Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris wrote:Paul never returned a fugitive slave to his owner

So what is recommended in these cases? Theft?

The old testament encourages it

Where?

christian teachings classify them as second class citizens.

Where?

Not everyone opposed homosexuality

But most did, and they were not particularly religious. And that still applies, to an extent.

and it was the secular morals that insisted we change our views not the churches.

Secular law is not the business of the church, and never has been. The false church prohibited homosexuality because it had to appear to be the true church. When that no longer applied, homosexuality was legalised, and Christians may well have thought that reasonable.

The RC church

The RC church was the original false church. It banned contraception for its own evil ends.

No atheist burnt a christian at the stake.

Atheists in the USSR persecuted Christians. In China, they still do.

No Christian ever persecuted anyone.

So paul who created the RC church was correct in returning the slave and telling them to obey their masters? Amazing.

So you have never seen anything in genesis that derides womens rights? Amazing.

You have never heard about paul or peter suggesting you dont put women as spiritual leaders? Amazing.

You have never seen anything in the bible that recommends death to homosexuals? Amazing.

Christians have never killed in the name of god, is that right? Amazing.

I would like to remind you that the RC church represent the largest number of christians. If your actualy telling me they are not christians, thats amazing.

Xris wrote:So paul who created the RC church

What a wag!

Oisif wrote: Atheists in the USSR persecuted Christians. In China, they still do.

No Christian ever persecuted anyone.

I think you are unfairly changing the terms of discussion here.

This thread is about religious christianity not whatever you consider "true christianity". The Roman Catholic Church is the biggest religion that calls itself christian, that much is clear.

It seems that you are very clearly saying that religion is bad if it is false. Whatever religion you consider false is not part of the question.

Also note that if I wanted to change the terms like you do, I could just as well say "no Atheists ever prosecuted anyone", because if they did, they were not "true Atheists", but rather Members of some quasi-religious ideology, like, say, Communism.

Oisif wrote:

Xris wrote:So paul who created the RC church

What a wag!

I never thought of paul as a footballers wife. Interesting theological conclusion.

Xris wrote:

Oisif wrote: What a wag!

I never thought of paul as a footballers wife. Interesting theological conclusion.

Yes, indeed. If this argument is presented to the Vatican's sages, they may change their policy on homosexuality.

Oisif you wrote:
The problem in America is that the founding fathers were of the reformed faith, but, as their successors grew wealthy and more mired in politics, their instincts became like that of medieval rulers, wanting to suppress Christianity, not encourage its growth.

A small correction regarding the founding fathers.
You are expressing the revisionist view touted by evangelical republicans not supported by fact. The founding fathers biggest influence was the Scottish enlightenment and the French revolution. They painstakingly kept God out of the constitution and God was only put in much later under pressure of religious bodies.
There is also no evidence of religious persecution except of Mormons and not of their belief but their practices. It is unconstitutional for the US government to encourage or discourage religion.
However there is record of people jailed for teaching evolution.

philoreaderguy wrote:I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

Religion can possibly be good to the extent it prevents would-be axe murderers by instilling some morals backed by the "wrath of God". However, most people probably don't need the threat of eternal damnation or God's wrath to have some sense of morals. Also, depending on the religion, the would-be killer might think they can avoid hell if they repent of their sin afterwards.

Is religion good for people even if it isn't false? Not being false would actually probably help in the "good" department.

My personal definition of a "false religion" is one that enslaves people and makes them dependent on a priesthood for "salvation" or the like. A "true religion" enables people to gain knowledge or "gnosis", and the truest religion is viewing religion as mythology.

I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

The essential form of every religion is the personal project to harmonize with the good. Therefore, the form of religion is inherently good.

I don't think this is what your friend was getting at though. The graven images of the good are not always themselves good.

I thought it obvious that religion or atheism doesn't make you good or bad. People are good or bad, regardless of whether they believe in a God or not. Religion (or non-religion), and the way a person practices their belief is simply an extension of who they are and how they behave. Also, good and bad are subjective and what is deemed good or bad has to do with what the person believes, and the effects people and things in the universe have on the individual, or a group of like-minded individuals.

For me personally, religion is not good if it is false. I think that religion is a way of dealing with all the emotions and desires that come from the sub-conscious. This is good for some as it does help people manage their life. I prefer to sort through the emotions/desires (analogous to praying), and follow some not because it is god's will, but because it is appropriate for me.

James195101 wrote:For me personally, religion is not good if it is false. I think that religion is a way of dealing with all the emotions and desires that come from the sub-conscious. This is good for some as it does help people manage their life. I prefer to sort through the emotions/desires (analogous to praying), and follow some not because it is god's will, but because it is appropriate for me.

If it's only thus "for you personally", what's the logic in sharing it?

'For me personally' is just to emphasize that I have trouble following a religion that for all its good points insists that I believe a falsehood. In contrast, it seems to me that many religious followers choose to ignore their doubts in order to receive the benefits which are: good social company, encouragement to good behaviour, mutual support, 'good' people.

This is a good question that you have raised. I asked the question before. I asked: "If there is no God, yet, a person who feels that he is more happy if he believes in a God, even if what he believes may be wrong, yet, his faith makes him more happy, will you still tell him not to believe in God?" So this is the question I have raised before. And if we are to ask philosophically, maybe there are two kinds: One is the metaphysical question and metaphysical question may be asking: What is true or is there a truth? The other kind of question may be a more moral question and when I say moral, I am not talking about a rigid rules created by humans, rather, I am talking about the question of happiness. So the moral question may not be interested in what is the truth or is there a truth, rather, moral question may be more interested in the question of happiness. If we separate, then, maybe your question will have no confusion. Metaphysically, I do not know whether or not is there a truth. Maybe there is a truth. Maybe there is no truth. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there is no God. However, if you are talking about good morally, then, maybe you may feel that eve if a person believes what is wrong and yet he is happy with such a belief, you may say that he is morally right but metaphysically wrong. He is morally right maybe because his faith makes him happy but he is metaphysically wrong if his faith is not according to metaphysics.

Stanley Huang wrote:This is a good question that you have raised. I asked the question before. I asked: "If there is no God, yet, a person who feels that he is more happy if he believes in a God, even if what he believes may be wrong, yet, his faith makes him more happy, will you still tell him not to believe in God?" So this is the question I have raised before. And if we are to ask philosophically, maybe there are two kinds: One is the metaphysical question and metaphysical question may be asking: What is true or is there a truth? The other kind of question may be a more moral question and when I say moral, I am not talking about a rigid rules created by humans, rather, I am talking about the question of happiness. So the moral question may not be interested in what is the truth or is there a truth, rather, moral question may be more interested in the question of happiness. If we separate, then, maybe your question will have no confusion. Metaphysically, I do not know whether or not is there a truth. Maybe there is a truth. Maybe there is no truth. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there is no God. However, if you are talking about good morally, then, maybe you may feel that eve if a person believes what is wrong and yet he is happy with such a belief, you may say that he is morally right but metaphysically wrong. He is morally right maybe because his faith makes him happy but he is metaphysically wrong if his faith is not according to metaphysics.

What if the faith makes them sad, emotionally insecure, guilty? No man can live with constant niggling questions and remain content and if has no doubts then we can only question his damaging dogma if he has any. From an agnostic perspective religion is crutch an insurance policy that has no guarantees.