[Discussion] Religion's Role in the 21st Century

[Eliminator Jr.]

I am agnostic when it comes to religion. I don't really think it's plausible that there is a god or are gods that do not exist in space or time but in another place like Heaven, but on that note I can't say for certain that there isn't a god, so I'm not atheist. I'm on the fence but if I had to choose one I would probably pick atheist.

I was raised as a Catholic, but when I was about twelve I began to question my beliefs and found that there wasn't any reason for me to believe in God. But even as a now-agnosticist, I see a few things wrong with the way the Catholic church is doing things. For one, they're going against everything Christ was saying. He came along in a world of Jews and said "hey, God doesn't care if you keep foods separated when you eat and you shouldn't discriminate against minorities or tax collectors or prostitutes", and if that approach was used today religion would have a far bigger following - if the church gave up all these silly rules and said "as long as you believe in God it's cool with us". What use could a god possibly have for people giving up their Sunday mornings to gather in a room and talk about how good he is (ie. church)? Why is the church against homosexuals getting married when if Jesus was alive he would probably be indiscriminate and friends with everyone, including the gay community? Jesus chilled with the lepurs and the tax collectors and prostitutes and was trying to bring about a less strict following of God, when eventually the Catholic church has just become as obsessed with rules as the Jewish faith.

Anyway, a problem I've always found with religion is that it doesn't scare me. As in, if religions are true then which one should I pick? If I pick one religion over another, or even pick two religions, either way I'm going to end up going to Hell somehow. If going to Hell is inevitable then why be scared of it? This also brings up the point that there's so many religions, how do you know which one to choose? All of them say that their religion is correct, so in my opinion the only option left is to remain on the fence about religion because there is no way of knowing for sure which is right, or if none of them are right.

Now as for religious people, I try not to make choices based on a person's religion. It's their choice and it's a deeply personal thing which doesn't involve me. In most cases I can, but I would find it hard to be in a relationship with a religious person, because I wouldn't be able to get that close to her and connect with her so well if I knew they followed a religion. To me, agnosticism just seems logical (most philosophical arguments that I've heard lead to it) and if somebody was missing that logic it'd be hard to become that close to them. As for close friends and any other people (ie. family) I'm happy for them to believe in what they want. I do have respect for some variations of Buddhism, I like their doctrines of self-discipline, but I don't agree with the gods/reincarnation side of things.

Every day more people are becoming agnostic/atheist. Younger people have Baby Boomer and Gen X parents who are usually more open to their children following whatever religion they want (as opposed to a hundred years ago when children were expected to be the same religion as their parents), and because of this people can reason their way to a conclusion. The number of agnostic/atheist people I think doubled in the USA, and Catholicism dropped by ten percent, over the past something years (I know I just failed with statistics but you get the point, I can't remember where I read it but it's happening). I think in the future religion will still exist, it's inevitable, but it will definitely not be playing as large a role as it does in today's society.

Note: My apologies to anybody who may have been offended by this. It wasn't my aim, I'm just writing my view on things. I'll state again, I'm open to people believing what they want, these are just my reasons for my being agnostic.

tl;dr: I'm agnostic. Religion will still exist in the future - it is inevitable - however it will play nowhere near as large a role as it does today.

 

[Livewire]

The more we cut out faith due to our need for a "progressive, fact-based society," the more we'll wonder why everything's going wrong.

Of course, if we can realize that it's not religion itself, but the abuse of religion that causes problems, then there might be some hope for us still.

Everything's been going wrong for a long, long, time, having faith or lack thereof hasn't really effected it. If anything we've improved as Religion has taken a back seat.

 

[Åzurε]

I am agnostic when it comes to religion. I don't really think it's plausible that there is a god or are gods that do not exist in space or time but in another place like Heaven, but on that note I can't say for certain that there isn't a god, so I'm not atheist. I'm on the fence but if I had to choose one I would probably pick atheist.

I enjoy breaking people's posts apart and responding to them bit-by-bit. Thanks for playing. ^^() Christian here.

I was raised as a Catholic, but when I was about twelve I began to question my beliefs and found that there wasn't any reason for me to believe in God. But even as a now-agnosticist, I see a few things wrong with the way the Catholic church is doing things. For one, they're going against everything Christ was saying. He came along in a world of Jews and said "hey, God doesn't care if you keep foods separated when you eat and you shouldn't discriminate against minorities or tax collectors or prostitutes", and if that approach was used today religion would have a far bigger following - if the church gave up all these silly rules and said "as long as you believe in God it's cool with us".

I agree with the Catholicism thing wholeheartedly. Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope, etc.
However, you make it sound like Jesus was okay with the actions of corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes. Though he did not hate them as people, he taught that people who live in sin, or without respect for God, would indeed go to hell. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Even if you remove everything that makes the Catholic church Catholic, there's still a basic set of attributes that separate a Christian from Just Someone Who Believes There's A God. Among those is that the Word of God is, as a result of being "of God", true, and that Jesus is in fact the only way for sinners to have a happy ending.

What use could a god possibly have for people giving up their Sunday mornings to gather in a room and talk about how good he is (ie. church)? Why is the church against homosexuals getting married when if Jesus was alive he would probably be indiscriminate and friends with everyone, including the gay community? Jesus chilled with the lepurs and the tax collectors and prostitutes and was trying to bring about a less strict following of God, when eventually the Catholic church has just become as obsessed with rules as the Jewish faith.

Sunday morning service is in the Bible. Okay, it's not as simple as all that, but disciples were instructed to set time aside on a regular basis to "talk about how good He is", take Communion, and do a little praisin'.

Jesus would certainly reach the gay community, but as I said earlier, that doesn't mean he'd approve of it. I have a personal opinion on the sexuality situation, but I'm running out of posting time for now. It's not "just" about following rules.

Anyway, a problem I've always found with religion is that it doesn't scare me. As in, if religions are true then which one should I pick? If I pick one religion over another, or even pick two religions, either way I'm going to end up going to Hell somehow. If going to Hell is inevitable then why be scared of it? This also brings up the point that there's so many religions, how do you know which one to choose? All of them say that their religion is correct, so in my opinion the only option left is to remain on the fence about religion because there is no way of knowing for sure which is right, or if none of them are right.

Don't you think that if there was a force out to keep people from the One True Faith!, the best way to do it would be to make it a needle in a needlestack? Once again, more later.

 

[Livewire]

Jesus would certainly reach the gay community, but as I said earlier, that doesn't mean he'd approve of it. I have a personal opinion on the sexuality situation, but I'm running out of posting time for now. It's not "just" about following rules.

But Jesus would approve, seeing as he is supposed to love everybody, and he died for all of our sins. "God is love" The Jesus that I was taught about (I'm weird, I'm half Catholic/Methodist) wouldn't discriminate.

Religion however, doesn't approve of homosexuality. Church dogma doesn't necessarily equal what Jesus personally would have done.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I enjoy breaking people's posts apart and responding to them bit-by-bit. Thanks for playing. ^^() Christian here.

That's cool :)

However, you make it sound like Jesus was okay with the actions of corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes. Though he did not hate them as people, he taught that people who live in sin, or without respect for God, would indeed go to hell. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

That's fair enough. It's not what I was implying but I get where you're coming from. I meant to be accepting of the sinner, not the sin, so yeah basically what you just said.

Even if you remove everything that makes the Catholic church Catholic, there's still a basic set of attributes that separate a Christian from Just Someone Who Believes There's A God.

Agreed. I don't mean the church should just disappear or something, but get rid of some of the formalities and outdated views. A lot of the Christian morals like "love your neighbour as you would love yourself" are good morals to live by, just not all of them.

Sunday morning service is in the Bible. Okay, it's not as simple as all that, but disciples were instructed to set time aside on a regular basis to "talk about how good He is", take Communion, and do a little praisin'.

I wasn't saying the Catholic church should stop running church services, I mean it's their time, people can do what they want with it. I was moreso just rhetorically asking what benefit God would have from getting a whole bunch of people together and praising him (one of the minor reasons which led me to become agnostic). Churches are cool places, like you're always safe and people are generally nice inside, but I don't see why they're there (I mean aside from the obvious reason that it's in the Bible, I'm just questioning why they are needed).

Jesus would certainly reach the gay community, but as I said earlier, that doesn't mean he'd approve of it. I have a personal opinion on the sexuality situation, but I'm running out of posting time for now. It's not "just" about following rules.

I'll wait for you to get back to this, but it's an interesting point that you've raised about him not approving of it.

Don't you think that if there was a force out to keep people from the One True Faith!, the best way to do it would be to make it a needle in a needlestack? Once again, more later.

I think I get what you're saying.. as in if somebody wanted to keep people away from the religion that they believe is true, they would create other religions to dissuade people from becoming followers of Christianity? If that is what you mean, it's a good theory, but how do you know that Christianity was not one of these "side religions" made to stop people from joining another religion? The point I was making is that when there are countless religions, all of which may or may not be true, it seems logical to sit on the fence rather than pick one and hope it's right (atheism counts as a religion here, I know it isn't, but saying there isn't a God is a belief).

I'd also like to say thanks for being civil. Like I don't mean that in a discriminatory way, it's just I half expected someone to get really offended and it was a pleasant surprise to have you reply :)

 

[Pumpkin Fields]

I think one reason religion is becoming less prominent in western society is because we are taught to question things now-a-days, whereas many years ago willingness to conform to what you are told was seen as an enviable trait. People think about what they're told now, and many come to the conclusion that most religious texts just don't make much sense.
I've seen people argue that lack of religious devotion has led to moral decline, but I don't see much validity in this. Morals can be taught through plenty of works of literature and art, or hey, here's a wacky idea, parents could instill a sense of right and wrong in their children. Religion does a good job of making people afraid, but fear =/= genuine concern for others.

That being said, I don't believe religion is responsible for acts of violence. People need to be accountable for their actions, a collection of stories can not be held responsible for man's acts of violence.
Is religion bad? Far from it. Is it necessary? Far from it.

 

[Livewire]

That being said, I don't believe religion is responsible for acts of violence. People need to be accountable for their actions, a collection of stories can not be held responsible for man's acts of violence.
Is religion bad? Far from it. Is it necessary? Far from it.

Exactly, People still need to claim responsibility for their actions, and usually they use and manipulate religion to their advantage. Say you get in a car wreck. Basically, don't blame the car, blame the moron driver. same principle.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

Jesus would certainly reach the gay community, but as I said earlier, that doesn't mean he'd approve of it. I have a personal opinion on the sexuality situation, but I'm running out of posting time for now. It's not "just" about following rules.

To be fair, I'm almost certain that the Bible (mind you I am in no way a expert on this kind of thing) actually only forbids sodomy. This would mean that as long as gay men stayed fairly celibate then they would be fine, even heterosexual couples often commit sodomy, so persecuting gay men isn't necessary. I don't think there's anything that the Bible says that would forbid lesbian couplings.

 

[Timbjerr]

To be fair, I'm almost certain that the Bible (mind you I am in no way a expert on this kind of thing) actually only forbids sodomy. This would mean that as long as gay men stayed fairly celibate then they would be fine, even heterosexual couples often commit sodomy, so persecuting gay men isn't necessary. I don't think there's anything that the Bible says that would forbid lesbian couplings.

That pretty much sums it up. All the bible really says on the matter is that buttsecks is wrong, and even then there are people who believe it might've been a translation error. Homosexuality as an orientation isn't necessarily wrong, just keep yourself celibate, and you're not sinning. XD

Actually, that's all that the infamous gay rehabilitation centers do. Teach gay men that it's wrong to commit sodomy...they even shove Christianity down their throats as a bonus. >_>

 

[Åzurε]

To the people who have commented on the "gay issue"-

Just because somebody is doing something you know as immoral (play along with me for a bit), it doesn't mean you have to hate that person. Jesus would not discriminate, wouldn't treat straight folks better than gay folks, but it doesn't mean that he would view the actions involved as okay.

Hopefully I can explain my position adequately. o___o;
I'm having a hard time finding the words to explain myself.

There isn't a whole lot in the Bible relating to homosexuality. As I see it, you start with the Biblical view on marriage. Sexually-exclusive marriage between a single man and a single woman is the only sort of marriage that was ordained by God. Chapter 1 of Romans, verses 26-27 specifically paint homosexual men and women as immoral in their actions.

Now, personally I think that simply being inclined towards homosexuality is something a person doesn't have lots of control over, and a person may be born that way, and/or may look or act stereotypically gay for no particular reason and are encouraged towards homosexuality by other people, such as being mocked for it in school or what have you, and it cements that idea in their head. Finally, and at the risk of sounding like a total nutter, I think there may be some chemical people have been using that's doing something to make men specifically more effeminate at birth. Not a government conspiracy or anything- maybe just a pesticide. I don't know.
However, what you do with yourself after all that is where personal sin comes into play. At that point, the rules of Biblical conduct for gays or bis work just the same as straight people. Except, maybe backwards. ><()

So I don't think you're going to hell for being inclined towards homosexuality. It's simply what you do with the cards you've been dealt after you look at them.
--------------------------------
I'll go ahead and respond to Eliminator Jr. here-

I think I get what you're saying.. as in if somebody wanted to keep people away from the religion that they believe is true, they would create other religions to dissuade people from becoming followers of Christianity? If that is what you mean, it's a good theory, but how do you know that Christianity was not one of these "side religions" made to stop people from joining another religion? The point I was making is that when there are countless religions, all of which may or may not be true, it seems logical to sit on the fence rather than pick one and hope it's right (atheism counts as a religion here, I know it isn't, but saying there isn't a God is a belief).

It was a very simple metaphor I used. Reality is, thankfully, more complex than that. You don't have to just randomly pick one out and hope you're right. I was raised as a Christian, but I've always been interested in science, and as such learned about evolution and the big bang pretty early, and I've been learning how church and science class coexist pretty much ever since. I've done cursory research into Islam and some other religions as well. I can't tell a person the best way to go about finding their own faith (not to say I wouldn't help- I'd be happy to ;p), but by virtue of being the truth, the correct choice would be harmonious with all other truth, including itself. So there's one indicator, and I haven't found a sustained inconsistency in the Bible for as long as I've been looking.

I'd also like to say thanks for being civil. Like I don't mean that in a discriminatory way, it's just I half expected someone to get really offended and it was a pleasant surprise to have you reply :)

Oh, shucks. ^^

I don't think I'm gonna go through the rest of your first post right now, though. =/ The discussion seems to be rolling as-is.

3 Days Later: ...Or not. xD

 

[Livewire]

To be fair, I'm almost certain that the Bible (mind you I am in no way a expert on this kind of thing) actually only forbids sodomy. This would mean that as long as gay men stayed fairly celibate then they would be fine, even heterosexual couples often commit sodomy, so persecuting gay men isn't necessary. I don't think there's anything that the Bible says that would forbid lesbian couplings.

From what Ive heard that's the case, that sodomy is forbidden, and other details are pretty vague. And id like to point out that that fact can change from bible to bible- different versions, Like the King James, etc.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Sadly religion is dying off...
I beleive everyone should tolerate each other, we should all be one world despite our different beliefs.

 

[Livewire]

Sadly religion is dying off...
I beleive everyone should tolerate each other, we should all be one world despite our different beliefs.

I agree we should be united despite our beliefs, but as long as we have our own belief systems, we can't be truly united. Our assorted religious beliefs play on division too heavily.

 

[Melody]

I'm just going to say what I feel on the matter.

Personally I think religion in and of itself is under a major change. Since the dawn of the 20th century, Religion has been losing it's grip on politics, world leadership and general governing of the people. This is vastly different from the centuries which bore large organized religions like the Roman Catholic church, and naturally this is quite alarming to the elders of today. Because what was considered immoral in their [The elders] childhood is now acceptable in today's society, they feel as if Religion is dying, and naturally this causes a sort of "Fight" reflex from people who hold those values dear to their hearts.

Of course this reaction isn't limited to the elders only. They teach the same attitude to the younger ones who respect them. Because of this, Religions splinter, and new sects of each major religion sprout. Naturally there will always be tensions, so wars are fought over who's way is right. Out of the ashes of the ensuing destruction, rises one victor, which usually goes on to balance out the loss of religion the current generation is suffering. Much like nature, Religions must fight for survival and only the fittest religions, the most adaptable, the most relevant, and the most reasonable religions, and sects stay in existence.

Because Religion does not command the authority it once did people are now coming to question it, which is quite normal. In order for Religion to regain it's place of power, it must become flexible, politically-aware, and embrace the better ideals of today as right, instead of focusing on condemning today's society for abandoning values which were inhibiting progress and benefiting only those who made the rules originally. Every so often it's necessary to cast out the old, arcane rules and write newer, more relevant rules in order to address the new and growing concerns of the people, and include the newly found truths known to society.

Now this doesn't mean that we need to throw all of the Religions as we know them today in the garbage, we just need to take a look at the current state of things. It'll be far easier for people to feel spiritually whole in religion if everything they're worried about is addressed, and doesn't call them a bad person at every turn, for wanting things that are a part of human nature.

 

[Livewire]

I'm just going to say what I feel on the matter.

Personally I think religion in and of itself is under a major change. Since the dawn of the 20th century, Religion has been losing it's grip on politics, world leadership and general governing of the people. This is vastly different from the centuries which bore large organized religions like the Roman Catholic church, and naturally this is quite alarming to the elders of today. Because what was considered immoral in their [The elders] childhood is now acceptable in today's society, they feel as if Religion is dying, and naturally this causes a sort of "Fight" reflex from people who hold those values dear to their hearts.

Of course this reaction isn't limited to the elders only. They teach the same attitude to the younger ones who respect them. Because of this, Religions splinter, and new sects of each major religion sprout. Naturally there will always be tensions, so wars are fought over who's way is right. Out of the ashes of the ensuing destruction, rises one victor, which usually goes on to balance out the loss of religion the current generation is suffering. Much like nature, Religions must fight for survival and only the fittest religions, the most adaptable, the most relevant, and the most reasonable religions, and sects stay in existence.

Because Religion does not command the authority it once did people are now coming to question it, which is quite normal. In order for Religion to regain it's place of power, it must become flexible, politically-aware, and embrace the better ideals of today as right, instead of focusing on condemning today's society for abandoning values which were inhibiting progress and benefiting only those who made the rules originally. Every so often it's necessary to cast out the old, arcane rules and write newer, more relevant rules in order to address the new and growing concerns of the people, and include the newly found truths known to society.

Now this doesn't mean that we need to throw all of the Religions as we know them today in the garbage, we just need to take a look at the current state of things. It'll be far easier for people to feel spiritually whole in religion if everything they're worried is addressed, and doesn't call them a bad person at every turn, for wanting things that are a part of human nature.

This^ I agree. But what I wonder is how far Religion(s) will go to adapt to the current times. If they change to much, they'll cease to be what they were before, which would totally alienate ardent followers. And that fact- That religion must change over time and adapt to current times- points towards the fallibility of Organized Religion as a whole. A surprisingly human attribute...

 

[Melody]

Indeed. Of course there must be a balance. I certainly don't expect largely established religions to become flexible and receptive to today's truths overnight. It will take time. What I am saying is that they must adapt more quickly than they are currently, so they do not fall into disuse

 

[Livewire]

Indeed. Of course there must be a balance. I certainly don't expect largely established religions to become flexible and receptive to today's truths overnight. It will take time. What I am saying is that they must adapt more quickly than they are currently, so they do not fall into disuse

Oh I agree complelty. More of a balance is a good thing, and the quicker they adapt to the present times the better, but It will still be awhile before we see major change. Which is true of society in general.

 

[Garouga! Bare Your Fangs!]

The only problem with religion making a solid change is that society changes too. What people seek in a change is more like a flexibility. Yes, religion changes to cope with the ever-changing Western culture, but it shall never stick because society is bent on advancement and when something new comes along, people automatically demand the next best thing.
But let's talk hypothetically and say that society finally cements itself in a set pattern for the rest of eternity. Where does that leave religion? In the same place it's been for centuries: The hands of the people. Even with a good, solid civilization, the same historic problems will occur. The general masses will be content, but there are always extremists for every cause ranging from Christianity to PETA. They will not be content with where their religion stands, and they will do whatever it takes to move it up even more.
Do I say this with any bias towards or against any religion? No, because on Facebook my religion is listed as Power Metalism.

 

[Livewire]

The only problem with religion making a solid change is that society changes too. What people seek in a change is more like a flexibility. Yes, religion changes to cope with the ever-changing Western culture, but it shall never stick because society is bent on advancement and when something new comes along, people automatically demand the next best thing.
But let's talk hypothetically and say that society finally cements itself in a set pattern for the rest of eternity. Where does that leave religion? In the same place it's been for centuries: The hands of the people. Even with a good, solid civilization, the same historic problems will occur. The general masses will be content, but there are always extremists for every cause ranging from Christianity to PETA. They will not be content with where their religion stands, and they will do whatever it takes to move it up even more.
Do I say this with any bias towards or against any religion? No, because on Facebook my religion is listed as Power Metalism.

I agree, at some point after so much change, it will be unrecognizable from what it used to be. Christians from the middle ages would be mortified at Christians now, but that is eight hundred years difference., but it shows how social/political change is inevitable, however slow it may be.

 

[Project.]

I believe religion has gone under major changes in the past 300-400 years. Up until Roger Williams in The Religious Government in Pre-america started the Seperation of Church from State, things were just more right. I don't think religion should of been a part of society. And not by like It's not important, but it just obviously doesn't go with religion well. Roman paganism is an example... They prosecuted christians for the sake of mantaining their state's own, official religion.