Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EricPH]

Religions and religious teachings are manipulated by religious leaders.

It was rare for Jesus to say anything good about religious leaders, he called them hypocrites and a brood of vipers. They put their own needs above the needs of the people they should be serving. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. He said, you call me Lord and master, and so I am, but if I; the Lord and master wash your feet, you should also wash each other's feet. You are not to lord it over each other.

Ultimately the religions are not made by Gods or prophets but the corrupted (or maybe not) religious leaders.

I firmly believe that God gave us scriptures and commands to follow.

So it is thier teachings that poison everything. So ultimately it appears like religions poison everything.

Religions do a lot of good work that is often overlooked, people love to look at all the negative stuff.

[EricPH]

Let's look at "love thy neighbour". The Jews were keen to define neighbour as fellow Jews,

This is still a problem with most religions today, we only seem to love our own kind as we love ourselves. Yet we are all created by the same God; and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation; and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. We are asked to love and pray for our enemies.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in Jewish law asks Jesus the most important question that can be asked, What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Jesus did not give a religious response like go to the synagogue, pray, fast, obey the laws, obey the priests. Rather Jesus said, love God and neighbour. And it seems the Jewish lawyer only wanted to love his Jewish neighbours when he asked, Who is my neighbour?

In the parable of the Good Samaritan the priest had the opportunity to help a wounded man, but he passed him by. You probably have to feel sorry for the priest because he was obeying religious laws that said, if you come into contact with blood, you will become unclean. Then the priest would have to go through a cleansing process and not perform any religious duties for a while until he was deemed clean.

These religious laws came from God - Jesus. Yet Jesus turned it round and said, make the man's physical needs your priority and your religious duties second. The Good Samaritan was not bound by these religious laws and just looked after the guy. The Jewish priest on the other hand gave his religion a bad name; because he put religion first; and before the needs of the wounded man.

I believe the laws and commands of God are right, we just don't seem to follow them.

[Sculptor1]

Let's look at "love thy neighbour". The Jews were keen to define neighbour as fellow Jews,

This is still a problem with most religions today, we only seem to love our own kind as we love ourselves. Yet we are all created by the same God; and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation; and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. We are asked to love and pray for our enemies.

You are simply compounding the error here.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in Jewish law asks Jesus the most important question that can be asked, What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Jesus did not give a religious response like go to the synagogue, pray, fast, obey the laws, obey the priests. Rather Jesus said, love God and neighbour. And it seems the Jewish lawyer only wanted to love his Jewish neighbours when he asked, Who is my neighbour?

In the parable of the Good Samaritan the priest had the opportunity to help a wounded man, but he passed him by. You probably have to feel sorry for the priest because he was obeying religious laws that said, if you come into contact with blood, you will become unclean. Then the priest would have to go through a cleansing process and not perform any religious duties for a while until he was deemed clean.

These religious laws came from God - Jesus. Yet Jesus turned it round and said, make the man's physical needs your priority and your religious duties second. The Good Samaritan was not bound by these religious laws and just looked after the guy. The Jewish priest on the other hand gave his religion a bad name; because he put religion first; and before the needs of the wounded man.

I believe the laws and commands of God are right, we just don't seem to follow them.

What you believe is of no consequence.
Why would I accept your version of the "commands of God", since most of them seem to demand getting on your knees to a weak minded deity in need of praise.
That is not a god I could possibly respect.

[Sushan]

There is corruption in every field, and it is common to religions as well. I am not saying all priests are saints. But at the same time I am not saying all priests are thieves or liers. Yes, religion has a significant impact, which can be negative at times, over human life. But that does not mean the fault always lies with religions and religious matters in issues which occur due to lack of skills in inter personal relationships.

Regarding loving thy neighbour, so seemingly Jesus has told to love the neighbour, but Jews have chosen to categorize that neighbour using the race. So who is actually at fault?

Religion poisons everything.

Religions and religious teachings are manipulated by religious leaders. Ultimately the religions are not made by Gods or prophets but the corrupted (or maybe not) religious leaders. So it is thier teachings that poison everything. So ultimately it appears like religions poison everything.

It seems you are in full agreement since religions are made by their practitioners who form a body of moral proscriptions and prescriptions called dogma. There is nothing outside that box. Religions are means to slow social progress, and poison minds against others who feel they have the right to not follow that dogma.

Wrong use can destroy its users as the particular thing itself, and I think that is what is happening with regard to religions as well. Today we see a lot of atheists and seemingly they do not have a problem with their lives. Maybe religions were useful at some time in the human development. But with the things like laws, moral practices, human rights, today the need of religious practices is questionable IMO.

[Sushan]

Religions and religious teachings are manipulated by religious leaders.

It was rare for Jesus to say anything good about religious leaders, he called them hypocrites and a brood of vipers. They put their own needs above the needs of the people they should be serving. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. He said, you call me Lord and master, and so I am, but if I; the Lord and master wash your feet, you should also wash each other's feet. You are not to lord it over each other.

Ultimately the religions are not made by Gods or prophets but the corrupted (or maybe not) religious leaders.

I firmly believe that God gave us scriptures and commands to follow.

So it is thier teachings that poison everything. So ultimately it appears like religions poison everything.

Religions do a lot of good work that is often overlooked, people love to look at all the negative stuff.

I do not like to argue with what people believe. But I would like to look at things with scientific evidence. Let's keep religions aside. How many historical stories are disproved with the archeological evidence that are found? More than occasionally it is shown that history is written by winners, and also manipulative leaders. So we cannot simply believe what the generations old books say. IMO same goes with the religions. What we see and hear can be far from truth.

[Sushan]

Let's look at "love thy neighbour". The Jews were keen to define neighbour as fellow Jews,

This is still a problem with most religions today, we only seem to love our own kind as we love ourselves. Yet we are all created by the same God; and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation; and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. We are asked to love and pray for our enemies.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in Jewish law asks Jesus the most important question that can be asked, What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Jesus did not give a religious response like go to the synagogue, pray, fast, obey the laws, obey the priests. Rather Jesus said, love God and neighbour. And it seems the Jewish lawyer only wanted to love his Jewish neighbours when he asked, Who is my neighbour?

In the parable of the Good Samaritan the priest had the opportunity to help a wounded man, but he passed him by. You probably have to feel sorry for the priest because he was obeying religious laws that said, if you come into contact with blood, you will become unclean. Then the priest would have to go through a cleansing process and not perform any religious duties for a while until he was deemed clean.

These religious laws came from God - Jesus. Yet Jesus turned it round and said, make the man's physical needs your priority and your religious duties second. The Good Samaritan was not bound by these religious laws and just looked after the guy. The Jewish priest on the other hand gave his religion a bad name; because he put religion first; and before the needs of the wounded man.

I believe the laws and commands of God are right, we just don't seem to follow them.

I hear contradicting ideas here. The priest was bound by the religion so he could not help the poor fellow. But at the end he gave a bad name to the religion. The Samaritan did not have any religious bonds (was he not religious? I don't know) so he became the good guy and helped the fellow. The priest could not have helped the person although he wanted because his religion restricted him. If the laws and commands were correct, how could such an issue have occurred? Someone can say the problem lies with the interpretation and application. Then why those laws are said in riddle like manner making it hard to be understood by its followers?

[Sculptor1]

Religion poisons everything.

Religions and religious teachings are manipulated by religious leaders. Ultimately the religions are not made by Gods or prophets but the corrupted (or maybe not) religious leaders. So it is thier teachings that poison everything. So ultimately it appears like religions poison everything.

It seems you are in full agreement since religions are made by their practitioners who form a body of moral proscriptions and prescriptions called dogma. There is nothing outside that box. Religions are means to slow social progress, and poison minds against others who feel they have the right to not follow that dogma.

Wrong use can destroy its users as the particular thing itself, and I think that is what is happening with regard to religions as well. Today we see a lot of atheists and seemingly they do not have a problem with their lives. Maybe religions were useful at some time in the human development. But with the things like laws, moral practices, human rights, today the need of religious practices is questionable IMO.

You keep going on about abuse or "wrong use" as if replacing their dogma with yours is going to help - it is not! or as if there is a one true use for religion- clearly there is not.
Consider:Today we see a lot of religionists and they all seem to have a problem with their lives.... but .. Moreover they seem to have a problem with other people's lives and they think they have the right to impose their moral solutions upon them.

[EricPH]

I hear contradicting ideas here. The priest was bound by the religion so he could not help the poor fellow.

The priest could have helped the poor guy, but he got his priorities wrong. Its like the gambler loosing all his money at the bookies and having no money for food. First buy the food, and if you have anything over, then you can go to the bookies.

There were strict laws for the priests, their life was dedicated to God; and they should lead by example. But Jesus reminded them, they should also look after the physical needs of their flock; and those outside their flock.

But at the end he gave a bad name to the religion.

Absolutely, his priorities were wrong.

The priest could not have helped the person although he wanted because his religion restricted him. If the laws and commands were correct,

The priest could have helped the wounded guy, he would then be considered unclean for his religious duties for a few days. The priority of the priest was first to the wounded man, then he could go through the cleansing process and continue his priestly duties.

Then why those laws are said in riddle like manner making it hard to be understood by its followers?

The laws are not so much a riddle, but they challenge how we think when faced with a dilemma. Today, if you saw someone injured; and you knew if you stopped to help them; it would make you late for an important job, would you stop?

Where do we put our priorities?

[Sushan]

Religions and religious teachings are manipulated by religious leaders. Ultimately the religions are not made by Gods or prophets but the corrupted (or maybe not) religious leaders. So it is thier teachings that poison everything. So ultimately it appears like religions poison everything.

It seems you are in full agreement since religions are made by their practitioners who form a body of moral proscriptions and prescriptions called dogma. There is nothing outside that box. Religions are means to slow social progress, and poison minds against others who feel they have the right to not follow that dogma.

Wrong use can destroy its users as the particular thing itself, and I think that is what is happening with regard to religions as well. Today we see a lot of atheists and seemingly they do not have a problem with their lives. Maybe religions were useful at some time in the human development. But with the things like laws, moral practices, human rights, today the need of religious practices is questionable IMO.

You keep going on about abuse or "wrong use" as if replacing their dogma with yours is going to help - it is not! or as if there is a one true use for religion- clearly there is not.
Consider:Today we see a lot of religionists and they all seem to have a problem with their lives.... but .. Moreover they seem to have a problem with other people's lives and they think they have the right to impose their moral solutions upon them.

The same issue lies in some other fields other than religions. I recently heard a traffic rerelated rule which prohibits you from blaming other drivers while you drive . I am not sure how this rule ca be applied, but if you happened to drive with a police officer in that country and if a bad word came out of your mouth regarding other drivers, the officer will fine you because he has a problem with your action because of his country's law, although either you or the other driver do not have any issue with that. I think the religions work similarly. So the religious ones and leaders try to impose religious matters and morals on common people whether common people need it or not.

[Sushan]

I hear contradicting ideas here. The priest was bound by the religion so he could not help the poor fellow.

The priest could have helped the poor guy, but he got his priorities wrong. Its like the gambler loosing all his money at the bookies and having no money for food. First buy the food, and if you have anything over, then you can go to the bookies.

There were strict laws for the priests, their life was dedicated to God; and they should lead by example. But Jesus reminded them, they should also look after the physical needs of their flock; and those outside their flock.

But at the end he gave a bad name to the religion.

Absolutely, his priorities were wrong.

The priest could not have helped the person although he wanted because his religion restricted him. If the laws and commands were correct,

The priest could have helped the wounded guy, he would then be considered unclean for his religious duties for a few days. The priority of the priest was first to the wounded man, then he could go through the cleansing process and continue his priestly duties.

Then why those laws are said in riddle like manner making it hard to be understood by its followers?

The laws are not so much a riddle, but they challenge how we think when faced with a dilemma. Today, if you saw someone injured; and you knew if you stopped to help them; it would make you late for an important job, would you stop?

Where do we put our priorities?

Me not helping a wounded fellow because I am getting late for my job, and a priest not helping the same guy because the religious laws restrict him are two different things. The former is a decision made totally by myself, but the latter is influenced by the religion. Former one is a dilemma that I face due to my own thoughts, but the latter is a dilemma that was created by the religious teachings. Actually if the priest had no other specific job he could have attended to the wounded fellow if his mind was not preoccupied with religious restrictions. So religion has inserted a dilemma to a scenario where it would have been none if the religious restrictions were absent.

[EricPH]

Me not helping a wounded fellow because I am getting late for my job, and a priest not helping the same guy because the religious laws restrict him are two different things. The former is a decision made totally by myself, but the latter is influenced by the religion. Former one is a dilemma that I face due to my own thoughts, but the latter is a dilemma that was created by the religious teachings.

I think both scenarios are similar. If your job offered a big reward or penalty for you to turn up on time, you then face the dilemma of the priest.

But if you called your boss and explained why you would be late, and he accepted your explanation, then you could help the injured guy.

Jesus was merely clearing up any misunderstandings, as from now onwards, helping people in need should take priority over your religious duties.

[Sculptor1]

It seems you are in full agreement since religions are made by their practitioners who form a body of moral proscriptions and prescriptions called dogma. There is nothing outside that box. Religions are means to slow social progress, and poison minds against others who feel they have the right to not follow that dogma.

Wrong use can destroy its users as the particular thing itself, and I think that is what is happening with regard to religions as well. Today we see a lot of atheists and seemingly they do not have a problem with their lives. Maybe religions were useful at some time in the human development. But with the things like laws, moral practices, human rights, today the need of religious practices is questionable IMO.

You keep going on about abuse or "wrong use" as if replacing their dogma with yours is going to help - it is not! or as if there is a one true use for religion- clearly there is not.
Consider:Today we see a lot of religionists and they all seem to have a problem with their lives.... but .. Moreover they seem to have a problem with other people's lives and they think they have the right to impose their moral solutions upon them.

The same issue lies in some other fields other than religions. I recently heard a traffic rerelated rule which prohibits you from blaming other drivers while you drive . I am not sure how this rule ca be applied, but if you happened to drive with a police officer in that country and if a bad word came out of your mouth regarding other drivers, the officer will fine you because he has a problem with your action because of his country's law, although either you or the other driver do not have any issue with that. I think the religions work similarly. So the religious ones and leaders try to impose religious matters and morals on common people whether common people need it or not.

Are you going to cite this?