Mankind and Religion

Mankind and ReligionWhile greed, ambition, arrogance, stupidity and competition for scarce resources may play a part in starting many of our wars, more of man’s inhumanity to man comes as a result of differences in the religious beliefs of the combatants than from any other source. Common to nearly all religions are their scriptures, You know books like the Koran, or the Bible, each more or less detailing a way of life for its followers. These scriptures, in one form or another, tend to predetermine, influence and in many cases direct the lifestyle of its followers. Subtleties in these writings, regardless of their source, somehow seem to leave the adherents of each religion, in some degree of conflict with the followers of others. So much so that in times of war each solicits the support of its Almighty to win out over the other(s). With our little planet’s limited resources, one wonders just how long can we continue down this path?Perhaps it is time to challenge the adequacy of all of these writings. Like it or not, all scriptures, regardless of their kind, are in the final analysis just the thoughts and writings of our elders. Inspired perhaps, but still just the creations of an individual, or groups of individuals, chosen or otherwise, who lived somewhere back in our distant past.Presently, the world’s population is exponentially increasing at an alarming rate. And because of the nature of this growth, mathematical analyses show that nearly half of all the people that have ever lived are alive today. Consequently, one can correctly conclude that there are nearly as many great minds are alive today as have ever lived. And unlike those who penned the original scriptures, these brilliant minds have ready access to the total accumulation of all mankinds knowledge and understanding of the world as it is right now. Wouldn’t it be nice if our Creator in recognizing of this, chose to have all the earth’s religions simultaneously begin a process of scripture revision and updating. A revision aimed at making each religion compatible not only with its ever-growing number of followers but also with the ever-shrinking planet on which they must live. It would be even better if mankind chose this path for itself!Now before you start jumping up and down and shouting HERESY please ask yourself two questions! First, is it not the essence of your religious learning that closes your mind to such a degree that you find it difficult or even impossible to entertain the idea of re-writing or updating any of your religious scriptures? And second, would the true teachings of any God limit the actions of his followers to the single path, a path which inevitably will lead to self-destruction of his chosen people?

I think it is a great post, perry.

Although your post appears to be well thought out, there are some complicated considerations involved. The first of these is that it seems to be assumed that there is an equality in the level of violence that each religion is prone to. This would mean that in every one of the core, fundamental teachings of Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and any other major world religion, violence is seen as the preferable end to any difference in belief. This is true of several religions, but not of all.It became painfully aware on September 11 that the Muslim world beleives that violence is a neccessary and desired part of life. The Koran teaches that anyone that is not Muslim is not accepted by their god, not loved by their god, and are ultimately the Muslims enemy. This is seen clearly in Koran 4:101 "...surely the unbeleivers are your open enemy." This is not to say that every Muslim wants to start a war, but when their scriptures are looked at they advocate violence. In contrast to this is Christian scriptures, Matthew 5:43,44 states: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." This is not to say that every Christian does this either, but that the scripture itself points its beleivers away from a life of violence.It's true that in the past many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity, but many of them, like the crusades were for political reasons under the guise of religion. If everyone truly followed a pacifistic religion, then wars wouldn't happen. The problem then isn't that the scriptures of every major religion are faulty, some of them are, and the remainder of religious problems are caused by those who claim to be following the religion and either are not, or are doing a very bad job of it.There are several other problems as well including: If it is divinely inspired then no one alive today can surpass it because it came directly from God and is in his control. If he gave it once, why would he change it if he gave it again? Times change, by the fundamental core of humanity doesn't. Principles that applied to life then, still apply to life now. The context changes, but murder is still the same act just done with a different tool. It doesn't matter how many great minds you have working on a project, if the scripture was truly inspired then there cannot be any revision to it because we live with only limited knowledge.The third issue I see is that you assume that the fundamental following of any religion, regardless of which one it is, will eventually lead to the destruction of its followers. This would depend on what the destruction of its followers means. If it means that they die because they held unwaveringly to their beleifs, then this is a distinct possiblity. Suicide bombers in the middle east are an example of this. But it is also true that the Bible says that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Death in Christianity is not seen as an ending but as a beginning. To have given your all for the cause of Christ is the goal, whether that takes your life or not. Death in many religions is not seen as a bad thing.You assume that this world is not big enough for all the religions as they exist right now. I agree. Something will have to change, but it won't be the scriptures of any religion. Every time the world wasn't big enough to encompass all the ideas peacefully, the world found a scapegoat. In WW2, it was the Jews. In Canada very shortly it will be the Christians. No matter the ideology, the world is unwilling to accept a religion who claims to be the only way.

Perry, you have a good heart! In Christian eschatalogical "folklore", many suggest that the antichrist will abolish religion and declare, in effect, that god is within all of us. Sounds like common sense, but, if the original sin/clever evil entity scenario is in fact real, humanity is playing right into the hands of this "myth". Am I simplistic and set in my beliefs enough to think like this? Lets just say that I am not an adamant fundamentalist, yet I will never ignore the possibility.

Thanks for your comments. Can't say I agree fully with your ideas, however they are well thought out!Para 1
I agree that my concept is an oversimplification even if it is fairly accurate in an overall sense.Para 2 and 3
I guess you are suggesting that we need better leadership from within all religions. I agree completely.Para 4
I believe in a creator however I have a lot of trouble with the words of self proclaimed divinity, man's ego being what it is.para 5
Perhaps I am more concerned with man's survival than I am his salvation. Seems to me survival is fundamental to both. With the ever shrinking capacity of the earth to accommocate man's idiosyncrasies I see survival as being most immediately threatened.Will talk again!P

One reason that I find it hard to believe in a non created eternity is that I ask why would life have such a forceful survival mode if, in fact, our universe could possibly be alternatively expanding and collapsing in on itself through the eons. All living things have a cycle. Whats the rush? Whats the purpose? Also...if humanity evolved, are we still evolving? If so, why? Perfection? Completion? If no Creator or creative script, why does life seek to continue? What end can we postulate....or....is there an end?

Because any life that doesn't, doesn't survive. Therefore all the life we observe are survivors.This is the problem with trying to insert a teleology into evolution. It just doesn't work like that. We observe life survivng and evolving because if it didn't do those things, it wouldn't be here for us to observe.Are we still evolving? Yes. Towards what? Towards what all organisms constantly evolve "toward" - something that leaves the most offspring in their environment.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2004]

Gosh, Crashfrog! I have to get the dictionary and the encyclopedia out to respond to your post! Ok...here it goes:Teleology(From Greek telos, end, and logos, science).
"Teleology is seldom used according to its etymological meaning to denote the branch of philosophy which deals with ends or final causes. It means the doctrine that there is design, purpose, or finality in the world, that effects are in some manner intentional, and that no complete account of the universe is possible without reference to final causes..."Now...As I have asserted before, the two basic origins of belief paradigms are either external and absolute--aliens/God..or internal and relative--defined by our own logic and experience. In defense of prophecy, the source of thye prophecy needs to be an absolute, external source. Note jow Jesus refers to the source within Peter:Matt 16:5-15=Context:We have here Christ's discourse with his disciples concerning bread, in which, as in many other discourses, he speaks to them of spiritual things under a similitude, and they misunderstand him of carnal things.Example:
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread."
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.Peter= NT:4074 Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock .. as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
rock ==NT:4073 petra (pet'-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):church=NT:1577 ekklesia (ek-klay-see'-ah); from a compound of NT:1537 and a derivative of NT:2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):ASSEMBLY
1. ekklesia NT:1577, from ek, "out of," and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call"), was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens "gathered" to discuss the affairs of state, Acts 19:39. In the Sept. it is used to designate the "gathering" of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a "gathering" regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel; in 19:32,41, of a riotous mob. It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My Church," Matt 16:18, and which is further described as "the Church which is His Body," Eph 1:22; 5:23, (b) in the singular number (e. g., Matt 18:17, RV marg., "congregation"), to a company consisting of professed believers, e. g., Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Tim 3:5, and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district.=====Basically, what this Bible passage shows us in defense of prophecy is the following:1) If Jesus is wise rather than insane, He is saying that the "thought activation...source" or the yeast of the religious guys in His time was a faulty source. The opinions of who He was were all from a relativistic, human source. He commends Peter for acknowledging His true identity, and informs Peter that the source which Peter received the wisdom from was the Holy Spirit, which is an absolute, external source. Any of us are free to question whether Jesus was who He says He was or whether He was a cult leader./nut.
In defense of Prophecy, I assert the former. added paragraph breaks to facilitate reading....paragraphs are your friend - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-10-2004]

One might examine yeast metaphors in scripture more throroughly and discover that they often refer to sin. A very small amount of yeast can permeate the entire mass of dough and if not controlled, or baked off at the proper moment, eventually contaminates the entire batch with a unheathy mold. Sin also acts to "puff up" the pharisiachal heart with pride. Remember to cast out the old, potentially unhealthy yeast each year at Passover; and start a new batch in the seven subsequent days. Of course, while eating the rather unpalatable, unleavened, flat hardtack during the seven days, one begins to appreciate the toothsome effects of yeast, huh?Moderation and Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-10-2004]

Interestingly, the Kingdom of God is also occasionally compared to leavening.

Chiropter:Yes, that metaphor is very interesting indeed considering some of the others yeast metaphors attributed to the same prophet:Mark 8:15
"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."Luke 12:1
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.1 Corinthians 5:6
"Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?"1 Corinthians 5:8
"Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth."Ah, well, such is scriptural literature. Peace.

Phatboy,Yes, we evolved. And yes, we are still evolving. We will continue to evolve as long as we are a living species, or until time itself stops, if it ever does.Looking at the big picture, evolution is a natural, on-going process that will never stop. As time marches on, so too, does the process of evolution. Denial of its existence most definitely will never stop it.People who ask questions like yours seem to have the opinion that mankind (at present) is some sort of pinnacle, or ultimate goal. I can assure you that we aren't quite so special. All we can really say is that, so far, we are the most highly evolved creature on this planet. But evolution itself has no goal. Within the process of evolution, individual species are driven to survive by procreation, if you might want to call that a goal of sorts. There definitely is no goal of perfection. To strive for the survival of the most possible progeny is all there really is. But that could only be construed as a species goal, and not a goal of the much more macro process of evolution.Why must there be an end?Verzem

Let's keep in mind that pre-Pasteur, yeast activity was still a mystery. What made bread rise or beer foam was no less than miraculous to people without modern knowledge of microbiology. The bread and wine analogy was more than just an appeal to the literal appetites of a populace accustomed to hunger, it also dealt with the transformation of chaos into meaning.It's not surprising, therefore, that bread is usually used to mean knowledge or influence. In response to being requested to turn stones into bread in the desert, Jesus told Satan that "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of God." In other words, what worth would we attribute to sacred knowledge if it could be found lying around like rocks? Ancient people understood that yeast was the shadowy link between inert and organic matter.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mr. Hambre informs us, "Let's keep in mind that pre-Pasteur, yeast activity was still a mystery. What made bread rise or beer foam was no less than miraculous to people without modern knowledge of microbiology."Nonetheless, Mr. Hambre, the people to whom our discussion pertains knew that it was yeast that made bread rise and beer foam; and they knew enough about it to refresh their sourdough starter at least once per year by law, or run the peril of "bad mildew."The remainder of Mr. Hambre's post pertains to metaphors regarding bread and wine, which while they require yeast for their manufacture, do not always correlate metaphorically to yeast.However, Hambre's closing line, "Ancient people understood that yeast was the shadowy link between inert and organic matter" is interesting or baffling (but maybe I'm missing the point) in that I have to believe that:1) Ancient people probably understood that stored dry flour or fresh squeezed grape juice was not necessarily "inert" or "inorganic" without the introduction of an additional outside source of yeast; and2) Ancient people probably understood that yeast would not make rocks puff up like a loaf of white bread.Mr. Hambre, do you mean perhaps that ancient people understood that yeast was the shadowy link between seemingly inactive and visibly active organic products?L'Chaim, Guinness Stout, and Pastrami on Pumpernickel!

Abshalom,That's precisely what I meant. I was not being dismissive of or condescending to ancient cultures, just pointing out the context of the yeast metaphor. You misunderstood what I said about the stones in the desert. Evidently I don't rate the same basic respect I showed you and your ideas.Esteban

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall