Do you think life is better believing in a healthy religion or not?

[Tater]

Life is made of contradictions. Graphing them as binary systems in motion in which one element displaces the other element in an infinite loop yields the shape of a circle in two dimensions, and a sphere in three dimensions.

Your argument holds little relevance in the general picture, and no relevance with the salient point.

Biblical accounts contradict each other on their "historical" claims. Nodes should not displace each other, concerning the portrayal of the past.

The salient point: the abundant presence of such contradictions in scripture discredits the Fundamentalist idea of Biblical infallibility.

Moreover, your attempt at rationalizing the irrational elements of scripture just sounds like fluffy mental gymnastics.

It's likely no coincidence both the heavens on a macro scale and the tiny particles of existence on a micro scale are comprised of such shapes.

Everything happens for a reason. But to claim those reasons are divine or by design would be mere conjecture. Ie. natural order doesn't need a half-baked, overly grandiose, Biblical explanation to be understood.

 

[Agent Washington]

And try another instead?

I hope you find one to your liking.

Well, vodka actually intoxicates me on a material level, and I don't owe it tithe so that it can police me and tell me what to do....

I'm an ex-convert. It made me an atheist at 12. Looked into nontheistic religious organisations, was sorely disappointed. Hard to go back to my roots now

 

[Tater]

I used to buy Jung's theory that human beings had innate spiritual/religious needs.

However, Iceland and Norway, two strongly atheist countries, score very high on the happiness index. Australia also holds a spot close to that statistical intersection.

Furthermore, people take a myriad of paths to gain personal fulfilment - often not religious or spiritual. Confucianism, for example, gave social structure to many Eastern civilizations without ramrodding theology down peoples' throats.

Conclusion: if there was any universal truth to what Jung had to say, then it doesn't have to abide by conventional religions, spiritualities, or narratives.

To be completely honest, I've gained more fulfilment, connection, and wholeness from sex, music, and baseball than I ever got by going to church or praying.

If there were fewer socio-economic issues plaguing certain nations, then they probably wouldn't be turning to religion in droves.

 

[Lark]

Well, vodka actually intoxicates me on a material level, and I don't owe it tithe so that it can police me and tell me what to do....

I'm an ex-convert. It made me an atheist at 12. Looked into nontheistic religious organisations, was sorely disappointed. Hard to go back to my roots now

I think its a shame that bad religion puts people off religion altogether because religion is hard wired into the brain pretty much and the resulting conflict I'll bet isnt easy, I'm not convinced that alcholism is a good coping strategy you know but its your call after all is said and done.

 

[Lark]

I used to buy Jung's theory that human beings had innate spiritual/religious needs.

However, Iceland and Norway, two strongly atheist countries, score very high on the happiness index. Australia also holds a spot close to that statistical intersection.

Furthermore, people take a myriad of paths to gain personal fulfilment - often not religious or spiritual. Confucianism, for example, gave social structure to many Eastern civilizations without ramrodding theology down peoples' throats.

Conclusion: if there was any universal truth to what Jung had to say, then it doesn't have to abide by conventional religions, spiritualities, or narratives.

To be completely honest, I've gained more fulfilment, connection, and wholeness from sex, music, and baseball than I ever got by going to church or praying.

If there were fewer socio-economic issues plaguing certain nations, then they probably wouldn't be turning to religion in droves.

I think you've got a fairly superficial reading of both Jung and religion there to be honest, no offense intended, anyway what you said about baseball makes sense, if you consider Fromm, who was influenced by both Freud and Jung on religion but as much also by Marx's atheism, baseball could provide an object of devotion and frame of reference for life, of a kind, I guess.

This thread just reminds me of how much bad religion is out there and how it so easily alienates people for all their days, equally a sort of western grudge against religion, which is kind of look, anything but this or like Cash's song the wanderer in which he says he met some people who sit on the church steps and who want the kingdom but they dont want God in it.

I'm not seeking converts, and as I understand it Jesus and God does not actually want that either, evangelism has been a cruel mistake or joke on Christianity, couldnt have done more harm if it'd been invented by the Devil himself, but I just think that's a pretty grim picture.

 

[Agent Washington]

I think its a shame that bad religion puts people off religion altogether because religion is hard wired into the brain pretty much and the resulting conflict I'll bet isnt easy, I'm not convinced that alcholism is a good coping strategy you know but its your call after all is said and done.

I'm not advocating for alcoholism, and I don't actually drink that often. It was partly tongue-in-cheek.

On a more serious note, I can't with good conscience hold any organised religion in good faith, or as a benevolent source of societal organisation, as organised religion is one of the main contributing factors towards worldly strife.

I simply don't see how and why organised religion can ever be healthy in any sense of the word, considering how much historical precedence we have for it being used as an ideological foundation to outright cause harm, reinforce systematic inequalities, or even to resist necessary technological changes.

With pure philosophy, there is only a spirit of inquiry since antiquity, and while it was necessarily tied to religion because people have yet to undergo the paradigm shift towards secularism, a pursuit of truth and understanding on life, meaning, societal organisations, etc... These are values and ideas that can be separated from religion and faith.

 

[Lark]

I'm not advocating for alcoholism, and I don't actually drink that often. It was partly tongue-in-cheek.

On a more serious note, I can't with good conscience hold any organised religion in good faith, or as a benevolent source of societal organisation, as organised religion is one of the main contributing factors towards worldly strife.

I simply don't see how and why organised religion can ever be healthy in any sense of the word, considering how much historical precedence we have for it being used as an ideological foundation to outright cause harm, reinforce systematic inequalities, or even to resist necessary technological changes.

With pure philosophy, there is only a spirit of inquiry since antiquity, and while it was necessarily tied to religion because people have yet to undergo the paradigm shift towards secularism, a pursuit of truth and understanding on life, meaning, societal organisations, etc... These are values and ideas that can be separated from religion and faith.

Yeah. That's the party line anyway, there's a lot of, not that old, sources which provide a good alternative to that sort of thinking, like Erich Fromm, who appreciated religious traditions without actually believing in the afterlife, God, the supernatural (its debated whether he was an atheist or just a firm believer in negative theology but sometimes I think its besides the point) but that's just one author, Alain De Bottan (spelling) the philosopher wrote some book "religion for athiests" or something like that, I'm sure there's others still, I'd recommend them to you. Just a different perspective. Its good to have more than one to think about.

The things you mention can be seperated from religion and faith, I dont know why its necessary to do so, ultimately I doubt by themselves they'd prove sufficient or satisfactory for anyone seeking to live as well as possible.

Finally, I think unorganised religion, if you could call it that, is much worse than organised religion, most of the atrocities committed these days in the name of religious belief are not committed by the larger communities or institutions but random individuals, with random ideas.

So far as the balance of good to bad in human history I dont believe that its so grim for religion as all that, which of the churches dropped the first atomic bomb? Which of them designed showers to release nerve gas or took the gold from peoples teeth before turning their bones to soap? On the other hand I know the origin of the word hospital is from the holy order of hospitaleers who offered hospitality to pilgrims going to and from the holy land and that in parts of the world without socialised medicine its usually still the church facilities which struggle to plug the gaps and provide a service were tax funded services dont and wont exist.

 

[miss fortune]

Sin is Lawlessness. Many people do not even know the Law but have it written in their hearts.

If you know to do good, and choose to not to, however, "to him it is sin." James 4:17

And being a "good person" (I don't think they exist) doesn't save you in and of itself anyway. It's the blood of the Lamb that saves, not the Law.

that's because your definition of good is based on a religious text

there ARE other definitions of a good person, you know...

I'm not ignorant on matters of religion... I was raised going to church every sunday, sunday school before church and bible school every summer... my mother is one of those nice christians who loves everyone and believes that everyone has a chance to go to heaven as long as they are good and I love that about her. however, I never felt anything towards it... it never really resonated with me on any level and I just couldn't connect... it never really was a good fit for me. why should I force myself to go through the motions of something that I simply cannot believe? according to you, was I built to go to hell? if so, how is that even fair? what the fuck is wrong with a god who would make someone who can't believe in them and would then condemn them to eternal torture? that's not a god I want to believe in anyway

this is not to say that some religious beliefs don't come more naturally to me... I have little trouble grasping concepts such as powers of nature and the ability to anthropomorphize them into something to be in awe of... I can understand the desire to beg the sun to please come back in the dead of winter and to plead with the sky during a drought. karma makes sense to me and so does reincarnation... those are ideas that somehow resonate with me as being correct. I do believe in treating others as I would wish to be treated as well because that feels right... trying to be good on terms that make sense and fit to me. I wouldn't say that I've always been able to live up to my own beliefs, but I try, and that's got to count for something.

I know that you think I'm going to hell and I'm ok with that because there's nothing I can do about it... you can't make me believe something that doesn't resonate with me... that doesn't click or feel right. I try, and that's all I can do and any god who can't accept that isn't a god worth loving to me... I prefer my mother.

 

[Poki]

Healthy religion....LMAO.

Life is better when you healthily believe in a religion. Religion health is based on people's healthy or unhealthy belief in it. It's backwards to think a religion can be healthy. Man can abuse anything with rationalization.

 

[wool]

that's because your definition of good is based on a religious text

there ARE other definitions of a good person, you know...

I'm not ignorant on matters of religion... I was raised going to church every sunday, sunday school before church and bible school every summer... my mother is one of those nice christians who loves everyone and believes that everyone has a chance to go to heaven as long as they are good and I love that about her. however, I never felt anything towards it... it never really resonated with me on any level and I just couldn't connect... it never really was a good fit for me. why should I force myself to go through the motions of something that I simply cannot believe? according to you, was I built to go to hell? if so, how is that even fair? what the fuck is wrong with a god who would make someone who can't believe in them and would then condemn them to eternal torture? that's not a god I want to believe in anyway

this is not to say that some religious beliefs don't come more naturally to me... I have little trouble grasping concepts such as powers of nature and the ability to anthropomorphize them into something to be in awe of... I can understand the desire to beg the sun to please come back in the dead of winter and to plead with the sky during a drought. karma makes sense to me and so does reincarnation... those are ideas that somehow resonate with me as being correct. I do believe in treating others as I would wish to be treated as well because that feels right... trying to be good on terms that make sense and fit to me. I wouldn't say that I've always been able to live up to my own beliefs, but I try, and that's got to count for something.

I know that you think I'm going to hell and I'm ok with that because there's nothing I can do about it... you can't make me believe something that doesn't resonate with me... that doesn't click or feel right. I try, and that's all I can do and any god who can't accept that isn't a god worth loving to me... I prefer my mother.

Hell, as in, the place where the wicked will go to be tortured for eternity is not biblical. It is a lie that was created with the intention of turning people away from God.

Satan, his fallen angels, and all who sided with him will simply be destroyed in a sea of fire.

Revelation 19:20
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed signs on his behalf, by which he deceived those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Revelation 20:15
This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I recommend that you actually study the Bible for yourself while there is still time because it's apparent that God has been falsely represented to you as he has with countless others. Or, you could just go by "feel" in the darkness and hope for the best.

 

[miss fortune]

Hell, as in, the place where the wicked will go to be tortured for eternity is not biblical. It is a lie that was created with the intention of turning people away from God.

Satan, his fallen angels, and all who sided with him will simply be destroyed in a sea of fire.

Revelation 19:20
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed signs on his behalf, by which he deceived those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Revelation 20:15
This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I recommend that you actually study the Bible for yourself while there is still time because it's apparent that God has been falsely represented to you as he has with countless others. Or, you could just go by "feel" and hope for the best.

I have read the bible... thanks for assuming I haven't

and thanks for the condemnation based on the lack of feeling towards that... I totally needed that

 

[anticlimatic]

Your argument holds little relevance in the general picture, and no relevance with the salient point.

Biblical accounts contradict each other on their "historical" claims. Nodes should not displace each other, concerning the portrayal of the past.

The salient point: the abundant presence of such contradictions in scripture discredits the Fundamentalist idea of Biblical infallibility.

Moreover, your attempt at rationalizing the irrational elements of scripture just sounds like fluffy mental gymnastics.

I do not present arguments without immediate topic specific pertinence, though I will pull concepts into a broader context and reassemble them from there back into the smaller context. This generates more room for isomorphic comparisons that can be pivotal in a deeper understanding of the concept.

I am not trying to directly rationalize the irrational, but rather rationalize why the irrational can sometimes be the most rational choice.

"The riddles of God are more interesting than the solutions of men."

 

[SearchingforPeace]

One of the great debates among philosophers for generations has been between those who believe only things that we can touch are real versus those that believe there is something more than to life.

These bring question up like: "Do we have a spirit or soul?", "Is love real?", "Is there existence after death?", and so forth, independent of the question of whether God exists or whether there is a correct way of worshiping.

Brene Brown has found in her research that the healthiest people, who she calls wholehearted, have some sort of religious or spiritual practice, that understand that there is more than the mere material world, understanding that there are things that defy scientific explanation and quantification. Those that lack any acceptance of anything more than the materialistic existence tend to be less emotionally healthy.

So, belief seems to be an important human trait, whether in Norse gods, Buddhism, Lutheranism, or anything else.

It also seems that many of those who depart from religion make other things into objects of devotion as substitutes, which makes such things much more unhealthy. Some people seem to worship financial success, others a political dogma, or pop culture icons.

I would suggest that as a minimum level people should find some sort of spiritual practice, be a religion, yoga, mysticism, or something else. Accepting that there is more than what is right in front of your eyes that you can touch with your hands leads to greater happiness.

 

[Hive]

One of the great debates among philosophers for generations has been between those who believe only things that we can touch are real versus those that believe there is something more than to life.

These bring question up like: "Do we have a spirit or soul?", "Is love real?", "Is there existence after death?", and so forth, independent of the question of whether God exists or whether there is a correct way of worshiping.

Brene Brown has found in her research that the healthiest people, who she calls wholehearted, have some sort of religious or spiritual practice, that understand that there is more than the mere material world, understanding that there are things that defy scientific explanation and quantification. Those that lack any acceptance of anything more than the materialistic existence tend to be less emotionally healthy.

So, belief seems to be an important human trait, whether in Norse gods, Buddhism, Lutheranism, or anything else.

It also seems that many of those who depart from religion make other things into objects of devotion as substitutes, which makes such things much more unhealthy. Some people seem to worship financial success, others a political dogma, or pop culture icons.

I would suggest that as a minimum level people should find some sort of spiritual practice, be a religion, yoga, mysticism, or something else. Accepting that there is more than what is right in front of your eyes that you can touch with your hands leads to greater happiness.

My problem with this kind of research is that it only vouches for the utility and not the validity of spiritual belief. If you tell an atheist they should practice spirituality with the argument that it'll make them happier, I doubt it would be well recieved as it provides no basis for belief in the supernatural other than wishful thinking.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

My problem with this kind of research is that it only vouches for the utility and not the validity of spiritual belief. If you tell an atheist they should practice spirituality with the argument that it'll make them happier, I doubt it would be well recieved as it provides no basis for belief in the supernatural other than wishful thinking.

I think it is important that people understand that holding to a materialistic view of life is bad for them. If they can accept that, they can open themselves up to exploring what is out there.

There are a lot of people who hate religion today, due to their experience as a child. It would better for them to open themselves up and to explore spirituality and religion rather than be a pure atheist.

Many atheists, even very vocal ones, have adopted Eastern religious practices, though they do not call it a religion.

Any practice that helps people in life is better than not having one. And while I do believe strongly that there are better paths than others, I will not impose my beliefs on anyone.

And likewise, while I do practice my religion fiercely, I also find wisdom and practices from outside my religion to improve my life and my understanding. Every path has something that can aid in growth and understanding and to close oneself off from gaining wisdom and knowledge is foolhardy.

So, I can read Muslim learning and get a benefit. I can see Buddhist teachings and learn something. I can look at Taoism and find great comfort. I can see look at the different sects of Christianity and benefit thereby. And I can look at philosophers and scientists and others and gain great knowledge and wisdom.

I refuse to limit myself, but I am not rejecting on own faith to follow other faiths or create a personal religion. I am taking my religion and what I gain from it and adding other wisdom and insight to it.

 

[Tater]

I think you've got a fairly superficial reading of both Jung and religion there to be honest, no offense intended, anyway what you said about baseball makes sense, if you consider Fromm, who was influenced by both Freud and Jung on religion but as much also by Marx's atheism, baseball could provide an object of devotion and frame of reference for life, of a kind, I guess.

With the caveat that Jung's work involves nuances, peculiarities, and debatable interpretations...

Between Psychological Types, Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious, and Man and His Symbols, I've read several hundred pages of his writing.

After investigation, you're not going to have a takeaway that the human condition is divorced from religious life, according to Jung.

He believed that the archetypes of the collective unconscious needed to find resonance in ritualistic practices before a person could become more whole.

Furthermore, he even went on to say that the Catholic eucharist held the most symbolic value out of the rituals he was aware of. According to Jung, the material depiction of the cross and all the other Catholic finery could act as a pathway to the symbolic aspects.

Additionally, Jung did not think that scientific research provided the symbolic value that religious practice supposedly could.

And let's not forget that his departure from Freud (who was vehemently secular) was a deciding factor in how he constructed his main body of work.

Jung's personal beliefs about God and spirituality were far more idiosyncratic than your average church-goer, but he often viewed religion as a practical solution for existential deficiencies. Seeing it as a means of upkeeping "psychic hygiene."


As far as baseball is concerned, it's not about devotion. It's about reaching egolessness through flow state.

Jung's work says more about him than it does about others, if you ask me.

 

[Mole]

So, I can read Muslim learning and get a benefit. I can see Buddhist teachings and learn something. I can look at Taoism and find great comfort. I can see look at the different sects of Christianity and benefit thereby. And I can look at philosophers and scientists and others and gain great knowledge and wisdom.

I refuse to limit myself, but I am not rejecting on own faith to follow other faiths or create a personal religion. I am taking my religion and what I gain from it and adding other wisdom and insight to it.

You have such an open mind, indeed an unlimited mind, so I am surprised you don't read Mein Kampf and get great benefit, or read Das Capital and get great benefit.

We do though place limitation on power because power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we limit power through the Separation of Powers in liberal democracy. The unlimited mind is tempted by absolute power, indeed tempted to worship the unlimited power of God.

 

[Mole]

Jung's work says more about him than it does about others, if you ask me.

The nice thing about Jung and Lark is that they both reveal more about themselves than about others.

 

[Tater]

lol

 

[citizen cane]

Scientific studies seem to indicate that the answer is yes, based on certain criteria. Not posting links right now on phone, but they're readily available via a simple google search.