the mumbo-jumbo, that's basically what Jesus' teachings were about.

"Take care of yourselves and each other and everything will be all right". - "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Sorry, can't remember what book or movie that quote is from.

Yeah, that's great for Jesus, but too bad the rest of Catholosism doesn't have that view and they INSIST on being F**CKING HYPOCRITES!!!! ...sorry, i loathe the Catholic religion. Not the people, so don't take anything personal, just the whole structure of how they do things makes me wanna vomit, hence agnostic lol.

Realize though, that sure that was Jesus' teachings, but it was the teaching of just about every other religous figure. I hate to break it to you, but Jesus wasn't the only one with a good idea.

Regards,
TheYoda

1) What did the Catholics do to you?!?

2) The Catholics don't have a monopoly on Jesus' teachings.

3) The Catholics don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, either.

1) They put me through hell (no pun intended) every sunday. Besides that though, it was always forced down my throat as a child and i hate when things are forced on to me. I like to do my own thing, and Catholisism isn't one of em.

2) I didn't say they did

3) Didn't say that either, but it doesn't mean they're not hypocrites. I'm sure there are plenty of other religions that are hypocritical and I'm sure that if they were shoved down my throat by the respective teachers of that religion, i'd hate it just as much as i hate the catholic religion. I just hate religion in general, which is why i don't practice any.

Regards,
TheYoda

As I've said many times, religion is entirely an opinion. There is no scientific proof for any of them, and they all require you to blindly follow.

I think it's from the book "Bible".

Its funny that the "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you" came up. We just talked about that at church this past week. In every other culture and religion it is stated as Do not do to others what you do not wish to have done for you, or something of the similar, in the negative form. It is only stated in the Bible that us christians not only are excepected to not do evil to people but to also do what good we can for them.

Just to point that out.

-Steve

Have found you can't talk religion with fanatics because their minds are already made up.
When you are brainwashed for years, it is impossible to discuss in a reasonable matter.
Christians can't convert Muslims, Muslims can't convert Christians, etc.

Agree the everyone thinks their religion is the only true religion.

Many people can't accept others might have a different opinion.

Live and let live is my attitude.

I never discuss Religion or Politics
I have learn that those two subjects cause the most flaming on forums

However without Religion i believe the world might be a better place ..

Or,

with only one?

Not a hope of ever having a one World Religion.You would have a 100yrs war over which Religion is the right one.
I am thinking of starting a new Religious order. I want to make a tax free fortune in a hurry,and Time is not on my side.
What the bet, I can't get some Wood Ducks, to empty their wallets?

No, he's got it right.

I've been thinking of trying something like that, myself. If something as bizarre as "Scientology" could make a has-been SF writer rich, then I should be able to come up with something at least as bizarre, if not more so.

Perhaps we can corroborate? The key, I think, lies in promising people the world without requiring any real effort on their part.

If one flips through a book on world history, one is struck by the disastrous effects of religious wars in which one religion was pitted against another. But even worse has been the suffering caused by internecine wars against heretics, where one interpretation seeks to destroy any other interpretations of the "true faith."
Human nature being what it is, having one world religion would perhaps eliminate religious wars in the first sense, but certainly not sectarian violence in the second---consider what happened after the Protestant Reformation in Europe but extend this period of destruction to the face of the planet.
Z

Z makes a good point about inner-religious despute still being dominant with a one-religion world. I think above all the crazy notions of no religion or one religion, would just be that each religion respects the beleifs of every other religion and we just leave in peace. Imagine all the people... (John Lennon moment).

Regards,
TheYoda

according to that lot I am a Hindu

as to any one religion having all the answers?

no one call tell you which tradition etc to follow; it is what brings YOU close to God that matters

The next evolutionary leap for the human race will be where it grows up and relegates religion to the pages of history*. When it can focus it's energies on life, here and now, rather than wasting so much of it on some mythical "after-life". When it decides that baseless mythologies are really stupid things to fight about. When it stops pondering what came before, and what an unknowable future may bring, and starts focusing it's energies on now. Then, the race will move forward, accomplishing even greater things. Or it can continue it's petty religious and ideological conflicts until it has destroyed itself utterly.

If I were asked to bet on the question, I'd have to go with destruction.



* This won't happen over night. It may take a few centuries for the race's thought-patterns to re-work themselves. Perhaps it's already starting.

Substitute "Evolution" for "Religion" and you can make the same statement.

Not to change this thread to a discussion about religion vs. science, but I cannot agree that the theory of evolution has the same status as does, for example, the dogma of transubstantiation. It may be that everything resolves itself into interpretation or perspective or (in a very wide sense) belief, but to argue from that that all belief is therefore the "same" seems to me to ignore the differences in the grounds for various "beliefs."
Perhaps a new topic?
Z

It's easy to get sidetracked... the only way to carry on a conversation is to agree to discus after stating certain assumptions and carrying the conversion on from that point onwards.

1) Either exist supernatural being(s) or they do not. (Both possibilities can not be true).. Evolution theory departs this discussion here.
2) Either these beings (assumption: they exist) have an interest in human affairs or not.
3) Either these beings have left for us instructions on why they made us or they didn't (assumption: they do have an interest in us)
4) ...

So... "One right, or all wrong?"

Assuming the 3 assumptions I make above... with all the conflicting views on God... All religions can NOT all be right. In fact it would be impossible for two conflicting views to be right since there can only be one truth about God. Therefore at most... only one can be right.

I guess that I agree with your statement... and after 20+ years I'm comfortable that I've found the one.

It is, at least for me, an open question (perhaps not practically but certainly theoretically) about the extent to which logical thought processes (A or not-A, for example) is applicable to Being.

"All religions can NOT all be right. In fact it would be impossible for two conflicting views to be right since there can only be one truth about God. Therefore at most... only one can be right."

Well, all religions could be wrong. And why could there be only one truth about God (supernatural beings), and how does one determine what that truth is? What if the assumptions are in themselves in dispute?

Z

Either there exists a supernatural being(s) or not... is there a third option?

And you can't go onto the next one until you agree not to go back on this point. It would take some self examination and honesty to answer each one and go from there.

The use of the word "exists" can be multivocal, for example. One could also argue that "to exist" can only apply to any supernatural being analogically. Or one could challenge the assumption that logic can be applied to a discussion of supernatural entities; in that case, the either/or would be completely inappropriate to the discussion and it would not be a case of there being the possibility of eliminating a third option. All of this would, it seems, be prior to the discussion of the first assumption.
Thus questions Zarathustra

What is all this guff about god?
Supernatural beings?
Someones been eating too many mushrooms to my mind.
Heart stops, the lights go out, that's it.

Multivocal?
Analogically?
Where on earth do you get these snappy phrases Zara?

The simple matter of things is that people want to believe in a belief otherwise they fear eternal damnation in the firey pits of hell.
What a load of old hogwash.
I'd ban all forms of religion tomorrow as it is the prime factor in global warfare and always will be.
You can all ruminate about religion till nelson gets his eye back but it's all meaningless.
So sayeth the Wolf

Here, Here Wolfey!!!

I agree with you, except I would have to say that we have a energy or spirit or soul, as some people put it. I feel that it exists and continues on after the body gives up.

I also think that the majority of the population are to afraid to look at their own mortality and really ponder just how short our life is, and have we as individuals feel satisfied that we have done some good while we existed.
Have we made a difference?
Does it really matter if future generations don't remember us?
Is this really what we are put on this Earth for?
How do we leave our imprint on this Earth?
Why do the people who so vehemently preach love not war, are also the ones who cause the pain and destruction?
If everyone was intent to live their own lives, truly live their own lives, would our world be a better place?

What about, instead of following a religion/s that is based on a person/s....what about turning to nature. Respecting nature, the energies from nature, being in harmony with the very planet that sustains us all??

Guys? What about???

We leave it by caring or not caring for our kids, they in turn pass our caring, or lack of, on to their kids.
The world turns.

That is the true value of why we are here and not some bull%&@!#! about a man with a beard or supernatural beings.

No one knows the scale or why of things and it is even beyond Hawking to explain the myriad of what, if any, the ultimate end game is.

Oh very young
What will you leave us this time
You're only dancing on this earth for a short while
Oh very young
What will you leave us this time

(Oh very young - Cat Stevens)

To compliment that post by John

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_eUnxDE8YY

Then you would have two completely bogus statements.

Religion is based on a belief in the supernatural, for which there isn't and can not be any hard supporting evidence - *poof*, magic. Evolutionary science has enough factual evidence supporting it that I don't understand why it's still called a theory. And before anyone starts throwing around meaningless phrases like "it can't explain everything", neither can the sciences of cosmology, or quantum physics, or molecular biology. We still don't really understand anything about gravity, except that it can ruin your day if you misstep. So how come it isn't the "Theory of Gravity"?

Play all of the silly semantic games, if you wish, but what it comes down to is really quite simple:

The existence of a "supreme" supernatural being can't be proven.

The science of evolution has been.

Simple, irrefutable facts. Rail against them if you wish, but that will not change them.

In total agreement with you on this one 'MattV'
To read in a previous post that a member was prepared to die for their Blind Faith,to me Borders on insanity IMHO.
I am not directing my opinion to that person in particular,with no intention to flame.All who would be prepared to sacrafice their life for an absolute Fantasy that cant be supported by a single Fact.I personally value my life too much.I live a clean life and be compassioate to my fellow man. Amazing how so many people waste the best part of their life banking on a promise of heaven, and eternal salvation.I enjoy this life to the fullest and Not greedy enough to want another one.

Ah, but herein lies the rub -

at this point in our scientific knowledge,

the existence of a "supreme" supernatural being can not be disproved, either.

Wow, this conversations seems like a paradox. Matt has made a very good point about supernaturals not being ableto be proven, but John makes a very good point as to disproving. Which also adds, there are hard facts out there, as few as it may be, that disprove evolution.

So now the question becomes, are you optimistic on religion, or pessamistic? Because only that and your "faith" (trust, really) in your respective religion can determine whether you stand on the argument of no evidence to disprove, or no evidence to prove, respectively.

So is it all right, all wrong, or whatever you want it to be?

Regards,
TheYoda

It of course may be partly right, and partly wrong. Unless under constraint, it is always a matter of choice.
Z

You can argue back and forth for the term of your natural life,and you won't get closure on this subject.(The Supernatural)
Personally,I prefer to concentrate on the here and now.

I don't "rail" against the "facts". All I'm saying is that evolution is an attempt at interpretation of the facts. When Darwin compiled other people's ideas and claimed them as his own theory... he could say with some level of concern that one would need to look to the future fossil record. because at his time it was admittedly limited, to eventually prove this theory. Today, with over a quarter million species and several million fossils on record... I still haven't seen the horse... the horse with a long neck... the horse with yet a longer neck and the giraffe with a short neck and a medium neck that would fill that gap in the fossil record. I've read of the fakes, which does nothing but hurt good science.

Yet all that these millions of fossils have proven to us is that a huge variety of species appear quickly on the world scene without any links to other species. This record also shows us that there are huge similarities between most species. These fossils also show a clear pattern of which life forms appear first. Simple, then more complex. If you were to read the first two chapters of the Bible book of Genesis you would get the same order of complexity any grade 7 science teacher would show you claiming it was achieved via evolution.

It's just a matter of Interpretation: Evolution claims that the only possible explanation for these similarities is that these animals are descendants of one from the other. Faith, or at least the ones I'm familiar with say the reason for these similarities is that this wide variety of life has the same maker.

And as for "changing them"... The Theory of Evolution should come with a version number behind it like a computer program.

Theory of Evolution 3.014.2 (Life began in an organic soup here on earth)
Theory of Evolution 3.025.3 (Organic soup yeah, yeah, but every once in a while some freak mutant emerged inexplicably)
Theory of Evolution 4.002.6 (Life arrived here on a meteor and began in an organic soup on another planet [which just moves the issue off this rock to another])
Theory of Evolution 5.125.1 (Computers developed humans in a dish so they could have an energy source because we do exist in the Matrix)
Theory of Evolution 6.884.0 (Accepted that this is not a scientific theory by any scientific standard recognized over the past 400 years and move on to a serious study of science, fact and leave interpretation up to God)

I find it hard not to believe evolution. Sorry. You have to consider Darwin didn't just discover evolution and then it just ended. Other scientists have worked upon the theory to improve upon it. I find no reason to believe that a species wouldn't, over time, improve itself to better fit its environment. In addition, I also don't see how evolution can't coexist with the Bible (at least, well, the KJV one I'm familiar with).

One of my favorite pieces of scripture from a holy text:
"And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed."