A ploy ever single religion uses to scare disbelievers into their religion is a concept of hell. Ever religion has one in some form or another. Apparently it isn't enough to say you will go to a wonderful place if you believe their religion. They have to use positive forms of punishment to "herd" the people to believe their religion. Saying there is a hell will convince those who don't believe that they had better or they will get a swift kick in the butt in the afterlife.
When there are one or more religions competing for believers, the one that survives is the one with the more rewarding "heaven" and more horrible "hell." This is, of course, putting all believes aside. If you strap away the spiritual mumbo-jumbo, what a church IS is a bank. They invest believers. The more believers they have, the better bank they are. The "advertising" of this bank comes in the form of "join us and get all these benefits" (heaven) "but if you don't, you're really gonna get it!" (hell).
Think about it. I'm not saying any religion is wrong or right, but essentially, this is what happens. Just like natural selection, the ones standing in the end are the ones that carry on. In other words, the most successful churches are the ones who had most successful advertising (concepts of heaven and hell). You're naive if you think the church works any differently.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Oct 27 2003, 07:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 27 2003, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A ploy ever single religion uses to scare disbelievers into their religion is a concept of hell. Ever religion has one in some form or another. Apparently it isn't enough to say you will go to a wonderful place if you believe their religion. They have to use positive forms of punishment to "herd" the people to believe their religion. Saying there is a hell will convince those who don't believe that they had better or they will get a swift kick in the butt in the afterlife.
When there are one or more religions competing for believers, the one that survives is the one with the more rewarding "heaven" and more horrible "hell." This is, of course, putting all believes aside. If you strap away the spiritual mumbo-jumbo, what a church IS is a bank. They invest believers. The more believers they have, the better bank they are. The "advertising" of this bank comes in the form of "join us and get all these benefits" (heaven) "but if you don't, you're really gonna get it!" (hell).
Think about it. I'm not saying any religion is wrong or right, but essentially, this is what happens. Just like natural selection, the ones standing in the end are the ones that carry on. In other words, the most successful churches are the ones who had most successful advertising (concepts of heaven and hell). You're naive if you think the church works any differently. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your explanation of Heaven and Hell revolves around religion as a control tool, an invented argument to get people into churches where it is possible to keep tabs on them.
This assumption largely revolves around the idea that it WAS an effective control measure when it came about. This then implies that the people who brought about the church were those who benefited most from its construction and growth. Lets take stock:
Jesus was killed on the Cross (Historical fact, BTW, whether you believe He is the son of God is up to you) St. Paul, John the Baptist, St. Peter, all killed or imprisioned for their beliefs. Not a one of them saw any sort of benefit, save being chained to a roman legion. Not only did the founders suffer, but so did the converts. Rome persecuted Christians, so did the prominant Jews. I can see where you'd draw that religion is a control measure from things like confucianism, which teach that self-sacrifice for the good of society and obeying and respecting superiors bring greatness, but I hardly see how a way of worship which brings about personal pain and persecution can be seen as a reason for it being a control tool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're naive if you think the church works any differently.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish to reach people who don't know the Lord because I believe they are destined to a fate that's less than pretty, and it's a fate that could be much better, and a life leading up to that end that is rewarding and fulfilling. For me, it's been a better way to live my life, a sense of purpose and direction, even if it does bring hardship. The church is not a control measure, it's a way to more easily spread the good news to people who don't know God, and are looking for Him.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 27 2003, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 27 2003, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin---spidermonkey-+Oct 27 2003, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-spidermonkey- @ Oct 27 2003, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Early christians believed that sex is evil, even during marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i doubt that. evidence?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though religious views change, ironically with integration with scientific discoveries/theories. For example, the church only withdrew its condemnation of galileo's ideas that the world is round and revolves around the sun in 1992..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so the church got it wrong. your point? Who knows. we may find something else that proves gallileo wrong soon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok this was actually a gross misinterpretation of passages in Genesis, but nevertheless it was believed.
Oh? Someone going to prove that the world is flat again? My point is that the church has it 'right' until scientifically proved wrong, wonder why?
<!--QuoteBegin---spidermonkey-+Oct 27 2003, 11:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-spidermonkey- @ Oct 27 2003, 11:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 27 2003, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 27 2003, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin---spidermonkey-+Oct 27 2003, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-spidermonkey- @ Oct 27 2003, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Early christians believed that sex is evil, even during marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i doubt that. evidence?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though religious views change, ironically with integration with scientific discoveries/theories. For example, the church only withdrew its condemnation of galileo's ideas that the world is round and revolves around the sun in 1992..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so the church got it wrong. your point? Who knows. we may find something else that proves gallileo wrong soon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok this was actually a gross misinterpretation of passages in Genesis, but nevertheless it was believed.
Oh? Someone going to prove that the world is flat again? My point is that the church has it 'right' until scientifically proved wrong, wonder why? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really do like how you skipped over my points without so much as thinking about them, I really do.
The reason that the church has a record of being proven wrong is because people do make those sort of gross judgements on the text that only serve to support the worldview the person who is interpreting it already has. Also, in science, the best fit theory is the one commonly considered *right* until somebody proves it wrong. The same way with textual interpretation. If I *think* from reading the texts that I am supposed to believe that Christ was a woman, and then I look at the historical records of Jesus' life and see that He was actually a He, then I must change my textual interpretation. Until something challenges it, then there is simply no reason to believe that it is wrong. Just think of how long the "spontanious generation" argument was around.
If you look at scripture with an open mind, there is little commentary on natural laws, or physics, or calculus, or biology, or any other topic, and good reason for it; It's simply not pertinant to living a rewarding life for and with God, nor to understanding _exactly_ what will happen in heaven. It's like asking God what key you are going to be asked to sing in, before you decide if you want to get into heaven or not. First, you create your own "scientific" view of the world, extrapolate on studies of material that has been proven, formulate theories on how you think you should live your life based on the evidence you see, and then look at Christ, and if he says what you already think He's said, then you accept Him, if He's not up to scratch with your ideas, then you cast Him aside. You, in effect, call yourself perfect and infallable, and He as only a supporter of what you have said, not the other way around. C.S. Lewis addressed this idea of a "historical, popular Jesus" in his book <u>The Screwtape Letters.</u>
I am not saying that science, inherantly, makes itself an enemy of the cross, people's interpretations of it which cause them to reject the mere idea that something could be greater than themselves are what so many preachers, pastors, saints, bishops, and popes have railed against.
And, I presume, it is here where you will wish to enter an argument as "religion as a control tool." I'm not debating that it can be used as such, but that does not, inherantly make it one. A knife used for cutting meat can be used to killing people, but that does not make it inherantly a murder weapon.
I should add, that a meaningful, personal relationship with God, based on personal faith, leaves little room for manipulation.
Comments
When there are one or more religions competing for believers, the one that survives is the one with the more rewarding "heaven" and more horrible "hell." This is, of course, putting all believes aside. If you strap away the spiritual mumbo-jumbo, what a church IS is a bank. They invest believers. The more believers they have, the better bank they are. The "advertising" of this bank comes in the form of "join us and get all these benefits" (heaven) "but if you don't, you're really gonna get it!" (hell).
Think about it. I'm not saying any religion is wrong or right, but essentially, this is what happens. Just like natural selection, the ones standing in the end are the ones that carry on. In other words, the most successful churches are the ones who had most successful advertising (concepts of heaven and hell). You're naive if you think the church works any differently.
When there are one or more religions competing for believers, the one that survives is the one with the more rewarding "heaven" and more horrible "hell." This is, of course, putting all believes aside. If you strap away the spiritual mumbo-jumbo, what a church IS is a bank. They invest believers. The more believers they have, the better bank they are. The "advertising" of this bank comes in the form of "join us and get all these benefits" (heaven) "but if you don't, you're really gonna get it!" (hell).
Think about it. I'm not saying any religion is wrong or right, but essentially, this is what happens. Just like natural selection, the ones standing in the end are the ones that carry on. In other words, the most successful churches are the ones who had most successful advertising (concepts of heaven and hell). You're naive if you think the church works any differently. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your explanation of Heaven and Hell revolves around religion as a control tool, an invented argument to get people into churches where it is possible to keep tabs on them.
This assumption largely revolves around the idea that it WAS an effective control measure when it came about. This then implies that the people who brought about the church were those who benefited most from its construction and growth. Lets take stock:
Jesus was killed on the Cross (Historical fact, BTW, whether you believe He is the son of God is up to you)
St. Paul, John the Baptist, St. Peter, all killed or imprisioned for their beliefs. Not a one of them saw any sort of benefit, save being chained to a roman legion. Not only did the founders suffer, but so did the converts. Rome persecuted Christians, so did the prominant Jews. I can see where you'd draw that religion is a control measure from things like confucianism, which teach that self-sacrifice for the good of society and obeying and respecting superiors bring greatness, but I hardly see how a way of worship which brings about personal pain and persecution can be seen as a reason for it being a control tool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're naive if you think the church works any differently.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish to reach people who don't know the Lord because I believe they are destined to a fate that's less than pretty, and it's a fate that could be much better, and a life leading up to that end that is rewarding and fulfilling. For me, it's been a better way to live my life, a sense of purpose and direction, even if it does bring hardship. The church is not a control measure, it's a way to more easily spread the good news to people who don't know God, and are looking for Him.
i doubt that. evidence?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though religious views change, ironically with integration with scientific discoveries/theories. For example, the church only withdrew its condemnation of galileo's ideas that the world is round and revolves around the sun in 1992..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so the church got it wrong. your point? Who knows. we may find something else that proves gallileo wrong soon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok this was actually a gross misinterpretation of passages in Genesis, but nevertheless it was believed.
Oh? Someone going to prove that the world is flat again? My point is that the church has it 'right' until scientifically proved wrong, wonder why?
i doubt that. evidence?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though religious views change, ironically with integration with scientific discoveries/theories. For example, the church only withdrew its condemnation of galileo's ideas that the world is round and revolves around the sun in 1992..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so the church got it wrong. your point? Who knows. we may find something else that proves gallileo wrong soon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok this was actually a gross misinterpretation of passages in Genesis, but nevertheless it was believed.
Oh? Someone going to prove that the world is flat again? My point is that the church has it 'right' until scientifically proved wrong, wonder why? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really do like how you skipped over my points without so much as thinking about them, I really do.
The reason that the church has a record of being proven wrong is because people do make those sort of gross judgements on the text that only serve to support the worldview the person who is interpreting it already has. Also, in science, the best fit theory is the one commonly considered *right* until somebody proves it wrong. The same way with textual interpretation. If I *think* from reading the texts that I am supposed to believe that Christ was a woman, and then I look at the historical records of Jesus' life and see that He was actually a He, then I must change my textual interpretation. Until something challenges it, then there is simply no reason to believe that it is wrong. Just think of how long the "spontanious generation" argument was around.
If you look at scripture with an open mind, there is little commentary on natural laws, or physics, or calculus, or biology, or any other topic, and good reason for it; It's simply not pertinant to living a rewarding life for and with God, nor to understanding _exactly_ what will happen in heaven. It's like asking God what key you are going to be asked to sing in, before you decide if you want to get into heaven or not. First, you create your own "scientific" view of the world, extrapolate on studies of material that has been proven, formulate theories on how you think you should live your life based on the evidence you see, and then look at Christ, and if he says what you already think He's said, then you accept Him, if He's not up to scratch with your ideas, then you cast Him aside. You, in effect, call yourself perfect and infallable, and He as only a supporter of what you have said, not the other way around. C.S. Lewis addressed this idea of a "historical, popular Jesus" in his book <u>The Screwtape Letters.</u>
I am not saying that science, inherantly, makes itself an enemy of the cross, people's interpretations of it which cause them to reject the mere idea that something could be greater than themselves are what so many preachers, pastors, saints, bishops, and popes have railed against.
And, I presume, it is here where you will wish to enter an argument as "religion as a control tool." I'm not debating that it can be used as such, but that does not, inherantly make it one. A knife used for cutting meat can be used to killing people, but that does not make it inherantly a murder weapon.
I should add, that a meaningful, personal relationship with God, based on personal faith, leaves little room for manipulation.